January 10, 2025 • 35 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- Ian Bremmer talks to A&G
- Robot girlfriends
- Looting at lost homes & Trump's Stormy Daniels sentencing
- The insurance backlash of the CA wildfires
- Acts of censorship committed by Meta & funny Babylon Bee "fact checks"
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, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Armstrong, and Jettie and he Armstrong and Eddy.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
To give Notre Dame the laid in the final seconds
forty one yard attempts snapping older God the.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Texas That was Notre Dame beating Penn State last night
in college football playoffs. So that means noted is the
who's Notre Dame play? Now? Somebody?
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Oh, the winner of the State versus Central game?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
I've not been following that closely. But they're in the
national championship game now, aren't they.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
You got Ohio State versus Texas one of your Texas
schools this weekend. Don't look to us for sports, you know. Yeah,
I didn't bring it up anyway.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
So coming up this hour, there are people who online
and otherwise our targeting insurance companies in California for abuse
over dropping a bunch of homeowners. That is the wrong target, friends,
the wrong target of your animosity. It is government policy,
(01:26):
which we will explain. Also some of the more ridiculous
and hilarious examples of Facebook's fact checking while they were
in that field.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Of course you've probably heard that.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Recently, Mark Zuckerberg has announced they're not in that business
anymore because he cares about free speech, all right. I
think he may actually, but they are browbeaten out of
doing that and hired a bunch of lofty, lefty jackasses
through their quote unquote fact checking. But anyways, that is
to come, so we occasionally do. I'd like to do
(02:00):
more of them, but by Gully we work a lot
very tired Armstrong and Getty extra Large podcasts where we
do a long form interview, and again I would like
to do more of those. But we did one with
the Ian Bremmer, the founder and CEO of Your Asia Group,
which does analysis of risks for corporations and governments around
(02:20):
the world, and every year they put out their global
risk list, the top ten risks and then a couple
of super bonus ones, and we went through a good
bit of that list. Now, if you would like to
hear the entire interview, it's available as Armstrong, Getty extra Large,
and Hanson just to save you the trouble, also included
it in the subscription Armstrong and Getty on Demand, so
you'll get it automatically. Downloaded anyway, So why don't we
(02:44):
Michael will go with ninety two covers a fair amount
of ground, and part of the reason I asked the
question in the way I did is a couple of
the risks that Ian and his folks cite have to
do with uncertainty about Trump and the way he's going
to serve as president, and sometimes the threats or promises
he's been made.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
So we'll just go from there.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
Not only am I one of the great prognosticators of
our time or any other Ian, I'm also willing to
offer my services to go abroad and explain Trump's negotiating style, because.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
I see on your list of risks several.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Of them are related to Trump's governing style, whether the
checks and balances of the American system will hold, whether
our alliances will hold. And you know, I look back
to his first term and he has said some outrageous
things about NATO that bothered me. I don't particularly appreciate
his negotiating style, but the threats to like disband NATO
or let anybody attack him or whatever, I found wildly inappropriate.
(03:39):
But the net result was a stronger, more responsible NATO
in terms of self funding.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Absolutely, and when he said that Mexico was going to
build a wall and pay for it, they paid for
absolutely nothing on the border. But they did strengthen their
own border security in the south, which led to far
fewer illegal immigrants going through Mexico into the United States
under the Trump administration.
Speaker 4 (04:06):
Couldn't agree with you more.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
That clip is supposed to be four minutes and thirty
five seconds long.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
That's disappointing. It went by quickly. Yeah, yeah, okay, the
like to whisper in her ears and tell us what they.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Okay, we're talking about China a little bit next clip.
You know, anybody who predicts the imminent downfall of the
Chinese Communist Party as a fool, but they do have
unbelievable headwinds, including demographics. How bearish are you on China
and xesiin Ping in the medium for long term?
Speaker 4 (04:52):
Well, I mean in a sense.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
The fact that Xijian Ping reached out to India, had
a two hour plus summit, and and pulled back Chinese
troops from their contested border shows that China knows they've
got big headwinds and they don't want a big crisis
with India.
Speaker 4 (05:10):
They reached out to Japan and asked for a summit.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Usually it's the other way around, and they offered to
start buying Japanese seafood with just a few months ago
they said, you can't sell here because it's all radioactive
because of Fukushaba.
Speaker 4 (05:23):
I've seen them do a lot of this around the
world now.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
Some of this is because they're worried about Trump and
the uncertainty coming from the US that they don't think
they can manage. But some of it is a recognition
that they're in a bad position, and so frankly, it
behooves them.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
To stabilize these relations.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
And that comes from a deep concern that you just
asked about.
Speaker 4 (05:46):
Do I think they're about to fall? No, But I
mean they're demographics.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
They're at what one point four billion people right now,
and expectations for twenty one hundred, when you know you
and I are going to be pretty pretty geezerly is
that they're going to be down to five hundred million to.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
Seven hundred and fifty million.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
So I mean a significant I mean the biggest contraction
of a population that you would ever see in an
economy outside of like war or famine. So it's peacetime
in China, and they're just saying, we just don't want
to have any kids, and there's nothing the Chinese government
can do about it. This is not a five year
a ten year problem. Their retirement age for men is
(06:31):
fifty five. They can extend that for five or ten years.
They're not very urbanized. They can move more people into cities,
they can make agriculture more efficient, they can lean into AI.
There's a lot of things they can do that can
give them a ten year buffer, but they don't have
a generational solution here.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
So long term, I think they're in very big trouble.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
Which is good news.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
It is if they're you know, global dominating, expansionist lusts
are abated for a while, it's good for everybody.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Yeah. I did ask Ian about AI because that was
one of his risks a couple of years ago. And
I asked him, you know, are they further ahead then
you thought they would be, or further behind? And he
said further ahead, which I thought was interesting. And we
mentioned the Consumer Electronics Show unveiled the most recent that's
(07:24):
going on right now in Las Vegas, unveiled the most recent. Uh,
what term doo want I use? Because I don't want
to prejudice the conversation. Lifelike companion robots. Companion robots, Yeah,
and they tend to be women because of the way
guys brains work, I guess.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
Extremely attractive female forms.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Yeah, that look a lot like human beings, like like
a really hot, like twenty five year old, is what
this robot looks like. And I mentioned when I went
to the Sphere in Las Vegas. This is a couple
of years ago. I didn't see the most recent version. Now,
they had a robot, like a human robot out there
talking to people, and it just stood there and talked
to people and had conversations with everybody. Where are you from?
(08:09):
And the person would say, I'm from Minnesota, Oh, Minnesota,
how do you like it there? It's awful cold? Which
part of Minnesota? And they'd say say, oh, that it's
not as bad there as it is up involvement. I mean,
they'd have conversations and it was disturbing Henry. It weirded
Henry my son out so much that he didn't he said,
when we go back to the Sphere to the Eagles concert,
we got to go around that. He said, I can't
(08:29):
handle it. It keeps me up at night. It bothered him
so much, the robot thingy. But anyway, that's a couple
of years ago. The technology of it holding a conversation
now it's you know, exponentially better. And they put it
into this hot chick body that they've got on display
at the cees down in alv Now. I don't, I
(08:50):
honestly don't know where we're going as a species with this.
Don't you think, I mean, honestly, God, not not far
fetched sci fi anything. Don't you think, honest to God,
we're just a couple of years away from a significant
enough portion of the in cell population having one of
(09:12):
these for a girlfriend. Yes, yeah, I think so.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
I would like it not to be true, but it's
heading in that direction in a big hurry.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
I would say, combine on a conversation I had the
other day, you know, get the podcast earlier. I won't
tell the whole story, but a bunch of people telling
a friend of mine. These were guys telling a friend
of mine that they are really into the chat GPT
girlfriend experience of just having somebody to talk to when
they get home from work, and how you know, pleasing
their voices, And they had the nice conversations they have
and everything like that, they talk about their day and
(09:47):
so I mean, if you're getting that from just a
voice coming out of the computer, you combine it with
this body and its ability to actually have sex with you.
I don't know what percentage, Well, you tell me what
percentage of guys do you think are susceptible to be
in a relationship with a robot? Do you think it's
a good tenth of one or more like twenty percent?
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Honestly, if I had to guess, it'd be somewhere between
those two figures. I don't know because I haven't fully
experienced the thing, and I did not grow up with
the experience of never having a girlfriend.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Right, I'm concerned it could easily be double digits. Ten
percent of dudes have robots girl friends within five years?
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Yeah, I would agree. Wow, And it's on both ends
of the scale. Not only you know, guys who lack
the gumption or the social skills or are getting candy
that fills their belly instead of the meal that is
an actual human relationship. And also you know, angry radical women,
young women. We've received more emails than I could count
(10:57):
from guys saying dudes I agree with you on all
of this stuff, but I try to date women and
they're nuts and they're angry, and if you even express
political moderation, they want nothing to do with you, a
notion that is so foreign to both of our life
experience way back in the day, the hazy days of
the nineteen nineties, you know.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
However, handsOn post a link to that New York Post
article so people can see these pictures, and I'll tweet
it out just so you can see what the current
AI robots look like. And yeah, older gentlemen, lonely gentleman,
your wife left you. It's you know, you're too busy
and broke to find to get to have a real relationship.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Man.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
I can see this having an appeal for a lot
of people.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
And widows widowers, Oh, I could see that, you know.
And in some cases I would think, you know, I
was gonna say, that's okay, but it's just so sad
because it's not a real human relationship. But I don't
want to go too far down the world it is,
because it's inunbelievably depressing, is it.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Are we jumping to a conclusion we shouldn't jump to that.
It's said does it fulfill all.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
You don't think it'll become socially acceptable at some point
where somebody comes up and says, this is my girlfriend
and it's a robot, and you're forced to interact with
the robot.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
I ain't doing that, no, sir, going there. I ain't
talking to your robot unless it was just like to
check to see how you know far along AI technology
is and how good it is it talking to me?
But I ain't sitting there having a conversation with your
hot robot girlfriend.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
Not calling a man in a dress a woman, not
calling a robot a human, Thank you very much. What
bothered your son is? And I just became aware of
this term the uncanny valley and going back to Rod Serling,
they knew this or even before that, the silent movies
of the nineteen twenties and thirties. The uncanny valley. It's
the unsettling feeling you experienced when you encounter something that looks.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
Very human but not quite.
Speaker 4 (12:51):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
That's interesting. I'll have to read up on that. Because
he has it a lot. I mean, he gets he
gets so freaked out by in these things.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Huh yeah, we're more free, doubt by something that's almost
human then something that's clearly not.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Wow, you're right, Michael, when it crosses the line that
there's social pressure to treat the dude at the Christmas
party with his robot girlfriend like he's got a relationship.
Oh we've been you've got together for three years. Oh
that's fantastic. Glad things are working up.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
I'll be fishing with human beings. Good luck, y'all.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Stay here.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Thorney's announcing the arrest of twenty looters and we asked
the LAPD about it.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
Oh, it's huge, it's huge.
Speaker 5 (13:35):
So as you can say, do you have devastations from
blocks and blocks and then you have a million dollar
homes all intact, rows and rows of them, and there's
really no way to police this area effectively right.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Now, Why are the penalties not just so high for
looting that you would never want to do it? Is
there a reason?
Speaker 1 (13:58):
I guess a lack of agreement among the political class
that that's appropriate looting? It back a man, Yeah, I
would like it to be draconian. So one of the
hell you like, troubling to the conscience.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, pushes the uh pushes the you know,
rights against extreme punishment, like clear up to the edge
to make people stop. I mean, that's horrific. We got
some more stuff coming up about the whole insurance situation,
insurance companies dropping homeowners' policies right before the fire, if
(14:33):
you have anything ever happened, and how that whole thing works,
and now it's a policy decision in California and really
needs to be understood. New York Times went big on
that story today. Is it's interesting for everybody. But the
other headline that's getting a fair amount of attention is
the whole Trump sentencing thing in the Stormy Daniel's hush
money trial. Like every word and phrase I use is yeah,
(14:58):
dripping with spin or needs explanation. The main goal of
the judge and the people pushing this whole thing was
to be able to say, as I see the headline
on CNN, it will be the first former felon to
enter the White House as president. That was the goal, right,
(15:20):
That's what they wanted to do. There is no penalty
involved with this. It's a dischargement or whatever they call it,
So no jail time, no fines, no nothing, there's just
no penalty whatsoever. But he has officially got thirty four
felonies so that people can say that, and I guess
that makes them feel better other than the legal fee's spent.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
It has all the significance of a world's greatest dad mug.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
Which I've still got one of those sitting right by
my coffee maker. May I see it every day?
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Right, But it's please, it's silly, yeah, and will be
just absolutely batted out of the park on appeal.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
As I predicted before. It's wild that that continued now.
So it went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme
Court could have gotten involved, but for whatever reason they didn't.
Five to four decision by the Ultramga out of control
needs to be shut down extremists. Supreme Court, my poor
decision to light Kavana. You will reap the whirlwind. You
won't know what hit you.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Chuck Schumer. One of the worst things he ever said.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
Yeah, So anyway, so that's that. If you see that headline,
it's nothing that nobody will ever remember it. No, it's
of no significance to anybody, including Trump. Correct.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
Yeah, it's amazing how much is made out of that,
but you know, all things Trump.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Of course, one more thing I wanted to mention with
Shane what I don't have time to say it. Okay,
everybody should be aware of the realities of why the
insurance companies have bailed on California.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Absolutely so, and any anger directed at the insurance companies
is misplaced. I'm telling you, and I'm no slacky for
insurance companies. There's one state in the Union that has
a particular policy, and it's California.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
No, I feel like I've been screwed by many an
insurance company. I don't want to stand up with them,
but we should all know the facts on this, so
we'll stay tuned. Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 6 (17:14):
ABC's David muirr Is being mocked for using clothespins to
cinch his jacket more tightly around his chest while.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
Reporting from the scene.
Speaker 6 (17:24):
He was also overheard asking a crew member, does this
burning city make me look fat? Let's only hope that
the sock he puts in his crotch his flame retardants.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Does this burning city make me look fat?
Speaker 1 (17:42):
Gutfeld, bring it it at a boy, Greg oh Man.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
That's good stuff.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
I can't kick David Muir enough, but he's not the
topic of the segment. Just thought it was worth pointing
out that we're no great fans of the big insurance companies.
I mean, they're practices. We've all been there. You pay
you in for years and years and years, than you've
finally have a claim, they say, yeah, we're dropping you,
or here's your check, get out.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Or it doesn't count in this circumstance because the wind
came from the north, so we don't cover roofs and
when it comes from the north or something right, there
are various hygiens that we could criticize them for, but
part of the reason they've become more or less customer
friendly is because of their mounting losses. Now, I thought
(18:25):
this was a very good and balanced opening from the
Wall Street Journal editorial board. They point out the politicians
are blaming each other for the losses in the horrific
Los Angeles area wildfires, and the truth is mother nature
can be merciless. We need to.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
Sort out the stories about water shortages and what happened
with the higher hydrants. But they point out it's not
too soon to note that California's politicians have fueled a
five alarm insurance market crisis that will hurt homeowners and
taxpayers across the state once the fires have died out,
and I would point out across the country too, for
reasons I'll explain the second A five alarm crisis.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Are they aware that they use a fire related metaphor
for the story? I think they probably are.
Speaker 1 (19:06):
And they go into the heavy rain for a couple
of years than the drought free year, which means heavy
but dry vegetation, and the storms with the incredible winds,
and that is absolutely a factor in what's happening. But
there's a fair amount of anger being directed toward insurance
companies for dropping quite a number of the homeowners whose
homes just burnt down several weeks a few to several
(19:29):
weeks ago, having warned the state that they were going
to do that. Insurers had I'm jumping back now to
the and that's driven a lot of people to the
undercapitalized state insure of last resort, which is called fair
of course, because everything has to have a sunny sounding acronym.
But insurers had already scrapped hundreds of thousands of policies
(19:52):
and limited coverage and wildfire prone areas. We know, that's
why I don't have my cabin in the woods anymore.
A Democrats, that's blame climate change, which has become an
all purposes excuse for any disaster early failure. But the
real insurance problem is that state regulators have barred insurers
from charging premiums that fully reflect risks and costs.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
California is the only state.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
That hair to four has not allowed insurers to incorporate
the cost of reinsurance in premiums. Until this year, it
also prohibited insurance. I could explain what reinsurance is. It's
insurance for insurance companies in case of a cataclysmic loss.
Part of their loss is taken on by these and
these reinsurance companies anyway.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
But here's the main point.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
Until this year, California had also prohibited insurers from adjusting
premiums by using the standard industry practice of catastrophe modeling
to predict the property's future risk. Insurers could only assess
premiums based on historical losses, no matter what has happened
to constructions an inflation in the interim. You can't say, hey,
(21:05):
look the price of a two by four is eighty
percent more than it used to be, and that's that's
a for instance, I don't have that in front of me.
You cannot say that in only one state in the Union, California,
as an insurance company.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
And so as a result, it's crazy. You don't have
to basically insane too, you have to be a genius
being counter to understand that everything is so much more expensive.
So when did this happen? When did they make that
rule in California? Because obviously with inflation, the timing is
particularly bad.
Speaker 1 (21:39):
Yeah, I don't remember when that passed. Honestly, I could
probably find out how much.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
More expensive it is it is it to put a
new roof on a house now versus twenty eighteen. Oh
my god.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
Well, and can you imagine in any setting, in a
business setting, you know, sir, I think we ought to
add on to the plant. Historically the square footage it
will cost two hundred dollars. There's a square foot all right,
let's do it. Ignoring the fact that it's now three
hundred and fifty dollars a square foot. You'd be fired immediately. Hey, honey,
I'm thinking of upgrading to a new F one fifty.
(22:11):
Historically they cost forty three thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
That would be an insane thing to do. It's like
me going to the closet and grabbing the medium shirt.
What do you think historically that would have fit? Yeah, oh,
that one hit a little close to home. So getting
back to the journal.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
As the result, insurers are paying out a dollar nine
in expenses and claims for every dollar they collect in premiums.
This is financially unsustainable, which is many of why many
have paired coverage in areas with high fire risk and
expensive homes. State Farm dropped nearly seventy percent of policy
holders in one Pacific Palisades neighborhood. And just to get
(22:51):
to give you an idea of how well Gavin Newsom
is running California, that fair government sponsored insure of last
resort thing is for people who can't.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
Get homeowner's insurance.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Its exposure has ballooned to four hundred and fifty eight
billion dollars as of last September, from a much lower
figure with six billion dollars exposure in Pacific Palisades alone,
six billion dollars. It has seven hundred million dollars on
hand to pay claims. They have six billion dollars in exposure.
(23:26):
They have seven hundred million dollars to pay claims. That's
because state regulators have required Fair to cover higher priced
homes while rejecting its proposals for rate increases to account
for rising risks for liabilities. Because the pandering politicians, including
Gavin Newsom have found these these ways to have completely
(23:46):
unrealistic regulations.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
So they can say, and we kept.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
Your insurance premiums lower, where they insurance companies want to
raise your rates. The insurance companies are all saying, yeah, goodbye,
We're out of this crazy fifty in the nation in
terms of business friendliness state.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
I think the latest number is the overall cost for
the fires in LA. They expect to be ten billion dollars,
most expensive, worst tragedy in LA history. I'm sure that
number is going to go up. Well, be interesting to
see how this pans out. But yeah, the point of
this segment was you can't blame the insurance companies. You
really can't.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
Right, you don't have to love them, but you can't
blame them for dropping people in California. By the way,
speaking of Gavy, the California Globe reporting that having listened
to an interview he did with NPR where he was
explaining how we're carefully taking care of the forests. He
talked about how many acres had been cleared and tended
and all. He exaggerated the actual number by six hundred
(24:46):
and ninety percent.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
Wow. Yeah, he's a congenital liar. Kevin Newsom, we were
on the question earlier of how do you run out
of water when you're next to an ocean? Why can't
you use salt water as a system, and they do
in San Francisco to a great extent. We got a
long text from somebody in the know when San Francisco
about the way they do it. The system has been
(25:08):
in place for years. It's a proven system. It can
be done. It's kind of expensive and you got to
you know, you got to put in the infrastructure. But
in the Bay Area they've been doing it for a
long time. So that's a reasonable question. Is to hey,
specific palicides right by an ocean, why would we ever
run out of water?
Speaker 1 (25:26):
Avowed Marxist Karen Bass. The mayor of la has preferred
to spend the money on bums and junkies and illegal immigrants.
So there's no money for, for instance, the fire department,
which has had its budget cut by almost eighteen million dollars. Yeah,
coming up much more amusing and believia it is some
particularly egregious examples of Facebook's fat checks. Well, they were
(25:52):
in that business prior to the recent announcement.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Hoping State tute you say it's funnier than insurance liability talk.
I don't know. I'll be the judge of that. Stay tuned.
Just to straighten this out, Notre Dames beat Penn State,
they will play the winner of Ohio State Texas for
the college football Final. That's Ohio State's the eight of
(26:14):
versus a five, and that was a seven versus a six.
So good job and picking who are the four best
teams to be in the playoffs.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
I guess bell in Ohio State beat down the number one.
But part of it depends on which players decide to play. Yeah,
there's that whole thing.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Some teams half the players don't play in the bowl
game because they don't want to get hurt before they
go into the NFL. I don't know how they're going
to make this work, but not my problem. They're not.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
I would do the same thing. Sorry, good old Alma Mater.
I'm here playing football for one reason, to get a
gig playing on Sundays.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
I don't think you have Tiger Pride or whatever team
it is.
Speaker 1 (26:48):
No, No, I don't. I'm getting a paycheck anyway, coming
up next hour. I keep promising it. We haven't gotten
in to it. Absolutely fabulous think piece on why Democrat
run cities go sideways. It's really thought provoked. And we'll
get to it an hour.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
Four.
Speaker 1 (27:02):
That's right, we do four hours. They've got us chained
up in here, they won't let us out, and nice
we do four. I know we signed a new contract,
but was that in the contract? Yeah, well over mine
dead bunny. Well it happened anyway. If you don't get it,
grab it later via podcast subscribed to Armstrong you get
on demand. It's a trust me when I say it's
really interesting. Mark Zuckerbridge just announced the other day that
(27:25):
he's rediscovered his love of free speech and Facebook is
going to get out of the fact checking business. A
number of learned commentators have commented on this, including ourselves,
good folks at the good folks at Breitbart, compiling a
list of six absolutely despicable acts of censorship that Mark
(27:46):
Zuckerberg and Facebook foisted upon the world. Run through those
really quickly, then we'll get to the funny stuff. Number one,
hiding the story on Hunter Biden's laptop from hell.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
Obbs, that's one of the worst journalistic things ever.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
All right, I'll though all those current and former intelligence
officials ought to be shouted out on the street for
lying like they did two creating the leftist fact checker
industry in the first place, Meta infamously deployed third party
fact checkers to both Facebook and Instagram, putting users content
visibility in the hands of people who flagg post based
on their opinions rather than any facts. The vast majority
(28:23):
of these fact checkers displayed extreme lefty bias, lying Zuckerberg's
platforms to diminish the reach of stories often based on
astenine or completely incorrect fact checks, including many many things
that turned out to be very true. They dropped Donald
Trump's engagement by forty five percent in twenty eighteen because
he was a Russian stooge.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
Wozy there algorithms. Wow, that's unbelievable at that time sitting
president of the United States.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
After January sixth was which was admittedly an awful day,
they banned President Trump completely, and their self righteous screen
on why they did it is a little long.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
We don't have time.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
We believe the public has the right to the broadest
possible access to political speech, even controversial speech. But we
believe the risks of allowing the president to continue to
use our service during this period are simply too great.
I believe in Trump until February twenty three.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
That's it. I have statements like that. I believe in blue,
but we're going to do red. Okay.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
They unpersoned regular people for misinformation. Shortly after banning Trump,
Facebook turns its focus on to his followers, regular Facebook users.
Zuckerberg's company vowed to ban anyone caught spreading content deemed misinformation,
despite the social media giant and its army of opinionated
leftist facts checkers struggling with the definition of that word.
(29:44):
And then they killed the reach of political content just
in the name of something or other because politics is
too scary or controversial or something, and so they just
quashed it in general, although again there was favoritism moving
along SWI. The good folks at the Free Beacon pointed
out that they were corrected several times by Zuckerberg's fact
(30:06):
checkers as checkers. In one case, the ex meta leader
FactCheck dot Org said, we falsely accused Joe Biden of
having issues with a teleprompter. That was the quote because
a White House press official said the octagenarians incoherent nonsense
was intentional, so the fact that he had issues with
(30:28):
the teleprompter was.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
Labeled as untrue. That was probably one of those repeat
the lines or something like that.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
In another case, Alan Duke, who was the head of
one of the fact checking organizations, a former CNN producer
who's donated thousands of dollars to Democrats exclusively called our
reporting on the Biden administration plans to fund crack pipes
partially false because the administration backpedaled after we published our piece.
(31:01):
At best, many of these fact checks offered an alternative opinion.
At worst, they facilitated the spread of disinformation my government
officials and aided their efforts to discredit and silence the
handful of news outlets actually interested in holding them accountable.
They will not be missed, and we hope they enjoy
learning to code.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
So you said earlier you think Mark Zuckerberg might be
an actual free speech warrior. So you think that maybe
he just was just a business decision. The federal government
was making noises that they were going to make life
hard for him if he did this, So he did that.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
Yeah, and there is so little precedent on how modern
tech ought to be regulated. They're very, very sensitive to
the you know, a bunch of old senators and congressmen
waiting into it and doing the wrong thing and screwing
their business. So yeah, just as he's cow tewing to
Donald Trump and nakedly seeking you know, friendly policy and
(31:54):
friendly ness from Donald Jay right now, he did the
same with the Biden administration.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
It just wasn't publicized.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
Every time somebody goes to have lunch with Trump, the
mainstream media acts like it's a big deal and that
they're licking his boots. These guys did the same thing
with the Biden administration. You just didn't hear about it.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Anyway. I wanted to get to this.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
Seth Dylon and the geniuses at the Babylon b with
in honor of Facebook ending is fact checking partnerships. Here
are the funniest fact checks of Babylon b jokes. Number one,
the headline was CNN purchase purchases industrial sized washing machine
to spin news before publication, and it was actually fact
(32:37):
checked by Snopes and Facebook, who threatened us with suppression
and demonetization for sharing false information a classic.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
You can't actually wash news, and there would not be
a washing machine big enough to do it.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
A page you administer recently posted the link CNN purchases
industrial sized washing machines blah blah blah that contains info
disputed by Snopes dot com and independent facher. Repeat offenders
will see their distribution reduced and their ability to monetize
and advertise removed. While you outlawed satire, second fact check
by Facebook on the Babylon B the headline Acassio Cortes
(33:14):
appears on the price is Right guesses everything is free.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
Oh my god.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
Thank you to the brave fact checkers that Snopes for
calling us out on this one. Otherwise people might have
been fooled. The fact check was false. Number three Ninth
Circuit Court overturns death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That's a
great shot at the ninth USA Today, Another one of
(33:44):
Facebook's fact checking partners helpfully pointed out that this was satire,
fact checking the satirical claim that the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals overturned Ginsburg's death. Wait a second, now, on
the AOC one, you could at least make the argument
that some really dumb people might believe. That is somebody
gonna believe a court overturned to death.
Speaker 2 (34:04):
I know.
Speaker 1 (34:05):
It's it's almost as if the thea the parody the
fact check is itself a parody or the fact check
ID we're through the looking glass airpeople. Let's see, here's
another headline that was helpfully fact checked with moonwater announcement.
Remember when they discovered there's probably ice on the moon water,
therefore water With moonwater announcement, Trump proposes space Navy. Another
(34:28):
fact check from USA Today. Guys, you can also tell
it satire because if you look really closely, you'll see
there's a picture of an aircraft carrier on the moon,
and there is in this story, uh, the fact check
a headline on the babel of me Trump, I have
done more for Christianity than Jesus. In our defense, we
(34:49):
wrote this before he actually said something uncomfortably close to
gonna say.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
If I saw that, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion
that that was satire.
Speaker 1 (34:57):
Other example, Pope Francis says COVID vaccine will now we
required to answer heaven.
Speaker 2 (35:01):
They were fact checked by Reuters.
Speaker 1 (35:06):
Oh and finally, California considering tax on breathing. Snopes found
this false, but we're pretty sure it's true.
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Wow, that's a good one. AOC guesses everything's free. That's hilarious.
If you miss an hour, get the podcast Armstrong and
Getty on demand.
Speaker 4 (35:21):
Subscribe Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Armstrong, and Jettie and he Armstrong and Eddy.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
To give Notre Dame the laid in the final seconds
forty one yard attempts snapping older God the.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Texas That was Notre Dame beating Penn State last night
in college football playoffs. So that means noted is the
who's Notre Dame play? Now? Somebody?
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Oh, the winner of the State versus Central game?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
I've not been following that closely. But they're in the
national championship game now, aren't they.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
You got Ohio State versus Texas one of your Texas
schools this weekend. Don't look to us for sports, you know. Yeah,
I didn't bring it up anyway.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
So coming up this hour, there are people who online
and otherwise our targeting insurance companies in California for abuse
over dropping a bunch of homeowners. That is the wrong target, friends,
the wrong target of your animosity. It is government policy,
(01:26):
which we will explain. Also some of the more ridiculous
and hilarious examples of Facebook's fact checking while they were
in that field.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Of course you've probably heard that.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Recently, Mark Zuckerberg has announced they're not in that business
anymore because he cares about free speech, all right. I
think he may actually, but they are browbeaten out of
doing that and hired a bunch of lofty, lefty jackasses
through their quote unquote fact checking. But anyways, that is
to come, so we occasionally do. I'd like to do
(02:00):
more of them, but by Gully we work a lot
very tired Armstrong and Getty extra Large podcasts where we
do a long form interview, and again I would like
to do more of those. But we did one with
the Ian Bremmer, the founder and CEO of Your Asia Group,
which does analysis of risks for corporations and governments around
(02:20):
the world, and every year they put out their global
risk list, the top ten risks and then a couple
of super bonus ones, and we went through a good
bit of that list. Now, if you would like to
hear the entire interview, it's available as Armstrong, Getty extra Large,
and Hanson just to save you the trouble, also included
it in the subscription Armstrong and Getty on Demand, so
you'll get it automatically. Downloaded anyway, So why don't we
(02:44):
Michael will go with ninety two covers a fair amount
of ground, and part of the reason I asked the
question in the way I did is a couple of
the risks that Ian and his folks cite have to
do with uncertainty about Trump and the way he's going
to serve as president, and sometimes the threats or promises
he's been made.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
So we'll just go from there.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
Not only am I one of the great prognosticators of
our time or any other Ian, I'm also willing to
offer my services to go abroad and explain Trump's negotiating style, because.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
I see on your list of risks several.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Of them are related to Trump's governing style, whether the
checks and balances of the American system will hold, whether
our alliances will hold. And you know, I look back
to his first term and he has said some outrageous
things about NATO that bothered me. I don't particularly appreciate
his negotiating style, but the threats to like disband NATO
or let anybody attack him or whatever, I found wildly inappropriate.
(03:39):
But the net result was a stronger, more responsible NATO
in terms of self funding.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Absolutely, and when he said that Mexico was going to
build a wall and pay for it, they paid for
absolutely nothing on the border. But they did strengthen their
own border security in the south, which led to far
fewer illegal immigrants going through Mexico into the United States
under the Trump administration.
Speaker 4 (04:06):
Couldn't agree with you more.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
That clip is supposed to be four minutes and thirty
five seconds long.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
That's disappointing. It went by quickly. Yeah, yeah, okay, the
like to whisper in her ears and tell us what they.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Okay, we're talking about China a little bit next clip.
You know, anybody who predicts the imminent downfall of the
Chinese Communist Party as a fool, but they do have
unbelievable headwinds, including demographics. How bearish are you on China
and xesiin Ping in the medium for long term?
Speaker 4 (04:52):
Well, I mean in a sense.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
The fact that Xijian Ping reached out to India, had
a two hour plus summit, and and pulled back Chinese
troops from their contested border shows that China knows they've
got big headwinds and they don't want a big crisis
with India.
Speaker 4 (05:10):
They reached out to Japan and asked for a summit.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Usually it's the other way around, and they offered to
start buying Japanese seafood with just a few months ago
they said, you can't sell here because it's all radioactive
because of Fukushaba.
Speaker 4 (05:23):
I've seen them do a lot of this around the
world now.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
Some of this is because they're worried about Trump and
the uncertainty coming from the US that they don't think
they can manage. But some of it is a recognition
that they're in a bad position, and so frankly, it
behooves them.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
To stabilize these relations.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
And that comes from a deep concern that you just
asked about.
Speaker 4 (05:46):
Do I think they're about to fall? No, But I
mean they're demographics.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
They're at what one point four billion people right now,
and expectations for twenty one hundred, when you know you
and I are going to be pretty pretty geezerly is
that they're going to be down to five hundred million to.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
Seven hundred and fifty million.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
So I mean a significant I mean the biggest contraction
of a population that you would ever see in an
economy outside of like war or famine. So it's peacetime
in China, and they're just saying, we just don't want
to have any kids, and there's nothing the Chinese government
can do about it. This is not a five year
a ten year problem. Their retirement age for men is
(06:31):
fifty five. They can extend that for five or ten years.
They're not very urbanized. They can move more people into cities,
they can make agriculture more efficient, they can lean into AI.
There's a lot of things they can do that can
give them a ten year buffer, but they don't have
a generational solution here.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
So long term, I think they're in very big trouble.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
Which is good news.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
It is if they're you know, global dominating, expansionist lusts
are abated for a while, it's good for everybody.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Yeah. I did ask Ian about AI because that was
one of his risks a couple of years ago. And
I asked him, you know, are they further ahead then
you thought they would be, or further behind? And he
said further ahead, which I thought was interesting. And we
mentioned the Consumer Electronics Show unveiled the most recent that's
(07:24):
going on right now in Las Vegas, unveiled the most recent. Uh,
what term doo want I use? Because I don't want
to prejudice the conversation. Lifelike companion robots. Companion robots, Yeah,
and they tend to be women because of the way
guys brains work, I guess.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
Extremely attractive female forms.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Yeah, that look a lot like human beings, like like
a really hot, like twenty five year old, is what
this robot looks like. And I mentioned when I went
to the Sphere in Las Vegas. This is a couple
of years ago. I didn't see the most recent version. Now,
they had a robot, like a human robot out there
talking to people, and it just stood there and talked
to people and had conversations with everybody. Where are you from?
(08:09):
And the person would say, I'm from Minnesota, Oh, Minnesota,
how do you like it there? It's awful cold? Which
part of Minnesota? And they'd say say, oh, that it's
not as bad there as it is up involvement. I mean,
they'd have conversations and it was disturbing Henry. It weirded
Henry my son out so much that he didn't he said,
when we go back to the Sphere to the Eagles concert,
we got to go around that. He said, I can't
(08:29):
handle it. It keeps me up at night. It bothered him
so much, the robot thingy. But anyway, that's a couple
of years ago. The technology of it holding a conversation
now it's you know, exponentially better. And they put it
into this hot chick body that they've got on display
at the cees down in alv Now. I don't, I
(08:50):
honestly don't know where we're going as a species with this.
Don't you think, I mean, honestly, God, not not far
fetched sci fi anything. Don't you think, honest to God,
we're just a couple of years away from a significant
enough portion of the in cell population having one of
(09:12):
these for a girlfriend. Yes, yeah, I think so.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
I would like it not to be true, but it's
heading in that direction in a big hurry.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
I would say, combine on a conversation I had the
other day, you know, get the podcast earlier. I won't
tell the whole story, but a bunch of people telling
a friend of mine. These were guys telling a friend
of mine that they are really into the chat GPT
girlfriend experience of just having somebody to talk to when
they get home from work, and how you know, pleasing
their voices, And they had the nice conversations they have
and everything like that, they talk about their day and
(09:47):
so I mean, if you're getting that from just a
voice coming out of the computer, you combine it with
this body and its ability to actually have sex with you.
I don't know what percentage, Well, you tell me what
percentage of guys do you think are susceptible to be
in a relationship with a robot? Do you think it's
a good tenth of one or more like twenty percent?
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Honestly, if I had to guess, it'd be somewhere between
those two figures. I don't know because I haven't fully
experienced the thing, and I did not grow up with
the experience of never having a girlfriend.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Right, I'm concerned it could easily be double digits. Ten
percent of dudes have robots girl friends within five years?
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Yeah, I would agree. Wow, And it's on both ends
of the scale. Not only you know, guys who lack
the gumption or the social skills or are getting candy
that fills their belly instead of the meal that is
an actual human relationship. And also you know, angry radical women,
young women. We've received more emails than I could count
(10:57):
from guys saying dudes I agree with you on all
of this stuff, but I try to date women and
they're nuts and they're angry, and if you even express
political moderation, they want nothing to do with you, a
notion that is so foreign to both of our life
experience way back in the day, the hazy days of
the nineteen nineties, you know.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
However, handsOn post a link to that New York Post
article so people can see these pictures, and I'll tweet
it out just so you can see what the current
AI robots look like. And yeah, older gentlemen, lonely gentleman,
your wife left you. It's you know, you're too busy
and broke to find to get to have a real relationship.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Man.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
I can see this having an appeal for a lot
of people.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
And widows widowers, Oh, I could see that, you know.
And in some cases I would think, you know, I
was gonna say, that's okay, but it's just so sad
because it's not a real human relationship. But I don't
want to go too far down the world it is,
because it's inunbelievably depressing, is it.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Are we jumping to a conclusion we shouldn't jump to that.
It's said does it fulfill all.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
You don't think it'll become socially acceptable at some point
where somebody comes up and says, this is my girlfriend
and it's a robot, and you're forced to interact with
the robot.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
I ain't doing that, no, sir, going there. I ain't
talking to your robot unless it was just like to
check to see how you know far along AI technology
is and how good it is it talking to me?
But I ain't sitting there having a conversation with your
hot robot girlfriend.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
Not calling a man in a dress a woman, not
calling a robot a human, Thank you very much. What
bothered your son is? And I just became aware of
this term the uncanny valley and going back to Rod Serling,
they knew this or even before that, the silent movies
of the nineteen twenties and thirties. The uncanny valley. It's
the unsettling feeling you experienced when you encounter something that looks.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
Very human but not quite.
Speaker 4 (12:51):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
That's interesting. I'll have to read up on that. Because
he has it a lot. I mean, he gets he
gets so freaked out by in these things.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Huh yeah, we're more free, doubt by something that's almost
human then something that's clearly not.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Wow, you're right, Michael, when it crosses the line that
there's social pressure to treat the dude at the Christmas
party with his robot girlfriend like he's got a relationship.
Oh we've been you've got together for three years. Oh
that's fantastic. Glad things are working up.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
I'll be fishing with human beings. Good luck, y'all.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Stay here.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Thorney's announcing the arrest of twenty looters and we asked
the LAPD about it.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
Oh, it's huge, it's huge.
Speaker 5 (13:35):
So as you can say, do you have devastations from
blocks and blocks and then you have a million dollar
homes all intact, rows and rows of them, and there's
really no way to police this area effectively right.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Now, Why are the penalties not just so high for
looting that you would never want to do it? Is
there a reason?
Speaker 1 (13:58):
I guess a lack of agreement among the political class
that that's appropriate looting? It back a man, Yeah, I
would like it to be draconian. So one of the
hell you like, troubling to the conscience.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, pushes the uh pushes the you know,
rights against extreme punishment, like clear up to the edge
to make people stop. I mean, that's horrific. We got
some more stuff coming up about the whole insurance situation,
insurance companies dropping homeowners' policies right before the fire, if
(14:33):
you have anything ever happened, and how that whole thing works,
and now it's a policy decision in California and really
needs to be understood. New York Times went big on
that story today. Is it's interesting for everybody. But the
other headline that's getting a fair amount of attention is
the whole Trump sentencing thing in the Stormy Daniel's hush
money trial. Like every word and phrase I use is yeah,
(14:58):
dripping with spin or needs explanation. The main goal of
the judge and the people pushing this whole thing was
to be able to say, as I see the headline
on CNN, it will be the first former felon to
enter the White House as president. That was the goal, right,
(15:20):
That's what they wanted to do. There is no penalty
involved with this. It's a dischargement or whatever they call it,
So no jail time, no fines, no nothing, there's just
no penalty whatsoever. But he has officially got thirty four
felonies so that people can say that, and I guess
that makes them feel better other than the legal fee's spent.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
It has all the significance of a world's greatest dad mug.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
Which I've still got one of those sitting right by
my coffee maker. May I see it every day?
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Right, But it's please, it's silly, yeah, and will be
just absolutely batted out of the park on appeal.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
As I predicted before. It's wild that that continued now.
So it went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme
Court could have gotten involved, but for whatever reason they didn't.
Five to four decision by the Ultramga out of control
needs to be shut down extremists. Supreme Court, my poor
decision to light Kavana. You will reap the whirlwind. You
won't know what hit you.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Chuck Schumer. One of the worst things he ever said.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
Yeah, So anyway, so that's that. If you see that headline,
it's nothing that nobody will ever remember it. No, it's
of no significance to anybody, including Trump. Correct.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
Yeah, it's amazing how much is made out of that,
but you know, all things Trump.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Of course, one more thing I wanted to mention with
Shane what I don't have time to say it. Okay,
everybody should be aware of the realities of why the
insurance companies have bailed on California.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Absolutely so, and any anger directed at the insurance companies
is misplaced. I'm telling you, and I'm no slacky for
insurance companies. There's one state in the Union that has
a particular policy, and it's California.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
No, I feel like I've been screwed by many an
insurance company. I don't want to stand up with them,
but we should all know the facts on this, so
we'll stay tuned. Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 6 (17:14):
ABC's David muirr Is being mocked for using clothespins to
cinch his jacket more tightly around his chest while.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
Reporting from the scene.
Speaker 6 (17:24):
He was also overheard asking a crew member, does this
burning city make me look fat? Let's only hope that
the sock he puts in his crotch his flame retardants.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Does this burning city make me look fat?
Speaker 1 (17:42):
Gutfeld, bring it it at a boy, Greg oh Man.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
That's good stuff.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
I can't kick David Muir enough, but he's not the
topic of the segment. Just thought it was worth pointing
out that we're no great fans of the big insurance companies.
I mean, they're practices. We've all been there. You pay
you in for years and years and years, than you've
finally have a claim, they say, yeah, we're dropping you,
or here's your check, get out.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Or it doesn't count in this circumstance because the wind
came from the north, so we don't cover roofs and
when it comes from the north or something right, there
are various hygiens that we could criticize them for, but
part of the reason they've become more or less customer
friendly is because of their mounting losses. Now, I thought
(18:25):
this was a very good and balanced opening from the
Wall Street Journal editorial board. They point out the politicians
are blaming each other for the losses in the horrific
Los Angeles area wildfires, and the truth is mother nature
can be merciless. We need to.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
Sort out the stories about water shortages and what happened
with the higher hydrants. But they point out it's not
too soon to note that California's politicians have fueled a
five alarm insurance market crisis that will hurt homeowners and
taxpayers across the state once the fires have died out,
and I would point out across the country too, for
reasons I'll explain the second A five alarm crisis.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Are they aware that they use a fire related metaphor
for the story? I think they probably are.
Speaker 1 (19:06):
And they go into the heavy rain for a couple
of years than the drought free year, which means heavy
but dry vegetation, and the storms with the incredible winds,
and that is absolutely a factor in what's happening. But
there's a fair amount of anger being directed toward insurance
companies for dropping quite a number of the homeowners whose
homes just burnt down several weeks a few to several
(19:29):
weeks ago, having warned the state that they were going
to do that. Insurers had I'm jumping back now to
the and that's driven a lot of people to the
undercapitalized state insure of last resort, which is called fair
of course, because everything has to have a sunny sounding acronym.
But insurers had already scrapped hundreds of thousands of policies
(19:52):
and limited coverage and wildfire prone areas. We know, that's
why I don't have my cabin in the woods anymore.
A Democrats, that's blame climate change, which has become an
all purposes excuse for any disaster early failure. But the
real insurance problem is that state regulators have barred insurers
from charging premiums that fully reflect risks and costs.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
California is the only state.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
That hair to four has not allowed insurers to incorporate
the cost of reinsurance in premiums. Until this year, it
also prohibited insurance. I could explain what reinsurance is. It's
insurance for insurance companies in case of a cataclysmic loss.
Part of their loss is taken on by these and
these reinsurance companies anyway.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
But here's the main point.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
Until this year, California had also prohibited insurers from adjusting
premiums by using the standard industry practice of catastrophe modeling
to predict the property's future risk. Insurers could only assess
premiums based on historical losses, no matter what has happened
to constructions an inflation in the interim. You can't say, hey,
(21:05):
look the price of a two by four is eighty
percent more than it used to be, and that's that's
a for instance, I don't have that in front of me.
You cannot say that in only one state in the Union, California,
as an insurance company.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
And so as a result, it's crazy. You don't have
to basically insane too, you have to be a genius
being counter to understand that everything is so much more expensive.
So when did this happen? When did they make that
rule in California? Because obviously with inflation, the timing is
particularly bad.
Speaker 1 (21:39):
Yeah, I don't remember when that passed. Honestly, I could
probably find out how much.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
More expensive it is it is it to put a
new roof on a house now versus twenty eighteen. Oh
my god.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
Well, and can you imagine in any setting, in a
business setting, you know, sir, I think we ought to
add on to the plant. Historically the square footage it
will cost two hundred dollars. There's a square foot all right,
let's do it. Ignoring the fact that it's now three
hundred and fifty dollars a square foot. You'd be fired immediately. Hey, honey,
I'm thinking of upgrading to a new F one fifty.
(22:11):
Historically they cost forty three thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
That would be an insane thing to do. It's like
me going to the closet and grabbing the medium shirt.
What do you think historically that would have fit? Yeah, oh,
that one hit a little close to home. So getting
back to the journal.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
As the result, insurers are paying out a dollar nine
in expenses and claims for every dollar they collect in premiums.
This is financially unsustainable, which is many of why many
have paired coverage in areas with high fire risk and
expensive homes. State Farm dropped nearly seventy percent of policy
holders in one Pacific Palisades neighborhood. And just to get
(22:51):
to give you an idea of how well Gavin Newsom
is running California, that fair government sponsored insure of last
resort thing is for people who can't.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
Get homeowner's insurance.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Its exposure has ballooned to four hundred and fifty eight
billion dollars as of last September, from a much lower
figure with six billion dollars exposure in Pacific Palisades alone,
six billion dollars. It has seven hundred million dollars on
hand to pay claims. They have six billion dollars in exposure.
(23:26):
They have seven hundred million dollars to pay claims. That's
because state regulators have required Fair to cover higher priced
homes while rejecting its proposals for rate increases to account
for rising risks for liabilities. Because the pandering politicians, including
Gavin Newsom have found these these ways to have completely
(23:46):
unrealistic regulations.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
So they can say, and we kept.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
Your insurance premiums lower, where they insurance companies want to
raise your rates. The insurance companies are all saying, yeah, goodbye,
We're out of this crazy fifty in the nation in
terms of business friendliness state.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
I think the latest number is the overall cost for
the fires in LA. They expect to be ten billion dollars,
most expensive, worst tragedy in LA history. I'm sure that
number is going to go up. Well, be interesting to
see how this pans out. But yeah, the point of
this segment was you can't blame the insurance companies. You
really can't.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
Right, you don't have to love them, but you can't
blame them for dropping people in California. By the way,
speaking of Gavy, the California Globe reporting that having listened
to an interview he did with NPR where he was
explaining how we're carefully taking care of the forests. He
talked about how many acres had been cleared and tended
and all. He exaggerated the actual number by six hundred
(24:46):
and ninety percent.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
Wow. Yeah, he's a congenital liar. Kevin Newsom, we were
on the question earlier of how do you run out
of water when you're next to an ocean? Why can't
you use salt water as a system, and they do
in San Francisco to a great extent. We got a
long text from somebody in the know when San Francisco
about the way they do it. The system has been
(25:08):
in place for years. It's a proven system. It can
be done. It's kind of expensive and you got to
you know, you got to put in the infrastructure. But
in the Bay Area they've been doing it for a
long time. So that's a reasonable question. Is to hey,
specific palicides right by an ocean, why would we ever
run out of water?
Speaker 1 (25:26):
Avowed Marxist Karen Bass. The mayor of la has preferred
to spend the money on bums and junkies and illegal immigrants.
So there's no money for, for instance, the fire department,
which has had its budget cut by almost eighteen million dollars. Yeah,
coming up much more amusing and believia it is some
particularly egregious examples of Facebook's fat checks. Well, they were
(25:52):
in that business prior to the recent announcement.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Hoping State tute you say it's funnier than insurance liability talk.
I don't know. I'll be the judge of that. Stay tuned.
Just to straighten this out, Notre Dames beat Penn State,
they will play the winner of Ohio State Texas for
the college football Final. That's Ohio State's the eight of
(26:14):
versus a five, and that was a seven versus a six.
So good job and picking who are the four best
teams to be in the playoffs.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
I guess bell in Ohio State beat down the number one.
But part of it depends on which players decide to play. Yeah,
there's that whole thing.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Some teams half the players don't play in the bowl
game because they don't want to get hurt before they
go into the NFL. I don't know how they're going
to make this work, but not my problem. They're not.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
I would do the same thing. Sorry, good old Alma Mater.
I'm here playing football for one reason, to get a
gig playing on Sundays.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
I don't think you have Tiger Pride or whatever team
it is.
Speaker 1 (26:48):
No, No, I don't. I'm getting a paycheck anyway, coming
up next hour. I keep promising it. We haven't gotten
in to it. Absolutely fabulous think piece on why Democrat
run cities go sideways. It's really thought provoked. And we'll
get to it an hour.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
Four.
Speaker 1 (27:02):
That's right, we do four hours. They've got us chained
up in here, they won't let us out, and nice
we do four. I know we signed a new contract,
but was that in the contract? Yeah, well over mine
dead bunny. Well it happened anyway. If you don't get it,
grab it later via podcast subscribed to Armstrong you get
on demand. It's a trust me when I say it's
really interesting. Mark Zuckerbridge just announced the other day that
(27:25):
he's rediscovered his love of free speech and Facebook is
going to get out of the fact checking business. A
number of learned commentators have commented on this, including ourselves,
good folks at the good folks at Breitbart, compiling a
list of six absolutely despicable acts of censorship that Mark
(27:46):
Zuckerberg and Facebook foisted upon the world. Run through those
really quickly, then we'll get to the funny stuff. Number one,
hiding the story on Hunter Biden's laptop from hell.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
Obbs, that's one of the worst journalistic things ever.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
All right, I'll though all those current and former intelligence
officials ought to be shouted out on the street for
lying like they did two creating the leftist fact checker
industry in the first place, Meta infamously deployed third party
fact checkers to both Facebook and Instagram, putting users content
visibility in the hands of people who flagg post based
on their opinions rather than any facts. The vast majority
(28:23):
of these fact checkers displayed extreme lefty bias, lying Zuckerberg's
platforms to diminish the reach of stories often based on
astenine or completely incorrect fact checks, including many many things
that turned out to be very true. They dropped Donald
Trump's engagement by forty five percent in twenty eighteen because
he was a Russian stooge.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
Wozy there algorithms. Wow, that's unbelievable at that time sitting
president of the United States.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
After January sixth was which was admittedly an awful day,
they banned President Trump completely, and their self righteous screen
on why they did it is a little long.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
We don't have time.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
We believe the public has the right to the broadest
possible access to political speech, even controversial speech. But we
believe the risks of allowing the president to continue to
use our service during this period are simply too great.
I believe in Trump until February twenty three.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
That's it. I have statements like that. I believe in blue,
but we're going to do red. Okay.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
They unpersoned regular people for misinformation. Shortly after banning Trump,
Facebook turns its focus on to his followers, regular Facebook users.
Zuckerberg's company vowed to ban anyone caught spreading content deemed misinformation,
despite the social media giant and its army of opinionated
leftist facts checkers struggling with the definition of that word.
(29:44):
And then they killed the reach of political content just
in the name of something or other because politics is
too scary or controversial or something, and so they just
quashed it in general, although again there was favoritism moving
along SWI. The good folks at the Free Beacon pointed
out that they were corrected several times by Zuckerberg's fact
(30:06):
checkers as checkers. In one case, the ex meta leader
FactCheck dot Org said, we falsely accused Joe Biden of
having issues with a teleprompter. That was the quote because
a White House press official said the octagenarians incoherent nonsense
was intentional, so the fact that he had issues with
(30:28):
the teleprompter was.
Speaker 2 (30:30):
Labeled as untrue. That was probably one of those repeat
the lines or something like that.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
In another case, Alan Duke, who was the head of
one of the fact checking organizations, a former CNN producer
who's donated thousands of dollars to Democrats exclusively called our
reporting on the Biden administration plans to fund crack pipes
partially false because the administration backpedaled after we published our piece.
(31:01):
At best, many of these fact checks offered an alternative opinion.
At worst, they facilitated the spread of disinformation my government
officials and aided their efforts to discredit and silence the
handful of news outlets actually interested in holding them accountable.
They will not be missed, and we hope they enjoy
learning to code.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
So you said earlier you think Mark Zuckerberg might be
an actual free speech warrior. So you think that maybe
he just was just a business decision. The federal government
was making noises that they were going to make life
hard for him if he did this, So he did that.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
Yeah, and there is so little precedent on how modern
tech ought to be regulated. They're very, very sensitive to
the you know, a bunch of old senators and congressmen
waiting into it and doing the wrong thing and screwing
their business. So yeah, just as he's cow tewing to
Donald Trump and nakedly seeking you know, friendly policy and
(31:54):
friendly ness from Donald Jay right now, he did the
same with the Biden administration.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
It just wasn't publicized.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
Every time somebody goes to have lunch with Trump, the
mainstream media acts like it's a big deal and that
they're licking his boots. These guys did the same thing
with the Biden administration. You just didn't hear about it.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Anyway. I wanted to get to this.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
Seth Dylon and the geniuses at the Babylon b with
in honor of Facebook ending is fact checking partnerships. Here
are the funniest fact checks of Babylon b jokes. Number one,
the headline was CNN purchase purchases industrial sized washing machine
to spin news before publication, and it was actually fact
(32:37):
checked by Snopes and Facebook, who threatened us with suppression
and demonetization for sharing false information a classic.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
You can't actually wash news, and there would not be
a washing machine big enough to do it.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
A page you administer recently posted the link CNN purchases
industrial sized washing machines blah blah blah that contains info
disputed by Snopes dot com and independent facher. Repeat offenders
will see their distribution reduced and their ability to monetize
and advertise removed. While you outlawed satire, second fact check
by Facebook on the Babylon B the headline Acassio Cortes
(33:14):
appears on the price is Right guesses everything is free.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
Oh my god.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
Thank you to the brave fact checkers that Snopes for
calling us out on this one. Otherwise people might have
been fooled. The fact check was false. Number three Ninth
Circuit Court overturns death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That's a
great shot at the ninth USA Today, Another one of
(33:44):
Facebook's fact checking partners helpfully pointed out that this was satire,
fact checking the satirical claim that the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals overturned Ginsburg's death. Wait a second, now, on
the AOC one, you could at least make the argument
that some really dumb people might believe. That is somebody
gonna believe a court overturned to death.
Speaker 2 (34:04):
I know.
Speaker 1 (34:05):
It's it's almost as if the thea the parody the
fact check is itself a parody or the fact check
ID we're through the looking glass airpeople. Let's see, here's
another headline that was helpfully fact checked with moonwater announcement.
Remember when they discovered there's probably ice on the moon water,
therefore water With moonwater announcement, Trump proposes space Navy. Another
(34:28):
fact check from USA Today. Guys, you can also tell
it satire because if you look really closely, you'll see
there's a picture of an aircraft carrier on the moon,
and there is in this story, uh, the fact check
a headline on the babel of me Trump, I have
done more for Christianity than Jesus. In our defense, we
(34:49):
wrote this before he actually said something uncomfortably close to
gonna say.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
If I saw that, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion
that that was satire.
Speaker 1 (34:57):
Other example, Pope Francis says COVID vaccine will now we
required to answer heaven.
Speaker 2 (35:01):
They were fact checked by Reuters.
Speaker 1 (35:06):
Oh and finally, California considering tax on breathing. Snopes found
this false, but we're pretty sure it's true.
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Wow, that's a good one. AOC guesses everything's free. That's hilarious.
If you miss an hour, get the podcast Armstrong and
Getty on demand.
Speaker 4 (35:21):
Subscribe Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.