Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio at the
Speaker 1: George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2: Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3: And now, here's Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 4: The problem with the war on Canada is that we
Speaker 4: don't hate Canada to begin with. And so they've come
Speaker 4: up with, the administration has some new posters to get
Speaker 4: us to be angry enough at the Canadians. Would you
Speaker 4: like to see some of the, I thought you would.
Speaker 4: Canadian geese crashing our planes into the Hudson since 2009. Nickelback,
Speaker 4: never forget who did this to us. Canadian bacon is ham.
Speaker 4: If they'll lie about this, what won't they lie about?
Speaker 4: Canadians are so nice. What's so nice about stealing Katy Perry?
Speaker 2: That's pretty good, the Canadian bacon.
Speaker 3: It's more a service than a theft.
Speaker 2: The lie about that, the lie about anything.
Speaker 3: Wartime propaganda posters against Canada.
Speaker 5: Oh, boy.
Speaker 3: These are odd times. Mm-hmm. So the fabulous James Lindsay
Speaker 3: was writing the other day about a number of articles
Speaker 3: that have appeared in the press about lack of affordability
Speaker 3: in Gen Z, talking about how I can't afford a
Speaker 3: burrito or I can't afford to go out on a
Speaker 3: date and blah, blah, blah. And he says if you
Speaker 3: want to talk about affordability for real or if you
Speaker 3: want to wax psychotic about debt, you have to talk
Speaker 3: about the real anchor issue, which is student loan debt.
Speaker 3: And to do this, you have to talk about the
Speaker 3: absolute failure of government manipulation of the higher education market
Speaker 3: and how our universities– did not just transform ideologically, but
Speaker 3: sold out generations because of sweet, sweet government-backed monies. And
Speaker 3: he says the biggest important change in this story is
Speaker 3: that in the 90s, under Bill Clinton's tenure, and by
Speaker 3: the way, it's worth pointing out, so much of this
Speaker 3: is the road to hell being paved with good intentions.
Speaker 3: Because when people say, hey, there's a problem with it,
Speaker 3: you've heard that saying a million times, but have you
Speaker 3: ever really thought about it? Because when people say, hey, hey, hey,
Speaker 3: there's a problem with what you're doing, You reply, hey,
Speaker 3: my intentions are great. What we're doing here is good
Speaker 3: and important. And it neutralizes criticism. And that's how you
Speaker 3: get to hell. Anyway, 90s under Bill Clinton, the federal
Speaker 3: government decided to underwrite federal student loans in order to
Speaker 3: get a lot more people to go to college, which
Speaker 3: opened a gigantic can of worms. The direct effect of
Speaker 3: this policy was that while private lenders would originate the loans,
Speaker 3: the federal government would assume their risk of losses. And
Speaker 3: if you know anything about banking, risk of loss is
Speaker 3: the primary incentive lenders have for not making bad loans.
Speaker 3: So the government, federal government, stepped in and removed that
Speaker 3: rather important market incentive. It's exactly the same thing that
Speaker 3: happened prior to the great crash of 07-08 because they
Speaker 3: ordered the banks to lend anybody money that they had
Speaker 3: to to achieve certain racial quotas.
Speaker 6: Anyway.
Speaker 3: So prior to this, you had to convince the bank
Speaker 3: that your education was actually a solid investment in your
Speaker 3: future economically, not spiritually. OK, and you might have to
Speaker 3: convince them that you're likely to be a good student
Speaker 3: choosing a solid major. You'd make enough money to pay
Speaker 3: back the loan and then just fill out the paperwork.
Speaker 3: But now they've removed the disincentives. So as he says.
Speaker 3: What exactly is this can of worms they opened? Something
Speaker 3: like the total destruction of our society in 30 years
Speaker 3: or thereabouts. It's actually difficult to know where to start,
Speaker 3: but the financial situation is probably the easiest one. What
Speaker 3: actually happened is that a lot more people intended to
Speaker 3: go to college, and colleges had to, or at least
Speaker 3: were incentivized to, make expansions to absorb them. That sounds
Speaker 3: reasonable enough, but it turns out to have been a disaster.
Speaker 3: Lurking in the background of this problem, by the way,
Speaker 3: is that by the 1990s, we'd already seen a dramatic
Speaker 3: leftward shift of the university as an institution. There are
Speaker 3: lots of dumb leftist majors that amount to anti-Americanism, critical
Speaker 3: theory of a dozen stripes or so.
Speaker 2: And when you said expansion, I wondered, like, how many
Speaker 2: majors got added at this time that never existed before
Speaker 2: that are just worthless?
Speaker 3: Well, because you had, and you're absolutely right, because you
Speaker 3: had thousands now, hundreds of millions of students waving their
Speaker 3: federal money around saying, I'm no good in engineering or
Speaker 3: business or whatever, and even liberal arts is a bit
Speaker 3: much for me. How about women's studies or ethnic studies
Speaker 3: or something like that? Softball leftist majors. And he points
Speaker 3: out that the dozen or so critical theory majors expanded
Speaker 3: to many, many more and captured especially the colleges of education.
Speaker 3: which is especially bad because that's where teachers come from.
Speaker 3: But anyway, he mentions that absorbing these students required a
Speaker 3: few things. Some were infrastructure changes. You need to be
Speaker 3: able to house them, sit them in classrooms, etc. Some
Speaker 3: were administrative changes. They needed management. A lot of the
Speaker 3: kids weren't cut out to major in the hard stuff,
Speaker 3: and so leftist activist majors started to be created, fill up,
Speaker 3: and expand. Remember, no one has to prove to the
Speaker 3: lender that they're majoring in something with good career prospects
Speaker 3: anymore to get the money. So the tuition rates started
Speaker 3: to climb massively, mostly as a result of the first
Speaker 3: two changes, and far more infrastructure than administration. So the
Speaker 3: colleges were catering primarily to 17-year-olds who were picking a
Speaker 3: school and trying to retain upward to maybe 22-year-olds. This
Speaker 3: is not an age demographic, especially by the later 90s,
Speaker 3: that was famously known for choosing colleges based on academic priorities,
Speaker 3: career priorities, etc. In fact, they mostly select colleges based
Speaker 3: on anything but academics and future employability, especially when the
Speaker 3: incoming base is expanded to include potentially roughly everyone. So
Speaker 3: they wanted football.
Speaker 4: Fun.
Speaker 3: Nice dorms, student services, gyms, modernized facilities, etc. And those
Speaker 3: features became the primary elements by which colleges started to
Speaker 3: compete with each other for attracting and keeping students. And
Speaker 3: you can see.
Speaker 2: Where that goes. That is a rich society, man. That
Speaker 2: is one rich society where you've got a very large
Speaker 2: segment of the population, the most affluent generally, that sends
Speaker 2: their kid off to a four-year... Little kind of vacation
Speaker 2: under the guise of college where a lot of it
Speaker 2: is just because we've done the stats before. Barely going
Speaker 2: to class, barely doing homework. Hanging out with your friends,
Speaker 2: having a good time for four years. I mean, you're
Speaker 2: you're pretty you're a pretty cush society if you can
Speaker 2: do that with your young people for 18 from 18
Speaker 2: to 22.
Speaker 3: And Mr. Lindsay tips his cap to the fact that
Speaker 3: a lot of this was very, very good intentions, the
Speaker 3: baby boomer generation, the idea that if you go to college,
Speaker 3: you can improve your life and have a better job
Speaker 3: and a better life than your parents did, etc. First
Speaker 3: generation to go to school, that sort of thing is
Speaker 3: very honorable and good. But then he points out, combined
Speaker 3: with the federal money, many of them stumbled into college
Speaker 3: into their favored majors, some with an eye on that
Speaker 3: good job they wanted to go to college to get,
Speaker 3: only to find out that math is really hard, and
Speaker 3: there's still a college degree at the end of the
Speaker 3: new women's studies department. Others majored in something productive enough,
Speaker 3: but in total ignorance of the actual job market on
Speaker 3: the other side. And he gives a bunch of examples
Speaker 3: of that sort of thing. In servicing these natural but
Speaker 3: ultimately adolescent mismatched priorities.
Speaker 2: What in the world does that sound? What is that, Michael?
Speaker 2: Whose studio is that in?
Speaker 3: I think that's in my studio.
Speaker 2: Is that a smoke alarm?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: What do you think that is, Kenny?
Speaker 5: That's a smoke alarm.
Speaker 3: It is?
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Or a carbon monoxide.
Speaker 2: Why does your smoke alarm sound like somebody playing a.
Speaker 3: It's a carbon monoxide alarm.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I'm probably going to die soon.
Speaker 5: Okay. Hold your.
Speaker 3: Oh! God, that's... Perhaps I'll deal with that and we'll
Speaker 3: return after a brief commercial break, as it's going to
Speaker 3: make everybody insane, including me.
Speaker 7: How do you end up.
Speaker 2: With too much carbon monoxide?
Speaker 3: I gotta go deal with it.
Speaker 1: I'll be back.
Speaker 2: I want to know about this. He's breeding cats or something.
Speaker 2: Something's going on in there.
Speaker 5: He's got marmots.
Speaker 2: And rabies donkeys. Anyway, we will get to that stuff.
Speaker 2: I ought to throw this in real quick before we
Speaker 2: take a break. So, um... The deliberations in the Lindsay
Speaker 2: Clancy trial... they said that they can't come to a verdict.
Speaker 2: And the judge said, you got to get back in
Speaker 2: there and get back to work. But they said they're
Speaker 2: unable to reach a unanimous verdict.
Speaker 5: Well, isn't that just a hung jury? I mean, if
Speaker 5: they can't come to a verdict, you can't make them.
Speaker 2: Sometimes I, you know, you know way more about this
Speaker 2: than I do because your dad was a judge. But
Speaker 2: I don't know how many times you can say work
Speaker 2: harder before they say, look, we're working as hard as
Speaker 2: we can. We can't. So we do actually have a
Speaker 2: quote from, I think, her lawyer coming up. He was
Speaker 2: asked about this and what this might mean, so we'll
Speaker 2: get that on the air also. First, I want to
Speaker 2: tell you about this. If you think financial planning is
Speaker 2: just for the suit and tie crowd, think again. We
Speaker 2: are Armstrong and Getty for Blue Collar Dollar. We're talking
Speaker 2: to small business owners, farmers, hardworking people who build this
Speaker 2: country but often get ignored by Wall Street. And you
Speaker 2: don't think the kind of people that talk about, you know,
Speaker 2: your financial future are the kind of people you want
Speaker 2: to hang around. Blue Collar Dollar changes the game, providing
Speaker 2: high-level retirement strategies for men and women who actually do
Speaker 2: the heavy lifting. No jargon, no corporate fluff, just straight
Speaker 2: talk and real respect for your hard-earned money. If you're
Speaker 2: 55 years of age or older and you've put aside
Speaker 2: at least $ 250, 000 for retirement, Blue Collar Dollar has a
Speaker 2: special offer for you. Just pick up your phone. right now,
Speaker 2: dial pound 250, say the keyword Blue Collar Dollar for
Speaker 2: your complimentary financial review for a licensed talent advisor. That's
Speaker 2: pound 250, keyword Blue Collar Dollar. Paid endorsement. Armstrong and
Speaker 2: Getty are not Talon clients and receive compensation for promoting Talon,
Speaker 2: creating a conflict of interest. Investment advisory services offered through
Speaker 2: Talon LLC, a SEC registered investment advisor. For more additional disclosures,
Speaker 2: you can visit bluecollardollar.com. Paid for by Epic Financial. So
Speaker 2: what does it mean that the jury can't come to
Speaker 2: a conclusion? Well, they asked one of the lawyers involved
Speaker 2: and he gave his answer. For what that's worth, among
Speaker 2: other things on the way. And we'll figure out if
Speaker 2: Joe has died from carbon monoxide poisoning. Coming up next.
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty. The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 2: What would a hung jury mean for Lindsay?
Speaker 6: Try it again.
Speaker 2: Jim Cruise will never drop it, that's for sure. How
Speaker 2: would she be in trial again?
Speaker 3: How would she be in court?
Speaker 2: Emotionally, how would it affect her?
Speaker 3: How would you be?
Speaker 2: Counselor, would you do the trial again if it's a
Speaker 2: hung jury? Anyway, that was the lawyer being asked, the
Speaker 2: lawyer for the mom who killed her kids, being asked
Speaker 2: about this whole, the jury can't come to a deliberation,
Speaker 2: they told the judge. The judge said, get back in
Speaker 2: there and get to work. Let's turn to our legal correspondent.
Speaker 2: He was a judge in the mean streets of Alameda County,
Speaker 2: Calunicornia for years, now retired Larry Goodman. Judge Larry, how
Speaker 2: are you, sir?
Speaker 6: Doing well.
Speaker 3: Okay, so the jury comes back and says, we can't.
Speaker 3: He's an idiot. They're idiots. No, we can't agree. No verdict.
Speaker 3: And the judge says, get back in there.
Speaker 6: Wow.
Speaker 3: How does that work?
Speaker 6: You definitely, after a trial this long, you send them
Speaker 6: back and Sometimes you'll fashion an instruction. They used to
Speaker 6: have what they called an Allen instruction, but they don't
Speaker 6: use that anymore. Very few judges use it. And you
Speaker 6: tell them, you know, we spent a lot of time.
Speaker 6: You need to go through each piece of evidence, each witness,
Speaker 6: go back and see if you can't reach your verdict. And,
Speaker 6: you know, you never know whether it's like one person
Speaker 6: that's just refusing to vote a certain way or whether
Speaker 6: it's divided equally, so you just send them back and
Speaker 6: hope for the best.
Speaker 2: So they wouldn't tell the judge that? When you're a judge,
Speaker 2: you have no idea what's going on with the jury,
Speaker 2: so you wouldn't know if it's one knucklehead or if
Speaker 2: it's a 6-6?
Speaker 6: Generally, you don't know. Sometimes you'll ask them without saying
Speaker 6: which way it is, how are you divided? Like 9-3
Speaker 6: or whatever, but you can't say 9 for guilty, 3
Speaker 6: for not guilty. Sometimes you'll say, how are you divided?
Speaker 6: And if they say, like, 11 to 1, then you
Speaker 6: start thinking there's this one person. And then, who knows,
Speaker 6: then four persons send you a note that says, we
Speaker 6: have this one person that's not deliberating in good faith.
Speaker 6: And that creates a whole other can of worms.
Speaker 2: Now, I jack him a dope. Keep that in mind.
Speaker 2: What's a hung jury? What's a hung jury compared to
Speaker 2: what this is?
Speaker 6: Well, a hung jury is when they actually come out
Speaker 6: and say, there is no way that we can reach
Speaker 6: a verdict. We are hung. and then the judge declares
Speaker 6: a mistrial.
Speaker 3: So they're on their way to that.
Speaker 6: They're hung now. It's just not official yet.
Speaker 2: And then how many times can they say, we can't
Speaker 2: come to a conclusion, and you can say, get back
Speaker 2: in there and work. Try harder. I mean, is there
Speaker 2: a limit?
Speaker 6: No, there isn't, really. I mean, at some point, you
Speaker 6: start creating your own chaos by making people go back
Speaker 6: and try to do the impossible, at least what's impossible
Speaker 6: in their mind. So You know, a couple of times maybe.
Speaker 6: And you can tell by looking at the jury, if
Speaker 6: it's like one or two people, when they come back in,
Speaker 6: the other jurors will start looking at them and stuff.
Speaker 6: And you can kind of read the room, but you
Speaker 6: just don't know.
Speaker 2: Well, we got this report from Aaron Katursky, ABC News,
Speaker 2: saying some jurors looked weary. So they're probably looking at
Speaker 2: pictures of strangled little kids, right? I mean, that would
Speaker 2: wear on you.
Speaker 6: Well, yeah, and plus they've been sitting there for a
Speaker 6: long time already looking at the pictures of strangled children
Speaker 6: and hearing all the details, and they go into a
Speaker 6: small room with just the 12 of them and rehash
Speaker 6: the thing all over again. Let me jump in, Larry.
Speaker 3: You were the judge. I was on several juries. It
Speaker 3: is a long, frustrating, circular discussion for hours and hours
Speaker 3: and hours. That's why they look fatigued, because you want
Speaker 3: to be anywhere else but there after a little while.
Speaker 6: They didn't want to be there in the first place,
Speaker 6: most of them. So, yeah, you're right. So, yeah, it is.
Speaker 6: I mean, you go around the table and everybody expresses,
Speaker 6: and it depends on who the foreperson is and how
Speaker 6: organized or how respected they are by the other jurors.
Speaker 6: It's just a great big black hole that you don't
Speaker 6: really know what goes on in there. It's like making sausage.
Speaker 6: You don't want to know how it comes out or
Speaker 6: what goes into the ingredients as opposed to the final result.
Speaker 3: I'm not surprised that this is going on with this trial.
Speaker 3: What's your thoughts on that?
Speaker 6: I'm not surprised at all. I mean, considering the topic
Speaker 6: of the trial, the three dead children, all the mental
Speaker 6: health issues and stuff, it would be very tough to
Speaker 6: get 12 people to say, yeah, this was premeditated first-degree murder.
Speaker 6: It's going to be at a very high bar.
Speaker 2: Well, even without that, I mean, unless Fox misled me
Speaker 2: this morning, I was watching that, and they were talking
Speaker 2: about all the different conclusions they could come to. Well,
Speaker 2: I mean, if it was just she's guilty of murder
Speaker 2: or not, okay, that's an argument. But if you've got
Speaker 2: to get into manslaughter versus second-degree versus guilty but guilty
Speaker 2: mentally ill. I mean, now you're cutting it a lot thinner.
Speaker 2: I can see how it'd be very difficult.
Speaker 6: Well, that may be partially a judicially created problem. I
Speaker 6: still don't understand how you get to manslaughter with this case.
Speaker 6: And by throwing that instruction in there and making that
Speaker 6: a possible verdict, that may have caused even more problems
Speaker 6: because there may be people that don't want to really
Speaker 6: find her guilty of first or second or first degree murder.
Speaker 6: Maybe second, they don't want her to go to a
Speaker 6: so they're trying to hang their hat on manslaughter, and
Speaker 6: other jurors are probably going like, how do you even
Speaker 6: get there? So that may have been a problem he created.
Speaker 3: Right, so you could easily have three different camps in
Speaker 3: the jury room trying to convince others to come in
Speaker 3: their direction. Yeah, good luck with that.
Speaker 6: Well... I mean, theoretically, four first degree, second degree manslaughter,
Speaker 6: not guilty and not guilty by not guilty by reason
Speaker 6: of insanity. I mean, you can go the whole gamut.
Speaker 2: Yes. Five different options, according to Fox and what you
Speaker 2: just said. And yeah, I could see how you could
Speaker 2: get into some pretty intricate discussions of what crosses the
Speaker 2: line from level two to level three or whatever.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Wow.
Speaker 6: Wow.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 6: They don't want to walk out. I'm sure the jury
Speaker 6: is feeling pressure of trying to do something. And that
Speaker 6: just makes it more tense.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Larry Goodman, retired judge for the Superior Court, Alameda County, California. Larry,
Speaker 3: great to talk to you again. Thanks for the insights.
Speaker 5: Sure.
Speaker 6: You guys take care. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: There's just there are too many variables in that math
Speaker 3: equation for a jury.
Speaker 2: That's all right. I mean, when you got that, was
Speaker 2: OJ just a straight up or down murder or not?
Speaker 2: I don't think so. But anyway, if you got that,
Speaker 2: then then you might have one of the scenarios like
Speaker 2: you're presenting where you just got one holdout knucklehead who
Speaker 2: can't deal with facts or something. But man, if you
Speaker 2: got five different choices, I could see getting into some
Speaker 2: serious conversations with some smart people who can deal with
Speaker 2: facts where it's no, I think this is second degree this. No,
Speaker 2: I think it's blah, blah. I mean, that's some you're slicing.
Speaker 2: It's a lot thinner.
Speaker 3: Oh, yeah. Wow.
Speaker 6: Wow.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 3: Terrible.
Speaker 7: That would be tiring.
Speaker 3: Human beings do two things. They think too little, and
Speaker 3: they overthink.
Speaker 2: I know I do.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: On almost every occasion.
Speaker 3: I think this case is an example of that.
Speaker 2: Overthinking, you think?
Speaker 3: Yeah. She killed three children. Period.
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty. The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 2: People are going to want to know.
Speaker 3: People have a right to know.
Speaker 2: Carbon monoxide alarm goes off.
Speaker 3: That was a smoke alarm, actually. Oh, okay.
Speaker 2: It wasn't a carbon monoxide.
Speaker 4: No smoke.
Speaker 3: It was a wayward alarm. My alarm's been very tense lately.
Speaker 3: It's anxious. It drinks too much Red Bull. No, I
Speaker 3: have no idea. Because they go off sometimes.
Speaker 2: I don't even know if I have a carbon monoxide
Speaker 2: alarm in my house.
Speaker 3: I know we do because it's code, but you have to.
Speaker 3: You absolutely have to.
Speaker 2: I'm a renter, so I don't have any idea.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Anyway.
Speaker 3: Who knows? It was a fire alarm.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 2: When did carbon monoxide things become a... And what causes that?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: 1998.
Speaker 2: How often does that happen?
Speaker 3: Oh, it's all the time. People go left and right.
Speaker 3: It doesn't happen much, but there are fatalities from it.
Speaker 3: It's terrible when it happens, but it's real.
Speaker 2: I'm sure.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Katie?
Speaker 5: I will let you know that I have had several
Speaker 5: correspondence with listeners who alf. some alarm was going off
Speaker 5: in their house i think.
Speaker 3: People across america thought and i apologize for that i
Speaker 3: i will i vow this will i take full responsibility you're.
Speaker 2: Like orson wells in the war of the worlds i
Speaker 2: mean you cause a lot of panic nationwide.
Speaker 3: Yes uh Okay, so before I was so rudely interrupted
Speaker 3: by my wayward smoke alarm, we were discussing James Lindsay's
Speaker 3: absolutely brilliant kind of dissection of why college finance got
Speaker 3: so insane and why everybody's so far in debt and
Speaker 3: Gen Z is now saddled with debt and wants to
Speaker 3: become communists and whatever the hell else. So if you
Speaker 3: missed the first part, it was segment one of this hour,
Speaker 3: Armstrong and Getty on Demand. You ought to subscribe because
Speaker 3: then it auto-downloads and it's effortless to listen whenever you want.
Speaker 3: But anyway, so he was talking about how People got
Speaker 3: into school just to buy the zillions because the money
Speaker 3: was now essentially free. It was backed by the government.
Speaker 3: It felt free. And a lot of people who really
Speaker 3: probably weren't cut out for a rigorous college education started
Speaker 3: to go into these critical theory majors, women's studies, queer studies,
Speaker 3: you know, whatever, you know, ethnic studies. Right. Right. Absolutely.
Speaker 2: Of course, buyer beware. They're telling you what it is
Speaker 2: and you decide to buy it. So I guess.
Speaker 3: And then we also talked about how colleges competed by
Speaker 3: offering more and more cool, luxurious accommodations and services and
Speaker 3: gyms and better food and the rest of it. And
Speaker 3: picking up with James, in servicing these natural but ultimately
Speaker 3: adolescent mismatched priorities of 17-year-olds who had no reason whatsoever
Speaker 3: at the time to fear an unaffordable future, the colleges
Speaker 3: and universities actually accrued insane amounts of long-term mortgage debt
Speaker 3: at this time to fund the rapid building of all
Speaker 3: these new ultimately necessary luxury infrastructure expansions, which locked them
Speaker 3: into needing, not just wanting, that free-flowing federal money. So
Speaker 3: hundreds of millions of dollars was typical. on a single
Speaker 3: college campus, to expand and luxurize their facilities.
Speaker 2: I live where there is a major college, and I
Speaker 2: remember when they made USA Today, because they put up
Speaker 2: their new dorms that I drive by every single day
Speaker 2: that were like a five-star hotel, and I thought, what
Speaker 2: are we doing here?
Speaker 1: Why?
Speaker 2: Right, right.
Speaker 3: So, they were betting that the quasi-monopoly money trend would
Speaker 3: just keep flowing approximately forever by making these investments in
Speaker 3: the luxuries. Tuition rose in response pretty much without any
Speaker 3: natural control on it because every student could find a
Speaker 3: federally underwritten loan that provided the lender no risk, but
Speaker 3: left the student with all the debt. That is, the
Speaker 3: adults in the room, who would be the government, mortgage lenders,
Speaker 3: and university upper administrations, took absolutely no action whatsoever that
Speaker 3: could be regarded as responsible by any real metric. The
Speaker 3: government collapsed an incentive ecosystem based on some idiotic vision
Speaker 3: of the experts, and everyone just followed the broken incentives.
Speaker 3: Those whack job critical majors, meanwhile, rapidly expanded with these
Speaker 3: new inept students, filling the universities with an activist generation
Speaker 3: and recruitment system. that basically transformed the whole university from
Speaker 3: the inside out, both at the level of faculty and students.
Speaker 3: These people need surprisingly high levels of administration and demanded
Speaker 3: it in like kind. The transformation of our universities into
Speaker 3: woke seminaries is more or less fully on the back
Speaker 3: of the student loan decision.
Speaker 2: All that other stuff had more or less occurred to me.
Speaker 2: That hadn't occurred to me. That creating all these nonsense...
Speaker 2: majors and bringing in this crowd is what changed the
Speaker 2: politics in such a nutty way.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I didn't. Yeah, that's interesting.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: It made it so easy. So tuition costs rose at
Speaker 3: an average of two to eight times inflation because of
Speaker 3: this government created bubble, which loaded debt on the students.
Speaker 3: who had struggled to carry it for the rest of
Speaker 3: their lives by removing the incentives to be responsible from
Speaker 3: the lenders. Textbook companies wanted in on the gravy train,
Speaker 3: started jacking up the prices of books, which loans also covered.
Speaker 3: These two sectors are the second and third highest price
Speaker 3: increases in the entire economy after hospital care since 2000.
Speaker 2: Wow, the fact that it's even as crazy as it
Speaker 2: is it's behind hospital care is amazing. That's its own
Speaker 2: different topic.
Speaker 3: And as long as he's rolling, the really evil part
Speaker 3: of this, by the way, James Lindsay writes, is that
Speaker 3: the federal government wasn't creating a taxpayer-funded subsidy, a.k.a. free
Speaker 3: money in the usual sense. It was actually creating something
Speaker 3: infinitely worse. The students themselves, as is morally right in
Speaker 3: the narrow sense, would shoulder their own debt, which they'd
Speaker 3: have unlimited access to because the lenders were absolved of
Speaker 3: their natural lending risks. The universities pocketed all this money,
Speaker 3: but they even outspent themselves. So speaking of the universities
Speaker 3: going woke, it gets worse. The corner the universities had
Speaker 3: painted themselves into while saddling our two youngest adult generations
Speaker 3: with terrible debt and lying to them about their career
Speaker 3: prospects to keep the money flowing was so tight that
Speaker 3: they couldn't afford to lose students. So by 2005 or so,
Speaker 3: this was something like a crisis situation for the university's budgets,
Speaker 3: even though tuition had exploded in ways that made people's
Speaker 3: heads spin. The better student services competition to attract and
Speaker 3: to keep students didn't stop it became even more crucial
Speaker 3: and reckless.
Speaker 2: And so then the next step of that, you are right,
Speaker 2: you began the right way with the road to hell
Speaker 2: being paved with good intentions. Because the trail of all this,
Speaker 2: through changing the politics on the college campuses toward them
Speaker 2: graduating with useless degrees, and they were misled about their
Speaker 2: prospects of going out there and making a living, is
Speaker 2: why they've all become socialists.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, indeed. And I also point out that back
Speaker 3: in the day, I happened to go to the University
Speaker 3: of Illinois, and the accommodations were quite stark indeed, and
Speaker 3: we had a hell of a good time. But the
Speaker 3: attitude was, screw around, get out. There's like 10,000 people
Speaker 3: who want your slot. And yeah, you got a B
Speaker 3: because you didn't get an A. Quit whining. And this
Speaker 3: is not the kid's fault. As you point out a
Speaker 3: thousand times, Jack, they didn't raise themselves. The universities went
Speaker 3: from a posture like that that demanded work and excellence
Speaker 3: and blah, blah, blah, to essentially very much like a
Speaker 3: luxury resort you might go to for your anniversary trip
Speaker 3: with your sweetheart or whatever. It became a service with finicky,
Speaker 3: cash-rich customers as opposed to the traditional university relationship. And
Speaker 3: it all continued to spiral to the point we're at
Speaker 3: right now. And the kids really are screwed with the
Speaker 3: student debt. They had worthless majors that will never make
Speaker 3: them any money whatsoever. And they have enormous amounts of debt.
Speaker 3: But the idea that how we cure this is to
Speaker 3: cancel their debt and not reform any of those underlying
Speaker 3: problems we've been talking about. That's obscenely idiotic governance. Just obscene.
Speaker 2: Well, it'd be a lot easier to remake the finance
Speaker 2: system than it would be to remake the culture of.
Speaker 2: We don't hand out A's. You got to do lots
Speaker 2: of homework. This is going to be really hard. Only
Speaker 2: smart people are willing to work really, really hard are
Speaker 2: going to get degrees, etc. That culture will be really
Speaker 2: hard to change.
Speaker 3: Yes, given and James went a little light on this,
Speaker 3: but given the change in the faculty and administration, they're
Speaker 3: all leftists. They're all socialists slash communists, not all, but
Speaker 3: virtually also. They have no taste, no desire to reform it.
Speaker 3: This is why, you know, I'm always saying just bulldoze,
Speaker 3: bulldoze all the universities. or turn them into shopping malls
Speaker 3: or gyms or affordable housing or something like that. I
Speaker 3: don't know how you reform this. Well, you know how
Speaker 3: you reform it. On an individual level, friends, you send
Speaker 3: your kids to the schools that are still real schools
Speaker 3: that provide real education and in programs that make sense.
Speaker 2: I want to talk about testosterone coming up from an
Speaker 2: article I read. It's based on Pete Hegzeth talking about
Speaker 2: Was it going to give out testosterone or a testosterone
Speaker 2: check or whatever? But anyway, that was like the reason
Speaker 2: for the article. I thought the main part about the
Speaker 2: drop in testosterone among males and what it does was
Speaker 2: really interesting. You might be able to relate to it.
Speaker 3: I don't have any as I've disclosed before.
Speaker 2: Zero T.
Speaker 3: Zero T. Yeah.
Speaker 2: We're all a lot lower than we would have been before. 10, 20, 30, 40,
Speaker 2: 50 years ago. A lot lower than we would have
Speaker 2: been 50 years ago.
Speaker 3: There's six-year-old girls look at me and say, what a wuss.
Speaker 3: It's terrible.
Speaker 2: Yo.
Speaker 4: Yo.
Speaker 2: Okay, stay tuned for all that.
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty. The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 7: A jury finding Dwayne Keefy D. Davis guilty, even though
Speaker 7: he did not pull the trigger.
Speaker 2: Guilty of first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon.
Speaker 7: Prosecutors argued Davis ordered the hit on Shakur and provided
Speaker 7: the gun, saying he was working security for Sean Diddy Combs'
Speaker 7: Bad Boy Records and was angry about his nephew being
Speaker 7: roughed up by a group including Shakur and record executive
Speaker 7: Suge Knight Davis maintaining his innocence.
Speaker 2: So after all these years, 30 years. They got somebody
Speaker 2: for the killing of Tupac Shakur. 30 years. He had
Speaker 2: to think he got away with it. it, didn't he?
Speaker 3: But then he didn't he mention it in his book?
Speaker 2: Yeah, but yeah, he he mentioned it to a number
Speaker 2: of interviews and put it in a book. But he
Speaker 2: says that was just to sell books.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 2: Well, not a good idea. Not a good idea if
Speaker 2: you're actually guilty to put it in a book. I
Speaker 2: would say I wouldn't I wouldn't play that whole. I
Speaker 2: wonder if I can get money off a claim and
Speaker 2: I'm guilty if I am guilty.
Speaker 3: Yeah, not many beefs in the world of like rock
Speaker 3: and all the country that I existed in. There's very
Speaker 3: few beefs worth even like throwing a beer on somebody. Yes, Katie.
Speaker 5: So there the Diddy documentary that came out last year,
Speaker 5: it's called Sean Combs, The Reckoning. breaks down exactly how
Speaker 5: this whole thing happened. And Diddy had a lot to
Speaker 5: do with it, and I'm not too sure how he's
Speaker 5: just kind of floating by and not getting any charge
Speaker 5: on this at all.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's kind of interesting because often they get the,
Speaker 2: you know, when it comes to mafias and it's a
Speaker 2: very similar sort of situation, that person at the top
Speaker 2: who was ordering these hits is the guy that gets dinged.
Speaker 5: Well, yeah, it would be conspiracy to commit murder.
Speaker 3: Although in this case, it sounds like it was just
Speaker 3: a lower level beef and somebody went off the reservation
Speaker 3: and settled a score, perhaps without permission. Don't know.
Speaker 2: So when Biggie Smalls got killed outside the Peterson Auto
Speaker 2: Museum in L.A., that was a response to Tupac's death?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Retaliation.
Speaker 5: According to the documentary that I watched, yeah.
Speaker 2: So we worked, I won't say where, but one of
Speaker 2: the many buildings we've worked radio in, Big City. they
Speaker 2: had one of the most popular hip-hop stations in America.
Speaker 2: And because of that, the hallways had a locked door
Speaker 2: like every 30 feet as you walked around the building.
Speaker 2: You had to use your little key card, not just
Speaker 2: to get into the front door like it is at
Speaker 2: this radio station. I came in the front door, and
Speaker 2: once you're in, you're in. And you can walk all
Speaker 2: around and do anything you want and go to the
Speaker 2: bathroom and go get coffee or whatever you want. But
Speaker 2: in that particular building where the popular hip-hop station was,
Speaker 2: because they regularly had hip-hop artists in there, and they
Speaker 2: were worried about shootings and fights bringing out if their
Speaker 2: posse ran into their posse you had to have a
Speaker 2: key card to go like every 30 feet throughout the
Speaker 2: building it was it was like being in a prison yeah.
Speaker 3: It was like dealing with inmates you know you had
Speaker 3: to keep the uh you know the this group away
Speaker 3: from that group so you'd move them very carefully and
Speaker 3: know where each are and there was no freedom of
Speaker 3: movement you wouldn't you couldn't have one of the posse
Speaker 3: of your guest doing an interview wandering around the hallways
Speaker 3: isn't that crazy yeah it's crazy I mean.
Speaker 2: Like, when we would work from the studio to go
Speaker 2: to the bathroom, I remember counting one time, I think
Speaker 2: I had to go through four locked doors to go pee.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: And then come back the same way.
Speaker 3: There are subcultures in America who settle minor disputes with
Speaker 3: deadly violence.
Speaker 2: That's wild. How much time have I got, Michael? We've
Speaker 2: got about four minutes. Oh, plenty of time for this, then.
Speaker 2: So the point of this article was to get into
Speaker 2: whether or not Pete Hegzeth doing testosterone checks on men
Speaker 2: was a constitutional right or whatever, that political issue. I
Speaker 2: just thought the stuff about the drop in testosterone among
Speaker 2: men was interesting and what it does for you. Because
Speaker 2: I'm a big proponent of testosterone. I did it for
Speaker 2: a couple of years. I went off. I didn't want
Speaker 2: to go off. I went off in December because they,
Speaker 2: this is embarrassing. So they have to get a blood
Speaker 2: test from you every so often to keep you on it.
Speaker 2: In case you're, you know, causing some harm or something
Speaker 2: like that, because it's a legit. They don't want to
Speaker 2: get sued. And for whatever reason, I just couldn't bring
Speaker 2: myself to do my home blood test because I got
Speaker 2: a needle phobia. And I put it off so long
Speaker 2: that they cut me off and I finally just got
Speaker 2: back on. So it's in the mail and I'll get
Speaker 2: back on here in a couple of weeks. But so
Speaker 2: I spent nine months off, which was handy because then
Speaker 2: I got to get a baseline of my. all my
Speaker 2: labs and everything like that with my doctor so he
Speaker 2: could keep an eye on it and everything. Yes, Katie?
Speaker 5: Is this that mechanism you stick in your shoulder and
Speaker 5: it drains? Because I assume they're not going to ask.
Speaker 2: You to find a vein. That one I liked. They
Speaker 2: got this one for your finger that actually hurts. Oh, okay. Anyway,
Speaker 2: so when I had to get my physical by a
Speaker 2: regular doctor, he said, this part of the story doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: But anyway, I was on testosterone for a couple of years.
Speaker 4: Off.
Speaker 2: Noticed a huge difference. Huge difference. And then I'm going
Speaker 2: back on it soon. But so as it says in
Speaker 2: this article here, testosterone levels in men have been dropping
Speaker 2: like crazy just between 99 and 2016. So this is
Speaker 2: in the modern era. You go back to like 1970
Speaker 2: and it's really troubling. But just from 99 to 2016,
Speaker 2: among young men, testosterone fell by 25 percent since the
Speaker 2: turn of this century. Only 4% had low testosterone in 99.
Speaker 2: Now it's 20%, a five-fold increase. And it seems to be,
Speaker 2: the decline seems to be accelerating. That's shocking. It is shocking.
Speaker 2: And are we going to do anything about it? And
Speaker 2: they used to tie it in. They thought it was
Speaker 2: the obesity thing, but they've since decided that that's not it.
Speaker 2: It's some of it, but it's definitely not the main reason.
Speaker 2: So they don't know what the main reason is. But
Speaker 2: what I really... So when I brought it up with
Speaker 2: my doctor doctor, not the doctors at these websites you
Speaker 2: go to to get on testosterone or ZipBound or whatever
Speaker 2: you want to get on.
Speaker 3: Dr. Rubberstamp.
Speaker 2: They're real doctors, but yeah, they're rubber stamps. Um, my
Speaker 2: real doctor said, he said, yeah, I have so many
Speaker 2: guys that are on it because they just feel blah
Speaker 2: and they don't like feeling blah. And then they get
Speaker 2: on it and they don't feel blah anymore. And it
Speaker 2: talked in here about drive and motivation. Men rely on
Speaker 2: testosterone for dry drive and motivation. And when it falls,
Speaker 2: your motivation falls and you just don't have the vim
Speaker 2: and vigor for life that you once had. And when
Speaker 2: I was on it, so. You know, some people go
Speaker 2: on and lift weights. You can gain muscle faster, all
Speaker 2: that sort of stuff. But even if you're not going
Speaker 2: to exercise, it just makes you feel more energetic and
Speaker 2: like you did when you were 30 or 25 or whatever. Like, hey,
Speaker 2: I feel like getting up in the morning and taking
Speaker 2: on the world.
Speaker 3: Wow, I need some... I've got plenty of vigor, but
Speaker 3: zero vim. And that's... I mean, I'm vimless.
Speaker 2: And that's the concern for the military, is that.
Speaker 2: You know, has an effect on your not just aggressiveness,
Speaker 2: but just like like verve for life, like you're excited
Speaker 2: about life.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the best I can come up with. And I'm
Speaker 3: neither an endocrinologist nor a anthropologist.
Speaker 2: But you told me you were an endocrinologist.
Speaker 3: I know. I know. I'm sorry. I've apologized a hundred times.
Speaker 3: But testosterone is interesting in that risk and danger and
Speaker 3: conflict and combat benefits. Bring it out.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: They don't just use it. Yeah. They bring it out.
Speaker 2: That is interesting.
Speaker 3: Are we not a nation of veal calves in so
Speaker 3: many ways, particularly younger men?
Speaker 2: So it goes the other direction.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: I'm under no threat, so what do I need testosterone for?
Speaker 3: I'll just be a pleasant lump over here.
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty.