Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 21, 2019 - No Agenda

02:55:09

1157: Carbon Captions

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Adam Curry.
	John C. Dvorak.
	It's Sunday, July 21st, 2019.
	This is your award-winning Get My Nation Media Assassination Episode 1157.
	This is No Agenda.
	Machine learning.
	My way through Algo School and broadcasting live from the frontier of Austin, Texas.
	Capital of the Drone Star State in the morning, everybody.
	I'm Adam Curry.
	And from Northern California, where we're waiting, the female Thor, and hoping for the male Aphrodite.
	I'm John C. Dvorak.
	Now this is rather interesting as I checked into the shot room of trolls today and all I can see is them talking about some character and it's going to be a woman and what's going on and was pissed off.
	What is happening?
	Apparently Natalie Portman is going to be the female Thor.
	Everyone's all upset about this.
	Well, it's not as stupid as anything I've ever heard of, but okay, let's just make a female Hulk.
	Then you're talking.
	And actually, that'd be more believable.
	Yeah, and isn't there like a Batwoman or something else?
	It's just everyone's...
	There's a lot of Batwomen.
	Yeah, you know...
	I'm just surprised, like, of all the things to care about in the world, this is not high on the list.
	Nah.
	But I've seen this go on for at least, well, I got bumped off, of course, because of my Wi-Fi problem, but it's just been ongoing.
	Like, this is no good.
	Puke.
	This is no good.
	Who cares?
	This is garbage movies.
	Yeah.
	They're fun to watch on the airplane.
	Well, I don't know about that.
	I think nothing, airplane viewing, my experience, nothing holds a candle to the Fast and Furious series.
	Yeah, I'm with you.
	I'm with you.
	I'm with you.
	And there's always eight of them to watch, so it's great.
	There's eight new ones?
	Oh, how did I catch that?
	I was on a plane once, sitting next to somebody, and I was trying to watch some, you know, semi-good movie.
	And the person next to me was watching Fast and Furious 5 or something, one of the movies, and I couldn't keep my eyes off their screen.
	Exactly.
	So I had to put it on.
	Well, this brings me to some unscientific research I've been doing about the use of closed captioning amongst millennials and Generation Z. Yes, we got some notes about this.
	I got a number of notes.
	I did some informal polls over at NoAgendaSocial.com.
	I've been hunting around, people giving me unsolicited feedback, which is always nice.
	And really, it comes down to three...
	People are blaming it or attributing it to three different things.
	And I have three emails that I've just picked out here.
	This is JV... I watch everything with the carbon caption.
	There's a new one for you.
	Carbon caption.
	Wow.
	I knew it.
	There you go.
	Carbon captions.
	That's perfect.
	I watch everything with closed caption slash subtitles, mostly due to decades of frustrating sound mixing.
	Movies and modern shows are mixed with wide dynamic range.
	Room shaking explosions and gunshots are immediately followed by characters whispering important plot details.
	Game of Thrones does this, but it's nothing new.
	Also, like many millennials, I grew up with a big family stuffed in a small home and I've lived with roommates ever since.
	Any time there would be a siren or a scream or anything else unpleasant, my mom would burst through the door and tell me the baby was trying to sleep.
	Well, these are two together.
	And I got a lot of people saying, hey, they're mixing it wrong.
	The problem is trying to jam Dolby 5.1 through stereo speakers and therefore the balance is off.
	I think there's some validity to that part.
	Oh, I agree.
	I think there's plenty of validity to that.
	That's one of the reasons you have to.
	Take things into your own hands and you've got to either pull back on some of these processing systems like Dolby, go to straight stereo.
	There's ways around it.
	I mean, you're just running...
	A muck with just letting whatever happens, happens through a couple of squeaky speakers on the TV. Yeah, you're asking for trouble.
	I agree with that 100%.
	Yeah, so it seems that there's a real issue there, and I've really never been very interested in surround sound when it comes to television.
	I've never really set one.
	I think I've had one in the past.
	Yeah.
	So I just don't care.
	For me, it's just I turn it up and then I can hear everything.
	Now we get into some interesting areas.
	Accents.
	This is from Jay.
	Every single time I watch TV with people under 30, they have the closed caption on.
	I don't understand it either.
	I get it when it's something British and they can't understand access, but it's always on.
	I dated a gal who was 28 and I tried watching Emily with her with captions on because it's in France and she fell asleep instantly.
	It was weird because growing up we could focus on the film and follow along with the translation, but for her it was like catnip.
	Every single other thing she wanted to have the captions on for it was infuriating.
	Luckily that relationship failed pretty fast.
	Um...
	There's one other thing.
	There is a new disorder that has not been codified yet in the DSM-5, but it is a real thing, and the true cause is not known, although I have some thoughts, and that's auditory processing disorder.
	And this is closely related to ADHD and ADD, both attention deficit disorders.
	And what happens is you can hear perfectly well, but your brain is either unable or slow at processing what the sounds are and turning them into words.
	Now, and I want to say up front that I grew up with subtitles.
	Dutch television had English movies.
	They played the English soundtrack and they would translate in Dutch.
	It was very professionally done.
	They had hundreds of people working at the state-run subtitling organization.
	And I learned to deal with them perfectly well, to ignore them while I was watching television.
	I think it also helped a lot of people learn English extremely well versus Germany, where they always did an overdub.
	But the auditory processing disorder, I think, is something that comes from people who already have a potential deficit disorder.
	Because a lot of feedback that I received said, well, I really can't focus on the movie or whatever's on the television the whole time.
	And I look at my phone.
	The people are distracted.
	This is something we know.
	The young people often wake up in the middle of the night just to check their phone.
	So there's a distraction and also second screen, I guess, to a degree.
	It's like, oh, let me look up that actor.
	What's he doing?
	What's going on?
	Is someone tweeting about this particular show that I'm watching?
	And because of that, many people have said, well, they're really helpful because I can catch up real quick.
	And so I'm looking at my phone.
	I can follow along just by darting back and forth and reading the subtitles.
	And I posit to you, as my research will continue in this regard, is that because of the lazy use of subtitles, whether it's to...
	To hear things that were drowned out by sound effects and music, whether it's to, instead of really focus on what's happening with an accent and try and, your brain can parse things from all the information.
	Oh, he's in this situation.
	He's there.
	He might have said something like this.
	Was it something I didn't understand?
	That people's brains have become lazy, you And just like you have someone who may be blind, their auditory skills increase astronomically and vice versa.
	People who are deaf can often see things much clearer or at least they process the information in a different way.
	So the positive I have is because of the Some of the reasons that people have resorted to closed captioning and their abundant availability now due to the American with Disabilities Act, etc., that the brain is starting to lose some of that auditory processing power because I have asked people, okay, turn them off and how do you do?
	I really can't handle it anymore.
	I need the closed captions.
	I can't follow along.
	And it sounds to me like, what did Elise say?
	She said it sounded like, what's the little Woodstock from Charlie Brown?
	Can't really process the audio.
	So I would say we have possibly auditory processing disorder being created by use of closed captioning.
	I will counter that.
	Okay.
	Most of these kids, and I would question any one of them that have this problem, especially with the Woodstock phenomenon, do they ever go to music concerts?
	Yeah.
	The music concerts are over-amped.
	They're way above the legal limits of X number of decibels, I think 100 is the max, and these things hit 140, 150.
	Many of them come home with ringing ears.
	They're all making themselves deaf at these concerts.
	Very rarely do any of them have the wherewithal to wear ear protection.
	They don't know that, for example, in California, all the bars in California that have bands in the bars, they are required to have ear protection behind the counter that you can ask for and you get it for free.
	Nobody wears this stuff and they just listen to this music at these outrageous decibel levels, which started in the 60s with the Marshall Amp and bands like Blue Cheer and others.
	And now they're all deaf and that's why they can't hear anything.
	I don't blame them for bringing up the captions because they're all going to be wearing your hearing aids.
	That's your investment of the 21st century.
	Hearing aids.
	Well, I'll add to that because I'm not opposed to this theory.
	I would add to that the incessant overuse of AirPods which are hanging in their ears all day long.
	Now, I don't know if that can cause damage necessarily, but for sure...
	It's a sound injection.
	But it also changes your auditory processing because once it's further away, you're not used to that anymore.
	People are listening to podcasts.
	Thank God.
	Listening to podcasts, they turn on the microphone function so they can hear whatever's going, just to keep the earbuds in.
	Oh, I'm taking a phone call.
	They're in continuously all day long, and they're intended that way.
	I think once you then remove that...
	From the direct ear canal, it may be still, I'm going to come down to a processing issue.
	I don't know if it's actual hearing damage, could be.
	Maybe it's a combination, but we need to research further.
	So, I will keep my lab coat on.
	Yes, please.
	Goo!
	I think there's a lot of hearing damage going on.
	I saw somebody the other day, somebody roaming around.
	The store with the earbuds, those hanging things, those little Apple ones, the little white ones.
	That's the ones, the AirPods.
	And they looked like they were zombies.
	Goo.
	Yes, goo.
	We're changing the subject.
	We're going to goo.
	Keyword goo.
	So I've got this little battery that I found and I'm charging it, but I realize it's one of these devices and I have a bunch of these things.
	Everybody does.
	And I'm not the only one who's noticed this because this stuff has been around, this goo has been around for at least almost 20 years.
	And I'm talking about the soft spray that they put over devices.
	It's like a slightly rubbery compound that they spray on top of devices.
	Cool.
	So you got a nice cool feel.
	Instead of a hard plastic, you get this kind of rubbery, soft little coating that they put on.
	What would I find this on?
	I'm not sure I know what this is.
	A lot of stuff.
	You'll find it when it's over 10 years old.
	It turns to goo.
	And it's sticky.
	And you got this sticky goo all over everything and you can't get it off.
	You have to take some solvent and maybe it'll come off.
	You can kind of scrape it off with your thumbnail.
	And I had like a Sony DAT player that was coated in this.
	Oh, it felt so professional.
	It's the professional coating.
	It's the professional coating.
	And then now it's like sticky.
	You can actually, you know, if you grab it, it's like it's sticky.
	Do we find this mainly on electronic devices?
	Is that where you find a lot of this coding?
	A lot of electronic devices you find on this battery pack that I have, which is a high-end battery pack.
	John, be honest.
	Is there a problem with your real doll that you want to tell us about?
	No, it's not even the same type of substance.
	This is some specific coding.
	You're reliably informed.
	Well, I'm pretty sure.
	This is always black.
	I've never seen this in any other color.
	You know, just perfectly pitch black.
	And it was used and used and used because it was so cool.
	I'm surprised you haven't run into this.
	I have, I think, but it's been a while.
	I mean, I don't really have any stuff that's...
	I don't know.
	Well, they stopped.
	I think they backed off on it.
	But that's why I haven't noticed this for a while until I found this battery, which had this stuff all over.
	And this battery is just sticky and gooey.
	And it's got this stupid coating on it that somebody decided was a good idea.
	It doesn't seem like you to not at least know the name of the coating.
	That's something that you would expect.
	No, you think that's a good point.
	I think you've got me there.
	I should know the name of this stupid coating.
	But I'm telling you, it was a dumb idea to begin with, and apparently it's not worked out.
	And this is the classic example.
	For all you know, it's carcinogenic.
	They just do the, oh, look what we got.
	This is a great idea.
	I'm reminded of it.
	Oh, how about like hand grips on a bike?
	Would that be the same type of stuff?
	No, I think they're made out of neoprene.
	I think it's just a whole substance of softer rubber.
	Okay.
	No, it's a coating on hard plastic.
	If the hand grips on a bike were hard plastic, yeah, maybe.
	But no, you can't get them on there if they were.
	But I'm reminded of a...
	I was at some event.
	And you remember this when they took all this paper off the market.
	It was all this stuff that was used.
	It was heat sensitive.
	It was used for cash registers.
	Oh, yeah.
	The purple paper that people were touching and getting sick from.
	Well, they weren't getting sick from, but it was carcinogenic.
	It had bisphenol or some damn thing on it.
	Yeah, something like that.
	Well, I ran into the guy that made a mint selling the paper that was sold to substitute for it.
	Oh.
	And he told me kind of off the record, which apparently is not off the record anymore.
	Not anymore.
	He says, you know, I know that stuff was bad, but they never ever tested this stuff, but they say just anything to substitute.
	He says, for all we know, this could be ten times worse.
	Instead of saying off the record, just to say...
	Because then you sound like a journalist who's cheating.
	Oh, I've never been a cheater.
	Okay, well then I don't want to worry about it.
	No, I think there's a time limit to off the record.
	Oh, okay, gotcha.
	It was under embargo at the time.
	I also never mentioned the guy's name or anything like that.
	Under embargo.
	But I will say that he was skeptical about his own product.
	And I'm skeptical about this goo.
	All right, well I'd love to know more about what it is and how we can avoid it.
	Well, you can't avoid it.
	They've used it and used it and used it for years, and now it's all over the place.
	And if it's left in the hot sun after it gooifies, this gets really bad and it sticks.
	It'll stick to whatever it's touching.
	You have a piece of paper stuck to it.
	It's unbelievable.
	People out there know what I'm talking about.
	Yes.
	Well, where do you want to go from here?
	You know I have a little presentation.
	I'd like to do some general news first.
	Okay.
	You have a story that you've been following up on.
	Is that what we're talking about?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, I'm interested in listening to this.
	Oh, you want to do this now?
	Because I figure we do a couple, you know, top news items first, and then...
	Like what?
	What's the top news item?
	I don't know.
	What do you got?
	I don't have a clip for it, but I just was reading this morning about this situation in Canada with the Pipeliners.
	Going from Alberta to BC and back, and there's a big squabble about it, which I thought was kind of interesting.
	No clip, though.
	No, I don't have a clip, but I wish I did.
	How about the Cummings and Cortez show that was highlighted on Democracy Now?
	Okay, I don't really know what it is, so let's talk about it.
	And there is the...
	I got a clip.
	The Cummings and Cortez show.
	Okay.
	The guy that's testifying in front of Congress is...
	This starts with the.
	The guy who's testifying in front of Congress is that...
	The guy who's the Homeland Security or...
	Oh, the acting director of...
	The nice guy.
	He's a nice guy and he's trying to do a good job and they're just killing him.
	Yeah.
	Back on Capitol Hill, House Democrats grill President Trump's acting Homeland Security Secretary Thursday over migrant family separations, the deaths of children taken into U.S. custody, and reports of squalid, overcrowded, and dangerous conditions in U.S. immigration jails.
	This is House Oversight Committee Chair Elijah Cummings questioning the acting DHS Chief Kevin McAleenan.
	I feel like you're doing a great job, right?
	Is that what you're saying?
	We're doing our level best in the very...
	What does that mean?
	What does that mean when a child is sitting in their own feces?
	Can't take a shower?
	Come on, man!
	What's that about?
	None of us!
	We'll have our children in that position.
	They are human beings.
	Also at Thursday's House Oversight hearing, Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez confronted Kevin McAleenan over hateful messages shared by thousands of current and former Border Patrol agents on a private Facebook group.
	The group's online discussions exposed by ProPublica earlier this month are full of homophobic, anti-immigrant and misogynistic content about migrants and asylum seekers, as well as racist attacks on Texas Congressmember Veronica Escobar and on Ocasio-Cortez, who's depicted in a photoshopped image being sexually assaulted as well as racist attacks on Texas Congressmember Veronica Escobar and on Ocasio-Cortez, This is Congressmember Ocasio-Cortez questioning McAleenan.
	Did you see the post mocking migrant children's deaths?
	I did.
	Did you see the post planning physical harm to myself and Congresswoman Escobar?
	Yes, and I directed an investigation within minutes of reading the article.
	Did you see the images of officers circulating photoshopped images of my violent rape?
	Yes, I did.
	Are those officers on the job today and responsible for the safety of migrant women and children?
	So there's an aggressive investigation on this issue proceeding.
	You've heard the chief of the Border Patrol, the most senior female official in law enforcement across the entire country, say that these posts do not meet our standards of conduct and they will be followed up aggressively.
	Is this still about the secret group that they were posting on?
	Yeah, she brought it back up.
	Because it's about her.
	That's why she brought it back up.
	It's about her.
	It's about her.
	That's what it's got to be about.
	Me!
	Yeah, I love Elijah Cummings, who's just yelling and screaming, Come on, man!
	They're human beings!
	Let's not give a shit about the human beings dying on the streets of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Austin.
	Seattle.
	All right.
	Let me follow this up.
	First, let's go to some questioning about immigration.
	And there's no one better than campus reform to go out and talk to this country's, our country's, brightest future, The new kids who are just ready to graduate, and they're thinking about these things, and here's a test.
	Let's go read them something Obama said, and let's tell them that Trump said it, and then see what their reaction is, and then let's spring the truth on them.
	You've seen the gag before.
	It's hilarious.
	These could be pre-selected.
	I mean, they are selected, could be selected only to show idiots, but still the sampling is astounding.
	I have a quote for you here that's been making the rounds on social media about the deportation of criminal, illegal aliens.
	We are a nation of laws.
	Undocumented workers broke our laws, and I believe they must be held accountable, especially those who may be dangerous.
	That's why over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80%, and we're going to keep focusing on threats to our security.
	What's your thought on that quote and that policy in general?
	I think that policy comes from a place of white American nationalism.
	Donald Trump has kind of embraced this rhetoric of racism and xenophobia that is not beneficial to our country at all.
	I don't think that that quote really stands true.
	This administration has totally not done anything moral.
	This is really awful.
	Amnesty does not necessarily mean that we're losing border security.
	I think that Trump feels that way.
	I think that's a bad decision because the United States should be open to immigrants.
	They call it land for the free for a reason.
	We just have to advocate for those kinds of people and people in Congress like Ocasio-Cortez who is helping people overcome these kinds of things.
	Crimes do not nullify your humanity and people are coming here in search of opportunity.
	I'm going to show you the person that said that quote.
	We're also a nation of laws.
	Undocumented workers.
	Is that surprising?
	We're also a nation of laws.
	Yeah, a little bit.
	Why is that surprising?
	Because I thought it was the Trump administration that said something like that.
	Yeah, it's quite surprising.
	I thought it was from Trump.
	I didn't expect it to be Obama either.
	Why did you not expect it to be Obama?
	Um, because...
	I just, I guess, I don't know, like, it just never, it never occurred to me that it could be Obama.
	Is that surprising that it's a quote from President Obama?
	Yeah, that was surprising for sure, yeah.
	Do you think it's still a practice of white nationalism, though, to deport criminal legal aliens?
	I think the way Trump's doing it is.
	But President Obama, to this point in Trump's presidency, Obama actually deported more people, though.
	So, in practice, it was more from Obama, though.
	What's your question?
	I'd say my understanding of Obama versus Trump is that just that Obama was more liberal as far as amnesty and border security.
	I expected that quote to come from Trump.
	Does that change your opinion of the practice to know that President Obama did the same thing?
	Actually, to this point, his presidency deported more people than President Trump had at this point.
	No.
	Again, I just think that there's a moral way to do it.
	And I don't know a ton about Obama's deportation policies, but I imagine that they were a lot more humane than the ones currently going on.
	There you go.
	There you go, everybody.
	That's your mind control at work.
	The programming is successful.
	Even when they hear it was Obama, he must have done it a more moral way than Trump.
	Come on, please.
	Education system.
	Now, what's interesting with all this undocumented illegal immigration going on is that when I look around in Austin, Texas, the people who I see who are unhoused, sleeping on the street and panhandling, I don't know if they're actually homeless, they're panhandling for sure, are mostly white and they seem to be on drugs.
	We've been following, and this is going to lead right back to the illegal immigrants only in California, so bear with me for a second.
	In Austin, we changed the community guidelines, the local rules, where you can now sit and lie wherever you want.
	You can camp wherever you want, as long as it's not in front of City Hall.
	You can do it on Congress if you want, no problem in front of businesses, but not in front of City Hall.
	Everywhere else, you can camp, you can lie down, you can panhandle in front of schools, bus stops, anywhere you want.
	And the reason for this is that it was unfair and not taking into consideration the challenges of life of the unhoused.
	And now we are a couple weeks into the policy.
	Let's check in.
	This is a report from Liquor Station KXAN. Complaints tied to Austin's homeless population are growing.
	Two and a half weeks after new city rules were approved to decriminalize homelessness, some business owners say they're seeing even more problems.
	With the buzz of his blades, Oscar Rivera can clean up any mess.
	But he'll say his customer's hairline isn't the area that needs the most help.
	Sometimes you'll see people laying right here, right on the ground, and when you come early in the morning, you have to tell them to get away.
	His shop, Gallery 44, right off of 290 in Manchac, isn't the only business affected.
	It's nothing against those people, but when you're trying to build an establishment, it's hard to go further and grow.
	Just down the street, straight music has its own problems.
	VP Clint Strait has added locks to the bathrooms and dumpsters and told me he regularly finds needles in the parking lot.
	Community leaders say this is an issue of accountability, and the people of Austin need to be willing to give out more resources if they want to see change.
	It's hard to hold homeless people accountable for not throwing away their trash when they don't have receptacles to put them in.
	It's tough to hold people accountable when they're allowed to camp for using the bathroom in public places when they don't have a place to use the bathroom.
	The bottom line, this is a complex issue which requires thoughtful solutions.
	And it's up to stakeholders, just like those businesses near the homeless camps, to provide their input.
	One of the things that we can all do is work together to come to some sort of comprehensive solution.
	Next month, Austin City Manager Spencer Cronk will make recommendations on how to better tweak the new rules.
	It's expected to include reasonable limitations on camping and potential changes to the sit-and-lie ordinance.
	We wanted to get a sense of how big of a problem this is for people in Austin.
	Here's a look at the numbers from 311.
	Calls for service requests with the keyword homeless or transient show more than 2,700 calls so far this year.
	That's almost more than all of the calls from last year.
	But it's also important to note that the rate of homeless people is increasing in Austin.
	On the right, you'll see the point-in-time count from Echo.
	While the number of people living on the streets or in shelters has increased, that rate has been much more gradual compared to the number of complaints.
	And I would say, extrapolating from that, it's because the rules change.
	So now there's more problems.
	Small business owners.
	Both of those guys were Latino.
	Be damned.
	Who gives a shit?
	Way to go, Austin.
	Fantastic.
	Now, Dr.
	Drew Pinsky has been on a tear about what's happening in Los Angeles.
	He's talked about his radio show.
	He's been, I think he went on Fox and CNN. I don't know if he's been on MSNBC. But in two short clips, he explained not only what the real problem is, but also what the solution is.
	And we've talked about some of the historical reasons for this, and I just wanted to share those.
	He was on with Scott Adams, which is a rare thing, I think, for Scott Adams to have someone call in on his periscope.
	And technically, it's just a huge nightmare, as someone said.
	I guess it proves that the content is good.
	It doesn't really matter that much.
	I think we've been pretty clear in the past that what we see is this is a drug problem.
	That's why I like saying unhoused.
	I don't know if someone's homeless, but they're not housed when they're sleeping on the ground.
	And Los Angeles has a huge problem with this.
	And Dr.
	Drew, who I don't know if he's used to, but he ran drug addiction clinics.
	He says this is all about Drugs.
	So even if we had more housing, if suddenly housing just appeared out of nowhere and it was free, these people wouldn't necessarily even take a free house, would they?
	Correct.
	The part that is now driving me to my grave, I think, on this problem is that this is a population that if you walk up to them and say, let's go, I've got a great place for you to live, the majority and the vast majority will refuse.
	And people don't believe this, but when you are chronically mentally ill, unless you have treatment, it's very difficult to live in four walls.
	If you're a drug addict, you seek the streets.
	So there's an attachment to this lifestyle that is not being addressed.
	The other thing is, not only would they do not want housing, Housing is not the problem in Los Angeles.
	We just absorbed in the last year or so about, conservatively, 800,000 undocumented immigrants.
	We're a sanctuary city.
	We welcome them in.
	None of them are on the streets.
	They all found a place to live.
	800,000 people in a year found a place to live.
	So the government continued to focus on the housing.
	It's a hoax.
	And I can't understand why they're focused on it.
	Yes, I'm so happy he said this.
	Because it's true.
	You have all these illegal immigrants finding a place to stay.
	They're not on the streets of L.A. either.
	So it's just another data point that there's something else going on.
	But all the politicians can talk about is, same in Austin, affordable housing, need affordable housing.
	Now, you've actually provided the reasoning behind this in the past, John.
	I have?
	Yeah, it's part of Dr.
	Drew's solution, so I'll get right to it, and then when we're done, you'll remember.
	No, it's easily solvable.
	It just doesn't fit an ideology.
	There's something called the Landma-Petrus Act, which is what allows us to treat patients.
	Again, you've got to read this book called American Psychosis.
	The Landma-Petrus Act came out in the 1960s.
	Throughout human history, when people had chronic psychiatric illness or addiction, The system would determine need for care.
	If somebody met criteria for what was called need for care, they were cared for.
	They were put in a hospital and cared for and stabilized and returned to their life.
	In the 1960s, there was a guy named Robert Felix that convinced President Kennedy that chronic psychiatric illness didn't really exist, that state hospitals caused it.
	We had these crazy books that were going out that made the idea of putting people in a psychiatric hospital inhumane.
	And they passed something called the Lantharm and Petrus Act, which moved need for care to the criteria for care as simply harm to self or other.
	And if you weren't saying, I'm going to kill myself, or I'm going to kill somebody else, or I'm so severely gravely disabled, which is a definition that we have to work on, Then we could only hold you for 72 hours, which doesn't accomplish much of anything.
	So we could help people with harm to solve for other than 72 hours, but gravely disabled could do nothing.
	So we must change the definition of gravely disabled.
	We must expand conservatorships.
	We must modify Prop 47 so we can start to prosecute drug laws again so we can motivate drug addicts to get treatment.
	The problem with drug addicts is they go one of three places.
	Institution, which we've taken away.
	Prison, which we've taken away.
	Or they die.
	So we are leaving drug addicts to die.
	Which is exactly the policy.
	And now I'm thinking, it may be on purpose.
	If those are the three options, it's clear that Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Orlando, Portland, Austin are choosing the die option.
	Let them die.
	That could be.
	And this goes back to your story about Reagan, one flew over the cuckoo's nest.
	Yes, what happened in the 60s was there was a big stink in the 60s, the era of Vietnam War and hippies and rock music, psychedelic scene, LSD, you name it.
	And it was that they bought into the idea that he just discussed, which was that these psychiatric places are just terrible.
	And they're a nut house, as it were.
	And they started trying to shut him down, but there was some pushback, probably from the Republican side of things.
	But once Ronald Reagan got in, he went with it.
	And so now you don't have the pushback from the Republicans, because he is a Republican.
	And Reagan, pretty much following the lead of the liberals...
	Shut down all the, I don't want to call them internment camps, but he shut down all the insane asylums in California, let everyone on the street, and the problem worsened and worsened and worsened from that moment on.
	And now it's at the point where it's just nuts.
	And if they don't reopen these places, you're right, you just have a bunch of corpses everywhere, and I guess maybe that is what they want.
	But in the meantime, there's a couple of things we can do.
	Okay.
	The most important of which, if you're in cities like San Francisco or Los Angeles or Portland, Find those cities like Austin and tell people how liberal they are about allowing people to just live out in the open and tell them to go to Austin.
	This is what I've been doing.
	This is what I've been doing locally.
	It's interesting because here I keep telling people that there's no future and they need to go to San Francisco.
	Specifically, I recommend Berkeley area.
	Well, Berkeley's not really as great a place as Austin.
	You got free needles on the streets?
	Well, there's free needles everywhere, but Austin will be...
	Austin's the most liberal of the places that allow...
	I'm not going to let you do it.
	Stop!
	I don't want all those dead...
	I don't want the corpses everywhere.
	That's what it's going to be.
	Anyway, don't let anyone tell you differently.
	This is about drugs.
	It's a part of the opioid crisis as well.
	Yeah.
	It's a big part of it.
	Opioids, meth, it's very sad.
	Have you watched that special about Seattle?
	Yeah.
	The death of Seattle.
	Seattle is dying.
	Seattle is dying.
	There's some good stuff in there because they have a bunch of regular characters apparently.
	Who the cops can't do anything about, and the guys are strung out, and they brag about being loaded all the time on one thing or another.
	Meth is a problem.
	Meth is a huge problem, especially in the Pacific Northwest, not just the opioids.
	Meth, which is a cheap drug, and it gives you the kind of buzz these guys are looking for, I suppose.
	Yeah, fentanyl and meth, these are terrible products.
	So there's the solutions.
	I don't know about Prop 47.
	We don't have that here.
	I wish Dr.
	Drew could come and speak at the Austin City Council meeting.
	Give him a little piece.
	If he was invited, he'd probably show up.
	He's got enough problems in his own backyard.
	We'll just keep playing clips, see if anyone cares.
	Nobody cares.
	They just as soon let everyone drop dead.
	Yeah.
	You can step over the body.
	Hey, hey, hey.
	You can step over.
	Just step over.
	It's no big deal.
	Step over and you can come into the shop.
	So at the very end of our last show...
	I received a clip of the day, which I thought it was a good clip, but in hindsight, I'm like, of course I deserve clip of the day.
	And that turned into a little bit of research.
	I'll refresh your memory.
	This is from the Google and censorship...
	Sorry?
	I was laughing at your self-assurance about clip of the day.
	Sure, I deserve Clip of the Day.
	Well, just throw it in there.
	The number one financial supporter of the Hillary Clinton...
	Wait, I need to set it up more.
	This is the clip that I received Clip of the Day for, and it's Senator Cruz interviewing Dr.
	Robert Epstein, who has done research and claims that in the 2016 election, at minimum about two and a half, but possibly 10 million votes were swayed to...
	Vote for Hillary Clinton based upon Google's algorithmic bias in their search results.
	I want to say something before we play the clip.
	Nobody, and there's shows that specialize in Google, podcasts, have played this clip.
	I was looking for it.
	I haven't heard anyone play this clip.
	It was on the hearings, and there's one show that's a Google show, and they were playing clips from the hearing, and they never played this clip.
	What Google show was that?
	Material.
	Well, you know, these Google shows, you know, it's like, do you trust Jeff Jarvis to be objective on Google, as an example?
	No, I know, just in general, people who do, who have, if you're allowed in the building at Google, you're not going to say anything bad about Google.
	No, it's a conflict of interest.
	Thank you.
	So here's the clue.
	We have no conflict of interest because everyone hates us.
	And we take in a vow of poverty.
	It's a twofer.
	The number one financial supporter of the Hillary Clinton campaign in the 2016 election was the parent company of Google, Alphabet, who was our first witness.
	They were her number one financial donor, and your testimony is, through their deceptive search methods, they moved 2.6 million votes in her direction.
	I would think anybody...
	Whether or not you favor one candidate or another should be deeply dismayed about a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires having that much power over our elections to silently and deceptively shift vote outcomes.
	Again, with respect, I must correct you.
	The 2.6 million is a rock-bottom minimum.
	The range is between 2.6 and 10.4 million, depending on how aggressively they used the techniques that I've been studying now for six and a half years.
	Wow.
	Could you say that again, please?
	Just...
	The 2.6 million is a rock bottom minimum.
	The range is between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes, depending on how aggressive they were in using the techniques that I've been studying, such as the search engine manipulation effect, the search suggestion effect, The answer bot effect and a number of others.
	They control these and no one can counteract them.
	These are not competitive.
	These are tools that they have at their disposal exclusively.
	There you go.
	Now, of course, when you hear that, you're like, even I'm going, yeah, I think I said it on the show, I don't know if it really swayed 10 million people to vote for Hillary over Trump if they were on the fence.
	Yeah, and I think I was siding with the professor.
	I think it probably could have.
	And you were very skeptical.
	So this is better that you do this report.
	You took it on.
	I will mention this just as kind of an aside.
	Let's just say the max is true here and the max is true about the illegal immigrants that are brought into the country to vote for the Democrats.
	If you could sway 10 million votes and have maybe, I don't know, another 10 million immigrants all voting for Hillary and she still loses?
	How much do people really hate this woman?
	Or how much do people really want to vote for Trump?
	I mean, you could look at it either way.
	So a little background on the professor.
	He's a PhD and senior research psychologist, research scientist, media professional, author of 15 books, and reading from his own bio.
	More than 300 articles on psychology-related topics, including empirical studies in science nature, psychological science, and the proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
	He has a PhD from Harvard University under B.F. Skinner.
	Dr.
	Epstein is the founder.
	Yeah, do you know him, B.F. Skinner?
	Oh yeah, he's the famous behaviorist.
	One of the most famous guys ever.
	Epstein is the founder and the director emeritus of the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.
	He's also hosted several radio shows, etc.
	He is a registered Democrat.
	He voted for Hillary Clinton.
	And he started a non-profit, which is the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, 501c3.
	I checked the 990 filings.
	Has about $150,000 on hand.
	Raised about $40,000 every year for the past couple of years.
	little bump in 2016.
	The only people in this organization were three, Epstein himself, Tyler Healy, who is the technology, in fact, if you read his bio, you know exactly what his technology director, cybersecurity expert, full stack developer.
	So he basically put together all the tests.
	And then Brian Meredith, the managing director, he came to the AIBRT after a much-honored advertising agency career spanning three continents, Former vice president of Benton Bowles, founding member and director of the international creative team at McCann Erickson.
	These are big advertising agencies.
	He passed away in 2017.
	I think he was probably the original funder of this organization.
	And clearly, not a lot of funding has come in.
	But of course, if you're fighting Google, you might have a lot of enemies.
	Google, I think, is the largest lobbyer in D.C. at the moment.
	Maybe battling with China.
	Who the hell knows?
	Maybe they work together.
	I don't know.
	So, I looked at the research, and he has a number of research beyond what we're talking about here, which is search engine manipulation effect, the S-E-M-E. He's also looked at the search suggestion effect, the answer bot effect.
	Anybody's done many other things that come to psychological behavior.
	And I think having an advertising guy in early was probably, hey, how do we use today's technology to sell products?
	And that's probably the most fair research you get because they were looking to figure out what manipulates people towards choices.
	The research, as published in the PNAS, which is an official journal, not only was it accepted, reviewed, It has been replicated in Germany.
	This is a big deal if you go look at all these bullcrap studies everywhere.
	Look and see if there was a replication of it.
	The replication crisis is rampant, certainly in the psychological sciences.
	People can't recreate these studies, but still they're...
	What are you eating?
	What are you doing?
	It's distracting me.
	Sorry.
	Are you ripping paper?
	I am, actually.
	I'm looking for some notes.
	Go on.
	Don't tear paper.
	I wasn't tearing paper, but I'm going to de-mic, so don't talk to me.
	Name the movie.
	I looked at his research.
	It is large groups, tens of thousands of people, double blind study.
	You're tearing paper again.
	I'm not tearing paper.
	I'm just taking paper out of a pile.
	I am demiking.
	Just keep talking.
	No, don't demike.
	I need you to be able to interrupt for a reason.
	I'm just saying...
	Here's a pile of paper.
	I take the paper off.
	Are you looking for something?
	Are you doing crossword puzzles?
	Yes, I told you that already.
	Go on.
	Is your chair squeaking to your paper and they're talking back to each other?
	Normally you're bitching and moaning by interrupting and now you're just bitching and moaning because I'm not interrupting.
	Please, please go back.
	All right.
	So the research is very deep.
	It is done with all of...
	I mean, I'm not a scientist, but I've seen a lot of research throughout 11 years of doing this show.
	And it really looks like he did all the business the way it should be done.
	And in 2014-15, but particularly in 2016, he did a number of studies, and again in 2018, where he would look at...
	The results, based upon political questions that came in from Google Query, from Bing, and from Yahoo.
	And the results for Google were significantly different.
	I think that their algorithms are different.
	But the research really focused on, and this is what I found to be interesting...
	It's the bias of what people click on in search results.
	So when you pose a question to Google, the top two results receive all of the clicks.
	With 50% going to the top one, 30% going to the second one, it drops off quite dramatically.
	Interestingly, the last, the bottom one on a page gets more clicks than the five or six above it, and you can probably figure out why.
	We've all done that.
	Let me scroll down to the bottom.
	I'll click this one.
	I'll go to the next page.
	But the click is pretty much always on the top one or the top two.
	And depending on what is driving the results, he found that amongst undecided voters, this is key, people who are really on the fence.
	Undecided voters can be 10%, can be 15%, can be 20% of an election, people on the fence.
	That the choices people make...
	I should mention it's usually over 20%.
	The undecided voters are always very high right into the election.
	Oh really?
	What kind of percentage are we talking?
	I've seen as high as 40.
	So he claims that given an A-B choice, that the top two links determine people's choice.
	And regardless of what that content is, well obviously it's pointing towards A or B, if it's A, 20 to 90% We'll choose A over B just because they were the top two links.
	So we understand the research because that's really what all his research is saying.
	His research is saying, unlike anything else, when you have a choice between two candidates and you pose a question, the top two link answers that you click on that are on the top of the page will determine who you're going to vote for in aggregate over your research.
	I should stop you?
	Mm-hmm.
	I remember, because what he's doing is maybe deconstructing what has already been done at Google, because I will remind myself that Sergey Brin used to come on the Silicon Spin show a lot, and he one time said to me, you know, we have the most PhDs of any company in the world.
	And what are those PhDs doing there?
	They're probably trying to figure out, well, they can do stuff to manipulate things.
	Or is that really what they're doing?
	Because I have some thoughts about where the biases come from.
	But I have a bunch of clips.
	Most of them are about 50 to 60 seconds long, but they do tell the story.
	It's from different interviews that I've put together.
	And the first one is Epstein...
	Introducing himself and giving a brief overview of SIEM, which is the search engine manipulation effect.
	This is what he proved in his research.
	By the way, the whole PDF of his research is in the show notes.
	I've been researching all kinds of new methods of online influence the Internet has made possible.
	My first discovery was of something called SIEM, S-E-M-E, the search engine manipulation effect.
	Which is the impact that biased search results have on opinions and votes.
	When I first started doing experiments on this, which was more than six years ago, I thought the impact would be very small.
	It turns out the impact is...
	It's enormous.
	It's one of the largest behavioral effects ever discovered in the behavioral sciences.
	I published my first report on this effect in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
	That was in 2015.
	And that report has since been accessed or downloaded more than 200,000 times.
	And that's a lot for a scientific paper.
	And since then, I've discovered about seven other effects These effects are so powerful that if they're in the hands of people who have particular political leanings, together they can shift upwards of 15 million votes in a presidential election without anyone knowing that they're being manipulated and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to trace.
	So that's kind of the same backgrounder I gave, but in maybe more succinct language.
	So in 2016, he decided to monitor searches.
	This is before the election, leading up to the election, and to compare if Google was delivering biased search results to those top two positions versus competitors.
	2016, I actually set up the first ever project to monitor the search results that Google, Bing, and Yahoo were showing online.
	I found that the search results were strongly biased in favor of Hillary Clinton, whom I supported, by the way.
	I am not a conservative.
	And so they shifted votes, lots of votes, away from Donald Trump toward Hillary Clinton, but in a way that people couldn't see.
	Because the way this works is people trust and click on search results that are higher in the list.
	So 50% of all clicks go to the top two items in the list.
	Sure, and what Google was doing was putting items high in the list that led people to webpages that made Hillary Clinton look a lot better than Donald Trump.
	And over time, that shifts the opinions and votes of undecided voters.
	And, of course, in close elections, it's undecided voters who determine the winner.
	In this particular case, we calculated, based on the bias that we found, that Google could quite easily have shifted 2 to 3 million votes toward Hillary Clinton just using this manipulation without anyone knowing that they were doing it.
	The part of without anyone knowing they're doing it is important because this is not just a clear bias that stands out.
	It has a name.
	They can shift millions of votes using what they themselves call ephemeral experiences.
	In other words, things like news feeds and search suggestions and search results.
	Answer boxes.
	These are ephemeral because they appear only for a second or two.
	They affect your thinking.
	They disappear.
	They're not stored anywhere.
	No one can go back in time and retrace them.
	And Google employees, and we've seen in leaks recently, they are well aware that they can use ephemeral experiences to shift votes and opinions, and they do this deliberately.
	I've proven it with my monitoring projects.
	So, ephemeral experiences means it's just for an instant.
	It's just there.
	Your search results, something in a search box, your auto-complete, all these things are really not trackable by you, even in your mind, because it's the way you've done, used the Google product ever since you've been using it.
	Now, there was a Politico article that he wrote explaining all this after the election, which was followed up by the top research scientist at Google Search in Politico.
	I think the only...
	Audio report or video report I could find on it was from RT, and they, of course, say this is total bullcrap.
	The tech giant has dismissed his previous findings, saying that its algorithms are politically blind.
	We have never re-ranked search results on any topic, including elections, to manipulate political sentiment.
	Moreover, we do not make any ranking tweaks which are specific to elections or political candidates.
	period.
	We always strive to provide our users with the most accurate, relevant answers to their queries.
	Google completely disagrees with you, I should say.
	First of all, they said there's no way this can be true, but you disagree.
	Is it really possible the results of Google searches can influence the way people vote?
	Well, there's no question about that.
	I've been doing randomized controlled studies for more than six years, measuring quite precisely the impact that they can have on people's thinking and behavior and purchases and elections.
	But this monitoring project that I conducted, this shows beyond any question that there was significant liberal bias in Google search results, but not in search results from Bing and Yahoo.
	Unfortunately, About 90% of the search is conducted on Google, not big in Yahoo, so Google really is the deciding factor in close races.
	In fact, we calculate that upwards of 25% of the national elections in the world are being decided This is important to know.
	And he says their influence, he's not saying that they that is their political agenda that they are putting in there.
	And if you listen carefully to Google's rebuttal of his article, they say we don't re-rank results.
	That's not what his research is calling for.
	He actually had something to say about it himself.
	That disclaimer, that denial that you just played from Google, you have to listen very, very, very carefully to what they're saying.
	They're saying they don't re-rank.
	They're very careful in their denials.
	They don't re-rank.
	I've never claimed they re-rank anything.
	I'm just reporting on what they actually show people.
	And what they show people is dramatically biased enough in our 2018 elections to have shifted upwards of 78.2 million votes spread across different races in the US in 2018.
	So, they're not being completely honest with their answer, but they're not really lying either.
	I don't think they're re-ranking.
	I don't think Sergey Brin is sitting there saying, oh, let's make this the top results.
	Ha ha ha ha!
	Take that, Trump!
	I don't think that's what's happening.
	Well, no.
	I mean, the professor agrees with that, but the point is that if you set your algorithms up right, and you are biased, let's face it, I mean, Sergey and then the whole team over there were in tears saying, After Hillary lost, it's on the internet, the videos are out there, and they're weeping over this loss, saying we didn't do enough.
	So there's no reason to re-rank when the whole thing is rigged to begin with.
	And it is, and I think I can explain what's going on.
	First, let's go to 2018.
	He had some very surprising results.
	This was our most recent election, not a presidential election in Gitmo Nation.
	It was for the House and for the Senate.
	We did this very, very carefully.
	We had field agents focusing on three congressional races in California, which were very hotly contested races in Republican districts.
	And we gave to these field agents about 500 election-related search terms.
	Each one had different search terms for different districts where there were different issues, of course.
	And the point is, we simply looked at what kind of search results they received when they were conducting election-related searches, and we found very consistently that on Google, they ended up with search results favoring liberals and favoring liberal news sources, and it was quite a dramatic effect.
	And I'm sure that some of these House races were won by people, undecided voters, researching, receiving biased search results.
	So we're going to take it as a fact that Google's search results, political search results, have been biased and have been left-leaning.
	That's just a fact that it's been replicated.
	There's no disputing that.
	But is it the algorithm?
	No.
	Or is the data?
	Which one is it?
	Can we establish with any certainty just how much influence what people see in their internet searches, what impact it has upon who they vote for?
	Well, yes, that's what the scientific research has been all about.
	And we know that among people who are undecided on an issue, if we show them search results that favor one cause or favor one candidate, like Brexit, for example...
	Among people who are undecided that easily can shift 20% or more of them in the direction of the bias, upwards of up to 80% shifts in some demographic groups.
	People trust algorithmic output.
	They trust Google.
	They think it's because it's generated by a computer.
	They don't see the human hand.
	They think it's impartial and objective.
	And then their opinions change.
	So we've measured that quite precisely now in five national elections in multiple countries.
	And so we know for sure that that is occurring now around the world without people's knowledge.
	Again, is it the algorithm that's making decisions or is it the data?
	Now we're going to move to two other scientists.
	Actually, we'll start with Kathy O'Neill.
	She wrote the book, Weapons of Math Destruction.
	She used to be a hedge fund quant.
	Which means she would write algorithms to determine market moves and how you can take...
	You know, that's a lot of the flash trading is based on quant work.
	I think quant stands for what?
	I don't even know what it stands for.
	Quantitative analysis.
	Okay.
	So a quant is looking...
	An algo is programmed to look for little moves and grab those and it can be pennies or sometimes fractions and enough of those over the course of a day and you're making millions of dollars.
	And she got bored with that and she went to go work in data sciences for commercial companies, for insurance companies, etc.
	And she discovered pretty quickly that she was really separating people into classes.
	Classes of standing and really the opposite of a lot of what America is supposed to be.
	And I became interested in what she was saying because we've been following algorithms for a long time on the show.
	I'm going to paraphrase her.
	Algorithms are automated opinions of the status quo.
	So there's an opinion that says anyone living in this zip code is worthwhile to me for my marketing experience.
	If you see anyone from this zip code, take them right away.
	So that is an opinion, and that is my opinion at this very moment, and the algorithm from now on will make that decision automatically without any exception.
	It will not change it, and if that's the only data it has, it's only going to find people in that zip code as being valid.
	Here's some of her talking about this.
	Algorithms don't make things fair.
	If you just blindly apply algorithms, they don't make things fair.
	They repeat our past practices, our patterns.
	They automate the status quo.
	That would be great if we had a perfect world, but we don't.
	But the data scientists in those companies are told to follow the data, to focus on accuracy.
	Think about what that means.
	Because we all have bias, it means they could be codifying sexism or any other kind of bigotry.
	This is all from TED Radio Hour, so I couldn't get too much about the music they put under everything.
	And she has a very interesting talk that she has.
	Now, how are algorithms programmed?
	They're programmed with data, and the data ingress, so teaching the algorithm, you've probably heard this term, is machine learning.
	And depending on the data you have, you're going to feed that in, you're going to program the algorithm, which is very simple, if this, then that.
	It's really not much more than that.
	It sounds really, really complicated.
	But the underlying data seems to be a much bigger issue.
	Now we're going to talk to MIT researcher who graduated from MIT. You have to kind of get over her valley kind of girl speak up talking because she is very smart and she has done a lot of research in this area.
	Joy Boulamwini And she ran into a data machine learning issue very early on, and she's black, when it came to facial recognition.
	I am the founder of the Algorithmic Justice League, so my personal mission is to fight algorithmic bias.
	Yes, the Algorithmic Justice League, which is a group of computer scientists and coders who try to raise awareness about the social problems that exist in algorithms.
	It's something Joy recently demonstrated by using a basic webcam and facial analysis technology.
	And it's the kind of technology you might find when you upload a picture on social media.
	And so what I do is I sit in front of the camera, hoping for my face to be detected, and I have pretty dark skin.
	So I'm sitting there with my face, dark skin, there's no detection.
	Then I pull on my friend's face, who has much lighter skin than I do, she's Chinese, and you see that her face is immediately detected.
	So then I switch back to my face, dark skinned and gorgeous, not detected.
	I put on a white mask, and after I put on the white mask, that's when I'm detected.
	And I wanted to show this as an example that in the same conditions, right, a typically lit office, we were having a different experience.
	You're saying that a lot of the software doesn't detect black faces?
	Absolutely.
	This kind of technology is being built on machine learning techniques, and machine learning techniques are based on data.
	So if you have biased data in the input and it's not addressed, you're going to have biased outcomes.
	So, this is a real-world example.
	You recall that there was an outrage over Google recognizing black faces, tagging them as gorilla?
	I think it was Google.
	It may have been Facebook.
	It doesn't matter.
	And the reason for this is when the algorithm was built, it was done with an initial data set.
	The developers, probably a bunch of dudes, probably Asian and white dudes, used their faces to train the algorithm.
	And they just didn't have any black faces at the time, and lo and behold, the machine didn't know what they were because it had never been given black face algorithmic data.
	And so it went to whatever it thought was the closest thing, and sadly it said, oh, this is a gorilla.
	So it was very embarrassing, but it's because the core base, even at the development stage, didn't have the right amount of data.
	Here's a fun game to play.
	I want you to picture, John, a shoe.
	Everyone can play this at home.
	Think of a shoe.
	Don't tell me what it is.
	Just create an image of your shoe in your mind.
	Now we're going to feed that image into an algorithm and say, this is a shoe.
	Whenever you see this, label this shoe.
	What image of a shoe did you have in your mind, John?
	I had an image of a beat-up, kind of flattened leather shoe with some shoestrings.
	Right.
	So I had a sneaker in mind, and if you don't put the sneaker in, or a high heel, or I did this with Tina yesterday, she was thinking of a sandal.
	I never would have thought of a sandal.
	So if you don't put the sandal in, it's never going to show up in the algo as a shoe.
	And this is how the core data is biased.
	It's not necessarily left, right, black, white, Republican, Democrat.
	It's just missing data that creates an inherent bias.
	So what's going on?
	Why isn't my face being detected?
	Well, we have to look at how we give machines sight.
	Computer vision uses machine learning techniques to do facial recognition.
	So how this works is you create a training set with examples of faces.
	This is a face, this is a face.
	This is not a face.
	And over time, you can teach a computer how to recognize other faces.
	However, if the training sets aren't really that diverse, any face that deviates too much from the established norm will be harder to detect, which is what was happening to me.
	So now let's go to what's happening with political questions and results in Google.
	Google is a left-leaning company.
	It is a liberal company, so their base algorithmic sets are always going to be based on their inherent bias.
	And I'll give you an example.
	If someone asks a question about Hillary Clinton's emails, they need a result.
	Let me take a look at what we have.
	We have some Wall Street Journal, some Fox News.
	Oh, here's a New York Times article that says it was kind of a big nothing burger.
	It's the New York Times, so yeah, I think that's probably...
	We'll put that at the top, and we'll put number two.
	We'll put maybe something from the Wall Street Journal, a little less nuance.
	Okay.
	Now, you've just trained the algorithm, based on whatever it's supposed to be doing, that these are the shoes for that kind of shoe question.
	Take this one step further.
	Who is training?
	The machine learning of Google is done by my future daughter-in-law.
	We talked about her sitting here on the back porch just like tens of thousands of other people who are reviewing search results.
	Some of it's just a pure search result.
	Some of it's from Hey Google.
	They do it from multiple companies.
	And let's say there's a question about Hillary's emails.
	She'll be, well, let me go take a look.
	I don't think this answer is right because it doesn't fit what I think about it.
	So I think that this article over here from Politico, that's the right answer.
	So I'm going to tag this.
	It's going to be inherently biased towards left-leaning results because of the data, because of the employees, because of what Google is.
	This is not.
	It's far worse than Sergey Brin sitting there going, let me change it.
	No, it will never change because the organization is inherently biased and the data scientists are not real scientists.
	They're assholes who are not checking their data.
	They're not replicating it, checking it for any kind of fairness, bias, etc.
	They're also probably very left-leaning.
	And this is a mind-blowing problem above some unfair shit they're putting in.
	And that's why they can easily say, we're not doing anything.
	We're not re-ranking.
	No.
	But all the people you hire, who they don't check, they don't check these people who are at task to make sure the results are proper.
	They don't do it.
	They just bring something.
	They're paying them $14 an hour, if even that.
	They don't care.
	These reviewers often.
	Well, then you have to explain a couple of things.
	Okay.
	First of all, it's no coincidence that Google was the largest...
	Yes.
	if they won yes or she won sure secondly how do you you match up the google employees with the yahoo employees which is what one of the elements that he compared with or the bing employees up at microsoft the microsoft employees in fact i believe are probably much more liberal i do not biased than they are at google I do not believe that they have the same algorithms and the same data that they're using.
	Google has vast sources of data that they're using in a variety of ways that Yahoo and Bing have no access to.
	I don't think that their algorithms are basing it on thousands of people.
	In fact, I've heard of no one who's reviewing content choices for Bing or for Yahoo.
	I don't hear about that.
	I hear it's for Google, Facebook, and Apple.
	And what's not explained, and you're not explaining it, is Yahoo, if anyone doesn't know this, uses the Google Engine.
	I don't know.
	I don't know that.
	I don't know what they're using.
	I don't know if they have the exact same data set.
	You can say what they're using.
	They're using the Google Engine.
	Well, whatever that means, you need to show me what that means, because I don't believe so.
	I don't think it's the exact same thing Google is using.
	It just makes no sense.
	Why would they even be contemplating giving it everything?
	Apparently it's not the exact same thing, because you're not getting the exact same results.
	Exactly.
	It's not the same.
	But that's the word, is that that's what they're using.
	Right.
	It does not, that by itself does not mean that they're manually or overriding the algorithm because it would have been what Yahoo output.
	Now, I don't believe that for a second.
	This is a much bigger problem.
	Google is biased.
	the company is biased whatever google is is what they will be presenting to people the sad part is as it turns out that bias swings large percentages of undetermined voters that's the i mean the only solution in the near term is to make google searching illegal for some period of time because it's it's it's not stoppable it will
	They cannot stop it.
	It is their system.
	You can go through it and you can look at every...
	A piece of the step logic to see where the results come.
	There will be no injection of, oh, it's about Trump, let's give him something else.
	No, this is happening throughout the entire system.
	Their whole data structure is biased.
	You cannot walk away from this.
	Now, the only other thing I'd like to say in this presentation is that, sadly, this is not just happening with our elections.
	This is happening everywhere in your life, and if you don't know what's going on, you're getting screwed and you're at a disadvantage.
	Back to Kathy O'Neill for a quickie.
	Algorithms that sort through resumes or algorithms that personality tests or algorithms that decide who is a good insurance risk.
	They're very, very similar in different companies.
	So they're sorting people in the same kind of way.
	And if you think about what that does on a society level, it's sorting winners and losers in the standard, old-fashioned way that we've been trying to get over, that we've been trying to transcend through class, through gender, through race.
	And it's against the American dream.
	It is actually a social mobility problem.
	And that's what I realized.
	I was like, I'm working on this.
	I left finance.
	And now what I'm doing is I'm sort of codifying inequality.
	And just as a goof, I was looking around, looking for search terms such as, how do I beat the insurance algorithm?
	And there's a lot of information people have figured out.
	How do I circumvent the job site algorithm?
	If you put a resume into a job site, your shit is not even getting to people.
	You're being pre-sorted.
	And let me give you an example.
	One of the data fields would be, where did you hear this commercial?
	And I heard one just the other day, Jobsite.com slash NPR. Please go to Jobsite.com slash NPR. You know that in many cases, the algorithm will be looking only for those people.
	Whether you listen to NPR or not, they got the code.
	They put that in.
	Those are going to be the smart people.
	They're the ones I want.
	Screw everything else.
	Same with insurance.
	Colossus, which is this big...
	Algorithm that is used for almost all the insurance companies.
	And you know what it all starts with?
	You know what the number one field is in all of these algorithmic decisions?
	The number one data point for insurance, for a job, for...
	I don't have to tell you all the different things.
	What is it?
	It's your credit score.
	Another damn algorithmic piece of crap determining your life.
	So if you're wondering why you're not getting a job, maybe you're not submitting it right.
	In fact, we need to have our data scientists, our dudes and dudettes named Ben and Bernadette, you need to be whistleblowing.
	What's the bias within your company?
	You know it's happening.
	You know that something's going on.
	You know that results are being filtered out based upon X, Y, or Z. We need whistleblowers.
	And it may not even be malicious, but it's happening.
	Your life is being determined by bad data choices.
	Anyone who's a data scientist should be ashamed of their field.
	Hey, I've said for years the internet should have been shut down.
	It just would be not as exacerbated as it is if there was no internet.
	Correct.
	And I don't want to mention Professor Ted.
	With that, I'd like to thank you for your courage and say in the morning to you, the man who put the C in the carbon captions, John C. DeVore.
	Good morning to you, Mr.
	Adam Curry.
	In the morning, all ships with sea boots on the ground and...
	Subs in the water.
	If there's any out there left.
	And all the dames and knights out there.
	In the morning to our troll room.
	Hello, trolls.
	They had nothing but stupid comments during their presentation.
	Very demotivating, but thank you very much.
	NoagendaStream.com.
	You shouldn't be looking at the troll room while you're giving a presentation like that.
	It's interesting you say that.
	I have noticed.
	By the way, stop.
	You and this troll room, and I would say Horowitz is the same way, it's just like the closed captioning.
	I don't know what you mean by that.
	It's just like an addiction or something because you just need these words up there.
	No, actually, fuck you, no.
	I've had it written down for a number of episodes to bring this up.
	It's off to the side.
	It's not my main view.
	It's always scrolling.
	It's a small terminal window.
	And I always wonder why I pick out certain one-liners or certain things.
	And I believe what is happening is in my peripheral view, I'm seeing this.
	My brain has developed over the course of a decade.
	Develop some mechanism to process in a little side thread, processing what is being said there, and it actually alerts my active speaking brain to look over there when there's something that may be of interest.
	That's what's happening.
	I'm just smart.
	If this is true, I would recommend anybody in the troll room to start selling Adam's stuff.
	Mm-hmm.
	Because it looks like he's open for subliminal suggestion.
	That's exactly what it is.
	In the morning to Adam at Sea, the artist who brought us the artwork for episode 1156.
	Title of that was Bividal.
	Now we chose an evergreen for this and I got a really pissed off bunch of messages.
	From the artists?
	Yes, I'll tell you exactly who it was from.
	The artist is...
	Hold on.
	Ned.
	And this was actually my favorite piece, which was the Charlie's Angels as the squad.
	And he was yelling and screaming and, I'm never going to do art anymore!
	This is so obvious!
	This is the best one!
	And you guys chose that piece of shit!
	Well, at least he's passionate.
	No, he's very passionate.
	I said, it's interesting because that was my favorite piece.
	Yeah, it was.
	I agree with that.
	We both have veto, and you said, no, I've seen it on the M5M News, and you thought you didn't like it anyway, but you said you had seen it somewhere else, and so you vetoed it.
	And I was like, oh, okay.
	I haven't seen that specific piece, but I saw the reference to Charlie's Angels.
	Yeah, the reference.
	Yeah, the reference.
	Well, he was very disappointed.
	I thought it was corny, to be honest about it.
	Well, just letting him know what the process is.
	And I also don't like the idea of equating...
	Here's my final rationale, if he's interested, because we do have to rationalize what we pick.
	And the two of us being the art critics that we are.
	I didn't think it was correct to glorify this group of four in that way.
	I thought it was a glorification piece, and I didn't think it was appropriate.
	Well, you didn't say that as such.
	I did, too.
	I did.
	I remember as such.
	I thought you said you didn't like it for a number of reasons.
	Maybe you said glorification.
	That was one of the reasons.
	You were already looking at Evergreen's by the time I came up with that.
	I thought it was a glorification piece that was unnecessary and improper.
	And we look at these things.
	Whenever you want to put a person in the artwork, we're going to be hypercritical.
	So having AOC, it may be a funny joke to put a little Mensa label there, but that's not artwork that I want to click on.
	I don't want to click on her.
	The whole idea is to get someone to click on it.
	So when you vilify people, there's really a 50-50 chance.
	It's just the way it is.
	Yeah, you're asking for trouble.
	Well, it could be.
	Unless you make us laugh out loud.
	I mean, there was one instance I still remember.
	It was the George Bush.
	I think this was done by Nick or Martin J.J., one of them, where George Bush had those big Coke bottle glasses on and the huge eyeballs.
	And that was all the art was.
	Yeah.
	But when you looked at it, you cracked up.
	Right.
	And so we picked it.
	That's the one that got the economic strip blogger all bent out of shape.
	Right.
	Also, you know, a lot of, if you're, there's a lot of kind of like mainstream jokes.
	We have to manage artists.
	Imagine this is a nightmare.
	Hey, that's your beat as far as I'm concerned.
	I'm managing the artist.
	You do that.
	It's always been a nightmare for anybody who's worked in a, you know, with an art director.
	Well, thank you very much, Adam at Sea, and all of the artists who always participate.
	Or not, it's okay.
	It's totally understood.
	I get it.
	You spend a lot of time, you don't get chosen.
	It sucks.
	Noagendaartgenerator.com.
	No, that piece with the Charlie's Angels thing, there was some effort put into it.
	It wasn't like a toss-away.
	No, it wasn't at all.
	That's why it was irked.
	Of course he was irked.
	I just wanted to make sure his voice was heard.
	Anyway, I made sure that he hates you now and not both of us, or me.
	Yeah, I'm the one responsible for vetoing that piece of art.
	That particular piece, yeah.
	All right.
	Anyway, we appreciate the work that all of our artists do, and we also really survive by our executive producers, associate executive producers, and all producers who – support us financially and we like thanking the top category as quickly as we can even though we're a little behind today in the show.
	Let's see who we have on today's list.
	Well, at the top of the list is our buddy Seronomus of Dogpatch and Lower Sublovia.
	Is this his monthly?
	Yeah, I believe so.
	This is, you know, it varies.
	It's never the same.
	$900 is some sort of code.
	Another code.
	We're going to figure this out one of these days.
	It's a long arc, so it's going to be tough.
	Maybe it's a code for somebody else.
	Thank you to all the producers for their continued support of this show.
	I would also like to thank your respective spouses for their support and tolerance of your work demands.
	This year alone, you have worked on national holidays, on vacations, and while traveling.
	Correct.
	Mimi and Tina, thank you both for the sharing of your spouses and in what would otherwise be your time.
	From personal experience, having a spouse that is both socially and politically engaged provides insight you cannot achieve independently.
	Non-donors' attention.
	Please send some money or the show goes the way of Alfred E. Newman.
	It may take 30 years, but one day.
	The growing number and sophistication of moneyed organizations using all media outlets to sway opinion is lucrative to the creators of the propaganda.
	And we need to support those that help us see through their agenda with no agenda.
	Previous wars were over physical territory.
	Now advertisers of all kinds, including ideologues, use M5M and the social media wars to win the territory of your mind.
	Using the old saying, generals always fight the last war, so politicians and social media fight the last Internet war.
	It is the war of ideas with growing expertise to win more minds, giving the power to influence culture, society and politics.
	It is more infectious than measles, diabetes.
	Deconstruction is the best vaccine.
	While not as financially lucrative, it vaccinates the participants.
	Again, listeners, donate!
	We're all victims of our own life experiences.
	Thank you for sharing yours.
	Wow.
	Seronymous of Dogpatch and Lower Slobovia.
	Thank you.
	That's one of his most succinct calls to action I've heard.
	Yeah, it may be reproducible.
	And I think we kind of proved that in our search engine bias conversation.
	It is a war.
	And you're losing.
	We're all losing.
	We are losing.
	Losing big time.
	I'm going to give him a karma.
	He never asked for it.
	Oh, no, he never does.
	Give him one, yeah.
	I think that would be appropriate.
	You've got karma.
	He may not want one.
	He doesn't have to take it.
	Arnis Selmans.
	Selmans.
	Yeah, Selmans.
	C-E-L-M-I-N-S. 33333.
	Jobs, karma is appreciated.
	Jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs.
	Let's vote for jobs!
	You've got karma.
	I believe he's in Estonia.
	Um, he...
	EE. Yeah, yeah, it looks right.
	I think it's Estonia.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Upper domain.
	Check it out, somebody out there.
	Top-level domain is EE, Estonia.
	333 AM came in with $333.33.
	And his name is 333, three hours and 33 minutes AM. I would like to keep my name and location anonymous.
	Okay, but feel free to call me 333 AM. Last year when I donated, I asked for some baby-making karma.
	Karma works.
	Baby incoming.
	In the interest of helping others who are struggling to conceive, I'll share what we did.
	First, this is step-by-step.
	How to have a baby.
	Should I be taking notes here?
	Number one.
	Yeah.
	Donate to no agenda.
	It always helps.
	Can't hurt.
	Next, as John and Adam can no doubt attest, all women are different, but medicine tends to assume all women are the same, at least in reproduction terms.
	My wife started using the Crichton model fertility care system, which tracks your normal biological markers.
	The goal of the system is to know when baby making is most likely and to see if there are other issues.
	From this tracking, we discovered my wife had luteal phase defect, and this was confirmed by blood tests.
	While not uncommon, some women have short cycles and low progesterone.
	For those that don't know, progesterone is the chemical in the body that maintains the pregnancy after it started.
	It's also used as a birth control mechanism.
	So between CARA, the Crichton model, to know when baby making is most likely to be successful in progesterone supplement to keep the pregnancy going, we are expecting a child at the end of this year.
	All right.
	Hashtag winning.
	This has been a long time coming, and if I can help others struggling to have a child, then I hope this note does that.
	I want to say it was great meeting Adam and the keeper at the Des Moines, Iowa meetup.
	For clips, I would like an it's true respect, and at the end of the day...
	Some triple or quadruple strength relationship karma, if you got it, for Scott of the Tall Corn, who hit me in the mouth and who has been on a long dry spell, if you know what I mean.
	Thanks for all you do, 3.33 a.m.
	Yeah, and I want to mention something.
	Last night, the Keeper and I went to Celeste Barber.
	She had a show here in Austin at the Paramount.
	It was actually pretty packed.
	You've probably never heard of Celeste Barber.
	I wouldn't have heard of her either, nor would Tina.
	She has something on Instagram, which I don't look at, but Tina follows her.
	Which is the Celeste Barber Challenge.
	And she's from Australia, and she's a good-looking woman, but she's not a model.
	If that explains what I'm talking about.
	And so, you know, a model will be doing something gracious, you know, getting out of...
	Kate Upton actually slipping out of a pool with her breasts protruding and the water just slipping off her svelte body.
	And then she'll post a picture of that and of her doing...
	Of her doing the same thing, which, of course, is hilarious.
	And so this was really a comedy show, probably more for women than anything.
	But I learned a lot of things about giving birth and being pregnant that I never knew about.
	And if your wife is expecting, see if you can catch a Celeste Barber show.
	You will be both horrified and informed.
	There's a lot of things we as guys don't know, and it might have been better we didn't.
	Yeah, keep it that way.
	That's true.
	R-E-S-P-I-C-T But at the end of the day, they're backing him.
	You know, they're backing him.
	Come on.
	At the end of the day.
	At the end of the day, John, if someone wants to get anyone, they can get him.
	At the end of the day.
	At the end of the day.
	You've got karma.
	Onward to associate executive producer, starting with Abel Kirby.
	Abel Kirby, A-K. Shout-outs to Local 719 for a great meetup.
	Colorado, I guess I got a...
	Department of Transportation for allowing the negligent...
	Allowing the building...
	Right.
	Negligent building practices resulted in a collapsed section of the highway on US 36.
	Oh, wow.
	Sewer chat, but I'm not sure why.
	That's Nick the Rat's sewer chat.
	Sewer chat.
	Everybody loves a little sewer chat.
	How about some karma for that?
	You've got karma.
	In Toronto, we've got Carolyn Blaney.
	Dame Carolyn.
	She's going to be dame anyway.
	Toronto 20333, and she's got her damehood coming up.
	Please say hog story mofos.
	And play the Reverend Al Resist We Much.
	Parallel universe jingle and a full version of...
	We don't...
	There is no parallel universe jingle.
	We have the transition machine.
	Yeah, but then we have to go into the parallel universe, which...
	It's not really a jingle.
	That may not be usable.
	And the full version of slash n.
	Well, we could do that at the end.
	What is slash n?
	What is slash n?
	I don't know.
	Anyway, whatever it is that she's confusing us with, this donation brings her to Damehood.
	She needs some new stuff.
	Get your pencil out.
	She requests extra coffee and a hot sauce at the round table.
	Okay.
	Got it.
	In Carolyn of Hogtown.
	We get these Toronto dames, you know, a couple of them now.
	Fun fact, Toronto was often referred to as Hogtown in the 1890s.
	That's why she wants to be named Carolyn of Hogtown.
	Because the meatpacking was one of the city's main industries at the time, the Chicago-like.
	That's interesting because that was Chicago's main industry for years.
	In fact, when I was a little kid, I remember there was still a major meatpacking town.
	I went in on the California Zephyr and you go right through these giant herds of animals.
	So what could this slash N, full jingle of, does it mean Dvorak.org slash N-A, maybe?
	No, no, no.
	Slash N, it says specifically.
	Slash E-N. I have no idea.
	Hmm.
	Well, why don't we do a karma, we'll do a sharpen resist, and maybe someone can let me know what she's talking about.
	But resist, we much.
	We must, and we will much about that karma.
	Be committed.
	You've got karma.
	Oh, Simon Libuski, I believe.
	Libuski.
	$200.02.
	Great show last Thursday, John and Adam.
	Love them Thursdays.
	Keep it short.
	I'm becoming a knight today.
	This is cool.
	I'll tell everyone in Spanish, if I can request a jingle, please have Bill Clinton, who can do the most.
	Again, I don't recall any jingle, who can do the most.
	It says it's an oldie.
	Yeah, well, I don't know how old it is.
	You got the Hillary barking?
	I got the barking, yeah, sure.
	If too hard to pull, which it is, I'll settle for John doing the foamer.
	That's not me.
	Thanks, John, for the night table.
	If any left, pot and vinegar for the knights.
	Can you put pot and vinegar on the list?
	Pot and vinegar added to the list.
	For the knights and dames out there, I would like to be known as Sir Veek, V-E-E-C, knight.
	Sir Veek knight.
	Sir Veek knight.
	You're welcome.
	Oh, Cervique Knight.
	I get it.
	Love and light and such pew pew, that's true.
	Oh, he wants pew.
	Does he want those jingles?
	I mean, please.
	If you're going to do jingles, then, you know...
	Give us the list.
	Yeah, that's okay.
	Grousing it.
	The guy's a knight.
	You should be nice.
	No, I grouse before he becomes a knight.
	You know what?
	I try to prepare these things and have everything ready, and then I get all these curveballs.
	Oh, my God!
	Listen to that horn!
	That's true.
	You've got karma.
	Yeah, you did it fine.
	And that would be our last of our associate executive producers for show 1157, Heinz 57.
	Wow!
	Did we get an extra little thing in our paycheck for that one?
	Good thing.
	Hines 57.
	Hines 57.
	So, I want to thank all these folks.
	It makes the show possible.
	And especially on Sundays, donations are not usually that great.
	And these are official credits, you producers and executive, or executive producers and associate executive producers.
	These things are valuable.
	I know Seronymous of Dogpatch may not use them for whatever reasons he has, but everyone else, I'd suggest you put them on your LinkedIn.
	You can put them anywhere.
	Apparently, it trips algos when you're looking for a job.
	There you go.
	Support us for our Thursday show.
	Go to dvorak.org.
	Well, now you know all about that.
	You know all about the algos.
	I tell you, go out there and propagate it.
	Our formula is this.
	We go out, we hit people in the mouth.
	Water.
	Water.
	Oh, oh, oh, oh, shut up, slay.
	Shut up, slave.
	Puga.
	So I've been putting a lot of notes on Twitter demanding that they start putting Hillary on these polls.
	Yes.
	You are now in the Democrat Hall of Fame, I believe.
	People really love you trying to bring her in.
	I think she's...
	They don't want her.
	That's probably true.
	Maybe it's not true.
	All I know is that if you're going to start doing these comparisons about who can beat Trump and who's going to get the most votes and who can get the nomination, why isn't she on there just as a test?
	I'm with you.
	Biden was on there before he ever declared to run.
	Yeah, I'm with you.
	I'm with you.
	Okay, so the reason would be they hate her.
	That even with Google's biased algorithm in her favor, she still lost.
	Would these be the reasons that they don't want to put on?
	No, I think there's something that happened somewhere along – you know, here's what my thinking is because I've been trying to figure this out myself.
	I think that Hillary was not a good candidate because she really didn't – she just thought she was going to waltz in.
	And she did.
	They did no effort.
	She had her same cronies running the campaign that they were doing – that lost to Obama – They're lazy campaigners, and they didn't really do a very good job of it, because they all talked themselves into believing, like the Democrats do.
	They talked themselves into believing that they're going to run against some bonehead, this Trump guy's joke.
	Well, in fact, they wanted him to be the candidate.
	They wanted him to be candidates.
	Like, oh, please, it'll be so great.
	We need him to be candidate.
	Oh, it'll be so easy.
	The media was all in on that, so they kept, and I'll say it again, a According to reports, because I don't know, the media won't cover Bernie, is that I'm less likely to blame Schultz for the screw-up with Bernie or, you know, Putting Bernie on the side than I am the media.
	The media would cover every giant Trump rally.
	There were 25,000 people at a Trump rally, let's say, on average.
	And there was 50 people, 100 people, 200 people at a Hillary rally and 25,000 or more at a Bernie rally.
	They would not cover the Bernie rallies.
	No.
	And they're still not covering it.
	I understand.
	I don't know for a fact because the media is not covering it.
	But I heard there was one Bernie rally recently with 50,000 people attending.
	It wouldn't surprise me.
	This has been very consistent with his campaigning.
	But of course, he's not really a Democrat.
	And they all know it.
	That's why.
	He's just leeching off our ticket like a good socialist would do.
	I think there's an element of that.
	He's not a Democrat.
	He's an independent.
	And so now he corns in at the end.
	I can see them not wanting him.
	You know, the guy's not even a Democrat.
	He's an independent.
	Just using us, you know, using us.
	He's a user.
	Socialist user.
	Socialist user.
	Yeah, that's what he is.
	That's what he is.
	Okay, so...
	I just want to see...
	I just want...
	Just put Hillary on a poll.
	Double L, not L-E. Yeah, I got you.
	Head on a stick.
	Put her on a pole and see how she does.
	Come on.
	I love the story that Bernie's campaign workers who have a union...
	I'm thinking of striking because he's not paying him $15 an hour, which is the very proposal he's making for the rest of the country.
	Yes!
	Oh, it's fantastic.
	Oh, crap.
	I thought for sure you would have had something about that.
	Oh, I missed this.
	Oh, this is great.
	Yeah, they're all saying, hey.
	This is great.
	We're working 60 or 70 hours.
	We're making the equivalent of about $13.50.
	So you've got to up it for us.
	We need to have $15 an hour.
	This is what you're proposing.
	Here, Labor fight Royals Bernie Sanders campaign as workers demand the $15 hourly pay the candidate has proposed for employees nationwide.
	Well, you know, Bernie, when they busted him last go-around, when he was like, there was some sexism or some crap in the campaign, they throw it at him at the end and say, what about this and what about that?
	Bernie's really good at deflecting this stuff.
	He will come out and say, I didn't know about it.
	And he'll make a big stink about it and he'll say, well, look into it.
	May I just say, your Bernie's pretty good.
	It's getting there.
	Horowitz has got it nailed.
	Huh.
	Interesting.
	So.
	Let's see if I had anything else in there.
	All right.
	We got a few things going.
	I got a weird gaffe.
	Judy had a gaffe on PBS that was kind of odd.
	Okay.
	Can we go straight to it?
	Yeah.
	And that's on health care.
	Bernie Sanders is out there saying, let's move to single payer, doubling down on that, saying that's the way we take care of all Americans.
	But you have Al Gore doubling down on Obamacare.
	What does this add up to?
	Yeah, I mean, Joe Biden was...
	What did I say?
	You said Al Gore.
	Is he running too?
	Is he going to be on the debate stage?
	Well, he overshadowed, but not that much.
	Joe Biden.
	Joe Biden.
	Hmm, what was going on in her head?
	I was thinking the same thing.
	I mean, you can make all kinds of different mistakes, but Al Gore?
	She was probably first thinking of VP, you know, because Biden was vice president, and then she probably thought of some dick Oh yeah, it must have been, I don't know, something weird.
	That was the strangest, yeah, I find it very peculiar.
	That is kind of odd.
	That is very odd.
	Well, at least someone called her out on it.
	Gee, that doesn't even happen that often anymore.
	No, usually it just keeps going.
	Now, there's a story that was on Democracy.
	I've said this before, Democracy Now!
	is not a great news outlet, but...
	Occasionally they do stories that nobody else touches.
	I agree with that.
	That doesn't mean that they're good or they're correct, but they do them.
	At least, I mean, that you have to give them credit for.
	In fact, that's one of the reasons I'm always compelled to listen to the show.
	A lot of it's eye-rolling.
	A lot of it, they do the association stories where they talk about one thing and switch to another to make you associate.
	I don't like that.
	I have an example of that today.
	Okay.
	But there's this one, and to be honest about it, I don't remember the story at all.
	And this is the story about Catherine Gunn.
	And only Democracy Now covered it.
	She was a whistleblower for GCHQ. And she blew the whistle on the first go-around.
	British Intelligence.
	Yeah, it stands for Government Communications Headquarters.
	And it's the...
	NSA? The NSA of England.
	There you go.
	And she was a worker there, and she blew the whistle on some bull crap that was going on, some blackmail, which is what we say these agencies are good for, that was going to happen.
	And this was before the Iraq War came up with the idea, well, weapons of mass destruction.
	They were going to go in there first and they were going to use these tricks – a trick to get in there without having to bullcrap the public with their weapons of mass destruction.
	And so her story is discussed on Democracy Now!
	because they're the only ones who covered it.
	And so let's listen to this.
	This is a long clip.
	It's two minutes, a little over two minutes.
	Catherine Gunn's story, DN. We're good to
	When she opened a top-secret NSA memorandum, the highly confidential memo revealed the United States was collaborating with Britain and collecting sensitive information on United Nations Security Council members in order to pressure them into supporting the Iraq invasion.
	Guided by her conscience, Catherine Gunn defied her government and leaked the memo to the press, setting off a chain of events that jeopardized her freedom, her safety, but also opened the door to putting the entire Iraq invasion on trial.
	Acclaimed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg described Catherine Gunn's action as the most important and courageous leak I have ever seen.
	Dan Ellsberg said, Well, now Catherine Gunn's story is being told in the new film, Official Secrets, starring Keira Knightley.
	At the time, her actions received very little attention from journalists in the United States.
	Unless you're watching Democracy Now!
	In 2004, Democracy Now!
	interviewed Katherine Gunn.
	I asked her why she decided to leak the memo.
	When I saw this email asking GCHQ's help to bug the six swing nations to get a vote for war with Iraq, I was very angry at first and very saddened that it had come to this and that Despite all the talk from both Tony Blair and George Bush about how important it was to get the UN on board and to legitimize
	any kind of aggression, that they were actually going around it in such low-handed manner.
	So I decided that the risk to my career was minute compared to the upcoming war in Iraq.
	Just for context, the Six Nations that the...
	Oh, it's just in the next clip.
	Oh, okay.
	Then I'll be quiet.
	Now, the reason that the next clip is they actually brought her on again.
	She's on the show now.
	And they're asking her about the Six Nations.
	And they have the director of the movie there and a whole bunch of other people.
	It's actually a big group and she's there.
	And a couple of things I found fascinating, which is one is that...
	And we've...
	Discuss this on the show, and this is discussed in a couple of new items being developed, whereby it turns out that the CIA has at least one or maybe two people in every major news outlet in the country.
	And they put a stop to this sort of thing.
	So that's why this story was never discussed in the American media.
	It just was killed.
	She's bragging about it.
	Democracy Now!
	Did it because Democracy Now!
	If they have a spook in there, it's Amy.
	Because I don't know anybody.
	I don't know who it could else be.
	So they figure, well, we can't get a spook in there.
	We've had situations where we know people that have worked at certain organizations that Have discussed with us people that are there that don't make – why are they there?
	What are they doing there?
	And they keep screwing with us.
	We're talking about within the NPR world and every place.
	At Mevio, we identified one working there, we believe.
	And they're all over the place.
	And I always like to spot them.
	This is our spot to spook game.
	Oh, is that where you're going with this?
	Okay.
	So we go, we have all these, well, I just wanted to mention this because people should know that it's really difficult on the No Agenda show for anyone to get in to be a spook Because it's just a small operation.
	I know I'm not a spook.
	I know I'm not a spook.
	And he knows he's not.
	So there's nobody.
	That's why our show tells stories about, you know, it's not like within a giant organization where there's a spook or two that will quash stories.
	Now, you know, people aren't interested in that.
	They're not interested in that.
	Why don't you talk about it?
	We had a better story than that.
	So, hey, would you like, you know, if you don't do that story, would you like us to write a book for you?
	You can put your name on it.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And you can go on CNN. Okay, so they brought her on and they ask her about the countries and she gives the...
	She doesn't give the laundry list, but the director does.
	And then they imply it was all part of a blackmailing operation.
	But what did you see in your email?
	Well, it was a memo from a chap called Frank Koza, who worked at the NSA. And yeah, it was just a request.
	From the NSA to, for GCHQ to assist them in bugging the domestic and office communications of the six UN Security Council delegates.
	Wait a second.
	In bugging, in spying on, in eavesdropping, wiretapping, whatever.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And who were these six countries?
	You're putting me on the bottom.
	I know.
	I really am.
	Gavin worked on the screenplay and as the director.
	Yes, Angola, Cameroon, Bulgaria, Chile, Pakistan, and Mexico.
	So bugging these six countries.
	Who were the non-permanent members on the UN Security Council at the time?
	And the idea was they would figure out which way they were going to vote so that they could sway them.
	Well, no, more than that.
	The idea was to gather information that they could use to bribe them or, you know, threaten them into voting yes for the resolution.
	The term is blackmail.
	I don't know why she didn't use it.
	The term is blackmail.
	And that's what is going on with all this snooping.
	And this is another message that people need to understand when you say, well, I don't care if they listen in on what I'm doing because I'm not doing anything wrong.
	That's not the point.
	It's not you that's doing anything wrong.
	It's somebody else who can be blackmailed and they would maybe vote against your interests.
	Yes.
	And that's the problem with, that's why privacy has to be a big deal.
	It's not because, oh, I'm not doing anything wrong.
	I don't care if they're listening in.
	Oh, there's no such thing as privacy anymore.
	You could have stopped a horrible war which hundreds of thousands of people were killed in.
	But no.
	You didn't care about your privacy.
	Now, of course, this ended up being...
	It did screw up the worst beginning, so it had to come up with the yellow cake and all the other crap.
	Aluminum tubes.
	Aluminum tubes.
	Hey, hold on, John.
	I'm looking at the Wikipedia entry for this story of Catherine Gunn, and it says Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, Pakistan, but not Mexico.
	It says Guinea.
	This guy said Mexico.
	He said Mexico.
	Mexico is not in Wikipedia.
	It's Guinea.
	He said Mexico.
	It's not on the Wikipedia page.
	Well, we'd have to look at who was on the Security Council at the time.
	Lots of people, but who was the swing?
	It doesn't really matter.
	They may have left Mexico out for a reason.
	Again...
	Yeah, Wikipedia is very trustworthy.
	Somebody over there at the Wikipedia with gray hair, blue...
	Let's see, he's got a nice kind of a Brooks Brothers jacket, a blue shirt or a light blue shirt or even a white shirt, a tie, kind of a regimental tie, nothing fancy.
	Usually white hair for some unknown reason.
	And that guy is the guy who probably put a quash that meant...
	These guys, they all look the same.
	You're being very bigoted about this?
	Yeah, a little bit.
	But you're not arguing against it, my theory?
	No, how could I? Absolutely right.
	It's just sad how...
	You made a good point there.
	It is important what people can hear what you're doing or see what you're doing.
	It is important.
	It does make a difference.
	Unbelievable.
	Well, that's pretty good.
	So, they're bringing her back, and what was kind of the whole point of this revisit?
	Well, the thing, this really ties into the guy who got busted, the British ambassador to the U.S. who said Trump was an idiot.
	We talked about this in the last show or the show before, this character.
	And I guess, you know, this is just democracy now trying to keep the...
	Flames bubbling about, so they can keep saying, well, he said, the ambassador said Trump was inept.
	Oh, I see.
	I see what you're saying.
	Okay.
	All right.
	That makes sense.
	I mean, she does a lot of these, I don't know if you call it conflating.
	I think there's another example in here.
	Where they're talking about one thing and she has to throw something else in.
	She does this constantly.
	Here's Amy changing the subject.
	I'm sure she did that expertly.
	Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday it will not ban the widely used pesticide chlorpyrifos.
	The American Agency's own research shows it can cause brain damage in children.
	The Obama administration said it would ban the use of the toxic chemical in 2015, but the rule never took effect and was suspended in 2017 by then EPA head Scott Pruitt.
	This comes as the Trump administration is preparing to roll back government regulations on nuclear power plants with staffers at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommending allowing the nuclear industry to carry out more self-inspections while slashing the size and scope of radiation protection and emergency preparedness inspections at nuclear plants.
	- Well, very-- - What?
	Which one got to do with the other?
	A very slick transition into something I didn't really even hear anywhere.
	So while completely unrelated, I liked that news at the end.
	That was interesting, yeah.
	I mean, I was taken a little bit back by it, but I've been hearing these kind of stories like this where you talk about one thing and somehow get it into another topic and you make a transition.
	The other example of that is this one.
	UK climate change transitions to Jew hatred.
	Nice!
	So why did the all-party environmental committee accuse the government of coasting on climate change?
	Can I just wager something here?
	Does it go from denial, from climate denial to Holocaust denial?
	No, no.
	Oh, it's a different kind of trans...
	Oh, okay.
	Well, pay attention, everybody.
	So why did the all-party environmental committee accuse the government of coasting on climate change?
	The government has a fine record on climate change, including our recent legislation on net zero emissions.
	But then the Prime Minister changed tack.
	This morning, more than 60 Labour members of the Lords put their names to an advert in the Guardian newspaper.
	They accused Jeremy Corbyn of failing to tackle anti-Semitism and said he'd allowed a toxic culture to grow in the Labour Party.
	Before the right honourable gentleman stands up and parades himself as the champion of climate change or the champion of the people or the defender of equality and fairness, he needs to apologise for his failure to deal with racism in the Labour Party.
	Theresa May produced a copy of the advert and began to read from it.
	The Labour Party welcomes everyone except, it seems, Jews.
	This...
	Wait a minute.
	This is great!
	That was quick.
	She just went from, you know what?
	You hate Jews, too!
	That was literally what she did.
	This is great.
	The people, or the defender of equality and fairness, he needs to apologize for his failure to deal with racism in the Labour Party.
	Wow.
	Theresa May produced a copy of the advert and began to read from it.
	The Labour Party welcomes everyone except, it seems, Jews.
	This is your legacy, Mr Corbyn.
	You still haven't opened your eyes.
	You still haven't told the whole truth.
	You still haven't accepted your responsibility.
	You have failed the test of leadership.
	Apologise now.
	Mr Corbyn!
	The Labour leader said his party had been the first to introduce anti-racist legislation.
	This party totally opposes racism in any form whatsoever.
	Anti-Semitism has no place in our society, no place in any of our parties, and no place in any of our dialogue.
	Unbelievable.
	Unbelievable.
	Truly, I mean, that's...
	I've seen the newspapers talk about it a little bit in the UK, but just for Theresa May to jump out like that?
	Out of the blue, because they're talking about climate change.
	That was just lame.
	But it was funny.
	You see comedy bits about this.
	One thing I remember from years ago on an old show called Fridays, Where actually Larry David was playing a character and he comes in as a substitute lawyer.
	A substitute lawyer?
	So he comes in as a substitute lawyer and there's some case about whatever the case was, he goes up and the first thing he does is he accuses the witness of being a lesbian.
	For no reason.
	For no reason.
	Fantastic.
	That was good.
	In fact, I think that is worthy of a Clip of the Day.
	I'm going to give that one to you.
	Clip of the Day.
	That was truly, bizarrely nutty.
	And what a way to shame someone just in a horrific way.
	You Jew hater!
	Apologize now, Jew hater!
	What's the guy gonna do?
	I'm sorry.
	It's not that different than calling everyone a racist.
	Yeah, but Jew hater is next level shit, man.
	Now, there was something going on.
	There was a bunch of protests being discussed on Democracy Now!
	And I want to play these two clips real quick.
	Because one of them is...
	Neither one of these stores cropped up, but the second one is very strange to me because when you hear the second one, you're going to...
	I wonder what is going on.
	But this is the undiscussed protest that says nins, but of nuns.
	There's a nun protest going on.
	In Washington, D.C., Capitol Police arrested 70 Catholic nuns and clergy Thursday as they held a nonviolent sit-in protest inside the Russell Senate office building against the Trump administration's inhumane treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers.
	More than a dozen protesters stood in a circle holding the photographs of migrant children who've died in U.S. custody, reciting their names.
	The latest protests came as immigrant communities across the country have prepared for reported ICE raids that were scheduled to begin last weekend, but have largely not materialized.
	There's a never going to materialize.
	But does the thing is a conflict of interest to Catholic charities and the whole thing?
	I mean, come on, nuns.
	Oh, totally.
	This is a very good point.
	And people need to understand that the Catholic charities receive over a billion dollars just recently.
	Actually, it was two billion for all of them.
	But the Catholic charities and the charities located here in Austin, I think it's Christian or Catholic.
	I don't remember.
	One is Catholic.
	It says Catholic.
	But they are religious organizations who are receiving this government money to take care of.
	Take the kids.
	To take the kids and then have the nuns protesting.
	Yeah, that is pretty sickening thinking that they may be just protesting for money for their organization.
	Where was the mention of that?
	I'm sure Amy came back and said something about that, didn't she?
	No.
	But what came up next was this.
	And listen to this carefully and tell me, have you heard anything about this?
	And what's the deal?
	This is the last clip that says...
	I don't know what it says.
	It says, will Indian asylum something?
	You see it?
	Yeah, I see it.
	Meanwhile, a group of Indian asylum seekers in El Paso, Texas, have launched a hunger strike from inside an ICE immigration jail, demanding they be released while they appeal their deportation orders.
	One of the men told the Texas Monthly, if I go back to India, I'll be tortured and killed.
	I can die here.
	It's the second time this year that Indian men have led hunger strikes at the El Paso Processing Center.
	Oh, I think we should just open the borders for all Indians.
	I'd like to know what this is about.
	What are they protesting?
	If they go back to India, they're going to be tortured and they're going to die there?
	What?
	Do you know anything about Indians being tortured in India and coming over here somehow, getting over here and ending up in El Paso?
	Well, I'm pretty sure they have millions of slaves in India.
	People are in slave labor situations in the caste system.
	It's a very divided culture they have.
	So, yeah, I'm pretty sure if you're in the lower tiers that you just, you know, screw you.
	You're no good.
	Well, I'd like to get more information on this story.
	She didn't provide anything.
	It was just a vague general story, like as if we're all supposed to know about this.
	I don't know anything about this.
	I was distressed.
	Somehow I got a short picture of you really being distressed, but I understand.
	I haven't seen this show ISO I can offer since we're on the topic.
	Okay.
	Latest racist remarks.
	Ooh, that may be a good one.
	We'll have more on President Trump's latest racist remarks.
	Racist remarks.
	You didn't clip it very well.
	It's got a little thing at the end.
	We'll have more on President Trump's latest racist remarks.
	You know, I thought I clipped it out of there.
	Not a great clip at the end.
	It's up for consideration.
	We've been talking about the Face app that changes your face that once again went viral and even though we discussed it really in detail on the last episode as to why this is a problem, your government,
	not yours maybe, But here in America, we got Chuck Schumer, one of the leading Democrats, the copy of all the Democrats, certainly on Capitol Hill, telling us, the American peoples, that you should be very afraid, be very afraid of this app.
	But his reasons?
	Hi everybody, and I'm here to give a warning.
	By the way, this is how he talks to young people.
	Hi everybody.
	This is what he thinks is hip.
	It's like, hi everybody.
	Hi everybody, and I'm here to give a warning for all Americans.
	Millions of people have been downloading FaceApp.
	Seems like fun.
	It applies a little AI to a selfie to make your face look older, younger, add a beard, whatever.
	ever.
	What seems like a benign new social media fad, however, may actually not be benign at all.
	Recently, it came to light that the parent company, the app, Wireless Labs, is based in St. Petersburg.
	Just as worrisome, it came to light that the app not only takes your picture, but retains the right to keep your photos or even your search history.
	It allows, quote, perpetual, irrevocable, and worldwide license to your photos name or likeness.
	So this is a breathtaking and possibly dangerous level of access.
	And it raises substantial privacy concerns.
	The risk that your facial data could also fall into the hands of something like Russian intelligence or the Russian military apparatus is disturbing.
	Bullshit!
	I'm flabbergasted by this for a number of reasons.
	One, he could have been reading the terms and services of Instagram, Facebook, or any other social network.
	They all have that.
	Irrevocable worldwide license, in perpetuity, to use your name, likeness.
	They all have that.
	They can all do that.
	And then because the company is headquartered, he didn't even say Russia at the beginning, St.
	Petersburg.
	Oh, now we have to be worried about your face data falling into the hands of the Russians.
	Shut up, Schumer!
	What a nincompoop!
	The real issue is that app is tracking your ass all over the place.
	It's got U.S. trackers in it.
	Actually, I got so pissed off when I heard this clip.
	I went to find...
	I did.
	I went to...
	I'm like, who are these data brokers?
	We've talked about this a lot.
	The data brokers, the data brokers.
	Do you have any idea who the data brokers are?
	Well, the credit card companies, our credit companies, the FICA guys, there's a lot of them.
	Actually, the number one aggregator of data broker content and data is Oracle.
	Yeah.
	There you go.
	And you know why?
	They had a couple.
	They had ad tech.
	All in 2014, they were buying up little ad tech companies.
	But then they made a whopper.
	They acquired Axiom.
	A-C-X-I-O-M. You've never heard of Axiom.
	You're not supposed to hear of Axiom.
	But they have...
	And this is a very old company.
	They've been around since the early 60s.
	And they are the original Mac Daddy of collecting your purchase history.
	They have an entire network of getting offline information.
	They sell this back to Google.
	I'm sure Google has its own competencies and everyone's building their own databases and profiles on you.
	But they have...
	Let's use the right term.
	In fact, yes, it is a dossier.
	Nine of the top ten automotive companies use them, eight out of ten financial companies, the credit card companies, the pharmaceutical companies.
	These are the people who have the dossier on you.
	can take all your disparate data.
	I mean, they've been doing this for a long time.
	Very valuable company.
	They were purchased by Oracle for almost $3 billion.
	And this is all being stored in Oracle databases.
	You know who else uses Oracle databases?
	Yeah, the government.
	In fact, in 2001, Axiom pitched the Department of Justice to start scouring the internet and websites and people's profiles, I mean their dossier, for keywords.
	Now the government rejected them, at least according to this letter, but the government also spoke very highly of their capabilities, and there was some conflict of interest.
	You know, the thing you're overlooking, and you shouldn't mention it, you know, you just know how accurate...
	These dossiers are about you.
	And you can attest to that as you usually get pulled over every time you left the country.
	And once you're in the dossier, it's hard to get something out of the dossier if there's bad data in there.
	They used to allow you to look At what they have in their dossier on you.
	They've closed that down, although they do say that beginning 2020, they're bringing back a new customer portal.
	They also bought something called, I think it was Livewire.
	I've got to find this.
	They bought some other company, and you can opt out of that.
	Opt-outs.
	Yes, here it is.
	That company was LiveRamp.
	There you go.
	LiveRamp.
	And so that's how they get a lot of their data from the web, which you apparently can opt out of.
	What I thought would be interesting is to listen to their marketing pitch.
	They have a...
	Marketing video.
	And it's gobbledygook, marketing poop.
	But it's interesting because from my research over the weekend into these guys, it's real what they can do.
	They really have the goods on all of us.
	Across the globe, always connected consumers expect seamless, omni-channel, personalized experiences from the brands they engage.
	Axiom, the data and technology foundation for the world's best marketers, is a trusted advisor, helping brands build an open garden reality that unifies data at the foundation layer, connecting the marketing ecosystem for the ultimate customer experience.
	And that means consumers win with more relevant content and timely offers that align with their needs.
	Axiom's robust suite of offerings combine 50 years of data-driven marketing experience and leadership and ethical data use and privacy, enabling brands and their partners to create powerful experiences across every consumer touchpoint.
	In more than 60 countries across Asia Pacific, Europe, and the Americas, Axiom provides clients access to 2.5 billion consumers and two-thirds of the world's digital population.
	Axiom helps marketers by delivering a suite of superior services and omni-channel data environment solutions.
	Omni-channel solutions leverage the best data, identity management, strategy, and analytic services, combined with a unified data layer framework, connecting MarTech and AdTech at the data layer to deliver quantifiable business impact.
	By providing the most advanced program for data ethics and governance, Axiom always puts the consumer first.
	Axiom brings a powerhouse of data-driven marketing expertise to serve the world's best brands.
	Axiom.
	Powerful capabilities centered around a trusted, unified data foundation that advances the data-driven next generation of marketing.
	These capabilities unlock more value and new opportunities that unify first, second, and third-party data at scale and protect privacy across the ecosystem.
	When experience matters, brands trust Axiom.
	That's a two-minute video explaining how they're spying on you.
	What I find kind of sad is if they get something wrong, some data is incorrect somehow, or you made a choice that was different, this is what everyone pulls their information from.
	This is where they get it from.
	And, you know, throw back to our, call back to our algo and machine learning example, this company could screw up your life.
	You might not even know it.
	Absolutely.
	These are the guys.
	And the thing is, the government itself will be more and more reliant on these databases for one good reason.
	They're FOIA proof.
	Ooh, yes.
	No freedom of information.
	So why does the FBI want to do a dossier?
	These guys do a dossier and they'll use it.
	And you can purchase it legally.
	It's that simple.
	And just so I don't have to invoke his name, I think the only people that actually read the user agreement are lawmakers in Washington.
	Well, and journalists that are writing about it today.
	But I just have a quick point to make.
	When you sign up for this app, it asks to enable your entire photo album.
	And so that's the big question.
	Why do they need permanent access to all of these apps?
	Yeah, everybody does it.
	So how concerned really are they?
	We're not.
	It's convenient.
	They're going to have all your secret pictures.
	A little.
	I have news for you.
	Unless you live like the Unabomber in a cabin in the woods.
	Wow.
	You just went deep.
	Wow.
	We haven't heard about the Unabomber for a while, man.
	Let's just stop it right there.
	So, bye now!
	Yeah, who's been talking about...
	I just said Hitler.
	I usually say Professor Ted would be proud, but now, I mean, okay, so they call him the Unabomber like you're a crazy nutjob.
	You would be a crazy nutjob to sit in the woods to hide from all this, you crazy bucks!
	I'm going to show myself all 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.
	And we do have a few people to thank for show 1157.
	Stop that!
	Sir Nils Bonnaker in Hamburg, Deutschland.
	$111.11.
	Elizabeth Borosen.
	I think she's a dame, is she?
	Yeah, Dame Beth.
	Yep.
	Hey, boys.
	Love you want to go to the...
	Love what you do to the moon and back, okay?
	I have a moon clip later.
	If they end the show.
	Ronald Schull, 8008.
	Sir John Horner in Bay City, Bay St.
	Louis.
	Got a birthday call out for his smoking hot wife, Sarah Cozy.
	We got that listed for you.
	And an ITM from an impromptu NA meetup of the Helena, Arkansas Local 1360.
	So a shout out to Sir Rocketman, Baron of the Bay, Sir Terry of Crowley's Ridge, and Sir One Night in Bangkok.
	Oh, we do have the $108 donation to make a correction.
	It actually came from...
	Ah, yes.
	This is from Sir Spud.
	Sir Spud the Mighty.
	Yeah, Spud the Mighty.
	Explain.
	That was a...
	We went back and forth.
	It was a mistake.
	Mistake.
	It was in front of the last show, so Sir Spud the Mighty.
	It was for him, and he wanted to call out some other people who were at the meet-up.
	Yeah, so it got confusing.
	Okay, well, you haven't really made it good in that case, but okay, it was confusing then.
	Well, mostly he called out himself.
	Oh, yeah, you want to read the...
	I don't have the note in front of me.
	So I guess it's not good.
	We still have to go to the next show to fix Sir Spud the Mighty.
	I do have the note somewhere.
	We'll get to it later, next show.
	Ian...
	Nicholas Lindbergh in Stockholm, 5555.
	This is not a big list, people.
	Although we do have a lot of $50 donors, which was the theme donation for this show, 50 years anniversary of the moon landing.
	Blake Farrell in Arlington, Texas, double nickels on the dime.
	Maxine Waters- I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
	Blake needs an F cancer for his good friend Mike and his wife Yvonne in Benbrook, Texas.
	Mike hit me in the mouth several years ago.
	I've been an anonymous freeloader ever since.
	No more!
	So he needs a de-douching as well.
	I have to do these.
	You've been de-douched.
	You've got karma.
	We need to code those.
	I think we get so many F-cancers, I think the shill has to code them on the spreadsheet so we don't overlook them.
	Well, usually catch them.
	I don't think we've missed too many.
	Maxine White, and there's enough codes on here.
	Maxine Waters Gravel 5050.
	Turned another year older on the 18th.
	How old is this gravel?
	Gravel is, I don't know.
	But the gravel said dunkia in Dutch at the end there.
	So the gravel is multilingual.
	Could be.
	All right.
	Andrew Bussik in Greensboro, North Carolina.
	The following people will be $50 donors, either normal $50 donors or celebrating the 50th anniversary of the moon launch, the moon shot.
	Andrew Gusick in Greensboro, North Carolina.
	Robert Case in Mill Spring, North Carolina.
	Thomas Tullett in Shawnee, Oklahoma.
	It's a birthday coming up for his boy.
	Daniel Laboy in Bath, Michigan.
	John Knowles.
	John Fuoco.
	Matthew Hawkins in Mableville, Arkansas.
	Dennis Starko.
	Sir Josh Mandel in Greenville, South Carolina.
	Jeffrey Radwin.
	Jeremy.
	Yes, Jeremy Radwin.
	Carl...
	Let me reset the eyeball.
	Carl Heberger.
	Carl Heberger.
	It's funny because I know from like a clip, you know, and you say, well, it says this and I can clearly see what it says.
	Then I know your eyeball needs resetting, but I need to be able to get you a cue to say eyeball reset because it's not.
	It'll be in the book, but this is not discussed by your ophthalmologist, this eyeball situation.
	But I was talking to everybody.
	I have two neighbors that live next door to me, two neurologists.
	And they had a friend who had a cataract operation and he committed suicide or something because he was seeing things or something like that.
	And I said, you know, the problem is...
	I said, you get these crazy, it's not like LSD-level hallucinations, but you get these semi-hallucinations.
	And my explanation is as follows.
	And the two neurologists agreed with the theory.
	And it is that when you've got a cataract, and you're living with this cataract for sometimes years and years and years to the point where it's just kind of a blurry eye, But you still have the two eyeballs working.
	And so the one eyeball is doing a lot of interpolation.
	I'm going to use that word.
	Mimi called me out on it.
	Interpolation, which means it's making images that aren't there because your eyeball really doesn't see as much as your brain makes it see.
	It puts these images together.
	And that's why we see the old tube, the old tube.
	TV tube, there was no image on it.
	Take a photo of one, and it was just a stripe of something, and your eyeball put it together.
	Yeah, because it's interlaced.
	Yeah, it was not only interlaced, but there's not a lot of info at any one time on the screen.
	What was that word you used again?
	Interpolation?
	What?
	Yeah, interpolate.
	Interpolate.
	Interpolate.
	Mm-hmm.
	Now...
	That's why, by the way, and people should note this, this is one of our, it's turning into a segment.
	I like it.
	Dogs, dogs could never see the television.
	When you had old screens, the old screens, the old tubes, the dogs and cats couldn't see that, but they can see LCD TVs.
	That's why there's dogs watch TV now.
	If they see another dog, they'll bark at it, they'll do all these things they never used to do because there was no full image up there that just stuck up...
	It's just stood on there like a picture, like they are today.
	So it's a different phenomenon.
	Well, your eyeball used to dream stuff up.
	So when you get your cataract removed, you put a clear, beautiful lens in there.
	It sees everything.
	It's thinking, well, maybe there's more to it.
	And so it starts to dream stuff up.
	Well, it's your brain, yeah.
	So you see stuff sometimes that isn't there.
	Or you interpret something wrong.
	I was watching a tennis match.
	With Serena Williams, and for one split second, she had three arms.
	Whoa!
	This is messed up!
	She doesn't have three arms, and I realized it was just, I caught an image of something in the background, and my eyeball decided, it's kind of, you know, it was working so hard with the cataract, it says, come on, let's have some fun!
	And so it put the three arms on the woman.
	And so I said, this is not right.
	It didn't last that long, but you could be unnerved by this.
	That's perhaps the most insanest sentence you've ever spoken.
	What?
	Well, I'll play it back to you.
	I mean, you were like, I can't believe it.
	The woman had three arms.
	I'm just like, wow.
	That was very druggie of you.
	Ladies and gentlemen, John C. Dvorak with a C stands for Columbo.
	Where were we?
	We were at Josh Mandel in Greenville, South Carolina.
	Jeremy Radwin in NJNK, obviously.
	Carl Heberger in 50.
	These are all $50 donors.
	There's not that many because we're running out.
	Eric Ferris, John Helmer in Shawnee, Kansas.
	Ralph Massaro, George Wuchit, sir, I believe, in Universal City, Texas.
	And that's it.
	Boom!
	This was a very short list, so nobody wanted to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the moonshot, and it was just a very poor week.
	Surprise, surprise.
	Thank you, Anonymous and the other executive producers.
	Yes, surprise, surprise.
	Well, the irony of all this is that you actually, because less people participated in sending us some value, the irony is kind of that you get more show somehow.
	Yeah, you do get more show.
	And you get to hear the story about three-armed Serena.
	Yeah, well maybe people can straighten that out for the Thursday show.
	But thank you very much everybody who did come in and help produce episode 1157.
	That's over $50.
	Very big thanks to everyone under $50.
	That is for most.
	Just to be anonymous, a lot of people take out a subscription that just continues so they continue to support the show.
	We've got a number of them.
	And please go check them out at dvorak.org slash N-A.
	No one should have.
	All right, quick overview of the meetups.
	This is something that seems to be working very well for people's overall mental health, their friendship, their relationships, because you can go to a No Agenda meetup.
	You can meet people you've never met before, people you probably would never ever bump into.
	It's a very diverse group and you can talk to everybody about whatever you want and people don't get triggered because their amygdalas are healthy.
	We have on the books for the 26th of July, St. Louis and Portland, Oregon.
	Buffalo, New York and Frisco, Texas on the books for July 27th.
	Central Florida, July 28th, August 1st, Seattle, Washington.
	We still have the Lot Festival in Ravensburgen in Germany, which I still need clarification.
	It says August 2nd through 4th.
	That seems like a pretty long meetup.
	Orange County, California, August 3rd.
	Murfreesboro, Tennessee, August 9th, the 10th in Chicago.
	August 18th, Victoria, British Columbia.
	The 22nd is Charleston, South Carolina.
	I believe that's their six-week cycle.
	And then the 23rd is Salem, Oregon.
	Those are your meetups.
	Go to noagendameetups.com to find out...
	Uh, more about these individual listings.
	And if there isn't one there that is near you, then you can set one up.
	You can, you can get it on the calendar and get it going.
	And, uh, it's, again, it's just something fantastic to participate in.
	I would like to make a comment.
	Sure.
	Uh, I was offered the flight from, uh, the Orange County meetup back to, uh, which is coming up back to the Bay Area by, um, our Baron Mark Tanner.
	Mm-hmm.
	And I have to mention to people, and I mentioned this to Nadia, who's going to be there.
	This meetup's on Saturday.
	There's no way I can do show prep and then get back and do a show on Sunday if the meetup's on Saturday.
	If you're going to do a meetup that you want me to attend, even though I'm not going to attend any of them except maybe one or two, I will do the Southern Silicon Valley one shortly, which hasn't been set up.
	It has to be on Thursday or Friday nights.
	Otherwise, it's just not possible to do the meet-up and do the show.
	Yeah, really, if you want us to...
	The show is more important.
	Now, where would this meet-up be?
	It's going to be in Orange County somewhere.
	You can't just stay there and take your mobile rig and do it from there?
	No, I spend all day Saturday doing clips.
	I've got to do the newsletter in the morning.
	I mean, I could do the newsletter on Friday, but then it's clip day.
	I've got to do all my clips, and I've got to produce the clips.
	It's not possible.
	It's not even close to being possible.
	John and I have a little different schedule.
	Different time zones help a lot.
	I am prepping throughout the week.
	We both are prepping throughout the entire week.
	And I pretty much have a puzzle that I get up Thursday and Sunday mornings at 5 o'clock, 5.35 to be exact, for some reason, and And then I start assembling everything.
	So that's when I record the clips.
	That's when I put packages together, put the outline, the show notes.
	And so that takes me up until 11 a.m.
	when we start the show.
	And I'm usually working right up until that deadline.
	When I'm in Europe, I can get almost everything done on Sunday, and I can start a little bit later.
	I start at 10am, and then I have until 5 in the afternoon before we start the show.
	basically basically the 12-hour days for me outside of the producing but John's schedule uh which has been for a while now is you know he does all of that production work Saturday uh sends me his clips I guess they come in here around one in the morning two in the morning Sunday when you go to bed you go to bed around midnight I think typically yes right and then you get up at eight woohoo Luxurious!
	Sometimes I will – I like the idea of having everything done and then not having to do a bunch of hurried-up clips in the morning, which I used to do.
	I used to get up earlier because then sometimes I want to produce a clip.
	I'm going to spend more than five seconds doing the clip.
	I want to edit it or I want to do something to make it sound – it was some extra oomph.
	Every once in a while.
	And I can't do that in the morning.
	And I'm also like, it gets me up too early and I'm groggy.
	And I also like to look at the current news because I got busted a couple of times for breaking stories that took place that morning.
	And I will occasionally send in a late clip, but it's rare.
	And for context, we probably play between 35 and 40 clips on every single show.
	We have 50 or more.
	Every single show.
	Go make 50 clips, come back, and tell me what that was worth to you.
	It's your birthday, birthday, oh no, I can't.
	And today is the 21st of July 2019.
	First we have belated birthday wishes going out to Maxine Waters Gravel, who celebrated on the 18th.
	Age, undetermined, and maybe we don't want to know.
	Also, happy birthday today to Buford K. He turns 58.
	Sir John Horner says happy birthday to his smoking hot wife, Sarah Cozy.
	She'll be celebrating tomorrow.
	And Thomas Tollette says happy birthday to his son.
	He'll be turning 15 years old.
	On the 26th, happy birthday from the staff and management and back office here at the best podcast in the universe.
	So we have one knighting, one daming.
	So that means we need the female swords.
	We got them, that's right.
	Carolyn Blaney!
	Hog Story!
	And Simon Lubaszewski!
	Step on up, both of you are about to join the illustrious group of the Knights and Dames of the Noah General Roundtable for your contributions to the amount of $1,000 or more.
	It makes me incredibly proud to pronounce the cake be Dame Carolyn of Hogtown and Sir Beak Knight.
	Both of you are welcome here at the Noagent Roundtable.
	We've got Hookers and Blow, Rent Boys, and Chardonnay.
	We've got extra coffee and hot sauce, pot and vinegar.
	Not good enough, we've got kebab and Persian wine, harlots and haldol, pepperoni elves and pale ales, cowgirls and coffin varners, breast milk and pavums, sparkling cider and escorts, ginger ale and gerbils, bong hits and bourbon, and mutton and mead.
	It's always a fan favorite.
	Go to noagendanation.com slash rings and enter all your information so we can get those out to you as soon as possible.
	And welcome to the Roundtable, our brand new knight and our brand new dame.
	And thank you for your courage and thank you for supporting the show.
	We can't do it without you and it is incredibly highly appreciated.
	I got the rundown.
	The thing that's still kind of happening, boiling, is the ship seizures that have been going on in the Persian Gulf.
	I'm glad you're tracking that because I was listening to the BBC and they were kind of poo-pooing it a little bit.
	They didn't seem like all freaked out and warm.
	They're very tippy.
	The PBS, none of these things are too out of control, but let's play the background here, which is ship, seizure, iraq.
	Jeez, this is the worst thing.
	It's the eyeball, man.
	Everything is wrong.
	Reset the ball.
	Tensions in the Persian Gulf have escalated sharply today with reports of Iran seizing two oil tankers.
	Britain says one was British flagged.
	The other was a Liberian flagship operated by a British concern.
	The vessels were stopped in the Strait of Hormuz and diverted to Iranian waters.
	Tehran confirmed the first seizure but denied the second.
	Earlier, Iranian officials also denied that the U.S. warship Boxer destroyed an Iranian drone yesterday.
	They denied the drone thing, and they had this guy on PBS NewsHour, this Jarvad Sharif, who's the U.N. ambassador from Iran.
	Mm-hmm.
	And they had a little discussion with him.
	There's some information.
	There's a long clip, but there's information in here I think that's valuable.
	I think we should play it.
	Minister Zarif, thank you very much for talking with us.
	Good to be with you again.
	Let's start with the downing yesterday by the United States of the Iranian drone in the Strait of Hormuz.
	President Trump says that this was just the latest in a series of provocative and hostile acts by Iran.
	Is that how you see it?
	Well, first of all, to the best of our information, we didn't lose any drones yesterday.
	So it doesn't look like that they shot one of our drones.
	Maybe they shot one of their drones.
	The reports that they shot probably somebody else's drones.
	But provocative, even if it were our drone, We are in our own neighborhood.
	The U.S. naval vessel is about 6,000 miles away from its shores.
	So I would ask you who's...
	What's wrong with you, man?
	Don't you know who we are?
	...being provocative.
	The Trump administration official line is that the U.S. is not looking for war with Iran.
	Do you believe that?
	No, we didn't come to the Gulf of Mexico.
	They came to the Persian Gulf.
	Now they have to watch that they should not undermine our sovereignty, our territorial integrity, or our security.
	And then we won't have a war.
	You've been saying this week, Mr.
	Minister, that if the U.S., that Iran may be prepared to change the course of your uranium enrichment.
	No, we're not.
	We have an agreement that we negotiated with the United States.
	It doesn't matter which government of the United States because the outside world considers the government sitting in Washington as representing the United States.
	There is a provision.
	In the current agreement, that is in 2023, we're supposed to ratify the additional protocol which requires us to put all our facilities under UN inspections for life.
	That would be permanent.
	And it would also require the United States to lift its sanctions by Congress permanently.
	That is a provision that we already negotiated.
	He wants to do better.
	He can implement that provision right now and rest assured that Iran will never produce nuclear weapons.
	If that is his objective, he can do it now, 2023.
	We are prepared to bring that forward.
	We need to go to our parliament.
	Our parliament needs to ratify it.
	We could bring it forward so that President Trump could make history by making sure that the relations between the two countries would change forever.
	Wow!
	Let's do it!
	Yeah, I didn't know that.
	That sounds spot on.
	I mean...
	First of all, the Iran nuclear deal was never ratified by Congress or by the Senate.
	It's like it was a piece of paper promised from Obama.
	It wasn't much more than that.
	But if this guy is saying, hey, we'll in perpetuity have everything open.
	You can check it won't build nuclear weapons, lift the sanctions.
	Sounds like a great idea.
	I mean, like, this is, what an olive branch.
	Move it forward from 23 to 20.
	But the problem is Saudi Arabia, and I think Trump has put too many marbles over there, including troops now going over to stand by, because that's what this is all about.
	It's the Saudis and the Iranians.
	They hate each other, you know, at a fundamental level.
	Yeah, well, fundamental, fundamental.
	The religions are disparate.
	Well, I call that fundamental.
	Yeah, fundamental, fundamental.
	Yes.
	Damn.
	Well, maybe he's holding this on.
	I mean, he has, the president has said consistently, hey, we want to talk, we want to figure it out.
	He said he talked to him.
	Yeah.
	He's one of the few that actually will go talk to people.
	He stepped in North Korea.
	Well, this to me is almost a no-brainer, except, again, what do we do with Saudi Arabia?
	Let's see when I think this through, because part of Saudi Arabia...
	Well, Saudi Arabia doesn't want Iran to be a nuclear power.
	They also don't want them in the oil market.
	I think they can both be in the oil market.
	But maybe it's just the oil, but they're not the big players.
	I mean, Saudi Arabia still is the big dog.
	I thought we were the big dog now.
	Well, yes, because we're pumping like crazy, but I think in terms of...
	That's what she said.
	But our reserves usually count, include the shale and all the rest of the stuff.
	I don't think we have just the raw oil as much as Saudi Arabia.
	I'd have to look into it.
	I don't know for sure now.
	That's a great clip.
	I'm keeping that on standby because the guy is very clear.
	He's saying it right there.
	Hey, we can fix this right now.
	You want to be a hero?
	Let's be a hero.
	And by the way, I'm pretty sure that Trump gave operational control of that reading to the Brits, right?
	He said, hey, you guys take care that you guard that.
	We're no longer operationally controlling anything in that area, if I'm not mistaken.
	It's possible, yeah.
	I think he gave that.
	He said, okay, Brits, by the way, we have no real dog in the hunt other than protecting the damn Saudis for some reason.
	Yeah.
	even after we know that all the 9/11 hijackers pretty much came from Saudi Arabia.
	For some reason, we're still...
	There's a reason.
	We just don't know exactly what it is.
	Now, there was a shooting in Tokyo.
	Can I just stay with that for one second?
	Because I can go right into the 9-11 Victims Compensation Fund with a follow-up to what we talked about on the last show.
	Also, this is very much...
	Oh, right.
	This is the Jon Stewart...
	Yes, the Jon Stewart...
	Changing the debate.
	Yes, he consistently has called it the first responders fund when it is the victim's compensation fund that's for much more than first responders as we're about to learn.
	This is very much a third rail, like talking about, if you talk about Jeffrey Epstein and how possibly there's an agency, maybe Mossad, you know, we didn't really even say it, but we're anti-Semites, Jew-haters, you know, you talk about 9-11, you're an asshole, although...
	Many people, I think Carly, pretty plus more on Twitter, she got what I was trying to say and said, hey, you know, there's so many disasters that take place, you know, Katrina or the BP disaster, you know, where does the compensation end for those people?
	Well, much quicker, much shorter notices.
	And so why is this fund not only been in place according to, I got some numbers here, follow-up numbers, According to the Los Angeles Times, the fund has already paid out $38 billion to 9-11 victims.
	Someone else reminded me back in the day, this was also quietly called the Airline Bailout Fund.
	The reason for that is if you took money from the Victims' Compensation Fund, you signed away your right to sue the airlines or participate in any action suit against them.
	The airlines, not everyone took the victim compensation fund money and did sue the airlines.
	There's been billions has been paid out.
	But the fear was, amongst other things, that you needed to have this fund in place.
	Otherwise, the airlines would have been bankrupted and they might not have ever gotten out of that hole, which would have been another issue for, I guess, our national security and our transportation security, etc.
	So hate all you want on me.
	I'm just trying to give you some facts.
	Two short pieces of testimony that are pertinent to this fund and where all you've probably heard on the news is, That asshole rampa!
	He doesn't want to give money to the first responders!
	Cars!
	Groans There's a little more behind it.
	Let's find out first about the program.
	Okay.
	There are three changes as this is about to be re-upped, and these changes are extremely important, and I think the reason why some people are questioning to what end.
	There have been, I think, four major changes.
	Four, I'm sorry.
	Four.
	In the VCF over the last few years from what Congress saw when At last, we authorized this bill in 2015 and allocated the $7.375 billion.
	The first is that the total number of claims that have been filed has increased significantly.
	In the first five years of the fund, from 2011 to 2016, we had just over 19,000 compensation forms filed.
	In the last two and a half years, we've received 28,000 more.
	And the reasons for those, I think, are three.
	The first is that there is a significant increase in the number of claims being filed on behalf of victims who have died as a result of their 9-11 related conditions as we get further away from the attacks, but as the seriousness of the illnesses become more apparent, we see more and more of these claims.
	At the end of 2015, we had just 600 deceased claims.
	We now have well over 2,000 of them.
	The second thing is that the number of claimants with cancer conditions continues to increase.
	We have found over 8,800 claimants eligible because of a cancer condition, and we have made over 7,500 awards due to cancers.
	In 2015, we had seen only a fraction of that number.
	And the third is that we are seeing a substantial increase in claims filed by the survivor community I think?
	And the second is that the VCF suffered from a significant information gap in the early years of the program.
	Many, many people in the New York area were under the assumption that the program was only for first responders.
	And as we have been able to do more outreach, as the World Trade Center Health Program has been able to do more outreach, partly because of the reauthorization of the bill in 2015, we have been able to reach more people who are sick, more people who are dying, and those claims are now coming in.
	So there's some new information in there that I was not aware of, that cancers are, that you got cancer, and I guess you can then prove it was from 9-11.
	And by the way, let's not sue Silverstein or anybody who had asbestos in the buildings.
	You know, let's forget about, give it from the American people.
	I think that's what the Los Angeles Times is trying to say, is that...
	Even though the initial budget was $7.6 billion, they've promised all this money to people, and it's totaling up to, quote, $38.
	I think it's higher than that billion dollars.
	The way that they calculate a lot of these, I guess it's fair, but is it really?
	Calculate these payments.
	So if you were a fireman and you died on 9-11, You were making $35,000, maybe $40,000 a year.
	They will calculate what you would have made at that same level over your lifetime, adjusted for inflation, and that's the payment to your widow, your descendants.
	If you were a hedge fund manager, you already understand what happened.
	Some of those people, some widows and orphans, received $7-8 million for a life.
	But because that life apparently was making more money, it's worth more than another life that went in on almost slave wages to go and save people.
	So by itself...
	I can understand where there's anger from Jon Stewart, but it may be a little misdirected, and I think it's unfair of him to focus it only on the first responders.
	So the second clip, short one here, is how many do they expect to enter the program because it is now open-ended as it stands?
	That's why Rand Paul is saying, hold on a second.
	How are we going to pay for this?
	Because it specifically states in the bill this does not fall under the pay-and-go system.
	And the pay-go system says if you are going to pay something out, you have to show where the money is going to come from right away.
	That pretty much means you're going to have to scrap something else.
	And that is excluded from this by law in the language of the law.
	So how big can it get?
	How many more people do you think could be at risk of developing 9-11 related illnesses, including cancers, in the next 25 to 50 years?
	And is it possible to know the exact number of people who develop illnesses at this point in time?
	It's not possible to know the exact number, but based on the rates that are increasing, there are going to be 10 to 20,000 more cancers, I would estimate.
	10 to 20,000 more cancers?
	Yes.
	Plus other diseases?
	Yes.
	Plus other diseases, and as we heard about sarcoidosis, which is a fairly rare disease but is common in World Trade Center exposed individuals.
	We're going to see folks who have lung diseases that may require lung transplants.
	There have already been a number of There's individuals in the World Trade Center health programs that have required lung transplants due to scarring of the lungs from the glass and the concrete and everything else that caused a reaction in their lungs.
	So as an order of magnitude, you said, what, about 30,000, 40,000 maybe?
	You know, it's hard to predict, but based on the rates and the number of folks that were exposed, that number is accurate.
	There you go.
	You're paying for it.
	Seems so.
	Seems so.
	I find it to be...
	I didn't know it was so broad.
	I didn't know that anyone who gets cancer 20 years later can still claim that it's 9-11 related.
	I don't know.
	Cancer rates are on the rise is all I've heard across America, across the world.
	So we'll pay for it with that.
	Somehow.
	No.
	Healthcare changes could make a difference in that regard.
	I think that may be taken into account.
	So there's two clips I have left.
	I have the final clip, but I do have this mass shooting clip that's another example of a democracy now playing a story nobody else plays, or at least an element of a story nobody else plays, but then again, they don't go into it, so I have no idea what the hell's going on.
	It's like the Indian guys.
	It was a Tokyo mass shooting.
	In Kyoto, Japan, 33 people were killed Thursday after a man burst into an animation studio, doused the three-story building with a flammable liquid, and set it on fire.
	Police arrested a 41-year-old man after the arson attack on the Kyoto Animation Company.
	Witnesses reportedly heard the suspect shout, they stole my ideas and they copied my novel.
	As police arrested him, if convicted, the man could face the death penalty.
	Well, that's the first I'm hearing of that.
	I didn't know that he was claiming copyright.
	Yeah, nobody else reported that.
	They just reported that some maniac got gun control.
	Wow.
	Yeah, but now there's no details.
	What's the details?
	Somebody must talk to this guy.
	What specifically did they steal?
	I don't know.
	There's no reporting there.
	I guess it's kind of worth it.
	Would have been nice to know, I guess.
	Maybe somebody will come up with something somewhere, somehow.
	So, do you have any more clips?
	Because I do have one finishing clip.
	I think it'll wrap the show nicely.
	I'm ready to wrap if you are, sir.
	So, this is Walter Cronkite in 1969.
	It's kind of an inspiration, at least to me.
	This is an inspirational commentary.
	Because we didn't talk about the moonshot today because it's not really something we've talked about before.
	And it was a celebration where everyone made a big deal.
	So, I found this one clip that I thought...
	It addresses concerns.
	It's got an element of futility that I think applies to you in particular.
	And I just found it very inspirational because this is 1969.
	This is Walter Cronkite talking about the late takeoff of the moon shot, the Saturn V rocket.
	Reporting now from CBS News Apollo Headquarters at Kennedy Space Center, correspondent Walter Cronkite.
	They resume the countdown on schedule two minutes after the hour, which puts them three hours at that time and thirty minutes, three hours and thirty minutes from launch time, 9.32 a.m.
	Ever since they first rolled this Saturn V out of the vehicle assembly building right by us here at the press site three miles from the launch pad, put it on that big launcher to take it out to the pad, things have gone exceedingly well with the flight of Apollo 11.
	There have been only one or two small glitches.
	Oh, thank you.
	It was the adrenaline shot I needed to come back and do it all over again on Thursday.
	1969.
	The first glitch bullcrap statement by Walter Cronkite.
	Thank you very much.
	Nailed it.
	It's just a glitch.
	Who cares?
	That will do it for today's program, episode 1157 of The Best Podcast in the Universe.
	Proud to bring that to you and to do it all over again on Thursday.
	Please remember us and support the program at dvorak.org slash na so we don't go the way of Mad Magazine.
	I'm coming to you from the frontier of Austin, Texas, FEMA Region No.
	6 on all the governmental maps.
	Here I am, saying in the morning, everybody, I'm Adam Curry.
	And from northern Silicon Valley, I'm John C. Dvorak.
	Coming up next on No Agenda Stream, we've got Hog Story number 32, Eating Birthday, in celebration of Dame Carolyn.
	And thank you to our end-of-show mixers, Gallop, Tom Starkweather, and Circumference.
	Until Thursday, everybody, adios, mofos!
	and such.
	Were we in time with the Zephyr or what?
	We started the whole thing just as the Zephyr appeared.
	It's a 10-car train, too, for some reason.
	I kept seeing these 10-car trains for the last week, and I'm thinking, as I've been looking at these trains again, why are they 10 cars all of a sudden?
	so there's always been eight.
	One, two, three, four, five, six, eight bars.
	It's not Burma.
	I'm telling you, I'm hearing it honking.
	I think it's going to...
	I mean, I can hear the honk from Cambryville, the porn they got on these things.
	Zephyr.
	Right in Tom Perfect.
	Perfect.
	I'm so happy.
	It's going to be a good show.
	There goes the Zephyr right on top.
	Woo!
	Whatever.
	I mean, the Judy.
	There goes the Zephyr.
	There goes the Zephyr, by the way.
	Just for your information.
	All right.
	Go on.
	There goes the Zephyr.
	Oh!
	Perfect time.
	Zephyr.
	Thank goodness.
	There we go.
	Omar.
	She is a...
	She's really pretty.
	Wow.
	She's beautiful.
	All I heard was...
	Why do I dislike you?
	She would be a model in...
	A little too short.
	All I heard was Bivital.
	And I forgot everything else.
	She has gorgeous features.
	Yes!
	I want everyone to spread the word to all of your friends, all of your neighbors.
	Let everyone know that if you need a cool place to be, they can come here.
	If you can, just stay cool.
	Get some fans to stay cool.
	Some people just don't know where to turn to stay cool.
	The summer scorcher turning downright dangerous.
	Look at these temperatures.
	Triple digits.
	And in some places, the scorching heat and humidity are going to get worse.
	On the hottest day of the year.
	People are not the only ones feeling this heat, so are utilities, which means, well, you're going to feel the heat.
	Today, the feel-like temperature in half the country will be over 100 degrees.
	No relief for 190 million of us this weekend.
	I think right now we're going to challenge our infrastructure unlike anything we've had in years.
	Over the next few minutes, I'm going to see what happens to the human body as it starts heating up.
	Wear loose-feeding clothing, use little spritzes, water on your face works, cold showers, cold baths.
	This hot weather continues.
	It's going to melt the polar caps and the whole wide world.
	In the future, it's going to be hotter and worse, and we do need to...
	Are you ready?
	From this day forward, it's going to be only America first.
	America first America first America first America first America first America first America first Fuck you.
	Fuck you.

▲