You can step over the body. Adam curry, John C.
Dvorak and Sunday July 21 2019. This is your award winning get
my nation media assassination episode 50 Saturday This
is no agenda.
Machine learning my way through algo school and broadcasting
live on the frontier of Austin, Texas capital the Berlin star
staying in the morning, everybody. I'm Adam curry
and from Northern California where we're waiting the female
Thor and hoping for the male Aphrodite. I'm John C. Dvorak.
Raglan
Buzzkill.
This is rather interesting as I checked into the chatroom of
trolls today, and all I can see is them talking about some
character and it's going to be a woman and this is what's going
on and was pissed off what is happening.
Apparently, Natalie Portman is going to be the female for
everyone's all upset about this.
Well, it's not as stupid as anything I've ever heard of. But
okay, let's just make a female Hulk, then you're talking? And
actually that'd be more believable.
And isn't there like a bad woman or something else? It's just
everyone's
was a lot of bad women.
Yeah. I'm just surprised like, of all the things to care about
in the world. This is not high on the list now. But I've seen
this go on for at least a while I got bumped off of course
because my Wi Fi problem but it's just been ongoing like
we're no good. puka
cares is garbage. Garbage movies. Yeah.
They're fun to watch on the airplane.
Well, I don't know about that. I think nothing hold on airplane
viewing. My experience. Nothing holds a candle to the Fast and
Furious.
Yeah. And there's always eight of them to watch. So it's great.
This new ones? Oh, how did I catch?
I was on a plane once sit next to somebody and I was trying to
watch some, you know, semi good movie. And the person next to me
is watching Fast and Furious Five or someone and I couldn't
keep my eyes off their screen. Exactly. So I had to put it on.
Well, this brings me to some unscientific research I've been
doing about the use of closed captioning amongst millennials
and Generation Z.
Yes, we got some notes about this. I got a number of
notes. I did some informal polls over at no agenda social.com I,
you know, been hunting around people giving me unsolicited
feedback, which is always nice. And really it comes down to
three people are blaming it or attributing it to three
different things. And I have three emails that I've just
picked out here that says JV I watch everything with the carbon
cat that carbon caption. There's a new one there you go carbon
captions that's perfect. I use watch everything with closed
caption slash subtitles mostly due to decades of frustrating
sound mixing movies and modern shows are mixed with wide
dynamic range room shaking explosions and gunshots are
immediately followed by characters whispering important
plot details. Game of Thrones does this but it's nothing new.
Also, like many millennials, I grew up with a big family
stuffed in a small home and I've lived with roommates ever since.
Anytime there would be a siren or scream or anything else
unpleasant. My mom would burst through the door and told me the
baby was trying to sleep. So these are two these are these
are two, two together, one and that I got a lot of people
saying hey, you know they're mixing it wrong. The problem is
trying to jam Dolby 5.1 through stereo speakers, and therefore
the balance is off. There may be I think there's some validity to
that part.
Oh, I agree. I think there's plenty of validity to that.
That's one of the reasons you have to take things into your
own hands and you've got to either pull back on some of
these processing systems like Dolby go to straight stereo,
there's ways around it. I mean, you're just running amok with
just letting whatever happens to happen to zip through with a
couple of squeaky speakers on the TV. Yeah, you're asking for
trouble. I agree with that. 100% Yeah, so
that seems that there there's a real issue there and I don't
I've really never interested in it very interested in surround
sound and when it comes to television, never really set one
I've I think I've had one of the has been a thing. So I just
don't care. For me, it's just I turned it up and then I can hear
everything. There's now now we get into some interesting areas
accents. This is from Jay every single time I watch TV with
people under 30. They have the closed caption on I don't
understand it either. I get it when it's something British and
they can't understand access, but it's always on. I dated a
gal who was 28 and I tried watching Emily with her with
captions on because it's in France, and she fell asleep
instantly. It was weird because growing up, we could focus on
the film and follow along with the translation. But for her, it
was like catnip, every single other thing she wanted to have
the captions on for it was infuriating. Luckily, that
relationship failed pretty fast. Okay. There's one other thing
there's a new disorder that has not been codified yet in the DSM
five or no, but it is a real thing. And it's only the true
cause is not known, although I have some thoughts and that's
auditory processing disorder. And this is closely related to
ADHD and a DD both attention deficit disorders. And what
happens is you can hear perfectly well, but you are
unable to process it. Your brain is either unable or slow at
processing what the sounds are and turning them into words.
Now, and I want to say up front that I grew up with subtitles.
Dutch television had English movies, they'd play the English
soundtrack and they would translate in Dutch it was very
professionally done. They had hundreds of people working at
the state run subtitling organization and I learned to
deal with them perfectly well to ignore them while I'm while I'm
while I was watching television. I think it also helped a lot of
people learn English extremely well, versus Germany, where they
always did an overdub. But the auditory processing disorder, I
think, is something that comes from people who already have a
potential deficit disorder because a lot of feedback that I
received said, Well, I really can't focus on the movie or the
whatever's on the television the whole time. And I look at my
phone, I'm, you know, the people are distracted. This is
something we know the young people often wake up in the
middle of the night just to check their phone. So there's a
distract. And also second screen, I guess, to a degree,
it's like, oh, let me look up that actor, what's he doing? You
know, what's what's going on? Is someone tweeting about this
particular show that I'm watching. And because of that,
many people have said, well, they're really helpful, because
I can just, you know, I can catch up real quick. And so I'm
looking at my phone, I Oh, I just can I can, I can follow
along just by darting back and forth and reading the subtitles.
And I posit to you, as my research,
as it my budget alert. My
posit to you, as I as my research will continue in this
regard, is that because of the lazy use of subtitles, whether
it's to hear things that were drowned out by sound effects and
music, whether it's to instead of really focus on what's
happening with an accent and try and your brain can parse things
from all the information, oh, he's in this situation, he's
there, he might have said something like this was
something I didn't understand that people's brains have become
lazy. And just like you have someone who may be blind, their
auditory skills increased astronomically. And vice versa.
People who are deaf can often see things much clearer or at
least they processed the information in different way. So
the pause that I have, is because of the you know, some of
the reasons that people have resorted to closed captioning
and their abundant availability now due to the American with
Disabilities Act, etc. that the brain is starting to lose some
of that auditory processing power. Because I have asked
people Okay, turn them off and Heidi do it's like I really
can't handle it anymore. I need the closed captions. I can't
follow along. And I It sounds to me like what a deadly says you
said it sounded like, what's the little Woodstock from Charlie
Brown can't really process the audio. So I would say we have
possibly auditory processing disorder being created by use of
closed captioning,
which will counter that, okay. Most of these kids, and I would
question any one of them that have this problem, especially
with the Woodstock phenomenon. What To Look, do they ever go to
music concerts? Yep. To music concerts are over amped. They're
way above the legal limits of X number of decibels. I think 100
is the max and these things hit 141 50. Many of them come home
with ringing ears, they're all making themselves deaf at these
concerts. Very rarely do any of them have the wherewithal to
wear ear protection. They don't know that. And for example, in
California, all the bars in California that have bands in
the bars, they are required to have ear protection behind the
counter that you can ask for, and you get it for free. Nobody
wears this stuff. And they just listen to this music at these
outrageous decibel levels, which was started in the 60s with the
Marshall amp and bands like blue cheer and others. And now
they're all deaf. And that's why they can't hear anything. I
don't blame him for bringing up the campus captions, because
they're all going to be wearing your hearing aids destiny, your
investment of the 21st century hearing aids.
Well, I'll add to that, because I'm not opposed to this theory.
I would add to that the incessant overuse of air pods
which are hanging in their ears all day long. Now, I don't know
if that can cause damage, necessarily, but we're sure and
sound injection, but it also changes your auditory
processing. Because once it's further away, you're not used to
that anymore. People listen to podcasts. Thank God listening to
podcasts, they turn on the microphone function so they can
hear whatever's going when they just to keep the earbuds in I'm
taking a phone call. They're in continuously all day long, and
they're intended that way. I think once you then remove that,
from the direct ear canal, it may that it may be still I'm
gonna come down to a processing issue. I don't know if it's
actual hearing damage could be maybe it's a combination, but we
need to research further. So I will keep my lab coat on.
Yes, please. Go. Lot of hearing damage going on. I was through I
saw somebody the other day somebody roaming around a store
with the ear buds, those hanging things as Little Apple ones, the
little white ones. That's the ones the air pods. And they
looked like they were zombies. Goo Yes, good. We're changing
the subject could go into goo keyword goo. So I've got this
little battery that I found and I'm charging it but I realize is
one of these, one of these devices. And I have a bunch of
these things that everybody does. And I'm not the only one
has noticed this because this stuff has been around this goo
has been around for at least almost 20 years. And I'm talking
about the soft spray that they put over devices. It's like a
slightly rubbery compound that they spray on top of a cool so
she had a nice cool feels like it gives you a instead of a hard
plastic you get this kind of rubbery soft little coating that
they put on
what what would I find this on I'm
not sure I know a lot of stuff, you just you find it again,
you'll find it when it's over 10 years old, it turns to goo Oh
Dickey, and he got this sticky goo all over at the end you
can't get it off, you have to take some solvent and maybe
maybe it'll come off you can kind of scrape it off with your
thumbnail is when and I had like a Sony da T player that was
coated in this old felt so professional all
the professional coding
professional coding and then now it's like sticky you can
actually you know if you grab it, it's like it sticks.
We find this mainly on electronic devices is that we
find a lot of this this coding a lot a
lot of electronic devices you find on this battery pack that I
have which was a high end battery.
John is be honest, is there a problem with your real doll that
you want to tell us about?
No, it's not even the same type of substance. This is some
reliably informed well I'm pretty sure this is always black
as always black I've never seen this in any other color. Dark
you know just perfectly pitch black and it's that it was used
and used and used because it was so cool. I surprised you haven't
run into this.
I have I think but it's been a while. I mean I don't really
have any stuff that's I don't know
when they stopped I think they backed off on it but that's why
I haven't noticed this for a while too. I found this battery
which had this stuff all over and this batteries is sticky and
gooey. And it's got this this stupid coating on it that
somebody decided was a good idea
doesn't seem like you to not at least know the name of the
coating. That's something that you would
think that's a good point. I think you got me there. I should
know the name of this stupid coding. But I'm telling you it
was a dumb idea to begin with and apparently is It's not
worked out. And this is the classic example for all you know
as carcinogenic. They just do the job. Oh, look what we got.
This is a great idea. I reminded, Oh, how
about like hand grips on a bike? Would that be the same type of
stuff? That's the stuff that
I think is there just a whole substances softer rubber. Okay.
No, it's a coating on hard plastic. If they hand grips on a
bike or hard plastic, yeah, maybe but no, they can't get
them on there if they were. But I'm reminded I'm reminded of as
I was at some event, and you remember this when they were
they took all this paper off the market. It was all this stuff
that was used. It was it was heat sensitive. It was used for
cash registers. And
yeah, the purple paper that would that people were touching
and getting sick from,
well, they weren't getting sick from but it was carcinogenic at
bisphenol or some damn thing on it. Yeah, well, I ran into the
guy that made a mint, selling this paper that was sold to
substitute for it. Oh. And he told me kind of off to off to
record, which apparently is not off the record anymore. Not
anymore. He says, You know, I know that our stuff was bad, but
they never ever tested this stuff. But they say just
anything to substitute. I wouldn't have stuff good. He
says For all we know, this could be 10 times worse.
Instead of saying off the record, just say does that sound
that sound? You sound like a journalist who's cheating. Oh,
I've never been a cheater. Okay. Don't worry. Don't worry about
No, I think no, it's there's this there's a time limit off
the record. Oh,
okay. Gotcha. It's under was under embargo. The time the
guy's name or anything like that under
embargo. Say that
it was he was skeptical about his own product? Because as I'm
skeptical about this goo.
All right. Well, I'd love to know more about what it is and
how we can avoid it.
Well, I can't avoid it. They've used it and used it and use it
for years. And now it's all over the place. And it's just if it
was left in the hot sun after gua faiz, this gets really bad
sticks. It'll stick to whatever it's touching. You have a piece
of paper stuck to it. It's unbelievable is that people out
there know what I'm talking about? Yes.
Well, would you want to go from here? You know, I have little
presentation. I'd like to do some some general news first.
Okay. You have a story that you're been following up on? Is
that what we're talking about? Yeah, yeah. Yeah. I'm interested
in listening to this. But you
want to do this now? Because I figured we'd do a couple you
know, top news items first. And then like, what
what's the top news? I
don't know. What do you got?
I got I don't have a clip for it. But I just was reading this
morning about this situation. And in Canada, we had the
pipeliners going from Alberta to BC and back and there's a big
squabble about it, which I thought was kind of interesting.
No clip, though.
I have no I don't have I wish they did. Well, then why not?
How about the comings in Cortez show that was highlighted on
Democracy Now.
Okay, I don't really know what it is. But let's let's talk
about it.
And there is the come I gotta clip the Cummings in Cortez
show. Okay, there. They don't the guy there's testifying in
front of Congress is starts with the the guy who's testifying in
front of Congress. Is that the guy who's the Homeland Security
or acting, Director, guys, nice guy, and he's trying to do a
good job and they're just killing him. Yeah.
Back on Capitol Hill House Democrats grill President
Trump's acting Homeland Security Secretary Thursday over migrant
family separations, the deaths of children taken into us
custody and reports of squalid, overcrowded and dangerous
conditions in US immigration jails. This is House Oversight
Committee Chair Elijah Cummings questioning the acting DHS Chief
Kevin McAleenan.
Feel like you're doing a great job, right? What you're saying?
We're doing our level best in a very,
what does that mean? What does that mean when a child sitting
in their own feces? Can't take a shower? Come on, man. What's
that about? None of us would have our children in that
position. They are human
beings.
Also at Thursday's house oversight hearing.
Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio Cortez confronted Kevin
McAleenan over hateful messages shared by 1000s of current and
former Border Patrol agents on a private Facebook group. The
group's online discussions exposed by ProPublica earlier
this month are full of homophobic anti immigrant and
misogynistic content about migrants and asylum seekers as
well as racist attacks. On Texas Congress member Veronica Escobar
and Ocasio Cortez is depicted in a photoshopped image being
sexually assaulted by President Trump. This is Congressmember
Ocasio Cortez questioning McAleenan.
Did you see the posts, mocking migrant children's deaths? I
did. Did you see the post planning physical harm to myself
and Congresswoman Escobar?
Yes. And I directed an investigation within minutes of
reading the article.
Did you see the images of officers circulating?
Photoshopped images of my violent rape? Yes, I did. Are
those officers on the job today and responsible for the safety
of migrant women and children?
So there's an aggressive investigation on this issue,
issue proceeding. You've heard the chief of the Border Patrol,
the most senior female official and law enforcement across the
entire country say that these posts do not meet our standards
of conduct, and they will be followed up aggressively.
High is this still about the secret group that they were
posting on?
But yeah, she brought it back up because there's this about
her. That's why she brought it back about her. It's about her.
That's what it's got to be about me. Yeah, I love Elijah
Cummings, who's just yelling and scream Come on, man, that human
beings. But let's not give a shit about the human beings
dying on the streets of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and
Austin. Seattle. Alright, they've shot let me follow this
up. First, let's go to some questioning about about
immigration. And there's no one better than campus reform to go
out and talk to this country's our country's brightest future.
The new kids who are just ready to graduate and they're thinking
about these things. And here's a test. Let's go read them
something Obama said. And let's tell them that Trump said it,
and then see what their reaction is. And then let's spring the
truth on them. You've seen the gag before. It's hilarious.
These could be pre selected, I mean, select they are selected
could be selected only to show idiots. But still, the sampling
is astounding.
They'll have a quote for you here that's been making the
rounds on social media about the deportation of criminal illegal
aliens. We are a nation of laws, undocumented workers broke our
laws, I believe they must be held accountable, especially
those who may be dangerous. That's why over the past six
years, deportations of criminals are up 80%. And we're going to
keep focusing on threats to our security. What's your thought on
that quote in that policy in general?
I think that policy comes from a place of like
white American nationalism, Donald Trump has kind of like
embraced this rhetoric of like racism and xenophobia that is
not beneficial to our country at
all. I don't think that that quote really stands true. This
administration
has totally not done anything moral. This is really awful.
Amnesty does not necessarily mean that we're losing border
security. I think that Trump feels that way.
I think that's a bad decision. Because it's like the United
States should be open to like immigrants. Like it's practical,
it lands with the free for reason,
we'd have to advocate for those kinds of people and people like
in Congress like Ocasio Cortez, who is helping people overcome
these kinds of things
crimes, do not nullify your humanity. And people are coming
here in search of opportunity.
I'm going to show you the person that said that, quote.
Undocumented workers, Is that surprising? Yeah, a little bit.
Why is that surprising? Cuz I thought it was the Trump
administration. I said something like that.
Yeah, it's quite surprising, but I thought it was from Trump.
They didn't expect it to be Obama, either.
Why did you not expect it to be Obama? Um, because
I just I guess, I don't know. Like, it just never. It never
occurred to me that it could be about Is that
surprising that it's a quote from President Obama.
That was surprising for sure. Yeah.
Do you think it's still a practice of white nationalism,
though, to deport criminal illegal aliens? I think the way
Trump's doing it is what But President Obama to this to this
point in Trump's presidency, Obama actually deported more
people, though. So it's in practice. That was more from
Obama, though. What's your question?
I, I'd say, my understanding of Obama versus Trump, is that just
that Obama was more liberal as far as Amnesty and border
security. I expected that quote to come from Trump. Does that
change your opinion of the practice? You know, that
President Obama did the same thing, actually, to this point,
his presidency deported more people than President Trump at
this point?
No, again, I just think that there's a moral way to do it.
And I don't know a ton about Obama's deportation policies,
but I imagined that they were a lot more humane than the ones
currently going on.
There you go, there you go. Everybody, that's your mind
control at work. The programming is successful, can't can't even
when they hear it was Obama, he was more important. He must have
done it in a more moral way than Trump is plus
education system. Now,
what's interesting, with all this undocumented illegal
immigration going on, is that when I look around in Austin,
Texas, the people who I see who are unhoused sleeping on the
street and panhandling, I don't know if they're actually
homeless. They're panhandling for sure, but are mostly white.
And they seem to be on drugs. We've been following and this is
going to lead right back to the illegal immigrants only in
California. So bear with me for a second. In Austin, we changed
the community guidelines, the local rules, where you can now
sit and lie wherever you want. You can camp wherever you want,
as long as it's not in front of City Hall. You can do it on
Congress, if you want no problem in front of businesses, but not
in front of City Hall. Everywhere else you can camp you
can lie down you can Panhandle in from the schools bus stops
anywhere you want. And the reason for this is that it was
unfair, and not taking into consideration the challenges of
life of the unhoused. And now we are a couple of weeks into the
policy. Let's check in this is a report from Luca station KX a
blindside to
Austin's homeless population are growing two and a half
weeks after new city rules were approved to decriminalize
homelessness. Some business owners say they're seeing even
more problems. With the buzz of his blades, Oscar Rivera can
clean up any mess. But he'll say his customers hairline isn't the
area that needs the most help.
And then sometimes you'll see people land right here, right on
the ground. And in when you wake when you come early in the
morning, you have to tell him to get away he's sharp
gallery 44 right off at 290. And Manchac isn't the only business
effect. It's
nothing against those people. But when you're trying to build
an establishment, it's hard to go further in and grow
just down the street straight music has its own problems. VP,
Clint straight has added locks to the bathrooms and dumpsters
and told me he regularly finds needles in the parking lot.
Community leaders say this is an issue of accountability. And the
people of Austin need to be willing to give out more
resources. If they want to see change.
It's hard to hold homeless people accountable for not
throwing away their trash when they don't have receptacles to
put them in. It's tough to hold people accountable when they're
allowed to camp for using the bathroom in public places when
they don't have a place to use the bathroom.
The bottom line. This is a complex issue, which requires
thoughtful solutions. And it's up to stakeholders just like
those businesses near the homeless camps to provide their
input.
One of the things that we can all do is work together to come
to some sort of comprehensive solution
next month, Austin City Manager Spencer Cronk will make
recommendations on how to better tweak the new rules, it's
expected to include reasonable limitations on camping and
potential changes to the sit and lie ordinance,
we wanted to get a sense of how big of a problem this is for
people in Austin. Here's a look at the numbers from 311 calls
for service requests with the key word homeless or transient
show more than 2700 calls so far this year. That's almost more
than all of the calls from last year. But it's also important to
note that the rate of homeless people is increasing in Austin.
On the right, you'll see the point in time count from echo.
While the number of people living on the streets or in
shelters has increased. That rate has been much more gradual
compared to the number of complaints.
And I would say extrapolating from that it's because the rules
changed. So now there's more problems. Small business owners,
and both of those guys were Latino. Now be damned who gives
a shit? Way to go Austin fantastic that Dr. Drew Pinsky
has been on a tear about what's happening in Los Angeles. He's
talking on his radio show he's been I think he went on Fox and
CNN. I know he's been an MSNBC. But in two short clips, he
explained not only what the real problem is, but also what the
solution is. And we've talked about some of the historical
reasons for this. And I just wanted to share those he was on
with Scott Adams, which is a rare thing, I think for Scott
Adams to have someone called in on his periscope. And
technically it's just a huge nightmare. I guess it proves
that the content is good doesn't really matter that much. I think
we've been pretty clear in the past that what we see is this is
a drug problem. That's why I like saying unhoused I don't
know if someone's homeless but they're not housed when they're
sleeping on the ground. And Los Angeles as a huge problem with
this and Dr. Drew, who at the office used to but he ran a drug
addiction clinics. He says this is all about drugs. So even if
we had
if we had more housing if suddenly you know housing just
appeared out of nowhere and it was free. These people wouldn't
necessarily even take a free house would they? Correct that
the the part that is now driving me to my grave I think I'm this
problem is that this is a population that if you walk up
to them and say let's go are got a great place for you to live
them. jority and the vast majority will refuse. And people
believe this. But when you are chronically mentally ill, unless
you have treatment, it's very difficult to live in four walls.
If you're a drug addict, you seek the streets. So there's a
attachment to this lifestyle that is not being addressed. The
other thing is not only what they do not want housing,
housing is not the problem Los Angeles, we just absorbed in the
last year or so about conservatively. 800,000
undocumented immigrants, we were sanctuary city, we welcome them
in. None of them are on the streets. They all found a place
to live 800,000 people in a year found a place to live. So the
government continued to focus on the housing. It's a hoax. And I
can't understand why they're focused on it.
Yes, I'm so happy. He said this. Because it's true. You have all
these illegal immigrants finding a place to stay, they're not on
the streets of LA either. So just another data point that
this is that there's something else going on. But all all the
politicians can talk about is that same in Austin, affordable
housing and affordable housing. Now, you've actually provided
the reasoning behind this in the past, John, it's probably, yeah,
it's part of Dr. Drew's solution. So I'll get right to
it. And then when we're done, you'll remember
no, it's easily solvable. It just doesn't fit an ideology.
There's something called the lentement Petrus Act, which is
what allows us to treat patients again, you've got to read this
book called American psychosis, the Llanddwyn, Petrus that came
out in the 1960s. And all throughout human history, when
people had chronic psychiatric illness or addiction, the system
would determine need for care. If somebody met criteria for
what was called need for care, they were cared for. They were
put in a hospital and cared for and stabilized and returned to
their life. In the 1960s. There was a guy named Robert Felix
that that convinced President Kennedy that chronic psychiatric
illness didn't really exist, that state hospitals caused it.
We had one test, we had these crazy books that were going out
that made the idea of putting people in a psychiatric hospital
inhumane, and they passed something called the Lanterman
Petrus Act, which moved need for care to the criteria for care as
simply harm to self or other. And if you weren't saying I'm
going to kill myself, or I'm going to kill somebody else, or
I'm so severely gravely disabled, which is a definition
that we have to work on, then we could only hold you for 72
hours, which doesn't accomplish much of anything. So we could
solve, we can help people with with a harm to suffer other than
72 hours. But gravely disabled could do nothing. So we must
change the definition of gravely disabled. We must expand
conservatorships we must modify prop 47. So we can start to
prosecute drug laws again. So we can motivate drug addicts to get
treatment. Permit drug addicts if they go one of three places.
institution which we've taken away prison, which we've taken
away, or they die. So we're leaving drug addicts to die,
which is exactly the policy. I'm thinking it may be on purpose.
If those are the three options. It's clear that Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Chicago, Orlando, Portland, Austin are choosing
the die option. Let them die.
That could be
and this goes back to your story about Reagan, One Flew Over
in the 60s was the there was a big stink in the 60s, the era of
Vietnam War and hippies and rock music, psychedelic scene, LSD,
you name it. And it was that there was that? They bought into
the idea that he just discussed, which was that we don't need to
psychiatric places are just terrible. And they're nuthouse
as it were. And they started trying to shut him down. But
there was some pushback and probably from the Republican
side of things, but once Ronald Reagan got in, he went with it.
And so now you don't have the pushback from the Republicans
because he is a Republican and Reagan pretty much following the
lead of the Liberals shut down all the call him I don't want to
call them internment camps, but it's shut down all the insane
asylum since California let everyone on the street and the
problem worsened and worsened and worse and from that moment
on, and now it's at the point where it's just nuts. And they
if they don't reopen these places, you're right. You just
have a bunch of corpses everywhere. And I guess maybe
that is what they want. But in the meantime, there's a couple
of things we can do. Okay, the most important of which, if
you're in cities like San Francisco or Los Angeles or
Portner, or Portland, find those cities like Austin and tell
People how liberal they are about allowing people to just
live out on the open and tell them to go to Oslo. But I've
been doing
it's it's interesting because here I keep telling people that
this is no future, and they need to go to San Francisco.
Specifically I recommend Berkeley area.
Well, Berkeley is not really as great a place
as Austin, you got free needles on the streets.
Well, there's free needles everywhere. But Austin will be
the Austin's the most liberal of the places that allowed.
I'm not gonna let you do it. Stop. I don't want all those
dead. I don't want the corpses everywhere. That's what it's
gonna be. Anyway, don't let anyone tell you differently.
This is about drugs. It's it's a part of the opioid crisis as
well. Yeah. The big part of it. Opioids meth it's
it's very watched dead special about Seattle. Death, this
yellow. Cattle is dying. Seattle is dying. There's some good
stuff in there. Because they have a bunch of regular
characters apparently, who the you know, the cops can't do
anything about the guys are strung out and they brag about
being loaded all the time on one thing or another. Yeah, meth is
a problem. Meth is a huge problem, especially in the
Pacific Northwest, not just the opioids, meth, which is a cheap
drug. And it gives you a kind of buzz these guys are looking for,
I suppose. And yeah. Fentanyl and meth. These are terrible
products. Yeah, yeah.
So there's, there's the solutions. I don't know about
Prop 47. We don't have that here. But I wish Dr. Drew could
come and speak at the Austin City Council meeting. And give
him a little
pinch. He was invited, he probably show up.
He's got enough problems in his own backyard. We'll just keep
playing clips. If anyone cares.
Nobody cares. They just assume that everyone drop dead. Yeah,
you can step over the body. Hey, hey, hey, you can step over.
Just step over is Nobody dare step over and you come into the
shop.
To the very end of our last show, I received a clip of a day
which I thought it was a good clip. But I was man hindsight.
And like, of course, I deserve Clip of the Day. And that turned
into a little bit of research. I'll refresh your memory. This
is from the Google and censorship. Sorry,
is laughing at your self assurance and by Clip of the
Day. Sure I deserve Clip of the Day.
Just throw it in in the number
one financial supporter of the Hillary Clinton but I need to
set it up
more. This is the clip that I received Clip of the Day for.
And it's Senator Cruz, interviewing Dr. Robert Epstein,
who has done research and claims that in the 2016 election, at
minimum, about two and a half, but possibly 10 million votes
were swayed to vote for Hillary Clinton, based upon Google's
algorithmic bias in their search results.
Let him say some before he played the clip, nobody and
there's shows that specialize in Google podcasts have played this
clip. I was looking for it. I haven't heard anyone play this
clip. It was on the hearings. And there's a there's one show
that's a Google show. And they were playing clips from the
hearing. And they never played this clip. What Google
show was that
material.
We know these Google shows and it's like, do you trust Jeff
Jarvis to be objective on Google, as you know that this is
not just in general, people who do who have if you're allowed in
the building a Google you're not going to say anything bad about
Google?
No, it's a conflict of interest. Thank you. So here's the clue.
We have no conflict of interest because everyone hates us.
And we've taken a vow of poverty. It's a twofer. The
number
one financial supporter of the Hillary Clinton campaign in the
2016 election was the parent company of Google alphabet, who
was our first witness. They were her number one financial donor
and your testimony is through their deceptive search methods.
They move 2.6 million votes in her direction. I would think
anybody whether or not you favor, one candidate or another,
should be deeply dismayed about a handful of Silicon Valley
billionaires having that much power over our elections to
silently and deceptively shift vote outcomes.
Again, with respect I must correct you the 2.6 million is a
rock bottom minimum. The range is between 2.6 and 10. Point 4
million depending on how aggressively they used the
techniques that I've been studying now for six and a half
years. Wow,
could you just say that again, please, just
2.6 million is a rock bottom minimum. The range is between
2.6 and 10 point 4 million votes, depending on how
aggressive they were in using the techniques that I've been
studying, such as the search engine manipulation effects, the
search suggestion effect, the answer bot effect and a number
of others, they control these, and no one can counteract them.
These are not competitive. These are tools that they have at
their disposal, exclusively.
There you go. Now, of course, when you hear that you like even
I'm going? Yeah, I think I said it on the show. I don't know if
it really swayed 10 million people to, you know, to vote for
Hillary over Trump, if they were, you know, on the fence.
Yeah, and I think I was I was siding with it with the
professor, I think it probably could have. And you were very
skeptical. So this is better that you do this report? Yeah,
you took it on. I will mention this just as kind of as an
aside. Let's just say the max is true here. And the max is true
about the illegal immigrants that are brought into the
country to vote for the Democrats. If you could wait 10
million votes, and have maybe I don't know another 10 million
immigrants all voting for Hillary and she still loses? How
much? How much people really hate this woman?
Or how much they decide? Or how much how much do people really
want to vote for Trump? I mean, you could look at it either way.
So a little a little background on on the professor is a PhD and
senior research psychologist, research scientists, media
professional author of 15 books and reading from his own bio,
more than 300 articles on psychology related topics,
including empirical studies in science, nature, psychological
science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science
has a PhD from Harvard University under BF Skinner. Dr.
Epstein is this funner? Yeah, do you know M BF Skinner?
Oh, yeah, he's the famous behaviorist. Okay, well, the
most famous guys ever.
Epstein is the founder and the Director Emeritus of the
Cambridge center for behavioral studies. He's also hosted
several radio shows, etc. He is a registered Democrat. He voted
for Hillary Clinton. And he started a nonprofit, which is
the American Institute for behavioral research and
technology. 501 C three, I check the 990 filings has about
$150,000 on hand raised about $40,000. Every year for the past
couple of years little bump in 2016. The only people in this
organization were three, Epstein himself, Tyler Healy, who is the
the technology. In fact, if you read his bio, you know exactly
what is technology director, cybersecurity expert, full stack
developer, so he basically put together all the tests. And then
Brian Meredith, the managing director, he came to the AIB RT
after a much honored advertising agency career spanning three
continents, former vice president of Benton Bowles,
founding member and director of the International creative team,
and McCann, Erickson. These are big advertising agencies. He
passed away in 2017. I think he was probably the original funder
of, of this organization. And clearly not a lot of funding has
come in. But of course, if you're fighting Google, you
might have a lot of enemies. The Google has, I think is the
largest lobby are in DC at the moment may be battling with
China, who the hell knows? Maybe they work together? I don't
know. So I look at the research and he has a number of research
beyond what we're talking about here, which is search engine
manipulation effects, the S E M E, he has also looked at the
search suggestion effect, the answer bot effect, anybody's
done many other things would come to psychological behavior.
And I think having an advertising guy in early was
probably Hey, how do we use today's technology to sell
products and that's probably exactly he stumped. So probably
the most fair research yet because they were looking to
figure out what manipulates people towards choices. The
research as as published in the PNAS, which is the official
journal, not only was it accepted, reviewed, it has been
replicated in Germany. This is a big deal. If you go look at all
these bullcrap studies everywhere, look and see if
there was a replication of it. The repple Keishon crisis is
rampant in in certainly in the psychological sciences. There's,
you know, the people can't recreate the studies and but
still there, what are you eating? What are you doing? It's
it's distracting me. Sorry, you're ripping paper or
I am actually I'm just going through so I'm looking for some
notes go on
don't tear paper.
I wasn't tearing paper, but I'm gonna. I'm gonna name the mic.
So don't talk to me name the movie.
I looked at his research it is large groups. 10s of 1000s of
people. double blind study. You're tearing paper again?
Double blustery paper.
I'm just taking people out of a pile. I am D Mikey. Just keep
going.
Don't D Mike, I need you to be able to interrupt for a reason.
I'm just saying.
Here's a pile of paper, I take the paper off.
Well, are you looking for something? Are you doing
crossword already go on? Is your chair squeaking to your paper
and they're talking back to each other.
But you just keep normally your bitching and moaning my
interrupting now? Because I'm not interrupting? Please, please
go back. All right.
So the research is very deep. It is done with all of us. I mean,
I'm not a scientist. But I've seen a lot of research
throughout 11 years of doing the show. And it really looks like
he he did all the business the way it should be done. And in
2014 15, but particularly in 2016, he did a number of studies
and again in 2018, where he would look at the results based
upon political questions that came in from Google query from
Bing, and from Yahoo. And the results for Google were
significantly different. I don't think that, you know, they're
their algorithms are different. But the research really focused
on and this is what I found to be interesting is that is the
bias of what people click on in search results. So when you
search for you propose a question to Google, the top two
results receive all of the clicks with 50% Going to the top
one 30% Going to the second one that drops off quite
dramatically. Interestingly, the last the bottom one on a page
gets more, more clicks than you know, the five or six above it,
and you can probably figure out why we've all done that. Let me
scroll on the bottom, I'll click this one, I'll go to the next
page. But the click is, is pretty much always on the top
one or the top two. And depending on what is driving the
results, he found that amongst undecided voters, this is key
people who are really on the fence and it could be you know,
undecided voters can be 10% can be 15% can be 20% of an election
people on the fence that that the the choices people make,
I should mention is usually over 20%. The undecided voters are
always very high right into the election.
Oh really? What What kind of percentage are we talking?
I've seen as high as 40.
So he claims that given an A B choice, that the top two links
determined People's Choice. And regardless of what that content
is, well, obviously it's it's pointing towards A or B, if it's
a 20 to 90%, we'll choose a over b just because they were the top
two links. So we understand the research, because that's really
what all his research is saying. His research is saying, unlike
anything else. When you have a choice between the two
candidates and you oppose a question, the top two link
answers that you click on that on the top of the page will
determine who you're going to vote for in aggregate over your
research.
I should stop you. I remember it. Because what you're what
he's doing is maybe deconstructing what has already
been done at Google because I will remind myself that Sergey
Brin years to come on to silicon spin show one lot and he one
time said to me, you know, we have the most PhDs of any
company in the world. And one of those PhDs doing there.
They're probably trying to figure out well, they can do
stuff to manipulate things, or is that really what they're
doing? Because I have I have some, some thoughts about what
is what the where the bias has come from, but I have a bunch of
clips. Most of them are about 50 to 60 seconds long, but they do
tell the story, as from different interviews that I've
put together, and the first one Is Epstein introducing himself
and giving a brief overview of seen which is the search engine
manipulation effects. This is what he proved in his research.
Oh, by the way, the whole pdf of his research is in the show
notes,
I've been researching all kinds of new methods of online
influence the internet has made possible. My first discovery was
of something called seam sem a the search engine manipulation
effect, which is the impact that biased search results have on
opinions and votes. When I first started doing experiments on
this, which was more than six years ago, I thought the impact
would be very small, it turns out, the impact is enormous.
It's one of the largest behavioral effects ever
discovered in the behavioral sciences. And I published my
first report on this effect in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences that was in 2015. And that report has since
been accessed or downloaded more than 200,000 times. And that's,
that's a lot for a scientific paper. And since then, I've
discovered about seven other effects. These effects are so
powerful, that if they're in the hands of people who have
particular political leanings, together, they can shift upwards
of 15 million votes in a presidential election, without
anyone knowing that they're being manipulated and without
leaving a paper trail for authorities to trace.
So that's kind of the same background or I gave, but in
maybe more succinct language. So 2016, he decided to monitor
searches, this is before the election to leading up to the
election. And to compare if Google was delivering biased
search results to those top two positions versus competitors,
2016,
I actually set up the first ever project to monitor the search
results that Google, Bing and Yahoo were showing users prior
to the election when they conducted election related
searches. And I found that the search results were strongly
biased in favor of Hillary Clinton, whom I supported, by
the way, I am not a conservative. And so they
shifted votes, lots of votes away from Donald Trump toward
Hillary Clinton, but in a way that people couldn't see because
the way this works is people trust and click on search
results that are higher in the list. So 50% of all clicks go to
the top two items in the list. Why? Oh, sure. And what Google
was doing was putting items high in the list that led people to
web pages that looked that made Hillary Clinton look a lot
better than Donald Trump. And over time, that shifts the
opinions and votes of undecided voters. And of course, in close
elections, it's undecided voters who determine the winner in this
particular case, we calculated based on the bias that we found
that Google could quite easily have shifted two to 3 million
votes toward Hillary Clinton just using this manipulation,
without anyone knowing that they were doing it.
And then not that the part of without anyone knowing they're
doing it is is important, because this is not just a clear
bias that stands out it has a name, they can
shift millions of votes, using what they themselves call
ephemeral experiences. And in other words, things like news
feeds, and search suggestions, and search results. Answer
boxes, these are ephemeral because they appear only for a
second or two. They affect your thinking they disappear. They're
not stored anywhere, no one can go back in time and retrace
them. And Google employees and you know, we've seen in leaks
recently they have, they are well aware that they can use a
femoral experiences to shift votes and opinions. And they do
this deliberately. I've proven it with my monitoring projects.
So the ephemeral experiences means it's just in for an
instant. It's just there, your search results, something has
search box, your your auto complete, all these things are
really not trackable by you even in your mind, because it's the
way you've done used the Google product for ever since you've
been using it. Now, there was a political article that he wrote
explaining all this after the election, which was followed up
by a top research scientist at Google search in Politico, and I
think we're the only audio report I could wear video report
I could find on it was from our Are tea. And they, they of
course say this is total bull crowd, a
tech giant has to admit this mess his previous findings
saying that its algorithms are politically blind. We have never
re ranked search results on any topic, including elections to
manipulate political sentiment. Moreover, we do not make any
ranking tweaks, which is specific to elections or
political candidates period, we always strive to provide our
users with the most accurate, relevant answers to their
queries. Google completely disagrees with you. I should
say, first of all, like they said, There's no way this this
can be true. But you disagree. Is it really possible the
results of Google searches can influence the way people vote?
Well, there's no question about that. I've been doing randomized
controlled studies for more than six years, measuring quite
precisely the impact that they can have on people's thinking
and behavior and purchases and elections. But this monitoring
project that I conducted that this shows beyond any question,
that there was significant liberal bias in Google search
results, but not in search results from Bing and Yahoo,
unfortunately, about 90% of searches conducted on Google,
not big in Yahoo. So Google really is the deciding factor.
In in close races, in fact, we calculate that upwards of 25% of
the national elections in the world are being decided, without
people's knowledge by Google's search algorithm.
This is important to know. And he says, their influence, he's
not saying that they that is their political agenda that they
are putting in there. And if you listen carefully to Google's
rebuttal of his article, they say we don't re rank results.
That's not what his research is calling for. He actually had
something to say about it himself.
That disclaimer, that denial that you just played from
Google, you have to listen very, very, very carefully to what
they're saying. They're saying they don't really rank. They're
very careful, you know, in their their denials, we don't read
rank up. I've never claimed they rank anything, I'm just
reporting on what they actually show people. And what they show
people is dramatically bias enough in our 2018 elections to
have shift shifted upwards of 78 point 2 million votes spread
across different races in the US in 2018.
So they're not being completely honest with their answer, but
they're not really lying either. I don't think they're re
ranking. I don't think Sergey Brin is sitting there saying,
oh, let's only made let's make this the top results. Take that
Trump, I don't think that's what's happening.
Well, no, I mean, they the professor agrees with that. But
the point is, is that if you set your algorithms up, right, and
you do our bias, let's face it, I mean, Sergey ended and a whole
team over there were in tears. After Hillary lost, they did so
onto the internet, their videos are out there, and they're
weeping over this loss saying we didn't do enough. So there's no
reason to re rank when the whole thing is is rigged. And to begin
with, and
and it is and I think I can explain what's going on. First,
let's go to 2018. He had some very surprising results. This
was our most recent election, not a presidential election in
Gitmo nation. It was for the house and for the Senate.
We did this very, very carefully. We had a field
agents, focusing on three congressional races in
California, which were very hotly contested races and
Republican districts. And we gave to these field agents about
500, election related search terms. Each one of them had
different search terms for different districts where there
are different issues, of course. And the point is, we we we
simply looked at what have what kind of search results they
received when they were conducting election related
searches. And we found very consistently, that on Google,
they ended up with search results favoring liberals and
favoring liberal news sources, and it was quite a dramatic
effect.
And I'm sure that some of these House races were won by people
undecided voters researching receiving biased search results.
So we're going to take it as a fact that Google's search
results political search results have been biased and have been
left leaning. That's just the fact that's it's been
replicated. There's no disputing that. But is it the algorithm?
Or is the data which one is
can we establish with any certainty just how much
influence what people see in their internet searches what
impact it has upon who they vote for?
Well, yes, that's what the sign tipic research has been all
about and we know that among people who are undecided on an
issue, if we show them a search results that favor one cause or
favor one candidate like Brexit, for example, among people who
are undecided, that easily can shift 20% or more of them in the
direction of the bias, upwards of up to 80% shifts in some
demographic groups. People trust algorithmic output, they trust
Google, they think it's because it's generated by a computer.
They don't see the human hand they think it's impartial and
objective. And then their opinions change. So we've
measured that quite precisely now and five national elections
in in multiple countries. And so we know for sure that that is
occurring now around the world without people's knowledge.
So again, is it the algorithms making decisions or is the data
now we're going to move to two other scientists? Well,
actually, we'll start with Cathy O'Neill. She wrote the book
weapons of mass destruction. She used to be a hedge fund quant
which means she would write algorithms to determine market
moves and how you can take it you know, that's a lot of the
flash trading is based on on quant quant work, isn't quant
stands for what quantum? I don't know what it stands for
quantitative analysis. Okay. So a quant is looking at an algo is
programmed to look for little moves and grab those and it can
be pennies, or sometimes fractions and enough of those
over the course of a day and you're making millions of
dollars. And she got bored with that. And she went to go work in
the in data sciences for commercial companies, for
insurance companies, etc. And she discovered pretty quickly
that she was really separating people into classes, classes of
standing really the opposite of a lot of what what America is
supposed to be. And she, I became interested in what she
was saying, because I you know, we've been following algorithms
for a long time on the show. I'm going to paraphrase her
algorithms are automated opinions of the status quo. So
there's an opinion that says anyone living in this code zip
code is worthwhile to me for my marketing. If you see anyone
from the zip code, take him right away. So that has an
opinion. And that is my opinion, at this very moment. And the
algorithm from now on will make that decision automatically
without any exception, he will not change it. And if that's the
only data it has, it's only going to find people in that zip
code as being valid. Your some of her talking about this.
algorithms don't make things fair, if you just blindly
blindly apply algorithms, they don't make things fair. They
repeat our past practices, or patterns, they automate the
status quo. That would be great if we had a perfect world, but
we don't. But the data sciences in those companies are told to
follow the data to to focus on accuracy. Think about what that
means when because we all have bias, it means they could be
codifying sexism, or any other kinds of bigotry.
This is all from Ted Radio Hour. So I couldn't get too much about
the music they put under everything. And she is very
interesting talk that she has. Now how are algorithms
programmed. They're programmed with data and the data Ingress.
So teaching the algorithm you've probably heard this term is
machine learning. And depending on the data you have, you're
going to feed that in, you're going to program the algorithm
which is very simple. If This Then That it's really not much
more than that. It sounds really, really complicated. But
the underlying data seems to be a much bigger issue. Now we're
going to talk to MIT researcher who graduated from MIT. It you
have to kind of get over her Valley kind of girl speak up
talking because she is very smart. And she has done a lot of
research in this area Joy Blum brought on weenie and she ran
into a data machine learning issue very early on, when she's
black when it came to facial recognition.
I am the founder of the algorithmic Justice League. So
my personal mission is to fight algorithmic bias.
Yes, the algorithmic Justice League, which is a group of
computer scientists and coders who try to raise awareness about
the social problems that exist in algorithms. It's something
Joy recently demonstrated by using a basic webcam and facial
analysis technology. And it's the kind of technology you might
find when you upload a picture on social media.
And so what I do is I sit in front of the camera, hoping for
my face to be detected and I have pretty dark skin. So I'm
sitting there with them. I face dark skin, there's no detection,
that I pull on my friend's face who has much lighter skin than
than I do, she's Chinese. And you see that her face is
immediately detected. So then I switched back to my face, dark
skinned and gorgeous, not detected, I put on a white mask.
And after I put on the white mask, that's when I'm detected.
And I wanted to show this as an example, that in the same
conditions, right, a typically lit office, we were having a
different experience.
You're saying that, that a lot of the software doesn't detect
black faces?
Absolutely. This kind of technology is being built on
machine learning techniques. And machine learning techniques are
based on data. So if you have bias data in the input, and it's
not addressed, you're going to have biased outcomes.
So this is a real world example. You'll recall that there was a
outrage over Google recognizing black faces, tagging them as
gorilla. I think it was Google, it may have been Facebook
doesn't matter. And the reason for this is when the algorithm
was built, it was done with an initial dataset that developers
probably a bunch of dudes, probably Asian and white dudes
use their faces to train the algorithm. And they just didn't
have any black faces at the time. And lo and behold, the
machine didn't know what they were because it had never been
given black face algorithmic data. And so it, it went to
whatever it thought was the closest thing and sadly, it
said, Oh, this is a gorilla. So it was very embarrassing, but
it's because the core base, even at the development stage, didn't
have the right amount of data. Here's a fun game to play. I
want you to picture John a shoe, everyone can play this at home,
think of a shoe, don't tell me what it is just create an image
of your shoe in your mind. Now we're going to feed that image
into a into an algorithm and say this is a shoe, whenever you see
this label this shoe. What image of a shoe did you have in your
mind, John,
I had an image of a beat up kind of flattened leather shoe with
those was with some shoe strings.
Right? So I had a sneaker in mind. And if you don't put the
sneaker in, or a high heel, or I did this with Tina, yesterday,
she was thinking of a sandal I never would have thought of a
sandal. So if you don't put the Sandlin, it's never going to
show up in the algo as a shoe. And this is how the court data
is biased. It's not necessarily left, right, you know, black,
white, Republican, Democrat, Democrat, it's just missing data
that creates an inherent bias.
So what's going on? Why isn't my face being detected? Well, we
have to look at how we give machine sight. Computer Vision
uses machine learning techniques to do facial recognition. So how
this works is you create a training set with examples of
faces, the faces this face, this is not a face. And over time,
you can teach a computer how to recognize other faces. However,
if the training sets aren't really that diverse, any face
that deviates too much from the established norm will be harder
to detect, which is what was happening to me.
So now let's go to what's happening with political
questions and results in Google. Google is a left leaning
company, it is a liberal company. So their base
algorithmic sets are always going to be based on their
inherent bias. And I'll give you an example. If someone asks a
question about Hillary Clinton's emails, they need to result. I
let me take a look at what we have. We have some Wall Street
Journal, some Fox News. Oh, here's a New York Times article
that says it was kind of a big nothing burger. It's the New
York Times. So yeah, I think that's we'll put that at the top
and we'll put number two, we'll put maybe some maybe something
from the Wall Street Journal a little less nuanced. Okay. Now
you've just trained the algorithm based on whatever it's
supposed to be doing that these are the shoes for that kind of
shoe question. Take this one step further. Qu is training the
machine learning of Google is done by my future daughter in
law. We talked about her sitting here on the back porch, just
like 10s of 1000s of other people who are reviewing search
results. Some of it's just a pure search results on what's
from Hey, Google, they do it from multiple companies. And
let's say there's a question about Hillary's emails that
she'll be now let me go take a look. I don't think this answer
is right, because it doesn't fit what I think about it. So I
think that this article over here from Politico, that's
that's the right answer. So I'm going to tag this. It's going to
be inherently biased towards left leaning results because of
the data because of the employees because of what Google
is. is, this is not, it's far worse than Sergey Brin sitting
there going, let me change it. No, it will never change because
the organization is inherently biased. And the data scientists
are not real scientists. They're assholes who are not checking
their data. They're not replicating it, checking it for
any kind of fairness, bias, etc. They're also probably very left
leaning. And this is a mind blowing problem above some
unfair shit they're putting in. And that's why they can easily
say we're not doing anything. We're not re ranking No. But all
the people you hire who they don't check, they don't check
these people who are, who were the be at task to make sure the
results are proper data, do they just bring somebody into paying
him 14 bucks an hour? If even that they don't care? These
reviewers often?
Well, then you have to explain a couple of things. Okay. First of
all, it's no coincidence, that coincidence that Google was the
largest contributor to Hillary's campaign, and it would be in
their best interest if they won. Yes, or she won. Sure. Secondly,
how do you you match up the Google employees with the Yahoo
employees, which is what one of the elements that you compared
with or the Bing employees up at Microsoft, the Microsoft
employees, in fact, I believe, are probably much more liberal,
I do not bias than they are at Google. I do
not believe that they have the same algorithms and the same
data that they're using. Google has vast sources of data that
they're using, in a variety of ways that that John, who and
Bing have no access to, I don't think that their algorithms are
basing it on 1000s of people. In fact, I've heard of no one who's
reviewing content choices for Bing or for Yahoo. I don't hear
about that. I hear it's for Google, Facebook and Apple.
And what's not explained, and you're not explaining it? Is
Yahoo. If anyone doesn't know, this uses the Google engine?
I don't know. I don't know that. I don't know what they're using.
I don't know if they have the exact same data.
So what they're using is their Dave, Dave, they're using the
Google engine.
Well, whatever that means, you need to show me what that means?
Because I don't believe so. I don't think it's the exact same
thing Google is using. It just makes no sense. Why would they
even be contemplating
the exact same thing? Because you're not getting the exact
same result? Exactly. But not the sense the word is that
that's what they're using? Right?
It does not that that by itself does not mean that they're
manually or, or overriding the algorithm, because it would have
been what Yahoo output? No, I don't believe that for a second.
This is a much bigger problem. Google is biased, the company is
bias, whatever Google is, is what they will be presenting to
people. The sad part is, as it turns out, that bias swings,
large percentages of undetermined voters. That's I
mean, the only solution in the near term is to make Google
searching illegal for some period of time, because it's
it's it's not stoppable, it will not they cannot stop it. It is
their system, you can go through it. And you can look at every
every piece of the step logic to see where the results come,
there won't be no injection of the Oh, it's about Trump. Let's
give him something else. No, this is happening throughout the
entire system, the whole their whole data structure is biased,
you cannot walk away from this. The only other thing I'd like to
say in this presentation is that sadly, this is not just
happening with our elections, this is happening everywhere in
your life. And if you don't know what's going on, you're getting
screwed. And you're at a disadvantage back to Kathy
O'Neill for a quickie
algorithms that sort through resumes or algorithms that
personality tests or algorithms that decide who is a good
insurance risk. They're very, very similar to in different
companies. So they're sorting people in the same kind of way.
And if you think about what that does, on a society level, it's
sorting winners and losers in the standard, old fashioned way
that we've been trying to get over that we've been trying to
transcend through class or gender or through race, and it's
against the American dream. You know, it is actually a social
mobility problem. And that's what I realized I was like, I'm
working on this. I loved finance. And now what I'm doing
is I'm, I'm sort of codifying inequality.
And just as a as a as a goof. I was looking around saying,
looking for search terms such as how do I beat the the insurance
algorithm, and there's a lot of information people have figured
out how do I do circumvent the job site algorithm, you're if
you put a resume in to a job site, your shit is not even
getting to people, you're being presorted. And let me give you
an example. One of the data fields would be Where did you
hear this commercial, and I heard one just the other day job
site.com/npr, please go to Job dicom.com. So job site.com/npr.
You know that in many cases, the algorithm will be looking only
for those people, whether you listen to NPR or not, they got
the code, they put that in, those are going to be the smart
people. There's the one, they're the ones I want screw everything
else. Same with insurance Colossus, which is this big
algorithm that is used for almost all the insurance
companies. And you know, it all starts with, you know, what the
number one field is, in all of these algorithmic decisions, the
number one data point for insurance for a job for I don't
have to tell you all the different things, what is it?
It's your credit score. Another damn algorithmic piece of crap
determining your life. So if you're wondering why you're not
getting a job, maybe you're not submitting it right. In fact, we
need to have are our data scientists are dudes and
dudettes named Ben and Bernadette. You need to be
whistleblowing. What's the bias within your company? You know
what's happening? You know that something's going on, you know
that results are being filtered out based upon X, Y, or Z. We
need whistleblowers. They and it may not even be malicious, but
it's happening. Your life is being determined by bad data
choices. Anyone who's a data scientist should be ashamed of
their field.
Hey, I've said for years the internet should have been shut
down. Well, it just wouldn't be not as exacerbated as it is if
there was no internet.
That's correct. Well, there's I don't want to
mention Professor Ted.
With that I'd like to thank you for your courage and say in the
morning to you the man who put the C in the carbon captions
John C. Double
A you miss random Korean Good morning, all ships at sea boots
on the ground and shops in the water. There's any out there
left. And all the names nights out there
in the morning to our troll room. Yeah, hello, trolls. The
nothing but stupid comments during that presentation, very
demotivating. But thank you very much and no agenda stream.com
shouldn't be looking at the troll room where you're giving a
presentation like that. It's interesting.
You say that I have noticed? I don't really
by the way postop you and does troll room. And I will say
horror, which is the same way. It's just like the closed
captioning.
I don't know what you mean by that.
It just like an addiction is something because you just need
this. These words up there?
No, actually, fuck you know, I've I was I've had it written
down for a number of episodes to bring this up. There is it's off
to the side. It's not my main view. It's always scrolling.
It's a small terminal window. And I always wonder why I pick
out certain one liners or certain things. And I believe
what is happening is in my peripheral view, I'm seeing this
my brain has developed over the course of a decade, develop some
mechanism to process in the little little side thread
processing what is being said there. And it actually alerts my
active speaking brain to look over there when there's
something that may be of interest. That's what's
happening. I'm just smart.
If this is true, I would recommend anybody in the troll
room to start selling Adams stuff. Because it looks like
he's open for subliminal suggestion. That's
exactly what it is. In the morning to Adam at sea, the
artist who brought us the artwork for episode 1156 title
of that was befuddle now we chose an evergreen for this and
I got a really pissed off Bunsen a bunch of messages. Since we
artists, yes, I got it. I'll tell you exactly who it was
from. The artist is Hold on. Net Ned. And this was actually my
favorite piece, which was the Charlie's Angels as the squad.
And he was yelling and screaming. Well, you're never
gonna do art anymore. This is so hobbyist. This is the best one.
And you guys chosen that piece of shit. And I said, Well, this
is a passionate you know,
he's very passionate. I said it's interesting because that
was my favorite piece. And you know, it was I agree with that.
We both have veto. And you said no, I've seen it on the end M
five M news. And you you didn't you thought it was you didn't
like it anyway, but you said you would seen it somewhere else and
so you've vetoed it. And I was like, Okay, I
haven't seen that specific piece, but I saw them the
reference to
the reference. Yeah, the reference. Well, he was very
corny, to be honest about it.
Well, just letting them know what the process
is. So at least I also don't like the idea of equate. Here's,
here's my final rationale. And I'll see if he's, if he's
interested, because we do have to rationalize what we pick. And
the two of us being the art critics that we are. I didn't
think it was, it was correct to glorify this group of four in
that way. I thought it was a glorification piece. I didn't
think it was appropriate. Well, you
didn't say that as such.
I did, too. I did. I remember, I thought
you said you didn't like it for a number of reasons that maybe
you
said, was one of the reasons they were already. Great. You're
already looking at evergreens. By the time I came up with that.
It was a glorification piece that was unnecessary and
improper.
So I mean, and we look at these things, whenever you want to put
a person in the artwork, we're going to be hypercritical. So
you know, having AOC it may be a funny joke to put a little Mensa
label there. But that's not artwork that I want to click on.
I don't want to click on her. And just the whole idea is to
get someone to click on it. So when you when you vilify people
down, there's a really a 5050 chance it's not even, you know,
it's just the way it is.
Yeah, you're asking for trouble. Well, it could be unless you
make us laugh out loud. I mean, there was a one instance I still
remember is the George Bush I think is was done by Nick or, or
Martin JJ one of them. Were George Bush had those big coke
bottle glasses on in the huge eyeballs. And that was all the
art was. But when you looked at it, you're cracked up. Right?
Yeah. So we picked it that's the one that got comic strip
blogroll bent out of shape,
right. Also, you know, a lot of if you're there's a lot of kind
of like mainstream jokes,
you have to manage artists. Imagine this nightmare.
Hey, that's your beat. As far as I'm concerned. Managing the
artists you deserve
always been a nightmare for anybody who's worked in, you
know, as with an art director,
well, thank you very much Adam at sea and all of the artists
who always participate or not, it's okay. It's totally
understood and I get it. It's a you spend a lot of time you
don't get chosen. It sucks. No agenda are generated.com
that piece with Charlie's Angels thing was there was some effort
put into it. It wasn't like a toss away.
No, it wasn't at all. But it was irked Of course he was irked
just wanted to make sure voice was heard. Anyway, I made sure
that he hates you now and not both of us are me. So
yeah, I'm the I'm I'm the one responsible for vetoing that.
That particular
piece. Yeah. Anyway, we appreciate the work that all of
our artists do. And we also really survived by our executive
producers Associate Executive Bruce's and all producers who
support us financially. And we like thanking those the top
category as quickly as we can, even though we're a little
behind today in the show. So let's see who we have on today's
list.
Well, at the top of the list is our buddy Serrana Miss of
Dogpatch and Laura Sylvia this this is monthly Yeah, I believe
so this is a you know, various endeavors is never the same $900
is some sort of,
we're gonna figure this out one of these days, we
never it's, it's a long arc. So it's gonna maybe it's a code
for somebody else.
Thank you to all the producers for their continued support of
this show. I would also like to thank your respective spouses
for their support and tolerance of your work demands. This year
alone you have worked on national holidays on vacations
and wild traveling. Right Mimi and Tina thank you both for your
sharing your spouse's the for the sharing of your spouses and
what would otherwise in what would otherwise be your time.
That sort of personal experience. Having a spouse that
is both socially and politically engaged provides insight you
cannot achieve independently. Non donors Attention, please
send some money or the show goes the way of Alfred E. Newman.
It may take 30 years but one day,
the growing number and sophistication of moneyed
organizations using all media outlets to sway opinion is
lucrative to the creators of the propaganda and we need to
support those that help us see through their agenda with no
agenda. previous wars were over physical territory now
advertisers of all kinds including ideologues use M five
M and the social media wars to win the territory of your mind
using the old saying generals always fight the last war. So
politicians is social media fight the last internet or it is
the war of ideas with growing expertise to win more minds
giving the power to influence culture. Your society and
politics. It is more infectious than measles. deconstruction is
the best vaccine. Well not as financially lucrative. It
vaccinates the participants. Again, listeners donate Wow,
it's all victims of our own life experiences. Thank you for
sharing yours.
Wow. Serrana mess of lower slobodian of Dogpatch and lower
Slobo via thank you that's one of his most succinct calls to
action
have heard. Yeah, maybe reproducible and, and I think we
kind of prove that in our our search engine bias. conversation
that is a war and you're losing we're all losing we are losing.
Losing big time.
I'm gonna I'm gonna give him a car. He never asked for it. Oh,
yeah,
he never does give him one yet.
I think that would be appropriate. You've got karma
may not want what he doesn't have to take it. Or in this cell
Miss Celmins Celmins. Yeah. Celmins CL mi ns 33333 jobs.
Karma is appreciated. Jobs. Jobs, jobs and jobs. Let's vote
for jobs. Karma E.
P? Yeah. Yeah, it looks right. I think it's Estonia.
Okay, now per domain. Check it out. Somebody out there. Top
Level Domain is E, dystonia. 3:33am came in with Rena $33.33
And his name is 33333 hours and 33 minutes Am I would like to
keep my name and location anonymous. Okay, but feel free
to call me 3:33am. Last year when I donate I asked for some
baby making karma. Karma were works by incoming in the
interest of helping others who are struggling to conceive. I'll
share what we did. First is a step by step. How to have a
baby,
baby. Should I be taking notes here or
number one? Yeah, donate to no agenda.
It's all it always helps can't hurt.
Next, as John anatomy can no doubt attest, all women are
different. But medicine tends to assume all women are the same.
At least in reproduction terms. My wife started using the
Creighton model fertility care system, which tracks your normal
biological markers. The goal of this system is to know when baby
making is most likely and to see if there are other issues. From
this tracking, we discovered my wife had luteal phase defect.
And this was confirmed by blood tests. Well not uncommon. Some
women have short cycles and low progesterone. For those that
don't know progesterone is the chemical in the body that
maintains the pregnancy after it started. It's also used as a
birth control mechanism. So between Cara the Creighton model
to know when baby making is most likely to be successful in
progesterone supplement to keep the pregnancy going. We are
expecting a child at the end of this year. All right. Hashtag
winning. This has been a long time coming and if I can help
others struggling to have a child and I hope this note does
that. I want to say it was great meeting Adam and the keeper to
Des Moines, Iowa meet up for clips. I would like it it's true
respect. And at the end of the day, some triple or quadruple
strength relationship karma, if you got it for Scott of The tall
corn who hit me in the mouth and who has been on a long dry spell
if you know what I mean. Thanks for all you do. 3:33am
and I want to mention something last night, the keeper and I
went to Celeste barber she had a show here in Austin at the
Paramount actually was pretty packed. You probably never heard
of Celeste barber I wouldn't have heard of her either.
Norwood Tina. She has something on Instagram which I don't look
at But Tina follows her which is the Celeste barber challenge.
And she's from Australia and she's a good looking woman but
she's not not a model if I can if that explains what I'm
talking about. And so you know a model will be doing something
gracious you know getting out a Kate Upton actually slipping out
of a pool with her breasts protruding and the water just
slipping off her svelte body. And then she'll post a picture
of that and have her do it out of her doing the same thing,
which of course, is hilarious. And so this was really a comedy
show, probably more for women than anything. But I learned a
lot of things about giving birth. and being pregnant that I
never knew about. And if you if your wife is expecting see if
you can catch a Celeste barber show you will be both horrified
and informed. There's a lot of things we as guys don't know and
it's probably it might have been better we didn't keep it that
way
ESP IICT
but at the end of the day they're backing you know they're
backing come on at the end of the day. At the end of the day,
John if someone wants to get anyone they can get at the end
of the day you've got karma
onward Associate Executive Producer starting with Abel
Kirby Abel Kirby aka shout outs to local 719 for great meetup
Colorado just to get US
Department of Transportation for allowing the negative mind
building practice
right negligent building practices resulted in a collapse
section of a highway on us 36 Oh wow. Sewer chat, but I'm not
sure why.
That's Nick the rats sewer.
Super Chat. Yeah,
everybody loves a little Super Chat. I want some karma for
that. You've got karma.
In Toronto, we've got Carolyn Blaney. Dame Carolyn, she's
gonna be Dame anyway. Toronto to a 333 and she's got her Dame
hood coming up. Please say hogs story mofos and play the
Reverend l resist we much parallel universe jingle and a
full version of we don't there is no parallel universe jingle
we have the transition machine.
But then we have to go into the parallel universe which is not
really a jingle that may not be usable. And the full version of
slash n well we could do that the end
what is what is slash n and what is slash n?
I don't know. Anyway whatever it is that she's confusing us with
this donation brings her to Dame hood as she requests she needs
some new stuff to get your pencil out she requests extra
coffee and a hot sauce at the roundtable Okay. Got it Carolyn
of Hogtown do we get these Toronto dame's you know, couple
of them now. Fun fact Toronto was often referred to as hog
town in the 1890s That's why she wants to be named Carolyn of hog
town. Because the meatpacking was one of the city's main
industries at the time was Chicago like that's interesting
because that was Chicago's main industry for years. In fact,
when I was a little kid I remember there's there were
still major meatpacking town I went in on the California Zephyr
and you go right through these giant curds of animals.
So what could the slash and full jingle of it mean divorce?
act.org/in a
maybe? No, no, no. Slash and it says specifically slash
IE and I haven't I have no idea. Well, why don't we do a Karma
we'll do the we'll do a sharpen resist and maybe someone can let
me know what she's talking about. Resist.
We must. We must. And we will much about that. Be committed.
You've got karma
Simon blood, blood. Lipids. Lipids iski $200.02. Great show
last Thursday. John and Adam love them Thursdays. Keep it
short. I'm beginning becoming a night today. It's cool. I'll
tell everyone in Spanish. If I can request a jingle please have
Bill Clinton who can do the most
again. What is the I don't recall any jingle who can do the
most
it says an oldie Yeah, well
it's I don't know how
Hillary barking you got the Hillary got the barking? Yeah,
sure. If too hard to pull, which it is I'll settle for John
during the foamer that's not me. Thanks John for the night table
if any left pot and vinegar for the nights Can you put pot and
vinegar on the list of pot and vinegar added to the list for
the Knights and Dames out there I would like to be known as Sir
Veeck P E C night. Two nights zero servic night
servio valgum ah sir V ignites I get it.
Love and Light and such pew pew. That's true.
That's pew Oh, he wants it does he want those jingles? I mean,
please, if you're gonna do jingles then give us the list
and
grow To get the guys in need, you should be nice.
Gross, gross before he becomes a knight. I just, you know, as I
prepare these things and have everything ready and then I get
all these curveballs
oh my god you've got Parma
you did it fine. And that would be our last of our Associate
Executive producers for show 1157 Heinz 57 We got
Wow, did we get an extra little thing in our paycheck for that
one?
Good thing Heinz 50 Cake line signs
5737.
So don't want to thank all these folks that makes the show
possible. We want to and especially on Sundays or
donations are not usually that great.
And these are official credits you producers and executive or
executive producers and Associate Executive producers.
These things are valuable. I know Serrana must have Dogpatch
may not use them for whatever reasons he has. But everyone
else I'd suggest you put them on your LinkedIn you can put them
anywhere where it apparently it trips algos, when you're looking
for a job. There you go. Support us for our Thursday show go to
vorak.org/n
a well now you know all about that you know all about the
algos until you go out there and propagate it.
Our formula is this. We go out for yet people in the mouth.
Kouga so I've been putting a lot of notes on Twitter, demanding
that they start putting Hillary on these polls.
Yes. You are now in the Democrat Hall of Fame. I believe that
people really love you trying to bring her in.
I think she'd be all you knows no guru. They don't want her
that's probably a true maybe it's not true. All I know is
that if you're going to start doing these comparisons about
who can be tropical, who's gonna get the most votes and who can
get the nomination? Why isn't she on there? Just as a test.
I'm with Biden was on there before he ever declared to run.
I'm with you. I'm with you. Okay, so the reason would be
they hate her that even with Google's biased algorithm in her
favor, she still lost. would these be the reasons? They don't
want to do something?
It happened somewhere? Let you know. Here's what my thinking is
because I've been trying to figure this out myself. I think
that Hillary was not a good candidate, because she really
didn't she she just thought she was gonna waltz in. And she did.
They are no effort. She had her same cronies running the
campaign that they were doing that last Obama. They're lazy
campaigners. And they didn't really do a very good job of it.
Because she because they already talked themselves into believing
like the Democrats. Do. They talk themselves into believing
that they're gonna run against some bonehead this Trump guy's
job on fact,
they wanted him Why can't they wanted him to be candidates
like, Oh, please don't be so great. We need him to be
candidate. It'll be so easy. The
media was all in on that. So they kept on I will say it
again. According to reports, because I don't know the media
won't cover Bernie is that I less likely to blame Schultz for
the screw up with Bernie or you know, putting Bernie on the side
than I am the media. The media would cover every giant Trump
rally. There were 25,000 people at a Trump rally, let's say an
average. And there was 50 People 100 People 200 People at a
Hillary rally and 25,000 or more at a Bernie rally. They would
not cover the Bernie rally so and they're still not covering I
understand I not don't know for a fact because I know media is
not covering it. But I heard there was a one Bernie rally
recently with 50,000 people attending I wouldn't
surprise me this is this has been very consistent with his
campaigning. But of course he's not really a Democrat and they
all know it that's why he just he just leeching off our ticket
like a good socialist would do I think
there's an element of that he's not a Democrat is an independent
so now I corns in at the end I can see them not wanting him you
know, that guy's not even a Democrat as an independent. You
just using us, you know, using us he's, he's a US user. He's
socialist user.
Socialist user has.
That's what he is. That's what he is. Okay, so
I just want to see I just want just put Hillary on a pole. I
mean by You know, when those polls
Double L not and not le Yeah, I got hit on a sticker on.
It was she? She does.
I love the story that Bernie's campaign workers who have a
union are thinking of striking because he's not paying him $15
an hour, which is what he's the very proposal he's making. For
the rest of the country. Yes. Oh, it's fant. Oh, crap. I
thought for sure you would have had something about that. Oh, I
missed this. Oh, this is great. Yeah, they're all saying, Hey,
we work in 60 or 70 hours. You know, we're making the
equivalent of about 1350. So you got to up it for us, you know,
we need to have 15 $15. Now or this is what you're proposing
here. Labor fight Royals, Bernie Sanders campaign, as workers
demand the $15 hourly pay the candidate has proposed for
employees nationwide.
Well, you know, Bernie, Bernie, when they busted him last go
around when he was like, there was some sexism or some crap in
the campaign. They throw it at him at the end. I said, what
what about this? And what about that? Bernie is really good at
deflecting this stuff. Oh, come out and say, I didn't know about
it. Make a big stink about it. And then you said, Well, I will
look into it.
May I just say, You're Bernie's pretty good
to get in there. Horowitz has got it nailed. Interesting. So
let's see if i Hey, all right. So you got a few of these going.
There's a I got a weird gaff the Judy had a gaff on PBS. That was
kind of odd.
Okay, can we go straight to it?
Yeah. And that's on health care. Bernie Sanders is out there
saying, let's move to single payer doubling down on that
saying that's the way we take care of all Americans. But you
have Al Gore doubling down on Obamacare. What does this add up
to?
Yeah, I mean, the Joe Biden was What did I say? I said Al Gore.
He made the debate stage.
Overshadowed, but not that much. Joe Biden, Joe Biden.
What was going on in her head?
I was thinking the same thing. I mean, you can make all kinds of
different mistakes, but Al Gore,
she was probably first thinking of VP Yeah, because Biden was
vice president. And then she probably thought of some dick.
Oh, yeah. Must have been I don't know something weird. Strange,
just
very peculiar. That
is kind of odd. It's very odd. Well, at least someone caught up
call her out on it. She that doesn't even happen that often
anymore.
No, usually they just keeps going. Now there's a story that
was on democracy that worked I've said this before democracy
now is not a great news outlet but but it occasionally they do
stories that nobody else touches. I agree
with that. That doesn't mean that they're good or they're
correct. They do them
but they at least I mean that that you have to give them
credit for In fact, that's one of the reasons I'm always
compelled to listen to the show. A lot of it's eye rolling a lot
of it that they do they do the association stories where they
talk about one thing and switch to another to make you associate
I don't like that. I have an example of that today. Okay, but
there's this one. And to be honest about it. I don't
remember the story at all. And this is the story about
Katherine Gunn and only democracy now covered it. It was
the she was a wish whistleblower for GCHQ the British the British
the whistle on the first go round did the British Intel arms
Yeah, they stands for Government Communications Headquarters. And
it's na it's the in fantasy and it's a of England. And she was a
worker there and she blew the whistle on some bull crap that
was going on some black male, which is what we'd say these
agencies are good for that was going to happen and this is
before the Iraq War came up with the idea well met weapons of
mass destruction, they were gonna go in there first. And
they're going to use these tricks a trick to get in there
without having to bullcrap the public with their weapons of
mass destruction. And so her story is just discussed on
Democracy Now because it was a covered it and so let's listen
to this as a long clip as two minutes little over two minutes.
Catherine Gunn story dn
has the British government says it's identified the person who
leaked cables that forced out the British ambassador to the
United States for calling President Trump inept. We look
at the real life political thriller of a British
intelligence specialist who risked everything to blow the
whistle on us dirty strict on us dirty tricks at the United
Nations in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. In 2003,
Catherine Gunn was working for Britain's Government
Communications Headquarters known as GCHQ, the intelligence
agency similar to the National Security Agency here, when she
opened a top secret NSA memorandum, the highly
confidential memo revealed the United States was collaborating
with Britain and collecting sensitive information on United
Nations Security Council members in order to pressure them into
supporting the Iraq invasion. Guided by her conscience,
Catherine Gunn defied her government and leaked the memo
to the press setting off the chain of events that jeopardized
her freedom, her safety, but also opened the door to putting
the entire Iraq invasion on trial. Acclaimed Pentagon Papers
whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg described Catherine Gunn's
action as the most important and courageous leak I have ever
seen. Dan Ellsberg said no one else including myself has ever
done what Catherine Gutten did tell secret truths of personal
risk before an imminent war in time possibly to avert it. Well
now Catherine Gunn story is being told in the new film
official secrets starring Keira Knightley. At the time her
actions received very little attention from journalists in
the United States. Unless call democracy now. In 2004,
Democracy Now interviewed Catherine gun. I asked her why
she decided to leak the memo.
When I saw this email, asking GCHQ is help to bug the six
swing nations to get a vote for for war with Iraq. I was very
angry at first and very saddened that it had come to this. And
that despite all the talk from a both Tony Blair and George Bush,
about how important it was to get the UN on, on board and to
legitimize any kind of aggression, that they were
actually going around it in such low handed manner. So I decided
that the risk to my career was minut compared to the upcoming
war in Iraq,
just for context, the Six Nations that the
this in the next clip, oh, okay, then I'll be quiet. Now, the
reason that the next clip is they actually brought her on
again, she's on the show now. And they're asking her about the
Six Nations in this and they have the director of the movie
there, and a whole bunch of other people. It's actually a
big group, and she's there. And a couple of things, I find it
fascinating, which is one is that, and we've discussed this
on the show, and this is discussed and a couple of new
items being developed. whereby it turns out that the CIA has at
least one or maybe two people in every major news outlet in the
country. And they put a stop to this sort of thing so that's why
the story was never discussed in the American media. It just was
killed he's bragging about democracy now did because
Democracy Now, if they have a spook in there is Amy Yeah.
Because I don't know anybody else be. So they have a new they
first figure well, we can't get a spook in there. We've had
situations where we know people that have worked at certain
organizations that have discussed with us people that
are there that don't make up the why are they there? What are
they doing there when they keep screwing with us? We're talking
about within the NPR world and every place has had me VO We
identified one working there we believe and they're all over the
place. And I always like to spot him and this is our spot to
spook game. Oh, is that where you're going this way. So we go
you have all these? Well, I just wanted to mention this because
people should know that it's really difficult on the no
agenda show for anyone to get in to be a spook because it's just
a small operation list. I know I'm not a spook by no I'm not a
spook he knows he's not so there's no buddy that's why our
show tells stories about you know, it's not like it's not
like within a giant organization where there's a spook or two
that will quash store now you know guys because these two
people aren't interested in that they're not interested in that
once you talk about the we had a better story than that. So would
you like you know if you don't do that story, would you like us
to write a book for you put your name on it? Yeah,
exactly. And you can go on CNN.
The snow okay. So they brought her on and they asked her about
the about the thought the country's in the sheet gives.
She won't she doesn't get the laundry list, but the director
does and then they imply it was all it was all part of a
blackmailing operation.
What did you say? Your email?
Well, it was a memo from a chap called Frank Koza. who worked at
the NSA. And it was just a request from the NSA to offer
GCHQ to assist them in bugging the domestic and Office
Communications of the six UN Security Council delegates
in bugging, in spying on in eavesdropping wiretapping or
whatever. Yeah. And who were the six countries? You're putting me
on? I know. Gavin, worked on the screenplay, and is the director,
yes, Angola, Cameroon, Bulgaria, Chile, Pakistan, and Mexico. And
these six countries were the non permanent members on the UN
Security Council at
the time, the idea was they would figure out which way they
were going to vote so that they could sway them?
Well, no more. The idea was to gather information that they
could use to bribe them or, you know, threaten them into voting
yes, for the resolution.
The term is blackmail. I don't know why she didn't use it.
The term is blackmail. And that's what is going on with all
the snooping and this is another message that people need to
understand when you say, Well, I don't care if they listen in on
what I'm doing, because I'm not doing anything wrong. That's not
the point. It's not you that's doing anything wrong. It's
somebody else who can be blackmailed. And they would
maybe vote against your interests. Yes. And that's the
problem with that's why privacy has to be a big deal. It's not
because Oh, I'm not doing anything wrong. I don't care if
they're listening in. There's no such thing as privacy you could
have stopped a horrible war which hundreds of 1000s of
people were killed in. But now you didn't care about your
privacy.
Now of course this ended up being did screw up the wars
beginning so they had to come up with the yellowcake and all the
other crap
aluminum to aluminum today. I'm looking at the at the Wikipedia
entry for the story of Catherine Gunn. And it says Angola,
Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, Pakistan, but not Mexico. It
says Guinea. This guy said Mexico, Mexico, Mexico. Mexico
is not in Wikipedia. It's Guinea he said Mexico. It's not in the
wiki in on the wiki.
We'd have to look at who was on the Security Council at the time
was there some as
to lots and lots of people but who was the swing? i It doesn't
really matter. I'm just saying he may
have left Mexico out for a reason. Again, yeah, wiki pedia
very trustworthy. Somebody over there at the Wikipedia with gray
hair, blue, blue. This he's got a nice kind of a Brooks Brothers
jacket, blue shirt or light blue shirt or even a white shirt, a
tie kind of a regimental tie, nothing fancy, usually white
hair for some unknown reason. And that guy is the guy who
probably put a quote crush that meant these guys, they'll look
to say
you're being very bigoted about this
a little bit. But you know, arguing against it my theory?
No. How could I? Absolutely right. It's just it's just sad
how you made a good point there. It's like it is important when
people can hear what you're doing or see what you're doing.
It is important, it does make a difference. Unbelievable. Well,
that's, that's pretty good. So they're bringing her back. And
what was kind of the whole point of, of this revisit? Well, the
thing was, this really ties into the guy who got busted that, you
know, the British ambassador to us who said Trump was an idiot.
We talked about this in the last year of the show before this
character, and I guess, you know, this is just democracy now
trying to keep the flame is bubbling about. So they can keep
saying well, he said the ambassador said Trump was inept.
So
I see I see what you're saying. Okay. It makes sense. I mean,
she does a lot of these. I don't know if you call it conflating I
think there's another example in here where they're talking about
one thing and she has to throw something else in. She does this
constant. Here's here's Amy, changing the subject.
I'm sure she did. That expertly
Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday, it will not
ban the widely used pesticide chlorpyrifos. Even though the
agency's own research shows it can cause brain damage in
children. The Obama administration said it would ban
the use of the toxic chemical in 2015. But the rule never took
effect and was suspended in 2017. By then EPA head Scott
Pruitt this On this the Trump administration is preparing to
rollback government regulations on nuclear power plants with
staffers at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
recommending allowing the nuclear industry to carry out
more self inspections while slashing the size and scope of
radiation protection and emergency preparedness
inspections and nuclear plants.
Well very, a very slick trend got to do it the other very
slick trans transition into something I didn't really even
tear anywhere. So while completely unrelated I'd like
that news at the end.
That was interesting. Yeah, I mean, I I was taking a little
bit of aback by but I've been hearing these these these kinds
of stories like this where you talk about one thing and somehow
get it into another topic and it makes the transition. The one
the other example that is this one, UK climate change,
transitions to Jew hatred, nice.
So why did the all party environment mental committee
accused the government of coasting on climate change?
Kinect can just wager something here? Does it go from denial
from climate denial to Holocaust denial? Oh, it's a different
kind of trans Oh, okay. Well pay attention to people.
So why did the all party environment mental committee
accused the government of coasting on climate change?
The government has a fine record on climate change, including our
recent net on net zero emissions.
But then the Prime Minister changed tack this morning. More
than 60 Labour members of the Lord's put their names to an
advert in The Guardian newspaper. They accused Jeremy
Corbyn of failing to tackle anti semitism, and said he'd allowed
a toxic culture to grow in the Labour Party.
Before the Right Honourable gentleman stands up and portrays
himself as the champion of climate change or the champion
of the people, or the defender of equality and fairness. He
needs to apologize for his failure to deal with racism in
the Labour Party.
Theresa May produced a copy of the advert and began to read
from it.
The Labour Party welcomes everyone it seems
this is great.
That was quick. It she just went from you know, what do you hate
Jews to that was literally what she did. This is great.
The people or the defender of equality and fairness. He needs
to apologize for his failure to deal with racism in the Labour
Party.
To resume produced a copy of the advert and began to read from
it. The Labour
Party welcomes everyone except it seems this is your legacy.
Mr. Corbyn, you still haven't opened your eyes, you still
haven't told the whole truth, you still haven't accepted your
responsibility. You have failed the test of leadership.
Apologize now.
The Labour Party had been the first to introduce anti racist
legislation.
This party totally opposes racism in any form whatsoever.
anti semitism has no place in our society, no place in any of
our parties, or no pays place in any dialogue.
Unbelievable. Truly what I mean, that's, that's, I mean, I've
seen the newspapers talk about it a little bit in the UK and
people. But I mean, just for Theresa May to jump out like
that. That was that was
out of the blue because they're talking about climate change
that that was just lame. But it was funny. And you see, I saw it
you see comedy bits about this. One thing I remember from years
ago on an old show called Fridays, we're actually Larry
David was playing a character and he comes in and there he
comes in as a substitute lawyer. And then he says something. So
he comes in as a substitute lawyer and has some case about
about whatever the case was, he goes up and the first thing he
does is he accuses the witness of being a lesbian. And
absolutely not for
no reason. For no reason. Fantastic. That was good. That's
in fact, I think that is worthy of a clip of the day I'm gonna
give that one clip. But that was
truly bizarrely nutty and what a way to shame someone just in a
horrific way. You do hater. Apologize now Jew hater. was the
guy gonna do
well? I'm sorry. It's not that different than what you're
calling everyone a racist.
He's a Jew hater is next level shit, man.
Now, there was something going on there was a bunch of protests
being discussed on Democracy Now I want to play these two clips
real quick because one of them is neither one of these stories
keep cropped up but the second one is very strange to me
because when you hear the second one, you're going to wonder what
is going on. But this is the undiscussed protest, it says
Nins but of nuns. There's a nun protests going on
in Washington DC Capitol Police arrested 70 Catholic nuns and
clergy Thursday as they hold a nonviolent sit in protest inside
the Russell Senate office building against the Trump
administration's inhumane treatment of immigrants and
asylum seekers. More than a dozen protesters stood in a
circle holding the photographs of migrant children who've died
in US custody, reciting their names. The latest protests came
as immigrant communities across the country have prepared for
reported ICE raids that were scheduled to begin last weekend,
but have largely not materialized.
There's never going to materialize. But as you think is
a conflict of interest to Catholic Charities and the whole
thing. I mean, come on nuns.
Oh, totally. This is a very good point. And people need to
understand that the Catholic Charities received over a
billion dollars just recently, actually it was 2 billion for
all of them. But these are the Catholic Charities and the
charities were located here in Austin. I think it's Christian
or Catholic. I don't remember which
one is Catholic. It says Catholic,
but they are religious organizations who are receiving
this government money to take care of the kids to take the
kids and then have the nuns protesting. Yeah, that is pretty
sickening, thinking that they may be just protesting for money
for their organization. It's not where was the mention of that?
I'm sure that I'm sure Amy came back and said something about
that, didn't she? No, no. Okay,
well, now the but then what came up next was this and listen to
this carefully and tell me have you heard anything about this
and why does it what is? What's the deal? This is the last clip.
It says under what it says will Indian asylum song. You see it?
Yeah, I see a
plane while a group of Indian asylum seekers in El Paso, Texas
have launched a hunger strike from inside a nice immigration
jail demanding they be released while they appeal their
deportation orders. One of the men told the Texas Monthly if I
go back to India, I'll be tortured and killed. I can die
here. It's the second time this year that Indian men have led
hunger strikes at the El Paso processing center.
Oh, I think we should just open the borders for all Indians.
To know what this is about? What are they protesting? If they go
back to India, they're going to be tortured and they're going to
die there what? Well, you know anything about Indians being
tortured in India, and coming over here somehow getting over
here and ending up in El Paso
or I'm pretty sure they have millions of slaves in India,
people are are in slave labor situations in the caste system.
It's a very divided culture they have. So yeah, I'm pretty sure
if you're in the in the lower tiers that you're just you know,
screw you. You're no good.
Well, I'd like to get more information on this story. She
didn't provide anything. Just you said she just a vague it was
just a vague general story. Like as if we were supposed to know
about this. I don't know anything about this knife. I was
distressed.
I have some I got a short picture of you really being
distressed. But I understand.
I haven't seen the show I so I can offer since we're in the
topic. Okay. Latest racist remarks.
Ooh, that may be a good one a lot more on President Trump's
latest racist remarks.
remarks. If you didn't clip it very well. It's a little thing
at the
more on President Trump's latest racist remarks.
No, no, I do. I thought it was
a great clip at the end. It's up for consideration. We've been
talking about the face app that changes your face that once
again went viral. And even though we discussed it really in
detail on the last episode as to why this is a problem. Your
government and not yours maybe but here in America, we got
Chuck Schumer one of the leading Democrats the the carpet, a
coupe T copy of of all the Democrats certainly in on
Capitol Hill, telling us the American people's that you
should very afraid Be very afraid of this up, but his
reasons. Hi, everybody, and I'm here to give by the way, this is
how he talks to young people. Hi, everybody, this is what he
thinks is hip. It's like, hi, everybody.
Hi, everybody. And I'm here to give a warning for all
Americans, millions of people who've been downloading faceapp
seems like fun, it applies a little AI to a selfie, to make
your face look older, younger, at a beard, whatever. What seems
like social media Fed, however, may actually not be benign at
all. Recently, it came to light that the parent company, the
app, wireless Labs is based in St. Petersburg. Just as
worrisome, it came to light that the app not only takes your
picture, but retains the right to keep your photos or even your
search history. It allows quote, perpetual, irrevocable and
worldwide license to your photos name or likeness. So this is a
breathtaking and possibly dangerous level of access. And
it raises substantial privacy concerns, the risk that your
facial data could also fall into the hands of something like
Russian intelligence, where the Russian military apparatus is
disturbing.
Bullshit. I'm flabbergasted by this for a number of reasons.
One key could have been reading the terms and services of
Instagram, Facebook, or any other social network. They all
have that irrevocable worldwide license and perpetual in
perpetuity, to use your name likeness. They all have that.
They can all do that. And then because the company is
headquartered, and he didn't even say Russia at the
beginning, St. Petersburg. Oh, now we have to be worried about
your face. It data falling into the hands of the Russians. Shut
up. Schumer. What? What a nincompoop. The real issue is
that BAP is tracking your ass all over the place. It's got us
trackers in it. Actually, I got so pissed off. When I heard this
clip I went to find I did I went to I'm like, Who? Are these data
brokers? We've talked about this a lot. The data brokers, the
data brokers, do you have any idea who the data brokers are?
Oh, the credit card companies, our credit companies, the FICA
guys? Oh, there's a lot of them.
Actually, the number one aggregator of Data Broker
content. And data is Oracle. Yeah, yeah. And go? And do you
know why? They had a couple of AD AD tech all in 2014. They
were buying up little ad tech companies. But then they made a
whopper they acquired axiom, a CX IOM, you've never heard of
Axiom, you're not supposed to hear of Axiom. But they have
this very old company. They've been around since the early 60s.
And they are the original Mac Daddy of collecting your
purchase history. They have an entire network of getting
offline information. They sell this back to Google. I'm sure
Google has its own competencies, and everyone's building their
own database bases and profiles on you. But they
haven't used the right term. Spy CA,
in fact, yes. It is a dossier. Nine of the top 10 automotive
companies use them. Eight out of 10 financial companies, the
credit card companies, the pharmaceutical companies, these
are the people who have the dossier on you. And they can
take all your disparate data. So I mean, they've been doing this
for a long time very valuable company. They were purchased by
Oracle for almost $3 billion. And this is all being stored in
Oracle Database. As you know who else uses Oracle databases? Do
you? Yeah, the government. In fact, in 2001 axiom pitch the
Department of Justice to start scouring the internet and
websites and people's profiles. I mean, the dossier for
keywords. Now, the government rejected them at least according
to this letter. But they the government was also spoke very
highly of their capabilities. And it was found that there was
some conflict of interest. You
know, it the thing you're overlooking, and you shouldn't
mention, you know, you just know how accurate these Dossiers are
about you. And you can attest to that as you used to get pulled
over every time he had left the country. You
know, and once you're in the dossier, it's hard to get
something out of the dossier if there's bad data in there. They
used to allow you to look at what they have in your in their
dossier on you. They've closed that down although they do say
that beginning 2020 They're bringing back a new customer
portal. They also bought something called thing was live
was it Live Wire? Find this. They bought some other company
and you can opt out of that. Opt ups. Yes, here it is. That
company was live ramp, there you go, live ramp. And so that's how
they get a lot of their data from the web, which you
apparently can opt out of. What I thought would be interesting
is to listen to their marketing pitch, they have a marketing
video. And it's it's gobbledygook, marketing poop.
But it's interesting because from my research over the
weekend into these guys, it's real, what they can do, they
really have the goods on all of us.
The crew across the globe. Always connected consumers
expect seamless, Omni channel personalized experiences from
the brands they engage axiom. The data and technology
foundation for the world's best marketers is a trusted advisor,
helping brands build an open garden reality that unifies data
at the foundation layer, connecting the marketing
ecosystem for the ultimate customer experience. And that
means consumers win with more relevant content and timely
offers that align with their needs. And axioms robust suite
of offerings combined 50 years of data driven marketing
experience and leadership and ethical Data Use and Privacy
enabling brands and their partners to create powerful
experiences across every consumer touch point. In more
than 60 countries across Asia Pacific Europe and the Americas
axiom provides clients access to two and a half billion consumers
and two thirds of the world's digital population. Axiom helps
marketers by delivering a suite of superior services and omni
channel data environments solutions. Omni channel
solutions leverage the best data identity management strategy and
analytic services combined with a unified data layer framework
connecting martech and adtech at the data layer to deliver
quantifiable business impact. By providing the most advanced
program for data ethics and governance axiom always puts the
consumer first axiom brings a powerhouse of data driven
marketing expertise to serve the world's best brands. Axiom
powerful capabilities centered around a trusted unified data
foundation that advances the data driven next generation of
marketing. These capabilities unlock more value and new
opportunities that unify first, second and third party data at
scale, and protect privacy across the ecosystem. When
experience matters, brands trust axiom.
That's a two minute video explaining how they're spying on
you. What I find kind of sad, is if they get something wrong,
some data is incorrect somehow, or you made a choice that was
different. This is the this is what everyone pulls closer
information from this is where they get it from. And throw back
to our call back to our algo and machine learning. Example, this
company could screw up your life, you might not even know
it. Absolutely. These are the guys. And so and
the thing is the thing and the government itself will be more
and more reliant on these databases. For one good reason.
There are FOIA proof.
Ooh, yes, no freedom
to be I want to do a dossier. They can let you these guys do a
dossier and they'll use it
and you can purchase it legally. It's that simple. And it's just
so I don't have to invoke his name.
I think the only people that actually read the user agreement
are lawmakers in Washington journalists
that are writing about it today. But just a quick, quick point to
make when you sign up for this app and ask to enable your
entire photo album and so that's the big question. Why did they
need permanent access these app? Yeah, everybody does it.
So how concerned really are they gonna have all the secrets of
new Speedway unless you live like the Unabomber in a cabin in
the woods. Wow, this point.
Let's just stop it right there. So by now, yeah.
Who has been talking to Hitler? Yeah, I usually say Professor
Ted would be proud but now I mean, okay, so they call him the
Unabomber. Like you're a crazy nut job. You will be crazy nut
job to sit in the woods to hide from all this you guys.
I'm gonna show my mood by donating to no agenda. Imagine
all the people who could do that. Oh yeah, that'd be fun
and we do have a few people think to thank for show. Love
with the seven nines 57 You're starting to stop that. Sir
Neil's moniker in Hamburg, Hamburg Deutschland under $11.11
Elizabeth BROZEN I think she's a dame is she? Yeah, Dame Beth.
Yep. Hey boys. Love you want to go to the loving what you do to
the moon and back? Okay, I have a moon clip later for Dan to
show Rahner Ronald Shoal 808 sure John horhn corner corner in
Bay City Bay St. Louis
got a birthday call out for a smokin hot wife Sarah cozy we
got that listed for you. And an ITM from an impromptu na meetup
of the Helena Arkansas local 1360 So a shout out to Sir
Rocket Man Baron of the base or Terry of Crowley's ridge and Sir
One night in Bangkok.
Oh, we do have the $108 donation to make a correction it actually
came from
Ah, yes, this is from Sir Spud, sir spot. The Mighty.
Yes, but the mighty explain. That was a we went back and
forth. It was a mistake. Mistake was for the last show. So sure,
but the mighty,
it was for him and he wanted to and he wanted to call out some
other people who are then yeah, so it got confusing. Okay, well,
you haven't really made it good in that case.
It was confusing that he call that mostly caladiums Oh, yeah.
You want to read the I don't have the note in front of me. So
I guess it's just not good. We started to go to the next show
to fixers but I do have the notes somewhere. We'll get to it
later. Tomorrow. Next show. Ian Nicholas Lindbergh in Stockholm.
To defy 55 This is not a big list people. Although we do have
a lot of $50 donors, which was the theme donation for this
show. 5050 years anniversary of the moon landing. Blake Farrell
in Arlington, Texas double nickels on the dime. Maxine
Waters. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Blake needs an F
cancer for his good friend Mike and his wife Yvonne in Benbrook,
Texas Mike hit me in the mouth several years ago. I've been an
anonymous freeloader ever since no more so we need to de
douching as well I have to do these. You You've been de deuced
you've got karma. We need to code those. I think we get so
many F cancers. I think the shill has to coat them on the
spreadsheet so we don't overlook them.
You should catch him. I don't think we've missed too many
Maxine Waters and there's enough codes on here. Maxine Waters
gravel 5050 turned another year older on the 18th and a hole is
this gravel.
Gravel is I don't know and but the gravel said dunk here in
Dutch at the end there so the gravel is multilingual
could be alright. Nancy MOOsic in Greensboro, North Carolina,
the following people will be $50 donors either of normal $50
donors are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the moon launch
the moonshot. Andrew gusik in Greensboro, North Carolina
Robert case and mill spring North Carolina. Thomas Tallaght
in Shawnee, Oklahoma has a birthday coming up for his his
boy, Daniel laboy and bath Michigan, John Knowles, John
Wilco. Matthew Hawkins in new Mabel Ville, Arkansas. Day
Dennis STARCO sir Josh Mendell in Greenville, South Carolina.
Jeffrey Radwan, Jeremy Yes, Jeremy RADWIN. Carl and reset
the eyeball. Hamburger.
situation.
It's funny because it's just I know from like a clip, you know,
and you say, well, it says this and I can clearly see what it's
done. I know your eyeball needs resetting, but I need to get
people to get you a cue to say eyeball reset, because
it'll be in the book but the this is not discussed by the
euro, your ophthalmologist this eyeball situation. But I'm
talking to over my I have two neighbors that live next door to
me to neurologists. And I explained they had a friend who
had cataract operation and something he committed suicide
some because he was seeing things or something like that. I
said, you know, no problem is. I said you get these crazy, it's
not like it's not like LSD level hallucinations. But you get
these dis dis semi hallucinations where and my
explanation is as follows. And the two neurologists agreed with
the theory and it is that when you're you got a cataract, and
you're living with this cataract for sometimes years and years
and years to the point where it's just kind of a blurry eye.
And but you still have the two eyeballs working and so the one
eyeball is doing a lot of interpolation and they use that
word, maybe call me out on it. Interpolation Which means this
is dreamy is making images that aren't there because your brain
read your eyeball read this to see as much as your brain makes
it see you puts these images together. And that's why we see
the old tube the old TV tube was you never there is no image on
it take a photo of one. And it was just a stripe have something
in your eyeball put it together.
Because interlaced
Yeah, it was it was not only interlaced, but it was really
there's not a lot of info at any one time. What was that word
you used again? Interpolation. What?
interpolate. Yeah, interpolate. interpolate. interpolate. Now,
that's why, by the way, and people should notice this is one
of our turning into a segment. I like it, dogs, dogs could never
see the television. When you had old screens, the old screens,
the old have tubes, the dog would eat dogs and cats couldn't
see that, but they can see it LCD TVs. That's why there's dogs
watch TV. Now, if they see another dog, they'll bark at it
to do all these things they never used to do, because there
was no full image up there that just stood on there like a
picture like they are today. So it's a different phenomenon.
Well, your eyeball used to use the dream and stuff up. So when
you get your cataract removed and put a clear, beautiful lens
in there, it sees everything. It's It's thinking well, maybe
there's more to it. And so it starts to dream stuff up. Well,
your your brain Yeah. So you see stuff sometimes that is that
isn't there, or you or you interpret something wrong. I was
watching a tennis match with Serena Williams and for one
split second she had three arms this is this is messed up. She
isn't have three arms. And I realized that was just I caught
an image of something in the background. And I my eyeball
decided it's kind of you know, it was good. It was working so
hard with the Cattaraugus commandlets. To do so to have
some fun. And so it put the three arms on the woman. And so
I said this is not right. It didn't last that long. But if
you you could be unnerved by this.
That's perhaps the most insane sentence you've just you've ever
spoken. What? Well, I'll, I'll play it back to you after. I
mean, you were like, I can't believe it. The woman had three
arms and then I've just like wow, this is that was that was
very Druggy of you. Ladies and gentlemen, John C. Dvorak with a
C stands for Colombo.
Oh, we're where we are Josh Mandel in Greenville, South
Carolina and Jeremy RADWIN. And in J and K, which, obviously,
Carl? Hamburger is 50. These are all $50 donors many. And there's
not that many because we're running out. Eric Ferris, John
Helmer in Shawnee, Kansas, Ralph Massaro George which it sir I
believe in Universal City, Texas, and that's it. Boom. This
was a very short list. Nobody wanted to celebrate the 50th
anniversary of the moon shot and
very poor for a week. Surprise, surprise.
Thank you. Anonymous and the other executive producers. Yes,
surprise, surprise. Well,
the irony of all this is that you actually because you know
less people participated in sending us some value. The
ironies kind of that you get more show. Somehow
you do get more show. And it's like you get to hear the story
about three arms Serena.
Yeah, well, maybe people can straighten that out for the
Thursday show. But thank you very much, everybody who did
come in and help produced episode 1157. That's over $50.
Very big. Thanks, everyone under $50. That is, for most just to
be anonymous, and to be anonymous, a lot of people take
out a subscription that just continues so they continue to
support the show. We've got a number of them, and please go
check them out
at VO rec.org/and. A, no one.
Alright, quick overview of the meetups. This is something that
seems to be working very well for people's overall mental
health, their their friendship, their relationships, because you
can go to a no agenda meetup you can meet people you've never met
before. People you probably would never ever bump into. It's
a very diverse group. And you could talk to everybody about
whatever you want and people don't get triggered because
their amygdalas are healthy. We have on the books for the 26th
of July st. Louis and Portland, Oregon. Buffalo New York and
Frisco Texas on the books for July 27. Central Florida July
28. August 1 Seattle Washington. We still have the lot festival
and ravens Bergen in Germany, which I need. I still need
clarification says August 2 through fourth that seems like a
pretty long meetup or in Orange County, California August 3
Murphysboro, Tennessee August 9, the 10th in Chicago, August 18.
Victoria, British Columbia, the 22nd is Charleston, South
Carolina. I believe that's their their six week cycle. And then
the 23rd is Salem, Oregon. Those are your meetups. Go to no
agenda meetups.com To find out more about these individual
listings, and if there isn't one there that is near you, then you
can set one up, you can you can get it on the calendar and get
it going. And it's again, it's just something fantastic to
participate. I would like
to make a comment. Sure. I was offered the flight from the
Orange County meetup back to which is coming up back to the
Bay Area by our Baron, Mark Tanner. And I have to mention
the people and I've mentioned this to Nadia, who's going to be
there. This Meetup is on Saturday, there's no way I can
do show prep, and then get back to do a show on Sunday. If the
meetups on Saturday, if you're gonna do a meet up that you want
me to attend even I'm not going to attend any of maybe one or
two, I will do this southern Silicon Valley one shortly, and
which hasn't been set up. It has to be on Thursday or Friday
nights. Otherwise, it's just not possible to do the meet up and
do the show.
Yeah, really, if you want us to do unless you feel more more
important. Now, where would this meetup meetup be? It's going to
be in Orange County somewhere. You can't just stay there and do
your take your mobile rig and do it from there.
No, I spent all day Saturday doing clips, I
got a warning. Yeah, I got you.
I can't I could do the newsletter on Friday. But then
there's clip day, I got to do all my clips and they got to
produce the clips, it's not possible. It's not even close to
being possible.
In the John and I have a little different schedule. different
time zones help a lot. I am prepping throughout the we both
are prepping throughout the entire week. And I pretty much
have a have a puzzle that I get up Thursday and Saturday and
Sunday mornings at five o'clock. 535 To be exact, for some
reason. And and then I start assembling everything. So I
that's when I record the clips. That's when I put packages
together with the outline the show notes. And so that takes me
up until 11am When we start the show, and I'm usually working
right up until that deadline. When I'm in Europe, I can get
almost everything done on on Sunday, and I can start a little
bit later I can get I started 10am. And then I have until five
in the afternoon before we start the show. And then you know,
it's basically basically the 12 hour days for me outside of the
producing But John's schedule, which has been for a while now
is you know he does all of that production work Saturday sends
me his clips. I guess they come in here around one in the
morning, two in the morning, Sunday. When you go to bed you
go to bed around midnight, I think typically Yes.
Right. And then you'd get up at eight or whatever I wake up.
Sometimes I will I liked the idea of having everything done
and then not having to do a bunch of hurried up clips in the
morning, which I used to do I used to get earlier because then
you'd use sometimes I want to produce a clip and want to spend
I would spend more than five seconds doing the clips that
they want to edit it or want to do something to make it sound
you know, it was some extra oomph. And every once in a while
and I can't do that in the morning, and I'm also like it
gets me up too early. And I'm groggy and I also like to look
at the current news because I got busted a couple of times for
breaking stories that took place that morning I didn't know and I
will occasionally send in a late clip but it's written for
context. We probably play between 35 and 40 clips on every
single show. We have 50 or more every single show. Go make 50
clips. Come back and tell me what that was worth
to. The 21st of July 2019 Forget belated birthday wishes going on
to Maxine Waters gravel who celebrated on the 18th age
undetermined and maybe we don't want to know also Happy Birthday
today to view for k turns 58 Sir John Horner says Happy Birthday
to his smokin hot wife Sarah cozy should be celebrating
tomorrow. And Thomas tolet says Happy Birthday to his son he'll
be turning 15 years old on the 26th Happy birthday from the
staff and management and back office here at the best podcast
in the universe. So we have 191 Daming so that means we need the
female swords we got him that's right Carolyn Blaney. Hog star a
and Simon live a zoo ski step I know both of you are about to
join the illustrious group of the Knights and Dames with the
no agenda roundtable for your contributions the amount of
$1,000 or more, it makes me incredibly proud to pronounce
the KC Dame Caerleon, a hug town and serve big night. Both of you
are welcome here at the middle of the roundtable we've got
hookers and blow rent boys and the Chardonnay and we've got
extra coffee and hot sauce pot and vinegar. Not good enough we
got kebab and Persian wine harlots and how they'll
pepperoni ELLs and pale ales, cowgirls and cough and
foreigners breast milk and Cobham sparkling cider and
escorts ginger ale and Jerboas, bong hits and bourbon, and
mutton and meat. It's always a fan favorite, go to no agenda
nation.com/rings and hit enter all your information so we can
get those out to you as soon as possible. And welcome to the
roundtable, our brand new night and our brand new Daymond thank
you for your courage and thank you for supporting the show. We
can't do without you and it is incredibly highly appreciated.
All right. Make sure you guys I get the rundown the thing that
still kind of happening boiling is the CIP ship ship seizures
that have been going on in the Persian Gulf.
And I'm glad to track them. I was listening to the BBC. And
they were kind of Pooh poohing it a little bit. They didn't
seem like all freaked out and war. There was a very
detailed PBS. None of these things are too out of control.
But let's play the background here which is ship seizure.
Iraq. Jesus is the worst. It's the eyeball Manning is wrong.
Tensions in the Persian Gulf have escalated sharply today,
with reports of Iran seizing two oil tankers. Britain says one
was British flag. The other was a Liberian flag ship operated by
a British concern. The vessels were stopped in the Strait of
Hormuz and diverted to Iranian waters. Tehran confirmed the
first seizure but denied the second. Earlier Iranian
officials also denied that the US warship boxer destroyed an
Iranian drone yesterday.
Hey, deny the drone thing and they had this guy on PBS
NewsHour, this Jarv ad serif who's the UN ambassador from
Iran. And they did have a little discussion with him. There's
some information as a long clip. But there's information in here.
I think that's valuable. I think we should play it
as a reef. Thank you very much for talking with us.
Good to be with you again.
Let's start with a downing yesterday by the United States
of the Iranian drone in the Strait of Hormuz. President
Trump says that this was just the latest in a series of
provocative and hostile acts by Iran. Is that how
you see it? Well, first of all, to the best of our information,
we didn't lose any drones yesterday. So it doesn't look
like that. They shot one of our drones. Maybe they shot one of
their drones, the reports that they shot, probably somebody
else's drops, but provocative. Even if it were our drone, we
are in our own neighborhood. The US naval vessel is about 6000
miles away from its shores.
So I would ask you who said What's wrong with you, man?
Don't you know who we are being provocative?
The Trump administration official line is that the US is
not looking for war with Iran. Do you believe that?
No, we didn't come to the Gulf of Mexico. They came to the
Persian Gulf. Now they have to watch that they should not
undermine our sovereignty, our territorial integrity, or our
security. And then we won't have a war,
even saying this week, Mr. Minister, that if the US that if
that Iran may be prepared to change the course on your
uranium enrichment? No,
we're not. We're not we have an agreement that we negotiated
with the United States. It doesn't matter which government
of the United States because the outside world considers the
government sitting in Washington representing the as representing
the United States, there is a provision in the current
agreement. That is in 2023. We're supposed to ratify the
Additional Protocol, which requires us to put all our
facilities under UN inspections for life, that would be
permanent. And it would also require the United States to
lift it sanctions by Congress permanently. That is a provision
that Phil already negotiated. He wants to do better. He can
implement that provision right now. And rest assured that Iran
will never produce nuclear weapons if that is his
objective. If he can do it now 2023 We are prepared to, to
bring that forward. We need to go to our parliament, our
parliament needs to ratify it, we could bring it forward so
that President Trump could make history by making sure that the
relations between the two countries will change forever.
Wow. Let's do it. Yeah,
I didn't know that.
That sounds that sounds spot on. I mean, that's first of all, the
Iran nuclear deal was never ratified by the by Congress,
right by Senate. And doesn't it? It's like it was a piece of
paper promise from Obama wasn't much more than that. So but, but
if this guy is saying, hey, we'll in perpetuity, you know,
have everything open, you can check. We won't build nuclear
weapons, lift the sanctions. Sounds like a great idea. I
mean, like, this is what an olive branch is move it forward
from 23 to 20. But the problem is Saudi Arabia, and I think
Trump has put too many marbles over there, including troops now
going over to standby because that's what this is all about.
It's the Saudis and the Iranians. They hate each other.
at a fundamental level.
Yeah. Well, fundamental fundamental. The religions are
disparate.
Well, I call that fundamental.
Yeah. Fundamental fundamental. Yes.
Damn, well, maybe maybe he's holding this on. I mean, he's
has the President has said consistently he, hey, we want to
talk. We want to
talk to him. Yeah. He's one of the few that deck she will go
talk to people who stepped in North Korea. Well,
this, to me is almost a no brainer. Except, again, what do
we deal with Saudi Arabia? Let's you and I think this through
because a part of Saudi Arabia
doesn't want to want Iran to be a nuclear power.
They also don't want him in the oil market. I think they can
both be
in the oil market. But maybe it's just the oil, but they're
not the big players. I mean, Saudi Arabia still is the big
plus the big dog.
I thought we were the big dog now. Well,
we actually were pumping like crazy, but I think in terms of
reserves, but our reserves usually count include the shale
and all the rest of the stuff. I don't think we have just a raw
oil as much as Saudi Arabia. I'd have to look into it. I don't
know for sure. Now,
that's a great clip. I'm keeping that on standby, because the
guy's very clear. He's saying it right there. Hey, we can fix
this right now. You want to be hero, be a hero. And by the way,
I'm pretty sure that Trump gave operational control of that
region to the Brits right. He said hey, you guys take care of
that you guard that we're now we're no longer operationally
controlling anything in that area if I'm not mistaken
possible. I think he gave that he said okay, Brits it by the
way, we have no real dog in the hunt, other than protecting the
damn Saudis for some reason. Now, even after we know that all
the 911 hijackers pretty much came from Saudi Arabia, some for
some reason, we're still protected. There's
a reason we just don't know exactly what it is. Now, there
was a shooting in Tokyo.
Can I just stay with with that for one second, because I can
get right into the 911 victims compensation fund with a follow
up to my to what we talked about on the last show. Also, this is
very much
right. This is the John Stuart Yes.
The John Stuart has changed
the debate.
Yes, he consistently is called it the first responders fund
when it doesn't it is the victims compensation fund that
is for much more than first responders as we're about to
learn. This is very much a third rail like talking about if
you're talking about Jeffrey Epstein and how possibly there's
an agency it may be Mossad and we didn't really even say it but
that were anti Semites, Jew haters, you know, you talk about
911 your asshole, although many people Yeah, I think Carly
pretty plus more on Twitter is she's she got what I was trying
to saying said hey, you know, there's so many disasters that
take place, you know, Katrina, or the BP disaster, you know,
where does the compensation and for those people well, much
quicker, much shorter notices. And so why? Why is this fund not
only been in place, according to I got some numbers here follow
up numbers. According to the Los Angeles Times, The fund has
already paid out $38 billion dollars to 911 victims. Someone
else reminded me that back in the day this was also quietly
called the airline bailout fund. The reason for that is you If
you took money from the victim's compensation fund, you signed
away your right to sue the airlines or participate in any
action suit against them, the airlines, not everyone took the
victim compensation fund money and did sue the airlines,
they've been billions has been paid out. But the fear was
amongst other things, that you needed to have this fund in
place, otherwise the airlines would have been bankrupted. And,
and they might not have ever gotten out of that hole, which
would have been another issue for I guess, our national
security and our transportation, security, etc. To hate all you
want on me, I'm just trying to give you some facts. We two
short pieces of testimony that are pertinent to this fund and
where the all you've probably heard on the news is,
that asshole Grandpa doesn't want to give money to both the
first as far
as little more behind it. Let's find out first about the
program. Okay, there are three changes as this is about to be
re upped. And these changes are extremely important. And I think
the reason why some people are questioning to what end there
have
been, I think four major changes for I'm sorry, in the VCF over
the last few years from what Congress saw when it last we
authorized this bill in 2015 and allocated the $7.375 billion
dollars. The first is that the total number of claims that have
been filed has increased significantly. In the first five
years of the fund from 2011 to 2016, we had just over 19,000
compensation forms filed. In the last two and a half years, we've
received 28,000 More, and the reasons for those I think are
three. The first is that there is a significant increase in the
number of claims being filed on behalf of victims who have died
as a result of their 911 related conditions as we get further
away from the attacks. But as the seriousness of the illnesses
become more apparent, we see more and more of these claims.
At the end of 2015, we had just 600 deceased claims, we now have
well over 2000 of them. The second thing is that the number
of claimants with cancer conditions continues to
increase, we have found over 8800 claimants eligible because
of a cancer condition. And we have made over 7500 awards due
to cancers. In 2015, we have seen only a fraction of that
number. And the third is that we are seeing a substantial
increase in claims filed by the survivor community. Those who
lived worked or went to school in the area. In the first five
years of the program survivor claims were just 14% of the
awards that were made. Now they account for almost 40% of the
claims that are being filed. And we think that's due to two
things. The first are the increase in cancer rates. And
the second is that the VCF suffered from a significant
information gap in the early years of the program. Many, many
people in the New York area were under the assumption that the
program was only for first responders. And as we have been
able to do more outreach as the World Trade Center Health
Program has been able to do more outreach, partly because of the
reauthorization of the bill in 2015. We have been able to reach
more people who are sick, more people who are dying, and those
claims are now coming in. So there's
some new information in there that I was not aware of that
cancers are Did you got cancer, and I guess you can then prove
it was from 911. And by the way, let's not sue Silverstein or
anybody who had asbestos in the buildings, you know, let's
forget about the give it from the American people. I think
that's what the Los Angeles Times is trying to say is that
even though the initial budget was 7.6 billion, they've
promised all this money to people, and it's totaling up to
quote 38 I think it's higher than that billion dollars. The
the way that they calculate a lot of these, it's also it's I
guess it's fair, but isn't really calculate these payments.
So if you were a fireman, and you died on 911, you were making
35,000, maybe $40,000 a year, they will calculate what you
would have made at that same level over your lifetime
adjusted for inflation, and that's your that's the payment
to your widow your descendants. If you were a hedge fund
manager, you already understand what happened some of those
people, some widows and orphans received seven $8 million for a
life but because that life apparently was making more money
it's worth more than another life that went in on almost
slave wages to go and save people. So by itself I can
understand where there's anger from John Stuart, but it may be
middle of misdirected. And I think it's unfair of him to
focus it only on the first responders to the second clip.
Short one here is, how many do they expect to enter the program
because it is now open ended as it stands. That's why Rand Paul
is saying Hold on a second. How are we going to pay for this
because it specifically states in the bill, this does not fall
under the pay and go system. And the pay go system says, if you
are going to pay something out, you have to show where the money
is going to come from right away, that pretty much means
you're gonna have to scrap something else. And that is
excluded from this by law in the language of the law. So how big
can it get? How many
more people do you think could be at risk of developing 911
related illnesses, including cancers in the next 25 to 50
years? And is it possible to know, the exact number of people
will develop illnesses at this point in time,
it's not possible to know the exact number. But based on the
rates that are increasing, there are going to be 10 to 20,000.
More cancers, I would estimate
the 20,000. More cancers, yes, because other diseases,
plus other diseases. And as we heard about sarcoidosis, which
is a fairly rare disease, but as common in World Trade Center,
exposed individuals, we're going to see folks who have lung
diseases that may require lung transplants or have already been
a number of individuals in the World Trade Center Health
programs that have required lung transplants due to scarring of
the lungs, from the glass and the the concrete and everything
else that caused a reaction in their lungs.
So it's an order of magnitude. You said, What about 30 40,000?
Maybe,
you know, it's it's hard to predict but based on the rates
and the number of folks that were exposed to it, that number
is is accurate. There you go. You're paying for it. Seems so
seems so
I find it to be yet. I didn't know it was so broad. Well, I
didn't know that anyone who didn't get Jon Stewart gets
cancer 20 years later can still claim that it's 911 related. I
don't know cancer rates are on the rise is all I've heard
across the across America across the world. So we'll pay for it
with that, somehow.
Yeah. Health care changes could make a difference in that
regard. I think that may be taken into account. So there's
two clips they have left have the final clip. But they do have
this mass shooting clip. That's another example of democracy now
playing a story nobody else plays or at least an element of
a story. Nobody else plays but then again, they ought to go and
do it. So I have no idea. What the hell hell's going on. Indian
guys, Tokyo, Tokyo mass shooting in
Kyoto, Japan. 33 people were killed Thursday after a man
burst into an animation studio douse the three storey building
with a flammable liquid and set it on fire. Police arrested a 41
year old man after the arson attack on the Kyoto Animation
company. Witnesses reportedly heard the suspect shout they
stole my ideas and they copied my novel because police arrested
him if convicted. The man could face the death penalty.
Well that's the first I'm hearing of that. And yeah, I
didn't know that he was claiming copyright.
Yeah, nobody else reported that they just reported that some
maniac goes good gun control. Wow. Yeah, but now there's no
details what's the details something somebody must talk to
this guy What did he What specifically did they steal? No.
I don't know. There's no reporting there.
It's I guess it's kind of worth it would have been nose nice to
know I guess
I'm just maybe somebody would come up with something somewhere
somehow. So you have any more clips because I do have one
finishing clip. I think a wrap the show nicely.
I'm ready to wrap if you are sir.
So this is Walter Cronkite in 1969 is kind of an inspiration
at least to me. This is an inspirational commentary because
we didn't talk about the moonshot today because it's not
really something we've talked about it before. And it was a
celebration where we you know, everyone made a big deal. Right
from this one clip that I thought was you know, it was it
addresses concerns. It's got an element of futility that I think
applies to you in particular. Okay. And I just found it very
inspirational because this is a 1969 This is Walter Cronkite
talking about the the late takeoff of the moon shot the
Saturn five rocket
reporting now from CBS News Apollo headquarters at Kennedy
Space Center correspondent Walter Cronkite
they resumed the countdown on schedule two minutes after the
hour, which puts them three hours at that time and 30
minutes, three hours and 30 minutes from lunchtime. 9:32am
Ever since they first rolled the Saturn five out of the Vehicle
Assembly Building right by us here at the press site three
miles from the launch pad, put it on that big launcher to take
it out to the pad things have gone exceedingly well with the
flight of Apollo 11. There have been only one or two small
glitches Oh, thank you.
It was the adrenaline shot. I needed to come back and do it
all over again on Thursday.
1969 the first glitch
bowl crap statement by Walter Cronkite. Thank you very much.
Nailed it. It's just a glitch. Who cares? That will do it for
today's program, Episode 1157 of the best podcast in the
universe. Proud to bring that to you and to do it all over again
on Thursday. Please remember us and support the program at
divorce act.org/na So we don't go the way of Mad Magazine. I'm
coming to you from the frontier of Austin, Texas FEMA Region
number six on all the governmental maps. Here I am
saying in the morning, everybody I'm Adam curry.
I'm from Northern Silicon Valley. I'm John C. Dvorak
coming up next on no agenda stream we've got talk story
number 32 Eating birthday in celebration of Dame Carolyn, and
thank you to our end of show mixers, Gallup, Tom Starkweather
and circumference until Thursday, everybody Yeah, I do
smell those and such where we are in time to the Zephyr or
what
we started the whole thing, just as this appeared is a 10 car
train to for some reason. I kept seeing these 10 car trains for
the last week and I'm thinking as I'm looking at these trains
again, why do they take cars over so they've always been
81234? It's not early I'm hearing in Hong Kong. I think
it's going to Well, I mean, I can hear the honk from
Emeryville this morning. They got on these days for signing
tomorrow there's going to be a staffer right on it whatever the
Judy there goes
going for the thank goodness there we go. Omar she is a
really pretty beautiful All I heard was
Why do I dislike you? Swing enough feel so
she would be a model all I heard was difficult. I forgot.
Everything else she has gorgeous teachers.
I want everyone to spread the word to all of your friends all
of your neighbors but everyone knows that we need a clean place
to be they can come here. If you can just stay cool.
Get some fans to stay cool. Some people just don't know where to
turn to stay cool. This summer scorcher turning downright
dangerous.
Look at these temperatures, triple digits, and in some
places. The scorching heat and humidity are gonna get worse on
the hottest day of the year.
People are not the only ones feeling this heat so are
utilities, which means while you're gonna feel the heat
today, the feel like temperature in half the country will be over
100 degrees, no relief for 190 million of us this weekend. I
think
right now we're gonna challenge our infrastructure unlike
anything we've had in years.
Over the next few minutes, I'm gonna see what happens to the
human body as it starts heating up,
wear loose fitting clothing, usable spritzes water on your
face works cold showers cold that continuous is going to be
polar caps, and no wind
in the future. It's going to be hotter and worse and we do need
to read
from this day forward,
it's going to be only America first America first
MoPhO MOPO boruch.org/in A
lot more on President Trump's latest racist remarks