Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Forty Eight: Leaving the Gravitational Pull of Rational Earth

Transcript

Episode Forty Eight: Leaving the Gravitational Pull of Rational Earth · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Welcome to episode number forty eight of the Death of Journalism podcast. My name
0:04
is John Ziegler. I am your host. Later in today's show, I
0:08
became tangentially involved in a rulings controversy at the Master's golf tournament this past weekend,
0:15
and the media coverage of that situation is extremely telling about the broken nature
0:20
of our news media in general. But first, if you somehow bet that
0:25
the epicenter of the American political and cultural divide for the past two weeks would
0:31
be in the state of Tennessee, you can now collect your winnings, although
0:36
as of this taping on Monday, it may be shifting to yet another place
0:43
where I was once a radio talk show host, from Nashville, Tennessee to
0:46
Louisville, Kentucky, where there was a shooting at a bank that resulted in
0:52
at least five people dying six people being injured, including a police officer.
0:56
The shooter himself is also dead, although details at this point are very very
1:00
hazy. But another mass shooting, which is how the situation in Tennessee began.
1:07
Now there's two elements really of the Tennessee circumstance, but the one I
1:12
want to start off with deals with gun control, and I guess you would
1:17
call it, if you were a conservative, an insurrection that occurred at the
1:21
Tennessee State House. The representatives there helped, at least three of them supposedly
1:27
helped in a quote unquote insurrection in protest of guns and in favor of gun
1:34
control in the state of Tennessee. And this is exploded in a national controversy
1:41
because three Democratic state representatives in Tennessee had been potentially going to be expelled from
1:49
the state House for their role in whatever you want to call it. I'll
1:55
call it an insurrection just because those in the right are very willing to use
2:00
that term because of obviously the aftermath of January sixth, and how the media
2:04
has used insurrection constantly to describe that. So there were these three Democrats who
2:09
were potentially going to be expelled from the Statehouse because they were effectively inciting this
2:16
quote unquote insurrection over the issue of gun control. Well, as it turned
2:22
out, two of the three that I'm referred to by the media as the
2:25
Tennessee Three. You know, they gotta have a name, and so you
2:30
know, when the media rushes to their defense after all, you know,
2:32
they're Democrats, they're automatically on the good side, and after all, it's
2:36
gun control. We know what side the media is going to be on,
2:38
at least nationally when it comes to that issue. So they give them a
2:43
name like now they're civil rights leaders. And it turns out that two of
2:46
them did get expelled. But unfortunately, the optics on this thing are absolutely
2:53
horrendous. Now. I'm well aware that there are a lot of people who
2:55
believe this was a great move by the Republican Party in Tennessee to put the
3:00
foot down and to really show the rest of the country whose boss, and
3:06
to not give any quarter, not give an inch, and that this is
3:10
the only way to deal with this kind of situation. However, optics matter,
3:15
and the fact that the two representatives in Tennessee who were expelled happened to
3:20
be black males, and the person who was not expelled, the Democrat it
3:23
was not expelled as a white female, just looks terrible. And the media
3:29
has jumped all over that. They've lapped up this idea that oh, this
3:34
is a racial issue, this was racism. And of course those who were
3:38
involved in this, the Democrats, they know the media is going to lap
3:40
it up. There's no evidence at all that it's racism at work. The
3:46
woman involved apparently did not take nearly as as strong a role in this as
3:51
the two black representatives did, and so Republicans decided not to expel her.
3:58
But that's not the way the media is going to play it. That's not
4:00
the way it's going to look, especially when the state is Tennessee, obviously
4:04
a Southern state, and Republicans are already presumed to be racist even without any
4:10
evidence. So from a media standpoint, I think this is Nationally it's not
4:15
a huge deal, but it's a loss now in the state of Tennessee.
4:19
I have no idea how it is going to play, and I don't even
4:21
know. I hesitate to go too deeply into this because it's hard to tell
4:27
what the right thing to do in this circumstance was. What the threshold for
4:31
expelling someone from the state representatives, the House of Representatives is. I mean,
4:36
these are you know, we're in kind of uncharted territory here. I'm
4:41
just talking about from a media standpoint, this is kind of tone death from
4:46
a political perspective, to be expelling two black representatives, especially when you vote
4:51
not to expel a white female, and of course the media is all too
4:55
happy to now make these people's celebrities and to paint this as a racist and
5:00
you know, white racist Republicans trying to desperately hang onto their guns. That's
5:04
the narrative. Now, how much impact that's going to have, I don't
5:08
know nationally, but I know that that's the way the media was going to
5:12
play it. And Republicans in Tennessee should have understood that. That being said,
5:16
they were successful in doing what they tried to do, and so I
5:18
guess, you know, there are those people who are cheering that. And
5:23
I don't think this is going to be a massive game changer nationally, but
5:26
it is interesting how you know. This all comes, of course, in
5:30
the aftermath of the horrendous shooting in Nashville, Tennessee, which resulted in the
5:35
deaths of seven people but six victims, three of which were children at the
5:41
Christians School a couple of weeks ago, committed by a woman transitioning to be
5:45
a man. Now, the comedia, of course, has completely whitewashed this
5:50
whole situation. What really did happen here? There's no talk at all that
5:57
the motive here or what provoked the shooting was, in fact, this transition,
6:01
which is just let's stop for a second and consider his talent saying that
6:04
is, I mean, we have a very young person transitioning from being a
6:11
female to a male. Obviously, that is a massive, massive change in
6:15
someone's life. In any crime like this, any crime, the first thing
6:20
anybody looks at is, Okay, what's going on in their life, especially
6:25
when there's no direct motive to the people who were killed. There's no connection
6:30
that we know of at all that these were targeted murders. This was just
6:33
a massacre. This was effectively a political statement and or a suicide mission by
6:41
the person who perpetrated this tragedy. And so it's obvious. It's just so
6:46
obvious. I feel stupid even talking about it. Yet it's beyond at least
6:50
the willingness of the news media to discuss this incredibly obvious motivation or provocation as
6:59
to what cause the crime. I mean, look, is it possible that
7:02
something else sparked this? Sure, maybe if we took a look at the
7:08
manifesto we would be able to figure that out. But my guess is the
7:12
manifesto would only back up what common sends Akham's razor would tell us, which
7:17
is obviously it's the transition that in some way, shape or form, either
7:21
directly or indirectly, cause this person to snap and to cause the deaths of
7:27
these six innocent people. And yet to the media, this is you can't
7:31
touch this, cannot touch this because somehow being transgendered is an alila protection.
7:40
It's a protected class now to choose, and this is there's so many dangers
7:46
in the whole concept of protected classes, but the biggest danger is they have
7:50
now expanded to the point where you can choose to be part of a protected
7:56
class. Now, that's when you know we're going to leave the pull of
8:01
the gravitational pull of the rational earth, if we haven't done so already.
8:05
Once people can choose to be part of protected classes, than Katie bar the
8:11
door, it's all over. And that's what we have here, and we
8:15
have it in the strangest way possible, where an incredibly small portion of the
8:20
population is not just being treated fairly and equally under the law and the rules
8:28
of society, which I'm all in favor of, they're actually be given being
8:31
given extra protection, extra protection because they have chosen to transition or call themselves
8:39
some other gender or whatever whatever it is in that particular situation. But in
8:45
the natural circumstance, I mean, you know, when you're transitioning, you
8:50
got all sorts of issues going on in your life, including the issue of
8:54
medication, which the media has not even remotely at least not nationally dealt with.
9:01
And it's just so basic common sense. But it's also driven purely by
9:07
politics. And even I have been disappointed by how pathetic the news media coverage
9:13
of the natural situation has been. And let's be very clear these things.
9:18
One of these things begets another. There is absolutely obvious that the news media,
9:26
making it clear that they will protect the trans quote unquote community, has
9:31
actually emboldened that community in the wake of this tragedy. You would think that
9:37
the transactivists would go away in hiding after this happened. Instead, the opposite
9:43
has occurred, because they are confident that the news media and the Democratic Party
9:48
is blocking for them very actively. By the way, there was another media,
9:56
of course, despite this one, there was another possible at least planned
10:01
massacre that was being planned by eighteen woman transitioning to be a man, but
10:09
it was averted by law enforcement I mean, this keeps happening. Even I
10:16
was unaware of how much it has happened with regard to trans people before the
10:22
Nashville shooting, but we had another one that was thankfully averted. Again,
10:26
this can't all be a coincidence. There has to be some connection. I
10:31
can guarandamn to you. If that connection was not politically toxic on the left
10:37
and for the news media, the news media would be all over it if
10:41
it helped their agenda. If it was not something that was going to piss
10:45
off the woke mob on Twitter, the news media would be completely obsessed with
10:50
it. Oh we gotta. If it was, you know, somehow something
10:54
going on with the conservative white men that was causing this, there be no
10:58
hesitation and whatsoever to jump to all sorts of conclusions, whether real or erroneous.
11:05
And instead we have the exact opposite. And I mean, it's just
11:09
unbelievable to me. It's the most unbelievable political development of my lifetime and maybe
11:16
in the modern history of America, that such an incredibly small percentage of the
11:20
population has been able to wield this kind of power to change our rules for
11:26
society in all sorts of ways. And now there is an effort in a
11:31
lot of these state legislatures to try to curtail this, and even that effort,
11:37
which is really an effort just to protect kids for having surgeries that they
11:43
will later regret, which I keep saying this, but we have all sorts
11:48
of laws that prevent kids from doing things that we think that they will later
11:54
regret. And this is certain shouldn't even be a question because it's become politically
12:01
toxic somehow, and somehow a right now for kids to have surgeries to try
12:07
to change their gender again. So much of this is so whackadoodle that I
12:13
feel silly even talking about it. Yet this is where we are. This
12:16
is how crazy things have gotten. And the White House keeps enabling and facilitating
12:24
this in very dramatic ways, and nobody is more outspoken about it than the
12:28
White House Press Secretary greens Young Pierre. And she, you know, she
12:35
is lesbian, she's black, and she is continually trying to create this narrative,
12:41
and of course most of the media is lapping it up that somehow the
12:46
trans community is under attack. They're under attack. She even said this in
12:52
the immediate actormath of the Nashville shooting. There wasn't Christians under attack from the
12:56
trans community who have just been killed six people in a Christian school. No,
13:01
No, it's the trans community under attack. Now, she was referring
13:05
to be fair about legislative attack, although she's also been talking about this issue
13:11
of I guess kids being bullied and how difficult it is for trans kids,
13:18
and that they have suicidal thoughts, or that they even sometimes commit suicide,
13:22
or I guess the next logical progression is they go and kill other people and
13:26
end up effectively committing suicide by getting killed by police or killing themselves in a
13:33
mass shooting, which often happens. And so here he is the White House
13:37
Press Secretary Green Jean Pierre, once again making this argument and making it sound
13:46
as if the trans community is so under attack that she needs to offer them
13:50
a lifeline, literally a suicide hotline, to get them help, that they
13:58
need these attacks that they're getting, presumably from these mean, nasty Republicans and
14:05
conservatives all over the country. And here's what that sounded like just a few
14:09
days ago. I know that these political attacks can really take toll on people's
14:15
mental health. So I want to say directly to LGBTQI plus kids. You
14:20
are loved just as you are, just the way you are. And if
14:24
you're feeling overwhelmed, you call nine to eight eight the National Crisis Hotline and
14:30
dial the number three to talk to a counselor who has been specifically trained to
14:35
support LGBTQI plus kids. This is a new service that the Biden administration is
14:41
proud to offer during these incredibly hard times for these trans kids. Now,
14:46
one of the reasons I played that clip is because it hits on one of
14:50
my all time pet peeves, especially with the news media, and I can
14:54
never figure out is the news media just this dumb or are they just playing
15:01
I actually think my gut tells me they are really this dumb that they never
15:05
think, They never use their brains, they have no independent thought. It's
15:09
all heard mentality, and they never think, Okay, so we have trans
15:16
teams whatever in trouble. They're having mental and emotional issues, right, And
15:24
so the White House Progress Secretary Press Secretary is telling us very strongly implying that
15:30
this is because of the attacks that they're getting from our culture and from legislatures
15:35
and from kids I guess bullying them. That's the narrative right that they're having
15:39
all these emotional and mental problems. And I'm sure that that sounds really good
15:43
to the average media member, but does not one of them ever think,
15:50
m that's an interesting theory. We don't have any evidence for that. There's
15:54
absolutely no evidence whatsoever that trans kids are being treated badly, or they are
16:00
or some sort of physical attack. And I you know, the idea that
16:03
kids are being protected in some state legislatures by passing laws preventing them from having
16:07
surgeries that they're very likely going to regret at some point does not count,
16:12
even though the White House would like you to believe that it does. But
16:15
isn't it possible, if not probable, that what's actually happening here is one
16:22
hundred and eighty degrees the opposite of that narrative. And I have seen this
16:26
happen so many times in my life, in big stories and in little stories
16:32
where the news media never even thinks, Gee, what if this is the
16:37
exact opposite of what we're accepting as the true narrative. What if instead of
16:45
trans kids having mental and emotional issues because of the reaction to their transition,
16:52
what if their transition is happening because they already have mental and emotional issues.
17:02
Huh, bum bum bum. How is this not something that is even considered
17:11
when it is far more logical and far more keeping within the evidence than anything
17:18
the other side is saying. I mean, I must have thought about this
17:22
concept a thousand times during my investigation of the Joe Paterno Jerryson Dusky Penn State
17:27
ute quote unquote scandal, where this happened both in the big picture and in
17:32
the little picture, so many times, where the truth was the exact opposite
17:37
and it was far more logical than the fairytale that was being woven by the
17:41
news media or being blindly accepted by the news media. Same thing with COVID.
17:45
So it's exact same thing with COVID in so many different ways, I
17:49
mean so many different ways with regard to COVID, that the truth is exactly
17:53
the opposite of the narrative that we are being sold. And with this one,
17:59
I am very confident that the alternative narrative is the one that makes a
18:03
hell of a lot more sense. Are there isolated situations, I'm sure there
18:07
are, But from a statistical standpoint, even there is no evidence whatsoever nor
18:12
any logic nor I mean, folks, if what was If what the White
18:18
House Press Secretary is saying was true, especially in the social media age,
18:22
especially when everyone has a cell phone at all times, we would have massive
18:26
evidence of that. But there's not. The trans community is not under attack.
18:33
Is exactly the opposite. They're being coddled, enabled, protected, they
18:37
feel emboldened, empowered. How could they not feel emboldened and empowered Dylan mulvany,
18:45
For God's sakes, I mean in Kese, you don't know who this
18:49
is. This is a person who somehow became famous. A guy becomes famous
18:56
for dressing and acting like a six year old girl. I am not making
19:00
this up. That's who Dylan mulvaney is. Not just became famous and has
19:06
been blessed by major politicians on the left, but is now a spokesperson,
19:11
a commercial spokesperson for bud Light, Nike, and tam Packs. In the
19:18
reub of the stuff you just cannot make up. Bud Light, Nike and
19:26
tam Packs are paying a man with male genitalia to act like a girl.
19:36
Now bud Light is getting all sorts of blowback, massive blowback. I can't
19:41
believe that this is gonna end up being anything but a disaster for them.
19:45
From a commercial standpoint, it makes absolutely I mean, it's just astonishing.
19:48
I've already said that the trans issue is the most astonishing political issue that I've
19:53
ever witnessed. But the idea that major companies that have have been based in
20:00
Americana for many, many decades, like bud Light and Manliness, are now
20:07
using Dylan mulvaney as a spokesperson is you can't make this up. You just
20:11
get something. Something's broken. Something is just fundamentally and totally broken, and
20:18
I can't explain it, but there has to be some level of consequence when
20:22
it comes to bud Light. Whether there'll be any accountability for the person that
20:26
did this, I don't know. But there's no possible way that this works
20:30
financially for bud Light. I can't imagine it'll work for Nike either. But
20:34
tam packs, tam PACs. That just says it all right there, and
20:38
there are other companies as well. But but how can the trans community simultaneously?
20:45
How can the White House claim that the trans community is under attack when
20:49
Dylan mulvaney is getting these kind of endorsements. It makes absolutely no sense.
20:56
It's an alternative universe. And then conversely, you know who really is under
21:02
attack those who try to stand up against the transactivists or the trans terrorists.
21:08
In this particular case, there's a female swimmer by the name of Riley Gaines
21:12
who has become very popular on the right, and she was a very well
21:19
accomplished college swimmer, and she's the person who's been most vocal about standing up
21:23
against the fact that she had to compete against a man with male genitalia in
21:30
major swimming competitions. Most women were too afraid because they knew the kind of
21:37
criticism that they would get on social media, completely contrary to the White House
21:41
narrative, as well as the media coverage that they would get. But she
21:45
has courageously stood up. And she was at San Francisco State University in California,
21:53
and I wish I could say this as an exaggeration, but she was
21:59
trying to speak there to spread her message. She's been speaking all around the
22:03
country on this issue of how insane it is that she, as a woman,
22:08
had to compete, and not just compete, but also share a locker
22:12
room with a guy with his naked penis out. For everybody to see pretending
22:19
to be a woman, and how horrifying that was. And so she goes
22:25
to San Francisco State University and she gets held hostage, hostage, that's what
22:34
happened. The transactivists felt so enabled that they held her effectively captive and demanded
22:45
compensation or concessions. Are these are the transactivists. These are people supposedly under
22:51
attack in America, but in San Francisco they feel really emboldened. I guess
22:56
now eventually she was able to effectively scape, But there's been no charges.
23:02
There's been no massive media, essentially mainstream media coverage of this. I mean,
23:07
can you imagine if the reverse had happened and she herself? Riley Gaines
23:12
tweeted, imagine if the roles were reversed and a group of white conservatives ambush
23:18
someone within the LGBTQ community, physically assaulted them and held them ransom for three
23:25
hours. There would be arrests and repercussions for the perpetrators and administration who follow
23:30
who allowed this, She continues on. Instead, the campus police and university
23:37
did nothing. They were scared to assert any force and adequately do their job
23:42
for fear as coming off as racist transphobic, or any thing other than an
23:48
ally to the community. I'm tired of the double standard. When will enough
23:53
be enough? That's Riley Gaines from her Twitter feed. This is how much
24:00
we are living in an opposite world where a group of people can somehow get
24:07
the benefit of a narrative where they're under attack, where they're the ones being
24:11
discriminated against, they're the martyrs, yet they're the ones actually perpetrating these kind
24:18
of acts because they actually, in real life feel so empowered and so enabled
24:23
by the insanity. And the insanity, of course is on steroids in a
24:29
place like San Francisco, especially in an academic setting in San Francisco, So
24:33
nobody's going to stand up for the woman who's just trying to defend women being
24:41
able to compete in athletics against other women and not have men in their locker
24:47
room. Can you imagine this being controversial? Yet it's not just controversial.
24:52
It started effectively a riot at San Francisco State, and the media, major
24:59
media silent didn't really happen. Let's move along, and certainly at San Francisco
25:04
State as of this taping, no repercussions, no accountability for this outrage,
25:11
It's absolutely unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable, and yet it's happening. And to me,
25:18
I keep using this metaphor of leaving the gravitational pull of the rational earth.
25:22
We are so far beyond that now and I don't even see how we
25:27
possibly get back. And we don't get back, largely because the news media
25:33
is terrified. And why they are terrified, I don't know. I don't
25:38
know what they're terrified of, because this is a group that has no real
25:45
political power none. I mean, what would you get some criticism on social
25:52
media a gas? I guess standing up for the basic rights of women.
25:57
I don't know how that would get you criticize on social media, But I
26:00
guess that's what the fear is. I mean. And how this is not
26:06
resonating more with independent women, you know, women who are not part of
26:11
the democratic cult. I don't know, I really don't. I mean,
26:15
we didn't see any evidence of it in the twenty twenty twenty two midterm elections.
26:19
You know, maybe it hadn't really hit people at home yet. Maybe
26:25
people thought it was kind of a fringe thing and it wasn't that big of
26:29
a deal. It's becoming harder and harder to ignore. But the media is
26:33
doing their best to allow people to ignore it because I still maintain that the
26:37
average person out there, probably who doesn't follow the news very closely, doesn't
26:41
investigate for themselves, probably is unaware of most of this stuff I'm referring to.
26:47
They certainly don't know who Riley Games is. Now, if you're a
26:51
conservative, you watch Fox News channels. She's been on there several times.
26:55
You know, if you're on Twitter, you probably do. But that's not
26:57
the majority of people. And it's just amazing when the news media systematically wants
27:03
to spike a narrative, they're still very very good at that, and they
27:07
still have the power to do that with the majority of the American population.
27:12
And you know who understands this better than anybody, our king here in California,
27:18
Gavin Newsom. He understands this very well because he lives in a one
27:25
party state with state run media, so he knows, he knows exactly how
27:30
the transactivists feel he can get away with anything, and he knows this because
27:37
he did so for the first two years plus of COVID, and he is
27:41
now on a red state lecture tour to tell the Red States just how awful
27:48
they are. And boy is he projecting. He is projecting at at an
27:52
exceedingly high level. And what I mean by projecting is he's accusing others of
27:59
doing it exactly what he has done. And you know, his favorite words
28:03
seems to be freedom, which is just freaking hilarious for a guy who shut
28:08
down the entire state of California for longer than anybody else did in the country
28:15
in a way that was totally meaningless, counterproductive, nonsensical, in ways that
28:19
were infuriating, in ways that usually harmed kids more than any other demographic.
28:26
I mean, I've talked many times. Having two kids myself, I saw
28:30
it on a daily basis. It infuriated me and will always infuriate infuriate me
28:37
till the day I die what California did to kids. Just to review,
28:41
not only were schools shut down for well effectively for well over a year and
28:47
they had to be masked or even when they came back, which was completely
28:49
insane, but we had a situation where beaches were closed saveest place you could
28:55
possibly be, playgrounds, probably the second savest place you could possibly be clothes
29:00
for well over a year. Sports were shut down, graduations were shut down,
29:06
all sorts of events. All you know, kids, that's what they
29:08
do is they get together, especially you know when they're young. That's they
29:14
formed friendships, relationships, that's how they have fun. All of that gone
29:19
canceled for absolutely no reason, no benefit whatsoever, except for Gavin Newsom being
29:26
able to exert his authority and did not have to admit that he was wrong.
29:32
That's a huge part of what happened with COVID not having to admit that
29:37
he was wrong. He completely crapped his pants panic shut down on a lie.
29:42
It did not turn out to come out anywhere near anything close to what
29:48
he claimed it would. And instead of admitting, oops, I was wrong,
29:51
Thank goodness, I was wrong. Let's get back to normal. Sorry
29:53
about that, it won't happen again, he doubled, tripled, quadruple down
29:57
because he didn't want to admit that he was wrong, and he loved the
30:00
power he was getting away with. And he got away with the power because
30:03
there is no Republican party in this state and there is no independent media in
30:08
the state. So when you have state run media and no competing political party
30:14
and a national media that doesn't really even follow California that much. But are
30:18
you know, isn't going to shut down a young, good looking liberal that
30:22
could directly run for presidents someday maybe someday soon. They're not going to do
30:27
anything to mess that up, especially went at the time it was helping to
30:32
destroy the presidency and the re election effort of Donald Trump. So Newsom understands
30:37
this, and on his Red State lecture tour, he was interviewed by Jen
30:41
Pasaki, the former White House Press secretary who's now an MSNBC and this asshole
30:48
and I mean he is an asshole. I mean there, I mean that's
30:51
what really, that's what the term was created for someone like Gavin Newsom.
30:56
This asshole decides that he's going to make the argument back to the gun control
31:00
issue that you know, it's Republicans you don't care about kids because we're not.
31:06
They're not taking away all of our guns and eliminating the Second Amendment.
31:10
He's going to play the kid card. The guy who destroyed the lives needlessly,
31:15
selfishly in a politically motivated agenda, destroyed the lives of millions and millions
31:22
of kids, created a generation it's going to be lost academically of kids not
31:30
to mention all the incredible things that were lost, as far as opportunities and
31:33
events and memories and everything else that you only get one shot at in life.
31:38
This asshole is going to pretend that he's the defender of kids. And
31:44
here's Newsom along with Jen Vasaki talking about this particular issue. Serious. The
31:51
manifesto allegedly for the shooter in Tennessee all connected this broader contagion. They don't
31:57
care about our kids because if they did, they banned these damn weapons of
32:00
war. They would have background checks, they require some common damn sense.
32:05
They don't. So you know what, those kids that were there in the
32:07
capitol, God bless every single one of them. So what do you think
32:10
the hold is that the NA or the gun lobby has because our wholly owned
32:15
subsidiary special in money. Yeahs, threats, the threat of money being used.
32:21
It's not just always what you see. It's the things that are behind
32:23
the scenes that are more impactful, the threat of going after the example.
32:28
But what was lynching about out here? It wasn't just about the direct assault
32:31
on an individual in their family. It was about setting a message to the
32:36
rest of the community about power and control. Dominance and aggression. Boy,
32:39
those are themes you're hearing from these Republican governors. When I saw that clip,
32:44
I was furious. I still am, I will always be furious about
32:49
what Gavin Newsom has gotten away with. And and by the way, on
32:52
the substance of the issue, he's completely full of crap. If you look
32:58
at the last forty years, and California has had some of the strictest gun
33:02
control in the country, Okay, in the last forty years, you know
33:07
which state has had by far the largest number of mass shootings by far,
33:12
not even close. Yeah, California over the last forty year period of time,
33:16
not a small snip of time, forty years, twice as many,
33:22
I think, as even Texas has had. Texas obviously a much more pro
33:27
gun state, almost the same population, smaller population, larger geographically. But
33:34
the reality is, no matter how you slice it, there's no evidence at
33:37
all that California has benefited with regard to the issue of preventing mass shootings because
33:45
of stricter gun control. And we're seeing this happened a lot where such often
33:52
situations that could turn into mass shootings get stopped because someone actually has a gun
33:57
and of course, there's always the issue, which I think maybe he is.
34:00
A bigger issue is how many times to the the people to perpetrate this
34:07
use guns that were already illegal, or do things that we're already illegal.
34:10
I mean, gee, and this is shocking to people like Gavin Newsom,
34:15
but if you're willing to go kill as many people as you can, including
34:17
yourself, the law really doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference. Now,
34:22
I don't know what the answer is. There's clearly a problem. I think
34:27
it's an exaggerated problem, but there's a problem. But my issue is how
34:31
the news media allows Gavinuson to get away with this crap, not just on
34:36
the issue of gun control, but on the issue of somehow being the crusader
34:39
for kids, the guy who has done more to harm the real lives of
34:45
a larger number of kids than anybody, certainly in my lifetime in the United
34:51
States of America, including my own kids. And so you know, there's
34:54
a lot of people who are saying this is him laying the foundation for or
35:00
if Joe Biden decides not to run for president, that he will be well
35:04
positioned to be the nominee. It is still my belief that Joe Biden will
35:08
run, and if he does run, that there is no way, barring
35:13
massive physical incapacitation, that anybody else will be the nominee. There's just no
35:19
path there. I just don't I just do not see it. Look,
35:23
I'm as pessimistic as anybody, but I just don't see how Newsome would go
35:29
up against an active and you know, invigorated by by his definition, Joe
35:37
Biden actively seeking reelection. I just I just don't see that. Now,
35:43
the polls clearly show a path. I mean, Biden is not that popular
35:47
among the Democratic Party and and there's a lot of people that don't want him
35:52
to run. But once he does run, see that is such an incredibly
35:59
difficult thing to overcome. An incumbent president deciding to run for his own party's
36:05
nomination. It's it becomes exceedingly difficult to raise money, to get any kind
36:10
of endorsements, to get any traction the states at the start of the Democratic
36:16
nominating process. Would be exceedingly bad for Gavin Newsom and would be very good
36:22
for Joe Biden. And I'm not going to go into great detail of you
36:25
tracking a potential Biden Newsome battle but traditionally, you cannot possibly win, You
36:32
cannot win the Democratic nomination without a huge percentage of the Black vote, which
36:40
is partially why they now have South Carolina, as you know, probably the
36:45
most important Democratic primary, and that was where Joe Biden ended up winning the
36:51
nomination in twenty twenty. And I just cannot possibly see how Gavin Newsom,
36:58
of all people, ends up getting any kind of significant share of the black
37:02
vote against Joe Biden, against a remotely healthy Joe Biden. I just it's
37:07
just not especially with Kamala Harris still on his side. Not that she's particularly
37:12
popular, but there's just I just cannot possibly see that narrative. You know,
37:16
stranger things have happened, I guess someone who would have to explain to
37:21
me how the hell that would happen. So to me, what Newsom is
37:23
doing is basically he's creating an insurance policy. Then in case Biden decides not
37:29
to run or somehow becomes physically incapacitated, then he would be there. But
37:34
I just don't see that as a very likely scenario as of right now.
37:38
God help us all if it does become a more likely scenario. One other
37:45
issues certainly related and everything related to newsom goes back to COVID in my mind.
37:51
I got to play a clip from Doctor Fauci because and apparently I'm not
37:55
one hundred percent sure. I'm pretty sure this is from that PBS documentary that
38:00
they did called Doctor Anthony Fauci. And you know, I didn't see almost
38:08
all of this particular documentary. I saw clips online and a little bit of
38:14
I just couldn't stomach it. So I'm guessing this is what this is from.
38:17
But this made the rounds on social media over the weekend, and it's
38:22
just too good not to play because it tells you everything you need to know
38:28
about one the COVID response in general and how politicized it was, two the
38:35
issue of masks in particular, and three what a complete and total fraud doctor
38:40
Fauci is. And I gotta tell you, I mean, if you listen,
38:44
you know to my podcast at the time, the Individual One podcast during
38:47
the beginning of COVID, which was devoted to issues related to Donald Trump.
38:52
I really do believe I was one of the first people, at least I'm
38:55
aware of, in the midst of the panic to say this guy Fauci is
39:00
a massive problem he's a megalomaniac. I feel like he's a fraud. I
39:05
don't think. I don't trust him at all. That was my basic initial
39:08
initial reaction, and that was before we started to get all the information that
39:14
he was wrong and he started saying things that were totally wrong, and he
39:16
made all sorts of predictions that were wrong, and he recommended things that made
39:21
no sense. So I was way ahead of the curve when it comes to
39:23
Fauci, and I think I've been vindicated in spectacular fashion in all sorts of
39:30
ways. But the issue of masks and Faucci has always to me been the
39:34
smoking gun, not just with Faucci but with the whole COVID response, because
39:39
when COVID was just starting, it hadn't really hit the United States yet he
39:44
went on sixty minutes and mocked masks, mocked them, mocked masks, gop.
39:51
I can't believe YouTube still allows it to be to be playable, but
39:54
you can still find it on YouTube. Doctor Fauci sixty minutes I think was
40:00
early March, maybe late February of twenty twenty. And he's not just saying
40:06
masks aren't necessary. The mocking part always gets lost In this he laughs at
40:10
the interviewer who suggests, hey, should we be wearing masks, and he
40:15
says, no, we don't need them. They don't really do much.
40:17
You know, they might stop a droplet here or there, but you know,
40:21
we should not be wearing masks right now. And of course he dramatically
40:25
changes his position, and I believe he changed his position. I know he
40:29
changed his position because the politics change. His liberal fan base demanded masks as
40:35
an anti Donald Trump virtue signal and as a security blanket in the middle of
40:39
a panic. But fauci knew that masks didn't work. And it wasn't just
40:44
that one interview. He had done a previous interview before COVID where he mocked
40:47
masks when it came to preventing illnesses and viruses. There are emails that show
40:54
that he knows that masks don't work. Right in the midst of the of
41:00
the COVID panic, there was a famous photograph of him after he threw out
41:04
the first pitch at the first baseball game that he allowed to occur, which
41:07
never should have stopped to begin with. And he had that horrendous first pitch
41:12
and he's sitting in the stands with his wife and a friend and he's unmasked
41:17
and the friend is masked. I mean, there's the evidence is overwhelming.
41:22
He knows masks don't work. So in what I believe to be this PBS
41:27
documentary, he gets asked about the issue of his initial statement that we don't
41:34
need to be masked, and of course they downplay the actual nature of the
41:36
statement, and then Fauci pulls out a whopper. Why he goes through this
41:44
incredible gymnastics to try to get to how it is that he was wrong.
41:52
This is so hilarious. He actually says the words I was wrong, which
41:55
is, to my knowledge, the first time he has ever done so,
41:59
and ironically and incredibly tellingly, it's the only thing he was right about.
42:05
So that's how upside down everything is, folks. The only time Fauci was
42:09
right is the only time he will admit he was wrong. And he wasn't
42:15
wrong about the science. He was wrong about the politics. And here's Fauci's
42:22
explanation and I guess apology for having been right about masks not working. Of
42:30
twenty twenty, there was data indicating that you didn't need to have a mask,
42:39
the data being that there's no evidence that they protect outside of the hospital.
42:46
There's very little infection transmitted asymptomatically. We have a shortage of masks.
42:54
The data were misleading, but they were there and they mislit me. If
43:00
I were an infallible person, I would have said wear a mask anyway,
43:07
even if we don't know those things. Maybe I should have done that,
43:12
but I was not acting on that kind of instinct. Yeah, I was
43:16
wrong in all seriousness. That clip right there tells you everything you need to
43:23
know about what really happened with COVID, what really happened with masks, and
43:29
what really happened with doctor Fauci. He is willing to come up with his
43:34
convoluted argument, even admitting that he was wrong that somehow there was data.
43:39
By the way, the data thing is a lie. There was no data
43:43
yet when he said that there was none. Not to mention, how insane
43:46
is it that the man who says I am science, I am science.
43:52
That's what Fauci has said, which is insane to begin with, But how
43:55
absurd is it that the guy who said I am science is now suggesting he
44:00
should have followed his instincts instead of the data. So he's lying that there
44:05
was data. There was not. He's saying he should have gone with his
44:10
instincts instead of the science, which is just nuts. And he's coming to
44:16
a completely false conclusion all because, all because he doesn't want his fan base
44:23
to have to acknowledge that masks don't work. There's a far simpler narrative to
44:31
explain Fauci's evolution on masks than that convoluted bullcrap that you just heard there.
44:38
He knew they didn't work at the beginning. He also thought, there's no
44:43
goddamn way that the United States of America, you know, home of freedom
44:47
and liberty and bravery, is gonna ever accept science telling them to wear a
44:54
mask, especially a mask that doesn't work. So in his mind, and
44:59
I was in say camp at the time, there's no chance politically that this
45:02
is this is gonna fly. So this is an absurd concept. And then
45:09
he started to realize, because Founci is a politician above all else, he
45:15
started to realize, oh my god, my fans really love masks, They
45:21
really want masks, and you know, I've already explained why liberals wanted masks,
45:27
and so he decided all of a sudden that masks were incredibly important and
45:32
that they should be mandated, And even though the data came in as clear
45:38
as day that they don't work anywhere in the world, including an Ashuck,
45:44
that didn't matter because we can't tell people that they were wrong, and we
45:49
can't admit that we were wrong. And in a weird way, Founci's actually
45:53
virtue signaling when he says I was wrong, but I just I can't get
46:00
over. And how incredibly emblematic it is of how broken our entire national conversation
46:06
is, how broken the news media is, how upside down everything is.
46:09
Is that the only time Fauci has ever said I was wrong was when he
46:14
was actually right. And he can't admit that he was right because his fan
46:20
base would be furious with him. Plus he would look like a complete asshole,
46:23
which he is for having flipped his position and then flipping it back.
46:30
Well, oops, you know I was wrong about that. No, No,
46:32
you were right, doctor Fauci. You just decided to punish people for
46:37
years because you wanted to remain popular with your liberal fan base. That's what
46:43
happened, including kids. That's the part that's really the most outrageous of this
46:47
doctor Fauci effectively, he would never admit to this, but if he had
46:52
been against masks, then school mask mandates would have gone out the window.
46:55
And so it's largely because of doctor Fauci that millions and millions of kids,
47:00
uselessly, needlessly, and to potentially great detriment and damage, we're forced to
47:08
wear masks for well over a year in much of the country in school,
47:15
which anybody with half a brain understands not only is annoying as hell and frustrating
47:20
as hell and creates a very poor environment for learning as well as your perceptions
47:25
of school, but also it actually harms the learning process, especially if you're
47:30
a kid with special needs. And no one in the media has talked about
47:36
this at all, the damage done by this, and yet Fauci gets away
47:39
with this bullcrap and everyone goes, oh, oh wow, Okay, that's
47:44
interesting. Doctor Fouci finally admitted he was wrong about something he was right about,
47:50
which he was right one other thing on the COVID A situation. I
47:54
have mentioned before that Rhonda Santis had a critic in Florida by the name of
48:01
Rebecca Jones, and what a fraud Rebecca Jones turned out. To be.
48:07
I mean, she was someone who was hailed in the news media as Aha,
48:13
you know, Florida went back to normal and their data really wasn't that
48:17
bad. But we know why their data really wasn't that bad. They're faking
48:22
it. It's all a fraud. They're they're not telling the truth about their
48:25
data in Florida. And we have someone that can prove this for us,
48:30
Rebecca Jones. She's the person in the smoking gun who is gonna prove that
48:36
Florida really didn't get away with the fighting the conventional wisdom, and that really
48:42
all these restrictions were important, that Florida didn't prove the world wrong, just
48:47
like Sweden didn't really prove the world wrong, or South Dakota or Georgia didn't
48:52
really prove the whole world wrong. Well, turned out Rebecca Jones who claimed,
48:58
who claimed falsely and without evidence, in ways that were easily disproven,
49:05
that the data in Florida was being jury rigged, that was being manipulated,
49:08
it was being fraudulently created. She was a liar, and this was proven,
49:16
although the media never accepted it because once they buy into somebody, even
49:21
Michael Abanati, unless you know he goes to jail, they'll just ignore the
49:24
fact that he went to jail after they embrace him for well over a year
49:29
as Stormy Daniel's attorney. But Rebecca Jones, lesser degree than Michael Albanatti,
49:35
was a media darling by the way. She ran for Congress in the twenty
49:38
twenty two elections and got crushed. So even the people of Florida understand that
49:44
she's a fraud. Now, why am I mentioning her now? Well,
49:47
because she was involved in a pretty significant news story with some of the worst
49:52
media coverage you could possibly imagine, that really exposes how this whole thing really
49:59
goes down. And once you are a maid man or woman within the media
50:04
mafia, if you've gone after the right person, then you are protected till
50:09
the bitter end. And that's what happened with Rebecca Jones. So let me
50:14
give you a headline from the Miami Harold, because this one headline will tell
50:19
you a lot about the nature of the news media and how Elon Musk has
50:23
single handedly at least somewhat changed one or not these people can get away with
50:30
this kind of bull crap. So the Miami Harold put out a story with
50:34
the headline, thirteen year old son. Okay, so thirteen year old son
50:38
right away, that's a pretty sympathetic way to portray somebody, just a thirteen
50:44
year old kid, thirteen year old son of Rebecca Jones, whistle blower who
50:50
clashed with the Santists. Oh okay, so we got a thirteen year old
50:57
son of Rebecca Jones's whistle blower. Whistle blower is a very positive words.
51:02
She's fighting the man, she's telling the truth. We should have been disgraced
51:08
whistle blower. But no, no, it's still whistle blower. Whistle blower
51:12
who clashed with the Santists. Oh well, he's the enemy, so we
51:15
know, we know she's on the good side. Here arrested. Oh my
51:21
gosh, the thirteen year old son was arrested. What was he arrested for?
51:24
Over memes? Oh my gosh, Oh my gosh. Oh what a
51:32
horrible story. I'm sure the Santist was probably behind this. This is clearly
51:37
revenge for Rebecca Jones whistle blowing against Rhoda Santist. This poor thirteen year old
51:45
kid, he gets arrested over memes. My god. This is a free
51:50
speech issue. This is an issue of political retaliation. And by the way,
51:54
you know we left is all against political prosecutions, right when we've learned
51:59
that with regard to what's company with Donald Trump in Manhattan and the DA there
52:02
Alan Bragg right, Oh no, not really, Okay, I digress.
52:07
So this story, based upon the Miami Herald headline has got all sorts of
52:13
major problem. This is outrageous, of course, it's completely and totally wrong.
52:21
It is an absolute manipulation of the truth. First of all, Jones
52:29
is not a whistle blower. She was somebody who was a fraud who tried
52:35
to become famous and succeeded to a certain degree by lying about the data in
52:40
Florida. This was proven to be the case. The desantist thing had absolutely
52:45
nothing to do with what occurred here, and her son was not arrested for
52:52
memes. And thankfully the new Twitter run by Elon Musk, jumped in and
53:00
put on this warning label. I guess you would call it on the Miami
53:06
Herald tweet of this story. They wrote, Twitter did tagging this tweet,
53:10
which would never have happened in a million years before Elon Musk took over.
53:15
They wrote, Jones's son was turned into police after a warrant was issued for
53:24
repeated threats to perform a school shooting in text messages with friends, including quote
53:32
I want to shoot up the school. Quote if I get a gun,
53:37
I'm gonna shoot up Whom's l ol unquote. That is not quite obviously being
53:47
arrested for memes. It has absolutely nothing to do with rhnd As Santis or
53:53
her being a fraudulent whistleblower against Rhonda Santis and this thirteen year old. And
54:00
if we look at the world view of the liberal media, including the Miami
54:05
Herald, literally, the worst thing you can do, and I'm not disagreeing
54:07
with this, the worst thing you can possibly do is to contemplate a school
54:12
shooting, the worst thing you can possibly do. And yet they transform threatened
54:19
to shoot up a school to being arrested over memes simply because they want to
54:23
prop up Rebecca Jones, a disgraced whistleblower of ron De Santis. This is
54:30
unbelievable. It's this is a major media outlet, the Miami Harold, I
54:37
mean, and so it just goes to show just how unterly broken the news
54:42
media is, as well as what rhn De Santis is going to be up
54:45
against I mean, rhn de Sandus is going to be up against everything,
54:49
where even the story should be okay, the story should be the Santis critic
54:57
exposed as a fraud. Yet a en exposes a fraud on the data,
55:02
exposes the fraud when she got crushed in the twenty twenty two elections, and
55:07
exposed is ex seemingly at least a very bad mom. When your son is
55:14
threatened to shoot up to school, that's not a good side. And yet
55:21
the Miami Herald is willing to embarrass themselves to try to protect this disgrace person
55:25
because they have the right opponent, and the right opponent is Rhonda Santis.
55:31
And of course everybody is incentivized to go after Rhnda Santis. There is a
55:36
market for going after rhnd to Santis, you'll even be protected for when your
55:40
son threatens to shoot up a school if you're in the category of an official
55:45
critic of Rhonda Santis, at least in the minds of the mainstream media like
55:51
the Miami Herald. Obviously, Donald Trump is also incentivized to go after Rhonda
55:57
Santis, and this morning, as of this taping, he put out yet
56:00
another message on truth social about Ron De Santis. Now, let's be clear,
56:05
Ron A. Sandis not a candidate for president officially as if yetto though
56:08
I'll be the first to acknowledge, barring some major disaster, he's going to
56:14
announce probably sometime in June, to be president. But he's not officially a
56:17
candidate, which used to change the rules a little bit. Not with Trump.
56:23
He's also not the front runner. Trump is clearly the front runner by
56:28
by all accounts. Just ask him, just read his fundraising emails. He
56:31
talks about how he's winning in the polls on a constant basis. And yet
56:37
despite the fact that he is a beloved Republican governor who played an incredibly important
56:40
role of getting us out of the COVID malaise and quagmire, something Donald Trump
56:46
was unable to do or unwilling to do, or both. Donald Trump has
56:52
continually attacked Ron De Santis, and he did so in this true social post
56:57
by saying, quote is Trump writing, Ron de Sandis is a young man
57:04
who is not doing well against me in the polls. To put it mildly,
57:07
I believe that if he decides to run for president, which will only
57:12
hurt and somewhat divide the Republican Party because you know, Trump is all about
57:15
the Republican Party, folks. He will lose the cherished and massive MAGA vote
57:22
and never be able to successfully run for office again. If he remains governor,
57:28
which is what Florida voters assumed, it would be a whole different story.
57:34
Dot just saying all capital letters, but who knows, question Mark.
57:40
Now, a couple things about this. Number one, why does Trump care
57:46
so much? I mean, if Trump is truly the alpha male, who's
57:51
the dominant front runner, who's going to win the nomination, and has the
57:54
massive MAGA vote already tied up, why does he care? First of all,
58:00
again, the sand is not officially a candidate, But why would he
58:04
care? I mean, is he really that concerned that whatever it is,
58:08
twenty five to thirty five percent of the national vote that currently is with the
58:14
Sanders won't come back to his fold for the general election. For a guy
58:17
who has not even really attacked Trump at all, all he said is that
58:23
he would have fired Fauci. That's effectively the worst attack he's labeled or levied
58:30
so far against against Trump, and appears Morgan interview that very few people saw
58:36
so what's Trump worried about. Trump is really that worried about fracturing dividing the
58:40
Republican Party. So to me, this is the guy who's way more worried
58:45
than he lets on. If he wasn't, he wouldn't even think to put
58:50
this out there. The second part of this is this feels very much like
58:54
a not so subtle mob threat to me, doesn't it. I mean,
58:59
at least to me, that's the way it reads. If he remains governor,
59:02
it would be a whole different story. Just saying he's a nice young
59:07
man, be terrible if something horrible happened to him, wouldn't it Just saying,
59:13
wouldn't it be a good idea for him just to sit this out?
59:16
I mean, that's what it feels like. But who knows. I'm just
59:19
saying that's literally in the true social post, just saying Donald Trump may be
59:25
a shame if something terrible happened to that young man, that Rohn de Santis.
59:30
And that's really Trump's mentality. He really does have the mentality of a
59:34
mob boss, but in this case, a mob boss who feels rather threatened.
59:38
In my opinion, and I continue to believe that maybe the best news
59:44
for De santis is potential presidential campaign is the fact that Trump is not acting
59:50
at all like somebody who feels confident. I still plan very soon to get
59:55
into a very deep dive into all the snares and how I think that the
1:00:00
Santists Trump matchup will play out. As I say, things keep happening.
1:00:05
I will get to that sometime in the next couple of episodes, I promise,
1:00:08
but it will not be in this particular edition of the Death of Journalism.
1:00:14
However, I do want to mention one other or two actually technically other
1:00:17
truth social posts by Donald Trump, because they're just too good to pass up.
1:00:22
They don't really have anything to do with the media directly, but they
1:00:25
do have to do with just how derange Donald Trump is. So it's Easter
1:00:30
Sunday. Easter Sunday, where you know, every politician in the world,
1:00:36
if they make a public message, it's pretty simple, Happy Easter. You
1:00:40
know, keep your friends and family close and have a good day, and
1:00:45
you know, Easter blessings, Easter bunny whatever. It's not a time really
1:00:52
for a lot of conflict or anger. I mean, it's the resurrection of
1:00:58
Jesus that we're supposed to be celebrating if you're Christian. So this is Donald
1:01:02
Trump's Easter message on truth social all capital letters, all capital letters here,
1:01:09
folks, Trump wrote, Happy Easter to all, including those that dream endlessly
1:01:16
of destroying our country because they are incapable of dreaming about anything else, those
1:01:22
that are so incompetent they don't realize that having a border and powerful wall is
1:01:27
a good thing. And having voter ID all paper ballots and same day voting
1:01:31
will quickly end massive voter fraud. And to all of those weak and pathetic
1:01:36
rhinos, radical left democrats, socialists, Marxists, communists who are killing our
1:01:43
nation, remember we will be back. Exclamation point. Happy Easter to you,
1:01:51
mister former president, weak and pathetic rhinos. Happy Easter, everybody.
1:02:00
And then later on of the day, Trump posted, still on Easter Sunday,
1:02:07
the following message. This was the entire message. World War three.
1:02:14
That was it, World War three. Happy Easter, everybody. Oh my
1:02:20
god, it's it's just unbelievable. This is this is the front runner for
1:02:25
the Republican nomination in twenty twenty four. If it wasn't so scary and sad,
1:02:30
it would be, in fact funny. So that's why I'm trying to
1:02:32
laugh it off. One other are actually two other Trump related stories that I
1:02:37
want to mention. One deals with this issue, which I really believe that
1:02:44
the Santist people have to make it a topic of because I think it's one
1:02:52
real and substantive and scary, and two, I think it would resonate with
1:02:57
at least some element of the republic voting population. And that's the issue of
1:03:02
who's gonna work for him? I mean, seriously, folks, he can't
1:03:07
get anybody to work really for his campaign. His family is not even involved
1:03:13
in his campaign. They weren't even there when he came to Marrow Lago after
1:03:16
having been indicted. There's no evidence that the family or any of those who
1:03:22
were in his previous campaigns in twenty sixteen or that we're in twenty twenty,
1:03:25
any of the bigger names, the semi competent people, the people with some
1:03:29
experience, are even involved in this campaign. And it's not just the campaign,
1:03:37
it's what happens if he were to be elected. Now I think that's
1:03:40
a long shot, but that's why he's running and helped claim to you that
1:03:45
you know he's gonna beat Joe Biden's butt, right, So let's pretend that
1:03:50
would actually happen. Who would be in his administration. Here's the guy who
1:03:54
famously said, I hire all the best people. You know, don't don't
1:03:58
worry about me, you know, not having experience in these political areas,
1:04:01
I'm gonna hire all the best people. That's what I do. I'm a
1:04:04
billionaire, and I'm a great judge of character, and I hire all the
1:04:09
best people. Who the hell is going to work in a second Trump administration?
1:04:14
Seriously, he screwed everybody over that we're talking about the D team if
1:04:20
he were to get elected into the presidency a second time. I don't even
1:04:27
know who the D team would be. And these are incredibly important positions.
1:04:31
I mean, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, you know, all
1:04:34
the cabinet positions. I mean, he's probably gonna carry Lake as his vice
1:04:39
president. I mean, this is a serious issue that I gotta believe that
1:04:45
there are plenty of former cabinet members and administrative administration officials who would be willing
1:04:53
to go on the record and say, yeah, I'm concerned about this.
1:04:57
I don't know who the hell would be in a second Trump administration. Because
1:05:01
Trump betrayed. Everybody screwed. Everybody is over. Both of his attorney generals,
1:05:05
Jeff Session Sessions and Bill Barr. He has screwed over with all sorts
1:05:13
of negative comments, not to mention the firing of Jeff Sessions right after the
1:05:16
disastrous twenty eighteen mid term elections, which was clearly designed to try to get
1:05:23
somebody in there that was going to sabotage the Russian investigation, the Robert Mueller
1:05:27
investigation. So to me, this is a really important issue and one that
1:05:32
people don't talk about nearly enough, and it came to head over this past
1:05:38
weekend because and this also shows you just how pathetic Donald Trump is as human
1:05:43
being. This, this story, I think is really important. It didn't
1:05:45
get a lot of play. It seems like a minor story, but to
1:05:48
me, it's it's a mirror into who Trump is and how this thing really
1:05:53
is working or not working, how dysfunctional it is. So the New York
1:05:57
Times put out an article that Trump was considering hiring Laura Lumer to be part
1:06:03
of his campaign. Now, Laura Lumer, I've mentioned her before. She
1:06:06
was the one who helped I guess organize this rally against a RHN de Santis
1:06:13
book signing event at the very beginning of DeSantis's book coming out in a parking
1:06:17
lot in Florida. It was not much of a turnout, but it got
1:06:20
some publicity. And she has basically become a professional de Santis hater. She's
1:06:27
a whack job. She is on the fringe, fringe fringe of even maga
1:06:32
Republicans. She believes in every whacky conspiracy theory. She's obviously in an election
1:06:38
denier. You know, she used to work for Project Veritas, which you
1:06:43
know, I don't know what happened there, but I mean she is as
1:06:45
fringe as it gets. And The New York Times was used to put out
1:06:53
a trial balloon. And that's important because somebody Here's what I think happened.
1:06:58
It's pretty clear somebody close enough to Trump was worried about Laura Lumer being hired
1:07:03
for some significant position within the campaign and gave it to The New York Times,
1:07:09
which then flow to a trial balloon so that the public would know about
1:07:14
it. Before this happened, it's very unusual for a pretty low level higher
1:07:19
here to get a trial balloon. So somebody, when that near Trump was
1:07:25
trying to torpedo this, and they used the New York Times to do it,
1:07:30
and it worked apparently, because when the New York Times floated this trial
1:07:33
balloon, Marjorie Taylor Green an equally almost equally wacky Republican who's in Congress.
1:07:41
So, I mean, it's just amazing that there's somebody so much nuttier than
1:07:45
Marjorie Taylor Green that she comes out on Twitter and attacks Laura Loomer. So
1:07:50
there was a maga cat fight between Marjorie Taylor Green and Laura Loomer, and
1:07:57
Marjorie Taylor Green apparently won by making it clear that, at least to her,
1:08:01
it was unacceptable for Laura Lumer to be part of the Trump campaign.
1:08:05
And then you know, it appears as if Lumer got torpedoed, and even
1:08:12
after she got torpedoed, she was still part of the Trump called still attacking
1:08:15
the sand is still praising Trump up and down, which you know, that's
1:08:19
the way Trump likes his people. The more I crap on you, the
1:08:24
more you praise me and attack my opponents. But the reason why this is
1:08:28
important other than there's two elements of this that are important. That the Trump
1:08:31
quote unquote campaign is so dysfunctional, that they have to go to The New
1:08:35
York Times to try to torpedo the hiring of a complete whack job Laura Lumer
1:08:42
in the campaign, and that that dirty work has to be done by an
1:08:45
almost as whacky person, Marjorie Taylor Green, who happens to be in Congress.
1:08:49
That's number one, and number two, it goes to this broader issue
1:08:53
of who the hell's gonna work in his campaign and who more importantly, who
1:08:57
the hell would work in his administration of a credibility or substance should he actually
1:09:01
get elected. And I hope that this becomes an issue in the primary contest
1:09:06
between DeSantis and Trump. The New York Times, speaking of the New York
1:09:12
Times, also put out a major I guess you would call it investigation or
1:09:16
profile or feature piece in their magazine called out Foxed, and it's about basically
1:09:24
the Dominion Voters Systems lawsuit and the issue of voting corruption and election denial and
1:09:31
how Fox News Channel has handled it. And the basic narrative is that you
1:09:36
know that Fox News Channel has told their audience what they want to hear for
1:09:43
decades and it has been a tremendous business model. But then came this situation
1:09:47
where they had to decide on what to do about the election being stolen.
1:09:53
In twenty twenty and Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corps, was on
1:09:59
the cover of New York Times magazine and it was called out foxed and that
1:10:02
basically this was the story of this conflict of how is it that Fox News
1:10:08
Channel has handled this and that the Dominion Voting System's lawsuit has revealed that many
1:10:13
of the Fox News hosts knew that the claim that the election had been rigged
1:10:19
or that the or stolen was total bullcrap, and that they knew that the
1:10:25
Dominion Voting Systems was not causing this fraud, that there hadn't been votes that
1:10:31
were cast for Trump that were changed to Biden or anything like that, but
1:10:35
they were unwilling or afraid to tell that full truth to their audience. And
1:10:42
look, I think it's outrageous some of the things that we found out in
1:10:45
the Dominion Voting System's lawsuit. I completely agree that this is a very significant
1:10:50
issue that especially when Tucker Carlson is saying I hate Donald Trump tremendously or whatever
1:10:59
he said, I mean, yeah, I hate Donald Trump in no uncertain
1:11:02
terms, and yet here he is doing effectively the blocking for Donald Trump's twenty
1:11:08
twenty four campaign with regard to the January six videotapes and the reaction to the
1:11:12
indictment. I mean, Tucker Carlson has been Donald Trump's best friend so far,
1:11:16
I think partially because he's trying to make up for the statements in the
1:11:20
Dominion voting System's lawsuit. But here's where there's two elements where The New York
1:11:26
Times gets it totally wrong, or at least needs to be called out.
1:11:30
Number one is most of Fox News Channel did not buy into the election was
1:11:39
stolen or rigged narrative. In fact, that's why Newsmax and the immediate aftermath
1:11:45
of the twenty twenty election had their ratings sore, because much of MAGA world
1:11:53
was pissed off at Fox News Channel for not embracing that stolen election narrative.
1:12:00
So you can't have it both ways. And the facts are that even Tucker
1:12:04
Carlson pushed back against the most wacky of the election theories. He didn't do
1:12:10
it as strongly as I would have liked, but he did not embrace them.
1:12:14
He pushed back a little bit. Now Hannity did not, but that's
1:12:16
Hannity, but also the news portion of Fox News Channel never embraced this.
1:12:21
So I don't know how in the world you get these two completely contradictory narratives
1:12:27
where Fox News Channel had to fend off Newsmax because they weren't embracing the stolen
1:12:32
election narrative, and yet they also get ripped because of this dominion voting system's
1:12:39
lawsuit for having embraced it too much. Part of this goes to the fact
1:12:44
that there's two different Fox News channels. There's the news side and there's the
1:12:46
opinion side, but even the opinion side has not embraced the stolen election narrative
1:12:53
as much as The New York Times would like you to believe. Number two.
1:12:58
And by the way, Newsmax has faded over time because the issue is
1:13:01
no longer as big a deal and because Fox News Channel's product is a lot
1:13:06
better in most cases, and Fox News Channel's ratings currently, especially talkers,
1:13:12
are are an incredibly high level. So I don't know how it is that
1:13:15
that, you know, Fox News Channel got quote unquote out foxed. It
1:13:18
seems like they assuming that this lawsuit doesn't go dramatically against them, to the
1:13:26
tune of over a billion dollars that they navigated this about as well as they
1:13:30
could from a purely business standpoint. Now, I would have preferred that they
1:13:33
had the guts to be proactive about it and say this is bullcrap and there's
1:13:38
no evidence of this and anyone that believes this is just wrong, including Donald
1:13:42
Trump. But we don't live in that world because they're terrified of losing the
1:13:45
Trump cult base. And the Trump cult base is a huge part of any
1:13:50
right wing media consumer base, which is going to be a massive advantage for
1:13:55
Donald Trump in the twenty twenty four presidential primaries situation, because nobody's gonna want
1:14:01
to offend their core base of customers. It might even be the reason that
1:14:05
Donald Trump ends up winning the nomination. But I digress. The second element
1:14:10
of this part of this story, which really probably bothers me more, is
1:14:14
that The New York Times has no business making this argument about another media outlet.
1:14:19
The New York Times now routinely routinely gets edited by woke Twitter. They
1:14:27
will put something out and there'll be a sentence or a paragraph or a headline
1:14:32
that upsets the sensitivities of woke Twitter, they'll be and if there's enough outrage
1:14:38
on woke Twitter, the New York Times will literally change the substance of an
1:14:44
article. They are now effectively being edited by the whack jobs and the emotions
1:14:49
of woke Twitter, so effectively. The New York Times is in the business
1:14:54
of telling their audience what they want to hear. And now here they are
1:14:58
accusing the New York Fox News Channel of being in the business of telling their
1:15:03
audience what they want to hear. Well, guess what, Yeah, Fox
1:15:06
is in that business, but so is the New York Times. And there's
1:15:10
not a shred of evidence the New York Times now is any better in this
1:15:14
situation than Fox News Channel is. I have often stated that modern media is
1:15:19
basically therapy. It's providing therapy for your target demographic of consumers, whether the
1:15:26
New York you're the New York Times, or your Fox News channel, or
1:15:30
your MSNBC or whatever news outlet, entertainment outlet, news entertainment, whatever you
1:15:35
want to call it, Almost everybody's in the same category. Everyone is desperately
1:15:41
searching for their own niche, telling that niche what they want to hear,
1:15:45
giving them therapy, and you know, kept making them feel good about whatever
1:15:49
happened in that day's news and not telling them anything that will make them uncomfortable
1:15:55
or want to switch the channel or not be a subscriber to their to their
1:16:00
internet content or whatever it is. So nobody wants to offend their customer base
1:16:08
and everyone wants to tillillate their customer base. And The New York Times is
1:16:12
no different than Fox News Channel. So the hypocrisy there was just staggering,
1:16:15
and I felt like I needed to mention that now maybe the most ridiculous news
1:16:20
story over the last couple of days, and it's got a lot of play.
1:16:25
I mean, this was a classic situation where quote unquote science knows its
1:16:30
audience in the news media exceedingly well, and it's flat out comical. But
1:16:36
it's also indicative of just how broken the news media is. This story I'm
1:16:42
about to tell you. There was a supposed study that indicated that the increase
1:16:47
in Major League Baseball home runs in the decade between twenty ten and twenty twenty.
1:16:56
That the increase in home runs, which was significant, was due at
1:17:00
least in part, although they diminished. The in part part was due at
1:17:04
least in part too. You guessed it, global warming. Global warming is
1:17:12
causing more home runs in Major League baseball. This was picked up everywhere,
1:17:17
and those who did the study knew it would be picked up everywhere, which
1:17:21
is why they allowed a very minuscule portion of this I think, frankly,
1:17:30
really ridiculous study. I mean, I mean this thing was grade school level
1:17:33
study, grade school level science. I mean, the people behind it effectively
1:17:38
admitted that it's basically grade school level science. But they knew that the media
1:17:43
would pick this up like catnip, that they would not be able to resist
1:17:46
this. If you put global warming into the story, it's, ah,
1:17:50
now we're going to get coverage if you if you do a study on home
1:17:54
runs in Major League baseball, and it's you know more about you know,
1:17:59
launch angle, and you know change in strategy and you know, moneyball going
1:18:04
out the window and instead everyone playing for the three run home run, or
1:18:10
not even a three run home run anymore, sometimes just the single home run,
1:18:13
and that players are getting stronger and the ball is getting livelier. Whatever.
1:18:18
That's not gonna get you mainstream news media coverage. That might gill get
1:18:23
you a little bit of coverage of your study in the sports media. But
1:18:27
it's not very juicy and it's not a big surprise. But when you put
1:18:30
global warming climate change in there, now you got something. Now you're cooking
1:18:35
with oil. And let me just share one article of many many in the
1:18:40
mainstream about this ridiculous quote unquote study. This is from NBC News, and
1:18:45
it's important to point out that at the top of this article it's basically a
1:18:48
subject. Above the headline, the substant is climate in crisis, Climate in
1:18:56
crisis. So right away we know where NBC is coming from and how much
1:19:00
scrutiny they're gonna give this bullshit. Here's the headline, climate change is leading
1:19:06
to more home runs. Study fines warmer temperatures, So it's global warming,
1:19:13
not climate change. If it was climate change, by the way, let
1:19:16
me start off right away, but saying if it's climate change, it actually
1:19:19
contradicts the narrative of this study, right because climate change would imply sometimes it's
1:19:24
getting colder. But no, no, they would have it both ways with
1:19:28
their climate change global warming bull crap. So the subheadline is warmer temperatures helped
1:19:35
at least five hundred more long balls sale over Major League baseball fences from twenty
1:19:42
ten to twenty nineteen, according to a study from Dartmouth College researchers who Dartmouth
1:19:47
Ivy League. It's gotta be these is a smart people, so we know
1:19:51
this is credible, and you know, oh this is good, this is
1:19:55
juicy. So give me, give me the details. So here's the article
1:19:59
from NBC. The explosion of home runs in Major League Baseball can be traced
1:20:02
in small part. Oh, small part. Then why are we why is
1:20:06
it the headline to climate change? According to a study published last Friday in
1:20:13
a peer review paper. Well, that's that's a big word there, peer
1:20:15
review. So in other words, other people who believe in global warming and
1:20:20
who love this narrative signed off on this ridiculousness. In a peer review paper
1:20:26
published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Dartmouth College researchers said they
1:20:31
can connect at least five hundred additional home runs from twenty ten to twenty nineteen
1:20:38
to Earth's human made warming. Oh, that is a complete falsehood, complete
1:20:44
falsehood. There is nothing in this study about the Earth's human made warming.
1:20:50
They don't even come close to trying to determine Okay, what's the cause of
1:20:56
the warming that might be the cause of five hundred more home run over a
1:21:00
decade period of time. That is just made up, that is just accepted
1:21:04
as fact by the you know, global warming activists who are writing this article.
1:21:10
The article goes on the research was based on their simple premise, and
1:21:14
I mean simple, folks. This was when I say this is grade school
1:21:17
level stuff. I mean that sincerely. When I looked at this, I'm
1:21:23
like, if I had done this as an eighth grade science project, my
1:21:28
teacher would probably have gone, oh, that's cute, that's nice. You
1:21:31
know, this is like B plus A minus work. Oh, you know,
1:21:34
you didn't really prove anything, but you know, it was kind of
1:21:38
you know, I'll give you a good you know, good effort. It
1:21:42
was there was some at least the coaching thought behind it. But you know,
1:21:45
it's not really science. That's basically my perception of this quote unquote study
1:21:51
in general. And I'll explain why momentarily. But the research was based on
1:21:55
their simple present present, simple premise, and it is very simple. On
1:22:00
the simple premise that quote, air density is inversely proportional to temperature according to
1:22:05
the paper, and that with all else being equal, warmer air is less
1:22:11
dense, and a batted ball will carry farther. Yeah, no, crap,
1:22:15
no shit, Sherlock. Every golfer in the world knows this, and
1:22:19
when watch the Masters knows this. When the ball, when the air is
1:22:24
warmer, generally, depending on humidity and other factors, it will travel a
1:22:28
ball will travel farther than when it's called yep. But by the way,
1:22:33
you usually need a pretty dramatic temperature difference to be able to discern a distance
1:22:41
difference. In other words, one or two degrees ain't gonna do it in
1:22:45
golf. No golfer is going to go m you know it's eighty two degrees,
1:22:48
is supposed to eighty degrees. That means I need to switch from you
1:22:53
know, my nine iron to to to my eight iron. That's never gonna
1:22:58
happen. Now, if it's eighty degrees to fifty five degrees, that's a
1:23:01
big difference. But that's not what this study is talking about here, because
1:23:06
we're dealing with very very small differences in temperature, allegedly over the last decade
1:23:14
or so. Back to the article quote. In some ways this wasn't all
1:23:17
that surprising. No way, you mean you came up with a result you
1:23:21
were expecting and wanting. This was a quote from Dartmouth doctoral student. A
1:23:29
doctoral student, so not a doctor, Christopher Callahan, who authored the paper
1:23:34
with a guy who is a professor of anthropology anthropology, the chair of the
1:23:43
anthropology department, and an assistant professor who studies climate variability and the risk posed
1:23:49
by global warming. Oh so, wait a minute, you're saying that one
1:23:56
of the people who are behind the study has their entire career are invested in
1:24:00
the risks posed by global warming. Gee. I wonder if that had anything
1:24:06
to do with how they came to their conclusions or why they went in the
1:24:11
direction that they did. That's a This is just really a great mystery.
1:24:17
Quote another quote from the article. It was relatively straightforward in some ways.
1:24:24
It was confirming that basic physical understanding that we already had. Again, we're
1:24:32
talking about eighth grade science here. Yes, a ball will go tend to
1:24:38
go farther in warmer temperatures. Now now to the actual supposed facts from nineteen
1:24:46
ninety eight, the first season of the thirty team Major League Baseball through last
1:24:49
year and not including the COVID short in twenty twenty two season, the number
1:24:54
of home runs has varied annually from just over four thousand and twenty fourteen to
1:25:00
well over six thousand in twenty nineteen. That is a huge difference, as
1:25:04
a massive difference in home runs from you know, just over four thousand,
1:25:10
it's almost seven thousand in five years, massive difference from twenty fourteen to twenty
1:25:16
nineteen. Gee, I wonder what could be the reason. And I wonder
1:25:21
whether or not the temperature increase from twenty fourteen to twenty nineteen would have had
1:25:28
anything to do with a Basically, I don't even what that is. It's
1:25:31
well over a thirty three percent increase or more than that, probably a forty
1:25:35
percent increase in home runs over an incredibly short period of time. Back to
1:25:41
the article, they have a prediction they'll like to make. They're going to
1:25:45
make a prediction here these researchers if if current climate trends continue, researchers said,
1:25:53
and by the way, we're till it was such a small period of
1:25:56
time involved in this particular study, to call it a climate trend is ridiculous
1:26:00
right off the bat. It's laughable. It's laughable that this would come from
1:26:05
an Ivy League College, claiming to be science based and peer reviewed. But
1:26:12
if current climate change trends continue, there will be one hundred and ninety two
1:26:16
additional home runs per year. So currently there's fifty more home runs per year
1:26:23
supposedly due to climate change global warming. But by the year twenty fifty,
1:26:28
that'll be almost two hundred. And get this, by the year twenty ten,
1:26:31
when of course everyone doing the study is dead, there will be almost
1:26:35
five hundred more per season. Oh my god, five hundred more per season.
1:26:45
And then I love to even have a chart here where they chart into
1:26:48
the future the additional home runs each year due to climate change, depending on
1:26:54
how much warmer it gets. And this looks, this looks remarkably like,
1:27:00
remarkably like the charts that some of these projectionists used to put out during COVID,
1:27:04
where this is where COVID's gonna head. If we have one hundred percent
1:27:09
mask compliance, if we have fifty percent mask compliance, and we have no
1:27:13
mask compliance, which of course we're always totally wrong. But they kept doing
1:27:16
it, and the media kept buying it, and nothing ever changed because they
1:27:21
accepted this basic premise that masks had a direct impact over you know how much
1:27:29
COVID was being transmitted in the community, no evidence that that actually happened,
1:27:33
but they kept projecting based upon it. Well, this is exactly the same,
1:27:39
and they project just a monumental increase in home runs based upon the current
1:27:46
pace of increase in temperature. Now, there are so many problems with this
1:27:50
that I don't have time to get into all of it, but I'm gonna
1:27:53
just reference a couple things because I've mocked the study. The first problem with
1:27:59
the stuff is that they don't even try. They don't even try to go
1:28:06
back and gauge the temperature at every Major League baseball game during the time period
1:28:14
that they were studying. That would be at least somewhat interesting and maybe relevant.
1:28:20
It would also take a hell of a lot of work, but that's
1:28:24
not what they did. They did not go through each game, which you
1:28:29
could done, right. I mean, the weather for each city is a
1:28:32
matter of historical record. It's not even old records. We're talking about here,
1:28:35
is probably right online. So it would have taken a lot of work,
1:28:39
but it would have been easily done to be able to actually track the
1:28:43
temperature at each baseball game. If this is really what you're studying to determine,
1:28:49
Okay, had the temperature increased, say in the decade of the twenty
1:28:57
tens, as opposed to the first that gade of the two thousands, that
1:29:00
would have been an interesting study. Okay, by way, you know,
1:29:04
not only would that have taken a lot of work, there's a chance they
1:29:06
might have gotten a result they didn't like. There's a chance that there would
1:29:11
have been very little of any difference in the temperature or baseball games from the
1:29:15
early two thousands to that game following, or take any period of time you
1:29:19
wanted. But they did not do that. So the study doesn't even to
1:29:24
use a baseball term, doesn't even get out of the batter's box because all
1:29:28
they did was they just accepted that the temperature has increased globally globally by one
1:29:35
degree or whatever the hell they're whatever number they're using over this period of time.
1:29:41
They've just accepted that as truth. And I have all sorts of concerns
1:29:45
that that's not really true, that there's you're comparing apples to oranges. It's
1:29:49
a very short period of time. There's also questions to Okay, why is
1:29:53
that happening If it's happening. You know, the Earth has warmed and cooled
1:29:58
hundreds of times in its history, even its human history. There's all sorts
1:30:01
of problems, but they don't even bother to check the actual temperatures at the
1:30:08
games. Now there's also all sorts of potential explanations. Are there a fewer
1:30:13
day games? You know, as as television becomes more and more dominant,
1:30:17
are there fewer day games which would in theory cool things down? So,
1:30:24
I mean, I actually question. That's why I wonder whether or not they
1:30:28
would get a result. They don't. They didn't want. I mean,
1:30:30
heck, Wrigley Field used to have day games all the time. Now they
1:30:33
rarely play a day game, although they claim in this study, they actually
1:30:36
claim in this study that Wrigley Field is going to have more home runs than
1:30:41
any other field in the future, which, of course they always have had
1:30:44
a lot of home runs because it's not a particularly big ballpark, and it's
1:30:47
very windy there, and if the winds blowing out, there's a ton of
1:30:50
home runs at Wrigley Field. Has nothing to do with what the temperature in
1:30:54
Chicago is that particular day. It's the windy city. In case you hadn't
1:30:58
heard. But then there's the other another problem with the study. So I
1:31:01
mean that's a massive problem right there. It's just flat out laziness and they're
1:31:05
just accepting a premise that may not have any impact at all and what they're
1:31:11
talking about. But the second part of it is that they don't also don't
1:31:15
calculate how many barely home runs there are because we're talking about a very very
1:31:23
small impact on how far that far the ball travels because it's maybe slightly warmer
1:31:30
than it was, you know, ten twenty years ago. Again, we're
1:31:33
accepting this very flimsy premise and you know, just by basic science, we're
1:31:40
only talking about a couple of feet at most based upon a very small change
1:31:46
in temperature. So how many barely home runs were there? That would have
1:31:51
been an interesting number? Did the number? Tell me what that number is,
1:31:56
because then I would be able to say, oh, those are home
1:32:00
runs that if the temperature and if you had proven to me that the temperature
1:32:04
was higher in that decade that you were studying, I would be able to
1:32:09
go, oh, okay, that's a home run that might not have happened
1:32:13
if it was a degree or too cooler. But My guess is we're talking
1:32:16
about a very small number, not the five hundred over a decade is that
1:32:21
large to begin with. But remember they're predicting in the years to come,
1:32:26
we're going to be into the hundreds of home runs a year because of this.
1:32:30
It's just it's a lot like the transgender issue. There's so many layers
1:32:34
of insanity that I feel stupid even going through all of them. And yet
1:32:40
major news outlets are considering this to be a very significant news story and worthy
1:32:45
of major coverage. And even though they put the words in there, a
1:32:49
small part because even they, even the people who created the study, and
1:32:55
the fact that they have a global warming guy as one of the major writers,
1:32:59
make me very very very suspicious as to what was going on here.
1:33:02
This was they knew, this was just a way to get publicity to you
1:33:06
know, put this on their resumes. They're gonna get all sorts of woke
1:33:11
points as they go into their careers from doctoral students at Dartmouth to put out
1:33:17
this very rudimentary, simplistic study that somehow connects home runs to global warming.
1:33:25
The reality is there's a hundred other reasons that are far more significant. Even
1:33:30
if temperature somehow played a role, which I don't even think it does,
1:33:34
and I've already listed some of them. But the most important part of this
1:33:38
is this is how in the tank the mainstream news media is for this issue.
1:33:43
They will buy anything anything, no matter how silly, no matter how
1:33:47
stupid, no matter how bad the science is, no matter how easily discredited
1:33:51
it is, it does not matter. And I guess my bottom line conclusion
1:33:57
on this is global warming was real. They wouldn't have to do this.
1:34:02
They really wouldn't. We would not be pretending that the explosion and home runs
1:34:09
in Major League Baseball is because of global warming, but no evidence that the
1:34:12
temperature at Major League Baseball games has actually increased. I mean, they just
1:34:15
wouldn't do that. And this is this goes for all elements of this entire
1:34:20
narrative of global warming climate change. They wouldn't go that far if it was
1:34:27
real. They wouldn't have to, they wouldn't have to lie, they wouldn't
1:34:29
have to exaggerate, they wouldn't have to scare you, and they also wouldn't
1:34:33
ignore. I'll say one more time, what's happened here in California this past
1:34:38
winter? The coldest the rainiest, the snowiest winter in modern history of the
1:34:45
state of California, which is supposed to be the epicenter for the actual real
1:34:48
world impacts of global warming. They just last week did their annual measurement of
1:34:56
the snow packs in all the major mountain areas a Sierra Mountain range, Lake
1:35:00
Tahoe, you know, all sorts of mountain areas in both the California and
1:35:08
Nevada. By the way, Utah just got hummeled in Salt Lake City with
1:35:13
multiple feet of snow in April. The reality is the snowpack where it matters,
1:35:18
and that's what really drives the water. The amount of water that California
1:35:24
has, to a large degree is at a literal record level, record level
1:35:30
of snowpack, never before seen in modern history. And yet while this has
1:35:38
gotten coverage, this has happened, no one then goes and takes the next
1:35:42
step and goes, well, gee, what does this mean. I mean,
1:35:45
we were told that the lack of snowpack was smoking gun evidence that the
1:35:49
world has changed. The climate has changed, the globe is warmed. We're
1:35:53
never gonna have skiing anymore. We're gonna be in a constant, permanent drought,
1:35:57
and yet when that gets obliterated record fashion, nobody makes a connection.
1:36:02
Nobody goes and uses their brain and goes, well, gee, maybe we
1:36:05
should reconsider the premises on which we are basing everything, which is that somehow
1:36:13
global warming is obviously real and man made, and that we have to do
1:36:16
something about it, that we can do something about it. We'll wait a
1:36:18
minute, Hold on what the hell just happened? Can you please fit what
1:36:24
the hell just happened in California into your narrative? Can somebody please at least
1:36:28
try to do that? But no one does try because they don't have to,
1:36:31
and no one will go outside the herd in the mainstream news media because
1:36:34
this is a third rail issue where you can get run over by the mob
1:36:38
and you might lose your job, and no one's going to do that in
1:36:42
the mainstream news media, especially in this day and age. So that's I've
1:36:45
spent a lot of time on that particular story, but to me, it's
1:36:48
just so funny and so emblematic of just how totally broken the entire topic is,
1:36:53
as well as the entire industry. Now, I want to finish with
1:36:57
a story that I was I guess somewhat involved with and I also have a
1:37:00
great passion for because I'm a lifelong golfer. I played in a lot of
1:37:06
major golf championships, won many club championships, some about a one handicapper.
1:37:12
Now, in my old age of fifty six years old, I've watched golf
1:37:15
my entire life. This past weekend was the Masters, and I somehow got
1:37:21
a guess tangentially involved and a rules controversy at the Masters. Now there's a
1:37:29
couple of elements of this story that are interesting that don't really have much to
1:37:31
do with golf. In fact, there's even kind of a trump element,
1:37:34
as there always seems to be to how this all went down and how it
1:37:39
transpired and why I think it's significant. So bear with me here. This
1:37:43
is not really a golf story, but it's going to seem like it.
1:37:46
So in the first round of the tournament, brooks Kapta, who's on the
1:37:50
Live Tour, which I loathe, which plays a role in this whole controversy
1:37:55
even though it shouldn't have. Brooks Kapka was playing the fifteenth hole at Augusta
1:38:00
National and he had a very good second shot into a par five, and
1:38:05
as the cameras were panning towards him. After he hit his second shot into
1:38:10
the par five. His caddy was seen mouthing the word five, not once,
1:38:17
but twice to the caddy of his playing partner, brooks Kepka's playing partner,
1:38:23
Gary Woodland, who is a former US Open champion and a friend of
1:38:28
brooks Kepka. So twice he says the word five directly, clearly to the
1:38:34
caddy of Gary Woodland. And it turns out that the video shows that brooks
1:38:40
Kepka had hit into that green on number fifteen, a par five, a
1:38:45
five iron. Now why does this matter? Because in the irrational world,
1:38:51
anybody who looked at that video, including the Golf Channel for a couple of
1:38:56
minutes before they decided to never speak of this again as it was just too
1:39:00
hot to handle. From a number of different perspectives, that what had happened
1:39:05
here was that brooks Kaepka's caddy had told Gary Woodland's caddy what club he had
1:39:12
hit into the green. That is illegal. That is a two shot penalty.
1:39:20
There's no question that that's a two shot penalty, and there's almost no
1:39:26
question that that's what happened. Now, there was some concern raised about this,
1:39:32
and after the round, Kapka and his caddy and Gary Woodland and his
1:39:36
caddy were asked about this, and they all denied it. They all said
1:39:43
no, never, no, no, no idea what you're talking about.
1:39:45
No, we didn't tell him what club we could hit. And the Augusta
1:39:50
National Rules Committee, with whom I have had major problems in the past,
1:39:55
specifically in twenty thirteen, when I believe they let Tiger Woods, who I
1:39:59
love, off the hook for a situation that should have caused his disqualification when
1:40:05
his ball hit the flag on the very same hole by the way the fifteenth
1:40:10
hold hit the flag went in the water, he took an improper drop,
1:40:13
bragged about it after the round. Two reporters didn't realize he had broken the
1:40:16
rule, had signed an incorrect scorecard, and should have been disqualified. But
1:40:20
the Augusta National Rules Committee, that can basically do whatever they want, realized
1:40:25
that would be really, really bad to disqualify Tiger Woods, who was at
1:40:29
the time contending for the lead. So we're just going to make up rules
1:40:32
and we're going to penalize them two shots, but keep him in the tournament.
1:40:35
So I have a history of a problem with the Augusta National. And
1:40:40
I've also if you've listened to episode number forty seven and my interview with Chick
1:40:43
Hernande as I also have a problem with the way Augusta National hand of COVID.
1:40:45
So I'm I'm no fan of the way Augusta National has been running the
1:40:50
last few years. But it was pretty damn obvious that Keepka and his caddy
1:40:58
in Woodland and his caddy had lied. Their alternative explanation made no sense,
1:41:03
it was contradictory. There was one report that that Kepka's caddy had said that
1:41:11
to an announcer from a Sports Illustrated reporter. They posted this on Twitter,
1:41:16
and you know, this was complete bullshit to me because number one, TV
1:41:23
announcers don't care what club is being hit after the shot has been played,
1:41:28
number one. But more importantly, had there been a TV announcer that had
1:41:33
been told by a Brooks Keepka's caddy five that he had hit a five iron
1:41:39
into the hole, and this became a controversy which everybody in the media knew
1:41:44
about. The first thing that would have happened is that that TV announcer would
1:41:47
have come forward, would have had every incentive in the world to do so
1:41:50
to come forward and say, hey, no, that's not what happened.
1:41:55
He was talking to me, not to Woodland's caddy, and that did not
1:41:59
happen. And I hate, I hate when things that should happen don't happen
1:42:02
and no one uses their brain to realize that this is really strong evidence that
1:42:08
it did not occur. I mean, but this is a classic example of
1:42:12
that had that happened, we would have known about it. We did not
1:42:15
know about it, and because all the parties denied it. See, this
1:42:20
is a great example of where the rules of golf. We see this kind
1:42:26
of in the military too, in other areas of life where the rules never
1:42:30
comprehended or contemplated a reality where everyone would be a liar, there's at least
1:42:39
in the rules. And we see this kind of in our constitution too,
1:42:43
Like I don't think that the framers of the Constitution ever fully imagined that Donald
1:42:46
Trump becoming president, right, So there was a there was a threshold,
1:42:50
There was an expectation that, you know, you might get some liars,
1:42:54
but would you ever get one that was that brazen that would become president or
1:42:59
would you have a situation where everybody playing in the Masters would blatantly lie.
1:43:03
It's really not contemplated. It's part of the rules, especially in golf,
1:43:10
are based in the idea that people are going to have at least somebody's going
1:43:14
to have the character to tell you the truth of what happened. Well,
1:43:16
in my very strong opinion, nobody did, because everyone knew that if you
1:43:21
had just tow the line, if you just deny, deny, deny,
1:43:26
there's going to be enough plausible deniability where they're not going to call the two
1:43:30
shot penalty on you, especially when the person involved Brooks kept happens to be
1:43:35
leading a tournament, and especially when they happen to be a member of the
1:43:40
live Tour, which would create a circumstance where Augusta National might be really concerned
1:43:45
about being accused of treating a live player differently than a PGA Tour player.
1:43:50
They might have even been concerned that it becomes part of the live lawsuit,
1:43:55
which Augusta National has already been drawn into. I mean, you could certainly
1:44:00
see that becoming part of the lawsuit where if cup Kick gets penalized for something
1:44:05
that nobody ever gets penalized for, and I'm the first to acknowledge no one
1:44:09
gets penalized for this, even though they should, because it's an important rule,
1:44:14
and non golfers don't understand why it's an important rule. Most people when
1:44:17
they reacted to the video that I post, and that's how I became involved
1:44:21
in this story is I was the one that posted the video of Golf channels
1:44:26
analysis of this and as of this taping that's been seen by I think over
1:44:30
seven hundred thousand people have seen the video. The tweet has well over one
1:44:34
point five million impressions. It got written about in several golf news articles for
1:44:42
whatever reason. You know, I guess I was the first person to post
1:44:45
a video and it definitely went viral and a lot of people, the responses
1:44:50
to that video that I tweeted out have been fascinating and frustrating. But a
1:44:57
lot of people don't understand, Okay, well, why is this even a
1:44:59
rule? What advantage was gained? Well, first of all, there is
1:45:01
an advantage to a player knowing what their playing partner hit into any particular situation.
1:45:11
But the real problem here is if you don't have the rule, it's
1:45:15
going to cause massive chaos and unfair situations. If you'd never had a rule
1:45:20
about giving advice and letting everybody know exactly what you hit on a part three
1:45:26
or in any hole where you were in any close proximity to each other.
1:45:30
Then you would have a circumstance where friends would be helping each other out.
1:45:34
Non friends would not be helping each other out, and the rest of the
1:45:39
field would be disadvantaged by circumstances where friends were helping each other because you're not
1:45:45
just playing against your partner, You're playing against the entire field. And people
1:45:49
don't seem to understand that. So there's a thing called protecting the field and
1:45:55
not allowing one group to have an advantage because they're friends and helping each other
1:46:00
out and another group doesn't help each other out for whatever reason. And I
1:46:04
guess you could change the rule where everybody would have the ability to give each
1:46:10
other advice, but that would also cause all sorts of problems, like what
1:46:13
would be what would prevent someone from giving someone bad advice at a critical moment,
1:46:17
telling them the wrong glove that they hit to screw them up. I
1:46:20
mean, so there's a reason for the rule. Now, is it the
1:46:24
most important rule? No? Is it a rule that is routinely broken in
1:46:29
its spirit. Absolutely, But this was a circumstance where we had a hundred
1:46:33
basically as close to one hundred percent proof as you're ever going to get that
1:46:38
the rule was broken. It was broken, and Brooks Kapka lied and Brooks
1:46:44
kept because caddie lied, and by way, Brooks Kapka was even part of
1:46:46
this because and I didn't notice this at first, but if you look closely
1:46:50
at the video, it's pretty clear that Kapka himself, as he's taking off
1:46:55
the glove on his left hand, he spreads out his fingers is why as
1:47:00
he can, and he's giving the five sign to the caddy who he's looking
1:47:03
directly at and so, and if there's an insidious part of this, it's
1:47:08
other than the lying to me. What happened here? For this to have
1:47:12
occurred so blatantly, for the caddy to say it twice, for Kepka to
1:47:16
give his hand signal directly to the caddy, this had to be going on
1:47:20
all day. They had to have some sort of reciprocal agreement unspoken, unwritten.
1:47:28
But the caddies all they gotta do is wink and nod at each other
1:47:31
so they know which what the other guys hitting, they know approximately how far
1:47:38
they hit it in comparison to the other player. By the way, Gary
1:47:41
Woodland and Brooks kept are both big hitters. They probably hit their irons within
1:47:45
a couple of yards of each other. So it's very good information to have
1:47:48
when trying to judge what club you're going to hit. And so I can't
1:47:54
stand effect that no one ever uses their brain and thinks things through. For
1:47:57
this to happen the way that it did. There had to be a reciprocal
1:48:00
agreement going on, because that's the other question I got a lot. Well,
1:48:04
well, wait a minute, why would Brooks get penalized if he was
1:48:08
giving advice to Woodland? Wouldn't wouldn't Woodland get penalized? We'll know because if
1:48:14
you lose your brain. Part of the issue here is the only reason why
1:48:17
Keepka would do this is if he was getting reciprocal benefits of information. So,
1:48:24
in other words, we did this for you. You scratch my back,
1:48:27
I'll scratch your back. You know on the next part three. By
1:48:30
the way, the next hole is a part three sixteen. You know you're
1:48:33
gonna let us know what you hit, and vice versa. It's just a
1:48:38
you know, a quote unquote gentleman's agreement, although to me it's not very
1:48:42
gentlemanly because one it's against the rules, and two you'll lie about it after
1:48:46
the round, and and so the I spent much of the weekend responding stupidly
1:48:55
to this viral tweet that I put out there with the video of this situation
1:49:00
him, and that was fascinating. It was frustrating, it was depressing,
1:49:04
but it was also fascinating because the reaction to it was remarkable. Now,
1:49:12
there was I don't know what percentage, but I would say I don't know
1:49:15
thirty forty percent were right with me. This was clearly rules violation. By
1:49:19
the way I a PGA Tour player Bob Astus who's won on the PGA Tour
1:49:25
respond and say, I'm one hundred percent right. I had a well known
1:49:29
NFL wide receiver for some reason do the same thing. Um Brendan Shocky,
1:49:33
I think that's his name. He tweeted out the video and said, sure,
1:49:39
it looks like a rules violation. So there was a good amount of
1:49:42
people who got it, who understood, hey, why is this not being
1:49:45
enforced? But there was a huge number of people other than those that just
1:49:48
didn't understand the rule and aren't really golfers. And I'm like, oh my
1:49:53
god, I got I got called a nerd or you know, a crew
1:49:57
a boomer that oh, that's really one of my favorites is now that if
1:50:00
you stand up for the rules, you're a boomer. You're a nerd,
1:50:04
a boomer, you're no fun at parties. I mean, I got that
1:50:09
hundreds of times. But then I got from the Live cult, which is
1:50:12
a lot like the Trump cult. In fact, I think they're basically the
1:50:14
same people. The idea that the only reason I was doing this was because
1:50:17
Brooks Kapka was in Live, the Live Golf League, and I don't like
1:50:23
Live, which I've been very very very open about. I despise Live for
1:50:29
very substantive reasons that they have not that much to do with Saudi Arabia that
1:50:33
I've explained previously, and you know, to me, they are sellouts who
1:50:38
are trying to destroy golf and they're lying about it, and I don't like
1:50:44
it. And I also don't think the league is worth very much. Although
1:50:46
their players, with all the most of their players played like shit, but
1:50:50
they ended up doing very very well in the Masters Kepka had the lead up
1:50:54
until the final round and ended up losing to John Rum, thankfully, because
1:50:59
if he hadn't John Rom hadn't won, my god, the live cult would
1:51:01
have been more unsufferable than the Trump colt is on a normal day. But
1:51:06
thankfully, you know, a live player did not win. But Phil Mickelson
1:51:11
somehow came in second at fifty two years old. He's a live player.
1:51:14
And Patrick Reid finished near the top. He's a live player. And brooks
1:51:16
Kaepka while he collapsed in the last day, he's a live player. But
1:51:19
the fact that Kepki is a lived player had absolutely positively nothing to do with
1:51:25
me doing this video. Nothing. I found it to be outrageous that this
1:51:30
rule was being broken, and it was remarkable to me that the Golf channel
1:51:33
had done anything on this. I'm going to get to the golf media in
1:51:38
a second and how they handled the situation. And I had done this previously,
1:51:43
I probably should have. I'm kicking myself now for not doing this.
1:51:45
But you know, Tiger Woods, who I've been a huge fan of for
1:51:50
most other than not during the scandal, but before and in the long period
1:51:56
after the scandal, after I felt like he had suffered enough. I've been
1:51:58
one of the biggest Tiger Woods fans in the world. I posted a video
1:52:01
in twenty thirteen when he won the Tournament Players Championship that you can still find
1:52:05
on YouTube. I think it's under Tiger Woods took a bad drop or something
1:52:09
like that that I had I think eight hundred thousand views on it. Something
1:52:15
ridiculous for a golf video of a golf rules video. That's about as viral
1:52:18
as you're going to get. And that was me analyzing how I am positive
1:52:24
that Tiger Woods took a very critical and very bad drop in a tournament that
1:52:28
he won that he probably would not have won if he had not taken that
1:52:31
bad drop, which was a far more important situation than this circumstance. I
1:52:38
mean, I'm not suggesting that Brooks didn't win the tournament anyway, but this
1:52:42
rules situation would not have made the difference between winning and losing. The Tiger
1:52:45
Woods drop did. And here, I am a fan of Tiger Woods,
1:52:48
but I did that video because I just don't like it when people lie,
1:52:54
or when an injustice happens, or when the media, I mean, the
1:52:57
media coverage of that situation was just pathetic because they all agreed immediately it was
1:53:00
a bad drop, and then when Tiger took it, all of a sudden,
1:53:03
because Tiger had tooken it, there was nothing wrong with the drop other
1:53:06
than Johnny Miller was the only one that would say I got a problem with
1:53:11
this, But the rest of the NBC crowd was like, oh no,
1:53:14
now that's where you ought to drop. It was. It was a lot
1:53:16
like Masks and Fauci deciding that I'm going to change my mind because the political
1:53:21
realities have changed. Well, when Tiger, you know, is involved,
1:53:25
you're you're afraid to take on Tiger Woods. He's the third rail of golf.
1:53:30
Well, I think in a much smaller way, the Live situation definitely
1:53:35
created a problem with the way that people reacted to this, And it was
1:53:39
really enlightening in and as I've said, depressing to see how many people in
1:53:45
their response were positive that I was only doing this because of my hatred of
1:53:49
Live, and I'm like, what, that's really the world we now live
1:53:55
in now where if you're a Trump critic and anything you say negative about Trump
1:54:00
is inherently discredited because you don't like him, even if you're totally right,
1:54:05
even if it's totally substantive based, even if you're completely consistent and having criticized
1:54:11
other people for similar things, it doesn't matter because everyone's in a cult now.
1:54:16
Everyone's just defend their team no matter what, and the rules don't really
1:54:21
matter and principle doesn't matter. And I mean, oh my gosh, it
1:54:26
was really remarkable to see the incredibly intense negative reactions I got for a video
1:54:34
that I simply posed it with a fairly innoculous description. And I did say
1:54:39
that I think it was a clear penalty and he should have been penalized two
1:54:42
shots. And I do think that Live played a role in this, because
1:54:45
Augusta was more afraid to basically call Kepka a liar and to give him two
1:54:53
shots one because he was leading in two because he's a Lived player. And
1:54:56
I've already described why that was a problem for Augusta National And so this whole
1:55:02
situation was really interesting, and I think it tells us a lot about the
1:55:09
way I realized Twitter is not real life. I mean, I say that
1:55:12
to myself one hundred times a day. Twitter is not real life, but
1:55:15
it's still an indication of something. And I think we're in Really we're in
1:55:21
a very precarious situation here where, you know, when even golf. See
1:55:28
that's why I always go to golf, because golf is supposed to be different.
1:55:30
When even golf, which is supposed to be a game of honor and
1:55:34
in a game of gentlemen and Augusta National tradition and rules and all that's supposed
1:55:40
to matter. If it If it doesn't matter even there, how is it
1:55:44
going to matter anywhere else? And the slope here is incredibly slippery. Now,
1:55:50
I'm not going to suggest that the lack of enforcement of this rule at
1:55:55
Augusta National is going to be the cause of the downfall of Western civilization.
1:55:59
That we are well on our way to that for many other reasons. I
1:56:02
just think it's an indication that that's where we're headed. And from a media
1:56:08
perspective, this was classic. I I was surprised the Golf Channel even went
1:56:14
there because they were taking a risk and making it seem like, you know,
1:56:16
maybe Augusta had done the wrong thing and it brooks Kepka had lied and
1:56:20
broken rule. But basically the Golf Channel laid it all out there, basically
1:56:26
made the case this was a violation, made the case of Brooks Kepka and
1:56:29
it's Caddy, and I guess Gary Woodland. Although I'm not positive Gary Woodland
1:56:32
lied, It's possible Woodland wouldn't have known. So I'm I'm a little less
1:56:38
critical of Gary Woodland because I don't have enough evidence about Gary Woodland. But
1:56:42
you know, the Golf Channel made it clear that the violation had occurred.
1:56:45
It happens all the time. It's a you know, a judgment call.
1:56:47
But clearly Kepka and as Caddy had lied and then they just let it out
1:56:51
there. They just left it there. Nobody else in the media picks it
1:56:55
up. Nobody says, okay, well what does that mean? And now
1:56:59
we have a leader of the Masters for most of the weekend who should have
1:57:01
been hit with a two shot penalty, who lied to the rules officials in
1:57:06
a tournament that was founded by Bobby Jones, who was famous for calling rules
1:57:12
and fractions on himself. I mean, and we're not even gonna make it
1:57:15
an issue of this. Well, of course, we're not going to make
1:57:17
an issue of this because what does anybody in the golf media has to have
1:57:21
the gain here? You're gonna take on augusta national while you're there with your
1:57:27
your credential potentially being taken away, or your credential for next year being taken
1:57:31
away, or your job potentially being at risk. If if you piss off
1:57:35
the wrong people, you're gonna call brooks Kepka a liar, You're gonna piss
1:57:40
off the cult, the cult that follows Live. I mean, there's absolutely
1:57:43
a Live cult. As I've said that it's very similar to the Trump cult,
1:57:45
and so um, you know, it was just dropped, and thank
1:57:49
goodness brooks Kepka didn't win, because if he had, especially if it had
1:57:54
been by one shot, then this would have been a much, much,
1:57:57
much much bigger deal than it turned out to be. He ended up being
1:58:00
second in place. Now you know, he's tied for second with Phil Mickelson.
1:58:04
So I don't think Phil really cares that his check is smaller because he's
1:58:10
in a tie with a guy who should have been two shots behind him,
1:58:14
especially since he's a fellow live guy. But Live paid fills so much money,
1:58:17
I don't think he cares about how much he got in his check for
1:58:21
second place at Augusta National. But anyway, this whole thing I found to
1:58:26
be interesting. I was tangentially involved in it, and I wanted to share
1:58:30
it because I really do believe that the golf media is really the rest of
1:58:35
the media just on steroids. All the things that are broken about the golf
1:58:40
media and the sports media are emblematic and symptomatic of what's happening with the news
1:58:45
media in general. It's just more obvious because the circumstances are so dramatic when
1:58:50
it comes to the golf media, which is so incestuous, where the jobs
1:58:55
are so cushy, where everyone's terrified of pissing anybody off, and where there
1:59:00
really is no journalism, and where you have the Golf Channel literally routinely reporting
1:59:04
on their business partners, whether it's the PGA Tour or Augusta National or players
1:59:11
that you know have sponsorships with companies that spend millions and millions of dollars on
1:59:15
their air. I mean, you look up conflict of interest in the dictionary
1:59:19
and it's basically the Golf Channel and quote unquote journalism. So that's why I
1:59:25
wanted to share that particular story. I also, at some other point,
1:59:29
I guess I want to mention Tiger Woods in greater detail, but it was
1:59:33
it was certainly rather poignant to see Tiger Woods, now, at the age
1:59:40
of forty seven, have to withdraw looking very much like an eighty seven year
1:59:45
old man shuffling in the cold and the rain with a very very badly damaged
1:59:53
foot, and which caused him to, after miraculously making the cut under incredibly
1:59:59
difficult circumstances, to withdraw from the tournament. And here's a guy who was
2:00:03
at one point literally superman, and and now he's unable to walk up,
2:00:11
uh, you know, a hill and be able to play basic golf under
2:00:15
difficult circumstances and can't finish seventy two holes. It's it's really quite striking and
2:00:19
void. Is it a reminder of all of our mortality? I mean,
2:00:26
you know, I'm a little bit older than Tiger, but I've been following
2:00:30
him his whole life, and to see the dramatic denigration of his physical abilities
2:00:34
while he still has the grit and the spirit to somehow make the cut against
2:00:40
all odds, it's really it's it's it's it's it's depressing. I mean,
2:00:46
it's uh, you know, I think it would be worse if he hadn't
2:00:49
made the cut, but um, you know, it's not gonna end well,
2:00:54
and it's probably gonna end pretty soon for Tiger Woods. And I even
2:00:58
think that there's symbolically some actions between the evolution of Tiger's career and the concept
2:01:03
of American exceptionalism and how here we are all now today just kind of pretending
2:01:09
that Tiger is still viable and might win again some day and could make another
2:01:14
comeback, kind of like American exceptionalismwhere you know it's not going to happen.
2:01:19
We're all just pretending it's it's over. It's just a matter of when it's
2:01:24
going to be officially over. It's possible that both may end in twenty twenty
2:01:28
four, by the way, that would be kind of interesting. I mean,
2:01:30
I think it's kind of interesting that Tiger's last victory is going to come
2:01:33
in twenty nineteen, just before COVID was the final death mel of America in
2:01:38
my opinion. And you know, there's all sorts of other comparisons throughout his
2:01:42
career. I mean, in retrospect, the nineties and the early two thousands
2:01:45
were a great time for American exceptionalism and all the possibilities of the modern era
2:01:50
and how America was really kind of at the top of our game, hardly
2:01:56
perfect, but in comparison today in a far better place than than we are
2:02:00
now. And then during the Obama administration, Tiger took a big lull and
2:02:03
didn't win any majors and had a scandal and made a little bit of a
2:02:08
comeback, but it didn't win again until Trump took office. I mean,
2:02:11
all of this is symbolic. I'm not suggesting a connection, but both from
2:02:15
a from a country standpoint, as well as my own personal mortality, it's
2:02:19
it's a tough one to take to see to see Tiger where he is,
2:02:23
but you know, more power to him for keep trying, for him to
2:02:27
keep trying under all against all odds and all he has to go through just
2:02:30
to be able to tee it up and knowing that he cannot possibly be what
2:02:34
he was in his former self. I have a hell of a lot of
2:02:36
respect for that, and said something we can all learn when it comes to
2:02:42
not giving up. But at a certain point, at a certain point,
2:02:45
he's going to have to give it up because you just can't. You just
2:02:47
can't work. You can't can't work. There's just no way. I mean,
2:02:51
the circumstances just won't allow it, and it's really his own greatness that
2:02:57
it is even allowing him to come close to try and to make it work.
2:03:00
And so I don't know how much longer he's going to keep triumph.
2:03:03
I hope he does, but it was really tough to watch over the weekend.
2:03:09
All Right, that'll do it for this edition of the Death of Journalism
2:03:12
podcast. This is always the case. Please remember to subscribe, rate,
2:03:15
and review this and share it on social media. If you do so and
2:03:18
you tag me, I will happy to share it on Twitter or Facebook myself.
2:03:24
Thanks so much for listening. Until next time, my name is John
2:03:27
Ziegler. This is the Death of Journalism.