April 16, 2025 • 35 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- Harvard funding cuts & free speech
- Wink Martindale has passed
- LA jewelry store heist, ruling in Great Britain & OG lesbian
- Economic currents
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 and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Arm Strong and get taking enough he.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Armstrong and Getty absolutely clear.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
The US Supreme Court has already had led a charitable organization,
including specifically, a university can lose its tax exem status
if they are violating fundamental policy. That was Bob Jones
University versus the US in nineteen eighty three. They lost
their tax exem status because their racist, discriminatory policies were
contrary to a compelling governmental interest and to public policy.
(00:45):
Harvard has said they will not comply with what the
federal government says they need to as it relates to
enforcing non discrimination policies. Of course, they can lose their
federal exempt tax status. I've read through the letter that
the task force sent to Harvard, and all they're asking
is to come up with solutions to its own problems.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
That is a fellow by the name of Mark a
gold Feeder, Goldfetter. He's a professor. He's obviously of a
conservative bent. He may be the only conservative professor in
America apparently, which is part of the reason we got
to where we are the Trump administration versus Harvard.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
One more news clip and then we will discuss.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
These universities are titled and they will not stop this
behavior on their own court. The only thing they seem
to respond to is financial incentive. That seems to be
the only lever that we can pull to stop the
racist and anti submitic conduct on their canvases.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
So I would tend to agree with his point of view.
How to affect the change is where the devil is
in the details.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Super interesting topic.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
Let me ask a very broad question before you get
into the details or the intricacies, and that's where you
always end up with, you know, the law, but on
a very broad level, just like a macro level, why
are we giving so many federals to these universities at all?
I mean, like particularly like the Harvard's and the princes
(02:06):
of the world that have endowments of billions and billions
of dollars? And how much money does that generate every year?
You know, with the investments and everything like that. I said,
why aren't they funding themselves?
Speaker 5 (02:16):
Then?
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Secondly do we just.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
The brief answer to that before we get to question too,
is we're paying them to.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Do research when research wekendds and why can't did your
research with their own money because.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
It benefits we the people. I'm not arguing in favor
of that point of view. That would be the answer anyway.
Speaker 4 (02:35):
Well, I know that's what people would say, But I
just don't understand that you've got billions of billions of dollars.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
I mean, there's enough.
Speaker 4 (02:39):
People that believe in Harvard and the work you do
that have donated enough money over the years, and part
of what you do is research.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Then spend your own damn money on research.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
I just don't quite understand why the federal government has
to give them money. If there is a reason I
don't understand, feel free to text or email. Then if
you are going to give a bunch of the money,
do we think it's okay that you know, an administration
comes in and it doesn't have to be like a
specific you're not allowing like at UCLA where they weren't
(03:08):
letting Jewish kids go to the library or whatever, even
not a specific thing like on that. The current administration
just doesn't like the politics of the college. Why do
you have to give them the money? Why didn't you
Why wouldn't it swing back and forth administration by administration.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Well, you made the point earlier, and it's a good
one that when the shoe is on the other foot.
The Biden administration, Obama, you name, the Democratic administrations through
the years absolutely insisted on the universities towing the line
of progressive policies and to the point that they were
(03:44):
a huge aid in the journey of American universities to
the far far left where they are right now.
Speaker 4 (03:51):
Well, it didn't become an issue because all the universities
are so far left and agree with what the Democratic
administrations were wanting them to do. You didn't hear anything
about it like share will make DII part of her thing.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
We love that, right.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
Yeah, Well, certainly a lot of Marxists have been on
university campuses forever and they were more than in favor
of that. But yes, it's an unholy alliance. So I
couldn't decide whether to end with this thought or to
frame the discussion with it.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Believe it or not.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
We're making this up as we go, So I think
I'll throw it out right now, you know me.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
I mean, I.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Believe, as I said yesterday, our universities, our colleges and
universities really education K through PhD level is so horribly
infected with anti Western civilization, anti American activists. It's the
only real threat to the health and safety of the
United States. I think it is a virulent infection coursing
(04:49):
through our veins that could kill us.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
I honestly think that could be too late.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
If we teach generation after generation to despise the country
and the principles on which is it's founded, how.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
It's that experiment going to end? You suppose?
Speaker 1 (05:03):
I hope maybe what's good about America will cure the
disease of what's bad.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
But man, you can't crank.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Out your young people generation after generation hating ourselves anyway.
So here's the way I want to frame this. This
reminds me so much of the great conundrum of democracies.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
And I learned about this first.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Particularly looking at democracies in the Middle East, trying to
get democracies up and going in some cases, and that
is and the United States is a decent enough example too,
if we can just use our country.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
We have freedom of speech. You can advocate.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Whatever ideas you want, no matter how repugnant, except for
the violent overthrow of the government.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Overturning the constitution.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
You can advocate voting the constitution owut, but can't advocate the.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Violent overthrow.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
That free speech protect a party, for instance, and read
Hullaback is that his name? Who wrote submission about Islam
and France? That freedom speech protects a fundamentalist Muslim party
who wants to institute Sharia law across America And dontry.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
I'll get back to the college in a minute.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
So you say, well, our principles are you get to
run your Sharia law party because we there are sacred
founding principles and we will not violate them. And then
as soon as those people get elected, they end all
of the sacred founding principles and decrease Suria law. That
is the great conundrum of democracies. Do you protect those
(06:39):
who would end everything you hold deer because you hold
protecting them deer?
Speaker 4 (06:44):
Right, it's the it's the it's the problem with the
whole coexist bumper sticker. One of those symbols on there
doesn't want to coexist with the rest of the symbols.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Right, and would slit its throat all of their throats, Yeah,
to get supremacy. So how exactly you're going to co
exist again anyway. The reason I brought all this up
is the Wall Street Journal editorial board, which remains, you know,
pretty staunchly conservative. I don't agree with them all the time,
but they're big piece today is Donald Trump tries to
(07:17):
run Harvard. Many of his demands on the school exceed
his power under the Constitution, and so it's kind of
the other side of the coin. You have now these
elite universities. I almost want to vomit when I say that,
these elite universities who are totally ideologically captured by those
(07:37):
who would end Western civilization. So when we the saying
are trying to fix that problem, can we, for instance,
have what the Trump administration is is decreeing there has
to be viewpoint diversity, which they don't define. And the
(07:58):
Wall Street Journal ask, does this mean English to departments
must hire more Republican faculty or Shakespeare's scholars. If a
monitor finds insufficient diversity, however you want to define it,
the university must hire quote a critical massive new faculty
within the department or the field who will provide that diversity,
and admit a critical massive students who will provide the same.
(08:19):
So to Harvard have applicants have to say whether they
support Trump or not, or impose ideological quotas in hiring
and admissions.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (08:30):
The trouble with this, I think is just you can't.
I don't think you can write out a recipe for
a cultural change. I just I don't think it's possible.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
And then enforce it at the end of the government's
gun or their finance gun.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
And trust me, don't worry.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
I'm not rushing towards some sort of Let the universities
do whatever they want. Because they are claiming we've got
to have academic freedom. They're violating our academic freedom. There
is no effing academic freedom.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
That's what we're mad about, right, exactly.
Speaker 4 (09:03):
The fact that culturally it got to a point where
these elite universities are all one extreme side of politics
is so culturally weird and not in step with the
country and bad for the country. But I don't know,
I don't know how you write out a list of
rules to fix it.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Well, ride and they say the Trump team is shooting
first and investigating later, imposing these new rules. Uh, here's
what I would suggest in terms of rules, enforceable. Rules
don't be a jerk. That'd be my rule.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Don't be a jerk. Be nice.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
The stuff about anti semitism, enforcing civil rights laws to
the letter one hundred percent in favor of that. That's
one of the things Trump administration is insisting in no
masks on demonstrators, Punish kids who violate the rules. These
are civil rights rules. You can't say, oh, Johnny, now
(10:05):
come on, stop punching Jews in the face. No, you
have to enforce the rules one hundred percent. Legit all
of that stuff. Get rid of your DEI programs. They're illegal,
they're a moral they're unconstitutional. I love all of that.
But the faculty diversity thing, I think has got to
(10:25):
come through growing awareness and social pressure, which is already building.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
I think, oh.
Speaker 4 (10:31):
Yeah, Like I said yesterday, I think the damage has
been done. Lots of employers they see Harvard grad on
that resume, They're not thinking, yes, a Harvard grad applied.
They're thinking, uh, oh, what kind of nut job might
I have here? That's gonna make my workplace very difficult?
Speaker 1 (10:49):
Right start mocking Harvard constantly in Colombian pen and Stanford,
which have lined up to support Harvard, because Harvard, I should.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Have told you that.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
No, I guess it was in that news said no,
we're not agreeing to these conditions Trump administration has asked
of us.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
I use this example a lot.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Call it Harvard Marx University for the rest of your life.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
I use this example a lot because it bothers me
a lot. But it's been going on for decades. There are,
at least according to Bloom who's the Yale University. He's
dead now, but the expert, the biggest expert in America
in the history of Shakespeare. He was so upset in
the nineties that there were no Shakespeare classes being taught
at elite universities, where the whole point was to say,
(11:34):
just you know, talk about Shakespeare being great and the
greatest maybe writer in the.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
History of the world.
Speaker 4 (11:39):
They were all Shakespeare and racism Shakespeare, and misogyny Shakespeare,
and you know this sort of stuff. Class blah blah blah.
It was all criticizing Shakespeare for all those things I
just mentioned, and it bothered him so much. How are
you going to legislate that out of the colleges? How
(11:59):
would you prost do that?
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Right?
Speaker 4 (12:02):
It's a ridiculous that that is what they teach about Shakespeare.
They teach you to think Shakespeare was bad. If they
teach Shakespeare at all, well, that's Marxism. All Western civilization
is bad. Capitalism is bad, Representative democracy is bad. They're
all freaking Marxists who want to tear down the country.
But how do you fight the most successfully? If you
have thoughts? Because this is so important?
Speaker 1 (12:23):
Johnyson email, would you have mail bag at Armstrong and
Getty dot com. T you know, make the subject colleges
and universities or something like that. I want to paw
through them tonight and tomorrow before the show and search
out ideas, particularly if you're in education or you have,
you know, a well formed opinion in this stuff. I
would love to read your thoughts because I'm still working
(12:43):
on how do we preserve the things we hold dear
and not empower President AOC to go in and ruin,
for instance, the University of Austin, which is doing such
great work in academic freedom right now? How do we
solve this problem without empowering future progressives to ruin any.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Progress we've made. That's a good question.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Mail Bag at Armstrong and Giddy dot com is our
email address. Mail Bag at Armstrong and giddy dot com.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Good stuff on the ways to hear? Are you strong?
Speaker 5 (13:14):
He Yetdy?
Speaker 2 (13:15):
It's time for what's this song? And here's the star
of the show. When what tale the star?
Speaker 1 (13:22):
Up?
Speaker 5 (13:22):
Here?
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Come the mother in law? Can you top this? And
now from television City in Hollywood, here's your host, Don
keambit winked Martin dytack account.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
You'll win some heavy cash on headline casers.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
When you play.
Speaker 5 (13:41):
Ke go.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
And here are two good words to get us started.
A wait, welcome to our show. The country's in debt.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
You're probably in debt, but most importantly, our three players, Sue,
Gary and Heather have come to us with their real
life debt.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
And one of them just might be lucky enough to
get out of it by the end of the show.
That's a good one. That's a good premise. Uh wink
Martindale has died. Whoever? That is a great wink Martindale.
I watched all.
Speaker 4 (14:11):
I watched a lot of game shows when I was
a kid because I was sick now and then and
i'd be Homer in the hospital and I watched all.
But I can't place Wink Martindale. The name was familiar.
He was omnipresent. He was, as we just heard, he
hosted all of them. It was funny when the news
was brought to us.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
And sorry, we should have told you to sit down
before I'm plumbing you of the great loss. Executive producer
Hanson behind the scenes says, yeah, we'll a fortune killed gambit.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
He still but hurt about it.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Oh boy, Hey, that's the creative destruction of capitalism, Hanson.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
That's the way it goes. They had one of Bold
not that debt show.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
These three contestants are all miserable because they're so deep
in debt they.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Can never dig themselves out of. One of them will
see that debt better be relieved.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
And the couples that don't win probably a divorce or suicide.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
Let's see who wins. Let's play the game. Oh my god,
that's funny. Wow.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
So just a quick follow up to the previous segment.
I was thinking about it during the commercial break. And
one thing the Trump administration does that I don't love
sometimes because I think sometimes it's counterproductive.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
But they do a very elon musky thing.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
They fail fast and learn faster, or in terms of
like the college policy thing, I can picture Trump saying
look set out a bunch of policies that make them
come to heal. I know they'll reject them. I know
they'll be complained about. Let's stir up some dust. Let's
(15:50):
start the discussion. Let's do something other than holding hearings
for six months. Then some Republican politician makes a grim
faced speech and no, but he ever thinks about it again.
Let's stirs up you know that, Get that that doesn't
always work.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
You saying that while in the midst of putin tariffs.
I mean, you name so many different things. Mark Alprin
writing in his newsletter today, one of the most important
ways in which Trump defies convention as that he thrives
by picking the maximum number of fights possible. Most White
(16:27):
houses would be an overload if they had one tenth
of the number of simultaneous conflicts that Trump has initiated.
But Trump personally and the ready for war infrastructure he's
a arrayed both inside government and outside, are in fact
built for taking on many, many brawls at the same time.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
And we won't know until we're looking through the rear
view mirror how it all works out.
Speaker 4 (16:49):
God, the way his personality and brain works that he
can be involved in this many skirmishes at one time
would make most people crazy, and especially at his age. Right,
old fat guy who eats fast food. Bring it on,
he says.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Eh, they need to study him when he passes, figure
out his genome or something. No kidding, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 6 (17:16):
The authorities are investigating a jewelry store heist in Los Angeles.
At least five million dollars in jewelry stole, and police
say the family owned store was ransacked. Owners say the
thieves stole jewelry and gold bars knocked out for surveillance cameras.
Authorities believe thieves broke in right through a wall. The
owners are offering one hundred thousand dollars in cash reward
for any information.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
And they stole how many millions of dollars with the stuff,
and they're still on the loose. I mean it's a
successful heist so far anyway, going right through the wall.
That's thinking outside the box, isn't it.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
Oh that reminds me I tweeted out a new video
of people cleaning out the shelves of a Walgreens in
San Francisco. Just unbelievable. You two can have this in
your town. Vote Gavin Newsom. In twenty twenty eight disgusting.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
Major ruling in Great Britain.
Speaker 4 (18:00):
They're Supreme Court ruled that trans women do not fall
within the legal definition of women under the country's equality legislation.
It was a unanimous decision. The Deputy President of the Court,
Lord Hodge. I can't believe they use the terms lord
in a democracy, seems how I love it anyway, he said,
(18:23):
the unanarchy.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Actually, the.
Speaker 4 (18:27):
The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms
woman and sex in the Equality Act of twenty ten
refer to biological women in biological sex only because.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Of course they do.
Speaker 4 (18:39):
Because of course they do. I can't believe we had
to discuss this. He didn't say a king. He meant,
you know me, I object to the term biological women.
It's like saying a biological lion. I mean, that's the
only kind of lion there is. That's It's entirely a
biological question.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
What is a woman? What is a man? Yes, we
know it's a biological woman anyway.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Yeah, so the Scottish Parliament, Scots have lost their minds.
You're supposed to be tough and to your climate sucks
and the food's terrible. You're supposed to be realistic people.
You invented golf. Anyway, you invented golf. I don't know
exactly how that fits into my argument, but it popped
into my end. But anyway, so a Scotland has gone nuts.
(19:25):
They're so progressive, but they passed this idiotic law that
there has to be gender balance on public sector boards.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Excuse me, and some of the.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Women who said yes, there ought to be balanced, no
matter who's qualified not or who gets liketed or whatever,
you've got to have a balance noticed Hey, wait a minute,
there's a bunch of dudes claiming to be women taking
up the women's slots on these boards. And so the
worm turned and they said, no, no, no, by women.
We met women.
Speaker 4 (19:55):
Excellent Shakespeare, drop on a British story, three searchers.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Thank you, mister president. So who is this?
Speaker 1 (20:04):
The Women Scotland co founder Susan Smith welcome the court's decision,
but said the fight was likely to continue. Quote today
the judges have said what we always believe to be
the case, that women are protected by their biological sex,
that sex is real, that women, Oh my god, we
have to actually say that out loud, these are odd times,
and that if you don't know that men and women
are different and it's real, you got something wrong with
(20:26):
you anyway, And that women can now feel that services
and spaces designated for women are for women. What our
politicians need to get their heads around this law. They
need to stop putting faulty guidance into schools and hospitals.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Amen to that.
Speaker 4 (20:40):
Yeah, it's interesting that they did that. I don't feel
like we're ever gonna do a way with all gender
bathrooms in the United States. I feel like it's here
to stay.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
Am I wrong?
Speaker 1 (20:51):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (20:52):
No, I don't think you are wrong.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
It's if that prevents lunatic state and lunatic cities from
letting men into women's private spaces. If that's what it takes.
You want to present as a woman, here's a bathroom
for you. You're not going in the women's locker room.
If that's the solution. Okay, until this madness washes over anyway, Katie,
(21:18):
Yes a tease.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
I have forty year old breaking celebrity marriage news. Good Lord.
Speaker 4 (21:25):
Christy Brinkley reveals why she left Billy Joel. Full team
coverage Shucom Stay tune.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
I'm making mine. What the hell face just it's radio,
you can't tell. So Katie brought it to this audio.
It is a galon old school lesbian talking about what
we've been talking about, that the whole LGB thing has
suddenly blossomed into like thirteen letters, a half dozen numbers
and the division symbol or something, and everybody with any
(21:55):
gripe is supposed to be a grouped together.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
While she's not buying it.
Speaker 5 (22:00):
From an og lesbian, the acronym LGBTQ plus is not
a representation of a united community for what was once
a legitimate civil rights movement. Gay rights has been hijacked
quite literally by the TQ plus and used as a
trojan horse to mainstream their degeneracy. First we have the
(22:23):
transcot who want to sterilize children with puberty blockers. Then
we have the cues young men feminized by sissyporn furries
and pups who fetishize bestiality, all accepted and protected by
the rainbow umbrella that magically transforms all scrutiny into bigotry.
(22:44):
But the thing that requires the most scrutiny is the
unspecified plus at the end, a placeholder for what's coming next, nor.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
That's pretty good.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
That was readophilia yew All was brilliant.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
Do you think that's what she's hitting up?
Speaker 4 (23:00):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Yeah, I suspect so.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
I don't know so, but yeah, Uh, minor attracted individuals
is the new term you're supposed to use for pedophiles.
They're trying to normalize that too, ma Aismais.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
Yes, yeah, Katie, just like you just nailed it.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
I had to edit it down for time, but she
kind of alluded to that's what's coming.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (23:25):
She used terms like you used to hear from you know,
right wingers about gay marriage degenerously stuff like that. That's
pretty strong stuff from an og lesbian.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
You know.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
What I appreciated from her, uh and and other folks
like her Gaze against Groomers for instance, which is a
group that has an online presence, is that she is
standing up against the horrors of these experiments on children
with the hormones and puberty blockers and cutting off healthy
breast tissue because the confused girl thinks he's a boy
(24:00):
for you know, a cup of coffee. Just all of
that stuff, and how perverse it is that the gay
rights movement is being frog marched into supporting that stuff,
when a lot of it is you've got a fairly
effeminate boy, it's probably gay, and the message is you're
(24:24):
not gay. You need to be fixed with surgery. You
need to be Oh you're gonna get with guys, We
need to cut off your penis and turn you into
a girl. I mean, can you imagine if a conservative
group said, Okay, you're a bit of a tomboy, you
know what, off with your breasts and we're gonna make
you a penis because if you want to be a boy,
(24:44):
we're gonna make you look like a boy.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
What horrific bigotry would that be? And that's that's what
a lot of gay people are saying.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
They they can't get echoed in the media because the
media are such frigging morons and such soft heads and such.
She they think, well lgbtq RMLF over the power of three,
I got to include all of those. And the other
great phrase she used was any skepticism is called or
any What did she say? I can't remember the word,
(25:13):
but essentially, any skepticism is bigotry.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
Oh yeah, no.
Speaker 4 (25:20):
It would be a huge benefit to society if there
was a break between the first three letters and the
rest of those letters. That'd be really good for the country.
Speaker 1 (25:30):
Do I want anybody beat up or demonized or hurt
or anything, No, of course not. I just don't want
dudes whooping up on girls in sports. And I would
like the social contagion, which is the neo Marxist activist
around radical gender theory, to get.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
The hell out of schools. That's what I want. That's
a good one. Where was that? Where's that woman from
or what is she?
Speaker 1 (25:55):
Brit Clearly if there's more of her, Katie's let's have it,
let's hear it.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
Yeah, she had it.
Speaker 4 (26:00):
Here's your breaking forty year old celebrity divorce news. As
it was one of the odd pairings in the history
of celebrities. I think for some people when the hottest
woman on the planet at the time, model Christie Brinkley
weed Billy Joel.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Why because he was kind of I mean, the whole
rock star and model thing.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
Could not be more common. I know, they just didn't
look like a couple to me. First of all, she's
two feet taller. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (26:29):
Anyway, I was in music radio at the time, and
I know it was mocked a lot. So she says
that she left him over his drinking, which I had
never heard before, and that it was very painful and
she did not want the marriage to end.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
But he's the hell of a drunk he is, and
that's one of the reasons I brought it up. He
is taking it Apparently he's going to take it to
the end.
Speaker 4 (26:52):
I mean, he's pretty old now, he's you know, he
crashed into the same house multiple times famously there in
Long Island, and he ruined a couple of marriages. I
would have guess over this and just keeps on trying.
Then maybe I can make it work or something, or
nobody's gonna tell me to quit or something.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
I don't know what. But he, you know, he's willing
to take it to the end. Yeah, maybe you have
to admire that in some way. I don't know. Yeah,
I have no idea what it's like to be with
Christy Brinkley.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
I mean, because a marriage is a hell of a
lot more than physical attraction. But if Christy Brinkley says
you got to rein in the sauce or I'm leaving,
I'm at least gonna give it the old college try.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
God, you think you would think so? Yeah? Yeah, And
he had it going on there for a while. Huh.
Speaker 4 (27:41):
It's like, oh, hit after hit after hit after hit.
And he's married to Christy Brinkley. Well, he's married to
an uptown girl.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Right.
Speaker 4 (27:52):
How do you I think the second time you crash
into the same house, I would think, you know what,
I should get a driver.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Maybe he did after that. I don't know. Let's look
at the other side. You're living in that house.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
You'd wake up to a horrific crashing sound and just say,
it's Billy again.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
Oh my god, did the pio?
Speaker 1 (28:09):
What was that?
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Honey, piano man hit it house again? Oh okay, Oh, for.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
God's sake, we just got it fixed, Billy, No kidding, Okay,
we got more of the ways there.
Speaker 7 (28:24):
So when you think about these businesses and a one
therapy put on them, it's untenable for them. They don't
have the cash flow, they don't have the access to capital,
and it's basically locking up production in the toy industry.
No toys are currently being produced in China, and there
are reports that major retailers here in the US are
(28:46):
starting to actually cancel orders.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
So so Christmas is at risk.
Speaker 4 (28:51):
That's a some economic expert on CNN yesterday on the
lead Christmas is at risk. Toy companies can handle one
hundred and forty five percent tariff. At some point the
rubber's going to meet the road on this, isn't it.
I mean, we all were relieved, I guess to find
out iPhones aren't gonna triple in price.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
But there is all that other stuff.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
Right, you know, part of me he wants to urge
that guy to watch how the Grinch stole Christmas Christmas
and be reminded that.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
It came.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
It came, It came without boxes and bushels and bags
the rest of it. Yeah, Christmas isn't at risk, but
he was talking about toy retailers, so I get that.
You know, the ready fire aim nature of the tariffs
is I think going to be counterproductive, although I suspect
it's just going to lead to better trade deals. But
it was pointed out by some learned folks that if
(29:41):
you're a giant, multinational conglomerate with lobbyists and perhaps a
tim cook who can pick up the phone and call
Donald Trump, you get a carve out. But all the
mom and pop businesses, all the small manufacturers, they don't.
They're gonna be you know, shut put out of business
right because they can't ensure their inputs fast enough.
Speaker 4 (30:03):
A bankrupt which is the main from the right big
critique of tariffs in general, that it ends up being
I mean, you're like creating a reason for people to
get special treatment or do things to get special.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
Treatment, right, Yeah, it enriches the swamp.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
I was just texting with somebody who said they were
about to do something, it doesn't matter what, and I said,
you're brave, Gail King, brave.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
I wonder if that will catch on. It's like, wow,
you're like Gail King brave there congratulations Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Oh, speaking of economic occurrence and stuff like that, there's
a lot of talk of recession because of the tariffs
and all and how it shakes out. Nobody knows exactly
what might already be in one of many according to
many economists.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Well, that's right.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
And I came across this from the Wall Street Journal,
which I thought was kind of a good reminder what
is a recession and how when will we know if
we are in one? Now, that common rule of thumb
is that two consecutive quarters of declining gross product counts
as as a recession. The last if it's during the
Biden administration run and that doesn't run out. But the
(31:19):
GDP is not the criterion used by the National Bureau
of Economic Research, which is the long standing arbiter of
US recessions among economists, government officials, policymakers, and news organizations
including the Wall Street Journal. The NBR recession dates are
determined by its prosaically named Quote Business Cycle Dating Committee,
(31:41):
a group of eight academic economists, some of whom have
been members of the committee for decades. What they look
for in order to make a recession call is quote
a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across
the economy and lasts more than a few months.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
Swaperty employment wishywashy, oh, very isshue washing. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
The main indicators they watch are on our employment, inflation
adjusted personal income, real consumer spending, real manufacturing and trade,
industry sales and industrial production.
Speaker 4 (32:11):
Well that's there's a democrat in office. Well yeah, that's interesting.
So it's a little bit of like, that's just your opinion, man.
And I always remember a guy I knew ran his
own business. He was a very successful a his own business.
And this was years ago, like mid two thousand and five.
I can remember and him saying we're in a recession,
and we weren't, like officially in a recession, and he
(32:33):
said we're in a recession, and I was like, wow,
that's interesting that you just said that out loud when
you know it hasn't been declared. And in this case,
it ended up being declared the next quarter. He had
already felt it. But I thought at the time, well,
even if it's not for the rest of the United States,
if it is for your industry here, that's all that
matters to you.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
So this this is kind of a stupid term.
Speaker 4 (32:55):
It's kind of like we always talk about when they
give you a national real estate to statistics. It's the
point of that more homes were sold last year than
this year. Well that's I don't even know if that
number is useful to anybody, but it's certainly not useful
to your state, county, neighborhood or whatever.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
Well, my only argument against that would be that if
your policies cause one those policies should be reviewed and criticized. Yeah,
so it helps to be able to say, in even
a semi concrete way, hey, this isn't working, it's hurting
the economy.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
Right, But yeah, that makes sense, but.
Speaker 1 (33:38):
It's not what the media portrays it to be, some
sort of all encompassing It's not a diagnosis with cancer.
It's just okay, things are not growing, economics or what's
going on.
Speaker 4 (33:49):
If your industry on the entire West Coast is suffering
because of something the weather or whatever, you're in a
recession every bit as much as if they declared a
national recession.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (34:00):
So yeah, I'm not sure that term means that much
to me anymore. What you said makes sense. And again
they changed the definition of it or went with the
specific definition of it when it applied to Joe Biden,
because by the definition we'd all been using our entire
adult lives, we were in a recession, and they.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Didn't want that to be true. Right, yep, what evs?
Speaker 4 (34:25):
Yeah, I know, and I've lived through I can't even
tell you how many in my life, ten twelve, I
don't know, thirty, I don't even know, which is part
of my point. They come and go and we're all fine,
and you know, I don't want it to happen, But
it's not like the end of the world. Well, right,
and there have been upsides, like I've gotten used to
the taste of human flesh. There's been so much cannibalism
(34:47):
eating the recessions. Yeah, it's an old hat for me.
Speaker 1 (34:52):
It's the other white meat, as far as I'm concerned
and reminds me.
Speaker 4 (34:54):
I got an update on that New York Times subway
story that I won't put any more detail on a
man who passed away on the subway and then some
unfortunate things happened.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
Oh no, after his passing. You don't know this story.
Were you here for the story? Maybe you weren't here
from the story. Were you not here from the story?
Was I at the masters? I don't know. You couldn't
have forgotten it. No way you forgot this story.
Speaker 4 (35:17):
Okay, So we'll get through that in hour four, which
is a good reason to mention that if you don't
get our four or any segment, get the podcast Armstrong
and Getty on demand.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Arm Strong and get taking enough he.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Armstrong and Getty absolutely clear.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
The US Supreme Court has already had led a charitable organization,
including specifically, a university can lose its tax exem status
if they are violating fundamental policy. That was Bob Jones
University versus the US in nineteen eighty three. They lost
their tax exem status because their racist, discriminatory policies were
contrary to a compelling governmental interest and to public policy.
(00:45):
Harvard has said they will not comply with what the
federal government says they need to as it relates to
enforcing non discrimination policies. Of course, they can lose their
federal exempt tax status. I've read through the letter that
the task force sent to Harvard, and all they're asking
is to come up with solutions to its own problems.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
That is a fellow by the name of Mark a
gold Feeder, Goldfetter. He's a professor. He's obviously of a
conservative bent. He may be the only conservative professor in
America apparently, which is part of the reason we got
to where we are the Trump administration versus Harvard.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
One more news clip and then we will discuss.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
These universities are titled and they will not stop this
behavior on their own court. The only thing they seem
to respond to is financial incentive. That seems to be
the only lever that we can pull to stop the
racist and anti submitic conduct on their canvases.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
So I would tend to agree with his point of view.
How to affect the change is where the devil is
in the details.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Super interesting topic.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
Let me ask a very broad question before you get
into the details or the intricacies, and that's where you
always end up with, you know, the law, but on
a very broad level, just like a macro level, why
are we giving so many federals to these universities at all?
I mean, like particularly like the Harvard's and the princes
(02:06):
of the world that have endowments of billions and billions
of dollars? And how much money does that generate every year?
You know, with the investments and everything like that. I said,
why aren't they funding themselves?
Speaker 5 (02:16):
Then?
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Secondly do we just.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
The brief answer to that before we get to question too,
is we're paying them to.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Do research when research wekendds and why can't did your
research with their own money because.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
It benefits we the people. I'm not arguing in favor
of that point of view. That would be the answer anyway.
Speaker 4 (02:35):
Well, I know that's what people would say, But I
just don't understand that you've got billions of billions of dollars.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
I mean, there's enough.
Speaker 4 (02:39):
People that believe in Harvard and the work you do
that have donated enough money over the years, and part
of what you do is research.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Then spend your own damn money on research.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
I just don't quite understand why the federal government has
to give them money. If there is a reason I
don't understand, feel free to text or email. Then if
you are going to give a bunch of the money,
do we think it's okay that you know, an administration
comes in and it doesn't have to be like a
specific you're not allowing like at UCLA where they weren't
(03:08):
letting Jewish kids go to the library or whatever, even
not a specific thing like on that. The current administration
just doesn't like the politics of the college. Why do
you have to give them the money? Why didn't you
Why wouldn't it swing back and forth administration by administration.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Well, you made the point earlier, and it's a good
one that when the shoe is on the other foot.
The Biden administration, Obama, you name, the Democratic administrations through
the years absolutely insisted on the universities towing the line
of progressive policies and to the point that they were
(03:44):
a huge aid in the journey of American universities to
the far far left where they are right now.
Speaker 4 (03:51):
Well, it didn't become an issue because all the universities
are so far left and agree with what the Democratic
administrations were wanting them to do. You didn't hear anything
about it like share will make DII part of her thing.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
We love that, right.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
Yeah, Well, certainly a lot of Marxists have been on
university campuses forever and they were more than in favor
of that. But yes, it's an unholy alliance. So I
couldn't decide whether to end with this thought or to
frame the discussion with it.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Believe it or not.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
We're making this up as we go, So I think
I'll throw it out right now, you know me.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
I mean, I.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Believe, as I said yesterday, our universities, our colleges and
universities really education K through PhD level is so horribly
infected with anti Western civilization, anti American activists. It's the
only real threat to the health and safety of the
United States. I think it is a virulent infection coursing
(04:49):
through our veins that could kill us.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
I honestly think that could be too late.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
If we teach generation after generation to despise the country
and the principles on which is it's founded, how.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
It's that experiment going to end? You suppose?
Speaker 1 (05:03):
I hope maybe what's good about America will cure the
disease of what's bad.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
But man, you can't crank.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Out your young people generation after generation hating ourselves anyway.
So here's the way I want to frame this. This
reminds me so much of the great conundrum of democracies.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
And I learned about this first.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Particularly looking at democracies in the Middle East, trying to
get democracies up and going in some cases, and that
is and the United States is a decent enough example too,
if we can just use our country.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
We have freedom of speech. You can advocate.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Whatever ideas you want, no matter how repugnant, except for
the violent overthrow of the government.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Overturning the constitution.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
You can advocate voting the constitution owut, but can't advocate the.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Violent overthrow.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
That free speech protect a party, for instance, and read
Hullaback is that his name? Who wrote submission about Islam
and France? That freedom speech protects a fundamentalist Muslim party
who wants to institute Sharia law across America And dontry.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
I'll get back to the college in a minute.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
So you say, well, our principles are you get to
run your Sharia law party because we there are sacred
founding principles and we will not violate them. And then
as soon as those people get elected, they end all
of the sacred founding principles and decrease Suria law. That
is the great conundrum of democracies. Do you protect those
(06:39):
who would end everything you hold deer because you hold
protecting them deer?
Speaker 4 (06:44):
Right, it's the it's the it's the problem with the
whole coexist bumper sticker. One of those symbols on there
doesn't want to coexist with the rest of the symbols.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Right, and would slit its throat all of their throats, Yeah,
to get supremacy. So how exactly you're going to co
exist again anyway. The reason I brought all this up
is the Wall Street Journal editorial board, which remains, you know,
pretty staunchly conservative. I don't agree with them all the time,
but they're big piece today is Donald Trump tries to
(07:17):
run Harvard. Many of his demands on the school exceed
his power under the Constitution, and so it's kind of
the other side of the coin. You have now these
elite universities. I almost want to vomit when I say that,
these elite universities who are totally ideologically captured by those
(07:37):
who would end Western civilization. So when we the saying
are trying to fix that problem, can we, for instance,
have what the Trump administration is is decreeing there has
to be viewpoint diversity, which they don't define. And the
(07:58):
Wall Street Journal ask, does this mean English to departments
must hire more Republican faculty or Shakespeare's scholars. If a
monitor finds insufficient diversity, however you want to define it,
the university must hire quote a critical massive new faculty
within the department or the field who will provide that diversity,
and admit a critical massive students who will provide the same.
(08:19):
So to Harvard have applicants have to say whether they
support Trump or not, or impose ideological quotas in hiring
and admissions.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (08:30):
The trouble with this, I think is just you can't.
I don't think you can write out a recipe for
a cultural change. I just I don't think it's possible.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
And then enforce it at the end of the government's
gun or their finance gun.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
And trust me, don't worry.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
I'm not rushing towards some sort of Let the universities
do whatever they want. Because they are claiming we've got
to have academic freedom. They're violating our academic freedom. There
is no effing academic freedom.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
That's what we're mad about, right, exactly.
Speaker 4 (09:03):
The fact that culturally it got to a point where
these elite universities are all one extreme side of politics
is so culturally weird and not in step with the
country and bad for the country. But I don't know,
I don't know how you write out a list of
rules to fix it.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Well, ride and they say the Trump team is shooting
first and investigating later, imposing these new rules. Uh, here's
what I would suggest in terms of rules, enforceable. Rules
don't be a jerk. That'd be my rule.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Don't be a jerk. Be nice.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
The stuff about anti semitism, enforcing civil rights laws to
the letter one hundred percent in favor of that. That's
one of the things Trump administration is insisting in no
masks on demonstrators, Punish kids who violate the rules. These
are civil rights rules. You can't say, oh, Johnny, now
(10:05):
come on, stop punching Jews in the face. No, you
have to enforce the rules one hundred percent. Legit all
of that stuff. Get rid of your DEI programs. They're illegal,
they're a moral they're unconstitutional. I love all of that.
But the faculty diversity thing, I think has got to
(10:25):
come through growing awareness and social pressure, which is already building.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
I think, oh.
Speaker 4 (10:31):
Yeah, Like I said yesterday, I think the damage has
been done. Lots of employers they see Harvard grad on
that resume, They're not thinking, yes, a Harvard grad applied.
They're thinking, uh, oh, what kind of nut job might
I have here? That's gonna make my workplace very difficult?
Speaker 1 (10:49):
Right start mocking Harvard constantly in Colombian pen and Stanford,
which have lined up to support Harvard, because Harvard, I should.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Have told you that.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
No, I guess it was in that news said no,
we're not agreeing to these conditions Trump administration has asked
of us.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
I use this example a lot.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Call it Harvard Marx University for the rest of your life.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
I use this example a lot because it bothers me
a lot. But it's been going on for decades. There are,
at least according to Bloom who's the Yale University. He's
dead now, but the expert, the biggest expert in America
in the history of Shakespeare. He was so upset in
the nineties that there were no Shakespeare classes being taught
at elite universities, where the whole point was to say,
(11:34):
just you know, talk about Shakespeare being great and the
greatest maybe writer in the.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
History of the world.
Speaker 4 (11:39):
They were all Shakespeare and racism Shakespeare, and misogyny Shakespeare,
and you know this sort of stuff. Class blah blah blah.
It was all criticizing Shakespeare for all those things I
just mentioned, and it bothered him so much. How are
you going to legislate that out of the colleges? How
(11:59):
would you prost do that?
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Right?
Speaker 4 (12:02):
It's a ridiculous that that is what they teach about Shakespeare.
They teach you to think Shakespeare was bad. If they
teach Shakespeare at all, well, that's Marxism. All Western civilization
is bad. Capitalism is bad, Representative democracy is bad. They're
all freaking Marxists who want to tear down the country.
But how do you fight the most successfully? If you
have thoughts? Because this is so important?
Speaker 1 (12:23):
Johnyson email, would you have mail bag at Armstrong and
Getty dot com. T you know, make the subject colleges
and universities or something like that. I want to paw
through them tonight and tomorrow before the show and search
out ideas, particularly if you're in education or you have,
you know, a well formed opinion in this stuff. I
would love to read your thoughts because I'm still working
(12:43):
on how do we preserve the things we hold dear
and not empower President AOC to go in and ruin,
for instance, the University of Austin, which is doing such
great work in academic freedom right now? How do we
solve this problem without empowering future progressives to ruin any.
Speaker 2 (13:04):
Progress we've made. That's a good question.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Mail Bag at Armstrong and Giddy dot com is our
email address. Mail Bag at Armstrong and giddy dot com.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Good stuff on the ways to hear? Are you strong?
Speaker 5 (13:14):
He Yetdy?
Speaker 2 (13:15):
It's time for what's this song? And here's the star
of the show. When what tale the star?
Speaker 1 (13:22):
Up?
Speaker 5 (13:22):
Here?
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Come the mother in law? Can you top this? And
now from television City in Hollywood, here's your host, Don
keambit winked Martin dytack account.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
You'll win some heavy cash on headline casers.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
When you play.
Speaker 5 (13:41):
Ke go.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
And here are two good words to get us started.
A wait, welcome to our show. The country's in debt.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
You're probably in debt, but most importantly, our three players, Sue,
Gary and Heather have come to us with their real
life debt.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
And one of them just might be lucky enough to
get out of it by the end of the show.
That's a good one. That's a good premise. Uh wink
Martindale has died. Whoever? That is a great wink Martindale.
I watched all.
Speaker 4 (14:11):
I watched a lot of game shows when I was
a kid because I was sick now and then and
i'd be Homer in the hospital and I watched all.
But I can't place Wink Martindale. The name was familiar.
He was omnipresent. He was, as we just heard, he
hosted all of them. It was funny when the news
was brought to us.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
And sorry, we should have told you to sit down
before I'm plumbing you of the great loss. Executive producer
Hanson behind the scenes says, yeah, we'll a fortune killed gambit.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
He still but hurt about it.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Oh boy, Hey, that's the creative destruction of capitalism, Hanson.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
That's the way it goes. They had one of Bold
not that debt show.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
These three contestants are all miserable because they're so deep
in debt they.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Can never dig themselves out of. One of them will
see that debt better be relieved.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
And the couples that don't win probably a divorce or suicide.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
Let's see who wins. Let's play the game. Oh my god,
that's funny. Wow.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
So just a quick follow up to the previous segment.
I was thinking about it during the commercial break. And
one thing the Trump administration does that I don't love
sometimes because I think sometimes it's counterproductive.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
But they do a very elon musky thing.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
They fail fast and learn faster, or in terms of
like the college policy thing, I can picture Trump saying
look set out a bunch of policies that make them
come to heal. I know they'll reject them. I know
they'll be complained about. Let's stir up some dust. Let's
(15:50):
start the discussion. Let's do something other than holding hearings
for six months. Then some Republican politician makes a grim
faced speech and no, but he ever thinks about it again.
Let's stirs up you know that, Get that that doesn't
always work.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
You saying that while in the midst of putin tariffs.
I mean, you name so many different things. Mark Alprin
writing in his newsletter today, one of the most important
ways in which Trump defies convention as that he thrives
by picking the maximum number of fights possible. Most White
(16:27):
houses would be an overload if they had one tenth
of the number of simultaneous conflicts that Trump has initiated.
But Trump personally and the ready for war infrastructure he's
a arrayed both inside government and outside, are in fact
built for taking on many, many brawls at the same time.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
And we won't know until we're looking through the rear
view mirror how it all works out.
Speaker 4 (16:49):
God, the way his personality and brain works that he
can be involved in this many skirmishes at one time
would make most people crazy, and especially at his age. Right,
old fat guy who eats fast food. Bring it on,
he says.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
Eh, they need to study him when he passes, figure
out his genome or something. No kidding, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 6 (17:16):
The authorities are investigating a jewelry store heist in Los Angeles.
At least five million dollars in jewelry stole, and police
say the family owned store was ransacked. Owners say the
thieves stole jewelry and gold bars knocked out for surveillance cameras.
Authorities believe thieves broke in right through a wall. The
owners are offering one hundred thousand dollars in cash reward
for any information.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
And they stole how many millions of dollars with the stuff,
and they're still on the loose. I mean it's a
successful heist so far anyway, going right through the wall.
That's thinking outside the box, isn't it.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
Oh that reminds me I tweeted out a new video
of people cleaning out the shelves of a Walgreens in
San Francisco. Just unbelievable. You two can have this in
your town. Vote Gavin Newsom. In twenty twenty eight disgusting.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
Major ruling in Great Britain.
Speaker 4 (18:00):
They're Supreme Court ruled that trans women do not fall
within the legal definition of women under the country's equality legislation.
It was a unanimous decision. The Deputy President of the Court,
Lord Hodge. I can't believe they use the terms lord
in a democracy, seems how I love it anyway, he said,
(18:23):
the unanarchy.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Actually, the.
Speaker 4 (18:27):
The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms
woman and sex in the Equality Act of twenty ten
refer to biological women in biological sex only because.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Of course they do.
Speaker 4 (18:39):
Because of course they do. I can't believe we had
to discuss this. He didn't say a king. He meant,
you know me, I object to the term biological women.
It's like saying a biological lion. I mean, that's the
only kind of lion there is. That's It's entirely a
biological question.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
What is a woman? What is a man? Yes, we
know it's a biological woman anyway.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Yeah, so the Scottish Parliament, Scots have lost their minds.
You're supposed to be tough and to your climate sucks
and the food's terrible. You're supposed to be realistic people.
You invented golf. Anyway, you invented golf. I don't know
exactly how that fits into my argument, but it popped
into my end. But anyway, so a Scotland has gone nuts.
(19:25):
They're so progressive, but they passed this idiotic law that
there has to be gender balance on public sector boards.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Excuse me, and some of the.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Women who said yes, there ought to be balanced, no
matter who's qualified not or who gets liketed or whatever,
you've got to have a balance noticed Hey, wait a minute,
there's a bunch of dudes claiming to be women taking
up the women's slots on these boards. And so the
worm turned and they said, no, no, no, by women.
We met women.
Speaker 4 (19:55):
Excellent Shakespeare, drop on a British story, three searchers.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Thank you, mister president. So who is this?
Speaker 1 (20:04):
The Women Scotland co founder Susan Smith welcome the court's decision,
but said the fight was likely to continue. Quote today
the judges have said what we always believe to be
the case, that women are protected by their biological sex,
that sex is real, that women, Oh my god, we
have to actually say that out loud, these are odd times,
and that if you don't know that men and women
are different and it's real, you got something wrong with
(20:26):
you anyway, And that women can now feel that services
and spaces designated for women are for women. What our
politicians need to get their heads around this law. They
need to stop putting faulty guidance into schools and hospitals.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
Amen to that.
Speaker 4 (20:40):
Yeah, it's interesting that they did that. I don't feel
like we're ever gonna do a way with all gender
bathrooms in the United States. I feel like it's here
to stay.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
Am I wrong?
Speaker 1 (20:51):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (20:52):
No, I don't think you are wrong.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
It's if that prevents lunatic state and lunatic cities from
letting men into women's private spaces. If that's what it takes.
You want to present as a woman, here's a bathroom
for you. You're not going in the women's locker room.
If that's the solution. Okay, until this madness washes over anyway, Katie,
(21:18):
Yes a tease.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
I have forty year old breaking celebrity marriage news. Good Lord.
Speaker 4 (21:25):
Christy Brinkley reveals why she left Billy Joel. Full team
coverage Shucom Stay tune.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
I'm making mine. What the hell face just it's radio,
you can't tell. So Katie brought it to this audio.
It is a galon old school lesbian talking about what
we've been talking about, that the whole LGB thing has
suddenly blossomed into like thirteen letters, a half dozen numbers
and the division symbol or something, and everybody with any
(21:55):
gripe is supposed to be a grouped together.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
While she's not buying it.
Speaker 5 (22:00):
From an og lesbian, the acronym LGBTQ plus is not
a representation of a united community for what was once
a legitimate civil rights movement. Gay rights has been hijacked
quite literally by the TQ plus and used as a
trojan horse to mainstream their degeneracy. First we have the
(22:23):
transcot who want to sterilize children with puberty blockers. Then
we have the cues young men feminized by sissyporn furries
and pups who fetishize bestiality, all accepted and protected by
the rainbow umbrella that magically transforms all scrutiny into bigotry.
(22:44):
But the thing that requires the most scrutiny is the
unspecified plus at the end, a placeholder for what's coming next, nor.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
That's pretty good.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
That was readophilia yew All was brilliant.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
Do you think that's what she's hitting up?
Speaker 4 (23:00):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Yeah, I suspect so.
Speaker 1 (23:02):
I don't know so, but yeah, Uh, minor attracted individuals
is the new term you're supposed to use for pedophiles.
They're trying to normalize that too, ma Aismais.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
Yes, yeah, Katie, just like you just nailed it.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
I had to edit it down for time, but she
kind of alluded to that's what's coming.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (23:25):
She used terms like you used to hear from you know,
right wingers about gay marriage degenerously stuff like that. That's
pretty strong stuff from an og lesbian.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
You know.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
What I appreciated from her, uh and and other folks
like her Gaze against Groomers for instance, which is a
group that has an online presence, is that she is
standing up against the horrors of these experiments on children
with the hormones and puberty blockers and cutting off healthy
breast tissue because the confused girl thinks he's a boy
(24:00):
for you know, a cup of coffee. Just all of
that stuff, and how perverse it is that the gay
rights movement is being frog marched into supporting that stuff,
when a lot of it is you've got a fairly
effeminate boy, it's probably gay, and the message is you're
(24:24):
not gay. You need to be fixed with surgery. You
need to be Oh you're gonna get with guys, We
need to cut off your penis and turn you into
a girl. I mean, can you imagine if a conservative
group said, Okay, you're a bit of a tomboy, you
know what, off with your breasts and we're gonna make
you a penis because if you want to be a boy,
(24:44):
we're gonna make you look like a boy.
Speaker 2 (24:47):
What horrific bigotry would that be? And that's that's what
a lot of gay people are saying.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
They they can't get echoed in the media because the
media are such frigging morons and such soft heads and such.
She they think, well lgbtq RMLF over the power of three,
I got to include all of those. And the other
great phrase she used was any skepticism is called or
any What did she say? I can't remember the word,
(25:13):
but essentially, any skepticism is bigotry.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
Oh yeah, no.
Speaker 4 (25:20):
It would be a huge benefit to society if there
was a break between the first three letters and the
rest of those letters. That'd be really good for the country.
Speaker 1 (25:30):
Do I want anybody beat up or demonized or hurt
or anything, No, of course not. I just don't want
dudes whooping up on girls in sports. And I would
like the social contagion, which is the neo Marxist activist
around radical gender theory, to get.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
The hell out of schools. That's what I want. That's
a good one. Where was that? Where's that woman from
or what is she?
Speaker 1 (25:55):
Brit Clearly if there's more of her, Katie's let's have it,
let's hear it.
Speaker 2 (25:59):
Yeah, she had it.
Speaker 4 (26:00):
Here's your breaking forty year old celebrity divorce news. As
it was one of the odd pairings in the history
of celebrities. I think for some people when the hottest
woman on the planet at the time, model Christie Brinkley
weed Billy Joel.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Why because he was kind of I mean, the whole
rock star and model thing.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
Could not be more common. I know, they just didn't
look like a couple to me. First of all, she's
two feet taller. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (26:29):
Anyway, I was in music radio at the time, and
I know it was mocked a lot. So she says
that she left him over his drinking, which I had
never heard before, and that it was very painful and
she did not want the marriage to end.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
But he's the hell of a drunk he is, and
that's one of the reasons I brought it up. He
is taking it Apparently he's going to take it to
the end.
Speaker 4 (26:52):
I mean, he's pretty old now, he's you know, he
crashed into the same house multiple times famously there in
Long Island, and he ruined a couple of marriages. I
would have guess over this and just keeps on trying.
Then maybe I can make it work or something, or
nobody's gonna tell me to quit or something.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
I don't know what. But he, you know, he's willing
to take it to the end. Yeah, maybe you have
to admire that in some way. I don't know. Yeah,
I have no idea what it's like to be with
Christy Brinkley.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
I mean, because a marriage is a hell of a
lot more than physical attraction. But if Christy Brinkley says
you got to rein in the sauce or I'm leaving,
I'm at least gonna give it the old college try.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
God, you think you would think so? Yeah? Yeah, And
he had it going on there for a while. Huh.
Speaker 4 (27:41):
It's like, oh, hit after hit after hit after hit.
And he's married to Christy Brinkley. Well, he's married to
an uptown girl.
Speaker 2 (27:49):
Right.
Speaker 4 (27:52):
How do you I think the second time you crash
into the same house, I would think, you know what,
I should get a driver.
Speaker 2 (27:58):
Maybe he did after that. I don't know. Let's look
at the other side. You're living in that house.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
You'd wake up to a horrific crashing sound and just say,
it's Billy again.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
Oh my god, did the pio?
Speaker 1 (28:09):
What was that?
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Honey, piano man hit it house again? Oh okay, Oh, for.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
God's sake, we just got it fixed, Billy, No kidding, Okay,
we got more of the ways there.
Speaker 7 (28:24):
So when you think about these businesses and a one
therapy put on them, it's untenable for them. They don't
have the cash flow, they don't have the access to capital,
and it's basically locking up production in the toy industry.
No toys are currently being produced in China, and there
are reports that major retailers here in the US are
(28:46):
starting to actually cancel orders.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
So so Christmas is at risk.
Speaker 4 (28:51):
That's a some economic expert on CNN yesterday on the
lead Christmas is at risk. Toy companies can handle one
hundred and forty five percent tariff. At some point the
rubber's going to meet the road on this, isn't it.
I mean, we all were relieved, I guess to find
out iPhones aren't gonna triple in price.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
But there is all that other stuff.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
Right, you know, part of me he wants to urge
that guy to watch how the Grinch stole Christmas Christmas
and be reminded that.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
It came.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
It came, It came without boxes and bushels and bags
the rest of it. Yeah, Christmas isn't at risk, but
he was talking about toy retailers, so I get that.
You know, the ready fire aim nature of the tariffs
is I think going to be counterproductive, although I suspect
it's just going to lead to better trade deals. But
it was pointed out by some learned folks that if
(29:41):
you're a giant, multinational conglomerate with lobbyists and perhaps a
tim cook who can pick up the phone and call
Donald Trump, you get a carve out. But all the
mom and pop businesses, all the small manufacturers, they don't.
They're gonna be you know, shut put out of business
right because they can't ensure their inputs fast enough.
Speaker 4 (30:03):
A bankrupt which is the main from the right big
critique of tariffs in general, that it ends up being
I mean, you're like creating a reason for people to
get special treatment or do things to get special.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
Treatment, right, Yeah, it enriches the swamp.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
I was just texting with somebody who said they were
about to do something, it doesn't matter what, and I said,
you're brave, Gail King, brave.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
I wonder if that will catch on. It's like, wow,
you're like Gail King brave there congratulations Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Oh, speaking of economic occurrence and stuff like that, there's
a lot of talk of recession because of the tariffs
and all and how it shakes out. Nobody knows exactly
what might already be in one of many according to
many economists.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Well, that's right.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
And I came across this from the Wall Street Journal,
which I thought was kind of a good reminder what
is a recession and how when will we know if
we are in one? Now, that common rule of thumb
is that two consecutive quarters of declining gross product counts
as as a recession. The last if it's during the
Biden administration run and that doesn't run out. But the
(31:19):
GDP is not the criterion used by the National Bureau
of Economic Research, which is the long standing arbiter of
US recessions among economists, government officials, policymakers, and news organizations
including the Wall Street Journal. The NBR recession dates are
determined by its prosaically named Quote Business Cycle Dating Committee,
(31:41):
a group of eight academic economists, some of whom have
been members of the committee for decades. What they look
for in order to make a recession call is quote
a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across
the economy and lasts more than a few months.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
Swaperty employment wishywashy, oh, very isshue washing. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
The main indicators they watch are on our employment, inflation
adjusted personal income, real consumer spending, real manufacturing and trade,
industry sales and industrial production.
Speaker 4 (32:11):
Well that's there's a democrat in office. Well yeah, that's interesting.
So it's a little bit of like, that's just your opinion, man.
And I always remember a guy I knew ran his
own business. He was a very successful a his own business.
And this was years ago, like mid two thousand and five.
I can remember and him saying we're in a recession,
and we weren't, like officially in a recession, and he
(32:33):
said we're in a recession, and I was like, wow,
that's interesting that you just said that out loud when
you know it hasn't been declared. And in this case,
it ended up being declared the next quarter. He had
already felt it. But I thought at the time, well,
even if it's not for the rest of the United States,
if it is for your industry here, that's all that
matters to you.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
So this this is kind of a stupid term.
Speaker 4 (32:55):
It's kind of like we always talk about when they
give you a national real estate to statistics. It's the
point of that more homes were sold last year than
this year. Well that's I don't even know if that
number is useful to anybody, but it's certainly not useful
to your state, county, neighborhood or whatever.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
Well, my only argument against that would be that if
your policies cause one those policies should be reviewed and criticized. Yeah,
so it helps to be able to say, in even
a semi concrete way, hey, this isn't working, it's hurting
the economy.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
Right, But yeah, that makes sense, but.
Speaker 1 (33:38):
It's not what the media portrays it to be, some
sort of all encompassing It's not a diagnosis with cancer.
It's just okay, things are not growing, economics or what's
going on.
Speaker 4 (33:49):
If your industry on the entire West Coast is suffering
because of something the weather or whatever, you're in a
recession every bit as much as if they declared a
national recession.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (34:00):
So yeah, I'm not sure that term means that much
to me anymore. What you said makes sense. And again
they changed the definition of it or went with the
specific definition of it when it applied to Joe Biden,
because by the definition we'd all been using our entire
adult lives, we were in a recession, and they.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Didn't want that to be true. Right, yep, what evs?
Speaker 4 (34:25):
Yeah, I know, and I've lived through I can't even
tell you how many in my life, ten twelve, I
don't know, thirty, I don't even know, which is part
of my point. They come and go and we're all fine,
and you know, I don't want it to happen, But
it's not like the end of the world. Well, right,
and there have been upsides, like I've gotten used to
the taste of human flesh. There's been so much cannibalism
(34:47):
eating the recessions. Yeah, it's an old hat for me.
Speaker 1 (34:52):
It's the other white meat, as far as I'm concerned
and reminds me.
Speaker 4 (34:54):
I got an update on that New York Times subway
story that I won't put any more detail on a
man who passed away on the subway and then some
unfortunate things happened.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
Oh no, after his passing. You don't know this story.
Were you here for the story? Maybe you weren't here
from the story. Were you not here from the story?
Was I at the masters? I don't know. You couldn't
have forgotten it. No way you forgot this story.
Speaker 4 (35:17):
Okay, So we'll get through that in hour four, which
is a good reason to mention that if you don't
get our four or any segment, get the podcast Armstrong
and Getty on demand.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
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.