March 21, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 2 of A&G features...
- Cheering for domestic terrorism at Tesla
- March Madness & Janitor pees in water bottles
- The plane that landed upside down
- Hilaria & Alec Baldwin argument
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 Gatty, and he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
This poor guy, you do one, maybe two Nazi salutes,
everybody gets all bent out of shape.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
We have to make them really afraid. And what's happening
now with Musk is making them very afraid.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Such Jimmy Kimmel continuing with the hatred of Elon Musk
and Tesla and the crowd shared like crazy. And John Kuzak,
who is one of my favorite actors back in the
you know, back in the day, with all those charming movies.
Who is a complete nut job politically, he's an actor.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
They knew we need to make them afraid.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Who afraid of what? You crack pots? That's domestic terrorism,
is what you're taught. You're in favor of domestic terrorism.
You realize, Curious, as we made clear yesterday, was hinting
to his audience, this is great, keep doing it.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
You realize.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
If your side engages in domestic terrorism to get its way,
do you know what the response is going to be?
Speaker 2 (01:22):
You freaking numbnuts.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
I don't understand how people don't get these things, then
the other side is gonna do it too, because they're
gonna realize that's the only way or a way to
get your point across. But we're right and they're wrong
about everything. Say the adolescence, God, you're such a child.
If you go with that point of view, it all
falls apart. If we decide domestic terrorism and scaring people
(01:47):
into either going along with us or being scared to
not go along with.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Us, it all falls apart.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
You remember that half wit Maxine Water screaming, let him.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Know, they're not welcome anywhere.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
If you see them at the gas station, you see
them at a grocery.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Star, you know that crap. It's just.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
It's it's it's an ugly time politically. We've been through
ugly times before.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
There's a different sort of ugly, but yeah, it's it's
inexcusaal You just have to realize the viciousness and hypocrisy
of so many people on the left, and you know,
just advocate strongly for your ideas, do it in the
right way, don't go, don't stoop to their level.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
And.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
They need to be scared. They being.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
People who support the idea of a department that looks
for fraud and abuse.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
In government and waste. Yes, I mean back when it
was uh, I don't know, George Bush war for oil.
At least if you believed that. You know, you can get.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Pretty fired up about young men going off to fight
a war so rich men can get richer, or if
you believe that or whatever.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
I don't, but you get pretty fired up it.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
You're fired up over Elon Musk trying to come up
with lists of departments that waste money. Well, as we
were reading that email from JT last hour. Yeah, fighting
like hell to prevent the lawful deportation of rapists and murderers,
for child molesters, fighting to keep graphic gay sex books
and school libraries, against the notion of cutting a single
(03:22):
dollar from the federal budget even as tens of billions
are wasted and abused and handed out to Crony's ready
to die in the Hill of men and Women's Sports.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Just nuts.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
They literally thought they could run Biden for a second
term when seventy plus percent of the country knew Biden
was too old.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
I said, they've lost their minds.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
I saw a clip of that dude, Charlemagne, the god
who is held up as a spokesman on the left
all the time, reasonable spokesman saying in a black America, Yes,
he said, why are we fighting to keep gang members
in the United States?
Speaker 2 (03:58):
He is a common sense guy.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
There are times that I think, dude, you've completely missed
a whole set of facts. But you know, I'm sure
he thinks the same of me if he's ever heard us.
But anyway, so, the headline in the Wall Street Journal
and in the New York Times today one of the
top headlines certainly Elon.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Musk to receive top secret briefing on US war plans
for China. The Trump advisor is expected to get.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
A look at the Pentagon blueprint, despite his company's financial
stakes in China and defense contracts.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
I can read. That's from the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
The New York Times is similarly declarative and inflammatory that
this is going to happen, and it's a serious issue.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Somebody leaked this out to get it in the number
one liberal news outlet in America and the number one
Republican news.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Outlet in America.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Yeah, to their credit, The New York Times, when they
have an ongoing story like this, updates at every few
minutes and their latest update is headlined Pentagon lashes out
after to report Musk would get secret briefing on China
and essentially going back to the Wall Street Journal. So
you got two US officials anonymously of course, said that
he will receive a briefing on the US military's top
(05:13):
secret war plans for China. Musk is expected to be
briefed by these two humans. I guess on how US
forces would fight in a potential China war, including maritime
tactics and targeting plans. The official set China will be
one of several topics to be discussed at the Defense Department.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
One of the official set.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Well, my first thought when I saw that headline was
because I read the David Sanger book New Cold Wars
about Elon's major role in the opening days of the
war between Ukraine and Russia, where he got Starlink in
there and really maybe made the difference between Ukraine being
(05:52):
overrun in those early hours and not Elon alone deciding
to drop Starlink in there made such a huge difference,
And I just when I first saw the story, I thought,
I'll bet it's something along those lines. Hey, Aylon, if
we in China, went to warn this, how could this
happened or that happened, or how do you relate that
to you? That's what I thought, now the fact companies involved.
(06:16):
I was going to say, there's a lot more fact setting,
I think before we get to the analysis, and it'll
take like thirty seconds.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
But so they mentioned that this briefing.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
First of course they mentioned these scary, powerful and expansive
role in the new administration.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
He's an advisor anyway, it could give him the head
of Tesla. Do they mention at any point that he's
the world's richest man. I certainly hope so, because that
is the key fact.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
It could give him the head of Tesla, which relies
on China for car production, and of SpaceX, a US
defense contractor, access to sensitive military secrets unavailable to business competitors.
That is true if this is at all an accurate report,
and it depends to what extent it is an accurate report.
But Musk, according to one person familiar, again anonymous is
(07:05):
receiving the briefing because he asked for one, yeah, security clearance,
but isn't in the military chain of command or known
to be a military advisor to Trump. On the other hand,
there you go one two, three, four fifth paragraph. Defense
Secretary Pete Hegzath confirmed Musk would visit the Pentagon, but
in a statement on x Musk's social media site.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Not right and I don't know you know this world.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Reaches Man Hagseth disputed that the presidential adviser would receive
a senseit of China briefing, saying, quote, it's an informal
meeting about innovation, efficiencies and smarter production. On the record
with his name attached to, Pete Hegsath said that in
a put post on truth social on Thursday evening, Trump,
again with his name attached, said China will not even
(07:47):
be mentioned or discussed at the Pentagon meeting. Then we
get back into various people saying, well, this would be outrageous,
and that's the headline that Trump to get this big
giant plan.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
And everybody involved is saying, what, No, he's not.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
So again, he has a security clearance because his rocket
company is really intertwined with NASA and all kinds of things.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
That we do. He was involved in.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
The biggest war of the last however many years Ukraine
and Russia in a material way, so that makes sense.
To me, I could see problems with you know, he
might say, you know, Starlink would be perfect for this
when there might be other options out there because.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
He's got a financial interest in it.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
On the other hand, you're going to have a room
full of senators who have stock in all kinds of
different companies where they're going to say, I think this
would be a good idea, and they know whether or not,
you know, the Pentagon's going to decide to go there
and then go get to go buy or sell stock
on that information that we don't have. So let's not
pretend Elon's the only person ever in those meetings that
(08:56):
has any financial benefit. Well, right, I try very hard
to have my beliefs built on facts, as opposed build
my facts based on my beliefs. I think it's interesting
to your point, which is an excellent one that Elon has,
for instance, said, before we get back to the main
threat of the story, the Pentagon should stop buying Lockheed
(09:17):
Martin's F thirty five jet fighters and shift to large
fleets of drones. Quote, manned fighter jets are obsolete in
the age of drones. Anyway, We'll just get pilots killed.
Lockheed Martin owns a half.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
Of a rocket company that is one of SpaceX's biggest
competitors in the space launch industry. The Wall Street Journal
points out hinting that Elon is just trying to torpedo
Lockheed Martin.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
I have no idea if if that's true.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
But okay, now we're going to start pointing out who
has interests, financial interests, and one policy or another, one
company or another.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
I don't mind that at all. I think it's a
good idea.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
But the Wall Street Journal, which has swung unmistakably left
in their news as opposed to their editorial board in
their news in the last year or so, I don't
know what's going on there, doesn't mention that. So I
just think it's at least somewhat amusing that the headline
(10:13):
and lead four paragraphs are built on the premise that
these two anonymous officials, the rank of which the closeness
of whom to the actual power is not clear at all,
say oh, yeah, he's getting this top secret to you know, briefing,
and everybody involved is on the record with their names
saying no, he's not.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
What are you talking about now?
Speaker 3 (10:34):
I want to keep an eye on this and make
sure he's not, you know, benefiting financially in some way
that's unfair competitive wise, be or.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
Because he's been very sympathetic to China as a guy
who does zillions of dollars of business there. I don't
want his thumb on the scale of foreign policy either,
but I don't see any sign that it is.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
But then again, these rooms are always full of people
that can and often do benefit financial from these decisions
and have information we don't have.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
I like the idea that has been.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Proposed before of you know, House members, senators having to
wear patches or bumper stickers or whatever like their NASCAR drivers,
of all their sponsors, and you're sitting in the meeting
and you have to have across your chest like your
biggest sponsor.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Google is the biggest one.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Don't like those word clouds where the word is bigger
based on how many times it's mentioned. If most of
your support comes from Google, you've got a big Google
on your chest, then maybe have a smaller at and
T over here.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
I can picture Nancy Pelosi in some sort of policy
meetings say.
Speaker 4 (11:39):
I disagree we need to invest more heavily in Lockheed
Martin's have thirty fives, but she's wearing a scarf, and
the chairman of the committee says, Nancy, lose the scarf.
What No, it's if you're part of my outfit. Take
off the scarf, lady, and she takes it out.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Figures a big Lockheed Martin match right there.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
Wouldn't that be hilarious to watch the arguments. I've got
those those patches on there where they get their money.
That'd be fantastic. Totally different topic. Word from our friends
and sponsors at Prize Picks. Hotly cow, you got some
hot basketball action starting up in the pro ranks, you
got Bezi ball about to start, and Prize Picks is
the best way to get action on sports more than
(12:17):
thirty states and it's easy to create.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
A lineup on Prize Picks.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
All you do is pick more or less than a
few player stats for your shot to win up to
one thousand times your money. God, it's really easy to
shoot off your mouth about who's going to score how
many points in what game?
Speaker 2 (12:30):
How a bunch of money? Marry your mouth is or.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
Just turn your opinions into money by downloading the Prize
Picks app. Sign up today and get fifty dollars instantly
when you play five. You don't even need to win
to receive the fifty dollars bonus. It's guarantee.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
Prize Picks offers Venmo, Apple pay MasterCard more for quick
and easy deposits into you account the sports season.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
They pay incredibly quickly.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
All you have to do to get in on the
action download the app today the Prize Picks app. Use
the code to Armstrong to get fifty dollars instantly after
you play your first five dollars lineup.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
You need not win.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
They laid the fifty bucks on you just for playing
a five dollars lineup.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Remember that code Armstrong. Prize Picks. Run your game, damn it,
run your game.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
We got a janitor in Texas who is peeing in
the office of the water bottles of work, and some
of the details on this story will probably make you
hesitate when you get to work today.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
The headline's bad enough, what is what details do we need?
A man is urinated in my water bottle or what
he's wearing, what day of the week.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
It is, When details are necessary, You're coming off as
soft on this sort of behavior. That's the way we're
reading this Okay, we got a lot more in the waist.
They tuned a strong climpsing of the ball.
Speaker 5 (13:42):
Down for ten seconds to go fuck court Hunter, hold
a Zachary got a launch Baker three, We'll go loose,
scrum Hunter drive please a day not the buzzer.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Pit's lot it off, mcdee squick the upset? What the
marsh just began?
Speaker 5 (14:02):
The Cowboys with their first ever NCAA tournament win.
Speaker 6 (14:06):
The twelve seed is moving on.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
You know, we always say, like if you follow March
Madness and all that sort of stuff, you like the upsets, but.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
Never enough focus on the team that lost.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
Really because you had hopes of playing several games.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Oh yeah, going deep in the end of the tournament.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
And if you're a senior, you thought my athletic career
is not over all of a sudden, it's over. You're
done for the rest of your life. And it's a
pretty I mean it's pretty. The reason this is on
my mind is my son's boys high school team was
ranked second in the state in the entire state of
California and basketball boys high school basketball team and they
(14:50):
lost their first game against the fifteen seed.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
And so in your world, if I'm doing the play
by play last night.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
From that point of view, it's.
Speaker 6 (14:59):
Clemson too little, too late. They've lost their best players
played badly. They're bad players played worse. They're disappointed, their
fans are depressed. Their coach's job is on the line.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
Jim.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
They're one shot at glory as seniors is over and
they'll probably never play competitive basketball again.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Go play it, Albedia Sun, No way you make the
NBA with a performance like that.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
This is the most disappointing thing that's ever happened in
your life, which is probably true anyway.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Oh well, there's two sides of those stories. Certainly we
got real neat the.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
State is in the Cowboys, so it's probably like in
the Midwest.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
I have no idea where it is. Joe's been saying
this for years. They invent a new kind of crazy
every day, or there's probably there's there's a handful kinds
of crazy to it. Crazy can show itself in such
very ways, like this guy, Texas Janitor gets six years
in prison for spreading STDs by peeing an office water bottles.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Oh that is so gnarly.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
That is one of the worst stories ever. That does
not involve somebody being murdered. The somebody peeing in the
water bottles at work. We've come across that a few
times in our lives. It's awful. The fact that this
guy's got diseases on top of it obviously makes it
a whole nother thing. What's sort of weird power thing
(16:35):
is going on there? It's a it's a cowardly assault, right, yeah,
very cowardly assault. Six years in prison, and he had
they pled He pled down a whole bunch of stuff
to only get six years because it could have.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Been a lot more.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
He's spread his hep hepatitis too. Oh no, yeah, he's
he's got herpes and appetitis A. He spread to thirteen
different women at work by in the water bottles.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
He should be in jail for life. Yeah, that's I thought.
He just peed. Six years is not nearly enough. Good. Hell,
that's something they got.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
They got videos of him, and you know, oh, one
interesting thing about it is you look at a picture
of him and you think, you know, what that looks
like the kind of guy that would pee in a
water bottle at work. He looks like that kind of guy. Yeah,
try try not to have try not to look like
(17:36):
a guy who would pee at water bottles at work.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
That's a you know, I don't know how you're getting
dressed today or your facial hair choices or whatever. But right, yeah, yeah,
I'm not even I'm not even. I'm not even gonna
read this sentence of how they caught him. Oh no,
that's maybe the worst thing I've ever heard.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
I know how they treat child molesters in prison, how
do they treat this sort of guy in prison of
extra judicial punishment? But why would he get why would
he ever get out? You think that's something that gets fixed. Well,
I guess I learned my lesson. I I guess I.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Shouldn't do that now. I was not thinking that guy
needs to say in prison forever, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 7 (18:18):
That dramatic crash landing in Toronto, the Delta plane seen
flipping upside down, We're learning the first officer who was
flying at the time of the crash had been with
Endeavor Air, a subsidiary of Delta, for just over a
year and had just over fourteen hundred total flight hours.
The FAA requires fifteen hundred hours for commercial pilots, but
because she had a special aviation degree. She was eligible
(18:40):
for a certificate allowing her to serve as copilot, which
is standard practice under FAA guidelines.
Speaker 8 (18:46):
The pilot flying was fully qualified but very inexperience, so
the weather was challenging. We knew that there were winding
gusts of up to forty miles an hour, but this,
frankly should have been handled. There were plenty of other
aircraft that were landing just fine that day, like that.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Part at the end.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
Yeah, there are a whole bunch of other planes that
didn't land upside down. So uh yeah, interesting, I'd.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Like to know more about that.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
You had one hundred less hours of experience, but you
got this certificate, So let's a certificate a whole pilot. Yeah,
I'm interested in general, how much of a role does
the co pilot have in conditions like that landing a
small commercial time, how much experience idea that experience you
need to know you're not supposed to land on your top.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
That's some great commentary there. So, following the polling on
the various efforts of the Trump administration to cut this
in that doze elon blah blah blah, one of the
more interesting results to me and disappointing is that the
the numbers against cutting the Department of Education or getting
rid of it.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
I should I go to start doing this every time
you mentioned Elon's name, I'm gonna give.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
The Nazi salute that looks like you're waving to somebody
in the distance or saluting Adolf Hitler. And I can't
decide which one I'll go with saluting Adolf Hitler. Anyway,
I thought I was trying to dig up the numbers.
These are roughly correct. I saw them last night. I
thought I had them handy. But Republicans are staunchly in
(20:16):
favor about two thirds one third. Getting rid of the
Department of Education is a fine idea. Democrats, as you
might guess, are horrifically against it. It's like ten to
one independence. Interestingly enough, are also strongly against getting rid
of the Department of Education.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
And so I'd like to hear them reasoning from any
of those people who are a court it right, right,
I was, yeah, And that's what I'm going to get
to if you need to learn, okay, that's not a
good reason.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
Well right, And on a purely political level, that says, okay,
we have a challenge of messaging and information to help
people understand why it's a good idea, which is fine.
That's part of running the government. You have to be
able to communicate with the voters. But I think it
is mostly as you suggested, that people don't have any
idea what the Department of Education does. That I think
(21:06):
you would if you were to ask them, you know,
what does the Department of Education do?
Speaker 2 (21:11):
Or what does it do? X.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
Y and z, you would find out the vast majority
of voters think that the federal Department of Education provides
the vast majority of funding for education.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
It gives them their curriculum. Hell, it probably builds the
schools and furnishes the number two pencils.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
Well, the main thing is what you brought us yesterday.
It started in seventy nine. So how many people know that?
Who are saying no, no, no, no, we got to
have the Department of Education.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
If for thee over the age of like fifty or something,
you went to school when there was no Department of Education.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
And then Jimmy Carter said, hey, the National Teachers Association
wants this. It's a bad idea, but what the hell
we need to win the election against Reagan. So he
signed it into being with the help of Congress, because
that's all. And several congressmen we quoted yesterday he said,
this is a bad idea. Democrats' most older voters have
no idea.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
They went to school when there was no Department of Education.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
Right, right, So a couple of interesting factoids about the
Department of Education, what it does and does not do,
and Republicans in recent decades have helped Democrats expand education
for various reasons. But the does one point six trillion
dollars in student debt would make it the fifth largest bank.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
In the United States. Wow.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
The department dolls out two hundred and seventy billion dollars
a year, which it can use to promote a president's
agenda and please parochial interests in Congress.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
So the way it works is you got your oh,
they point out in the Wall Street Journal. Some grants
are based on complicated formulas that reward money squandering states
like excuse me, California and New York. Title I grants
are largely based on the number of children in poverty
or receiving welfare benefits in a state, as well as
(22:58):
per pupil spending. So this encourages states to expand welfare
and punishes those that are better stewards of taxpayer money.
Then you've got school districts and states applying for other grants,
many of which are redundant. Department employees pick winners and
losers based on arbitrary and often political criteria that are
not the least related to student learning. Then strings attached
(23:19):
to the funds tie up districts and compliance costs and
red tape as they document well compliance. So and there's
a huge list of these.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Grants supporting supporting effective educator development, supporting effective instruction, education innovation,
and research innovation approaches to literacy. But none of these
things has been proven to do any good for anybody. Shocking,
it's a thicket of regulations and bribery for following administration policy,
(23:56):
no matter how perverse it might be, like restorative justice
or you must teach DEI in schools. Critical race theory.
Ron de Santis wrote a great piece recently, Good Riddance
to the US Department of Education Florida shows how states
can lead in ensuring children learn. He says abolishing department
(24:17):
reinvigorating state control of education would enable states like Florida
to better serve.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
The needs of its students, parents and teachers.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
The President is doing what other Republicans have promised but
failed to do, and he says, We've led the charge
in Florida to pursue student focused, parent friendly education policies,
and we had to take on bureaucratic overhang from both
the Biden administrations to do it. We abolished common Core,
which had been pushed by the Obama administration because it
did not work for our students. Florida replaced it with
(24:45):
high quality content, rich Standards, Florida's benchmark for Excellent Students Thinking,
which outlined the state's expectations at each grade level.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
And yes, the best thing about having a homeschool and
one kid is not having to do the common Core
math because I don't know how to do it. I
never got a handle on how to do that math.
Florida has also worked to end high stakes exams and
shifted our state testing model to the first in the
nation progress monitoring.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
Our students are tested.
Speaker 1 (25:14):
At the beginning, middle, and end of the year, providing
teachers and parents with immediate real time data on student
progress and allowing the opportunity for interventions before a student
falls too far behind. Our students have shown significant year
over year improvements using this testing model. The point of
it being now that the the you know, money corrupts,
(25:34):
power corrupts, obviously, and if you have the ability to
pull the strings of schools around the nation to dance
to your tune by dangling billions and billions of dollars
in front of them, you're already so far away from
making sure. As Dessant has put it, if an individual
(25:55):
student falls behind, we want to know as quickly as possible.
That is not all what the federal programs are about.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
They at their.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
Best, they're about all right. We want to see how
schools are doing, so we can tell them you're not
doing very well. But even that, if it's well meaning,
is like it's directed towards school districts as opposed to students.
The centralized, bureaucratic, red tape ridden, crony rewarding control of
(26:29):
schools is an awful idea.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
It's a great idea to get rid of it.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
The civil rights stuff, the special needs, the disability stuff
that can be done in other ways.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
Get rid of the Department of Education.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
Oh, on that front, we didn't talk about this yesterday
meant to So if you watch any mainstream or lefty news,
you saw this story day before yesterday. The Trump administration
has taken Jackie Robinson off of the official website for
whatever the hell it was. Baseball player Jackie Robinson, who
was the first black player, and you know, integrated sports
(27:03):
and all that sort of stuff. The Trump administration has
an AI program going through all the federal government websites
and trying to get any DEI out of there.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
And because it.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
Had all this different stuff about African American, this black
that it had flagged that and taking it off the website.
Then human beings go back in and look at stuff,
and when they were aware of the Jackie Robinson thing,
they put it back on.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
They put it back in.
Speaker 3 (27:34):
The information that exists on government websites. But so I
was watching the ABC Evening News and lots of news
sources treated this story the same way the other day
they did. It must have been a full five minute
story about how awful it is that Jackie Robinson wouldn't
be mentioned on federal websites and that they took him down.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
And then they.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
Interviewed Jackie Robinson's grandson and showed clips of playing baseball
and talked about how fantastic he was and how he
served in the military and the importance of everyone being
able to African Americans being on participation. I did this long,
long story, and then at the very end of the story,
they said, as of now, Jackie, the Trump administration says,
(28:17):
once they became aware of the error, they reinstated Jackie
Robinson on the federal website and he's now back on there.
Back to you, David, So what were we just talking
about all that time?
Speaker 2 (28:27):
All right?
Speaker 3 (28:28):
So, why did we just do five minutes on how
awesome Jackie Robinson was and how awful it would be
if he was taken down when that's not what happened
because they'd prepared the report and they really really really
wanted to run it. Are they're hoping you wouldn't catch
the last ten seconds where they say, by the way,
as soon as Trump noticed that, if they put it
(28:48):
back on there.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
But anyway, there's a killer storm coming your way. Yeah,
isn't that amazing?
Speaker 3 (28:53):
So friggin' decid, Oh my god, I laughed out.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Loud at hey.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
And there are things that doje doing by moving too
quickly and too sloppily that I think are dumb.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
You know, for instance, they got.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
Rid of a bunch of folks in the Energy Department
who deal with our nuclear arms just when we are
trying to completely revamp our nuclear arms program and update
it for the twenty first century and make sure everything's
good to go in the state of the art technology.
It was dumb move and a bad one. But you
either have the oh, I'm.
Speaker 3 (29:26):
Desperately looking for a way to discredit this, or you
have to me a much more reasonable attitude that hey,
these are giant changes in an incomprehensibly enormous government that
squanders money at a rate that you can't even comprehend.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
And yes, there are going to be mistakes made. They
will rectify those mistakes. They will straighten it out. You
can't possibly do what they're trying to do without a
couple of missteps.
Speaker 2 (29:54):
Yeah, I'm not worried about it all. Go too far,
go way too far. I'm sure we can add it
back in.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
We seem to have no problem adding back in things
to the federal government.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
I'm not worried about label.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
This segment of the podcast, Jack believes China should win
a nuclear war.
Speaker 3 (30:08):
Here's a good tease for you. This is from the
California Globe. There was a straw poll in the state
of California.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
Who's the leading What is the leading name.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
For a Republican for gubernatorial candidate in California.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Here's a hint. Two iNTS, actor and drunk. Those are
your hints, Oh, Jack, characters, stay tuned.
Speaker 9 (30:37):
Hilaria Baldwind defended lashing out at her husband Alec during
an awkward Red Carpet interview. She claimed he was manterrupting,
which sure beats man slaughtering.
Speaker 3 (30:55):
Oh my god, So we didn't talk about this story.
I heard another radio show. There are other radio shows
have made great sport of this audio, and I hadn't
actually heard it.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
I'd only read it.
Speaker 3 (31:08):
So this is on the Red Carpet and they're interviewing
ancient Alec Baldwin and his much younger, fake Spaniard wife.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
If you don't know that old story.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
She's born and Jack, she's trans Spaniard. She was born
in America, but then she lived in Spain for a
while and decided to adopt this accent like she's European
or something.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
Which some people believe.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
He thought she was European when he married her, so
it had to be something he found out. Wait a second,
trans Spaniards are Spaniards anyway, I haven't heard this yet,
so here we.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
Go for Central and Spanish since yet.
Speaker 10 (31:43):
Okay, yeah, oh my god, you're distracting me right now,
like now you're just doing that. Why why are you
distracting me? Yea, yeah, you're just distracting. But oh my god,
stop you're knowing me. Stop it's not cute. No, he's
distracting me. You would like walk out of this interview.
B An need the motherhood notes. You were doing an
(32:04):
amazing No, okay, go back, let me go back. It's
all about routine. It's all about routine, and every day
we strive to be boring and then like un.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
Bring things happen to us.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
Oh that wasn't the good part. That wasn't the good part.
Oh no, oh it's got it.
Speaker 7 (32:22):
Okay, we want more of this season two, I mean.
Speaker 10 (32:25):
All you No, no, I think we're gonna see you know,
it's we're going to see how it feels to have
it be.
Speaker 2 (32:34):
Out there this year.
Speaker 10 (32:36):
Oh my god, when I'm talking, you're not talking. No,
when I'm talking, you're not talking.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
This is why.
Speaker 10 (32:40):
Yes, we'll have to like just pat him out.
Speaker 7 (32:42):
Of the show.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
No, it's a second. No.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
No, that isn't his wife. That's his sixteen year old daughter.
And no wonder be his wife, no wonder. He's so
angry all the time.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
He has to listen.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
How voice were repeating the most lovely poems in the
English language, it would still be annoying me.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Now you when I'm talking, you don't talk. I'm talking,
you're not talking.
Speaker 3 (33:11):
Why does she sound like a high school girl, like
the most annoying kind of high school girl, the kind
that's trying the hardest to be like the cool, popular
girl at age sixteen. You don't you don't understand Spanish culture?
Jack How old is she? How old is How old
is Hilario Baldwin? Get that for me, Katie, because she's wow.
(33:32):
How does he put up with that?
Speaker 2 (33:34):
She's forty one years old?
Speaker 3 (33:36):
Oh my lordy Baldwin from from Boston. What your forty
one year old wife sounds.
Speaker 10 (33:43):
Like that when I'm talking, you're not talking.
Speaker 2 (33:46):
When I'm talking, jackets are vocal cords. It's that fake act.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
That fake accent comes back when she's yelling at him.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Not not talking. You're not talking.
Speaker 10 (33:54):
When I'm talking, you're not talking. No, when I'm talking,
you're not talking.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
What's the matter? You so laudable? Little I read a
great piece. It was overly serious about dude.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
You granted accidentally, maybe recklessly, killed a young woman, and
now to cash in on your newfound fame, you're having
a horrible, unwatchable reality show.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
How about you just lay low for a while and act.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
You're a good actor, that's fine, but why are you
trotting out like your life which includes a fair amount
of dealing with the aftermath of that in the show.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
From what I understand, I have a theory he's got
all these kids with her, he can't stand her because
you just heard her, who could and he's got to
leave the marriage. But he doesn't want to look like
a cad, so he's putting this out there for America
to see.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
To think, Jesus, Alec, how do you put up with that?
Every day?
Speaker 10 (34:46):
When I'm talking, you're not talking about Hill. When I'm talking,
you're not talking.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
I know that got all the attention, but even before that,
that first clip, just the way she talks, Oh God,
can you believe this?
Speaker 2 (34:56):
Oh my god, oh my god, you're forty one years old.
Quit talking like that. Wow. Wow, so Sanna is she
a long day? Wow?
Speaker 3 (35:08):
That's your sophisticated philanthropist European wife.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
Oh my god, can you believe this? Oh my god?
Speaker 10 (35:18):
Quit okay, yeah, oh my god, you're distracting me right now,
Like now, you're just doing that.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
Why grows about? Where's the guy from Glengarry Glenn Ross
that Alec needs to stand up to her? Huh?
Speaker 3 (35:38):
First prize, new Cadillac, second prize to the state knife,
certain prize.
Speaker 2 (35:43):
You're fired. Where's that guy who wouldn't put up with anything?
You haven't her? Run your life?
Speaker 3 (35:49):
Am I god?
Speaker 2 (35:50):
I'm a goad? Oh that is rough and he was
not thinking clearly when he Dude, that's to her the
siren song of young hot chicks. Oh oh, oh, oh
my god. He never found the Red October being that wool.
Speaker 10 (36:12):
See God, when I'm talking, you're not talking. When I'm talking,
you're not talking.
Speaker 3 (36:16):
She had the She had the cojones to tell him
that he was annoying her, right, Wow.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
Armstrong and Geeddy
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Armstrong and Gatty, and he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
This poor guy, you do one, maybe two Nazi salutes,
everybody gets all bent out of shape.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
We have to make them really afraid. And what's happening
now with Musk is making them very afraid.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Such Jimmy Kimmel continuing with the hatred of Elon Musk
and Tesla and the crowd shared like crazy. And John Kuzak,
who is one of my favorite actors back in the
you know, back in the day, with all those charming movies.
Who is a complete nut job politically, he's an actor.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
They knew we need to make them afraid.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Who afraid of what? You crack pots? That's domestic terrorism,
is what you're taught. You're in favor of domestic terrorism.
You realize, Curious, as we made clear yesterday, was hinting
to his audience, this is great, keep doing it.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
You realize.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
If your side engages in domestic terrorism to get its way,
do you know what the response is going to be?
Speaker 2 (01:22):
You freaking numbnuts.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
I don't understand how people don't get these things, then
the other side is gonna do it too, because they're
gonna realize that's the only way or a way to
get your point across. But we're right and they're wrong
about everything. Say the adolescence, God, you're such a child.
If you go with that point of view, it all
falls apart. If we decide domestic terrorism and scaring people
(01:47):
into either going along with us or being scared to
not go along with.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Us, it all falls apart.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
You remember that half wit Maxine Water screaming, let him.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Know, they're not welcome anywhere.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
If you see them at the gas station, you see
them at a grocery.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Star, you know that crap. It's just.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
It's it's it's an ugly time politically. We've been through
ugly times before.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
There's a different sort of ugly, but yeah, it's it's
inexcusaal You just have to realize the viciousness and hypocrisy
of so many people on the left, and you know,
just advocate strongly for your ideas, do it in the
right way, don't go, don't stoop to their level.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
And.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
They need to be scared. They being.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
People who support the idea of a department that looks
for fraud and abuse.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
In government and waste. Yes, I mean back when it
was uh, I don't know, George Bush war for oil.
At least if you believed that. You know, you can get.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Pretty fired up about young men going off to fight
a war so rich men can get richer, or if
you believe that or whatever.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
I don't, but you get pretty fired up it.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
You're fired up over Elon Musk trying to come up
with lists of departments that waste money. Well, as we
were reading that email from JT last hour. Yeah, fighting
like hell to prevent the lawful deportation of rapists and murderers,
for child molesters, fighting to keep graphic gay sex books
and school libraries, against the notion of cutting a single
(03:22):
dollar from the federal budget even as tens of billions
are wasted and abused and handed out to Crony's ready
to die in the Hill of men and Women's Sports.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
Just nuts.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
They literally thought they could run Biden for a second
term when seventy plus percent of the country knew Biden
was too old.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
I said, they've lost their minds.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
I saw a clip of that dude, Charlemagne, the god
who is held up as a spokesman on the left
all the time, reasonable spokesman saying in a black America, Yes,
he said, why are we fighting to keep gang members
in the United States?
Speaker 2 (03:58):
He is a common sense guy.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
There are times that I think, dude, you've completely missed
a whole set of facts. But you know, I'm sure
he thinks the same of me if he's ever heard us.
But anyway, so, the headline in the Wall Street Journal
and in the New York Times today one of the
top headlines certainly Elon.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Musk to receive top secret briefing on US war plans
for China. The Trump advisor is expected to get.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
A look at the Pentagon blueprint, despite his company's financial
stakes in China and defense contracts.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
I can read. That's from the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
The New York Times is similarly declarative and inflammatory that
this is going to happen, and it's a serious issue.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Somebody leaked this out to get it in the number
one liberal news outlet in America and the number one
Republican news.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Outlet in America.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Yeah, to their credit, The New York Times, when they
have an ongoing story like this, updates at every few
minutes and their latest update is headlined Pentagon lashes out
after to report Musk would get secret briefing on China
and essentially going back to the Wall Street Journal. So
you got two US officials anonymously of course, said that
he will receive a briefing on the US military's top
(05:13):
secret war plans for China. Musk is expected to be
briefed by these two humans. I guess on how US
forces would fight in a potential China war, including maritime
tactics and targeting plans. The official set China will be
one of several topics to be discussed at the Defense Department.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
One of the official set.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Well, my first thought when I saw that headline was
because I read the David Sanger book New Cold Wars
about Elon's major role in the opening days of the
war between Ukraine and Russia, where he got Starlink in
there and really maybe made the difference between Ukraine being
(05:52):
overrun in those early hours and not Elon alone deciding
to drop Starlink in there made such a huge difference,
And I just when I first saw the story, I thought,
I'll bet it's something along those lines. Hey, Aylon, if
we in China, went to warn this, how could this
happened or that happened, or how do you relate that
to you? That's what I thought, now the fact companies involved.
(06:16):
I was going to say, there's a lot more fact setting,
I think before we get to the analysis, and it'll
take like thirty seconds.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
But so they mentioned that this briefing.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
First of course they mentioned these scary, powerful and expansive
role in the new administration.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
He's an advisor anyway, it could give him the head
of Tesla. Do they mention at any point that he's
the world's richest man. I certainly hope so, because that
is the key fact.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
It could give him the head of Tesla, which relies
on China for car production, and of SpaceX, a US
defense contractor, access to sensitive military secrets unavailable to business competitors.
That is true if this is at all an accurate report,
and it depends to what extent it is an accurate report.
But Musk, according to one person familiar, again anonymous is
(07:05):
receiving the briefing because he asked for one, yeah, security clearance,
but isn't in the military chain of command or known
to be a military advisor to Trump. On the other hand,
there you go one two, three, four fifth paragraph. Defense
Secretary Pete Hegzath confirmed Musk would visit the Pentagon, but
in a statement on x Musk's social media site.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Not right and I don't know you know this world.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Reaches Man Hagseth disputed that the presidential adviser would receive
a senseit of China briefing, saying, quote, it's an informal
meeting about innovation, efficiencies and smarter production. On the record
with his name attached to, Pete Hegsath said that in
a put post on truth social on Thursday evening, Trump,
again with his name attached, said China will not even
(07:47):
be mentioned or discussed at the Pentagon meeting. Then we
get back into various people saying, well, this would be outrageous,
and that's the headline that Trump to get this big
giant plan.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
And everybody involved is saying, what, No, he's not.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
So again, he has a security clearance because his rocket
company is really intertwined with NASA and all kinds of things.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
That we do. He was involved in.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
The biggest war of the last however many years Ukraine
and Russia in a material way, so that makes sense.
To me, I could see problems with you know, he
might say, you know, Starlink would be perfect for this
when there might be other options out there because.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
He's got a financial interest in it.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
On the other hand, you're going to have a room
full of senators who have stock in all kinds of
different companies where they're going to say, I think this
would be a good idea, and they know whether or not,
you know, the Pentagon's going to decide to go there
and then go get to go buy or sell stock
on that information that we don't have. So let's not
pretend Elon's the only person ever in those meetings that
(08:56):
has any financial benefit. Well, right, I try very hard
to have my beliefs built on facts, as opposed build
my facts based on my beliefs. I think it's interesting
to your point, which is an excellent one that Elon has,
for instance, said, before we get back to the main
threat of the story, the Pentagon should stop buying Lockheed
(09:17):
Martin's F thirty five jet fighters and shift to large
fleets of drones. Quote, manned fighter jets are obsolete in
the age of drones. Anyway, We'll just get pilots killed.
Lockheed Martin owns a half.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
Of a rocket company that is one of SpaceX's biggest
competitors in the space launch industry. The Wall Street Journal
points out hinting that Elon is just trying to torpedo
Lockheed Martin.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
I have no idea if if that's true.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
But okay, now we're going to start pointing out who
has interests, financial interests, and one policy or another, one
company or another.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
I don't mind that at all. I think it's a
good idea.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
But the Wall Street Journal, which has swung unmistakably left
in their news as opposed to their editorial board in
their news in the last year or so, I don't
know what's going on there, doesn't mention that. So I
just think it's at least somewhat amusing that the headline
(10:13):
and lead four paragraphs are built on the premise that
these two anonymous officials, the rank of which the closeness
of whom to the actual power is not clear at all,
say oh, yeah, he's getting this top secret to you know, briefing,
and everybody involved is on the record with their names
saying no, he's not.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
What are you talking about now?
Speaker 3 (10:34):
I want to keep an eye on this and make
sure he's not, you know, benefiting financially in some way
that's unfair competitive wise, be or.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
Because he's been very sympathetic to China as a guy
who does zillions of dollars of business there. I don't
want his thumb on the scale of foreign policy either,
but I don't see any sign that it is.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
But then again, these rooms are always full of people
that can and often do benefit financial from these decisions
and have information we don't have.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
I like the idea that has been.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Proposed before of you know, House members, senators having to
wear patches or bumper stickers or whatever like their NASCAR drivers,
of all their sponsors, and you're sitting in the meeting
and you have to have across your chest like your
biggest sponsor.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Google is the biggest one.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Don't like those word clouds where the word is bigger
based on how many times it's mentioned. If most of
your support comes from Google, you've got a big Google
on your chest, then maybe have a smaller at and
T over here.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
I can picture Nancy Pelosi in some sort of policy
meetings say.
Speaker 4 (11:39):
I disagree we need to invest more heavily in Lockheed
Martin's have thirty fives, but she's wearing a scarf, and
the chairman of the committee says, Nancy, lose the scarf.
What No, it's if you're part of my outfit. Take
off the scarf, lady, and she takes it out.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Figures a big Lockheed Martin match right there.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
Wouldn't that be hilarious to watch the arguments. I've got
those those patches on there where they get their money.
That'd be fantastic. Totally different topic. Word from our friends
and sponsors at Prize Picks. Hotly cow, you got some
hot basketball action starting up in the pro ranks, you
got Bezi ball about to start, and Prize Picks is
the best way to get action on sports more than
(12:17):
thirty states and it's easy to create.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
A lineup on Prize Picks.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
All you do is pick more or less than a
few player stats for your shot to win up to
one thousand times your money. God, it's really easy to
shoot off your mouth about who's going to score how
many points in what game?
Speaker 2 (12:30):
How a bunch of money? Marry your mouth is or.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
Just turn your opinions into money by downloading the Prize
Picks app. Sign up today and get fifty dollars instantly
when you play five. You don't even need to win
to receive the fifty dollars bonus. It's guarantee.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
Prize Picks offers Venmo, Apple pay MasterCard more for quick
and easy deposits into you account the sports season.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
They pay incredibly quickly.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
All you have to do to get in on the
action download the app today the Prize Picks app. Use
the code to Armstrong to get fifty dollars instantly after
you play your first five dollars lineup.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
You need not win.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
They laid the fifty bucks on you just for playing
a five dollars lineup.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Remember that code Armstrong. Prize Picks. Run your game, damn it,
run your game.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
We got a janitor in Texas who is peeing in
the office of the water bottles of work, and some
of the details on this story will probably make you
hesitate when you get to work today.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
The headline's bad enough, what is what details do we need?
A man is urinated in my water bottle or what
he's wearing, what day of the week.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
It is, When details are necessary, You're coming off as
soft on this sort of behavior. That's the way we're
reading this Okay, we got a lot more in the waist.
They tuned a strong climpsing of the ball.
Speaker 5 (13:42):
Down for ten seconds to go fuck court Hunter, hold
a Zachary got a launch Baker three, We'll go loose,
scrum Hunter drive please a day not the buzzer.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Pit's lot it off, mcdee squick the upset? What the
marsh just began?
Speaker 5 (14:02):
The Cowboys with their first ever NCAA tournament win.
Speaker 6 (14:06):
The twelve seed is moving on.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
You know, we always say, like if you follow March
Madness and all that sort of stuff, you like the upsets, but.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
Never enough focus on the team that lost.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
Really because you had hopes of playing several games.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Oh yeah, going deep in the end of the tournament.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
And if you're a senior, you thought my athletic career
is not over all of a sudden, it's over. You're
done for the rest of your life. And it's a
pretty I mean it's pretty. The reason this is on
my mind is my son's boys high school team was
ranked second in the state in the entire state of
California and basketball boys high school basketball team and they
(14:50):
lost their first game against the fifteen seed.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
And so in your world, if I'm doing the play
by play last night.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
From that point of view, it's.
Speaker 6 (14:59):
Clemson too little, too late. They've lost their best players
played badly. They're bad players played worse. They're disappointed, their
fans are depressed. Their coach's job is on the line.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
Jim.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
They're one shot at glory as seniors is over and
they'll probably never play competitive basketball again.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Go play it, Albedia Sun, No way you make the
NBA with a performance like that.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
This is the most disappointing thing that's ever happened in
your life, which is probably true anyway.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Oh well, there's two sides of those stories. Certainly we
got real neat the.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
State is in the Cowboys, so it's probably like in
the Midwest.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
I have no idea where it is. Joe's been saying
this for years. They invent a new kind of crazy
every day, or there's probably there's there's a handful kinds
of crazy to it. Crazy can show itself in such
very ways, like this guy, Texas Janitor gets six years
in prison for spreading STDs by peeing an office water bottles.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Oh that is so gnarly.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
That is one of the worst stories ever. That does
not involve somebody being murdered. The somebody peeing in the
water bottles at work. We've come across that a few
times in our lives. It's awful. The fact that this
guy's got diseases on top of it obviously makes it
a whole nother thing. What's sort of weird power thing
(16:35):
is going on there? It's a it's a cowardly assault, right, yeah,
very cowardly assault. Six years in prison, and he had
they pled He pled down a whole bunch of stuff
to only get six years because it could have.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Been a lot more.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
He's spread his hep hepatitis too. Oh no, yeah, he's
he's got herpes and appetitis A. He spread to thirteen
different women at work by in the water bottles.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
He should be in jail for life. Yeah, that's I thought.
He just peed. Six years is not nearly enough. Good. Hell,
that's something they got.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
They got videos of him, and you know, oh, one
interesting thing about it is you look at a picture
of him and you think, you know, what that looks
like the kind of guy that would pee in a
water bottle at work. He looks like that kind of guy. Yeah,
try try not to have try not to look like
(17:36):
a guy who would pee at water bottles at work.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
That's a you know, I don't know how you're getting
dressed today or your facial hair choices or whatever. But right, yeah, yeah,
I'm not even I'm not even. I'm not even gonna
read this sentence of how they caught him. Oh no,
that's maybe the worst thing I've ever heard.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
I know how they treat child molesters in prison, how
do they treat this sort of guy in prison of
extra judicial punishment? But why would he get why would
he ever get out? You think that's something that gets fixed. Well,
I guess I learned my lesson. I I guess I.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Shouldn't do that now. I was not thinking that guy
needs to say in prison forever, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 7 (18:18):
That dramatic crash landing in Toronto, the Delta plane seen
flipping upside down, We're learning the first officer who was
flying at the time of the crash had been with
Endeavor Air, a subsidiary of Delta, for just over a
year and had just over fourteen hundred total flight hours.
The FAA requires fifteen hundred hours for commercial pilots, but
because she had a special aviation degree. She was eligible
(18:40):
for a certificate allowing her to serve as copilot, which
is standard practice under FAA guidelines.
Speaker 8 (18:46):
The pilot flying was fully qualified but very inexperience, so
the weather was challenging. We knew that there were winding
gusts of up to forty miles an hour, but this,
frankly should have been handled. There were plenty of other
aircraft that were landing just fine that day, like that.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Part at the end.
Speaker 3 (19:01):
Yeah, there are a whole bunch of other planes that
didn't land upside down. So uh yeah, interesting, I'd.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Like to know more about that.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
You had one hundred less hours of experience, but you
got this certificate, So let's a certificate a whole pilot. Yeah,
I'm interested in general, how much of a role does
the co pilot have in conditions like that landing a
small commercial time, how much experience idea that experience you
need to know you're not supposed to land on your top.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
That's some great commentary there. So, following the polling on
the various efforts of the Trump administration to cut this
in that doze elon blah blah blah, one of the
more interesting results to me and disappointing is that the
the numbers against cutting the Department of Education or getting
rid of it.
Speaker 2 (19:50):
I should I go to start doing this every time
you mentioned Elon's name, I'm gonna give.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
The Nazi salute that looks like you're waving to somebody
in the distance or saluting Adolf Hitler. And I can't
decide which one I'll go with saluting Adolf Hitler. Anyway,
I thought I was trying to dig up the numbers.
These are roughly correct. I saw them last night. I
thought I had them handy. But Republicans are staunchly in
(20:16):
favor about two thirds one third. Getting rid of the
Department of Education is a fine idea. Democrats, as you
might guess, are horrifically against it. It's like ten to
one independence. Interestingly enough, are also strongly against getting rid
of the Department of Education.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
And so I'd like to hear them reasoning from any
of those people who are a court it right, right,
I was, yeah, And that's what I'm going to get
to if you need to learn, okay, that's not a
good reason.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
Well right, And on a purely political level, that says, okay,
we have a challenge of messaging and information to help
people understand why it's a good idea, which is fine.
That's part of running the government. You have to be
able to communicate with the voters. But I think it
is mostly as you suggested, that people don't have any
idea what the Department of Education does. That I think
(21:06):
you would if you were to ask them, you know,
what does the Department of Education do?
Speaker 2 (21:11):
Or what does it do? X.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
Y and z, you would find out the vast majority
of voters think that the federal Department of Education provides
the vast majority of funding for education.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
It gives them their curriculum. Hell, it probably builds the
schools and furnishes the number two pencils.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
Well, the main thing is what you brought us yesterday.
It started in seventy nine. So how many people know that?
Who are saying no, no, no, no, we got to
have the Department of Education.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
If for thee over the age of like fifty or something,
you went to school when there was no Department of Education.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
And then Jimmy Carter said, hey, the National Teachers Association
wants this. It's a bad idea, but what the hell
we need to win the election against Reagan. So he
signed it into being with the help of Congress, because
that's all. And several congressmen we quoted yesterday he said,
this is a bad idea. Democrats' most older voters have
no idea.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
They went to school when there was no Department of Education.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
Right, right, So a couple of interesting factoids about the
Department of Education, what it does and does not do,
and Republicans in recent decades have helped Democrats expand education
for various reasons. But the does one point six trillion
dollars in student debt would make it the fifth largest bank.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
In the United States. Wow.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
The department dolls out two hundred and seventy billion dollars
a year, which it can use to promote a president's
agenda and please parochial interests in Congress.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
So the way it works is you got your oh,
they point out in the Wall Street Journal. Some grants
are based on complicated formulas that reward money squandering states
like excuse me, California and New York. Title I grants
are largely based on the number of children in poverty
or receiving welfare benefits in a state, as well as
(22:58):
per pupil spending. So this encourages states to expand welfare
and punishes those that are better stewards of taxpayer money.
Then you've got school districts and states applying for other grants,
many of which are redundant. Department employees pick winners and
losers based on arbitrary and often political criteria that are
not the least related to student learning. Then strings attached
(23:19):
to the funds tie up districts and compliance costs and
red tape as they document well compliance. So and there's
a huge list of these.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Grants supporting supporting effective educator development, supporting effective instruction, education innovation,
and research innovation approaches to literacy. But none of these
things has been proven to do any good for anybody. Shocking,
it's a thicket of regulations and bribery for following administration policy,
(23:56):
no matter how perverse it might be, like restorative justice
or you must teach DEI in schools. Critical race theory.
Ron de Santis wrote a great piece recently, Good Riddance
to the US Department of Education Florida shows how states
can lead in ensuring children learn. He says abolishing department
(24:17):
reinvigorating state control of education would enable states like Florida
to better serve.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
The needs of its students, parents and teachers.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
The President is doing what other Republicans have promised but
failed to do, and he says, We've led the charge
in Florida to pursue student focused, parent friendly education policies,
and we had to take on bureaucratic overhang from both
the Biden administrations to do it. We abolished common Core,
which had been pushed by the Obama administration because it
did not work for our students. Florida replaced it with
(24:45):
high quality content, rich Standards, Florida's benchmark for Excellent Students Thinking,
which outlined the state's expectations at each grade level.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
And yes, the best thing about having a homeschool and
one kid is not having to do the common Core
math because I don't know how to do it. I
never got a handle on how to do that math.
Florida has also worked to end high stakes exams and
shifted our state testing model to the first in the
nation progress monitoring.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
Our students are tested.
Speaker 1 (25:14):
At the beginning, middle, and end of the year, providing
teachers and parents with immediate real time data on student
progress and allowing the opportunity for interventions before a student
falls too far behind. Our students have shown significant year
over year improvements using this testing model. The point of
it being now that the the you know, money corrupts,
(25:34):
power corrupts, obviously, and if you have the ability to
pull the strings of schools around the nation to dance
to your tune by dangling billions and billions of dollars
in front of them, you're already so far away from
making sure. As Dessant has put it, if an individual
(25:55):
student falls behind, we want to know as quickly as possible.
That is not all what the federal programs are about.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
They at their.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
Best, they're about all right. We want to see how
schools are doing, so we can tell them you're not
doing very well. But even that, if it's well meaning,
is like it's directed towards school districts as opposed to students.
The centralized, bureaucratic, red tape ridden, crony rewarding control of
(26:29):
schools is an awful idea.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
It's a great idea to get rid of it.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
The civil rights stuff, the special needs, the disability stuff
that can be done in other ways.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
Get rid of the Department of Education.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
Oh, on that front, we didn't talk about this yesterday
meant to So if you watch any mainstream or lefty news,
you saw this story day before yesterday. The Trump administration
has taken Jackie Robinson off of the official website for
whatever the hell it was. Baseball player Jackie Robinson, who
was the first black player, and you know, integrated sports
(27:03):
and all that sort of stuff. The Trump administration has
an AI program going through all the federal government websites
and trying to get any DEI out of there.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
And because it.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
Had all this different stuff about African American, this black
that it had flagged that and taking it off the website.
Then human beings go back in and look at stuff,
and when they were aware of the Jackie Robinson thing,
they put it back on.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
They put it back in.
Speaker 3 (27:34):
The information that exists on government websites. But so I
was watching the ABC Evening News and lots of news
sources treated this story the same way the other day
they did. It must have been a full five minute
story about how awful it is that Jackie Robinson wouldn't
be mentioned on federal websites and that they took him down.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
And then they.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
Interviewed Jackie Robinson's grandson and showed clips of playing baseball
and talked about how fantastic he was and how he
served in the military and the importance of everyone being
able to African Americans being on participation. I did this long,
long story, and then at the very end of the story,
they said, as of now, Jackie, the Trump administration says,
(28:17):
once they became aware of the error, they reinstated Jackie
Robinson on the federal website and he's now back on there.
Back to you, David, So what were we just talking
about all that time?
Speaker 2 (28:27):
All right?
Speaker 3 (28:28):
So, why did we just do five minutes on how
awesome Jackie Robinson was and how awful it would be
if he was taken down when that's not what happened
because they'd prepared the report and they really really really
wanted to run it. Are they're hoping you wouldn't catch
the last ten seconds where they say, by the way,
as soon as Trump noticed that, if they put it
(28:48):
back on there.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
But anyway, there's a killer storm coming your way. Yeah,
isn't that amazing?
Speaker 3 (28:53):
So friggin' decid, Oh my god, I laughed out.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Loud at hey.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
And there are things that doje doing by moving too
quickly and too sloppily that I think are dumb.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
You know, for instance, they got.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
Rid of a bunch of folks in the Energy Department
who deal with our nuclear arms just when we are
trying to completely revamp our nuclear arms program and update
it for the twenty first century and make sure everything's
good to go in the state of the art technology.
It was dumb move and a bad one. But you
either have the oh, I'm.
Speaker 3 (29:26):
Desperately looking for a way to discredit this, or you
have to me a much more reasonable attitude that hey,
these are giant changes in an incomprehensibly enormous government that
squanders money at a rate that you can't even comprehend.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
And yes, there are going to be mistakes made. They
will rectify those mistakes. They will straighten it out. You
can't possibly do what they're trying to do without a
couple of missteps.
Speaker 2 (29:54):
Yeah, I'm not worried about it all. Go too far,
go way too far. I'm sure we can add it
back in.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
We seem to have no problem adding back in things
to the federal government.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
I'm not worried about label.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
This segment of the podcast, Jack believes China should win
a nuclear war.
Speaker 3 (30:08):
Here's a good tease for you. This is from the
California Globe. There was a straw poll in the state
of California.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
Who's the leading What is the leading name.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
For a Republican for gubernatorial candidate in California.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Here's a hint. Two iNTS, actor and drunk. Those are
your hints, Oh, Jack, characters, stay tuned.
Speaker 9 (30:37):
Hilaria Baldwind defended lashing out at her husband Alec during
an awkward Red Carpet interview. She claimed he was manterrupting,
which sure beats man slaughtering.
Speaker 3 (30:55):
Oh my god, So we didn't talk about this story.
I heard another radio show. There are other radio shows
have made great sport of this audio, and I hadn't
actually heard it.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
I'd only read it.
Speaker 3 (31:08):
So this is on the Red Carpet and they're interviewing
ancient Alec Baldwin and his much younger, fake Spaniard wife.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
If you don't know that old story.
Speaker 3 (31:18):
She's born and Jack, she's trans Spaniard. She was born
in America, but then she lived in Spain for a
while and decided to adopt this accent like she's European
or something.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
Which some people believe.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
He thought she was European when he married her, so
it had to be something he found out. Wait a second,
trans Spaniards are Spaniards anyway, I haven't heard this yet,
so here we.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
Go for Central and Spanish since yet.
Speaker 10 (31:43):
Okay, yeah, oh my god, you're distracting me right now,
like now you're just doing that. Why why are you
distracting me? Yea, yeah, you're just distracting. But oh my god,
stop you're knowing me. Stop it's not cute. No, he's
distracting me. You would like walk out of this interview.
B An need the motherhood notes. You were doing an
(32:04):
amazing No, okay, go back, let me go back. It's
all about routine. It's all about routine, and every day
we strive to be boring and then like un.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
Bring things happen to us.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
Oh that wasn't the good part. That wasn't the good part.
Oh no, oh it's got it.
Speaker 7 (32:22):
Okay, we want more of this season two, I mean.
Speaker 10 (32:25):
All you No, no, I think we're gonna see you know,
it's we're going to see how it feels to have
it be.
Speaker 2 (32:34):
Out there this year.
Speaker 10 (32:36):
Oh my god, when I'm talking, you're not talking. No,
when I'm talking, you're not talking.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
This is why.
Speaker 10 (32:40):
Yes, we'll have to like just pat him out.
Speaker 7 (32:42):
Of the show.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
No, it's a second. No.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
No, that isn't his wife. That's his sixteen year old daughter.
And no wonder be his wife, no wonder. He's so
angry all the time.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
He has to listen.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
How voice were repeating the most lovely poems in the
English language, it would still be annoying me.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Now you when I'm talking, you don't talk. I'm talking,
you're not talking.
Speaker 3 (33:11):
Why does she sound like a high school girl, like
the most annoying kind of high school girl, the kind
that's trying the hardest to be like the cool, popular
girl at age sixteen. You don't you don't understand Spanish culture?
Jack How old is she? How old is How old
is Hilario Baldwin? Get that for me, Katie, because she's wow.
(33:32):
How does he put up with that?
Speaker 2 (33:34):
She's forty one years old?
Speaker 3 (33:36):
Oh my lordy Baldwin from from Boston. What your forty
one year old wife sounds.
Speaker 10 (33:43):
Like that when I'm talking, you're not talking.
Speaker 2 (33:46):
When I'm talking, jackets are vocal cords. It's that fake act.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
That fake accent comes back when she's yelling at him.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Not not talking. You're not talking.
Speaker 10 (33:54):
When I'm talking, you're not talking. No, when I'm talking,
you're not talking.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
What's the matter? You so laudable? Little I read a
great piece. It was overly serious about dude.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
You granted accidentally, maybe recklessly, killed a young woman, and
now to cash in on your newfound fame, you're having
a horrible, unwatchable reality show.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
How about you just lay low for a while and act.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
You're a good actor, that's fine, but why are you
trotting out like your life which includes a fair amount
of dealing with the aftermath of that in the show.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
From what I understand, I have a theory he's got
all these kids with her, he can't stand her because
you just heard her, who could and he's got to
leave the marriage. But he doesn't want to look like
a cad, so he's putting this out there for America
to see.
Speaker 2 (34:43):
To think, Jesus, Alec, how do you put up with that?
Every day?
Speaker 10 (34:46):
When I'm talking, you're not talking about Hill. When I'm talking,
you're not talking.
Speaker 3 (34:49):
I know that got all the attention, but even before that,
that first clip, just the way she talks, Oh God,
can you believe this?
Speaker 2 (34:56):
Oh my god, oh my god, you're forty one years old.
Quit talking like that. Wow. Wow, so Sanna is she
a long day? Wow?
Speaker 3 (35:08):
That's your sophisticated philanthropist European wife.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
Oh my god, can you believe this? Oh my god?
Speaker 10 (35:18):
Quit okay, yeah, oh my god, you're distracting me right now,
Like now, you're just doing that.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
Why grows about? Where's the guy from Glengarry Glenn Ross
that Alec needs to stand up to her? Huh?
Speaker 3 (35:38):
First prize, new Cadillac, second prize to the state knife,
certain prize.
Speaker 2 (35:43):
You're fired. Where's that guy who wouldn't put up with anything?
You haven't her? Run your life?
Speaker 3 (35:49):
Am I god?
Speaker 2 (35:50):
I'm a goad? Oh that is rough and he was
not thinking clearly when he Dude, that's to her the
siren song of young hot chicks. Oh oh, oh, oh
my god. He never found the Red October being that wool.
Speaker 10 (36:12):
See God, when I'm talking, you're not talking. When I'm talking,
you're not talking.
Speaker 3 (36:16):
She had the She had the cojones to tell him
that he was annoying her, right, Wow.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
Armstrong and Geeddy
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!