Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the
Speaker 1: George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty. Armstrong
Speaker 1: and Getty.
Speaker 2: And now, here's Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3: I think that the California high-speed rail nightmare is the
Speaker 3: quintessential example of.
Speaker 2: Government waste and mismanagement.
Speaker 1: You say this needs to stop.
Speaker 2: It needs to stop.
Speaker 3: Congressman Vince Fong, a Republican from Bakersfield, sits on the
Speaker 3: House Transportation Committee. He says that when California voters first
Speaker 3: approved high-speed rail, the promise and price tag were more
Speaker 3: marketing campaign than realistic projection. We're now in 2026.
Speaker 2: There are no trains. There's no track laid. There's a
Speaker 2: complete bait and switch. I don't even know what you
Speaker 2: say about this at this point.
Speaker 4: I call it the greatest government theft of taxpayer money
Speaker 4: in American history. And, you know, it's, it's certainly in
Speaker 4: your top few. I think it's worth reviewing the numbers
Speaker 4: very briefly. It is almost hilarious. So about 18 years ago,
Speaker 4: Californians narrowly passed. Well, it was about four and a
Speaker 4: half point when.
Speaker 2: Being misled by a creatively written ballot. Oh yeah. 2008
Speaker 2: ballot measure.
Speaker 4: Um, to have a bullet train that would travel between
Speaker 4: San Francisco and L.A.
Speaker 2: In under three hours. We'll just file that away.
Speaker 4: Legislative bill said it should be completed by six years ago,
Speaker 4: as we speak these words in 2020.
Speaker 2: Completed by six years ago? Completed. A bullet train from
Speaker 2: San Francisco to L.A. Completed, yes.
Speaker 4: And the California High Speed Rail Authority's initial business plan
Speaker 4: says estimated a cost of $ 33 billion. Oh, I forgot
Speaker 4: the lead of this Wall Street Journal article. Some 18
Speaker 4: years after California voted to launch a bullet train that
Speaker 4: would travel between San Francisco and L.A. in under three hours,
Speaker 4: the project now costs billions more than planned. Hundreds of
Speaker 4: billions more than planned. Wall Street Journal, to it, the numbers.
Speaker 2: By the way, we're throwing in for people if you
Speaker 2: don't live in California, because a lot of you are
Speaker 2: listening around the country. We all know this in California.
Speaker 2: It's a 50-minute flight between San Francisco and Los Angeles,
Speaker 2: and it ain't real expensive, and they have them every
Speaker 2: hour all day long.
Speaker 4: Cost you less than a nice dinner with a bottle
Speaker 4: of wine, please. A decent dinner with a bad bottle
Speaker 4: of wine, as a matter of fact. Anyway, yeah, how
Speaker 4: many flights are there just between San Francisco and L.A.
Speaker 4: every day on Southwest Airlines?
Speaker 2: Like 50?
Speaker 4: 50?
Speaker 2: I think, yeah, I think it's hourly, certainly.
Speaker 4: If you include like Burbank and not to get overly
Speaker 4: local about it, but San Jose, yeah, it's insane.
Speaker 2: Anyway, let's see.
Speaker 4: So done by 2020, done at a cost of $ 33 billion.
Speaker 4: After years of legal battles, cost overruns, leadership changes, and
Speaker 4: political fights, none of that has anything to do with this.
Speaker 4: The price tag is up to $ 126 billion, bare minimum,
Speaker 4: with a high estimate of $ 231 billion and isn't expected
Speaker 4: to be fully operational until 2040 and isn't going to
Speaker 4: get anywhere close to L.A.
Speaker 2: Or San Francisco.
Speaker 4: You're going to have to take like a three and
Speaker 4: a half hour cab ride.
Speaker 2: Depending on traffic, the train station to the heart of
Speaker 2: the city. It's amazing how few journalists read the train
Speaker 2: authority's own website. They put on there what their current
Speaker 2: plans are, and their plans are not currently to have
Speaker 2: a train from San Francisco to L.A. It's from, what
Speaker 2: is it, Gilroy to Palmdale or something? Yeah, something like that.
Speaker 2: Which are towns not very close to downtown San Francisco
Speaker 2: or downtown LA.
Speaker 4: Said Democratic State Senator Catherine Blakespear at a transportation committee
Speaker 4: meeting in April.
Speaker 2: Quote, this is a disaster.
Speaker 4: I'm such an enthusiast for rail and I really wanted
Speaker 4: this to be a successful and just hearing these things
Speaker 4: make it seem like we're proceeding on a wing and
Speaker 4: a prayer.
Speaker 2: I know when I was going around England, I thought
Speaker 2: this is really cool. I never rented a car when
Speaker 2: I was in England. I went everywhere by train and
Speaker 2: they're running all the time from town to town and
Speaker 2: they were cheap and easy and But for a variety
Speaker 2: of reasons, we can't and haven't done that here in
Speaker 2: the United States. But that wasn't high-speed rail. That was
Speaker 2: just regular rail. It was a good way to get around. Oh,
Speaker 2: and then the high-speed rail turned into regular rail. That's
Speaker 2: the other thing that's on the website, if you read it.
Speaker 2: It's not bullet train like you see on some video
Speaker 2: about what they got in Japan anyway. Yeah, yeah. So,
Speaker 2: I don't know. There's plenty you could say about it.
Speaker 4: Also, part of the original plan said that private money
Speaker 4: would do most of the heavy lifting. But the initial
Speaker 4: plan included, and I remember we were talking about this
Speaker 4: at the time, and a lot of this most people
Speaker 4: didn't hear about because most voters don't know what they're
Speaker 4: voting about. But the estimates for the ridership and the
Speaker 4: ticket prices and every single number in the formula, every
Speaker 4: single one was updated.
Speaker 2: Utterly ridiculous. Shouldn't that be a crime of some sort?
Speaker 2: Shouldn't you be charged with fraud or something?
Speaker 4: It's not fraud if the government does it. And there
Speaker 4: have been all sorts of trials and cases and petitions
Speaker 4: to end the thing, just to end it. And I've
Speaker 4: been calling it a vampire now for like 15 years.
Speaker 2: It can't be killed. Here's a little more from the
Speaker 2: 60 Minutes piece on trying to complete this dang thing.
Speaker 3: Back in California, the rail authority insists state funds can
Speaker 3: cover the cost of the Central Valley leg.
Speaker 2: As for the rest.
Speaker 3: Just to be clear, as we speak right now, are
Speaker 3: the funds there to complete L.A.
Speaker 2: To San Francisco? The entire amount of money we need,
Speaker 2: not there today. But do we believe we can get
Speaker 2: those funds to get the project done? Absolutely. We believe
Speaker 2: we can milk more taxpayers for millions of more dollars.
Speaker 2: Basically stealing from them, basically the same as knocking them
Speaker 2: down on the sidewalk and reaching into their pocket theft because,
Speaker 2: you know, it's freaking theft.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Do I just have do you have abnormal moral compasses
Speaker 2: or consciences? How does so many people rip people off
Speaker 2: and sleep at night? How do you how are there?
Speaker 2: So how many people must be involved in this? Thousands
Speaker 2: of people over the decades that know they're just flat
Speaker 2: out stealing. How do you do that with your life
Speaker 2: and be OK with it?
Speaker 4: You just see the scam all around them, and that's
Speaker 4: the scam is how you work it. It's like being
Speaker 4: in the Soviet Union or something like that. Scamming the
Speaker 4: government's the only way to get ahead. And the politicians,
Speaker 4: they understand that the people, the unions, the towns, whatever,
Speaker 4: that are depending on this flow of money will always, always,
Speaker 4: always vote Democrat. because the Democrats will keep the money flowing.
Speaker 4: It's graft of the most obvious sort.
Speaker 2: So they convince themselves somehow that either this is actually
Speaker 2: going to happen and it's good for the environment because
Speaker 2: climate change is so important, or this will help us
Speaker 2: get votes and our party is the only thing standing
Speaker 2: between us and fascism. There must be some stretch that
Speaker 2: they use to convince themselves that they're doing the right thing.
Speaker 4: I think what's at the heart of the answer to
Speaker 4: your question is that Most people, and I've learned this
Speaker 4: slowly but surely, most people are way better at rationalizing
Speaker 4: away reality than you think they are. These people think
Speaker 4: it's a great project. It's going to be built. There's
Speaker 4: just been a hiccup or two because the money's flowing
Speaker 4: into their pockets. A lot of otherwise decent people convince
Speaker 4: themselves that what they're doing is not wrong.
Speaker 2: Because then they can sleep at night.
Speaker 4: Certain ones of us, we bump up against our conscience
Speaker 4: and our grasp of reality, and we can't do that.
Speaker 4: But these people can do that, and they're good at it.
Speaker 4: One more couple of numbers. The initial section now. between Bakersfield, California,
Speaker 4: and Merced, California. And for what it's worth, if you're
Speaker 4: not familiar with the topography, I mean, Bakersfield is a
Speaker 4: mountain range and a long drive away from Los Angeles.
Speaker 4: And Merced is so far away from San Francisco, it's
Speaker 4: not even like an exurb. It's like a different region.
Speaker 4: So the Merced to Bakersfield... will be done in 2023,
Speaker 4: they say, and will cost something like $ 36 billion.
Speaker 2: Did you mean 33 or did you have a time machine?
Speaker 2: 2023 is three years ago. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: 2033.
Speaker 2: Oh, okay. 2033 and cost $ 36 billion. Okay. So here's
Speaker 2: the answer. How much will it cost to finish the
Speaker 2: part that gets it LA to San Francisco? This is
Speaker 2: from 60 Minutes.
Speaker 3: How much do you estimate it's going to cost to
Speaker 3: connect high-speed rail San Francisco to LA?
Speaker 5: Today, we estimate, with the right optimization, just over $ 125 billion.
Speaker 5: I think $ 126 billion is the current estimate for that.
Speaker 3: That's more funding than Amtrak has received in its history
Speaker 3: and still leaves a shortfall of roughly $ 90 billion.
Speaker 2: That's a big gap to fill.
Speaker 5: It is a big gap to fill, but again, we
Speaker 5: have an understanding of how to get there and to
Speaker 5: fill that gap.
Speaker 3: A gap the authority hopes to fill with a new
Speaker 3: plan to cut costs, lure private investment, and connect to
Speaker 3: bigger cities much sooner.
Speaker 2: That's more than nationwide Amtrak that's been around my whole
Speaker 2: life has received in its history.
Speaker 4: Wow, that's a stat. And don't let that last quote
Speaker 4: go by you too quickly. It's a gap that the
Speaker 4: real authority plans to, you know, bridge through lowering costs.
Speaker 1: Oh, good.
Speaker 2: I'll do the same.
Speaker 4: I'm going to lower the costs of my mortgage. In
Speaker 4: my car, I'm going to lower the cost of the
Speaker 4: food I buy at the grocery store. How are you
Speaker 4: going to do that exactly? Anyway, we'll put that aside.
Speaker 4: Maybe they can buy in bulk and get a discount
Speaker 4: and attract private investment.
Speaker 1: To what?
Speaker 2: An asshole?
Speaker 6: A money pit that will never be filled? What sort
Speaker 6: of moron would invest in your project? Nobody has and
Speaker 6: nobody will. Unless they're on the take from Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 6: What a good plan you have for bridging the gap.
Speaker 2: Good Lord. Well, we're arguing like these are good faith
Speaker 2: arguments and they aren't. Right. The people, the taxpayers.
Speaker 4: Have to realize this stuff, internalize it, and act on it.
Speaker 2: Liberals, this is what I always say about this stuff. Liberals, again,
Speaker 2: I don't care about the downtrodden. I really don't.
Speaker 1: You do.
Speaker 2: You're the one who cares. You're the one who should
Speaker 2: be upset about this. This is taxpayer money, which there's
Speaker 2: a limited amount of. You should want this money going
Speaker 2: to all the, you know, one-legged trans BIPOC kids who
Speaker 2: need your help. Yes, look at them struggling with their
Speaker 2: one leg. Two final quotes from me, then I'll shut up.
Speaker 4: State Senator Tony Strickland, a Republican, said at the Transportation
Speaker 4: Committee meeting, I don't think this will ever be built,
Speaker 4: has proposed to the people in California. I know I
Speaker 4: wouldn't put my money and invest in this, but I
Speaker 4: wish you luck. Second quote, Joe Pearson, a Bakersfieldian, quote,
Speaker 4: nobody here in Bakersfield says, hey, I want to go
Speaker 4: to Merced.
Speaker 2: Yeah, which is a good joke, but and true. But
Speaker 2: I was watching the 60 Minutes piece in there. They
Speaker 2: had the map up there and everything like that. And
Speaker 2: I thought, when would I ever, even if they got
Speaker 2: this thing built and it's running all the time and
Speaker 2: it's efficient and reliable, when would I ever decide, you know,
Speaker 2: I'm going to take the train this time instead of
Speaker 2: fly southwest? When would I ever do that?
Speaker 4: You had a day to kill and wanted to look
Speaker 4: at the stunning scenery of the Central Valley of California.
Speaker 2: Which is fine, but I'm joking. It's not that stunning.
Speaker 4: No, no, it is an absolutely transparent, ginormous theft of
Speaker 4: taxpayer money.
Speaker 2: You laugh.
Speaker 1: I laugh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I have a laugh. Some more interesting Dolly facts
Speaker 2: for you as the world pours out their heart in
Speaker 2: memory of Dolly Parton. And I mean everyone. The wide
Speaker 2: variety is just absolutely incredible. The most famous Dolly of
Speaker 2: all time, probably. Dolly the cloned sheep, a contender. Dolly Madison.
Speaker 2: Dolly Madison, a hugely popular Dolly. Hailing in comparison. Historical significance?
Speaker 2: I don't know. We'll see.
Speaker 4: Probably Dolly Parton. We'll have to see. Check back in
Speaker 4: 100 years. And remembering, we got a text earlier. She
Speaker 4: had big boobs. Thank you for that text.
Speaker 2: Well observed. Well observed. Okay, more on the way. Stay here.
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty. The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 2: This is the band at Buckingham Palace. The guys in
Speaker 2: the red coats and the big, tall fur hats. Standing
Speaker 2: out on the lawn at Buckingham Palace playing 9 to 5,
Speaker 2: the Dolly Parton song.
Speaker 7: Huh.
Speaker 2: That's lovely. Once again, showing the reach of Dolly Parton,
Speaker 2: which should be studied and understood. She's one of the
Speaker 2: most universally liked things.
Speaker 2: Up there with hamburgers and sex in the history of
Speaker 2: the world. It's really quite amazing. Yeah. And we were
Speaker 2: talking earlier about why that is, so we'll probably talk
Speaker 2: about that more later. I had one more point I
Speaker 2: was going to make before I got to this breaking news.
Speaker 2: Breaking news! Breaking news, Donkey Michael! Breaking news, Donkey! The
Speaker 2: news breaks the donkey braids. It was happening right in
Speaker 2: our backyard in federal court in Oakland. Meta has settled
Speaker 2: out of court. I took one law class in college.
Speaker 1: One.
Speaker 2: And he hammered this every single day. So it stuck
Speaker 2: in my head. I guess he wanted us to remember this.
Speaker 2: You can settle at any time. At any time. Before
Speaker 2: the very beginning. Right before the end. In the middle.
Speaker 4: Any time.
Speaker 2: You can settle. And that's what happened here. Meta to
Speaker 2: pay up to 17.1 billion dollars in landmark settlement over
Speaker 2: social media addiction claims. There are 47 states involved. The
Speaker 2: District of Columbia and U.S. territories. Trying to claim that
Speaker 2: Meta was purposefully ruining our children or something. Certainly recklessly.
Speaker 2: And at some point, Meta decided that cutting a check
Speaker 2: for $ 17 billion is better than letting this continue. That's
Speaker 2: a big check. That is a big dang check. Jonathan Turley,
Speaker 2: the lawyer from George Washington Law School, the professor who's
Speaker 2: on Fox all the time, has some commentary on this.
Speaker 2: Let's hear a little of that. Click 90, Michael. Well,
Speaker 2: this is seismic.
Speaker 8: It's going to be something of a dinner gong for
Speaker 8: both states and plaintiff attorneys. And I think that Meta
Speaker 8: knows that. But in many ways, for the company, this
Speaker 8: is still chump change. I mean, this is a company
Speaker 8: that makes a huge amount of money. And when you
Speaker 8: reach a settlement like this, we've seen, for example, in
Speaker 8: the tobacco settlement, that these companies actually don't end up
Speaker 8: losing money because of the benefits in the market in
Speaker 8: resolving litigation. Their stock tends to go up and they're
Speaker 8: able to cover these losses.
Speaker 2: That's kind of interesting. I guess I didn't know that
Speaker 2: last part. Just roll into the next one. I'm kind
Speaker 2: of interested in the details of the arguments.
Speaker 8: I think in fairness to the 29 states that brought
Speaker 8: this lawsuit, there is a commitment here to change the app,
Speaker 8: to change this software to create greater protections. The issue
Speaker 8: here for Meadow was that legally they had some very
Speaker 8: good arguments to make here. The line between What's an
Speaker 8: addictive and what's a popular product is often hard to define.
Speaker 2: I'd say. It's interesting.
Speaker 4: The settlement was actually with 47 states, the District of
Speaker 4: Columbia and U.S. territories, some of which were not part
Speaker 4: of this specific suit, I have a feeling. But, yeah,
Speaker 4: that's a heck of a gesture, thinking, no, let's not
Speaker 4: take this all the way to the jury.
Speaker 2: Let's just end it. Well, and as Turley said there,
Speaker 2: and if we've talked about, Meta has some really good arguments,
Speaker 2: you know, so did Roundup, and they ended up paying
Speaker 2: out ridiculous amounts of money, even though there's no scientific
Speaker 2: proof they caused cancer. So that's a tough one.
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty. Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene. The Armstrong and
Speaker 1: Getty Show.
Speaker 7: What we're not going to do is talk about Dolly
Speaker 7: Parton like we lost an 80-year-old woman because Dolly Parton
Speaker 7: was 25 years old for approximately 55 consecutive years. I
Speaker 7: don't know how she did it. Dolly Parton looked at
Speaker 7: aging and said, well, there's a precious little idea.
Speaker 2: No, thank you.
Speaker 7: That woman had the same blood, had the same smile,
Speaker 7: the same energy, the same heels, the same amount of
Speaker 7: woman from the time your grandma was young until five
Speaker 7: minutes ago.
Speaker 2: Dolly Parton didn't get older.
Speaker 7: The rest of us just kept catching up to her.
Speaker 2: How great is that, Katie? That's a comedian I don't know.
Speaker 2: Who was that? A comedian named Josh Bray that I
Speaker 2: don't know. She's been 25. Right. She looked at age
Speaker 2: and said, I'm not going to do that. Oh, no,
Speaker 2: thank you. Fantastic. Good stuff. Good stuff. So I wanted
Speaker 2: to play this, this this whole appearance of Dolly Parton
Speaker 2: on Johnny Carson way back in the day. The whole
Speaker 2: thing is good, including her singing the song to Johnny
Speaker 2: that she wrote for him. But this is a classic moment.
Speaker 2: I've always been pretty well-blessed.
Speaker 1: People are always asking if they're real.
Speaker 2: Oh, I would never. I would never, you see. No,
Speaker 2: you don't have to ask.
Speaker 7: I would not.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you what. I have certain guidelines.
Speaker 2: But I would give about a year's pay to peek
Speaker 2: under there. That is just lurid, I don't tell. I
Speaker 2: can't believe it. We've got some more interesting Dolly Parton stuff.
Speaker 2: I keep scrolling through and coming across. Some of the
Speaker 2: musical performances. When she got together with Emmylou Harris and
Speaker 2: Linda Ronstadt for a couple albums, there was some really
Speaker 2: good music on there. But this performance of Neil Young's
Speaker 2: After the Gold Rush from Letterman in the 90s, whoa,
Speaker 2: that's good. Really, really good. Have to dig into that.
Speaker 4: I loved, Jack was texting, tweeting, I guess texting Twitter
Speaker 4: links to the internal group here of the show of
Speaker 4: all the tributes that were pouring out.
Speaker 2: And they were all really beautiful images. touching, including Eminem, a.k.a.
Speaker 2: Marshall Mathers. who shared a note Dolly wrote to him
Speaker 2: when he won, I can't remember. Yeah, I got that
Speaker 2: in front of me. So Eminem tweeted out, I'm sorry
Speaker 2: we never got a chance to meet, but getting this
Speaker 2: note from Dolly really had an impact on me. She
Speaker 2: definitely didn't have to take the time to do it.
Speaker 2: Even for a kid who mostly listened to rap music,
Speaker 2: she was an icon, a superstar in every sense. Rest easy, Dolly,
Speaker 2: and thank you for the kind words. This is the
Speaker 2: letter that Dolly Parton wrote to Eminem out of nowhere. Marshall, Eminem,
Speaker 2: congratulations on your induction into the Rock and Roll Hall
Speaker 2: of Fame. Your performance was amazing and everybody said so.
Speaker 2: Even though I don't know a lot about rap music,
Speaker 2: I've come to know that you were the very best
Speaker 2: at it. Aside from that, I hope what I have
Speaker 2: to say will not seem weird or strange to you,
Speaker 2: but I've always felt some unexplained connection to you, like
Speaker 2: I know you somehow. I'd hope to meet you at
Speaker 2: the show, but you know how nuts those things are. Personally,
Speaker 2: I hate them and I missed my chance. But maybe
Speaker 2: someday we'll meet. In the meantime, keep doing what you're
Speaker 2: doing because you do it so well. No matter how
Speaker 2: complex your world may be, just know you're very special
Speaker 2: and touch people in ways you don't even know. With
Speaker 2: love and respect, Dolly Parton.
Speaker 8: Wow.
Speaker 2: Wow. That's a beautiful soul. And, you know, it's funny.
Speaker 2: I was thinking about this.
Speaker 4: As a girl from an Appalachian family, 12 people, 12 kids.
Speaker 2: Mom and dad living in a one-room cabin.
Speaker 4: Whereas Marshall Mathers grew up on the outskirts of crappy,
Speaker 4: depressed Detroit.
Speaker 2: She knew they had something in common. You're right. I
Speaker 2: never thought about it from that angle, but that's clearly true.
Speaker 2: Dolly Parton and Eminem had more in common than my
Speaker 2: son and Eminem. And my son sees himself as like
Speaker 2: a rapper or those kind of people. But, you know,
Speaker 2: growing up in poor, difficult times. Yeah, that's interesting.
Speaker 9: Eminem is part of the soundtrack for all millennials. Just
Speaker 9: to let you know, he was like huge for us.
Speaker 2: But that particular Eminem thing there, there are so many
Speaker 2: of those crossing every spectrum of the world and generations.
Speaker 2: And it's just, it's amazing. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 9: People are making a fortune on TikTok imitating him. They
Speaker 9: sound exactly like him. Like if I close my eyes,
Speaker 9: you couldn't tell the difference. They're just making a fortune
Speaker 9: off of his voice.
Speaker 2: That's interesting. I don't know what you're doing.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so we were talking earlier and at fair length
Speaker 4: about Dolly Parton and the universal affection for her and
Speaker 4: where that came from and what it means and how
Speaker 4: it ought to be studied at the university level or
Speaker 4: certainly in churches and wherever humans gather and want to
Speaker 4: be decent.
Speaker 2: One aspect that we learned a little bit about was
Speaker 2: that last year when her husband died, nobody had ever
Speaker 2: thought about or talked about really her husband the whole time.
Speaker 2: He stayed in the background. They met at a laundromat
Speaker 2: when I think she was still a teenager, and they
Speaker 2: were together for 59 years. And that on its own
Speaker 2: is such an interesting aspect of her story. Sure.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 4: To be rich, famous, but kind, unassuming, funny, smart, but
Speaker 4: not lord it over anybody.
Speaker 2: Happily married for 60 years.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Those are not easy things to pull off. Well, I just,
Speaker 2: this from Donna Brazile, because I'm talking about all the
Speaker 2: different sorts of people that weighed in on this. Donna Brazile,
Speaker 2: she was Al Gore's campaign manager. She's a big Democratic.
Speaker 2: pundit dolly parton spent decades quietly funding band uniforms and
Speaker 2: instruments at black high schools across the south never once
Speaker 2: putting her name on it no headlines no fanfare just
Speaker 2: help given because it was needed that's the whole you
Speaker 2: know it's only really altruistic if you don't if nobody
Speaker 2: knows you did it sort of thing um a lot
Speaker 2: of people not into that want to have their name
Speaker 2: on the school or band uniform or there needs to
Speaker 2: be a big uh gathering of local tv stations whenever
Speaker 2: you give the check or whatever.
Speaker 4: Yes, there are people who are really, really into that,
Speaker 4: and that's the only reason they do anything charitable. I'll
Speaker 4: just end my comments there. So good for Dolly, a
Speaker 4: saint among us. I don't want to rush through this,
Speaker 4: but this is kind of the other side of the coin,
Speaker 4: and maybe we can continue on the other side of
Speaker 4: a very brief break.
Speaker 2: You saying she was a saint, one thing I was
Speaker 2: going to look into last night, and I never got
Speaker 2: around to grokking, was she a religious person?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. She was a validly Christian. Yeah. But like
Speaker 2: goes to church every Sunday sort of Christian? No idea. No,
Speaker 2: I was going to look into that. I'd just be interested. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure. How would it be if Dolly went
Speaker 2: to church every Sunday? Well, if she went to the
Speaker 2: same place. I don't know. Interesting. You wouldn't want to
Speaker 2: sit behind her in the pew. You ain't going to
Speaker 2: see a thing. No, no, because her wig, big old wig. Anyway,
Speaker 2: where were we? I had something interesting to say. I'm
Speaker 2: certain of it. It's gone now. A word instead from
Speaker 2: our friends at Blue Collar Dollars. Sort of thing. I'm
Speaker 2: tying Dolly Parton into everything. I was going to, but
Speaker 2: go ahead. Okay. Go ahead. Well, you might have a
Speaker 2: better idea. You had thought of it already. I doubt it. No, no,
Speaker 2: I was right just off the cuff. I was going
Speaker 2: to say, the Blue Collar Dollars, definitely the sort of
Speaker 2: people that Dolly Parton came from. People that get up
Speaker 2: early and work hard all day long. and oftentimes think
Speaker 2: that the whole financial world, investment world, all that sort
Speaker 2: of stuff is not for them.
Speaker 4: Well, Blue Collar Dollar is for you. Kind of the
Speaker 4: opposite of snooty academics. If you've saved $ 500, 000 or more,
Speaker 4: we invite you to call Blue Collar Dollar for a
Speaker 4: no-cost consultation. There's no obligation. If you don't like what
Speaker 4: you hear, no harm done. But these are folks who
Speaker 4: get you and your lifestyle and your priorities.
Speaker 2: Building a place where hardworking people can share the values
Speaker 2: you have, financial sort of dreams you have, with advisors
Speaker 2: who talk with you, never at you. From your mobile phone,
Speaker 2: dial pound 250, and when prompted, say the keywords blue-collar dollar.
Speaker 2: Simple as that. Dial pound 250. Say blue-collar dollar. Here's
Speaker 2: the fun part. Advisory services are offered through Talon LLC,
Speaker 2: a SEC-registered investment advisor. Marketing is conducted by its affiliated company,
Speaker 2: Blue Collar Dollar LLC. Registration as an investment advisor does
Speaker 2: not imply a certain level of skill or training. For
Speaker 2: more important disclosures, visit bluecollardollar.com.
Speaker 4: So on the other side of the coin of the lovely... Wonderful, open-hearted, kind,
Speaker 4: unassuming Dolly Parton. You have our cynical time where no
Speaker 4: one trusts, for instance, data centers and flock cameras. Those
Speaker 4: are two of the big kind of hot points in
Speaker 4: local politics in America. And, of course, you know, if
Speaker 4: it gets enough attention and happens in enough localities, it
Speaker 4: becomes our national politics. But why no one trusts data
Speaker 4: centers and flock cameras? Interesting thoughts on that. And it's
Speaker 4: a bit of a problem.
Speaker 2: If we decide to let China build all the data
Speaker 2: centers and get the head start on AI because we're
Speaker 2: scared of them for all these different reasons.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: Right. Yeah. Do we know what Dolly Parton thought of
Speaker 2: data centers? I don't believe she went on the record.
Speaker 2: Too smart. Are we supposed to take a break or
Speaker 2: transition to something else or what are we supposed to?
Speaker 2: I wasn't paying attention.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, that's... Yeah, I was going to say, let's
Speaker 4: talk about the lack of trust on the other side.
Speaker 2: Of the break, because I don't want to rush through it.
Speaker 4: Okay, cool.
Speaker 2: We do need to get to a little bit more
Speaker 2: of the trade war with Canada that is roiling hockey
Speaker 2: stick manufacturers. Oh, good Lord. I know. Stay tuned for that.
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty. The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 2: Tweet it out and we'll post at armstrongandgetty.com the videos
Speaker 2: that are coming out from the mudslide in Nepal today,
Speaker 2: which is the most amazing thing I think I've ever seen.
Speaker 2: It's the worst video I've ever seen. It's horrific.
Speaker 4: It was like a bomb went off as an overused descriptor.
Speaker 4: It was like an atomic bomb went off. The destruction
Speaker 4: was complete and utter.
Speaker 2: Well, complete. And all the people that are there at
Speaker 2: the beginning of the video are not there at the
Speaker 2: end of the video.
Speaker 9: As eerie as this is, it reminded me of the
Speaker 9: Twin Towers falling.
Speaker 2: It is that sort of thing.
Speaker 9: It just went up and everybody disappeared. Anyway, that's what
Speaker 9: this is. We'll have them at Armstrong and Getty dot com.
Speaker 4: So as discussed previously, in contrast to the whole Dolly
Speaker 4: Parton aesthetic, you've got an incredible lack of trust in America,
Speaker 4: whether it's the government in general, data centers, flock cameras,
Speaker 4: people are very, very cynical. And Eric Erickson, who is
Speaker 4: a colleague in the radio industry, wrote a piece that
Speaker 4: the Free Press published that It's certainly ground that we
Speaker 4: have plowed around here, but I think he sums it
Speaker 4: up very well. The same government that used pandemic powers
Speaker 4: to shutter churches and businesses now wants surveillance cameras on
Speaker 4: street corners and data centers and backyards. You can't blame
Speaker 4: people for saying no. And as he goes through it,
Speaker 4: I think, you know, and this seems crazy to me
Speaker 4: to even say this out loud, I think I had
Speaker 4: let my sense of outrage at The abuses of government
Speaker 4: during COVID kind of, the edges have gotten warmed off
Speaker 4: and I kind of feel myself moving on. But psychologically,
Speaker 4: and anybody who's ever dealt with psychological trauma knows, even
Speaker 4: if you don't think about it every day, it's still
Speaker 4: in there. And he makes the point that in April
Speaker 4: of 2020, San Clemente, California dumped $ 37 of sand into
Speaker 4: a skate park to keep teenagers out of it.
Speaker 2: That's so insane that actually happened that actually other.
Speaker 4: California's cities followed suit yeah god that's so freaking crazy
Speaker 4: Up the coast, sheriff's deputies arrested a man for paddleboarding
Speaker 4: by himself in the Pacific Ocean. Cities unbolted basketball rims.
Speaker 4: The mayor of L.A. told people that snitches get rewards.
Speaker 4: And God help us, people snitched, calling the tip lines
Speaker 4: on the neighbors whose grandkids came over. Months later, Gavin
Speaker 4: Newsom violated his own COVID-19 protocols and enjoyed a nice
Speaker 4: dinner at the French Laundry.
Speaker 2: Well, I lived with a park behind me, and they
Speaker 2: had yellow crime tape around the playground equipment.
Speaker 4: Yes, it was like it was the 1500s. There's disease around.
Speaker 4: Be sure you stay inside.
Speaker 8: Wow.
Speaker 4: The sand, the arrest, the missing basketball rims, the rewarded snitches,
Speaker 4: and the elite hypocrisy explain a lot about where we
Speaker 4: are as a nation, including things that look like they
Speaker 4: have nothing to do with COVID, like data centers and
Speaker 4: flock cameras. In March of 2020, Americans did as they
Speaker 4: were told. People closed businesses. Local governments closed schools. Family
Speaker 4: canceled funerals. They waited for instructions from their elected leaders
Speaker 4: and public health officials because those officials said we needed
Speaker 4: two weeks to stop the spread. People generally trusted their institutions.
Speaker 4: Civic trust is a limited resource in a free nation.
Speaker 4: The press, politicians, bureaucrats, experts, and elite violated that trust
Speaker 4: until it was gone. The virus came, the data came,
Speaker 4: the virus mutated, the data changed, and the people in
Speaker 4: charge did not. We won't go on at too much length,
Speaker 4: but We knew early on that children were not meaningful
Speaker 4: vectors for spread. The bureaucrats, the politicians, and above all,
Speaker 4: the teachers' unions kept the schoolhouse doors closed anyway. Parents
Speaker 4: forced to be home with their kids saw how atrocious
Speaker 4: our public education has become, and students, after being shut
Speaker 4: out of schools, actually regressed. Masks clearly were not stopping
Speaker 4: the virus, but the army of mentally deranged progressive women...
Speaker 4: Harassing people for not wearing masks not only did not stop,
Speaker 4: but it's morphed today into a virtue signal and a
Speaker 4: public sign of inward mental health issues. Get on a
Speaker 4: plane to any progressive enclave and you'll notice a pattern
Speaker 4: in who still wears masks.
Speaker 2: That's absolutely true. I see that every time I'm in
Speaker 2: the airport.
Speaker 4: And then... We knew early on that COVID spread indoors,
Speaker 4: not outdoors, but California went right on filling in the
Speaker 4: skate parks. When Brian Kemp reopened Georgia, the governor there,
Speaker 4: the Atlantic ran a story calling it, quote, an experiment
Speaker 4: in human sacrifice.
Speaker 2: The president attacked him. Dr.
Speaker 4: Anthony Fauci attacked him. Stacey Abrams attacked him. And Georgia
Speaker 4: recovered first among states. And he goes through the whole
Speaker 4: thing again, which I think is worth going over.
Speaker 2: We ought to have, like.
Speaker 4: You know, in the Jewish religion, they have a number
Speaker 4: of quote-unquote holidays, holy days, including, you know, and I'm
Speaker 4: not an expert. I always forget the names of them, but,
Speaker 4: you know, a day of atonement, a day to think
Speaker 4: about your sins and atone for them because going la-la-la-la-la-la
Speaker 4: past your own sins is not the way to get
Speaker 4: right with God.
Speaker 2: I think it's a great idea.
Speaker 4: We ought to have an annual day of reckoning about COVID.
Speaker 4: Not to mention the lies about the vaccine, which absolutely
Speaker 4: reduced the incidence of fatality and severe illness.
Speaker 2: 100% it did. Well, not 100%.
Speaker 4: We're literally talking about statistics, Joe. You can't say 100%.
Speaker 4: But the idea that it would stop the spread and
Speaker 4: people should be fired or barred from the military or
Speaker 4: punished or demonized for not getting it. It was absurd,
Speaker 4: and even when that became clear, they continued to insist
Speaker 4: that it was true. The psychological trauma of the betrayed
Speaker 4: trust remains.
Speaker 2: And so you tie that into the data center rejection? Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4: Actually, that was the point that Eric was making, that
Speaker 4: you've got a couple of things that are clearly– either
Speaker 4: dangerous or threatening. They represent, in the case of the
Speaker 4: data centers, the AI uncertainty, which could be devastating. It
Speaker 4: could be like that damn mudslide in Nepal to the economy.
Speaker 4: People are really concerned about it, both on a personal
Speaker 4: and societal level.
Speaker 2: And we're being told, no, no, we got this, trust us.
Speaker 4: And the data centers, they're big, they're ugly, they're a
Speaker 4: symbol of AI.
Speaker 2: So people are freaked out.
Speaker 4: The flock camera thing, there would be distrust of that
Speaker 4: because it's establishing something close to a surveillance state. But
Speaker 4: Eric's point, again, is that when the authorities, and look,
Speaker 4: we're pro-law enforcement around here, and certainly anti-law enforcement. But
Speaker 4: when I'm told, no, don't worry, we'll make sure this
Speaker 4: isn't abused, nobody will look at the surveillance, it won't
Speaker 4: turn into a surveillance state, this is merely for emergencies
Speaker 4: and crimes and that sort of thing, I think, yeah, bull-ass.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I have a real problem with that one. I was
Speaker 2: talking to Anastasia Bowden, the lawyer from Pacific Legal Foundation,
Speaker 2: about that Friday after you left. Like her piece, their
Speaker 2: piece was, you know, we're not completely against these. Then
Speaker 2: they help stop crimes. I hate that argument. As I
Speaker 2: told her, I hate that argument. We could end crime
Speaker 2: today if we wanted to. We could put cameras everywhere
Speaker 2: and end crime. So the fact that it solves some
Speaker 2: crimes is not an argument to me. Right.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 4: It's definitely one of the arguments in society, though. And
Speaker 4: Eric actually makes the point that he's for the data centers.
Speaker 4: We need the computing power. If we don't get it,
Speaker 4: China will get it, and that would be terrible. And
Speaker 4: he says, I'm for the flock cameras with reasonable restrictions.
Speaker 4: Many municipalities are short of police officers. Our police are
Speaker 4: stretched thin. Our population is in decline. Fewer people want
Speaker 4: to become cops. We need supplementation. But support does not
Speaker 4: mean without boundaries and limits.
Speaker 2: We need both. But the cameras, I believe, do more
Speaker 2: good than harm. I know you disagree with him. I do.
Speaker 2: Over time, I think I will be right. I hope
Speaker 2: I live long enough to be shown to be right.
Speaker 2: I'd rather be wrong, but I think I'm right.
Speaker 4: He goes into a little detail about why he supports
Speaker 4: these two things with restrictions, but he says, I cannot
Speaker 4: blame my neighbors for disagreeing with me. How on earth
Speaker 4: could I? We're only five years removed from the police
Speaker 4: arresting solo joggers and the government using police power to
Speaker 4: shutter churches and small businesses. We witnessed the government use
Speaker 4: a surveillance state to lock people in their homes. We
Speaker 4: saw private businesses figure out that they could profit from
Speaker 4: the police state. And the difference between fracking, oh, he
Speaker 4: compares data centers to fracking, and that's a great comparison.
Speaker 2: It absolutely is.
Speaker 4: The scare campaign against fracking. The difference between fracking and
Speaker 4: the data center was never the facts. It was the
Speaker 4: messengers and their technology. The oilmen lived in the community.
Speaker 4: They sat in the pews at the local church, sent
Speaker 4: their kids to local schools, etc.
Speaker 2: etc.
Speaker 4: The AI executives are coastal creeps accountable to nobody, and
Speaker 4: the local government courting them, sign nondisclosure agreements, do the
Speaker 4: whole thing behind closed doors. When you negotiate in secret
Speaker 4: with people who tell you they might enslave you or
Speaker 4: at a minimum take your job and that of your child,
Speaker 4: you have earned every bit of suspicion you get.
Speaker 2: Will we build data centers or let China... get this
Speaker 2: technology and be the leader in it? That's a big question. God,
Speaker 2: we're in a rough spot.
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty.