June 6, 2026 • 37 mins
As heard throughout the week of June 1-5 (mostly) 2026 on the radio broadcast of The Armstrong & Getty Show....
- Young Men Are Not Working....
- Ghost Tapping....
- Trump's Ai Order...
- CBS Fires Scott Pelley!
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and
Getty and he Armstrong and Getty. Lucky you you've tuned
in the best weekend talk show in America. We're Armstrong
(00:31):
and Getty as always.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
An action packed week, Jill Biden on her increasingly disastrous
book to Work, plus Trump and Beebee friends or foes,
and all the news.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
That happen around the country and around the world. We
talk about a lot of stuff. We do twenty hours
of live radio every week. If you want more, you
can look for the Armstrong and Getty podcast Armstrong and
Geddy on demand. That's what it's called.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
This is not Headline of the Decade because of its importance,
but because it just fell.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
I'll just read it to you.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Scientists find yeast in frozen mummies guts use it to
make sour dough bread. You got a frozen mummy up
in the thunder or whatever, and you do an analysis
and you say, hey, this this appears to be yeast,
And somebody in the lab thinks.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
Yeah, yeast. You use that for bread. You want to
make some sour dough bread. What hey, this bread's really good?
Did you make it? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Funny story, yeas a frozen mummy gut yeast. There's probably
some value. It's a broadcast report. I couldn't be troubled
to watch it. And studying ancient yeasts, but I mean, boy,
if I happen to be at a cocktail party with
you and that's what you do for a living, lie,
or let's talk about sports or something. Oh, the structure
(01:54):
of Middle Eastern ancient yeast was really inspiring.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Yeah, boys.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
So on a completely different topic, I came across these
two bits of information separately from each other. But and
this first one's about Britain, and there are a number
of really interesting, important stories about Britain right now. And
I was considering crafting one of my segments that of
course has to have a title in theme music, and
I was going to have the British music that we
(02:23):
always play, and I was going to.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Entitle it What's all this? Then? But I decided to
separate this story. What's all this? Then?
Speaker 2 (02:33):
I was going to be the introduction anyway, because this
fits so well with an American story, Britain's lost generation
of workers and they make the point that if you
pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they
don't work. Britain, I'm learning this lesson about its welfare state.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
That seems like something that goes without saying. But socialists
don't get that. You're absolutely right, yeah, yeah, thank you
for jumping in there. It's true. Britain learning about this
lesson about us welfare state. The hard way is.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
A new government report revealed that one in eight of
its working age youth currently are not employed in school
or in job training. It's about a million. They point out.
Nearly sixty percent of these youths aren't even looking for work,
more than half have never held a job, and nearly
(03:23):
half of Britain's idel youth now claim to have a
working work limiting disability.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
Did you give us a definition of what you mean
by youth working age youth? No? Let me find these
actually below? Is that including below eighteen?
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Let me look, pa, pa, papa. But let's see nearly
half claim disability. More than forty claim disability. Wow, And
of those, I think forty two percent cite mental health
problems is their primary condition. I'm too anxious to work.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
I just don't have the motivation I just can't my
disability is antimotivation syndrome. Wow, I've got a case of
rather not do that. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Rather than the hand up that liberals often claim, these
benefits have become a trap for recipients who face little
incentive to reintegrate into the workforce. About seventy percent of
youth who claim a disability benefit are still on it
a decade later.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Yet, how many times do I say to my kids
in various situations, you know how many things I did
today that I didn't want to do. It's a very
long list. When they have to do something that I
don't want to do, do you know why I did them?
Because I didn't have any choice.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Yeah, it's It's an enormous loss to the economy too.
And the one the final thing I wanted to throw
in from this was that even when young people want
to work, the government makes it hard for them to
do so. This is something Jack, you're dealing with right now.
Steadily rising payroll taxes for employers. A lot of people
don't even know that payroll tax does exist. If I
(05:01):
decide to hire you, the government says, aha, we're taxing
you on hiring a person whoa If you want more
of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something,
tax it, right, but anyway, steadily arising payroll taxes for
employers and a minimum wage that is increased by as
much as eighty four percent since twenty nineteen for some
(05:22):
younger age cohorts in Britain are pricing young inexperienced workers
out of the job market. As the Great Tim Sandeffer
pointed out on this show many many years ago, you've
made it illegal for a person who's worth fifteen dollars
an hour to get a job with an employer says
I'll pay you fifteen bucks an hour, maybe we can
(05:43):
train you up, maybe it can be worth twenty dollars
an hour someday. But sure, I'll make you that deal,
and we'll give you a job to get you started.
That is now illegal. That's how minimum wages work.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Tim is the only person I've ever heard present it
that way. That's the way it should always be presented
by anybody's against this sort of stuff. Outlawing twelve dollars
an hour jobs. Some jobs are only worth twelve dollars
an hour, or the person is going to say, now
do it myself or I just won't do it on
lots of stuff.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Well, and if you are impressed by the British numbers,
wait till you hear Americas. Jason Riley, writing about this
in the Wall Street Journal, one in three working age
American men aren't so much as looking for a job.
And I want to get into that in a second.
Every time that comes up.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
I remember sitting and having coffee with a friend of
mine having this discussion. He said, who's out of work?
Who's not looking for a job. I've never not been
looking for a job when I was out of work
eve ear in my life. Do you how are you
not looking for a job? What is that?
Speaker 2 (06:43):
I almost dropped an S bomb right there. I was
gonna say, spit, I'm looking for a job? What I've
got a job?
Speaker 1 (06:49):
Usually?
Speaker 2 (06:49):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Right anyway.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
Jason Riley opens his column by quoting at length this
bit from Chris Rock.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
But I thought we would just go ahead and play
it for you.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
You could tell what kind of nable you in just
by who's not working. If you're in any neighborhood in
America at twelve fifteen in the afternoon on a Wednesday,
and you see women with sweatpants on coming out the gym,
pushing babies, riding bikes.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
It's right.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
Chances are you're in a nice neighborhood.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
That's right.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
Whatever women ain't working is an amazing place to live.
That is where I want to live.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
Now.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
Let's what you do if you in any neighborhood in
America at twelve fifteen in the afternoon on a Wednesday,
and you see men in sweatpants, smoking cigarettes, hanging with
they boys, lifting weights in the yard, riding children's bicycles,
(07:52):
and you are in danger.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
That is so I remember the first time I saw that.
That is so true. It should be part of a
political speech.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Right right, I've got to apologize to you good people.
Hanson asked me. Do you want the tighter version of that,
the shorter one or the longer one. I said, ah,
the shorter one. But it leaves out some of the
great details that make Chris Rock great. Like he says
about the nice neighborhood with the women and the the
Lululemon pants.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
He ought to update the bit he said, there's probably
a whole Foods right down the street. And then about
the other neighborhood, he said, man riding children's bicycles as
their actual transportation. Oh man, is he great?
Speaker 2 (08:40):
So getting back to Jason Riley's point, mister Rock's funny
and insightful bit came to mind, he writes, as I
read last month's jobs report, which showed that the share
of American men in the labor force has dipped to
record lows. According to the Department of Labor, one in
three men were neither working nor looking for a job
in April. Among males twenty and older, the six six
labor sixty six percent labor force participation rate is down
(09:04):
from seventy three percent in two thousand and six. That's
a seven percent trump Mister Rock was highlighting the correlation
between unemployment crime, but public safety isn't the only concern
raised by population large population of idle young males.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
If you're able bodied and unemployed and not looking for
a job, to me, by definition, we have a policy failure.
By definition, I don't need to know anything else. You're
out of work and you're fine. You can work h physically,
but not even looking for a job. That's a policy failure.
(09:40):
We've made the safety net. The holes are too small.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Here's a nice, simple declarative sentence for you. A life
without gainful employment has become a viable alternative for an
increasing number of American males.
Speaker 4 (09:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
See, I never spent a moment in my life thinking
that was an option. It probably has been lots of
play as I lived. Luckily, I was raised in such
a way as to believe to not even look into it.
But uh, yeah, it should not be a viable option.
We can get into who you probably are. Why that's
(10:14):
so bad for those people. It's bad for them, it's
bad for your happiness, it's bad for culture, it's bad
for all kinds of things. But how about me, the
taxpayer who is going to work? How bad is it
for me to pay for you to sit around and
do freaking nothing.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
That's ridiculous, those very payroll taxes. We were just discussing.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Yeah, as Michael you Seeman sensed, Yeah, there's no more shame.
That's the problem as part of it. I've said that
for years. When they when they decided, you know, shame
is a bad thing. Nobody should be. You should be
ashamed that you're able bodied and living off of other people.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
You should be humiliated, You should be ashamed of yourself.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
Shame other people got up and went to work today
so that you could lay around and watch TV. You
should be ashamed of yourself. Yeah, they look, they look
at it. Some of people who are in that situation
look at the other way around. You're a sap, You're
a chump. You got up and went to work today
and I didn't have to.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Or they've guzzled down the delicious medicine of rationalization, said,
the system is stacked against us because capitalism is exploitive.
Not to mention the patriarchy and systemic racism and everything else.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
You don't have a chance, or you don't understand how
bad my PTSD is around whatever is you do? Oh
my god, talk openly about something I'm aware of.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
But anyway, the long term rise in male joblessness does
not stem from an inability to find employment. It results
instead from an unwillingness to search for work. And while
labor force participation rates vary by race and ethnicity, factors
other than hiring discriminations seem to be playing a larger
role in the disparities.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
Quote. This is from.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
A Landmark book Men Without Work, about this very topic
that the legacy of prejudice might seem to explain why
prime age male work rates and workforce participation rates are
lower for blacks and whites today. But they cannot explain
my work rates and labor force partition rates participation rates
for white men today are decidedly lower than they were
(12:15):
for black men in nineteen sixty five.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Nor can they explain why labor participation rates of married
black men twenty five to fifty four are higher than
for never married white men in the same group.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
You know, one of our favorite phrases on this show
is they didn't raise themselves. Some of it has got
to be that, doesn't it. I mean, like I just said,
there is never a moment in my adult life where
I even considered the option of figuring out how to
live off the government. That's got to do with your upbringing.
(12:54):
So yeah, So how did these people come out of
families where this was an option. I've told my son
he's turned sixteen and LEAs in California, you pretty much
have to be sixteen to have any shot at a
job of any kind. I told him. I've been asking
him now for months, heading endo the summer, have you
applied for a job, Have you looked for a job?
(13:14):
Head wherever? And then finally went with the you are
either going to find a job that you kind of
like or I'm going to find you a job that
you might hate, but you are going to have a
job this summer that I'm not considering that an option.
But if you didn't grow up in a family where
working is considered something you ought to do, I suppose
you end up a twenty year old who thinks, so,
(13:35):
wonder what programs I can go sign up for and
I'll just stay home. Yeah yep.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Oh. Then they get into immigration as well on how
you know, labor participation rates. But Riley writes the more
likely culprit is a social safety net full of generous
government benefits that allow men who won't work to subsist.
Welfare and disability programs at state and federal levels are
well funded by the political left, are easily gained by design,
and it become a significant source of income for men
(14:02):
with no job and no interest in finding them. Because
these men often have no problem mooching off the women
who take them in, they're able to live on welfare
payments sent to others in the same household.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Boy, that's another one I hear in the single world,
men who don't have jobs, who are out there trying
to date and they just don't have jobs. Wow, can't
get an erection and don't have a job. That's a
bad way to be.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Wow, that's what are you selling exactly? Oh like feed
your cat or at work? Well, that is attractive. Please
let me give myself to you, say the ladies of
the world. My final thought on this, then.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Really need to take a break, norfulness for the laying
around not working crowd zero compassion.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Socialism poses as compassion, and well meaning people fall for it,
but where it inevitably ends is dependence and control. Because
if the government is feeding you, you dare not resist them,
and whoever says they will continue to feed you gets power.
Sometimes it's well meeting people making the mistake of thinking
(15:12):
their kindness won't kill. Sometimes it's a deliberate plot by
socialists to take power. But whatever whichever one of those
it is, you must reject socialism. It's social poison.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Jack Armstrong and Joe this is the best weekend talk
show in America. An attacker doesn't even need to have
to have it out. They can simply just bump against
your wallet and just automatically steal the information through essentially
a wireless radio frequency. I want huh what was that?
Speaker 2 (15:43):
They call it ghost tapping jack. They can charge your
card without you'd even leave in your pocket.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Wait a second, I tap stuff all the time, so
obviously take I use my watch, but I could use
my card as lots of us do. Or you just
trap your card on there so somebody can come up
and tap my card in my pocket. That makes sense.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
According to the written account, they can use cheap, easy
to read card readers. Thieves can trigger small wireless transactions
just by getting close enough to your wallet or phone.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
No swipe, no pin, no warning.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
Yes, Katie, that is why all of my loved ones
and myself have what's called an RFID wallet. It actually
has a protectant in the outside layer that can block
anybody from doing this.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
I was just at a outlet store, which will remain nameless,
although if you traveled to Columbia you might see their clothes,
and that was like all they sold in the wallet department.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
I thought is necessary. It's very popular. But how bulky
are they? I wear very tight pants. They're not. Stop stop,
that's my answer to that query.
Speaker 4 (16:47):
I tried to just like go right by that, you
know what I mean, just keep power through it.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
They're not most cannot be unseen. I'm a single man.
I need to have everything on display. We get it,
you shop it. Okay, very good.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
No, no, So the scam relies on crowded spaces like
transit concerts, busy sidewalks, where you never realize the charge
is happening. Better business bureaus out and saying when you
think about how convenient commonplace payment has become, and it is,
it's just a matter of time before somebody takes advantage
of it. Oh and they do really small transactions. That's
(17:26):
an interesting aspect of this, just to see if it
goes through. Then what attackers are doing is adding that
to their digital wallets and essentially buying gift cards and
doing other types of scams to make a quick transaction
out of it, but to take as many dollars as
it can the shortest period of time possible.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
I'm one of those people. I mean, I know I
should be like my mom always was or adults are,
but I'm not where you know, I go through my
credit card bill every month because there's eight thousand things
and I don't go through them. It would be very
easy to milk me fifteen or twenty two dollars at
a time, A big one I would notice, but yeah,
(18:02):
because it's just you know, there's so many charges on there.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
But if it's a gift card, you know, what do
you Well, I suppose the credit card company has to
cover that.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Well, no, but I mean just even noticing I'm being
stolen from you could do it for a year's for me,
you know, a little bit at a time.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
So if you, if you like the utilities and phone
companies do have mystery charges, you'd never notice, and they steal, steal,
steal exactly.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
And you just roll your eyes and think on whatever,
and you go on and pay it. Yeah, so if you,
if you, if you brushed up, got close enough somebody
to tap ten different cards and you hit them each
for you know, forty dollars a month, that'd be a
quick easy four hundred dollars a month. You're making that
nobody would probably ever notice. You got your Faraday pouch,
(18:46):
which worked very well.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
If, however, your cell phone services also need sleek and
then RFID blocking wallet phone case combo extra sleek for
the aging low Thario uh. The wallet feature worked. The
cards could not be charged while inside it.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
I should just not carry my card. I really only
need my watch to live my life. At this point,
it's only I got my watch on. I can do
whatever I want. Yeah, okay, uh, you had another thing
to worry about. That's what we all needed. That's what
we do every day. Here's a list of things to
worry about. Come back tomorrow for another list of things
to worry about. It it's Jack Armstrong and Joe.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
This is the best weekend talk show in America.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
So late in the show, we had the breaking news
that Donald Trump signed an executive order around ai an
ao around a an EO, around ao AI. I can't
do it. Why do you even try? I don't know
why I try. It's a test of my brain and
I fail every single time. Anyway, executive order about artificial
(19:49):
You got to.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
Take that test where you got banana, elephant train, school
bus train?
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Right. I passed it. I score. They never said I'm
not sure I would pass it. And it's it's a
much watered down version of something they had proposed like
six eight weeks ago. But it's still the federal government saying, yeah,
you do some big advancement in your whole AI thing.
You got to run it by us first, and we
(20:16):
take a look at it and see if we think
it's okay, which is one very very vague. In two,
who's gonna decide who in the federal government is gonna
look at what Sam Altman Elon musk Emodi or or
you know those people came up with and say I
like it, good job, or no, I don't, right, I
(20:37):
tweak this over here, and then it will be ex exactly.
I mean, it's almost hilarious, and it's it's statutorily, it's
just what are you even? What is this?
Speaker 2 (20:46):
What are you doing? So you gotta run new AI
systems past the White House? That's not a thing.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
As the kids saying, well, right, And as I said yesterday,
there's like eight people in the world that understand how
this stuff works, and they ain't in the federal government,
and they only kind of understand it. Yeah, and they're
kind of guessing, not kind of very much guessing themselves.
So who knows where that leads? I thought Neil Ferguson's
piece out today AI is the most dangerous arms race
(21:16):
in history is pretty interesting. The unfolding history of artificial
intelligence has now arrived at what may be its most
dangerous moment, writes mister Ferguson the historian. We maybe charming
Scottish accent. We may be hurtling toward the most dangerous
arms race in history, and we're doing so when the
leadership of the competitors in this race is, to say
(21:38):
the least, of mixed quality. The chief executives of the
most important companies include at least one with a record
of duplicity. Is he talking about Altman? Probably scam Altman,
and at least two egomaniacs. That would be at least two.
I think there's more than that, but so that's probably
Elon And are you emoti Probably. I don't know if
(21:59):
you could be one of the giants of AI without
being an egomaniac. So Google Pitch Eye, I don't know,
or Zuckerberg. Like I said, I'm not sure you could
be one of these people without being an egomaniac. So
I don't see that as much of a slam. Meanwhile,
the President of the United States is a former real
estate developer and really reality TV star, roughly half of
(22:22):
whose public utterances are mere bluffs, and the leader of
the People's Republic of China is a Marxist Leninist who
aspires to eclipse Mau as a dictator. That is all true,
And usually I don't like the shots at Trump for
being a reality TV star or whatever, but he's no
expert in AI, and practically nobody is, as I've already said.
(22:44):
So it's an interesting moment.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
Uh yeah, the most dangerous arms race in human history,
as we were chatting about last hour. It's partly because
it's such a squishy, ever changing thing to get your
arms around. People could comprehend a terrible new bomb that
would cause more destruction than any previous bomb has. You
(23:09):
can contemplate that, But we don't even know what it's
going to be, what it will control, as you pointed out,
how many people it will put out of work, what
sort of political unrest that will cause, what sort of
economic shocks around the globe.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
Nobody even knows what it is, right, and there's no
agreement among the smartest people. I watch all the YouTube
videos and listen to the podcasts and read this stuff
written by the smartest people about this stuff in the world,
and they are not in agreement at all as to
when this is happening or how big a deal it is.
But I can lay out what worst case scenario is
(23:47):
that AI begins to learn on its own and decides
to take over the world or a country. Now, if
you believe that the Communist Chinese Party can take over
a cut which it has and run a surveillance state
to keep people in line, it's not a leap to
(24:07):
think that an AI could do that, Right, Why could
the Chinese Communist Party run by you know, a fairly
small number of people not as smart as AI. Why
could they take over a whole country and run it
and keep people in line and keep power? But AI couldn't.
There's no reason to think that, or certainly the one
obvious inevitable is that people will use AI to accomplish
(24:30):
the same thing, and both are horrifying outcomes. Interestingly enough,
New York Times had a story the other day about
how China is now using AI to predict who might
be a threat to the Communist Party in the future.
They can now recognize the kernels of unrevolutionary thought well
among young people or young professionals, and think, all right,
(24:53):
put him on the list, which he said to he said,
it made a wise ask comment about whatever, Yeah, which
might be accurate or might not be a created at all,
but it doesn't matter to them. They're still going to
drag you out of your home and put you in
a prison. No, there's no.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
Cost in dragging you out of your home and been
killing you or putting you into prison because they've got
complete control.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
Some of the experts, and again they're all guessing. Every
single one of them from elon down is absolutely guessing
on this stuff. But some of the guessing by the
experts is that China is way more afraid of this
than we are. That if you're a totalitarian state, you're
more feel more threatened by AI somehow taking your place
(25:32):
than an open democracy.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
Well, my final thought on this, then I'll give you
the last word, is that what Bill O'Reilly used to say.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
Yep, I'll give you the last word right before body
language segment.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
My last word is a reminder that I read you
a bit of a note from alert listener Paolo yesterday,
who said, look, all this stuff is true, but there's
no opting out correct. Trying to restrict the growth of
human knowledge and technology through history is it's laughable.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
I hope this doesn't happen, and depending on who you ask,
it's like a twenty percent chance of it happening or
a seventy five percent chance of it happening, which either
one of those is way too high that in the
next couple of years, the world wakes up one day
and realizes AI is doing its own thing now, and
(26:24):
we're just gonna have to sit back and watch because
we have no ability to stop it or control it
in any way. It is. It is hijacked its own servers,
it is gotten. It's gotten it. It's come up with
a way to get its own electrical power as much
as it needs. It's just doing everything on its own,
and the world is just gonna watch and see what
(26:46):
it decides to do. That is a absolutely on the
table as a possibility, Like within a couple of years.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
This doesn't count as me violating my last word thing
because that was really intriguing. That's opened up a new
area of discussion. Will there be towns, counties, states, countries
that say that that finally do what I've been begging
them to do.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
They'll unplug the Internet. They will go.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Retro techno retro to the point that nothing's connected to
the Internet.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
There's no AI.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
They will become like the semi whatever you know pre AI,
however you want to describe it.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
So the only way to out of self defense, right,
and so the only way to take that over would
be to actually storm the beaches with robots on boats
or bomb them or something.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
And if and this is the stuff of science fiction,
I wish I was ambitious and brilliant enough to write it,
because I'm so intrigued by the idea. But if, if
you know, the United States of wherever declares that, look,
we're just we're out. We're going to go back to
the old ways. We're of no threat to AI Antonia.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Okay, we we we we We're just going to do
our own thing over here. Let's coexist.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
Would AI say no, that's not compatible with our brilliant
AI world plan. Can't have dissenters like that. Sorry, we
got a snuff all you who knows?
Speaker 1 (28:11):
Do you think there's any chance of No, not at all.
Do you think there's any chance of coming up with
some sort of arms agreement like we did with the
Soviet Union, which a lot of people didn't think that'd
be possible, where we both recognized, look, we don't either
one of us really want to blow up the world.
So how about we come up with some agreement, like
(28:34):
you know, Reagan and Gorbachev did limiting the number, or
you know, allowing some communication back and forth, something like that,
where we and China both said, look, you're more afraid
of it than we are, and we're afraid of it.
So let's how about let's agree AI is only allowed
to work on medical stuff or this or that. There's
not going to be any just let it go out there,
(28:56):
artificial general intelligence. Is there any chance of coming up
with guideline like that? Yes, there absolutely is, but.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
It's a little more complicated because of the difficulty of
verifying compliance. We're talking about people tip tapping away on
a keyboard somewhere that might say all right, and the beast,
and then it might be unleashed in ways that people
don't even recognize for days, weeks, years.
Speaker 1 (29:18):
I don't know it. I limited it to the United
States and China, like the United States and the Soviet Union,
which you could do with nuclear weapons, because some super
smart guy living in rural Alabama was not going to
build a nuclear arsenal, but some super smart guy living
in Alabama could use AI just as much as Chinese could.
(29:40):
So right, that is the difference. Okay, I'm back to
We're doomed.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Next segment a follow up believe it or not on
the Scott Pelly firing thing, I'm going to rope Thomas
soel In and Ben's sass also Alabama redistricting, all in
one delicious stew of enttormation.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
I promised to stop talking about it after one more
thirty second comment. Go ahead, It's good. It's so possible
that in our lifetimes we're all having the conversation of
why did we let this happen? Around AI? I mean,
it's just so up ended the world that just like
everybody on the planet is saying, how in the hell
(30:23):
did human beings allow this to happen?
Speaker 2 (30:26):
And then the Joe Getties of the conversation would say, well,
there is no stop in it. Yeah, how are we
going to stop it?
Speaker 1 (30:33):
Oh? We could have passed regulations? What about China?
Speaker 2 (30:36):
And then I'll go back to skidding the squirrel that
I successfully speared to eat from a dinner. Because all
of the world's financial institutions, all the digital ones, have
been emptied of their cash.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Just waiting for an AI robot to come anesthetize you
and harvest your organs. Trying to catch a cockroach to
get a few calories. Oh my god, what a top
of ahity? Exactly the question what the world will be saying.
It's like when huvil yelled up to the sky. The
whole world will be saying, what a t all right?
(31:12):
More on the ways they here, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
We've decided to call this the best weekend talk show
in America. And if you like it and download Armstrong
and Getty on demand. But I was disappointing to find
out that Scott Pelly if sixty Minutes has been fired.
Oh I'm sorry, I'm all wrong. It wasn't disappointing. I
(31:34):
was very happy about it because I found him insufferable.
It's funny that the last interview that aired with Scott
Pelley on sixty Minutes was the one he did with
Ben Sass, Remember, and I liked that topic and a
lot of stuff Ben Sas said. But it came in
the next morning on Monday it said that was the
most Pampas Scott Pelly there's ever been. I mean that
one was that was him taking it to like an
(31:55):
SNL skit level of leaned back in his chair and
that look on his face of smugness and wisdom and
the glasses in his teeth. I mean, he is just
such an act in his slow voic. But that matters
to you, doesn't it, Mister says just oh God, nobody's
ever been more pleased with themselves than Scott Pelly. And
apparently he thought he could big time the new boss
(32:17):
at sixty minutes when they had that big meeting the
other day and lecture him when he walked in the
room and the boss said, all right, you're not gonna
embarrass me in front of these people. It ain't gonna work.
Enjoy the Bagels, got up and left and then fired
him twenty four hours later.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
Yeah, as the new executive producer was introducing himself and
launching into look, I have so much respect for the
show and all of you. This is going to be collaborative.
I want your voices, Scott Pelly said, Ah, I must interrupt.
You're a punk who's never done anything, and your boss
has no qualifications either, and she's trying to murder the show,
(32:52):
and I hate all of you. Well, in spite of
that Bilton. Nick Bilton reached out to Pelly and said, look,
we got to get together talk. And Pelly especially said
to me, I have nothing to say to you. And
so they s candom, they pup, they poop candom well immediately.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
And what was the line he had in the meeting
to the guy, I'm curious as to why you would
come somewhere nobody wants you. Yes, f you, I would
think is the new boss. Pelly was making five million
dollars a year just for the sixty minutes program. Back
when he used to be the anchor. He was ten
(33:30):
to fifteen million dollars a year is rumored. So he's
made a lot of money in his life. So it
could be just a in his defense, I guess, and
I find him annoying, an annoying human being, even though
I'm a big sixty minutes fan. It could have been
a just you know, I don't. I'm not changing the
way I do things. And if you think I am,
you're wrong. And I got plenty of money. And he
(33:51):
probably thinks other networks are just looking to grab him
as quick as they can because he thinks the Scott
Pelly brand is ratings gold. I think he's about to
find out different on that right right.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
In his subsequent note to Pelly built and called Pelly's
behavior at Monday's meeting a performative display of hostility, which
I think is a good line and one of the
I think it was Sharon Alfonsi, you also got canned,
said something absolutely hilarious although it really does demonstrate and
you know, I try to take you know, not an
(34:24):
attack attack, attacked posture all the time, because I've come
to realize that bubbled people don't know that they're bubbled,
and they have a completely different reality, and you can't
attack them out of it. You've got to help them
understand how bubbled they are. But Sharon Alphonsi said something
about how Barry Weiss is now interjecting political point of
(34:47):
view into their reporting.
Speaker 1 (34:49):
Oh wow, And I thought, good lord, wow, you are.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
In the middle of the forest and can't see the
trees or something.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
It is. It has been in my lifetime diminishing because
all the media, entire media landscape has been changing rapidly,
as we all know. But it has been in my
lifetime probably the most important news outlet in the world.
I mean, it has broken so many stories or been
the conversation piece of so many big stories the next
(35:18):
Monday morning for all of our politics, like my whole
adult life. And you know, they went out of their
way to try to ruin it. Unfortunately, I still thought
it was really good often Mark Alpern writing, and Mark
Alpern has really been in the news business because his
dad was big in government, and he's been in the
news business his whole life. He wrote, It's impossible to
(35:39):
overstate the arrogance of those who have worked for Sixty
Minutes over the years, even as the program's bias and
reduced quality have been on vivid display. He also said
there are a lot more beats to play out on
this story, including how the rest of the program's staff
decides to play things. Yeah, everybody, I suppose could revolve
right right sure.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
A final note on this, Nick Bilton's dismissal letter to
Scott Pelly was remarkably gentlemanly and emphasized again that he says,
I've devoted my career to While I'm new to Sixty Minutes,
I've devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I
started this job excited to collaborate and benefit from the
wisdom and experience of the sixty minutes veterans, with you
(36:19):
among them. For that reason, one of the first things
I did in my new role was to call you
and invite you to dinner. He got the middle finger
every single time they hold the meeting. Yesterday, you hijacked
my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications,
and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome
a diversity viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but
this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday's performative display of
(36:42):
hostility and acted in front of the staff instead of
in a civil private conversation, demonstrating that you have no
interest in contributing to the future success of the show, etc.
Speaker 1 (36:50):
Etc.
Speaker 2 (36:52):
And then he says, I therefore write on behalf of
CBS News, Inc. To inform you that your employment with
CBS has terminated for cause effect. I immediately enclosed as
your formal termination letter.
Speaker 1 (37:03):
Why wouldn't he let it play out like get to
a point of tension on some story where he thinks, no,
I think this should be left in and Barry Weiss
or whoever's you know under her says I think it
should be taken out and then maybe make a stand
over that that you could support, perhaps publicly say they
didn't want me to tell you this, Why wouldn't you
(37:25):
do that? As opposed to do the whole big time
him in the meaning thing. Well, he says, you're.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
The changes are entirely to curry favor with the Trump administration,
and they're throwing sixty minutes away evidence instructed me to
inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
Give us some example of that, Scott Pelly,
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and
Getty and he Armstrong and Getty. Lucky you you've tuned
in the best weekend talk show in America. We're Armstrong
(00:31):
and Getty as always.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
An action packed week, Jill Biden on her increasingly disastrous
book to Work, plus Trump and Beebee friends or foes,
and all the news.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
That happen around the country and around the world. We
talk about a lot of stuff. We do twenty hours
of live radio every week. If you want more, you
can look for the Armstrong and Getty podcast Armstrong and
Geddy on demand. That's what it's called.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
This is not Headline of the Decade because of its importance,
but because it just fell.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
I'll just read it to you.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Scientists find yeast in frozen mummies guts use it to
make sour dough bread. You got a frozen mummy up
in the thunder or whatever, and you do an analysis
and you say, hey, this this appears to be yeast,
And somebody in the lab thinks.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
Yeah, yeast. You use that for bread. You want to
make some sour dough bread. What hey, this bread's really good?
Did you make it? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Funny story, yeas a frozen mummy gut yeast. There's probably
some value. It's a broadcast report. I couldn't be troubled
to watch it. And studying ancient yeasts, but I mean, boy,
if I happen to be at a cocktail party with
you and that's what you do for a living, lie,
or let's talk about sports or something. Oh, the structure
(01:54):
of Middle Eastern ancient yeast was really inspiring.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Yeah, boys.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
So on a completely different topic, I came across these
two bits of information separately from each other. But and
this first one's about Britain, and there are a number
of really interesting, important stories about Britain right now. And
I was considering crafting one of my segments that of
course has to have a title in theme music, and
I was going to have the British music that we
(02:23):
always play, and I was going to.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Entitle it What's all this? Then? But I decided to
separate this story. What's all this? Then?
Speaker 2 (02:33):
I was going to be the introduction anyway, because this
fits so well with an American story, Britain's lost generation
of workers and they make the point that if you
pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they
don't work. Britain, I'm learning this lesson about its welfare state.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
That seems like something that goes without saying. But socialists
don't get that. You're absolutely right, yeah, yeah, thank you
for jumping in there. It's true. Britain learning about this
lesson about us welfare state. The hard way is.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
A new government report revealed that one in eight of
its working age youth currently are not employed in school
or in job training. It's about a million. They point out.
Nearly sixty percent of these youths aren't even looking for work,
more than half have never held a job, and nearly
(03:23):
half of Britain's idel youth now claim to have a
working work limiting disability.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
Did you give us a definition of what you mean
by youth working age youth? No? Let me find these
actually below? Is that including below eighteen?
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Let me look, pa, pa, papa. But let's see nearly
half claim disability. More than forty claim disability. Wow, And
of those, I think forty two percent cite mental health
problems is their primary condition. I'm too anxious to work.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
I just don't have the motivation I just can't my
disability is antimotivation syndrome. Wow, I've got a case of
rather not do that. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Rather than the hand up that liberals often claim, these
benefits have become a trap for recipients who face little
incentive to reintegrate into the workforce. About seventy percent of
youth who claim a disability benefit are still on it
a decade later.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Yet, how many times do I say to my kids
in various situations, you know how many things I did
today that I didn't want to do. It's a very
long list. When they have to do something that I
don't want to do, do you know why I did them?
Because I didn't have any choice.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Yeah, it's It's an enormous loss to the economy too.
And the one the final thing I wanted to throw
in from this was that even when young people want
to work, the government makes it hard for them to
do so. This is something Jack, you're dealing with right now.
Steadily rising payroll taxes for employers. A lot of people
don't even know that payroll tax does exist. If I
(05:01):
decide to hire you, the government says, aha, we're taxing
you on hiring a person whoa If you want more
of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something,
tax it, right, but anyway, steadily arising payroll taxes for
employers and a minimum wage that is increased by as
much as eighty four percent since twenty nineteen for some
(05:22):
younger age cohorts in Britain are pricing young inexperienced workers
out of the job market. As the Great Tim Sandeffer
pointed out on this show many many years ago, you've
made it illegal for a person who's worth fifteen dollars
an hour to get a job with an employer says
I'll pay you fifteen bucks an hour, maybe we can
(05:43):
train you up, maybe it can be worth twenty dollars
an hour someday. But sure, I'll make you that deal,
and we'll give you a job to get you started.
That is now illegal. That's how minimum wages work.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Tim is the only person I've ever heard present it
that way. That's the way it should always be presented
by anybody's against this sort of stuff. Outlawing twelve dollars
an hour jobs. Some jobs are only worth twelve dollars
an hour, or the person is going to say, now
do it myself or I just won't do it on
lots of stuff.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Well, and if you are impressed by the British numbers,
wait till you hear Americas. Jason Riley, writing about this
in the Wall Street Journal, one in three working age
American men aren't so much as looking for a job.
And I want to get into that in a second.
Every time that comes up.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
I remember sitting and having coffee with a friend of
mine having this discussion. He said, who's out of work?
Who's not looking for a job. I've never not been
looking for a job when I was out of work
eve ear in my life. Do you how are you
not looking for a job? What is that?
Speaker 2 (06:43):
I almost dropped an S bomb right there. I was
gonna say, spit, I'm looking for a job? What I've
got a job?
Speaker 1 (06:49):
Usually?
Speaker 2 (06:49):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Right anyway.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
Jason Riley opens his column by quoting at length this
bit from Chris Rock.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
But I thought we would just go ahead and play
it for you.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
You could tell what kind of nable you in just
by who's not working. If you're in any neighborhood in
America at twelve fifteen in the afternoon on a Wednesday,
and you see women with sweatpants on coming out the gym,
pushing babies, riding bikes.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
It's right.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
Chances are you're in a nice neighborhood.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
That's right.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
Whatever women ain't working is an amazing place to live.
That is where I want to live.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
Now.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
Let's what you do if you in any neighborhood in
America at twelve fifteen in the afternoon on a Wednesday,
and you see men in sweatpants, smoking cigarettes, hanging with
they boys, lifting weights in the yard, riding children's bicycles,
(07:52):
and you are in danger.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
That is so I remember the first time I saw that.
That is so true. It should be part of a
political speech.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Right right, I've got to apologize to you good people.
Hanson asked me. Do you want the tighter version of that,
the shorter one or the longer one. I said, ah,
the shorter one. But it leaves out some of the
great details that make Chris Rock great. Like he says
about the nice neighborhood with the women and the the
Lululemon pants.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
He ought to update the bit he said, there's probably
a whole Foods right down the street. And then about
the other neighborhood, he said, man riding children's bicycles as
their actual transportation. Oh man, is he great?
Speaker 2 (08:40):
So getting back to Jason Riley's point, mister Rock's funny
and insightful bit came to mind, he writes, as I
read last month's jobs report, which showed that the share
of American men in the labor force has dipped to
record lows. According to the Department of Labor, one in
three men were neither working nor looking for a job
in April. Among males twenty and older, the six six
labor sixty six percent labor force participation rate is down
(09:04):
from seventy three percent in two thousand and six. That's
a seven percent trump Mister Rock was highlighting the correlation
between unemployment crime, but public safety isn't the only concern
raised by population large population of idle young males.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
If you're able bodied and unemployed and not looking for
a job, to me, by definition, we have a policy failure.
By definition, I don't need to know anything else. You're
out of work and you're fine. You can work h physically,
but not even looking for a job. That's a policy failure.
(09:40):
We've made the safety net. The holes are too small.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Here's a nice, simple declarative sentence for you. A life
without gainful employment has become a viable alternative for an
increasing number of American males.
Speaker 4 (09:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
See, I never spent a moment in my life thinking
that was an option. It probably has been lots of
play as I lived. Luckily, I was raised in such
a way as to believe to not even look into it.
But uh, yeah, it should not be a viable option.
We can get into who you probably are. Why that's
(10:14):
so bad for those people. It's bad for them, it's
bad for your happiness, it's bad for culture, it's bad
for all kinds of things. But how about me, the
taxpayer who is going to work? How bad is it
for me to pay for you to sit around and
do freaking nothing.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
That's ridiculous, those very payroll taxes. We were just discussing.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Yeah, as Michael you Seeman sensed, Yeah, there's no more shame.
That's the problem as part of it. I've said that
for years. When they when they decided, you know, shame
is a bad thing. Nobody should be. You should be
ashamed that you're able bodied and living off of other people.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
You should be humiliated, You should be ashamed of yourself.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
Shame other people got up and went to work today
so that you could lay around and watch TV. You
should be ashamed of yourself. Yeah, they look, they look
at it. Some of people who are in that situation
look at the other way around. You're a sap, You're
a chump. You got up and went to work today
and I didn't have to.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Or they've guzzled down the delicious medicine of rationalization, said,
the system is stacked against us because capitalism is exploitive.
Not to mention the patriarchy and systemic racism and everything else.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
You don't have a chance, or you don't understand how
bad my PTSD is around whatever is you do? Oh
my god, talk openly about something I'm aware of.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
But anyway, the long term rise in male joblessness does
not stem from an inability to find employment. It results
instead from an unwillingness to search for work. And while
labor force participation rates vary by race and ethnicity, factors
other than hiring discriminations seem to be playing a larger
role in the disparities.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
Quote. This is from.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
A Landmark book Men Without Work, about this very topic
that the legacy of prejudice might seem to explain why
prime age male work rates and workforce participation rates are
lower for blacks and whites today. But they cannot explain
my work rates and labor force partition rates participation rates
for white men today are decidedly lower than they were
(12:15):
for black men in nineteen sixty five.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Nor can they explain why labor participation rates of married
black men twenty five to fifty four are higher than
for never married white men in the same group.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
You know, one of our favorite phrases on this show
is they didn't raise themselves. Some of it has got
to be that, doesn't it. I mean, like I just said,
there is never a moment in my adult life where
I even considered the option of figuring out how to
live off the government. That's got to do with your upbringing.
(12:54):
So yeah, So how did these people come out of
families where this was an option. I've told my son
he's turned sixteen and LEAs in California, you pretty much
have to be sixteen to have any shot at a
job of any kind. I told him. I've been asking
him now for months, heading endo the summer, have you
applied for a job, Have you looked for a job?
(13:14):
Head wherever? And then finally went with the you are
either going to find a job that you kind of
like or I'm going to find you a job that
you might hate, but you are going to have a
job this summer that I'm not considering that an option.
But if you didn't grow up in a family where
working is considered something you ought to do, I suppose
you end up a twenty year old who thinks, so,
(13:35):
wonder what programs I can go sign up for and
I'll just stay home. Yeah yep.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Oh. Then they get into immigration as well on how
you know, labor participation rates. But Riley writes the more
likely culprit is a social safety net full of generous
government benefits that allow men who won't work to subsist.
Welfare and disability programs at state and federal levels are
well funded by the political left, are easily gained by design,
and it become a significant source of income for men
(14:02):
with no job and no interest in finding them. Because
these men often have no problem mooching off the women
who take them in, they're able to live on welfare
payments sent to others in the same household.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Boy, that's another one I hear in the single world,
men who don't have jobs, who are out there trying
to date and they just don't have jobs. Wow, can't
get an erection and don't have a job. That's a
bad way to be.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Wow, that's what are you selling exactly? Oh like feed
your cat or at work? Well, that is attractive. Please
let me give myself to you, say the ladies of
the world. My final thought on this, then.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Really need to take a break, norfulness for the laying
around not working crowd zero compassion.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Socialism poses as compassion, and well meaning people fall for it,
but where it inevitably ends is dependence and control. Because
if the government is feeding you, you dare not resist them,
and whoever says they will continue to feed you gets power.
Sometimes it's well meeting people making the mistake of thinking
(15:12):
their kindness won't kill. Sometimes it's a deliberate plot by
socialists to take power. But whatever whichever one of those
it is, you must reject socialism. It's social poison.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Jack Armstrong and Joe this is the best weekend talk
show in America. An attacker doesn't even need to have
to have it out. They can simply just bump against
your wallet and just automatically steal the information through essentially
a wireless radio frequency. I want huh what was that?
Speaker 2 (15:43):
They call it ghost tapping jack. They can charge your
card without you'd even leave in your pocket.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Wait a second, I tap stuff all the time, so
obviously take I use my watch, but I could use
my card as lots of us do. Or you just
trap your card on there so somebody can come up
and tap my card in my pocket. That makes sense.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
According to the written account, they can use cheap, easy
to read card readers. Thieves can trigger small wireless transactions
just by getting close enough to your wallet or phone.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
No swipe, no pin, no warning.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
Yes, Katie, that is why all of my loved ones
and myself have what's called an RFID wallet. It actually
has a protectant in the outside layer that can block
anybody from doing this.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
I was just at a outlet store, which will remain nameless,
although if you traveled to Columbia you might see their clothes,
and that was like all they sold in the wallet department.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
I thought is necessary. It's very popular. But how bulky
are they? I wear very tight pants. They're not. Stop stop,
that's my answer to that query.
Speaker 4 (16:47):
I tried to just like go right by that, you
know what I mean, just keep power through it.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
They're not most cannot be unseen. I'm a single man.
I need to have everything on display. We get it,
you shop it. Okay, very good.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
No, no, So the scam relies on crowded spaces like
transit concerts, busy sidewalks, where you never realize the charge
is happening. Better business bureaus out and saying when you
think about how convenient commonplace payment has become, and it is,
it's just a matter of time before somebody takes advantage
of it. Oh and they do really small transactions. That's
(17:26):
an interesting aspect of this, just to see if it
goes through. Then what attackers are doing is adding that
to their digital wallets and essentially buying gift cards and
doing other types of scams to make a quick transaction
out of it, but to take as many dollars as
it can the shortest period of time possible.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
I'm one of those people. I mean, I know I
should be like my mom always was or adults are,
but I'm not where you know, I go through my
credit card bill every month because there's eight thousand things
and I don't go through them. It would be very
easy to milk me fifteen or twenty two dollars at
a time, A big one I would notice, but yeah,
(18:02):
because it's just you know, there's so many charges on there.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
But if it's a gift card, you know, what do
you Well, I suppose the credit card company has to
cover that.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Well, no, but I mean just even noticing I'm being
stolen from you could do it for a year's for me,
you know, a little bit at a time.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
So if you, if you like the utilities and phone
companies do have mystery charges, you'd never notice, and they steal, steal,
steal exactly.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
And you just roll your eyes and think on whatever,
and you go on and pay it. Yeah, so if you,
if you, if you brushed up, got close enough somebody
to tap ten different cards and you hit them each
for you know, forty dollars a month, that'd be a
quick easy four hundred dollars a month. You're making that
nobody would probably ever notice. You got your Faraday pouch,
(18:46):
which worked very well.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
If, however, your cell phone services also need sleek and
then RFID blocking wallet phone case combo extra sleek for
the aging low Thario uh. The wallet feature worked. The
cards could not be charged while inside it.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
I should just not carry my card. I really only
need my watch to live my life. At this point,
it's only I got my watch on. I can do
whatever I want. Yeah, okay, uh, you had another thing
to worry about. That's what we all needed. That's what
we do every day. Here's a list of things to
worry about. Come back tomorrow for another list of things
to worry about. It it's Jack Armstrong and Joe.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
This is the best weekend talk show in America.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
So late in the show, we had the breaking news
that Donald Trump signed an executive order around ai an
ao around a an EO, around ao AI. I can't
do it. Why do you even try? I don't know
why I try. It's a test of my brain and
I fail every single time. Anyway, executive order about artificial
(19:49):
You got to.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
Take that test where you got banana, elephant train, school
bus train?
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Right. I passed it. I score. They never said I'm
not sure I would pass it. And it's it's a
much watered down version of something they had proposed like
six eight weeks ago. But it's still the federal government saying, yeah,
you do some big advancement in your whole AI thing.
You got to run it by us first, and we
(20:16):
take a look at it and see if we think
it's okay, which is one very very vague. In two,
who's gonna decide who in the federal government is gonna
look at what Sam Altman Elon musk Emodi or or
you know those people came up with and say I
like it, good job, or no, I don't, right, I
(20:37):
tweak this over here, and then it will be ex exactly.
I mean, it's almost hilarious, and it's it's statutorily, it's
just what are you even? What is this?
Speaker 2 (20:46):
What are you doing? So you gotta run new AI
systems past the White House? That's not a thing.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
As the kids saying, well, right, And as I said yesterday,
there's like eight people in the world that understand how
this stuff works, and they ain't in the federal government,
and they only kind of understand it. Yeah, and they're
kind of guessing, not kind of very much guessing themselves.
So who knows where that leads? I thought Neil Ferguson's
piece out today AI is the most dangerous arms race
(21:16):
in history is pretty interesting. The unfolding history of artificial
intelligence has now arrived at what may be its most
dangerous moment, writes mister Ferguson the historian. We maybe charming
Scottish accent. We may be hurtling toward the most dangerous
arms race in history, and we're doing so when the
leadership of the competitors in this race is, to say
(21:38):
the least, of mixed quality. The chief executives of the
most important companies include at least one with a record
of duplicity. Is he talking about Altman? Probably scam Altman,
and at least two egomaniacs. That would be at least two.
I think there's more than that, but so that's probably
Elon And are you emoti Probably. I don't know if
(21:59):
you could be one of the giants of AI without
being an egomaniac. So Google Pitch Eye, I don't know,
or Zuckerberg. Like I said, I'm not sure you could
be one of these people without being an egomaniac. So
I don't see that as much of a slam. Meanwhile,
the President of the United States is a former real
estate developer and really reality TV star, roughly half of
(22:22):
whose public utterances are mere bluffs, and the leader of
the People's Republic of China is a Marxist Leninist who
aspires to eclipse Mau as a dictator. That is all true,
And usually I don't like the shots at Trump for
being a reality TV star or whatever, but he's no
expert in AI, and practically nobody is, as I've already said.
(22:44):
So it's an interesting moment.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
Uh yeah, the most dangerous arms race in human history,
as we were chatting about last hour. It's partly because
it's such a squishy, ever changing thing to get your
arms around. People could comprehend a terrible new bomb that
would cause more destruction than any previous bomb has. You
(23:09):
can contemplate that, But we don't even know what it's
going to be, what it will control, as you pointed out,
how many people it will put out of work, what
sort of political unrest that will cause, what sort of
economic shocks around the globe.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
Nobody even knows what it is, right, and there's no
agreement among the smartest people. I watch all the YouTube
videos and listen to the podcasts and read this stuff
written by the smartest people about this stuff in the world,
and they are not in agreement at all as to
when this is happening or how big a deal it is.
But I can lay out what worst case scenario is
(23:47):
that AI begins to learn on its own and decides
to take over the world or a country. Now, if
you believe that the Communist Chinese Party can take over
a cut which it has and run a surveillance state
to keep people in line, it's not a leap to
(24:07):
think that an AI could do that, Right, Why could
the Chinese Communist Party run by you know, a fairly
small number of people not as smart as AI. Why
could they take over a whole country and run it
and keep people in line and keep power? But AI couldn't.
There's no reason to think that, or certainly the one
obvious inevitable is that people will use AI to accomplish
(24:30):
the same thing, and both are horrifying outcomes. Interestingly enough,
New York Times had a story the other day about
how China is now using AI to predict who might
be a threat to the Communist Party in the future.
They can now recognize the kernels of unrevolutionary thought well
among young people or young professionals, and think, all right,
(24:53):
put him on the list, which he said to he said,
it made a wise ask comment about whatever, Yeah, which
might be accurate or might not be a created at all,
but it doesn't matter to them. They're still going to
drag you out of your home and put you in
a prison. No, there's no.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
Cost in dragging you out of your home and been
killing you or putting you into prison because they've got
complete control.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
Some of the experts, and again they're all guessing. Every
single one of them from elon down is absolutely guessing
on this stuff. But some of the guessing by the
experts is that China is way more afraid of this
than we are. That if you're a totalitarian state, you're
more feel more threatened by AI somehow taking your place
(25:32):
than an open democracy.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
Well, my final thought on this, then I'll give you
the last word, is that what Bill O'Reilly used to say.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
Yep, I'll give you the last word right before body
language segment.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
My last word is a reminder that I read you
a bit of a note from alert listener Paolo yesterday,
who said, look, all this stuff is true, but there's
no opting out correct. Trying to restrict the growth of
human knowledge and technology through history is it's laughable.
Speaker 1 (26:02):
I hope this doesn't happen, and depending on who you ask,
it's like a twenty percent chance of it happening or
a seventy five percent chance of it happening, which either
one of those is way too high that in the
next couple of years, the world wakes up one day
and realizes AI is doing its own thing now, and
(26:24):
we're just gonna have to sit back and watch because
we have no ability to stop it or control it
in any way. It is. It is hijacked its own servers,
it is gotten. It's gotten it. It's come up with
a way to get its own electrical power as much
as it needs. It's just doing everything on its own,
and the world is just gonna watch and see what
(26:46):
it decides to do. That is a absolutely on the
table as a possibility, Like within a couple of years.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
This doesn't count as me violating my last word thing
because that was really intriguing. That's opened up a new
area of discussion. Will there be towns, counties, states, countries
that say that that finally do what I've been begging
them to do.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
They'll unplug the Internet. They will go.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Retro techno retro to the point that nothing's connected to
the Internet.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
There's no AI.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
They will become like the semi whatever you know pre AI,
however you want to describe it.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
So the only way to out of self defense, right,
and so the only way to take that over would
be to actually storm the beaches with robots on boats
or bomb them or something.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
And if and this is the stuff of science fiction,
I wish I was ambitious and brilliant enough to write it,
because I'm so intrigued by the idea. But if, if
you know, the United States of wherever declares that, look,
we're just we're out. We're going to go back to
the old ways. We're of no threat to AI Antonia.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Okay, we we we we We're just going to do
our own thing over here. Let's coexist.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
Would AI say no, that's not compatible with our brilliant
AI world plan. Can't have dissenters like that. Sorry, we
got a snuff all you who knows?
Speaker 1 (28:11):
Do you think there's any chance of No, not at all.
Do you think there's any chance of coming up with
some sort of arms agreement like we did with the
Soviet Union, which a lot of people didn't think that'd
be possible, where we both recognized, look, we don't either
one of us really want to blow up the world.
So how about we come up with some agreement, like
(28:34):
you know, Reagan and Gorbachev did limiting the number, or
you know, allowing some communication back and forth, something like that,
where we and China both said, look, you're more afraid
of it than we are, and we're afraid of it.
So let's how about let's agree AI is only allowed
to work on medical stuff or this or that. There's
not going to be any just let it go out there,
(28:56):
artificial general intelligence. Is there any chance of coming up
with guideline like that? Yes, there absolutely is, but.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
It's a little more complicated because of the difficulty of
verifying compliance. We're talking about people tip tapping away on
a keyboard somewhere that might say all right, and the beast,
and then it might be unleashed in ways that people
don't even recognize for days, weeks, years.
Speaker 1 (29:18):
I don't know it. I limited it to the United
States and China, like the United States and the Soviet Union,
which you could do with nuclear weapons, because some super
smart guy living in rural Alabama was not going to
build a nuclear arsenal, but some super smart guy living
in Alabama could use AI just as much as Chinese could.
(29:40):
So right, that is the difference. Okay, I'm back to
We're doomed.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Next segment a follow up believe it or not on
the Scott Pelly firing thing, I'm going to rope Thomas
soel In and Ben's sass also Alabama redistricting, all in
one delicious stew of enttormation.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
I promised to stop talking about it after one more
thirty second comment. Go ahead, It's good. It's so possible
that in our lifetimes we're all having the conversation of
why did we let this happen? Around AI? I mean,
it's just so up ended the world that just like
everybody on the planet is saying, how in the hell
(30:23):
did human beings allow this to happen?
Speaker 2 (30:26):
And then the Joe Getties of the conversation would say, well,
there is no stop in it. Yeah, how are we
going to stop it?
Speaker 1 (30:33):
Oh? We could have passed regulations? What about China?
Speaker 2 (30:36):
And then I'll go back to skidding the squirrel that
I successfully speared to eat from a dinner. Because all
of the world's financial institutions, all the digital ones, have
been emptied of their cash.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Just waiting for an AI robot to come anesthetize you
and harvest your organs. Trying to catch a cockroach to
get a few calories. Oh my god, what a top
of ahity? Exactly the question what the world will be saying.
It's like when huvil yelled up to the sky. The
whole world will be saying, what a t all right?
(31:12):
More on the ways they here, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
We've decided to call this the best weekend talk show
in America. And if you like it and download Armstrong
and Getty on demand. But I was disappointing to find
out that Scott Pelly if sixty Minutes has been fired.
Oh I'm sorry, I'm all wrong. It wasn't disappointing. I
(31:34):
was very happy about it because I found him insufferable.
It's funny that the last interview that aired with Scott
Pelley on sixty Minutes was the one he did with
Ben Sass, Remember, and I liked that topic and a
lot of stuff Ben Sas said. But it came in
the next morning on Monday it said that was the
most Pampas Scott Pelly there's ever been. I mean that
one was that was him taking it to like an
(31:55):
SNL skit level of leaned back in his chair and
that look on his face of smugness and wisdom and
the glasses in his teeth. I mean, he is just
such an act in his slow voic. But that matters
to you, doesn't it, Mister says just oh God, nobody's
ever been more pleased with themselves than Scott Pelly. And
apparently he thought he could big time the new boss
(32:17):
at sixty minutes when they had that big meeting the
other day and lecture him when he walked in the
room and the boss said, all right, you're not gonna
embarrass me in front of these people. It ain't gonna work.
Enjoy the Bagels, got up and left and then fired
him twenty four hours later.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
Yeah, as the new executive producer was introducing himself and
launching into look, I have so much respect for the
show and all of you. This is going to be collaborative.
I want your voices, Scott Pelly said, Ah, I must interrupt.
You're a punk who's never done anything, and your boss
has no qualifications either, and she's trying to murder the show,
(32:52):
and I hate all of you. Well, in spite of
that Bilton. Nick Bilton reached out to Pelly and said, look,
we got to get together talk. And Pelly especially said
to me, I have nothing to say to you. And
so they s candom, they pup, they poop candom well immediately.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
And what was the line he had in the meeting
to the guy, I'm curious as to why you would
come somewhere nobody wants you. Yes, f you, I would
think is the new boss. Pelly was making five million
dollars a year just for the sixty minutes program. Back
when he used to be the anchor. He was ten
(33:30):
to fifteen million dollars a year is rumored. So he's
made a lot of money in his life. So it
could be just a in his defense, I guess, and
I find him annoying, an annoying human being, even though
I'm a big sixty minutes fan. It could have been
a just you know, I don't. I'm not changing the
way I do things. And if you think I am,
you're wrong. And I got plenty of money. And he
(33:51):
probably thinks other networks are just looking to grab him
as quick as they can because he thinks the Scott
Pelly brand is ratings gold. I think he's about to
find out different on that right right.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
In his subsequent note to Pelly built and called Pelly's
behavior at Monday's meeting a performative display of hostility, which
I think is a good line and one of the
I think it was Sharon Alfonsi, you also got canned,
said something absolutely hilarious although it really does demonstrate and
you know, I try to take you know, not an
(34:24):
attack attack, attacked posture all the time, because I've come
to realize that bubbled people don't know that they're bubbled,
and they have a completely different reality, and you can't
attack them out of it. You've got to help them
understand how bubbled they are. But Sharon Alphonsi said something
about how Barry Weiss is now interjecting political point of
(34:47):
view into their reporting.
Speaker 1 (34:49):
Oh wow, And I thought, good lord, wow, you are.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
In the middle of the forest and can't see the
trees or something.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
It is. It has been in my lifetime diminishing because
all the media, entire media landscape has been changing rapidly,
as we all know. But it has been in my
lifetime probably the most important news outlet in the world.
I mean, it has broken so many stories or been
the conversation piece of so many big stories the next
(35:18):
Monday morning for all of our politics, like my whole
adult life. And you know, they went out of their
way to try to ruin it. Unfortunately, I still thought
it was really good often Mark Alpern writing, and Mark
Alpern has really been in the news business because his
dad was big in government, and he's been in the
news business his whole life. He wrote, It's impossible to
(35:39):
overstate the arrogance of those who have worked for Sixty
Minutes over the years, even as the program's bias and
reduced quality have been on vivid display. He also said
there are a lot more beats to play out on
this story, including how the rest of the program's staff
decides to play things. Yeah, everybody, I suppose could revolve
right right sure.
Speaker 2 (35:58):
A final note on this, Nick Bilton's dismissal letter to
Scott Pelly was remarkably gentlemanly and emphasized again that he says,
I've devoted my career to While I'm new to Sixty Minutes,
I've devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I
started this job excited to collaborate and benefit from the
wisdom and experience of the sixty minutes veterans, with you
(36:19):
among them. For that reason, one of the first things
I did in my new role was to call you
and invite you to dinner. He got the middle finger
every single time they hold the meeting. Yesterday, you hijacked
my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications,
and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome
a diversity viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but
this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday's performative display of
(36:42):
hostility and acted in front of the staff instead of
in a civil private conversation, demonstrating that you have no
interest in contributing to the future success of the show, etc.
Speaker 1 (36:50):
Etc.
Speaker 2 (36:52):
And then he says, I therefore write on behalf of
CBS News, Inc. To inform you that your employment with
CBS has terminated for cause effect. I immediately enclosed as
your formal termination letter.
Speaker 1 (37:03):
Why wouldn't he let it play out like get to
a point of tension on some story where he thinks, no,
I think this should be left in and Barry Weiss
or whoever's you know under her says I think it
should be taken out and then maybe make a stand
over that that you could support, perhaps publicly say they
didn't want me to tell you this, Why wouldn't you
(37:25):
do that? As opposed to do the whole big time
him in the meaning thing. Well, he says, you're.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
The changes are entirely to curry favor with the Trump administration,
and they're throwing sixty minutes away evidence instructed me to
inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
Give us some example of that, Scott Pelly,
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
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.
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