I recommend listening at 1.25X
Story Images and Links are inline.
Get the latest APPS if you don't see Index, links, or images.
Support the show (https://bit.ly/39tV7JY)
Do they, I want to start off with some news items and then quickly jump into the opinions. I've been thinking of a few topics that I dunno if they've been really brought up or covered recently. I thought today would be a perfect time to jump into them. But first I was checking on the latest news and there was a story. About the electronic bracelets in Israel, which are being issued now, I don't know who's paying for these, if it's the people wearing them or if it's a part of the travel expense for the country. But I guess the article hasn't really talked about it. So I'm gonna assume they're free for the folks coming back in, although who the hell knows. But Israel is requiring people coming back to Israel from abroad or visitors from certain countries that presumably are high in COVID to wear wrist bracelets, which are similar to the ankle bracelets. Which in the United States, we're all familiar with for convicts who are allowed to serve part of their time at home rather than in prison. So for people coming through the airport and back into Israel they are being required to quarantine and presumably. Point of the bracelets is to ensure that they stick to their quarantine requirements. Now, interestingly, in this article it actually says something very ironic. Hopefully you guys see the irony in this without me having to explain just, it says the bracelet won't track any location, but will alert you authorities that the, where has violated quarantine. Okay. So if the quarantine. Is literally something that confines you to a single location. Then obviously the bracelet has a GPS chip and is tracing your location either that or the bracelet comes with some plug-in doodad. That is like a Bluetooth radio that you have to plug in in your house. And then it has to have a heartbeat back and forth with the plug-in device saying, Oh, you're within a hundred feet of whatever it's plugged into. That's the location too. Even if it's local, if it's not using GPS, it's still measuring location. So how can you say that the bracelet don't worry, the bracelet won't track any location data? Yeah. That's the whole point of it and the irony. Okay. So that was the first bit of irony. So it was sort of like, obviously it's location and telling people it's, don't worry. It's not, your location is bullshit, but the other bit of RNA is that. For people from certain countries coming into Israel, they're being required to put on this wristband and to be confined to a certain place from which they can't leave, man. Oh, man. This just has all kinds of wrong written about it. It doesn't take a a history major to realize the parallels to the way Jews were treated in Germany in the 1930s here. And I really don't care what the arguments are. It's for the good of the blah-blah-blah who gives a shit it's imposing exactly the same type of treatment that was imposed. I think Jewish people. In the 1930s, I'm not talking about the concentration camps later in the war. That's maybe still coming for the rest of us, who knows my point is that signaling people out, keeping them isolated in a ghetto, which is a designated location for Jews in Germany. So they don't intermingle with other Germans. And then having a piece of. Gear a device, which arguably isn't all that different. Although maybe it's even worse than having a a star, a yellow star pin on you that basically says, Oh, I have this black bracelet on. I can't be going outside of my house. I can't be mingling with anybody. I need to shelter in place. This is horrible. This is absolutely horrible. And again, I'm somebody whose grandfather has both died in world war II, fighting the Nazis like this. This is not something that I would ever expect to have happened in Israel. How chicken shit is that country? And I mean the entire populace of the country, not just the leadership to allow the leadership to impose such draconian measures. On their own people. And not even their own people. This is on foreigners, right on people coming from other countries too, to single them out with a visible device that says, Oh, you should show me. I might be infected. And then to have them confined to a single location. Absolutely horrible. It's it is literally based around the same thoughts as the Jews being isolated in Germany. And they're not political thoughts. They're thoughts for the mass majority of Germans, the mass majority of Austrians as well. It wasn't that they thought that, Oh, Jews have the wrong politics. And we need to be careful with them or they're going to ruin our country. No. They thought Jews are, they're scum, they're fifth. They can infect the Germans. They can infect Germans through being closely around them. We need to focus on concentrating them into areas where they can do the least harm, AKA ghettos areas, where they're just a bunch of these vermin Jews, all scurrying around together. That's literally in the posters that you can see from 1930s, Germany. That were anti-Semitic that were, a continuation certainly of the philosophy that Hitler had, but these posters were not I don't believe they were so damn convincing that they took a whole generation of Germans and said Yeah, we didn't realize that Jews were this bad, but man, looking at those posters, I guess they are, no, this is something that clearly was already in the air. Germans had already had a distrust and disdain for Jews to begin with. And so the idea of having everybody accept this as the new normal in Germany, in the 1930s it apparently wasn't that hard. There were certainly people that were trying to do what they could to stand up for Jews and really not even for Jews, but against stupid ideas, Not enough. And now we're seeing reflections of that. Again, I don't want to say it's the exact same thing, but it is absolutely a reflection of that type of thinking happening in Israel. Pathetic. all right. Next topic. Biden is really doing his darnedest and I don't know if it's conscious or subconscious, but he's definitely doing his darkness to reignite the cold war with Russia. Apparently that's what China wants because China doesn't want a war with Russia. Even the cold war with Russia. So what's the best thing for China. It's to get Russia and the U S fighting with each other. Again, you could certainly see that during the the latter half of the 20th century where the us and Russia were at each other's heels, China being a communist country, and presumably a big friend of Russia. Clearly side, an advantage to the fact that they were not being targeted in the same way that Russia was by the United States. Like the us was very, very focused on Russia in all its political efforts in continuation of the cold war. Not so much with China. In fact what allowed China to begin growth in the first place was a thawing of relations. With the United States and through the help of the UK and starting to utilize Chinese participation in the world economy their factory capabilities. They're extremely cheap labor prices. All these things were perceived as big benefits. And furthermore, the CIA played a huge part in focusing. Russia as the evil empire and meanwhile, looking at China as the potential country that could be flipped into capitalism through a different means. So there was no flipping Russia into capitalism, at least that was the perception in the 60 seventies and eighties, but there was a potential to flip China into capitalism. And right now, if you listen to interviews by retired folks from the CIA. I'm sure. Adam Curry is uncle Don would probably have some things to say on this topic as well. But the plan was if we can and just get China to start producing things that are consumed in the United States, we will kick their engine of capitalism into high gear and assured that within a 25 year time span, meaning one generation. That China will go from communist to capitalist and then can help us work against the real evil empire, which is the USSR. So that was essentially what was being talked about in CAA offices in the 1980s, what was actually accomplished as we all know, it's quite different because the us absolutely outspent Russia to the degree where Russia. Couldn't sustain a competitive level of militarization to the United States. Thanks to Reagan predominantly. And therefore the cost to the populace was huge because the money that was being spent on military projects resulted in less and less money being spelled spent on things that benefited the population. And so consequently, we ended up having a revolution in Russia. It wasn't a, it was a fairly peaceful one, right? It wasn't like a bloody revolution by any means. There was some people that died. There was plenty of people injured, but I guess it was a lot less bloody than it could have been. And in that revolution the USSR ended up disbanding and then each of the federations became a separate country. And as a result of that a lot of them went through a period of great hardship because they've never really been on their own and they have to re-establish through international agreements through international trade. They have to reestablish a really, an economy almost from scratch because the plan, the economies that they had. We're based on absolutely fake money that was worthless to the real world. So everything had to get shifted. The United States did a great job in providing loans and guarantees for a lot of this. And as a result of that within about a decade Russia, which was the biggest country within the Soviet union embraced capitalism, like crazy and. Part of that capitalism resulted in one of the negative aspects of capitalism, which is oligarchies, which is a growth in the power of large businesses controlled by relatively few individuals and the term oligarch, meaning somebody who's in charge of an oral oligarchy company. Was used in the Russia in the media way before it was ever used in the United States? Well, I shouldn't say ever the terms have been around for a long time, but watching television programs that were produced in the Russia back, I'd say even 15 years ago, you would constantly he'll hear people bitching about the oligarchs and how they're trying to skew things in their own direction politically, simply because they were able to achieve. Financial success and typically, meaning they're all billionaires. They're not just millionaires now we're starting to hear that same term applied to American companies and a lot of the tech elites as being oligarchs, which they are. But where I was going with this whole point is that Russia went through this period of hyper capitalism. Unbridled capitalism, if you will. And then after a decade that started to settle into a more standardized, more regulated form of capitalism. And I would argue today, Russia is a more capitalistic country than the United States, and that is seen by the types of regulations in place that it's seen by the the levels of corporate taxes that seen on a lot of fronts where you can measure the difference between. A socialist state and a capitalist state. And the U S is definitely more socialists in that regard today. Certainly it wasn't during the communist days, but is right now. So right now what Biden is trying to do. Yeah. And again, this is what I started off on. I don't know if it's conscious or not, cause you just don't know how much of Biden is actually alive in that brain of his. But he has called Putin a killer, which, as an individual person, you could probably call anybody that is in a command position in the United States, armed forces and killer. And you would technically be correct because if you were at any level engaged, And carrying out orders that resulted in a death of somebody doesn't matter if they were targets or civilians or casualties that were random or accidental or anything else. It going up the chain from the guy that pushed the button to launch the drone missile or the guy that was flying the aircraft that had a missile on it. Or, I'm not even talking about people that were shooting actual man firearms. Like largely remote weaponry. If that resulted in a death, technically you could say that person is a killer because he did kill somebody. And the same thing all the way up the line through the, every president of the United States including Trump. Although Trump didn't start any new Wars. It's not to say that Trump had a zero casualties during his presence either. So saying Putin is a killer while it while it may be true. Russians did kill a number of people and the variety of conflicts around the globe including Syria. I don't think that is the proper term to use. I any, like I said if any other president of other countries started calling us presidents killers it would not be something the United States would take lightly. Even though technically a true term. And so all that's done is created more supports for Putin domestically because more Russians are now pissed off at Joe Biden because he's being a Dick, he's calling the president of their country, a killer much if let's say all of a sudden France started calling Biden a killer. Because he's relaunched the war in Syria, which of course France would never do, but let's say they did well, Americans would start calling French fries, freedom fries. Again, there'll be a lot of a lot more anti French sentiments and more support probably for Biden. So the same thing is happening in Russia. So I have no idea who thought of putting those words in Biden's mouth and thinking that somehow this is going to generate. A desirable outcome because the attitude in Russia is that it sure sounds like us wants to start officially declared the next cold war right now. So if we're going to have a, we had the beginning of the cold war, we had the end of the cold war and it looks like Biden will be the beginning of the second cold war with Russia. And I think that Russia is much better prepared to fight the cold war on this front. While the United States military is more concerned about creating flight suits for pregnant women. China and Russia are a lot better at technology than they were back in the 1970s and eighties. When the us was dominating right now, Chinese hackers and Russian hackers. Can absolutely kick the ass of American hackers. And I say that because they're doing it on a regular basis. If you plug yourself into the reports that are happening on cyber attacks right now, and I used to be that used to be a huge part of what I was doing for my job. Haven't done that in a while, but I still have friends and I still have access to certain things. That's what you're seeing. You're seeing the two most common brought up cyber attack. Vectors are China and Russia. And the actually Ukraine is up there. I think they're usually right around three or four. There's still a lot of very talented folks in Ukraine. And if you think that Ukraine is a friend of America and they're not targeting American companies, you've got another thing coming. They absolutely are because Ukraine. That while the Ukrainian hacker groups out there are basically mercenaries, they will work for companies. They want that one to damage other companies. They're not the only ones. There are plenty of them. They're Romanian hackers that I've seen stuff from that are pretty good. There are hackers in a lot of different countries, but the groups that you see as being successful are usually these four countries, Israel, United States. Russia and China and the United States, which used to be at the very top of that pyramid as slid down to the number three spot right now, Israel is still number one. Russia is to China, Russia, and China are rotating between two and three and four, but the United States is not really perceived as being any higher than three right now. So I'm going to defer to the folks that are still doing this full-time, but I tend to I tend to agree based on what I've seen, that the U S dominance of being at the leading cutting edge of hacker tech is fast falling. We may end up sliding even further down. So if we do end up having another cold war and the cold war is simply defined as a war. Without the use of a weapons of mass destruction. If we end up in that scenario again, which I hope to God, we don't, the United States is going to do far worse this time round. And then I was able to do last time. And last time it took about 25 to 50, 30 years to finally win the cold war against the USSR. And while doing that, we created the Taliban and we. boosted China to the degree that they are now one of the dominant players in the world by not only not having them be part of the cold war against the us as are, but trying to flip them to our side by enabling their economy. And the irony is China right now is the biggest communist. Socialist, if you want to be accurate, but they're still calling themselves the communist party of China, right? It's not the Chinese socialist party. It's the Chinese communist party. They are the biggest communist country in the world, and they are also the most successful communist country and are we're successful because they've utilized a lot of the principles from capitalism that the U S has been pushing. In order to grow their economy, instead of letting it falter and fail like the U S and ours did they've simply figured out a way to both stay in communist totalitarian control and to allow the use of their serfs to create the products that the rest of the world consumes and by doing so. Generating a lot of income for the communist party. Now I'm through a little more opinion type things. I don't know if everybody had a chance to watch, but I'm Brett Weinstein. Weinstein Weinstein, I guess Bret Weinstein and Jordan Peterson had each other on each other's podcasts as guests. So essentially you can watch a, an episode on Jordan Peterson's channel. You can watch an episode on Brett Weinstein's channel. I know ever since the whole Weinstein thing, the Weinstein brothers have been very. Very quick to point out that the way you pronounce their last name is just like Einstein with a w in front. So it's Weinstein. Anyway, so they've been on each other's programs and I think those are both very good at interviews. Watching them side-by-side I will say that I think that's Brett is a better interviewer. I think when he interviewed Jordan Peterson, he did a better job of not interrupting of following sort of the line of conversation of guiding with the right questions at the right time to create a narrative Jordan and given, he is recovering from a very bad addiction, too. Prescription medicine that he ended up getting inadvertently, essentially he got prescribed something that was presented to him as being non-addictive. And then over the course of use of it for two years, realized just how addictive this stuff is. So maybe that's part of the, the brain trauma that happened. That's causing this, but certainly his style of interviewing as a lot more twitchy, it's more disjointed. It's, he's just not as good an interviewer. And he's been on so many interviews himself that you would think he would have noted mentally Oh this person is a great interviewer. I, when I interview, I should do it more like this person. So I don't know. I think he's definitely a better guest than he is an interviewer, but what was interesting is this was a chance for both of them. To be scientists. And what I mean by that is typically Jordan is perceived as a political figure, Brett, to some degree as well, because the biggest thing he's known for is effectively being the guy that stood up against saying black people are better than white people. When he was at evergreen college in Washington state in Olympia. He's done plenty since then, but that's certainly the biggest thing he is known for. Getting away from that political persona and to a place where two people with PhDs can use scientific terminology to discuss the human animal condition was actually quite interesting. And I think that again, that was better done on Brett's podcast. Then on Jordan's podcasts, like the conversation that they had was more scientific, it was more getting to the to a true analysis and discussion and providing some Writing some theories providing some suppositions and then seeing what the other person thought and how they broke the arguments apart. There's a little bit of that certainly on Jordan's podcast as well, but a lot more of that on breaths. And so I really enjoyed it. It is. Over four hours, all of a sudden done with both those programs combined there. I think it's about two and a half hours of on Brett's program a little bit on their two hours on Jordan's. So it is a lot to watch and they listening. I usually, for stuff like that's really a video podcast. I just turned the iPad off and I just listened to the audio portion of it while doing something else that way you're not having to have your eyeballs fixed on watching. People's. Faces it's I don't find it horribly necessary to do that, which is why I like podcasts instead of being on a YouTube or a live stream on Twitch. I just record a podcast because ultimately I think the power of what I'm trying to say comes across from my mouth into the microphone and into your ears, through podcasting, which Adam Curry created go podcasting. That's a little inside joke. And without the need for the visual. And I know a lot of people really like to see this stuff on YouTube. I don't mind watching it on a YouTube. Certainly the facial expressions add a little bit of something. I don't discount that. I don't think it adds zero, but if you're really focused on the message that's being conveyed, I think a pure audio form works quite well. And potentially equally as well as a combination of video and audio. And of course try watching video without audio. You'll get nothing. You'll have a very hard time understanding what people are trying to discuss or convey. If you watch video without audio listening to audio without video, the vast majority of the data is there. And that's why I do I think is underrated. And it's way more important than the video portion video. Just. Focuses you on whatever you're listening to. And doesn't let you multitask it, fixes you on it. And this is why advertisers love video a lot more than audio, because when you watch an ad in video form, it's a lot harder to ignore it mentally than just listening to an ad on a radio station. Like both of them will use obnoxious music to prevent you from ignoring it. That's for sure. But if it's just purely audio, you can tune it out mentally until the radio host come backs on comes back on And one of the things that was interesting about Jordan and and breaths. Interviews was, these are people that are just a little bit older than me, not a whole lot. So they're really generations, certainly very similar to my generation and the perspectives that they have. And one of the discussions, I'll just jump into it because it's relevant here is really talking about people of our generation. Which would be gen X-ers. I think Jordan's right on the edge of a boomer and gen X-er and Brett is certainly right in the middle of gen X, but for people of our generation, where we learned to socialize before the internet we learned things by communicating, making mistakes and learning from those mistakes in real life, not online. With, friends, enemies, teachers, parents, whoever all of those experiences came from real life. First, much as they did for the previous thousand generations. There was no online distinction to be made for previous generations. And we were pretty much the last generation. To do that. And certainly some of the oldest millennials may have experienced some of that, but not nearly to the extent that my generation did because by the time like I got on the internet in the late eighties, really on it full time, starting in 1991. And have been, I've had an email account since 1991, not the same one, obviously that was a. A university email account for students originally. And Oh, by the way, I have the best fricking email account because I got to create my own name for that account. So my email account at the university of Minnesota was chairman that, yeah, I know it was firstname.lastname@example.org. So I was email@example.com which is hilarious. Like you can't get more pretentious than that is, is a university one of the larger universities in the country in terms of student population. And my email account was chairman at staff. So staff of course, was the name of a computer. I had and it was an so that I think the way that I ended up getting is that the staff computer then the computer that was named staff was an email server. And it. It had both student and staff emails on it because it was the university of Minnesota's email server. And what I figured out was that it didn't matter which one you used because it resolved the same IP address. And so I could have been, blah-blah-blah at student that tc.umn.edu, or I could have been at staff. Well, of course I'm going to be at staff. And because this was sir, early on in the days, Literally, nobody had gotten the idea to use the account chairman before. And I'm sure these days that would be an empty account anyway, because it'd be chairperson, not chairman these days. Anyway, just a funny anecdote from the way back when machine as far as accounts go. So where I was going with this whole thing though, is because our generation learned things in the real world and then. Adapted to using the knowledge that we gained about social interaction to the online world. We were the first people to have emails where the first people to whatever services popped up, whether it was g-mail or Microsoft three 65, or certainly Facebook. And before that My space, like all these things my generation had from their day of Dubuque, Twitter, all that stuff. And there are some millennials for whom the latter things of that, like Twitter, like for, I think for a lot of millennials get on Twitter, they won that Twitter was around as well. But they already had missed the. Early days of email, they really missed the early days of the web, or they were just children in the early days of the web getting on, in school or on their appearance computers. There was a, there's a I'm trying to remember what but the the web, I'd say the first real commercialized websites started popping up. They started being allowed because the, the web, even though we had websites the web protocol and the whole concept of a web browser came out of CERN. And that was in 98. Three 94, probably 90. Yeah, 93, 94. I can't remember exactly. Again, I'm not looking this stuff up, guys. I'm just going out of my head. So I could be often dates if you want to Wikipedia be my guests, but it was right around that timeframe. And I remember because I was there, I was, I wasn't at CERN, but I was at a university and we were using gofer, which Adam likes to talk about. He's talked about recently. One of my friend of mine, my colleagues that I'd worked with many years later, it turned out to be one of the original guys that wrote the gopher app and the gopher protocol very early. So that gopher would have been 92, I think 91. Yeah. 91 I think was gopher. And it was a precursor because it was a hyper linking based model for. File servers essentially. So instead of using a command shell or Unix shell, and then or a terminal, really to get into a unique system and type commands to get directories and to grab files, this was a it had a gooey, it was a graphic oriented program. It ran on Macs and I'm sure it ran out of their platforms eventually, but I think initially just max. And it allowed you to visually look at all the files that were available and for certain file types like text files, you can actually open them and preview them, view them right in the app without having to download them first and then go into another app to view them. I can't recall. Off the top of my head, if that was the case for gift files, JPEGs hadn't been invented yet, or if they have, they weren't at least being utilized. So we pretty much were just using gift files and yes, it is pronounced GIF, not like the peanut gutter, peanut butter. John Durock is absolutely incorrect in this and it is irrelevant. What the guy that wrote the software that created the file thinks it's pronounced absolutely Roman because what gifts stands for is gut Rafiq interface. Format and or interchange. Yeah, graphic interchange format GIF. And the hard to G for GIF comes from the first letter of the word graphic. Now, if it was pronounced drastic, then it would be pronounced Jif, but it's not pronounced drastic. It's pronounced Rafiq, graphic and graphic. Is it's an abbreviation, right? So it's if you have an abbreviation for something changing, how the letters are pronounced for the abbreviation is just wrong. It's at best, it's a it's bad form. And at worst it's not even English. It it's contrary to the the rules of abbreviations. It'd be sort of like, Using something that has, that starts with a letter C and a C, as in say the word cake where it's a K sound. And then in the abbreviation changing the pronunciation of that C, which sounds like cake for the original words that the abbreviations made from changing it to an S sound or a chess sound, I guess, like a County. It like, you just don't do that. You pronounce the acronym in the way in, it's not an abbreviation. I use the wrong term. It's an acronym. You pronounce the acronym in the same way that you pronounce the first letter of the words, which the acronym is made up of. There you go. That's what I'm trying to say. So, you can suck a John there. Okay. Oh, speaking of pronunciations, this leads me into another rant topic. No stories involved with this, but it's just something that I've been noticing more and more lately. And I don't know if I'm just noticing it more or if it's happening more, but what the hell happened to a whole generation and then some of children going through school and not learning how to pronounce a hard D or a heart T. Like they're just swallowing those letters. it's hard for me to try and think of these words, but I, it could be something like water. Like I would pronounce water as water. I would maybe change the T to a D so it'd be more of a water sound, but what a lot of people in younger generations are pronouncing. And I, when I say a lot, like probably over half of the population. That is under 35 is instead of saying watcher, they would say wa instead of saying kitten, they would say kitten, like the tea is swallowed. And I think the technical term for it. Is T globalization whether it's a T or a D I think the word that Adam always jokes about is whenever you get a news report or something where they pronounce the word Putin, and when they say Putin they completely swallowed the second T. So I guess it's the first T there's only one T in Putin. So they say Putin poop in. Pu N like P U dash I N a instead of Putin, which would be with a hard T. So what happened? I'm seriously wondering at first I thought this was an isolated phenomenon that some people with crappy pronunciation skills or sort of the Elmer Fudds of the world. Elmer Fudd is a guy who couldn't pronounce ours. He couldn't say the R sound. They think It's been so long since I watched one of those cartoons. Wascally wabbit. Yeah. He couldn't do the RS. So instead of saying rascally rabbit, you would say the Westley wabbit. So they change all the RS to W's essentially. So I thought this must be that type of phenomenon and it's super rare. Over 50%, over 50% of the people that I hear now in otherwise completely intelligent folks, people with otherwise good pronunciation of the English language, nonetheless, seem to have this issue. And I'm sure they wouldn't call it an issue either. It's. It's probably the way that they were being taught. And that's my question is when you first learn how to pronounce words, which like in first grade, everybody's mispronouncing everything. That's where all the cute kid videos come from is because kids learn to say words that they don't quite pronounce correctly. And that makes a funny video, but I would say by about fourth grade, Most people have come to a level of pronunciation that they will have for the rest of their lives, or at least for a good long time subject to some minor modifications. We look at regional accents, but to a large degree, the way that children, when they're fourth grade, certainly fifth grade, the way that they're speaking will be the basis for their speech. Unless, it's influenced by braces or some external factors, but other than that will be their speech for the rest of their lives. So somehow there, there seems to be a change in the way that first, second, third graders are taught. Maybe it's just first and second graders are taught to pronounce words. Were there stories that when I was a kid that we read in school when we were learning to read and really, talking while reading and listening to the way our teacher would pronounce things. W R did the stories change? Have they banned like all the books that they had when I was a kid in first grade? Is that something that's that's effected the pronunciation of this T swallowing disease which again, this, it seems to be like it's normal now because it's a majority of the population of that age bracket. And I see it both in gen Z. And millennials, this is not exclusive to millennials. Gen Z's have not started pronouncing teas and they all obviously understand each other when they say Putin or give me my mittens you know what it reminds me of, and I know it's totally going on around here, but it reminds me of the Cockney. Pronunciations now the Cockney pronunciations of words are even more drastically different from American English, obviously, but there is a lot of that sort of swallowed vowel or swallowed the continence that they have in the Cockney accents. And I think for me, I've seen a few channels of accents where the people Don't just talk about accidents, but like they're showing examples of different accents. But Michael Kane I think is probably the thing that I always imagined in my mind, but I, when I think of a Cockney accent, I don't even know what movie it's from. Oh, potentially from dirty rotten scoundrels, because he does a lot of different accents in that movie. If you haven't seen dirty rotten scoundrels, do yourself a favor. Check that movie out. Movie came out in the eighties and I remember I skipped a day of school to go see that movie. When I came out, I was a big it wasn't because of Michael Kane. It was because Steve Martin, I was a big Steve Martin fan back in the day. And so I actually took a took a personal day vacation day from school. I think it was probably high school, maybe junior high school, but probably high school to go watch that movie. And just to tell you how great my tastes in movies were. Another movie that I took a day off school for was Conan the barbarian because I was a big Arnold fan. Yeah. Yeah. Going to see movies in movie theaters in the middle of the day on school days was definitely a thing for me and some friends of mine, a wink, wink, nudge, nudge friends of mine. Anyway. I dunno, I don't even know where I was going with this other than to say that what the hell happened, that people can't pronounce T's and D's anymore. And it's, I think it started off as just teas, but it migrated to DS as well. Oh yeah. Here. Okay. So here's an example. I actually jotted down for myself here talking about this is instead of pronouncing getting a bottle of water. You might hear getting above a bar of wa air. I don't know about the Bali Bo bottle. I haven't heard that one too much, but definitely get in. I've heard yet in instead of getting and instead of water, water, it's weird, man. It's more than the tomato. Potato tomato thing potato tomato. This is just, it seems very strange. Kitten, that's another word kitten. Instead of kitten, they would say kitten. K I E N so strange. And if you hear yourself pronouncing this way, let me know. I'm super curious. Like I'm being a little judgy here. But I'm also just super curious. Why, what led to this? What was this, how you heard your teachers talking? It was this how your parents were talking was this always around? And I just never noticed it because it certainly seems like there's a lot more of it and more and more every year than I was ever hearing in the past. So do let me know what else we get Oh, well, I'm kind of bad youngsters, so I'll just keep going down that path. Why not? It's a topic I've been meaning to talk about anyway which is the idea of personal style and how it relates to how other people see you. So this is a, I guess, a fairly broad topic, and this is the area that I want to focus on. There seems to be. A lack of congruence between the way that people present themselves. Meaning tattoos, nose rings a variety of metal piercings in a variety of places that don't normally have holes in their heads and the way that they expect others to perceive them. And tattoos are certainly way more common today than they were when I was a youngster. And, tattoo has been around for literally thousands of years. Viking set to tos Asian cultures at tattoos forever. African cultures have had a variety, a variation of tattoos. Aboriginal people in Australia and New Zealand and stuff had tattoos. So tattoos has been around forever. Ever since people figured out that you can take pigment from plants and then just stick it onto your skin. Using pine needles, tattoos have been around, but what's interesting is that while people seemingly. Put tattoos of things that they like when they get tattoos. They generally start doing this at a fairly young age. And I don't mean five years old, young. The rebellious teen years young and doing things with your friends that you don't really care whether or not your parents approve of age and And then what's, I think more been happening lately. Is there, there are a lot more parents that don't just not care about that Tuesday actually encourage their children to get tattoos because, they feel like my parents didn't like when I went out and got a tattoo at 14 years old, but I'm better than my parents. I'm going to encourage my children to do that. Same thing with hair coloring, same thing with. Anything to modify your appearance. So close is the obvious first thing that you can do fairly quickly and easily, but beyond clothes to temporary things like coloring hair or haircuts that are unusual. And then to more permanent things like tattoos, I guess piercings would be somewhere between the permanent and non-permanent. Because you can get rid of them, but they're not going to go away by themselves very quickly. And certainly not those I'm definitely showing my age, those giant stretched ears. What the hell is up with that? I've never understood that. Like I remember watching national geographic as a kid and seeing African tribes. And I think even some South American tribes where they stretched their ear lobes. And to me, it always seemed this is the stupidest thing you can possibly do for combat because as a male and as a youngster, that was the, my, my general point of reference was is this good for combat or not having a ring on your finger? That was good for combat. You would have metal that makes contact with skin. Having enlarged holes on your ears just creates a convenient place for somebody to snag. And then yank same thing with a nose ring having any kind of jewelry on your face makes it really convenient to focus, attacking that spot because it's going to be extra painful for you. The, these are, I don't know, maybe this, these are not normal thoughts that go through people's minds. I always went through mine now. Tattoos, not really a disadvantage from a combat standpoint. It seemed like that's just making yourself look a little different and unusual, and I've actually, I'm a fan. Have good tattoos. I will always say that I've seen some absolutely gorgeous tattoos in Japan. I've seen, I will say mostly Asian tattoos are awesome. There's definitely American artists that have done a great job with tattoos as well. I love the beautiful, ornate high quality color tattoos. I really liked the black and gray tattoos. There's some really nice work being on those, however, you and I both know that represents Less than 1% of all the tattoos on people's bodies. The majority of tattoos that you see on girls is cursive writing of some kind of a quote from some book that they read when they were a teenager. Swear to God. That's like the number one thing on 20 year old checks is a tattoos from Harry Potter tattoos from Lord of the rings tattoos from some whatever book that I've never heard of. That's probably the most common, second, most common is some kind of animal or a bird thing and not done very well, like either done by somebody who is just learning or done by somebody who doesn't really give a shit and just wants to charge you 10 bucks or maybe it's a hundred bucks, whatever it is. But it doesn't look that good. And I'm sure that it has some meanings because you remember the moment when you altered your body like that, but. It's not really decorative. It's just, it's more of a distinguishing feature to me. What most tattoos look like? And this is the area where I'm sure I'm offending. Plenty of people is they look like you looked in the mirror and you said, I don't have any moles on my face. I could really use another molar too. And then you go to a doctor. And they implant a virus into your skin that will then make your skin show up and turn into a mole because it's a, that's essentially what the process, right? So moles are basically viruses that infected a certain area of your skin. And while your body was fighting with that virus, it produced a type of skin that is abnormal to have on your body. And then once the virus died out that type of skin was still left and it's not going to fall off or whatever. It's not a lesion that's disease. It's a genetically modified version of your skin that will keep reproducing. And that's why they test them for cancer on a regular basis. Because since it's genetically modified skin, It's much more likely to actually get cancer. But anyway, aside from that's kind of what I'm thinking is like, when somebody goes and gets a tattoo on their face or their neck or something really easily visible like that, it's really saying, yeah, I want to be different from everybody else. I'm going to get some moles on my body because that will totally make you look different. There is an argument to be set at and I've heard it. That a mole makes a beautiful woman even more beautiful. And I think that argument was put forth by the guy that was trying to get in her pants because it really doesn't objectively. It does not. It's just a cute saying that. Got somebody late. I have photos of someone had their mole, their beauty Mark mole removed. And she looked absolutely more beautiful without it. Anyway so yeah, there's more, more grumpy old man topics. Last thing, I guess I'll wrap up on a story. It's barely a story, but I didn't watch the Candace Owens talking about Cardi B and I'm not a huge fan of Candace Owens. I think she's marginally interesting. She's certainly articulate. She's done well for herself. But I think like she goes. To an emotional level when it comes to politics, where I try to stay on, I'm a, more of a logical level, more of a, something that I can argue for using ideas and less so using emotion. And so while I'm not a huge fan, I do like that. She exists. I liked that she's a catalyst for a lot of. Conservative thoughts and somebody that can say things and that others that other conservatives couldn't say simply because of the color of her skin. And she she's accused Cardi B or I'm not accused. She's essentially described Cardi B's performance as shoving her Regina into another woman's vagina away while thrusting a topper. Now I did watch that clip of the performance on YouTube. I of course, had to, after I, I saw that Candice was describing and I'm like wait a minute. This, I got, see. And yeah, it's like a PG 13 rated version of something you'd see in like any of a billion porn things, porn clips that are available on YouTube. Not really as a I don't want to say a big deal in this, certainly, but certainly not as risky as maybe something like this would have been. Even 10 years ago, but certainly 20 years ago, this would have been absolutely risque and shocking and condemned universally by everybody today. Not so much. And I think part of why not so much is because the sex and openness about sex and the free availability of sex videos has changed the culture. In the United States enough that it's just not that big a deal. And so they have to constantly be pushing the envelope to somehow be controversial. And to some extent, Candace plays into the generating the controversy that they were looking for by talking about it a lot. So while I do agree with that description of what Cardi B did that CanadaOwens and said, I just don't know if it's really that big a deal or that interesting. I never really thought that any of the award shows whether it was the Oscars or the Grammys or any of them. I never really thought that any of them were all that interesting. Like I always enjoyed looking at the Joan Rivers interviews cause she was a smart ass. And while she was doing fashion reviews, she was also getting a lot of zingers into. And two, they're like a Ricky is good for the Oscars because he he can really. Call them out for who they are. My opinion. And you guys probably already know this from previous podcast episodes, my opinion of the entertainment industry in general, and then today's industry covers all movies, all television, including Netflix and Amazon and everybody else, all sports. It covers anything that people will go and watch as a group. It's entertainment. It's things to pacify the populous. It's really going into the Coliseum and the watching the lions. Battling the Christians. I'm not always a Christian. Let's be honest. There was a lot more pagans that died in the Coliseum than Christians. Christians only really were an afterthought. Initially it was mostly weird beasts from Africa finding each other. And then there was more interesting because they were fighting people and so on and so forth. And then eventually you just run out of volunteers. So you have to start using. Political or religious prisoners. And that's where the questions come into it. But I don't know. To me, it just seems like it's kind of a back, because I don't expect much from the askers. I don't expect much from the Grammys. These are awards given to entertainment people by their own industries. And entertainers are pretty much on the lowest rung of the necessity ladder. Like I put a lot more interest into people that are plumbers and electricians and frankly, I, probably food industry workers than I would entertainers. We could all live without the entertainers. We can all tell each other jokes. We all know somebody who is entertaining, even though they have a real full-time job somewhere else. Having people who have made a career out of entertainment. Is more a Testament to the excess funds available in this country than it is to the actual talent of that person. When you have so much money to throw around that you can justify paying somebody to just be outrageous or to just be funny, or to just be sexy or to just be, something else fill in the blank, nonproductive. This is. There's a movie called Guildenstern on the Roseland grants are dead where I misquoted the movie because I could have sworn it was in it. Apparently this was not in the movie, but I, but the movie is still worth watching. If you haven't seen Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, do yourself a favor and watch. It's got a lot of very good entertainers in it. See what I did there. And it was more importantly, it was written well, it's a, it had very good dialogue. And it had a lot of puns about, they were very smart puns not not pie in the face kind of stuff, but like a double entendre kind of stuff. And the movie is essentially a Hamlet. But from the perspective of that story being told through the eyes of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and if you don't remember Hamlet, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern are two chums of Hamlet from school and they are very, very minor characters in the play, but in the movie, they are the main characters. And so you're following them. And watching Hamlet unfold in sort of real life from their perspective. It's a well done movie. Tim Roth is in there. Gary Oldman is in there. They're the two main characters. And there's a number of other guys, but it's well done. But the point from that movie that I thought was in it that apparently isn't, it's essentially to say what I just said about the actors being the, at the very lowest wrong. Of human professions. The, these are people that are the leftovers after all the actual necessary professions of humanity are already occupied. If you haven't fallen into any useful profession, then you will end up being in the entertainment profession. It's probably not a majority opinion held in the U S it is a majority opinion held in some other countries. I'll tell you that much. Countries that are doing a lot better at STEM than the us. But so from that standpoint, from the standpoint that entertainers are at the lowest lung of the ladder and they're not really to be taken seriously, their opinions don't really matter that much. It's always funny to me how a lot of other people seem to really give a shit about. What entertainers are thinking and what they're saying and why all the the Trump hating out of Hollywood and, the political correctness coming out of the while also Hollywood as well, but also just in general, in the entertainment. Industry, including sports is, it's just never worried me as much as it has other people, because I don't really care what they think. They're not really relevant. They, if a guy that is the chief architect of a hundred story building is politically incorrect, or should I rephrase that? If that person is politically correct? If he is woke, that concerns me because there may be decisions that were made. In architecting, that building that were made for the wrong reasons they were made for inclusiveness. Like maybe that building has three types of bathrooms instead of two, maybe that building has a third men's rooms, a third women's rooms and a third trans rooms. And that effectively reduces because it's not going to have any more total bathrooms, any other buildings? But that will reduce the number of bathrooms the space for bathrooms, for males and females because of wanting to accommodate the trans community. So I don't know. Like that would be more concerning to me then. Some actor ragging on the president of the United States, because, so what, I don't really care what an actor thinks. Well, any entertainer somebody that spends their entire day practicing to be good at sports. And that's their main focus is not going to be the person that I go to for philosophy or social commentary or politics. Other people do I get it? I'm not sure why, but people do seem to do that. So yeah, in this country it seems like there's a big emphasis placed on celebrities coming out of entertainment and that's, let's be Frank, most people that have the title, celebrity they're entertainers. They're there's a very few people that you could call celebrities, which didn't come out of entertainment. And I think anime even calls it celebrating which is a funny way of of insulting that title, I guess, by mispronouncing it. But yeah, the, these are people that just are not horribly relevant to the grand scheme of things. And and so while canvas is helping to stir up the Of the negative publicity, but you know, all publicity is good publicity for for Cardi B. I get it. I'm just not excited about it. And even honestly two women that are clothed rubbing each other and scissoring each other. It's I don't think it's really just not that big a deal these days, you literally type in that phrase into Google and you will get a billion videos of naked women doing the same thing who are much better looking, frankly. So yeah, whatever. And I, from my understand the the Grammys are also like the least watched Grammy's ever. Or at least for 25 years. So again, not really a surprise. People are starting to get annoyed and watching people who are doing better than them pretending like they're having a hard time, like things are tough. All right, guys. With that, I think I'm going to wrap up I know this was a lot more opinion than story today, and maybe you disagree with my opinions more as well. Do you let me know? Easiest way is on no agenda social, and if you're not anogenital social, then you can still do it from anywhere. Any other site that is part of the fed reverse by just sending a message to at Jean N G E N E N at no agenda social. That come