September 12, 2026 • 37 mins
Featured within the weekly broadcast of The Best Weekend Talk Show In America...
Hour One, airing September 12-13, 2026...
- The Clancy Jurors Speak-Out...
- Artificial Intelligence will help us talk to animals?
- An Australian Woman Gives Birth to Twins--with a twist...
- Blame Capitalism for Everything...
- Why Germany Voted for AFD
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 at the
George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Armstrong and Getty. And now, here's Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Hey there, we're Armstrong and Getty. You've tuned in the
best weekend talk show in America.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Gee, I find myself wondering whether AI will kill all
human beings. I sure hope not. But boy, we talked
about it and quoted some experts this week. Plus, Marco
Rubio hates communism and the Lindsay Clancy trial. Whoa, controversy.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Yeah, if you like this stuff, you should check out
our podcast. We do 20 hours of live radio every week.
Look for Armstrong and Getty on demand wherever you get podcasts.
This is the best weekend talk show in America.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Three of the 12.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
Jurors are speaking out about the events that led to
the mistrial in Massachusetts, revealing the panel was deadlocked 11
to 1. Three female jurors went on in those interviews
on TV to describe that their arguments got so loud
that the six alternates could actually hear them outside the room.
They went on to say that the sole holdout refused
(01:19):
to listen to the rest of the jurors, including nurses
on the panel.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
So we're about.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
To hear from the three females who have done some interviews.
You have any thoughts on stuff you've heard so far
about the conversations?
Speaker 2 (01:36):
As a former juror? Just the idea that they should
pay special regard to nurses I find interesting. I wouldn't
say it's ridiculous, but it's not a compelling argument.
Speaker 5 (01:48):
Anyway.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Let's hear from some of these jurors.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
He was very arrogant.
Speaker 6 (01:52):
He really did not take anything that anybody said. The nurses,
he tried to ask a question about the medications, and
we went back to the report from South Shore Hospital.
We had the toxicology report. We could see exactly the amounts.
(02:12):
The nurses in the room spoke to that and talked
to that.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
There were nurses on the jury.
Speaker 5 (02:18):
Yes.
Speaker 6 (02:19):
And they spoke to that specific thing.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
That was a question that he had.
Speaker 6 (02:26):
And he just completely disregarded the information.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
That they gave him.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
So I think we're going to have to go through
these before we get into our conversation. Sure. Roll on.
Speaker 7 (02:37):
I mean, he had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had
reasonable doubt after we watched that video of the interview.
I think that's when it was. He admitted he had
reasonable doubt. And I started filling out the forms. I
was so excited. I actually, there were three forms I
had to fill out. And I started filling them out.
I wrote my.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Signature on each one.
Speaker 7 (03:00):
And then he said, but I'm still not going to
say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
So, OK, I'm going to have to I'm having trouble
keeping my head wrapped around this in the same way
that I can't deal with time changes very well. I
can't ever figure out what spring forward fallback means. I'm
having trouble with this one. And so in most states.
I kill somebody. And I don't want the chair. I
(03:30):
got to convince the jury I'm crazy.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
That's correct. But in Massachusetts, it's what? Not only is
it the prosecution's duty to prove that the defendant was
criminally responsible at the time of offense, they must prove
it beyond a reasonable doubt. So the same standard that
applies for a conviction where the government takes away your
(03:55):
freedom or your money or whatever applies to whether you
are criminally responsible or not. That's a high bar. But there,
if I say I'm crazy, they got to prove I'm
not crazy. Correct. The prosecution does.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Wherever else, everywhere else, the defense has to prove they're
trying to get me, keep me from getting the chair.
They have to prove I'm crazy. And the jury either
buys it or not.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
My understanding is Massachusetts is an extremely rare case of that.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
But in Massachusetts, if I say I'm crazy, you have
to assume he's crazy unless somebody can prove beyond a
reasonable doubt he's not.
Speaker 7 (04:33):
Right. Wow.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
That's a really different way to approach it. Wow. One
more juror.
Speaker 5 (04:40):
Not sure if rogue is the right word, Sue, but
every one of us, in the hours of our frustration,
would get up and walk the room, because you just
couldn't sit anymore, and would all go to the cart
with the exhibits. He, I think, got up to the
cart once, very briefly, and went back to his seat.
(05:03):
He would not.
He would not interact with us and try to understand.
We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of
a reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said
one day in the end, well, why don't we have
(05:24):
the judge come in and read it again? And we
were like, no, we have it in front of us.
we don't need that and we would highlight it and
you know so and so this is the definition of
reason of love but he had the hardest time getting
off the fact that lindsey viciously killed her children.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
Yeah well you know i can understand why it's a
difficult thing to get past the fact that she strangled
three little kids and you had to look at their
pictures over and over again and all that sort of
stuff and that leaves a mark but for the whole
uh I didn't follow the trial every single day. It's
(06:04):
hard for me to imagine how you could prove to
me beyond a reasonable doubt that she's not crazy.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Well, right. There are 14, maybe 15 states where the
burden is on the state. Once the defense introduces credible
evidence of a mental defect, the prosecution must prove the
defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. That is an odd
thing to demand. 30 the other states, except for five,
(06:32):
I'm sorry, except for four, say the defendant bears the
burden of proving they were insane, usually by a preponderance
of evidence or clear and convincing evidence. So it's interesting
that the few states, including Massachusetts. that put the burden
on the prosecution, not only put the burden on the prosecution,
but they have a much higher standard. There are four states, Idaho, Kansas, Montana,
(06:54):
and Utah, that do not permit a traditional insanity defense
at all. I don't know how that works exactly if
you're completely Fruit Loops, but yeah, it is the absolutely
under-discussed aspect of this trial. Well, so.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
There were five charges that they had available to them.
Those 11 wanted which one?
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Acquittal. Which would have been she walks out of the courtroom? No, no.
Years and years and years of care in a mental
health facility with annual appraisals of whether she was a
danger to herself and others. Okay. Keeping in mind this
woman is now apparently, allegedly, completely sane and is completely
aware she choked her three children to death. Yeah. So
(07:43):
at the point she's no longer a suicide risk, call
me at home. I'm not going to wait for your call.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
Yeah, a lot of people have commented on that. She's
no longer a danger to society, right?
Speaker 2 (08:03):
As long as she doesn't give birth to another child.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
We got, we got one text who said, how is
she not like, you got to keep me locked up.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
I mean, look, look, look, look, look what I'm capable of. Just,
I can snap and do this sort of thing. There's
something wrong with me. Yeah. Horrible.
Speaker 4 (08:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
It's what a, what a weird thing all the way around.
So what do you think of the whole bout?
Speaker 3 (08:25):
You think he was just, um, uh, letting his disgust
with what she did override his following the law?
Speaker 2 (08:38):
I'm conflicted here because I agree with his conclusion. On
the other hand, it seems to me a pretty clear
case of what they'll sometimes call jury nullification, where the
juror says, yeah, I understand that's the law, but the
law sucks. I'm not going to be party to it.
And that shouldn't happen. It would, it's just, it's not
a good thing to happen in general. That's not your
(08:59):
job as a juror. But I understand. Boy, and this
is an extreme case. Oh, yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
There ain't no way. I don't care what you say.
I can't vote to acquit this woman.
Speaker 7 (09:10):
Right.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
I've seen the pictures. I know what she did.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Like I said, I can understand it. That's a rough one.
So do you have more on that topic? Or I
thought this was about as well put an expression of
the sentiment I have come across. I do not know
this gal's name, but here she is. Sixty eight, Mike.
Speaker 8 (09:29):
Okay, with this Lancey Clancy trial, I feel like maybe
I missed the mark because I've been seeing all of
y'all's videos and I'm just a woman. So maybe I
just didn't understand fully. So help me out here, okay?
Because what I have gathered from all of your information
that you've put out there is that women are fully
incapable of self-governing our emotions and our hormones. So if
(09:51):
we murder someone or multiple people, it is absolutely not
our fault. It is because of our emotions and our
hormones that made us do it because we cannot control it.
Unless we went to the doctor and we got put
on medication for these hormones and emotions, but then it's
the medication's fault. It's not our fault. It's not our
(10:12):
hormones and emotions faults anymore because we're on medicine for it.
And so then it's the medicine's fault if we murder someone.
Unless it's the wrong medicine, too much medicine, not enough medicine,
then it's the doctor's fault. It's definitely not our fault
as women. It is the doctor's fault or the medication's
fault or our hormones and emotions.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
But you know what else we are?
Speaker 6 (10:31):
We are women.
Speaker 8 (10:32):
We are to be respected. We are to be seen
as equal to men. We can do every job that
a man can do. We can be the next president.
We can be police officers. We can be in high
stressful jobs with weapons. Unless our hormones go crazy because
then our emotions and our hormones could cause us to
pop off and act some type of way. But it's
(10:53):
not our fault. It's not our fault. It is our
hormones and our emotions. Unless we're on medicine, then it's
the medication. Unless it's the wrong medicine, too much medicine,
not enough medicine, then it's the doctors.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
That's pretty good. That's pretty damn good. The response would be, well,
postpartum psychosis is a very limited and specific diagnosis of
a very specific malady. It's not just emotions and hormones,
et cetera, et cetera. On the other hand, the takeaway
culturally is pretty much what she said.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Well, and then there's been this blurring the lines of
postpartum psychosis versus postpartum depression, which is where I think
a lot of the support comes in for the various
women across the country holding their babies up on TikTok
saying me too or whatever.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Right. Which is just disgusting. Same, Lindsay.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
But her lawyer yesterday, I saw him on one of
the TV shows saying, maybe now we can move out
of the dark ages with the way we handle postpartum depression.
So he blurred the lines between postpartum depression and psychosis
and claims we're living in the dark ages for the
way we handle treat women over this.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
Smart lawyer. I'll bet he played that in the courtroom, too.
I don't know. I haven't read the transcript. Or he's
preparing for the next go round for her. Yeah, it's
certainly possible. This one is so thorny and disturbing. If
someone said to me, look, all of this is really interesting,
but if I design a society, it's going to say
(12:23):
if you murder your children, you're going away for good.
I would say to that person, yeah, yeah, I see
your point. And I think 90% of people would agree
with that. Hard to say. It is hard to say.
You can get hammered drunk. You killed somebody. You're guilty.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
You don't get to say, I was drunk. I was
out of my mind. I don't even remember it. I
don't even know what happened.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
How about you completely lose your temper and see red?
You're in a state you may never be in again
as long as you live, but you have murderous rage
for two minutes and the person ends up dead. You're guilty.
If you're that and drunk, you're guilty.
Speaker 5 (13:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
Man, that woman, that little thing she laid out, she
was good. She needs to have her own talk show
or something.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
No, she'd compete with us. She sucks, boo.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
We are Armstrong and Getty, and this is the best
weekend talk show in America.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Grab our podcast. It's called Armstrong and Getty On Demand.
Here's somebody you should shut the hell up. One more
AI note. Advancements in AI may soon allow humans to
talk with animals, but some groups claim the research could
be violating the animal's right to privacy. What? Yeah, I know.
(13:45):
I know. How great is that?
Speaker 3 (13:46):
So I'm trying to wrap my head around this. I
don't believe there's any chance we're ever going to be
able to talk with animals and them with us.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Oh, you're a fool. My dog and I talk about
you all the time. All right, here's the story. Here's
the story. But so we can listen to them, talk
to each other. That would that be violating their privacy? Well,
machine learning models are paving the way to catalog and
even mimic the sounds animals make to communicate with each other,
with researchers touting the technology as a way to better
(14:12):
understand the world of animals. I love this. This is
an article in Springer Nature, whatever the hell that is. Quote,
but one risk that is currently not taken into account
in research ethics is the concern that we might be
violating the privacy of animals by collecting data on their
vocalizations and movements. I want to meet this person who
wrote that. Good Lord. Wow, you're a nut. An interest
(14:35):
in privacy is an interest in controlling how you appear
to others. And the complex social lives of many non-human
animals offer strong support for thinking animals have this interest.
So you got to get a warrant to wiretap an ape?
Come on. Is this a one-party dog state or a
two-party state? Good Lord. So if you eavesdrop on a
(14:59):
couple of cats meowing at each other, you've violated their privacy. Yeah, exactly.
I'd like a saucer of milk. I'm tired of coughing
up hairballs. I got to poop again. Where's that weird box?
Let's see. Now, one thing that they're describing is actually
ethically a little bit interesting. That is when we can
(15:20):
perfectly mimic the calls of animals. What are the ethics
with doing that in the wild? Because you've got a
sophisticated animal like crows. They have an unbelievably sophisticated net
of communication that they do. Fascinating beast, the crow. Anyway,
what are the ethics of broadcasting a cry that they've
(15:41):
identified that's essentially, hey, come help, come help, as all
the crows would use it to summon others to help
defend the nest? Can we do that? Is that ethical?
Isn't that basically what deer whistles have been?
Speaker 4 (15:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
And then we shoot them dead. That's right. That's a
duck call, right? Isn't that just what a duck call is? Essentially, yeah. Yeah,
that's a good point. All right. I will never spend
another second worrying about that. Here's some surprising news. The
major Bigfoot sighting in Maine has been declared a guy
in a convincing costume. Apparently, Maine has been all the
(16:16):
Twitter lately that some guy was ooching about. Bigfoot lives
on the West Coast. There were an unusually high number
of calls. Well, he travels. You know, the guy walking
like this, the woods. No, Bigfoot's a millennial. He doesn't
want stuff. He wants experiences. So he's traveled to Maine.
The police department noted an unusually high number of calls,
(16:38):
but they've launched an investigation to determine that Bigfoot is
not real. It is a man in a, quote, very
convincing costume. I haven't seen that. He has beautiful hair.
Have you seen the video or picture of this guy?
They got a bunch of pictures in this article. Does
it look like a big foot or does it look
like a guy in a costume? It's fuzzy. So intentionally,
(16:58):
so you can't tell. In the modern world, there's no
excuse for a fuzzy.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
We've decided to call this the best weekend talk show
in America. And if you like it, download Armstrong and
Getty on demand. An Australian woman has given birth to
twins conceived by separate fathers.
Speaker 5 (17:18):
Oh, boy.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
Katie, that was exactly the sort of look. That was,
that was, uh, wait, what? Yeah, the math isn't mathing.
Speaker 5 (17:26):
How?
Speaker 2 (17:27):
In what is believed to be the country's first such case,
the mother from Queensland was carrying a couple's IVF embryo
when she became pregnant in the natural fashion last year.
Sorry for calling you a slut. Well, for all we know,
she is entirely monogamous and reliable as a partner. I
(17:53):
jumped to conclusions. And yet a surrogate mother. So she
gave birth to a boy, which was hers, and a girl,
which was a different couple's, as she was the surrogate. Wow.
In November of last year, apparently. Are they considered brother
and sister?
Speaker 1 (18:12):
No.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
There was that's a great question. There was no dispute
over parenthood. And the couples have been raising their children
separately since their birth. But the case became public because
the babies just split ways. It's been real. It's been fun,
but it ain't been real fun. See you later. Good hang. Yeah. Yeah. Hey,
(18:35):
you're a good roommate. I appreciate the courtesy, but I'm off. Yeah, exactly.
So this is in court now because the state has
surrogacy laws that ban the separation of birth siblings. You
can't become a breeding sow and just knock out as
many kids, twins or triplets or whatever, and sell each
one to a different couple or whatever. They have laws
(18:57):
against that. So one judge has ruled that the babies
were not birth siblings under the laws in the unique case.
They were gestational twins.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Hmm.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
Hmm.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
Who knows? Sounds like I complicated quickly. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
You're already pregnant. Don't be going having sex with some other.
Of course, you probably did. She probably didn't think I
could get pregnant again.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Oh, right. Why was she ovulating? If you have sex
with your. Why are you ovulating?
Speaker 3 (19:29):
You know, like if you have sex with your pregnant wife,
you don't think, oh, God, this is going to lead
to twins.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
You don't think that. Or maybe two babies three months
apart or six months or maybe a baby every month
and a half. Your wife would kill you for that
and you would deserve it.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (19:53):
Why does food come in bowls capitalism um they are
intended to add sophistication to the menu but bowls don't
fill you up and show one thing above all the
triumph of capitalism It is the idea that they're trying
to keep you hungry or something like that.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
I don't know. I can't get bogged down in all
these because there's so many of them. Bowls as opposed
to plates, saucers, and even the humble platter.
Speaker 6 (20:18):
What?
Speaker 3 (20:18):
Why do most people prefer monogamy? That's capitalism from this PhD.
Monogamy culture is consumed with ideas about possession and hoarding.
It's romantic capitalism.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
Uh why you care whether or not your kid is
genetically your kid is capitalism um the rise of capitalism
changed the way we had sex as soon as we
started passing money and titles down the male line making
sure the kid was actually yours became very important i
think people probably men have always cared that the kid
was actually theirs but There are.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
A few societies that have existed on Earth that aren't
formed up that way, and they always cite them as
if proof that's the right way to go. And it
was just the perversity of capitalism that made you care
whether somebody was sweating on your wife while you're at
work or not. Yeah, it's capitalism. That's a good point.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
It's not if you've ever had that feeling of jealousy
or whatever. That was capitalism. It wasn't just some natural
emotion that we all have.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
I need to cast off my chains, honey. Get after it.
Have fun. Yes, Michael. Honey, this is why we need
an open marriage. Capitalism. Why don't you read as much
as you want to? Capitalism.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
We really have to acknowledge that not enough time to
read is part of the theft built into capitalism.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Another Ph.D.
Speaker 7 (21:43):
I know.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
Why do we use solar time instead of lunar time?
Masculine capitalism. Lunar phases, women on the Internet are saying lately,
offer a way to structure time that's in opposition to
the 24-hour solar clock, which undergirds our capitalist, masculine society
and asks us to be the same person every day.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
God, that is.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
classic what you're always saying, that you have to be
an intellectual to buy this stuff. I mean, you would
have to be a PhD to start talking about lunar
phases and masculine capitalism and the 24-hour solar clock forcing
you to blah, blah, blah.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
I'm telling you, I thought I thought I was mentally
prepared for this. I am. Wow. Why does frozen food exist? Capitalism.
Speaker 3 (22:30):
Yeah, they hate disabled people so much. They're out here
defending frozen food. It's a meal format that gained mainstream
popularity as white women entered the workforce. While at the
same time, it became harder to support a family and
one salary. So not having a cook meant more time
for doing capitalism. That's why frozen food exists. White women
(22:51):
in the work. I think what they're trying to do.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
Is befuddle us into submission with some of these theories.
I mean, I'm going to wait. You got to slow down.
The women that you threw in white there. Why white?
I mean, just sit out and obey. All right. All right.
Speaker 3 (23:07):
When I first came across this, I was doing like
the deeper dive on each one of them. But there
are so many of them. I finally just gave up
because it's all jargon nonsense that we've you know, that
James Lindsay talks about. It's just paragraphs that you read
and you can't figure out what it said anyway. We've
talked a lot about this one, the whole being on
time is capitalism or white supremacy.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Why do you have hobbies? Capitalism.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
I really like this one. This is from The Atlantic.
The way American culture glorifies and promotes hobbies also serves
to reinforce the notion that idleness is wrong. What Gelber
in his book calls the folk wisdom of capitalism. He
believes that hobbies reinforce the values of achievement, productivity, progress,
which fits into the capitalist mindset.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
So hobbies. are a way to perpetuate capitalism. And not just,
I also like to play the guitar when I get
home at night. It brings me satisfaction. I'm happier while
I'm doing it. No, you're not. You're a slave to capitalism.
I'm getting the sense that it's like every pet peeve
or dissatisfaction in life can be attributed to capitalism. Get
(24:14):
to T-shirts that don't fit right and are too tight.
Surely I can blame that on capitalism.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
Falling birth weights or capitalism for the obvious reason they're
claiming that people are making a conscious decision not to
have kids, which I don't believe.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
No, you're not. I like this. Why is weed illegal? Capitalism.
Why is weed legal? Capitalism. There's a good piece on
both sides. One of it is.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
It was illegal back in the day because we have
to work all day and profit the big companies and
being high gets in the way of that. So that's
why weed was illegal. Then when we became legal, it
was more of a cannabis salesman in suits for a
product that the ruling class increasingly agrees is a valuable
profit opportunity and keeps us passive or something.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
Oh, boy. Why do you have to charge your phone?
Speaker 3 (25:05):
Capitalism, being at the airport and wanting to listen to
YouTube videos, but also needing to charge my phone and
not being able to do both without easy-to-lose AirPods makes
me want to destroy Apple and capitalism more than I
already do, said this writer.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
I'm sorry, WTF. That one completely lost me.
Speaker 3 (25:24):
The fact that you have to charge your phone occasionally,
you have to make a lunch for work.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
But you can't charge it with the ear pods. My
ear pods are white, the same color as white supremacy.
I think it's a coincidence. Stop and think. No. Why
do incels exist? Capitalism.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
This woman writing for The Guardian, a broken idea of
sexist flourishing.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Blame capitalism.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
Why can't you fall asleep at night? An entire book, 24-7,
Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep. Why do people
paint their homes beige?
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Yes. The beige conspiracy.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
American interior design is a symbol of the quiet despair
of capitalism and suburbia. Well, they got that one right.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Oh, my God. That's funny. They got a good point there.
So much beige. Oh, that's funny. And so many different shades.
Speaker 4 (26:22):
Why?
Speaker 2 (26:22):
Capitalism. Eggshell. Cottage white. Cream. All capitalism. The beige conspiracy.
The quiet despair of capitalism in suburbia. Those who would
parody these people have lain down their pens. I know.
I'll stop here soon. No, don't. Why didn't Taylor Swift
(26:43):
marry Travis Kelsey? I know, I know. Why do people
rake their leaves? Capitalism.
Speaker 3 (26:51):
A bright and shining example of the suicidal absurdity of
techno-capitalist society occurs every year at this time across the country.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
That's right. That's what I say every time my dad
used to make me rake them. This is the suicidical narco... What?
The suicidal absurdity of techno-capitalist society. That's why I rake
my leaves. I knew it was something like that. Right. Finally, again,
we can cast off our chains together. Why do trans
(27:21):
people exist? Two reasons, capitalism and capitalism. Ha ha ha!
Why capitalism loves transgenderism and why capitalism hates transgenderism. Transgenderism.
So got both sides of that one. Why do you
like astrology? That's a good one.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
Here's another great one. Why do people enjoy vacations? Capitalism
writes this thinker.
Speaker 5 (27:43):
I knew it.
Speaker 3 (27:44):
Are vacations worth it? Do you really recharge and be
more productive the rest of the year? Do you make
life changing experiences or is it just a well advertised
industry that's great at taking your money and exquisite carrot
capitalism has invented?
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Oh, I'm sorry. No, I meant no, no, I don't
take any pleasure from it. Playing beautiful golf courses with
friends and my wife and eating yummy food and looking
at beautiful. I hate it.
Speaker 8 (28:09):
Hate it.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
I'm being exploited. I just knew it.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
So does it make you feel better than that justifies
you're not wanting to go to work or the fact
that your job sucks and you just assume everybody's job
sucks because they know capitalism?
Speaker 2 (28:23):
The commonality between all these bizarro takes on the ills
of capitalism and all that it causes is It comes
out of the Communist Manifesto that the lazy, jobless, wished
somebody else would pay for his stuff Marx wrote. The
communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social
(28:46):
and political order of things. And that's what this is.
Every conceivable gripe, they say, yeah, that's caused by capitalism.
So like every pet peeve a human being has, the communists,
these neo-Marxists who are disciples of Fanon and his merry
band of French commies. Anyway, every gripe you could possibly
(29:09):
have is tied back to capitalism. So you will be
enlisted in the overthrow of it. It's like the whole
queer thing, you know, a transgender thing. Gay, queer, bi, gender, non-conforming, blah, blah, two-spur.
But queer, what does queer mean? It means in opposition
to the traditional. It's straight out of the Marxist manifesto.
(29:33):
Every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order
of things. That's what we're seeing. So, you know, a
lot of us grew up with communism kind of being
distant and it was a loser. We won in 1989.
It's gone away. No, it hasn't. Not even close.
Speaker 3 (29:49):
And they don't think that you can take it too far.
And at some point, most people are mocking you because
that's ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
I think that's yet another example of it used to
be an idea that stupid would get you laughed out
of everywhere you went physically. But now you go to
the Internet. And so there's no idea that's so stupid
you can't find 10,000 people who say, yeah, you're right.
It's fascistic to eat frozen food. Or food bowls as
(30:20):
opposed to plates. Yes, the fascist bowl with its concavities. Oh,
my God. Oh, you know what? I wish we had
a little more time for this. We've got a little bit.
Great piece by Mark Penn. and Andrew Stein, socialism in
the dumbest generation. Young people embrace an ideology that goes
(30:43):
against everything they actually believe. He's talking about a big
Harvard-Harris poll that just came out, you know, and he
goes into Marxist theory, but 77% of registered voters under
25 believe their paycheck should be based on the merit
and value of their work. And that's the smallest cohort,
(31:07):
the young folks. 77% say, no, if I do better
work and more work, I ought to earn more money. Dude,
you're already not a socialist. 68% of these young voters
say they want to own their own home. But you
remember Zoran Mamdani's director in New York City, blah, blah, blah,
has declared that private property and especially home ownership as
(31:30):
a weapon of white supremacy and that housing should be
regarded as a collective good. And then there are a
bunch of other 70 percent of them want to own
their own business, private enterprise. Sixty three percent see America
as the land of opportunity. And yet they're voting for socialists.
Speaker 3 (31:50):
The only reason you care about the fact that your
kid is actually your kid is capitalism.
Speaker 7 (31:57):
True.
Speaker 3 (31:57):
Otherwise, you'd be perfectly fine raising some other guy that
got with your wife.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 6 (32:04):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Germany. Big election results over the weekend. The AFD, which
is the alternative for Germany, Deutschland, they call it there.
Nobody knows why. But it is the farthest right party
that's had significant electoral success in a very long time.
And in fact, in one of the states of Germany,
one of the former Eastern East German states, they won
(32:35):
about 44 percent of the vote in Sunday's big election.
And that's it's sending an earthquake through German politics. All right.
Two things you need to understand. Number one, there's been
like a wink and nod agreement that the main quote
unquote mainstream parties will never form a coalition with these
right wingers. They remind us too much of the Nazis.
So because they don't like outsiders, they're trying to stop immigration.
(32:58):
So they must be Nazis. And the second thing you
have to understand, it's a parliamentary system. So you've got
to get a majority. You've got to join with another
party to reach 50 percent plus one. And then you,
quote unquote, form a government. So even in this one state,
the AFD doesn't have a majority, but they are now
far too big to ignore. And it's causing, like I said,
(33:21):
an earthquake in German politics and European politics, because Germany
is the number one economy in Europe.
Speaker 3 (33:26):
Yeah, I saw the guest essay in The New York
Times before the election when it was clear from the
polling that this party was going to do so well.
Something alarming is about to happen in Germany. They're really
worried about this. And my take after I read just
a little bit about it is, yeah, I understand their argument.
So it was all about the the country changing right
(33:48):
before their eyes with practically open borders there for a
while under Merkel.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
And, yeah, people don't like that.
Speaker 3 (33:54):
I've been saying this forever and I don't understand why
it isn't obvious to everyone. People like their current, the
town they grew up in, the country they grew up in.
They like their own language. They like their own food.
They like their own music. All this talk about diversity
is nice, but people like what they had. Nobody says,
you know, I really wish the town I grew up
in spoke a different language. We eat different food and
(34:16):
listen to different music.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Nobody says that. And then when that happens, people get
really upset. That's funny.
Speaker 3 (34:23):
It just reminded me. I saw another great thread yesterday
on the whole diversity thing. A little speech of Biden
talking about diversity, then how the neighborhood he lives in
is 99 percent white. A little speech about Kamala Harris
talking about diversity and then how she lives in the
neighborhood is 99 percent white.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
So how that works. Yeah, I would answer you with
what you just said. Yeah, if it were merely that,
that would be reason enough because you get to decide
immigration policies for your own country. But if the population
that is coming in is specifically militantly anti-Western civilization in
large numbers, anti-your culture, and a militantly expansionist political system
(35:04):
masquerading as a religion, yeah, that's extra, extra bad. And
that's what Europe's dealing with. For what it's worth, all
those people, including the Europeans, they desperately need young workers
to prop up the welfare state. That and their idiotic,
you know, up with diversity at all costs attitude. That's
what's going on.
Speaker 3 (35:24):
I thought this part from the New York Times piece
was interesting. What makes the AFD's rise especially shocking that
it's much more extreme than other European far right parties
that are either already in power. Like Giorgio Maloney's Brothers
of Italy or could be soon like Marine Le Pen's
national rally. Well, it's just talking about how this has
happened in several other countries. These movements driven a lot
(35:48):
by the number of Muslim immigrants you're letting into your
country and people ain't digging it.
Speaker 4 (35:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:57):
My problem with the AFD is that they are like
really cozy with Putin. They are leaning east toward Russia
as the great defender of something or other, and they're
anti-helping Ukraine against the Russian onslaught, and I absolutely hate that.
But that's what I was referring to last segment. If you–
essentially declare, all right, the only party that is going
(36:19):
to give voice to the anguish of the people over
this rampant immigration of a hostile culture, the only people
who get to give voice to that is those lunatics
on the right. Yes, the same ones who are pro-Putin.
Everyone else will pretend it's not a problem. Well, then
you're going to see what you get with the AFD.
That's going to happen. If you in the mainstream, Friedrich Merz,
(36:41):
you punk-ass, worthless.
Speaker 3 (36:43):
German, I can't.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Finish my insult. But if you had given voice to
the people's unhappiness and fear, legitimate fear, you wouldn't have
this problem.
Speaker 5 (36:56):
Right.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
You punk.
Speaker 3 (36:58):
Now, this is the New York Times version of this, but.
Whereas those parties in the other countries I mentioned have
sought in some ways to moderate themselves, the AFD in
Germany has become more radical over time, deepening its ties
to neo-Nazis and promising to repatriate migrants. In other words,
send people back as it is done. So it has
grown only more popular. Well, you got more extreme with
(37:20):
your let everybody in. So the other side is going
to get more extreme with the no, you ain't.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
It's like the opposite of Bill Clinton and his famous
famous triangulation. where he'd be like, you know, a lot
of people agree with the Republicans on this. I'm going
to go that way. I'm going to clean up welfare
and say, you know, we've got to have limitations for
the time there's a work requirement and that sort of thing.
In Europe, they did the opposite about rampant immigration. They
pretended it wasn't a problem. And now they're eating the yummy, yummy,
(37:48):
bitter fruit.
Speaker 1 (37:50):
Armstrong and Getty.
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the
George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Armstrong and Getty. And now, here's Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Hey there, we're Armstrong and Getty. You've tuned in the
best weekend talk show in America.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Gee, I find myself wondering whether AI will kill all
human beings. I sure hope not. But boy, we talked
about it and quoted some experts this week. Plus, Marco
Rubio hates communism and the Lindsay Clancy trial. Whoa, controversy.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Yeah, if you like this stuff, you should check out
our podcast. We do 20 hours of live radio every week.
Look for Armstrong and Getty on demand wherever you get podcasts.
This is the best weekend talk show in America.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Three of the 12.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
Jurors are speaking out about the events that led to
the mistrial in Massachusetts, revealing the panel was deadlocked 11
to 1. Three female jurors went on in those interviews
on TV to describe that their arguments got so loud
that the six alternates could actually hear them outside the room.
They went on to say that the sole holdout refused
(01:19):
to listen to the rest of the jurors, including nurses
on the panel.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
So we're about.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
To hear from the three females who have done some interviews.
You have any thoughts on stuff you've heard so far
about the conversations?
Speaker 2 (01:36):
As a former juror? Just the idea that they should
pay special regard to nurses I find interesting. I wouldn't
say it's ridiculous, but it's not a compelling argument.
Speaker 5 (01:48):
Anyway.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Let's hear from some of these jurors.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
He was very arrogant.
Speaker 6 (01:52):
He really did not take anything that anybody said. The nurses,
he tried to ask a question about the medications, and
we went back to the report from South Shore Hospital.
We had the toxicology report. We could see exactly the amounts.
(02:12):
The nurses in the room spoke to that and talked
to that.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
There were nurses on the jury.
Speaker 5 (02:18):
Yes.
Speaker 6 (02:19):
And they spoke to that specific thing.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
That was a question that he had.
Speaker 6 (02:26):
And he just completely disregarded the information.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
That they gave him.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
So I think we're going to have to go through
these before we get into our conversation. Sure. Roll on.
Speaker 7 (02:37):
I mean, he had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had
reasonable doubt after we watched that video of the interview.
I think that's when it was. He admitted he had
reasonable doubt. And I started filling out the forms. I
was so excited. I actually, there were three forms I
had to fill out. And I started filling them out.
I wrote my.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Signature on each one.
Speaker 7 (03:00):
And then he said, but I'm still not going to
say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
So, OK, I'm going to have to I'm having trouble
keeping my head wrapped around this in the same way
that I can't deal with time changes very well. I
can't ever figure out what spring forward fallback means. I'm
having trouble with this one. And so in most states.
I kill somebody. And I don't want the chair. I
(03:30):
got to convince the jury I'm crazy.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
That's correct. But in Massachusetts, it's what? Not only is
it the prosecution's duty to prove that the defendant was
criminally responsible at the time of offense, they must prove
it beyond a reasonable doubt. So the same standard that
applies for a conviction where the government takes away your
(03:55):
freedom or your money or whatever applies to whether you
are criminally responsible or not. That's a high bar. But there,
if I say I'm crazy, they got to prove I'm
not crazy. Correct. The prosecution does.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
Wherever else, everywhere else, the defense has to prove they're
trying to get me, keep me from getting the chair.
They have to prove I'm crazy. And the jury either
buys it or not.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
My understanding is Massachusetts is an extremely rare case of that.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
But in Massachusetts, if I say I'm crazy, you have
to assume he's crazy unless somebody can prove beyond a
reasonable doubt he's not.
Speaker 7 (04:33):
Right. Wow.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
That's a really different way to approach it. Wow. One
more juror.
Speaker 5 (04:40):
Not sure if rogue is the right word, Sue, but
every one of us, in the hours of our frustration,
would get up and walk the room, because you just
couldn't sit anymore, and would all go to the cart
with the exhibits. He, I think, got up to the
cart once, very briefly, and went back to his seat.
(05:03):
He would not.
He would not interact with us and try to understand.
We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of
a reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said
one day in the end, well, why don't we have
(05:24):
the judge come in and read it again? And we
were like, no, we have it in front of us.
we don't need that and we would highlight it and
you know so and so this is the definition of
reason of love but he had the hardest time getting
off the fact that lindsey viciously killed her children.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
Yeah well you know i can understand why it's a
difficult thing to get past the fact that she strangled
three little kids and you had to look at their
pictures over and over again and all that sort of
stuff and that leaves a mark but for the whole
uh I didn't follow the trial every single day. It's
(06:04):
hard for me to imagine how you could prove to
me beyond a reasonable doubt that she's not crazy.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Well, right. There are 14, maybe 15 states where the
burden is on the state. Once the defense introduces credible
evidence of a mental defect, the prosecution must prove the
defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. That is an odd
thing to demand. 30 the other states, except for five,
(06:32):
I'm sorry, except for four, say the defendant bears the
burden of proving they were insane, usually by a preponderance
of evidence or clear and convincing evidence. So it's interesting
that the few states, including Massachusetts. that put the burden
on the prosecution, not only put the burden on the prosecution,
but they have a much higher standard. There are four states, Idaho, Kansas, Montana,
(06:54):
and Utah, that do not permit a traditional insanity defense
at all. I don't know how that works exactly if
you're completely Fruit Loops, but yeah, it is the absolutely
under-discussed aspect of this trial. Well, so.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
There were five charges that they had available to them.
Those 11 wanted which one?
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Acquittal. Which would have been she walks out of the courtroom? No, no.
Years and years and years of care in a mental
health facility with annual appraisals of whether she was a
danger to herself and others. Okay. Keeping in mind this
woman is now apparently, allegedly, completely sane and is completely
aware she choked her three children to death. Yeah. So
(07:43):
at the point she's no longer a suicide risk, call
me at home. I'm not going to wait for your call.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
Yeah, a lot of people have commented on that. She's
no longer a danger to society, right?
Speaker 2 (08:03):
As long as she doesn't give birth to another child.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
We got, we got one text who said, how is
she not like, you got to keep me locked up.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
I mean, look, look, look, look, look what I'm capable of. Just,
I can snap and do this sort of thing. There's
something wrong with me. Yeah. Horrible.
Speaker 4 (08:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
It's what a, what a weird thing all the way around.
So what do you think of the whole bout?
Speaker 3 (08:25):
You think he was just, um, uh, letting his disgust
with what she did override his following the law?
Speaker 2 (08:38):
I'm conflicted here because I agree with his conclusion. On
the other hand, it seems to me a pretty clear
case of what they'll sometimes call jury nullification, where the
juror says, yeah, I understand that's the law, but the
law sucks. I'm not going to be party to it.
And that shouldn't happen. It would, it's just, it's not
a good thing to happen in general. That's not your
(08:59):
job as a juror. But I understand. Boy, and this
is an extreme case. Oh, yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
There ain't no way. I don't care what you say.
I can't vote to acquit this woman.
Speaker 7 (09:10):
Right.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
I've seen the pictures. I know what she did.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Like I said, I can understand it. That's a rough one.
So do you have more on that topic? Or I
thought this was about as well put an expression of
the sentiment I have come across. I do not know
this gal's name, but here she is. Sixty eight, Mike.
Speaker 8 (09:29):
Okay, with this Lancey Clancy trial, I feel like maybe
I missed the mark because I've been seeing all of
y'all's videos and I'm just a woman. So maybe I
just didn't understand fully. So help me out here, okay?
Because what I have gathered from all of your information
that you've put out there is that women are fully
incapable of self-governing our emotions and our hormones. So if
(09:51):
we murder someone or multiple people, it is absolutely not
our fault. It is because of our emotions and our
hormones that made us do it because we cannot control it.
Unless we went to the doctor and we got put
on medication for these hormones and emotions, but then it's
the medication's fault. It's not our fault. It's not our
(10:12):
hormones and emotions faults anymore because we're on medicine for it.
And so then it's the medicine's fault if we murder someone.
Unless it's the wrong medicine, too much medicine, not enough medicine,
then it's the doctor's fault. It's definitely not our fault
as women. It is the doctor's fault or the medication's
fault or our hormones and emotions.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
But you know what else we are?
Speaker 6 (10:31):
We are women.
Speaker 8 (10:32):
We are to be respected. We are to be seen
as equal to men. We can do every job that
a man can do. We can be the next president.
We can be police officers. We can be in high
stressful jobs with weapons. Unless our hormones go crazy because
then our emotions and our hormones could cause us to
pop off and act some type of way. But it's
(10:53):
not our fault. It's not our fault. It is our
hormones and our emotions. Unless we're on medicine, then it's
the medication. Unless it's the wrong medicine, too much medicine,
not enough medicine, then it's the doctors.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
That's pretty good. That's pretty damn good. The response would be, well,
postpartum psychosis is a very limited and specific diagnosis of
a very specific malady. It's not just emotions and hormones,
et cetera, et cetera. On the other hand, the takeaway
culturally is pretty much what she said.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Well, and then there's been this blurring the lines of
postpartum psychosis versus postpartum depression, which is where I think
a lot of the support comes in for the various
women across the country holding their babies up on TikTok
saying me too or whatever.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Right. Which is just disgusting. Same, Lindsay.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
But her lawyer yesterday, I saw him on one of
the TV shows saying, maybe now we can move out
of the dark ages with the way we handle postpartum depression.
So he blurred the lines between postpartum depression and psychosis
and claims we're living in the dark ages for the
way we handle treat women over this.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
Smart lawyer. I'll bet he played that in the courtroom, too.
I don't know. I haven't read the transcript. Or he's
preparing for the next go round for her. Yeah, it's
certainly possible. This one is so thorny and disturbing. If
someone said to me, look, all of this is really interesting,
but if I design a society, it's going to say
(12:23):
if you murder your children, you're going away for good.
I would say to that person, yeah, yeah, I see
your point. And I think 90% of people would agree
with that. Hard to say. It is hard to say.
You can get hammered drunk. You killed somebody. You're guilty.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
You don't get to say, I was drunk. I was
out of my mind. I don't even remember it. I
don't even know what happened.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
How about you completely lose your temper and see red?
You're in a state you may never be in again
as long as you live, but you have murderous rage
for two minutes and the person ends up dead. You're guilty.
If you're that and drunk, you're guilty.
Speaker 5 (13:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
Man, that woman, that little thing she laid out, she
was good. She needs to have her own talk show
or something.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
No, she'd compete with us. She sucks, boo.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
We are Armstrong and Getty, and this is the best
weekend talk show in America.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Grab our podcast. It's called Armstrong and Getty On Demand.
Here's somebody you should shut the hell up. One more
AI note. Advancements in AI may soon allow humans to
talk with animals, but some groups claim the research could
be violating the animal's right to privacy. What? Yeah, I know.
(13:45):
I know. How great is that?
Speaker 3 (13:46):
So I'm trying to wrap my head around this. I
don't believe there's any chance we're ever going to be
able to talk with animals and them with us.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Oh, you're a fool. My dog and I talk about
you all the time. All right, here's the story. Here's
the story. But so we can listen to them, talk
to each other. That would that be violating their privacy? Well,
machine learning models are paving the way to catalog and
even mimic the sounds animals make to communicate with each other,
with researchers touting the technology as a way to better
(14:12):
understand the world of animals. I love this. This is
an article in Springer Nature, whatever the hell that is. Quote,
but one risk that is currently not taken into account
in research ethics is the concern that we might be
violating the privacy of animals by collecting data on their
vocalizations and movements. I want to meet this person who
wrote that. Good Lord. Wow, you're a nut. An interest
(14:35):
in privacy is an interest in controlling how you appear
to others. And the complex social lives of many non-human
animals offer strong support for thinking animals have this interest.
So you got to get a warrant to wiretap an ape?
Come on. Is this a one-party dog state or a
two-party state? Good Lord. So if you eavesdrop on a
(14:59):
couple of cats meowing at each other, you've violated their privacy. Yeah, exactly.
I'd like a saucer of milk. I'm tired of coughing
up hairballs. I got to poop again. Where's that weird box?
Let's see. Now, one thing that they're describing is actually
ethically a little bit interesting. That is when we can
(15:20):
perfectly mimic the calls of animals. What are the ethics
with doing that in the wild? Because you've got a
sophisticated animal like crows. They have an unbelievably sophisticated net
of communication that they do. Fascinating beast, the crow. Anyway,
what are the ethics of broadcasting a cry that they've
(15:41):
identified that's essentially, hey, come help, come help, as all
the crows would use it to summon others to help
defend the nest? Can we do that? Is that ethical?
Isn't that basically what deer whistles have been?
Speaker 4 (15:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
And then we shoot them dead. That's right. That's a
duck call, right? Isn't that just what a duck call is? Essentially, yeah. Yeah,
that's a good point. All right. I will never spend
another second worrying about that. Here's some surprising news. The
major Bigfoot sighting in Maine has been declared a guy
in a convincing costume. Apparently, Maine has been all the
(16:16):
Twitter lately that some guy was ooching about. Bigfoot lives
on the West Coast. There were an unusually high number
of calls. Well, he travels. You know, the guy walking
like this, the woods. No, Bigfoot's a millennial. He doesn't
want stuff. He wants experiences. So he's traveled to Maine.
The police department noted an unusually high number of calls,
(16:38):
but they've launched an investigation to determine that Bigfoot is
not real. It is a man in a, quote, very
convincing costume. I haven't seen that. He has beautiful hair.
Have you seen the video or picture of this guy?
They got a bunch of pictures in this article. Does
it look like a big foot or does it look
like a guy in a costume? It's fuzzy. So intentionally,
(16:58):
so you can't tell. In the modern world, there's no
excuse for a fuzzy.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
We've decided to call this the best weekend talk show
in America. And if you like it, download Armstrong and
Getty on demand. An Australian woman has given birth to
twins conceived by separate fathers.
Speaker 5 (17:18):
Oh, boy.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
Katie, that was exactly the sort of look. That was,
that was, uh, wait, what? Yeah, the math isn't mathing.
Speaker 5 (17:26):
How?
Speaker 2 (17:27):
In what is believed to be the country's first such case,
the mother from Queensland was carrying a couple's IVF embryo
when she became pregnant in the natural fashion last year.
Sorry for calling you a slut. Well, for all we know,
she is entirely monogamous and reliable as a partner. I
(17:53):
jumped to conclusions. And yet a surrogate mother. So she
gave birth to a boy, which was hers, and a girl,
which was a different couple's, as she was the surrogate. Wow.
In November of last year, apparently. Are they considered brother
and sister?
Speaker 1 (18:12):
No.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
There was that's a great question. There was no dispute
over parenthood. And the couples have been raising their children
separately since their birth. But the case became public because
the babies just split ways. It's been real. It's been fun,
but it ain't been real fun. See you later. Good hang. Yeah. Yeah. Hey,
(18:35):
you're a good roommate. I appreciate the courtesy, but I'm off. Yeah, exactly.
So this is in court now because the state has
surrogacy laws that ban the separation of birth siblings. You
can't become a breeding sow and just knock out as
many kids, twins or triplets or whatever, and sell each
one to a different couple or whatever. They have laws
(18:57):
against that. So one judge has ruled that the babies
were not birth siblings under the laws in the unique case.
They were gestational twins.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Hmm.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
Hmm.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
Who knows? Sounds like I complicated quickly. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
You're already pregnant. Don't be going having sex with some other.
Of course, you probably did. She probably didn't think I
could get pregnant again.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Oh, right. Why was she ovulating? If you have sex
with your. Why are you ovulating?
Speaker 3 (19:29):
You know, like if you have sex with your pregnant wife,
you don't think, oh, God, this is going to lead
to twins.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
You don't think that. Or maybe two babies three months
apart or six months or maybe a baby every month
and a half. Your wife would kill you for that
and you would deserve it.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (19:53):
Why does food come in bowls capitalism um they are
intended to add sophistication to the menu but bowls don't
fill you up and show one thing above all the
triumph of capitalism It is the idea that they're trying
to keep you hungry or something like that.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
I don't know. I can't get bogged down in all
these because there's so many of them. Bowls as opposed
to plates, saucers, and even the humble platter.
Speaker 6 (20:18):
What?
Speaker 3 (20:18):
Why do most people prefer monogamy? That's capitalism from this PhD.
Monogamy culture is consumed with ideas about possession and hoarding.
It's romantic capitalism.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
Uh why you care whether or not your kid is
genetically your kid is capitalism um the rise of capitalism
changed the way we had sex as soon as we
started passing money and titles down the male line making
sure the kid was actually yours became very important i
think people probably men have always cared that the kid
was actually theirs but There are.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
A few societies that have existed on Earth that aren't
formed up that way, and they always cite them as
if proof that's the right way to go. And it
was just the perversity of capitalism that made you care
whether somebody was sweating on your wife while you're at
work or not. Yeah, it's capitalism. That's a good point.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
It's not if you've ever had that feeling of jealousy
or whatever. That was capitalism. It wasn't just some natural
emotion that we all have.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
I need to cast off my chains, honey. Get after it.
Have fun. Yes, Michael. Honey, this is why we need
an open marriage. Capitalism. Why don't you read as much
as you want to? Capitalism.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
We really have to acknowledge that not enough time to
read is part of the theft built into capitalism.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Another Ph.D.
Speaker 7 (21:43):
I know.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
Why do we use solar time instead of lunar time?
Masculine capitalism. Lunar phases, women on the Internet are saying lately,
offer a way to structure time that's in opposition to
the 24-hour solar clock, which undergirds our capitalist, masculine society
and asks us to be the same person every day.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
God, that is.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
classic what you're always saying, that you have to be
an intellectual to buy this stuff. I mean, you would
have to be a PhD to start talking about lunar
phases and masculine capitalism and the 24-hour solar clock forcing
you to blah, blah, blah.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
I'm telling you, I thought I thought I was mentally
prepared for this. I am. Wow. Why does frozen food exist? Capitalism.
Speaker 3 (22:30):
Yeah, they hate disabled people so much. They're out here
defending frozen food. It's a meal format that gained mainstream
popularity as white women entered the workforce. While at the
same time, it became harder to support a family and
one salary. So not having a cook meant more time
for doing capitalism. That's why frozen food exists. White women
(22:51):
in the work. I think what they're trying to do.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
Is befuddle us into submission with some of these theories.
I mean, I'm going to wait. You got to slow down.
The women that you threw in white there. Why white?
I mean, just sit out and obey. All right. All right.
Speaker 3 (23:07):
When I first came across this, I was doing like
the deeper dive on each one of them. But there
are so many of them. I finally just gave up
because it's all jargon nonsense that we've you know, that
James Lindsay talks about. It's just paragraphs that you read
and you can't figure out what it said anyway. We've
talked a lot about this one, the whole being on
time is capitalism or white supremacy.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Why do you have hobbies? Capitalism.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
I really like this one. This is from The Atlantic.
The way American culture glorifies and promotes hobbies also serves
to reinforce the notion that idleness is wrong. What Gelber
in his book calls the folk wisdom of capitalism. He
believes that hobbies reinforce the values of achievement, productivity, progress,
which fits into the capitalist mindset.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
So hobbies. are a way to perpetuate capitalism. And not just,
I also like to play the guitar when I get
home at night. It brings me satisfaction. I'm happier while
I'm doing it. No, you're not. You're a slave to capitalism.
I'm getting the sense that it's like every pet peeve
or dissatisfaction in life can be attributed to capitalism. Get
(24:14):
to T-shirts that don't fit right and are too tight.
Surely I can blame that on capitalism.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
Falling birth weights or capitalism for the obvious reason they're
claiming that people are making a conscious decision not to
have kids, which I don't believe.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
No, you're not. I like this. Why is weed illegal? Capitalism.
Why is weed legal? Capitalism. There's a good piece on
both sides. One of it is.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
It was illegal back in the day because we have
to work all day and profit the big companies and
being high gets in the way of that. So that's
why weed was illegal. Then when we became legal, it
was more of a cannabis salesman in suits for a
product that the ruling class increasingly agrees is a valuable
profit opportunity and keeps us passive or something.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
Oh, boy. Why do you have to charge your phone?
Speaker 3 (25:05):
Capitalism, being at the airport and wanting to listen to
YouTube videos, but also needing to charge my phone and
not being able to do both without easy-to-lose AirPods makes
me want to destroy Apple and capitalism more than I
already do, said this writer.
Speaker 2 (25:19):
I'm sorry, WTF. That one completely lost me.
Speaker 3 (25:24):
The fact that you have to charge your phone occasionally,
you have to make a lunch for work.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
But you can't charge it with the ear pods. My
ear pods are white, the same color as white supremacy.
I think it's a coincidence. Stop and think. No. Why
do incels exist? Capitalism.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
This woman writing for The Guardian, a broken idea of
sexist flourishing.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Blame capitalism.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
Why can't you fall asleep at night? An entire book, 24-7,
Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep. Why do people
paint their homes beige?
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Yes. The beige conspiracy.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
American interior design is a symbol of the quiet despair
of capitalism and suburbia. Well, they got that one right.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Oh, my God. That's funny. They got a good point there.
So much beige. Oh, that's funny. And so many different shades.
Speaker 4 (26:22):
Why?
Speaker 2 (26:22):
Capitalism. Eggshell. Cottage white. Cream. All capitalism. The beige conspiracy.
The quiet despair of capitalism in suburbia. Those who would
parody these people have lain down their pens. I know.
I'll stop here soon. No, don't. Why didn't Taylor Swift
(26:43):
marry Travis Kelsey? I know, I know. Why do people
rake their leaves? Capitalism.
Speaker 3 (26:51):
A bright and shining example of the suicidal absurdity of
techno-capitalist society occurs every year at this time across the country.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
That's right. That's what I say every time my dad
used to make me rake them. This is the suicidical narco... What?
The suicidal absurdity of techno-capitalist society. That's why I rake
my leaves. I knew it was something like that. Right. Finally, again,
we can cast off our chains together. Why do trans
(27:21):
people exist? Two reasons, capitalism and capitalism. Ha ha ha!
Why capitalism loves transgenderism and why capitalism hates transgenderism. Transgenderism.
So got both sides of that one. Why do you
like astrology? That's a good one.
Speaker 3 (27:38):
Here's another great one. Why do people enjoy vacations? Capitalism
writes this thinker.
Speaker 5 (27:43):
I knew it.
Speaker 3 (27:44):
Are vacations worth it? Do you really recharge and be
more productive the rest of the year? Do you make
life changing experiences or is it just a well advertised
industry that's great at taking your money and exquisite carrot
capitalism has invented?
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Oh, I'm sorry. No, I meant no, no, I don't
take any pleasure from it. Playing beautiful golf courses with
friends and my wife and eating yummy food and looking
at beautiful. I hate it.
Speaker 8 (28:09):
Hate it.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
I'm being exploited. I just knew it.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
So does it make you feel better than that justifies
you're not wanting to go to work or the fact
that your job sucks and you just assume everybody's job
sucks because they know capitalism?
Speaker 2 (28:23):
The commonality between all these bizarro takes on the ills
of capitalism and all that it causes is It comes
out of the Communist Manifesto that the lazy, jobless, wished
somebody else would pay for his stuff Marx wrote. The
communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social
(28:46):
and political order of things. And that's what this is.
Every conceivable gripe, they say, yeah, that's caused by capitalism.
So like every pet peeve a human being has, the communists,
these neo-Marxists who are disciples of Fanon and his merry
band of French commies. Anyway, every gripe you could possibly
(29:09):
have is tied back to capitalism. So you will be
enlisted in the overthrow of it. It's like the whole
queer thing, you know, a transgender thing. Gay, queer, bi, gender, non-conforming, blah, blah, two-spur.
But queer, what does queer mean? It means in opposition
to the traditional. It's straight out of the Marxist manifesto.
(29:33):
Every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order
of things. That's what we're seeing. So, you know, a
lot of us grew up with communism kind of being
distant and it was a loser. We won in 1989.
It's gone away. No, it hasn't. Not even close.
Speaker 3 (29:49):
And they don't think that you can take it too far.
And at some point, most people are mocking you because
that's ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
I think that's yet another example of it used to
be an idea that stupid would get you laughed out
of everywhere you went physically. But now you go to
the Internet. And so there's no idea that's so stupid
you can't find 10,000 people who say, yeah, you're right.
It's fascistic to eat frozen food. Or food bowls as
(30:20):
opposed to plates. Yes, the fascist bowl with its concavities. Oh,
my God. Oh, you know what? I wish we had
a little more time for this. We've got a little bit.
Great piece by Mark Penn. and Andrew Stein, socialism in
the dumbest generation. Young people embrace an ideology that goes
(30:43):
against everything they actually believe. He's talking about a big
Harvard-Harris poll that just came out, you know, and he
goes into Marxist theory, but 77% of registered voters under
25 believe their paycheck should be based on the merit
and value of their work. And that's the smallest cohort,
(31:07):
the young folks. 77% say, no, if I do better
work and more work, I ought to earn more money. Dude,
you're already not a socialist. 68% of these young voters
say they want to own their own home. But you
remember Zoran Mamdani's director in New York City, blah, blah, blah,
has declared that private property and especially home ownership as
(31:30):
a weapon of white supremacy and that housing should be
regarded as a collective good. And then there are a
bunch of other 70 percent of them want to own
their own business, private enterprise. Sixty three percent see America
as the land of opportunity. And yet they're voting for socialists.
Speaker 3 (31:50):
The only reason you care about the fact that your
kid is actually your kid is capitalism.
Speaker 7 (31:57):
True.
Speaker 3 (31:57):
Otherwise, you'd be perfectly fine raising some other guy that
got with your wife.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 6 (32:04):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Germany. Big election results over the weekend. The AFD, which
is the alternative for Germany, Deutschland, they call it there.
Nobody knows why. But it is the farthest right party
that's had significant electoral success in a very long time.
And in fact, in one of the states of Germany,
one of the former Eastern East German states, they won
(32:35):
about 44 percent of the vote in Sunday's big election.
And that's it's sending an earthquake through German politics. All right.
Two things you need to understand. Number one, there's been
like a wink and nod agreement that the main quote
unquote mainstream parties will never form a coalition with these
right wingers. They remind us too much of the Nazis.
So because they don't like outsiders, they're trying to stop immigration.
(32:58):
So they must be Nazis. And the second thing you
have to understand, it's a parliamentary system. So you've got
to get a majority. You've got to join with another
party to reach 50 percent plus one. And then you,
quote unquote, form a government. So even in this one state,
the AFD doesn't have a majority, but they are now
far too big to ignore. And it's causing, like I said,
(33:21):
an earthquake in German politics and European politics, because Germany
is the number one economy in Europe.
Speaker 3 (33:26):
Yeah, I saw the guest essay in The New York
Times before the election when it was clear from the
polling that this party was going to do so well.
Something alarming is about to happen in Germany. They're really
worried about this. And my take after I read just
a little bit about it is, yeah, I understand their argument.
So it was all about the the country changing right
(33:48):
before their eyes with practically open borders there for a
while under Merkel.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
And, yeah, people don't like that.
Speaker 3 (33:54):
I've been saying this forever and I don't understand why
it isn't obvious to everyone. People like their current, the
town they grew up in, the country they grew up in.
They like their own language. They like their own food.
They like their own music. All this talk about diversity
is nice, but people like what they had. Nobody says,
you know, I really wish the town I grew up
in spoke a different language. We eat different food and
(34:16):
listen to different music.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Nobody says that. And then when that happens, people get
really upset. That's funny.
Speaker 3 (34:23):
It just reminded me. I saw another great thread yesterday
on the whole diversity thing. A little speech of Biden
talking about diversity, then how the neighborhood he lives in
is 99 percent white. A little speech about Kamala Harris
talking about diversity and then how she lives in the
neighborhood is 99 percent white.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
So how that works. Yeah, I would answer you with
what you just said. Yeah, if it were merely that,
that would be reason enough because you get to decide
immigration policies for your own country. But if the population
that is coming in is specifically militantly anti-Western civilization in
large numbers, anti-your culture, and a militantly expansionist political system
(35:04):
masquerading as a religion, yeah, that's extra, extra bad. And
that's what Europe's dealing with. For what it's worth, all
those people, including the Europeans, they desperately need young workers
to prop up the welfare state. That and their idiotic,
you know, up with diversity at all costs attitude. That's
what's going on.
Speaker 3 (35:24):
I thought this part from the New York Times piece
was interesting. What makes the AFD's rise especially shocking that
it's much more extreme than other European far right parties
that are either already in power. Like Giorgio Maloney's Brothers
of Italy or could be soon like Marine Le Pen's
national rally. Well, it's just talking about how this has
happened in several other countries. These movements driven a lot
(35:48):
by the number of Muslim immigrants you're letting into your
country and people ain't digging it.
Speaker 4 (35:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:57):
My problem with the AFD is that they are like
really cozy with Putin. They are leaning east toward Russia
as the great defender of something or other, and they're
anti-helping Ukraine against the Russian onslaught, and I absolutely hate that.
But that's what I was referring to last segment. If you–
essentially declare, all right, the only party that is going
(36:19):
to give voice to the anguish of the people over
this rampant immigration of a hostile culture, the only people
who get to give voice to that is those lunatics
on the right. Yes, the same ones who are pro-Putin.
Everyone else will pretend it's not a problem. Well, then
you're going to see what you get with the AFD.
That's going to happen. If you in the mainstream, Friedrich Merz,
(36:41):
you punk-ass, worthless.
Speaker 3 (36:43):
German, I can't.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Finish my insult. But if you had given voice to
the people's unhappiness and fear, legitimate fear, you wouldn't have
this problem.
Speaker 5 (36:56):
Right.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
You punk.
Speaker 3 (36:58):
Now, this is the New York Times version of this, but.
Whereas those parties in the other countries I mentioned have
sought in some ways to moderate themselves, the AFD in
Germany has become more radical over time, deepening its ties
to neo-Nazis and promising to repatriate migrants. In other words,
send people back as it is done. So it has
grown only more popular. Well, you got more extreme with
(37:20):
your let everybody in. So the other side is going
to get more extreme with the no, you ain't.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
It's like the opposite of Bill Clinton and his famous
famous triangulation. where he'd be like, you know, a lot
of people agree with the Republicans on this. I'm going
to go that way. I'm going to clean up welfare
and say, you know, we've got to have limitations for
the time there's a work requirement and that sort of thing.
In Europe, they did the opposite about rampant immigration. They
pretended it wasn't a problem. And now they're eating the yummy, yummy,
(37:48):
bitter fruit.
Speaker 1 (37:50):
Armstrong and Getty.
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
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
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!