Latest / The Mark Belling Podcast / Mark Belling Podcast #183: Yikes! Brewers' bottom of 12th meltdown: pessimists fear the worst for an epic collapse while optimists are ready to celebrate Wednesday night. Obama—--of ALL people—-rips Trump's ballroom design taste; has he looked at his own museum??? And, why are so many lefty-designed buildings SOOOOO ugly (the new Milwaukee museum)?

Transcript

Mark Belling Podcast #183: Yikes! Brewers' bottom of 12th meltdown: pessimists fear the worst for an epic collapse while optimists are ready to celebrate Wednesday night. Obama—--of ALL people—-rips Trump's ballroom design taste; has he looked at his own museum??? And, why are so many lefty-designed buildings SOOOOO ugly (the new Milwaukee museum)? · The Mark Belling Podcast

0:09
Speaker 1: The Mark Belling Podcast is presented by Uline. For quality
0:13
Speaker 1: shipping and industrial supplies, Uline has everything in stock. Visit Uline.com.
0:19
Speaker 1: The Mark Belling Podcast is a production of iHeartRadio Podcasts.
0:26
Speaker 2: It gives you a really good insight into how the left,
0:32
Speaker 2: in particular the elitist left, thinks. In taking one of his...
0:38
Speaker 2: sanctimonious holier-than-thou, which is the only way Barack Obama knows
0:42
Speaker 2: how to act, is sanctimonious and holier-than-thou, and taking one
0:45
Speaker 2: of his sanctimonious and holier-than-thou shots at President Trump, he
0:51
Speaker 2: was ripping on the redesign that the president is doing
0:55
Speaker 2: of various components of the government, including the big ballroom
0:59
Speaker 2: being built at the White House, which Obama compared to
1:01
Speaker 2: a cheesecake factory. Now, The first reaction to this is
1:09
Speaker 2: he immediately dismisses Cheesecake Factory as something terribly crass and awful.
1:16
Speaker 2: There's a Cheesecake Factory in Milwaukee. I'm guessing most of
1:18
Speaker 2: you know what they are. It's a very, very successful
1:20
Speaker 2: restaurant chain. But that's the first part. It's almost secondary
1:24
Speaker 2: that his notion of just being dismissive and cheap and
1:27
Speaker 2: tawdry is something that like, you know, the masses of
1:30
Speaker 2: America like. But I'm going beyond that. Barack Obama. criticizing
1:39
Speaker 2: Trump for the way Trump's stuff looks. Obama. Barack Obama.
1:47
Speaker 2: Have you seen his museum? It is not the ugliest
1:54
Speaker 2: new building in the United States of America, but it
1:56
Speaker 2: is close. So a guy who has put up one
2:02
Speaker 2: of the most obnoxiously awful things to look at in
2:07
Speaker 2: the Western Hemisphere is somehow looking down his nose at
2:12
Speaker 2: the way President Trump designs things. There's a lot to
2:16
Speaker 2: get into with this. And again, I think it's revealing
2:20
Speaker 2: to discuss it in the week before the election. Have
2:22
Speaker 2: you ever been offered an add-on option for premium or
2:25
Speaker 2: white glove service? Uline provides only one type of service,
2:29
Speaker 2: the best. From knowledgeable customer service available 24-7, 365, to
2:34
Speaker 2: keeping every product in stock ready to ship the same day.
2:37
Speaker 2: When your business needs quality shipping supplies, reliable warehouse equipment,
2:41
Speaker 2: or office furniture fast, contact Uline and get the best service.
2:46
Speaker 2: Because Uline believes service is essential, not an option. These
2:58
Speaker 2: comments by Obama came up when he was down in Florida.
3:00
Speaker 2: Florida has two statewide elections. They have an election for governor,
3:04
Speaker 2: where Byron Donalds, the congressman, DeSantis' term limited out, is
3:08
Speaker 2: running against the House Minority Leader Jolly. The Senate race,
3:13
Speaker 2: incumbent Senator Ashley Moody, she was the person who was
3:16
Speaker 2: appointed to fill Marco Rubio's term. She's running for a
3:19
Speaker 2: full term, and the Democrats in Florida in the primary
3:23
Speaker 2: picked one of those socialists. She's El-Sayed without all the hatred.
3:29
Speaker 2: In any event, Obama was down there campaigning for her,
3:31
Speaker 2: and that's when he shot off his mouth about The
3:35
Speaker 2: ugliness of Trump's redesign of the ballroom and the other
3:38
Speaker 2: ugly things Trump did, and just in general how ugly
3:41
Speaker 2: all of Trump's buildings are. Where I live in Florida,
3:45
Speaker 2: it is impossible to drive around without going past all
3:49
Speaker 2: things Trump. There's four Trump-licensed condos within a quarter of
3:54
Speaker 2: a mile of where I live. Doral isn't all that
3:57
Speaker 2: far away. I've seen Trump buildings forever. The one thing
4:01
Speaker 2: you have to say about Trump is he puts up
4:04
Speaker 2: really classy stuff. And my guess is that when completed,
4:08
Speaker 2: the White House ballroom and defense center and all the
4:10
Speaker 2: other things that he says that it is, is going
4:12
Speaker 2: to be beautiful. Whatever you think about Trump, his stuff
4:16
Speaker 2: is designed for the high end. So Obama say, well,
4:20
Speaker 2: it looks like the Cheesecake Factory doesn't even make any sense. Well,
4:23
Speaker 2: Trump himself, I think, is a man of the people.
4:26
Speaker 2: and a man of the Cheesecake Factory crowd, his design
4:30
Speaker 2: tastes are clearly aimed at people who are looking for
4:33
Speaker 2: classy high-end. Look at Trump Tower. It's got to be
4:36
Speaker 2: one of those beautiful skyscrapers in all of New York City.
4:39
Speaker 2: So first of all, it doesn't even make any sense,
4:41
Speaker 2: but that's not the real point. The point is that Obama,
4:47
Speaker 2: whose presidential center, they don't want to call it a
4:50
Speaker 2: presidential library, the Presidential Center and Museum on the south
4:54
Speaker 2: side of Chicago, For those of you, I'm doing a
4:57
Speaker 2: podcast here that's audio only. I can't show you a
4:59
Speaker 2: picture of it. For those of you who haven't taken
5:02
Speaker 2: a look at it, take a look at it. Now,
5:09
Speaker 2: here's where I'm going with this. The elite left in America,
5:18
Speaker 2: the university crowd, the great thinkers, the newspaper editorial writers,
5:25
Speaker 2: the hoity-toity of our world, the highly cultured crowd, they
5:31
Speaker 2: all think that they are so superior intellectually and they
5:35
Speaker 2: have so much better taste than the rest of us.
5:39
Speaker 2: I've been addressing this issue for the decades in which
5:42
Speaker 2: I was doing my radio show in Milwaukee. They think
5:46
Speaker 2: people who listen to me, people who are right of center,
5:50
Speaker 2: are boors. They think that we have no taste, no class, nothing.
5:57
Speaker 2: They think that our idea of culture is Laverne and Shirley.
6:02
Speaker 2: This is how dismissive they are of us. First of all,
6:06
Speaker 2: even if they were right, it's very condescending. And it's
6:09
Speaker 2: an obnoxious way of viewing your fellow citizens, looking upon
6:13
Speaker 2: us almost as subjects. But here's the thing about that.
6:19
Speaker 2: The cultured elite over the last 30 to 50 years,
6:26
Speaker 2: have about the worst taste of anybody in America. When
6:31
Speaker 2: you go into any of our great American cities, in
6:34
Speaker 2: almost every case, the most beautiful buildings that are up
6:38
Speaker 2: are the older ones. The modern and contemporary buildings tend
6:44
Speaker 2: to be brutal. Milwaukee is something of an exception. Our
6:47
Speaker 2: most beautiful building is the Calatrava addition to the art museums.
6:52
Speaker 2: Santiago Calatrava is not one of these new edgy architects.
6:57
Speaker 2: He believes in creating flowing beauty. All of his, you know,
7:00
Speaker 2: the Brise Soleil that we have here, the bridges, so
7:03
Speaker 2: much of what he's designed in Spain, it all has
7:06
Speaker 2: a sense of flowing and captures the eye. Much of
7:10
Speaker 2: what liberals want to put up is harsh, cold, and attacking.
7:16
Speaker 2: And that's why when Obama, who you know doggone well,
7:20
Speaker 2: looked over all of the design renderings and he was
7:22
Speaker 2: the one that ultimately gave the green light, he wanted edgy.
7:27
Speaker 2: Because there's nothing about Barack Obama that says, I want
7:30
Speaker 2: to create something beautiful that the masses will admire. I
7:37
Speaker 2: did grant Obama that edgy, his presidential center in Chicago
7:42
Speaker 2: is not the, I've got Jason in here producing. I
7:45
Speaker 2: haven't tried to talk back with him, but Jason, have
7:47
Speaker 2: you been past the Obama center? Have you seen it?
7:54
Speaker 2: Is it in person as ugly as all I haven't
7:56
Speaker 2: driven past it. I've just seen all the videos and
7:59
Speaker 2: all the renderings. Is it better in person or is
8:01
Speaker 2: it the same? Is it the same or even worse
8:03
Speaker 2: when you've actually seated the same or worse? So I
8:10
Speaker 2: have an actual eyewitness. It's not the ugliest new building
8:14
Speaker 2: in the United States because, sadly, Milwaukee has put up
8:18
Speaker 2: its replacement for the Milwaukee Public Museum, which they're calling
8:22
Speaker 2: the Nature and Cultural Center, I say. The Nature and
8:27
Speaker 2: Cultural Center of Wisconsin. Milwaukee had a public museum, beloved
8:31
Speaker 2: as it was, mostly because, and I'll admit that the
8:34
Speaker 2: old one wasn't anything to look at from the outside
8:36
Speaker 2: at all. But inside... It was a museum that just
8:41
Speaker 2: screamed Milwaukee. Now, a lot of the elitists in Milwaukee
8:47
Speaker 2: aren't comfortable with anything that screams Milwaukee, just as they're
8:51
Speaker 2: not comfortable with the way Brewer fans are reacting to
8:55
Speaker 2: the Brewers World Series run, which hopefully ends successfully. The
9:02
Speaker 2: old museum inside had this Streets of Old Milwaukee display
9:06
Speaker 2: that is just beloved. the people who run the public museum,
9:11
Speaker 2: they didn't want any of that. So they decided that
9:14
Speaker 2: the current public museum just can't be repaired. So they
9:19
Speaker 2: build a new one, which is about half the size.
9:21
Speaker 2: And because it's half the size, it gives them the
9:23
Speaker 2: excuse to get rid of everything in the current museum
9:25
Speaker 2: that they don't like, like the streets of Milwaukee. And
9:28
Speaker 2: instead they create this thing, and you could just tell
9:30
Speaker 2: by its name, Nature and Cultural Center of Wisconsin, that
9:34
Speaker 2: this has nothing to do with Milwaukee. And instead it's
9:36
Speaker 2: going to be another one of these generic, Smithsonian lights
9:41
Speaker 2: that are popping up all over the U.S. The Smithsonian
9:43
Speaker 2: itself has become a disaster. It's just a national display
9:48
Speaker 2: of everything bad about the United States. And the people
9:52
Speaker 2: who are putting up museums all over the United States,
9:54
Speaker 2: they're all of the same bed. So anything that celebrates
9:58
Speaker 2: a community or appears positive at all, they don't want. Okay,
10:01
Speaker 2: that's the interior. The exterior. For those of you not
10:05
Speaker 2: from Milwaukee, it's easy to find. Many of you have
10:10
Speaker 2: seen it and probably would not dream that this is
10:13
Speaker 2: actually our museum. It's kind of across the street from
10:18
Speaker 2: from the Fiserv Forum if you're on McKinley. In other words, about,
10:22
Speaker 2: it's actually two blocks, but that's a long block in between,
10:26
Speaker 2: about one and a half to two blocks north of
10:28
Speaker 2: Fiserv Forum. That's where they're building the thing. I've struggled
10:33
Speaker 2: to come up with exactly what it looks like because
10:36
Speaker 2: it doesn't look like anything that exists, but if you
10:39
Speaker 2: drove past it and thought, you would think it would be,
10:42
Speaker 2: I'm thinking like some sort of power plant. It kind
10:46
Speaker 2: of looks like cooling towers. Now, nobody would think that
10:49
Speaker 2: you'd have a nuclear power plant in the middle of
10:51
Speaker 2: a downtown city like Milwaukee, so you would say that
10:53
Speaker 2: this probably isn't a nuclear power plant. But it kind
10:56
Speaker 2: of looks like what a nuclear power plant would look like.
10:58
Speaker 2: It's got these two metallic-looking, white-like, big, giant, silos isn't
11:03
Speaker 2: the right word, like containers. And then there's like apparatus
11:09
Speaker 2: on the top of it. It's not done yet, so
11:11
Speaker 2: we don't know how much of this is just construction
11:13
Speaker 2: or not. It is stunningly ugly. Stunningly. These are the
11:25
Speaker 2: people who make fun of the taste of people like Trump.
11:32
Speaker 2: Why is it that ugly? The architects to blame for this,
11:37
Speaker 2: not surprisingly, Kaler Slater of Milwaukee is involved because I
11:40
Speaker 2: don't think you're allowed to put up a building in
11:42
Speaker 2: Milwaukee without using Kaler Slater. But they're not the principal
11:46
Speaker 2: design members. No, no, no. You had to go to
11:48
Speaker 2: somebody far more hoity-toity than them. It's called Enead Architecture. E-N-N-E-A-D.
11:55
Speaker 2: They're from New York. I went to their website and
11:59
Speaker 2: looked at the other things that they put up in.
12:01
Speaker 2: None of it is particularly attractive, but nothing on their
12:06
Speaker 2: website is as bad as this. And tellingly, they're doing
12:10
Speaker 2: this big project in Milwaukee. It's not on their website.
12:14
Speaker 2: Probably they thought about putting it on and some of
12:16
Speaker 2: their consultants said, don't put that up there. Nobody wants
12:19
Speaker 2: to know that we build ugly buildings. So how did
12:24
Speaker 2: we get this ugly building? First of all, I'm sure
12:27
Speaker 2: they submitted a zillion proposals. And they submit the proposals
12:30
Speaker 2: to the hoity-toity of Milwaukee who size this up. And
12:34
Speaker 2: the moment that they see something that's incredibly ugly, it
12:37
Speaker 2: says to them, gee, this must be cutting edge. Now,
12:41
Speaker 2: I'll grant you. Sometimes that what appears to be ugly
12:46
Speaker 2: is cutting edge and is later on adopted by the masses.
12:51
Speaker 2: It strikes us as ugly initially because we're not used
12:54
Speaker 2: to it. It's unfamiliar. But then it sort of grows
12:57
Speaker 2: on us. The famous story here is this guy named Bangle.
13:01
Speaker 2: Chris Bangle, he's actually from Wisconsin. He got hired by
13:04
Speaker 2: BMW about 20, 25 years ago to be the design chief.
13:08
Speaker 2: And BMW, which always had designed I don't know. Their
13:14
Speaker 2: cars always just struck me as looking like sardine cans.
13:20
Speaker 2: But that was their image. They were boxy and, you know,
13:23
Speaker 2: it was what German sportiness looked like in the 80s.
13:26
Speaker 2: He changed the look entirely and went to lots of
13:29
Speaker 2: curves and swoops. And in particular, he created what became
13:32
Speaker 2: known as the bangle butt. This big, sloped, kind of
13:36
Speaker 2: fat rear end. Like, think if J-Lo was a cop. Well,
13:41
Speaker 2: it was just mocked and ridiculed and derided, and people
13:44
Speaker 2: thought it was brutally ugly. Bangle, in fact, ultimately was
13:51
Speaker 2: put out to pasture. I don't know if he was
13:53
Speaker 2: fired or they cut him aside, but he left not
13:56
Speaker 2: long after that. Well, he was ahead of his time.
14:00
Speaker 2: Over the next 20 years, virtually every automobile sold in
14:03
Speaker 2: the world went away from a boxy look and went
14:06
Speaker 2: to a sloped kind of rear end. Those big fat
14:10
Speaker 2: rear ends like that are on vehicles all over the place. It's,
14:13
Speaker 2: I think we're at a point now where it's starting
14:15
Speaker 2: to turn back and we're returning to the box it is.
14:17
Speaker 2: The one company that never adopted it was Range Rover
14:20
Speaker 2: slash Land Rover. Their whole thing was to be boxy oriented,
14:24
Speaker 2: but what Bengal did was indeed cutting edge and he
14:27
Speaker 2: saw what the future was going to be. So that's
14:30
Speaker 2: certainly possible. It's just like when you hear a new
14:33
Speaker 2: song for the first time, it may not sound all
14:36
Speaker 2: that good to you, but by the time you hear
14:37
Speaker 2: the 10th, You hear it for the 10th time, you
14:39
Speaker 2: think it's really catchy. This Milwaukee Museum isn't that. It
14:44
Speaker 2: will always be ugly. It's harsh. It's uninviting. It's the
14:51
Speaker 2: opposite of the Calatrava. When you look at it, you
14:54
Speaker 2: think that it's got to be something that looks the
14:57
Speaker 2: way it does because of industrial or utilitarian purposes. In
15:00
Speaker 2: other words, it looks that way because it has to
15:03
Speaker 2: look that way because of the machinery or the coolers
15:05
Speaker 2: or something that's in it. At the end of Wisconsin
15:11
Speaker 2: Avenue in Milwaukee, the East End, we have had, for
15:16
Speaker 2: as long as I've been here, and I came to
15:18
Speaker 2: Milwaukee in 1989, this stupid orange sculpture. I forget what
15:25
Speaker 2: they call it. I think they call it Sunburst. If
15:27
Speaker 2: they don't call it Sunburst, I've just been making fun
15:28
Speaker 2: of it for so long by calling it Sunburst. It
15:32
Speaker 2: was done by a, like, B-level artist. And Milwaukee Art
15:36
Speaker 2: Museum was just so excited to get it that they
15:38
Speaker 2: put it up there. It's a caricature of itself. It's
15:41
Speaker 2: like all the other crap that was designed in the
15:44
Speaker 2: late 1970s when America lost its collective taste. Let's just
15:48
Speaker 2: do something bright and garish. It looks like a big asterisk.
15:55
Speaker 2: There's a form of an X and then there's a
15:57
Speaker 2: circle in the middle of it. And because you look
15:59
Speaker 2: toward the east, sunburst, the sun rising, that's what it's
16:02
Speaker 2: supposed to be. All right, we put up the color drama.
16:07
Speaker 2: It happens. that the Brise Soleil of the Calatrava, if
16:11
Speaker 2: you're driving down Wisconsin Avenue or walking down Wisconsin Avenue
16:14
Speaker 2: looking toward the lakefront, this orange thing blocks the view.
16:19
Speaker 2: So we've got the most beautiful building that we have
16:20
Speaker 2: in the city with the view obstructed by this stupid
16:23
Speaker 2: orange piece of junk. The simple explanation is even if
16:27
Speaker 2: you don't think the orange piece of junk is or
16:29
Speaker 2: is a piece of junk, you can still move it.
16:33
Speaker 2: They will not move it because they would be acknowledging
16:36
Speaker 2: that they put up something that is ugly. So my
16:39
Speaker 2: point is, these are the people who look down their
16:42
Speaker 2: noses at the taste of the rest of us. It
16:50
Speaker 2: would be one thing if snobs had good taste. If
16:55
Speaker 2: snobs had good taste, they would perform a service. They'd
16:58
Speaker 2: still be snobs, but at least they would be improving
17:01
Speaker 2: the overall beauty of the stuff that we have around
17:03
Speaker 2: us by in their snobbiness stopping the rest of us
17:06
Speaker 2: from putting up stupid and ugly things. And sometimes snobs
17:11
Speaker 2: do have good taste. You know, some of these subdivisions
17:15
Speaker 2: have homeowners associations, and they don't let you do certain
17:20
Speaker 2: things to the exterior of your homes. And I've heard
17:23
Speaker 2: these stories forever and ever and ever about somebody can't,
17:25
Speaker 2: they can't hang up, like they can't put a Christmas
17:28
Speaker 2: decoration up, or sometimes you can't put a flag up,
17:31
Speaker 2: or you can't put anything in your yard, or the
17:33
Speaker 2: tree has to, and they just think that these people
17:35
Speaker 2: are like terrorists, not letting you do anything that you
17:38
Speaker 2: want in defense of them. They're trying to preserve the
17:41
Speaker 2: beauty of the neighborhood. And they don't want somebody to
17:44
Speaker 2: come in and ugly the whole thing up because it's
17:47
Speaker 2: bad for the property values of everybody. I think by
17:50
Speaker 2: and large, those neighborhood associations, well, as I say, they're
17:54
Speaker 2: pains in the butts, have good taste. They are actually
17:59
Speaker 2: looking out for the best interests of the overall community.
18:01
Speaker 2: And because they have skin in the game, they own
18:03
Speaker 2: homes in there as well. They don't want something ugly.
18:07
Speaker 2: But the people who put up these museums, How does
18:11
Speaker 2: it harm them? What skin in the game do they have?
18:16
Speaker 2: Obama's whole presidency, which was just a bleep you to
18:20
Speaker 2: the rest of the country, his national apology tour, his
18:25
Speaker 2: constant explaining away the evils of America, all of that crap.
18:30
Speaker 2: So putting up a building that is another bleep you,
18:34
Speaker 2: that's just him. It's his style. It's the message he's
18:36
Speaker 2: trying to communicate. So he did that library or did
18:38
Speaker 2: that museum or whatever he's calling his thing. On purpose.
18:42
Speaker 2: Why is the Milwaukee Museum so ugly? That's different. I
18:46
Speaker 2: don't think that the people who approved the design for
18:49
Speaker 2: this thing wanted an ugly building. I think what happens
18:54
Speaker 2: is when you're in a community like Milwaukee, your elites
18:57
Speaker 2: have an inferiority complex. They just think we're Milwaukee. We
19:00
Speaker 2: don't know what's as good as New York and Los Angeles,
19:03
Speaker 2: et cetera. We don't know. So when some firm comes
19:06
Speaker 2: in and takes its most radical stance over-the-top stupid idea,
19:12
Speaker 2: our people don't have enough sense to say no to
19:15
Speaker 2: it because they don't know what's attractive or not. In
19:19
Speaker 2: other words, the people who think that they have better
19:23
Speaker 2: taste than the rest of us actually have terrible taste.
19:27
Speaker 2: It's a miracle. Maybe it's not a miracle. I was
19:31
Speaker 2: not here when the Calatrava design was approved. I know
19:34
Speaker 2: that the driving force behind it was Betty Quadracci. quadracis
19:40
Speaker 2: themselves were pieces of work, but by and large, they
19:43
Speaker 2: had good taste. And in that instance, my guess is
19:46
Speaker 2: that she was the one that had the final say
19:48
Speaker 2: on the design of Calatrava, but also picked Calatrava, and
19:52
Speaker 2: Calatrava doesn't do ugly stuff. Now, what does this have
19:58
Speaker 2: to do with the election? Here's my point. The Democratic
20:03
Speaker 2: Party and the left has been taken over by people
20:06
Speaker 2: who think that they know what is best for you.
20:09
Speaker 2: It's the whole concept of Medicare for all. It's the
20:11
Speaker 2: whole concept of socialism, this top-down thinking. It's the whole
20:15
Speaker 2: concept of how they manage COVID. We know, we know,
20:18
Speaker 2: we know, we know, we know. They think the rest
20:20
Speaker 2: of us are stupid. So on its face, you would
20:23
Speaker 2: think that socialism is something that empowers the masses. In fact,
20:27
Speaker 2: what it is is something that holds the masses down
20:30
Speaker 2: and allows an elite at the top to make decisions
20:34
Speaker 2: for the rest of us because they think the rest
20:37
Speaker 2: of us are a bunch of morons. If we were,
20:43
Speaker 2: they would be performing us a service. But the morons
20:46
Speaker 2: are actually our elite. Our elite is Fauci and all
20:55
Speaker 2: these public health officers who claimed to know exactly what
21:01
Speaker 2: we should do in response to COVID and were wrong
21:03
Speaker 2: about everything. Now let me move on to another pain
21:11
Speaker 2: in the butt on the left. His name is Hassan Piker.
21:18
Speaker 2: Hassan Piker, is he the most influential voice on the
21:22
Speaker 2: left I actually think he is because he's the guy
21:27
Speaker 2: that is influential among the people that are driving the
21:30
Speaker 2: agenda of the left. The moderate Democrats don't exist anymore.
21:35
Speaker 2: They roll over on everything. Look at, for example, an
21:42
Speaker 2: example of the moderate Democrats is just Schumer, who is
21:44
Speaker 2: afraid of his shadow. He could no more stand up
21:49
Speaker 2: to Ilhan Omar or AOC or El-Sayed. or Mamdani, or
21:55
Speaker 2: any of these other radicals, then he could fly to
21:57
Speaker 2: the moon by flapping his arms. He's terrified of these people.
22:02
Speaker 2: So you get no resistance to the radicals who've taken
22:04
Speaker 2: over the Democratic Party. So therefore, the most influential ones
22:08
Speaker 2: are the ones whose thinking and comments drive the radicals,
22:11
Speaker 2: because the radicals are the ones, if the Democratic Party
22:14
Speaker 2: was a school bus, the radicals are driving the bus.
22:18
Speaker 2: All the rest of them are just sitting there in
22:20
Speaker 2: the passenger seat, perfectly content to allow the radicals to
22:23
Speaker 2: drive the bus. Hassan Piker is a hateful guy. He's
22:32
Speaker 2: a streamer, he has a podcast, and on it he
22:34
Speaker 2: has used it as a platform for decrying basically everything
22:37
Speaker 2: about how terrible America is, he says he hates America,
22:40
Speaker 2: all this. You would normally think that that would be
22:43
Speaker 2: something that wouldn't attract you a large audience, but We
22:46
Speaker 2: have a country in which a significant chunk of people
22:49
Speaker 2: here are miserably unhappy and they feed on hearing somebody
22:52
Speaker 2: who tells them all the reasons why it's not their
22:55
Speaker 2: fault that they're miserably unhappy. This is the American left.
22:59
Speaker 2: They're miserably unhappy and they don't blame their miserable unhappiness
23:03
Speaker 2: on any decision that they made. They blame it on America.
23:10
Speaker 2: Many Democrats try to stay nine miles away from Hassan Piker.
23:16
Speaker 2: Francesca Hong kissed up to Hasan Piker, which is one
23:19
Speaker 2: of the reasons why Tony Evers and Democrats here felt
23:22
Speaker 2: she couldn't be the candidate for governor. Hasan Piker was
23:27
Speaker 2: in Minnesota a couple of days ago, appearing with Ilhan Omar.
23:32
Speaker 2: And Ilhan Omar, first of all, Ilhan Omar knows she
23:34
Speaker 2: broke the law. I think the fact that on the
23:38
Speaker 2: search warrant against her, they were using a different name
23:44
Speaker 2: and said, this is the name that we found on
23:46
Speaker 2: the documents. That's very revealing. Everything about her immigration application
23:51
Speaker 2: may have been fraudulent, including her actual name. But I
23:55
Speaker 2: think she knows she's dead to rights. I think that
23:57
Speaker 2: the guy that she married is indeed her brother. I
24:00
Speaker 2: think she did misstate her date of birth so that
24:02
Speaker 2: she was a minor when she came into the United
24:05
Speaker 2: States rather than an adult, and therefore somebody that can't
24:07
Speaker 2: automatically join her parent who's an asylum seeker. I think
24:12
Speaker 2: she knows she committed this fraud. I think she knows
24:15
Speaker 2: she committed immigration fraud. I think she knows that she's
24:17
Speaker 2: broken the law right and left, and therefore her line
24:19
Speaker 2: of defense is simply going to be that she's being persecuted,
24:25
Speaker 2: and she's therefore going to side with all of the
24:28
Speaker 2: radicals who couldn't care less about any of our laws.
24:33
Speaker 2: So Piker appeared with Ilhan Omar. Now, again, Minnesota's got
24:37
Speaker 2: elections coming up. The Democrats are going to win all
24:39
Speaker 2: of them. I mean, there are some people who think
24:42
Speaker 2: that Michelle Tafoya is going to win the Senate seat.
24:45
Speaker 2: She's not. Piker's there with Omar, and Piker does what
24:55
Speaker 2: Piker does. He starts by mocking and ridiculing ICE agents
25:01
Speaker 2: and then taking great glee in the ICE agents that
25:05
Speaker 2: were injured in the performance of their duties. Let me
25:10
Speaker 2: quote from the report on this on Fox News. We
25:13
Speaker 2: saw a funny compilation as well, you know. A lot
25:16
Speaker 2: of hip bones were broken. Officer Martinez down, he said
25:20
Speaker 2: while speaking to Democratic Socialist and failed Minneapolis mayoral candidate
25:24
Speaker 2: Omar Fattah, who hosted the sold-out Minneapolis event. Piker has
25:29
Speaker 2: joined several prominent Democrats on the campaign trail, emerging as
25:32
Speaker 2: a polarizing figure within the Democratic Party that some are
25:35
Speaker 2: embracing while others are rejecting. He has made national headlines
25:38
Speaker 2: over his past rhetoric, including his claim that America deserved 9-11,
25:42
Speaker 2: and has faced accusations of anti-Semitism over his remarks on
25:47
Speaker 2: Israel and Hamas. Omar, who shared the stage with Piker
25:52
Speaker 2: that night, had been immersed in controversy of her own
25:56
Speaker 2: after Homeland Security investigation agents searched her Washington, D.C. home
26:00
Speaker 2: earlier this month, and federal court filings identified the congresswoman
26:04
Speaker 2: as Ilhan Noor Syed Elmai. a.k.a. Ilmar Abdullah Omar. The
26:12
Speaker 2: story goes on and quotes a number of the vile
26:14
Speaker 2: things that at this event, Piker said. Piker's comments were
26:22
Speaker 2: denounced by some Minnesota Democrats, including the Senator Amy Klobuchar.
26:31
Speaker 2: So you have some Democrats who realize that Piker is
26:34
Speaker 2: a very hateful person who hates America, and is bigoted
26:39
Speaker 2: toward all sorts of other people. But Amy Klobuchar is, again,
26:43
Speaker 2: not influential in the Democratic Party. She's a vote, and
26:48
Speaker 2: she does interviews. But the agenda of that party is
26:51
Speaker 2: being driven by the radicals. They are moving to the
26:54
Speaker 2: left unchecked, and after whatever gains they make on Tuesday
26:58
Speaker 2: of next week, either minuscule or massive, they are going
27:02
Speaker 2: to be taking their states and the country toward all-out Marxism.
27:09
Speaker 2: And you see very little, as I say, pushback to this.
27:12
Speaker 2: You'll get this little meek Amy Klobuchar. Well, I don't
27:15
Speaker 2: really agree with that. But that's about it. I've got
27:20
Speaker 2: another story for you that I think links the two
27:23
Speaker 2: of them. The two stories that I just shared. There
27:30
Speaker 2: is a new major study out researching the short-term effects
27:38
Speaker 2: of of heavy use of cannabis. And I'll use the
27:41
Speaker 2: term cannabis because marijuana now is not the only way
27:44
Speaker 2: in which you can get cannabis. Even the term pot
27:48
Speaker 2: is misleading. In order for it to be pot, you
27:53
Speaker 2: have to be putting it in a gummy or putting
27:55
Speaker 2: it in a brownie or smoking it. What if you're
27:57
Speaker 2: just getting the cannabis or inhaling it? So we'll use
27:59
Speaker 2: the term cannabis. You can interchange it with marijuana. But
28:06
Speaker 2: the new study is revealing that a number of things
28:10
Speaker 2: that I think many of us have noticed over the years.
28:14
Speaker 2: And now that many states have legalized cannabis or marijuana,
28:18
Speaker 2: it's possible to do a massive study in which we
28:21
Speaker 2: have a control group in real life. The way medical
28:24
Speaker 2: studies are normally done, suppose you're testing out a new drug.
28:27
Speaker 2: You get a control group, and they're given a placebo.
28:31
Speaker 2: And then the other group is given the drug. But
28:35
Speaker 2: nobody knows if they're on the placebo list or the
28:37
Speaker 2: regular list. And then you detect over the next three months,
28:40
Speaker 2: six months, nine months, whatever the period of the study is, changes.
28:44
Speaker 2: If you give, for example, the placebo to somebody who
28:46
Speaker 2: has cancer and the real drug to somebody else who
28:49
Speaker 2: has the same cancer and the cancer improves on the
28:53
Speaker 2: person who got the drug, the conclusion is the drug
28:56
Speaker 2: may be effective. Or if you're studying for side effects,
28:59
Speaker 2: if the person who's on the placebo has no side
29:01
Speaker 2: effects and the person who was getting the drug gets
29:04
Speaker 2: all paranoid or gains weight or starts losing hair again, well,
29:08
Speaker 2: the drug must be the thing that's causing it. We
29:10
Speaker 2: don't have to do this with marijuana because we have
29:13
Speaker 2: a massive number of Americans who don't use marijuana at all,
29:18
Speaker 2: like me. And we have a massive number of Americans
29:21
Speaker 2: who use marijuana all the time. So rather than do
29:25
Speaker 2: a scientific study in which you got a placebo, all
29:28
Speaker 2: you have to do is simply take the two groups
29:31
Speaker 2: and look at the differences. And they've done this. and
29:36
Speaker 2: they have found, and the use here is rather the
29:40
Speaker 2: term here is rather heavy use. New research suggests that momentum,
29:48
Speaker 2: suggests the monumental move may come with an unexpected health
29:51
Speaker 2: concern that scientists are only beginning to uncover. The health
29:55
Speaker 2: risks of cannabis are well documented. And among those that
29:58
Speaker 2: have now been nailed down in the newest research, short-term
30:02
Speaker 2: effects can include anxiety, impaired memory, and dry mouth. Longer
30:12
Speaker 2: use has been tied to lung and blood vessel damage
30:15
Speaker 2: and even scrameting, an on-the-rise disorder that can lead to
30:21
Speaker 2: threatening neurological complications. Now, a first-of-its-kind study published Thursday, this
30:26
Speaker 2: is last week, In BMJ Open, linked recreational cannabis legalized
30:33
Speaker 2: in the United States to arise in hospital admissions for
30:36
Speaker 2: several cardiovascular diseases. Researchers analyzed more than 50 million hospital
30:43
Speaker 2: discharge records from 2012 to 2018. They found that admissions
30:48
Speaker 2: for atrial fibrillation. Now, I, in fact, in the past
30:51
Speaker 2: have suffered from atrial fibrillation. I don't have it anymore.
30:56
Speaker 2: They did an ablation and it's worked. But what atrial
30:59
Speaker 2: fibrillation is, it has a cousin as well. It means
31:03
Speaker 2: your heart is beating irregularly and there are certain things
31:07
Speaker 2: that set it off. In my case, when I would
31:09
Speaker 2: have an AFib onset, you know, my heart normally had
31:12
Speaker 2: a normal rhythm. But when you go into AFib, either really,
31:16
Speaker 2: really fast or out of rhythm or not at the
31:18
Speaker 2: proper rate that, you know, sporadic, fast and then a
31:21
Speaker 2: gap and not and so on. And a number of
31:24
Speaker 2: reasons for it. And they believe that a bad signal
31:26
Speaker 2: is being sent from your brain to your heart. And
31:29
Speaker 2: that's triggering the heart to go into this. And there's
31:31
Speaker 2: various things that cause the AFib. They are finding that
31:37
Speaker 2: there's been a dramatic increase in hospitalizations for atrial fibrillation.
31:42
Speaker 2: And in many of the instances, the individuals that have
31:48
Speaker 2: been admitted for this are marijuana users. The significant increase
31:54
Speaker 2: seems to be linked almost entirely to people who are
31:58
Speaker 2: users of marijuana. Now, again, anybody who is familiar with
32:02
Speaker 2: how strong some of this pot now is, is not
32:05
Speaker 2: surprised by this. Everything that affects our brain has side effects.
32:11
Speaker 2: We know what the side effects of alcohol are. You
32:14
Speaker 2: get drunk. And when you get drunk, you do all
32:17
Speaker 2: of the things that you do when you get drunk.
32:18
Speaker 2: And if you get really, really drunk, you start to
32:20
Speaker 2: throw up, you pass out, all of that stuff. And
32:23
Speaker 2: you may wake up with a bare-out headache and a
32:24
Speaker 2: stomachache the following morning. These are known side effects of alcohol.
32:29
Speaker 2: We also know what the side effects, or not even
32:31
Speaker 2: necessarily side effects, the consequences of using meth are, or heroin.
32:37
Speaker 2: But there's been an entire segment that wants to pretend
32:40
Speaker 2: that there aren't any of these negative impacts that come
32:43
Speaker 2: from marijuana. We know what the primary purpose of marijuana is.
32:46
Speaker 2: It gives you a buzz. It's the same primary purpose
32:50
Speaker 2: of alcohol. Gives you a buzz. With regard to marijuana, though,
32:58
Speaker 2: we are seeing more and more that there are all
33:02
Speaker 2: sorts of rather serious medical consequences associated with this that
33:06
Speaker 2: may not have been as readily known because, A, we've
33:09
Speaker 2: never had as many people as now use marijuana, and, B,
33:12
Speaker 2: the marijuana has never been as potent, and, C, the
33:14
Speaker 2: delivery methods. When I was a kid, you did pot
33:17
Speaker 2: one of three ways. You smoked it, which was 90%.
33:19
Speaker 2: You put it in a bog, which is about 5%.
33:24
Speaker 2: And the really adventurous ones would put them into brownies
33:27
Speaker 2: and actually consume it. That was about 5%. Again, that
33:30
Speaker 2: was when I was younger. You know why it was
33:32
Speaker 2: only 5%, the brownies one? Do you have an opinion
33:37
Speaker 2: on that, Jason? There's nothing about it. I'll explain why.
33:43
Speaker 2: average person that wanted to have pot was not going
33:46
Speaker 2: to take the time to pick a brownie. Otherwise, you know,
33:50
Speaker 2: you get to have it with a brownie. It tastes
33:51
Speaker 2: pretty good. You overlook the fact that you're eating the
33:53
Speaker 2: marijuana in there. That's the thing that's stopping it. But
33:55
Speaker 2: now you're doing the gummies and all of this stuff
33:57
Speaker 2: that you can deliver in massive amounts and people are
33:59
Speaker 2: getting a way greater buzz than they were before. And
34:02
Speaker 2: with so many of them, you're now starting to see
34:04
Speaker 2: some of these health consequences come into play. I take
34:07
Speaker 2: it a step farther. I believe that that heavy use
34:12
Speaker 2: of marijuana leads, particularly after the crash, when you're off
34:17
Speaker 2: of it, to not just this lack of motivation that
34:23
Speaker 2: people have. It seems to me that it often, not always,
34:27
Speaker 2: leads to paranoia, dissatisfaction, kind of beyond a malaise, this
34:38
Speaker 2: total lack of motivation in life. which is what the
34:43
Speaker 2: purpose of it is. It's to give you a buzz
34:45
Speaker 2: and mellow you out. But as that buzz wears off,
34:49
Speaker 2: the mellowing you out maintains, and it messes with your mind.
34:54
Speaker 2: Anything that is aimed at changing the way you feel mentally,
35:01
Speaker 2: mellowing you out, is making changes in your brain. To me,
35:06
Speaker 2: this is one of the great explanations about the incredible
35:10
Speaker 2: imbalance that we have right now in the American workforce.
35:14
Speaker 2: We have tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of
35:17
Speaker 2: jobs that simply don't have applicants. Part of it is
35:24
Speaker 2: people who use marijuana tend to get addicted. So if
35:26
Speaker 2: the company drug tests, they can't just stop. They say
35:30
Speaker 2: all the time they're not addicted. You say, well, why
35:32
Speaker 2: won't you apply for this job that has a drug test?
35:34
Speaker 2: Why don't you just quit? Because they don't want to.
35:37
Speaker 2: When you say, I don't want to, that's the same
35:40
Speaker 2: as saying you're addicted. If you're not addicted, you don't
35:46
Speaker 2: care one way or another about whether or not you're
35:48
Speaker 2: doing something. So that's part of it. It's the fear
35:52
Speaker 2: of the drug test that a lot of the jobs
35:54
Speaker 2: that have drastic shortages right now, some in construction, some
35:57
Speaker 2: in tech, over-the-road truck driving and so on, where they
36:01
Speaker 2: drug test you, these are all fields that have drastic
36:04
Speaker 2: shortages of workers. The drug test is a portion of it,
36:09
Speaker 2: but secondly, most people know a stoner. They can't do
36:18
Speaker 2: the kind of concentration necessary to do these jobs. You can't,
36:25
Speaker 2: I think, be a good electrician and be buzzed. And
36:30
Speaker 2: I mean six hours later. they become incapable of doing
36:37
Speaker 2: the kinds of jobs that are going to be the
36:39
Speaker 2: most in demand for the next 50 years because they're
36:42
Speaker 2: on pot. Now, you could say the same thing with
36:44
Speaker 2: regard to alcohol, except unless you're an alcoholic, the alcohol
36:49
Speaker 2: wears off and you can generally resume your work. It
36:53
Speaker 2: seems to me that the pot makes permanent changes in
36:55
Speaker 2: the way people's brains are. And as they get more
36:59
Speaker 2: and more mellowed out and lack ambition, they therefore are
37:03
Speaker 2: less successful and they become prone to the arguments for
37:07
Speaker 2: Marxism that we've been discussing earlier. If you don't have
37:11
Speaker 2: any ambition and you don't want to work and you
37:12
Speaker 2: don't want to make changes in your life to try
37:14
Speaker 2: to get ahead, of course you're going to be more
37:16
Speaker 2: open to the government taking care of you. And As
37:19
Speaker 2: you're just laying around and you can't get off your
37:22
Speaker 2: ass and you become embittered over the whole thing of it,
37:25
Speaker 2: you blame this unhappiness. You can't just blame it on
37:27
Speaker 2: the fact that I'm a pothead and it's made me
37:29
Speaker 2: a lazy bum. No, no, no. It's got to be
37:31
Speaker 2: because America is somehow screwed up. Hassan Piker, and in
37:38
Speaker 2: his own way, Barack Obama, played at this. Why Obama
37:42
Speaker 2: and his elitism. This is how I tie it all together.
37:44
Speaker 2: Let's imagine you become a slacker. You're underemployed. You either
37:50
Speaker 2: have no desire to go into the fields where all
37:52
Speaker 2: the money now is because either you can't do it
37:56
Speaker 2: because you're so addled on your pot or you just
37:58
Speaker 2: lack the ambition because you're so mellowed out. So you
38:04
Speaker 2: need somebody to take care of you because all you
38:07
Speaker 2: want to do is be stoned. So the government's going
38:09
Speaker 2: to take care of you. So therefore you have to
38:12
Speaker 2: extrapolate to the government this notion that the government is
38:15
Speaker 2: smarter than you. So people like Obama come in and say,
38:18
Speaker 2: I'm smarter than you. And Obama, therefore, his great intellect,
38:23
Speaker 2: makes fun of the buildings that Trump puts up. You
38:27
Speaker 2: know the old saying, the emperor has no clothes? Who
38:30
Speaker 2: originally said that? Most sayings come out of the Bible,
38:33
Speaker 2: but I can't imagine that one's out of the Bible.
38:36
Speaker 2: It's either the Bible or Shakespeare, isn't it? Aren't they
38:38
Speaker 2: the source of like 90% of the sayings that we have?
38:41
Speaker 2: You know who the emperor has no clothes came from?
38:45
Speaker 2: You don't. You could look it up, but by the
38:48
Speaker 2: time you find it, I'm not going to care anymore.
38:50
Speaker 2: It might be one of those in which it's disputed
38:53
Speaker 2: as to who originally said it. The emperor has no clothes.
38:56
Speaker 2: The emperor has no clothes, basically, is a way of
38:59
Speaker 2: saying that the emperor who thinks that he's so much
39:02
Speaker 2: greater than the rest of you is actually worse than
39:05
Speaker 2: the rest of you. The same is true with our elitists.
39:08
Speaker 2: People like Obama that think that they are so smart
39:11
Speaker 2: and so cultured are essentially overeducated boobs. You can't put
39:19
Speaker 2: up an uglier building than he's put up in Chicago
39:21
Speaker 2: with the possible exception of the ugly building that we
39:24
Speaker 2: put up in Milwaukee. And every one of these things
39:27
Speaker 2: is being done by the very same people who tell
39:31
Speaker 2: the rest of us that we're all idiots, they know
39:35
Speaker 2: better than us, and we should therefore trust them to
39:39
Speaker 2: run our lives. You're listening to the Mark Belling Podcast.
39:46
Speaker 2: This is the Mark Belling Podcast. I always like to
39:53
Speaker 2: say there are three types of people in the world.
39:54
Speaker 2: And then I come up with the two extremes and
39:56
Speaker 2: then the people in the middle. You know, the old
40:00
Speaker 2: saying about the definition of a pessimist is he thinks
40:04
Speaker 2: the glass is half empty and the definition of an
40:06
Speaker 2: optimist is he thinks the glass is half full. They're
40:09
Speaker 2: both looking at the same glass. The glass is halfway
40:13
Speaker 2: to the top. But the person is always expecting the worst.
40:17
Speaker 2: It is grumpy all the time. Glass is half empty.
40:21
Speaker 2: But The bluebird of happiness, the glass is half full.
40:27
Speaker 2: I've always thought of myself as a realist and not
40:30
Speaker 2: one in either of the two categories. Although I do
40:34
Speaker 2: think for your emotional well-being, you're better off being a
40:37
Speaker 2: pessimist than an optimist. People disagree about that. And my
40:41
Speaker 2: thinking on this is if you constantly expect things to
40:44
Speaker 2: go wrong, when they do go wrong, you're less crushed
40:47
Speaker 2: and devastated and than the person who just assumes that
40:50
Speaker 2: it's going to go right, and then when it does
40:52
Speaker 2: go wrong, they're in total shock. Example of this, in 2016,
40:59
Speaker 2: when Hillary lost to Trump, the thing that just set
41:03
Speaker 2: in place all of this Trump derangement syndrome is the
41:06
Speaker 2: Hillary supporters never factored in that it was possible. They
41:10
Speaker 2: just assumed Trump was going to lose. And when Trump
41:14
Speaker 2: didn't lose, it was such a shock to their senses,
41:17
Speaker 2: such a crushing disappointment, that they've been enraged at Trump
41:20
Speaker 2: and his supporters ever since. Whereas, as they say, if
41:24
Speaker 2: you're kind of a doom and gloomer and always think
41:26
Speaker 2: something bad is going to occur, when the good thing happens,
41:29
Speaker 2: you're so elated because it's such a shock to you
41:31
Speaker 2: that it occurs. And then there's the person in the
41:34
Speaker 2: middle who simply sizes all of these things up. I
41:37
Speaker 2: mention this in the context, and it's always important to
41:39
Speaker 2: the podcast to tell you when we're doing it. This
41:41
Speaker 2: podcast is being recorded Wednesday afternoon. They've just played game
41:46
Speaker 2: four of the World Series. So if you're listening to
41:51
Speaker 2: this month later and game four becomes an irrelevancy because
41:55
Speaker 2: of whatever happens after the fact, game four was the
41:57
Speaker 2: game in which the Brewers and Tampa played dead even
42:02
Speaker 2: well into extra innings. The Brewers took the lead in
42:07
Speaker 2: the top of the 13th and what many people thought
42:10
Speaker 2: was a World Series winning homer by Cooper Pratt only
42:12
Speaker 2: to butcher the game away in the bottom of the 13th,
42:17
Speaker 2: not clinch the World Series. There are two ways of
42:20
Speaker 2: looking at this. And again, it's almost kind of the half-empty,
42:23
Speaker 2: half-full thing, but there's also the understanding that sometimes when
42:30
Speaker 2: that glass is either half-full or half-empty, it's worse than
42:34
Speaker 2: it appears. For example, maybe the glass is a leak
42:37
Speaker 2: and it's going down. Or maybe it may be better
42:40
Speaker 2: than it appears. Maybe it's half-full right now, but you're
42:43
Speaker 2: adding water to it and it's going to go up.
42:45
Speaker 2: So you have to factor in other things other than
42:48
Speaker 2: the current condition of it. There are some who believe
42:53
Speaker 2: that this began the cycle of doom, that the Brewers
42:59
Speaker 2: who have had everything go right the entire postseason have
43:02
Speaker 2: gotten break after break after break after break after break,
43:05
Speaker 2: that this all crashed. And Tampa is going to come
43:10
Speaker 2: back and win the next three games and become the
43:12
Speaker 2: first team in World Series history to come back from
43:14
Speaker 2: down 3-0 and win thus crushing Brewer fans more deeply
43:19
Speaker 2: than perhaps any sports fan base has ever been crushed
43:21
Speaker 2: in the history of sports. This is what the pessimists
43:23
Speaker 2: out there, and they're saying, they believe that this is
43:27
Speaker 2: a side. Now, for those of you who say, well,
43:29
Speaker 2: signs like this, this, you know, this doesn't affect anything
43:32
Speaker 2: in the past. I do believe in teams of destiny.
43:35
Speaker 2: I've just been watching it too long. My kind of
43:42
Speaker 2: light bulb moment. I told this story a lot of
43:44
Speaker 2: times was the first year that new England and Belichick
43:48
Speaker 2: and Brady won a super bowl. They were going to
43:52
Speaker 2: be knocked out of the playoffs in a game that
43:54
Speaker 2: was played in a blizzard in new England. And Brady
43:57
Speaker 2: fumbled the football, which would have turned the ball over to,
43:59
Speaker 2: I'm pretty sure they're playing the Raiders and the Raiders
44:01
Speaker 2: would have been able to run out the clock. And
44:03
Speaker 2: they ruled that it was actually an incomplete pass. They
44:05
Speaker 2: cited this rule that nobody had ever heard of before
44:07
Speaker 2: called the tuck rule. that Brady was tucking the ball away,
44:10
Speaker 2: which is actually the form of a pass. I don't even,
44:12
Speaker 2: I think they changed the rule since then. But New
44:15
Speaker 2: England then kicked the game-winning field goal through the blizzard.
44:19
Speaker 2: It might have been Venetieri that kicked it. They went on,
44:22
Speaker 2: they won the AFC Championship. They were in tremendous underdogs
44:25
Speaker 2: against the St. Louis Rams, who had won the Super
44:27
Speaker 2: Bowl the year before and had one of the most
44:29
Speaker 2: high-powered offenses ever. And Belichick and Brady and the Patriots
44:33
Speaker 2: beat them. And they wouldn't have won it were it
44:36
Speaker 2: not for that call on the tuck rule. And I've
44:39
Speaker 2: just seen again and again and again and again teams
44:43
Speaker 2: that get almost insanely lucky breaks propel themselves to championships.
44:48
Speaker 2: It clearly is what happened the one year that the
44:50
Speaker 2: Bucs won their championship. The Bucs were knocked out of
44:57
Speaker 2: the playoffs by the Brooklyn Nets when Kevin Durant, Brooklyn
45:00
Speaker 2: was down by two points, hit a three-point shot at
45:03
Speaker 2: the buzzer, which would have clinched That series in the
45:06
Speaker 2: Eastern Conference playoffs. Upon replay review, by the most tiniest
45:13
Speaker 2: of margins, Durant's huge oversized feet, one of them was
45:17
Speaker 2: just on the three-point line, meaning it was a two-point shot.
45:21
Speaker 2: So the game went on to overtime. The Bucs won.
45:24
Speaker 2: And the rest was history. They went on and they
45:26
Speaker 2: won that series. They went to the NBA Finals. They
45:28
Speaker 2: fell down 2-0 to Phoenix, came back and won that.
45:31
Speaker 2: And they were the NBA champions. Durant's tiny little foot
45:35
Speaker 2: was not on the line, they wouldn't have won. In
45:38
Speaker 2: the same series, Giannis Antetokounmpo appeared to tear his ACL.
45:42
Speaker 2: He went down with his knee twisted in every possible direction,
45:45
Speaker 2: but somehow his ligaments were so strong that he was
45:48
Speaker 2: back playing within a week. So I am a believer
45:52
Speaker 2: that when you see certain things that happen, it just
45:56
Speaker 2: means that somebody is destined to win. And I had
45:59
Speaker 2: that sense early in the playoffs. In the Padre series,
46:06
Speaker 2: when a Padre hit a ball that looked like it
46:07
Speaker 2: was going to the moon, it was going to be
46:10
Speaker 2: a 475-foot home run, hits a cable extended off the
46:14
Speaker 2: top of the American family field roof, and drops harmlessly
46:18
Speaker 2: into the glove of Jackson Shurian. And that began what
46:22
Speaker 2: I think has just been this sense of moments again
46:24
Speaker 2: and again and again and again and again in which
46:26
Speaker 2: most improbable things happen. Brewers get every bounce that they
46:29
Speaker 2: can and get to where they were getting, and they
46:31
Speaker 2: were up 3-0. in the World Series going into this game.
46:34
Speaker 2: And you could certainly say that all of this ended
46:37
Speaker 2: when the best fielder on the entire Brewer team, Joey Ortiz,
46:41
Speaker 2: bounced the throw over to first base, where the first baseman,
46:45
Speaker 2: Jake Bowers, who all season has dug every ball out
46:47
Speaker 2: of the ground that has come in his direction, couldn't
46:50
Speaker 2: handle it. Setting in motion, the manager making the fateful
46:53
Speaker 2: decision to bring in Shane Drohan, who pitched batting practice
46:56
Speaker 2: for the remainder of the inning, Tampa Bay came back
46:58
Speaker 2: to one, and now we're going to game five. So
47:01
Speaker 2: was this simply an aberrational game? The Brewers are still
47:03
Speaker 2: up 3-1. They only have to win one of three,
47:05
Speaker 2: and their World Series is inevitable? Or was this just
47:08
Speaker 2: an existential turn that is setting in place the great
47:13
Speaker 2: collapse of all time? Now, I'm not here to tell
47:15
Speaker 2: you I know. I'm certainly open to both. In analyzing
47:21
Speaker 2: the game, do you want to jump in on this
47:23
Speaker 2: with your microphone on, Jason? Or do you stay up
47:26
Speaker 2: for the game, or were you put to sleep by
47:28
Speaker 2: how long it lasted? And you saw the whole thing. Now,
47:33
Speaker 2: Jason is not a Brewer fan, so he's able to
47:36
Speaker 2: look at this with dispassionate eyes, with no real agenda
47:40
Speaker 2: one way or another. Which attitude do you gravitate toward,
47:43
Speaker 2: that the Brewers had a chance to win this, they
47:45
Speaker 2: blew it? The old saying about, you know, if you've
47:50
Speaker 2: got your enemy on the ground, you better kill him,
47:51
Speaker 2: because if you don't, he's going to come back and
47:53
Speaker 2: kill you. Was this the fateful moment that turns it around,
47:55
Speaker 2: or was this just a blip and the Brewers turned
47:57
Speaker 2: right back around and winning? He thinks it's a blip
48:00
Speaker 2: and the Brewers run to the championship. Now, again, I
48:04
Speaker 2: am neither in my life a starry-eyed optimist or a
48:09
Speaker 2: gloomy pessimist. I've talked with regard to analyzing the governor's
48:12
Speaker 2: election in Wisconsin as just being brutally difficult for me
48:16
Speaker 2: to make a prediction one way or another. There are
48:19
Speaker 2: certainly signs, maybe more, that David Crowley is going to win.
48:26
Speaker 2: Signs of that. There's likely a blue wave. And when
48:29
Speaker 2: you're a swing state and there's a blue wave, generally
48:32
Speaker 2: that means the blue is going to win in a
48:34
Speaker 2: state like Wisconsin. There's that. But then there's the fact
48:38
Speaker 2: that Crowley is an unbelievable butthead and Tiffany has run,
48:42
Speaker 2: by and large, a very good campaign that could mitigate
48:45
Speaker 2: against that. So I'm not going to be a starry-eyed after, oh,
48:48
Speaker 2: Tiffany's going to win. But I'm not going to be
48:50
Speaker 2: a gloom and do, oh, sorry, never wins. The Democrats
48:53
Speaker 2: always cheat because, in fact, you can win in Wisconsin,
48:55
Speaker 2: as Trump has proven. mathematically, the Brewers are likely to win.
49:06
Speaker 2: By the math, there's a one in eight chance that
49:09
Speaker 2: Tampa would win. They've got a one in two chance
49:12
Speaker 2: three separate times, and they got to hit that one
49:13
Speaker 2: in two chance each time. That's if all things are even.
49:19
Speaker 2: But I also understand in sports that momentum is real.
49:23
Speaker 2: I mean, baseball in particular. The Brewers didn't have it
49:27
Speaker 2: so much this year, but usually every team in baseball
49:30
Speaker 2: has two stretches during the season in which they play
49:32
Speaker 2: way worse than they normally are. If you're a terrible team,
49:34
Speaker 2: that means you lose like 15 in a row. If
49:36
Speaker 2: you're a really good team, you have like a six
49:38
Speaker 2: or seven game losing streak. I think the Dodgers lost
49:40
Speaker 2: seven or eight in a row at one point. And
49:42
Speaker 2: you also have two streaks in which you win crazily
49:44
Speaker 2: out of your mind for no reason. And that's simply momentum.
49:50
Speaker 2: The Brewers have been unbelievably hot. Did the momentum end
49:53
Speaker 2: with this loss? It's certainly possible. On the other hand,
49:57
Speaker 2: when you're on a, what was the Brewers, 29, 26
50:01
Speaker 2: of the last 30 or whatever it was, this could
50:03
Speaker 2: simply be 20. If they win tonight, it would have
50:05
Speaker 2: been 27 of 32. Even at 26 of 30, there
50:08
Speaker 2: were four losses in there. Don't know. The manager of
50:12
Speaker 2: the Brewers, Pat Murphy, who has pushed the right button
50:14
Speaker 2: again and again and again and again and again, pushed
50:19
Speaker 2: several wrong buttons last night. I'm not saying that these
50:24
Speaker 2: were mistakes that I wouldn't have made because in some
50:27
Speaker 2: of the decisions that he made, I agreed with them.
50:30
Speaker 2: I have been screaming the entire playoffs to get Andrew
50:33
Speaker 2: Vaughn's bat into the lineup. Andrew Vaughn hit over 300
50:37
Speaker 2: for the Brewers this year, and he's been tattooed to
50:39
Speaker 2: the bench because the manager has just been playing lefty-righty.
50:43
Speaker 2: Andrew's a right-handed pitcher. And since all of the Tampa
50:46
Speaker 2: starters have been right-handers, it means that he hasn't been playing. Also,
50:50
Speaker 2: he had been platooned for much of the year with
50:52
Speaker 2: Jake Bowers, and Jake Bowers has been so hot in
50:54
Speaker 2: the postseason, but not the World Series, that you didn't
50:57
Speaker 2: want to take Jake out of the lineup. You could
51:01
Speaker 2: have platooned Vaughn with Christian Yellich. They've chosen to play
51:04
Speaker 2: Yellich in every one of the games. I've been looking
51:07
Speaker 2: for opportunities to get Andrew Vaughn into the game. Well,
51:10
Speaker 2: he put Andrew Vaughn into the game and had a
51:12
Speaker 2: pin shift for David Heldin. I thought it was a
51:16
Speaker 2: good decision, even though Hamilton has been hot. Vaughn made
51:22
Speaker 2: a harmless out. The end result of that is Hamilton
51:25
Speaker 2: was therefore out of the game. Joey Ortiz, who is
51:28
Speaker 2: a brilliant fielder, came into the game and screwed up
51:32
Speaker 2: the play on the bottom of the 13th. There was
51:34
Speaker 2: a ground ball. It wasn't that hard of a play.
51:37
Speaker 2: And he badly one-hopped it to Bowers. It made a
51:40
Speaker 2: big high hop and Bowers couldn't take it in. They
51:43
Speaker 2: put in the winning run. The manager then made his
51:45
Speaker 2: second mistake. He brought in Shane Drohan to replace Antonio Sensatella. Now,
51:51
Speaker 2: in fairness to Murphy, and again, I'm not saying I
51:54
Speaker 2: would have known that this was the wrong decision at
51:55
Speaker 2: the time. Sensatella pitched two innings in Game 3 and
52:00
Speaker 2: was now working on two innings again with no rest
52:03
Speaker 2: the following night. On the other hand, Sensatella was lights-out dominant,
52:08
Speaker 2: but the manager wanted to go lefty-righty, and Pat Murphy
52:12
Speaker 2: all season, and particularly in the playoffs, has been going lefty-righty.
52:14
Speaker 2: If the other team has a right-handed batter up, you
52:16
Speaker 2: want to bring in a right-handed pitcher and vice versa.
52:19
Speaker 2: So he brought in Drouin and took out Sensatella. It
52:24
Speaker 2: didn't work. Drouin, whose last outing in the postseason was
52:28
Speaker 2: in that Dodger game where the Brewers fell behind 4-0.
52:30
Speaker 2: He's the guy that set the table. He was disastrous then.
52:35
Speaker 2: And he was disastrous in this point. I'm not going
52:36
Speaker 2: to kick Shane Drouin around. There can't be a human
52:39
Speaker 2: being right now that feels worse than him. There can't
52:41
Speaker 2: be anybody who wants more for the Brewers to come
52:43
Speaker 2: back and win this so that he's not the GOAT
52:46
Speaker 2: of all time. But there is one decision he didn't
52:50
Speaker 2: make that I know he was thinking about. And as
52:53
Speaker 2: somebody who was watching the game just in anguish because
52:56
Speaker 2: I am not one of these people who thinks that
53:01
Speaker 2: it's a cinch that after being up 3-0 the Brewers
53:03
Speaker 2: would win. I still have this terrible fear that something
53:06
Speaker 2: could go wrong. We don't know if it will or
53:08
Speaker 2: it won't. He could have put in Jacob Mizorowski to
53:12
Speaker 2: pitch after Sensatella allowed the guy to come in. And
53:17
Speaker 2: the reason I know he was thinking about it is
53:18
Speaker 2: Mizorowski was not at the dugout. He was in the bullpen. Often,
53:23
Speaker 2: the guy who is to pitch the next game, in fact,
53:25
Speaker 2: is sent home early to get rest. They certainly didn't
53:29
Speaker 2: do that, but Miz wasn't in the dugout, which is
53:31
Speaker 2: where a starting pitcher often is. He was in the bullpen. Now,
53:35
Speaker 2: here's the decision the manager has to make. Managers have
53:38
Speaker 2: to think ahead. Well, Pat Murphy knows I can win
53:42
Speaker 2: the World Series if I win this game. He also
53:43
Speaker 2: knows I don't want to do something that not only
53:46
Speaker 2: costs me tonight's game, but blows the rest of the series.
53:49
Speaker 2: Mizorowski was scheduled to pitch game five, which is the
53:52
Speaker 2: game to be played tonight as I do this podcast.
53:55
Speaker 2: If he's brought in relief and they score at least
53:58
Speaker 2: a runoff of him, he can't pitch game five. And
54:03
Speaker 2: they probably have to go to Logan Henderson early or
54:05
Speaker 2: come up with some other cobbled up plan. So he
54:08
Speaker 2: made the decision not to go all in on Miz
54:12
Speaker 2: to try to win right now. I would have brought
54:15
Speaker 2: in Mizorowski. Now part of that is, I've never cheered
54:21
Speaker 2: for a team that's won a World Series in my lifetime.
54:23
Speaker 2: I've never had one of my favorite team win a
54:26
Speaker 2: World Series. And the thing was laying there in front
54:28
Speaker 2: of me, and I would have brought in Mizorowski figuring
54:31
Speaker 2: you have a better chance with Miz in one inning
54:33
Speaker 2: than having him start given the fact that his starts
54:36
Speaker 2: have not been all that impressive. Over the past, the
54:39
Speaker 2: manager didn't do that. I'm not blaming the manager for
54:43
Speaker 2: any of those moves because I think he had reasons
54:46
Speaker 2: for all of them. There's one other decision, though. You know,
54:50
Speaker 2: when the Brewers named their playoff roster, a lot of
54:53
Speaker 2: people yawned and didn't think it was a big deal
54:55
Speaker 2: about who's on it and who's not. And when they
54:57
Speaker 2: named the World Series roster, they made one change. They
55:00
Speaker 2: put Brandon Woodruff on the roster, which was fine. They
55:04
Speaker 2: took Chad Patrick off. They could have taken Shane Drawn off.
55:09
Speaker 2: Shane Drawn in the Dodgers series was terrible. Chad Patrick
55:13
Speaker 2: had been an effective pitcher all year. The likeliest pitcher
55:17
Speaker 2: to have come in when they pulled out Sensatella last
55:19
Speaker 2: night would have been Chad Patrick were he available. Instead,
55:22
Speaker 2: they used Drawn. Again, we don't know what Chad would
55:25
Speaker 2: have done if he was in that situation. And if
55:28
Speaker 2: the Brewers can come back and win Game 5 or
55:32
Speaker 2: drive us all crazy by making it come to Milwaukee
55:34
Speaker 2: and get even more tense... Nobody's going to remember any
55:37
Speaker 2: of these things. My biggest concern about the Brewers is
55:41
Speaker 2: the same concern I had going into the series, and
55:43
Speaker 2: that is I think almost every game of this series,
55:46
Speaker 2: the starting pitching matchup is going to favor Tampa. Last night,
55:51
Speaker 2: the Brewers had a golden opportunity because Tampa's worst starter
55:54
Speaker 2: was on the mound, and they didn't really get to him.
55:57
Speaker 2: That guy Jax, he's not that good. His ERA was
56:01
Speaker 2: well over three. I think his record was six and ten.
56:04
Speaker 2: They only got to him for the two runs. Had
56:06
Speaker 2: they shelled him with Tampa having a used-up bullpen, it
56:09
Speaker 2: would have been over. So the Brewers had a pitching
56:11
Speaker 2: matchup using Dustin May, who pitched well enough. He pitched
56:20
Speaker 2: the equal of the raised starter, Jacks. The Brewers had
56:26
Speaker 2: the pitching advantage and a fully healthy bullpen last night,
56:29
Speaker 2: and they just didn't score enough runs. Weirdly. They're hitting
56:33
Speaker 2: stars last night. In fact, their home run hitters in
56:36
Speaker 2: the world series have been the guys that didn't hit
56:38
Speaker 2: home runs all year. Sal Freelick, who had four home
56:41
Speaker 2: runs all year, he hit a home run. David Hamilton,
56:44
Speaker 2: who I think hit four home runs all year, he
56:46
Speaker 2: hit a home run last night. And Cooper Pratt, who
56:48
Speaker 2: had three home runs all year, he hit what looked
56:51
Speaker 2: like it might be the world series winning home run.
56:53
Speaker 2: The guys who actually have hit home runs have not
56:56
Speaker 2: done so. So As the time I'm doing this, which
57:00
Speaker 2: is now a little bit after noon on Wednesday, Tampa
57:03
Speaker 2: has not announced its starter for tonight. Have you heard, Jason,
57:07
Speaker 2: who it's going to be? My thought is it would
57:12
Speaker 2: likely be Drew Rasmussen, who pitched Game 2 but went very,
57:17
Speaker 2: very short, and he would come back in Game 5.
57:20
Speaker 2: I don't think that they would go to Freddy Peralta,
57:22
Speaker 2: who pitched Game 3, and bring him all the way
57:24
Speaker 2: back in Game 5. And Martinez, the Game 1 starter,
57:27
Speaker 2: he pitched last night. And they were already scraping the
57:30
Speaker 2: back end of the rotation by putting in Jacks. I mean,
57:33
Speaker 2: you're playing for survival. Tampa, of course, has to win tonight.
57:37
Speaker 2: With Rasmussen at home, I think that they would expect
57:39
Speaker 2: that he would be the Rasmussen of this past season
57:43
Speaker 2: and not have the troubled performance that he did in
57:45
Speaker 2: the first one. If they go with Rasmussen against Mizorowski,
57:48
Speaker 2: I think that Tampa Bay has the edge on that,
57:51
Speaker 2: although did not. earlier in the, you know, Rasmussen did
57:55
Speaker 2: pitch poorly in game two. If it goes to game six,
57:59
Speaker 2: they would probably come back with Freddy Peralta against Logan Henderson. Again,
58:03
Speaker 2: that probably is a Tampa matchup. The game in which
58:06
Speaker 2: the Brewers would have the edge would be if it
58:08
Speaker 2: got to game seven would probably be Gosser, and I
58:10
Speaker 2: would take Gosser over anybody that Tampa has to throw.
58:15
Speaker 2: So there's that. This is very, very nerve wracking for
58:20
Speaker 2: these teams that went in. I know exactly what this is.
58:22
Speaker 2: This is what, you know, when the Cubs won it
58:24
Speaker 2: in 2015, this is what it was like. And the
58:25
Speaker 2: Cubs never had the lead that the Brewers had. My
58:28
Speaker 2: recollection was that, what did they beat, the Red Sox? Yeah,
58:32
Speaker 2: they were the Indians then, now the Guardians. That's right.
58:35
Speaker 2: That series was a back and forth the whole way around, right?
58:39
Speaker 2: Wasn't it? You understand what it is like to just
58:44
Speaker 2: be gnawed up in all of this thing and We're
58:47
Speaker 2: Brewer fans. It's the same thing. Cubs fans had not
58:50
Speaker 2: won a World Series in anybody's lifetime. It had been
58:52
Speaker 2: 100 years. And the Brewers have not won a World
58:54
Speaker 2: Series in anybody's lifetime because they've never won one. If
58:58
Speaker 2: you're the Dodgers or one of these teams that wins
59:00
Speaker 2: it once every 10 or 15 years, it may not
59:05
Speaker 2: seem to be this incredible mountain to skate. And that's
59:07
Speaker 2: the reason there's been the fan support. It's the reason
59:09
Speaker 2: there were 25,000 people down at the Trop in Tampa.
59:12
Speaker 2: It's the reason that the watch parties are all packed
59:15
Speaker 2: that we've never done this. If the Brewers do win
59:21
Speaker 2: it and then with any good luck, show up again
59:24
Speaker 2: in a World Series next year or the year after.
59:26
Speaker 2: There will certainly be incredible enthusiasm, but it won't be
59:31
Speaker 2: the same mountain to cross as this one is. I
59:36
Speaker 2: want to turn my attention to another story in sports
59:39
Speaker 2: that is developing an interesting angle. I don't think you
59:44
Speaker 2: can put on Packer fans that it's sour grapes to
59:46
Speaker 2: complain about the officiating in Sunday's game against Detroit, where
59:50
Speaker 2: there were several penalties called against the Packers that were
59:52
Speaker 2: truly terrible. The reason I don't think you can say
59:55
Speaker 2: that it is sour grapes is the entire national media
59:58
Speaker 2: is on this story. They've been covering the problems in
1:00:01
Speaker 2: NFL refereeing over the last several weeks in particular, but
1:00:05
Speaker 2: this pass game, I mean, national media commentators who have
1:00:08
Speaker 2: nothing to do with the Packers are all focusing on
1:00:11
Speaker 2: these terrible calls that went against Green Bay, two really
1:00:15
Speaker 2: bad roughing the passer calls. And then maybe the worst
1:00:19
Speaker 2: call of all, they called an unnecessary roughness penalty, which
1:00:22
Speaker 2: changed the game. on Devante Wyatt when he tackled a
1:00:25
Speaker 2: guy when the whistle had not yet blown, when it
1:00:28
Speaker 2: was the runner who actually got up and started running
1:00:31
Speaker 2: and initiated the contact. Some of the discussion, there was a,
1:00:37
Speaker 2: who's the guy on NBC? Florio? You know him? Mike Florio?
1:00:41
Speaker 2: Do I do? Mike Florio. He did a segment. I
1:00:44
Speaker 2: don't even know who his sidekick is. It's a former,
1:00:46
Speaker 2: it's one of these backup quarterbacks, but I was watching
1:00:49
Speaker 2: his podcast and They were both discussing this in a
1:00:55
Speaker 2: fair amount of depth and both commented on the fact
1:00:58
Speaker 2: that during the broadcast of the game, Tom Brady was
1:01:03
Speaker 2: critical of the refereeing. Tom Brady is a part owner
1:01:07
Speaker 2: of the Raiders, and owners are not supposed to criticize
1:01:11
Speaker 2: refereeing ever. Now, Brady's in this unique situation. Some say
1:01:16
Speaker 2: it's a conflict. Others say it's not. I'm neutral on it.
1:01:20
Speaker 2: that you shouldn't have a guy who's a part owner
1:01:22
Speaker 2: of a team doing commentary on the games that are involved.
1:01:25
Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't, I'm, I'm neat. I neither,
1:01:29
Speaker 2: I neither defend or oppose it, but Brady has been
1:01:35
Speaker 2: one of the weaknesses of Brady as an analyst is
1:01:37
Speaker 2: he can't be as blunt because he is one of
1:01:41
Speaker 2: the owners of the league and they are required by
1:01:42
Speaker 2: the league not to say this, that, or the other thing.
1:01:44
Speaker 2: Yet he was out there pretty aggressively saying that these
1:01:47
Speaker 2: were terrible calls. Here's where I'm going with this. Whenever
1:01:54
Speaker 2: somebody gets a bad call in sports, you get crybabies
1:01:57
Speaker 2: out there saying, it was a fix. I mean, we
1:02:01
Speaker 2: hear this in horse racing all the time. And one
1:02:04
Speaker 2: of the reasons you hear it in horse racing all
1:02:06
Speaker 2: the time is every now and then there is a
1:02:07
Speaker 2: fix in a horse race. By the way, I'll tell
1:02:12
Speaker 2: this story. You might be able to find this somewhere
1:02:15
Speaker 2: at YouTube, but they ran a race at this little
1:02:17
Speaker 2: track outside of St. Louis yesterday called Fairmont Park. It
1:02:22
Speaker 2: is extremely rare to have an American horse racing a
1:02:26
Speaker 2: race that is longer than two miles. And it's almost
1:02:29
Speaker 2: unheard of for one of those races to be on
1:02:31
Speaker 2: the dirt. There's no turf course at Fairmont Park. They
1:02:34
Speaker 2: carted a race at two and one-sixteenth miles. Very unheard of. Obviously,
1:02:40
Speaker 2: this would benefit the handful of horses who just want
1:02:43
Speaker 2: to run really, really, really long that have stamina can
1:02:45
Speaker 2: handle the distance, but it's very rare. Most tracks would
1:02:49
Speaker 2: not card a race like that in an entire year.
1:02:52
Speaker 2: It means that you had to go around the track
1:02:54
Speaker 2: a full two times to complete the race in horse racing,
1:03:00
Speaker 2: a jockey that is rather new for the first year
1:03:04
Speaker 2: of their career or until they went. And I don't
1:03:07
Speaker 2: even know, I think it's a 25 wins, whatever it is,
1:03:09
Speaker 2: they're considered an apprentice. When they're an apprentice, they get
1:03:12
Speaker 2: an advantage of not having to carry as much weight
1:03:15
Speaker 2: on the horse as the other riders. They do this
1:03:19
Speaker 2: so that apprentices have a chance to be able to
1:03:21
Speaker 2: be given mounts. Why would you give your mount to
1:03:23
Speaker 2: a brand new jockey unless they have this advantage of
1:03:26
Speaker 2: being able to carry less weight than the others? So again,
1:03:29
Speaker 2: Fairmont Park's a very small track, so the jockeys are
1:03:31
Speaker 2: not the most accomplished ones in the sport. There is
1:03:33
Speaker 2: an apprentice. Her name is Johannes Argerin, who is riding
1:03:37
Speaker 2: a horse in this race at Fairmont Park. I remember
1:03:40
Speaker 2: when I said, you got to go around two times.
1:03:42
Speaker 2: So they run around the whole time. The first time around,
1:03:45
Speaker 2: you know, they sat on the back stretch, come around
1:03:46
Speaker 2: and they're coming to the finish line the first time.
1:03:49
Speaker 2: And she's out there whipping the horse and riding and
1:03:52
Speaker 2: riding and riding the horse. And the track announcers say,
1:03:55
Speaker 2: I think she doesn't know they have to go around.
1:03:58
Speaker 2: And indeed, after the horse crossed the finish line, she
1:04:01
Speaker 2: kind of does a little fist pump, pulls up on
1:04:03
Speaker 2: the horse, stands up on the horse, and everybody runs
1:04:05
Speaker 2: by her. And it wasn't until the back stretch and
1:04:08
Speaker 2: all these other horses continue to go that she realized, oh,
1:04:11
Speaker 2: my God, I screwed up. And, of course, her horse
1:04:14
Speaker 2: was beaten by a country mile after she ran. Now,
1:04:18
Speaker 2: there are some people who would say that means it
1:04:19
Speaker 2: was a fix. If you're going to do a fix,
1:04:22
Speaker 2: you would not do it in such an obvious way
1:04:25
Speaker 2: as that. When a race is fixed, the rider might
1:04:28
Speaker 2: just sort of not ask their horse a lot or
1:04:31
Speaker 2: keep it blocked up in trouble or keep a tight
1:04:33
Speaker 2: hold on the running. You're not going to do something
1:04:35
Speaker 2: as boneheaded as this. Nonetheless, in sports, people claim all
1:04:40
Speaker 2: the time that things are rigged, that it's fixed. Every
1:04:42
Speaker 2: time the Lakers would get a good draft pick when
1:04:45
Speaker 2: they had the NBA lottery, people would say that it's fixed.
1:04:48
Speaker 2: It's just his tendency to think that things are fixed
1:04:50
Speaker 2: and rigged all the time. If a ref makes a
1:04:52
Speaker 2: call the wrong way, he's in on it. However, the
1:05:01
Speaker 2: amount of gambling that we now have in America is pervasive.
1:05:06
Speaker 2: When you add to all of the states that have
1:05:08
Speaker 2: legalized sports betting and so many propositions that you can
1:05:11
Speaker 2: bet on, add to this the prediction market companies. The
1:05:15
Speaker 2: two big ones are Kelshi and Polymarket, and What's the
1:05:19
Speaker 2: one that Sidney Sweeney is doing? I admit I'm having
1:05:23
Speaker 2: a hard time remembering it because in this case, the
1:05:26
Speaker 2: ad is overwhelming any attention that I've seen to the sponsor.
1:05:29
Speaker 2: You've seen this ad of the World Series, Sidney Sweeney.
1:05:32
Speaker 2: I mean, the ad is borderline X-rated. She's there wearing
1:05:35
Speaker 2: just panties and sitting on her remarkable rear end. By
1:05:39
Speaker 2: the way, we're fans of Sidney Sweeney. She's a Republican.
1:05:43
Speaker 2: Is it no Vigs? Is that it? It's the new
1:05:45
Speaker 2: prediction market. You really are married. If you haven't noticed
1:05:52
Speaker 2: that Sydney Sweeney commercial watching the World Series, it's because
1:05:55
Speaker 2: you really are. You don't know what commercial I'm talking about. Oh,
1:06:02
Speaker 2: so you other words, it's the same thing. The ad
1:06:04
Speaker 2: might actually not be effective because so much attention is drawn.
1:06:08
Speaker 2: You're not even paying attention to who she's advertising. I
1:06:10
Speaker 2: think it's No Vigs, which is a play on No Vigorous.
1:06:14
Speaker 2: If it's not No Vigs, it's really close to that. Anyway.
1:06:17
Speaker 2: With so many of them out there and so easy
1:06:19
Speaker 2: to set up the account, can you rule out that
1:06:23
Speaker 2: some of the bad refereeing isn't because a referee has
1:06:26
Speaker 2: bats out there? And there are people that are raising
1:06:30
Speaker 2: this right now. Is the league doing proper background checks?
1:06:36
Speaker 2: Do they, for example, examine the phones of the referees?
1:06:40
Speaker 2: The NFL is very, very unusual in that the referees
1:06:44
Speaker 2: are not full-time, and some people think that's the problem.
1:06:47
Speaker 2: I mean, they play one game a week, about 20
1:06:51
Speaker 2: weeks a year. What would you do the rest of
1:06:54
Speaker 2: the time by having a full-time employee? I mean, what's
1:06:56
Speaker 2: that referee doing? Is he watching film? I mean, how
1:06:59
Speaker 2: much film can you watch? So they're part-time referees. But
1:07:05
Speaker 2: when they sign their contracts, does it allow you to,
1:07:07
Speaker 2: for example, take a look at their phone or confiscate
1:07:10
Speaker 2: their tablets just to make sure? This gambling thing, we've
1:07:15
Speaker 2: now seen Malik Beasley, a former Bucke, just pleaded guilty
1:07:19
Speaker 2: in federal court to cheating because of gambling. He was
1:07:24
Speaker 2: cheating on the proposition bets on himself in terms of
1:07:26
Speaker 2: points scored and so on, not scoring as many points
1:07:29
Speaker 2: as he could have in a game to cash a bet.
1:07:31
Speaker 2: There was an NBA ref a few years ago who
1:07:33
Speaker 2: was caught. He was in hooks to the mob. He
1:07:36
Speaker 2: was gambling and he was feeding information to refs. I'm
1:07:39
Speaker 2: going to bias the game. I'm going to make this
1:07:41
Speaker 2: team here lose. And he was giving this information to
1:07:46
Speaker 2: to mobsters for gambling purposes. This was before the gambling
1:07:50
Speaker 2: was as pervasive as it is right now. I'm not
1:07:52
Speaker 2: saying that the NFL ref in the Packer game had
1:07:55
Speaker 2: a bet on Detroit in the game. But you look
1:08:00
Speaker 2: at these occurrences and you look at how generally disgusted
1:08:03
Speaker 2: people are and wondering how many, how calls can be
1:08:05
Speaker 2: made so badly and why this replay assist thing that
1:08:09
Speaker 2: they have in the NFL didn't step in and overturn
1:08:11
Speaker 2: the call. It's fueling suspicion. And even if the suspicion
1:08:17
Speaker 2: is unwarranted, this is not good for the league. I
1:08:22
Speaker 2: believe the NFL commissioner is a butthead. I've argued this forever.
1:08:27
Speaker 2: Owners like Goodell because in the short term, he's making
1:08:30
Speaker 2: them money. I think in the long term, he is
1:08:33
Speaker 2: doing things that are damaging the game by making it
1:08:35
Speaker 2: so international in nature, extending the number of weeks, turning
1:08:40
Speaker 2: off fans by the kind of Super Bowl that they're doing,
1:08:42
Speaker 2: by the way. They hired Jay-Z to pick the Super
1:08:45
Speaker 2: Bowl entertainers, Super Bowl halftime show. So who does Jay-Z pick?
1:08:48
Speaker 2: He picks himself. Is there anybody that wants to see Jay-Z?
1:08:51
Speaker 2: Do you want to see Jay-Z? First of all, I'm
1:08:57
Speaker 2: just saying even fans of Jay-Z, I don't think. that
1:09:00
Speaker 2: they want to see Jay-Z. Jay-Z's like, he's like an
1:09:03
Speaker 2: oldie Zach now, but it's not an oldie Zach that's
1:09:06
Speaker 2: aged well. He's just a pain in the ass. I mean, okay,
1:09:11
Speaker 2: it's going to be Jay-Z or it's Beyonce and next
1:09:13
Speaker 2: year it'll be Beyonce. Then it's going to be Jay-Z.
1:09:14
Speaker 2: Then it's going to be Beyonce. If the commissioner was
1:09:23
Speaker 2: not a butthead, he'd realize he has a crisis here,
1:09:27
Speaker 2: and he would be transparent in addressing the crisis. And
1:09:31
Speaker 2: you've seen this in some other sports. We're seeing it,
1:09:34
Speaker 2: for example, in baseball, where they've stated the reasons that
1:09:37
Speaker 2: they have replay assist, replay review for balls and strikes.
1:09:42
Speaker 2: The commissioner is saying the refereeing is better than ever,
1:09:46
Speaker 2: and the fans know that it's worse than ever. When
1:09:49
Speaker 2: he's saying that it's better than ever, that tells me
1:09:51
Speaker 2: that they don't intend to do something about this. And
1:09:55
Speaker 2: this past week, it was the Packers that were burned,
1:09:57
Speaker 2: but this coming week, it's going to be two or
1:09:59
Speaker 2: three other teams where games are decided not because of
1:10:02
Speaker 2: close calls that were called badly, but because of grotesquely
1:10:06
Speaker 2: terrible officiating. You're listening to the Mark Belling podcast. This
1:10:13
Speaker 2: is the Mark Belling podcast. Speaking of the fix being in,
1:10:17
Speaker 2: There was a lot of reaction to the elections in Brazil.
1:10:21
Speaker 2: The Marxist incumbent candidate was widely expected to lose. And
1:10:26
Speaker 2: he ended up winning. But many people are commenting on
1:10:30
Speaker 2: the irregularities that have occurred there. Also, the losing candidate,
1:10:34
Speaker 2: the capitalistic candidate, has fled the country and has sought
1:10:37
Speaker 2: asylum in the United States. He believed he was going
1:10:40
Speaker 2: to be killed. The Brazilian stock market has crashed. You
1:10:47
Speaker 2: can say that that's too strong of a word, but
1:10:49
Speaker 2: the Sao Paulo index went down 20% in one day.
1:10:52
Speaker 2: I think 20% in one day is a crash. There
1:10:56
Speaker 2: was just an expectation that the terrible economic policies that
1:10:59
Speaker 2: have made Brazil's economy just a disaster would end, that
1:11:05
Speaker 2: they would follow the lead of Argentina and elect a
1:11:07
Speaker 2: capitalist president. But they didn't. A couple of points on this. Kelshi,
1:11:13
Speaker 2: which is one of the prediction markets that I mentioned,
1:11:16
Speaker 2: had placed the incumbent Brazilian candidate Lula chances of winning
1:11:23
Speaker 2: at 20%. That means you would have gotten five to
1:11:26
Speaker 2: one on your money. If you would have bet Lula,
1:11:29
Speaker 2: I believed that the prediction markets are generally a better
1:11:33
Speaker 2: indicator of who's going to win an election than the polls,
1:11:37
Speaker 2: because when people are betting with their own money, I
1:11:42
Speaker 2: think that you're likely to get a more knowledgeable result.
1:11:46
Speaker 2: than something in which people are stating an opinion on
1:11:49
Speaker 2: something but not backing it up with anything. And indeed,
1:11:52
Speaker 2: the prediction markets were dead right in 2024. In every
1:11:57
Speaker 2: single one of them, Trump was leading the entire year.
1:12:02
Speaker 2: And he wasn't leading in a lot of polls the
1:12:04
Speaker 2: entire year. Kamala Harris was ahead of the polls, but
1:12:07
Speaker 2: in the prediction markets, Trump was ahead. In that instance,
1:12:12
Speaker 2: the people who knew what was actually going on were
1:12:15
Speaker 2: betting with their own money and putting their money where
1:12:18
Speaker 2: their mouths are. In this instance, however, the prediction markets
1:12:22
Speaker 2: were dead wrong. The people that were putting up money
1:12:25
Speaker 2: just assumed that Lula, the Marxist, was going to lose,
1:12:27
Speaker 2: and he won. Now, people are citing this, however, as
1:12:31
Speaker 2: an indication that maybe there were some irregularities. I'm going
1:12:33
Speaker 2: to give you some information here, and tell me if
1:12:36
Speaker 2: this sounds familiar. Flavio, the opposition candidate. 213 cities that
1:12:47
Speaker 2: chose Flavio in the first round of voting gave their
1:12:50
Speaker 2: victory to Lula in the second round. Brazil has their
1:12:53
Speaker 2: version of a runoff election. They have the first round
1:12:55
Speaker 2: of voting, and then they have the second and the
1:12:57
Speaker 2: final round. In the first round of voting in 213
1:13:00
Speaker 2: cities in Brazil, Flavio was the leading vote-getter, but in
1:13:03
Speaker 2: the election held this week, Lula was. Total raw votes.
1:13:10
Speaker 2: In round one... Flavio Bolsonaro, 56.1 million votes. Lula, 53.9.
1:13:17
Speaker 2: But in round two, Lula, 64 million votes. Bolsonaro, 59.8.
1:13:21
Speaker 2: In other words, Lula got 11 million more votes in
1:13:25
Speaker 2: the second round than he did in the first. This
1:13:27
Speaker 2: is raising eyebrows. In addition to that, the Brazilian Supreme
1:13:31
Speaker 2: Court is saying that the decision that was made by
1:13:33
Speaker 2: a judge on election day to keep the polls open
1:13:36
Speaker 2: an extra two hours was done without any authority under
1:13:39
Speaker 2: the Brazilian constitution. Because once the votes are in there,
1:13:43
Speaker 2: you don't know what was cast when. They can't throw
1:13:46
Speaker 2: out those votes because you don't know once the votes
1:13:49
Speaker 2: are in there who voted which way. But they got
1:13:52
Speaker 2: some judge to put up some sort of Kinhorn ruling,
1:13:54
Speaker 2: which allowed an extra two hours of voting. Some would
1:13:57
Speaker 2: argue an extra two hours of cheating. Does any of
1:14:00
Speaker 2: this just sound familiar? These are many of the arguments
1:14:05
Speaker 2: that people made after the disputed 2020 election that Trump lost.
1:14:13
Speaker 2: Will the people that are raising questions about the irregularities
1:14:17
Speaker 2: that occurred in Brazil be accused of being election deniers?
1:14:23
Speaker 2: Or is it somehow okay to question the legitimacy of
1:14:26
Speaker 2: the results of an election in Brazil, but not okay
1:14:29
Speaker 2: to question the results of an election in the United
1:14:31
Speaker 2: States in which the same kinds of irregularities occur? Valid
1:14:38
Speaker 2: enough questions. We end our podcast before game five of
1:14:43
Speaker 2: the World Series. As I said, I'm practical, but I
1:14:49
Speaker 2: also have a staggering amount of worry wart in me,
1:14:52
Speaker 2: and I will not believe this until it happens. So
1:14:56
Speaker 2: until it happens, it hasn't happened. And I hope it
1:15:00
Speaker 2: does happen. Talk to you soon.
1:15:07
Speaker 1: The Mark Belling Podcast is a production of iHeartRadio Podcasts.
1:15:12
Speaker 1: Production and engineering by Jason Gotch. The Mark Belling Podcast
1:15:15
Speaker 1: is presented by Uline. For quality shipping and industrial supplies,
1:15:19
Speaker 1: Uline has everything in stock. Visit Uline.com. Listen to all
1:15:24
Speaker 1: of Mark's podcasts, always available on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
1:15:29
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts.