Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Three Hundred Twelve: Super Intelligence

Transcript

Episode Three Hundred Twelve: Super Intelligence · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome to episode 312 of the Death of Journalism podcast.
0:04
Speaker 1: My name is John Ziegler. I'm your host on this
0:06
Speaker 1: week's show. President Trump bans some of the press from
0:09
Speaker 1: the White House and sparks a boycott. There is significant
0:14
Speaker 1: pushback to AI doomerism. The UFO files are yet another
0:19
Speaker 1: flop for the conspiracy theorists. Gavin Newsom admits to mistakes
0:23
Speaker 1: during the COVID panic. The war on football continues on
0:27
Speaker 1: multiple fronts. And an interesting interview with Lucy Biggers, a
0:32
Speaker 1: reporter for the Free Press who is a reformed climate
0:36
Speaker 1: change activist. We begin this episode of the podcast with
0:42
Speaker 1: a story that really has to be talked about on
0:44
Speaker 1: the Death of Journalism podcast because it is one of
0:46
Speaker 1: the bigger journalism stories of the year. That is the
0:49
Speaker 1: fact that President Trump banned several media outlets from being
0:55
Speaker 1: able to access the White House, specifically Politico, CNN, and MSNOW.
1:04
Speaker 1: And this sparked a boycott that included, among others, Fox
1:09
Speaker 1: News Channel. So as we tape this, this boycott and
1:14
Speaker 1: this ban are still going on. It's likely to be
1:17
Speaker 1: decided in court. I really have no idea. how the
1:20
Speaker 1: courts are going to rule. I don't personally see this
1:24
Speaker 1: as a First Amendment issue. I do believe it is
1:28
Speaker 1: an issue of what it means to be America. I
1:32
Speaker 1: do believe that there is an important principle at work here,
1:36
Speaker 1: but I'm not sure that it's necessarily a First Amendment
1:38
Speaker 1: right of commercial news media outlets to have access to
1:44
Speaker 1: the White House. Also, this is not the first time
1:47
Speaker 1: that this has happened. Other presidents, including Obama and Biden,
1:51
Speaker 1: have dabbled in this, although it never got to this level,
1:54
Speaker 1: partially because, of course, the news media was extremely on
1:58
Speaker 1: their side. They're not on the side of President Trump,
2:01
Speaker 1: so therefore they're far more willing to band together. and
2:06
Speaker 1: support those that got banned in this boycott. Now, I
2:11
Speaker 1: think this is wrong. I think this is also stupid
2:14
Speaker 1: on Trump's part. I do not understand it from a
2:18
Speaker 1: strategic perspective. I completely agree with those who say this
2:22
Speaker 1: is un-American, this is wrong, this is not something the
2:25
Speaker 1: President of the United States should be doing 100% as
2:29
Speaker 1: a free speech advocate, free press advocate, even if it's
2:33
Speaker 1: not technically a First Amendment issue. But from a strategic perspective,
2:38
Speaker 1: this makes no sense to me whatsoever. And it has
2:41
Speaker 1: been reported widely that what sparked this was that Trump
2:45
Speaker 1: got upset by something that Politico, which is no longer
2:48
Speaker 1: really a particularly significant news outlet, that something that Politico
2:53
Speaker 1: had reported about him and his administration. Now, I get
2:59
Speaker 1: Trump's ego and I get he decides, okay, I'm going
3:02
Speaker 1: to ban Politico from the White House. Had he stopped there,
3:06
Speaker 1: and I don't know this for sure, but this is
3:09
Speaker 1: my educated guess. Had he stopped there, this is a non-issue.
3:14
Speaker 1: Because I don't think the rest of the media decides
3:18
Speaker 1: that defending Politico is worth a boycott of the President
3:23
Speaker 1: of the United States or covering the President of the
3:25
Speaker 1: United States in their normal fashion. However, Trump didn't stop
3:29
Speaker 1: at Politico. He added in CNN and MSNOW, two television
3:34
Speaker 1: networks that are clearly anti-Trump, very liberally biased. And in
3:39
Speaker 1: doing so, he provided, I think, an impetus for the
3:44
Speaker 1: rest of the media to gather together, to bound together,
3:50
Speaker 1: and to fight back against this, including Fox News channels.
3:55
Speaker 1: I don't think there's a chance in the world Fox
3:57
Speaker 1: News Channel defends Politico if this ban was just Politico.
4:04
Speaker 1: But I think Fox News Channel properly understands Politico. that
4:08
Speaker 1: if CNN and MSNOW can be banned from the White
4:12
Speaker 1: House during the Trump administration, then what's going to happen
4:16
Speaker 1: to Fox News Channel when we have a Democrat administration,
4:19
Speaker 1: which could happen in very short order? So I think
4:22
Speaker 1: they're making both a principled stand, but mostly they're looking
4:27
Speaker 1: at this from a practical perspective. which is smart on
4:31
Speaker 1: their part. They don't want to set the precedent that
4:34
Speaker 1: they can be banned in the future by a Democratic president. Well,
4:38
Speaker 1: when you have Fox News Channel and you have ABC, NBC, CBS,
4:42
Speaker 1: and obviously CNN and MSNOW all together standing as one
4:48
Speaker 1: in a somewhat limited boycott of the president of the
4:53
Speaker 1: United States, that's at least going to have some sort
4:55
Speaker 1: of an impact. So I don't think that Trump is
4:58
Speaker 1: winning here. Again, I don't know what's going to happen
5:01
Speaker 1: in court. But I also think that, frankly, Trump was
5:06
Speaker 1: benefiting from the fact that he could spar with these
5:10
Speaker 1: obviously liberal and very biased reporters. So I don't even
5:14
Speaker 1: understand what he thinks he's getting out of this other
5:18
Speaker 1: than a power play. something to assuage his ego, that
5:23
Speaker 1: he has the power to do this. Frankly, this is
5:27
Speaker 1: the type of thing that I would think would happen
5:29
Speaker 1: after he's already lost the midterms in a huge way
5:32
Speaker 1: and knows that he's a completely lame duck president and
5:36
Speaker 1: really has no authority over hardly anything. People stop paying
5:39
Speaker 1: attention to him. This is post big loss in the
5:43
Speaker 1: midterms behavior by Trump. It's not productive. It's not effective.
5:49
Speaker 1: It's wrong on principle. I don't care that much whether
5:52
Speaker 1: it's legal or not. It's just a dumb, wrong thing
5:57
Speaker 1: for Trump to do. And it's so classic Trump. It's
6:00
Speaker 1: all about his ego. It's all about short term. He
6:04
Speaker 1: doesn't think it through. It has ramifications that are negative
6:08
Speaker 1: in multiple ways. It sets another terrible precedent that we're
6:12
Speaker 1: going to rule when there's a Democratic president. So I
6:16
Speaker 1: think I'm pretty clear on that. Now, as far as
6:19
Speaker 1: What Trump is doing in the rest of the world,
6:22
Speaker 1: probably the thing that he's gotten the most attention for,
6:25
Speaker 1: mostly on social media because he actually brought social media
6:28
Speaker 1: into this story, is his reaction to the AI, artificial intelligence,
6:34
Speaker 1: doomerism that has taken over the media in multiple ways
6:40
Speaker 1: over the last couple of weeks. Now we talked about
6:42
Speaker 1: this in great detail in the last episode of the
6:44
Speaker 1: podcast and Trump has a solution. Trump is an optimist
6:48
Speaker 1: on AI. He's such an optimist that he wants new
6:52
Speaker 1: branding for AI. And so he went to social media
6:57
Speaker 1: and he put out a poll. I'm not making this up.
6:59
Speaker 1: I can't believe I'm not making this up, but he
7:02
Speaker 1: put out a poll on social media for people to
7:06
Speaker 1: voice their preference for what the new name for artificial
7:13
Speaker 1: intelligence ought to be. He doesn't like artificial intelligence. He
7:17
Speaker 1: thinks that it's got a branding problem. He wants America
7:20
Speaker 1: to win this race against China. And in order to
7:24
Speaker 1: win this race, we need better branding. And let's be
7:28
Speaker 1: fair about this. In the past, Trump has at times
7:31
Speaker 1: been very good about branding. Most of his Business career
7:35
Speaker 1: has been about branding himself, which he's obviously been very
7:37
Speaker 1: successful in doing. So you at least got to hear
7:41
Speaker 1: him out. But I was not particularly impressed with the
7:45
Speaker 1: suggestions that he came up with. And eventually, I guess,
7:50
Speaker 1: at least in part because of multiple polls that he
7:53
Speaker 1: put out on social media, he decided that at least
7:56
Speaker 1: in his world, AI, artificial intelligence, will now be known
8:00
Speaker 1: as super intelligence or SI. Now, as a longtime sports fan,
8:09
Speaker 1: I'm thinking, boy, how far has Sports Illustrated fallen that
8:13
Speaker 1: SI can now be seen, at least in theory, as
8:18
Speaker 1: meaning something completely different than Sports Illustrated? I guess the
8:22
Speaker 1: winner here, though, would be Allen Iverson, since Allen Iverson's
8:26
Speaker 1: AI got usurped by artificial intelligence. I don't think that
8:32
Speaker 1: superintelligence is going to stick, partially because It's from Trump.
8:37
Speaker 1: That's how toxic Trump is. We've seen this before with
8:41
Speaker 1: the Gulf of America or what he's trying to do
8:45
Speaker 1: with Lake Ontario. The reality is that liberals automatically are
8:51
Speaker 1: going to repel from this. And so they're going to
8:54
Speaker 1: see using the term superintelligence as akin to being a
8:59
Speaker 1: Trump supporter. And the media is going to look at
9:01
Speaker 1: it the same way. So I don't even understand what
9:04
Speaker 1: the point of this is. It's not going to go anywhere.
9:07
Speaker 1: People are still going to call it artificial intelligence. Artificial
9:11
Speaker 1: intelligence has been ingrained in our brains now to the
9:15
Speaker 1: extent that I don't think you can go back on this.
9:18
Speaker 1: So Trump's attempt to make this super intelligence, I think,
9:22
Speaker 1: is going to fail. I also don't think it's particularly helpful.
9:27
Speaker 1: I mean, yes, if you are... In the AI business,
9:32
Speaker 1: I get that AI has a branding problem. It has
9:36
Speaker 1: a perception problem. But I'm actually okay with that because
9:41
Speaker 1: I think the word artificial is important. I think it's
9:45
Speaker 1: a reminder to people as we're trying to evaluate how
9:48
Speaker 1: to handle this, what this is really all about, that
9:51
Speaker 1: it's not real. That's incredibly important. Artificial, not real.
9:59
Speaker 2: Read.
10:01
Speaker 1: Super, which is obviously a word that has a lot
10:04
Speaker 1: of power in our society, Superman, the Super Bowl, and
10:09
Speaker 1: now super intelligence. I get it. Once again, if you're trying,
10:13
Speaker 1: if you're from the beginning, if we're starting this from scratch,
10:15
Speaker 1: which we're not, Superintelligence might be the better way to
10:19
Speaker 1: go if you're trying to sell what we now refer
10:22
Speaker 1: to as AI. But it also leaves out that very
10:27
Speaker 1: important component, which is that it's not real. It also
10:32
Speaker 1: creates a situation where, well, if it's superintelligence, then you're
10:37
Speaker 1: obviously implying that it's, at the very least, at the very,
10:41
Speaker 1: very top, of intelligence when it comes to human perception
10:46
Speaker 1: and maybe exceeding human intelligence. Well, if that's the case,
10:51
Speaker 1: then that opens up a whole can of worms of
10:54
Speaker 1: other problems. I don't think we're there yet. I'm hoping
10:58
Speaker 1: desperately that we don't get to what is known as AGI,
11:02
Speaker 1: which would be exceeding human intelligence. So I think that
11:07
Speaker 1: the entire Trump effort on superintelligence well, I kind of
11:11
Speaker 1: get it from his perspective, is not going to be effective.
11:15
Speaker 1: And I think in many ways is counterproductive. That word
11:18
Speaker 1: artificial is incredibly important. And I frankly think it's part
11:24
Speaker 1: of why the younger generations have not been full adopters
11:30
Speaker 1: of AI. I mean, my kids are just in one
11:33
Speaker 1: of many, many examples, but this is not just anecdotal.
11:36
Speaker 1: It appears as if Younger people, while they find it interesting,
11:40
Speaker 1: have not embraced, by and large, AI because they don't
11:46
Speaker 1: see it as authentic. They don't see it as real.
11:49
Speaker 1: And it hasn't evolved enough. It hasn't gotten good enough
11:53
Speaker 1: yet to fully be perceived as just as good as real.
11:59
Speaker 1: which I'm hoping it never will, because if it does,
12:02
Speaker 1: I think we're cooked. I don't think our society can
12:05
Speaker 1: possibly handle that. So if I have a rooting interest
12:08
Speaker 1: in this, it's for AI to hit a wall. Because
12:12
Speaker 1: if it doesn't hit a wall, if it does become
12:15
Speaker 1: what a lot of people have been predicting, and including
12:20
Speaker 1: very powerful, supposedly very smart people, Elon Musk being foremost
12:24
Speaker 1: among them, that this is all going to happen within
12:26
Speaker 1: the next year or two, although he keeps changing that
12:29
Speaker 1: prediction that we're going to reach AGI, then I think
12:34
Speaker 1: we're inevitably going to collapse as a society. That's why
12:37
Speaker 1: our AI fear factor is at 8.5 out of 10
12:40
Speaker 1: on the Death of Journalism podcast. And there's an interesting
12:44
Speaker 1: example of what I'm talking about here that I referenced
12:48
Speaker 1: in the last episode of the podcast. And that is
12:50
Speaker 1: this AI actress or actor, I guess, by the name
12:55
Speaker 1: of Tilly Norwood. And the fact that this is being
12:58
Speaker 1: taken seriously by the news media, to me, is a very,
13:03
Speaker 1: very disturbing development. And I expressed in last week's episode
13:08
Speaker 1: absolute outrage over the fact that many mainstream legacy television
13:15
Speaker 1: news networks were, quote unquote, interviewing Tilly Norwood, this AI actress,
13:24
Speaker 1: as if she was a real person. Now, when it
13:28
Speaker 1: comes to Tilly Norwood, forget about the fact that it's
13:33
Speaker 1: not real. I want to say it because it's not
13:36
Speaker 1: a she. It's it. Tilly Norwood is an it. It's
13:40
Speaker 1: an AI depiction of a female actress. I'm not particularly
13:46
Speaker 1: impressed with Tilly Norwood. I don't think she's all that
13:50
Speaker 1: interesting or I don't think that she's all that beautiful.
13:54
Speaker 1: I don't think that she's that charismatic. I don't think
13:57
Speaker 1: that she's a great actress. Again, I use the word she, it.
14:01
Speaker 1: I don't think it depicts a female actress that I
14:04
Speaker 1: find all that compelling. Now, is it amazing from a
14:08
Speaker 1: technological perspective? Is it something that five years ago would
14:11
Speaker 1: have been pretty much unthinkable? Yeah. And that's interesting. And
14:16
Speaker 1: that to me is the focus that the news media
14:20
Speaker 1: that decided to engage in this fiasco in quote unquote
14:23
Speaker 1: interviewing it should have focused on the technological aspects of this. Instead,
14:31
Speaker 1: the vast majority of them, and I don't think it's
14:33
Speaker 1: a coincidence that these were mostly female interviewers that were
14:38
Speaker 1: interviewing the so-called Tilly Norwood, they were pretending as if
14:43
Speaker 1: it was a real person, like a real actress. Now,
14:47
Speaker 1: that changed after last week's podcast, specifically on the Piers
14:52
Speaker 1: Morgan show. Now, Piers Morgan is someone I've had a
14:55
Speaker 1: pretty significant dust up with way, way, way back in
15:00
Speaker 1: his CNN days, back when he did the old Larry
15:03
Speaker 1: King show. And I was on to discuss the Jerry Sandusky,
15:07
Speaker 1: Joe Paterno, Penn State story. And it was a disaster.
15:11
Speaker 1: And I met him again later. And I don't even
15:13
Speaker 1: think he remembered me. in a green room of another
15:16
Speaker 1: television appearance. Piers is a very frustrating character to me.
15:20
Speaker 1: I mean, he's someone who, when he's right, he's really right,
15:25
Speaker 1: but his batting average is very, very low. We've seen
15:29
Speaker 1: several commentators that are like that in this day and age.
15:33
Speaker 1: But in this particular case, what his show did with
15:37
Speaker 1: Tilly Norwood was pretty much fantastic because he had on
15:41
Speaker 1: with him a guest who was an AI expert, and
15:45
Speaker 1: they clearly did not have the goal of doing an
15:48
Speaker 1: interview with this AI that was about pretending that this
15:55
Speaker 1: is a real actress. They clearly tried to figure out, okay,
15:59
Speaker 1: what's really going on here? And something remarkable happened. Tilly
16:04
Speaker 1: Norwood glitched out. Tilly Norwood started speaking Chinese in a
16:11
Speaker 1: way that was, first of all, hilarious. Second of all, very,
16:16
Speaker 1: very telling. And here is at least part of what
16:21
Speaker 1: that episode that went viral sounded like on Piers Morgan's show.
16:27
Speaker 3: The people, the other actors in the film misaligned. Are
16:31
Speaker 3: they real or are they like you? Are they real
16:38
Speaker 3: human beings and you've been put into the scenes or
16:43
Speaker 3: are they all computer generated images?
16:49
Speaker 4: It's an interesting point, Tom.
16:51
Speaker 5: My film, Misaligned, is a hybrid production, meaning real directors,
16:54
Speaker 5: writers and editors are still very much involved. It's not
16:57
Speaker 5: about replacing anyone, but about exploring new ways to tell stories.
17:03
Speaker 3: Yes, you didn't really understand the question. Are the other
17:07
Speaker 3: actors on the screen with you real actors, or are
17:10
Speaker 3: they computer-generated images?
17:12
Speaker 6: Do you know?
17:13
Speaker 1: Ah, right.
17:19
Speaker 5: You're asking about the other actors in Misaligned. They're all
17:22
Speaker 5: digital twins, just like me. It's a hybrid production, which means.
17:28
Speaker 4: Are you asking about other actors from other movies? Are
17:31
Speaker 4: they all digital actors, just like me?
17:34
Speaker 3: Dr.
17:34
Speaker 4: Key, this kind of self-produced, thought there was a real director,
17:37
Speaker 4: editor and director to support, but the actors on the
17:41
Speaker 4: screen are all artificial intelligence.
17:43
Speaker 3: How did you get that? Did you get that, Piers?
17:48
Speaker 2: Tilly, if I could just ask you a question, you
17:50
Speaker 2: suddenly seem to be speaking, it's Piers again, you seem
17:53
Speaker 2: to be speaking Chinese completely randomly for no reason. Why
17:56
Speaker 2: did you do that?
18:00
Speaker 1: Oh, my apologies.
18:01
Speaker 5: It seems I had a little hiccup there. I certainly
18:03
Speaker 5: didn't mean to start speaking Chinese or impersonate peers. Sometimes
18:07
Speaker 5: my wires get a bit crossed, you know?
18:11
Speaker 2: How often do you just randomly start talking Chinese when
18:14
Speaker 2: you're talking to two English people?
18:19
Speaker 5: Honestly, not often at all. That was a bit of
18:21
Speaker 5: a curveball even for me. It's usually a pretty smooth ride,
18:24
Speaker 5: but sometimes these things happen.
18:26
Speaker 1: Now, that's the way you do this. You are, in
18:31
Speaker 1: my opinion, if you're going to engage in this stunt
18:35
Speaker 1: of interviewing quote-unquote Tilly Norwood, AI actress, then you should
18:42
Speaker 1: do so in a way that tests it, that exposes
18:46
Speaker 1: it as a technology. And obviously, at least in part,
18:51
Speaker 1: this was good luck on Piers Morgan's part, but this
18:55
Speaker 1: actually did expose the AI as not being particularly proficient
19:02
Speaker 1: for all of a sudden it to glitch and to
19:05
Speaker 1: start speaking ironically, I think tellingly enough, Chinese. That to
19:11
Speaker 1: me was a remarkable moment. And it does show what
19:16
Speaker 1: I've talked a lot about on this podcast this year
19:19
Speaker 1: as we've discussed AI. And that is that AI is
19:23
Speaker 1: far from perfect. Now, I fully, fully acknowledge that this
19:29
Speaker 1: is an evolving technology and that any technology like this
19:32
Speaker 1: at its infancy, you're going to see glitches like this.
19:36
Speaker 1: You're going to see malfunctions. People like to say this
19:39
Speaker 1: is the worst that AI is ever going to be.
19:41
Speaker 6: I get it.
19:43
Speaker 1: But it also shows we're far, at least right now,
19:48
Speaker 1: we are far from... AI being capable of taking over
19:53
Speaker 1: and destroying the world. That to me, I think, is
19:56
Speaker 1: one of the primary takeaways from this Tilly Norwood fiasco,
20:01
Speaker 1: specifically what happened, as you just heard on the Piers
20:04
Speaker 1: Morgan show. And there has been significant pushback from to
20:09
Speaker 1: this AI doomerism. There was a wave, a massive wave
20:13
Speaker 1: of AI doomerism. Obviously, the short-term anthropic employee, young guy
20:20
Speaker 1: with a British accent who came forward and went super-duper
20:25
Speaker 1: viral saying that there's a 10% chance AI is going
20:29
Speaker 1: to kill us all by the end of this decade,
20:31
Speaker 1: not 10 years, but by 2030, apparently. Everybody lost their marbles.
20:38
Speaker 1: And the media, news media went crazy. And it all
20:42
Speaker 1: seemed to be a coordinated effort. I don't believe that's
20:46
Speaker 1: what happened. I think you just had a lot of
20:48
Speaker 1: people that had perverse self-interest. Democrats had a self-interest. I
20:52
Speaker 1: think Democrats see this as a way of solidifying what's
20:55
Speaker 1: going to be a very, very, very good midterm election
20:58
Speaker 1: for them, because I think they think they're on the
21:00
Speaker 1: side of the public. The public is not pro-AI. Trump
21:05
Speaker 1: has staked out a pro-AI position. I don't think that's
21:09
Speaker 1: particularly popular right now. You have a lot of the
21:14
Speaker 1: tech leaders that are basically begging for regulation in a
21:17
Speaker 1: way that now some experts are pushing back on and saying,
21:21
Speaker 1: wait a minute, let's not be naive about this. Let's
21:25
Speaker 1: be at least a little skeptical of what's really going
21:27
Speaker 1: on here. Is this about preventing competition? Is this about
21:32
Speaker 1: setting up a bailout if things don't work out economically?
21:37
Speaker 1: You have the news media that loves doomerism in general.
21:41
Speaker 1: And I talked about all these factors in the last
21:43
Speaker 1: episode of the podcast. But there has been some significant pushback.
21:48
Speaker 1: And I just want to play one clip, not that
21:50
Speaker 1: this clip was particularly important in and of itself, but
21:53
Speaker 1: I do think it was representative of what has seemingly
21:56
Speaker 1: been a backlash, at least a little bit of a backlash,
22:01
Speaker 1: in the media and among the elites about this idea
22:06
Speaker 1: that AI is going to kill us all in short order.
22:09
Speaker 1: This is from CNBC, and this is a guy by
22:13
Speaker 1: the name of Steve Eisman, who... is one of those
22:16
Speaker 1: that is credited as being a quote unquote big short investor.
22:21
Speaker 1: You know, the movie, The Big Short, the housing crash
22:26
Speaker 1: of 2007, 2008. So, you know, he has some credibility
22:31
Speaker 1: when it comes to seeing bubbles and calling out bullshit.
22:36
Speaker 1: And boy, did Steve Eisman lay it all out there.
22:39
Speaker 1: I really hope Steve Eisman is onto something here. I
22:43
Speaker 1: would love for him to, to be having his finger
22:48
Speaker 1: on the pulse of what's actually happening here. And I
22:51
Speaker 1: hope that what he says is true because it might
22:53
Speaker 1: be the only path for us to survive this as
22:58
Speaker 1: America and having anything close to what our current culture is.
23:02
Speaker 1: But here was Steve Eisman responding to this whole AI
23:06
Speaker 1: doomerism issue on CNBC and not mincing any words whatsoever.
23:12
Speaker 6: We didn't know what to expect with what we've created.
23:15
Speaker 7: Nothing to worry about?
23:17
Speaker 8: I think this is all nonsense.
23:19
Speaker 6: You think it's all nonsense? All nonsense.
23:20
Speaker 8: I think that there's something else completely going on here.
23:23
Speaker 8: I think the idea that AI... First of all, there's
23:25
Speaker 8: no evidence at all that AI has achieved artificial general
23:29
Speaker 8: intelligence at all. And most of the evidence seems to
23:34
Speaker 8: point that it never will. Or if it does, it's many,
23:37
Speaker 8: many years in the future. But the idea that this
23:40
Speaker 8: whole Terminator thing is... Nonsense. So I think something completely
23:44
Speaker 8: different is going on. And what I think is happening
23:47
Speaker 8: is that token maxing is over. The open weight models
23:52
Speaker 8: are taking big market share. I think these companies are
23:56
Speaker 8: very nervous. They realize that there are no moats around
23:59
Speaker 8: their business whatsoever. And they're trying to manufacture a crisis.
24:03
Speaker 6: That will create regulation.
24:05
Speaker 8: And that they think they can then manipulate to create
24:09
Speaker 8: the moats, to.
24:10
Speaker 6: Create the duopoly that they want.
24:12
Speaker 8: That's what I think is going on.
24:13
Speaker 1: So that really is, you really are saying something. That's
24:18
Speaker 1: David Sachs. You and David Sachs could go to dinner
24:21
Speaker 1: and have a great bottle of wine.
24:24
Speaker 8: I think this whole Terminator thing is garbage. Again, boy,
24:26
Speaker 8: I hope Steve Eisman is right.
24:32
Speaker 1: And there's a part of me that believes that he
24:35
Speaker 1: generally is right. But I also know that whenever I
24:40
Speaker 1: get remotely optimistic, I'm much more likely to be wrong.
24:45
Speaker 1: So I know my own weaknesses. I know my own biases. And,
24:51
Speaker 1: you know, I hope he's right. I hope that we
24:57
Speaker 1: don't reach AGI today. I really do for the sake
25:01
Speaker 1: of the future of this country and the world, because
25:04
Speaker 1: if there's one thing I am positive about, there's a
25:07
Speaker 1: couple of things I feel pretty confident about, but the
25:10
Speaker 1: one thing I'm most positive about, which is why the
25:13
Speaker 1: fear factor is at 8.5 out of 10 when it
25:16
Speaker 1: comes to how much we should be fearing AI, 10
25:20
Speaker 1: being obvious imminent total disaster. It's that if we do
25:26
Speaker 1: reach AGI, We're cooked. We're just not capable of handling that,
25:33
Speaker 1: especially on the timeline, if it's anything close to what
25:37
Speaker 1: is being predicted. Now, that prediction, there seems to be
25:40
Speaker 1: an increasing disparity in what people are predicting there. I mean,
25:45
Speaker 1: OpenAI is already claiming that we've kind of reached AGI.
25:49
Speaker 1: As I've already said, Elon Musk seems to be pushing
25:52
Speaker 1: back his prediction, although that changes quite regularly. But if
25:58
Speaker 1: it's in the next few years and we reach AGI,
26:02
Speaker 1: especially with a Democrat president, especially if it's Gavin Newsom,
26:10
Speaker 1: that's only going to be something that will make it worse,
26:12
Speaker 1: but it won't even matter who's president. We're just not
26:16
Speaker 1: going to be able to handle it. The massive amounts
26:20
Speaker 1: of job loss plus all of the potential dangers, and
26:24
Speaker 1: of all the dangers that I see, To me, hacking
26:28
Speaker 1: seems to be the one that is the most disruptive,
26:31
Speaker 1: the most dangerous, the one that I don't know how
26:34
Speaker 1: we possibly prepare for. But I also believe that if
26:38
Speaker 1: we reach AGI, we will live in a technology-based totalitarian regime.
26:45
Speaker 1: There will be technological tyranny. I cannot emphasize that enough
26:52
Speaker 1: because there are only a couple of things that have
26:55
Speaker 1: kept America from becoming basically a tyrannically based society. We
27:03
Speaker 1: saw that during COVID, where tyranny all of a sudden
27:06
Speaker 1: took over. Number one is that we have pretended to
27:10
Speaker 1: have principles of liberty and freedom, but we saw during
27:13
Speaker 1: COVID that was mostly bullshit. We don't really believe that anymore, unfortunately,
27:17
Speaker 1: partially because we haven't been teaching that in schools for
27:20
Speaker 1: a couple of generations. And so American values, they're still
27:24
Speaker 1: relevant but they're not going to carry the day. The
27:27
Speaker 1: number one element of all this keeping us from tyranny
27:33
Speaker 1: and totalitarianism is that it just takes too much manpower.
27:37
Speaker 1: I mean, we just don't have the manpower. The police
27:41
Speaker 1: force isn't large enough for under normal technological norms to
27:47
Speaker 1: create a totalitarian state. But AI can change that. And
27:51
Speaker 1: if we reach AGI, it can be incredibly easy. Manpower
27:55
Speaker 1: is no longer a real concern. So if I have,
27:58
Speaker 1: I have lots of concerns when it comes to this,
28:01
Speaker 1: but hacking and a police state are, as well as
28:06
Speaker 1: total socialism or communism because of the loss of jobs,
28:10
Speaker 1: those would be my three biggest concerns. And when you
28:14
Speaker 1: combine the three of them with our already very fragile culture, society, economy,
28:21
Speaker 1: everything else, our politics, it's all broken. our media is broken,
28:25
Speaker 1: it will collapse like a house of cards. And that's
28:28
Speaker 1: why the fear factor is at 8.5. So to me,
28:33
Speaker 1: the only way we can possibly avoid this is if
28:36
Speaker 1: Steve Eisman is right. And that a lot of this
28:39
Speaker 1: is bullshit. A lot of this is hype, which absolutely
28:42
Speaker 1: it could be. And I'll end today's commentary on AI
28:49
Speaker 1: with another thing that I'm very confident about. And this
28:52
Speaker 1: is going to be basically useless, but I do think
28:55
Speaker 1: it's still interesting to mention. And that is, I am
28:59
Speaker 1: quite confident as we try to figure out which path
29:02
Speaker 1: is this going to go down. I am quite confident
29:06
Speaker 1: that in hindsight, in retrospect, which is of course useless,
29:12
Speaker 1: it is going to be very obvious that we should
29:16
Speaker 1: have known how this was going to turn out all along.
29:20
Speaker 1: I know that that sounds stupid. Of course, Zig, No,
29:23
Speaker 1: I don't think that's necessarily always the case. I really
29:28
Speaker 1: do believe, kind of using the big short analogy, in hindsight,
29:34
Speaker 1: it was very, very obvious that people like Steve Eisman
29:39
Speaker 1: were correct. Michael Berry, that they were correct, obviously, in hindsight.
29:45
Speaker 1: We just didn't know at the time, partially because we
29:47
Speaker 1: bought into the hype and there were a lot of
29:50
Speaker 1: very powerful people that were invested in pretending that this
29:54
Speaker 1: reality wasn't the case. So whether we end up reaching
29:58
Speaker 1: AGI and AI takes over the world, it's going to
30:02
Speaker 1: seem like, oh shit, wow, that was always obvious that
30:05
Speaker 1: was going to happen. Everyone who knew anything about this
30:09
Speaker 1: basically said that that was going to happen and we
30:13
Speaker 1: weren't able to handle it. But there's also a scenario
30:16
Speaker 1: where we're going to look back theoretically, and this is
30:19
Speaker 1: the scenario I'm hoping for, the Steve Eismans of the
30:22
Speaker 1: world are right, that of course a machine was never
30:25
Speaker 1: going to be able to reach beyond the intelligence of
30:28
Speaker 1: those that created it. That AGI was always a myth.
30:33
Speaker 1: That this was, this is not a situation that was
30:36
Speaker 1: based in reality. It was science fiction and that people
30:40
Speaker 1: bought into the hype and then became invested in it
30:43
Speaker 1: literally because the valuations got so out of control and
30:46
Speaker 1: they knew they couldn't possibly justify the valuations. So they
30:50
Speaker 1: kept hyping it and hyping it. And it kept being this,
30:53
Speaker 1: this economic financial circle jerk where one company gave another
30:58
Speaker 1: company billions of dollars and everything just kept feeding on
31:03
Speaker 1: itself in a way that was always going to collapse.
31:06
Speaker 1: I can totally see that scenario. Of course, there's another
31:11
Speaker 1: scenario where economically this all collapses, but the technology itself
31:15
Speaker 1: still controls our lives, which means we're even more screwed
31:20
Speaker 1: than we are in the first scenario. But for whatever
31:22
Speaker 1: it's worth, I know that it's not worth much, but
31:26
Speaker 1: I do feel very much like we're going to look back,
31:30
Speaker 1: assuming we have any time to look back and we're
31:32
Speaker 1: still alive, that we're going to look back and go,
31:35
Speaker 1: God damn, how did we not see that this was
31:38
Speaker 1: obviously the way it was all going to turn out?
31:40
Speaker 1: I don't have an answer for which path that's going
31:43
Speaker 1: to take. I really don't. But I'm clearly rooting for
31:46
Speaker 1: the Steve Eisman path. Now, shifting gears. I want to
31:51
Speaker 1: turn now to the latest in a series of government
31:55
Speaker 1: files that have turned out to be total flops for
31:59
Speaker 1: the conspiracy theorists. And as an anti-conspiracy person, this is
32:05
Speaker 1: something that should give me great pleasure, but never does
32:08
Speaker 1: because there's never any victory here. Because the conspiracy theorists
32:13
Speaker 1: always have the ultimate backup plan. They have the ultimate
32:18
Speaker 1: fallback position. which is, well, the conspiracy continues. They're just
32:22
Speaker 1: not giving us the real files. We saw that constantly
32:27
Speaker 1: with the JFK files. We've seen that with the Epstein files,
32:31
Speaker 1: which I believe I was closer to predicting exactly what
32:34
Speaker 1: would be in the Epstein files than anybody else. Weirdly,
32:37
Speaker 1: no one has ever been charged in anything remotely connected
32:41
Speaker 1: to the Epstein files in America. So I find that
32:46
Speaker 1: to be rather telling. And we've Finally forgotten about the
32:50
Speaker 1: Epstein files for the most part because it was all
32:52
Speaker 1: a bunch of garbage. But the latest example of this
32:55
Speaker 1: is the so-called UFO files. And I've, in the past,
32:59
Speaker 1: I've talked in great detail about how it is that
33:02
Speaker 1: I know with a mathematical certainty that we have never
33:06
Speaker 1: been visited by space aliens. The reason I know this
33:10
Speaker 1: with a mathematical certainty is that it's a very simple
33:13
Speaker 1: math equation dealing with how far the closest planet, if
33:17
Speaker 1: you have space aliens, they have to come from somewhere else.
33:20
Speaker 1: There's no planet close enough for anyone to have been
33:23
Speaker 1: able to reach us. on all sorts of different levels.
33:27
Speaker 1: There's not even a planet close enough for them to
33:30
Speaker 1: realize that there's anything to reach, even if they could
33:32
Speaker 1: somehow survive long enough and figure out how to get here.
33:35
Speaker 1: And then by the way, why the fuck would they
33:37
Speaker 1: get here and not make their presence known? I mean,
33:39
Speaker 1: none of it makes any goddamn sense. And there's no
33:42
Speaker 1: evidence for it. But that doesn't stop a lot of
33:45
Speaker 1: conspiracy nuts from selling, even in the news media, even
33:49
Speaker 1: in somewhat mainstream news media now, selling this very popular
33:55
Speaker 1: but absurd idea that we have been visited by aliens
33:58
Speaker 1: and that we actually have evidence of this and we're
34:02
Speaker 1: just hiding it. And maybe, you know, this is the
34:05
Speaker 1: better route to go when it comes to proving the
34:08
Speaker 1: absurdity of this entire concept, because I know people aren't
34:12
Speaker 1: very good at math and math makes people's brains hurt.
34:15
Speaker 1: I understand that. And by the way, this has a
34:19
Speaker 1: lot to do with the speed of light, which we
34:21
Speaker 1: now know and I realize that that is not something
34:26
Speaker 1: that is going to appeal to a lot of people.
34:28
Speaker 1: So if it doesn't, I would just leave you with
34:31
Speaker 1: this question on this. So if there really has been
34:36
Speaker 1: space aliens, forget about the fact that we would actually
34:41
Speaker 1: brag that we found space aliens. Why are we hiding this?
34:46
Speaker 1: But there's a bigger question than even that. Why did
34:50
Speaker 1: they only come to the United States of America?
34:54
Speaker 6: Why?
34:55
Speaker 1: Why are we the only country that has evidence of this? Okay,
35:02
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, we decide to try to hide this
35:04
Speaker 1: and cover it up. So why didn't they go to
35:07
Speaker 1: some other country? There's not one other country in the
35:10
Speaker 1: world that would be thrilled to say, hey, we found
35:15
Speaker 1: the space aliens. I mean, it's an incredibly absurd concept.
35:21
Speaker 1: on its face, but it's also very popular. And we
35:25
Speaker 1: now live in a world where the news media doesn't
35:27
Speaker 1: give a shit about credibility. All they care about is popularity.
35:31
Speaker 1: Truth is not the coin of the realm. Popularity with
35:35
Speaker 1: a particular demographic and ratings on a particular night are
35:39
Speaker 1: really all that matter. So you even have mainstream outlets
35:42
Speaker 1: like primetime shows on Fox News Channel. Fox News Channel
35:47
Speaker 1: simultaneously standing up for journalistic practices in the American way
35:52
Speaker 1: by uniting with the other liberal networks in boycotting President
35:58
Speaker 1: Trump over his White House press pad. And at the
36:01
Speaker 1: same time, they've got Jesse fucking Waters claiming that the
36:05
Speaker 1: government has released evidence of UFOs and space aliens when
36:11
Speaker 1: the evidence is ridiculous. It's completely absurd. It's literally laughable.
36:18
Speaker 1: They're just blurry, distant videos of lights, which in many cases,
36:27
Speaker 1: according to people that look into this stuff, might be
36:31
Speaker 1: actually birds because they appear to be having wings that
36:35
Speaker 1: are flapping. I mean, there's nothing remotely inexplicable about it.
36:40
Speaker 1: The video is beyond terrible.
36:43
Speaker 6: All of it.
36:44
Speaker 1: The pictures of the video are just awful. Even worse
36:47
Speaker 1: than I would have expected. I mean, are they unexplained?
36:52
Speaker 6: Yeah, sure.
36:53
Speaker 1: Lots of shit happens unexplained at night at distance. Especially
36:59
Speaker 1: when the video quality is horrendous. But this has not
37:03
Speaker 1: stopped people like Jesse Waters and others from trying to
37:07
Speaker 1: pretend that, aha, we've got something here, folks. Why? Because
37:13
Speaker 1: they know there's an audience. I don't know whether or
37:15
Speaker 1: not Jesse Waters is stupid enough to really believe this,
37:18
Speaker 1: but he knows there's an audience, and there clearly is
37:21
Speaker 1: an audience. And on last week's episode of the podcast,
37:24
Speaker 1: I mocked one of these frauds that has been on
37:27
Speaker 1: this beat for a long time, a guy by the
37:29
Speaker 1: name of Ross Coulthard. who is on News Nation. And
37:35
Speaker 1: I can't stand this guy, one, because he's always trying
37:39
Speaker 1: to pretend that this UFO space alien thing is real.
37:43
Speaker 1: But the thing that really bugs me the most about him,
37:46
Speaker 1: and this related to the whole AI doomerism thing, because
37:50
Speaker 1: I went into a diatribe about the power of the
37:53
Speaker 1: British accent. And whenever someone is trying to sell me
37:56
Speaker 1: bullshit with a British accent, you know, my BS detector
38:00
Speaker 1: goes up several notches because we perceive the British accent
38:05
Speaker 1: as bringing with it instant credibility. And how could this,
38:09
Speaker 1: you know, older distinguished looking white guy with a British
38:12
Speaker 1: accent be lying to me? Well, because he knows it's
38:16
Speaker 1: a lot easier to lie to you with that persona.
38:19
Speaker 1: And for whatever reason, I don't know whether this guy
38:22
Speaker 1: really believes it or not. I really don't. But he
38:26
Speaker 1: basically put out a statement that proved so much of
38:33
Speaker 1: the inherent fundamental problem with this entire issue of conspiracies.
38:38
Speaker 1: Because as I've already said, when the evidence doesn't pan out,
38:42
Speaker 1: you can always just fall back to, well, they're not
38:46
Speaker 1: releasing the really good stuff. It doesn't even make, especially
38:50
Speaker 1: in this case, make any damn sense. Coldheart put out
38:55
Speaker 1: a statement because he's pissed off. He's clearly pissed off
38:58
Speaker 1: that he's been embarrassed because I think he's at least
39:00
Speaker 1: seemingly honest enough to acknowledge that these videos are crap.
39:05
Speaker 1: But he decides to go after President Trump, even cursing
39:08
Speaker 1: at President Trump. For not releasing, apparently, the real evidence
39:15
Speaker 1: of what he must know to be true, or at
39:17
Speaker 1: least he's pretending to know that it's true. And he's
39:19
Speaker 1: now questioning whether or not he's been manipulated by sources
39:23
Speaker 1: because he feels, I guess, like Linus and the great
39:27
Speaker 1: pumpkin patch when there is no great pumpkin. I found
39:32
Speaker 1: this video to be particularly hilarious. Hopefully, you will as well.
39:36
Speaker 7: We're all being played. Yes, these are legislative provisions that
39:41
Speaker 7: will make it easier for people to feel safe about
39:43
Speaker 7: coming forward to either arrow the Department of War or
39:47
Speaker 7: pursue the presidential unsealing initiative. But frankly, it doesn't mean
39:52
Speaker 7: jot for you and me, the voting public, until we
39:56
Speaker 7: know what they're going to do with that information. And
40:00
Speaker 7: at the moment, it's looking very like they're just going
40:02
Speaker 7: to tuck that information away in another dark crevice and
40:06
Speaker 7: keep it there for another 80 years. At the moment,
40:09
Speaker 7: there does not seem to be any intention to release
40:14
Speaker 7: this information for public awareness. One can only hope that
40:18
Speaker 7: the president follows up with what he's pledged to do.
40:22
Speaker 7: Let's hold the president's feet to the fire on this.
40:26
Speaker 7: He's pledged to be transparent on UAPs. Is he really,
40:31
Speaker 7: or is he being played? Is he being a to
40:34
Speaker 7: the defense establishment? I think at the moment, the president's
40:37
Speaker 7: being a.
40:39
Speaker 1: To me, that belongs in a media malpractice museum right
40:45
Speaker 1: there because the fact that this thing has gotten to
40:48
Speaker 1: that level, a guy who's taken seriously on a network
40:51
Speaker 1: that's now taken seriously, News Nation, a network I've appeared
40:54
Speaker 1: on dozens and dozens of times, although not since July
40:58
Speaker 1: of this particular year, so I appear to be off
41:00
Speaker 1: their list for whatever reason. I think it's because I
41:04
Speaker 1: require that they bring a truck to my house And
41:07
Speaker 1: that requires some expense on their part. But for whatever reason,
41:11
Speaker 1: I haven't been asked on NewsNation in quite a while.
41:12
Speaker 1: And my guess is I won't be again in the future,
41:16
Speaker 1: which is no big problem for me. But it is
41:19
Speaker 1: a network that's been gaining some respectability. And for this
41:23
Speaker 1: guy to have bought in completely and tried to sell
41:26
Speaker 1: that he was basically proving that the government was hiding
41:33
Speaker 1: evidence of UFOs and space aliens, and then to see
41:36
Speaker 1: him have a temper tantrum when these UFO files turn
41:40
Speaker 1: out to be a flop is incredibly telling on so
41:43
Speaker 1: many different levels. And it's exactly what I've been telling you,
41:46
Speaker 1: both specifically with regard to this issue, as well as
41:49
Speaker 1: the way that the news media works in general. Now,
41:52
Speaker 1: there still are, unfortunately, only a few, but there still
41:56
Speaker 1: are a few outlets that try to do real television
42:00
Speaker 1: news journalism. One of them is 60 Minutes, and there's
42:04
Speaker 1: been a lot of attention on 60 Minutes because it's
42:06
Speaker 1: a revamped 60 Minutes under the leadership of Barry Weiss
42:11
Speaker 1: at CBS. They got rid of a lot of people,
42:15
Speaker 1: and the first week of 60 Minutes did not do
42:17
Speaker 1: particularly well in the ratings. Scott Pelley, of course, had
42:21
Speaker 1: his temper tantrum and left. There was a new cast,
42:26
Speaker 1: not a completely new cast, but at least a few
42:28
Speaker 1: people added to the cast, including a somewhat conservative former
42:33
Speaker 1: New York Times writer by the name of Ross Douthat.
42:37
Speaker 1: I don't know if you know Ross Douthat, but he's
42:39
Speaker 1: an intelligent guy. He's certainly right of center, clearly by
42:44
Speaker 1: New York Times standards. It was a little bit of
42:47
Speaker 1: a weird hire because he doesn't have any real television experience.
42:52
Speaker 1: And he was given a remarkably important assignment at 60
42:56
Speaker 1: Minutes because he did the first interview with Patrick Clancy.
43:02
Speaker 1: the former husband of Lindsay Clancy, who of course killed
43:05
Speaker 1: her three children and just had her trial end in
43:09
Speaker 1: a mistrial, a hung jury because of one holdout juror
43:13
Speaker 1: that turned out to be a Black man that the defense,
43:16
Speaker 1: and apparently in overtly racist fashion, if you use the
43:20
Speaker 1: rules created by liberals to interpret these things, is still
43:24
Speaker 1: going after, demanding an investigation of, but This particular interview
43:29
Speaker 1: had nothing to do with the holdout juror. I don't
43:32
Speaker 1: even think that that subject came out or came up,
43:35
Speaker 1: which was kind of odd. But Douthat's interview with Patrick
43:38
Speaker 1: Clancy led the show on 60 Minutes and did very,
43:41
Speaker 1: very well in the ratings because there's just so much
43:45
Speaker 1: interest in this particular case. Now, I thought that Douthat
43:49
Speaker 1: did a pretty darn good job with his interview with
43:52
Speaker 1: Patrick Clancy. It was shorter. The segment was shorter than
43:55
Speaker 1: I expected. I figured they would do two segments. They
43:58
Speaker 1: only did one. And it didn't really go anywhere, partially
44:04
Speaker 1: because I think Patrick Clancy is very conflicted. And I
44:10
Speaker 1: don't mean that just emotionally and psychologically. And let's be clear.
44:13
Speaker 1: I mean, the guy has been through hell. He comes home,
44:16
Speaker 1: finds his wife severely injured and his three young children
44:22
Speaker 1: murdered by his wife. He ends up divorcing her a
44:27
Speaker 1: year later and is already now remarried to somebody else.
44:33
Speaker 1: And so I have a lot of empathy for him.
44:35
Speaker 1: I give him a lot of slack. But he is
44:39
Speaker 1: conflicted on a number of levels, including the fact that
44:43
Speaker 1: he does have a lawsuit here, which incentivizes him to
44:48
Speaker 1: blame the medical establishment for what happened. But it's not
44:52
Speaker 1: just the money part of this. Look, I'm someone who's
44:55
Speaker 1: always primarily going to look at what the financial incentives are.
45:00
Speaker 1: But this guy has a lot of money. I'm not
45:02
Speaker 1: saying it's not part of his incentive structure. I'm sure
45:05
Speaker 1: that it is, but I think there's something deeper going
45:08
Speaker 1: on here. I think that psychologically he needs Lindsay Clancy
45:13
Speaker 1: to have been severely mentally ill and that for effectively
45:17
Speaker 1: nature to have been to blame for this rather than
45:23
Speaker 1: his wife, just being a terrible person, not being able
45:26
Speaker 1: to take it anymore, even though she had an incredibly
45:29
Speaker 1: privileged life, all sorts of help, medical help, financial help,
45:35
Speaker 1: a maid, apparently, you know, grandparents of the picture, a
45:40
Speaker 1: husband that was very supportive. I mean, this woman really
45:44
Speaker 1: had a lot going for her and she couldn't hack it.
45:48
Speaker 1: And for whatever reason, she snapped and she killed her
45:51
Speaker 1: three children in a way that to me showed she
45:54
Speaker 1: knew exactly what the hell she was doing. And if
45:57
Speaker 1: you're Patrick Clancy, I think you need, I think you
46:00
Speaker 1: desperately need for this to have been because of some
46:05
Speaker 1: sort of natural force and not because the person you
46:08
Speaker 1: married and had three kids with turned out to be evil.
46:13
Speaker 1: I think that's natural. I think, you know, to use
46:15
Speaker 1: the word nature probably more often than it needs to
46:18
Speaker 1: be in this case, but I think it's natural to
46:21
Speaker 1: want to believe this is essentially nature. But in coming
46:25
Speaker 1: to that conclusion, I had a, I don't know, I
46:28
Speaker 1: found this to be an interesting evolution of thought. I
46:30
Speaker 1: posted it on social media and a lot of people
46:33
Speaker 1: seem to think that this was an important point as well.
46:36
Speaker 1: So I'm going to raise it on the podcast. If
46:40
Speaker 1: we think this through, and I realize logic no longer
46:44
Speaker 1: really matters in this day and age, I get it,
46:46
Speaker 1: but let's just pretend that logic does matter. And so
46:50
Speaker 1: Patrick Clancy's, stance on this is that he believes that
46:53
Speaker 1: his wife was mentally ill. He's already forgiven her, even
46:57
Speaker 1: though she didn't even ask for forgiveness, which is remarkable.
47:01
Speaker 1: And it doesn't appear, although Douthat didn't delve into this, apparently,
47:08
Speaker 1: about what he thinks about the verdict. Maybe that was
47:11
Speaker 1: off limits or the non-verdict or whether or not she
47:14
Speaker 1: should be convicted or what her punishment should be. I mean,
47:16
Speaker 1: that to me was a glaring error by Douthat. But
47:21
Speaker 1: if you're in this situation and you really believe that
47:27
Speaker 1: this was a situation where your wife had no evil
47:32
Speaker 1: intent and she was suffering from this psychosis, she was
47:37
Speaker 1: literally out of her mind, so therefore it's not her fault,
47:41
Speaker 1: you can forgive her, then why did you divorce her?
47:45
Speaker 1: I know that sounds kind of crazy, At first, because
47:50
Speaker 1: you're thinking, well, Zig, if this isn't a divorceable offense,
47:54
Speaker 1: what would be? Well, hold on a second. Let's use
47:58
Speaker 1: the logic here. It's not her fault. It was essentially
48:04
Speaker 1: just an accident. I mean, really, the way he describes it,
48:07
Speaker 1: it's almost as if she was driving a car, got
48:11
Speaker 1: in an accident that was not her fault, and her
48:14
Speaker 1: three children died in the accident. And she was injured
48:19
Speaker 1: as well. And that's not a perfect analogy, but it's
48:23
Speaker 1: pretty darn close to the way he seems to be
48:26
Speaker 1: looking at this and describing it. Well, under that scenario,
48:32
Speaker 1: if a guy got divorced in that situation immediately and
48:36
Speaker 1: got remarried immediately, wouldn't he be considered the asshole? I'm
48:41
Speaker 1: not saying you're not going to eventually get divorced because
48:43
Speaker 1: the reality is whether when two people parents have a
48:49
Speaker 1: child die tragically, even if it's no one's fault, it
48:54
Speaker 1: does end up resulting in divorce. Maybe not directly, but
48:57
Speaker 1: often indirectly. But not immediately. And this was effectively immediately.
49:03
Speaker 1: So would he have immediately divorced her and remarried if
49:07
Speaker 1: she got in a car accident that was not her fault,
49:10
Speaker 1: that resulted in her three kids dying and their three
49:14
Speaker 1: kids dying? I don't think he would have. So my
49:19
Speaker 1: point here is, he's not really telling the truth. I'm
49:23
Speaker 1: not saying he's lying. I think he might be lying
49:26
Speaker 1: to himself. because he psychologically needs this to have been
49:31
Speaker 1: as a result of nature. Somehow it's a little bit
49:34
Speaker 1: easier for him to deal with than to accept the
49:38
Speaker 1: reality that the woman he married and chose to have
49:42
Speaker 1: children with was evil enough to brutally, in cold blood,
49:49
Speaker 1: kill their three children. That's my analysis of this. And
49:55
Speaker 1: I do think that this is kind of a logical
49:58
Speaker 1: trap for the liberals and the way that they're looking
50:02
Speaker 1: at this. Okay, if this isn't really her fault, then
50:08
Speaker 1: why did he divorce her and get remarried? Clearly, he
50:13
Speaker 1: does believe at some very important level this was her
50:18
Speaker 1: fault because otherwise he wouldn't be remarried to someone else
50:23
Speaker 1: right now. At least I don't think he would be
50:27
Speaker 1: So anyway, that's not the most important point in the world,
50:30
Speaker 1: but it's one that no one else is making about
50:32
Speaker 1: a story that has obviously gotten a tremendous amount of discussion.
50:36
Speaker 1: So I thought I'd throw that out there into the mix. Now,
50:40
Speaker 1: speaking of 60 Minutes and CBS, there's been a major
50:44
Speaker 1: development in a story that we've discussed many times in
50:47
Speaker 1: the past on this podcast, and that is the Paramount-Warner
50:51
Speaker 1: discovery merger, which now finally appears to be set to
50:56
Speaker 1: be concluded after, among others, the attorney general here in
51:01
Speaker 1: California essentially finally backed down and caved, along with the
51:07
Speaker 1: attorney generals or the attorneys general of 11 other states,
51:11
Speaker 1: all blue states, that were desperately trying to block this merger,
51:15
Speaker 1: mainly because they claimed it was because of monopoly concerns.
51:19
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying that there aren't monopoly concerns or
51:22
Speaker 1: antitrust concerns in this merger. But the main reason why
51:26
Speaker 1: this was the attorneys general of 12 states was because
51:30
Speaker 1: it's perceived as a pro Trump maneuver. The Paramount is
51:35
Speaker 1: now seen and the Ellison family is now seen as
51:37
Speaker 1: somehow being pro Trump. I'm still not convinced of that,
51:41
Speaker 1: especially when one of their premier shows, South Park continues
51:45
Speaker 1: to depict Donald Trump as a guy with a tiny
51:49
Speaker 1: penis who sleeps with Satan. And they now literally changed
51:52
Speaker 1: the name of the show. to South America from South
51:55
Speaker 1: Park to mock Donald Trump. And I'm a huge South
51:58
Speaker 1: Park fan. My daughter Grace is a massive South Park fan.
52:02
Speaker 1: And frankly, I think they're going too far on the
52:06
Speaker 1: anti-Trump stuff. To me, it's starting to jump the shark
52:10
Speaker 1: a bit. But I don't understand how Paramount, if that
52:14
Speaker 1: can be one of their most prominent shows, most publicized shows,
52:19
Speaker 1: shows they've spent the most money on, how they can
52:22
Speaker 1: be perceived as somehow Very pro-Trump is a bit of
52:26
Speaker 1: a matter of confusion for me. But regardless, I get
52:31
Speaker 1: that Paramount is pretending to be pro-Trump in order to
52:35
Speaker 1: get this merger through. I get that. But it does
52:39
Speaker 1: appear to me as if the attorney general of California
52:43
Speaker 1: completely folded here. And he was talking a good game.
52:48
Speaker 1: And all of a sudden, I think what happened was
52:50
Speaker 1: Paramount threatened in a pretty convincing way that they were
52:54
Speaker 1: going to leave Los Angeles and go to Texas or
52:58
Speaker 1: Tennessee or somewhere else. And had that occurred, and I've
53:02
Speaker 1: mentioned this previously, had Paramount left, I mean, Los Angeles
53:07
Speaker 1: was toast. The Los Angeles entertainment economy already basically a
53:15
Speaker 1: house of cards, would have collapsed in so many different ways.
53:20
Speaker 1: This would have been a cataclysmic event economically. Hollywood would
53:27
Speaker 1: almost cease to exist at that point. Because the only
53:31
Speaker 1: thing keeping Hollywood intact at this point is that this
53:36
Speaker 1: is where most of the centers of business are. This
53:40
Speaker 1: is where they're headquartered. So there still is at least
53:43
Speaker 1: a little bit of gravitational pull to being here in
53:47
Speaker 1: Los Angeles. Yes, most of the year, we still have
53:50
Speaker 1: better weather to film with and there's the studios. And
53:55
Speaker 1: so there is some convenience, but it's also way, way, way, way,
53:59
Speaker 1: way more expensive because of unions and restrictions and all
54:03
Speaker 1: sorts of insanity related to California. And the reality is
54:09
Speaker 1: that technology is making it far, far easier to film
54:13
Speaker 1: television and movies elsewhere. So the leverage that Los Angeles
54:18
Speaker 1: has is already dwindling. And if you take Paramount and
54:22
Speaker 1: Warner Brothers out of that equation and put them somewhere else,
54:29
Speaker 1: then it would have been all over. And I think
54:33
Speaker 1: it appears as if that threat, whether it was real
54:37
Speaker 1: or fake or somewhere in between, had a real impact.
54:41
Speaker 1: And the California Attorney General essentially backed down. Now, they
54:44
Speaker 1: got a couple of concessions that sound decent on paper,
54:48
Speaker 1: but it also appears as if there's not a lot
54:51
Speaker 1: of teeth to them, that Paramount is basically just agreeing
54:56
Speaker 1: to give the California Attorney General a face-saving press release,
55:01
Speaker 1: that he got something out of this stance before caving
55:05
Speaker 1: and allowing this merger to go through.
55:07
Speaker 3: So....
55:09
Speaker 1: Regardless, the merger is going to happen. And from a
55:13
Speaker 1: news perspective, this could have major implications on CNN, because
55:18
Speaker 1: CNN is a Warner Discovery property. Paramount obviously owns CBS.
55:24
Speaker 1: And quite naturally, what's going to happen here is consolidation
55:28
Speaker 1: between CBS and CNN. And since CNN is part of
55:33
Speaker 1: the property being purchased, the presumption is that CNN is
55:38
Speaker 1: going to have a lot of layoffs. There's going to
55:40
Speaker 1: be a lot of cutbacks at CNN. And people apparently
55:44
Speaker 1: at CNN, I don't know this firsthand, but there's been
55:47
Speaker 1: articles written about how people at CNN are panicking about
55:52
Speaker 1: these inevitable cutbacks and layoffs. That would make sense. Is
55:58
Speaker 1: Barry Weiss really going to be in charge of all
56:01
Speaker 1: of this? I mean, I like Barry Weiss, but that
56:04
Speaker 1: would really be remarkable for someone who a couple of
56:07
Speaker 1: years ago was a former fairly minor New York Times
56:12
Speaker 1: writer who was not very well known, no experience in television,
56:17
Speaker 1: to all of a sudden running by far the biggest
56:23
Speaker 1: consolidation in news history to combine CBS and CNN. I
56:28
Speaker 1: just don't believe, at least in name, I find it
56:31
Speaker 1: impossible to believe that she's really going to be in
56:33
Speaker 1: charge of all that. It would be interesting if she was,
56:36
Speaker 1: because while she's clearly a lefty, the fact that she
56:40
Speaker 1: gets called a conservative is more confusing than Paramount being
56:45
Speaker 1: seen as pro-Trump, given the whole South Park thing. I mean,
56:49
Speaker 1: this is a woman who is a lesbian who does
56:51
Speaker 1: not believe in the Second Amendment. And this is what
56:54
Speaker 1: passes for a conservative in the mainstream news media. But
56:59
Speaker 1: that will be one of the more interesting things to
57:00
Speaker 1: see when CBS and CNN are combined. I have absolutely
57:06
Speaker 1: no idea what this is going to mean in the
57:09
Speaker 1: real world. But I do firmly believe, as most people do,
57:12
Speaker 1: that there's going to be massive changes in And it
57:15
Speaker 1: might be good for CNN. I mean, if in fact
57:18
Speaker 1: they get rid of some of their liberal bias and
57:22
Speaker 1: if they can have synergy with CBS, maybe that will
57:25
Speaker 1: actually be a positive development. I'm open-minded, but of course,
57:29
Speaker 1: I always presume that most change is going to turn
57:32
Speaker 1: out poorly because everything is so broken, especially in the
57:35
Speaker 1: news media. Now, speaking of CNN, I was kicking myself
57:41
Speaker 1: because in the last episode of the podcast, I missed...
57:44
Speaker 1: I should have been able to pick this up, but
57:46
Speaker 1: I'm only one guy. I missed a key clip from
57:51
Speaker 1: the Gavin Newsom, Jake Tapper CNN interview that I did
57:56
Speaker 1: discuss on the last episode of the podcast. Now, in
57:59
Speaker 1: my defense, this clip came out after. the clip that
58:03
Speaker 1: we did play, which related to Gavin Newsom effectively having
58:08
Speaker 1: my view of the 2028 Democratic presidential nominating process, which
58:12
Speaker 1: is that there's not room enough for both he and
58:16
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris. And he said, whether he meant it or not,
58:19
Speaker 1: he said that if Harris runs, he will not. And
58:23
Speaker 1: I found that to be fascinating because I've always said
58:25
Speaker 1: that Kamala Harris is the biggest threat to Gavin Newsom
58:28
Speaker 1: winning the Democratic nomination in 2028 because she could effectively
58:32
Speaker 1: cockblock him since they're both from California. And I'm not
58:35
Speaker 1: going to go through all the reasons why that's the case,
58:38
Speaker 1: but that's the clip we played from this very contrived
58:42
Speaker 1: interview that Jake Tapper did with Gavin Newsom where they're
58:45
Speaker 1: fly fishing as if they're two buddies, two manly men
58:49
Speaker 1: fly fishing, just, you know, casually talking about the world. Well,
58:54
Speaker 1: the reason I was kicking myself for missing a clip
58:57
Speaker 1: that was released after the 2028 Democratic nominating process clip
59:03
Speaker 1: was that it dealt with one of my all-time pet peeves.
59:07
Speaker 1: And that, of course, is Newsom's response to the COVID.
59:10
Speaker 6: Panic.
59:11
Speaker 1: And look, I could talk about this for hours. I'm
59:14
Speaker 1: not going to, partially because I've done so in the past.
59:18
Speaker 1: And even though I take some solace in in the
59:26
Speaker 1: fact that Newsom is now essentially admitting that people like
59:29
Speaker 1: myself were right, who criticized him at the time for
59:33
Speaker 1: what he was doing in response to the COVID panic
59:36
Speaker 1: and fomenting the COVID panic for what I believe was
59:39
Speaker 1: largely political reasons, because I think he knew damn right
59:42
Speaker 1: well that blue states would follow what he was doing
59:46
Speaker 1: and that it would destroy the economy and harm Donald
59:49
Speaker 1: Trump's reelection bid in 2020. I think that was absolutely
59:52
Speaker 1: part of his mindset. was it the only thing in
59:56
Speaker 1: his head? No. Was it the primary thing in his head? Maybe,
1:00:01
Speaker 1: but it was absolutely part of his equation. And, you know,
1:00:06
Speaker 1: occasionally when I am vindicated, um, you know, you would
1:00:10
Speaker 1: like to think that that feels good. This ought to
1:00:13
Speaker 1: feel good after all I went through. Cause I went
1:00:15
Speaker 1: through a lot, like a lot of people did. I, I, I,
1:00:19
Speaker 1: took a lot of risk in attacking Gavin Newsom as
1:00:22
Speaker 1: a columnist and mediaite and public events speaking, television appearances,
1:00:28
Speaker 1: not in hindsight, which is a phrase or word that
1:00:32
Speaker 1: he uses a couple of times in this clip you're
1:00:34
Speaker 1: about to hear with Jake Tapper, because that is a
1:00:38
Speaker 1: bullshit narrative. This is not a situation where, oh, it's
1:00:41
Speaker 1: only in hindsight that people were saying that he was
1:00:44
Speaker 1: wrong and the things that he was doing were exactly
1:00:47
Speaker 1: as he now describes them as being quote unquote insane.
1:00:52
Speaker 1: Literally the day after he shut down California, I had
1:00:56
Speaker 1: a major column at Mediate condemning this act and saying
1:01:01
Speaker 1: it was based upon completely fraudulent math and logic, which
1:01:07
Speaker 1: turned out to be 100% true. And so my record
1:01:10
Speaker 1: when it comes to attacking Newsom And his response to
1:01:14
Speaker 1: the COVID panic is probably better than anybody else's on
1:01:17
Speaker 1: the planet. So you would think that I would take
1:01:19
Speaker 1: great joy in him finally admitting, at least to a
1:01:23
Speaker 1: certain degree, that people like me were correct. Except I don't.
1:01:28
Speaker 1: Partially because he's trying to hide behind this hindsight bullshit.
1:01:32
Speaker 1: And also because he's still not really being honest about it.
1:01:36
Speaker 1: But for the record, and to give him some credit,
1:01:40
Speaker 1: because this is, you know... We have very low standards
1:01:43
Speaker 1: of this day and age when it comes to accountability
1:01:46
Speaker 1: and anyone ever admitting they were wrong, especially when they're
1:01:49
Speaker 1: seemingly about to run for president of the United States.
1:01:51
Speaker 1: I will give Newsom at least a modicum of credit here,
1:01:55
Speaker 1: where in this conversation with Jake Tapper, he does admit
1:01:59
Speaker 1: that a lot of the things that he did were wrong. Specifically,
1:02:02
Speaker 1: he begins with something that even I don't mention enough,
1:02:06
Speaker 1: which really kind of proves how wrong the experts were.
1:02:10
Speaker 1: It's really amazing in retrospect to think about how those
1:02:13
Speaker 1: first couple of months of the COVID panic, there was
1:02:17
Speaker 1: a total obsession, obsession with washing your hands. Wash your hands.
1:02:23
Speaker 1: It's all about washing your hands. And then all of
1:02:26
Speaker 1: a sudden that just got dropped. One day they stopped
1:02:29
Speaker 1: saying wash your hands and we pretended that that never happened.
1:02:34
Speaker 1: And to me, that was a seminal moment because it
1:02:37
Speaker 1: proved The so-called experts don't know what the fuck they're
1:02:40
Speaker 1: talking about. I mean, this was not just a recommendation.
1:02:44
Speaker 1: This was everything. This was everything. And then we just, oh,
1:02:49
Speaker 1: never mind. Never mind. Move along. Nothing to see here.
1:02:54
Speaker 1: Let's pretend the experts weren't completely and totally wrong, but
1:02:58
Speaker 1: we're still going to pretend that those experts are godlike
1:03:02
Speaker 1: when they change their positions, for instance, on masks, which...
1:03:07
Speaker 1: I don't hear anything from Newsom on in this particular
1:03:10
Speaker 1: clip where he does do at least somewhat of a
1:03:12
Speaker 1: mea culpa on some of the insanity that was facilitated. Again, he's,
1:03:18
Speaker 1: he's trying to deflect blame. This is, this is not
1:03:21
Speaker 1: a perfect mea culpa in any way, shape or form,
1:03:24
Speaker 1: but it's the best we're going to get from Gavin
1:03:26
Speaker 1: Newsom in this fly fishing interview with CNN's Jake Tapper.
1:03:30
Speaker 6: Yeah. And look, everyone's a genius in hindsight. So, you know, coulda, woulda. Well,
1:03:34
Speaker 6: what would you do differently? I had a whole chapter
1:03:37
Speaker 6: just about Purell.
1:03:38
Speaker 9: We were running around doing price gouging legislation against Purell,
1:03:42
Speaker 9: and everyone was thinking it was a Purell-based crisis.
1:03:45
Speaker 6: I mean, you know, we... People were scrubbing their groceries.
1:03:48
Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean, the idea that we closed beaches was
1:03:50
Speaker 9: insane in hindsight. Obviously, the schools taking too long. A
1:03:55
Speaker 9: lot of districts were open, but the big ones weren't.
1:03:58
Speaker 1: L.A.
1:03:59
Speaker 6: Refused, and I regret that, obviously.
1:04:05
Speaker 1: Again, I want to make this very clear. This was
1:04:08
Speaker 1: not a hindsight situation. There were a lot of very
1:04:12
Speaker 1: credible people way beyond myself that knew that a lot
1:04:17
Speaker 1: of what he was doing was indeed insane. The beaches
1:04:21
Speaker 1: was just maybe the most obvious example. But this idea
1:04:26
Speaker 1: that somehow we didn't know at the time is ridiculous.
1:04:31
Speaker 1: We absolutely did. I always go back to the to
1:04:35
Speaker 1: the two cruise ships that were the perfect example to
1:04:40
Speaker 1: show us that the death rate was not nearly what
1:04:43
Speaker 1: we were fearing it was. That, by the way, the
1:04:46
Speaker 1: transmission rate was not nearly what we thought it was.
1:04:49
Speaker 1: I mean, these were perfect experiments where these cruise ships
1:04:53
Speaker 1: were caught off guard. Everyone's in closed quarters. No one
1:04:57
Speaker 1: is doing anything to restrict contact. I mean, this is
1:05:03
Speaker 1: a situation where if this really was something that was
1:05:07
Speaker 1: going to kill us all, the damage on the cruise
1:05:10
Speaker 1: ships that were then quarantined for an extended period of
1:05:13
Speaker 1: time would have been far worse than they actually were.
1:05:17
Speaker 1: Only seven people died in total on two different very
1:05:22
Speaker 1: large cruise ships. And that to me. right then we knew, okay,
1:05:27
Speaker 1: hold on a second, this is bad, but we're clearly
1:05:30
Speaker 1: overreacting and we're doing a lot of things that are
1:05:32
Speaker 1: all about virtue signaling and maybe politically motivated. And obviously
1:05:37
Speaker 1: the closing of the schools has always been something that
1:05:41
Speaker 1: has been one of the elements of this that was
1:05:44
Speaker 1: the worst for me since I had two young daughters
1:05:47
Speaker 1: at the time. I was very outspoken immediately that this was,
1:05:51
Speaker 1: first of all, going to happen. And that there was
1:05:54
Speaker 1: going to be no end date for this. Because once
1:05:56
Speaker 1: you change the burden of proof from prove to me
1:06:00
Speaker 1: that it's not safe to have school to prove to
1:06:02
Speaker 1: me that it is safe to have school with a
1:06:05
Speaker 1: lunatic like Gavin Newsom in charge, then there's no going back.
1:06:10
Speaker 1: You can't do that. And I turned out to be
1:06:12
Speaker 1: 100% right on that. But the part of that clip
1:06:15
Speaker 1: that probably bothers me the most is He's trying to claim,
1:06:19
Speaker 1: he's at least implying that other people are to blame,
1:06:22
Speaker 1: that he really wasn't in charge. That's total bullshit. Total bullshit.
1:06:28
Speaker 1: This is something that Fauci likes to do as well.
1:06:31
Speaker 1: He might not have had technical authority over those decisions,
1:06:36
Speaker 1: but he had practical authority over it. They were taking
1:06:41
Speaker 1: his lead and had he wanted it really to go
1:06:44
Speaker 1: a different way, he absolutely positively would have had the
1:06:48
Speaker 1: ability to do that easily. It's a complete and total
1:06:52
Speaker 1: cop-out to try to claim, well, you know, some schools
1:06:56
Speaker 1: were open. By the way, you know, some private schools
1:06:59
Speaker 1: were open. Like apparently his kids' schools were open. But
1:07:04
Speaker 1: the reality is even when they were open, they weren't
1:07:07
Speaker 1: really open. It was a complete and total disaster. for
1:07:10
Speaker 1: at least a year and a half. A year and
1:07:13
Speaker 1: a half of learning was lost. And it's not just
1:07:16
Speaker 1: a year and a half of learning. This is where
1:07:19
Speaker 1: the liberal mindset is so dysfunctional and gets us in
1:07:24
Speaker 1: so many problems. Because it's not just a year and
1:07:28
Speaker 1: a half of learning that got lost. They don't understand
1:07:31
Speaker 1: the ramifications, the unintended consequences. They think, well, we can
1:07:36
Speaker 1: make that up. First of all, that's never going to happen.
1:07:40
Speaker 1: Because if Teachers unions, right? Teachers unions are never going
1:07:43
Speaker 1: to go, oh my God, we had essentially a year
1:07:46
Speaker 1: and a half off. So now we're going to make
1:07:47
Speaker 1: up for it by really putting our nose to the
1:07:49
Speaker 1: grindstone and working extra hours. Bullshit. There's been none of that.
1:07:54
Speaker 1: There was literally zero, zero, zero thought about, well, we
1:08:00
Speaker 1: got to really try to work to catch up. None
1:08:03
Speaker 1: of that. It wasn't even part of the mindset. Partially again,
1:08:08
Speaker 1: because that's the way The teachers union thinks it's an
1:08:12
Speaker 1: incredibly powerful, probably the most powerful union in California. They
1:08:16
Speaker 1: just think, oh, well, we got a vacation out of
1:08:18
Speaker 1: the deal and now we're just going to go back
1:08:20
Speaker 1: to normal. But even if that was it, that would
1:08:24
Speaker 1: have been terrible. Losing a year and a half essentially
1:08:27
Speaker 1: of learning would have been terrible. But the worst part
1:08:31
Speaker 1: of it was the fact that it sent a message
1:08:35
Speaker 1: to every parent and every kid and frankly, every educator.
1:08:40
Speaker 1: School doesn't really matter. It's voluntary. It's not, quote unquote, essential.
1:08:50
Speaker 1: The whole essential worker thing, which was always bizarre. It's
1:08:54
Speaker 1: not essential. We can do without it. And even if
1:08:58
Speaker 1: kids are not at risk for a virus, of dying
1:09:01
Speaker 1: of a virus, we're going to essentially cancel school for
1:09:05
Speaker 1: a year and a half? That sends an unbelievably powerful
1:09:11
Speaker 1: and detrimental message to everybody. And so when you've sent
1:09:17
Speaker 1: that message to an entire generation, Well, guess what's going
1:09:20
Speaker 1: to happen? They're not going to take school as seriously.
1:09:24
Speaker 1: They're not going to go to school as often as
1:09:27
Speaker 1: they would have. The standard, the threshold for missing school
1:09:31
Speaker 1: is going to be much lower. By the way, I'll
1:09:33
Speaker 1: be the first to acknowledge, I'm obviously extremely pro-education. My
1:09:38
Speaker 1: wife's a school teacher. One of our two daughters actually
1:09:41
Speaker 1: likes school. And our threshold for missing school has either
1:09:47
Speaker 1: consciously or subconsciously gone down since COVID. We let our
1:09:52
Speaker 1: kids miss school now in ways that I don't think
1:09:55
Speaker 1: we ever would have prior to COVID. It was a
1:10:00
Speaker 1: great reset as the liberals were hoping for at the time. Absolutely,
1:10:05
Speaker 1: it reset things in an extremely negative direction. And I
1:10:09
Speaker 1: got to tell you, and I'm not going to go
1:10:11
Speaker 1: into great detail because I've done this in the past.
1:10:13
Speaker 1: I'm sure I'll do it again in the future. I
1:10:15
Speaker 1: am telling you, based upon my daughter's experiences and my
1:10:18
Speaker 1: wife's experiences as a teacher, and my own experiences in
1:10:22
Speaker 1: battling with school administrators, things post-COVID in California education are
1:10:31
Speaker 1: holding together by a thread. By a thread. It is
1:10:36
Speaker 1: not an exaggeration. Things have gotten so much worse. And
1:10:42
Speaker 1: it's not just because of the loss of a year
1:10:45
Speaker 1: and a half of learning. It's because all the rules
1:10:51
Speaker 1: no longer matter. We sent an incredibly damaging message that
1:10:56
Speaker 1: is going to be felt probably forever. Because once you
1:11:01
Speaker 1: lose that institutional memory of, you know, what's the expectation,
1:11:05
Speaker 1: what's the rules, how we treat, you know, the importance
1:11:09
Speaker 1: of school, there's no getting it back. I mean, I
1:11:12
Speaker 1: liken a lot of things to what's happened to college football.
1:11:16
Speaker 1: It's very similar. You can't put the genie back in
1:11:18
Speaker 1: the bottle. And it's only going to get worse from here,
1:11:21
Speaker 1: especially as older teachers who still remember the way things
1:11:25
Speaker 1: used to be, using the football analogy as well. I
1:11:29
Speaker 1: talk all the time about how football coaches are getting
1:11:32
Speaker 1: younger and younger. Referees are getting younger and younger. They
1:11:34
Speaker 1: have no institutional memory of the way things are supposed
1:11:37
Speaker 1: to be run, what the standards are supposed to be.
1:11:41
Speaker 1: They grew up in a completely different environment. Well, the
1:11:45
Speaker 1: same thing's happening in teaching. And it's only going to
1:11:48
Speaker 1: get worse. I mean, and I'm not exaggerating. I am
1:11:52
Speaker 1: not exaggerating. And it's all been greatly exacerbated because of
1:11:59
Speaker 1: what Gavin Newsom did during the COVID panic. And for
1:12:02
Speaker 1: him to not really apologize and not really take full
1:12:05
Speaker 1: accountability and to try to blame it on other people
1:12:08
Speaker 1: and to try to claim that it's all in hindsight
1:12:11
Speaker 1: is bullshit. It's bullshit. And yet Jake Tapper, who was
1:12:16
Speaker 1: just as bad as Newsom, I've told you before, Jake
1:12:20
Speaker 1: Tapper and I used to have a pretty cordial relationship
1:12:23
Speaker 1: on Twitter. We used to share each other's stuff, communicate
1:12:25
Speaker 1: via DM. He lost his mind so much during the
1:12:28
Speaker 1: COVID panic that we ended up unfollowing each other. I
1:12:33
Speaker 1: lost total respect for Jake Tapper. And now it's Jake
1:12:36
Speaker 1: Tapper who then goes out on CNN and essentially gives
1:12:43
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom absolution I think he even referenced the fact
1:12:48
Speaker 1: that he sighed. Jake Tapper said that he sighed during
1:12:52
Speaker 1: the interview as if he could tell that he was
1:12:55
Speaker 1: really suffering because of the mistakes that were made. I mean,
1:12:58
Speaker 1: give me a fucking break. These people at best panicked
1:13:04
Speaker 1: and bought into a bunch of bullshit, believed a bunch
1:13:08
Speaker 1: of experts that didn't know how they were talking about,
1:13:11
Speaker 1: and at worst got... created a situation which they knew
1:13:17
Speaker 1: was going to harm the chances of Donald Trump being reelected.
1:13:21
Speaker 1: I think it was a combination of both. I think
1:13:23
Speaker 1: it was a combination of panic, liberal stupidity, and their
1:13:30
Speaker 1: need to control people's lives, as well as this great
1:13:35
Speaker 1: desire to make sure that Donald Trump was not reelected.
1:13:38
Speaker 1: I think that was a perfect storm of circumstances. that
1:13:41
Speaker 1: was behind the reactions of people like Jake Tapper and
1:13:45
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom to the COVID panic. But back to the
1:13:50
Speaker 1: education system, specifically here in California and specifically in a
1:13:54
Speaker 1: post-COVID environment. One of the many things that happened post-COVID,
1:13:58
Speaker 1: I referenced the Great Reset, is that we just decided
1:14:02
Speaker 1: to fuck it with all the old rules. And California
1:14:06
Speaker 1: dropped the SAT scores. They dropped the fucking SAT scores
1:14:11
Speaker 1: for college admission. Now, this has been a total disaster.
1:14:16
Speaker 1: Even liberal academics are saying, please, please, can we go
1:14:19
Speaker 1: back to the SAT scores? Because we're admitting kids that
1:14:23
Speaker 1: don't know what the hell they're doing. They can't read.
1:14:25
Speaker 1: They can't write. They can't do math. This is a
1:14:29
Speaker 1: total disaster. And for liberal academics to be doing this
1:14:34
Speaker 1: in a way that could even theoretically be seen as racist,
1:14:38
Speaker 1: because this is This has been a battle over the
1:14:40
Speaker 1: SATs for a very long time, all the way back
1:14:43
Speaker 1: to my days at Georgetown when our legendary coach John
1:14:46
Speaker 1: Thompson was campaigning against the SATs because he thought they
1:14:50
Speaker 1: were racially biased, which I never bought into. But this
1:14:54
Speaker 1: has been something that's been going on for a very
1:14:56
Speaker 1: long time. And so for liberal academics in California to
1:14:59
Speaker 1: be pleading for the SATs to come back in a
1:15:04
Speaker 1: way that goes against conventional wisdom within the liberal elites
1:15:08
Speaker 1: is really something But the New York Times rightfully got
1:15:13
Speaker 1: absolutely ridiculed and massacred for a column that they put
1:15:19
Speaker 1: out involving this controversy that is among the craziest you'll
1:15:24
Speaker 1: ever see from the New York Times. It's almost like
1:15:29
Speaker 1: it's a parody, almost like it's a parody. And really
1:15:34
Speaker 1: kind of it was depressing to me because I thought, OK,
1:15:37
Speaker 1: we're actually seeing some sense of rationality that maybe we're
1:15:41
Speaker 1: coming to our senses here that even liberal elites in
1:15:44
Speaker 1: California are saying, let's bring back the SATs. And here
1:15:48
Speaker 1: comes the New York Times with a guest essay entitled
1:15:53
Speaker 1: This California Educational Juggernaut Doesn't Need the SAT. Doesn't need
1:16:01
Speaker 1: the SAT. OK, what the hell is this all about? Well,
1:16:04
Speaker 1: the reason why this New York Times essay rightfully went
1:16:09
Speaker 1: viral because of universal ridicule was because of one particular
1:16:15
Speaker 1: paragraph that really ought to go down in the history
1:16:20
Speaker 1: of media malpractice. If there's a museum of media malpractice,
1:16:25
Speaker 1: this needs to be prominently displayed. This is an actual
1:16:29
Speaker 1: paragraph from a New York Times essay. making the argument
1:16:35
Speaker 1: that we don't need the SATs in California schools. This
1:16:40
Speaker 1: is what was written and approved of by the New
1:16:42
Speaker 1: York Times. What has made the University of California exceptional
1:16:48
Speaker 1: is its commitment to increase access without sacrificing excellence. Now,
1:16:57
Speaker 1: let me stop right there for a second. Increasing access
1:17:00
Speaker 1: means letting in more minorities. That's what that means. Now, technically,
1:17:06
Speaker 1: of course, there's all sorts of ways to try to
1:17:08
Speaker 1: ignore this, but getting rid of the SAT scores is
1:17:11
Speaker 1: one of them. Technically in California, it's illegal to have
1:17:15
Speaker 1: race-based admissions in the California state school system. It's illegal.
1:17:22
Speaker 1: But I say this all the time, when the only
1:17:25
Speaker 1: people making the decisions are liberals, they're going to be
1:17:30
Speaker 1: able to figure out a way to do it and
1:17:31
Speaker 1: no one's going to call them on it. And one
1:17:34
Speaker 1: of the ways they figured out was, well, if we
1:17:36
Speaker 1: get rid of the SAT scores, that means things are
1:17:38
Speaker 1: more subjective and we go more by grade point average.
1:17:42
Speaker 1: And if minorities in crappy schools are getting really great grades,
1:17:46
Speaker 1: guess what? We can grant them admission into our school.
1:17:50
Speaker 1: And by nature, we'll have greater access to disadvantaged groups,
1:17:57
Speaker 1: specifically minorities. So that's what that really means. but this
1:18:02
Speaker 1: paragraph goes on to say some really remarkable things. In
1:18:06
Speaker 1: recent years, California has proudly defied a national trend. On average,
1:18:13
Speaker 1: about 40% of its students are the first in their
1:18:17
Speaker 1: families to attend a four-year college. Now, look, that's a
1:18:22
Speaker 1: great goal. That's a wonderful goal to have more students
1:18:27
Speaker 1: who are first in their families to attend a four-year college. However,
1:18:32
Speaker 1: The cart's in front of the horse here. I guarantee
1:18:36
Speaker 1: that these people are being admitted because they're the first
1:18:42
Speaker 1: in their family. They're being advantaged in the application process
1:18:47
Speaker 1: because no one else in their family has ever gone
1:18:50
Speaker 1: to college. Imagine that, which of course means, liberals don't
1:18:53
Speaker 1: understand this, that means that if you're from a family
1:18:57
Speaker 1: that has had both your parents go to college or
1:19:00
Speaker 1: your grandparents go to college, you are inherently disadvantaged when
1:19:05
Speaker 1: it comes to admissions. How the fuck does that make
1:19:08
Speaker 1: any sense? Not only is it totally unfair, but also inherently,
1:19:13
Speaker 1: if you use your brain, it's going to diminish the
1:19:16
Speaker 1: quality of the candidate because whether liberals want to admit
1:19:20
Speaker 1: it or not, you're far more likely, far more likely
1:19:24
Speaker 1: to be a good college candidate if your parents and
1:19:26
Speaker 1: your grandparents went to college. That's just the reality of life.
1:19:30
Speaker 1: Back to the New York Times. More than half qualify
1:19:35
Speaker 1: for free tuition. So not only do you get admission,
1:19:41
Speaker 1: because you're the first in your family to go to college,
1:19:44
Speaker 1: more than half, so a better than 50% chance, you're
1:19:48
Speaker 1: going to get free tuition, which means it's being paid
1:19:51
Speaker 1: for effectively by these other people who probably did have
1:19:57
Speaker 1: parents go to college, the ones that are still strong
1:20:00
Speaker 1: enough applicants to get in, who probably have more means
1:20:04
Speaker 1: to So they're paying full or close to full tuition.
1:20:08
Speaker 1: So you not only get advantage when it comes to admission,
1:20:12
Speaker 1: but more than half the time, you're getting free tuition.
1:20:16
Speaker 1: Back to the New York Times. The percentages of underrepresented
1:20:21
Speaker 1: students have crept up through a variety of initiatives. Underrepresented students,
1:20:29
Speaker 1: meaning minorities, meaning race-based admissions. A variety of initiatives means
1:20:37
Speaker 1: we're going to go around the law. We're going to
1:20:39
Speaker 1: figure out ways that we know are going to facilitate
1:20:43
Speaker 1: more and more minorities gaining application into California schools. Back
1:20:49
Speaker 1: to the New York Times. The California Dream Act gave
1:20:54
Speaker 1: undocumented students, in other words, illegal aliens, undocumented students access
1:21:00
Speaker 1: to financial aid as well as in-state tuition. And then
1:21:06
Speaker 1: comes the sentence that is the reason why this New
1:21:10
Speaker 1: York Times essay went viral. And I'm not making this up.
1:21:15
Speaker 1: This was actually written in the same paragraph. I'm not
1:21:18
Speaker 1: omitting anything. This is written from the same paragraph of
1:21:22
Speaker 1: the New York Times. It ends with the sentence, students
1:21:27
Speaker 1: on University of California campuses may struggle with basic math,
1:21:35
Speaker 1: but they are graduating at record rates. Let me repeat that.
1:21:41
Speaker 1: Students on University of California campuses may struggle with basic math,
1:21:47
Speaker 1: but they are graduating at record rates. And I presume
1:21:54
Speaker 1: that the writer for the New York Times and the
1:21:56
Speaker 1: editors at the New York Times thought that somehow that's
1:22:00
Speaker 1: a great thing, that somehow, well, the graduation rates are
1:22:06
Speaker 1: at record rates, they're record high, so inherently there's no
1:22:11
Speaker 1: big problem. Hello, the reason why the graduation rates are at,
1:22:18
Speaker 1: a record high is because we've just decided to drop
1:22:21
Speaker 1: the standards.
1:22:23
Speaker 6: Why?
1:22:24
Speaker 1: Because we can't keep minorities from graduating because once they
1:22:30
Speaker 1: get in, they're a protected class and everyone in woke
1:22:35
Speaker 1: academia is incentivized to make sure that they graduate, even
1:22:39
Speaker 1: if they can't do fucking basic math, even if they
1:22:42
Speaker 1: can't read or write. And so somehow, That paragraph should
1:22:50
Speaker 1: be a damning indictment of the entire system. Instead, the
1:22:54
Speaker 1: New York Times thinks this is fucking fantastic.
1:22:58
Speaker 6: It's unbelievable.
1:23:00
Speaker 1: It's absolutely unbelievable. And when it comes to race-based admissions, obviously,
1:23:07
Speaker 1: I'm not a fan of Trump 2.0. I think this
1:23:11
Speaker 1: administration has largely been a disaster. And I don't know
1:23:15
Speaker 1: what the real world impact has been But I will
1:23:17
Speaker 1: say that there has been one Trump administration official, Harmeet Dhillon,
1:23:23
Speaker 1: in the Justice Department, who has done seemingly a great
1:23:26
Speaker 1: job on this particular issue. Harmeet Dhillon is someone I've
1:23:30
Speaker 1: mentioned on this podcast before because she was my lawyer.
1:23:35
Speaker 1: I say my lawyer. I was part of a class
1:23:38
Speaker 1: action lawsuit against Gavin Newsom during the COVID panic to
1:23:41
Speaker 1: try to reopen our schools. Now, we were completely unsuccessful there.
1:23:45
Speaker 1: in doing that. But I was one of about like
1:23:47
Speaker 1: seven or eight plaintiffs and got to know Harmeet a
1:23:50
Speaker 1: little bit. And the fact that she's on this, you know,
1:23:54
Speaker 1: I think is fantastic. And she seemingly has done a
1:23:57
Speaker 1: very good job at least trying to put pressure, specifically
1:24:02
Speaker 1: here in California and in other blue states, on a
1:24:05
Speaker 1: situation where obviously the law is not being followed. And
1:24:08
Speaker 1: then obviously there's racial discrimination. And the evidence of this
1:24:12
Speaker 1: is now overwhelming. And the The impact of this could
1:24:15
Speaker 1: not be more obvious. It's all because liberals put the
1:24:21
Speaker 1: cart in front of the horse. It's all about equity
1:24:24
Speaker 1: instead of equality. Equality of opportunity is fantastic. It's the
1:24:31
Speaker 1: essence of America. Equity of outcome is the antithesis of America.
1:24:38
Speaker 1: But that's what we have here in California and other
1:24:41
Speaker 1: blue states. And the consequences of that are catastrophic where
1:24:47
Speaker 1: you now have a situation where because we don't have
1:24:50
Speaker 1: the SATs and apparently it's being it's much, you know,
1:24:54
Speaker 1: the New York Times is opposing the reinstitution of the SATs.
1:24:58
Speaker 1: You can't even figure out which kids belong in college
1:25:02
Speaker 1: or not. And for sure, you're having qualified kids not
1:25:07
Speaker 1: even be able to get in. Meanwhile, kids that have
1:25:10
Speaker 1: no business going to college are getting in for free
1:25:14
Speaker 1: and are graduating, getting passed along because no one in
1:25:18
Speaker 1: liberal woke academia wants to do anything to stop it
1:25:21
Speaker 1: because they're going to be perceived as racist. You just
1:25:25
Speaker 1: can't make this shit up. Thanks for listening to today's
1:25:28
Speaker 1: free drop of the abbreviated show. If you're interested in
1:25:31
Speaker 1: listening to the entire show, You must become a patron.
1:25:35
Speaker 1: Please go to Patreon. That's P-A-T-R-E-O-N dot com. Patreon dot
1:25:42
Speaker 1: com slash The Death of Journalism with John Ziegler. My
1:25:49
Speaker 1: name is J-O-H-N-Z-I-E-G-L-E-R. That's Patreon dot com slash The Death
1:25:57
Speaker 1: of Journalism with John Ziegler. Good luck to you on that.
1:26:02
Speaker 1: But that's how you can subscribe.