Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Two Hundred Ninety Eight: The World's Policeman

Transcript

Episode Two Hundred Ninety Eight: The World's Policeman · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcomed episode two hundred and ninety eight of the Death
0:02
Speaker 1: of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zigler. I'm your host.
0:05
Speaker 1: In today's show, we seem to finally have a peace
0:08
Speaker 1: deal with Iron, but no one seems thrilled about it.
0:12
Speaker 1: The World Cup soccer tournament creates lots of viral America
0:16
Speaker 1: is awesome videos, but are they real? With the school
0:21
Speaker 1: year ending, I'll have some thoughts on our educational system.
0:25
Speaker 1: Phil Mickelson finally gets what he so richly deserves, and
0:30
Speaker 1: the New York Knicks are NBA champions for the first
0:33
Speaker 1: time since an old guy like me became a sports fan.
0:39
Speaker 1: We begin this episode of the podcast with a quick disclaimer.
0:42
Speaker 1: I recorded this two hour plus podcast episode before realizing
0:49
Speaker 1: that there was an audio glitch. We don't really know
0:53
Speaker 1: what the source of the audio glitch was, but the
0:57
Speaker 1: audio quality is not going to be what you're normally
1:00
Speaker 1: used to the very high standards of the Death of
1:03
Speaker 1: Journalism podcast. Hopefully this is not going to be a
1:07
Speaker 1: problem for you in enjoying what is actually a pretty
1:10
Speaker 1: darn good episode, But I just wanted to explain why
1:14
Speaker 1: it is that the audio quality may not be up
1:17
Speaker 1: to our normal standards. Hopefully you're still able to enjoy it,
1:21
Speaker 1: and by next episode this s glitch should be fixed.
1:25
Speaker 1: So thank you for your patience. And here is the
1:28
Speaker 1: episode two ninety eight as it was recorded earlier today.
1:32
Speaker 1: Welcome to episode two hundred and ninety eight of the
1:35
Speaker 1: Death of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zigler. I'm
1:38
Speaker 1: your host on today's show. We seem to finally have
1:40
Speaker 1: a piece deal with Iran, but no one seems thrilled
1:44
Speaker 1: about it. The World Cup soccer tournament creates lots of
1:48
Speaker 1: viral America is Awesome videos, but are they real? With
1:53
Speaker 1: the school year and ding, I'll have some thoughts on
1:55
Speaker 1: our educational system. Phil Mickelson finally gets but he deserves
2:01
Speaker 1: and the New York Knicks are NBA champions for the
2:04
Speaker 1: first time since an old guy like me became a
2:07
Speaker 1: sports fan. We begin this episode of the podcast once
2:12
Speaker 1: again with the situation with regard to the attempts to
2:15
Speaker 1: end the Iran war, and it appears as if there's
2:19
Speaker 1: finally some sort of a peace deal, but almost no
2:23
Speaker 1: one knows what's actually in it, including Israel, and no
2:28
Speaker 1: one seems to be particularly happy about it, particularly Israel.
2:33
Speaker 1: And in this kind of a situation. It really comes
2:35
Speaker 1: down to, all right, who do you trust, whose word
2:39
Speaker 1: do you put some weight in that when they say, Okay,
2:42
Speaker 1: this is a good deal, you can feel at least
2:44
Speaker 1: somewhat confident that it is. And for me, in the
2:48
Speaker 1: Trump administration, there's not that many options. There's Marco Rubio
2:53
Speaker 1: and there's probably jd Vance. And it's interesting the Vice
2:56
Speaker 1: President jd Vance has essentially been given the job of
3:01
Speaker 1: selling this deal to the American people, because by all accounts,
3:06
Speaker 1: jd Vance was not in favor of this war to
3:09
Speaker 1: begin with. But jd Vance is a very good debater.
3:13
Speaker 1: He is very articulate, and he's been doing as good
3:16
Speaker 1: a job as anybody possibly could in trying to make
3:20
Speaker 1: the argument that this was a good deal and that
3:23
Speaker 1: those that are saying it's a bad deal are actually
3:26
Speaker 1: doing the work of the Iranian propagandists. And I'm going
3:31
Speaker 1: to play a clip of jd Vance on Fox News
3:34
Speaker 1: Channel going up against their resident liberal, Jessica Tarlov in
3:38
Speaker 1: just a second, because I thought he did a really
3:40
Speaker 1: good job in that particular segment. He's been doing the
3:43
Speaker 1: media rounds, not just because of the Iran peace agreement,
3:48
Speaker 1: alleged piece agreement, but also because he's got a new
3:50
Speaker 1: book out. But the big picture to me here is
3:57
Speaker 1: the impossibility. See this is where I on this and
4:00
Speaker 1: have been for quite a while now, the impossibility of
4:04
Speaker 1: their being a truly great deal with a Rod because
4:08
Speaker 1: in order to have a truly great deal, you have
4:12
Speaker 1: to be dealing with a reliable actor, a rational actor.
4:20
Speaker 1: They have to be both. They have to be reliable
4:23
Speaker 1: and rational, good faith, reliable and rational, and Iran is
4:29
Speaker 1: none of those things. So you can make a decent
4:33
Speaker 1: deal on paper, but in practice what is that going
4:38
Speaker 1: to mean? And it's been pretty obvious, at least to
4:41
Speaker 1: me and to many others that Iran doesn't seem to
4:44
Speaker 1: care about the same things that we do. So they're
4:48
Speaker 1: not a rational actor. And we know they're not a
4:50
Speaker 1: good faith actor because these are people who do not
4:53
Speaker 1: consider the truth to matter. They don't care about their
4:58
Speaker 1: perception in the world and whether or not they have
5:01
Speaker 1: credibility or whether they're looked at as the good guys
5:04
Speaker 1: or the bad guys. They kind of remind me, although
5:07
Speaker 1: this is not a perfect analogy, because I don't see
5:09
Speaker 1: them as harmless as I do the entity in this analogy,
5:13
Speaker 1: but I'm reminded of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies,
5:18
Speaker 1: and the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie, Jack Sparrow
5:21
Speaker 1: is obviously the star, He's the captain. Jack Sparrow is
5:24
Speaker 1: the main pirate in the movie. And I don't know
5:29
Speaker 1: why they dropped this because I thought this was a
5:31
Speaker 1: great vehicle. But in the first movie, and maybe in
5:34
Speaker 1: the second, I can't remember, they used to have this
5:36
Speaker 1: thing where Jack Sparrow would trick people because he was
5:40
Speaker 1: a lying scoundrel, and when those that got tricked would
5:45
Speaker 1: call him out on it, he would simply say pirate, Like, duh,
5:51
Speaker 1: I'm a pirate. What did you expect from me? This
5:55
Speaker 1: is who I am? Why did you trust me? To
5:57
Speaker 1: begin with? Well, far less harmless and far less amusing way,
6:03
Speaker 1: That's what Iran is. They're pirates. They don't give a
6:06
Speaker 1: shit about the truth or their word or whether not
6:12
Speaker 1: people think of them in a good way or a
6:14
Speaker 1: bad way. They have nothing to lose here these Their
6:20
Speaker 1: word is just a weapon. Them signing a deal is
6:24
Speaker 1: just a weapon to buy time in all likelihood, because
6:28
Speaker 1: they have no downside if they break the agreement and
6:32
Speaker 1: they don't seem to care about getting a crap bombed
6:35
Speaker 1: out of them. So with that being said, I think JD.
6:38
Speaker 1: Vance is in a tough spot, but he does a
6:41
Speaker 1: really good job in this particular clip on Fox News
6:45
Speaker 1: Channel going up against the resident Democrat or liberal, Jessica
6:49
Speaker 1: Tarlov and explaining his version, or at least the administration's version,
6:54
Speaker 1: about why we should feel like this deal with Iran
6:58
Speaker 1: is at least potentially a good one.
7:01
Speaker 2: Coos report last night was meaningful where they said that
7:04
Speaker 2: CI Director Ratcliffe, Rubio and Hagsath, based on American intelligence,
7:09
Speaker 2: we're doubting the kind of results they thought we could
7:12
Speaker 2: get out of this deal that the yes.
7:15
Speaker 3: So just literally address a couple of things, because I
7:17
Speaker 3: think you're making the same mistake, unfortunately, that a lot
7:19
Speaker 3: of the Iranian propagandists make when they talk about this,
7:21
Speaker 3: which is they talk about the benefits to the Iranians
7:25
Speaker 3: without any of the things the Iranians would have to
7:27
Speaker 3: give up and have to change in order to get
7:28
Speaker 3: those benefits. So you mentioned a three hundred billion dollar fund.
7:31
Speaker 3: I've got to be very clear about this. Not a
7:33
Speaker 3: single cent of American money under any circumstance no matter
7:36
Speaker 3: what the Iranians do goes to Iran, not a single scent.
7:40
Speaker 2: Of American money other money.
7:41
Speaker 1: Here's here's what this says. This says.
7:43
Speaker 3: For example, let's say that the United Air Emirates, who
7:45
Speaker 3: have been a great ally, Let's say they want to
7:47
Speaker 3: invest in a power plant in Iran. What this deal
7:51
Speaker 3: provides is that if the Iranians have done everything we
7:54
Speaker 3: require them to do, then we will allow the United
7:57
Speaker 3: Air Memborates to do that, because they can't do that
7:58
Speaker 3: right now without American prouval. So we're fundamentally saying, if
8:02
Speaker 3: the Iranians transform how they interact with the world, we
8:05
Speaker 3: will transform how the world economy interacts with Iran. But
8:08
Speaker 3: if they don't do any of that stuff, they don't
8:10
Speaker 3: get any of these benefits. So I think all the
8:12
Speaker 3: Democrats who are saying, well, the Iranians get all these things,
8:16
Speaker 3: they don't get anything unless the total, unless there's been
8:20
Speaker 3: a complete transformation of how Iran interacts with the world,
8:23
Speaker 3: that would be a huge win for America. And to
8:25
Speaker 3: Jesse's point, if they don't do any of these things,
8:27
Speaker 3: we don't give them anything. They don't receive anything. Their
8:30
Speaker 3: nuclear program is still destroyed. Their military is still destroyed,
8:34
Speaker 3: their missile program, an industrial base is still destroyed. We
8:37
Speaker 3: fundamentally have transformed the Middle East. Whether they comply or not,
8:40
Speaker 3: this is just icing on the cake, assuming they do all.
8:43
Speaker 1: The right things.
8:44
Speaker 2: I just think we And then obviously it goes to
8:45
Speaker 2: greg So I guess two things. One, there's already been
8:48
Speaker 2: reporting that the Kataris have been paying off the Iranians
8:52
Speaker 2: to get them to.
8:53
Speaker 3: I've seen the report, by the way, and great religion.
8:55
Speaker 1: Of the Kataris.
8:56
Speaker 2: It's just no money as exchange hands. Iran has not
8:58
Speaker 2: gotten a single dollar from any golf partners. Okay, And
9:02
Speaker 2: again lots of criticism from the Republican side of this
9:05
Speaker 2: as well. It is a bipartisan concern.
9:07
Speaker 3: Well, I think look, some of the criticism comes from
9:10
Speaker 3: the fact that if Donald Trump were elected the supreme
9:13
Speaker 3: leader of Iran, the Democrats would still say that the
9:16
Speaker 3: United States had lost this.
9:18
Speaker 1: Now, that's all well and good, and I hope Jade
9:21
Speaker 1: Vance is right, and I hope that somehow this works
9:25
Speaker 1: out under the best scenario, maybe this was worth at
9:32
Speaker 1: least some of the effort. This has cost a lot
9:35
Speaker 1: of resources, It's impacted the economy negatively. It may impact
9:40
Speaker 1: the midterm elections negatively, But if Iran in the long
9:45
Speaker 1: term can be kept from having a nuclear weapon, and
9:49
Speaker 1: if the economies of the world can get somewhat back
9:51
Speaker 1: to normal with the strait of our moves open, then
9:54
Speaker 1: I guess that's the best of a potentially very bad situation.
9:59
Speaker 1: Because you have to to make decisions in life based
10:01
Speaker 1: upon where you are, not based upon where you were
10:05
Speaker 1: or where you wish you were going to be, or
10:07
Speaker 1: where you think you should be. It's where you are
10:10
Speaker 1: and based upon where we are. I feel like we
10:13
Speaker 1: needed to get the hell out of this and make
10:15
Speaker 1: the best deal we possibly can, and I feel as
10:18
Speaker 1: if that's what the administration tried to do here. And
10:22
Speaker 1: you know how important I believe incentive structures are. And
10:25
Speaker 1: it feels like this deal that we don't know because
10:28
Speaker 1: is of this taping. No one's actually seen it, which
10:30
Speaker 1: is a big red flag right away that there's something
10:34
Speaker 1: amiss here. But it feels like, based upon what Jade
10:37
Speaker 1: Vance and others are saying, that this is based in
10:40
Speaker 1: the idea of creating a positive incentive structure for Iran,
10:45
Speaker 1: But the problem is they're not a rational actor, So
10:49
Speaker 1: how can you possibly predict how they're going to respond
10:53
Speaker 1: to an incentive structure that would dictate how we would
10:59
Speaker 1: respond in a particular situation. Because we are rational actors,
11:04
Speaker 1: we will do what we perceive to be in our
11:06
Speaker 1: self interest in any given moment. But we don't know
11:09
Speaker 1: that with a rod. And even more importantly, as I've
11:13
Speaker 1: already said, they're not good faith actors. They're not rational,
11:17
Speaker 1: they're not good faith. They have no downside to breaking
11:22
Speaker 1: their word, and so it's an inherently problematic situation. It's
11:26
Speaker 1: basically a needle that can't be thread and the opposition,
11:31
Speaker 1: at least so far, to this deal is pretty substantial.
11:36
Speaker 1: I've already mentioned Israel. Mark Levin, who obviously is a
11:40
Speaker 1: big supporter of Israel, has been almost apoplectic at times
11:45
Speaker 1: about his concerns about this. General Jack Keane went on
11:48
Speaker 1: Fox Deuce Chennal on Sean Hannity's show and basically crapped
11:52
Speaker 1: all over it, saying some of the same things that
11:55
Speaker 1: I just did, just in a different way. Senator John Kennedy,
11:58
Speaker 1: Republican from Causiana, seems to have no trust that the
12:02
Speaker 1: Iranians will keep their end of the bargain here either,
12:06
Speaker 1: and so essentially we have a situation where this really
12:10
Speaker 1: isn't a long term, long term deal, and that's I
12:15
Speaker 1: think the part that bothers me most here. When you
12:18
Speaker 1: look at incentive structures, it seems to me as if
12:22
Speaker 1: Iran may just be playing out the clock. They want
12:26
Speaker 1: to pause and getting the shit kicked out of them,
12:29
Speaker 1: and frankly, they're in their leverage will increase into a
12:35
Speaker 1: couple of different ways as time goes on, as we
12:37
Speaker 1: get closer to the midterms. There ain't no way, I
12:41
Speaker 1: don't think, at least in their assessment. I think it's
12:44
Speaker 1: a rational assessment on their part of this is the
12:46
Speaker 1: way the Iranians are thinking. There's no way that in
12:50
Speaker 1: September or October of this year, this is a sixty
12:54
Speaker 1: day pause, so it gets us through most of the
12:57
Speaker 1: summer as we headed the fall. I don't think there's
13:00
Speaker 1: any way Donald Trump escalates this again and shuts down
13:03
Speaker 1: the strait of our moves or the straight of the
13:05
Speaker 1: rooms gets shut down again, and you know, oil prices
13:09
Speaker 1: go back up again. Now Trump doesn't seem to care
13:12
Speaker 1: about the midterms, and he may not, but somebody in
13:16
Speaker 1: the administration does, and I don't think it's irrational for
13:20
Speaker 1: the Iranians to think that they're going to have more
13:22
Speaker 1: leverage as we get closer to the midterms. But then
13:25
Speaker 1: in the bigger picture, and this is something that I
13:27
Speaker 1: think has always put the United States at a disadvantage
13:31
Speaker 1: in all of these kinds of situations, is with regard
13:35
Speaker 1: to time. First of all other countries, especially in the
13:39
Speaker 1: Middle East, they're looking at this situation in a much
13:43
Speaker 1: larger time continuum than we are. To them, a couple
13:48
Speaker 1: of years is not that big of a deal to us.
13:52
Speaker 1: In a couple of years, Donald Trump isn't going to
13:54
Speaker 1: be president anymore. So if the Iranians can last for
13:58
Speaker 1: another two and a half year and just delay and
14:02
Speaker 1: obfuscate and pretend to make deals, there's a very very
14:06
Speaker 1: good chance than whoever the next president United States is,
14:09
Speaker 1: especially if it's a Democrat, which is seemingly fairly likely
14:12
Speaker 1: at this point, is not going to be willing to
14:15
Speaker 1: do the same things militarily that Donald Trump was, and
14:19
Speaker 1: so the situation may be very much more in their
14:23
Speaker 1: favor in a couple of years. So they have an
14:25
Speaker 1: incentive to run out the clock on this. It's one
14:29
Speaker 1: of the weaknesses. It's one of the few weaknesses in
14:32
Speaker 1: our system of government because in most situations, especially when
14:38
Speaker 1: it comes to foreign policy, we are at a disadvantage
14:42
Speaker 1: because our leadership is not going to be around as
14:44
Speaker 1: long as the other side is going to be around,
14:48
Speaker 1: and therefore they have an incentive to just delay, run
14:52
Speaker 1: out the clock, offic skate, lie, make agreements that they
14:56
Speaker 1: never adhere to, and eventually they're going to get leadership
15:01
Speaker 1: in the United States of America. So I'm somewhat downcast
15:06
Speaker 1: about this, not because I think then the negotiation here
15:11
Speaker 1: was done poorly by the United States of because we
15:13
Speaker 1: don't know since we haven't seen the agreement. I think
15:16
Speaker 1: they probably did the best they possibly could, but they
15:19
Speaker 1: have a hand that's not nearly as good as they
15:22
Speaker 1: thought they would have or that they should have for
15:25
Speaker 1: the reasons I've already mentioned. Iran has an inherent advantage
15:29
Speaker 1: in that they don't give a shit about the same
15:32
Speaker 1: things that we do. So look, in the short run,
15:37
Speaker 1: this is good. Stock market seems to like this. The
15:40
Speaker 1: price of oil seems to be going down. Maybe things
15:44
Speaker 1: will get back to normal. Maybe the mid term impact
15:48
Speaker 1: won't be all that significant. That's all positive in comparison
15:53
Speaker 1: to what things look like a few weeks ago. But
15:56
Speaker 1: in the long term, I don't think the problem has
15:59
Speaker 1: been solved. There's been no regime change. There's been no
16:02
Speaker 1: indication that the Iranian people are going to be willing
16:04
Speaker 1: or able to rise up and take out the regime,
16:08
Speaker 1: which would create a fundamental change that does not happen.
16:12
Speaker 1: And so you know, I'm not optimistic that this deal
16:16
Speaker 1: is suddenly magically going to make Iran a good faith
16:20
Speaker 1: actor that we can deal with into the future reliably
16:24
Speaker 1: that they're not going to get a nuclear weapon. I
16:26
Speaker 1: don't believe this. This problem has not been solved. Has
16:29
Speaker 1: it been temporarily put to the side? I think so,
16:34
Speaker 1: I hope so. Now that being said, I do think
16:38
Speaker 1: that there's a part of this whole equation that Americans
16:41
Speaker 1: are not fully appreciating when it comes to the greatness
16:46
Speaker 1: of America. And this kind of occurred to me in
16:50
Speaker 1: connection with the whole World Cup thing, which is a
16:53
Speaker 1: whole narrative I'm going to get to momentarily about how
16:56
Speaker 1: awesome America is, but it is quite striking that America
17:01
Speaker 1: is such a powerful nation that we can effectively win
17:07
Speaker 1: at least militarily a war against the significant power against
17:12
Speaker 1: the very significant power, militarily Iran. We can fairly easily
17:17
Speaker 1: win that war militarily half way across the world, with
17:21
Speaker 1: almost no casualties, and do so in a way it
17:26
Speaker 1: really has an impacted American life hardly at all, other
17:30
Speaker 1: than the price of gasoline, and maybe on the margins,
17:33
Speaker 1: the price of a few other products, which hopefully will
17:35
Speaker 1: be now going back down if the strait of our
17:39
Speaker 1: moves opens as expected. So with fairly incredibly historically small
17:44
Speaker 1: price and with almost zero large scale concern by the
17:51
Speaker 1: American people. And what I mean by large scale concern,
17:54
Speaker 1: this is not even a subject that most Americans are
17:57
Speaker 1: even thinking about or talking about. That we basically did
18:01
Speaker 1: this as a hobby. I don't think we're fully appreciating
18:04
Speaker 1: how amazing that is. That that's how powerful America is
18:08
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty six, that we can pull this off
18:12
Speaker 1: with limited help we did. Obviously we're working in conjunction
18:16
Speaker 1: with Israel, but effectively we did this single handedly without
18:21
Speaker 1: breaking a sweat. From a cultural perspective, this was something
18:26
Speaker 1: that was not a big deal to the average American
18:29
Speaker 1: other than the price of gasoline going up. That was it.
18:33
Speaker 1: That's extraordinary, and I think it should at least be
18:36
Speaker 1: recognized about what it says regarding the greatness of America,
18:42
Speaker 1: at least with regard to our military power and our
18:46
Speaker 1: ability to impact the world, at least theoretically in a
18:50
Speaker 1: positive way. And to me this is significant because I
18:54
Speaker 1: do believe in the America as world policeman theory. That's
18:59
Speaker 1: why I tentatively supported the Iran war at the beginning.
19:04
Speaker 1: I do believe that that is our role, because no
19:07
Speaker 1: one else can do it. Someone has to, and to
19:13
Speaker 1: whom great things are given, great things are expected, and
19:18
Speaker 1: for better or for worse. In twenty twenty six, America
19:22
Speaker 1: is it. And America has done a great thing here.
19:28
Speaker 1: I mean, unless you believe the administration is completely lying,
19:32
Speaker 1: which you know Trump is certainly capable of it. But
19:35
Speaker 1: I believe that Iran was making progress towards a nuclear weapon,
19:40
Speaker 1: and I believe that that needed to be stopped for
19:42
Speaker 1: the good of the world. And who was willing and
19:45
Speaker 1: able to do it, America, And who was able to
19:49
Speaker 1: do it at least temporarily without really all that much
19:54
Speaker 1: exertion and all that much focus and almost no sacrifice
20:00
Speaker 1: the United States of America because that's how great, that's
20:04
Speaker 1: how powerful we are, and that should be recognized and
20:07
Speaker 1: there's a positive to that. So, with all of the criticism,
20:12
Speaker 1: which is understandable and I'm obviously part of that of
20:15
Speaker 1: this deal, I think we ought at least acknowledge that
20:20
Speaker 1: there is some amazing elements to what was executed here.
20:25
Speaker 1: Did it create the results we would like? It doesn't
20:27
Speaker 1: look like it, mainly because I think there was a
20:30
Speaker 1: miscalculation about how realistic that was when you're dealing with
20:36
Speaker 1: bad faith actors like a rhyme. But this was remarkable
20:39
Speaker 1: what America has pulled off, and there should at least
20:42
Speaker 1: be some positive aspect of that when we think of America,
20:47
Speaker 1: especially as we're approaching our two hundred and fiftieth birthday
20:50
Speaker 1: and we have so much negativity, which I talk about
20:52
Speaker 1: on a weekly basis on this podcast. Now, in keeping
20:56
Speaker 1: with that theme, obviously, not only did we just effectively
21:01
Speaker 1: win a war with a ride, but we're doing so
21:03
Speaker 1: also hosting the World Cup, which is another thing which
21:08
Speaker 1: is kind of amazing because any other country that would
21:11
Speaker 1: be hosting a World Cup, by the way, and expanded
21:14
Speaker 1: World Cup because like every other sport. They're letting every
21:17
Speaker 1: team in and they're creating more games because it's more money.
21:20
Speaker 1: But any other country that had to host a World Cup,
21:26
Speaker 1: which is a massive endeavor, this would require an enormous
21:31
Speaker 1: amount of expenditure of resources and time and energy, and
21:36
Speaker 1: America is able to do it without breaking a sweat. Again,
21:39
Speaker 1: so we're simultaneously essentially winning a war in a run
21:43
Speaker 1: and hosting a massive the largest World Cup ever. And
21:47
Speaker 1: again it's really not a big deal for us because
21:50
Speaker 1: that's how great we are, that's how much we have
21:53
Speaker 1: going for us. And with regard to hosting the World
21:56
Speaker 1: Cup soccer tournament, there has been a very pronounced and
22:01
Speaker 1: there's no question that the perception of this is real.
22:05
Speaker 1: There is a massive trend on social media of Europeans
22:10
Speaker 1: from all different countries, Europeans coming to America, visiting American sites.
22:17
Speaker 1: And the interesting part about this is that because there's
22:21
Speaker 1: so many games, it's not like these games are just
22:24
Speaker 1: being played in New York or Los Angeles or the
22:27
Speaker 1: big cities. They're being played throughout the entire country, which
22:31
Speaker 1: is causing Europeans to go to places that they may
22:34
Speaker 1: not have been before, like real America, rural America, driving
22:38
Speaker 1: through real America to get to these locations, and we're
22:43
Speaker 1: seeing dozens and dozens of viral videos of Europeans utterly
22:48
Speaker 1: amazed at what real America is like. And many of
22:55
Speaker 1: these videos are awesome. They're great. They seem at least
23:01
Speaker 1: mostly sincere. They're Europeans fawning all over things that make
23:08
Speaker 1: America unique, everything from our fast food to our topography,
23:15
Speaker 1: to our high school and college football stadiums. And if
23:20
Speaker 1: you love America like I do, they make you feel good.
23:24
Speaker 1: There's no question that they make you feel good. And
23:28
Speaker 1: there's probably some truth to them. However, I have to say,
23:35
Speaker 1: because I am all about the truth, and I am
23:39
Speaker 1: a contrarian, and I am a cynic at heart, I'm
23:43
Speaker 1: a bit amazed at how little cynicism there has been
23:50
Speaker 1: towards these viral videos, even among the legacy media. That's
23:55
Speaker 1: what there's been the most shocking part of this. I
23:57
Speaker 1: get that the online world, especially on x and the
24:02
Speaker 1: right wing media, they eat this up. They eat it
24:05
Speaker 1: up because it's catnap. It makes us feel good about
24:09
Speaker 1: ourselves that look, see, we really are awesome. These Europeans
24:14
Speaker 1: are coming over and they're amazed by our ice machines
24:17
Speaker 1: and free refills at are fast food restaurants. That that's great, fantastic.
24:24
Speaker 1: You cannot you're not you know, you wouldn't be human
24:27
Speaker 1: if you didn't feel at least somewhat good about seeing
24:31
Speaker 1: this kind of testimony from people who don't live here,
24:34
Speaker 1: especially given the fact that America does seem to have
24:37
Speaker 1: a worldwide perception problem, especially in the Trump era. But
24:43
Speaker 1: how is it that we're forgetting that In the modern
24:47
Speaker 1: age of social media, there's an inherent incentive structure, a
24:53
Speaker 1: very strong incentive structure, to force people to create these
24:57
Speaker 1: types of videos because they know so they're going to
25:01
Speaker 1: be popular. I mean, essentially, what we have here is
25:07
Speaker 1: these Europeans are a different version of chet GPT, which
25:13
Speaker 1: is very sycophentic. Chet GPT will tell you whatever you
25:17
Speaker 1: want to hear, because that's the way it's designed, because
25:22
Speaker 1: people will respond more positively when they hear things that
25:26
Speaker 1: they like. Well, in this particular case, you have a financial,
25:32
Speaker 1: at least an attention incentive with regard to why people
25:37
Speaker 1: are doing this. But some of these videos are being
25:40
Speaker 1: created by essentially professional YouTubers who are at the very
25:45
Speaker 1: least getting views and followers and attention and maybe even
25:52
Speaker 1: financial enumeration because their videos are going viral. Now, does
25:57
Speaker 1: that mean they're lying? Doesn't mean they're lying. I do
26:02
Speaker 1: think though, that they are amplifying their flattery of America
26:10
Speaker 1: because they know it's good business. That's the incentive structure.
26:15
Speaker 1: So to me, I'm almost gone, not one pint eight
26:21
Speaker 1: on this, but I almost don't even like watching these
26:24
Speaker 1: things anymore because I don't feel like they're completely organic.
26:27
Speaker 1: Once it becomes a thing now one or two. At
26:30
Speaker 1: the beginning, you're like, Okay, well they caught lightning in
26:32
Speaker 1: a bottle. Like this guy Freddie from Germany, he's really
26:36
Speaker 1: taking advantage of this. I mean, he's living a high life.
26:39
Speaker 1: He's gotten you know, millions of followers, and I think
26:42
Speaker 1: JJ Watt the football player put him up in a
26:45
Speaker 1: nice hotel and he's getting all sorts of media coverage
26:48
Speaker 1: and going on CNN all because he is telling America
26:53
Speaker 1: what we want to hear, how awesome America is. And
26:56
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that it's a lie. I'm not saying
27:00
Speaker 1: it's not based in some truth, but I just find
27:03
Speaker 1: it remarkable that, as I said, even the liberal legacy
27:08
Speaker 1: media seems to be very naive about what's really driving this.
27:12
Speaker 1: I've seen Freddy be interviewed by Jake Tapper on CNN,
27:17
Speaker 1: and Jake Tapper, who's normally a cynic, was not really
27:21
Speaker 1: pushing back at all on the incentive structure that this
27:24
Speaker 1: guy has, or that all of these people have. I mean,
27:28
Speaker 1: the reality is, if you want views and you want
27:31
Speaker 1: your video scen and shared, all you got to do
27:33
Speaker 1: is have a European accent and marvel on how awesome
27:37
Speaker 1: America is as you're visiting to participate in the World
27:41
Speaker 1: Cup soccer games and you've got a viral video. That's
27:45
Speaker 1: the world we now live in, and people understand that.
27:48
Speaker 1: It's just remarkable to me that this incentive structure is
27:52
Speaker 1: not being at least referenced more often when it comes
27:57
Speaker 1: to evaluating the sincerity of these videos. So I bought in,
28:03
Speaker 1: not one hundred percent. I knew immediately that this was
28:05
Speaker 1: at least somewhat because of the incentive structures, but I
28:10
Speaker 1: wanted to believe these things were totally organic too. I
28:14
Speaker 1: don't believe that now what the percentages of contriversus organic,
28:19
Speaker 1: I don't know, and I want to be clear, some
28:22
Speaker 1: of this does seem real. I'll tell you what seems real,
28:24
Speaker 1: which is awesome, which is what's going on in Boston,
28:28
Speaker 1: because Boston has both Scott's Scotland and the Norwegians, and
28:36
Speaker 1: those fans seem totally real because they're doing their own thing.
28:40
Speaker 1: The Scots apparently are drinking Boston out of house and
28:44
Speaker 1: home and which is awesome. And the Norwegians are doing
28:50
Speaker 1: their Viking thing all over town and that's them being them.
28:54
Speaker 1: See that's that to me, is organic, that's real. That's
28:59
Speaker 1: what the World Cup should be about. They're bringing their
29:03
Speaker 1: culture here and you know, we're embracing it and everyone's
29:07
Speaker 1: having fun with it, and that feels authentic to me.
29:13
Speaker 1: By the way, it should be pointed out that one
29:15
Speaker 1: of the reasons why Scotland and Norway, among other nations,
29:19
Speaker 1: still have their national identity to the level that it
29:24
Speaker 1: can manifest itself like it has in Boston and have
29:29
Speaker 1: that kind of national pride is because they don't have
29:31
Speaker 1: massive immigration problems. Yet. Both of those countries are fairly
29:36
Speaker 1: not totally, but fairly isolated for the massive immigration invasion
29:42
Speaker 1: that has taken over much of Europe. I don't think
29:44
Speaker 1: that's a coincidence. Of course, you're not going to hear
29:46
Speaker 1: that anywhere else in the media as to why you
29:49
Speaker 1: have the Norwegians and the Scots in Boston acting the
29:55
Speaker 1: way that they do in an embrace of national pride,
30:00
Speaker 1: something that may not last for much longer in many
30:02
Speaker 1: European countries because of the immigration invasion. So that I
30:07
Speaker 1: think is totally real, and I like that, but I'm
30:11
Speaker 1: much more wary of the chat GPT sycophantic analysis of
30:17
Speaker 1: these Europeans coming to America and saying, Oh my god,
30:21
Speaker 1: we're in awe of your Costco or your Walmart. I mean,
30:25
Speaker 1: come on, people, this is not real. This is them
30:31
Speaker 1: trying to go viral because they know other people have
30:33
Speaker 1: gone viral. Now I have to mention there was at
30:35
Speaker 1: least one moment on CNN that went viral that involved
30:42
Speaker 1: my ex friend and very brief, long, long, long, long,
30:46
Speaker 1: long time ago girlfriend. I guess you would call her,
30:48
Speaker 1: although I don't think we ever call each other boyfriend
30:50
Speaker 1: girlfriend Christine Brett in USA Today Calumnist. She went on
30:55
Speaker 1: CNN to talk about this, and she went viral. From
30:59
Speaker 1: an I get a perspective because I think rightfully, she
31:04
Speaker 1: basically inadvertently let it slip that, you know, as part
31:10
Speaker 1: of the liberal elite, she did not see this coming.
31:14
Speaker 1: And she was quoted as saying, the South is welcoming
31:19
Speaker 1: a German tourist. He was referencing this Freddie guy that
31:22
Speaker 1: I talked about previously. The South is welcoming a German
31:26
Speaker 1: tourist in a way we never would have anticipated. We
31:31
Speaker 1: who's the we we would have anticipated? Now? When I
31:35
Speaker 1: saw that, I didn't have nearly the same reaction that
31:39
Speaker 1: a lot of people online did, a lot of conservatives
31:42
Speaker 1: went on the war path. And I find that to
31:44
Speaker 1: be particularly funny because when I knew Christine Brennan, especially
31:49
Speaker 1: in the late nineteen nineties, and we were friends in
31:51
Speaker 1: at least to some degree until twenty fourteen twenty fifteen,
31:56
Speaker 1: and then over the whole Penn State thing, we had
31:58
Speaker 1: a major falling out. But Christine likes to think of
32:02
Speaker 1: herself as a Republican. Now she's not, and I've tried
32:06
Speaker 1: to tell her she's not a Republican. But she's lived
32:08
Speaker 1: in Washington, d C. Basically her whole adult life, and
32:13
Speaker 1: so she's in a very very very very liberal bubble.
32:17
Speaker 1: So the fact that she might think of herself as
32:19
Speaker 1: being somewhat right of these left wing lunatics she hangs
32:23
Speaker 1: out with all the time is probably why she has
32:25
Speaker 1: this misperception. Now in the Trump era, she probably doesn't
32:28
Speaker 1: think of herself as a Republican anymore. But she is
32:33
Speaker 1: an elitist, there's no question about that, and very sanctimonious.
32:39
Speaker 1: And for her to say the South is welcoming a
32:42
Speaker 1: German tourist in a way we never would have anticipated.
32:46
Speaker 1: I thought was where she let it slip. Oops and
32:51
Speaker 1: by the way she was on with Willplitzer and the
32:53
Speaker 1: panel scene to oh yeah, yeah, we never would have
32:55
Speaker 1: anticipated that. What the fuck are you talking about? Have
32:58
Speaker 1: you guys ever been to the real out before? I
33:01
Speaker 1: doubt it. I mean, I've lived all over the South.
33:05
Speaker 1: There's nothing surprising at all about that, except for Christine Brennan,
33:10
Speaker 1: who lives in this Washington, DC bubble for her almost
33:13
Speaker 1: their entire life. So I did find that to be
33:16
Speaker 1: rather interesting. But this whole debate over Europeans coming to
33:21
Speaker 1: the World Cup and talking on online about how awesome
33:26
Speaker 1: America is has really raised On the eve of our
33:29
Speaker 1: two hundred and fiftieth birthday, this issue of American patriotism
33:34
Speaker 1: because understandably a lot of conservatives are using these viral
33:39
Speaker 1: videos as proof of see we are awesome. See when
33:45
Speaker 1: Europe gets to see the real America as opposed to
33:48
Speaker 1: the America that the media has created a misperception of.
33:53
Speaker 1: They love it. And is there some reality to that?
33:57
Speaker 1: I hope, so, I really do. I think it's possible
34:01
Speaker 1: that there is. And I totally get why conservatives are
34:04
Speaker 1: doing this. I have no problem with it, especially given
34:07
Speaker 1: the fact that we're on the eve of our two
34:09
Speaker 1: hundred and fiftieth anniversary. But there's no question that this
34:14
Speaker 1: issue is exposing a massive partisan divide when it comes
34:19
Speaker 1: to our view of America and of patriotism. And there
34:24
Speaker 1: was an NBC poll out just this week that illustrates
34:28
Speaker 1: this in very stark detail. I mean, this is as
34:32
Speaker 1: depressing a poll as you're ever going to find. But
34:36
Speaker 1: the NBC News poll gauged what percentage of Americans are
34:42
Speaker 1: extremely or very proud to be American. So you're either
34:49
Speaker 1: extremely or very proud to be an American in two
34:55
Speaker 1: thousand and three. So we're still in the post nine
34:58
Speaker 1: to eleven era there, So two thousand and three ninety
35:03
Speaker 1: percent of Americans were either extremely or very proud to
35:09
Speaker 1: be American ninety percent. In twenty twenty four, that was
35:15
Speaker 1: down to sixty seven percent. That is a precipitous drop
35:19
Speaker 1: in a fairly short amount of time twenty one years,
35:23
Speaker 1: without a massive event facilitating this other than you know,
35:28
Speaker 1: I guess you could argue the election of Donald Trump,
35:31
Speaker 1: and for many liberals, I'm sure that that was the
35:33
Speaker 1: precipitating event that caused them to not be extremely or
35:37
Speaker 1: very proud to be an American. But it's not like,
35:41
Speaker 1: you know, we lost a major war or something. I mean,
35:45
Speaker 1: it wasn't a rock. I rock was not the reason
35:47
Speaker 1: why all of a sudden Americans were no longer extremely
35:51
Speaker 1: or very proud to be American. So we had this
35:55
Speaker 1: twenty three point drop in the percentage of people who
35:59
Speaker 1: are extremely or very proud to be an American, and
36:02
Speaker 1: then in twenty twenty six it goes down to fifty
36:07
Speaker 1: eight percent, which is an all time low. Only fifty
36:12
Speaker 1: eight percent of Americans are extremely or very proud to
36:19
Speaker 1: be from this country, and that is that would be
36:24
Speaker 1: shocking if it was just the static number, but for
36:27
Speaker 1: it to drop that much in just over two decades
36:31
Speaker 1: is extremely concerning, very depressing, and very telling about where
36:36
Speaker 1: we are and where we're heading. And there's no question
36:39
Speaker 1: that there is a massive political and demographic divide on
36:44
Speaker 1: this question. Among Trump voters. This is the extremely proud
36:50
Speaker 1: only number, which I think is interesting because you know,
36:53
Speaker 1: these are the people that are you know, there's no
36:56
Speaker 1: question about it. Right when you're given the option of
36:58
Speaker 1: are you extremely are very very proud? You know, to me,
37:02
Speaker 1: that kind of muddies the water a little bit. So
37:06
Speaker 1: these are just the extremely proud people. These are the
37:10
Speaker 1: true blue you know, can't wait for the Fourth of
37:13
Speaker 1: July people every year. Sixty two percent of Trump voters
37:18
Speaker 1: are in that category, sixty two percent of the extremely proud.
37:24
Speaker 1: So that's a good number. Sixty two percent of Trump
37:27
Speaker 1: voters are extremely proud to be an American only twelve
37:32
Speaker 1: percent of Harris voters. That's extraordinary, a fifty point difference.
37:40
Speaker 1: Fifty points fifty points, only twelve percent of Harris voters
37:45
Speaker 1: extremely proud to be an American. Now related, because there's
37:51
Speaker 1: no question there's a connection, there's a correlation between demographics
37:54
Speaker 1: and politics. Is the age divide on this question among
38:00
Speaker 1: those that are sixty five and over sixty five and over.
38:06
Speaker 1: These are the people that have seen a lot of America.
38:08
Speaker 1: They've seen the ups, they've seen the downs, they've seen
38:11
Speaker 1: what other countries are all about. And seventy five percent,
38:18
Speaker 1: seventy five percent of those over the age of sixty
38:22
Speaker 1: five are extremely proud to be an American, which is
38:25
Speaker 1: an amazing number in that you are more likely to
38:29
Speaker 1: be extremely proud to be an American if you are
38:32
Speaker 1: over sixty five than if you are a Trump fellower.
38:36
Speaker 1: I find that remarkable in a strange way, kind of
38:44
Speaker 1: makes me feel a little bit better about things because
38:47
Speaker 1: that means that it's not based purely in politics, and
38:51
Speaker 1: these are the people that you know, in theory, you
38:54
Speaker 1: should trust the most. They're the ones that have seen
38:57
Speaker 1: the most, have had the most experience, the most likely
39:00
Speaker 1: to have visited other countries, and so their view on
39:05
Speaker 1: this matter should have credibility. So if you're over the
39:08
Speaker 1: age of sixty five, seventy five percent, seventy five percent,
39:14
Speaker 1: there's a seventy five percent chance if you're in that
39:16
Speaker 1: demographic that you are extremely proud to be an American. Conversely,
39:24
Speaker 1: if you are in the eighteen to twenty nine percent,
39:27
Speaker 1: not eighteen to twenty nine year old age group. So
39:30
Speaker 1: if you're a young person you're under the age of thirty,
39:34
Speaker 1: only thirty six percent of those under the age of
39:38
Speaker 1: thirty are extremely proud to be an American thirty six percent.
39:44
Speaker 1: Now there's two reasons for that. If you're younger, you
39:46
Speaker 1: tend to be more liberal, and you tend not to
39:49
Speaker 1: like Donald Trump, and you tend to buy into a
39:52
Speaker 1: lot of bullshit propaganda. Also, you don't have much experience.
39:58
Speaker 1: You haven't seen all that much of America. You haven't
40:01
Speaker 1: even been taught that much about America anymore, so you
40:05
Speaker 1: don't know the best that is of America. And there's
40:09
Speaker 1: a very good chance you haven't visited other countries either,
40:12
Speaker 1: which is an important part of this equation. So your opinion,
40:16
Speaker 1: while interesting, shouldn't really matter very much if you're in
40:19
Speaker 1: the eighteen to twenty nine year old category, So you're
40:23
Speaker 1: basically twice as likely, twice as likely a little bit
40:29
Speaker 1: more than twice as likely to be extremely proud to
40:32
Speaker 1: be an American. If you're over the age of sixty five,
40:36
Speaker 1: then if you're in the eighteen to twenty nine year
40:39
Speaker 1: old age group, those are astonishing numbers, and I think
40:43
Speaker 1: put our two hundred and fiftieth birthday into important context now.
40:49
Speaker 1: Trying to be as optimistic as possible. Hopefully those in
40:53
Speaker 1: the eighteen to twenty nine year old category as they
40:56
Speaker 1: get older, that number should get better in theory, right,
41:03
Speaker 1: But I'm skeptical of that because I think part of
41:06
Speaker 1: what's going on here is that those that were that
41:10
Speaker 1: are over the age of sixty five grew up with
41:13
Speaker 1: a foundation on which their love of America was built,
41:19
Speaker 1: and I'm not sure that those in the eighteen to
41:22
Speaker 1: twenty nine age category grew up with that same foundation.
41:27
Speaker 1: For a lot of reasons it part of it is
41:30
Speaker 1: the media. Part of it's our educational system. Part of
41:33
Speaker 1: it is the way we perceive our politics and how
41:37
Speaker 1: divided we are, so I don't think you can just
41:41
Speaker 1: count on all This is one of those situations where
41:44
Speaker 1: when people get older, they're going to love America a
41:47
Speaker 1: lot more than they do now. I don't see it,
41:49
Speaker 1: unfortunately being a fade to complete. Now with that as
41:54
Speaker 1: the context, we're starting to see more of these freedom
41:59
Speaker 1: too fifty America's birthday events. There was obviously a huge
42:03
Speaker 1: one over the weekend with the UFC fights at the
42:07
Speaker 1: White House, and when it came to the UFC fights
42:11
Speaker 1: at the White House. Look, I'm I don't really like UFC.
42:13
Speaker 1: I don't like you know, I don't. It's just not
42:16
Speaker 1: my thing. I get why people like it. The event itself,
42:21
Speaker 1: you know, seem pretty cool, you know, a lot of patriotism.
42:26
Speaker 1: And so I'm actually okay with the idea of the
42:30
Speaker 1: event in concept. Yes, I understand it was unusual for
42:35
Speaker 1: modern era. I don't buy into this theory that somehow
42:39
Speaker 1: this was desecrating the White House. That's been that's the
42:43
Speaker 1: standard that's been done long before, especially in the Biden administration,
42:47
Speaker 1: doing transgender events and all sorts of things like that.
42:50
Speaker 1: So I have no big problem with the event itself. Again,
42:55
Speaker 1: it's not my cup of tea. But here's where I
42:57
Speaker 1: do have a huge problem, and this is where, in
43:00
Speaker 1: my opinion, the event got ruined when the winner of
43:04
Speaker 1: the heavyweight bout did a post match interview and for
43:09
Speaker 1: no reason whatsoever, completely gratuitously, totally just to get attention,
43:15
Speaker 1: suddenly declared that Michelle Obama is a man. Really, this
43:27
Speaker 1: is this is what we're gonna do at the White
43:29
Speaker 1: House now, is the White House responsible for that, No,
43:33
Speaker 1: but in my opinion, they should have condemned it. This
43:37
Speaker 1: is ridiculous. This is the worst of America. This is
43:40
Speaker 1: the worst of the MAGA movement. This fighter knew that
43:45
Speaker 1: that would get a big cheer and go viral, because
43:48
Speaker 1: there apparently are, at least online, a whole lot of
43:52
Speaker 1: morons in the MAGA world who really do believe that
43:57
Speaker 1: Michelle Obama is a man. I don't I don't get
44:00
Speaker 1: where this comes from. This is, you know, as wacky
44:04
Speaker 1: as Candice Owens saying that the wife of the French
44:09
Speaker 1: president is a man. She's being sued over that. It
44:13
Speaker 1: does feel a little bit racist in the case of
44:15
Speaker 1: Michelle Obama, but it's it's first of all, it's wrong,
44:20
Speaker 1: it's absurd, there's no evidence for it. Yet there are
44:23
Speaker 1: idiots who believe that this is real. These these are
44:27
Speaker 1: you know, these idiots believe a lot of absurd things.
44:31
Speaker 1: And unfortunately, we live in a world where the MAGA
44:34
Speaker 1: media won't tell these people they're wrong because they don't
44:37
Speaker 1: want to offend their customer base, and so lots of
44:42
Speaker 1: crazy things are believed with no evidence, no logic, and
44:49
Speaker 1: and and these things are harmful. It's first of all,
44:53
Speaker 1: it's disrespectful and it's classless, which used to matter. You
44:58
Speaker 1: want to talk about the greatness of America that used
45:00
Speaker 1: to matter, you know, we used to be a proper nation.
45:04
Speaker 1: Now we've become the movie idiocracy. That's what this is.
45:08
Speaker 1: This is the movie Idiocracy where some UFC fighter wins
45:13
Speaker 1: his match and declares that a former First Lady is
45:19
Speaker 1: a man when she clearly isn't and there's no evidence
45:25
Speaker 1: that she is. And it's it's just I feel incredibly
45:29
Speaker 1: stupid even talking about this. Yet there are lots and
45:32
Speaker 1: lots of maga people online who rejoiced over this and
45:38
Speaker 1: thought you were a liberal pussy if you had a
45:42
Speaker 1: problem with it. I got caught when I you know,
45:45
Speaker 1: when I criticized this online, I got called all sorts
45:49
Speaker 1: of names. I'm a wuss, I'm a puss, I'm vaccinated,
45:56
Speaker 1: you know, because I'm not down with the struggle. And
46:01
Speaker 1: this is what it's really all about now, dunking on
46:04
Speaker 1: the left in the dumbest ways possible by publicly declaring
46:10
Speaker 1: on the White House lawn in front of a massive
46:13
Speaker 1: audience that Michelle Obama out of the blue with no
46:17
Speaker 1: relevance again, no logic, no evidence, no nothing is a man.
46:22
Speaker 1: It's embarrassing. It's embarrassing, and it's wrong, and it's classless.
46:29
Speaker 1: And it just reminds me of how much I hate
46:33
Speaker 1: elements of Magaworld. I really hate Maga World in so
46:36
Speaker 1: many ways. These are the worst of them, not all
46:40
Speaker 1: of them. I don't even I would like to believe
46:42
Speaker 1: it's not even the Median, but I don't know this,
46:45
Speaker 1: but there's an element of Maga World that are just
46:49
Speaker 1: classless assholes, moronic jackasses. And this event, that moment in
46:58
Speaker 1: this event was intended to appeal to those people, and
47:02
Speaker 1: it worked, but I believe at a very high price.
47:06
Speaker 1: I mean, when you got Dave Portnoy, a barstool Sports
47:10
Speaker 1: who is kind of a leader of this element of
47:14
Speaker 1: this demographic that this event was intended to appeal to,
47:18
Speaker 1: when he's going on national television and saying that the
47:21
Speaker 1: White House ought to denounce this, you know you have
47:25
Speaker 1: at least somewhat of a political problem. How big of one?
47:28
Speaker 1: I have no way of melody. But it was wrong,
47:31
Speaker 1: it was dumb, and it illustrated some of the inherent,
47:35
Speaker 1: massive problems within Magaworld. Now I want to move a
47:40
Speaker 1: little bit more directly political with regard to Trump and
47:44
Speaker 1: some of the things happening here in California. And obviously
47:48
Speaker 1: I talked a lot recently about our primary elections here
47:51
Speaker 1: in California and tried speaking of Magaworld and crazy things
47:56
Speaker 1: they believe without evidence, this idea that somehow the California
48:01
Speaker 1: elections were rigged, that Spencer Pratt was robbed of the
48:06
Speaker 1: second spot in the LA mayoral election in a way
48:10
Speaker 1: that for me, had no evidence, no logic, made no
48:15
Speaker 1: sense for all sorts of different reasons I've explained by
48:19
Speaker 1: the way. One of the things I have been negligent
48:21
Speaker 1: and mentioned it because there's so many elements to the
48:23
Speaker 1: absurdity of the entire Mago world theory on the California
48:27
Speaker 1: elections is how is it I would love for someone
48:31
Speaker 1: to explain this to me. How is it that Maga
48:34
Speaker 1: World believes rightfully, the California Democrats are completely incompetent. They
48:41
Speaker 1: can't even get homeless people off the street. They can't
48:45
Speaker 1: get shit off the street. Literally, they can't build a
48:50
Speaker 1: high speed railway even with you know, hundreds of billions
48:54
Speaker 1: of dollars being spent. Total incompetence everywhere, right competence, Yet
49:01
Speaker 1: when it comes to fixing an election, they can do
49:04
Speaker 1: so seamlessly without leaving any evidence whatsoever. How does that work?
49:09
Speaker 1: How does that fit? I mean, it's one of the
49:11
Speaker 1: many reasons why I'm an ardent anti conspiracy person is
49:14
Speaker 1: you got to pick a lane, because in order to
49:17
Speaker 1: pull off a conspiracy this large, you have to be very,
49:21
Speaker 1: very competent. You have to be really really good at it.
49:25
Speaker 1: It's supposedly to leave no evidence. And that's completely in
49:29
Speaker 1: contradiction with what we know about Democrats in California. They're
49:34
Speaker 1: not competent people, they're not smart people. They can't govern it.
49:38
Speaker 1: How can they fix election so easily? But that's just
49:41
Speaker 1: one of the many, many problems with the theory about
49:45
Speaker 1: California elections being rigged. To be clear, I hate our
49:49
Speaker 1: election system. I hate universal mail imballoting. I attacked it
49:53
Speaker 1: on CNN when I went on with Elec Michaelson two
49:58
Speaker 1: weeks ago. By the way, programming note, I've been asked
50:02
Speaker 1: back on Elick's show, or Aleck has asked me back
50:05
Speaker 1: on the show for this coming Monday night. I haven't
50:09
Speaker 1: been officially booked yet. But in his mind, I think
50:12
Speaker 1: I've been booked. Whenever these things happen in advance, I'm
50:16
Speaker 1: always skeptical that they're actually going to happen. So, you know,
50:20
Speaker 1: I don't know what the percentage is. But I've been
50:22
Speaker 1: asked to go back on CNN late night on this
50:25
Speaker 1: coming Monday night, and so that may or may not happen.
50:29
Speaker 1: But I think it's pretty clear I'll be back on
50:31
Speaker 1: CNN at some point, because they did Apparently the first
50:34
Speaker 1: appearance went well enough for them to ask me back,
50:37
Speaker 1: So we'll see what happens on that. But I attacked
50:43
Speaker 1: mail in balloting on CNN. I can't stand it. So
50:46
Speaker 1: I'm not somebody who believes that our system is even
50:49
Speaker 1: remotely good here in California. I'm just saying it's not rigged,
50:53
Speaker 1: it's not fixed, it's not stolen. But Donald Trump made
50:58
Speaker 1: a statement that I just have to play because this
51:00
Speaker 1: is so classic Trump and it's so the opposite of reality.
51:05
Speaker 1: You know, I have mentioned, and as I did on
51:08
Speaker 1: CNN and I've done on this podcast, one of the
51:11
Speaker 1: other inherent contradictions about the entire Magna World California election
51:16
Speaker 1: rigging theory is okay, So you believe that Spencer Pratt
51:21
Speaker 1: got second place stolen from him in a way that
51:24
Speaker 1: may make it much, much, much, much more difficult for
51:27
Speaker 1: the incumbent mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, to actually win.
51:31
Speaker 1: You believe that happened. But how is it that Steve Hilton,
51:35
Speaker 1: the Trump back candidate the Republican in California, was able
51:40
Speaker 1: to get the second place slot for the governor's race
51:44
Speaker 1: over Tom Steyer, who spent over two hundred million dollars
51:48
Speaker 1: of his own money. And oh, by the way, and
51:51
Speaker 1: I think this is an important point that no one
51:52
Speaker 1: else is making. Every media outlet in the state was
51:57
Speaker 1: really hoping he would make the final two because he
51:59
Speaker 1: was going to spend probably another two hundred million dollars Eventually.
52:03
Speaker 1: I think he's gonna run on the money. But in theory,
52:05
Speaker 1: he was gonna spend a hell of a lot more
52:07
Speaker 1: money on the general election on advertising than Steve Hilton
52:10
Speaker 1: will ever dream of having. So this has been very,
52:14
Speaker 1: very bad for the Democrats in California because they don't
52:18
Speaker 1: get two Democrats running for governor against each other. They
52:22
Speaker 1: got to you know, they're gonna win, but they at
52:24
Speaker 1: least have to deal with a Republican on the ballot,
52:27
Speaker 1: that'll probably help Republicans down ballot in a lot of
52:31
Speaker 1: different ways. But also from a media perspective, there's a
52:35
Speaker 1: lot of money that's going to be lost. So Tom
52:38
Speaker 1: Steyer wasn't allowed to get the benefits of the rigging.
52:42
Speaker 1: How does that work? Why did Tom Steyers should be pissed?
52:45
Speaker 1: Why is he not screaming bloody murder? He spent all
52:49
Speaker 1: this money and he did not get the benefits of
52:51
Speaker 1: the rigging. Why? Well, in my view, because there was
52:56
Speaker 1: no rigging. Well, Donald Trump has an explanation for this
53:01
Speaker 1: apparent contradiction, and that is that it was Donald Trump,
53:06
Speaker 1: Donald Trump who effectively scared or intimidated the California authorities
53:13
Speaker 1: into not rigging the gubernatorial action. I don't even know
53:17
Speaker 1: how this would work, but this is what Donald Trump
53:20
Speaker 1: said at the White House, taking credit, taking credit for
53:25
Speaker 1: preventing the gubernatorial second place slot from being stolen from
53:30
Speaker 1: Steve Hill.
53:32
Speaker 4: Look at the election in California as an example. After
53:36
Speaker 4: a week, they determined that the kid who's leading and
53:40
Speaker 4: had all the mojo, all of a sudden, he doesn't
53:42
Speaker 4: make the runof And then I hit them hard on that.
53:46
Speaker 4: But I started talking about Steve Hilton's a fantastic and
53:51
Speaker 4: I saw them say it was going to be two
53:53
Speaker 4: weeks before they knew, and I started hitting them, It's
53:55
Speaker 4: going to happen to Steve Hilton too.
53:57
Speaker 1: It's watched, you got to watch. And they approved Steve
54:00
Speaker 1: Hilton very quickly. They didn't want to. There was too
54:03
Speaker 1: much heat on him.
54:04
Speaker 5: The only reason he got approved he had all the
54:06
Speaker 5: bouts he needed, probably to be first place. But the
54:10
Speaker 5: only reason they proved Steve Hillton there's going to be
54:12
Speaker 5: two weeks. They said it, and then they approved him
54:16
Speaker 5: that night because the heat was on them, because they're
54:19
Speaker 5: cheating dogs, and you can't have a great country when
54:23
Speaker 5: that happens. That's why Los Angeles, that's why that state
54:26
Speaker 5: is in such trouble. It's most beautiful place, best weather
54:30
Speaker 5: maybe anywhere in the world, but it's in big trouble.
54:34
Speaker 1: Now. That's as rich as it gets from Donald Trump,
54:38
Speaker 1: forgetting the fact that what he just said is ridiculous,
54:42
Speaker 1: it makes no sense, it's not true. The reality here
54:46
Speaker 1: is exactly the opposite. The reality is that Donald Trump
54:51
Speaker 1: fucked up both races for Republicans. Now, I want to
54:57
Speaker 1: make clear, there is not a world in which Spencer
55:01
Speaker 1: Pratt was ever going to be the mayor of la
55:04
Speaker 1: or that any Republican was going to be the next
55:07
Speaker 1: governor of California. That was never going to happen. However,
55:10
Speaker 1: Trump ended any hope of either of those things happening
55:15
Speaker 1: when he got involved in the races. I said many
55:19
Speaker 1: times I was one hundred percent vindicated that as soon
55:22
Speaker 1: as he endorsed Steve Hilton, it ended any hope of
55:26
Speaker 1: two Republicans somehow sneaking into the final two, which would
55:30
Speaker 1: ensure a Republican was the next governor California. And that's
55:34
Speaker 1: the only scenario where a governor from California could ever
55:38
Speaker 1: be a Republican, because there wasn't a Democrat on the ballot,
55:41
Speaker 1: and the only way that was going to happen is
55:43
Speaker 1: if both Republican candidates somehow got like exactly eighteen percent
55:49
Speaker 1: and the rest of the Democratic vote was split so
55:52
Speaker 1: much that no one else got eighteen percent. That was
55:56
Speaker 1: a very long shot, but at least it was theoretically
55:59
Speaker 1: possible until Trump got involved and endorsed Steve Hilton. Because
56:04
Speaker 1: as soon as he endorsed Steve Hilton, there was no
56:07
Speaker 1: way to equal out the votes, and so the second
56:11
Speaker 1: place Republican was never going to get anywhere near enough votes. Again,
56:16
Speaker 1: it didn't really matter, but it basically took a one
56:19
Speaker 1: percent chance and made it a zero percent chance. With
56:23
Speaker 1: regard to the mayor's race. I think there's a very
56:26
Speaker 1: strong argument to be made that Spencer Pratt's momentum halted
56:32
Speaker 1: the moment that Donald Trump praised him. Now, is there
56:36
Speaker 1: a direct correlation or causation, I don't know. But when
56:40
Speaker 1: you look at the timeline and you look at the polling,
56:43
Speaker 1: and you look at how Spencer Pratt did in the
56:46
Speaker 1: way that the votes were cast, the later deciding voters
56:50
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly did not vote for him, and he did, he
56:55
Speaker 1: underperformed previous polls. And it was with about two weeks
57:00
Speaker 1: left in the campaign that Trump praised Spencer Pratt as
57:05
Speaker 1: being maga, hoped he did well, effectively endorsed him. It
57:10
Speaker 1: may have been three weeks. It was in the two
57:11
Speaker 1: to three week area right near the end of the
57:14
Speaker 1: election period. And that was also when Spencer Pratt went
57:17
Speaker 1: on Fox News channel and he called himself a Republican.
57:22
Speaker 1: In an interview on CNN with Alec Michaelson. So those
57:26
Speaker 1: those three things I think had to have an impact
57:29
Speaker 1: on how Spencer Pratt's campaign ended effectively being endorsed as
57:33
Speaker 1: Maga by Trump being a Fox News Channel darling and
57:38
Speaker 1: calling himself a Republican. I'm sorry, that's toxic. That's how
57:42
Speaker 1: toxic Trump is in Los Angeles. And so, if anything,
57:48
Speaker 1: Trump had the exact opposite effect of what he's claiming.
57:52
Speaker 1: But that's kind of part for the course for Donald Trump.
57:55
Speaker 1: Now staying in California and issues related to Donald Trump
57:59
Speaker 1: and politics. Gavin Newso had what was probably the strangest
58:05
Speaker 1: presidential campaign announcement of all time. Now, he didn't officially
58:09
Speaker 1: announce that he's running for president, but he essentially announced
58:13
Speaker 1: that he's running for president, and he did so by
58:17
Speaker 1: making a declaration preemptively to tell the world that he
58:21
Speaker 1: and his wife are being investigated by what he called
58:25
Speaker 1: the Trump Department of Justice, that there's a federal investigation
58:31
Speaker 1: involving him and his wife, and that this is outrageous,
58:35
Speaker 1: and this is Trump going after his political enemies because
58:39
Speaker 1: he might run for president in twenty twenty eight. Here's
58:43
Speaker 1: the reality. Okay, there's a lot of that. First of all,
58:48
Speaker 1: there's a lot that's not known about this situation. It's
58:51
Speaker 1: a lot like the Iran peace deal. There's also seemingly
58:54
Speaker 1: some misinformation going around, like those on the writer claiming
58:58
Speaker 1: that this investigation began during the Biden administration. That's only
59:03
Speaker 1: technically true because there was an investigation that was opened
59:07
Speaker 1: into Newsom's former chief of staff involving corruption. There's there's
59:13
Speaker 1: no evidence that Newsom and his wife were involved in that.
59:16
Speaker 1: Now appears as if that investigation has been expanded. But
59:19
Speaker 1: also Newsom doesn't seem to be telling the truth because
59:22
Speaker 1: this appears to be an investigation that's coming from the
59:25
Speaker 1: US Attorney's office on the West Coast. And you can
59:29
Speaker 1: argue that, well, I understand there's a presumption that Trump
59:35
Speaker 1: could behind could be behind that. There's also someone at
59:38
Speaker 1: least of a firewall there. And as far as what
59:42
Speaker 1: the investigation is all about, it appears to be about
59:47
Speaker 1: Newsom's wife's nonprofits and whether or not there were intimidation
59:52
Speaker 1: and tactics or quid pro quoes with regard to donate
59:56
Speaker 1: to her charity and you can get benefits from Newsom's government.
1:00:02
Speaker 1: That appears to be the essence of the investigation. But
1:00:06
Speaker 1: here's the bottom line. Here's the bottom line, and it
1:00:08
Speaker 1: goes back to Trump's toxicity and how everything about our
1:00:11
Speaker 1: politics is upside down. We've never had, at least in
1:00:15
Speaker 1: my lifetime, we've never had a major presidential candidate essentially
1:00:21
Speaker 1: tell the world, Hey, I'm running for president and I
1:00:24
Speaker 1: want to brag about the fact that the President United
1:00:28
Speaker 1: States and his DOJ are going after me in some
1:00:31
Speaker 1: sort of corruption investigation. That this is now something to
1:00:37
Speaker 1: brag about. This is a fundraising mechanism. Literally, I got
1:00:41
Speaker 1: the email myself. There's Newsom has sent out a fundraising email.
1:00:47
Speaker 1: At least the Democratic Party in California did a fundraising
1:00:51
Speaker 1: email telling people the news that Newsom is being investigated
1:00:57
Speaker 1: by Trump's DOJ send me money. So, for all intentsive purposes,
1:01:02
Speaker 1: this was absolutely a campaign announcement. And we now live
1:01:06
Speaker 1: in a world where as a Democrat you can benefit,
1:01:11
Speaker 1: You can get people to give you money. Who knows
1:01:14
Speaker 1: you might even rising the polls in awareness your stature.
1:01:21
Speaker 1: It's a badge of fucking honor now to be a
1:01:24
Speaker 1: target of the Trump DOJ if you are a Democrat,
1:01:30
Speaker 1: this is a positive regardless of the nature of the
1:01:33
Speaker 1: investigation itself regardless if there's any real fire there, and
1:01:38
Speaker 1: we don't know yet. I have no way of knowing yet,
1:01:41
Speaker 1: I don't know. Could it be? The truth is usually
1:01:44
Speaker 1: the middle. There's probably some smoke there, and it's probably
1:01:48
Speaker 1: somewhat politically motivated. But the real problem here is the
1:01:52
Speaker 1: fact we're now living in this upside down world where
1:01:56
Speaker 1: you can essentially announce your candidacy for president based upon
1:02:00
Speaker 1: the fact that you're the subject of some sort of
1:02:05
Speaker 1: criminal corruption investigation from the federal authorities. That's a remarkable
1:02:11
Speaker 1: thing because it wasn't that long ago that that would
1:02:15
Speaker 1: have been the end of a presidential candidacy, not the beginning.
1:02:18
Speaker 1: There would have been the end, and that was literally
1:02:21
Speaker 1: the way you announce your candidacy for all of tentsive purposes. Now,
1:02:26
Speaker 1: for those that have been following along, I have two
1:02:29
Speaker 1: fear factors currently on the Death of Journalism Podcast. One
1:02:33
Speaker 1: is regarding AI, which is currently at seven point five
1:02:36
Speaker 1: out of ten, and the Gaven Newsom becomes President fear factor,
1:02:40
Speaker 1: which is currently six point five out of ten. I'm
1:02:44
Speaker 1: going to keep it at six point five, but it
1:02:46
Speaker 1: might be edging up. I haven't seen enough Daddy yet
1:02:50
Speaker 1: to know whether or not this gambit that Newson put
1:02:54
Speaker 1: out there that I'm going to preemptively tell everyone I'm
1:02:56
Speaker 1: being investigated by the Trump doj how that's actually going
1:03:00
Speaker 1: to play. But clearly he thinks it's going to play positively,
1:03:04
Speaker 1: and he might be right, because that's the upside down
1:03:08
Speaker 1: world we're now living in and it's not remotely healthy.
1:03:12
Speaker 1: And my biggest point, which I'm sure I'm going to
1:03:15
Speaker 1: make time and time again, I've made it before, but
1:03:18
Speaker 1: it certainly deserves to be said at every opportunity. If
1:03:23
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom becomes the next president of the United States,
1:03:27
Speaker 1: which is unfortunately well within the realm of possibility. If
1:03:32
Speaker 1: that happens, we must never, ever, ever forget that that
1:03:39
Speaker 1: path was paved by Donald Trump. There was no path
1:03:46
Speaker 1: to Gavin Newsom becoming president, given his history, both personal
1:03:51
Speaker 1: and political. There was no path before there was Donald Trump.
1:03:57
Speaker 1: Donald Trump changed all the rules, and mag world loves
1:04:00
Speaker 1: him for that. But there are ramifications of that, and
1:04:04
Speaker 1: the biggest ramification may well be that Trump, while claiming
1:04:09
Speaker 1: to hate Gavin Newsom now even though they were best
1:04:11
Speaker 1: buddies during COVID and during the wildfires and here in
1:04:15
Speaker 1: Los Angeles, even though Trump now claims to hate Gavin
1:04:19
Speaker 1: noose Come as he calls him, I prefer Governor Poosom,
1:04:24
Speaker 1: which my daughters came up with during the COVID panic,
1:04:26
Speaker 1: even though Trump claims to not like Newsom, even though
1:04:29
Speaker 1: they're from the same tribe, since you know, Newsom was
1:04:32
Speaker 1: once married to the future ex fiance of Donald Trump's
1:04:37
Speaker 1: favorite or then favorite son, Donald Trump Junior, so there
1:04:41
Speaker 1: was a very complicated relationship there. The reality is that
1:04:45
Speaker 1: without Donald Trump changing all the rules, there would be
1:04:50
Speaker 1: no legitimate Gavin Newsom presidential campaign period. End of sentence.
1:04:55
Speaker 1: So if this happens, and I'm not yet there, that's
1:04:59
Speaker 1: why it's a sixth point five out of ten the
1:05:01
Speaker 1: fear factor. But if this happens, I'm not there yet.
1:05:04
Speaker 1: But if it happens, it can only have occurred because
1:05:07
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump, and that should never be forgotten because
1:05:11
Speaker 1: while there have been some positives of this Trump experiment,
1:05:15
Speaker 1: the reality is there's going to be a lot of negatives,
1:05:18
Speaker 1: the likes of which we have no idea yet. What
1:05:22
Speaker 1: is going to be unleashed, And if it turns out
1:05:25
Speaker 1: that Gavin Newsom is president, everything that comes after that,
1:05:31
Speaker 1: everything that is unleashed on America or what's left of it,
1:05:35
Speaker 1: could only occur because of Donald Trump. Let's never forget that, ever,
1:05:43
Speaker 1: because that is a cold, stone hard fact. There is
1:05:47
Speaker 1: no way Gavin Newsom is even remotely a presidential contender
1:05:51
Speaker 1: without Trump changing all the rules and without Republicans losing
1:05:56
Speaker 1: all moral authority to condemn Newsom on all sorts affronts
1:06:01
Speaker 1: that would have been death to his campaign. Previously to
1:06:05
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, we lost the moral high ground, we lost
1:06:08
Speaker 1: the argument. We're seeing that in main with Gram Plattner,
1:06:12
Speaker 1: although I'm still hopeful that Plattner may be defeated by
1:06:15
Speaker 1: Susan Collins. But before Donald Trump, there's no grand Platner.
1:06:19
Speaker 1: There's no chance of that candidate having a shot at
1:06:23
Speaker 1: being the Senator from Maine. But now Republicans have lost
1:06:26
Speaker 1: the moral high ground on that. One other story in California,
1:06:31
Speaker 1: which I find to be by far the most underrated
1:06:35
Speaker 1: story of this week, maybe this month, maybe this year,
1:06:40
Speaker 1: because it's gotten almost no attention, is an absolutely remarkable
1:06:45
Speaker 1: development out of Los Angeles involving the largest class action
1:06:53
Speaker 1: sex abuse settlement apparently in American history. This was a
1:06:58
Speaker 1: situation involving four billion dollars of tax money, four billion
1:07:06
Speaker 1: dollars of tax money going out to over eleven thousand
1:07:10
Speaker 1: alleged victims of sex abuse. These are people who were
1:07:17
Speaker 1: in juvenile halls, foster homes, and children's shelters in the
1:07:25
Speaker 1: County of Los Angeles. So eleven thousand claims four billion
1:07:32
Speaker 1: dollars in sex abuse payouts. All right, now, I haven't
1:07:38
Speaker 1: even heard of this case. I've talked many times before,
1:07:42
Speaker 1: obviously most prominently with the Penn State Joe Paternal Jerry
1:07:45
Speaker 1: Suduski case, but in other situations about how I cannot
1:07:49
Speaker 1: stand these class action sex abuse cases because they are
1:07:54
Speaker 1: they are rought with all sorts of abuse, not sexual abuse,
1:08:00
Speaker 1: but financial abuse and fraud. They're just asking for it.
1:08:05
Speaker 1: But even I was stunned by this development because the
1:08:10
Speaker 1: Los Angeles DA Nathan Hackman, who is a Democrat, but
1:08:16
Speaker 1: he's a Democrat with a brain. I mean, this is
1:08:18
Speaker 1: the guy that basically kept the Menendez brothers in prison
1:08:22
Speaker 1: where they belong. This is the guy who got elected
1:08:25
Speaker 1: because the previous DA didn't even believe in enforcing the law.
1:08:29
Speaker 1: So there's at least some point beyond which even LA
1:08:32
Speaker 1: County is not willing to accept insanity. So Nathan Hockman
1:08:38
Speaker 1: has announced that the payments in this massive, unprecedented class
1:08:45
Speaker 1: action sex abuse settlement should be stopped immediately. Why and
1:08:54
Speaker 1: there's been no details that I've been able to find
1:08:56
Speaker 1: on how or why his office found this out, But
1:09:00
Speaker 1: his office said to the judge a request to stop
1:09:06
Speaker 1: the payments that they have found that up to eighty
1:09:11
Speaker 1: one percent of the claims were fraudulent. I don't know
1:09:17
Speaker 1: how they come up with eighty one percent. That's an
1:09:19
Speaker 1: oddly specific number, but eighty one percent is what they said.
1:09:24
Speaker 1: Of the eleven thousand, eighty one percent were fraudulent. That's astonishing,
1:09:32
Speaker 1: and that is so overwhelming that in a rational world,
1:09:37
Speaker 1: this story should be huge. Not because it shows that
1:09:43
Speaker 1: La County blew billions of dollars on fraudulent claims. That
1:09:48
Speaker 1: would be a significant story enough, because it would show
1:09:51
Speaker 1: a lot about liberal government, and it would show a
1:09:53
Speaker 1: lot about our culture and how much credibility we give
1:09:57
Speaker 1: to these claims and the danger of class action lawsuits,
1:10:01
Speaker 1: especially in the area of sex abuse, where there's no vetting,
1:10:04
Speaker 1: and no one wants to hold any of these stories
1:10:07
Speaker 1: accountable because No one wants to put an abuse victim
1:10:10
Speaker 1: on trial or actually ask them serious questions or require
1:10:14
Speaker 1: any sort of proof for evidence or verification. No one
1:10:18
Speaker 1: wants that. So all those questions are important. But to me,
1:10:23
Speaker 1: my biggest takeaway on this is holy shit, How in
1:10:27
Speaker 1: the world can we still buy into the foundational belief?
1:10:36
Speaker 1: And having lived this for fifteen years on the Penn statecase,
1:10:38
Speaker 1: I can tell you this is the foundational belief that
1:10:43
Speaker 1: is the bedrock, the backbone of all of these sex
1:10:48
Speaker 1: abuse allegations, and why it is that the court system
1:10:52
Speaker 1: presumes them to be true, why the media presumes them
1:10:55
Speaker 1: to be true, why often law enforcement presumes them to
1:10:59
Speaker 1: be true. That foundational belief is nobody lies about sex abuse,
1:11:06
Speaker 1: especially men. By the way, there were men and women.
1:11:11
Speaker 1: I don't know what the percentages were, but this was
1:11:13
Speaker 1: clearly both genders involved in this, and the presumption of
1:11:19
Speaker 1: all these cases as well. We don't need full evidence.
1:11:23
Speaker 1: I don't say this directly, but this is this is
1:11:26
Speaker 1: the implication, this is the understanding, This is the mo
1:11:29
Speaker 1: We don't need full evidence because we know that real
1:11:34
Speaker 1: evidence in these cases is very hard to come by,
1:11:36
Speaker 1: and that's a bullshit. Narrative. But that's and I talk
1:11:40
Speaker 1: all the time about the pendulums going back and forth.
1:11:44
Speaker 1: No question that in a certain period of time, whether
1:11:47
Speaker 1: it was the fifties, sixties, seventies, whatever, the pendulum was
1:11:50
Speaker 1: too far in one direction and it made it very difficult,
1:11:55
Speaker 1: if not impossible, for victims to be taken seriously and
1:11:59
Speaker 1: to have any sort of justice. I get that. But
1:12:04
Speaker 1: in an effort to correct that the pendulum went so
1:12:07
Speaker 1: far in the other direction, we decided, well, we don't
1:12:10
Speaker 1: really need evidence, you know, hardlock evidence, because one, it's very,
1:12:16
Speaker 1: very difficult to find in these cases, which is a myth,
1:12:18
Speaker 1: especially in the era of digital pornography. So that was
1:12:24
Speaker 1: a myth that got accepted and it's absurd. But part
1:12:29
Speaker 1: of that myth when it comes to these cases is
1:12:32
Speaker 1: we also don't need full on evidence because someone's word
1:12:39
Speaker 1: in this area is inherently trustworthy, because people don't lie
1:12:46
Speaker 1: about being sexually abused. That's the presumption. Well, this case
1:12:53
Speaker 1: obliterates that, obliterates it with a nuclear bomb one percent.
1:13:01
Speaker 1: And by the way, it's probably even higher than that.
1:13:02
Speaker 1: I mean, this is Los Angeles, you know, It's not
1:13:05
Speaker 1: like Nathan Hockman is A is a hardcore conservative. This
1:13:09
Speaker 1: is a liberal. He's still a Democrat, and he was
1:13:13
Speaker 1: willing to publicly state and to stop payments for eighty
1:13:19
Speaker 1: one percent of those involved in the largest sex abuse
1:13:24
Speaker 1: class action suit in American history, and the media is
1:13:29
Speaker 1: almost completely silent. I've seen no follow ups, zero, nobody
1:13:34
Speaker 1: going wait a minute, hold on, Maybe we should reconsider
1:13:40
Speaker 1: our foundational beliefs in this area. Maybe we've gone too far.
1:13:45
Speaker 1: Maybe the pendulum has swung so far that we've created
1:13:49
Speaker 1: so much protection for alleged victims that they realize they
1:13:54
Speaker 1: can get away with this now, and that there is
1:13:57
Speaker 1: no fear, at least in cases we're standing with that
1:14:02
Speaker 1: Nathan Hoffmans not involved, there's no fear of lying because
1:14:08
Speaker 1: everyone's going to believe you. The media is certainly not
1:14:11
Speaker 1: going to give you any scrutiny. And so whether you know,
1:14:16
Speaker 1: I talk all the time, how insane it makes me
1:14:18
Speaker 1: to hear radio commercials where they're advertising class action sex
1:14:23
Speaker 1: abuse lawsuits for guynecologists or whatever, which is happening on
1:14:28
Speaker 1: a consistent basis here in Los Angeles, because we've had
1:14:30
Speaker 1: a situation at UCLA and at USC where they're just
1:14:34
Speaker 1: basically telling you Hey, there's free money, come and get it.
1:14:39
Speaker 1: I mean, that's really all it is. And there becomes
1:14:43
Speaker 1: this in you know, this sex abuse industrial complex that
1:14:49
Speaker 1: becomes so big that it can't be stopped. And since
1:14:53
Speaker 1: this is the Death of Journalism podcast, there's a massive
1:14:56
Speaker 1: media conflict of interest here. You know, I talked about
1:14:59
Speaker 1: the Tom Steyer's gubernatorial election, how there's no question that
1:15:04
Speaker 1: the media outlets are gonna lose a lot of money
1:15:06
Speaker 1: because he didn't make the top two. Well, think about
1:15:08
Speaker 1: the incentive structure when it comes to advertising for sex
1:15:12
Speaker 1: abuse victims or for plaintiffs attorneys, regardless of whether it's
1:15:18
Speaker 1: sex abuse or anywhere else. I don't know what the
1:15:21
Speaker 1: percentage is, but at least here in Los Angeles, and
1:15:24
Speaker 1: I perceive it to be the same way elsewhere across
1:15:26
Speaker 1: the country, whether it's billboards or radio ads or television ads,
1:15:31
Speaker 1: the percentage of those ads that are based in plaintiffs
1:15:36
Speaker 1: attorneys is off the charts. It's unbelievable. I would love
1:15:43
Speaker 1: to know what the actual number is. It has got
1:15:46
Speaker 1: to be forty fifty percent of all advertising revenue in
1:15:51
Speaker 1: those areas is based either directly or indirectly in plaintiff's attorneys.
1:15:58
Speaker 1: So does the local media have any incentive to go
1:16:04
Speaker 1: after these bullshit lawsuits for which we are all paying. No,
1:16:11
Speaker 1: why would they kill their goal and goose this is
1:16:14
Speaker 1: this is all a scam. These planeff attorneys understand that
1:16:20
Speaker 1: juries have lost their fucking minds that you know, corporations
1:16:24
Speaker 1: are willing to settle over anything in academic institutions, state
1:16:30
Speaker 1: institutions especially, They're gonna roll over into the fetal position,
1:16:35
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what the basis of the claim is. They
1:16:38
Speaker 1: just wanted to go away. Insurance companies will pay. And
1:16:41
Speaker 1: then who pays for the insurance companies? All of us
1:16:45
Speaker 1: because we all pay higher rates because the insurance company
1:16:48
Speaker 1: has to get paid back in some way, shape or form,
1:16:51
Speaker 1: or whoever's paying out these settlements, whether it's tax money whatever,
1:16:55
Speaker 1: we're all paying for it. We just don't see the
1:16:57
Speaker 1: bill directly. So this is all big scam and the
1:17:00
Speaker 1: media has no incentive to stop it. And even when
1:17:05
Speaker 1: you have the smoking gun, the smoky smoking gun of
1:17:09
Speaker 1: all time, we're in Los Angeles, they're saying eighty one
1:17:14
Speaker 1: percent are fraudulent, it makes no impact because no one
1:17:20
Speaker 1: is incentivized to go after the story. First of all,
1:17:24
Speaker 1: you know, it goes against the narrative of the mainstream
1:17:27
Speaker 1: news media that no one wants to say that victims
1:17:29
Speaker 1: are lying. And two, I do believe that that there
1:17:32
Speaker 1: is a financial incentive structure here for reasons that I've
1:17:35
Speaker 1: just stated. Plus it also requires a little bit of
1:17:38
Speaker 1: thinking outside of the box, thinking, oh, wait a minute,
1:17:40
Speaker 1: hold on, you mean you mean to tell me that
1:17:43
Speaker 1: eighty one percent of people who participated in this particular
1:17:48
Speaker 1: situation we're lying about having been sexual abused. Gee, I
1:17:52
Speaker 1: wonder what that means for other cases. And of course
1:17:56
Speaker 1: to me, there is an almost direct connection between in
1:18:00
Speaker 1: this case and the Sandovsky case. Why well, who were
1:18:05
Speaker 1: these people that were lying? They were people from badly
1:18:09
Speaker 1: broken homes, juvenile halls, foster homes, children's shelters. That's the
1:18:17
Speaker 1: exact demographic of the Second Mile charity from which all
1:18:22
Speaker 1: the Jerry Sandusky accusers came from. And if you listen
1:18:26
Speaker 1: to the benefit of hindsight, I talk all the time
1:18:29
Speaker 1: about how that was the pond from which the prosecutors
1:18:34
Speaker 1: were fishing. This was a polluted pond where they went
1:18:40
Speaker 1: fishing in a situation where it's remarkable they were only
1:18:43
Speaker 1: able to find eight people willing to testify as adults
1:18:47
Speaker 1: against Jerry Sindosky at his trial, when there were hundreds
1:18:50
Speaker 1: and hundreds and hundreds of at risk kids who had
1:18:54
Speaker 1: a free ticket, had a lottery ticket. All they had
1:18:58
Speaker 1: to do was tell a semi plausible story, and they're
1:19:01
Speaker 1: a multimillionaire. And all these guys got paid millions and
1:19:04
Speaker 1: millions of dollars. In this particular case, If you do
1:19:07
Speaker 1: the math, the average or the median settlement was well
1:19:12
Speaker 1: over three hundred thousand dollars apiece. That now hopefully is
1:19:16
Speaker 1: being stopped in Los Angeles. But when you have adults
1:19:22
Speaker 1: who came from broken homes, the chances of them being
1:19:26
Speaker 1: willing and able to lie in order to make up
1:19:30
Speaker 1: for that are extremely high. One, because of their view
1:19:34
Speaker 1: of truth and what they're owed. That's a huge one.
1:19:39
Speaker 1: These are people that you know, probably did experience some
1:19:42
Speaker 1: sort of abuse, they had terrible childhoods Now they're being
1:19:45
Speaker 1: offered a lottery ticket, and so they feel like they
1:19:48
Speaker 1: deserve it. And when you feel like you deserve it, it's
1:19:51
Speaker 1: a hellp lot easier to lie. And that's this human nature,
1:19:58
Speaker 1: especially when there's no real scrutiny, no vetting, and I
1:20:02
Speaker 1: don't believe this is nice lated this incident at all.
1:20:05
Speaker 1: I believe that one hundred percent that's obviously what happened
1:20:08
Speaker 1: in the Sandusky case. This validates it as much as
1:20:11
Speaker 1: any scenario I could possibly imagine. But I have to
1:20:15
Speaker 1: say that one of the more shocking moments I had
1:20:17
Speaker 1: so many shocking moments in my fifteen years of covering
1:20:21
Speaker 1: the Sandusky Penn State paterno case was This is a
1:20:25
Speaker 1: long story, but I'll guess to get to the brass
1:20:27
Speaker 1: tacks of it, I by accident had a former Penn
1:20:31
Speaker 1: State football player who I was visiting with in San Diego.
1:20:34
Speaker 1: Was a sportscaster at the time who was a fan
1:20:38
Speaker 1: of Jerry Sandusky's, although he was a course a woos
1:20:40
Speaker 1: and would never say anything publicly that's typical of this situation.
1:20:44
Speaker 1: We were at a bar and he had a friend
1:20:48
Speaker 1: who was a lawyer. It was a plaintiffs lawyer, and
1:20:53
Speaker 1: I was introduced as this guy who's done a lot
1:20:55
Speaker 1: of work in the Sandusky case. And the guy tells
1:20:58
Speaker 1: me that he is a lawyer who has worked a
1:21:01
Speaker 1: lot on the Catholic Church case and had you know,
1:21:06
Speaker 1: was part of that class action lawsuit, and I'm bracing
1:21:09
Speaker 1: for uh oh, I'm gonna get blasted because this guy
1:21:12
Speaker 1: obviously thinks that all this sex abuse is real and
1:21:16
Speaker 1: he's going to he's not going to be someone who's
1:21:18
Speaker 1: going to be willing to even hear me out. And
1:21:21
Speaker 1: I'm I'm resuming this is not going to go well.
1:21:25
Speaker 1: And I'm stunned because this lawyer tells me matter of fact,
1:21:29
Speaker 1: without even knowing me. He goes, yeah, I would say
1:21:33
Speaker 1: that I had a feeling about sixty percent of my
1:21:36
Speaker 1: clients were lying in the Catholic Church sex abuse class
1:21:41
Speaker 1: actions situation. Sixty percent. This is the plaintiff's attorney telling
1:21:47
Speaker 1: a stranger that he had a feeling that sixty percent
1:21:51
Speaker 1: of his clients were lying. I mean seriously, and I
1:22:00
Speaker 1: have no problem believing that. I mean, especially given what
1:22:04
Speaker 1: just happened in Los Angeles. Yet no one will put
1:22:07
Speaker 1: the pieces together. We're just this is gonna be one
1:22:09
Speaker 1: of those crimes best left unsolved. We're just gonna move
1:22:13
Speaker 1: on and let the scam continue, because you know, a
1:22:18
Speaker 1: lot of people are making a lot of money from this,
1:22:20
Speaker 1: and everyone's paying for it, and they don't even realize it.
1:22:24
Speaker 1: That's the essence of this. We are all paying for
1:22:29
Speaker 1: this in a way that people don't even understand. I mean,
1:22:35
Speaker 1: this is I think one of the core problems when
1:22:39
Speaker 1: it comes to inflation. I'm amazing inflation isn't more given
1:22:44
Speaker 1: how much insurance costs in every possible way because of
1:22:49
Speaker 1: and it's not the sex of use, it's everything. Because
1:22:52
Speaker 1: juries have gotten completely out of control. Our legal system
1:22:55
Speaker 1: is being used as a weapon. It's a weapon because
1:23:00
Speaker 1: everything is broken. And the core problem is that our
1:23:03
Speaker 1: juries are made up of fucking idiots who are willing
1:23:06
Speaker 1: and able to write blank checks. They don't understand the
1:23:10
Speaker 1: value of money anymore. And now everyone's afraid of their
1:23:14
Speaker 1: own shadow. Everyone's settling because they don't want to have
1:23:17
Speaker 1: to deal with individual cases in court, because they're terrified
1:23:20
Speaker 1: of what these idiot juries might do. And so, to me,
1:23:25
Speaker 1: that story right there probably the most underrated story of
1:23:29
Speaker 1: twenty twenty six so far, and I'm not surprised, but
1:23:35
Speaker 1: I'm frustrated. Nonetheless, thanks for listening to today's free drop
1:23:39
Speaker 1: of the abbreviated show. If you're interested in listening to
1:23:42
Speaker 1: the entire show, you must become a patron Please go
1:23:46
Speaker 1: to Patreon. That's p A t R e o N
1:23:51
Speaker 1: dot com. Patreon dot com Slash the Depth of Journalism
1:23:57
Speaker 1: with John Ziggler. My name is a h N z
1:24:00
Speaker 1: I E g L e R. That's patreon dot com.
1:24:05
Speaker 1: Slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziegler. Good luck
1:24:11
Speaker 1: to you on that. But that's how you can subscribe.