Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2: Armstrong and Gatty, and he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3: This poor guy, you do one, maybe two Nazi salutes,
Speaker 3: everybody gets all bent out of shape.
Speaker 2: We have to make them really afraid. And what's happening
Speaker 2: now with Musk is making them very afraid.
Speaker 3: Such Jimmy Kimmel continuing with the hatred of Elon Musk
Speaker 3: and Tesla and the crowd shared like crazy. And John Kuzak,
Speaker 3: who is one of my favorite actors back in the
Speaker 3: you know, back in the day, with all those charming movies.
Speaker 3: Who is a complete nut job politically, he's an actor.
Speaker 2: They knew we need to make them afraid.
Speaker 3: Who afraid of what? You crack pots? That's domestic terrorism,
Speaker 3: is what you're taught. You're in favor of domestic terrorism.
Speaker 3: You realize, Curious, as we made clear yesterday, was hinting
Speaker 3: to his audience, this is great, keep doing it.
Speaker 2: You realize.
Speaker 3: If your side engages in domestic terrorism to get its way,
Speaker 3: do you know what the response is going to be?
Speaker 2: You freaking numbnuts.
Speaker 3: I don't understand how people don't get these things, then
Speaker 3: the other side is gonna do it too, because they're
Speaker 3: gonna realize that's the only way or a way to
Speaker 3: get your point across. But we're right and they're wrong
Speaker 3: about everything. Say the adolescence, God, you're such a child.
Speaker 3: If you go with that point of view, it all
Speaker 3: falls apart. If we decide domestic terrorism and scaring people
Speaker 3: into either going along with us or being scared to
Speaker 3: not go along with.
Speaker 2: Us, it all falls apart.
Speaker 3: You remember that half wit Maxine Water screaming, let him.
Speaker 2: Know, they're not welcome anywhere.
Speaker 4: If you see them at the gas station, you see
Speaker 4: them at a grocery.
Speaker 2: Star, you know that crap. It's just.
Speaker 3: It's it's it's an ugly time politically. We've been through
Speaker 3: ugly times before.
Speaker 1: There's a different sort of ugly, but yeah, it's it's
Speaker 1: inexcusaal You just have to realize the viciousness and hypocrisy
Speaker 1: of so many people on the left, and you know,
Speaker 1: just advocate strongly for your ideas, do it in the
Speaker 1: right way, don't go, don't stoop to their level.
Speaker 4: And.
Speaker 2: They need to be scared. They being.
Speaker 3: People who support the idea of a department that looks
Speaker 3: for fraud and abuse.
Speaker 2: In government and waste. Yes, I mean back when it
Speaker 2: was uh, I don't know, George Bush war for oil.
Speaker 2: At least if you believed that. You know, you can get.
Speaker 3: Pretty fired up about young men going off to fight
Speaker 3: a war so rich men can get richer, or if
Speaker 3: you believe that or whatever.
Speaker 2: I don't, but you get pretty fired up it.
Speaker 3: You're fired up over Elon Musk trying to come up
Speaker 3: with lists of departments that waste money. Well, as we
Speaker 3: were reading that email from JT last hour. Yeah, fighting
Speaker 3: like hell to prevent the lawful deportation of rapists and murderers,
Speaker 3: for child molesters, fighting to keep graphic gay sex books
Speaker 3: and school libraries, against the notion of cutting a single
Speaker 3: dollar from the federal budget even as tens of billions
Speaker 3: are wasted and abused and handed out to Crony's ready
Speaker 3: to die in the Hill of men and Women's Sports.
Speaker 2: Just nuts.
Speaker 1: They literally thought they could run Biden for a second
Speaker 1: term when seventy plus percent of the country knew Biden
Speaker 1: was too old.
Speaker 2: I said, they've lost their minds.
Speaker 3: I saw a clip of that dude, Charlemagne, the god
Speaker 3: who is held up as a spokesman on the left
Speaker 3: all the time, reasonable spokesman saying in a black America, Yes,
Speaker 3: he said, why are we fighting to keep gang members
Speaker 3: in the United States?
Speaker 2: He is a common sense guy.
Speaker 1: There are times that I think, dude, you've completely missed
Speaker 1: a whole set of facts. But you know, I'm sure
Speaker 1: he thinks the same of me if he's ever heard us.
Speaker 1: But anyway, so, the headline in the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: and in the New York Times today one of the
Speaker 1: top headlines certainly Elon.
Speaker 3: Musk to receive top secret briefing on US war plans
Speaker 3: for China. The Trump advisor is expected to get.
Speaker 1: A look at the Pentagon blueprint, despite his company's financial
Speaker 1: stakes in China and defense contracts.
Speaker 2: I can read. That's from the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 1: The New York Times is similarly declarative and inflammatory that
Speaker 1: this is going to happen, and it's a serious issue.
Speaker 3: Somebody leaked this out to get it in the number
Speaker 3: one liberal news outlet in America and the number one
Speaker 3: Republican news.
Speaker 2: Outlet in America.
Speaker 1: Yeah, to their credit, The New York Times, when they
Speaker 1: have an ongoing story like this, updates at every few
Speaker 1: minutes and their latest update is headlined Pentagon lashes out
Speaker 1: after to report Musk would get secret briefing on China
Speaker 1: and essentially going back to the Wall Street Journal. So
Speaker 1: you got two US officials anonymously of course, said that
Speaker 1: he will receive a briefing on the US military's top
Speaker 1: secret war plans for China. Musk is expected to be
Speaker 1: briefed by these two humans. I guess on how US
Speaker 1: forces would fight in a potential China war, including maritime
Speaker 1: tactics and targeting plans. The official set China will be
Speaker 1: one of several topics to be discussed at the Defense Department.
Speaker 2: One of the official set.
Speaker 3: Well, my first thought when I saw that headline was
Speaker 3: because I read the David Sanger book New Cold Wars
Speaker 3: about Elon's major role in the opening days of the
Speaker 3: war between Ukraine and Russia, where he got Starlink in
Speaker 3: there and really maybe made the difference between Ukraine being
Speaker 3: overrun in those early hours and not Elon alone deciding
Speaker 3: to drop Starlink in there made such a huge difference,
Speaker 3: And I just when I first saw the story, I thought,
Speaker 3: I'll bet it's something along those lines. Hey, Aylon, if
Speaker 3: we in China, went to warn this, how could this
Speaker 3: happened or that happened, or how do you relate that
Speaker 3: to you? That's what I thought, now the fact companies involved.
Speaker 3: I was going to say, there's a lot more fact setting,
Speaker 3: I think before we get to the analysis, and it'll
Speaker 3: take like thirty seconds.
Speaker 2: But so they mentioned that this briefing.
Speaker 1: First of course they mentioned these scary, powerful and expansive
Speaker 1: role in the new administration.
Speaker 2: He's an advisor anyway, it could give him the head
Speaker 2: of Tesla. Do they mention at any point that he's
Speaker 2: the world's richest man. I certainly hope so, because that
Speaker 2: is the key fact.
Speaker 1: It could give him the head of Tesla, which relies
Speaker 1: on China for car production, and of SpaceX, a US
Speaker 1: defense contractor, access to sensitive military secrets unavailable to business competitors.
Speaker 1: That is true if this is at all an accurate report,
Speaker 1: and it depends to what extent it is an accurate report.
Speaker 1: But Musk, according to one person familiar, again anonymous is
Speaker 1: receiving the briefing because he asked for one, yeah, security clearance,
Speaker 1: but isn't in the military chain of command or known
Speaker 1: to be a military advisor to Trump. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: there you go one two, three, four fifth paragraph. Defense
Speaker 1: Secretary Pete Hegzath confirmed Musk would visit the Pentagon, but
Speaker 1: in a statement on x Musk's social media site.
Speaker 2: Not right and I don't know you know this world.
Speaker 3: Reaches Man Hagseth disputed that the presidential adviser would receive
Speaker 3: a senseit of China briefing, saying, quote, it's an informal
Speaker 3: meeting about innovation, efficiencies and smarter production. On the record
Speaker 3: with his name attached to, Pete Hegsath said that in
Speaker 3: a put post on truth social on Thursday evening, Trump,
Speaker 3: again with his name attached, said China will not even
Speaker 3: be mentioned or discussed at the Pentagon meeting. Then we
Speaker 3: get back into various people saying, well, this would be outrageous,
Speaker 3: and that's the headline that Trump to get this big
Speaker 3: giant plan.
Speaker 2: And everybody involved is saying, what, No, he's not.
Speaker 3: So again, he has a security clearance because his rocket
Speaker 3: company is really intertwined with NASA and all kinds of things.
Speaker 2: That we do. He was involved in.
Speaker 3: The biggest war of the last however many years Ukraine
Speaker 3: and Russia in a material way, so that makes sense.
Speaker 3: To me, I could see problems with you know, he
Speaker 3: might say, you know, Starlink would be perfect for this
Speaker 3: when there might be other options out there because.
Speaker 2: He's got a financial interest in it.
Speaker 3: On the other hand, you're going to have a room
Speaker 3: full of senators who have stock in all kinds of
Speaker 3: different companies where they're going to say, I think this
Speaker 3: would be a good idea, and they know whether or not,
Speaker 3: you know, the Pentagon's going to decide to go there
Speaker 3: and then go get to go buy or sell stock
Speaker 3: on that information that we don't have. So let's not
Speaker 3: pretend Elon's the only person ever in those meetings that
Speaker 3: has any financial benefit. Well, right, I try very hard
Speaker 3: to have my beliefs built on facts, as opposed build
Speaker 3: my facts based on my beliefs. I think it's interesting
Speaker 3: to your point, which is an excellent one that Elon has,
Speaker 3: for instance, said, before we get back to the main
Speaker 3: threat of the story, the Pentagon should stop buying Lockheed
Speaker 3: Martin's F thirty five jet fighters and shift to large
Speaker 3: fleets of drones. Quote, manned fighter jets are obsolete in
Speaker 3: the age of drones. Anyway, We'll just get pilots killed.
Speaker 3: Lockheed Martin owns a half.
Speaker 1: Of a rocket company that is one of SpaceX's biggest
Speaker 1: competitors in the space launch industry. The Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: points out hinting that Elon is just trying to torpedo
Speaker 1: Lockheed Martin.
Speaker 2: I have no idea if if that's true.
Speaker 3: But okay, now we're going to start pointing out who
Speaker 3: has interests, financial interests, and one policy or another, one
Speaker 3: company or another.
Speaker 2: I don't mind that at all. I think it's a
Speaker 2: good idea.
Speaker 1: But the Wall Street Journal, which has swung unmistakably left
Speaker 1: in their news as opposed to their editorial board in
Speaker 1: their news in the last year or so, I don't
Speaker 1: know what's going on there, doesn't mention that. So I
Speaker 1: just think it's at least somewhat amusing that the headline
Speaker 1: and lead four paragraphs are built on the premise that
Speaker 1: these two anonymous officials, the rank of which the closeness
Speaker 1: of whom to the actual power is not clear at all,
Speaker 1: say oh, yeah, he's getting this top secret to you know, briefing,
Speaker 1: and everybody involved is on the record with their names
Speaker 1: saying no, he's not.
Speaker 2: What are you talking about now?
Speaker 3: I want to keep an eye on this and make
Speaker 3: sure he's not, you know, benefiting financially in some way
Speaker 3: that's unfair competitive wise, be or.
Speaker 1: Because he's been very sympathetic to China as a guy
Speaker 1: who does zillions of dollars of business there. I don't
Speaker 1: want his thumb on the scale of foreign policy either,
Speaker 1: but I don't see any sign that it is.
Speaker 3: But then again, these rooms are always full of people
Speaker 3: that can and often do benefit financial from these decisions
Speaker 3: and have information we don't have.
Speaker 2: I like the idea that has been.
Speaker 3: Proposed before of you know, House members, senators having to
Speaker 3: wear patches or bumper stickers or whatever like their NASCAR drivers,
Speaker 3: of all their sponsors, and you're sitting in the meeting
Speaker 3: and you have to have across your chest like your
Speaker 3: biggest sponsor.
Speaker 2: Google is the biggest one.
Speaker 3: Don't like those word clouds where the word is bigger
Speaker 3: based on how many times it's mentioned. If most of
Speaker 3: your support comes from Google, you've got a big Google
Speaker 3: on your chest, then maybe have a smaller at and
Speaker 3: T over here.
Speaker 1: I can picture Nancy Pelosi in some sort of policy
Speaker 1: meetings say.
Speaker 4: I disagree we need to invest more heavily in Lockheed
Speaker 4: Martin's have thirty fives, but she's wearing a scarf, and
Speaker 4: the chairman of the committee says, Nancy, lose the scarf.
Speaker 4: What No, it's if you're part of my outfit. Take
Speaker 4: off the scarf, lady, and she takes it out.
Speaker 2: Figures a big Lockheed Martin match right there.
Speaker 3: Wouldn't that be hilarious to watch the arguments. I've got
Speaker 3: those those patches on there where they get their money.
Speaker 3: That'd be fantastic. Totally different topic. Word from our friends
Speaker 3: and sponsors at Prize Picks. Hotly cow, you got some
Speaker 3: hot basketball action starting up in the pro ranks, you
Speaker 3: got Bezi ball about to start, and Prize Picks is
Speaker 3: the best way to get action on sports more than
Speaker 3: thirty states and it's easy to create.
Speaker 2: A lineup on Prize Picks.
Speaker 1: All you do is pick more or less than a
Speaker 1: few player stats for your shot to win up to
Speaker 1: one thousand times your money. God, it's really easy to
Speaker 1: shoot off your mouth about who's going to score how
Speaker 1: many points in what game?
Speaker 2: How a bunch of money? Marry your mouth is or.
Speaker 3: Just turn your opinions into money by downloading the Prize
Speaker 3: Picks app. Sign up today and get fifty dollars instantly
Speaker 3: when you play five. You don't even need to win
Speaker 3: to receive the fifty dollars bonus. It's guarantee.
Speaker 1: Prize Picks offers Venmo, Apple pay MasterCard more for quick
Speaker 1: and easy deposits into you account the sports season.
Speaker 2: They pay incredibly quickly.
Speaker 1: All you have to do to get in on the
Speaker 1: action download the app today the Prize Picks app. Use
Speaker 1: the code to Armstrong to get fifty dollars instantly after
Speaker 1: you play your first five dollars lineup.
Speaker 2: You need not win.
Speaker 3: They laid the fifty bucks on you just for playing
Speaker 3: a five dollars lineup.
Speaker 2: Remember that code Armstrong. Prize Picks. Run your game, damn it,
Speaker 2: run your game.
Speaker 3: We got a janitor in Texas who is peeing in
Speaker 3: the office of the water bottles of work, and some
Speaker 3: of the details on this story will probably make you
Speaker 3: hesitate when you get to work today.
Speaker 1: The headline's bad enough, what is what details do we need?
Speaker 1: A man is urinated in my water bottle or what
Speaker 1: he's wearing, what day of the week.
Speaker 2: It is, When details are necessary, You're coming off as
Speaker 2: soft on this sort of behavior. That's the way we're
Speaker 2: reading this Okay, we got a lot more in the waist.
Speaker 2: They tuned a strong climpsing of the ball.
Speaker 5: Down for ten seconds to go fuck court Hunter, hold
Speaker 5: a Zachary got a launch Baker three, We'll go loose,
Speaker 5: scrum Hunter drive please a day not the buzzer.
Speaker 2: Pit's lot it off, mcdee squick the upset? What the
Speaker 2: marsh just began?
Speaker 5: The Cowboys with their first ever NCAA tournament win.
Speaker 6: The twelve seed is moving on.
Speaker 3: You know, we always say, like if you follow March
Speaker 3: Madness and all that sort of stuff, you like the upsets, but.
Speaker 2: Never enough focus on the team that lost.
Speaker 3: Really because you had hopes of playing several games.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, going deep in the end of the tournament.
Speaker 3: And if you're a senior, you thought my athletic career
Speaker 3: is not over all of a sudden, it's over. You're
Speaker 3: done for the rest of your life. And it's a
Speaker 3: pretty I mean it's pretty. The reason this is on
Speaker 3: my mind is my son's boys high school team was
Speaker 3: ranked second in the state in the entire state of
Speaker 3: California and basketball boys high school basketball team and they
Speaker 3: lost their first game against the fifteen seed.
Speaker 1: And so in your world, if I'm doing the play
Speaker 1: by play last night.
Speaker 2: From that point of view, it's.
Speaker 6: Clemson too little, too late. They've lost their best players
Speaker 6: played badly. They're bad players played worse. They're disappointed, their
Speaker 6: fans are depressed. Their coach's job is on the line.
Speaker 4: Jim.
Speaker 3: They're one shot at glory as seniors is over and
Speaker 3: they'll probably never play competitive basketball again.
Speaker 2: Go play it, Albedia Sun, No way you make the
Speaker 2: NBA with a performance like that.
Speaker 3: This is the most disappointing thing that's ever happened in
Speaker 3: your life, which is probably true anyway.
Speaker 2: Oh well, there's two sides of those stories. Certainly we
Speaker 2: got real neat the.
Speaker 3: State is in the Cowboys, so it's probably like in
Speaker 3: the Midwest.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I have no idea where it is. Joe's been saying
Speaker 3: this for years. They invent a new kind of crazy
Speaker 3: every day, or there's probably there's there's a handful kinds
Speaker 3: of crazy to it. Crazy can show itself in such
Speaker 3: very ways, like this guy, Texas Janitor gets six years
Speaker 3: in prison for spreading STDs by peeing an office water bottles.
Speaker 2: Oh that is so gnarly.
Speaker 3: That is one of the worst stories ever. That does
Speaker 3: not involve somebody being murdered. The somebody peeing in the
Speaker 3: water bottles at work. We've come across that a few
Speaker 3: times in our lives. It's awful. The fact that this
Speaker 3: guy's got diseases on top of it obviously makes it
Speaker 3: a whole nother thing. What's sort of weird power thing
Speaker 3: is going on there? It's a it's a cowardly assault, right, yeah,
Speaker 3: very cowardly assault. Six years in prison, and he had
Speaker 3: they pled He pled down a whole bunch of stuff
Speaker 3: to only get six years because it could have.
Speaker 2: Been a lot more.
Speaker 3: He's spread his hep hepatitis too. Oh no, yeah, he's
Speaker 3: he's got herpes and appetitis A. He spread to thirteen
Speaker 3: different women at work by in the water bottles.
Speaker 2: He should be in jail for life. Yeah, that's I thought.
Speaker 2: He just peed. Six years is not nearly enough. Good. Hell,
Speaker 2: that's something they got.
Speaker 3: They got videos of him, and you know, oh, one
Speaker 3: interesting thing about it is you look at a picture
Speaker 3: of him and you think, you know, what that looks
Speaker 3: like the kind of guy that would pee in a
Speaker 3: water bottle at work. He looks like that kind of guy. Yeah,
Speaker 3: try try not to have try not to look like
Speaker 3: a guy who would pee at water bottles at work.
Speaker 2: That's a you know, I don't know how you're getting
Speaker 2: dressed today or your facial hair choices or whatever. But right, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: I'm not even I'm not even. I'm not even gonna
Speaker 2: read this sentence of how they caught him. Oh no,
Speaker 2: that's maybe the worst thing I've ever heard.
Speaker 3: I know how they treat child molesters in prison, how
Speaker 3: do they treat this sort of guy in prison of
Speaker 3: extra judicial punishment? But why would he get why would
Speaker 3: he ever get out? You think that's something that gets fixed. Well,
Speaker 3: I guess I learned my lesson. I I guess I.
Speaker 2: Shouldn't do that now. I was not thinking that guy
Speaker 2: needs to say in prison forever, Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 7: That dramatic crash landing in Toronto, the Delta plane seen
Speaker 7: flipping upside down, We're learning the first officer who was
Speaker 7: flying at the time of the crash had been with
Speaker 7: Endeavor Air, a subsidiary of Delta, for just over a
Speaker 7: year and had just over fourteen hundred total flight hours.
Speaker 7: The FAA requires fifteen hundred hours for commercial pilots, but
Speaker 7: because she had a special aviation degree. She was eligible
Speaker 7: for a certificate allowing her to serve as copilot, which
Speaker 7: is standard practice under FAA guidelines.
Speaker 8: The pilot flying was fully qualified but very inexperience, so
Speaker 8: the weather was challenging. We knew that there were winding
Speaker 8: gusts of up to forty miles an hour, but this,
Speaker 8: frankly should have been handled. There were plenty of other
Speaker 8: aircraft that were landing just fine that day, like that.
Speaker 2: Part at the end.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there are a whole bunch of other planes that
Speaker 3: didn't land upside down. So uh yeah, interesting, I'd.
Speaker 2: Like to know more about that.
Speaker 3: You had one hundred less hours of experience, but you
Speaker 3: got this certificate, So let's a certificate a whole pilot. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I'm interested in general, how much of a role does
Speaker 3: the co pilot have in conditions like that landing a
Speaker 3: small commercial time, how much experience idea that experience you
Speaker 3: need to know you're not supposed to land on your top.
Speaker 1: That's some great commentary there. So, following the polling on
Speaker 1: the various efforts of the Trump administration to cut this
Speaker 1: in that doze elon blah blah blah, one of the
Speaker 1: more interesting results to me and disappointing is that the
Speaker 1: the numbers against cutting the Department of Education or getting
Speaker 1: rid of it.
Speaker 2: I should I go to start doing this every time
Speaker 2: you mentioned Elon's name, I'm gonna give.
Speaker 1: The Nazi salute that looks like you're waving to somebody
Speaker 1: in the distance or saluting Adolf Hitler. And I can't
Speaker 1: decide which one I'll go with saluting Adolf Hitler. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I thought I was trying to dig up the numbers.
Speaker 1: These are roughly correct. I saw them last night. I
Speaker 1: thought I had them handy. But Republicans are staunchly in
Speaker 1: favor about two thirds one third. Getting rid of the
Speaker 1: Department of Education is a fine idea. Democrats, as you
Speaker 1: might guess, are horrifically against it. It's like ten to
Speaker 1: one independence. Interestingly enough, are also strongly against getting rid
Speaker 1: of the Department of Education.
Speaker 2: And so I'd like to hear them reasoning from any
Speaker 2: of those people who are a court it right, right,
Speaker 2: I was, yeah, And that's what I'm going to get
Speaker 2: to if you need to learn, okay, that's not a
Speaker 2: good reason.
Speaker 1: Well right, And on a purely political level, that says, okay,
Speaker 1: we have a challenge of messaging and information to help
Speaker 1: people understand why it's a good idea, which is fine.
Speaker 1: That's part of running the government. You have to be
Speaker 1: able to communicate with the voters. But I think it
Speaker 1: is mostly as you suggested, that people don't have any
Speaker 1: idea what the Department of Education does. That I think
Speaker 1: you would if you were to ask them, you know,
Speaker 1: what does the Department of Education do?
Speaker 2: Or what does it do? X.
Speaker 1: Y and z, you would find out the vast majority
Speaker 1: of voters think that the federal Department of Education provides
Speaker 1: the vast majority of funding for education.
Speaker 2: It gives them their curriculum. Hell, it probably builds the
Speaker 2: schools and furnishes the number two pencils.
Speaker 3: Well, the main thing is what you brought us yesterday.
Speaker 3: It started in seventy nine. So how many people know that?
Speaker 3: Who are saying no, no, no, no, we got to
Speaker 3: have the Department of Education.
Speaker 2: If for thee over the age of like fifty or something,
Speaker 2: you went to school when there was no Department of Education.
Speaker 1: And then Jimmy Carter said, hey, the National Teachers Association
Speaker 1: wants this. It's a bad idea, but what the hell
Speaker 1: we need to win the election against Reagan. So he
Speaker 1: signed it into being with the help of Congress, because
Speaker 1: that's all. And several congressmen we quoted yesterday he said,
Speaker 1: this is a bad idea. Democrats' most older voters have
Speaker 1: no idea.
Speaker 2: They went to school when there was no Department of Education.
Speaker 1: Right, right, So a couple of interesting factoids about the
Speaker 1: Department of Education, what it does and does not do,
Speaker 1: and Republicans in recent decades have helped Democrats expand education
Speaker 1: for various reasons. But the does one point six trillion
Speaker 1: dollars in student debt would make it the fifth largest bank.
Speaker 2: In the United States. Wow.
Speaker 1: The department dolls out two hundred and seventy billion dollars
Speaker 1: a year, which it can use to promote a president's
Speaker 1: agenda and please parochial interests in Congress.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 3: So the way it works is you got your oh,
Speaker 3: they point out in the Wall Street Journal. Some grants
Speaker 3: are based on complicated formulas that reward money squandering states
Speaker 3: like excuse me, California and New York. Title I grants
Speaker 3: are largely based on the number of children in poverty
Speaker 3: or receiving welfare benefits in a state, as well as
Speaker 3: per pupil spending. So this encourages states to expand welfare
Speaker 3: and punishes those that are better stewards of taxpayer money.
Speaker 3: Then you've got school districts and states applying for other grants,
Speaker 3: many of which are redundant. Department employees pick winners and
Speaker 3: losers based on arbitrary and often political criteria that are
Speaker 3: not the least related to student learning. Then strings attached
Speaker 3: to the funds tie up districts and compliance costs and
Speaker 3: red tape as they document well compliance. So and there's
Speaker 3: a huge list of these.
Speaker 1: Grants supporting supporting effective educator development, supporting effective instruction, education innovation,
Speaker 1: and research innovation approaches to literacy. But none of these
Speaker 1: things has been proven to do any good for anybody. Shocking,
Speaker 1: it's a thicket of regulations and bribery for following administration policy,
Speaker 1: no matter how perverse it might be, like restorative justice
Speaker 1: or you must teach DEI in schools. Critical race theory.
Speaker 1: Ron de Santis wrote a great piece recently, Good Riddance
Speaker 1: to the US Department of Education Florida shows how states
Speaker 1: can lead in ensuring children learn. He says abolishing department
Speaker 1: reinvigorating state control of education would enable states like Florida
Speaker 1: to better serve.
Speaker 2: The needs of its students, parents and teachers.
Speaker 1: The President is doing what other Republicans have promised but
Speaker 1: failed to do, and he says, We've led the charge
Speaker 1: in Florida to pursue student focused, parent friendly education policies,
Speaker 1: and we had to take on bureaucratic overhang from both
Speaker 1: the Biden administrations to do it. We abolished common Core,
Speaker 1: which had been pushed by the Obama administration because it
Speaker 1: did not work for our students. Florida replaced it with
Speaker 1: high quality content, rich Standards, Florida's benchmark for Excellent Students Thinking,
Speaker 1: which outlined the state's expectations at each grade level.
Speaker 3: And yes, the best thing about having a homeschool and
Speaker 3: one kid is not having to do the common Core
Speaker 3: math because I don't know how to do it. I
Speaker 3: never got a handle on how to do that math.
Speaker 3: Florida has also worked to end high stakes exams and
Speaker 3: shifted our state testing model to the first in the
Speaker 3: nation progress monitoring.
Speaker 2: Our students are tested.
Speaker 1: At the beginning, middle, and end of the year, providing
Speaker 1: teachers and parents with immediate real time data on student
Speaker 1: progress and allowing the opportunity for interventions before a student
Speaker 1: falls too far behind. Our students have shown significant year
Speaker 1: over year improvements using this testing model. The point of
Speaker 1: it being now that the the you know, money corrupts,
Speaker 1: power corrupts, obviously, and if you have the ability to
Speaker 1: pull the strings of schools around the nation to dance
Speaker 1: to your tune by dangling billions and billions of dollars
Speaker 1: in front of them, you're already so far away from
Speaker 1: making sure. As Dessant has put it, if an individual
Speaker 1: student falls behind, we want to know as quickly as possible.
Speaker 1: That is not all what the federal programs are about.
Speaker 2: They at their.
Speaker 1: Best, they're about all right. We want to see how
Speaker 1: schools are doing, so we can tell them you're not
Speaker 1: doing very well. But even that, if it's well meaning,
Speaker 1: is like it's directed towards school districts as opposed to students.
Speaker 1: The centralized, bureaucratic, red tape ridden, crony rewarding control of
Speaker 1: schools is an awful idea.
Speaker 2: It's a great idea to get rid of it.
Speaker 1: The civil rights stuff, the special needs, the disability stuff
Speaker 1: that can be done in other ways.
Speaker 2: Get rid of the Department of Education.
Speaker 3: Oh, on that front, we didn't talk about this yesterday
Speaker 3: meant to So if you watch any mainstream or lefty news,
Speaker 3: you saw this story day before yesterday. The Trump administration
Speaker 3: has taken Jackie Robinson off of the official website for
Speaker 3: whatever the hell it was. Baseball player Jackie Robinson, who
Speaker 3: was the first black player, and you know, integrated sports
Speaker 3: and all that sort of stuff. The Trump administration has
Speaker 3: an AI program going through all the federal government websites
Speaker 3: and trying to get any DEI out of there.
Speaker 2: And because it.
Speaker 3: Had all this different stuff about African American, this black
Speaker 3: that it had flagged that and taking it off the website.
Speaker 3: Then human beings go back in and look at stuff,
Speaker 3: and when they were aware of the Jackie Robinson thing,
Speaker 3: they put it back on.
Speaker 2: They put it back in.
Speaker 3: The information that exists on government websites. But so I
Speaker 3: was watching the ABC Evening News and lots of news
Speaker 3: sources treated this story the same way the other day
Speaker 3: they did. It must have been a full five minute
Speaker 3: story about how awful it is that Jackie Robinson wouldn't
Speaker 3: be mentioned on federal websites and that they took him down.
Speaker 2: And then they.
Speaker 3: Interviewed Jackie Robinson's grandson and showed clips of playing baseball
Speaker 3: and talked about how fantastic he was and how he
Speaker 3: served in the military and the importance of everyone being
Speaker 3: able to African Americans being on participation. I did this long,
Speaker 3: long story, and then at the very end of the story,
Speaker 3: they said, as of now, Jackie, the Trump administration says,
Speaker 3: once they became aware of the error, they reinstated Jackie
Speaker 3: Robinson on the federal website and he's now back on there.
Speaker 3: Back to you, David, So what were we just talking
Speaker 3: about all that time?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 3: So, why did we just do five minutes on how
Speaker 3: awesome Jackie Robinson was and how awful it would be
Speaker 3: if he was taken down when that's not what happened
Speaker 3: because they'd prepared the report and they really really really
Speaker 3: wanted to run it. Are they're hoping you wouldn't catch
Speaker 3: the last ten seconds where they say, by the way,
Speaker 3: as soon as Trump noticed that, if they put it
Speaker 3: back on there.
Speaker 1: But anyway, there's a killer storm coming your way. Yeah,
Speaker 1: isn't that amazing?
Speaker 3: So friggin' decid, Oh my god, I laughed out.
Speaker 2: Loud at hey.
Speaker 1: And there are things that doje doing by moving too
Speaker 1: quickly and too sloppily that I think are dumb.
Speaker 2: You know, for instance, they got.
Speaker 1: Rid of a bunch of folks in the Energy Department
Speaker 1: who deal with our nuclear arms just when we are
Speaker 1: trying to completely revamp our nuclear arms program and update
Speaker 1: it for the twenty first century and make sure everything's
Speaker 1: good to go in the state of the art technology.
Speaker 1: It was dumb move and a bad one. But you
Speaker 1: either have the oh, I'm.
Speaker 3: Desperately looking for a way to discredit this, or you
Speaker 3: have to me a much more reasonable attitude that hey,
Speaker 3: these are giant changes in an incomprehensibly enormous government that
Speaker 3: squanders money at a rate that you can't even comprehend.
Speaker 1: And yes, there are going to be mistakes made. They
Speaker 1: will rectify those mistakes. They will straighten it out. You
Speaker 1: can't possibly do what they're trying to do without a
Speaker 1: couple of missteps.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not worried about it all. Go too far,
Speaker 2: go way too far. I'm sure we can add it
Speaker 2: back in.
Speaker 3: We seem to have no problem adding back in things
Speaker 3: to the federal government.
Speaker 2: I'm not worried about label.
Speaker 1: This segment of the podcast, Jack believes China should win
Speaker 1: a nuclear war.
Speaker 3: Here's a good tease for you. This is from the
Speaker 3: California Globe. There was a straw poll in the state
Speaker 3: of California.
Speaker 2: Who's the leading What is the leading name.
Speaker 3: For a Republican for gubernatorial candidate in California.
Speaker 2: Here's a hint. Two iNTS, actor and drunk. Those are
Speaker 2: your hints, Oh, Jack, characters, stay tuned.
Speaker 9: Hilaria Baldwind defended lashing out at her husband Alec during
Speaker 9: an awkward Red Carpet interview. She claimed he was manterrupting,
Speaker 9: which sure beats man slaughtering.
Speaker 3: Oh my god, So we didn't talk about this story.
Speaker 3: I heard another radio show. There are other radio shows
Speaker 3: have made great sport of this audio, and I hadn't
Speaker 3: actually heard it.
Speaker 2: I'd only read it.
Speaker 3: So this is on the Red Carpet and they're interviewing
Speaker 3: ancient Alec Baldwin and his much younger, fake Spaniard wife.
Speaker 2: If you don't know that old story.
Speaker 3: She's born and Jack, she's trans Spaniard. She was born
Speaker 3: in America, but then she lived in Spain for a
Speaker 3: while and decided to adopt this accent like she's European
Speaker 3: or something.
Speaker 2: Which some people believe.
Speaker 3: He thought she was European when he married her, so
Speaker 3: it had to be something he found out. Wait a second,
Speaker 3: trans Spaniards are Spaniards anyway, I haven't heard this yet,
Speaker 3: so here we.
Speaker 2: Go for Central and Spanish since yet.
Speaker 10: Okay, yeah, oh my god, you're distracting me right now,
Speaker 10: like now you're just doing that. Why why are you
Speaker 10: distracting me? Yea, yeah, you're just distracting. But oh my god,
Speaker 10: stop you're knowing me. Stop it's not cute. No, he's
Speaker 10: distracting me. You would like walk out of this interview.
Speaker 10: B An need the motherhood notes. You were doing an
Speaker 10: amazing No, okay, go back, let me go back. It's
Speaker 10: all about routine. It's all about routine, and every day
Speaker 10: we strive to be boring and then like un.
Speaker 2: Bring things happen to us.
Speaker 1: Oh that wasn't the good part. That wasn't the good part.
Speaker 1: Oh no, oh it's got it.
Speaker 7: Okay, we want more of this season two, I mean.
Speaker 10: All you No, no, I think we're gonna see you know,
Speaker 10: it's we're going to see how it feels to have
Speaker 10: it be.
Speaker 2: Out there this year.
Speaker 10: Oh my god, when I'm talking, you're not talking. No,
Speaker 10: when I'm talking, you're not talking.
Speaker 2: This is why.
Speaker 10: Yes, we'll have to like just pat him out.
Speaker 7: Of the show.
Speaker 2: No, it's a second. No.
Speaker 3: No, that isn't his wife. That's his sixteen year old daughter.
Speaker 3: And no wonder be his wife, no wonder. He's so
Speaker 3: angry all the time.
Speaker 2: He has to listen.
Speaker 1: How voice were repeating the most lovely poems in the
Speaker 1: English language, it would still be annoying me.
Speaker 2: Now you when I'm talking, you don't talk. I'm talking,
Speaker 2: you're not talking.
Speaker 3: Why does she sound like a high school girl, like
Speaker 3: the most annoying kind of high school girl, the kind
Speaker 3: that's trying the hardest to be like the cool, popular
Speaker 3: girl at age sixteen. You don't you don't understand Spanish culture?
Speaker 3: Jack How old is she? How old is How old
Speaker 3: is Hilario Baldwin? Get that for me, Katie, because she's wow.
Speaker 3: How does he put up with that?
Speaker 2: She's forty one years old?
Speaker 3: Oh my lordy Baldwin from from Boston. What your forty
Speaker 3: one year old wife sounds.
Speaker 10: Like that when I'm talking, you're not talking.
Speaker 2: When I'm talking, jackets are vocal cords. It's that fake act.
Speaker 3: That fake accent comes back when she's yelling at him.
Speaker 2: Not not talking. You're not talking.
Speaker 10: When I'm talking, you're not talking. No, when I'm talking,
Speaker 10: you're not talking.
Speaker 2: What's the matter? You so laudable? Little I read a
Speaker 2: great piece. It was overly serious about dude.
Speaker 3: You granted accidentally, maybe recklessly, killed a young woman, and
Speaker 3: now to cash in on your newfound fame, you're having
Speaker 3: a horrible, unwatchable reality show.
Speaker 2: How about you just lay low for a while and act.
Speaker 1: You're a good actor, that's fine, but why are you
Speaker 1: trotting out like your life which includes a fair amount
Speaker 1: of dealing with the aftermath of that in the show.
Speaker 3: From what I understand, I have a theory he's got
Speaker 3: all these kids with her, he can't stand her because
Speaker 3: you just heard her, who could and he's got to
Speaker 3: leave the marriage. But he doesn't want to look like
Speaker 3: a cad, so he's putting this out there for America
Speaker 3: to see.
Speaker 2: To think, Jesus, Alec, how do you put up with that?
Speaker 2: Every day?
Speaker 10: When I'm talking, you're not talking about Hill. When I'm talking,
Speaker 10: you're not talking.
Speaker 3: I know that got all the attention, but even before that,
Speaker 3: that first clip, just the way she talks, Oh God,
Speaker 3: can you believe this?
Speaker 2: Oh my god, oh my god, you're forty one years old.
Speaker 2: Quit talking like that. Wow. Wow, so Sanna is she
Speaker 2: a long day? Wow?
Speaker 3: That's your sophisticated philanthropist European wife.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, can you believe this? Oh my god?
Speaker 10: Quit okay, yeah, oh my god, you're distracting me right now,
Speaker 10: Like now, you're just doing that.
Speaker 2: Why grows about? Where's the guy from Glengarry Glenn Ross
Speaker 2: that Alec needs to stand up to her? Huh?
Speaker 3: First prize, new Cadillac, second prize to the state knife,
Speaker 3: certain prize.
Speaker 2: You're fired. Where's that guy who wouldn't put up with anything?
Speaker 2: You haven't her? Run your life?
Speaker 3: Am I god?
Speaker 2: I'm a goad? Oh that is rough and he was
Speaker 2: not thinking clearly when he Dude, that's to her the
Speaker 2: siren song of young hot chicks. Oh oh, oh, oh
Speaker 2: my god. He never found the Red October being that wool.
Speaker 10: See God, when I'm talking, you're not talking. When I'm talking,
Speaker 10: you're not talking.
Speaker 3: She had the She had the cojones to tell him
Speaker 3: that he was annoying her, right, Wow.
Speaker 2: Armstrong and Geeddy