Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio of the
Speaker 1: George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty, I'm strong
Speaker 1: and Jetty and he Armstrong and Yeddy.
Speaker 2: I don't want more divisions. And I'll tell you what
Speaker 2: else I don't want. I don't want his negativity.
Speaker 1: I'm sick and tired of it. I'm sick of it.
Speaker 2: The dude's a whiner, right, As we can say to
Speaker 2: our kids as they were growing up, don't be.
Speaker 1: A whining pants, right.
Speaker 2: I got a message to Donald Trump, stop talking America.
Speaker 1: Stop it. Who is that young fire band? Wow?
Speaker 3: Listen to the crowd go wild for Josh Shapiro saying
Speaker 3: tired of hearing Trumps talk in America. First of all,
Speaker 3: First of all, you've got to tone down your Barack
Speaker 3: Obama impersonation. It was okay, you know, nine months ago,
Speaker 3: when you're kind of vying for being the running mate.
Speaker 3: But now that Obama's on the trail and I heard
Speaker 3: him a lot yesterday when you got him side by side,
Speaker 3: it's a little too much that you're just like doing
Speaker 3: a dead on Barack Obama impersonation. But the reason we
Speaker 3: played Josh Shapiro is to compare and contrast to Tim Walls,
Speaker 3: who is on Good Morning America today being interviewed by
Speaker 3: Michael Strahan, the football player. I don't know why I
Speaker 3: keep saying that, because it's not like you can't be
Speaker 3: a football player and go on to whatever other career
Speaker 3: you want to be.
Speaker 1: I think he's probably had a longer career as a
Speaker 1: show host, right, TV show host? Probably?
Speaker 3: Yeah, what was I going to say? Well, he's not
Speaker 3: a trained journalist. I guess that's my point. He didn't
Speaker 3: go to Jay School at Columbia to try to get
Speaker 3: the truth out of these candidates. He is a football
Speaker 3: player and got hired on this show and kind of
Speaker 3: worked his way from sports to personality to interviewing, and
Speaker 3: he's just asking kind of like normal questions.
Speaker 1: I'd much rather have that than somebody went to day
Speaker 1: school at Columbia, I would agree. I think I had
Speaker 1: another point before I got to that. I't remember what it.
Speaker 3: Was anyway, It'll come to me later. Here is a
Speaker 3: little of Tim Walls being asked the same question he's
Speaker 3: been asked many times. Still doesn't have a great answer.
Speaker 4: I call yourself a knucklehead because you've made some statements
Speaker 4: that just aren't true. In a comment about weapon of
Speaker 4: the war that I carried in ward, which you didn't,
Speaker 4: you said that you were in Hong Kong during a
Speaker 4: Tan and then Square massacre when you weren't. You kind
Speaker 4: of chalked it all up to bad grammar or getting
Speaker 4: the dates wrong. But your opponents say you lied to make.
Speaker 1: Yourself look better. Do they have a point?
Speaker 5: Well, look, thirty five years ago, got the opportunity to
Speaker 5: be in Hong Kong, be in China, served twenty four
Speaker 5: years in the National Guard, passionately in an instance talking
Speaker 5: about gun violence in schools on an instance there, Proud
Speaker 5: of the service that I've done, Proud to be a
Speaker 5: teacher in that classroom, Proud to have been very public
Speaker 5: all these years, and owning him when I know said, look,
Speaker 5: I was there in August of eighty nine, and I
Speaker 5: think what you see here you saw in Minnesota. I've
Speaker 5: been elected eight times here. These things have been very
Speaker 5: public for folks here. They see the results of things
Speaker 5: that we passed. We see a state that's a top
Speaker 5: five state for business. We see third best state, top
Speaker 5: three state for raising a child, and we've got the
Speaker 5: best healthcare.
Speaker 1: Just not good at it. See the heavy handedness of
Speaker 1: the I'm trying to distract you. This is irrelevant, but
Speaker 1: it makes me look better. It's just so obvious.
Speaker 3: So he immediately went to the well, look, I served
Speaker 3: in the National Guard.
Speaker 1: I'm proud of that service. What I'm a teacher.
Speaker 3: What we're just talking about you claiming here in China
Speaker 3: at a different time than you said?
Speaker 1: What is what he's trying to do? And this is
Speaker 1: after what.
Speaker 3: A full week of getting beaten up on his answer
Speaker 3: over that?
Speaker 6: What?
Speaker 1: Yeah? And I'm a knucklehead at times, you are knucklehea times.
Speaker 1: We all are most times, it would appear perhaps all
Speaker 1: the time. And what's especially disturbing about that and Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris's utter inability to answer the question what would you
Speaker 1: do differently than the Biden Harris administration is those answers
Speaker 1: are not difficult to construct. He didn't ask an unanswerable question.
Speaker 1: These people are you know? To paraphrase something I read
Speaker 1: earlier from I think it was a Wall Street journal,
Speaker 1: the problem Kamala Harris has is not that she's being
Speaker 1: seen enough. It's that she is being seen likewise Wallace,
Speaker 1: He's just terrible at it. Is not your own damn business.
Speaker 1: Let's hear another question from just a couple hours ago.
Speaker 4: Actually, well, you know, but if it's one thing to trust,
Speaker 4: be some people who say we can't trust him even
Speaker 4: tell the truth about himself.
Speaker 5: What do you say to them? Well, I said, they
Speaker 5: know who I am. I know who I am, I
Speaker 5: know the work that I've done. I know that things
Speaker 5: get get spun in a political environment. But I think
Speaker 5: what they see is if they want to compare that
Speaker 5: talking about immigration policy or seeing the things that Donald
Speaker 5: Trump would say, I think there's a big difference than
Speaker 5: missing a date when you're there and again spinning something
Speaker 5: for a political reason. I'm very clear of who I've been.
Speaker 5: I'm very proud of twenty four years of doing that work,
Speaker 5: and I think going to Congress and working for veterans,
Speaker 5: they want to see it and make the difference look
Speaker 5: a little different. I think people in Minnesota, my students,
Speaker 5: the folks i've worked with members of Congress, they know
Speaker 5: who I am, and they know the policies we put
Speaker 5: in place have made an impact.
Speaker 1: He does that is major Network Morning TV. They are
Speaker 1: taking on water.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he doesn't do word salad like Kamala Harris does.
Speaker 3: He does extraneous details or like non related anecdotes.
Speaker 1: He answers, but all self serving and flattering in a
Speaker 1: way that's again heavy, head't and obvious. The only reason
Speaker 1: you just brought that up is it makes you look good,
Speaker 1: and you're trying to distract me from the fact that
Speaker 1: you're not answering my question. It's just it's not even skillful.
Speaker 1: We'll just punish you with one more of these.
Speaker 4: And Vice President harrisaid, as she told you to be
Speaker 4: a little bit more careful on how you say things.
Speaker 5: Well, I did it, you know, even the other day
Speaker 5: of just speaking passionately about these gun violence situations and
Speaker 5: meeting with these survivors. I've said in the room with
Speaker 5: the Sandy Hook folks, a friend with David Hogg, who's
Speaker 5: been an activist on this. People know in that, and
Speaker 5: then that gets spun him that well, he didn't say
Speaker 5: something true. It was very clear that I was talking
Speaker 5: about these veterans, very clear that I wear you know,
Speaker 5: I wear my emotions on my sleeve, and I do
Speaker 5: think in these positions, whether it be governor or being
Speaker 5: bunch president of the United States, you do need to
Speaker 5: be collect careful. You do need to be a little
Speaker 5: more thoughtful on it. And I think what you see
Speaker 5: as as someone who's been in classrooms a lot, I
Speaker 5: been around coaching a lot. I speak passionately, and I
Speaker 5: think doing that, you need to combine the two.
Speaker 1: So I've become friends with school shooters.
Speaker 3: I don't I don't know what that one was about.
Speaker 3: Do you what they were talking about there? Did he?
Speaker 3: He stepped in it the other day talking with victims.
Speaker 1: Of school shootings. I can't remember exactly what it was
Speaker 1: that he said, and I'm not I'm not hung up
Speaker 1: on that one in that telor. I just his uh yeah,
Speaker 1: I wish I could remember, because I know I read
Speaker 1: about it. But he's I was just going to say,
Speaker 1: coming out of that clip, he's just not major league talent. Correct, Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's not up to the challenges. And you know, I
Speaker 1: can I have some sympathy, at least theoretically that the
Speaker 1: whole vetting process and campaign was super compressed and they
Speaker 1: didn't have time blah blah blah. But Kamala harrisoning, you
Speaker 1: know what's what's a great example of a great decision
Speaker 1: you've made choosing Tim Walls as Vice president.
Speaker 3: Oh boy, Well, that's why we played that Josh Shapiro
Speaker 3: clip right there, because he is major league talent and
Speaker 3: everybody knew yeah, and he continues to spray, you know,
Speaker 3: he's a Jew.
Speaker 1: We can't have a chat a jew on the turn
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. Where's he gonna go on? What are
Speaker 1: you gonna shund a jew into Michigan? What? You can't
Speaker 1: do that in the Democratic Party.
Speaker 3: So if she ends up losing, that will be one
Speaker 3: of the things campaign historians point two as a bad move,
Speaker 3: choosing Tim Walls over Josh Shapiro, who who not only
Speaker 3: is way better at campaigning, but he's the governor of
Speaker 3: the freaking must win state of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: Where he's incredibly popular. Right, although you're you're so right,
Speaker 1: you don't open for I don't know you two by
Speaker 1: doing like a U two imitation. They're in your opening set,
Speaker 1: and Josh Shapiro's got to drop the Obama imitation when
Speaker 1: he's speaking. In fact, when we I didn't know what
Speaker 1: the clip Jack had had chosen, and when he started,
Speaker 1: I thought that's Obama, but he sounds different. Really thought
Speaker 1: it was really the first sentence, I thought it was
Speaker 1: Obama yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: Did he always talk that way and it's just a
Speaker 3: coincidence or did he pick that up from years of
Speaker 3: listening to Obama?
Speaker 1: Is he young? Sixty three? Again, Mike, just the beginning.
Speaker 2: I don't want more divisions. And I'll tell you what
Speaker 2: else I don't want. I don't want his negativity.
Speaker 1: I'm sick and tired of it. Yeah, okay, that's plenty.
Speaker 1: That's just yeah. I thought, why does her mama sound
Speaker 1: like that? That's one hundred percent Barack Obama impersonation. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think it's just that rhythm, that feel of the
Speaker 1: southern preacher kind of that's that's popular.
Speaker 3: I actually saw something the other day from Michelle Obama.
Speaker 3: I meant to grab the audio because it's pretty funny.
Speaker 3: I don't know when she did this, and I am
Speaker 3: predisposed to not like her for some reason, mostly just
Speaker 3: because of the fawning over or it's not her fault
Speaker 3: that everybody fawns over the way they do and talk
Speaker 3: about her being president what and and get her book?
Speaker 1: Why?
Speaker 3: But she was she was on some interview show and
Speaker 3: she was talking about her husband and she said, oh, yeah,
Speaker 3: me and the girls. This is when the girls would
Speaker 3: have been younger and still at home. We all know
Speaker 3: the look. We all know the sound when Dad starts
Speaker 3: to go into his lecture voice and we all look
Speaker 3: at each other and roll our eyes. Okay, here he goes.
Speaker 3: Why'd you get him started? Which I thought was pretty funny.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that brings back such warm memories as sitting around
Speaker 1: the dinner table, which was sacred at the Getty household,
Speaker 1: and how I would launch you in one of my
Speaker 1: screeds about you know, the Constitution or the nature of
Speaker 1: liberty or something like that. And as younger kids, the
Speaker 1: clue was the blank look. Right as older kids it
Speaker 1: progressed to the eye roll, and then when they were
Speaker 1: older still it'd be like, Okay, here we go, and
Speaker 1: we'd all laugh about it because I'm self aware enough
Speaker 1: to know, oh, here I go on a screen, and yeah,
Speaker 1: it's good.
Speaker 3: It's like what Henry said to me the other day.
Speaker 3: You know, Dad, everything doesn't have to be a life lesson.
Speaker 3: I'm explaining to let it happen, Pop, Just a minor
Speaker 3: thing doesn't have to be a life lesson. That is hilarious, beautiful,
Speaker 3: one funny thing before we take a break, just to
Speaker 3: I don't know if you sent this out, Katie or whatever.
Speaker 3: It's a video that I'm gonna send out to everybody
Speaker 3: of a bald eagle landing next to a trump Yard sign,
Speaker 3: which is hilarious, set to the national anthem.
Speaker 1: That's the beautiful part of the video.
Speaker 3: A bald eagle floating down next to a trump Yard
Speaker 3: sign for real.
Speaker 1: The guy just happens to drive by. That is really funny.
Speaker 1: That's a sign. That is a sign from the heavens.
Speaker 1: Oh my god. That is something. Later this hour you're
Speaker 1: gonna hear from Elon Muskin what he thinks is gonna.
Speaker 3: Be the biggest product of all time, which, if it
Speaker 3: works the way he claims it's gonna work, might actually be.
Speaker 3: Among other things, we got on the way stairs, so I.
Speaker 1: Took in.
Speaker 3: A little of Elon Musk's big Tesla event because I
Speaker 3: own a Tesla or care that much. But he was
Speaker 3: going to do some other stuff in addition to that,
Speaker 3: and then I read about it last night. Elon Musk
Speaker 3: unveiled the Tesla cybercab robotaxis that he's going to call
Speaker 3: a cybercab. He actually rode in on one at the
Speaker 3: event and explained how they're going to work and they're
Speaker 3: going to be about thirty thousand dollars and he thinks
Speaker 3: it's the future. Well, maybe I ought to play the
Speaker 3: clip first so I know what's in the clip and
Speaker 3: what's not. And then also these we robot things that
Speaker 3: he displayed to here's Elon from the event last night.
Speaker 7: It'll be as do anything you want, so it can
Speaker 7: be a teacher of babysit your kids, that can walk
Speaker 7: your dog, boi your loan, get the groceries, just be
Speaker 7: your friend, serve drinks, whatever you can think of. Hey,
Speaker 7: we'll do and yeah, it's gonna be awesome. I think
Speaker 7: this will be the biggest product ever of any kind,
Speaker 7: and we've made a lot of progress. You're really going
Speaker 7: to have something spectacular, something that anyone could own at
Speaker 7: scale the the you know, this would cost something like,
Speaker 7: I don't know, twenty thirty thousand dollars, probably less than
Speaker 7: a car. That's my prediction long time.
Speaker 3: So these robots that he had on display, they all
Speaker 3: came walking out. He had like a little I was
Speaker 3: gonna say army of them, which is not the best imagery,
Speaker 3: since I think that's what they're mostly curate. Mostly going
Speaker 3: to be used for by nations. He had these robots
Speaker 3: walk out with him behind the cyber cab that he
Speaker 3: rode out in, which kind of looks like a it's
Speaker 3: got a bit of a look of the cyber truck,
Speaker 3: the way the doors open and everything like that. There's
Speaker 3: no steering roll or anything like that. There's these benches
Speaker 3: you sit in a cyber cab. Anyway, it rolled out
Speaker 3: with him in it, and then a whole bunch of
Speaker 3: these we robots behind him. And then he does that
Speaker 3: little speech where he talks about then they'll be able to,
Speaker 3: you know, help your kids with homework, or cook dinner,
Speaker 3: or fold the laundry, or mow the lawn or all
Speaker 3: kinds of different things, or.
Speaker 1: Reguard the concentration camps and for disobedient human humanoids.
Speaker 3: And he said they're gonna be twenty or thirty thousand dollars,
Speaker 3: which is obviously a big chunk of money. That's not
Speaker 3: like a minor thing to do. But if you had
Speaker 3: an electronic slave more or less, you know, what would
Speaker 3: that be worth for the amount of things that they
Speaker 3: could do.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be this uncomfortable imagery. Can we just say,
Speaker 1: robot wow, I had to go there. I suppose that's
Speaker 1: not the best rated seller. But I don't pay any
Speaker 1: machines around my house. I don't pay my vacuum cleaner.
Speaker 1: There's not a living wage granted to our washing machine.
Speaker 1: I don't consider them slaves.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately, there will be we robot reparations in thirty years. No, no, no, oh.
Speaker 3: But I could actually see a world where it's just
Speaker 3: something everybody has. I mean, you factor into what it
Speaker 3: costs to have a household. You have a house, you
Speaker 3: have a car. Cars are and if you have washing
Speaker 3: and dryer, they're expensive. You have a computer that's expensive,
Speaker 3: all various things, and you're gonna have a wee robot
Speaker 3: that does a whole bunch of different tasks for you.
Speaker 3: I could easily believe that. Yeah, it's absolutely conceivable. You
Speaker 3: can buy it on payments, that sort of thing. I
Speaker 3: don't know how important it is that they dance, because
Speaker 3: he had them dancing in a big cage at the
Speaker 3: end of the thing.
Speaker 1: Again some uncomfortable imagery.
Speaker 3: But to the we cab and then he's gonna he
Speaker 3: had something called a robovan, which is like a bigger
Speaker 3: version where a whole bunch of people sit in there
Speaker 3: with ben sheets, but he said, I think the cost
Speaker 3: of autonomous transport will be so low that you can
Speaker 3: think of it like individual individualized mass transit, which actually
Speaker 3: like to me, he was like, Okay, now I get it,
Speaker 3: individualized mass transit instead of this mass transit that has
Speaker 3: not worked and it doesn't really work in any city
Speaker 3: in America at the scale that they've always claimed. It's
Speaker 3: going to the big city buses and the light rails
Speaker 3: and stuff like that, tons of them driving around mostly
Speaker 3: all the time, at great taxpayer expense. I could see
Speaker 3: these more individualized mass transit going specific directions, which is
Speaker 3: much more handy to you being way more successful.
Speaker 1: I was just planning a trip yesterday in which I
Speaker 1: was trying to figure out does the hotel have a
Speaker 1: shuttle to the airport or should I rent a car?
Speaker 1: Blah blah. I could see, you know, certainly, you're reasonably
Speaker 1: sized hotels having a couple of these things and you
Speaker 1: just hop in in it and say to the airport,
Speaker 1: and it takes you right, just as a service.
Speaker 3: And the one troubling thing about the Wee robot was Okay,
Speaker 3: mow the lawn, make the meals fold the laundry.
Speaker 1: Be a friend. Be a friend.
Speaker 3: Hell, be a friend is an entirely different category. That's
Speaker 3: a completely different thing.
Speaker 1: And you gotta be careful or it'll mow the dog
Speaker 1: and walk the laundry. I mean. On a much more
Speaker 1: serious note, Russia is losing thirteen hundred guys a day
Speaker 1: from the battlefield in Ukraine. Yeah, they'd send in waves
Speaker 1: of robots if they had them. Oh, of course, Oh
Speaker 1: the Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3: We're fishing in the middle of the road because this
Speaker 3: road floods all the time.
Speaker 1: And there's a guy coming behind us in a lawnmower.
Speaker 2: Isn't there.
Speaker 4: That's America I've ever seen it.
Speaker 1: So we've got people fishing in the road. We've got
Speaker 1: a guy on a lawnmower.
Speaker 4: He's doing all right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So we've.
Speaker 2: Got people fishing in the middle of the road.
Speaker 1: I got on a lawnmower in the middle of the road.
Speaker 1: I'm confused.
Speaker 3: How is the lawnmower driving in the road if it's
Speaker 3: deep enough to fish in?
Speaker 1: That's my question. Shallow water on more fishing time there
Speaker 1: in the holler anyway, I ain't that America for you
Speaker 1: and me? So a couple of international stories of notes
Speaker 1: still waiting for Israel to respond. As the spokesman said
Speaker 1: the other day, it will be swift and terrible, but
Speaker 1: mostly surprising above all. Surprising. Yeah, yeah. A couple of
Speaker 1: headlines on that topic. Iran's secret warning to US allies,
Speaker 1: don't help Israel or your next The threats through diplomatic
Speaker 1: channels have prompted to Arab States to tell the US
Speaker 1: they will not aid any attack on Iran.
Speaker 3: I think my guess would be the reaction to that
Speaker 3: of the Arab States is going to be, We've been
Speaker 3: putting up with Iran long enough, let's do it, do it,
Speaker 3: do it now.
Speaker 1: They're not so far. I mean, they're acting as if
Speaker 1: they're making it known we will not do anything to
Speaker 1: help Israel at all.
Speaker 3: There's no telling what's actually being said behind the scenes, though,
Speaker 3: just no telling that's true. I mean again, I have
Speaker 3: said this ten times, but one thing I get from
Speaker 3: reading that David Sanger book, which I'm almost finished with
Speaker 3: the New Cold Wars, is and what we get in
Speaker 3: the press versus the conversations that are going at the
Speaker 3: highest levels between diplomats.
Speaker 1: I don't even know why we even paying any attention
Speaker 1: to it well, and there's no foreign relations. That's more
Speaker 1: a hall of mirrorsy than in the Musslim world. Because
Speaker 1: these regimes, the Gulf States in particular, they understand the
Speaker 1: modern world and they need to cooperate. They need investment.
Speaker 1: They understand Israel's a good partner for stability in the region.
Speaker 1: But they have a significant chunk of their population living
Speaker 1: in the year eight hundred, right, I mean, just as
Speaker 1: fundamentalists as fundamentalists can be. And so they make noises
Speaker 1: and pound their chests and then down with the Zionists
Speaker 1: or whatever. But behind the scenes are making deals. So anyway, yeah,
Speaker 1: what happens, and it hasn't happened yet, is anybody's guess.
Speaker 1: This is so interesting. I've come across this in a
Speaker 1: couple of different places. Iran, now somewhat defanged of its proxies,
Speaker 1: is hiring criminal gangs in the West to try to
Speaker 1: hit Israeli targets, you know, political candidates. I mean, like
Speaker 1: they they're on the record, is hiring some Hell's angels.
Speaker 1: Here's a case where they hired some goons to throw
Speaker 1: hand grenades at the Israeli embassy in Stockholm and at
Speaker 1: a Spanish politician shot in the face in broad daylight.
Speaker 1: And they're hiring drug cartels and criminal gangs to do
Speaker 1: their evil bidding, which is unfortunate. Speaking of crime, completely
Speaker 1: different topic. Oh this from ocin defender Open Source Intelligence Defender,
Speaker 1: great Twitter Accadeyes follow it. According to Reuter's, members of
Speaker 1: the Golf Cooperative Council, including Saudi Arabian Qatar, have spoken
Speaker 1: a senior US officials in recent days requesting that they
Speaker 1: ask you is Real to not launch strikes against Iran's
Speaker 1: oil industry due to fears that Orion would retaliate with
Speaker 1: missile strikes against Golf oil refineries and other facilities. That's
Speaker 1: why Saudi Arabia modern Qatar are so afraid. Anyway, I
Speaker 1: was gonna say, speaking of crime, this is so good.
Speaker 1: Jeff Anderson in the City Journal our FBI crime statistics reliable,
Speaker 1: and his subhead is the agency's process is shrouded in
Speaker 1: mystery and its numbers are often inconsistent. And he talks
Speaker 1: about how the mainstream media has recently trumpeted the Federal
Speaker 1: Bureau of Investigations estimate that violent crime fell three percent
Speaker 1: nationally from twenty two to twenty three. I've heard that
Speaker 1: six hundred times.
Speaker 3: I'm to the point where I completely ignore crime statistics
Speaker 3: because I trust them so little.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would agree, but as Jeffrey Anderson writes, they
Speaker 1: have largely ignored. However, the latest iteration of the Bureau
Speaker 1: of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey, which we talked
Speaker 1: about at length a couple of weeks ago, which found
Speaker 1: a nine percent increase in property crime in urban areas
Speaker 1: over that span, part of a twenty six percent rise
Speaker 1: in urban property crime, alongside a whopping forty percent surgeon
Speaker 1: urban but violent crime that happens to me from twenty
Speaker 1: nineteen to twenty twenty three, so set aside for a moment.
Speaker 1: The media is downplaying of that inconvenient urban crime data.
Speaker 1: Are the FBI statistics really precise enough to make much
Speaker 1: of a reported three percent annual change in violent crime?
Speaker 1: And I thought thought this was so interesting. Trying to
Speaker 1: decipher how the FBI produces its statistics and what those
Speaker 1: numbers even are is a lot like combing through a
Speaker 1: crime scene and searching for clues. The agency's process, such
Speaker 1: as how it tries to estimate unreported figures. So if
Speaker 1: a city or a county or whatever doesn't report it,
Speaker 1: they estimate what those numbers probably are. The hell is
Speaker 1: that has long been a black box, even to the
Speaker 1: Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Department of Justice's actual statistical agency.
Speaker 1: Things have become even more cryptic of late, as the
Speaker 1: FBI has struggled to implement its new crime reporting system,
Speaker 1: adopted nationally in twenty twenty one. That new system makes
Speaker 1: Year to ear your comparisons more challenging, in part because
Speaker 1: only eighty five percent of agencies provided data for twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three. In other words, the FBI is capturing only
Speaker 1: a portion of crimes reported to police. And he gets
Speaker 1: into a fair amount of detail, and we'll have this
Speaker 1: linked at Armstrong and getty dot com.
Speaker 3: Well, so if you start at the local level of
Speaker 3: lots of crimes don't get reported, and then you take
Speaker 3: it on up to the other stuff you're just talking about,
Speaker 3: you could be wildly off.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, it's it's a wild guess. And his main
Speaker 1: premises to accept all of these statistical methodological shortcomings and
Speaker 1: then trumpet a three percent change is insane and.
Speaker 3: Then claim completely invalid and then claim obviously that see
Speaker 3: our policies are working right, yeah, yeah, because crime could
Speaker 3: be so. So that's yet another layer. So even if
Speaker 3: it were true that crime went down three percent, that
Speaker 3: number being so tiny, to claim that any particular policy
Speaker 3: did it would be way too premature because you don't know.
Speaker 3: Lots of things can cause that to go up or
Speaker 3: down a couple of percent.
Speaker 1: Right, and then one final thing that will blow your
Speaker 1: dang mind. But after a quick word from simply Safe
Speaker 1: home Security, which is a coincidence.
Speaker 3: But a happy onever well, tie and look at Jill
Speaker 3: working his magic.
Speaker 1: I'm not anyway, thank you. Simply Safe is such a
Speaker 1: great award winning home security system. It is the winner
Speaker 1: of all the awards. It's less expensive than the old systems.
Speaker 1: There's no long term contracts. It's just such a great
Speaker 1: program and just top to bottom. So my last house,
Speaker 1: I went online.
Speaker 3: I ordered the system for the number of windows and
Speaker 3: doors in the camera and everything that I needed.
Speaker 1: Set it all up myself. Was great.
Speaker 3: Moved added a few things, slightly bigger house and that
Speaker 3: was easy. Set it up myself still great. No contract
Speaker 3: doesn't cost much less than a dollar a day. You're
Speaker 3: gonna love simply Safe.
Speaker 1: And it's worth, you know, emphasizing you took it with
Speaker 1: you because it's yours. It's not like totally embedded in
Speaker 1: the house. And then long term contracts and high prices.
Speaker 1: Pricing is transparent and affordables than a dollar a day
Speaker 1: with no hidden fees. Ever, for the fast Protect Monitoring
Speaker 1: Live Guard protection, it's fantastic protect your home fifty percent
Speaker 1: off new simply Safe system plus free indoor security camera.
Speaker 1: When you sign up for that fast Protect monitoring. Just
Speaker 1: visit simplysafe dot com slash armstrong. That's simplysafe dot com
Speaker 1: slash armstrong. There's no safe like simply safe, all right,
Speaker 1: So listen to this. Would you try to track with this?
Speaker 1: The FBI also has a history of offering multiple and
Speaker 1: often conflicting crime figures, which makes precise cross your comparisons difficult.
Speaker 1: For example, how many violent crimes were committed nationwide in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty fairly straightforward question. The table linked to on
Speaker 1: the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program website. Its source data
Speaker 1: indicates it's two hundred and seventy two eight hundred and
Speaker 1: twelve such crimes. Okay, But the bureau's twenty twenty one
Speaker 1: press release announcing the publication of the twenty twenty Crime
Speaker 1: Data PEG the figure at five thousand more. Then in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, it's press release highlighted the publication of
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty one crime statistics and claimed that the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty figure had actually been ah fifty thousand more.
Speaker 1: Add in the FBI's data discovery tool, which currently lists
Speaker 1: a twenty twenty total as another completely wildly different number,
Speaker 1: and you have four different figures for one.
Speaker 3: Statistic, right, And then again, starting with the idea of
Speaker 3: how many violent crimes were committed in twenty twenty, there's
Speaker 3: no way to have any idea because lots and lots
Speaker 3: of them don't get reported. But of those reported, here's
Speaker 3: our number. And then you still end up with four
Speaker 3: different numbers. And he points out, and I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: That's not to say the FBI is doing anything nefarious,
Speaker 3: but rather that the media is putting too much faith
Speaker 3: in a crime data, or at least by an entity
Speaker 3: that isn't a principal federal statistical agency. That's not what
Speaker 3: they do. Excellent point. And of course their media picks
Speaker 3: out whichever number works best for whatever politic narrative they're
Speaker 3: particularly pushing. And indeed, the Bureau of Justice Statistics National
Speaker 3: Crime Victimization Survey. The NCVS is the one to look to. Okay,
Speaker 3: it goes into towns and cities all across America. Hey,
Speaker 3: were you a victim of a crime?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I was. I didn't bother to report it because the
Speaker 1: cops never do anything that is worth knowing.
Speaker 3: It's interesting yesterday when you said there are neighborhoods where
Speaker 3: if you've gotten if somebody shoved you against a wall
Speaker 3: and took your iPhone and ran off, you wouldn't report it.
Speaker 1: I suppose that's true.
Speaker 3: I'd never really thought about that before, would I.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I would. I think I probably would.
Speaker 3: Probably depends on where I was, if I happened to
Speaker 3: be if I happen to be walking well, like where
Speaker 3: I live, yeah, I would definitely report it. And in
Speaker 3: my cul de Sac that would be weird. But like
Speaker 3: if I'm in a bad area of Oakland for some reason,
Speaker 3: like I left a ballgame, I'm not sure would it
Speaker 3: be worth the hassle of waiting for the cops to
Speaker 3: show up and filling out the paperwork is like before
Speaker 3: I head to my car and go home.
Speaker 1: Probably not? Yeah, I probably not.
Speaker 3: What do I think I'm gonna get out of that.
Speaker 3: There's not a chance I'm getting my phone back. Not
Speaker 3: a chance.
Speaker 1: Not a chance the guy gets arrested, even if they
Speaker 1: caught him with my phone. There's some there are some
Speaker 1: cop shops that will do the find my I phone
Speaker 1: thing and go and confront the people. But I have
Speaker 1: a feeling the peace officers in Oakland are a little business. Okay,
Speaker 1: picks up else your watch, slayings and hackings and that
Speaker 1: sort of thing, your watch or whatever.
Speaker 3: If I'm if I'm in a if I'm in a
Speaker 3: San Francisco on Market Street and somebody knocks me down
Speaker 3: and takes my watch, what good would it do me
Speaker 3: to call the cops other than lengthen my day and annoyance?
Speaker 1: Yeah, a strong arm robbery, I'm thinking I report. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure. I don't know. I've never been there, hope
Speaker 1: I never. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Is pretty crazy though, that that's even a question in
Speaker 3: a lot of places. Well, how about this, Uh speak
Speaker 3: to San Francisco. You you park over there so you can,
Speaker 3: you know, walk along the Golden Gate bridge over there
Speaker 3: on the other side, and your car gets broken into
Speaker 3: just like your brothers.
Speaker 1: Did you call anybody? There's zero points. Not everybody knows
Speaker 1: cars get broken into one hundred and seventy five times
Speaker 1: a day.
Speaker 4: There.
Speaker 3: I think the only the only thing I would think about.
Speaker 3: Does having a I reported it help my insurance claim?
Speaker 3: Other than that it doesn't make any difference.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Hey, yet another controversy at CBS news. Man,
Speaker 1: are they screwed up? They are? They have allowed themselves
Speaker 1: to be dragged far far from journalism as anybody recognizes it.
Speaker 1: Cool the Tiffany Network, Well this is good.
Speaker 3: I like this, and not only does it put pressure
Speaker 3: on CBS, it puts pressure on everybody else to realize, hey,
Speaker 3: this can turn into a big negative story that's going
Speaker 3: to hurt us if we go too far down the
Speaker 3: road of fixing you putting our thumb on the scale.
Speaker 3: So that's good news. Got that and other stuff on
Speaker 3: the way, Stay armstrong, And I need to carve out
Speaker 3: some time for watching television when my kids aren't around,
Speaker 3: because I want to watch some of the new Menendez
Speaker 3: Brothers stuff that's come out.
Speaker 1: There's both the mini series thing and a documentary, Yeah,
Speaker 1: Netflix documentary. I want to see the Penguin on HBO.
Speaker 1: I hear that's really good, But so which one. Have
Speaker 1: you watched Katie one or both?
Speaker 6: So I've watched a few episodes of the series, and
Speaker 6: then I watched the actual documentary that they just put out,
Speaker 6: Brothers Mendez.
Speaker 1: What's your takeaway? The what's his name? Gascone in la is.
Speaker 3: Claiming he's gonna They're gonna be out in time for Thanksgiving.
Speaker 6: Dude, Then then he's he's releasing two killers. They it's
Speaker 6: just the yeah, I did not I I got the
Speaker 6: same vibe as like I do from Scott Peterson saying like, oh,
Speaker 6: I didn't do it. I need to get out of there.
Speaker 6: They they're just they're very slick. Well, nobody who's doubting
Speaker 6: that they killed their parents. That's never been in doubt,
Speaker 6: but just whether or not the parents had it coming.
Speaker 6: And it was basically.
Speaker 1: A yeah, I got the idea, and Katie you can
Speaker 1: confirm her tonight that the tone of the documentary was
Speaker 1: that they were victims of terrible sexual abuse and the
Speaker 1: parents really kind of had it coming and they need
Speaker 1: a new trial and they need to get out or
Speaker 1: is it less heavy handed than that, No, it's it.
Speaker 1: You've you've pretty much nailed it.
Speaker 6: I mean, they're definitely selling it as that these poor guys,
Speaker 6: the life that they had to live prior to this happening, anyone.
Speaker 1: Would be driven to which can't happen. Yeah, it can happen.
Speaker 6: But when you listen to them talk, I mean, it's
Speaker 6: just I don't know, there's something manufactured about what they're saying.
Speaker 1: To me. Mm hm. That's that's your instinct as a
Speaker 1: human being, though I think that you recognized as something.
Speaker 1: But anyway, I want to squeeze some facts in before
Speaker 1: we run out of time. Fact Alan Alan Abrahamson, who's uh,
Speaker 1: he's a he's a writer and covered the original trial
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety three trials there were two of them,
Speaker 1: and his headline is don't feel sorry for the Menendez brothers.
Speaker 1: And he goes into the Netflix documentary and what the
Speaker 1: defense lawyers have put forward. Recently discovered letter written by
Speaker 1: Eric eight months before the shooting that they asserted suggest
Speaker 1: the sexual abuse by the father was on going into
Speaker 1: the brother's teenage years. Is it this so called abuse excuse?
Speaker 1: So what? Lyle and Eric Menendez are stone cold murderers.
Speaker 1: On August twenty, nineteen eighty nine, using shotguns, they killed
Speaker 1: the parents at close range in the Beverly Hills Home.
Speaker 3: Now at least one juror has come out and said,
Speaker 3: if I'd have known of that letter, which wasn't available
Speaker 3: at the time in the trial, I'd have thought differently.
Speaker 3: But you know that didn't necessarily mean anything.
Speaker 1: Yeah, having served on a handful of juries, there are
Speaker 1: lunkheads every morning. You've got to your hardest challenge is
Speaker 1: a juror is dealing with the lunkheads. Then it's the evidence.
Speaker 1: But so this guy who covered the trial says the
Speaker 1: brother's abuse excuses. I wrote in the La Times preview
Speaker 1: piece marked an effort to quote test an emerging legal strategy.
Speaker 1: This is back the original trial that portrays abused children
Speaker 1: as victims a kind of battered woman and justified in
Speaker 1: killing in self defense. Before the trial, I interviewed a judge.
Speaker 1: He told me, in this day and age, it's become
Speaker 1: de regre, meaning it always happens in parricide cases to
Speaker 1: claim this abuse. If you kill your dad, you claim abuse.
Speaker 1: The father has gone, the mother has gone, The sympathy
Speaker 1: lies with the children, and the people in the fourth
Speaker 1: of state tend to make such claims plausible. Let's face it,
Speaker 1: it sells a lot of soap. But then Abrahamson gets
Speaker 1: into the idea that abuse does not justify or excuse
Speaker 1: revenge killing. The legal doctrine is, for instance, an abused spouse,
Speaker 1: you're afraid you're about to be killed, so it's self defense.
Speaker 1: That there's a legal term for it. It's like imperfect
Speaker 1: self defense or something like that. But killing someone isn't
Speaker 1: self defense unless you believe they're about to kill you.
Speaker 1: That's not the case. He goes into the details.
Speaker 3: So if your dad's coming to abuse you again, you
Speaker 3: could kill him in self defense, perhaps, but you can't
Speaker 3: just be angry about it a year later and go kill.
Speaker 1: Him right right. Indeed, about four months after the killings,
Speaker 1: they met with a Beverly Hills psychologist. They talked in
Speaker 1: confidence about why they killed their parents. If ever there
Speaker 1: would have been a time to confide their deepest, darkest secret,
Speaker 1: this would have been it. But no, not once did
Speaker 1: either claim to have been sexually abused. Really, is it
Speaker 1: any wonder that the defense fought for years to keep
Speaker 1: this tape a secret. Instead of saying they were afraid
Speaker 1: for their lives, Lyle said his father had been unfaithful,
Speaker 1: causing Kitty to turn the liquor and pills, so we
Speaker 1: thought we would just kill dad and eliminate the problem.
Speaker 1: And the mother, well, killing her was just putting her
Speaker 1: out of her misery. Really, why said.
Speaker 3: Were they just mentally ill or out? Did both of
Speaker 3: them end up so crazy? Couple of socio paths.
Speaker 6: Well, And one of the things that was that came
Speaker 6: up in this documentary is one of the brothers talked
Speaker 6: about how the reason they decided to go kill the
Speaker 6: parents was because they thought the parents were in that
Speaker 6: room planning to kill them.
Speaker 1: That's the new spin.
Speaker 3: Well, they can't both be delusional with the same delusion.
Speaker 3: That doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: So almost no journalist writing about the case today is
Speaker 1: cited the decision by the US Ninth Circuit Court of
Speaker 1: Appeals in five after the brothers were found guilty in
Speaker 1: the second trial. It destroys arguments advanced on half of
Speaker 1: the brothers. Lyle is dismissed in a footnote quote. In fact,
Speaker 1: evidence that Lyle ever feared his parents is so weak
Speaker 1: in the record that his claim could be rejected without discussion.
Speaker 1: But these an innocent person has been convicted and we
Speaker 1: need to free them. Feel of podcasts and documentaries it's hot.
Speaker 1: It's super hot. So you pick a case, you manipulate
Speaker 1: the facts, you carefully choose this. You're portray it as
Speaker 1: one thing. You shine the light from that side, and
Speaker 1: it's a winner.
Speaker 3: So why did they kill their parents, Katie, You've watched
Speaker 3: enough of this stuff. They're just evil, well because they
Speaker 3: were saying the abuse. But there's a money spind It's
Speaker 3: it's a really tangled web that they're they're showing us
Speaker 3: in this documentary.
Speaker 1: I'll have to check that out.
Speaker 3: If you missed an hour of this show, get the
Speaker 3: podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty