Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 13, 2014 - No Agenda

02:58:45

669: Strategic Patience

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Let's throttle them.
	Adam Curry, John C. Dvorak.
	It's Thursday, November 13, 2014.
	Time for your Gitmo Nation media assassination episode 669-er.
	This is no agenda.
	Enjoying the cyclogenesis here in FEMA Region 6 in the capital of the drone star state, Austin, Tejas, In the morning, everybody.
	I'm Adam Curry.
	And from northern Silicon Valley, where's the Strain...
	Strain?
	Never mind, I'm John C. Dvorak.
	It's Crackpot and Buzzkill in the morning.
	Don't drink before the show, man.
	I drank water.
	What did you want to say?
	There's this strange liquid falling from the sky.
	Called snow?
	I don't know what it is.
	It's raining.
	It's raining as we speak.
	34 degrees Fahrenheit here in Austin.
	Wow, nice.
	By the way, the high in Denver was minus 9.
	First of all, this is global warming, obviously.
	No doubt about it.
	And I was listening, actually I was watching Michio Kaku.
	Oh, I hate that guy.
	You don't really hate him.
	He's entertaining because he's goofy.
	He's very goofy and he's full of himself.
	Yes, yes.
	That I don't, I dislike.
	Well, of course.
	So he's always on the CBS Morning Show with Oprah's girlfriend and Charlie Rose, who is drunk still.
	Charlie.
	I think he's a drinker.
	The guy's making so much money on that show.
	That's why he's drunk.
	I think he's just tired.
	You've got to get up at 4 in the morning to do that show.
	No, no, no.
	You have to be there by 4.
	4 is hair and makeup.
	And I don't know, he might not live in the city.
	If he lives in the city, it's okay.
	If he comes from outside, he's up at 2.30.
	It's okay.
	You've got to get up at 3.
	2.30.
	2.30.
	You've got to get up at 2.30.
	This is no life.
	I've done morning radio shows.
	In your morning radio show, you can just fall out of bed.
	You don't have to do hair and makeup.
	I just smoked my first joint before I was at the studio.
	But still, it's a very challenging life because you really have to go to bed at 8.
	And I had to sleep in a separate bedroom.
	Yeah, you can't wake everybody up.
	No, no.
	All right, here's Kaku talking about this Arctic blast.
	CBS News contributor Michio Kaku is with us.
	He's a physics professor at the City University of New York.
	Good morning.
	Morning.
	Tell us exactly what this is.
	Well, Superstorm Nori packs more energy than Hurricane Sandy.
	Oh, it was not a hurricane, you a-hole.
	Sandy was a superstorm.
	It was never classified as a hurricane, but this had more punch!
	It's headed our way, and we are in the bullseye.
	This weekend, it's going to plow into Alaska, creating 50-foot waves.
	Then, by midweek, all hell breaks loose.
	It's going to collide with a jet stream, pushing Arctic air all the way down, perhaps as low as Florida.
	Now, remember the polar vortex of last year?
	Yes, you had to come up with a new bullcrap line.
	This is...
	Did he say polar vortex and laugh?
	Does he think that's funny?
	Yes, because he knows that this is bullcrap and they've just come up with a new name.
	If you say polar vortex again, last time it was a mistake.
	By the way, I don't think all hell has broken loose.
	It's cold, but all hell has not broken loose.
	What kind of hell are we talking about?
	We're flying to New York tomorrow, and no one's freaking out.
	No, hell has broken loose.
	It's cold, but hell has not broken loose.
	It's been cold before.
	Pushing Arctic air all the way down perhaps as low as Florida.
	Now, remember the polar vortex of last year?
	Yes.
	I remember that bowl of crap.
	This is different.
	There's a name for this.
	It's called bombogenesis.
	That's geek talk for when pressures suddenly drop, when you have hot air, cold air colliding, like what we're going to see over Canada and the American Midwest, plunging temperatures perhaps three degrees below normal.
	I looked this up, this bombogenesis mumbo-jumbo.
	Yeah?
	And it is really just a new word for cyclogenesis, which is rapid or extreme.
	But they changed the word because they like the word bomb.
	Yeah, it's funnier.
	It's funny.
	Well, really, it's rapid or extreme cyclogenesis, which is characterized by barometric pressure drop of 24 millibars in a 24-hour period.
	But he's...
	The polar vortex was, that word was an explanation of what happened with the jet stream and why the weather changed.
	Bombogenesis, or extreme cyclogenesis, is not an explanation of why it's happening, it's just a name for the result.
	You catch my drift?
	Yeah, no, he's just mixing his analysis.
	He can't actually...
	Just to sound, you know, good.
	Well, he can't actually give an explanation for it.
	I think that's what it is.
	This is what it is.
	It's called bombogenesis.
	But he can't actually tell us why.
	And we know he can't use the polar vortex because that was an anomaly all part of, you know, climate change, global warming, man-made global warming.
	Plunging temperatures perhaps three degrees below normal.
	Wow, so what are the best and worst case scenarios?
	Well, in the best case scenario, it simply means take out your rubber boots and mufflers and just hunker down.
	In a worst case scenario...
	Shelter in place!
	It could mean a deep freeze.
	It means airlines cancelling flights left and right.
	They don't have to cancel a flight for cold weather.
	Deep freeze.
	It means transportation being disrupted, train schedules being disrupted, people's schedules being thrown in kilter.
	So we're talking about a massive disruption which will peak around November 13th to November 15th.
	That's today, John!
	It's peaking!
	It's peaking!
	I'm peaking!
	The rest of November.
	Wow.
	How long are we thinking this is going to last?
	Wow.
	Alright, I'm looking at the top stories today.
	I do not see transportation.
	I do not see airlines thrown off kilter.
	I see the extreme storms of Uranus as a headline.
	Yeah, they gotta get this guy off the air.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It's just, well, this is what he does.
	It makes you...
	Through the rest of the month and into December?
	Well, it peaks mid-week next week, so expect several days of pretty miserable weather.
	Miserable!
	But then ripples.
	Ripples will probably be with us for the end of the month.
	So does that mean that our winter's going to be horrific and we should just hide now?
	Well, it means we're going to have another episode of the polar vortex.
	And, you know, get used to it.
	Because it's global warming.
	It happened every year forever.
	Changing.
	And it means that on average, we're going to see more violent swings.
	All right.
	Professor Kaku with the Bombo Genesis.
	Of course, there's...
	It's all kinds of nutty stuff.
	This morning, I must have gotten four clips off of CNN. And this is a short one, and then I'll get off of this bull crap.
	So now, of course, we have a Republican-controlled Congress, both the House and the Senate.
	That's the reason for the weather.
	Well, today, the House, I think, is debating...
	The Key XL pipeline.
	Now, of course, this is what you want to do when you have pro-pipeliners in the majority in both houses.
	Well, they don't until January.
	True.
	But this is just the conversation they're getting started.
	I don't know.
	As far as I know, that woman that got...
	Mary Landrieu, whose guy has a runoff coming, she's decided to jump into the fray.
	She's the senator.
	And she's the one who's pushing it in the Senate because right now is the only time...
	Oh, the only time they can block it.
	Okay, got it.
	It makes sense.
	Well, Carol's CNN... CNN.com slash CarolCNN, Facebook.com slash CarolCNN.
	Of course, the woman I can never see again.
	She had...
	CNN, you know, anymore.
	Right.
	She had Robert Zimmerman on, who, of course, is a Democratic strategist, and Ron Christie.
	I think he was an advisor to George W. Bush.
	So the typical left-right...
	Bull crap.
	But what I found interesting is listen to CarolCNN, Facebook.com slash CarolCNN, when the 98, or actually global warming comes up, and the Christie guy says that the Earth has been cooling for the past decade, which as far as I know from the evidence I've seen, is true.
	It is, at best, a general stop in the rise in temperature, and we're talking very infinitesimal amounts, but everything I've seen says it is cooling.
	Is this the same you're seeing, Professor Dvorak?
	Well, I mean, if you look at the actual...
	Here's what gets me.
	You get one group that has these numbers, and the numbers show it's schooling, and then the other group has different numbers.
	Can somebody decide on which numbers we're supposed to be looking at?
	But from what I can tell, nothing's going on.
	Okay.
	Well, regardless, Carol's response is just, as a journalist or a newsreader, a news model, maybe we should call her that.
	The problem is, Ron's friends in Congress, the Republican members, don't believe in climate change.
	And for that matter, they don't believe in science.
	The new environmental chairman, James Inhofe, says God handles the climate.
	It's not just to get involved with that.
	Well, we believe in science, but we don't believe in global climate change.
	You're absolutely right, because the planet has actually cooled the last decade, not gotten warmer.
	But here's the important thing that I think we will agree on.
	Oh, come on!
	Come on!
	Really?
	Here we are.
	No, no, we have 98% of scientists agree.
	Yeah, she's got more.
	Instead of 97, now it's 98.
	Oh, yeah.
	98% of scientists who are, of course, falling into it.
	So you believe in the 2%?
	Oh, I don't buy the 98.
	I don't buy the 98% figure at all.
	Who do you buy?
	Who's your source?
	Rush Limbaugh?
	Who's your source?
	Rush Limbaugh?
	I know.
	I know.
	Is this the argument that you're throwing at us?
	Yes.
	Is this your source?
	Rush Limbaugh?
	Rush Limbaugh?
	That's it.
	Well, here's what's interesting to me is that this...
	You know, I still would like to get to the bottom of the...
	Well, hold on.
	Who's your source?
	Rush Limbaugh?
	Yeah.
	Here, I'm listening to O'Reilly.
	Oh, who's your source?
	O'Reilly?
	Can I say this?
	Who's your source?
	O'Reilly?
	Well, if my source was O'Reilly, I'd be on the wrong side of the argument.
	Listen to this, and tell me this is not a little subtle propaganda O'Reilly slips on this idiot who's like, you know, presents, he's supposed to come on to analyze the Republican victories, and he's from some red stage blogger.
	Oh, excellent.
	Obama administration.
	In China, President Obama has announced that the USA and the Chinese will work together to cut carbon emissions, thought by many to provoke global warming.
	The President calls the agreement historic.
	Others say it's a huge con.
	Joining us now from Macon, Georgia, Eric Erickson, who runs the conservative blog, RedState.com.
	First of all, are you a non-believer in global warming, Mr.
	Erickson?
	Oh, I think the world's been warming and cooling for several billion years, so I would put myself in the natural phenomenon camp.
	All right, so you feel it's a cycle of nature, but carbon emissions have nothing to do with it?
	If they have something to do with it, minuscule.
	Okay, now you know that runs counter to most scientific opinion, and you know it is an opinion.
	As I always say, you can't prove it one way or the other.
	Nobody can prove this, so it's foolish to get upset about it.
	So here's what he does.
	He slips in this most scientists degree.
	The other guy, who was obviously a dummy, should have said, well, are you familiar with the petition of 30,000 actual climate scientists that say this is bullcrap?
	The petition that was presented before Congress had ignored.
	The petition that was discussed in that White House, the guy who, you know, said at the White House from Rhode Island.
	We ignored it.
	Who ignored it.
	That's what he should have said, because there is no evidence.
	And then, of course, on our own show, you showed that the 97% number was derived in a very bogus fashion.
	Yeah, from Rush Limbaugh.
	From Rush Limbaugh.
	And this is what's going on.
	This is the discourse.
	The discourse is there are 30,000 people that have signed this petition.
	I think it's 31 by 30 or 32,000?
	A lot.
	Well, over 30,000, let's say.
	30,000 of these guys.
	Let me find this one.
	And then the other side, whose argument is...
	Rush Limbaugh.
	And it's just beyond me.
	And then O'Reilly is in on this.
	Of course, we've always questioned his real motives.
	It is 31,487 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs.
	Can I read it to you?
	I have it right here.
	We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997 and any other similar protocols that proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
	There's no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
	Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
	That's pretty clear.
	Well written, and you can't...
	Well, of course, it was the oil companies that bought these guys off.
	Uh-uh, uh-uh.
	You've got to say it right.
	Koch brothers!
	Right.
	The makeup of this, let me see, 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environments of the Earth.
	Computer mathematical sciences, 935 of them who signed this.
	Physics and aerospace science, 5,812.
	Chemistry, 4,822.
	Biology and agriculture, 2,965.
	And all the names are here.
	Petitionproject.org.
	I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I don't think we actually looked that one up.
	That information, that's all good stuff.
	Making my point for me.
	Rush Limbaugh.
	It's astonishing to me that they allow this lack of debate and knee-jerk reaction.
	We have a number of listeners that every so often stop listening because we bring this up one too many times for their taste because they cannot get out of this way of thinking.
	No.
	Open-mindedness is just impossible.
	This is a good one.
	This is one of the best things I've ever seen.
	I've never seen anything quite this effective.
	Something else happened.
	Thanks to Al Gore.
	Well, initially, yeah.
	The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund has hired a new executive director.
	The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund is excited to announce the hiring of Lauren Kurtz as its first executive director.
	And she is joining from Dechert LLP, top-tier law firm where she was a litigator.
	There she served as project manager on a high-profile, $3 billion litigation initiative.
	She represented commercial and individual clients on cases involving freedom of information at FOIA requests.
	Hmm.
	She was hired by the board of directors after a widely publicized summer fundraising campaign to grow the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund from an all-volunteer organization to one with a full-time professional staff.
	Man, there's got to be Koch brothers again.
	Well, that's interesting.
	Well, this brings us to the China agreement, which Obama's...
	Yeah, which was...
	I have a couple clips...
	I just wanted to read a quick email from one of our producers who is in Australia, and this is relevant because everyone's going to Brisbane right after all this China stuff for the G20. And it's confusing and problematic for Tony Abbott,
	the Prime Minister, who has just abolished all carbon tax and he's very much against the climate change position from the 97% of all scientists.
	And of course, this G20 is not supposed to be about...
	Just about climate change, but because of this so-called agreement, the entire media in Australia is all like, oh, historic, we're going to be saved, but we have the wrong guy running the ship.
	These things are never without reason, you know?
	There's always something going on.
	So Obama goes to China and he makes an agreement with Ping, whose agreement apparently is...
	Well, actually, we can play a clip.
	It kind of explains it.
	Let's play the China climate deal doing nothing clip.
	How significant is it when you put together today's deal on climate change, yesterday's deal on trade, given the state of relations between the U.S. and China?
	Well, certainly.
	I think yesterday's deal on tariffs on information products is very, very important.
	This is going to affect American business in a very direct way.
	And if it indeed is implemented in the WTO's Information Technology Agreement next year, this is a major win.
	I'm not so sure about climate change deal, though, because China's...
	Commitment was pretty vague in the White House fact sheet.
	And also, the Xinhua News Agency, in their release, didn't talk about a climate cap in 2030.
	So we've got to make sure that there really is a deal here.
	And indeed, doing nothing for 16 years, as Mitch McConnell says, and I very rarely quote Mitch McConnell, but doing nothing for 16 years is politically unsustainable, not only in the United States, but in other countries as well.
	Did the report say informational material?
	There was two.
	You're talking about the first agreement?
	Yeah, yeah.
	That was the day before they agreed on some sort of IT information.
	Oh, okay.
	So they did something about terrorists, computers, stuff like that.
	It was different.
	And that he thought was good.
	The second thing, which is the agreement with the climate change that Obama thinks is so great, The agreement is, from the Chinese perspective, we're not doing anything for 16 years.
	And then they claim it will naturally start to drop.
	Yeah, because they'll be done.
	Meanwhile, of course, we can't have any of this sort of debate.
	So let's bring in the hagiographer Glenn Ifill.
	Woo-hoo!
	With some guy from Princeton.
	And now, with the backdrop, we always have to remember the backdrop.
	For the last, I would say, close to 20 years, every year has been the last chance.
	It's going to be irreversible.
	It's going to be irreversible, and we've been hearing this every year.
	You remember the, what was it, 350 or 360.org?
	Right.
	Right, the parts per million guy.
	So Gene, Sir Gene here in Austin, he has one of those online weather thingies, and you can go on and you can see what the conditions are inside his house and outside his house.
	Inside his house, he's got like a thousand parts per million of CO2. I call him sometimes, are you dead?
	Are you okay?
	He must be dead.
	No, but he's ruining the climate.
	It's just his house.
	Yeah, it's the snakes.
	That's funny.
	What are we playing?
	So we're playing a China Gwen and the Apologist, RE Climate Change.
	Woo!
	Okay, good.
	Michael Oppenheimer is one of the many authors of the UN Reports on Climate Change and a professor of geosciences and international affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University.
	Welcome back to the NewsHour.
	Thanks for having me.
	How big a deal is this deal?
	This is huge as far as I'm concerned.
	There are basically three reasons.
	One, the science.
	The science tells us to have a chance of avoiding the climate danger zone.
	We've got to get the world's emissions turned around that is going down instead of going up sometime in the 2020 to 2030 time span.
	The Chinese benchmark here of 2030 is consistent with that objective.
	Allow me to read something just to interject.
	Climate Danger Zone.
	Climate Science Defense Fund just hired this top lawyer.
	Oh, right.
	You've been looking at that.
	I'm listening to my clips.
	No, I'm listening to your clips.
	Yeah, go on.
	At least I'm not clipping my toenails.
	I never clip my toenails.
	I should.
	Wait, let me get this down.
	ClimateScienceDefenseFund?
	Yeah,.org.
	This organization was started to, quote, climate researchers are in need of immediate legal assistance to prevent their private correspondence from being exposed.
	Oh, my God.
	Yeah.
	Good catch.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, this is about ClimateGate.
	Yes.
	They're worried sick that there's another smoking gun out there showing that this is a scam.
	Mm-hmm.
	For the individual scientists...
	They put a top lawyer on it, so if anything happens, you will be in court.
	The scientific method is designed around the belief that skepticism is good.
	results should be subjected to the utmost scrutiny through the peer review process, followed by close examination and replication by others in the scientific community.
	Those whose ideas do not live up to the standards of rigorous science have instead chosen to litigate.
	For the individual scientists, these legal actions are a painful burden, especially when it turns out you lied.
	Academic salaries were not designed to support ongoing legal expenses.
	Okay, I get it.
	Yes, protect...
	Through a strict legal framework.
	Yeah, that is the smokescreen for what's going on.
	And they've got a big-ass lawyer to come in and do it.
	Yeah, and I'm sure that lawyer will be able to do what's needed.
	And like they mentioned, went from a volunteer organization to a bunch of pros.
	Yeah, that's a big difference.
	Woo-hoo!
	All right.
	I'm sorry.
	I didn't.
	It's important to do.
	All right.
	No, I think it was good.
	I'm not complaining.
	Okay.
	What's next?
	Yeah.
	So Gwen comes out with this guy who thinks everything's great.
	And he goes on and on.
	He says, yeah, well, the Chinese won't be doing anything until 2030, but we're still within the climate change zone.
	Change zone.
	We're in the zone.
	So, meanwhile, other guys are going, wait, this is crazy.
	You know, you can't let the Chinese not do anything for 16 years, and that's some sort of an agreement.
	And they're not even going to do anything then.
	Anyone can agree to not do anything.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	So this is a scam.
	Yeah.
	Well, well, well deconstructed.
	As much as you can do.
	There was some interesting other little things that came out of this Chinese, as people started analyzing the deals with China.
	The one that was interesting is this one.
	I never knew this.
	This is the same guy.
	This is the clip, China Internal Strife.
	I don't know if we're familiar with this.
	It's going to be very important to see how China implements the agreements that it reached.
	And I actually think that the political system now is in distress.
	You know, everyone says that Xi Jinping has quickly consolidated control in Beijing, but there are too many symptoms of problems, including the failure to dispose of the issue of Zhou Yongkong, the former securities are, and also this continuing series of loyalty oaths on the part of flag officers We seem to be a symptom of disagreements in the People's Liberation Army.
	So, it's Xi Jinping, I don't think, has the consensus to be able to deal with the international community on an acceptable basis.
	And we saw this in that really deplorable handshake with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, where Xi Jinping just breached one diplomatic protocol after another.
	I think that that shows that there's real problems in the Chinese political system, that they can't deal with a neighbor in an Acceptable fashion.
	So something's up.
	Oh, I believe that.
	Can we stay in the Asian region for a moment?
	Well, I might as well play my last clip, which is the counterpoint to this guy, which is some woman who used to be, I guess, on the George W. or H. W. Bush staff as an internationalist.
	She's now a professor at UC San Diego, which is not the highest.
	It's the military.
	It's the farm team.
	J.V. This is China ladies' discussion.
	She was really long-winded by...
	Cut her down.
	Found something kind of interesting.
	And that raises another interesting point.
	But Susan Shirk, I do want to get your sense of these internal pressures and how they're playing out on Xi and how you think this relationship moves forward between the U.S. and China.
	Well, I do think that Xi Jinping has been very much focused on domestic threats to his power and maintaining the Communist Party in power despite the dramatic changes in society and economy over the last 30 years.
	So you see this contrast between what looks like a very confident Xi Jinping and confident China on the world stage with a very nervous Xi Jinping in China about the potential for domestic unrest.
	But I think Xi did well for himself by handling this meeting so well, looking like, you know, enhancing China's status as a responsible big power.
	And that's going to resonate domestically as well.
	Just quickly.
	Posturing, thus.
	Yes.
	She did well for himself is just a great sentence.
	Yeah, she's a Clintonite from the Clinton administration.
	Oh, Clinton, okay.
	Yeah, I remember.
	Okay, staying in Asia, the first clip, this is on the previous program, which we will discuss probably in our Christmas episode.
	We did some live deconstructions.
	It hit me while we were talking about the release of Bay and Miller from North Korea.
	It hit me that this guy who I had seen just out of the corner of my eye, Sugarman, David Sugarman, And we actually researched it on the air on the show.
	It turns out he's a sports agent.
	And this kind of explained a lot of why he might have been involved in trying to get Kenneth Bay back.
	Now, Kenneth Bay...
	I'm learning a lot about this particular little thing that happened.
	He owns a travel company, and although the State Department and the officials here...
	Did you say the State Department?
	Yeah, but that would be wrong.
	I think I said the State Department.
	That would be wrong.
	We'll just call it the State Department from now on.
	He had organized the Dennis Rodman trip.
	Oh, okay.
	You stayed on this.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, I stayed on it for a reason.
	Got a big surprise.
	Got a really big one for you.
	I've got information, man.
	New shit has come to life.
	I've got some good stuff for you.
	And Sugarman was along for the ride because he represents Kenny Anderson, who went to North Korea with Dennis Rodman.
	And this guy, Bay, organized the trip.
	But the straight department portrays him as a missionary who tried to overthrow the country by placing Bibles.
	Right, that was one of the things I believe it was.
	One of the guys was an out-and-out missionary.
	The other guy left the Bible.
	Well, there's some new information on the other guy, the Miller kid, as we'll call him.
	So here's a quick report on Sugarman, who says something very interesting, that he feels that he is responsible...
	For the return, or at least partially, he doesn't claim full responsibility.
	He believes he's partially responsible for the return of Bay as he had, well, he really did the rounds.
	He went to the straight department.
	He went to Hillary, even Charlie Rangel.
	I'm not quite sure what Rangel has to do with it, but, you know, I don't know.
	And also, well, listen to the report.
	For exactly two years now, tour guide and missionary Kenneth Bay of Washington State has been imprisoned in the North Korean labor camp system, suspected of trying to overthrow its government.
	And for nine months, New Jersey sports agent and political activist David Sugarman has been pushing for his release after reaching out to Bay's family and meeting with them in New York.
	Today they told him...
	Ecstatic.
	I mean, they can't wait for him to come home.
	Sugarman led a social media campaign on Twitter and Facebook.
	Today he could celebrate by posting, We did it.
	We did it.
	We brought Kenneth Bay back.
	I am in tears crying right now.
	We did it.
	I can't believe it.
	And the family statement.
	This ordeal has been excruciating for the family, but we are filled with joy right now.
	Our Thanksgiving celebration this year will be one we will never forget.
	Sugarman met with everyone from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Jesse Jackson and Congressman Charlie Rangel.
	And he took this selfie with a North Korean ambassador to the UN who called him this morning.
	He said to say thank you.
	And did you?
	I sure did, yes.
	No one can say for sure why Bay and the other Americans have been released, though there is some speculation North Korea is worried about against it by the International Criminal Court, says former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Stephen Bosworth.
	There are ways in which they can communicate with us, largely through their mission to the U.N. in New York, which is referred to as the New York Channel.
	As for Sugarman, he says he may have been just one part of an effort by many to bring Bay back.
	Okay.
	Let's stop.
	Okay.
	The New York Channel.
	Bullshit.
	And you'll find out why.
	So this guy is saying there's the New York Channel.
	Well, wouldn't the New York Channel be Don?
	And interestingly enough, I received an email from Uncle Don, who says, looking forward to seeing you guys on Monday.
	We're going to New York tomorrow, and we're going up to Armog to see him on Monday, him and Meg.
	He says, I was interviewed.
	As you know, Don can't get, he can't even walk on a set of any mainstream media news program because he's not on board with the message.
	And the message is evil, frightening, scary, crazy.
	So he did this interview.
	It was some local public radio station.
	And so Don said, I believe, this is what he said in his email, I believe you may be able to use some clips on your show.
	Wow, he's promoting himself as a clip.
	Yes!
	That's actually a step in the right direction.
	Let me read it verbatim.
	Hold on a second.
	Let me read his email.
	Really, I was kind of blown away.
	Let's see what he says here.
	Here it is.
	Adam, this interview ran 20 minutes.
	It was excellent.
	I've already had a call from someone at UCLA who wants me to speak at a forum.
	You may find some use for this on your podcast in form of clips.
	Looking forward to seeing you here.
	We actually must listen to the podcast once in a while.
	We wouldn't know about the clips.
	Looking forward to seeing you here at Three Ponds.
	Code.
	Code.
	So I listened to this interview, and I've posted the full interview in the show notes.
	I've pulled a couple clips from it.
	And I started to understand a little better what had happened.
	And we have to go back to October 28th, when the United Nations released their Human Rights Report.
	This is the, I believe, as Don will tell us correctly, this is the genesis of what happened.
	As the United Nations released a 372-page report detailing brainwashing, torture, starvation, imprisonment for crimes such as questioning the system or trying to escape it, or secret Christianity in North Korea, and this report says we should call Kim Jong-un to account.
	And we should haul him before the criminal court!
	And it is Don's belief, in some follow-up emails, that this request for release came directly from Kim Jong-un.
	Let's just start with a little bit of background.
	These are all reasonably short.
	I'm trying to make them as short as possible.
	About the gulags and this Miller kid.
	Apparently the Miller kid was a journalist.
	I'm pretty sure he was a spy.
	And he was there to document the gulags.
	Oh.
	Right?
	Yeah, good idea.
	Yeah, so he had to be...
	Well, I think when we talked about this last show, we determined he was a spy.
	Here's Don.
	Did he go to Berkeley by any chance?
	I don't know.
	I think that the entire issue of the gulags and the prison camps is a matter of high sensitivity to the North Koreans.
	I say that because on the 20th of October, I introduced Ambassador Jong Il-hung of North Korea to the Council on Foreign Relations, where he spoke on the record about human rights in North Korea.
	He took a lot of flack from a human rights activist there because he I had been told what to say by Pyongyang, and he could not really answer their questions to their satisfaction.
	But it was very clear that a matter of great sensitivity to them was the possibility that the UN might take action to try to indict Kim Jong-un for crimes against humanity due to the conditions in the gulags.
	So I don't know anything about what the young man in North Korea was doing, but if they thought he was going to try and get into a camp, that would be a matter of great sensitivity to them.
	So, there's Don, even before the report came out, with the report that the ambassador was already trying to run interference for this report that was on his way.
	They knew what was going on.
	Okay, here's the New York connection.
	Now, a reminder that Don was the ambassador to South Korea, but he was also there during the Korean War, Vietnam War.
	He's been around.
	Yeah, he's over 100.
	Yeah.
	I think he's 84, 85.
	He's pretty old, yeah.
	Here is the New York connection.
	I've made six trips to North Korea, and in February, four of us all representing PCI went to North Korea and heard from them what their economic development plans are, and have heard from them that they needed help in developing these plans, so we've been trying to be helpful on that.
	And after the meeting on the 20th of October with Ambassador Jang, I took him to dinner, And said, you made it clear that the prisoners have nothing to do with the human rights issue in the North.
	I was glad to hear that.
	And I said, this is absolutely the time to release those people.
	And so yesterday, when I heard they had been released, I sent him a note congratulating him, and he responded an hour later, said, thank you very much.
	We talked about that, and I tried to do what you suggested.
	So that's the kind of communication we have.
	It's offline.
	I have no feedback whatsoever from the Obama administration.
	I had none from the Bush administration.
	I've had no feedback from anybody in the White House since I started going to North Korea.
	But I think it's been worth doing.
	And PCI now, I think, is a fairly well-trusted entity by them, and I think they talk fairly freely to us.
	He's off to Brooks!
	He's gone rogue!
	Yeah, he is!
	And the PCI, that's his...
	What is it?
	The project...
	That's the think tank he's in.
	Okay, so it's an NGO. No, it's not an NGO. It's a think tank, but a business.
	It's a business front, for sure.
	No, it's a front.
	I'm saying it's a front.
	Project Concern International.
	They changed the name.
	It was like Pacific something or other.
	It doesn't matter.
	It's a front.
	Well, he's not doing this completely outside of the system.
	I mean, it just doesn't make sense.
	Well, hold on.
	I'm sure Obama's not, you know, but they got their own street department.
	Okay.
	Let me skip ahead one.
	He's going to talk about his trying to, I think he talks about the, well, let me try this one first.
	So the question, of course, is why does a former CIA guy, why is he interested in going to North Korea?
	Yeah.
	So, Donald Gregg, I'm sure there are people in our audience who are wondering why a former CIA officer would feel compelled to feel that there's a need to communicate with North Korea and to get beyond the demonization, which seems to be very popular in all...
	You can already see why Don wanted to do the interview with this guy.
	You know, a British accent, sounds official.
	No one will ever hear the show, except people are going to hear it through us.
	Political and journalistic circles.
	What a wonderful question.
	That's a variant, by the way.
	Instead of great question, that's a wonderful question.
	We should use that.
	I love the fact you asked me that.
	And the answer is very simple.
	I'd rather talk to them than fight them.
	I was involved for four years in the war in Vietnam, which we never should have fought.
	And I've observed, you know, what happens when we do demonize foreign leaders.
	It costs us.
	And we certainly have demonized Kim Jong-un, calling him into question from the moment he appeared.
	The North Koreans think very highly of him.
	When I last went there in February this year, a vice foreign minister of foreign affairs said the sky's the limit under Kim Jong-un.
	They think very highly of him.
	And I think this decision to release the prisoners comes directly from Kim Jong-un.
	I think it's the kind of decision he's going to start making.
	He's going to be around for a long time.
	I think we need to help him understand us better, and I think we need to understand him better than we do.
	For more than a decade, I've called North Korea the longest-running failure in the history of American intelligence.
	And that's how you stay off CNN, Don.
	This is not how you get on the news.
	And I feel that that applies to intelligence organizationally, and it also applies to us intellectually.
	Now he's going to talk about the previous times he has gone to the White House to, you know, bearing a personal message from the leader of North Korea for the president.
	And this was George W. Bush, and Don was a Republican.
	He converted to Democrat and voted for Obama.
	He's not very happy with his decision, I don't think.
	Or at least he's indicated that to me.
	Anything but John McCain.
	And yeah.
	So when you are Don Gregg and you have a message from the leader of North Korea, a handwritten note to deliver to the president, what do you think happens?
	With Bush?
	Yeah, W. And by the way, he was the national security advisor for W's dad, for H. Yeah, back in the day.
	Right, right.
	What do you think?
	What would he do?
	He'd probably table it, say, stick it in a folder and say, I'll get back to you.
	It's worse.
	I've been particularly disappointed that Obama seems to have inherited some of the worst tendencies of the Bush administration in that reason.
	I hand carried to the White House in 2002 a written offer from North Korea, from Kim Jong-il, to restart talks.
	I was in and out of the White House in 20 minutes and Condoleezza Rice's deputy said, oh no, we won't talk to them.
	That would be rewarding bad behavior.
	He was kicked out by Condi's assistant.
	Assistant.
	He didn't...
	Whoa!
	Nobody couldn't help you make you into the country.
	He's been marginalized.
	He's totally.
	And we have now something called strategic patience, which is essentially the same thing.
	We're sort of hoping that North Korea will implode, and they're not going to implode.
	And the longer we don't talk to them, the stronger their nuclear deterrent becomes.
	The North Koreans have made it very clear to me that they want to talk to us, but that until we sit down and really talk to them without a lot of preconditions, they're going to continue to strengthen their nuclear deterrent.
	And so I think the longer we wait to talk, the deeper the pit we're into that we'll have to eventually climb out of.
	I think this is one of the most important clips that we have.
	Well, it's definitely an important clip, and it tells me something else during the Bush administration and continuing, because he does make the mention that whatever the policy is, I don't think he's aware of it.
	And I don't think we are either.
	There is something going on.
	There is some plot afoot.
	There is some scheme.
	It either has to do with the South Koreans.
	It has to do with oil.
	It has to do with the Russians.
	It has to do with something we aren't aware of.
	It's almost like, you know, hidden alien spaceships.
	Mm-hmm.
	A few people know what it is, and nobody else does.
	And that's why he got...
	We don't care what these guys say.
	We have something in mind that we're not talking about.
	Get out.
	Well, the two things...
	Yeah.
	Of course, the Chinese don't want it to fall apart because they don't want, you know, a million North Koreans walking into China.
	I did see a note today that Lockheed and Raytheon are going to sell $1.4 billion worth of missiles to South Korea.
	So it's always good to make the neighbor country afraid of— Right, so you can sell a lot of bullcrap.
	You know, it lasts about two years, and you've got to buy another couple billion worth.
	Now, when we see North Korea portrayed on our mainstream news, it's always a nuclear power who have a crazy kid on the button.
	The guy walking around goose-stepping.
	Here's Don.
	I think North Korea is not...
	A nuclear threat to anyone.
	I think they know that if they used a nuclear weapon, they would be obliterated.
	But as you say, if they get them, others will be tempted to.
	And there are right-wingers in South Korea who are already talking about developing nuclear weapons, something that I had a hand in stopping when I was chief of station there in the mid-70s.
	So this is, I think that's part of the plan, is sell some junk to South Korea.
	We don't want any peace.
	You know, that is the simplest explanation, which is usually the best explanation.
	There's a lot of business to be done.
	Heck yeah.
	Selling crap to South Korea.
	And if everything was hunky-dory between the two countries and they got away from the armistice, you know, they actually finished the war, they would...
	It's all that business.
	Something else interesting that I'm reading.
	I think maybe that's all there is to it.
	No.
	Well, there's a timeline.
	There's a timeline.
	Check this out.
	The U.S. is scheduled to hand over command of South Korea's wartime defenses in December 2015.
	So missile defense capabilities are vital.
	In June, Bloomberg reported PACE-3 and Lockheed's longer-range terminal high-altitude area defense system, known as THAAD, were among the missile systems that South Korea's military was eyeing.
	It's a sales job.
	It's a fucking sales job.
	If we get out, we're turning it over to you.
	Now you have to buy the gear.
	Because until then, we're buying our own gear, right?
	Yeah.
	That's what it seems like.
	Yeah, so we turn it over.
	Now we're doing you a favor.
	And then you have to buy the gear that we used to bring in for free.
	Yeah, but make sure you're really afraid of those guys up north with a crazy kid goose-stepping around.
	It's a complete and total scam.
	Two more clips?
	And the public, by the way, is all in.
	Well, then we don't know any better, because this is the guy who I trust more.
	And the fact that he's been marginalized in the media is, and his book, he's not getting on CNN to promote his book like everybody else?
	Because he doesn't have, they won't book him.
	Pot shards.
	He's probably on, well, there's that.
	There's a, he's probably a blacklist.
	Yeah.
	And by the way, us playing clips on our show is not helping his career.
	I don't think it's hurting it because nobody at CNN listens to the No Agenda show.
	Let's play two more.
	No, there's probably a few lesser producers who do and then they sneak some of this stuff in.
	But they won't admit it.
	It's like driving around listening, let's bring back Rush Limbaugh.
	If you put Rush Limbaugh on your radio and turn it up, you're not going to go through a drive-thru at McDonald's with that playing.
	I guarantee it.
	No one's going to do it.
	No.
	So what Don is...
	I like this, almost Don, this next clip, where he does say that it's a totalitarian regime, and he's saying...
	So Singapore, by the way.
	Yes.
	We love Singapore.
	Right.
	And he's explaining how you deal with them and how you make things change.
	And when people ask me why I keep fooling around with the North Koreans, I've got nothing better to do.
	Beats collecting stamps.
	I say not only I'd rather talk but fight.
	I said my experience is that totalitarian regimes, and North Korea is a totalitarian regime, they change only when they see that it is in their interest to change.
	That happened after Nixon reached out to China.
	And it also happened after George Herbert Walker Bush and Gorbachev worked together to bring down the Berlin Wall.
	And changes took place.
	And I think changes need to start to take place in North Korea, internally generated.
	And so I think these talks to the North Koreans about their human rights problem are very valuable if it translates into actions which they can take on their own volition within their society to make it less repressive.
	He said reprehensible.
	That's what I thought he was going to say.
	Interesting.
	Well, I'm going to ask him about this PCI thing.
	I want to find out what they're doing.
	I think it's a business front, and he wants to help businesses get into North Korea.
	Well, here's what I... You got your pen?
	I have some questions.
	Hold on.
	Oh, whoa, hold on.
	This calls for an outline.
	An outline.
	I have like one question, maybe two.
	You said a few questions.
	You're leaving pretty soon, so I have to...
	Shoot, shoot, shoot.
	The one I really want to know is how serious is North Korea about creating a tourist destination?
	Yes.
	Well, that was on my list, too.
	Okay.
	Creating a tourist...
	Destination, which seems to be the businesses that are getting in.
	Okay, that's question number one.
	Yep, you're on the list.
	Two.
	And why?
	He doesn't really go into much of an explanation about this character, the two guys that were taken, that were subsequently released.
	I can understand why they grabbed the spy, because that was just too obvious.
	But why the other guy?
	He was responsible for the basketball thing.
	Good.
	I mean, it doesn't make sense because that guy would be seen as a good guy.
	He set up the basketball game with the Koreans versus the NBA players and the rest of it.
	Why was he taken?
	Was he maybe just taken?
	I mean, I'm almost imagining since it's a totalitarian state.
	Now, this is just a comedic thing, but I'm imagining they get the guy says, you were very good bringing those basketball guys over.
	You now work for us.
	Could be.
	I mean, that's a movie script.
	Yeah.
	It's a James Bond story.
	But what?
	I don't want to work for you.
	I have a wife and family.
	No, no, no.
	You work for us now.
	You bring more basketball.
	You stay here in your very luxurious hotel.
	You stay.
	I think you're right.
	And probably it was done out of the goodness of someone's heart.
	Like, hey, our fearless leader likes his basketball crap.
	Let's get this guy doing more of that.
	And that backfired?
	Yeah.
	Why else?
	Why else was the guy grabbed?
	He's a known person.
	Friendly to the government.
	Right.
	There was actually a subtle fear of mine if I could get in with Kim Jong-il.
	Yeah.
	For the wine.
	And wine.
	You're very good with wine.
	You stay.
	You recommend wine on a daily basis.
	You label.
	You label everything now.
	Give rating.
	Put down year of expiration.
	Now as much as I like Don, the straight department, and of course he was often listed as a civilian in the straight department, they're all in on Putin being a crazy revisionist Russia.
	And the last question was about Russia, particularly as President Obama was going to get his arm rubbed up by Putin there in China.
	Funny captions, by the way, if you look at my Twitter feed.
	Did you see that picture?
	Putin rubbing Obama's arm?
	No.
	Oh, it's very cute.
	It's kind of sexual in a way.
	Strange.
	I'm sorry, they asked me...
	Never mind.
	It's a joke in there.
	Don't worry about it.
	So the question, I think, was, hey, what about China and Russia?
	And is everyone being played where Russia and China are now teaming up together?
	And what's the word?
	At the conference that I attended in the U.K. a couple of weeks ago, there were some very intelligent senior Russians with whom I talked.
	And I said, look, I fought you guys in CIA all through the Cold War, but I have a huge amount of respect for Russia.
	Can you imagine?
	He actually did.
	Hey!
	I'm sure he did, motherfuckers!
	I fought you!
	And if this century is going to be any better than our last, we have to find ways to work together on certain issues.
	And they said, well, we would agree with that.
	But you've got a very difficult situation with Putin, who is totally in control and has reawakened in the minds of the Russians and the hearts their hope of sort of international clout and grandeur.
	And so we have a real problem coming there.
	And what role she is going to play will become clearer to us all, I think, after Obama sees him on this trip to Asia.
	I actually like how he characterized that.
	I can believe that Putin has awakened something in the Russian people, not necessarily revisionist Russia of days gone by, but I can see where there's a patriotism.
	Well, that brings me to an odd clip.
	Okay.
	That's all I got on Don.
	Oh.
	I got a couple of Putin clips here about, you know, they had about Ukraine, of course.
	Let's see if I can find it.
	And I, unfortunately, made too many clips.
	I have Ukraine.
	Playing in golf, Ukraine.
	Woodruff.
	Woodruff.
	I think it's this one.
	This is the...
	This is the Al Jazeera's report on the Ukrainian situation where they bring on a guy who...
	This is a little different take on things.
	This is that the Russians are actually encroaching and they're lying about it only for the Russian audience.
	They don't give a crap what we think.
	Moscow's position since the fighting began in eastern Ukraine is to insist that it has no military role in the conflict.
	So the Defense Ministry has dismissed General Breedlove's comments, calling them alarmist and anti-Russian.
	It's a message probably meant more for domestic ears than foreign ones.
	Most Russians have no desire to see sons and brothers die fighting in Ukraine.
	So pretending that there are no Russian soldiers, as long as the level of hostilities allows such a pretense, well, that's what Russia is going to be doing, that we're going to deny.
	With fighting intensifying in recent days, the ceasefire agreed in Minsk appears to be dead.
	Both the rebels and the Ukrainian army are preparing for increased hostilities.
	We are seeing more power coming into the hands of terrorist groups than Russia.
	We see all their movements, their positions, and of course we're waiting for them to act.
	How can we react to their acts?
	I see it as my aim to be ready to fight.
	This dovetails into a clip I have, but I have a question, which is the one I ask consistently.
	Why would Russia do that?
	For what reason?
	To what end?
	For what good?
	For what?
	Why would they do what?
	Come in?
	Why would they send in, and it's not just for the Russian audience, CNN is all over this.
	Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia.
	It's all you hear all day long.
	Russia, Russia, Russia.
	Why?
	Does anyone say why?
	What is the point?
	Because of this stupid-ass country, which is not really...
	They're only in...
	If they're in.
	If they're in.
	I think it is possible that they're in, only to be as a defensive measure, because the Ukrainian army is going to come in again and start rebelizing the place, which is...
	And if we consider the fact, which they've been doing...
	It's defensible, yes.
	Those two little outliers, just those two areas.
	And because we're behind the entire Ukraine revolution.
	The pooch.
	The pooch.
	That we did.
	We screwed the pooch.
	And we are into rebelizing.
	Yeah, that's what we do.
	The Russians may be there to set up some barriers to keep that from happening.
	They don't have any interest in seeing this happening right on their border.
	So in your clip, they mentioned what Breedlove had said.
	Breedlove is the new allied commander.
	Cohen, Professor Cohen, who we use commonly on the show, who believes is just full of crap.
	Well, wait until you hear this report.
	Now, this is Brolf.
	I got this yesterday, and then I'll follow it up with a clip from this morning, because the word has gone out.
	Okay, ranch, ramp it up, ramp it up.
	Fuck Russia, ramp it up, ramp it up.
	It's really, really disgusting, this.
	Russian tanks and Russian troops are rolling across the border.
	Russia denies it.
	But now there's an ominous warning from Ukraine's defense minister talking about the Russian military moves, and I'm quoting now, expect unexpected actions on their part.
	I think the main task is to prepare for fighting.
	Okay, so let's just summarize.
	Brolf says, Russian tanks, Russian troops...
	Russia denies it.
	They don't have proof, but Russian...
	And then they quote the Ukrainian defense minister, newly appointed.
	Nice office, by the way, he's got...
	I'm sorry?
	He's got a nice office.
	He's got three stars, a bunch of crazy-looking things all over his...
	Who?
	The Ukrainian guy?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Well, you're not talking about a breed love, right?
	No, no, our defense guy, the Ukrainian guy, he's got scrambled eggs all over them.
	Oh, nice, nice, nice, nice.
	All right, here comes Breedlove.
	This is from the Ukrainian defense minister.
	Our chief national security correspondent, Jim Shuto, is working for us.
	This is pretty alarming what's going on over there right now.
	No question.
	I've spoken with Ukrainian officials in Kiev today.
	Don't mention no names.
	Never a name.
	I spoke with some officials, spoke to some dudes, got some guys over there talking to me.
	There's tremendous alarm, and I think you can say outrage at these Russian moves.
	Because you remember yesterday, there was another one of these humanitarian convoys that went across without inspection, and both Ukrainian and Western officials say, you know, these need to be inspected before you go in.
	Now today, you have the Russians brazenly, openly sending in arms.
	And we're talking about artillery, tanks, And NATO believes Russian forces.
	I spoke to an official in the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry who says that it's the belief of the Foreign Ministry that Russia is preparing for a major offensive by the pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.
	I want you to listen to the NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Philip Breedlove.
	We see forces that are capable of being nuclear that are being moved to Crimea.
	Okay.
	What?
	We see forces that are capable of being nuclear.
	Anything is capable.
	This is the point.
	A guy in a jeep.
	In a box.
	So he's also saying Crimea, which is where the Russians traditionally have had their port and they've had their base there.
	And, of course, there was the illegal, completely outrageous encroachment of all borders when the Crimean said, yeah, we want to be part of Russia.
	Okay, I'm not going to debate that, but for this guy, Breedlove, the head honcho, the copy, the tutti-copy, the dude of the NATO forces to propagate such propaganda of capable, yeah, it's like being pre-cancer, pre-cancerous.
	I'm also pre-nuclear.
	This is, and the report really, it's just crazy.
	Listen.
	Allied Commander General Philip Breedlove.
	We see forces that are capable of being nuclear that are being moved to Crimea.
	Whether they are or not, we do not know.
	But they do have the kind of equipment there that could support that mission.
	They got equipment there that could support that mission.
	If required.
	Crimea.
	Huh?
	What mission?
	What are they going to do?
	The nuclear mission to fry everybody.
	To blow up the whole country?
	Yeah, fry them.
	Fry them.
	That's what we do.
	We annexed, and it's now part of Russia.
	But if they're moving nuclear military equipment...
	Oh, now he's jumped to the actual doing it.
	The remote possibility, because it's capable, now it's...
	Oh, this...
	See, I'm glad I don't have CNN anymore.
	That's good, man.
	Military...
	Get all the CNN stuff you want.
	Someone's got to watch it.
	I'll watch The Blaze.
	Or military equipment capable of using nuclear material, that would be an ominous new development.
	No question.
	On a whole bunch of levels, you can imagine.
	This is based where...
	Did I say something?
	What?
	Yeah, I said...
	Told on Russia moving in, both MiG fighter aircraft as well as Tupelov bombers.
	Yeah, airplanes are nuclear capable.
	Yes.
	Into Crimea, which, as you say, they annexed...
	So that's what they mean by nuclear-capable machinery.
	Anything, yeah.
	Well, it could be a tank, too.
	They have these shells that can be a mini-nuke.
	Illegally, it is not known that they have nuclear weapons on board, haven't been observed by U.S. satellites, but we know that they're nuclear-capable.
	And this has always been the issue.
	Kim Kardashian's ass is nuclear-capable.
	That's true, as a matter of fact.
	...with the U.S. in terms of monitoring these Russian moves.
	They don't know what Russia intends to do.
	They know what they're capable of doing, but they don't know if they have the intent to actually deploy it.
	So what you hear is instigated by the United Nations war machine.
	This was capable.
	It's capable.
	Could it be?
	Not sure.
	But capable. Capable could be.
	Nuk, tik, tik, tik, tik.
	This is not journalism.
	This is not journalism.
	Nuclear weapons there.
	Again, speaking with the Ukrainian foreign ministry officials, this is what they believe is happening.
	The conventional forces going across the border into eastern Ukraine to prepare for a new offensive by pro-Russian separatists.
	These forces in Crimea meant to be something of a flanking move.
	To tell the Ukrainians, we got you in effect on two sides, from the east and from the south.
	And, you know, when you think in those terms, Wolf, there's...
	Now listen to Wolf, Braulf, wrap it up.
	There's no other word you can call this but a war, right?
	I mean, there's been talk of military action.
	War, it's a war, it's a war!
	Respellation, etc.
	But there's really this...
	This guy's business.
	He's NATO. He's got nothing to do with these two countries.
	These war are going on in eastern Ukraine right now.
	And to hear the NATO Supreme Allied Commander raise that possibility that they might even be bringing in equipment that could use nuclear weapons, that's an ominous question.
	And it would violate half a dozen treaties.
	Oh, no!
	They're not NATO. Let's point that out.
	Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in order to get its independence, if you will.
	If you will.
	They moved all those nuclear weapons out.
	The Russians promised at the time they would never undermine Ukrainian sovereignty.
	How's that working out?
	Dr.
	Fauci, thanks so much, as always, for joining us.
	Good to be here, bro.
	Good to be here, bro.
	Dr.
	Fauci was on another show recently.
	Wait, we'll get to that.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, let's tell you what, before we get to that, I'd sure like to take a break here.
	Okay, I just wanted to wind it up with my last...
	Well, then wind it up.
	That's what I was going to do.
	Well, you know, you were going to talk about Dr.
	Fauci.
	No, that was just the Brolf thing.
	Okay.
	I wanted to play this morning's propaganda on CNN. So what possibly could be funnier and not true than nuclear-capable machinery being moved into Crimea?
	How about Russian bombers flying over the Gulf of Mexico?
	I think I've got a better version of the clip.
	All righty.
	Tell me which one it is.
	Well, it's up there.
	It says...
	Oh, airplane and golf.
	Here we go.
	Let's rule it.
	Now, Russia has said it plans to send long-range bombers on flight patrols over North American waters, including the Gulf of Mexico.
	The aim, it says, to secure the country's military presence over the West Atlantic, Eastern Pacific, and the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.
	It comes just days after NATO singled out some Russian incursions into European airspace with some aircraft flying what it called provocative routes.
	The U.S., No, playing down Moscow's planned missions as routine training in international airspace.
	No, that clip is actually too decent.
	That's not good.
	My clip actually has the punchline, but go ahead, play your clip that is probably more sensational.
	Yeah, we have to start off by this.
	Russia!
	This is how you start off the item.
	Russia!
	Russia is flexing its military muscle, it would appear.
	It would appear.
	It is planning to send long-range bombers to patrol the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.
	That would bring the flights close to the U.S. To comfort...
	Too close, rather, for comfort, some officials say.
	It's very close.
	It's right here.
	And the context here matters as...
	As if...
	And they have the picture from Getty Images...
	Yeah, some old bomber.
	Of the Tupolev bomber black and white pictures in formation.
	With props.
	They needed sound effects.
	Exactly.
	Hold on.
	We need prop sound effects.
	Do I have a prop sound effect?
	It's really, really, really...
	It's nuts.
	It's...
	Well, it comes after NATO warned Russia about moving combat troops into eastern Ukraine.
	Tensions very, very high.
	Tensions very, very high.
	There's an argument where you say, there's bombers here, this was right after, as though there was a connection.
	There's no connection.
	And then they bring on some douche.
	The thing with CNN, and I'm sure The Blaze does it as well, all of these former retired guys, they're all consultants to companies that either directly manufacture weaponry or are think tanks that help manufacture, that help Yeah, no, they rarely bring in a professor or somebody who's, you know, just studying this problem constantly.
	No, it's always former colonel.
	They bring him on.
	They won't bring him on anything else because he's like, he's a negative Nelly.
	Not on board.
	Not on board.
	Like Don, you know, hey!
	Let me make a point about this.
	I just thought my clip was better because it said that nobody in the White House, our own government said, this is just a routine flight over international airspace.
	It's a routine exercise.
	Which is also, we have the Open Skies Agreement.
	Right, and then it's just a routine exercise.
	We do this.
	Yes, we fly over Russia.
	It's part of the Open Skies Agreement, yes.
	And so you put these...
	This is just trying to scare the American public so they can be manipulated.
	Not only will I admit that your clip was better, I will also say...
	Thank you for your courage.
	And in the morning to you, John C. Dvorak.
	I was wondering if you'd ever ask.
	In the morning to you, Adam Curry.
	In the morning to all ships that see boots on the ground, feet in the air, subs in the water, and all the dames and knights out there.
	And in the morning to all of our human resources there in the chat room, noagendastream.com.
	In the morning to our artists.
	Thank you, Nick the Rat, for the album art for episode 668.
	Noagendaartgenerator.com is where you can...
	The newly revamped generator where you can find all of the art.
	It's apparently much easier now for artists.
	They can choose from two different templates or not use a template.
	Or make their own.
	And it's based on Drupal.
	Headless.
	It's not headless.
	No.
	Her head was gone.
	Oh, well.
	Hey.
	You should have dropped in there.
	One of these days we should get you a sound.
	And her head is gone.
	You're playing here, Adam.
	Adam, her...
	Drupal's here.
	And her head is gone.
	There you go.
	Wow.
	So...
	Yes, so...
	Finding and playing this type of material on our program is not in line with the commercial interests of most advertisers and or groups who will go after your advertisers if you do not adhere to their strict political correctness or other forms of cultural Marxism.
	And therefore, we have chosen for a value-for-value model, which means not only are we produced by a global intelligence network around the world, but also financially supported by them.
	So who is...
	Supporting us for today as our executive producer.
	Well, we have today's little light.
	Oh.
	Really?
	After that newsletter where you said, hello, it's been light?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I didn't say it right, apparently.
	It's a technique trick to do it to get anyone to actually read the newsletter.
	In the famous words of...
	And I think, by the way, one of my problems is that I didn't have a picture attached.
	Oh.
	Seems to be what people care about most.
	You know...
	Give me a picture when you're in New York.
	Let me tell you.
	Yesterday, Mickey did a photo in the garage photo shoot.
	Naked chicks.
	Like, naked.
	Yeah?
	You know me.
	And so we have a door on the other side.
	Yeah, I know you.
	No, no, no.
	No, I'm not allowed to.
	You're looking through the peephole?
	No, no, no.
	I've been trained.
	I don't even glance over because it can make them nervous, whatever.
	I'm very proper.
	This is Mickey's business, so I'm proper.
	And then, you know, so like two hours go by, and then there's a knock on my studio door.
	And it's Sir Gene, who apparently has been doing lights during this entire shoot.
	What?
	Yes!
	How did he manage?
	I'll come and do lights.
	I can do lights.
	I can do lights, too.
	If he's like, hey, man.
	He's like, oh, can you help me find the tea?
	I've got to make tea for every...
	What?
	I've messed up.
	That's a funny story.
	That's messed up.
	So we'll get a picture of Gene in the studio with the naked models.
	How about that?
	Yeah, get that.
	Poof.
	Poof.
	All right.
	Well, let's thank a few people to get this finished, because there's not much to do here.
	Anonymous Baron, $333.33 from Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts.
	And this is a contribution toward Tom Canberra's posthumous knighthood.
	Oh, yeah.
	This has been really nice to see.
	Yeah, there's a bunch.
	And I think we're almost there, according to Eric.
	He's got it down to...
	It's like $700 or $800 so far.
	Let me take a look at Eric's note.
	It's Tom Kumbera, by the way.
	K-U-M-B-E-R-A. And if anyone doesn't remember...
	I got a note from Angela.
	$757.
	I got a note from Angela.
	Let me see if I have it here.
	She's also really blown away by what's happening.
	Hold on one second.
	You've just got a minute.
	I think I can retrieve it here.
	Yeah, I put it in my notes.
	When I saw this, I was like, wow, that's gone pretty quickly.
	Hey, Adam and John, I want to thank the listeners who gave towards my husband Tom's posthumous knighthood on Sunday's show.
	So she's thanking the ones that she heard on Sunday's show, Taylor Cazella, Daniel Torello, Bill Hartnett, and Carol Garrett.
	Of course, there's many more that came in today.
	I'm forever grateful for your thoughtfulness, generosity, and kindness.
	I was so touched when I heard these donations being read on the show.
	My husband, Tom, would love this.
	I'm sure he knows somehow and is smiling.
	Yeah, I bet too.
	Yeah, we have on the list for Angela Combera, which is her, Taylor Cozzello, Daniel Torellio, Bill Hartnett, Brett Fagley, Sir John Adams, Carol Garrett, Sir David Dural, and Anonymous Baron, who just came in right now, and Sir Gray.
	Fantastic.
	So that's the list, and we're up to $7.57.
	So that'll be the next show, probably.
	It is kind of touching.
	Okay, associate executive producers for today's show, we've got three of them.
	Dame Joan Dottifree in Morgantown, West Virginia, Stomping Grounds, 277.77.
	Did you receive an email from her about the two birthdays?
	I have to.
	I'm going to look for it before I get to the birthday segment, and then when we start that, I'll tell you the names and you'll put them on the list.
	She's got 100 each for two birthdays and a sack of sevens for the belated anniversary, so we'll find that me-mail.
	William LaRock in Locust, North Carolina, 222-22.
	It's my first large donation.
	I need some job karma.
	Not only am I interviewing for a new gig soon, I also just found out my current employer, Intends to fire me in January after I helped him build his drone business.
	What?
	Yeah.
	Oh, that's lame-o.
	I love the show and have been listening since August 13th, August 2013, and have hit several people in the mouth just for fun.
	Could you throw in an ISIS-ISIS baby?
	Yep.
	Job, karma, and Isis, Isis, baby.
	Yep.
	I got it.
	Come on, you fucker!
	Sorry, Tourette's, Tourette's, Tourette's.
	It's just annoying.
	Sometimes the...
	I'm not even gonna tell you how it works.
	Alright, here we go.
	Isis, Isis, baby.
	Isis, Isis, baby.
	You've got karma.
	See, I read ahead for these things, and while you were talking, I was trying to get the jingle in for like 10 seconds.
	It was a jobs karma you needed, and you left out the jobs part.
	Because I was completely distracted.
	All right.
	Everything's going wrong.
	I'm going wrong.
	Jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs.
	Let's vote for jobs!
	Yay!
	Here we go.
	You've got the karma.
	There we go.
	You've got a double of karma.
	He's going to get some great job.
	Huge, huge work.
	Maybe a good job working for the government.
	That's your best bet.
	That's where it is.
	Sir Don Keel.
	He puts Keel.
	I've always thought that was cool.
	I don't think so.
	In Wyndham, North.
	New Hampshire.
	North Hampshire.
	222-22...
	He's in Wyndham, North Hampshire.
	ITM, John and Adam.
	Time to donate again.
	First, I need some serious maximum big-time job karma.
	Any other jingle, Adam?
	Adam.
	How come nobody gives me an opportunity to choose a jingle?
	I delegate my jingle choice to the distinguished gentleman from California.
	I will pick the Calypso.
	Okay.
	Thank you for keeping me sane, which is apparently a number of people believe we do, and I think we do.
	Thank you for keeping me sane and entertained.
	Jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs.
	Let's vote for jobs!
	Yay!
	You've got karma.
	Nice choice, sir.
	Well played.
	And we have, this is all we get for today's show.
	This is show 669.
	Nobody came up with the 669 to become the only club member, but that's okay.
	We do have a show coming up on Sunday, and it will be show 670.
	Think about how many shows we've done.
	Of which portion of my side will be done from New York City.
	And you're going to actually bring the gear to New York City.
	We'll do the show from there.
	I'll be stuck here in the North Highlands.
	Mm-hmm.
	And we want to remind people, go to Dvorak.org slash NA, channeldvorak.com slash NA, the No Agenda Show and thenoagendanation.com sites.
	Both have donate buttons you can click on and find an alternative route to the donation section of the blogs.
	I also wanted to thank producer Jerry Small.
	He heard us talking a while back about what kind of projector Ms.
	Mickey should get for if you want to do something in projection.
	Oh, yeah.
	He had one laying around.
	It's secondhand, but he had one laying around.
	A Canon SX80. This is a fantastic machine.
	Let's see.
	With an extra bulb.
	Oh, that's what you need.
	This thing is nice.
	Canon SX80. Check out the Google of this.
	Look at this thing.
	I don't know how many lumens it has, but it's...
	SX80. The Mark II or the Mark I? I don't know.
	You don't know?
	That I don't know.
	Okay, well, it looks like a winner.
	Yeah, well, she was playing with it.
	It's got 3,000 lumens, which is what you want.
	That's what you want, right.
	And, yeah.
	Anyway, I just wanted to thank him.
	And she's going to thank him separately, but I was just like, wow, that was, you know, nice.
	Nice, thank you.
	I'm sure you'll be thanked appropriately by the missus.
	Yeah, make sure that I just, who is it again that did this?
	Jerry Small.
	Jerry, get some photos in exchange for this.
	maybe he can do lights alright everybody we still need you to go out there and do the very important work of propagating our formula Our formula is this.
	We go out, we hit people in the mouth.
	Hey, citizen.
	Shut up, strange.
	Shut up, strange.
	And this just in at the very last moment before we started with the broadcast.
	After Matt Taibbi ejected himself from the $250 million WordPress blog known as the Internet.
	He wasn't there that long.
	He didn't even start.
	The editor-in-chief, John Cook, has left.
	That guy came over and made a big deal about this.
	because he came from Gawker, I think.
	And he's going back to Gawker, just like Tybee's going back to Rolling Stone.
	This tells me there's some bad poo-poo going on there.
	We spotted that.
	And we said, yeah, we did.
	Everyone was like, this is great.
	This is fantastic.
	I'm like, no, this is bull crap.
	Before we continue, by the way, and before we get into that a little more, I do have Joan Dottifray's note.
	Oh, please.
	She did request a couple of sound effects.
	Okay.
	Can I get my pen first for the birthdays?
	Get the pen.
	I got the pen.
	We're good.
	Let me read the note for the pen first.
	All right.
	I'm such a douchebag.
	Again, I forgot to donate for the birthday of my son, Sir Max, who turned 14 last Friday at 11-7.
	I'm a terrible mom.
	Please de-couch me for that, she says.
	I think she meant de-douche.
	So she needs a de-douche.
	She can put that down.
	And don't forget his birthday.
	I just forgot to donate.
	Also, my husband Alex is turning 50 this Friday.
	That's tomorrow.
	So, wait a minute.
	She forgot her son's birthday and her husband's birthday?
	No, no, her husband's tomorrow, so she remembered that.
	Oh.
	The kid?
	Oh, poor kid.
	Sir Max and Alex.
	And Alex.
	Even though he refuses to listen to the show, I see her husband.
	Oh, there you go.
	Not good.
	I still love him and would like to wish him a happy birthday.
	Then again, this really stupid, my wedding anniversary, the anniversary of the No Agenda show, fall on the same date, October 26th, and I didn't donate for that either.
	I always mean to, but then I lose my mind.
	I count on you guys to remind me of my own wedding anniversary.
	You follow through, and then I drop the ball.
	It's the fault of hormones, if you ask me.
	So you need Sir Max, Alex, and then the herb.
	And her wedding on October 26th.
	And her anniversary.
	There's actually three things, and here's what she wanted.
	If it's not too late to read it, could I please ask for a President Porky Pig and an Al Sharpton Resist We Much?
	Oh, that's not that bad.
	No, it's not like a confusing mess.
	And then that'll finish and we'll have, we've got her all straightened out.
	Okay, and dedouching, porky, resist karma?
	She doesn't ask for karma, but I'd give her some.
	Okay.
	You've been dedouched.
	That's how we work.
	And that's the story.
	But resist, we must.
	We must.
	You've got karma.
	Okay.
	Alright, we're all caught up.
	Alright.
	Well, back to this Intercept thing.
	Oh, yes.
	That's great.
	I do want to point out that we said from the get-go this thing stank.
	Right from the very first day.
	And so who else needs...
	What's the guy's name?
	The hoity-toity professor douchebag who's also the blogger dude.
	Come on, what's his name?
	Who was consulting for them.
	Come on.
	It's like Jeff Jarvis on the other guy.
	What's the guy from NYU Rosen?
	Jeff Rosen.
	Hey, how's that working out for you, Jeff Rosen?
	Jay Rosen.
	No, from now on, he's Jeff Rosen.
	Okay, Jeff Rosen.
	And Jay Jarvis.
	Sounds good.
	I guess that didn't work out.
	Here it is, you know, they're going to have all this freedom, and this guy who comes in as the editor, he says, we're stopping right now on our tracks, and we're going to get...
	Wasn't this the guy that said, we're going to celebrate the Sabbath or something?
	I don't remember.
	The whole thing is whacked.
	Oh, hey, are you from the hood all of a sudden?
	Yeah.
	James Cook.
	Is it with an E? Yeah.
	No.
	No, I think it was James Cook.
	Let me see what we have in...
	Here we go.
	And does he send a missive out for us to read about why he quit?
	No, this is...
	Making too much money?
	This just came in just before the show starts.
	I don't know if there's any other news.
	Let me see.
	No, I don't have anything else.
	What about the site itself?
	They should have some announcement there.
	Well, okay.
	Taibbi, that's hilarious.
	Well, Taibbi, what's it called?
	First Look?
	First Look Media or something like that.
	They have the crappiest.
	I know.
	I think the guy's just, maybe there was no, maybe the guy just did this on the cheap.
	They were building a safe room in the New York offices.
	Right.
	Yeah, because they're going to get it raided.
	And by the way, I think that would make them...
	That goes beyond their mission, I think.
	Oh, important announcement.
	Oh, this is from the 28th.
	So, this is the Matt Taibbi announcement from Pierre Omidyar.
	I'll drive my car.
	I regret to announce that after several weeks of discussions, Matt Taiby has left First Look.
	We wish him well.
	Our differences were never about editorial independence.
	We have never wavered from our pledge that journalistic content is for the journalist to decide, comma, period.
	We're disappointed by how things have turned out.
	I was excited by Matt's editorial vision and hoped to help him bring it to fruition.
	Now we turn our focus to exploring next steps for the talented team that has worked to create Matt's publication.
	I'd like to get the real story on this.
	It's one of those things.
	I'm reminded of an interview with the Hollywood guy, Michael Bay.
	It was on a show that's not on any longer, but it was always discussing these little things with Peter Goober and a couple of other guys.
	So it was all inside baseball about the movies.
	He said when he first got the Transformers gig, he said, well, it sounds good because there's a lot of money involved.
	And they wanted him to do it in Canada.
	And he goes up to Canada and he says, this isn't right.
	There's something wrong here.
	This is not good.
	This is some sort of scam.
	And so he came back.
	He says, I'm doing it in Hollywood with my people.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, but here it is.
	So they pulled Glenn out to write the obit.
	Want to hear it?
	Yeah.
	It's a headline.
	John Cook is leaving The Intercept to return to Gawker at the end of the year.
	Well, it's pretty much now.
	What?
	The Intercept's editor-in-chief, John Cook, who spent the year tripling our staff size and significantly increasing our daily journalistic output, is leaving at the end of the year to return to Gawker Media.
	Deputy editor Ryan Tate will continue to work with John and the rest of the newsroom to effect a smooth transition until the search for Cook's permanent replacement already underway is completed.
	Quote, working with my Intercept colleagues has been one of the most fulfilling things I've done in my career.
	And my decision to leave was a painful one to make, Cook said.
	But I feel comfortable leaving in the knowledge that it is now perfectly situated to become a powerful journalistic force under new editorial leadership.
	Oh, he's a good guy.
	He's one of those guys who never says anything.
	He won't burn bridges.
	Ah, blah, blah.
	Let's get a quote from...
	Oh, John Cook did a tremendous job in getting the Intercept off the ground, said Intercept co-founding editor Jeremy Scahill.
	This is great.
	We got Greenwald interviewing his co-founding editor.
	This is great.
	He was the perfect person to lead us through the inevitably difficult first year of figuring out how we wanted to function and exactly what we wanted to be.
	We are now preparing to expand the Intercept's coverage and bring on more journalists.
	I thought he was fired for hiring too many people.
	He's probably...
	He's breaking the bank.
	He wasn't.
	The guy, he saw what's going...
	He saw it's phony baloney.
	Well, there's something that will...
	Obviously drove him and Taibbi out.
	Well, Taibbi, part of it was he was accused of being a dick.
	He said, you stupid bitch or something to some woman there.
	Oh, no!
	Yeah.
	Maybe she was a stupid bitch.
	Is that possible?
	Well, they brought in independent investigators and they said, oh, there was no harm, no foul.
	But I guess, you know, like a newsroom where you, you know...
	Yeah, newsroom.
	Yeah, we go around and say, stupid bitch, you missed it, whatever.
	You could say bitch, asshole to a guy, whatever.
	Yeah, that would go on.
	Yeah, people yell at each other.
	Let's see what New York Times says.
	If they...
	Okay, they're just quoting Greenwald, of course.
	Bitch.
	Oh, so they're talking about Gawker Media.
	And they're happy.
	Mr.
	Nick Denton.
	This is so funny.
	Doesn't Nick Denton do, like, gossip?
	Yeah, he's a gossip guy.
	In an interview Thursday, he will do what he did best on Gawker.
	Bring great big scoops, but across the eight sites.
	Oh, okay.
	I have advice for these guys.
	Bring in somebody from TMZ. Exactly.
	More stories about Kim Kardashian's butt.
	That'll work.
	Man, oh man, oh man.
	You stupid bitch, that's funny.
	It's something like that.
	I was reading the whole rundown of it.
	It's just ridiculous.
	Let me see.
	Oh, okay.
	Whoa.
	Yes.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	I'm sorry I said the word so.
	That's okay.
	So what did you want to say?
	My son came back.
	They were in Hawaii.
	This is your son who I have a picture of where they lay around his neck.
	Yeah, I know.
	Apparently, the Hawaiians are all in on hating Obama.
	You know, remember when Obama first became president, he would make this trip to Hawaii for the first couple years, and then he never went again?
	So they have these mints.
	He brought some back.
	Some mints?
	Mints.
	Little boxes of mints.
	I've seen these things.
	Like peppermints?
	Yeah, peppermints.
	And one of them says, disappointments.
	With a picture of Obama.
	And here's another one.
	Lemon-flavored eavesdrops.
	NSC approved.
	Who makes these?
	Who produces these?
	That's a question that's up for grabs.
	I'm interested in this.
	This is great.
	The Unemployed Philosophers Guild is what they call themselves, and it's on the back of each one.
	The Unemployed Philosophers Guild, and I guess, you know, it's a gimmick.
	But it's in all the trinket shops, apparently, a lot of Obama stuff.
	That's all negative.
	Interesting.
	Yeah, it was interesting.
	Why do we think this is happening?
	There's a huge backlash against Obama, and it was all apparently orchestrated by the Republican Party, and I have to give them credit for it.
	They had, if you went to, you listened to the NewsHour, they had Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
	Who is the, she's the head of the Democratic Party?
	The Democrat Party Committee, whatever, the Democrat National Committee.
	I have, so this is someone who I really don't like.
	Yes.
	She is just an annoying person.
	Totally.
	Notice I say person.
	Now let me play two clips then.
	Yes, just to annoy me.
	And of course she's going to be interviewed about the election by who do you think on the news hour might...
	That's not fair because I have your clip list.
	Of course, the haziographer.
	So let's play this.
	Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
	Chuck Hagel on TV live right now with a huge band-aid on his face.
	Oh, somebody punched him out finally.
	Wow.
	Oh, you don't have CNN. No.
	And I don't have a TV. When I do the show, I do the show.
	Oh, no.
	Somebody has to keep an eye on the end of the world.
	No, no.
	You know, as far as I'm concerned, I think it would be kind of cool to do the show with 25 monitors there and you can keep looking around.
	But it would be better for video.
	Anyway, let's get back to this and I'll get them out of the way.
	So, Gwen Ifill asks a specific question.
	And what is the question?
	Well, the question is, Nancy Pelosi said it was either an appetite or a disaster or something.
	She made some comment, and Eiffel asked Debbie Wasserman Schultz, what do you think of those two things that Pelosi said?
	Which is worse?
	The answer?
	What do you think the answer is?
	The answer is a Debbie Wasserman Schultz...
	I don't care what you're asking me.
	I'm just going to talk and say whatever I feel like.
	And by the way, it would be funny to have General Dempsey introduce her.
	Nancy Pelosi said in an interview today that this was not a GOP wave, but an ebb tide for the Democrats.
	Which is worse?
	Well, what we're doing is looking beyond just this one election.
	We felt, and certainly last Tuesday was a tough night for Democrats, but, you know, if you look at 2010 and the 2014 midterm elections, clearly we know the voters support our agenda.
	They consistently, last Tuesday, voted to increase the minimum wage, voted in a gun safety statewide initiative.
	Three states, one state.
	They defeated personhood amendments.
	She points out that, you know, Colorado tightened up its gun laws and Washington State did too.
	And so that's a big movement that everyone's all in on with the Democrats.
	But anyway, I found a...
	This is kind of an Ask Adam.
	I think this is the right clip for it.
	I'm going to ask you.
	This is a clip of Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
	It's not too long.
	And she's discussing the election disaster, which was her fault.
	And she has a new meme, a new term, something.
	I want to see if you can identify it in this clip.
	We have two electorates that it appears are shaking themselves out.
	And we need to take a deep dive look.
	And that's why I'm going to appoint a committee in the next few days to really take a deep dive assessment.
	There's a disconnect on them actually getting out and voting for our candidates in midterms.
	And we've got to take a really deep dive on what the problem is.
	What do you think it is that she's trying to say?
	How many times can I guess?
	Yes, once.
	This is deep dive.
	That's what I'm thinking.
	I know when this is used.
	We're going to take a deep dive, Adam.
	I've heard this used by management when they've screwed something up for a customer.
	Now, we're taking a really deep dive to find out what's going on.
	We'll get to the bottom of this as we take the deep dive.
	It means they screwed up.
	Big time.
	Big time.
	Okay, Chuck Hagel.
	Okay.
	He had a minor kitchen mishap.
	His wife went after him.
	He stood up quickly and scratched his cheek on an open cabinet door.
	Oh, you know, I haven't scratched my cheek, but I've come up under an open cabinet door and hit myself right in the head.
	And then blood trickles down your face.
	I've had that happen, too, as a kid.
	I've never had the blood.
	And you see stars.
	Yeah, you have to be careful.
	You've got to keep your cabinet doors closed, people.
	But, you know, you could put on a nice, like, Donald Duck Band-Aid or something.
	This is one of these standards.
	Oh yeah, there should be something fun.
	Something cute.
	Yeah, funny.
	Yeah, like smiley faces.
	Yeah, make fun of it.
	No, that's not possible.
	No, he's not a funny guy.
	No.
	Let's see, it happened, I think, right after, was it Monday?
	Yeah, Monday.
	I was actually depressed.
	Whoa!
	Yeah, for at least 24 hours.
	And I had drinks, actually four drinks.
	Woo!
	You can't drink two drinks without getting plastered.
	You're lightweight.
	Drinks with something and rye.
	I don't know if it's rye.
	Well, rye's good.
	Yeah, very good.
	With Eric, the constitutional lawyer.
	Did you have it in a highball glass?
	What were you drinking it out of?
	Kind of like a tumbler, I would say.
	Yeah.
	And there was orange peel in there and some other stuff.
	Oh.
	Eric ordered it.
	It was a dynamite drink.
	But I was definitely over-served.
	But I was emotional.
	And he's the only guy around here I can just unload and say, holy, holy, holy.
	So you were crying like a baby.
	Yeah, I was.
	Why?
	After I read the proposed net neutrality rules from our president.
	Let me walk right into that one.
	And I got worse, and you need to see this.
	I have set up a little URL for you to visit.
	Because you know this is the end of our show.
	Eventually.
	Well, what Eric, the constitutional lawyer, said, he said, isn't this, like, really great for your show?
	I said, yeah, until its end.
	He said, oh, there's that.
	Give me the URL. I need to set it up first.
	So this is a video the president made.
	A video.
	And I was so outraged and sickened by the worthless a-hole propaganda at the beginning of this video.
	I want to see if you can catch it, John.
	Well, actually, you're going to see it immediately.
	ITM.IM slash buffer.
	And take a look at the beginning of this video.
	You got it?
	It's coming up.
	What do you see?
	I mean, it's loading.
	Okay.
	I have this thing set.
	That's a picture of him.
	The video.
	Calling a mic in a crowd.
	Play the video.
	Play the video.
	The video's down here.
	Okay, here we are.
	He's in the studio.
	Oh, where's Gene?
	Play the video and tell me what you see at the beginning of the video.
	Okay.
	Oh, please!
	I'm outraged by this!
	This is disgusting!
	Now, of course, it's legal, as the Smith-Mundt Act has been overturned, but to put up a fake buffering logo to accentuate the point, here is the audio.
	Hi, everybody.
	Kyle.
	Ever since the internet was created, it's been organized around basic principles of openness, fairness, and freedom.
	This will not stand.
	Actually, the internet was created in a manner so that any piece of it could be blowed up and the rest of the network would continue to operate.
	That is the genesis.
	Yes, those days are over.
	It was not for freedom and openness.
	It was for defense.
	National security.
	Yes.
	But you're right.
	This must end.
	There are no gatekeepers deciding which sites you get to access.
	That must end too.
	We must stop this.
	There are no toll roads on the information superhighway.
	Hello, 1986.
	We want our superhighway back!
	This set of principles, the idea of net neutrality, has unleashed the power of the Internet and given innovators the chance to thrive.
	Abandoning these principles would threaten to end the Internet as we know it.
	Bullcrap.
	That's why I'm laying out a plan to keep the internet free and open.
	And that's why I'm urging the Federal Communications Commission to do everything they can to protect net neutrality for everyone.
	They should make it clear that whether you use a computer, phone or tablet, internet providers have a legal obligation not to block or limit your access to a website.
	Cable companies can't decide which online stores you can shop at or which streaming services you can use.
	And they can't let any company pay for priority over its competitors.
	To put these protections in place, I'm asking the FCC to reclassify Internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act.
	I'm plain English, and I'm asking them to recognize that for most Americans, the Internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life.
	The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone.
	But the public has already commented nearly four million times.
	Yeah, from all the lobbying groups, which primarily are comprised of Google, eBay, Amazon.
	Asking the FCC to make sure that consumers, not the cable company, gets to decide which sites they use.
	Why am I always a consumer?
	I'm not always a consumer when I'm using the internet.
	I can be a producer.
	I can be a communicator.
	I can be an academic.
	I can be someone who just wants to ping-pong with somebody else.
	Why is everything, everything on the Internet, according to the president and all the morons and retards who run this country, including Valerie F.U.B. Yach Jarrett.
	Why is everything a consumer?
	Americans are making their voices heard and standing up for the principles that make the Internet a powerful force for change.
	As long as I'm president, that's what I'll be fighting for, too.
	Great.
	By the way, my wife bitches about the term consumer.
	Well, she's right.
	And she actually documented went from citizen to something.
	There's like about 10 terms for the public, the public.
	You know, there's a bunch of things that became only recently the consumer as though.
	Yeah, it's all that it is.
	That's what the complaint is.
	I mean, it's a consumer.
	It's assuming that all the good we are is just to buy crap off of Amazon or to buy, you know, movies from Netflix.
	And by the way, Tom Wheeler, the chairman, was appointed by President Barack Obama.
	How does that make it independent?
	It's not like I'm voting for the guy.
	I'm not voting him in.
	I will read to you from the President's plan.
	And he says, once again, the FCC is an independent agency.
	Ultimately, this decision is theirs alone.
	True, however, the FCC can force, urge, manipulate, pressure Congress into passing laws for this.
	Now, I want to...
	The SEC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online.
	The rules I am asking for...
	When have they done that, by the way?
	I'm just going to continue.
	The rules I am asking for are simple common sense steps that reflect the internet and you and I... Reflect the internet you and I use every day and that some ISPs already observe.
	These bright line rules include...
	Ooh, bright line rules.
	And there's a hyphen.
	It's hyphenated.
	Now, again, the first thing he says here is that no company will be able to act as a gatekeeper restricting what you can do or see online.
	Who does that?
	Let me continue.
	No company can act as a gatekeeper.
	The first rule the president proposes is no blocking.
	If a consumer requests access to a website or service and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it.
	That way, every player...
	Not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP gets a fair shot at your business, you lowly, moronic, couch-surfing consumer.
	Now, so of course, I say to Eric, the constitutional lawyer, I say, do you think, Eric, that under this, WikiLeaks publications would be considered legal?
	He says, no.
	How about Snowden documents?
	Would these be considered legal?
	He says, no.
	Now, I throw this out by chance in a discussion forum, and I say, you know, who and what is going to be deemed as illegal content?
	Hate speech?
	Bullying?
	There are already laws against hate speech in California.
	So that would be illegal content and therefore should be blocked.
	So let me just read one response, which I think is actually a well-balanced response.
	But I think this is what we're going to be dealing with.
	And it comes back to the question you kept asking me, where has this been done before?
	So this person, KDS, says, let me get this right.
	You believe an ISP should be able to block your content whenever they want, whether it's legal or not?
	That's the position you're taking, that the ISP can block whatever they want from you, the subscriber, for whatever reason they want.
	Is that okay with you?
	You're all hung up on who will decide what is legal and illegal.
	That is already in place.
	Child pornography is illegal, has been for a while, for good reason, and will land you in jail today without the new law.
	There are lots of other illegal content types.
	That does not change with the law.
	What the proposal does change is that if the content is legal, then the ISP will not be allowed to block you from getting it.
	Why do you want the ISP to retain what they do today, block legal content from you however they want to?
	Why would you want this?
	Wow.
	I must say, I have no answer.
	There's no answer for it.
	It's an illogical argument.
	It assumes, there's assumptions being made within the arguments, like O'Reilly, when I played that clip earlier, where he makes assumptions.
	There's assumptions that this is going on.
	I mean, give me an example of where they're blocking legal content, or any content for that matter.
	They don't block the porn sites, they don't block the child porn.
	They let you, you want to go get it, go get it, and then get arrested.
	And like he said, people do get arrested.
	They just collect it, and the next thing you know, they're in court.
	What's worse, I will submit to you.
	Now, this is the president's proposal.
	All the proposals we've seen have not used the word illegal.
	They've used the word lawful.
	Specifically, unlawful.
	Unlawful content and, quote, unlawful network traffic.
	Yeah, BitTorrent.
	Ah, I figured it out.
	Okay.
	Encryption.
	Oh, right.
	Of course.
	They've been trying to get rid of encryption forever.
	Nice one.
	That's what it's going to be.
	You've got two points.
	I've got none.
	What do you mean?
	You've done great with the China...
	Play the harmonica.
	Do something.
	Yeah, but that's not, I mean, that's anyone could have done that.
	The encryption gambit, that's great, because that's exactly what they've been, the FBI in particular, have been phoning about, you know, we can't go into the phones, we can't do this, we can't do that if we don't have access, the encryption is bad.
	Yeah, no, that's exactly right.
	You're right.
	All content has to be.
	I'm sorry, what did you say?
	I didn't hear it.
	What did you say?
	I said it's bad.
	Oh, you said I was right?
	I forgot.
	I can't remember.
	Now, that is the number one proposal from the president.
	Number two, no throttling.
	Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others through a process often called throttling based on the type of service or your ISP's preferences.
	Go.
	You should do that voice more often.
	Yes, I shall.
	Well, did you want to respond to the throttle?
	Yeah, I got things to say.
	Go!
	First of all, are they doing this now?
	I don't know.
	Well, yes, this is the this is the what started it was the Netflix throttling and the buffering, which, of course, got everybody all up in arms because, holy crap, I can't see House of Cards.
	And here's the here's the thing about that.
	And then they they bought a peering agreement because they wouldn't use it.
	Let's go back.
	We talked about this before.
	I'll talk about it again.
	Netflix has these appliances that all the ISPs get for free, and you put them on your system at the home office, and now you've got direct access to the most popular stuff.
	I think 100 terabytes were the movies.
	I just want you to know that when we started this conversation, this exact moment our stream got interrupted.
	Yeah, by coincidence.
	It was on Comcast.
	Comcast is just crappy.
	I mean, let's get to that part.
	That's beside the point.
	So they have these appliances.
	Now, the way net neutrality works, the way I read it, the way they're talking about this, those appliances have got to go.
	You can't have those.
	that's unfair you have to have everything brought in across the pipe from netflix central and then then fed out which would mean the service of you think netflix was bad this would be terrible because now it's good it's same because if you have to go to voodoo to get their movies and then bring them in and then send them out to the to the client you have to do the same thing with netflix you You can't have the Netflix box sitting there feeding stuff out.
	Comcast refused to use these boxes.
	In fact, Comcast was more net neutral at that point than anybody else.
	And then they did a peering agreement and then it became less net neutral.
	And that got everybody bent out of shape because of the peering agreement.
	I guess everybody wanted Comcast to use the Netflix appliances, but they didn't do that.
	They had to have thousands and thousands of them to make it work right.
	But that's beside the point.
	This whole thing is completely misunderstood.
	It's a scam.
	It's ridiculous.
	Let's talk about throttling and what's going on.
	I want to jump in for a second.
	I assert the entire term was only introduced to get to this point of Stopping encryption, stopping free speech.
	The term net neutrality is non-existent in the technical layers of the internet and how it works.
	Just briefly, John, I'll shut up.
	The peering agreement is how the internet grew.
	And back in the day...
	If you couldn't get a peering agreement, which meant I would send roughly the same amount of traffic to the peering point as you would send to me, that's why no money changed hands.
	If you didn't have that kind of traffic, you would have to buy what was known as transit.
	Okay?
	And it was all...
	You said okay.
	Yes.
	It's not neutral.
	It's never been neutral.
	It has nothing to do with border gateway protocols and how the internet really works.
	The term net neutrality, made up by some professor, Is bullshit!
	No, we actually know the guy who dreamed up the term.
	It's documented.
	And he now reneges on it.
	But it doesn't matter.
	I'm just saying.
	You just said, I'm just saying.
	I did.
	I'm just saying.
	And I said so.
	So, wow.
	Okay.
	Right?
	Net neutrality has never existed in the network.
	It's never been there.
	The internet was not built on net neutrality.
	It was built on a bunch of crazy networks strung together, and it expanded through peering.
	It was a lie.
	The president is lying.
	A way to save money.
	And in fact, the internet, when it first started, if you said, hey, I'm a consumer looking to buy something, people would yell at you and kick you off.
	This is true.
	I haven't forgotten that.
	The original network was running through these big, giant, government-run piers.
	And universities.
	And then it turned out there was carriage costs because it costs so much money to go through some of these giant pipes.
	And people said, well, you know what?
	If you and I hook up together because half of my traffic is going to your people and your traffic is coming to me, we don't have to go through this roundabout thing.
	We just talk to each other.
	Okay, we'll sign that.
	Then they signed off on it.
	And that's what grew.
	And then somebody got the wise idea, Comcast and others.
	Time Warner said, you know, what we can do is we can have cable modems and then we can buy backbones and then we can put these little guys out of business.
	And now we have these giant networks that could be brought down by, you know, smart.
	I want to interject not entirely true.
	And this goes back to the Level 3 and the earlier days of, oh, we're the guys who had the Metropolitan Fiber.
	They bought up and the smaller guys all sold out.
	Digex and all these guys who had little networks, they went, fuck it, let's get rich to sell out.
	So it's not entirely true that the big guys were evil.
	This was a very typical, capitalistic, monopolistic way of...
	I'm not saying they were evil.
	I never used the word evil.
	It could come across as that.
	People talk about the evil Comcast or the evil Time Warner.
	If Comcast can't get its act together with my connection, I'm going to be bitching about this.
	They're evil about that, sure.
	My connection on Comcast, and I'm convinced of this, and I've actually discussed this on DH Unplugged.
	I'll discuss it again.
	I believe that Comcast, once they set up business Comcast...
	They shape their traffic and send all the bandwidth to the businesses during the day.
	Of course!
	And then at 5 o'clock, when the businesses are shutting down, boom, it goes back to the users.
	The consumers, you mean.
	The consumers.
	I still stick with the word user.
	No, no, no.
	Three generations ago.
	Consumer.
	And so the users get their, because here's my bandwidth, about 10 o'clock in the morning.
	Somehow you turn this net neutrality conversation into your own personal vendetta against Comcast.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Two megabits per second throughout the day, sometimes 500k, like around just before lunch.
	Get off that hill.
	There's a bunch of slowdowns that take two megabits.
	And this is way out of bounds with what they're promising in their advertising.
	And I'm down like this.
	Oh, it must be your router.
	Oh, it must be the wireless.
	Oh, it must be this.
	It must be that.
	These great...
	Experts out there telling me what's going on.
	5 o'clock.
	John, we know that you're on shared bandwidth.
	That is just a shitty ISP. That has nothing to do with net neutrality.
	5 o'clock.
	Boom!
	70 megabits per second.
	Midnight, 70 megabits per second.
	The whole thing is 70 megabits per second.
	Then, here it goes again.
	During the day, it drops down to 200 or 500.
	500k, if I'm lucky.
	Half the pages won't load.
	Videos won't work.
	Nothing works.
	I can't podcast.
	We've known that for a long time.
	It's been going on for years.
	All right, all right.
	And then Comcast says, oh, we'll send somebody over.
	But you're just mad.
	You're just an angry consumer.
	Yeah, well, there you have it.
	We continue.
	Increase transparency.
	The connection between consumers and ISPs.
	I really hate you for saying this.
	Not you, not you, not you, the president.
	Me?
	I know the president.
	Oh.
	So he's the connection between consumers and the ISPs.
	We're not producers, we're not academics, we're not researchers, we're consumers.
	I hate you for this.
	The so-called last mile is not the only...
	I know.
	What year is he living in?
	Hello, 1993 calling.
	The last mile is not the only place some sites might get special treatment.
	By the way, the last mile is completely within the purview of the ISP to do whatever the hell they want.
	So, I am also asking the FCC... He didn't say so.
	It says so, comma.
	No.
	Yes, so, comma.
	Yes.
	I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary, to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISPs and the rest of the internet.
	Okay.
	Which is peering.
	This is breaking the system.
	And the final one.
	No paid prioritization.
	Simply put, colon, no service should be stuck in a, quote, slow lane.
	Because it does not pay a fee.
	That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the internet's growth.
	So, comma, as I have before, comma, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.
	Well, then it looks like Comcast is going to have to cut off Netflix with that pairing arrangement.
	Now, Associated Press went deeper.
	This is just the little blurby thing that the White House put out.
	And we have here...
	It is a common...
	Who is this talking?
	On Monday, Obama waded into the fray.
	This is the Associated Press.
	Gave a major boost to Internet activists.
	I guess we're not Internet activists since we don't believe in it.
	Saying the FCC should explicitly ban any paid prioritization on the Internet.
	Obama also suggested the FCC reclassify consumer broadband as a public utility under the 1934 Communications Act so that there's no legal ambiguity.
	That means Title II. Quote, it is common sense the same philosophy should guide any servers that is based on the transmission of information, whether a phone call or a packet of data.
	He doesn't understand how this works.
	You know, packets don't go in one, you know, stream.
	It's a packet of data.
	I think you made your point about where he doesn't know what he's talking about, but let's continue with the read.
	Yeah, well, the read I wanted to get to.
	Net neutrality is the idea.
	Ah, here it is.
	Now, who is fighting for this?
	First, this tectonic shift in national policy, should it be adopted?
	The FBI. Would create devastating results.
	This is Powell, who said this, who chaired the FCC during the Bush administration.
	Consumer groups and content providers hailed Obama's move.
	These are people who represent us, John.
	Consumer groups represent the consumers, because that's all we are.
	Stupid-ass Obama!
	That actually did hail him.
	Hail Obama!
	Consumer groups and content providers hailed Obama's move with Netflix posting to its Facebook page.
	How fucking sad is this?
	I'll read that again.
	With Netflix posting to its Facebook page that consumers should pick winners and losers on the internet, not broadband gatekeepers.
	Oh my god.
	Okay.
	Net neutrality here.
	This is Associated Press from the consumer groups who hail Obama.
	Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers shouldn't block, slow, or manipulate data moving across its networks as long as content isn't against the law, such as child pornography or pirated music.
	A file or video posted on one site will load generally at the same speed as a similarly sized file or video on another site.
	Okay.
	This is...
	Bullshit!
	That's not true.
	There could be different routes, multiple hops.
	And that's what they have to say generally.
	You're beating up what we already know.
	I think the point you made about the encryption and the lawfulness and unlawfulness is what this is really all about.
	Arguing the technology, which you keep drifting into, is fruitless.
	It's not about the technology.
	I'm not arguing the technology.
	I'm correcting the...
	Yes, the...
	Fruitless.
	Fruitless.
	Okay.
	Well, apparently, just looking from the comments, it's fruitless to argue at all, because clearly, I'm just all in on the big guys, and I must love Comcast, and I'm paid by the...
	Broke, brother!
	That's right, and I dream and masturbate to...
	I'm sorry.
	You're the Koch brother stooge!
	I'm waiting for that.
	It's big oil that's talking.
	But then Ted Cruz is the biggest boob moron douchebag, and I'll say it, retard!
	Is this news?
	Ted Cruz?
	You've hated Ted Cruz from the beginning of this show.
	No, hit it.
	I've never hated him.
	Ted Cruz clip.
	No, it's a quote, no clip.
	Net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet.
	You dickhead.
	You stupid, stupid, stupid.
	It's just stupid.
	Stupid, stupid, stupid man.
	With your stupid Goldman Sachs stewed stupid wife.
	These stupid people.
	I think you made your point.
	I'm done.
	I'm done.
	So this made you depressed?
	Yes, because I need to figure out a career.
	In five years, I'll have no job.
	Five years, oh yeah.
	Once this takes place, and of course everyone's all in on it, about the number of people that see through it, I can count on one hand.
	I'm sure a lot of our listeners are in agreement, but most of them probably still, I don't know what they're talking about.
	And they may or may not care.
	But the people I know that sincerely understand that this is a lead-in to a disaster letting the government run the internet, which is what, of course, the government wants to do.
	And to outlaw encryption.
	And what's great is that, to me, is the way they've sold it, which is very much like the...
	I don't want to equate it with global warming, but they've sold it as a very nice...
	The narrative is dynamite.
	And they've sold everybody on it.
	And the term works so well.
	It's...
	And you'd listen to these guys on these podcasts and they go on and on about it because if they don't pass net neutrality, they're out of business somehow.
	I don't know how that works because what's changing?
	I mean, if we just drop the whole argument, drop the idea, what's going to change?
	Is Comcast all of a sudden going to say, you know, I don't like that guy's podcast.
	Let's throttle it.
	I don't see that they care.
	What would be the point?
	No, because people don't care about podcasts.
	They care about Netflix.
	The government wants to do this.
	The government wants to throttle stuff.
	The government wants to end encryption.
	I think you've made your point.
	As far as they're concerned, go ahead and download all the music you want.
	Just make sure you pay your bill.
	They don't care about downloading music.
	It's only because the government forces them to care about it.
	As far as their concern, there's more work.
	Why would they put themselves through doing more work?
	Oh, let's find a couple of objectionable podcasts and throttle them.
	Let's throttle them.
	Let's throttle them.
	Why would they do that?
	They don't care.
	Have you cast your Koch brothers check yet?
	I got it right here.
	One hundred thousand million dollars.
	Book brothers don't even listen to our show.
	I've put an intro to distributed hash tables under the NA tech heading in the show notes.
	People should read that.
	That's where we're headed.
	That's the only way to be able to maybe get to seven years.
	You know, what I think is great is the way they've sold this, because, you know, the FCC's, they see the future.
	The FCC, the broadcasting thing, is a slow-dying business.
	It's not dying tomorrow, it's not dying in 10 years, but it's dying.
	There's gonna be more people broadcasting, like we're doing, over the internet, using the internet as a transport vehicle, because it's cheaper, it's more versatile, it goes all over the world.
	You can't do that with a radio transmitter.
	It's not possible, and it costs a lot of money to run those things.
	The FCC looks at this and says, well, we've got to regulate the damned radio and television, and we get to tell them that they get the $350,000 fine for showing somebody's nipple, or cussing once or twice, or getting, let's get rid of Howard Stern.
	Let me give you a better analogy.
	I am a FCC-licensed amateur radio operator.
	By this many spectrum that I may operate in, up to 1,500 watts, I can't say fuck.
	I can't sell something.
	I can't broadcast.
	I can't do anything.
	There's no free speech on ham radio.
	No.
	Because the FCC licenses it.
	Right.
	So, hello!
	And we know for a fact, if you start looking into the record, they've been trying to get their little mitts around cable TV. Oh, yeah.
	Oh, is there some way we could get a hold of cable TV so we could regulate it?
	And then, of course, the real goal here is to charge for licenses.
	You have to pay...
	This is very important, what you're saying.
	I need to stop you.
	This is really important.
	Cable TV is not regulated by the FCC. And this was always the problem.
	The cable companies used to be little guys who thought they were broadcast networks.
	Man, the Cable Ace Awards.
	I had to schmooze with their ugly-ass wives for years at MTV because they were the gatekeepers.
	They determined if MTV was in the standard basic package or if it was a premium service.
	FCC has no regulation, you see.
	This is why classifying it as a Title II service with all video moving slowly to internet protocol, when they do that, then they actually have a real grip on the cable company, as you say.
	You're right.
	What is it now, 30 years they've been trying to do this?
	Yes.
	You need old guys like us to be able to look into the history and tell you this, people.
	They've been trying to do this forever, and they've been unsuccessful.
	Now this is their backdoor.
	This is a backdoor methodology to get a hold of all that stuff, the cable, all the cable programming, because there's a lot of subversive stuff on cable TV. There's a lot of cussing.
	There's nudity.
	There's all these things that we don't want because some kid might see it.
	You know, and the kids in today's world, by...
	You know, by virtue of the fact that they see a lot of nudity, they go, so what?
	Oh, there's a tit.
	Big deal.
	I mean, in Europe, that's been, you know, the standard thing even on broadcasting.
	There's tits.
	They're all over the place.
	But, you know, oh, God, you know, it's finable because the FCC likes to find these things, and there are a bunch of stooges that are on the FCC. They're always a bunch of idiots if you listen.
	Go listen to some of their events that they have, some of their meetings, some of their questions and answers.
	They're horrible.
	This is what they're up to.
	And the net neutrality thing, they must be just high-fiving constantly right now with the notion or the fact that the public at large, all the podcasters, everybody...
	All in!
	All in!
	Ha ha ha ha!
	They're stroking their white pussies with glee.
	As it were.
	Yeah.
	But I will add to that that this is a very unique American problem.
	In some regard, this is why it's starting here.
	Because...
	And I'm generalizing, so I will preface by saying, in general, Americans are so hung up over public display of body parts and sexuality.
	Breasts.
	So, it's funny.
	Mickey, the other day, said, oh...
	Okay, she's wearing a sweater.
	She said, do you like the sweater?
	I'm very good at this.
	I do the fashion show thing.
	I said, no, try the other shoes.
	I'm good at this.
	I'm actually, I'm good at this.
	I'm sure you are.
	And she said, what do you think of the sweater?
	She said, oh, I love the sweater.
	She said, great.
	I could take my bra off.
	Well, what is the bra for?
	She said, well, so my nipples don't show.
	I said, oh, do you wear a bra when you're in Amsterdam?
	She said, no.
	Here in America, all the guys are like...
	Yes, they do.
	Headlights!
	I'll see what happens.
	Sad.
	That's just the way it is.
	And these guys reflect that and then they push it and they make sure that you don't have nipples showing or anything.
	And once they get a hold of the internet, there's a lot of changes.
	A lot of nipples.
	Once the FCC, which is what they're headed for, once they own the internet as a regulatory body under this bull crap, once they're in charge, you watch what happens.
	And yeah, it's going to be bad.
	That's why this video went viral.
	This is another example.
	Another example.
	Now, from an American perspective, this is Megyn Kelly introducing Mike Huckabee.
	Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who's the host of Huckabee, right here on the Fox News channel.
	Oh, that's all she said.
	She must be fined.
	Oh, no way, she's on cable.
	Oh, somebody, please, they got the children!
	I'm gonna show myself old by donating to no agenda.
	Imagine all the people who could do that.
	Oh, yeah, that'd be fab.
	Yeah, on no agenda in the morning.
	I want to thank a few people.
	By the way, we both want to thank them, obviously, but I want to say I hope we don't talk about net neutrality anymore.
	I think it's a done deal.
	We're on the outside looking in, and that's just the way it is.
	I think beating a dead horse, we're not changing anybody's mind.
	We're not changing anyone's mind.
	No.
	Well, can we...
	The only thing I'd like to do, maybe...
	I just want to somewhere be in writing where I say, dear people of Earth.
	Like Yoko Ono.
	Dear people of Earth!
	I've written two or three pieces doing exactly what you suggest.
	With a Yoko Ono voice?
	Referred.
	Twitter guys.
	Oh, look at this.
	He said this.
	I agree with him.
	Yeah, he already agreed with me before I wrote it.
	And the other guy says, yeah, I don't care, whatever you think is bullcrap.
	It's Dvorak trying to get attention, trolling.
	Yeah, trolling, trolling.
	And he's the guy that said cable modems would never work.
	Yeah, sorry.
	It's always something I said.
	Sorry, there's that one.
	Yeah, yeah.
	You know what?
	At least...
	They don't work, by the way.
	The way I'm getting my bandwidth was right.
	Ha ha ha!
	By the way, at least no one ever says anything about what I used to say.
	Well, you didn't put it in writing.
	Lots of interviews, but that doesn't count.
	No, you can say anything you want over the...
	It's interesting to me that in the broadcast medium, it's like completely...
	It's set aside.
	It's not even...
	Even transcripts don't get picked up.
	It's just a different thing than when you write a thoughtful essay.
	Okay.
	Well, I'm not going to do that anytime soon.
	Let's thank our producers here.
	Including Fabrice...
	Shumi in Anaheim.
	1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
	Favorite number.
	He said the job karma really works.
	He got his dream job building race cars for a living.
	Did you see?
	Yeah, he sent pictures.
	I sent a picture.
	Was he building race?
	Why should we even be buying cars?
	We should just get...
	We must have enough listeners out there that can put together a jalopy that's got a big...
	If someone puts together a jalopy, I will drive it.
	With a big engine.
	Like a hot rod.
	With a blower on it, on the front.
	Yeah, a big blower sitting on the top.
	And you can put any advertising you want on the side, I will drive it.
	I will do the same.
	And I want it not to be able to fit in the garage.
	I've got to park it on the street.
	A monster truck.
	Yeah, I'll drive it.
	A monster truck is going too far.
	Michael Supko in Belmar, New Jersey.
	1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
	Greg Passmore in Hallandale.
	I'll get it.
	Hallandale Beach, Florida.
	Never heard of that area.
	It's 111.99.
	Brian Williams in Streamwood, Illinois, who's always coming in.
	73, 73.
	73's to you, Brian.
	73's.
	I think he's a knight.
	I could be wrong.
	Sir Jimmy of Free Hollow Books, 69, 69.
	We did get a few of these.
	I got a note from Carrie Shun, by the way.
	Oh.
	She started the 69, 69 thing.
	She stopped listening to the show and now she's back on board.
	Oh.
	That's all I know.
	She's apparently been traveling for some reason.
	She doesn't explain it very deeply.
	Well, so, you know, it's hard to podcast.
	I had an idea about that, by the way.
	Remind me, after the show, I have another one of our great business ideas.
	Okay, let me write this down.
	That we'll never execute.
	No, that's what we do.
	We talk about them.
	Yeah, but I want to talk about it with you first, and then we can forget to talk about it on the show.
	Okay, we'll do that.
	I got it written down in the red book.
	Okay, got it.
	And then we have Jimmy who's been around.
	He wants us to play a Bill and Ted 69.
	I don't even know what the jingle looks like.
	It's just 69, 69!
	Those guys.
	Yeah, it's Bill and Ted, but I don't even know.
	We used to play that jingle, which makes sense in this little...
	No, I understand.
	But it must have been.
	I got it.
	Oh, here it is.
	69!
	69, dudes!
	Alright, done.
	That's the one we used to use, and then we stopped using it because the streak ended.
	Sir Jim of Beverly Hills Zucal...
	What it says.
	From, obviously, Beverly Hills.
	I'd be lost without you guys.
	69, 69.
	Sir Patrick Coble, Nashville, Tennessee.
	69, 69.
	Eric Osnes in Lawndale, California.
	Same.
	69, 69.
	John Claude Schmid.
	Jean Claude Schmid.
	Schmid.
	In Costa Mesa.
	Karma to Andre and Kevin.
	Oscar Nadal.
	Oscar Nadal.
	What is this?
	A tennis player.
	6969 Tijuana.
	I think we have a Steven Nadal also.
	Mexico.
	Mexico.
	Sir Herb.
	That is...
	Oh, yeah.
	Go ahead.
	Sorry.
	Sir Herb of...
	Salt Creek, Sugar Hill, Georgia, 6969.
	Sir James Cates in Virginia Beach, Virginia, 6969.
	Jeremiah Tribal, Tribal, Tribal, Tribal.
	It's got to be Tribal.
	Longview, Texas.
	6969, Michael Henderson, Peachtree Corners, Georgia.
	I think that's everywhere in Georgia.
	And that closes the 6969 segment.
	Now we've got Chad Inman, 66.90, which is the one I kind of encouraged because it's the show 669, and that would be right, Los Angeles.
	Did you read his note?
	One other guy came in with that, Joshua Theodorson, I believe is in Hilton.
	Oh, he's the one with the note.
	Did you read his note?
	He says, just wanted to let you know that no agenda methodology scored me an 8.6 to 1 win in Australia's race that stops a nation, the Melbourne Cup horse race.
	Not only did the favorite come last and die of heart failure, a German horse won!
	So that's why he's sharing some of his winnings with us.
	We should have been in on that one.
	The favorite horse died.
	And a German horse won.
	We have ways of making favorite horses die.
	They die.
	They die.
	The favorite will die.
	Stacey St.
	I'm sorry, Christopher Davidson in Bella Vista, Arkansas, 6660.
	Stacey St.
	Amand, Kingston, Ontario, 6439.
	Nicole Martini in Stuyvesant.
	What did you probably pronounce that?
	Stuyvesant?
	Stuyvesant.
	Stuyvesant.
	Holy crap.
	Can I just interject for one moment?
	Yeah.
	You know, even though technology news is only about phones and apparently comet landings, and it's just crap, I will say, looking at this new CNN technology reporter, we're getting some dynamite-looking women doing this.
	You know, you're just doing this because I don't get CNN anymore.
	Rachel Crane.
	Hello, Rachel.
	All right, keep going.
	I'm going to look her up.
	Let me write this name down.
	Rachel Crane.
	I think she's the...
	I think she's a new...
	I think the women on Al Jazeera are...
	Oh, you're waiting to see Rachel Crane.
	She is a classic.
	Okay, let's get on with it.
	My goodness.
	By the way, there's a birthday involved with Nicole Martini.
	I think we have that one lined up.
	Keith Ryan, Bloomfield, Connecticut, 5678.
	Radu Pertuck, 5555.
	Sir J.D. in San Jose, California, 5510.
	Went back and forth with him over my following him on Twitter, which I did, and then he donated what he's always donating.
	Kevin Dill, Charlotte, North Carolina.
	Sir Kevin Payne in Santilli, Virginia.
	5069.
	And these are all $50 donors, which include Brandon Savoy.
	Savoy.
	Patricia Worthington in Miami.
	Mike Westerfield, parts unknown.
	Jakub Wojciak, I'm guessing, North Vancouver.
	I would say Jacob.
	It would be Jacob.
	Jakob?
	Jakob.
	I say Jacob.
	I'd say Jakob.
	Okay.
	Paul Groves in Wangaratta, Victoria, Australia.
	Antonio McMullen, parts unknown.
	Paul Vela in Milton Keynes.
	Alexander Sukhovi in Moscow.
	Patrick Mackom in Long Island City.
	Terry Wentz in Langley, Washington.
	And finally, Vincent K. Hames in Decatur, Alabama.
	Do you have a note from Terry?
	Oh, I wanted to say, yeah, Terry Wentz, it's not really a note.
	Terry Wentz, I want to say, he sends this check, but the whole envelope is some sort of, what do you call it when you bend paper?
	It's called origami.
	Yeah, origami.
	So he sends this huge origami thing with a seal on the back, and it's like you take it off, and then it's like one sheet of paper with a check in it.
	I just thought it was the most dangerous envelope I've ever seen.
	It was kind of cute, though.
	But he didn't even say anything in there.
	Vincent K. Hames in Decatur, Alabama.
	I just said that.
	At 50 bucks.
	And finally, last and not least, was Shane Peden from parts...
	I don't know where he's from.
	It seems like he's from Atlanta.
	And he sent a long note complaining about his wife.
	And...
	He's a knight.
	And it's also his oldest daughter's sixth birthday.
	I don't know if that's on the list.
	No, I think you're confusing...
	Is that...
	Was that the...
	Oh, you're right.
	You're right.
	He's always complaining about his wife.
	And it's his daughter's...
	I don't...
	Does she have a name?
	Lainey.
	Lainey.
	Hold on.
	I don't think that's on the list, actually.
	Let me...
	Yeah, but give my daughter Lainey some birthday love.
	Hold on.
	So that's Lainey...
	From Shane.
	Daddy Shane.
	Yes, and as to the rest of the note, we're really not going to sit here and deal with domestic disputes.
	He rescinded that, by the way, in a follow-up note.
	Yeah, but he had definitely a complaint to make.
	It was probably legit, but no.
	Maybe if you were instant- No, no, no.
	Jaborak, you are just a horrible man.
	That's really bad.
	Well, okay, a light, light on both ends of it, We will be doing a show on Sunday.
	I'll be in New York.
	So highly appreciate anything that we can be supportive of.
	Yeah, we do have a show coming up on Sunday, 670.
	So think of us in the meantime.
	Rachel Crane joined CNN as the network's newest digital correspondent.
	Okay.
	Where she covers pop culture and innovation.
	Oh, yeah.
	She's the social network.
	Uh-huh.
	In this role, she'll be creating original video content related to her beat...
	To run across CNN's platforms.
	She comes to us from Bloomberg, where she was a technology and innovation correspondent who hosted and produced Bloomberg's Brink, a show highlighting cutting-edge technology and new ideas.
	Well, good hire, I'd say.
	She really is.
	She looks great.
	Not in this picture, but...
	She's not.
	She may be pretty.
	She may be telegenic.
	She's not that photogenic.
	Although, in fact, even she was on the cover of Cosmo, apparently.
	And I don't think, you know, okay, whatever.
	Yeah, I can see where she's a Cosmo girl.
	She's not being blown away by her photos.
	I just saw her on TV. I'm only talking as a television producer.
	I'm not talking as a man.
	I'm talking about someone who has hired people before, and this is the direction that technology reporting is going in.
	Pop culture and innovation.
	That is, yeah, that's it.
	Yeah, there's a new Instagram service.
	Pop culture and innovation.
	Yeah, no tech.
	Forget tech.
	So her credits or credibility comes from covering pop culture and innovation for several years by interviewing SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, famed futurist and Google's director of engineering Ray Kurzweil, and NASA's William Gerstenmaier.
	That did it!
	She's good!
	Well, hold on.
	She has also traveled to Abu Dhabi to report on the pre-planned sustainable city Mazdar.
	She's tasted wine made by robots in California's Napa Valley and covered the privatization of space at NASA's Kennedy Space Center and gone behind the bars of San Quentin Prison to see how the institution taught inmates to make mini-satellites.
	Yeah, that sounds...
	Yeah.
	Perfect.
	Great hire.
	A great hire.
	Lisa should have hired her.
	So what is the next thing you were going to say?
	I was going to say thank you all very much for the support of the No Agenda show.
	Dvorak.org slash N-A Hey, hey, hey, hey, hit it, hit it!
	Here we go.
	And where are we?
	Lainey, happy sixth birthday from your daddy Shane.
	He's very proud of you, loves you very much.
	Nicole Martini, happy birthday to the love of her life.
	John Agostino, who turned 30 on November 19th.
	We have Dame Joan Dautifray who says, oh man, I screwed up.
	Happy birthday to Sir Max who turned 14 last Friday.
	Happy birthday to her husband Alex who turns 50 tomorrow.
	And a belated happy anniversary to her husband Alex.
	That was the same date that we celebrated our 7th anniversary, October 26th.
	So happy birthday to all of you.
	From all of us here, the best podcast in the universe.
	And then we have our knighting of Shane Peden.
	And I think he had a name, which is not on this.
	I've got to pull it out of the notes.
	I know he had a name.
	Here it is.
	No?
	I thought he had a special name he wanted.
	I'm looking at the note now.
	I thought I saw that in the email.
	I could be wrong.
	It's in the email.
	I don't have that.
	My spreadsheet today is kind of...
	Okay.
	I just thought he had a special name he wanted.
	Maybe I'm confused with somebody else.
	Does not matter because we still pull out our blades.
	There's mine.
	Hold on.
	By the way, before I pull mine out, as it were, this woman, Rachel Crane, has no Wikipedia entry, but she's listed prominently in IMDb?
	No, who's dating who?
	Who's she dating?
	She was dating this guy, Elias Kefaldis, who looks sketchy, and then some Tom Cruise-looking character that's named Robert Schwartzman, but she stopped dating him in 2008.
	I think she's dating this other guy.
	So that's good to know.
	Good to know.
	Yeah, thank you.
	That's why we are the best podcast in the universe.
	Thank you.
	It's about time you told me that.
	All right, Shane Peaton, come forward, my friend, and please step on up.
	As we hereby proudly knight thee to join the roundtable of the Knights and Days and call you Sir Shane Keaton.
	We have for you, and you may need him, hookers and blow, red boys and chardonnay, ass cream with bear fillings, porn stars and pop, opium and warm orange juice, happy wan-bingle bourbon served by Oktoberfest Frauleins, wenches and beer, bong hits and burden, or maybe just some button and mead.
	All for you, please go to noagendanation.com slash rings.
	I'll look again and see if I can find the email.
	I thought somewhere you had a special night name you wanted.
	By the way, this Rachel Crane is a different Rachel Crane.
	Oh, okay.
	She's an actress.
	There's a rogue person.
	Yeah.
	Rogue.
	Use the same name if you're in showbiz.
	I don't know what's going on.
	You can fight that, you know.
	You can fight that.
	Your mic stand, you got any WD-40 around?
	No, I actually have the right stuff for it.
	It's called Ranch Hand or something.
	I found this lubricant that makes...
	It's the greatest stuff ever.
	We'll talk about it in the next show, and I'll put some on the stand so I don't have this...
	This constant squeaking.
	I know what you mean, because it would stop doing it so I didn't pay much attention to that today.
	It's actually funny, because a couple times during the show, I would hear the sound, and I thought it was a text message or something coming.
	I had no idea.
	And then I recall, ah, yes, it's this.
	It's just really bad today.
	Yeah, it is.
	It is.
	Yeah, it's worse than it has been.
	I'm going to write this down.
	What's it called?
	It's Ranch Hand or something like that.
	I'll get the name.
	Ranch Hand?
	It's a very obscure lubricant that I saw.
	Yeah, I'll bet.
	Oh, no, I'm telling you, for like a WD-40 and just any sort of, it's a synthetic oil, so it's a very slippery product.
	Hey girls, want to try some ranch hands?
	And holy mackerel!
	Ranch hand.
	It's a little pricey.
	Be on the safe side.
	That must not be it.
	No, I don't know what you're talking about.
	I don't know.
	You're just trying to be...
	Hey!
	I don't know what you're trying to do here.
	Hey, hey, hey, hey.
	New entry in the DSM. DSM is, of course, the Bible for all things crazy.
	It really is just a sales tool for the pharmaceutical industry.
	Okay.
	Orthorexia nervosa.
	Have you heard of this?
	Would you like to hear about it?
	No.
	No?
	Would you like to hear about it?
	I have to break it down to say it has something to do with...
	Striving to eat healthy foods is a good thing unless you take it too far.
	And increasingly, experts are seeing people slide into an obsession with healthy eating that can be decidedly unhealthy and even lead to malnutrition.
	Here to tell us more about the condition some experts refer to as orthorexia is WSJ health reporter Sumathi Reddy.
	Sumathi, thanks so much for being here.
	Tell us about this condition.
	Is it officially recognized?
	No, it's not.
	It's not in the DSM, which is like the bible of mental illnesses.
	It's coming!
	But some experts will say that there are certain categories that it could fall under.
	And it's similar in some ways to anorexia, but different in others, correct?
	Yeah, so like the driving sort of motivation behind it is very different than anorexia, because it's about quality of food, not quantity.
	And it has nothing to do with body issues.
	Exactly.
	And trying to be thin.
	Exactly.
	No, these are people who really just are concerned about what they're putting into their body.
	It has to be organic.
	It has to be, you know, vegan.
	It has to be a certain type of food from a certain grocery store, that kind of thing.
	But the same issues of control and denial can be at play, correct?
	Yes.
	So you do, it has a lot of similarities with obsessive compulsive disorder as well as like anorexia.
	And sometimes it can lead to anorexia because these people end up, you know, not eating a lot of food.
	And it's I don't like the kind of thing that can start very innocently with a positive idea of changing your lifestyle and eating healthy foods.
	And then it's a slippery slope, correct?
	Exactly.
	So, you know, you get people who are like gluten-free and they're cutting out and they're dairy-free and they're sugar-free, carb-free, and you're cutting out so many major food groups.
	There's not much left that you can eat.
	And that's how you end up, you know, dying.
	You can eat dust.
	It was funny.
	We had our friends Ron and Peggy over.
	When was that?
	Maybe a Friday?
	You've discussed them before on the show, Ron and Peggy.
	Maybe.
	Ron and Peggy are born and bred Texans.
	Had been in Austin since early, early 70s.
	Very famous for the restaurant Jefferies, which they sold...
	No, we have talked about this because of Jeffries.
	Right.
	And they're your age, so I get along famously with them.
	Okay!
	And what we were talking about, what came up was DDT. And I'm not quite sure in...
	I already know where this is going.
	Well, now these are Austinites, so they are, you know, they're like, hey, what's your view on ISIS? One of their sons works for UNESCO is going to Tajikistan or something.
	They're really worried.
	I said, you know, of course I laid into it.
	Going to Tajikistan is just a bit pleasant as hell for these people to come over for dinner.
	They must be having the shakes when they leave your place.
	Mickey actually, she said, do you think that they're really your friends or they just want to come over to laugh at us?
	No, I guarantee that's, well, I'm sure there's a rule of that with some of your other friends.
	Not these, not Peggy.
	Where they shake their heads and go, can you believe what that guy thinks?
	Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.
	Yeah, I'm sure there's a little of that.
	They were actually worried about that.
	It's more dangerous to drive to Houston than it is for your kid to go to Tajikistan.
	That's true.
	I bet you can come up with a stat that proves that.
	So we were talking about...
	Now I'm pissed off.
	I can't remember.
	It must have been something that we...
	Anyway...
	I said, this is just like DDT, which got taken off the market with all these lies that was creating cancer and killing eagles.
	And I said, the guy who invented it, and of course, millions of people died since because DDT is no longer allowed to be sold, and now people have malaria.
	And he said, it's funny you say that, because when I was a kid, he did a, when I was a kid...
	We were not rich.
	We lived in the cheap-ass neighborhood.
	The DDT truck would come around and we would all be so happy and we'd be jumping around to get sprayed completely by it so we wouldn't get all kinds of fleas and ticks and crap.
	And I said, and are you dead?
	He said, no!
	I never heard about the DDT truck.
	That would be Texas.
	That was great.
	I didn't do any DDT truck, Texas.
	I didn't do any research on it.
	Oh, the fog truck!
	Oh, they fog you with it?
	Yeah.
	In San Antonio.
	There it is.
	San Antonio.
	Huh.
	And people, the kids were so happy.
	You wouldn't have lice.
	I wonder what I want.
	I know somebody that stockpiled or their father stockpiled DDT because he thought the thing was something of a scam in Georgia somewhere and they had so many barrels of it that he keeps spraying his area and according to this person telling me the story,
	from a satellite photo, you can see that it's like this green, lush, fantastic block of Goodness in the middle of nowhere that's all dead.
	Because this stuff is, you know, if you can get a hold of it, it's like really a great bug killer.
	But it doesn't include DDT anymore, I presume.
	No, this was DDT. Oh.
	Hmm.
	It was just straight DDT. Anyway.
	Yeah, it's actually an interesting story.
	I mean, the argument out here in California, where a lot of this stuff begins, was that it was making the pelican eggs.
	It was pelicans, you're right.
	It wasn't eagles, it was pelicans, you're right.
	Yeah, it was pelicans.
	The eggs were getting thin, and they blamed it on DDT, and I don't know how they documented that, but that's what began the whole thing, because we need our pelicans.
	Mm-hmm.
	Which is a great bird, by the way.
	If you're driving around the San Francisco Bay Area and there's a lot of pelicans around and you see them flying, if you can't put two and two together and see how the reptiles became birds, then you're oblivious to the obvious.
	Okay, well, I got something.
	Oh, there it is again.
	It's my style of what I'm doing.
	I gotta guess the movie.
	Oh, hold on a second.
	I have a couple complaints, by the way, that are going to come out on this show.
	About me?
	About me in particular?
	No, no, no.
	About things.
	Let me start with one of the complaints.
	I thought we were doing Guess the Movie.
	We'll guess the movie after this.
	This will be another Adam Guess Something.
	This is What's Wrong With This Clip from American Dad.
	Is this an Ask Adam?
	Don't worry about it.
	And lastly, the school's orangutan mascot has been missing since last week.
	If anyone sees it, alert the new head of the zoology department.
	There it is.
	It would be zoology instead of zoology.
	Now, I would like to know how a...
	Seth MacFarlane has a huge staff of people.
	I don't want to beat this to death.
	I've been to a table reading of...
	You know this, right?
	I think you mentioned it once before.
	There's a huge number of people, and the table reading is a good example.
	How many people at the table?
	Oh, 20?
	20.
	And they all read this script, and then somebody says zoology, and nobody says anything?
	No, no.
	Okay, well then you're dealing with idiots.
	Seth has Tourette's, by the way.
	Oh, that makes nothing but sense.
	He's got the same tics that I do.
	Which is why I'm convinced he doesn't like to do interviews.
	Oh, that would explain it.
	He's very rarely on an interview.
	I think I've seen him once, ever.
	Alright, time for Guess the Movie?
	Yeah, Guess the Movie.
	And now it's time for another episode of Guess That Movie.
	Alrighty.
	Here we go, everybody.
	Guess that movie.
	The Game Show Where I Suck.
	I have to warn you.
	I like a lot of, whatchamacallit, foreplay.
	Is that enough?
	I guess so.
	I'll set you the scene so you can really get...
	Because you don't seem to seem that you know what this is.
	You don't even let me respond, but okay.
	Oh, okay.
	No, no, but you need to set the scene.
	Go ahead.
	I'm listening.
	She says, I like foreplay.
	He grabs her breasts, and then he says, that's enough, and boom.
	I just wanted to make sure you had that part.
	I'll give you another hint.
	Okay.
	Matthew Modine.
	Yes, of course.
	Hit it.
	This is Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	You only get one guess.
	Oh, I can't do the breakfast?
	Okay, have a second guess.
	The Breakfast Club.
	What is it?
	Private School.
	Oh, I've never seen that one.
	How could I know that?
	Why?
	I gotta get a better feeling for what kind of movies you like so I can...
	I can tell you what movie I watched last night with my wife.
	Okay, what?
	What's her name?
	Candace Cameron.
	Cameron Diaz with the sex tape.
	Candace Cameron.
	Sex tape is the name of it?
	Yeah.
	It's where she makes a sex tape with her husband.
	Oh, but that's supposed to be a very funny movie.
	I have to tell you, because I had done all my prep during the day, and I even ate my...
	I had a pizza during the prep, so around 6, and so it's 7 o'clock, so I'm done, I'm really tired, and I said, well, let's watch a movie, and we're scanning through the Netflix, and I said, oh, this is going to be the dumbest movie ever.
	And it was really not...
	It was pretty good.
	Rob Lowe, perfect Rob Lowe character.
	They could have cut some bits out of it.
	Cameron, a lot of Cameron naked.
	Very, very sexy.
	The premise of the movie is completely stupid.
	I liked it.
	I would give it a 7.
	Quite high, I think.
	Okay, fine.
	You should become a reviewer on Rotten Tomatoes.
	And I said to Mickey, I said, I should have paid attention when Cameron's mom was pushing her onto me during Circus of the Stars.
	Really?
	Yeah, she's 13, so, okay, you know.
	She was kind of homeless.
	19?
	19, 20?
	19.
	She was kind of homely looking.
	Yeah, she needs makeup.
	But she blossomed.
	Woo!
	Well, then I have two more things.
	I don't know if I could save some of it.
	I think I should do the Ebola piece.
	Ebola.
	As predicted.
	Sir Bob Geldof and Major.
	Your buddy.
	Major of Ultravox.
	Big announcement.
	Big, big, big, big announcement.
	Band-Aid 30, everybody.
	That's right.
	Releasing once again, Do They Know It's Christmas Time.
	And this falls right in line with not only Facebook, but Google, both soliciting donations for Ebola.
	So we're ratcheting this puppy up, even though there's been no Ebola in Sierra Leone for 42 days, more than 42 days now.
	I think adding credence to at least my thesis slash theorem that this is bullcrap to surround the oil, arm some rebels.
	The president finally released his, where is it, released the Let me get it here.
	Did we already do the fiscal year 2015 budget amendments?
	I think we did that, right?
	Perhaps.
	Okay.
	I asked Congress to consider and close fiscal year 2015 budget amendments for the Department of Defense.
	This is to combat, of course, the cuts and the increases.
	Amendments were provided for $5.6 billion.
	That's for the degrade and ultimately defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
	$5 billion in addition to the $58.6 billion, bringing to $63.6 billion for more money.
	I'm sorry, the ISIL stuff is not in here.
	Okay, the Ebola stuff.
	Can I go back to Ebola?
	Yeah, hit it.
	So the two things are, one, I find it very disturbing, this Google and Facebook raising money for Ebola.
	I don't understand.
	What?
	What?
	Why?
	What do you mean, why?
	Why are they doing it?
	I said I don't understand.
	They say because I think it's just ramping up hysteria.
	We do have a pandemic.
	The elections are over.
	Yeah, they just started this.
	I think they missed the point.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	They didn't know this was all about the elections.
	We have Mali involved in this as well, you know.
	Mali now has, and we know our economic hitman has said, yes, yes, yes, yes.
	Ebola.
	An 70-year-old imam died from Ebola and the 24-year-old nurse who was treating him.
	Uh-huh.
	That's the way I want to go.
	So this is coming back.
	We have Sir Bob and Midge, a little bit of their announcement.
	Bob Geldof, he's been called by the UN. This is what he does.
	They pay him to do this.
	They pay him.
	And there's They've got all kinds of little companies.
	It's all in the show notes if you're interested in looking at it.
	We have the...
	What is it called?
	The Wood Charm Limited, which is the company...
	That handles all the rights and licensing for Band-Aid, hashtag Band-Aid 30.
	And you look at Harvey Goldsmith.
	He's the big concert promoter who put on Live Aid.
	So this Band-Aid 30 is for Ebola?
	It's for Ebola.
	This isn't going to fly.
	I'm telling you, the Ebola thing was all about the elections.
	The elections are over.
	It's not all about the elections, John.
	It's about Africa, and West Africa in particular.
	You know, this has been my thesis, which is why it's ongoing.
	What's interesting about this is that if you look at the charter of the Wood Charm Limited and the Band-Aid 30, which has been renamed, their charter has always been to feed the world.
	And it continues, you know, Some proceeds still, which is very low at this point, have been going to help feed the world.
	But now, all of a sudden, which is not the charter of the charity, they're going to feed Ebola or help Ebola because the UN has asked Bob Gelbluff to do this, telling me again that, remember, the World Food Program's involved.
	You remember, John, the big scam we talked about?
	I know, we talked about it.
	Quite a lot of pressure on Midge and myself to do it for, I suppose, cultural reasons or whatever, documentaries and things.
	And neither of us are into nostalgia, but about three weeks ago I got a call from the UN. Saying that they required at least a 20% increase across the board in assistance and materials.
	So this is how it works.
	The UN's calling everybody.
	They're calling Geldof, they're calling Zuckerberg, they're calling Sergei or Eric or Larry or whatever.
	We need 20% increase.
	And personnel, they can't put a number on it, but they're very concerned that the situation in West Africa will either spiral beyond those borders sometime around the beginning or mid-December, or will be contained.
	Sounds like we only have a couple of weeks.
	Before it spirals out of control.
	I think what triggered it both for Midge and myself was the phenomenal bravery of the national health workers, the nurses and doctors.
	This guy's boring.
	Okay, so you don't want to hear it anymore?
	Do you want to hear the song?
	The song I healed, yeah.
	The song's not out yet.
	Well, I'd be very interested when it comes out.
	Well, it's going to be Fidi Bola Do they know it's Christmas time?
	Fidi That's the song.
	You know the song.
	Yeah, you think they would?
	No, no.
	Now you're off the edge.
	That's the song.
	It's the remake.
	They're going to remake it and use the word Ebola in the song?
	Well, you don't want to listen to Geldof, so you would have found out.
	I don't, because it's like, I might as well stick pins in my eyes listening to that guy Yak.
	I just wanted to get one thing out of the way, since we seem to be ignoring it to an extreme on the show.
	Uh-huh.
	Which is that Mexico is on the borderline of having a revolution down there.
	It's not being covered by us.
	It's not being covered by the mainstream media in the United States.
	It's being covered internationally.
	But they're burning down the place.
	That area where the 43 students were murdered is being burned to the ground.
	Now they're in Mexico City burning down the palaces.
	Please, tell me.
	Well, let's play a couple of reports so we can at least catch up and then we can end.
	Start with France 24's report on this.
	To Mexico now, where protesters angry over the disappearance of 43 college students have set fire to a state congress building in Guero State.
	It's just the latest in a series of violent protests that have erupted since Friday, when authorities said that a drug gang were responsible for the murders.
	It's an official line the protesters refuse to accept.
	Oliver Farré has this report.
	Relatives of the 43 missing students are angry and still in the dark.
	They met Tuesday night with independent Argentine investigators only to learn that the bodies found in a mass grave close to Iguala may not be those of the missing.
	The families are remaining cautious.
	In light of the evidence found in the bags, how it was found, where it was found, there's still no confirmation.
	Now obviously the genetic forensics have led us down a different route.
	The federal government had said last week that gang members confessed to the killing.
	But speaking to Franz van Katt, Mexico's deputy foreign minister said the government was not rushing to conclusions.
	They are missing and they will remain so until we know exactly the identity of the remnants that were just sent to one specialized laboratory in Austria.
	Protesters on Tuesday held Guerrero State's Deputy Security Chief for several hours before handing him over to a local human rights group.
	The ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party's regional headquarters were also torched.
	The demonstrators say they want justice for the 43 students who went missing in September.
	Amid the unrest, President Ernesto Peña Nieto has been criticised for travelling to China for a summit.
	The tragic murky case has undermined his assurances that his security strategy was bearing fruit and reducing Mexico's infamous gang warfare.
	Okay.
	We have something to do with this, with our situation with the Sinaloa cartel, but they never discussed any of that.
	Democracy Now!
	is another take on this.
	These are all slightly different perspectives.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Protests are continuing across Mexico after the apparent confession of gang members for the massacre of 43 college students in the southern state of Guerrero six weeks ago.
	On Friday, the Mexican attorney general said suspects in the case admitted to killing the students and incinerating their bodies, leading investigators to the remains.
	The students disappeared following a police ambush fueling Public anger over government corruption and Mexico's endemic violence.
	On Saturday, a breakaway group of protesters set fire to the door of the presidential palace in Mexico City after a march that drew thousands of people.
	Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto has drawn criticism for leaving Mexico to attend the APEX summit in China amidst the unrest.
	A new report from a leading Mexican journalist says Peña Nieto lives in a private mansion owned by a contractor who received a lucrative government contract to build high-speed rail.
	We'll have more from Mexico after headlines.
	Okay.
	Huh.
	This is getting strange.
	And then we have the last clip.
	I have two more, but I think one will do.
	This is the guy who's the head of the Mexican Law Journal speaking and discussing the possibility of a coup d'etat.
	Yeah, okay.
	Which can happen at any moment, apparently.
	And this is the Mexico of fancy ideas.
	That National Palace was burned by government provocateurs and a coordinated action.
	All of a sudden, a few hours later, because we say no to violence, we are in favor of peace.
	Violence is done by the Mexican state.
	We don't have to wait for Tlatelolco.
	This is a Tlatelolco massacre.
	It already happened.
	And so that's why the outrage is coming off.
	Of course.
	Hopefully there's not another one.
	But on Wednesday, and there's something, I know I'm taking up too much time, we can come back to it, but this Wednesday, on Monday, sorry, this Monday, the Mexican military, and you mentioned Burkina Faso.
	What happened in Burkina Faso?
	On Monday, the Mexican military, front page on Tuesday, but on Monday, the general, Cien Fuegos, said, we are ready to intervene.
	Not only to combat organized crime, but we are ready to intervene to defend Enrique Peña Nieto's political reforms, structural reforms, economic reforms.
	This is a political agenda that the military is setting out there, and this is very dangerous.
	That's why it's very important that we're here in Paris, and that there's a lot of international attention here, because otherwise, the Mexican military, which historically has been very well disciplined, might start to get fancy ideas, and that would be dangerous.
	There's a lot of...
	Hmm.
	Okay, can you break it down for us?
	I'm trying to now, but the thing is that we're not in...
	I believe the United States is yet to get involved in this.
	And that's why the news outlets, we don't discuss it.
	When you look at the foreign...
	This country's burning.
	I would say that the reason why our news in America is not showing it is because no one is being offered for interviews by the straight department.
	Because that's typically how it happens.
	What are we going to do?
	Oh, we've got to call in.
	Oh, yeah.
	Talk to some guy.
	Okay.
	There's no bookers going out there trying to find news.
	Bookers.
	Talent bookers.
	So, okay.
	Okay.
	A military coup d'etat?
	Is that the...
	That's a possibility.
	Although this guy, Enrique Pignonetto, is a...
	Would be part of it.
	Whatever is going on, it seems to be a little off script from the normal stuff that we look at.
	It's right on our border, which you'd think that we'd get a little more attention.
	Hello, my border.
	Hello, my border.
	Yeah, right down the street from you.
	Yeah.
	It's right down the street from you.
	And this is like, I think it needs to be followed a little more closely because nobody else is discussing it.
	I mean, we had enough trouble trying to get anything going with the Venezuelan situation.
	We had people criticizing us for...
	Yeah, for not being able to do anything for lack of information.
	Yeah, we had no information, no insights.
	We got the same situation here.
	I don't know how many...
	We have a couple of Mexican donors, maybe even a night, that would be nice if we heard from them.
	But the situation looks grim, and it may be something that's been boiling over for some time, which would account for all the people flocking across the border because this country is a mess.
	Because it's messed up, right.
	I mean, you can play the last clip if you want, which talks about impunity.
	They put the Mexican military on trial for a previous massacre that we've never discussed in the United States.
	They are now trying seven or eight military officials in civilian courts.
	This is a major advance in terms of justice, but...
	Why are they doing it?
	Because of the international pressure, they're being tried, not for this massacre, but for the previous massacre on June 30th in Tlatlaya, which was absolutely and totally covered up by all levers of government, in particular by the federal attorney general, for three months until the Associated Press and an independent witness came out and made this international scandal.
	This was before Ayotzinapa, before this more recent massacre, and that's what forced the Dexterian government to now try these military Today, with the new massacre in Iwala, which was much worse, once again, the military and the federal officials are being protected.
	Well, I think one thing for sure, there's drugs involved.
	There's drugs involved, and apparently there's a lot of disappearing going on in Mexico, which is being discussed in the UN and some other centers of influence, and mostly in Europe.
	And so let me ask you a question.
	Should Miss Mickey go to Mexico City to discuss her art expo there?
	I don't see why not.
	You said the country's on fire.
	It is.
	Is Mexico City?
	As long as she's got an escort, she's fine.
	She's going to roam around.
	I mean, you get kidnapped.
	There's so many people that have disappeared, they just keep disappearing.
	I mean, there's a lot of kidnappings, obviously, that go on in Mexico, and that's been a huge problem.
	This has been going on for a decade.
	Hey, gringo, let's kidnap the tall blonde one.
	I hear he can get lots of donations.
	My experience in Mexico, last time I was in Mexico City, was don't do this, don't do that.
	The richest of the rich drive around in bulletproof junkers.
	Nobody can drive around in a nice Mercedes or anything else.
	Oh, because it gets...
	Because you look like a Target.
	And that was like a decade or even longer ago.
	And it's been deteriorating, so God knows what the heck's going on.
	I don't think it's...
	I don't think it's a place you can't visit if you're cautious, but it's not...
	And this is all taking place south of Mexico City, even though Mexico City was where the riots were.
	They had some there, and they tried to burn down one of the executive mansions, but it was not the place he lives because he lives in a fancier place.
	They had the honcho, the president, El Presidente.
	Okay, so two things I've learned from this.
	One, we certainly need help from our Mexican producers.
	I don't think I've received anything, any feedback, info, whatever.
	We need some boots-on-the-ground information.
	Two, the second thing I've learned, for the people who are making us jalopies to ride around in with the big engines, bulletproof.
	I'd like them to be bulletproof.
	Bulletproof.
	Bulletproof jalopy with a big engine sticking out.
	That would be perfect.
	All righty.
	I have bulletproof.
	Yep, bulletproof.
	Tomorrow morning, early, we fly to New York City.
	And if not, everything has been disrupted by the peak of the cyclogenesis, which Kaku predicted.
	And I guess we'll see if we can change our strategy there on Syria by Sunday to put more boots on the ground and to get them out.
	Everyone's doing stuff and at work.
	And we are here to deconstruct it for you.
	As best we can.
	We do our best.
	Help us.
	Help me.
	Please remember us.
	We need some help for the Mexican stuff.
	We do.
	And we always need your financial support.
	Dvorak.org slash NA. Coming to you from FEMA Region 6.
	It's pretty chilly.
	In the morning, everybody.
	I'm Adam Curry.
	And from northern Silicon Valley, it was not chilly at all.
	It was raining this morning, but now it's clearing up.
	We've got another California desert a day.
	I'm somebody, John C. Dvorak, I think.
	John P. Holdren.
	I botched the beginning, too, so I might as well finish with a balanced approach.
	We'll talk to you again on Sunday right here on No Agenda.
	It was worth it.
	It was worth it.
	I'm Joe Biden, and thank you for taking the time to listen.
	Adios, mofo.
	The best podcast in the universe.

▲