October 13, 2025 • 35 mins
Hour three of the Monday October 13, 2025 edition of The Armstrong & Getty Replay features...
- People Dominating Conversations & Bari Weiss's Free Press
- Where People Get Their News Matters
- Ultra Processed Foods & Gun Violence
- Boycotting Disney
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Armstrong and Getti and He.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Armstrong and Getty Strong and not live from Studio c Hey.
There were Armstrong and get in for the first time ever.
I think we actually are taking Columbus Day off. I
do not like the way you are treating Italian Americans.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
I can't handle it. I'm too angry to come to.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
I've written it three ships and I'm going to go
exploit someone.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
We're taking it off more for personal family reasons than
it's Columbus to Day.
Speaker 4 (00:39):
But anyway, you're carefully curated, delightfully entertaining collection of best
of Armstrong and Getty clips coming up.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
In moments, So now enjoy the Armstrong and Geddy replay.
Barry Wise, who runs Free Press, got she got offered
a deal several weeks ago from CBS, and everybody knew
about it, paramount and a lot of talk in the
world of media whether she would talk take it or
not because she is a hardcore honest broker, tries to
(01:09):
be an honest broker in the media. That's why she
left the New York Times in the first place, and
she ended up taking the DELCBS. The story is one
hundred and fifty million dollars to acquire her free press thing,
which is quite the story, and commentary magazine writing about
what an amazing media story this really is, and it
is it is, And then Joe is going to talk
(01:32):
a little bit about what the future might look like.
But a couple of notes about Barry Weiss's announcement last
week about the joining together of the Free Press and Paramount. First,
this makes the Free Press one of the most amazing,
entirely organic successes in media history. Barry didn't know that
this was how it was going to turn out or
(01:54):
what was going to turn out when she quit The
New York Times because she felt like they were not
being honest brokers in the news, that they're putting their
thumb on the scale.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
For progressivism or liberalism or whatever.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
Well, and she believed that there was a market for
being a media traditionalist that is traditional.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
That's why I'm excited about this story, because that's kind
of what we try to do, and to know that
there's enough of a market out there. She did it
with three people, including her wife and her sister, and
that then the the response to what she was doing
dictate its growth like any great startup, but moved with
the consumers who were responding to it and made it
(02:31):
its own market.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
In her announcement video, Berry says the Free Press had.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
One zero point five million subscribers who pay ten dollars
a month. That's one hundred and twenty dollars a year.
So that's more than one hundred and fifty million dollars
in revenue per year. That is quite an amazing and
that's within three years. Went from three employees and this
is what we're going to try to do with journalism
to that that's absolutely amazing, and it is. It is
(03:00):
one of the biggest media success stories ever, certainly in
this era of can there be any can anybody break through?
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Right?
Speaker 4 (03:09):
Right, So, fans of the Free Press are a little
concerned about, you know, sell it out going for the
corporate record deal, you know back in the day in
rock and roll fans know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
But her statements are terrific about it.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
Before we get to that, though, speaking of free speech,
I gotta tell you this, So we're getting our house
remodeled and our kitchen hasn't existed for months and so,
and they're doing the floors and the fumes are terrible,
and so we've been eating out a lot and rented
a place near our house because we just can't take
the fumes. But so anyway, we go out for dinner
the other night, and in the table right next to us,
(03:44):
and it was a fairly quiet place, real near the house,
two couples and one of the women talked constantly oddly enough.
And this col at least sixty least sixty loud voice,
the kind of voice you can hear two tables way
in a loud place, and this is a quiet restaurant,
(04:07):
never stop talking oddly enough about college football.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
Okay, And she was I was going to ask, are
you the sort of person that if you can hear
overhear other people, you can't not pay attention to them.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
It is very, very difficult for me to ignore it
because my brain keeps engaging in what they're saying.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
That's interesting because some people are like that, like one
of my sons that way. I'm not that way at all.
Somebody can be having a conversation next to me. I
just block it out completely. But I know, like my
sontimes people are having a conversation with you because I'm
not interested in what you're saying. But my son and
his mom they cannot not they can't listen to you
while you're talking to them if somebody else is talking
(04:42):
behind it, right.
Speaker 4 (04:43):
Yeah, yeah, so I've got a bit of that too.
But so and there's four people at this table. Seriously,
this woman was responsible for ninety six percent of the
verbiage expressed. Okay, just on and on and on so loud,
and I was doing my best to ignore it. It's okay,
you know, it's not like she was, you know, Nazism
or anything horrible. It's just so much noise that'd be
(05:04):
more interesting. So finally, you know, they get done, they leave.
We finish our dinner in peace, but because we have
no kitchen. The next night, we go out to our
favorite Mexican place not far from the house, and we
sit down and the waitress comes over and Judy looks
to our right and says, oh my god, no way, yes, really,
same two couples, the same woman prattling on at.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
The top of her lone possible. I know. I was like, no,
I mean, that's so possible that they would go out
to eat again.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
At a different restaurant the same night as you, and
the same time.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
I mean, well, it's not like back when we had
our cabin up in the mountains and there are effectively
four restaurants in town.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
No, there're dozens of them.
Speaker 4 (05:52):
And they're right at the next table, And she's prattling
on and on this time, oddly enough, about pro football,
and again is extremely knowledgeable.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
She's talking about Kirk Cousin's character and why that matter.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
But again, I'm at top volume, supplying ninety five percent
of the verbiage at the table.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
I don't I don't know if other parents do this,
and maybe I shouldn't be doing it myself, But because
I'm so annoyed by people who dominate conversations like that,
I really have been in tune with that with I
got one kid in particular, where I say, now, now,
I just want you to realize that we all been
sitting here and you've done like ninety percent of the
talking since we sat down, So how about you let
(06:31):
other people talk a little bit because you don't want
to be that person right now?
Speaker 2 (06:35):
I absolutely done that.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
I always wonder when I meet people like that, like
did nobody ever tell you to look around. There's seven
people at this table. Has anybody else said a word
other than you? Do you think everybody else wants it
that way, that you're the only one who talks. I mean,
nobody ever said that to them their own lives.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
Ellen, one of the handful of people I love more
than anything on earth, had a habit of effecting your
rapt attention, but was visibly uninterested the moment anyone else
started talking.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
And we have worked on that as well. But again
that's no.
Speaker 4 (07:13):
I think that's that's good parenting, that's good to mentoring.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
All right, So back to the Free Press.
Speaker 4 (07:19):
Let's see, it's rather a long email that Barry Rice
Oweiss wrote. If you're not familiar, it's B A R I.
By the way, before you get into it, Like I.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
Said last week, I haven't been worried about because I
think her whole shtick. I mean, she risked her entire
career leaving the New York Times.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
She is not going to all of a sudden roll
over and and and not do what she's been doing.
Speaker 4 (07:43):
In my opinion, Yeah, and she goes into the philosophy
behind the free press. We would marry the quality of
the old world to the freedom of the new. We
would seek the truth and tell it plainly, and we
would treat readers like adults capable of making their own choices.
Again the Armstrong and Getty formula as well. At least
that's what we try to do. And she gets into
the fact that she was told over and over that's impossible.
(08:04):
The only way to go is just complete, flaming, one
hundred percent partisanship, and she mentions, as of today, I
am editor in chief. Oh, she says, I'll continue to
lead this incredible community alongside my tireless team, remaining CEO
and editor in chief, but I'll be taking on another
title too. As of today, I'm an editor in chief
of CBS News, working with new colleagues on the programs
(08:25):
that have impacted American culture for generations, like sixty Minutes
Sunday Morning, shaping how millions of Americans read, listen, watch,
and more importantly, understand the news in the twenty first century.
And as I speculated last week, she's absolutely hardcore, remaining
true to her principles. But she points out, excuse me
that this new partnership and the money involved gives the
(08:47):
free Press, which will continue to be the free Press,
even more resources to do big you know, like long
term reporting. You work on this for six months and
bring us the big store stuff that's vanishing from today's news.
And she is going to work like crazy to turn
CBS News back into a news organization and not a
(09:12):
partisanship organization.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Well.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
I don't know if you saw the first story on
sixty minutes last night, but the first story was about
featuring parents whose kids have these horrible lives. Now it
looks like because of vaccinations they got oh that they
didn't interact well with. Now that's I don't think that's
a story sixty minutes would have done last year.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
No.
Speaker 4 (09:35):
No, So final note from Barry I think for now
is she says, as proud as we are of the
one point five million subscribers who have joined under the
banner of the Free Press, and we are astonished at
that number. This is a country with three hundred and
forty million people. We want our work to reach more
of them as quickly as possible. That is actually believe
she means that that is something. Though to start out now,
(09:55):
she had a very high profile start because of leaving.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
The New York Times.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
It got so much attention, So it's not like, you know,
just any random persons with a startup media empire.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
But that's still amazingly impressive growth. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
Yeah, And if you're not a subscribery, you know you
hear some of their content here. But it's it's terrific
old style journalism. They say stuff that challenges my beliefs
all the time. They frequently, frequently challenge the views of
the half wit progressive, incurious media, I mean every single day.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
Right, and I'm sure they're wrong sometimes I don't care
if you're wrong. If I believe that you're at least
trying to get the story out correctly.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
That's your goal, right well.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
And to their credit, if they are quote unquote wrong
about something, either Beholder one of their other people will
write a piece saying, hey, Jimmy, you're wrong about this
and here's why I think so, and they'll publish it, yeah,
with a link to the original piece, and then often
they'll have a little dialogue between the two. Trust again,
trusting adults to way ideas like adult the.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
Armstrong and Getty Show, or your show podcasts and our
hot links.
Speaker 4 (11:09):
So, speaking of classrooms, I wanted to talk a little
bit about media and information bubbles, and I was gonna
mention that, well, I did mention on the air the
other day that a friend of mine has a professional
relationship with a person and it would not be appropriate
for my friend to call them out and disagree with
them on politics. But this person was commenting on the
(11:31):
Charlie Kirk assassination. And this fella, who my friend identified
as a very nice guy and quite reasonably Brian, just
an overall good dude, was one hundred percent convinced that
the young man who killed Charlie Kirk was a flag
waving maga conservative who resented Charlie for not being maga enough.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Was completely convinced of that.
Speaker 4 (11:56):
And I'm saving it for a campus madness update, probably
in a mon But the head of the Association of
University Professors, which is tens of thousands of university professors,
was out the other day saying, oh, yeah, absolutely, it
was a right wing activist who killed Charlie Kirk, and
exactly the same thing. And if there's a theme to this,
(12:19):
and I've got a couple more like exhibits, it's that
a lot of folks who think some crazys. They're probably
not bad people, but they're used to looking in some
fairly normal, mainstreamish places for information and what they're getting
is just wildly inaccurate.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
Yeah, that's interesting.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
I'm thinking of a couple of people I know who
have really warped views of what's going on in the world.
It's not because they're bad, it's just because of where
they go to get their information.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
Right, and so choice. Yeah, yeah, and you got to
be a better consumer of news. But maybe theme, the
overall theme is when you're running to people who think
this crazy stuff, it could well be they've just never
heard an alternative explanation, and be nice. Be what we
(13:13):
on the right tend to be, which is I'll listen
to you now if you don't mind, can you listen
to me because I haven't heard you know?
Speaker 2 (13:20):
How about if I go with back away slowly and
keep my eye on their hands.
Speaker 4 (13:25):
A lot of war two free Beacon. Let mean the
major AI platforms which have emerged as significant American news sources,
especially for the young, describe Charlie Kirk's assassination as motivated
by right wing ideology and downplay left wing violence as
(13:46):
quote exceptionally rare. According to the Free Beacon, when I
asked the name recent assassination in the US motivated by
right wing ideology, multiple chat bots, including chat g Google's
Gemini Perplexity all listed Charlie Kirk's murder as a right
wing act of violence.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Well, obviously, Jimmy Kimmel got misled by this.
Speaker 4 (14:09):
He seemed to actually believe that Gemini's chatbot made the
provably false statement that quote. The assassination of conservative active
as Charlie Kirk in September of twenty five has been
identified by researchers as the only fatal right wing terrorist
incident in the US during the first half of twenty
twenty five, and they go into some detail. Keep in
(14:31):
mind that a recent Free Beacon analysis we talked about
this on the air found that Al Jazeera was one
of the two most popular sources used by AI chatbots
for news about the Israel Hamas war, and there were
zero Israel learn leaning sites that were in their top ten.
I think it was so garbage in, garbage out. Then
(14:55):
you've got Hannah Nicole Jones, Nicole Hannah Jones, whatever her
name is, a New York Times, the crazy Lady, the
racist who came out with a sixteen nineteen project, wrote
recently that public mourning for Kirk is unsettling. In the
wake of Kirk's death, individuals and institutions across the nation
(15:17):
moved not just to condemn his killings in political violence,
but to venerate him. It was unsettling to see many
politicians from across the political spectrum speak with reverence about Kirk.
And she went on to describe how he was a
man who spread hate, said black women lacked the brain
(15:40):
processing power to otherwise be taken seriously, which is a
deliberate misquoting of Charlie And again that's in the New
York Times. Wow, flamingly. You know, liberal obviously, but you
could be a person serious about getting your information and
be completely misled.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
Well, on the same story, but a different version of it.
I was talking to somebody yesterday who is completely into
this story that that poor kid in Utah is going
to be executed for something he didn't do. He was framed.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
He was a patsy like Lee Harvey Hoswald.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
That the the FBI planted that gun and they're pinning
it on him, and it was the masade working with
our FBI to Charlie killed Charlie Kirk and they're gonna
pin it on this kid, and this poor kid is
going to be executed. And how I mean this person
was upset that this innocent kid is going to be
executed for something he didn't do.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
God unplugged the Internet. And I think that comes from
the Candace Owen's crowd. Yeah, yeah, I was just gonna
ask that.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
Yeah, all right, final note on this topic, because Nelly
Bowles is so great writing in the free press and
the left.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
Yes, but why so, like, why for you and I?
Speaker 3 (16:59):
Is it so obviously he was half crazy also upset
about the trans thing, but he's dating a trans person
and blah blah blah suicidal And I just believe that story.
Why do you think you and I are the way
we are on that story? Which I believe is the
accurate version.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
By the way, I don't know.
Speaker 5 (17:25):
A judge gave the man who attempted to assassinate Brett
Kavanaugh only eight years in prison after he began identifying
as a woman. You don't say, said the Menendez sisters.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
That's a good joke, That's a well crafted joke.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
Yeah, I've got a question about upf's ultra processed foods
Joe has been trying to scarce about for quite some time,
and I'm sure it's true that whenever you're eating something
that's got a list of fifty ingredients, you can't have
no idea what they are, that it's probably not good
for you. And lately they've been saying that, like this
(18:07):
is really really bad for us, right, like this could
be this could be a lot of what all our
problems are obesity and health.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
This isn't it food addiction.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
But I often think in addition to all the ingredients,
just stuff that's like sealed in a bag or whatever.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
Is probably that.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
But like the kettle chips, like the healthier potato chips,
you get to look at the ingredients and it's just potatoes, oil, salt,
that's the only thing on there. Does that mean it
is an ultra processed or is it just a slightly
better version of ul because.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
It's still in one of those bags sealed up that
the food would stay fresh for the next one hundred.
Speaker 4 (18:41):
And fifty years, which doesn't do those The more you know,
basic down to earth potato chips, do they have that
long shelf life?
Speaker 2 (18:49):
I don't know. I don't know that either.
Speaker 4 (18:50):
Actually, it's hell better for you than the ones that
have a zillion ingredients chemicals and stuff.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Yeah, I actually bought some chips.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
I was watching the Tucker Carlson nine to eleven documentary
that I assume is going to end up.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
It was the Jews.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
I haven't finished it yet, but Tucker was doing an
endorsement just like we do on the radio, for some
healthy chip and I actually he talked me into it.
I bought someone. They come in the mail this week
and I'll try them up. I'm all for trying to
get away from that ultra process stuff. Eat eat way
way through. I've been looking at my bread. It's hard
to buy bread. Bread's a tough one because my experience
(19:24):
has been if you buy bread that doesn't have a
million ingredients, it's fresh.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
For like a day.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Either got to eat that day and make your sandwich
or forget about it.
Speaker 4 (19:33):
I eat homemade whole grain bread because I'm better than you.
And yeah, we keep it in the freezer because we
have to. You bring it out and let it thaw
on the countertop if you're going to walk the dog
or something like that, or pop it in the toaster
for a minute, minute and a half just to get
the frostiness off of it. But yeah, you have to
at least refrigerate it and probably freeze it.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
I don't know if I can plan that far ahead
on my bread. If a minute, don't you just no minute?
It takes. It only takes a minute to thaw out
your bread. Yeah in a toaster? Sure, Oh you toa
in it and a half? Okay, yes, Michael, didn't you
just eat a white wonderbread and that's all you eat.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
That's generally what I've been eating. But I'm trying to
get away from the ultra processed food, and bread's a
tough one.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
I love sandwiches, man, I think you'll be happy with it.
Speaker 4 (20:19):
So a little featurette here might have to go into
the next segment, but that's fine. Politico was out with
a report a private polling memo run by the DNC.
I think one of their big consultant groups are pushing
their candidates to go on the offense on crime ahead
of the twenty twenty six mid terms, because that's one
(20:39):
of the weakest electoral issues, and that is I'm not
sure exactly how they're going to go about that, but
it was shared exclusively with Politico. The battle Ground District
survey from Global Strategy Group nonprofit blah blah blah offers
a bleak assessment of Democrats. Starting point, eighty nine percent
(21:02):
of the likely voters surveyed want their Congress member to
take steps to keep them safe, but only thirty eight
percent trust Democrats over Republicans with that task. Voters also
reported preferring Republicans to Democrats with preventing and reducing crime
and cracking down on violent crime, gaps that grew among
swing voters, but the voters swung toward Democrats in all
(21:27):
four categories after hearing messaging acknowledging crime is a problem
and showing steps the party is taken to increase safety. Specifically,
pollsters cited cracking down on gun trafficking and strengthening firearm
background checks, and if you emphasize that the Democrats are
doing that, the poll numbers change a lot.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Plus.
Speaker 4 (21:50):
The persuasion efforts include criticisms of GOP cuts to gun
violence prevention funding, the Trump administration's attempts to roll back
firearm regulations, and Republicans ties to pro gun groups. So
the whole gun control thing is about to be one
of the loudest issues in America again. But when you
(22:12):
give him just a little talking to, there was a
double digit swing among voters. So they're going to be
hammering on that apparently, and sending around the usual spate
of speakers calling for gun control, which will never and
has never squared with the Second Amendment. But they don't
talk about that because they don't care. They just want
to win the next election.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
Are you moving on from polling because I have an
interesting poll thing. Yeah, good, go ahead.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
This was on CNN yesterday. This is about Trump's approval
rating in general. This was on CNN again. They're pointing
out that he's hanging around the mid forties. And I'll
just quote the analyst they had on CNN as they
had the numbers up on the board. Trump is basically
doing what the American people thought that he was going
(22:59):
to do. Indeed, if you look at the numbers, Trump
is basically the steadiest favorability rating at this point in
the presidency of any president on record, and it's basically
where he was a year ago, good enough to get
him reelected.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
At the time.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
All the news, almost all of it negative about Trump
he's just hung around forty three forty four percent, steadier
than any president that has been recorded through the first
nine months.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
And he was at this number when he got reelected.
So that's pretty amazing. I don't know, it is amazing.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
I don't know if that's just because our dials are
stuck regardless of who it is, or it's something special
about Trump or whatever.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
But yeah, yeah, it's it's interesting. Nonetheless.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
So speaking of crime, Jason Riley, brilliant columnist for the
Wall Street Journal who wrote a great book. He just
wrote another thing, a column about public housing and how
miserable how the progressives insisted that the poor black neighborhoo
hoods be torn down in the fifties and sixties, especially
(24:05):
literally torn down, everybody given what the government said their
place was worth, and then all put in giant public
housing projects. That was the progressive solution to the black
poverty problem. And I'd really like to get into this
at length, but the one point he makes that is
incredibly powerful is, yeah, they gave him the minimum a
(24:26):
judge would let them, the government give them for their properties.
They missed out on every penny of future appreciation of
the value of those properties, they lost their businesses. There
was a great system of upward mobility within those black neighborhoods.
There's like totally stunted upward mobility in the progressive designed
(24:49):
public housing projects and the public financing thing. Anyway, that's
a discussion for another day. But he wrote a couple
of weeks ago, and I held on to it because
it's so good. He's talking about policing and how more
policing means less crime, and Black people proportionately have way
bigger benefits than any other people in America from more policing,
(25:13):
not the opposite.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
It's great for them.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
And he talks about Brandon Johnson saying that we can't
arrest our way out of poverty, and we need more
affordable housing, not more police. And then Jason gets into
my favorite part of this. That point of view is
held widely on the left that crime can mostly be
blamed on poverty. You hear it all the time in
blue states. In this respect, it's the mayor's views that
(25:38):
are out of touch. Not only are most poor people
not criminals, but the most impoverished communities in the US
are not the most violent. Further, violent crime was significantly
lower in earlier eras when poor Americans were materially much
worse off than they are today. If anything, more evidence
points to crime driving poverty than the other way around.
(25:59):
And this is the part that my god, I wish
the Republican Party was any good at communicating with people.
Merchants are more likely to abandon lawless neighborhoods.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
How many times have we seen that recently?
Speaker 4 (26:11):
All the damn time where operating costs are hire taking
employment opportunities and economic activity with them. As businesses leave,
the tax based shrinks, property values decline, and public services suffer.
In the forties and fifties, the homicide rate for black
mails fell by double digits, and black incomes rose faster
than white incomes.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
This is the forties and fifties.
Speaker 4 (26:34):
Safer neighborhoods are conducive to upward mobility, and police help
keep neighborhoods safe.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
And then my favorite part is this.
Speaker 4 (26:42):
We are not going to eliminate crime or poverty anytime soon,
but there are better and worse ways to address both.
Family makeup and education play important roles in reducing social pathology.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Cultural habits and attitudes matter.
Speaker 4 (26:57):
Single parent households were a minority of all black households
for most of the twentieth century. The welfare state expansion
of the sixties and seventies, which subsidized irresponsible, self destructive behavior,
led to social retrogressions that some Black communities still haven't
recovered from more than fifty years later.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
Yeah, well, I have very strong opinions about this whole thing.
I think the breakdown of the American family is the
cause of tons of our problems. And nobody wants to
talk about it because they feel like it be mean,
or they're participating themselves.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
Or they're blaming the victim or something. Yeah, and nobody
wants to talk about it. Hey, households to stay together
do way better.
Speaker 3 (27:43):
Kids do better, parents do better, everybody does better, neighborhood
does better. It's just better all the way around. But
that's not a popular thing to talk about.
Speaker 4 (27:51):
And then one of the last things Jason writes on
this topic, he quotes our hero, the great thinker, Thomas Sowell,
another black man, what It's worth All remarked, when you
take away stable families, decent schools, and safe streets, there's
nothing left. Stable families, decent schools, and safe streets. How
(28:15):
are the Democrats doing on those three things. I'll let
you answer for yourself. It's good talk about people would
listen to. And Jason Riley, yeah, you know. And one
final note, we don't really have time for this, but
a study has come out that there's there's an old
saying among lefties that zip code is destiny, and it
(28:37):
turns out that complete bunk it all has to do
with family, education and safety.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
What does that mean?
Speaker 3 (28:46):
Zip code is destiny that like where you were born,
it determines your life.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
Yeah, exactly, Well, it's nuts.
Speaker 4 (28:53):
It's a zip code is destiny, and that's the major
source of inequality in the US. The rich stay rich,
the poor stay poor, and you've got to get the
poor kids, you know, bust them to other neighborhoods and
other schools and stuff like that. And some of that
may be somewhat effective sometimes, but again to your point,
nobody wants to talk about the family.
Speaker 6 (29:21):
That campaign that you all launched pretending that you were
going to cancel Hulu while secretly racing through four seasons
of only murders in the building. I really was congratulations,
wasn't it? Wasn't it interesting to try and figure out
all the tentacles Disney has in your daily life. It's
(29:42):
one thing to swear off cruises, but the Avengers. Nah,
how is it possible that by getting rid of one company,
I can't watch Winnie the Pooh or Monday Night Football.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
That is pretty funny when you think about, oh, I'm
going to boycott Disney.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Have you looked into what that means? Right?
Speaker 4 (30:03):
Why were they gonna boycott Disney because canceled Kimmel? All right, yeah,
that was the hotest story among back crowd for the
last week. So people were so, you're gonna cancel your Hulu,
your Disney trip, not watch the Avengers or Monday Night
Football or yeah, that's his point. You got a boycott Disney,
a tiny flash and a stupid pan.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
You know, you probably don't remember this.
Speaker 4 (30:29):
A couple of years ago, I came across a really
good comprehensive chart. I guess it was of Disney Corporation
and it's holdings, and as I was describing at the time,
it makes Exxon or GM look like your corner coffee shop.
It is all the stuff, you know, lots of media stuff.
(30:53):
As John Stewart was pointing out that you didn't realize hotels,
all in conference centers all all over the world, branded
Disney and many not branded Disney. MANU factoring, just accounting processing,
just like they.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
Have their The mouse is not a mouse, he's.
Speaker 4 (31:13):
An eight hundred pound gorilla, giant soul crushing, just calculating corporation.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
The fact that they've still got the image of that's
the happiest pleasure on earth.
Speaker 4 (31:25):
Come with your smile at kids is really quite an accomplishment.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
You almost have to admire it. That's right. I'm a
pretty big effing deal. Move out of the way. Oh
crush you like I crushed goofy. You don't hear much
from him anymore, do Yeah? Jeez, put his head and device.
Speaker 3 (31:44):
I got a follow up on the banning marriages among
first cousins in Connecticut. Gotta follow that story. Didn't see
that coming from one angle of the controversy. That actually
makes sense to me. Why would you ban gay.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
First cousins from getting married.
Speaker 3 (31:59):
It's about to having kids, so I can't A couple
of dudes who are first cousins who fall in love
with each other.
Speaker 4 (32:04):
A little weird, uh, decided to get married. Why not
make Thanksgiving dinner a little uncomfortable. That's where the controversy
comes in. So anyway, more on that and a whole
bunch of other stuff later.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (32:17):
Okay, So speaking of controversies, I found this very interesting,
particularly because we got a couple of females asking about it.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (32:23):
You remember the Colorado bake shop who refused to make
a gig for a gay wedding, and there have been
a couple other cases like this. There was a giant
Supreme Court ruling right and which what they ruled that
he could say no to making the cake.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
Yeah, absolutely, yeah, And I'm getting to that.
Speaker 4 (32:45):
It was made a huge cause by the left who
was screaming no, it's discrimination, and what the Supreme Court
decided quite correctly in my opinion, And I don't have
the decisions in front of me, so forgive me if
my paraphrasing's a little off. Actual attorneys, But if you
are asking somebody.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
To engage in.
Speaker 4 (33:05):
Create the creative arts, an act of sell of expression
and creation, as opposed to say, pressing go on a
copy machine, they cannot be compelled to engage in that
speech because compelled speech is as bad as censored speech.
So you cannot force me to write a song or well,
(33:29):
you cannot compel me to agree to write a song
zorin mum danmi will save New York. I won't do it.
I won't take money for it. I won't create that.
And that's good because the First Amendment protects you against
compelled space.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
But you couldn't say I won't sell you this cardboard
to make signs, because that's a commodity.
Speaker 4 (33:52):
That's not a creative expression. So you got this case
in Kalamazoo, Michigan, one of our more amusingly named cities
in America. Kalamazoo. Here's this twenty one year old duty.
He's the head of the Kalamazoo Young Republicans. He's running
errands getting ready for a vigil honoring Charlie Kirk. One
of his stops was at his local office depot to
(34:13):
print a poster that was a picture of Charlie in
black and white and said the legendary Charlie Kirk nineteen
ninety three twenty five. And some folks there at the
home depot refuse to print it, calling it propaganda. Okay,
so two and a home depot fired the employees in
(34:36):
issue of public apology. So there are two levels of
two questions here. One is the first mention, sure did,
I'm sure they've got Hey, just if somebody comes in
and wants to make just make the freaking.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
Copy and send them out the door, you freaking morh.
Speaker 4 (34:51):
Nobody cares what you think, including me. I think you
are go go So anyway, there's two questions here. The
first one is the First Amendment question, which I think
I'm more or less dealt with. Pressing go on copy
machine is not the same as painting a portrait, writing
a song, painstakingly decorating a cake, which is an artistic expression.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
And the second question is, and there are people on
the left saying, oh.
Speaker 4 (35:17):
Your conservatives, you're defending the baker blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
But no, are these poor guys you can fire from
the home people. No. The second question is.
Speaker 4 (35:25):
Does a giant corporation must they employ jackasses will say
I'm not hitting go on this printer because I don't
like your politics.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
It's a completely different question.
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Armstrong and Getti and He.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Armstrong and Getty Strong and not live from Studio c Hey.
There were Armstrong and get in for the first time ever.
I think we actually are taking Columbus Day off. I
do not like the way you are treating Italian Americans.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
I can't handle it. I'm too angry to come to.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
I've written it three ships and I'm going to go
exploit someone.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
We're taking it off more for personal family reasons than
it's Columbus to Day.
Speaker 4 (00:39):
But anyway, you're carefully curated, delightfully entertaining collection of best
of Armstrong and Getty clips coming up.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
In moments, So now enjoy the Armstrong and Geddy replay.
Barry Wise, who runs Free Press, got she got offered
a deal several weeks ago from CBS, and everybody knew
about it, paramount and a lot of talk in the
world of media whether she would talk take it or
not because she is a hardcore honest broker, tries to
(01:09):
be an honest broker in the media. That's why she
left the New York Times in the first place, and
she ended up taking the DELCBS. The story is one
hundred and fifty million dollars to acquire her free press thing,
which is quite the story, and commentary magazine writing about
what an amazing media story this really is, and it
is it is, And then Joe is going to talk
(01:32):
a little bit about what the future might look like.
But a couple of notes about Barry Weiss's announcement last
week about the joining together of the Free Press and Paramount. First,
this makes the Free Press one of the most amazing,
entirely organic successes in media history. Barry didn't know that
this was how it was going to turn out or
(01:54):
what was going to turn out when she quit The
New York Times because she felt like they were not
being honest brokers in the news, that they're putting their
thumb on the scale.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
For progressivism or liberalism or whatever.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
Well, and she believed that there was a market for
being a media traditionalist that is traditional.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
That's why I'm excited about this story, because that's kind
of what we try to do, and to know that
there's enough of a market out there. She did it
with three people, including her wife and her sister, and
that then the the response to what she was doing
dictate its growth like any great startup, but moved with
the consumers who were responding to it and made it
(02:31):
its own market.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
In her announcement video, Berry says the Free Press had.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
One zero point five million subscribers who pay ten dollars
a month. That's one hundred and twenty dollars a year.
So that's more than one hundred and fifty million dollars
in revenue per year. That is quite an amazing and
that's within three years. Went from three employees and this
is what we're going to try to do with journalism
to that that's absolutely amazing, and it is. It is
(03:00):
one of the biggest media success stories ever, certainly in
this era of can there be any can anybody break through?
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Right?
Speaker 4 (03:09):
Right, So, fans of the Free Press are a little
concerned about, you know, sell it out going for the
corporate record deal, you know back in the day in
rock and roll fans know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
But her statements are terrific about it.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
Before we get to that, though, speaking of free speech,
I gotta tell you this, So we're getting our house
remodeled and our kitchen hasn't existed for months and so,
and they're doing the floors and the fumes are terrible,
and so we've been eating out a lot and rented
a place near our house because we just can't take
the fumes. But so anyway, we go out for dinner
the other night, and in the table right next to us,
(03:44):
and it was a fairly quiet place, real near the house,
two couples and one of the women talked constantly oddly enough.
And this col at least sixty least sixty loud voice,
the kind of voice you can hear two tables way
in a loud place, and this is a quiet restaurant,
(04:07):
never stop talking oddly enough about college football.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
Okay, And she was I was going to ask, are
you the sort of person that if you can hear
overhear other people, you can't not pay attention to them.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
It is very, very difficult for me to ignore it
because my brain keeps engaging in what they're saying.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
That's interesting because some people are like that, like one
of my sons that way. I'm not that way at all.
Somebody can be having a conversation next to me. I
just block it out completely. But I know, like my
sontimes people are having a conversation with you because I'm
not interested in what you're saying. But my son and
his mom they cannot not they can't listen to you
while you're talking to them if somebody else is talking
(04:42):
behind it, right.
Speaker 4 (04:43):
Yeah, yeah, so I've got a bit of that too.
But so and there's four people at this table. Seriously,
this woman was responsible for ninety six percent of the
verbiage expressed. Okay, just on and on and on so loud,
and I was doing my best to ignore it. It's okay,
you know, it's not like she was, you know, Nazism
or anything horrible. It's just so much noise that'd be
(05:04):
more interesting. So finally, you know, they get done, they leave.
We finish our dinner in peace, but because we have
no kitchen. The next night, we go out to our
favorite Mexican place not far from the house, and we
sit down and the waitress comes over and Judy looks
to our right and says, oh my god, no way, yes, really,
same two couples, the same woman prattling on at.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
The top of her lone possible. I know. I was like, no,
I mean, that's so possible that they would go out
to eat again.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
At a different restaurant the same night as you, and
the same time.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
I mean, well, it's not like back when we had
our cabin up in the mountains and there are effectively
four restaurants in town.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
No, there're dozens of them.
Speaker 4 (05:52):
And they're right at the next table, And she's prattling
on and on this time, oddly enough, about pro football,
and again is extremely knowledgeable.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
She's talking about Kirk Cousin's character and why that matter.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
But again, I'm at top volume, supplying ninety five percent
of the verbiage at the table.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
I don't I don't know if other parents do this,
and maybe I shouldn't be doing it myself, But because
I'm so annoyed by people who dominate conversations like that,
I really have been in tune with that with I
got one kid in particular, where I say, now, now,
I just want you to realize that we all been
sitting here and you've done like ninety percent of the
talking since we sat down, So how about you let
(06:31):
other people talk a little bit because you don't want
to be that person right now?
Speaker 2 (06:35):
I absolutely done that.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
I always wonder when I meet people like that, like
did nobody ever tell you to look around. There's seven
people at this table. Has anybody else said a word
other than you? Do you think everybody else wants it
that way, that you're the only one who talks. I mean,
nobody ever said that to them their own lives.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
Ellen, one of the handful of people I love more
than anything on earth, had a habit of effecting your
rapt attention, but was visibly uninterested the moment anyone else
started talking.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
And we have worked on that as well. But again
that's no.
Speaker 4 (07:13):
I think that's that's good parenting, that's good to mentoring.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
All right, So back to the Free Press.
Speaker 4 (07:19):
Let's see, it's rather a long email that Barry Rice
Oweiss wrote. If you're not familiar, it's B A R I.
By the way, before you get into it, Like I.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
Said last week, I haven't been worried about because I
think her whole shtick. I mean, she risked her entire
career leaving the New York Times.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
She is not going to all of a sudden roll
over and and and not do what she's been doing.
Speaker 4 (07:43):
In my opinion, Yeah, and she goes into the philosophy
behind the free press. We would marry the quality of
the old world to the freedom of the new. We
would seek the truth and tell it plainly, and we
would treat readers like adults capable of making their own choices.
Again the Armstrong and Getty formula as well. At least
that's what we try to do. And she gets into
the fact that she was told over and over that's impossible.
(08:04):
The only way to go is just complete, flaming, one
hundred percent partisanship, and she mentions, as of today, I
am editor in chief. Oh, she says, I'll continue to
lead this incredible community alongside my tireless team, remaining CEO
and editor in chief, but I'll be taking on another
title too. As of today, I'm an editor in chief
of CBS News, working with new colleagues on the programs
(08:25):
that have impacted American culture for generations, like sixty Minutes
Sunday Morning, shaping how millions of Americans read, listen, watch,
and more importantly, understand the news in the twenty first century.
And as I speculated last week, she's absolutely hardcore, remaining
true to her principles. But she points out, excuse me
that this new partnership and the money involved gives the
(08:47):
free Press, which will continue to be the free Press,
even more resources to do big you know, like long
term reporting. You work on this for six months and
bring us the big store stuff that's vanishing from today's news.
And she is going to work like crazy to turn
CBS News back into a news organization and not a
(09:12):
partisanship organization.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Well.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
I don't know if you saw the first story on
sixty minutes last night, but the first story was about
featuring parents whose kids have these horrible lives. Now it
looks like because of vaccinations they got oh that they
didn't interact well with. Now that's I don't think that's
a story sixty minutes would have done last year.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
No.
Speaker 4 (09:35):
No, So final note from Barry I think for now
is she says, as proud as we are of the
one point five million subscribers who have joined under the
banner of the Free Press, and we are astonished at
that number. This is a country with three hundred and
forty million people. We want our work to reach more
of them as quickly as possible. That is actually believe
she means that that is something. Though to start out now,
(09:55):
she had a very high profile start because of leaving.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
The New York Times.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
It got so much attention, So it's not like, you know,
just any random persons with a startup media empire.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
But that's still amazingly impressive growth. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
Yeah, And if you're not a subscribery, you know you
hear some of their content here. But it's it's terrific
old style journalism. They say stuff that challenges my beliefs
all the time. They frequently, frequently challenge the views of
the half wit progressive, incurious media, I mean every single day.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
Right, and I'm sure they're wrong sometimes I don't care
if you're wrong. If I believe that you're at least
trying to get the story out correctly.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
That's your goal, right well.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
And to their credit, if they are quote unquote wrong
about something, either Beholder one of their other people will
write a piece saying, hey, Jimmy, you're wrong about this
and here's why I think so, and they'll publish it, yeah,
with a link to the original piece, and then often
they'll have a little dialogue between the two. Trust again,
trusting adults to way ideas like adult the.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
Armstrong and Getty Show, or your show podcasts and our
hot links.
Speaker 4 (11:09):
So, speaking of classrooms, I wanted to talk a little
bit about media and information bubbles, and I was gonna
mention that, well, I did mention on the air the
other day that a friend of mine has a professional
relationship with a person and it would not be appropriate
for my friend to call them out and disagree with
them on politics. But this person was commenting on the
(11:31):
Charlie Kirk assassination. And this fella, who my friend identified
as a very nice guy and quite reasonably Brian, just
an overall good dude, was one hundred percent convinced that
the young man who killed Charlie Kirk was a flag
waving maga conservative who resented Charlie for not being maga enough.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Was completely convinced of that.
Speaker 4 (11:56):
And I'm saving it for a campus madness update, probably
in a mon But the head of the Association of
University Professors, which is tens of thousands of university professors,
was out the other day saying, oh, yeah, absolutely, it
was a right wing activist who killed Charlie Kirk, and
exactly the same thing. And if there's a theme to this,
(12:19):
and I've got a couple more like exhibits, it's that
a lot of folks who think some crazys. They're probably
not bad people, but they're used to looking in some
fairly normal, mainstreamish places for information and what they're getting
is just wildly inaccurate.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
Yeah, that's interesting.
Speaker 3 (12:43):
I'm thinking of a couple of people I know who
have really warped views of what's going on in the world.
It's not because they're bad, it's just because of where
they go to get their information.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
Right, and so choice. Yeah, yeah, and you got to
be a better consumer of news. But maybe theme, the
overall theme is when you're running to people who think
this crazy stuff, it could well be they've just never
heard an alternative explanation, and be nice. Be what we
(13:13):
on the right tend to be, which is I'll listen
to you now if you don't mind, can you listen
to me because I haven't heard you know?
Speaker 2 (13:20):
How about if I go with back away slowly and
keep my eye on their hands.
Speaker 4 (13:25):
A lot of war two free Beacon. Let mean the
major AI platforms which have emerged as significant American news sources,
especially for the young, describe Charlie Kirk's assassination as motivated
by right wing ideology and downplay left wing violence as
(13:46):
quote exceptionally rare. According to the Free Beacon, when I
asked the name recent assassination in the US motivated by
right wing ideology, multiple chat bots, including chat g Google's
Gemini Perplexity all listed Charlie Kirk's murder as a right
wing act of violence.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Well, obviously, Jimmy Kimmel got misled by this.
Speaker 4 (14:09):
He seemed to actually believe that Gemini's chatbot made the
provably false statement that quote. The assassination of conservative active
as Charlie Kirk in September of twenty five has been
identified by researchers as the only fatal right wing terrorist
incident in the US during the first half of twenty
twenty five, and they go into some detail. Keep in
(14:31):
mind that a recent Free Beacon analysis we talked about
this on the air found that Al Jazeera was one
of the two most popular sources used by AI chatbots
for news about the Israel Hamas war, and there were
zero Israel learn leaning sites that were in their top ten.
I think it was so garbage in, garbage out. Then
(14:55):
you've got Hannah Nicole Jones, Nicole Hannah Jones, whatever her
name is, a New York Times, the crazy Lady, the
racist who came out with a sixteen nineteen project, wrote
recently that public mourning for Kirk is unsettling. In the
wake of Kirk's death, individuals and institutions across the nation
(15:17):
moved not just to condemn his killings in political violence,
but to venerate him. It was unsettling to see many
politicians from across the political spectrum speak with reverence about Kirk.
And she went on to describe how he was a
man who spread hate, said black women lacked the brain
(15:40):
processing power to otherwise be taken seriously, which is a
deliberate misquoting of Charlie And again that's in the New
York Times. Wow, flamingly. You know, liberal obviously, but you
could be a person serious about getting your information and
be completely misled.
Speaker 3 (16:02):
Well, on the same story, but a different version of it.
I was talking to somebody yesterday who is completely into
this story that that poor kid in Utah is going
to be executed for something he didn't do. He was framed.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
He was a patsy like Lee Harvey Hoswald.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
That the the FBI planted that gun and they're pinning
it on him, and it was the masade working with
our FBI to Charlie killed Charlie Kirk and they're gonna
pin it on this kid, and this poor kid is
going to be executed. And how I mean this person
was upset that this innocent kid is going to be
executed for something he didn't do.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
God unplugged the Internet. And I think that comes from
the Candace Owen's crowd. Yeah, yeah, I was just gonna
ask that.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
Yeah, all right, final note on this topic, because Nelly
Bowles is so great writing in the free press and
the left.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
Yes, but why so, like, why for you and I?
Speaker 3 (16:59):
Is it so obviously he was half crazy also upset
about the trans thing, but he's dating a trans person
and blah blah blah suicidal And I just believe that story.
Why do you think you and I are the way
we are on that story? Which I believe is the
accurate version.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
By the way, I don't know.
Speaker 5 (17:25):
A judge gave the man who attempted to assassinate Brett
Kavanaugh only eight years in prison after he began identifying
as a woman. You don't say, said the Menendez sisters.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
That's a good joke, That's a well crafted joke.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
Yeah, I've got a question about upf's ultra processed foods
Joe has been trying to scarce about for quite some time,
and I'm sure it's true that whenever you're eating something
that's got a list of fifty ingredients, you can't have
no idea what they are, that it's probably not good
for you. And lately they've been saying that, like this
(18:07):
is really really bad for us, right, like this could
be this could be a lot of what all our
problems are obesity and health.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
This isn't it food addiction.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
But I often think in addition to all the ingredients,
just stuff that's like sealed in a bag or whatever.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
Is probably that.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
But like the kettle chips, like the healthier potato chips,
you get to look at the ingredients and it's just potatoes, oil, salt,
that's the only thing on there. Does that mean it
is an ultra processed or is it just a slightly
better version of ul because.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
It's still in one of those bags sealed up that
the food would stay fresh for the next one hundred.
Speaker 4 (18:41):
And fifty years, which doesn't do those The more you know,
basic down to earth potato chips, do they have that
long shelf life?
Speaker 2 (18:49):
I don't know. I don't know that either.
Speaker 4 (18:50):
Actually, it's hell better for you than the ones that
have a zillion ingredients chemicals and stuff.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Yeah, I actually bought some chips.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
I was watching the Tucker Carlson nine to eleven documentary
that I assume is going to end up.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
It was the Jews.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
I haven't finished it yet, but Tucker was doing an
endorsement just like we do on the radio, for some
healthy chip and I actually he talked me into it.
I bought someone. They come in the mail this week
and I'll try them up. I'm all for trying to
get away from that ultra process stuff. Eat eat way
way through. I've been looking at my bread. It's hard
to buy bread. Bread's a tough one because my experience
(19:24):
has been if you buy bread that doesn't have a
million ingredients, it's fresh.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
For like a day.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Either got to eat that day and make your sandwich
or forget about it.
Speaker 4 (19:33):
I eat homemade whole grain bread because I'm better than you.
And yeah, we keep it in the freezer because we
have to. You bring it out and let it thaw
on the countertop if you're going to walk the dog
or something like that, or pop it in the toaster
for a minute, minute and a half just to get
the frostiness off of it. But yeah, you have to
at least refrigerate it and probably freeze it.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
I don't know if I can plan that far ahead
on my bread. If a minute, don't you just no minute?
It takes. It only takes a minute to thaw out
your bread. Yeah in a toaster? Sure, Oh you toa
in it and a half? Okay, yes, Michael, didn't you
just eat a white wonderbread and that's all you eat.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
That's generally what I've been eating. But I'm trying to
get away from the ultra processed food, and bread's a
tough one.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
I love sandwiches, man, I think you'll be happy with it.
Speaker 4 (20:19):
So a little featurette here might have to go into
the next segment, but that's fine. Politico was out with
a report a private polling memo run by the DNC.
I think one of their big consultant groups are pushing
their candidates to go on the offense on crime ahead
of the twenty twenty six mid terms, because that's one
(20:39):
of the weakest electoral issues, and that is I'm not
sure exactly how they're going to go about that, but
it was shared exclusively with Politico. The battle Ground District
survey from Global Strategy Group nonprofit blah blah blah offers
a bleak assessment of Democrats. Starting point, eighty nine percent
(21:02):
of the likely voters surveyed want their Congress member to
take steps to keep them safe, but only thirty eight
percent trust Democrats over Republicans with that task. Voters also
reported preferring Republicans to Democrats with preventing and reducing crime
and cracking down on violent crime, gaps that grew among
swing voters, but the voters swung toward Democrats in all
(21:27):
four categories after hearing messaging acknowledging crime is a problem
and showing steps the party is taken to increase safety. Specifically,
pollsters cited cracking down on gun trafficking and strengthening firearm
background checks, and if you emphasize that the Democrats are
doing that, the poll numbers change a lot.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Plus.
Speaker 4 (21:50):
The persuasion efforts include criticisms of GOP cuts to gun
violence prevention funding, the Trump administration's attempts to roll back
firearm regulations, and Republicans ties to pro gun groups. So
the whole gun control thing is about to be one
of the loudest issues in America again. But when you
(22:12):
give him just a little talking to, there was a
double digit swing among voters. So they're going to be
hammering on that apparently, and sending around the usual spate
of speakers calling for gun control, which will never and
has never squared with the Second Amendment. But they don't
talk about that because they don't care. They just want
to win the next election.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
Are you moving on from polling because I have an
interesting poll thing. Yeah, good, go ahead.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
This was on CNN yesterday. This is about Trump's approval
rating in general. This was on CNN again. They're pointing
out that he's hanging around the mid forties. And I'll
just quote the analyst they had on CNN as they
had the numbers up on the board. Trump is basically
doing what the American people thought that he was going
(22:59):
to do. Indeed, if you look at the numbers, Trump
is basically the steadiest favorability rating at this point in
the presidency of any president on record, and it's basically
where he was a year ago, good enough to get
him reelected.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
At the time.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
All the news, almost all of it negative about Trump
he's just hung around forty three forty four percent, steadier
than any president that has been recorded through the first
nine months.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
And he was at this number when he got reelected.
So that's pretty amazing. I don't know, it is amazing.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
I don't know if that's just because our dials are
stuck regardless of who it is, or it's something special
about Trump or whatever.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
But yeah, yeah, it's it's interesting. Nonetheless.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
So speaking of crime, Jason Riley, brilliant columnist for the
Wall Street Journal who wrote a great book. He just
wrote another thing, a column about public housing and how
miserable how the progressives insisted that the poor black neighborhoo
hoods be torn down in the fifties and sixties, especially
(24:05):
literally torn down, everybody given what the government said their
place was worth, and then all put in giant public
housing projects. That was the progressive solution to the black
poverty problem. And I'd really like to get into this
at length, but the one point he makes that is
incredibly powerful is, yeah, they gave him the minimum a
(24:26):
judge would let them, the government give them for their properties.
They missed out on every penny of future appreciation of
the value of those properties, they lost their businesses. There
was a great system of upward mobility within those black neighborhoods.
There's like totally stunted upward mobility in the progressive designed
(24:49):
public housing projects and the public financing thing. Anyway, that's
a discussion for another day. But he wrote a couple
of weeks ago, and I held on to it because
it's so good. He's talking about policing and how more
policing means less crime, and Black people proportionately have way
bigger benefits than any other people in America from more policing,
(25:13):
not the opposite.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
It's great for them.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
And he talks about Brandon Johnson saying that we can't
arrest our way out of poverty, and we need more
affordable housing, not more police. And then Jason gets into
my favorite part of this. That point of view is
held widely on the left that crime can mostly be
blamed on poverty. You hear it all the time in
blue states. In this respect, it's the mayor's views that
(25:38):
are out of touch. Not only are most poor people
not criminals, but the most impoverished communities in the US
are not the most violent. Further, violent crime was significantly
lower in earlier eras when poor Americans were materially much
worse off than they are today. If anything, more evidence
points to crime driving poverty than the other way around.
(25:59):
And this is the part that my god, I wish
the Republican Party was any good at communicating with people.
Merchants are more likely to abandon lawless neighborhoods.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
How many times have we seen that recently?
Speaker 4 (26:11):
All the damn time where operating costs are hire taking
employment opportunities and economic activity with them. As businesses leave,
the tax based shrinks, property values decline, and public services suffer.
In the forties and fifties, the homicide rate for black
mails fell by double digits, and black incomes rose faster
than white incomes.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
This is the forties and fifties.
Speaker 4 (26:34):
Safer neighborhoods are conducive to upward mobility, and police help
keep neighborhoods safe.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
And then my favorite part is this.
Speaker 4 (26:42):
We are not going to eliminate crime or poverty anytime soon,
but there are better and worse ways to address both.
Family makeup and education play important roles in reducing social pathology.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Cultural habits and attitudes matter.
Speaker 4 (26:57):
Single parent households were a minority of all black households
for most of the twentieth century. The welfare state expansion
of the sixties and seventies, which subsidized irresponsible, self destructive behavior,
led to social retrogressions that some Black communities still haven't
recovered from more than fifty years later.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
Yeah, well, I have very strong opinions about this whole thing.
I think the breakdown of the American family is the
cause of tons of our problems. And nobody wants to
talk about it because they feel like it be mean,
or they're participating themselves.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
Or they're blaming the victim or something. Yeah, and nobody
wants to talk about it. Hey, households to stay together
do way better.
Speaker 3 (27:43):
Kids do better, parents do better, everybody does better, neighborhood
does better. It's just better all the way around. But
that's not a popular thing to talk about.
Speaker 4 (27:51):
And then one of the last things Jason writes on
this topic, he quotes our hero, the great thinker, Thomas Sowell,
another black man, what It's worth All remarked, when you
take away stable families, decent schools, and safe streets, there's
nothing left. Stable families, decent schools, and safe streets. How
(28:15):
are the Democrats doing on those three things. I'll let
you answer for yourself. It's good talk about people would
listen to. And Jason Riley, yeah, you know. And one
final note, we don't really have time for this, but
a study has come out that there's there's an old
saying among lefties that zip code is destiny, and it
(28:37):
turns out that complete bunk it all has to do
with family, education and safety.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
What does that mean?
Speaker 3 (28:46):
Zip code is destiny that like where you were born,
it determines your life.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
Yeah, exactly, Well, it's nuts.
Speaker 4 (28:53):
It's a zip code is destiny, and that's the major
source of inequality in the US. The rich stay rich,
the poor stay poor, and you've got to get the
poor kids, you know, bust them to other neighborhoods and
other schools and stuff like that. And some of that
may be somewhat effective sometimes, but again to your point,
nobody wants to talk about the family.
Speaker 6 (29:21):
That campaign that you all launched pretending that you were
going to cancel Hulu while secretly racing through four seasons
of only murders in the building. I really was congratulations,
wasn't it? Wasn't it interesting to try and figure out
all the tentacles Disney has in your daily life. It's
(29:42):
one thing to swear off cruises, but the Avengers. Nah,
how is it possible that by getting rid of one company,
I can't watch Winnie the Pooh or Monday Night Football.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
That is pretty funny when you think about, oh, I'm
going to boycott Disney.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Have you looked into what that means? Right?
Speaker 4 (30:03):
Why were they gonna boycott Disney because canceled Kimmel? All right, yeah,
that was the hotest story among back crowd for the
last week. So people were so, you're gonna cancel your Hulu,
your Disney trip, not watch the Avengers or Monday Night
Football or yeah, that's his point. You got a boycott Disney,
a tiny flash and a stupid pan.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
You know, you probably don't remember this.
Speaker 4 (30:29):
A couple of years ago, I came across a really
good comprehensive chart. I guess it was of Disney Corporation
and it's holdings, and as I was describing at the time,
it makes Exxon or GM look like your corner coffee shop.
It is all the stuff, you know, lots of media stuff.
(30:53):
As John Stewart was pointing out that you didn't realize hotels,
all in conference centers all all over the world, branded
Disney and many not branded Disney. MANU factoring, just accounting processing,
just like they.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
Have their The mouse is not a mouse, he's.
Speaker 4 (31:13):
An eight hundred pound gorilla, giant soul crushing, just calculating corporation.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
The fact that they've still got the image of that's
the happiest pleasure on earth.
Speaker 4 (31:25):
Come with your smile at kids is really quite an accomplishment.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
You almost have to admire it. That's right. I'm a
pretty big effing deal. Move out of the way. Oh
crush you like I crushed goofy. You don't hear much
from him anymore, do Yeah? Jeez, put his head and device.
Speaker 3 (31:44):
I got a follow up on the banning marriages among
first cousins in Connecticut. Gotta follow that story. Didn't see
that coming from one angle of the controversy. That actually
makes sense to me. Why would you ban gay.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
First cousins from getting married.
Speaker 3 (31:59):
It's about to having kids, so I can't A couple
of dudes who are first cousins who fall in love
with each other.
Speaker 4 (32:04):
A little weird, uh, decided to get married. Why not
make Thanksgiving dinner a little uncomfortable. That's where the controversy
comes in. So anyway, more on that and a whole
bunch of other stuff later.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (32:17):
Okay, So speaking of controversies, I found this very interesting,
particularly because we got a couple of females asking about it.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (32:23):
You remember the Colorado bake shop who refused to make
a gig for a gay wedding, and there have been
a couple other cases like this. There was a giant
Supreme Court ruling right and which what they ruled that
he could say no to making the cake.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
Yeah, absolutely, yeah, And I'm getting to that.
Speaker 4 (32:45):
It was made a huge cause by the left who
was screaming no, it's discrimination, and what the Supreme Court
decided quite correctly in my opinion, And I don't have
the decisions in front of me, so forgive me if
my paraphrasing's a little off. Actual attorneys, But if you
are asking somebody.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
To engage in.
Speaker 4 (33:05):
Create the creative arts, an act of sell of expression
and creation, as opposed to say, pressing go on a
copy machine, they cannot be compelled to engage in that
speech because compelled speech is as bad as censored speech.
So you cannot force me to write a song or well,
(33:29):
you cannot compel me to agree to write a song
zorin mum danmi will save New York. I won't do it.
I won't take money for it. I won't create that.
And that's good because the First Amendment protects you against
compelled space.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
But you couldn't say I won't sell you this cardboard
to make signs, because that's a commodity.
Speaker 4 (33:52):
That's not a creative expression. So you got this case
in Kalamazoo, Michigan, one of our more amusingly named cities
in America. Kalamazoo. Here's this twenty one year old duty.
He's the head of the Kalamazoo Young Republicans. He's running
errands getting ready for a vigil honoring Charlie Kirk. One
of his stops was at his local office depot to
(34:13):
print a poster that was a picture of Charlie in
black and white and said the legendary Charlie Kirk nineteen
ninety three twenty five. And some folks there at the
home depot refuse to print it, calling it propaganda. Okay,
so two and a home depot fired the employees in
(34:36):
issue of public apology. So there are two levels of
two questions here. One is the first mention, sure did,
I'm sure they've got Hey, just if somebody comes in
and wants to make just make the freaking.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
Copy and send them out the door, you freaking morh.
Speaker 4 (34:51):
Nobody cares what you think, including me. I think you
are go go So anyway, there's two questions here. The
first one is the First Amendment question, which I think
I'm more or less dealt with. Pressing go on copy
machine is not the same as painting a portrait, writing
a song, painstakingly decorating a cake, which is an artistic expression.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
And the second question is, and there are people on
the left saying, oh.
Speaker 4 (35:17):
Your conservatives, you're defending the baker blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
But no, are these poor guys you can fire from
the home people. No. The second question is.
Speaker 4 (35:25):
Does a giant corporation must they employ jackasses will say
I'm not hitting go on this printer because I don't
like your politics.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
It's a completely different question.
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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