May 14, 2024 • 35 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- More from the Michael Cohen testimony in the Hush Money Trial...
- What are Nocebos?
- Joe brings us a couple of semi-related items...
- The kids are finding music in different ways!
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):
From the Abraham Lincoln Radio studio at the George Washington
Broadcast Center, the.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
California Congressman Democrat the named Alan Lowenthal his wife sold
cheers of Boeing.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
March fifth of twenty twenty.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
The very next day, the committee on which he serves
in the House released a damaging report on the Boeing
seven thirty seven.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Max, Oh my god, what timing you see that? See
the rest of us.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
Only find out about Boeing's problems as we're being sucked
out of the fuselage meg flight to flying out over
the wing. You're flying in the air over the weeks.
So so I don't think they're good. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (00:59):
That's been a long standing problem with the Congress. They
get information before we do about various companies.
Speaker 6 (01:10):
Nancy and her husband have made hundreds of millions of
dollars that way, and many others.
Speaker 5 (01:13):
Yeah, yeah, and everybody was it Elizabeth Warren that was
fighting really hard to get that changed, but nobody would
go along with her. It's somebody I usually don't like that.
I agreed with her on them on this particular point.
And I also understand the other side. So what you're
taking away some sort of I don't have the right
to invest in the stock market if i'm if I
get into Congress for some reason.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Mm hm. You think that's a fair trade.
Speaker 6 (01:39):
It's a bit of a tough nut constitutionally speaking, and
you'd have to have a whole dedicated bureau of hundreds
of people looking into all the allegations.
Speaker 5 (01:52):
Well, right, so I'm I'm a congress person. I'm not
gonna invest, but my wife is, or my wife brother
or my kid.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
I mean, how are you gonna stop that?
Speaker 6 (02:04):
Well, right, or my cousin that I'm close to, Because
you can insist that my wife and I put it
all of our money in a blind trust or what
have you. That's fine, But there are just so many
ways around it, right, I mean, for instance, I don't
know you could. Let's have a politician. We'll call him
politician X. We'll say he's a long, long time senator.
He never gets a salary above and beyond a senator's salary,
(02:27):
but all of a sudden, he's got like four beach houses.
He got him somehow, right, right, Okay, that's that A
joke from the Daily Show with John Stewart. Let's catch
up on what's happening in the hush money trial. Cohen
was on the stand yesterday. Here's a little bit of
the report from NBC.
Speaker 7 (02:44):
Everything required mister Trump's sign off, Cohen told the jury testifying,
mister Trump was furious in twenty sixteen when he learned
Stormy Daniels was still trying to sell her story of
sex with the former president, telling Cohen, I thought you
had this under control. Cohen explaining he'd managed to suppress
Daniel's story years before, but it resurfaced on the heels
(03:07):
of the Access Hollywood take, and Cohen feared if Daniels
went public it would be quote catastrophic for the campaign,
saying mister Trump told him, just take care of it.
This is a disaster. Women are going to hate me.
Guys may think this is cool, but this is going
to be a disaster for the campaign.
Speaker 5 (03:25):
And Trump went on to say, if I lose, it
doesn't matter. I mean, if I win, it doesn't matter anymore.
And if I lose, I don't care, which is true,
but again, this makes it seem like it's about the sex,
and it's not about the sex.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
Who freaking cares? Oh, the trial.
Speaker 6 (03:40):
You mean, yeah, well the trial is not even about
the hush money. There's nothing wrong, all right, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 5 (03:46):
We always ever the analysts on TV and everybody always
gets off track on this whole did he or didn't
he have sex? And did they pay her? Wait a second,
we're off track again. He probably did have sex with her,
he paid her to shut up. All that's perfectly okay.
And other present and have done that. By the way,
some of your favorite presidents U cable news pundits have
done this sort of thing and it doesn't seem to
bother you. So what are we talking about? So there's
(04:09):
that I wanted to get this on. So they played
this clip in court. I guess this is clip thirty seven.
This is Colin and Trump. This is when Cohen was
secretly recording their conversations.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Here's a little bit of it. When it comes time
for the financing, which will be listening, you'll have to
pay Dave came.
Speaker 5 (04:31):
So, as I've been saying today, I feel like I
could go on these cable news shows as a guy
who took one law class in college and hasn't paid
much attention to the trial and do the same thing
they're doing. They're all speculating about a bunch of stuff
or saying exactly what the audience wants to hear. And
there's so many different opinions from supposed experts. I don't
know what to think about this, But I did to
(04:53):
hear one supposed expert say, how do you get up
there and say you you were you were honest with
the guy, you were loyal to him, blah blah blah.
But I recorded his conversations without his knowledge. Does that
hurt your credibility with the jury?
Speaker 1 (05:09):
I don't know. I don't have any idea.
Speaker 6 (05:13):
I have a feeling this is all a giant waste
of time designed to keep Trump off the campaign trail,
and none of the particulars will ultimately matter much, Although
if the jury finds Cohen ridiculously unreliable, then it'll fall
apart here. I've predicted it's going to fall apart anyway,
But this could be the key moment.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Well, are you expecting a quittal or a hung jury?
I don't know. I'd be guessing.
Speaker 5 (05:41):
And if it's a hung jury, I never can remember
how this stuff works out. So if he got seven
people that think Trump's guilty and then five that think
he's not.
Speaker 6 (05:52):
What happens, then the prosecutions, well, the try lands in
a mistrial, and then the prosecution's got to decide whether
to reach try the case or not.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
And do you usually retry it or not? Depends?
Speaker 5 (06:05):
And if I do, how long really know? Would it
take a long time to get it going again?
Speaker 6 (06:09):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Like post election? Almost certainly?
Speaker 6 (06:14):
Yes, I've got to believe decent lawyers would be able
to string it out a little. While I've never and
I'm far from an expert on this, the idea of
like starting again the next week with a different jury,
I don't think you can do that. I think an
acquittal is off the table because I find it hard
to believe there's not at least one of those people
(06:34):
in Trump Hayton Blue New York, who hates Trump so
much there's no way they would acquit him. Yeah, I
could see, like, you know, seven to five, eight to
four in favor of acquittal, hung jury. I suppose if
I had to bet on one thing, that would be it.
Because You're right, there are gonna be some hardcore morons
who don't even listen to the case, don't comprehend the law,
(06:56):
don't care.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
They just hate Trump.
Speaker 6 (06:57):
Hardcore morons. Yes, not your like hobbyist morons. These are
your serious, dedicated morons who.
Speaker 5 (07:07):
So Cohen's testimony yesterday was and this gets into the
sex and the affair that has nothing to do with
the trial, but it's somewhat interesting from their personal life standpoint.
Cohen's testimony was that this was all about the election.
Of course, he has to say that to make this
case work, that he was hiding this for election purposes,
(07:28):
not because of his family. Trump is trying to claim
one he didn't have sex with the woman, but he
didn't want this story coming out because it would damage
his marriage, which is a believable thing. But Cohen said yesterday, no,
it was all about the election. And he never even
brought up Malanny. He didn't seem to care about that
at all. And she's the one that came up with
the term locker room talk to cover up the Access
(07:49):
Hollywood tape, So she seems to be aware of his lifestyle,
which sounds.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Believable to me.
Speaker 6 (07:55):
Sure, yeah, yeah. He also don't do it in public,
don't embarrass me. He also told Cohen about uh. Cohen
said something about it, what if Malania finds out and
leaves you or something like Hey, he said, can you
how long do you think I'd be on the market
if I were out there? Trump said, so, I guess
that was a I can find other hot chicks that
(08:16):
will be with me, which is also true. This was
an interesting piece of analysis that I hadn't heard anywhere else.
This was on Jake Tapper's show on CNN where this
former prosecutor got into the because every other expert I've
heard said, Cohen, why would you even put Cohen on
the stand. It's a bad idea. He's unbelievable. He's lied
(08:37):
so many times, he's gone to jail, He's a known perjurer.
No jury trusts a perjurer. Blah blah blah.
Speaker 5 (08:42):
Weh.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
This is what this prosecutor said.
Speaker 8 (08:43):
And the one line that sticks out to me is,
just like Nike, just do it. And that was the
theme that Donald Trump gave to Michael Cohen, just do
what you need to do. I think the prosecution was
essential and crucial to Michael Cohen because they finally provided
that that Donald Trump authorized these payments, and the payments
(09:04):
were for the purposes of affecting that campaign of the
purposes of paying lost Stormy Daniels because they knew that
story will affect the campaign. So Michael Cohen did deliver.
But again this is only direct examination.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
We have to see how he.
Speaker 8 (09:17):
Stands up doing cross examination. I'm not concerned about his
prior record. It hasn't come in yet yet, but I
know when it does come in. I'm never concerned with
that because I put on witnesses with criminal record longer
than my arm, being a fromer prosecute of sixteen years.
So just do it. That's the line of the day.
Speaker 5 (09:33):
Yeah, that was just that last part that I cared
about of her saying I put on people with a
record longer than my arm.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
The whole they have a prior record doesn't matter.
Speaker 5 (09:41):
So she's the only person I've heard say that all
the other supposed experts so that the jury is gonna
have a hard time believing him. She's saying, I do
it all the time. It's fine. Do you know which
is it more accurate?
Speaker 6 (09:53):
I wouldn't say it's fine, I say the jury is
more skeptical of somebody like that.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
But I could see her point from it.
Speaker 5 (10:02):
When you're going after a criminal, I'm not saying Donald
Trump is in this case. But like if you're bringing
down a mobster or gang leader or anything like that,
there's tons of people that are going to be testifying.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
Are also crooks?
Speaker 6 (10:15):
Oh yeah, true, Yeah, I've heard folks involved in the
judicial process.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
It's a very very dry joke.
Speaker 6 (10:22):
But they say, what do you call somebody who lies
under oath in court? The answer is a witness, because
everybody lies all the time. Not everybody, but it might.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
As well be. But yeah, they'll pay extra scrutiny to coin.
Speaker 6 (10:38):
But the one thing that caught my ear that she
was talking about was that the expenditure was clearly for
the campaign to shut up Stormy. It wasn't a protect Molnia.
But there are precedents, including the famous John Edwards case,
that it has to be an expenditure that never would
have happened were they're not a campaign and it and
(11:00):
you can't explain it by any means other than it's
for the campaign. And that expenditure that we're talking about
fails both tests, which is why Alvin Bragg's predecessor passed
on the charges. The sec or, I'm sorry, the FEC,
the Federal Election Commission took a look at it and said,
we're not charging this. But Alvin effing Bragg pardon me,
(11:23):
who ran on, I'm gonna get Trump for something, decided
to go with this.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
This whole trial is a joke.
Speaker 5 (11:31):
I'd forgotten all about John Edward. Yes, so he bought
a baby mama a house, right.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Oh that's right. I should have explained it.
Speaker 6 (11:37):
Yeah, his supporters bought her a Heidi house with John
Edwards love child, so she could live there and he
could go and visit them, but not publicly. But it
was argued that well, yeah, that was to avoid humiliating
his wife and bringing public disrepute on him just as
a guy. Yes, he was also running, you know, it
was kind of for that, but it's also for the personal.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
And he won that case and they had mountainous evidence.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
Right Yeah, I mean that one was pretty pretty.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Over the top.
Speaker 6 (12:11):
I am the one big Trump fan and this case
is a well, a joke is a poor way to
put it, because it's really a terrible, terrible precedent.
Speaker 5 (12:20):
Yeah, well I want to get this on again. This
is Fared Zakaria. I mean, who is I hardly ever
agree with? On CNN over the weekend talking about the.
Speaker 9 (12:26):
Case, Republicans seem to be uniting behind Trump. Whatever opposition
he faced in the primaries has largely melted away, and
the trials against him keep him in the spotlight, infuriate
his base, who sees him as a martyr, and even
may serve to make him the object of some sympathy
among people in general who believe that his prosecutors are
(12:48):
politically motivated. This happens to be true in my opinion.
I doubt the New York indictment would have been brought
against a defendant whose name was not Donald Trump.
Speaker 5 (12:57):
If Faried Zakaria is saying, this case wouldn't have been
brought against somebody not named Trump, that's all you need
to know.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
I would agree. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (13:06):
And a number of people on the left have said
that and everybody on the right, and they're correct. Yeah,
you're right. It's bad for the country. It's really a
bad precedent.
Speaker 6 (13:15):
Man.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
We do not want to go down this road. No,
it would be way too easy for this sort of
thing to happen over and over.
Speaker 5 (13:21):
Again every election. Absolutely, you could see both of them
in a courtroom the whole time. It's just absolutely awful.
Any thoughts text line four one five two nine five kftcar.
They're the opposite of placebos. They're calling them no cibos.
(13:45):
To tell so, a placebo is a they didn't actually
give you any medicine to help your thing, but you
kind of think you did. These no cebos, as they're
talking about in the New York Times, is everybody talking
about a mental illness that doesn't exist, and you claiming
you have it when it isn't ever really a thing.
(14:06):
Oh and how it's become so popular on TikTok in
various places. In this New York Times opinion piece about
this article which I haven't read yet, it's called high
functioning anxiety. Isn't a medical diagnos it's it's a hashtag,
is the name of the article. And it's how on TikTok, like,
for instance, this particular thing has taken off and so
(14:27):
lots of young people. TikTok has become the new web
MD for the younger crowd and the Okay, there's a
whole bunch of information floating around. It's not based in anything.
But then so you just start walking around, see I'm
a high functioning anxiety when it's not a.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Look at me, I'm special I deserve attention. It does.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
It doesn't exist anywhere, but there are enough videos on
TikTok of people saying these are the signs that you're
a high functioning anxiety. That's why they're calling it a
no sebo So it's the no sebo effect. It's convincing
you you have something you don't based on nothing.
Speaker 6 (15:04):
This experiment is horrible and immoral and probably disastrous. But
to see how quickly children can be swept up into
mass psychosis and then come out of it again is unbelievable.
Speaker 5 (15:19):
Do you often procrastinate on tasks? Do you ever obsess?
Do you ever obsess over awkward interactions?
Speaker 8 (15:25):
Yes?
Speaker 5 (15:26):
I do. Do you identify as a perfectionist or have
a type A personality? If so, then you might have
high functioning anxiety, at least according to TikTok. The New
Age web MD says The New York Times, Ah, this
is a problem. I mean, this isn't the first time
we've talked about this, The convincing all young people have something.
Speaker 10 (15:47):
You have, thought, Katie, there's a trend going around right now.
Where you go, there's several people in the walk through
like a courtyard of a school, and they say, I'm Katie,
and I insert some form of symptom of anxiety or
ADHD or whatever, and I do this, and they make
it almost like you're sitting there relating to them, and
(16:09):
you're trying to find ways to relate to them.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
It's a real weird mind game, right.
Speaker 6 (16:15):
Yeah, that's at the root of a lot of the
six stuff that kids are getting swipped up in is
just a question of community and belonging.
Speaker 5 (16:22):
And they talk about it being a self flilling prophecy.
If you think you have a mental illness, you start
to feel more and more anxious or depressed or whatever
if you keep talking about it.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
Of course. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (16:32):
But the part of the idea, and I appreciate the
New York Times saying this, is that after in their theory,
too many decades of people hiding real mental illness, now
we've gone overboard the other direction with like creat everybody's
got you've got some sort of what's your mental illness?
Speaker 1 (16:46):
We all have to have ones or special right.
Speaker 6 (16:50):
Yeah, there's a huge, huge helping of that, plus the
whole I'm trying to hide it. In other words, if
you're really anxious and you think, all right, I got
to keep calm. I don't want to freak out in
front of everybody. I gotta keep calm. It's gonna be okay.
As if that's a bad thing. Now, if you're seriously
mentally ill and you're covering it up, no, I'm in
favor of you getting help. But the idea that every
(17:11):
little quirk and flaw and momentary mood needs to be
elevated into a syndrome and talked about, no, shut up,
do your job, armstrong and getty.
Speaker 8 (17:24):
Go.
Speaker 5 (17:24):
One quick follow up to the conversation we just had
about TikTok being the new web MD for young people
and everybody having to come up with a diagnosis of
something you've got because not having something, I guess would
make you uncool. At the same time, young people are
killing themselves at an extraordinarily high rate, multiples higher than
anything that's ever happened before. And killing yourself is proof
(17:46):
that something's wrong, I would agree, one hundred percent.
Speaker 6 (17:51):
It's also an expression of pain and a look at me.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
I'm serious, not to discounted.
Speaker 6 (18:00):
Of course, it's tragic, but I think it all is related.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
Sure.
Speaker 6 (18:06):
Speaking of all being related, there are a couple of
things going on in this segment, and they're sort of
kind of related. And if you gave me about one
more minute, I could probably come up with a framework
that would make me sound smart. But I haven't bothered,
So I'll just bring them to you and I'll kind
of deal our way.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
Time. Who's got that time?
Speaker 6 (18:23):
It's the Go Go twenty first century. So a couple
of things going on. First of all, never forget this
about politics. The idea is to get yourself power and
thereby gain the keys to the treasury. Now we go
through various, you know, charades in our society where you
have to pass laws or what have you. But the example,
(18:45):
the executive branch has enormous, enormous leeway in who gets
grants and who doesn't, what projects get funded, that sort
of thing. And of course Congress does too. But you've
got the article in the Wall Street Journal that I
thought was so interesting. The federal government, with some help
(19:05):
from the state of Calnicornia, is going to build a
subway extension to the South San Francisco Bay aka Silicon Valley.
It's six miles and it's going to cost allegedly almost
thirteen billion dollars. Now, those of us who are familiar
with transportation around the Bay Area of San Francisco. Bay
(19:28):
Area are like, wait a minute, doesn't the cow train
already run there above ground?
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (19:33):
It does, and there are also there's also a huge
system of public buses, So this is going to be
entirely redundant.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
Mostly they are mostly empty public buses.
Speaker 6 (19:43):
Yeah, exactly, but they're going to build this nonetheless, two
point one billion dollars per mile. They mentioned one of
the problems is that there's such a shortage of skilled
labor in the Bay Area, in the country, they've got
a way overspent. So this is a perfect example of
you get the keys to the treasury, then you spread
them money around to people you know who will always
support you. It works the same in a democracy in
(20:06):
essence as it does in a dictatorship. You get the
keys to the treasury, you spread money around to people
who will always support you. Just the way it unfolds
is different in a democracy. So never forget that. I
thought that was interesting, speaking of California. Now we're getting
into the second topic, which is related, and that's the
(20:26):
flattening of science, of the world, of everything it used
to be. There are hierarchies, you're a rock and roll band.
The only way people are going to hear you on
a massive scale is if a record company decides to
take a chance on you, sign you to a deal
and promote you. And a tiny fraction of bands ever
got there. Now you can discover a band on YouTube,
but there are a million and six of them, and
(20:49):
so you got to sort through a lot more. There
are pluses and minuses to the whole flattening thing. Same
is true though with other things like science and scientific
papers and journals and you becoming a kind of a
personality on TikTok talking about say climate change or something
like that. There's no hierarchy, there's no earning your way
(21:10):
to that visibility. You just are there because you're charming
or handsome or a big boobs or whatever it is.
Speaker 5 (21:15):
I wouldn't say there's no earning your way there. I
think by definition it earns you or your way there.
What's that if you stand out as being like the
successful among them? Or maybe I misunderstood you. But oh
I'm here right about the top.
Speaker 6 (21:30):
Popular science pop science, which is an entirely different thing.
I mean, like Neil deGrasse Tyson, he's nothing, He's a dope.
Bill ny the science guy, he's a personality anyway. There's
a coalition of sixteen hundred actual scientists who've written a
(21:50):
letter to the state of California, including the well especially
the California Air Resources Board, and they're saying there is
no climate crisis. I just find that quote. California is
in no danger of unusual drought. The annual precipitation California
has fluctuated greatly over the last one hundred and fifty years.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
With only a slight decrease.
Speaker 6 (22:10):
It's also, according to the lowest level of air pollution,
well below the threshold of human health effect.
Speaker 1 (22:16):
There is not too much CO two. It's just fine.
Speaker 6 (22:19):
There is no climate crisis in California, says this group
of sixteen hundred scientists.
Speaker 5 (22:24):
And if there's not in California, I gotta believe there's
not for the rest of the states either.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
And I could break this down.
Speaker 6 (22:30):
I mean, they go into a great deal of detail
and all sorts of it's a point by point discussion
of the CO two and the levels and the rainfall
and the snowfall and the temperatures and the rest of it.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
But that is their point.
Speaker 5 (22:41):
Well, remember every year I feel like this happens, and
it was in one of your the surprising newspaper New
York Times, Washington posts something like that that they did
the end of the hurricane season thing where they laid out,
you know, and actually wasn't a worse hurricane season, even
though everybody starts the story climate change when they start
talking about the big hurricane, it was number of hurricanes
within the band of normal that have always existed exactly.
(23:05):
And back to me tying all of this together, there
is a tremendous amount of money being spent right now,
billions and billions, trillions of dollars eventually on expenditures that
are justified by scientific findings about climate change, green energy,
(23:26):
whatever clendraw on down the line, just zillions of dollars
being spent on alleged scientific bases by Democrats, in particular
to buy the support of people who will always support them,
like in academia, for instance, or in the green energy world.
How many big green energy CEOs are going to say, hey,
(23:46):
and remember a vote Republican because they're better stewards of
your tax dollars, Zero of them. How many academics, how
many college presidents are saying that they're well, it's be
inappropriate anyway. But how many heads of departments in universe
are saying, hey, vote Republican because you know they're less
likely to blah blah blah. No, they all want the
money to continue to flow in their direction. That's what
(24:08):
it's all about, which brings me to the final story.
This also happens to be the Wall Street Journal today.
Flood of fake science forces multiple journal closures. Wiley, which
is one of the big publishers of scientific journals. If
you were in the field, you would know their name, but.
Speaker 6 (24:26):
They are going to close nineteen journals to read the
lead paragraph. Fake studies have flooded the publishers of top
scientific journals, leading to thousands of retractions and millions of
dollars in lost revenues. The biggest hit has come to Wiley,
a two hundred and seventeen year old publisher, but be
based in Hoboken, New Jersey, where my grandfather and grandmother
(24:48):
got married many years ago, which Tuesday will announce that
it is closing nineteen journals, some of which were infected
by large scale research fraud. In the past two years,
Wiley has retracted more than e seven three hundred papers
that appeared compromise. According to a spokesperson Slowdown Joe spokesperson,
it isn't alone. At least two other publishers have retracted
(25:11):
hundreds of suspect papers each. Several others have pulled smaller
clusters of bad papers, and this threatens the legitimacy of
the nearly thirty billion dollar academic publishing industry and the
credibility of science as a whole. Wow, what's going to
fix this problem? Ah, that is a great question. It
(25:34):
could be that their goalies aren't up to defending the
goal or the journal against the onslaught of high tech
fakery and fraud. The sources of the fake science is
worth mentioning. Are these so called paper mills. Businesses are
individuals that, for a price, will list a scientist as
(25:55):
an author of a holy or parsley fabricated paper. The
mill then submits the work, generally of avoiding the most
prestigious journals in favor of publications such as one off
special editions that might not undergo a thorough or review
and who have a better chance of getting their bogus
work published. World over, scientists are under pressure to constantly
publish in peer review journals, sometimes to win grants, other
times as conditions for promotions. This motivates people to cheat
(26:18):
the system. Many journals charge a fee to authors to
publish them in so they're in on it. So thousands
and thousands of papers that maybe you've heard about in
recent years are complete fake jobs. It's a terrible, terrible
infection in the world of scientific study.
Speaker 5 (26:34):
So I think that might be the next annoying elite
thing to fall. So the ivy leagues have fallen in
terms of their prestige, and this has been the whole
publishing papers thing has been nibbled at for like a
decade now of the what do they call that, the
reproduction issue whatever it is.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
Oh yeah, you can't reproduce the study if you try.
Speaker 5 (26:59):
Yeah no, These studies come out and nobody can ever
get the get that same result again. But and finding
out that whatever it is, ninety five percent of them
are never read and all that different sort of stuff.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
This whole thing needs.
Speaker 6 (27:10):
To blow up, right, And so my point, the overarching
point is just that there is a tremendous, I mean
an incomprehensible amount of money being spent on so called
climate stuff based on papers that may well be fake anyway,
but it's oceans of money spent justified by these fake ri.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
Rising hot oceans of money.
Speaker 6 (27:33):
You know, I'll dip my toe in the ocean in
the afternoon unless you know what I find out tomorrow.
I have a feeling it'll be just like the last
time I did.
Speaker 1 (27:41):
Hot a shear in the history of the Earth last
year or something, right or not?
Speaker 6 (27:44):
And you read that in this peer reviewed paper, did you.
There's some your hockey sticks and all, all right.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
Fine, how dare you?
Speaker 5 (27:53):
I probably should sometime look into climate change, as I've
mentioned many times for the years. For whatever reason, I've
never looked into this. I just it's just one topic.
There are so many topics I've done deep dives on,
like really weird topics, like over the weekend, the amount
of time I spent on the Israeli Palestinian peace process
(28:14):
and all the different accords and summits, and the hours
of documentaries and stuff like that while I was laid
up for my motorcycle wreck. I've never looked into climate change.
I just don't care.
Speaker 6 (28:25):
Here's my four part four part climate change manifesto. One
the Climate's always changing. Two, mankind might be causing some
incremental change in the climate. Three, it would take a
massive global effort to do anything about it, even incrementally,
for that will never happen, So quit bothering me.
Speaker 5 (28:43):
Well that's yeah, that is exactly that's the process.
Speaker 1 (28:45):
Call your parka, buy some shorts. That is the process
that got me too.
Speaker 5 (28:51):
I've never looked into it because unless you're gonna get
China and India on board, you ain't gonna do anything
about it anyway. And you aren't gonna get China and
India on board.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
So the end. Stop wasting my time. But we should
be a leader and set an example.
Speaker 5 (29:06):
Why so we can destroy our economy and they can
get ahead of us. I, as a governor of say,
a state that rhymes with Blifornia, can funnel enormous amounts
of money to people who will always support me and
my party.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
He laughed, I laughed.
Speaker 5 (29:27):
Or how I, as an individual can just like feel
superior to everybody else by driving an electric car and
having an electric lawnmower and whatever else you write?
Speaker 1 (29:38):
Oh, yeah, absolutely true, Yeah, whoop do do?
Speaker 5 (29:42):
How dare you.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Again?
Speaker 5 (29:46):
There's something the other day about how many coal plants
they're building in China as we, as Biden vowed to
take ours offline. They're gonna build like three times as
many as we're gonna shut down, and like the next year,
right right.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
So go ahead, feel superior.
Speaker 6 (30:03):
As Jack knows, I commute in an eighteen wheeler and
my lawnmower runs on shark fins.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
So good luck, y'all.
Speaker 5 (30:14):
Exactly any thoughts are we got to get back into
this new chat GPT four This is a big deal,
the latest chat GPT.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
It's got some cool stuff.
Speaker 5 (30:25):
And also when he thoughts on any of this text
line four one five nine kftc Armstrong.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
And my youngest blasts.
Speaker 5 (30:37):
This song out of his room practically every day.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
He loves the classic.
Speaker 5 (30:41):
Rocks Alexa play me Life's Been Good by Joe Walsh.
That's his pump up song for football games. Life's Been
Good by Joe Wow. And my other son is all
hip hop all the time. I mean he's all he's
only eminem and a bunch of other people that I
don't know anyway, kids are of course, of your twelve
(31:05):
year old also has warm memories of the coke fueled
heyday of the nineteen seventies, when Joe Walsh was staggering
down the boulevard with a nose full of blow. You
know it's there is a cool experience. I'm sure you've
had this, having kids hear a song, a classic song,
for the first time, and having it hooked them the
(31:27):
same way it hooked you years and years ago. Because
a really good song is a really good song.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (31:33):
I remember when my youngest was a freshman at college eight.
I mentioned this on the air. She texted me, Hey, Dad,
you know it's a really great song. I texted back
what she said, the Joker Steve Miller band, and I'm like, yeah,
that is a really great song.
Speaker 5 (31:48):
Yeah, cool, that is awesome. We got this text about
the whole climate change thing. It's so hard to find
the truth about climate change, which matches every other issue
affecting us, kind of like the scientific paper debacle you
just mentioned. Who knows what the truth is? Welcome to
post Mardernia, friends. Yeah, And I love that term because
that's what I've been coming across a lot.
Speaker 8 (32:08):
Is.
Speaker 5 (32:08):
I've been doing all this research on Neo Marxism and
the Frankfurt School, and we're all the super SI, but
this whole modernism and then postmodernism came out of the
art world, and then the intellectuals and all of it together.
But just like art got ruined, everything got ruined, and
(32:29):
nothing is real or what it used to be, and
everything I torn apart, and it's just what.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
I don't know what we're doing. That's a good question.
What are we doing? What are we doing? Anyway?
Speaker 5 (32:44):
Yeah, this might take us to the next level down
or fixates turtles all.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
The way down.
Speaker 5 (32:50):
The new chat GPT four oh, that is just being released.
And so I was on their website and they did
this demo, the new chat GPT four. Oh not only
can it like you remember the first one. It was
so exciting. You could type something and then it would
hit you back with some words. Well then you can
talk to it. Well, now it's visual, audio and textual
(33:11):
having a conversation. And here's this guy. He's about to share.
He's doing some coding on a screen. He's going to
show the share the visual of the coding with chat
GPT and I'll I'll just play it for a while.
Speaker 1 (33:21):
Let you hear how it goes here.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
Heychat GPT, Hey there, how's it going? Yeah, it's going
really well. I was wondering if you could help me
with coding prom today.
Speaker 11 (33:33):
Of course, I'd love to help you out. What's the
coding problem you're dealing with.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
Okay, I'm going to share with you some code. One second,
so I just highlights it on the screen and sends it.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
To her to her, Okay, so I just shared some
code with you. Could you give me a really brief,
one sentence description of what's going on in the code.
Speaker 11 (33:51):
This code fetches daily weather data for a specific location
and time period, smooths the temperature data using a rolling
average an it tates a significant weather event on the
resulting plot.
Speaker 5 (34:03):
And so that was a page page of really complicated
code that I obviously don't understand, and everything like that.
Speaker 1 (34:10):
The chet GPT in that amount of.
Speaker 5 (34:12):
Time, looking at it like a screenshot, figured out what
it was, and.
Speaker 6 (34:18):
Described everything it was doing, including the rolling average part.
Speaker 5 (34:22):
WAW, And then he asked questions like if I want
to blody blah bloody bla a little more this or
that it fixes the code for him or updates.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
It or enhances it or whatever. Yeah, it's just mind
blowing where this is headed.
Speaker 5 (34:38):
Now that it can like look at you, I would
guess that it's already here, but we're days away from
you know, maybe you stand in front of your computer naked,
what would look good on me?
Speaker 1 (34:50):
Like, what style? What's style? Closing? Give it up a salad,
would you? I'll put.
Speaker 5 (35:01):
You should try a salad first, but that could certainly
happen to take a look at you and thinking these
are the kind of glasses that would look best on you,
or this is a hat that would be flattering on you,
or whatever.
Speaker 6 (35:11):
Three word prediction for where this is all going to
lead never ending rampant cyber attacks. Hey Chat, GPT, write
me code to screw up this business's computers.
Speaker 5 (35:26):
Oh right, Armstrong and Getty
From the Abraham Lincoln Radio studio at the George Washington
Broadcast Center, the.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
California Congressman Democrat the named Alan Lowenthal his wife sold
cheers of Boeing.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
March fifth of twenty twenty.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
The very next day, the committee on which he serves
in the House released a damaging report on the Boeing
seven thirty seven.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Max, Oh my god, what timing you see that? See
the rest of us.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
Only find out about Boeing's problems as we're being sucked
out of the fuselage meg flight to flying out over
the wing. You're flying in the air over the weeks.
So so I don't think they're good. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (00:59):
That's been a long standing problem with the Congress. They
get information before we do about various companies.
Speaker 6 (01:10):
Nancy and her husband have made hundreds of millions of
dollars that way, and many others.
Speaker 5 (01:13):
Yeah, yeah, and everybody was it Elizabeth Warren that was
fighting really hard to get that changed, but nobody would
go along with her. It's somebody I usually don't like that.
I agreed with her on them on this particular point.
And I also understand the other side. So what you're
taking away some sort of I don't have the right
to invest in the stock market if i'm if I
get into Congress for some reason.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
Mm hm. You think that's a fair trade.
Speaker 6 (01:39):
It's a bit of a tough nut constitutionally speaking, and
you'd have to have a whole dedicated bureau of hundreds
of people looking into all the allegations.
Speaker 5 (01:52):
Well, right, so I'm I'm a congress person. I'm not
gonna invest, but my wife is, or my wife brother
or my kid.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
I mean, how are you gonna stop that?
Speaker 6 (02:04):
Well, right, or my cousin that I'm close to, Because
you can insist that my wife and I put it
all of our money in a blind trust or what
have you. That's fine, But there are just so many
ways around it, right, I mean, for instance, I don't
know you could. Let's have a politician. We'll call him
politician X. We'll say he's a long, long time senator.
He never gets a salary above and beyond a senator's salary,
(02:27):
but all of a sudden, he's got like four beach houses.
He got him somehow, right, right, Okay, that's that A
joke from the Daily Show with John Stewart. Let's catch
up on what's happening in the hush money trial. Cohen
was on the stand yesterday. Here's a little bit of
the report from NBC.
Speaker 7 (02:44):
Everything required mister Trump's sign off, Cohen told the jury testifying,
mister Trump was furious in twenty sixteen when he learned
Stormy Daniels was still trying to sell her story of
sex with the former president, telling Cohen, I thought you
had this under control. Cohen explaining he'd managed to suppress
Daniel's story years before, but it resurfaced on the heels
(03:07):
of the Access Hollywood take, and Cohen feared if Daniels
went public it would be quote catastrophic for the campaign,
saying mister Trump told him, just take care of it.
This is a disaster. Women are going to hate me.
Guys may think this is cool, but this is going
to be a disaster for the campaign.
Speaker 5 (03:25):
And Trump went on to say, if I lose, it
doesn't matter. I mean, if I win, it doesn't matter anymore.
And if I lose, I don't care, which is true,
but again, this makes it seem like it's about the sex,
and it's not about the sex.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
Who freaking cares? Oh, the trial.
Speaker 6 (03:40):
You mean, yeah, well the trial is not even about
the hush money. There's nothing wrong, all right, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 5 (03:46):
We always ever the analysts on TV and everybody always
gets off track on this whole did he or didn't
he have sex? And did they pay her? Wait a second,
we're off track again. He probably did have sex with her,
he paid her to shut up. All that's perfectly okay.
And other present and have done that. By the way,
some of your favorite presidents U cable news pundits have
done this sort of thing and it doesn't seem to
bother you. So what are we talking about? So there's
(04:09):
that I wanted to get this on. So they played
this clip in court. I guess this is clip thirty seven.
This is Colin and Trump. This is when Cohen was
secretly recording their conversations.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Here's a little bit of it. When it comes time
for the financing, which will be listening, you'll have to
pay Dave came.
Speaker 5 (04:31):
So, as I've been saying today, I feel like I
could go on these cable news shows as a guy
who took one law class in college and hasn't paid
much attention to the trial and do the same thing
they're doing. They're all speculating about a bunch of stuff
or saying exactly what the audience wants to hear. And
there's so many different opinions from supposed experts. I don't
know what to think about this, But I did to
(04:53):
hear one supposed expert say, how do you get up
there and say you you were you were honest with
the guy, you were loyal to him, blah blah blah.
But I recorded his conversations without his knowledge. Does that
hurt your credibility with the jury?
Speaker 1 (05:09):
I don't know. I don't have any idea.
Speaker 6 (05:13):
I have a feeling this is all a giant waste
of time designed to keep Trump off the campaign trail,
and none of the particulars will ultimately matter much, Although
if the jury finds Cohen ridiculously unreliable, then it'll fall
apart here. I've predicted it's going to fall apart anyway,
But this could be the key moment.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Well, are you expecting a quittal or a hung jury?
I don't know. I'd be guessing.
Speaker 5 (05:41):
And if it's a hung jury, I never can remember
how this stuff works out. So if he got seven
people that think Trump's guilty and then five that think
he's not.
Speaker 6 (05:52):
What happens, then the prosecutions, well, the try lands in
a mistrial, and then the prosecution's got to decide whether
to reach try the case or not.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
And do you usually retry it or not? Depends?
Speaker 5 (06:05):
And if I do, how long really know? Would it
take a long time to get it going again?
Speaker 6 (06:09):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Like post election? Almost certainly?
Speaker 6 (06:14):
Yes, I've got to believe decent lawyers would be able
to string it out a little. While I've never and
I'm far from an expert on this, the idea of
like starting again the next week with a different jury,
I don't think you can do that. I think an
acquittal is off the table because I find it hard
to believe there's not at least one of those people
(06:34):
in Trump Hayton Blue New York, who hates Trump so
much there's no way they would acquit him. Yeah, I
could see, like, you know, seven to five, eight to
four in favor of acquittal, hung jury. I suppose if
I had to bet on one thing, that would be it.
Because You're right, there are gonna be some hardcore morons
who don't even listen to the case, don't comprehend the law,
(06:56):
don't care.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
They just hate Trump.
Speaker 6 (06:57):
Hardcore morons. Yes, not your like hobbyist morons. These are
your serious, dedicated morons who.
Speaker 5 (07:07):
So Cohen's testimony yesterday was and this gets into the
sex and the affair that has nothing to do with
the trial, but it's somewhat interesting from their personal life standpoint.
Cohen's testimony was that this was all about the election.
Of course, he has to say that to make this
case work, that he was hiding this for election purposes,
(07:28):
not because of his family. Trump is trying to claim
one he didn't have sex with the woman, but he
didn't want this story coming out because it would damage
his marriage, which is a believable thing. But Cohen said yesterday, no,
it was all about the election. And he never even
brought up Malanny. He didn't seem to care about that
at all. And she's the one that came up with
the term locker room talk to cover up the Access
(07:49):
Hollywood tape, So she seems to be aware of his lifestyle,
which sounds.
Speaker 1 (07:54):
Believable to me.
Speaker 6 (07:55):
Sure, yeah, yeah. He also don't do it in public,
don't embarrass me. He also told Cohen about uh. Cohen
said something about it, what if Malania finds out and
leaves you or something like Hey, he said, can you
how long do you think I'd be on the market
if I were out there? Trump said, so, I guess
that was a I can find other hot chicks that
(08:16):
will be with me, which is also true. This was
an interesting piece of analysis that I hadn't heard anywhere else.
This was on Jake Tapper's show on CNN where this
former prosecutor got into the because every other expert I've
heard said, Cohen, why would you even put Cohen on
the stand. It's a bad idea. He's unbelievable. He's lied
(08:37):
so many times, he's gone to jail, He's a known perjurer.
No jury trusts a perjurer. Blah blah blah.
Speaker 5 (08:42):
Weh.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
This is what this prosecutor said.
Speaker 8 (08:43):
And the one line that sticks out to me is,
just like Nike, just do it. And that was the
theme that Donald Trump gave to Michael Cohen, just do
what you need to do. I think the prosecution was
essential and crucial to Michael Cohen because they finally provided
that that Donald Trump authorized these payments, and the payments
(09:04):
were for the purposes of affecting that campaign of the
purposes of paying lost Stormy Daniels because they knew that
story will affect the campaign. So Michael Cohen did deliver.
But again this is only direct examination.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
We have to see how he.
Speaker 8 (09:17):
Stands up doing cross examination. I'm not concerned about his
prior record. It hasn't come in yet yet, but I
know when it does come in. I'm never concerned with
that because I put on witnesses with criminal record longer
than my arm, being a fromer prosecute of sixteen years.
So just do it. That's the line of the day.
Speaker 5 (09:33):
Yeah, that was just that last part that I cared
about of her saying I put on people with a
record longer than my arm.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
The whole they have a prior record doesn't matter.
Speaker 5 (09:41):
So she's the only person I've heard say that all
the other supposed experts so that the jury is gonna
have a hard time believing him. She's saying, I do
it all the time. It's fine. Do you know which
is it more accurate?
Speaker 6 (09:53):
I wouldn't say it's fine, I say the jury is
more skeptical of somebody like that.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
But I could see her point from it.
Speaker 5 (10:02):
When you're going after a criminal, I'm not saying Donald
Trump is in this case. But like if you're bringing
down a mobster or gang leader or anything like that,
there's tons of people that are going to be testifying.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
Are also crooks?
Speaker 6 (10:15):
Oh yeah, true, Yeah, I've heard folks involved in the
judicial process.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
It's a very very dry joke.
Speaker 6 (10:22):
But they say, what do you call somebody who lies
under oath in court? The answer is a witness, because
everybody lies all the time. Not everybody, but it might.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
As well be. But yeah, they'll pay extra scrutiny to coin.
Speaker 6 (10:38):
But the one thing that caught my ear that she
was talking about was that the expenditure was clearly for
the campaign to shut up Stormy. It wasn't a protect Molnia.
But there are precedents, including the famous John Edwards case,
that it has to be an expenditure that never would
have happened were they're not a campaign and it and
(11:00):
you can't explain it by any means other than it's
for the campaign. And that expenditure that we're talking about
fails both tests, which is why Alvin Bragg's predecessor passed
on the charges. The sec or, I'm sorry, the FEC,
the Federal Election Commission took a look at it and said,
we're not charging this. But Alvin effing Bragg pardon me,
(11:23):
who ran on, I'm gonna get Trump for something, decided
to go with this.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
This whole trial is a joke.
Speaker 5 (11:31):
I'd forgotten all about John Edward. Yes, so he bought
a baby mama a house, right.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Oh that's right. I should have explained it.
Speaker 6 (11:37):
Yeah, his supporters bought her a Heidi house with John
Edwards love child, so she could live there and he
could go and visit them, but not publicly. But it
was argued that well, yeah, that was to avoid humiliating
his wife and bringing public disrepute on him just as
a guy. Yes, he was also running, you know, it
was kind of for that, but it's also for the personal.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
And he won that case and they had mountainous evidence.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
Right Yeah, I mean that one was pretty pretty.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Over the top.
Speaker 6 (12:11):
I am the one big Trump fan and this case
is a well, a joke is a poor way to
put it, because it's really a terrible, terrible precedent.
Speaker 5 (12:20):
Yeah, well I want to get this on again. This
is Fared Zakaria. I mean, who is I hardly ever
agree with? On CNN over the weekend talking about the.
Speaker 9 (12:26):
Case, Republicans seem to be uniting behind Trump. Whatever opposition
he faced in the primaries has largely melted away, and
the trials against him keep him in the spotlight, infuriate
his base, who sees him as a martyr, and even
may serve to make him the object of some sympathy
among people in general who believe that his prosecutors are
(12:48):
politically motivated. This happens to be true in my opinion.
I doubt the New York indictment would have been brought
against a defendant whose name was not Donald Trump.
Speaker 5 (12:57):
If Faried Zakaria is saying, this case wouldn't have been
brought against somebody not named Trump, that's all you need
to know.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
I would agree. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (13:06):
And a number of people on the left have said
that and everybody on the right, and they're correct. Yeah,
you're right. It's bad for the country. It's really a
bad precedent.
Speaker 6 (13:15):
Man.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
We do not want to go down this road. No,
it would be way too easy for this sort of
thing to happen over and over.
Speaker 5 (13:21):
Again every election. Absolutely, you could see both of them
in a courtroom the whole time. It's just absolutely awful.
Any thoughts text line four one five two nine five kftcar.
They're the opposite of placebos. They're calling them no cibos.
(13:45):
To tell so, a placebo is a they didn't actually
give you any medicine to help your thing, but you
kind of think you did. These no cebos, as they're
talking about in the New York Times, is everybody talking
about a mental illness that doesn't exist, and you claiming
you have it when it isn't ever really a thing.
(14:06):
Oh and how it's become so popular on TikTok in
various places. In this New York Times opinion piece about
this article which I haven't read yet, it's called high
functioning anxiety. Isn't a medical diagnos it's it's a hashtag,
is the name of the article. And it's how on TikTok, like,
for instance, this particular thing has taken off and so
(14:27):
lots of young people. TikTok has become the new web
MD for the younger crowd and the Okay, there's a
whole bunch of information floating around. It's not based in anything.
But then so you just start walking around, see I'm
a high functioning anxiety when it's not a.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Look at me, I'm special I deserve attention. It does.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
It doesn't exist anywhere, but there are enough videos on
TikTok of people saying these are the signs that you're
a high functioning anxiety. That's why they're calling it a
no sebo So it's the no sebo effect. It's convincing
you you have something you don't based on nothing.
Speaker 6 (15:04):
This experiment is horrible and immoral and probably disastrous. But
to see how quickly children can be swept up into
mass psychosis and then come out of it again is unbelievable.
Speaker 5 (15:19):
Do you often procrastinate on tasks? Do you ever obsess?
Do you ever obsess over awkward interactions?
Speaker 8 (15:25):
Yes?
Speaker 5 (15:26):
I do. Do you identify as a perfectionist or have
a type A personality? If so, then you might have
high functioning anxiety, at least according to TikTok. The New
Age web MD says The New York Times, Ah, this
is a problem. I mean, this isn't the first time
we've talked about this, The convincing all young people have something.
Speaker 10 (15:47):
You have, thought, Katie, there's a trend going around right now.
Where you go, there's several people in the walk through
like a courtyard of a school, and they say, I'm Katie,
and I insert some form of symptom of anxiety or
ADHD or whatever, and I do this, and they make
it almost like you're sitting there relating to them, and
(16:09):
you're trying to find ways to relate to them.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
It's a real weird mind game, right.
Speaker 6 (16:15):
Yeah, that's at the root of a lot of the
six stuff that kids are getting swipped up in is
just a question of community and belonging.
Speaker 5 (16:22):
And they talk about it being a self flilling prophecy.
If you think you have a mental illness, you start
to feel more and more anxious or depressed or whatever
if you keep talking about it.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
Of course. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (16:32):
But the part of the idea, and I appreciate the
New York Times saying this, is that after in their theory,
too many decades of people hiding real mental illness, now
we've gone overboard the other direction with like creat everybody's
got you've got some sort of what's your mental illness?
Speaker 1 (16:46):
We all have to have ones or special right.
Speaker 6 (16:50):
Yeah, there's a huge, huge helping of that, plus the
whole I'm trying to hide it. In other words, if
you're really anxious and you think, all right, I got
to keep calm. I don't want to freak out in
front of everybody. I gotta keep calm. It's gonna be okay.
As if that's a bad thing. Now, if you're seriously
mentally ill and you're covering it up, no, I'm in
favor of you getting help. But the idea that every
(17:11):
little quirk and flaw and momentary mood needs to be
elevated into a syndrome and talked about, no, shut up,
do your job, armstrong and getty.
Speaker 8 (17:24):
Go.
Speaker 5 (17:24):
One quick follow up to the conversation we just had
about TikTok being the new web MD for young people
and everybody having to come up with a diagnosis of
something you've got because not having something, I guess would
make you uncool. At the same time, young people are
killing themselves at an extraordinarily high rate, multiples higher than
anything that's ever happened before. And killing yourself is proof
(17:46):
that something's wrong, I would agree, one hundred percent.
Speaker 6 (17:51):
It's also an expression of pain and a look at me.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
I'm serious, not to discounted.
Speaker 6 (18:00):
Of course, it's tragic, but I think it all is related.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
Sure.
Speaker 6 (18:06):
Speaking of all being related, there are a couple of
things going on in this segment, and they're sort of
kind of related. And if you gave me about one
more minute, I could probably come up with a framework
that would make me sound smart. But I haven't bothered,
So I'll just bring them to you and I'll kind
of deal our way.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
Time. Who's got that time?
Speaker 6 (18:23):
It's the Go Go twenty first century. So a couple
of things going on. First of all, never forget this
about politics. The idea is to get yourself power and
thereby gain the keys to the treasury. Now we go
through various, you know, charades in our society where you
have to pass laws or what have you. But the example,
(18:45):
the executive branch has enormous, enormous leeway in who gets
grants and who doesn't, what projects get funded, that sort
of thing. And of course Congress does too. But you've
got the article in the Wall Street Journal that I
thought was so interesting. The federal government, with some help
(19:05):
from the state of Calnicornia, is going to build a
subway extension to the South San Francisco Bay aka Silicon Valley.
It's six miles and it's going to cost allegedly almost
thirteen billion dollars. Now, those of us who are familiar
with transportation around the Bay Area of San Francisco. Bay
(19:28):
Area are like, wait a minute, doesn't the cow train
already run there above ground?
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Yeah?
Speaker 6 (19:33):
It does, and there are also there's also a huge
system of public buses, So this is going to be
entirely redundant.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
Mostly they are mostly empty public buses.
Speaker 6 (19:43):
Yeah, exactly, but they're going to build this nonetheless, two
point one billion dollars per mile. They mentioned one of
the problems is that there's such a shortage of skilled
labor in the Bay Area, in the country, they've got
a way overspent. So this is a perfect example of
you get the keys to the treasury, then you spread
them money around to people you know who will always
support you. It works the same in a democracy in
(20:06):
essence as it does in a dictatorship. You get the
keys to the treasury, you spread money around to people
who will always support you. Just the way it unfolds
is different in a democracy. So never forget that. I
thought that was interesting, speaking of California. Now we're getting
into the second topic, which is related, and that's the
(20:26):
flattening of science, of the world, of everything it used
to be. There are hierarchies, you're a rock and roll band.
The only way people are going to hear you on
a massive scale is if a record company decides to
take a chance on you, sign you to a deal
and promote you. And a tiny fraction of bands ever
got there. Now you can discover a band on YouTube,
but there are a million and six of them, and
(20:49):
so you got to sort through a lot more. There
are pluses and minuses to the whole flattening thing. Same
is true though with other things like science and scientific
papers and journals and you becoming a kind of a
personality on TikTok talking about say climate change or something
like that. There's no hierarchy, there's no earning your way
(21:10):
to that visibility. You just are there because you're charming
or handsome or a big boobs or whatever it is.
Speaker 5 (21:15):
I wouldn't say there's no earning your way there. I
think by definition it earns you or your way there.
What's that if you stand out as being like the
successful among them? Or maybe I misunderstood you. But oh
I'm here right about the top.
Speaker 6 (21:30):
Popular science pop science, which is an entirely different thing.
I mean, like Neil deGrasse Tyson, he's nothing, He's a dope.
Bill ny the science guy, he's a personality anyway. There's
a coalition of sixteen hundred actual scientists who've written a
(21:50):
letter to the state of California, including the well especially
the California Air Resources Board, and they're saying there is
no climate crisis. I just find that quote. California is
in no danger of unusual drought. The annual precipitation California
has fluctuated greatly over the last one hundred and fifty years.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
With only a slight decrease.
Speaker 6 (22:10):
It's also, according to the lowest level of air pollution,
well below the threshold of human health effect.
Speaker 1 (22:16):
There is not too much CO two. It's just fine.
Speaker 6 (22:19):
There is no climate crisis in California, says this group
of sixteen hundred scientists.
Speaker 5 (22:24):
And if there's not in California, I gotta believe there's
not for the rest of the states either.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
And I could break this down.
Speaker 6 (22:30):
I mean, they go into a great deal of detail
and all sorts of it's a point by point discussion
of the CO two and the levels and the rainfall
and the snowfall and the temperatures and the rest of it.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
But that is their point.
Speaker 5 (22:41):
Well, remember every year I feel like this happens, and
it was in one of your the surprising newspaper New
York Times, Washington posts something like that that they did
the end of the hurricane season thing where they laid out,
you know, and actually wasn't a worse hurricane season, even
though everybody starts the story climate change when they start
talking about the big hurricane, it was number of hurricanes
within the band of normal that have always existed exactly.
(23:05):
And back to me tying all of this together, there
is a tremendous amount of money being spent right now,
billions and billions, trillions of dollars eventually on expenditures that
are justified by scientific findings about climate change, green energy,
(23:26):
whatever clendraw on down the line, just zillions of dollars
being spent on alleged scientific bases by Democrats, in particular
to buy the support of people who will always support them,
like in academia, for instance, or in the green energy world.
How many big green energy CEOs are going to say, hey,
(23:46):
and remember a vote Republican because they're better stewards of
your tax dollars, Zero of them. How many academics, how
many college presidents are saying that they're well, it's be
inappropriate anyway. But how many heads of departments in universe
are saying, hey, vote Republican because you know they're less
likely to blah blah blah. No, they all want the
money to continue to flow in their direction. That's what
(24:08):
it's all about, which brings me to the final story.
This also happens to be the Wall Street Journal today.
Flood of fake science forces multiple journal closures. Wiley, which
is one of the big publishers of scientific journals. If
you were in the field, you would know their name, but.
Speaker 6 (24:26):
They are going to close nineteen journals to read the
lead paragraph. Fake studies have flooded the publishers of top
scientific journals, leading to thousands of retractions and millions of
dollars in lost revenues. The biggest hit has come to Wiley,
a two hundred and seventeen year old publisher, but be
based in Hoboken, New Jersey, where my grandfather and grandmother
(24:48):
got married many years ago, which Tuesday will announce that
it is closing nineteen journals, some of which were infected
by large scale research fraud. In the past two years,
Wiley has retracted more than e seven three hundred papers
that appeared compromise. According to a spokesperson Slowdown Joe spokesperson,
it isn't alone. At least two other publishers have retracted
(25:11):
hundreds of suspect papers each. Several others have pulled smaller
clusters of bad papers, and this threatens the legitimacy of
the nearly thirty billion dollar academic publishing industry and the
credibility of science as a whole. Wow, what's going to
fix this problem? Ah, that is a great question. It
(25:34):
could be that their goalies aren't up to defending the
goal or the journal against the onslaught of high tech
fakery and fraud. The sources of the fake science is
worth mentioning. Are these so called paper mills. Businesses are
individuals that, for a price, will list a scientist as
(25:55):
an author of a holy or parsley fabricated paper. The
mill then submits the work, generally of avoiding the most
prestigious journals in favor of publications such as one off
special editions that might not undergo a thorough or review
and who have a better chance of getting their bogus
work published. World over, scientists are under pressure to constantly
publish in peer review journals, sometimes to win grants, other
times as conditions for promotions. This motivates people to cheat
(26:18):
the system. Many journals charge a fee to authors to
publish them in so they're in on it. So thousands
and thousands of papers that maybe you've heard about in
recent years are complete fake jobs. It's a terrible, terrible
infection in the world of scientific study.
Speaker 5 (26:34):
So I think that might be the next annoying elite
thing to fall. So the ivy leagues have fallen in
terms of their prestige, and this has been the whole
publishing papers thing has been nibbled at for like a
decade now of the what do they call that, the
reproduction issue whatever it is.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
Oh yeah, you can't reproduce the study if you try.
Speaker 5 (26:59):
Yeah no, These studies come out and nobody can ever
get the get that same result again. But and finding
out that whatever it is, ninety five percent of them
are never read and all that different sort of stuff.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
This whole thing needs.
Speaker 6 (27:10):
To blow up, right, And so my point, the overarching
point is just that there is a tremendous, I mean
an incomprehensible amount of money being spent on so called
climate stuff based on papers that may well be fake anyway,
but it's oceans of money spent justified by these fake ri.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
Rising hot oceans of money.
Speaker 6 (27:33):
You know, I'll dip my toe in the ocean in
the afternoon unless you know what I find out tomorrow.
I have a feeling it'll be just like the last
time I did.
Speaker 1 (27:41):
Hot a shear in the history of the Earth last
year or something, right or not?
Speaker 6 (27:44):
And you read that in this peer reviewed paper, did you.
There's some your hockey sticks and all, all right.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
Fine, how dare you?
Speaker 5 (27:53):
I probably should sometime look into climate change, as I've
mentioned many times for the years. For whatever reason, I've
never looked into this. I just it's just one topic.
There are so many topics I've done deep dives on,
like really weird topics, like over the weekend, the amount
of time I spent on the Israeli Palestinian peace process
(28:14):
and all the different accords and summits, and the hours
of documentaries and stuff like that while I was laid
up for my motorcycle wreck. I've never looked into climate change.
I just don't care.
Speaker 6 (28:25):
Here's my four part four part climate change manifesto. One
the Climate's always changing. Two, mankind might be causing some
incremental change in the climate. Three, it would take a
massive global effort to do anything about it, even incrementally,
for that will never happen, So quit bothering me.
Speaker 5 (28:43):
Well that's yeah, that is exactly that's the process.
Speaker 1 (28:45):
Call your parka, buy some shorts. That is the process
that got me too.
Speaker 5 (28:51):
I've never looked into it because unless you're gonna get
China and India on board, you ain't gonna do anything
about it anyway. And you aren't gonna get China and
India on board.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
So the end. Stop wasting my time. But we should
be a leader and set an example.
Speaker 5 (29:06):
Why so we can destroy our economy and they can
get ahead of us. I, as a governor of say,
a state that rhymes with Blifornia, can funnel enormous amounts
of money to people who will always support me and
my party.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
He laughed, I laughed.
Speaker 5 (29:27):
Or how I, as an individual can just like feel
superior to everybody else by driving an electric car and
having an electric lawnmower and whatever else you write?
Speaker 1 (29:38):
Oh, yeah, absolutely true, Yeah, whoop do do?
Speaker 5 (29:42):
How dare you.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Again?
Speaker 5 (29:46):
There's something the other day about how many coal plants
they're building in China as we, as Biden vowed to
take ours offline. They're gonna build like three times as
many as we're gonna shut down, and like the next year,
right right.
Speaker 1 (30:02):
So go ahead, feel superior.
Speaker 6 (30:03):
As Jack knows, I commute in an eighteen wheeler and
my lawnmower runs on shark fins.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
So good luck, y'all.
Speaker 5 (30:14):
Exactly any thoughts are we got to get back into
this new chat GPT four This is a big deal,
the latest chat GPT.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
It's got some cool stuff.
Speaker 5 (30:25):
And also when he thoughts on any of this text
line four one five nine kftc Armstrong.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
And my youngest blasts.
Speaker 5 (30:37):
This song out of his room practically every day.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
He loves the classic.
Speaker 5 (30:41):
Rocks Alexa play me Life's Been Good by Joe Walsh.
That's his pump up song for football games. Life's Been
Good by Joe Wow. And my other son is all
hip hop all the time. I mean he's all he's
only eminem and a bunch of other people that I
don't know anyway, kids are of course, of your twelve
(31:05):
year old also has warm memories of the coke fueled
heyday of the nineteen seventies, when Joe Walsh was staggering
down the boulevard with a nose full of blow. You
know it's there is a cool experience. I'm sure you've
had this, having kids hear a song, a classic song,
for the first time, and having it hooked them the
(31:27):
same way it hooked you years and years ago. Because
a really good song is a really good song.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (31:33):
I remember when my youngest was a freshman at college eight.
I mentioned this on the air. She texted me, Hey, Dad,
you know it's a really great song. I texted back
what she said, the Joker Steve Miller band, and I'm like, yeah,
that is a really great song.
Speaker 5 (31:48):
Yeah, cool, that is awesome. We got this text about
the whole climate change thing. It's so hard to find
the truth about climate change, which matches every other issue
affecting us, kind of like the scientific paper debacle you
just mentioned. Who knows what the truth is? Welcome to
post Mardernia, friends. Yeah, And I love that term because
that's what I've been coming across a lot.
Speaker 8 (32:08):
Is.
Speaker 5 (32:08):
I've been doing all this research on Neo Marxism and
the Frankfurt School, and we're all the super SI, but
this whole modernism and then postmodernism came out of the
art world, and then the intellectuals and all of it together.
But just like art got ruined, everything got ruined, and
(32:29):
nothing is real or what it used to be, and
everything I torn apart, and it's just what.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
I don't know what we're doing. That's a good question.
What are we doing? What are we doing? Anyway?
Speaker 5 (32:44):
Yeah, this might take us to the next level down
or fixates turtles all.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
The way down.
Speaker 5 (32:50):
The new chat GPT four oh, that is just being released.
And so I was on their website and they did
this demo, the new chat GPT four. Oh not only
can it like you remember the first one. It was
so exciting. You could type something and then it would
hit you back with some words. Well then you can
talk to it. Well, now it's visual, audio and textual
(33:11):
having a conversation. And here's this guy. He's about to share.
He's doing some coding on a screen. He's going to
show the share the visual of the coding with chat
GPT and I'll I'll just play it for a while.
Speaker 1 (33:21):
Let you hear how it goes here.
Speaker 2 (33:24):
Heychat GPT, Hey there, how's it going? Yeah, it's going
really well. I was wondering if you could help me
with coding prom today.
Speaker 11 (33:33):
Of course, I'd love to help you out. What's the
coding problem you're dealing with.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
Okay, I'm going to share with you some code. One second,
so I just highlights it on the screen and sends it.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
To her to her, Okay, so I just shared some
code with you. Could you give me a really brief,
one sentence description of what's going on in the code.
Speaker 11 (33:51):
This code fetches daily weather data for a specific location
and time period, smooths the temperature data using a rolling
average an it tates a significant weather event on the
resulting plot.
Speaker 5 (34:03):
And so that was a page page of really complicated
code that I obviously don't understand, and everything like that.
Speaker 1 (34:10):
The chet GPT in that amount of.
Speaker 5 (34:12):
Time, looking at it like a screenshot, figured out what
it was, and.
Speaker 6 (34:18):
Described everything it was doing, including the rolling average part.
Speaker 5 (34:22):
WAW, And then he asked questions like if I want
to blody blah bloody bla a little more this or
that it fixes the code for him or updates.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
It or enhances it or whatever. Yeah, it's just mind
blowing where this is headed.
Speaker 5 (34:38):
Now that it can like look at you, I would
guess that it's already here, but we're days away from
you know, maybe you stand in front of your computer naked,
what would look good on me?
Speaker 1 (34:50):
Like, what style? What's style? Closing? Give it up a salad,
would you? I'll put.
Speaker 5 (35:01):
You should try a salad first, but that could certainly
happen to take a look at you and thinking these
are the kind of glasses that would look best on you,
or this is a hat that would be flattering on you,
or whatever.
Speaker 6 (35:11):
Three word prediction for where this is all going to
lead never ending rampant cyber attacks. Hey Chat, GPT, write
me code to screw up this business's computers.
Speaker 5 (35:26):
Oh right, Armstrong and Getty
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.