August 11, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- Feds taking over Capitol police & crime stats
- AOL kills dial up & attractive hobbies
- Lanhee Chen talks to A&G
- Jack fat shames the whole planet & goblet squats
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Armstrong and Getty and he.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 4 (00:23):
I'm announcing a historic action to rescue our nation's capital
from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse. This is
Liberation Day in DC, and we're going to take our
capital back. We're taking it back.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Bedlam and squalor are original enough when it was just bedlam,
but then the squalor came. That's right, when we're bedlam
and squalor good ratings.
Speaker 5 (00:50):
I feel like this story because so many journalists live
in Washington.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
D C.
Speaker 5 (00:55):
How big a deal is this, the federal government taking
over the policing of Washington.
Speaker 6 (01:00):
D C.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
I think it could be a great thing, although the
media will never reported, honestly, if the Feds take control
and they just like eliminate so much of the crime
and the squalor and the rest of them bedlam ah,
thank you. I think that'll be a great demonstration of
how progressivism doesn't work, because DC is famously a very
(01:22):
progressive sitting Trump's.
Speaker 5 (01:23):
Standing up there, He's still speaking right now. He's got
sec def Pete. Hegseeth over one shoulder. He's got the
Attorney General over the other, and all the heavyweights, and
it's got cash. Buttel just talk to the FBI. All
the heavyweights are in the room for this, and he
goes on.
Speaker 4 (01:39):
Under the authorities vested in me as the President of
the United States, I'm officially invoking Section seventy forty of
the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, you know what
that is, and placing the DC Metropolitan Police Department under
direct federal control. And you'll be meeting the people that
will be directly involved with. Very good people, but they're
(02:03):
tough and they know what's happening, and they've done it before.
In addition, I'm deploying the National Guard to help re
establish law order of public safety in.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Washington, d C. And they're going to be allowed to
do their job properly.
Speaker 5 (02:19):
By the way, maybe the smartest thing Mark Twain ever said,
and it is a high bar, is his quote about statistics,
the three kinds of lies, lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I roll my eyes at all crime statistics now because
they can be manipulated in such a way to make
it look like crime's going up or down all the time.
(02:41):
Hasn't you felt like you've had that experience. I mean
it's really tough, oh yeah, to figure out what the
murder rate or you know, or sometimes you take out
murders so the other numbers look better or whatever. So
but all the talk over the weekend leading up to this,
because Trump had telegraphed this, the mainstream media all weekend
was pointing out how crime is actually in Washington, DC
(03:01):
a lot, and so there's no reason to do that.
But like I said, I roll my eyes at all
crime statistics. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. I haven't
got the slightest idea, but this portion of what Trump
said is pretty interesting.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
You want to have safety in the streets.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
You want to be able to leave your apartment or
your house where you live and feel safe and go
into a store to buy a newspaper.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Buy something, and you don't have that. Now.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
The murder rate in Washington today is higher than that
of Bogata, Columbia, Mexico City. Some of the places that
you hear about as being the worst place is.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
On Earth's much higher. This is much higher.
Speaker 5 (03:38):
So I'll bet that that doge kid young member of
the Doge team that got the crap beat out of
him last weekend in a very trendy bar restaurant area.
Some carjackers and he was trying to protect his girlfriend, etc.
Speaker 7 (03:53):
Beat up.
Speaker 5 (03:54):
Bet, it's just luck that the police happened to roll by,
or he'd probably be in the hospital or dead. I'm
sure that one got Trump's attention. Trump had probably met
the guy.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
M Yeah, yeah, I was just trying to find an
article I can't. I had it the other day that
a DC police official is under investigation now for faking
crime statistics, and that a lot of what's being cited
right now as a drop in crime was completely phony.
He aggressively pressured cops and other officials to under charge
(04:28):
to make his stay as police chief look better. I
don't have the particulars in front of me. Take that
with a grain of salt, but we'll get them for
you eventually.
Speaker 5 (04:38):
But again, all the reporting was well love us Play
thirty two, Just so you know, this was the way
it was reported on ABC E News Nation.
Speaker 8 (04:47):
All this comes as data from the DC Police Department
shows violent crime actually down twenty six percent compared to
the same time last year. DC's owned mayor recently pushing
back against this spotlight on the district's crime.
Speaker 9 (05:00):
We had a terrible spike in crime in twenty twenty three,
but this is not twenty twenty three. This is twenty
twenty five, and we've done that by working with the community,
working with the police, working with our prosecutors, and am
working with the federal government.
Speaker 5 (05:16):
I would even if I were to even if those
statistics are real, and you're suggesting there just a chance
or not, but even those statistics are real, I would
need to know. Okay, if you had a spike in
twenty three and it dropped quite a bit in twenty four,
is it still really high by historic standards? I certainly
could be right exactly.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Yeah, just because it's dropped doesn't mean it's dropped toward
anything approaching an acceptable level.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Yeah. Again, I wish this wasn't a problem.
Speaker 5 (05:45):
But so many statistics I just I don't even really
read them because I've been fooled so many times.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
Well, and we've heard, specifically from cops and people in
the law enforcement system and judges and that sort of people,
that those statistics are particularly easy to in particularly, they're
particularly easy to manipulate and particularly and they and they
are regularly, so I'll be interested to see how this goes.
(06:16):
There seems to be a real deficiency in voters of
the left in recognizing how policy relates to the world
they live, connecting policy to what they see, connecting policy
to results. And if indeed a right wingie crackdown on
(06:39):
crime yields a much better, safer, healthier city, I would
love to see what the reaction is to that. I'm
sure they will scream racism or whatever, point out a
disparity in arrests, and blah blah blah.
Speaker 5 (06:51):
So the press conference is still going on, and I
would assume at some point somebody's gonna ask Trump about Russia,
Ukraine and him meat and Putin, which is the biggest
story of the week, probably, But the press conference is
still going on. And like I said, all the heavyweights
are there. Why are all the heavyweights there for the
DC police takeover? But over his shoulder, the Secretary of Defense?
(07:12):
Are the Navy seals going in and over his other shoulder?
Speaker 3 (07:16):
Right now? It's what's his name? From North Dakota?
Speaker 2 (07:19):
What is he?
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Doug Bergham, Secretary of the Interior.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
How's that factor in.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
They're in the country, Jack, the interior of the country,
clearly do the mask.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
I guess it's all.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
Because they live and work in DC.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
All hands on deck for this one.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
In a not really related story, although it has to
do with the Trump administration.
Speaker 5 (07:37):
Wait, wait, just once, Ja Janine Piro is talking right now.
If you watch Fox, you know who she is, US
attorney for DC.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Currently.
Speaker 5 (07:46):
She appears to be I've never seen her next to
other people. She appears to be four foot six. She's
the very barely peering over the podium.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
But strong and great in personnel. Here you go anyway.
US district judge in the Southern District of New York
has said he will not unseal grand jury testimony records
in the Julane Maxwell case. On Friday, the Justice Department
asked two New York judges to unseal the exhibits related
to ms Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. The judge wrote, and
(08:19):
his refusal was actually interesting unless you believe that this
is all a gigantic conspiracy sometimes run by the Jews.
But the judge wrote he would not release the records
because they did not answer questions that remained from the
public relating to those people's crimes or Epstein's death. The
judge added that the records did not reveal any new
(08:40):
or meaningful information about the pair's crimes, going against the
government's claims that they would. The judge called it demonstrably false,
adding that the push to release the documents could be
a diversion plan.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
So they got to him.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
To Okay, that's all you have to say. Yeah, uh,
he accused the government their motion for the unseiling was
not aimed at transparency but at diversion, aimed at not
a full disclosure, but the illusion of such. And then
he wrote, and here's the key part. The records do
not identify anyone other than Epstein or Maxwell who had
sexual contact with a minor, mentioned any clients, shed light
(09:16):
on their methods, or provide any new information about Epstein's death.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
So he's part of it. I'm kidding.
Speaker 5 (09:22):
I don't mean that, but I know people who will
say that today, lots of people.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
And the problem with.
Speaker 5 (09:27):
This is you can't be releasing this sort of stuff
where a whole bunch of people who didn't do a
damn thing wrong, their names are going to be involved,
and the internet will go wild with just that's not good.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Right well, and the losses grand jury proceedings are are
sealed right.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
Well for obvious reasons.
Speaker 5 (09:49):
You could get caught up in a grand jury sometime
where you've done nothing wrong.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
As I predicted last week, this will go away among
the vast majority of Americans there are conscious and this
is just because it'll be eclipsed by much more significant events.
Speaker 5 (10:04):
Are the Texas Democrats still on the run or have
they been hunted down like dogs and brought back in
cages to Texas and some.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Sort of weird dog hunt. I don't know, Actually, I
think they're still on the run.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
I think there are too.
Speaker 5 (10:19):
But we're going to talk to Lona hee Chen, one
of our favorite analysts, particularly about California politics, on how
you know California has been playing the redistricting game forever.
This is not new what they're doing in Texas in particularly,
and a bunch of other stuff on the way stay.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
Here in particularly, you will recognize this sound.
Speaker 5 (10:42):
You probably haven't heard it in a while. It well,
it's no longer out there for you. This is a throwback.
It's throwback one day Monday, here we go. Is the
fa'm a sound? Of dialing up AOL America online from
(11:04):
back in the day. That was most of our entry
points and do email for one thing, and then any
kind of social media. Back in the day, you got mail,
thank you, thank you for that. I how exciting. I
probably still have mail on my AOL account from so
after thirty four years, I think I read as of
(11:25):
today they no longer have a dial up application.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
They still did. Wow as of today, like two families
in rural Tennessee.
Speaker 5 (11:34):
I don't know, but the most recent statistics I heard
were from twenty nineteen, where there were still a quarter
of a million people doing the dial up for AOL.
They probably also eat rope rode kill and marry their sisters.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
But wow, wait a minute now, unfortunate cliche, but.
Speaker 5 (11:53):
Hey, sorry Clym, you and your sister wife are going
to have to get Wi Fi or something because no
longer die up for AOL.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
So that's the end of that.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
And I remember downloading stuff for the show at the
dawn of the Internet, and if anybody called the house
while I was doing it, it completely ruined the whole process,
which took like fifteen minutes to download, you know, a
handful of pages worth of text.
Speaker 5 (12:21):
Yeah, it certainly looked there for quite a few years
that this was never like gonna catch on and be
that big a deal. But little did we know, totally overrated.
So there's that this is going to be a tease
for something we will do. How much time I got.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Michael, he's got about five minutes.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
Maybe I'll start here.
Speaker 5 (12:40):
Started it on teaching my son to drive over the weekend,
specifically driving a stick shift. We've done a lot of
driving living on a farm, like we have twenty acres,
and he's driven all over in various peakles since he
was I don't know, seven years old. So you can
just put him in a field with the truck and
go drive around trying not to tat something.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
Um then nothing happens.
Speaker 5 (12:59):
So it's not that he hadn't never driven before, but
driving a stick shift that that's brand new to him.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
This a vehicle that I bought him, a five speed, so.
Speaker 1 (13:07):
That he did very hard to find, aren't they He
did very very well.
Speaker 5 (13:11):
I was very excited for him, and he seemed to
really enjoy it, so that was fun. Killed it once
I said, you're gonna kill it in front of your friends,
guaranteed you're gonna kill it in front of your friends,
and it's going to be embarrassing it happens, you'll be
all right, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
But they don't know how to drive a stick probably not,
for all they know, he's a captain captaining the starship Enterprise, right,
you know, right to be mysterious and difficult in their eyes.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
This is what we're going to do in the One
More Thing podcast.
Speaker 5 (13:39):
And if you don't listen to that every day, after
the four hours of radio that we do, we do
another podcast only thing called One More Thing, and you
can find it wherever you find Armstrong and Getty podcasts,
wherever you're finding Armstrong and Getty on demand. Well, we'll
get to this today. There was a survey done that
I found this interesting as a single guy, the most
attractive hobbies to women that a man can have, and
(14:04):
they listed him by a lot, like a whole bunch
of them.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
And this is legit. It's not a dumb survey.
Speaker 5 (14:09):
The most attractive hobbies to women, the least attractive hobbies
to women, and we can go through them in detail.
But I was happy to see that the most attractive
hobby to women as a percentage at ninety eight point
two percent favorability was recross dressing cross reading as a reader.
(14:30):
I'm happy to you can swap clothes and stuff now reading,
as it turns out, Yeah, okay.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
Go on.
Speaker 5 (14:37):
Cross dressing would have an advantage, wouldn't it if it
was your size, as you'd have to date a guy
your size. Yeah, so hey, there have to be well
depending on your size, a pretty small.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
Dude or well, it depends famously.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Some of the tiny little fellas in the Rolling Stones,
that's how they got their fashion senses. They swapped clothes
with their girlfriends. Wow, because dudes were so skinny and
weedy that point.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
Have I ever had a girlfriend I could swap clothes with?
I'm pretty sure not because I'm a d cup.
Speaker 5 (15:14):
So we'll get into the list when we do the
One More Thing podcast. But just why do you think
reading is the most attractive trait to women?
Speaker 3 (15:24):
What's your theory on that?
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Oh, I'm not sure I could come up with anything
that isn't like super obvious. I mean it shows a
certain level of mental power, curiosity, intellect.
Speaker 5 (15:38):
So is it basically just I want a smart person
his brain works just like shorthand For I want a
smart person.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
You know.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Interesting about this list and I haven't seen it yet,
But there's the question of universal acceptance because you said
it's ninety eight percent or so, But how much enthusiasm
does it generate? Is it great or is it just
acceptable to everyone? You know what I mean?
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Right?
Speaker 5 (16:05):
Yes, Michael, I think you're trying to show that you're
better in yourself and so that you're looking to gain
more knowledge, You're looking to be a better man.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
That could be that. That's pretty good too.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
That's good astute observation.
Speaker 5 (16:17):
It was do you want the least oh popular, and
then we'll do the whole list. I don't exactly know
what I mean, but the is a hobby they have
as a hobby man o sphere, which is what they
call people who listen to like Joe Rogan and all
those kind of podcasts and are into that sort of thing.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
Well more like the Tate Brothers and some of the
real misogynist stuff.
Speaker 5 (16:41):
That's the least popular, Well, well, why would that be
popular people that are in depending it? No, for women,
of course, it's not popular. Only three point one percent.
Who are your three You know what I like in
a guy? Guys who hate me? Because I'm a woman.
That's what I really like it. Again, you're a well
contempt for me, me and all my friends.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
Then dog fighting.
Speaker 5 (17:04):
Anyway, we'll get to that list. It's actually pretty entertaining.
We're going to Loan Eachen talk about redistricting and what
California has done compared to Texas.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
I think you'll find an eye opening unless you already know.
Speaker 4 (17:14):
Armstrong and Getty and if we need to, we're going
to do the same thing in Chicago, which is a disaster.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
We have a mayor there who's totally incompetent.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
He's an incompetent man, and we have an incompetent governor there.
Pritzker's an incompetent His family threw him out of the
business and he.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Ran for a governor.
Speaker 4 (17:36):
And now I understand he wants to be president, but
I noticed he lost.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
To Lilroit, so maybe he has a chance. You know,
you never know what happens.
Speaker 4 (17:44):
But Pritsker is a gross incompetent guy thrown out of
the family business.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
Okay, so.
Speaker 5 (17:52):
That Pritzker, dude, he's the governor of Illinois and he's
been making a lot of hay with the help of
the mainstream media over the last couple of weeks welcoming
the Texas Democrats who have fled Texas to try to
stop redistricting in their home state because it would give
the Republicans shameless jerrymandering. It would give the Republicans maybe
(18:13):
five more seats, so they ran to Illinois, where they
poled democracy, except for everybody with any credibility has pointed
out Illinois is the most gerrymandered state in the whole country.
So you ran to the wrong state to make your point.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
So jerrymandering in general, the fact that we're dividing ourselves
into red states and blue states, et cetera. Let's discuss
with lanhie Chen, the David and Diane Steffy Fellow in
American Public Policy Studies at the Hoover Institution and the
Director of Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford University, Lanhi. Before
we get into the main discussion, here's my favorite domestic
policy headline of the day. North Carolina DMV hits all
(18:54):
DEI targets. This is all road safety goals priorities.
Speaker 6 (19:03):
Right boy, there's an efficient bureaucracy at work.
Speaker 5 (19:07):
So I was glad to see you on one of
the Sunday talk shows yesterday, pushing back that this at
this narrative that Texas is doing something nobody's ever even
thought of doing before.
Speaker 6 (19:17):
Yeah, well, the Texas redistricting, I mean, just to back
up for a minute, the idea of state legislature in
Texas redrawing lines. I mean, that's what the state legislature
is empowered to do in Texas. And the fact that
they're talking about this being an unprecedented you know, I
guess we call it a mid cycle redistricting. The reality
(19:38):
is this happened in two thousand and three, and so
this is not the first time it's happened. Look, I
don't necessarily think all of this back and forth is great,
but I will say that the concept of now, you know,
California and Illinois and states saying, oh, we got to
fight back, it's just a ludicrous notion because, particularly in California,
the way that lines are drawn is really dif from
(20:00):
the way that they're drawn in Texas. And so you
can go and say you want to do something in
California to respond to what they're doing in Texas. But
the reality is one is legal and one is not.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
Well in what sense.
Speaker 6 (20:11):
Well, So in California, district lines are drawn by an
independent commission, and California voters passed twice, actually two constitutional
amendments back in two thousand and eight and twenty ten
to the California Constitution that took power for redistricting away
from politicians and tried to put it in the hands
(20:32):
of an independent commission. That independent commission is composed of
fourteen people, five Democrats, five Republicans, and four people without
party preference, and the concept was, look, you want to
try to take politics as much out of this as possible,
because if you leave redistricting in the hands of politicians,
what's going to happen. They're going to protect their own interests.
They're going to draw lines that are best for them
(20:53):
rather than for the promotion of fair and efficient representation. So, look,
the California system hasn't work perfect. But now what Gavin
Newsom is trying to do is he's trying to say,
we want to do away with this system, not for good,
but just for one election. I want to draw special
lines just for twenty twenty six and then go back
(21:14):
to this process because I don't like the lines the
way that they are. Right now, and to me, that
is as much a subversion of democracy as anything that
he or any other of his allies have attacked with
what's happening with Donald Trump, for what's happening in Washington.
The concept that we're going to now set aside these
lines because we don't like them, to me is it's
(21:34):
just a massive affront to democracy. So what's happening in California,
just to set this up, guys, is really different from
what they're doing in Texas.
Speaker 7 (21:41):
Wells.
Speaker 6 (21:42):
In Texas, the legislature has the right to redistrict as
they want.
Speaker 7 (21:45):
We may not like it, but they have that right
to do it.
Speaker 6 (21:47):
In California, the legislature does not have that right anymore.
Speaker 5 (21:52):
So, first of all, there's a u GO poll about
a week ago. Only six percent of people like jerrymandering
at all.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
I don't like it.
Speaker 5 (21:59):
I wish it didn't happen anywhere to the best extent
that you could avoid it. But I think I read
this in National Review that California already is under representing
Republican voters by quite a lot with the number of
House members they have, even before you get to this,
isn't that correct?
Speaker 7 (22:19):
That is correct?
Speaker 6 (22:19):
So if you think about the typical statewide share for
Republican candidate in California, you guys may remember I ran
for controller in twenty twenty two statewide.
Speaker 5 (22:29):
And got the most votes of any Republican candidate in
the entire country, including Ron DeSantis, which is an incannible
feather in your gap.
Speaker 6 (22:37):
Thank you. You guys are like my hype men. So
in that race, I won forty five percent of the vote.
Forty five ish percent of the vote. The typical Republican
wins about forty percent. And just to give you some sense,
we have Republicans have nine out of fifty two seats
right now, so they have seventeen percent of the seats,
(22:57):
seventeen percent of the seats, but under the statewide vote share.
And then to put it into into even more refined point,
what Gavin Newsom is trying to do is he's trying
to draw lines that would reduce the number of Republicans
in Congress from California to four out of fifty two,
which is about seven point five percent, some point six percent.
He wants to go from essentially what is anywhere between.
Speaker 7 (23:21):
So even if you if you.
Speaker 6 (23:22):
Take the most generous measure, which is what percent generous
for Newsom What percentage of Californians are registered as Republicans.
That's twenty four percent, Okay, twenty four to twenty five percent,
So even by that bear measure, he is trying to
underrepresent Republicans, you know, to a pretty significant extent. You
think about seven point six percent of the House members
(23:45):
being Republican, twenty four percent of California voters are registered Republican,
and then Californians traditionally vote about forty percent for the
Republican candidate. So it is a massive underrepresentation of Republicans
in California that Gavin news is trying.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
To get to.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
Yeah, and that's how rageous.
Speaker 5 (24:01):
And the national media, and you know, this is part
of the deal if you lean, if you're on the
conservative into politics, you get used to the national media
screwiny all the time. But their portrayal of Texas doing
something so incredibly unholy, but not talking about Illinois and
California is outrageous.
Speaker 6 (24:18):
Yeah, I mean, I mean Illinois, they can't even they
can't produce another Democratic seat if they wanted to. That's
how heavily jerrymanned it is already. I mean they cannot
squeeze any more juice out of that fruit. And by
the way, you can say similar things about other states
as well. The challenge for Democrats, though, guys, is if
they go down this road, this is a losing pathway
(24:40):
for them, because there are many more states with Republican
governors and Republican state legislatures where there is an opportunity
if Republicans really wanted to jerryman it, the jerrymander more
Democrats out of office. That's just the reality of it.
So I'm a little puzzled about. And look, I get
why Newsome's doing it. News is doing it because he's
running for governor, excuse me, for president, and he wants
(25:02):
to look like a fighter. I actually wrote a piece
in the La Times last week to this effect. Basically,
the reason why Gavinisim is pursuing this now is because
he wants to ingratiate himself to Democratic primary voters to
look like a fighter against Donald Trump. He doesn't talk
about redistricting in terms of what's best for the state
of the country. He talks about it in terms of
fighting back against Trump. And that's really what this.
Speaker 7 (25:23):
Is all about.
Speaker 6 (25:24):
So it's unfortunate but that's just the political reality with face.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
We were talking about a think piece earlier today in
the Wall Street Journal that pointed out that a fewer
than one out of five states has any significant minority
representative representation in their government. In other words, in forty states,
a single party has the trifecta or might as well
(25:50):
both houses of the legislature and the governor's office. What's
the problem with that from your perspective.
Speaker 6 (25:55):
Well, yeah, I mean, look, I take issue with single
party governors, whether it happens a state like Texas or
a state like California, where it's very different concepts, and
I think the challenge is that the party in charge
never really gets asked to justify what they're doing. They
never really get examined in the way that they need to,
and so what you end up with is a lot
of things like fiscal mismanagement, which is what we see
(26:17):
in California in droves. You see policies that go unquestioned.
And so there's just no question that we got to
keep lurching left. We've got to keep financing high speed rail,
We've got to keep on the books all of these
laws that make it difficult for us to grow and
invest businesses in California. So there's all of these things
that are assumptions that are made by the ruling party,
(26:41):
and those assumptions remain untested. If you have unit party governance,
and you have it in California, you see it here,
and I'll tell you the ultimate challenge is that you
end up performing as a state below what you really
should should be able to do. And so I always
say California kind of punches below its weight.
Speaker 7 (27:00):
And one of the reasons why is because the state is.
Speaker 6 (27:02):
Not subject to any kind of political competition that would
cause a competition of ideas. That's how things improve in states,
is that you have a competition of ideas and the
best ideas win, whether those ideas are left of center
ideas or right of center ideas. We just don't have
that with you in a party governance. So I think
that's the biggest thing that I worry about is the
lack of political competition, not just in California, but as
(27:24):
you guys knowe absolutely correctly, forty out of the fifty
states have basically no political competition, and that's unfortunate.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
So other than waiting for the electorate to say this
state sucks, we want something different. Is there anything that
can be done about all of this, including the alleged
Jerry mendering.
Speaker 6 (27:44):
Well, I think it's important for light to be shed
on some of the challenges that get faced when you
don't have when you don't have the political power to
push back. That's why, you know, folks like what you
guys are doing, and what a lot of people out
there who have their own platforms are doing is to
(28:05):
point out, look, here are the challenges that are created.
But you're right, Ultimately, if we want to change this,
it is going to require voters to say we want
a very different direction. And it doesn't have to be
for every single office in the state. We don't have
to turn from a blue state into a red state.
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying we need to
be able to have some balance. And when you have
(28:25):
at least nine Republican members of Congress in a delegation,
that at least helps you have a little bit more
pushback than when you have four. Right, and so we
just have to continue, in my mind, shedding light on
the challenges that are created when one party's in charge.
Speaker 7 (28:41):
And nobody ever asked any questions.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
Final Question headline came out today. Trump announces that the
federal government's going to take over, at least to a
large extent, the policing of Washington, d C. Is a
public policy guy. Any thoughts on that.
Speaker 6 (28:55):
Well, Washington has always been a jurisdiction that has a
little bit of a different flavor than let's say, if
he came in and said he wanted to take over
law enforcement in the state, right, we would have much
more of an issue.
Speaker 7 (29:07):
But Washington, d C.
Speaker 6 (29:08):
Has always in a lot of ways been governed and
the expectations around it are very different. I would add
to that. I mean, you guys, I don't know if
you've been in DC recently. I'm there a lot. The
crime situation and the governance of that city has really,
in my mind, fallen into some form of disrepair. So
(29:28):
we do need something to happen in that city because
people are no longer able to walk around all parts
of that city safely. They've never made to walk around
all parts of that city safely, but even parts of
that city that were considered safe, there was a congressional
staffer that got stabbed and killed. I want to say,
just a few months ago, random acts of violence. So
these sorts of things need to be addressed, and so
(29:49):
I think the president's trying.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
To do that.
Speaker 5 (29:50):
HAILENNI my son, where's a Dodgers cap? I took him
to Dodger Stadium for the first time last month. You'll
be happy to know.
Speaker 7 (29:56):
Good for you.
Speaker 5 (29:57):
Now for you, he came to the Dodgers through ice
Cube wearing a Dodger's hat more than through sports.
Speaker 3 (30:03):
But you know, however you get there.
Speaker 6 (30:04):
In your opinion, I'm sure he's like the you know,
the modern day Billy Graham for the Dodgers, right, he's
the evangelists, He's the evangelist, absolutely is.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
These are odd times. Lon Hee Chen of the Hoover Institution,
Stanford University with us. Lon, he thank you so much
for the thoughts. It's always a.
Speaker 7 (30:20):
Pleasure, great to be with you.
Speaker 2 (30:22):
Thanks.
Speaker 5 (30:22):
Guess that's great. Ice Cube is the Billy Graham are
Dodgers fan and.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
It says odd comparison. A word from our friends at
trust and will get the security and peace of mind
you need by making a state plan. Now, please don't
doom your loved ones to length the expensive, bitter legal
battles because your wishes aren't known. Get a trust and
or a will get get it going today.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
I'll about ice Cube has one of these. He's a
smart businessman.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (30:51):
One hundred and ninety nine dollars to start and manage
your customer state plan that you can do online each
Will and Trust state specific and customized your needs. Live
customer support as you're putting this together through chatphone or
email to help you out.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
Yeah. So customer state plans starting at one hundred and
ninety nine dollars much much less than you'd pay through
an attorney if that's been holding you back. They guide
you step by step. It's state specific. They have live
customer support through chat, phone or email. Secure your assets,
protect your loved ones. You know you need to do this.
Go to Trust and Will get twenty percent off on
your estate plan documents by visiting Trust and Will dot
(31:28):
com slash armstrong. That's Trust Anddwill dot com slash armstrong.
Speaker 5 (31:33):
Katie, I want to ask you about goblet squats and
when we come back, among other things, stay here, arm
strong and Yettie.
Speaker 10 (31:43):
I got the exact same order from Chipotle with a
girly name, my name and with a man's name I
changed my customer account, name and everything.
Speaker 7 (31:50):
So let's see who they gave more food to. Ladies first,
We're going to start with mine.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
This is Emily Joy.
Speaker 7 (31:56):
It's not a bad portion. And Isla. I use the
name Andrew a little heavy, but let's see it looks
a lot more full.
Speaker 5 (32:04):
This makes me really mad. This woman claims she did
an experiment where she ordered food at Chipotle with a
man's name and a woman's name, and they give men
more food.
Speaker 3 (32:14):
I don't believe that.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
I don't buy much of a data set, no, but
I just believe it.
Speaker 5 (32:20):
You believe it on the face of it that at
restaurants they give men more than women.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
Yeah? Really, yeah, airing just a little bit to the
side of pleasing the customer. The fellas might be more
prone to saying, hey, help a guy out there. Is
that as much meat as and then the.
Speaker 5 (32:36):
Second part of my Well, first of all, Katie, you
are a woman. What do you think?
Speaker 10 (32:40):
I think that's crap if it's true, But I've never
noticed it.
Speaker 5 (32:43):
I well, I've been a crusader for a long time.
Speaker 6 (32:46):
Now.
Speaker 5 (32:46):
Is they need to give smaller portions to everyone all
the time.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
Especially the ladies.
Speaker 5 (32:52):
Why are they giving all of us so much food.
Do you really need to so you need to use
your man's name. You're not getting enough with the Chipot
serving the burrito that comes out.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
It's fat shaming the poor internet late.
Speaker 3 (33:04):
And fat shaming everybody.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
It's an experiment. She wants to get her money's worth.
Speaker 5 (33:08):
They hand you the burrito at Chipotle, it's the same
as when they handed me Sam when he was born.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
It's like swaddling it anyway.
Speaker 10 (33:17):
So is fat shaming the planet.
Speaker 3 (33:19):
You hear that.
Speaker 5 (33:20):
So the portions are too big. So I go to
the gym every day. That's what happens when your wife
leaves you. You part of the comes with a lawyer
and a subpoena and a gym membership. When you become
a single, you have to start working out again to
get back in the game. Oh it's horrible, actually, but
I do work out every day. And a buddy of
mine asked me the other day, he said, have you
tried goblet squats? Because we are talking about how we
(33:41):
hate doing leg exercises. It's just a common thing of dudes.
They hate leg day. He said, have you donet tried
gobbles squats? Sounds like something you can only see on
the dark web. Well, he explained it to me, and
then I chat gpd'd it and I said it misheard me.
I said, what is a goblin squat? And it said,
I think you mean goblet squat? Goblin squad sounds like
(34:04):
something you'd do to scare villagers in a fantasy novel,
which is true, right, But do you know goblet squats, Katie?
Speaker 3 (34:11):
I do, and I hate them. Yeah, it so you take.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
A dumb ball to them all the time. For what
it's worth. Thanks for including me. I'll just stand over here,
mind my own business. I'd never even heard the term before,
so I didn't know it was so popular. I'm still
doing the workouts of like the seventies because I don't
do any research on this. So, you know, throwing around
the old medicine ball and the big gray sweats, we
actually do that again, the medicine ball and what's old
as new, it's back in.
Speaker 3 (34:35):
I'm standing on the thing with the band around you
that shakes you.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
Yes, but so the only.
Speaker 5 (34:40):
Reason that I need I'm surprised you do it because
you're a shorter woman that you need to do that.
But the goblet squad I guess was invented for taller
people because squats are really hard to do. If you're tall,
you tip over, and the advantage of the goblet squad
is you hold the weight in front of you and
you don't tip over. It's the first time I've ever
been to the ability to squats in my life because
(35:00):
just the leverage balance thing doesn't work if you're taller.
Speaker 1 (35:05):
I question your form, but Katie fitness.
Speaker 5 (35:09):
He can't have form without falling over if you're taller.
According to the guy who invented the goblet squat.
Speaker 10 (35:16):
Okay, well, I'm not gonna argue with him, but that
seems odd, does it. I've not once seen a tall
man fall over attempting to do a squat in the gym.
Speaker 5 (35:26):
Interesting, I don't know. All I know is that's why
I hate him so much. It was hard to not
fall over and a guy who invented himself. But nobody
cares about this. But the there was the hardest exercise
I've ever done. When I got done with it, I
was more tired than anything I've ever done in the gym.
And I have a new least favorite exercise that I'll
(35:46):
probably do semiregularly, but it was painful and horrible.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
For us, the older feller and or woman. It's a
good thing to do to help prevent falls. To just
get a little more explosive power in the legs, slash
yourself before you go down.
Speaker 6 (36:01):
Power.
Speaker 1 (36:01):
It's really good for you.
Speaker 5 (36:02):
I do like the idea of inventing something called a
goblin squat, though I feel like that would catch on.
Speaker 1 (36:07):
Buggety, Buggety.
Speaker 2 (36:08):
Now squat you.
Speaker 3 (36:09):
Wear the little elf ears and it's part of a
cosplay thing.
Speaker 1 (36:14):
Maybe you could mermaid after that. You remember we learned
about that.
Speaker 5 (36:17):
Yes, when you're done mermaiding, you can do your goblin squats.
It would just be a fun day if you miss
a segment or now, or get the podcast Armstrong and
Getty on demand
Speaker 6 (36:28):
Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Armstrong and Getty and he.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 4 (00:23):
I'm announcing a historic action to rescue our nation's capital
from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse. This is
Liberation Day in DC, and we're going to take our
capital back. We're taking it back.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
Bedlam and squalor are original enough when it was just bedlam,
but then the squalor came. That's right, when we're bedlam
and squalor good ratings.
Speaker 5 (00:50):
I feel like this story because so many journalists live
in Washington.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
D C.
Speaker 5 (00:55):
How big a deal is this, the federal government taking
over the policing of Washington.
Speaker 6 (01:00):
D C.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
I think it could be a great thing, although the
media will never reported, honestly, if the Feds take control
and they just like eliminate so much of the crime
and the squalor and the rest of them bedlam ah,
thank you. I think that'll be a great demonstration of
how progressivism doesn't work, because DC is famously a very
(01:22):
progressive sitting Trump's.
Speaker 5 (01:23):
Standing up there, He's still speaking right now. He's got
sec def Pete. Hegseeth over one shoulder. He's got the
Attorney General over the other, and all the heavyweights, and
it's got cash. Buttel just talk to the FBI. All
the heavyweights are in the room for this, and he
goes on.
Speaker 4 (01:39):
Under the authorities vested in me as the President of
the United States, I'm officially invoking Section seventy forty of
the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, you know what
that is, and placing the DC Metropolitan Police Department under
direct federal control. And you'll be meeting the people that
will be directly involved with. Very good people, but they're
(02:03):
tough and they know what's happening, and they've done it before.
In addition, I'm deploying the National Guard to help re
establish law order of public safety in.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Washington, d C. And they're going to be allowed to
do their job properly.
Speaker 5 (02:19):
By the way, maybe the smartest thing Mark Twain ever said,
and it is a high bar, is his quote about statistics,
the three kinds of lies, lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I roll my eyes at all crime statistics now because
they can be manipulated in such a way to make
it look like crime's going up or down all the time.
(02:41):
Hasn't you felt like you've had that experience. I mean
it's really tough, oh yeah, to figure out what the
murder rate or you know, or sometimes you take out
murders so the other numbers look better or whatever. So
but all the talk over the weekend leading up to this,
because Trump had telegraphed this, the mainstream media all weekend
was pointing out how crime is actually in Washington, DC
(03:01):
a lot, and so there's no reason to do that.
But like I said, I roll my eyes at all
crime statistics. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. I haven't
got the slightest idea, but this portion of what Trump
said is pretty interesting.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
You want to have safety in the streets.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
You want to be able to leave your apartment or
your house where you live and feel safe and go
into a store to buy a newspaper.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Buy something, and you don't have that. Now.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
The murder rate in Washington today is higher than that
of Bogata, Columbia, Mexico City. Some of the places that
you hear about as being the worst place is.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
On Earth's much higher. This is much higher.
Speaker 5 (03:38):
So I'll bet that that doge kid young member of
the Doge team that got the crap beat out of
him last weekend in a very trendy bar restaurant area.
Some carjackers and he was trying to protect his girlfriend, etc.
Speaker 7 (03:53):
Beat up.
Speaker 5 (03:54):
Bet, it's just luck that the police happened to roll by,
or he'd probably be in the hospital or dead. I'm
sure that one got Trump's attention. Trump had probably met
the guy.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
M Yeah, yeah, I was just trying to find an
article I can't. I had it the other day that
a DC police official is under investigation now for faking
crime statistics, and that a lot of what's being cited
right now as a drop in crime was completely phony.
He aggressively pressured cops and other officials to under charge
(04:28):
to make his stay as police chief look better. I
don't have the particulars in front of me. Take that
with a grain of salt, but we'll get them for
you eventually.
Speaker 5 (04:38):
But again, all the reporting was well love us Play
thirty two, Just so you know, this was the way
it was reported on ABC E News Nation.
Speaker 8 (04:47):
All this comes as data from the DC Police Department
shows violent crime actually down twenty six percent compared to
the same time last year. DC's owned mayor recently pushing
back against this spotlight on the district's crime.
Speaker 9 (05:00):
We had a terrible spike in crime in twenty twenty three,
but this is not twenty twenty three. This is twenty
twenty five, and we've done that by working with the community,
working with the police, working with our prosecutors, and am
working with the federal government.
Speaker 5 (05:16):
I would even if I were to even if those
statistics are real, and you're suggesting there just a chance
or not, but even those statistics are real, I would
need to know. Okay, if you had a spike in
twenty three and it dropped quite a bit in twenty four,
is it still really high by historic standards? I certainly
could be right exactly.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Yeah, just because it's dropped doesn't mean it's dropped toward
anything approaching an acceptable level.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Yeah. Again, I wish this wasn't a problem.
Speaker 5 (05:45):
But so many statistics I just I don't even really
read them because I've been fooled so many times.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
Well, and we've heard, specifically from cops and people in
the law enforcement system and judges and that sort of people,
that those statistics are particularly easy to in particularly, they're
particularly easy to manipulate and particularly and they and they
are regularly, so I'll be interested to see how this goes.
(06:16):
There seems to be a real deficiency in voters of
the left in recognizing how policy relates to the world
they live, connecting policy to what they see, connecting policy
to results. And if indeed a right wingie crackdown on
(06:39):
crime yields a much better, safer, healthier city, I would
love to see what the reaction is to that. I'm
sure they will scream racism or whatever, point out a
disparity in arrests, and blah blah blah.
Speaker 5 (06:51):
So the press conference is still going on, and I
would assume at some point somebody's gonna ask Trump about Russia,
Ukraine and him meat and Putin, which is the biggest
story of the week, probably, But the press conference is
still going on. And like I said, all the heavyweights
are there. Why are all the heavyweights there for the
DC police takeover? But over his shoulder, the Secretary of Defense?
(07:12):
Are the Navy seals going in and over his other shoulder?
Speaker 3 (07:16):
Right now? It's what's his name? From North Dakota?
Speaker 2 (07:19):
What is he?
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Doug Bergham, Secretary of the Interior.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
How's that factor in.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
They're in the country, Jack, the interior of the country,
clearly do the mask.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
I guess it's all.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
Because they live and work in DC.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
All hands on deck for this one.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
In a not really related story, although it has to
do with the Trump administration.
Speaker 5 (07:37):
Wait, wait, just once, Ja Janine Piro is talking right now.
If you watch Fox, you know who she is, US
attorney for DC.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Currently.
Speaker 5 (07:46):
She appears to be I've never seen her next to
other people. She appears to be four foot six. She's
the very barely peering over the podium.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
But strong and great in personnel. Here you go anyway.
US district judge in the Southern District of New York
has said he will not unseal grand jury testimony records
in the Julane Maxwell case. On Friday, the Justice Department
asked two New York judges to unseal the exhibits related
to ms Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. The judge wrote, and
(08:19):
his refusal was actually interesting unless you believe that this
is all a gigantic conspiracy sometimes run by the Jews.
But the judge wrote he would not release the records
because they did not answer questions that remained from the
public relating to those people's crimes or Epstein's death. The
judge added that the records did not reveal any new
(08:40):
or meaningful information about the pair's crimes, going against the
government's claims that they would. The judge called it demonstrably false,
adding that the push to release the documents could be
a diversion plan.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
So they got to him.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
To Okay, that's all you have to say. Yeah, uh,
he accused the government their motion for the unseiling was
not aimed at transparency but at diversion, aimed at not
a full disclosure, but the illusion of such. And then
he wrote, and here's the key part. The records do
not identify anyone other than Epstein or Maxwell who had
sexual contact with a minor, mentioned any clients, shed light
(09:16):
on their methods, or provide any new information about Epstein's death.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
So he's part of it. I'm kidding.
Speaker 5 (09:22):
I don't mean that, but I know people who will
say that today, lots of people.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
And the problem with.
Speaker 5 (09:27):
This is you can't be releasing this sort of stuff
where a whole bunch of people who didn't do a
damn thing wrong, their names are going to be involved,
and the internet will go wild with just that's not good.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Right well, and the losses grand jury proceedings are are
sealed right.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
Well for obvious reasons.
Speaker 5 (09:49):
You could get caught up in a grand jury sometime
where you've done nothing wrong.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
As I predicted last week, this will go away among
the vast majority of Americans there are conscious and this
is just because it'll be eclipsed by much more significant events.
Speaker 5 (10:04):
Are the Texas Democrats still on the run or have
they been hunted down like dogs and brought back in
cages to Texas and some.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Sort of weird dog hunt. I don't know, Actually, I
think they're still on the run.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
I think there are too.
Speaker 5 (10:19):
But we're going to talk to Lona hee Chen, one
of our favorite analysts, particularly about California politics, on how
you know California has been playing the redistricting game forever.
This is not new what they're doing in Texas in particularly,
and a bunch of other stuff on the way stay.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
Here in particularly, you will recognize this sound.
Speaker 5 (10:42):
You probably haven't heard it in a while. It well,
it's no longer out there for you. This is a throwback.
It's throwback one day Monday, here we go. Is the
fa'm a sound? Of dialing up AOL America online from
(11:04):
back in the day. That was most of our entry
points and do email for one thing, and then any
kind of social media. Back in the day, you got mail,
thank you, thank you for that. I how exciting. I
probably still have mail on my AOL account from so
after thirty four years, I think I read as of
(11:25):
today they no longer have a dial up application.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
They still did. Wow as of today, like two families
in rural Tennessee.
Speaker 5 (11:34):
I don't know, but the most recent statistics I heard
were from twenty nineteen, where there were still a quarter
of a million people doing the dial up for AOL.
They probably also eat rope rode kill and marry their sisters.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
But wow, wait a minute now, unfortunate cliche, but.
Speaker 5 (11:53):
Hey, sorry Clym, you and your sister wife are going
to have to get Wi Fi or something because no
longer die up for AOL.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
So that's the end of that.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
And I remember downloading stuff for the show at the
dawn of the Internet, and if anybody called the house
while I was doing it, it completely ruined the whole process,
which took like fifteen minutes to download, you know, a
handful of pages worth of text.
Speaker 5 (12:21):
Yeah, it certainly looked there for quite a few years
that this was never like gonna catch on and be
that big a deal. But little did we know, totally overrated.
So there's that this is going to be a tease
for something we will do. How much time I got.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Michael, he's got about five minutes.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
Maybe I'll start here.
Speaker 5 (12:40):
Started it on teaching my son to drive over the weekend,
specifically driving a stick shift. We've done a lot of
driving living on a farm, like we have twenty acres,
and he's driven all over in various peakles since he
was I don't know, seven years old. So you can
just put him in a field with the truck and
go drive around trying not to tat something.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
Um then nothing happens.
Speaker 5 (12:59):
So it's not that he hadn't never driven before, but
driving a stick shift that that's brand new to him.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
This a vehicle that I bought him, a five speed, so.
Speaker 1 (13:07):
That he did very hard to find, aren't they He
did very very well.
Speaker 5 (13:11):
I was very excited for him, and he seemed to
really enjoy it, so that was fun. Killed it once
I said, you're gonna kill it in front of your friends,
guaranteed you're gonna kill it in front of your friends,
and it's going to be embarrassing it happens, you'll be
all right, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
But they don't know how to drive a stick probably not,
for all they know, he's a captain captaining the starship Enterprise, right,
you know, right to be mysterious and difficult in their eyes.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
This is what we're going to do in the One
More Thing podcast.
Speaker 5 (13:39):
And if you don't listen to that every day, after
the four hours of radio that we do, we do
another podcast only thing called One More Thing, and you
can find it wherever you find Armstrong and Getty podcasts,
wherever you're finding Armstrong and Getty on demand. Well, we'll
get to this today. There was a survey done that
I found this interesting as a single guy, the most
attractive hobbies to women that a man can have, and
(14:04):
they listed him by a lot, like a whole bunch
of them.
Speaker 3 (14:06):
And this is legit. It's not a dumb survey.
Speaker 5 (14:09):
The most attractive hobbies to women, the least attractive hobbies
to women, and we can go through them in detail.
But I was happy to see that the most attractive
hobby to women as a percentage at ninety eight point
two percent favorability was recross dressing cross reading as a reader.
(14:30):
I'm happy to you can swap clothes and stuff now reading,
as it turns out, Yeah, okay.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
Go on.
Speaker 5 (14:37):
Cross dressing would have an advantage, wouldn't it if it
was your size, as you'd have to date a guy
your size. Yeah, so hey, there have to be well
depending on your size, a pretty small.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
Dude or well, it depends famously.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Some of the tiny little fellas in the Rolling Stones,
that's how they got their fashion senses. They swapped clothes
with their girlfriends. Wow, because dudes were so skinny and
weedy that point.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
Have I ever had a girlfriend I could swap clothes with?
I'm pretty sure not because I'm a d cup.
Speaker 5 (15:14):
So we'll get into the list when we do the
One More Thing podcast. But just why do you think
reading is the most attractive trait to women?
Speaker 3 (15:24):
What's your theory on that?
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Oh, I'm not sure I could come up with anything
that isn't like super obvious. I mean it shows a
certain level of mental power, curiosity, intellect.
Speaker 5 (15:38):
So is it basically just I want a smart person
his brain works just like shorthand For I want a
smart person.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
You know.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Interesting about this list and I haven't seen it yet,
But there's the question of universal acceptance because you said
it's ninety eight percent or so, But how much enthusiasm
does it generate? Is it great or is it just
acceptable to everyone? You know what I mean?
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Right?
Speaker 5 (16:05):
Yes, Michael, I think you're trying to show that you're
better in yourself and so that you're looking to gain
more knowledge, You're looking to be a better man.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
That could be that. That's pretty good too.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
That's good astute observation.
Speaker 5 (16:17):
It was do you want the least oh popular, and
then we'll do the whole list. I don't exactly know
what I mean, but the is a hobby they have
as a hobby man o sphere, which is what they
call people who listen to like Joe Rogan and all
those kind of podcasts and are into that sort of thing.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
Well more like the Tate Brothers and some of the
real misogynist stuff.
Speaker 5 (16:41):
That's the least popular, Well, well, why would that be
popular people that are in depending it? No, for women,
of course, it's not popular. Only three point one percent.
Who are your three You know what I like in
a guy? Guys who hate me? Because I'm a woman.
That's what I really like it. Again, you're a well
contempt for me, me and all my friends.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
Then dog fighting.
Speaker 5 (17:04):
Anyway, we'll get to that list. It's actually pretty entertaining.
We're going to Loan Eachen talk about redistricting and what
California has done compared to Texas.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
I think you'll find an eye opening unless you already know.
Speaker 4 (17:14):
Armstrong and Getty and if we need to, we're going
to do the same thing in Chicago, which is a disaster.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
We have a mayor there who's totally incompetent.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
He's an incompetent man, and we have an incompetent governor there.
Pritzker's an incompetent His family threw him out of the
business and he.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Ran for a governor.
Speaker 4 (17:36):
And now I understand he wants to be president, but
I noticed he lost.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
To Lilroit, so maybe he has a chance. You know,
you never know what happens.
Speaker 4 (17:44):
But Pritsker is a gross incompetent guy thrown out of
the family business.
Speaker 3 (17:49):
Okay, so.
Speaker 5 (17:52):
That Pritzker, dude, he's the governor of Illinois and he's
been making a lot of hay with the help of
the mainstream media over the last couple of weeks welcoming
the Texas Democrats who have fled Texas to try to
stop redistricting in their home state because it would give
the Republicans shameless jerrymandering. It would give the Republicans maybe
(18:13):
five more seats, so they ran to Illinois, where they
poled democracy, except for everybody with any credibility has pointed
out Illinois is the most gerrymandered state in the whole country.
So you ran to the wrong state to make your point.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
So jerrymandering in general, the fact that we're dividing ourselves
into red states and blue states, et cetera. Let's discuss
with lanhie Chen, the David and Diane Steffy Fellow in
American Public Policy Studies at the Hoover Institution and the
Director of Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford University, Lanhi. Before
we get into the main discussion, here's my favorite domestic
policy headline of the day. North Carolina DMV hits all
(18:54):
DEI targets. This is all road safety goals priorities.
Speaker 6 (19:03):
Right boy, there's an efficient bureaucracy at work.
Speaker 5 (19:07):
So I was glad to see you on one of
the Sunday talk shows yesterday, pushing back that this at
this narrative that Texas is doing something nobody's ever even
thought of doing before.
Speaker 6 (19:17):
Yeah, well, the Texas redistricting, I mean, just to back
up for a minute, the idea of state legislature in
Texas redrawing lines. I mean, that's what the state legislature
is empowered to do in Texas. And the fact that
they're talking about this being an unprecedented you know, I
guess we call it a mid cycle redistricting. The reality
(19:38):
is this happened in two thousand and three, and so
this is not the first time it's happened. Look, I
don't necessarily think all of this back and forth is great,
but I will say that the concept of now, you know,
California and Illinois and states saying, oh, we got to
fight back, it's just a ludicrous notion because, particularly in California,
the way that lines are drawn is really dif from
(20:00):
the way that they're drawn in Texas. And so you
can go and say you want to do something in
California to respond to what they're doing in Texas. But
the reality is one is legal and one is not.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
Well in what sense.
Speaker 6 (20:11):
Well, So in California, district lines are drawn by an
independent commission, and California voters passed twice, actually two constitutional
amendments back in two thousand and eight and twenty ten
to the California Constitution that took power for redistricting away
from politicians and tried to put it in the hands
(20:32):
of an independent commission. That independent commission is composed of
fourteen people, five Democrats, five Republicans, and four people without
party preference, and the concept was, look, you want to
try to take politics as much out of this as possible,
because if you leave redistricting in the hands of politicians,
what's going to happen. They're going to protect their own interests.
They're going to draw lines that are best for them
(20:53):
rather than for the promotion of fair and efficient representation. So, look,
the California system hasn't work perfect. But now what Gavin
Newsom is trying to do is he's trying to say,
we want to do away with this system, not for good,
but just for one election. I want to draw special
lines just for twenty twenty six and then go back
(21:14):
to this process because I don't like the lines the
way that they are. Right now, and to me, that
is as much a subversion of democracy as anything that
he or any other of his allies have attacked with
what's happening with Donald Trump, for what's happening in Washington.
The concept that we're going to now set aside these
lines because we don't like them, to me is it's
(21:34):
just a massive affront to democracy. So what's happening in California,
just to set this up, guys, is really different from
what they're doing in Texas.
Speaker 7 (21:41):
Wells.
Speaker 6 (21:42):
In Texas, the legislature has the right to redistrict as
they want.
Speaker 7 (21:45):
We may not like it, but they have that right
to do it.
Speaker 6 (21:47):
In California, the legislature does not have that right anymore.
Speaker 5 (21:52):
So, first of all, there's a u GO poll about
a week ago. Only six percent of people like jerrymandering
at all.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
I don't like it.
Speaker 5 (21:59):
I wish it didn't happen anywhere to the best extent
that you could avoid it. But I think I read
this in National Review that California already is under representing
Republican voters by quite a lot with the number of
House members they have, even before you get to this,
isn't that correct?
Speaker 7 (22:19):
That is correct?
Speaker 6 (22:19):
So if you think about the typical statewide share for
Republican candidate in California, you guys may remember I ran
for controller in twenty twenty two statewide.
Speaker 5 (22:29):
And got the most votes of any Republican candidate in
the entire country, including Ron DeSantis, which is an incannible
feather in your gap.
Speaker 6 (22:37):
Thank you. You guys are like my hype men. So
in that race, I won forty five percent of the vote.
Forty five ish percent of the vote. The typical Republican
wins about forty percent. And just to give you some sense,
we have Republicans have nine out of fifty two seats
right now, so they have seventeen percent of the seats,
(22:57):
seventeen percent of the seats, but under the statewide vote share.
And then to put it into into even more refined point,
what Gavin Newsom is trying to do is he's trying
to draw lines that would reduce the number of Republicans
in Congress from California to four out of fifty two,
which is about seven point five percent, some point six percent.
He wants to go from essentially what is anywhere between.
Speaker 7 (23:21):
So even if you if you.
Speaker 6 (23:22):
Take the most generous measure, which is what percent generous
for Newsom What percentage of Californians are registered as Republicans.
That's twenty four percent, Okay, twenty four to twenty five percent,
So even by that bear measure, he is trying to
underrepresent Republicans, you know, to a pretty significant extent. You
think about seven point six percent of the House members
(23:45):
being Republican, twenty four percent of California voters are registered Republican,
and then Californians traditionally vote about forty percent for the
Republican candidate. So it is a massive underrepresentation of Republicans
in California that Gavin news is trying.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
To get to.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
Yeah, and that's how rageous.
Speaker 5 (24:01):
And the national media, and you know, this is part
of the deal if you lean, if you're on the
conservative into politics, you get used to the national media
screwiny all the time. But their portrayal of Texas doing
something so incredibly unholy, but not talking about Illinois and
California is outrageous.
Speaker 6 (24:18):
Yeah, I mean, I mean Illinois, they can't even they
can't produce another Democratic seat if they wanted to. That's
how heavily jerrymanned it is already. I mean they cannot
squeeze any more juice out of that fruit. And by
the way, you can say similar things about other states
as well. The challenge for Democrats, though, guys, is if
they go down this road, this is a losing pathway
(24:40):
for them, because there are many more states with Republican
governors and Republican state legislatures where there is an opportunity
if Republicans really wanted to jerryman it, the jerrymander more
Democrats out of office. That's just the reality of it.
So I'm a little puzzled about. And look, I get
why Newsome's doing it. News is doing it because he's
running for governor, excuse me, for president, and he wants
(25:02):
to look like a fighter. I actually wrote a piece
in the La Times last week to this effect. Basically,
the reason why Gavinisim is pursuing this now is because
he wants to ingratiate himself to Democratic primary voters to
look like a fighter against Donald Trump. He doesn't talk
about redistricting in terms of what's best for the state
of the country. He talks about it in terms of
fighting back against Trump. And that's really what this.
Speaker 7 (25:23):
Is all about.
Speaker 6 (25:24):
So it's unfortunate but that's just the political reality with face.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
We were talking about a think piece earlier today in
the Wall Street Journal that pointed out that a fewer
than one out of five states has any significant minority
representative representation in their government. In other words, in forty states,
a single party has the trifecta or might as well
(25:50):
both houses of the legislature and the governor's office. What's
the problem with that from your perspective.
Speaker 6 (25:55):
Well, yeah, I mean, look, I take issue with single
party governors, whether it happens a state like Texas or
a state like California, where it's very different concepts, and
I think the challenge is that the party in charge
never really gets asked to justify what they're doing. They
never really get examined in the way that they need to,
and so what you end up with is a lot
of things like fiscal mismanagement, which is what we see
(26:17):
in California in droves. You see policies that go unquestioned.
And so there's just no question that we got to
keep lurching left. We've got to keep financing high speed rail,
We've got to keep on the books all of these
laws that make it difficult for us to grow and
invest businesses in California. So there's all of these things
that are assumptions that are made by the ruling party,
(26:41):
and those assumptions remain untested. If you have unit party governance,
and you have it in California, you see it here,
and I'll tell you the ultimate challenge is that you
end up performing as a state below what you really
should should be able to do. And so I always
say California kind of punches below its weight.
Speaker 7 (27:00):
And one of the reasons why is because the state is.
Speaker 6 (27:02):
Not subject to any kind of political competition that would
cause a competition of ideas. That's how things improve in states,
is that you have a competition of ideas and the
best ideas win, whether those ideas are left of center
ideas or right of center ideas. We just don't have
that with you in a party governance. So I think
that's the biggest thing that I worry about is the
lack of political competition, not just in California, but as
(27:24):
you guys knowe absolutely correctly, forty out of the fifty
states have basically no political competition, and that's unfortunate.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
So other than waiting for the electorate to say this
state sucks, we want something different. Is there anything that
can be done about all of this, including the alleged
Jerry mendering.
Speaker 6 (27:44):
Well, I think it's important for light to be shed
on some of the challenges that get faced when you
don't have when you don't have the political power to
push back. That's why, you know, folks like what you
guys are doing, and what a lot of people out
there who have their own platforms are doing is to
(28:05):
point out, look, here are the challenges that are created.
But you're right, Ultimately, if we want to change this,
it is going to require voters to say we want
a very different direction. And it doesn't have to be
for every single office in the state. We don't have
to turn from a blue state into a red state.
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying we need to
be able to have some balance. And when you have
(28:25):
at least nine Republican members of Congress in a delegation,
that at least helps you have a little bit more
pushback than when you have four. Right, and so we
just have to continue, in my mind, shedding light on
the challenges that are created when one party's in charge.
Speaker 7 (28:41):
And nobody ever asked any questions.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
Final Question headline came out today. Trump announces that the
federal government's going to take over, at least to a
large extent, the policing of Washington, d C. Is a
public policy guy. Any thoughts on that.
Speaker 6 (28:55):
Well, Washington has always been a jurisdiction that has a
little bit of a different flavor than let's say, if
he came in and said he wanted to take over
law enforcement in the state, right, we would have much
more of an issue.
Speaker 7 (29:07):
But Washington, d C.
Speaker 6 (29:08):
Has always in a lot of ways been governed and
the expectations around it are very different. I would add
to that. I mean, you guys, I don't know if
you've been in DC recently. I'm there a lot. The
crime situation and the governance of that city has really,
in my mind, fallen into some form of disrepair. So
(29:28):
we do need something to happen in that city because
people are no longer able to walk around all parts
of that city safely. They've never made to walk around
all parts of that city safely, but even parts of
that city that were considered safe, there was a congressional
staffer that got stabbed and killed. I want to say,
just a few months ago, random acts of violence. So
these sorts of things need to be addressed, and so
(29:49):
I think the president's trying.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
To do that.
Speaker 5 (29:50):
HAILENNI my son, where's a Dodgers cap? I took him
to Dodger Stadium for the first time last month. You'll
be happy to know.
Speaker 7 (29:56):
Good for you.
Speaker 5 (29:57):
Now for you, he came to the Dodgers through ice
Cube wearing a Dodger's hat more than through sports.
Speaker 3 (30:03):
But you know, however you get there.
Speaker 6 (30:04):
In your opinion, I'm sure he's like the you know,
the modern day Billy Graham for the Dodgers, right, he's
the evangelists, He's the evangelist, absolutely is.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
These are odd times. Lon Hee Chen of the Hoover Institution,
Stanford University with us. Lon, he thank you so much
for the thoughts. It's always a.
Speaker 7 (30:20):
Pleasure, great to be with you.
Speaker 2 (30:22):
Thanks.
Speaker 5 (30:22):
Guess that's great. Ice Cube is the Billy Graham are
Dodgers fan and.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
It says odd comparison. A word from our friends at
trust and will get the security and peace of mind
you need by making a state plan. Now, please don't
doom your loved ones to length the expensive, bitter legal
battles because your wishes aren't known. Get a trust and
or a will get get it going today.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
I'll about ice Cube has one of these. He's a
smart businessman.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (30:51):
One hundred and ninety nine dollars to start and manage
your customer state plan that you can do online each
Will and Trust state specific and customized your needs. Live
customer support as you're putting this together through chatphone or
email to help you out.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
Yeah. So customer state plans starting at one hundred and
ninety nine dollars much much less than you'd pay through
an attorney if that's been holding you back. They guide
you step by step. It's state specific. They have live
customer support through chat, phone or email. Secure your assets,
protect your loved ones. You know you need to do this.
Go to Trust and Will get twenty percent off on
your estate plan documents by visiting Trust and Will dot
(31:28):
com slash armstrong. That's Trust Anddwill dot com slash armstrong.
Speaker 5 (31:33):
Katie, I want to ask you about goblet squats and
when we come back, among other things, stay here, arm
strong and Yettie.
Speaker 10 (31:43):
I got the exact same order from Chipotle with a
girly name, my name and with a man's name I
changed my customer account, name and everything.
Speaker 7 (31:50):
So let's see who they gave more food to. Ladies first,
We're going to start with mine.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
This is Emily Joy.
Speaker 7 (31:56):
It's not a bad portion. And Isla. I use the
name Andrew a little heavy, but let's see it looks
a lot more full.
Speaker 5 (32:04):
This makes me really mad. This woman claims she did
an experiment where she ordered food at Chipotle with a
man's name and a woman's name, and they give men
more food.
Speaker 3 (32:14):
I don't believe that.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
I don't buy much of a data set, no, but
I just believe it.
Speaker 5 (32:20):
You believe it on the face of it that at
restaurants they give men more than women.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
Yeah? Really, yeah, airing just a little bit to the
side of pleasing the customer. The fellas might be more
prone to saying, hey, help a guy out there. Is
that as much meat as and then the.
Speaker 5 (32:36):
Second part of my Well, first of all, Katie, you
are a woman. What do you think?
Speaker 10 (32:40):
I think that's crap if it's true, But I've never
noticed it.
Speaker 5 (32:43):
I well, I've been a crusader for a long time.
Speaker 6 (32:46):
Now.
Speaker 5 (32:46):
Is they need to give smaller portions to everyone all
the time.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
Especially the ladies.
Speaker 5 (32:52):
Why are they giving all of us so much food.
Do you really need to so you need to use
your man's name. You're not getting enough with the Chipot
serving the burrito that comes out.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
It's fat shaming the poor internet late.
Speaker 3 (33:04):
And fat shaming everybody.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
It's an experiment. She wants to get her money's worth.
Speaker 5 (33:08):
They hand you the burrito at Chipotle, it's the same
as when they handed me Sam when he was born.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
It's like swaddling it anyway.
Speaker 10 (33:17):
So is fat shaming the planet.
Speaker 3 (33:19):
You hear that.
Speaker 5 (33:20):
So the portions are too big. So I go to
the gym every day. That's what happens when your wife
leaves you. You part of the comes with a lawyer
and a subpoena and a gym membership. When you become
a single, you have to start working out again to
get back in the game. Oh it's horrible, actually, but
I do work out every day. And a buddy of
mine asked me the other day, he said, have you
tried goblet squats? Because we are talking about how we
(33:41):
hate doing leg exercises. It's just a common thing of dudes.
They hate leg day. He said, have you donet tried
gobbles squats? Sounds like something you can only see on
the dark web. Well, he explained it to me, and
then I chat gpd'd it and I said it misheard me.
I said, what is a goblin squat? And it said,
I think you mean goblet squat? Goblin squad sounds like
(34:04):
something you'd do to scare villagers in a fantasy novel,
which is true, right, But do you know goblet squats, Katie?
Speaker 3 (34:11):
I do, and I hate them. Yeah, it so you take.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
A dumb ball to them all the time. For what
it's worth. Thanks for including me. I'll just stand over here,
mind my own business. I'd never even heard the term before,
so I didn't know it was so popular. I'm still
doing the workouts of like the seventies because I don't
do any research on this. So, you know, throwing around
the old medicine ball and the big gray sweats, we
actually do that again, the medicine ball and what's old
as new, it's back in.
Speaker 3 (34:35):
I'm standing on the thing with the band around you
that shakes you.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
Yes, but so the only.
Speaker 5 (34:40):
Reason that I need I'm surprised you do it because
you're a shorter woman that you need to do that.
But the goblet squad I guess was invented for taller
people because squats are really hard to do. If you're tall,
you tip over, and the advantage of the goblet squad
is you hold the weight in front of you and
you don't tip over. It's the first time I've ever
been to the ability to squats in my life because
(35:00):
just the leverage balance thing doesn't work if you're taller.
Speaker 1 (35:05):
I question your form, but Katie fitness.
Speaker 5 (35:09):
He can't have form without falling over if you're taller.
According to the guy who invented the goblet squat.
Speaker 10 (35:16):
Okay, well, I'm not gonna argue with him, but that
seems odd, does it. I've not once seen a tall
man fall over attempting to do a squat in the gym.
Speaker 5 (35:26):
Interesting, I don't know. All I know is that's why
I hate him so much. It was hard to not
fall over and a guy who invented himself. But nobody
cares about this. But the there was the hardest exercise
I've ever done. When I got done with it, I
was more tired than anything I've ever done in the gym.
And I have a new least favorite exercise that I'll
(35:46):
probably do semiregularly, but it was painful and horrible.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
For us, the older feller and or woman. It's a
good thing to do to help prevent falls. To just
get a little more explosive power in the legs, slash
yourself before you go down.
Speaker 6 (36:01):
Power.
Speaker 1 (36:01):
It's really good for you.
Speaker 5 (36:02):
I do like the idea of inventing something called a
goblin squat, though I feel like that would catch on.
Speaker 1 (36:07):
Buggety, Buggety.
Speaker 2 (36:08):
Now squat you.
Speaker 3 (36:09):
Wear the little elf ears and it's part of a
cosplay thing.
Speaker 1 (36:14):
Maybe you could mermaid after that. You remember we learned
about that.
Speaker 5 (36:17):
Yes, when you're done mermaiding, you can do your goblin squats.
It would just be a fun day if you miss
a segment or now, or get the podcast Armstrong and
Getty on demand
Speaker 6 (36:28):
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. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!