Good day, May 40 here. So I notice with the more higher IQ and of the news discussion section you get a lot of people talk about how depressed they are by the success of talentless hacks. Hear about Richard finding it's depressing that Nick Fuentes is so popular or that Tim Fu is so popular and I'm trying to understand that mindset. Like I've never gotten depressed by the success of talentless hacks. It's irrelevant to me. I don't believe that success is something that is puzzled out according to merit, according to intelligence, according to goodness, according to clarity, according to righteousness. It's just kind of amusing. Why would anyone get depressed by the success of talentless hacks unless you're so incredibly self-absorbed that you believe all success in the world simply belongs to you? Or the other alternative is you're just completely disconnected from reality. And so you don't realize that success is not apportioned precisely on the basis of merit. So here's Richard Spencer and company. He's like, what do you know about him? I met him in 2016. He interviewed me. I actually talked to someone who was like, it's this weird mirror image that you're watching. And I think someone who was a journalist actually told me this in terms of tempul and it was like a light going off because I was, I actually talked to this guy. So the success of pundits like Richard Spencer or Tim Poole or Nick Fuentes or Luke Ford is not according to merit, not according to clarity, not according to righteousness, not according to death or profundity. It's according to how well you meet the needs of your audience. Tim Poole meets the needs of his audience for excitement and drama. Richard Spencer meets the needs of his audience for excitement and drama. It's just Richard's audience is about 20 average IQ points higher than Tim Poole's. Richard's audience is about 20 IQ points higher than David Dugues or Nick Fuentes, but they're still meeting the needs of an audience. Has nothing to do with merit. I did this huge like take down to Tim Poole and for the New York Times actually. And he just, I think he called me like, he was like, what do you know about him?  He interviewed me a few times out. You know, I was like, I don't really have a thing, but we kind of talked it out. And I, I don't know, he was kind of like working on his nieces or something. I might have even helped him to agree.  So why does Richard find that so depressing? Like it's never occurred to me to feel depressed by the success of Tim Poole. He's not someone that I turned to on occasion. He's done some good work. Like I played a few minutes of one of his videos recently that was pretty good. But he's not a talentless hack. He's very talented, very hard working and meeting the needs of his audience. Now, when a hawker meets the needs of a client, all right, this is not necessarily something that's meritorious or righteous or holy or transcendent. Right? It's meeting the needs of an audience. So sometimes business meets the needs of an audience and doing something that's good and meritorious. But there's no inherent connection between meeting the needs of your audience or being a business that dishes out goods.  Right? Plenty of businesses, you know, make money, they're selling toxic product. Yes.  On the looks scale, he's a five. On the charisma scale, he's made his zero. On the. Okay. Tim Poole is way above average in intelligence. He's got the ability to speak to the 100 IQ crowd, but he is not 100 IQ. It's probably in the 120s.  You know, Gwynthes has a lot of charisma and he's smart. On the kind of like ideology scale or whatever, I think he's low. Like he doesn't get it, but like, he has, you know, I understand why people want that. I can look at like a. Nick Fuentes doesn't get it. He gets what his audience wants to hear. He gets that very well. He gets it more effectively than any other pundit in his genre. And he gives it to them. He delivers. So no, he doesn't have the philosophical depth of a PhD in philosophy or of a great intellectual. He's no Eric Hoffer, a longshoreman philosopher, but he is an entertainer and pundit who gives his audience what they want to hear. And even if it disgusts me, I kind of understand why this guy, you know, gets people to donate 100 grand every Sunday. Tempul, I'm just mystified. I'm like, how could you possibly want to listen to this person? And he said, that's the secret to his success because all of the guys, and it's mostly guys who are listening to him, they're just like him. They're wearing a T-shirt and a beanie cap and they don't understand the world or the news.  On top of that, he's an aesthetic double tech bro. He does. Yeah. And kind of it's like a combination of a tech bro with a maybe kind of a working class, a little quality of that too. So because he surely reaches more people outside of tech rooms. But yeah, it's like some low level coder or some guy who runs websites or or probably a working class person, but he just he's a mirror reflection of who they are. Oh my God, working class. And so that's the secret. And that is the kind of like we've moved away from an authority figure and we've moved to a mirror reflection and how we consume news. Because, you know, he does meta analysis. So he'll read news columns or stories on the air. So Rich is disgusted that someone who's working class and not aristocratic is successful and has gained an enormous following, right? This is success, money and the following that really Richard Fields belongs to him. Then he'll comment on them. But it's not like the people watching him are actually like they've read The New York Times or The HuffPost and then they go to get his commentary on it. They're not getting the actual story. Like they're getting the commentary, which is liberals are crazy or whatever he's saying.  Or your college professor maybe or your high school principal? Is it some male, older, gray hair? Look, Walter Cronkite's show was aimed at an average audience with 100 IQ. Like network shows aimed at an audience with an average IQ of 100. A Tucker Carlson show has probably aimed at an audience with an average IQ of 100 to 105. So it's not like Walter Cronkite was aiming at an audience with an incredibly more elevated IQ than Tindall.  Everyone's looking for a reflection of themselves. We're all looking to create a world around us as most conducive to our thriving. Right, we all see the world, not as it is, but as we are.  But that's a huge thing. The dumb take is what a lot of people want to hear, right? People just want to hear that their side is awesome, right? So that's meeting a need. He's meeting his audience's needs. And because more people visit a tempul than certainly watch the nightly news by a factor of a thousand. That's not true, right? Several million people watch, well, probably 10 million people watch the nightly news. That's a far bigger audience than what tempul gets. It's like a new concept from the internet. Yeah. That is a depressing statistic.  It's just a perfect example of being like, Why? Why is that depressing?  What they want? You really expect 100 IQ people to seek out commentary that's aimed at a 125 IQ crowd? Like how to remove from reality? How delusional? How self-centered do you have to be to find any of this depressing? It's just reality. I mean, like how you could be a talentless hack and still like make a decent chunk of change, quite frankly. Like I'm sure he's probably monetized his channel quite extensively. So, oh yeah. He stays on YouTube. He does it every day. He does hours a day. He does live streaming. He, yeah. He works hard. He meets his audience's needs. He produces material that people want to hear. And he's successful. I mean, one thing, one problem that I have is I do get kind of, I won't say bored with things, but like, I need to be stimulated in some other way.  Smarter people, right? Demand. Smarter entertainment. Smarter commentary. Or they get bored. If I'm going to do a podcast, then I want to go and like do some editing or do some original writing. And then I want to go and like do something like this, which is preform and I get to think through things.  I mean, the idea of just doing the same crap, like five or seven days a week is just, yeesh. Well, Richard could be producing a formidable intellectual body of work. Like he could be producing books. He's the intellectual that he thinks he is and says he is. If he's a serious thinker that he just self-describes, then why isn't he producing books and essays instead of tweets and podcasts? Do you know who Dr. Lauren was, Richard? Dr. Lauren? Dr. Lauren, the radio woman from the 90s? Yes, I do know her. She's been doing the same exact, she's still on Serious XM every day, and she's been doing the exact same format for like 40 years. I cannot imagine how she's not bored of that. She's not bored of that. Yeah. Well, there's a certain type. Well, Dr. Laura deals with, you know, basic human problems, but haven't changed that much in 40 years. So I think she's very good at what she does. She has a knack for cutting to the moral core of an issue. So yeah, there's an evergreen demand for what Dr. Laura has to say. Similar with the Dennis Prager. Yeah, and you know, I'm not that type. Yeah. If I was in corporate America, I would be. So yeah, people like Richard and people like myself, we're not content to hold the same row, right? We always have to be after new intellectual adventures. We're intellectual jigglers. We're falling in love with every beautiful idea that comes along, but ultimately stay loyal to none. You know, putting my job and starting companies and, you know, moving on and whatever. That's just kind of how I am. Be on Shark Tank. Yeah, I'd be on Shark Tank. Shark Tank. But I don't know. I don't know. Is there any more in this that we need to squeeze on? I have one disgusting comment, and that is in the same way that pornography has been re-monetized through Onlyfans. I think news has been as well, because I think what happens with Onlyfans is that it offers a lot of men, you know, this bullshit pair of social, like, connection between content producers and themselves. Why is it BS? Like, why is it any more BS than all sorts of other transactional relationships? Like, we all want to feel connected. We all want to feel alive. We all want to feel like we're living from the inside. We all want to feel strong and bonded. And for some people, they're so dysfunctional. Their life has turned in such a sad direction that they don't have access to normal human bonds. And so people turn for connection where they can get it. So some people turn to drugs and alcohol and, you know, all sorts of online entertainments. But there's no way of living without connection. We're wired to connect. If you don't connect in a healthy way, you'll connect in dysfunctional ways. But for some people, like, you know, live streams and podcasts, they're primary form of connection. It's better than no connection.  And now they have assholes like Nick Fuentes and Tim Pool to, like, hang out.  Like, I was really lonely when I was going through chronic fatigue center at home. Like, I had, you know, a virtual friendship with Dennis Prager. I'd listen to him on the radio every weekend. I'd call his show about 30 times. And that was the lifeline that I absolutely needed during very dark, lonely, scary times when I was in the grip of something that nobody seemed to understand. When my life had collapsed around me, where I had no strength, where I was spending 20 hours a day in bed, where I could see no path forward. And through my virtual para social connection with Dennis Prager, I was able to keep going and find a meaningful, happy, fulfilling life in Judaism. Make a lot of friends in the Jewish community. Become intellectually, socially, culturally absorbed in the Jewish narrative. So often the para social relationship can lead to real relationships, real friendships, right? A lot of people have met from my live streams. They've employed each other. They've invested in each other. They've dated each other. Just because you have para social relationships doesn't mean that you don't have the real thing. Doesn't mean that the para social relationship never leads to the real thing. And I fail to see why listening to a podcast is somehow morally or intellectually inferior to, you know, watching TV. This can be a good path forward. This can be a positive addition. I mean, I think it's just no matter like monetizing para social relationships. Right. Because that is the thing. It's like, so why should para social relationships not be monetized? Like just monetizing something, defame it. Does it dirty it? Right. If you're meeting someone's needs for connection or guidance or wisdom or excitement or friendship or depth or wisdom or laughter or if you're meeting someone's needs, then what's wrong with monetizing it? So we're here in Rosecutters Bay, Sydney, eastern suburbs. I've got my cheap oppo phone. I'm playing some excerpts from Richard Spencer's recent show on influencers. Like, you know, 20 years ago, newspapers and magazines were flying high. They were making huge profits. And even magazines. Newspapers started going into decline in the 1950s and this decline accelerated dramatically in the 1990s, but really accelerated after about 2002. So newspapers as a business were only held together by the artificial mechanism of classified ads. Right. It was the classified ads that primarily paid for newspapers and journalism. Journalism has rarely paid for itself. It's like GQ or Vogue or whatever. Every summer they would put out a double issue. It was probably like 500 pages or something. And it was like two-thirds advertisements, full page advertisements. It remarkable. And they were making profit, you know, hand over fist. And so 20, you know. So what are the big news outlets in Australia? So Rupert Murdoch owns about two-thirds, about 70% of newspapers. And there are three major networks, Channel 7, Channel 9, Channel 10. And now they're increasing streaming services. So I'm able to get all my sporting needs met here by KO Sports. It's an online streaming service, $25 a month. I can watch the NFL, watch baseball, basketball, etc. So Rupert Murdoch influences disproportionate influence on the news media in particular over here. And then Channel 9 was long the major TV network until it got slashed at the beginning of the oar. So after about 2002, Channel 9 got slashed to the bone. Channel 10 was always the third place TV network. So Channel 9 was the TV network aimed at, you know, the power players. It was number one, it was, you know, secretaries had big tits and more high heels and its executives drove, you know, expensive cars and had luscious offices. And when there'd be an advertising break during a Sunday night movie of the week, like the sewage department would be able to tell that everyone was going to the bathroom and flushing. Right. So that's how dominant Channel 9 was. Well, Channel 7 was kind of aimed at a suburban audience. It was more, it was more bogan.  And then Channel 10, what audience is Channel 10 aimed at? Is that aimed at the audience stuff? So 7 has become the number one network as far as I know in the past 15 years. So they've been very successful at the suburban audience. So Channel 7, like they all encouraged their guests to come on the morning show and call the host by their nicknames. Right. But what's the audience for the Channel 10?  Now in the early 1990s, all the three Australian networks were bought. So the Lowy family who owned shopping centers, what was the name of their shopping center? And also, I think Frank Lowy, the patriarch, he tried to secure the World's Cup for Australia. It spent $40 million, but they weren't able to secure it. Went to Qatar thinking about the major shopping centers that the Lowy family owned in, mainly in California and Australia. Anyway, the Lowy family bought Channel 10 and they spent big buying Westfield. Yeah, Lowy family owns Westfield. So in the early 90s, they bought I think Channel 10 and then there was a new owner for Channel 9. And then there was this scam artist who bought Channel 7 and they all went bankrupt within a year or two. They dramatically increased how much money they were paying for American TV programming because Australia is a nation of $25 million. They can't afford to fund all its own TV programming. So they have to buy most of their TV programming from America. And so when you got new owners, they went to America and they just paid exorbitant prices. And so they all went broke and busted and they had to sell out. Yeah, that was my Pat Dingo, man. That Dingo took my baby. So I like the ABC. So the ABC probably aims at an average IQ about 110. So it's a national broadcaster. It's like equivalent of PBS but more lavishly funded. So I've been watching the Australian TV comedy Fisk, which is about a woman in her 50s who gets hired at a probate law firm. SBS, yeah, a lot of good stuff on SBS. That's the multicultural broadcaster. So, but they have ads. So I really like ABC. There's no advertising. SBS is just a small amount of advertising. ABC is run by left as well. It's run by elite. Yeah, it does lean left, but it's much more intelligent than the commercial networks, which dole out the parole feed, right? The Australian commercial networks probably aim at an average IQ of about 95. Well, I feel like the average American TV network aims at an average IQ of 98 to 100. SBS used to have raunchy European movies at night. So even the public broadcasters, they still need to command an audience. But I think there's a lot of good stuff on the ABC. I'm trying to think of they did a good dramatic series on the fires in Victoria. And what was the... Well, they just did a series I watched about a girl gets out of prison after serving 10 years for manslaughter. Good-looking Sheila. That goes back to a hometown where she's not too welcome. So I check out what's on the ABC, and then I go to IMDb to see what its ratings are. They did a good series, News Reader, about the TV station, I think, in Sydney, and the various news readers at the station. 10 years for manslaughter in this country. Yeah, well, I told you it's a fictional show on the ABC. Right? So I think the average motor in the United States prior to the 1980s only served about six years. It's only once Republicans got into power, massively up incarceration, that we managed to get a handle on the crime rate. Okay, so why do people get so depressed about the success of talentless hacks? Right? It's a lot easier to gain a large audience if you're aiming for an average IQ of 95. Now, at the turn of the century, they were making huge profits during 9-11, everyone was reading all the stuff. Then the internet broke through, and all of these local papers went under. The big boys kind of had enough institutional weight. The newspapers went under because they had an artificial business model. Right? The business model wasn't journalism. It was that they had the monopoly on classified ads. As soon as they lost that monopoly, they could no longer fund journalism. All right? So journalism has rarely paid for itself. The internet introduced more reality into the journalism business. We need to continue. But, you know, they have found a way to monitor. Underbelly was a great TV series. I watched the first season twice. I watched every episode of Underbelly. Sappos is short for septic tank, which is short for American. Oh yeah, another big difference between British, Australian, and American TV. So in American TV, when someone does something bad, like do drugs or have irresponsible sex, they always get punished usually in the same episode. But in British and Australian TV, they may not get punished at all, or it may not even happen that same season. So American TV is much more moralistic. Now, if someone does something bad, they have to get punished right away in that episode. So American TV and movies much more optimistic. Many more happy endings. So British and Australian shows have more of a fatalistic understanding of life. Monetize their subscriptions and things like that. But like, whenever I go to a local news article, and they're like, you know, do you want to read this article for $7.99 or do you want to sign up for like $1.99 per month to read this paper? I'm just like, no. You know what I'm saying?  Yeah, that's okay. Yeah. And so they're able, like how is that going to get monetized? Porn is another thing. Like through, not even before Pornhub, like you could just kind of find free porn through various means. And so it was like, who's paying for this? Well, people want connection. Like people want connection with their favorite actresses, with their favorite pundits, with their favorite journalists, with their favorite rabbis. All right. So just getting free stuff on the internet doesn't always cut it. And yeah. But then like only fans was able to re-monetize it. And in the same way, like people talking about the news to you, if that is also a way to monetize it, yeah, it's remarkable. The way of monetizing trust, essentially. And trust is a huge amount of money. Yes. I mean, look, it's kind of what we're doing here. Let's also be brutally honest. But I'm just going to tell you, I'm not going to like, you guys can tell me to go in some direction. You're going to have to make a compelling argument. Like I am who I am.    Go ahead. Oh, I was saying, I like to think this is more like a school. But on the topic of people like Tim Pool, you know, a lot of distant material has long been called intellectual pornography, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly. A lot of the so-called intellectual porn is actually factual and, you know, kept out of the mainstream. But I think that episode really applies to people like Fuentes, but also people, especially people who are allowed in the mainstream, like Tim Pool, like, I don't know, Stephen Crowder, Joe Rogan, etc. Because all they do is provide a certain emotion, which is kind of free-floating ressentiment where you're never challenged. Right. So it's low-brow hard-on fuel. So like pornography delivers an immediate hit. And so when you call this stuff political pornography, right, you're just saying that it's feeding into these resentments to these easily accessed emotions that people don't have to work for it. So with pornography, people don't have to work for, you know, understanding the narrative arc. Never have to assimilate new information.  Yes. So like if you watch Tim Pool, and it will never be consistent because he doesn't have a whirlpool. So John Smith, you live in Australia. You thought you were blocked? No, I can see all your comments. So how do you like living in Australia? Like have you lived overseas? Do you value living in a high-trust, highly cohesive society where most people feel like the government for all its flaws is on their side?  Yes. I see that actually even further than that. I mean, I've noticed that with like the crystal ball and in Jetty. Like I don't watch them a lot. I remember watching them quite a bit during 2020. Hold on one moment here. Come on, Richard, I'm trying to do a show. You sort of present them as an expert, like Joe Rogan. It's sort of weird though, because he'll have on Tulsi Gabbard. They don't have on like Peter, you know, by my gold shekel shift. It's like, dude, what's that? Like what direction are you going in, man? Like also to go back to this, the idea of free-floating is that so much of it is like meta criticism. So what I was talking about with Crystal and Sagar and Jetty, look, are they the worst? No, they're not the worst. And sometimes they'll have some pretty good takes and whatever. I don't want to really totally throw them under the bus, but it just seems like the entirety of like, what are they actually saying? What is your actual take? It is that cable news just isn't doing their job or like people don't trust the mainstream media.  It's like an empty ideal. You know, like the question isn't democracy, but like what are you voting for? Or are you an individual? Okay, like what does that mean?    So, you know, it's just this kind of like, again, free-floating resentment is probably the best way to describe it.  They're all, they're not getting it right. What are you actually saying? I mean, the irony of like Sagar and Jetty and Crystal Ball is that like the value that I get from them is when they're kind of like giving me a pretty like mainstream accurate assessment of a world, you know, you know, it's like when they act like the news, but it's just a little more friendly and accessible, that's like when I gain value from them. And when they kind of go deep into what they're all about, I'm just like, pass. Provide any concrete solutions to anything. It's just, it's like, it's like resentment for, is what it is. Yeah, you know.  Yeah, those guys boil it down to hormone economics. Look, we can only handle so much dissonance in our life, right? We all need comfort. And if your life is chaotic, then you're going to have a much more of a need for you know, pre, pre-masticated punditry, right? If you're having a hard time with life, right? You're going to need comfort wherever you can get it. And so I think that's what's going on with many people when it comes to their entertainment choices. Look sunglasses, we are not allowed to look in his eyes.  If you're functional, if you're navigating your way through life effectively, you have less need for external comfort, such as punditry that only fits with your prejudices, right? You're more prepared to struggle in your choices of movies, TV shows, podcasts, books, right? But if your life is a mess, if you're filled with fear, anxiety, rage, depression, sadness, then you're going to have much more of a need for comfort from your pundits and from your books and from your magazines and from your podcasts, right? If you haven't achieved the inner peace, then you'll try to mainline it artificially and you won't be able to handle a contrary perspective. Everything boils down to economics on the micro level, even in some capacity. It's sort of astounding, quite frankly. What's going on? We would get rid of... Yeah, it is pretty meaningless at the end of the day. Is that power of that personality? I don't understand how he's not repulsed by Candace Bowen's personality. Politics aside, just listening to her talk, she is so unlikeable to me, but no one else seems to be that. Well, I think everyone sees that. I mean, it's just a power... For a certain segment of the audience, a black woman reiterating their talking points is just... You might as well be showing them porn, right? It's actually just a huge part of it. Okay, so there's something for what you're having there that we didn't want to take your life on. Yeah, everything. I don't know of a braver pundit in America today than Candace Owens. I mean, I think she's incredibly brave. Luke leaves the US before the big vote. Australians is bug out, bug loose spot. So there was a big COVID outbreak in Los Angeles right after I left. But a lot of people trash Candace Owens. I think she's incredibly brave. She provides a lot of value as a pundit. I put her in my top five pundits along with Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson, Mickey Carlson. Also, it's interesting. She... I noticed this whenever I'll see her. She's straightened her hair, and she kind of is giving off a very strong white vibe. And I doubt she was doing that like five years ago. No, I think that the way she talks, like, this is what I hear every time she talks. Standard, trach, cliches of conservatism, and it's in this voice. The left can't stop losing. Yeah, exactly. It is really annoying. But also, I saw this on... Again, I do kind of cursory research, but I think I don't want to spend too much time on conservatives. But I remember when I was looking into John Doyle, and I actually did listen to his entire thing on Russia, which he said three things for an hour and a half over and over again. But he was interviewed by Candace Owens. Like, he was on. And all they were doing was reacting to libs of TikTok videos. So they just had them on, and they were showing these crazy kindergarten teachers talking about. Okay, so they're appealing to a 100 IQ audience. What do I think about Colin Liddell's insinuation that Richard Spencer is the Fed? I don't agree with it. But it is interesting that Michael Edison, Hayden, the gay Southern Poverty Law Center journalist, and the TAC dog researcher, how protective he is of Richard Spencer. That's kind of weird. And implying that he knows things that other people don't know and that everyone should just lay off Richard Spencer. It's kind of weird that an Antifa lefty journalist like Michael Edison, Hayden of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is so protective of Richard Spencer. He's on gender and stuff like that. And he's like, I just can't believe it. It's like, wow, get help, please. It's like, okay. That's a huge part of it now. He's Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro. They're doing reaction videos like they... Matt Walsh is really funny. He's really smart, really talented, man. He's very clever. Very funny. Yes. And these are exactly what you just said, Richard. And but yeah, all these retards are just letting it out. Yeah. Well, why are these pundits like doing these like cringy things? Because they're trying to make a living. It's not easy making a living from punditry. Like journalism is rarely paid for itself. Punditry is rarely paid for itself. National review, New Republic, never been financially sustainable, financially independent. They've always required subsidies. So people who want to make a living have to give an audience what it wants to hear. Right? Those are just part of the challenges of being in business. And it's very similar because I imagined that. That was, at least in my experience, that was coming from people doing entertainment journalism.  And you know, like... Look, if journalism is never paid for itself, then you have to move outside of journalism if you want to get the funding to do journalism. Right? If you want to get the funding to do journalism, you have to break the mold of journalism, step outside of journalism, and try to do things that are popular that will get funding, that will then enable you to do the things you really want to do. Well, like the new rise of Skywalker trailer just drops. Like, let me show you the Easter eggs or whatever. And then certainly like reviewing movies in this kind of reaction way. And it's kind of funny how that whole genre has kind of like moved into politics, where, yeah, Matt Walsh, like that's what he does. He has a... Matt Walsh probably does have a basic worldview that's kind of Protestant, very Goldwater Protestantism. But you know, there's not a whole lot there. But it's basically just like... I think Matt Walsh is highly intelligent, very skilled, very funny. Like, I think he's at absolute top of his game. The thumbs up to Matt Walsh. This young man, his name is Barry Nelson. He is a man, born one, and he is now pretending to be a woman. And he is doing makeup tutorials on YouTube. And this is what he has to say, and he apparently thinks chromosomes don't exist. Well, that's new to us. Do you think you could find what a woman is? I'm not sure.  I can do this. I can do this, honestly. Look, Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes, and Tim Pool, they all have to make their living. They all try to make their living from their online efforts. Therefore, they have to pander to a lower IQ audience the Richard Spencer does, who's independently wealthy. Right? When you're independently wealthy, when you have independent financial support, when you don't depend upon maximizing your audience size, then you can afford to be more high-brow, to be more intellectually responsible. Right? It's a lot easier to do the right thing when you've got money in the bank. Right? When you're responsible for, say, the employment of dozens of people, which is the case with Ben Shapiro and other people at the Daily Wire, then you have to take that into consideration and do things that attract a large audience to keep that money flowing in.  But then it's Richard doing something that I have longed on, is I always try to look at people through varying perspectives and try to think, oh, through this angle, I'm superior to this person. Through this angle, I'm braver than this person. From this angle, I'm deeper than this person. From this angle, I have more clarity than this person. From this angle, I'm telling tougher truths than this person's willing to say. Right? I think this is a universal human compulsion to favorably compare ourselves to others. And I think that I probably had it, you know, much more intensely than the average person. Howard Stern in the 2010s went full-on to professional interviews. Yeah, I haven't heard much positive about Howard Stern in about 20 years. Seems to have lost his edge. Bye-bye.


Let's look just a little closer at the gross anatomy of the lungs So the lungs have two sides the right side and the left side The right lung is made up of three lobes the superior the middle and the inferior lobe and The left side is made up of two lobes the superior and inferior The reason the left lung only has two lobes is because the heart takes up a lot of space in The left side of the chest and the thorax as you can see here This is about the typical location of the heart The carina, which is the split of the bronchus into the right and left bronchus This is immediately posterior to the ascending aorta Which then turns and returns Back down towards the feet Another important feature to know regarding the lungs involves aspiration of foreign bodies The right lung is the most common site for inhaled or aspirated foreign bodies to end up because that right main stem bronchus is More vertical and it's also wider than the less main stem bronchus If a patient aspirates a foreign body while lying down on their back or in the supine position You will usually see that foreign body enter the superior segment of the right lower lobe Which is in this region here if a patient aspirates a foreign body while lying on their right side That foreign body will usually enter the right upper lobe Here and as we just mentioned when a patient is standing upright that foreign body will usually enter the right lower lobe here Let's move on and discuss the diaphragm. It's important to note as you Remember where structures pass through the diaphragm that the diaphragm isn't flat as you see in this picture The diaphragm rests against the inferior portions of the lungs and will expand and contract from that normal resting position This is an inferior view of the diaphragm looking at the underside of the diaphragm from the abdomen As you can see there are three openings in the diaphragm that allow structures to pass from the thorax into the abdomen The location of these openings, especially the location in relation to the vertebrae are very important You see here the blue structure is the inferior vena cava It also has the right phrenic nerve passing with it. This passes through the diaphragm at T8 Immediately to that is the esophagus That passes through the diaphragm at T10 and Posture to that is the descending aorta that passes through at T12 Along with the aorta is the thoracic duct the azygous vein You can remember these structures using the mnemonic I 8 10 eggs at 12 so the Inferior vena cava comes through at 8 The esophagus comes through at 10 The aorta and the thoracic duct come through at 12 Also note that the diaphragm is Intervated by the phrenic nerve the phrenic nerve finds its roots in C3 C4 and C5 an easy way to remember this is that C3 C4 and C5 Keep the diaphragm alive This is also an important Association as to why any pain from the diaphragm or irritation of the diaphragm such as air blood Infection can be referred to the shoulder or around the C5 area Because that is where the origination of the phrenic nerve comes from


What's going on and welcome to the solo shot? My name is Tom Vecchio. We have a nine game MLB slate tonight It is starting at 7 0 5 as always is one of the many shows on the fan dual podcast network You can find that anywhere whether it's Apple podcast whether it's Spotify the video version can be found on the fan dual YouTube page can be found on fendal TV plus and fendal com slash watch You can follow me on Twitter at Tom underscore Vecchio one Before we hop into things get ready for the NFL season with incredible offers from fendal America's number one sports But right now new customers can bet $5 and get 200 in bonus bets Guaranteed plus all customers who bet $5 will get 100 off NFL Sunday ticket from YouTube and YouTube TV Now is the best time to join fendal the app is easy to use and you can bet on everything from spreads to player props and more Fandal official partner of the NFL must be 21 plus and present in select States Fandals offering online sports wagering in Kansas under an agreement with Kansas Dark Casino LLC first online real money wager only $10 first positive priority bonus issued as non-drable bonus bets that expire seven days after a seat Restrictions apply see terms at sportsbook.fando.com gambling problem call 1 800 gambler or visit fando.com slash R gene If you're in Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Tennessee or Virginia Call 1 800 next step or text next step to 5 3 3 4 2 in Arizona Call 1 8 8 8 7 8 9 7 7 7 7 or visit ccpg.org slash chat in Connecticut If you're in Indiana call 1809 with it If you're in Kansas call 1 800 5 2 2 4 7 0 0 or visit chaos gambling help.com in Louisiana call 1 8 7 7 7 7 0 stop In Maryland visit md gambling help.org Visit 1 800 gambler net in west virginia or in wyoming call 1 800 5 2 2 4 7 0 0 Hope is here visit gambling help line ma.org or call 800 3 2 7 5 0 5 0 4 24 7 support in massachusetts Call 1 800 8 hope and why or text hope and why in new york Enfield sunday ticket offer ends 9 18 23 no refunds terms and embargoes apply 100 off and for sunday ticket not youtube tv YouTube tv base plan required to watch youtube tv redemption requires google count and current form payment commercial use excluded All right, let's get into tonight's nine game mlb slate again lock is set for 705 Really know whether issues for the games on this slate if you're playing a a main slate or Not the main slate I should say if you're playing not the main slate some type of extended slate Some type of all day slate keep in mind that there are a couple double headers going on today between the yankees and the red socks The royals and the white socks Along with a few games starting at like 6 30 some of those games could have some rain So if you're playing an extended slate keep an eye on that in terms of the main slate We're actually pretty clear when it comes to weather In minnesota, it's going to be about 60 degrees and there's a little bit of wind blowing in So that should be a nice bump for pitchers there Other than that we are looking pretty good. And again, we do have cores fueled on tonight's late as we did last night Let's jump into the pitching You know, we have some really good pitchers on tonight's late starting off with freddy peralta at 10 10500 just in verlander 10.3 max scherzer 10.1 joe ryan At 9.9. So we have four different pitchers right at this 10k mark. Michael walk is also 9.7 And i'll say i have no interest in michael walker tonight, especially at that elevated salary Going up against the dodgers not a spot that i like to go So no interest in michael walkham brian woo is 9500 going up against the los angeles angel's certainly a spot that i'll be looking to go It really comes down to this top tier tonight peralta peralta verlander scherzer and ryan all within 200 of each other at you know decreasing 10.5 10.3 10.1 And 9.9 for these pitchers freddy peralta comes in An absolutely awesome 30.8 strikeout rate He does an 8.7 walk rate which has kind of been this thing throughout really the entirety of his career where He can lack command, you know on the mound at times and he allows a few too many fly balls And you know that can come back to bite him when he allows a runner or two on for free And then all of a sudden we have a home run allowed and that's where the downside With freddy peralta comes but really the upside is what we want to be focusing on With a 30.8 strikeout rate, which is absolutely awesome He has a 3.57 skill interactive era sierra and as i mentioned He's mostly a fly ball pitcher at 41.5 percent this season. He has mostly medium contact though at 51.9 percent Not to mention the fact that he's an awesome 14.3 swinging strike rate He we know he can pile up those strikeouts pretty pretty quickly And we've seen him reach for his ceiling of you know double digit strikeouts many times this year He's at home in milwaukee going up against the miami marlins The marlins actually come in with a 20.5 strikeout rate versus right-handed pitcher with their current active roster Which is actually 24th in a league. So they're rather disciplined at the plate They're not giving away too many chances, but we like attacking the marlins Simply due to the fact that they have a 94 wrc plus versus righties with their current active roster, which is 22nd in the league And they also come in with a team iso sitting at 149, which is 26 in the league So they don't have a lot of power or consistency in their lineup and sure they're not striking out a whole lot But really this is just a great matchup to be looking to as we've kind of done throughout the entirety of the season You know and I would say over the past few years. Yeah, they're striking out less this season compared to years in pass But still they're not a powerful offense not an offense. We need to be too worried about overall So peralta is absolutely in a great spot Now when it comes to justin verlander This is where and I'll say something about justin verlander and really all these pitchers peralta verlander scherzer and ryan We're split in hairs here very very Minutely between them in terms of salary as I said 200 apart decreasing for each of them in terms of their matchups Whatever it might be Verlander is at home for the astros going up against oakland oakland has a 24.6 strike all right versus righties with their current active roster Which is the fifth worst in league so substantially worse compared to Miami oakland comes with a 91 wrc plus And a 158 iso versus righty So basically online with the marlins, but they strike out at a much higher clip But verlander himself has a much lower strike array compared to freddy peralta verlander Is that 21 percent this year 7.1 percent walk rate and 1.06 home runs per night He also as you would assume In terms of the sierra as he's you know been okay this year It's at 4.53. It's actually trending in the right direction. You know since he's been with the astros So what do we have here? We have verlander who's in a matchup against oakland who strike out more compared to miami They're roughly the same in terms of their offensive power overall But verlander himself doesn't have as high of a strikeout rate as freddy peralta And verlander is 200 less expensive Then we move to max scherzer and max scherzer comes in with a 28.6 strikeout rate Which is kind of comparative comparison to freddy peralta much higher than verlander Scherzer's allowing 1.71 home runs per nine. He has a 7.3 walk rate We look at some of his other stuff. His sierra is better than verlander at 3.74 He is still mostly a fly ball pitcher at 48.8 percent But he's mostly a medium contact pitcher at 49.2 percent, but Verlander excuse me scherzer Scherzer is going up against the blue jays, which is absolutely a more difficult matchup compared to verlander going up against oakland So scherzer has a better strikeout rate compared to verlander But it's a much more difficult matchup the blue jays also come in with a 20.3 strikeout rate, which is 26th Only but they also have a 107 wrc plus So there are better offense that strikes out less But scherzer himself has a higher strikeout rate and the same can be said about joe ryan Where joe ryan is absolutely a solid pitcher comes in the 29.1 strikeout rate a very low 4.8 percent walk rate He does allow 1.72 home runs per nine Which i do expect to regress because he's still mostly a medium contact pitcher at 51.3 percent Along with a 3.47 sierra.  It's good, which is good to see So as I said, we are splitting hairs between all of them now when we look at the matchup for joe ryan He's at home as I said, there's a little bit of wind blowing in at minnesota. It's also a little bit cooler He's going up against the tampa bay rays who come up with a 24.2 strikeout rate versus varieties Which is the seventh worst in the league So they are comparative to oakland who's at 24.6 with their current active roster versus varieties and tampa is actually striking Out a good amount right now, but They've a 121 wrc plus and a 196 iso. So they are the best offense out of this group But joe ryan's also the least expensive and joe ryan has a very solid 29.1 strikeout rate So as I said, it's like positives and negatives for all of these pictures where Peralta has the highest strikeout rate, but he's going up against a team that strikes out at the lowest rate Verlander has the lowest strikeout rate, but he's going up against a team that has the highest strikeout rate ryan is the least expensive and he has a solid strikeout rate But he's also going up against the most dangerous offense in tampa So we are dealing with like very very minute details between all of these pictures What it comes down to is how are we actually going to be ranking them? You know, that's what matters How are how should we be prioritizing these four pictures? So right now? I'm going to go peralta one Verlander two ryan three and then sherser four And I'm putting sherser fourth simply due to the offense and if I'm if I'm getting to 10.1 I would rather just get up to 10.5 for peralta I'd rather find that 400 of salary the strikeout rates are relatively comparable But I'll just take the easier matchup going up against miami compared to going up against the blue jays So that's how I'm going at right going at it right now peralta verlander ryan sherser in that order As I said, I have no interest in michael walker You know, you could go to brian woos at 9.5 But then at the same time like I said, why not get up to joe ryan? And go for that higher strikeout rate We have a whole you know cast the pictures on tonight's slate not really many that i'm interested in below this point Again, we do of course field so you know finding salary relief at picture is always helpful However, there's not too many spots that I'd be willing to go really, you know landslint at 9 000 He certainly has that strikeout rate, but you know the padres still have the offense even though they're inconsistent They still have the offense as we saw last night and a lot of power In their lineup, so it's not necessarily the spot that i'll be looking to go Joe ryan is probably the least expensive picture that i'm willing to go to right now Maybe hungen re you for the blue jays at 8.8 as the day goes on Depending on what the value looks like throughout the rest of the day When some starting lineups are announced and we actually have to start building some lineups that could change All right, let's get to the stacks on tonight's slate as I said, we have the we have course field on tonight's slate Don't necessarily want to talk about that too much You know we had some good amount of runs last night I think was nine total runs last night for the cubs and the rockies roster hitters at course field Surprise surprise you could always be going there. We have the dodgers on tonight's slate You can always be going to them They lost last night Well, it's at 11 to 7 11 to 6 whatever it was for the padres and the dodgers I'm always going to be willing to go to the dodgers with their home run upside as we saw last night It was max muncie and mookie bets with home runs if I remember correctly I'm still going to be going to the dodgers basically on a nightly basis outside of those teams Where do we want to be going? You know the the astros kind of just laid an egg last night and that happens It's baseball it's a weird sport weird stuff happens at times But I'm going to be willing to go right back to the astros tonight in a great matchup going up against jp sears you know, this is the spot where You know, we don't want to be having recency bias Against the astros.   So let me just roster hitters They are like that's fine because if the astros are going to be flying under the radar because they kind of burn people last night Well, that's just makes them a better tournament play When it's all said and done We look to jp sears. He's allowing 1.84 home runs per nine a 21.9 strike every which is nothing to worry about 6.7 walk rate, which is certainly fine Uh, we look to some of his other stats. He has a 274 babbit Which is fine expected to regress towards the league average So slightly a little bit higher 53.8% fly ball rate in a 4.61 sierra Is nothing we need to be worried about and again when it comes to the astros lineup They have plenty of power up and down their lineup and surprisingly chasma kormit That's right. Chasma kormit leads the way with a 193 wrc plus versus left-handed pitching this season He actually leads the astros which is a bit of a surprise kyle tuckers right behind him at 160 wrc plus and of course you can always go to your don alberas at 152 Jose al tuve who has specifically liked tonight hose al tuve 144 wrc plus.  He had a home run a couple days ago He's a player that I always want to be looking to when possible Uh, you know, of course you want to mix in now x breakman Uh, hose abrayu has been a bit too up and down for me this season where he's like soup He was super cold to start the year then he gets hot and he's cold Just not a player that I want to be going to al tuve alvarez Tucker breakman mccormick or the five that I want to be targeting of course getting Three of them or three or at least three of them in my lineup where possible I don't want to have too much exposure to some of the value plays On the astros. I think we can look elsewhere for that No diaz painia whatever the players are at the bottom of their lineup mires Really no one I have a whole lot of interest in it's about getting up to the top sluggers from the Astros tonight I don't think that is too much of a shock al tuve alvarez. Tucker breakman mccormick or the players you're on beginning to and again Chas mccormick at 3500. He's the cheapest among this group of five He actually leads the team with a 193 w r c plus So yes chas mccormick absolutely looking there Now where else can we be going on tonight's late? I particularly have a lot of interest in the mezz and the diamond backs game Both sides of this Jose buto for the mezz is on the mound ryan nelson is on the mound for the arizona dime backs neither picture We need to be worried about And I think this presents a lot of upside for All sides it's it's a little bit warm At city field for the mezz a little bit of wind blowing out I didn't mention the top. It's not like a massive mount But it's a good hitting environment compared to some of the other spots on tonight's late Even though it is a bit of a pictures park for the mezz Jose buto for the mezz. He only has 21 innings pitch at the major league level this season He had four innings pitch at the major league level last year. So not a massive massive sample size He has a 16 walk rate and that's obviously Insanely bad and a 17 strike rate, which is far below the league average again. It's a very very small sample size from him He's only allowing 0.43 home runs per nine He is mostly a medium contact ground ball picture and his bab is sitting at 274 But given what we've seen from him at least some of the minor league stats that we see with a 314 babith This is a spot that we should really expect to Expect him to progress along with the fact that he allowed 1.68 home runs per nine in AAA this season And this was a 91 innings pitch So it seems that he's like running a little bit hot at least to start the season again It's like 21 innings at the major league level this year So I expected him to start giving up more home runs more balls in play that will actually start going for hits And yes, a 16 walk rate is insanely high, but he had an 11.8 walk rate again at AAA this year 91 innings so He may not be at 16, but it's not like he's going to drop to four So him falling to eight nine 10 walk rate Would be you know averaging out and that kind of finding its middle ground But that's a bad walk rate and and with an offense like the diamond backs on the other side I will take them going up against jose uto And yes, they have a lot of power at the top of their lineup Of course, Corbin Carroll can get on base steal two three bases hit a home run Another type of player you want in any single line up But could tell marté is always a viable option christian walker is always a viable option lorda scurriel Is always a viable option? We have plenty of players that we can be going to For the Arizona diamond backs and you know, they also offer a bit of value which is good to see You know al thomas at 2,500 We could be certainly getting into some lineups like this is a team that i'm interested in stacking tonight because of their matchup And also because of some of the value that they bring You know given their lineup now when it comes to the Mets, they're going up against ryan nelson for the diamond backs Again, another pitcher. We really don't need to be worried about He has a seven percent walk rate, which is certainly fine and this season 2023 for him he has 130 130.2 innings pitch. So this is a good sample size for nelson Uh seven percent walk rate is certainly fine a 15.2 strike rate is so so low compared to the league average And he's allowing 1.5 to home runs per nine. He's mostly a fly ball pitcher at 43.5 percent He has a 5.25 skill interactive era and he comes in allowing a 37 hard contact rate So he's a pitcher that is not dominant on the mound with a very low 15.2 strike rate And he's allowing too many fly balls and yes the Mets have been underperforming or You know, whatever you want to call it overall in terms of the season But they still have power in their lineup obviously led by pita lanza at $4,000 You can of course go to indoor nimo Any of these other players, you know, jeff mcneal, whoever else makes their lineup I'm going to be interested in that simply do the fact that The diamond backs pitching staff is not good. You know, that's one spot They should have improved at the deadline at least in my opinion And they didn't really make any moves to do so A matchup where we have two teams that both have implied run totals at 4.96 or higher The Mets are at was at 4.96 and the dime backs are at 5.04 like this is expected to be a high scoring game I want exposure to both sides of it And again, there's a bit of value whether it's dj steward for the Mets You know al thomas for the dime backs as I mentioned I guess I you could say it's a revenge game for tommy fam Who's now on the dime backs the match traded him to the diamond backs earlier this season You could roll with that as well So both sides of Mets diamond backs, I think are worth stacking tonight We have course field on tonight's slate, which is of course worth stacking We have the Dodgers on tonight's slate, of course, they're always worth stacking And then I'm particularly high on houston. I just expect a bounce back spot for them After just a dud of a game last night. It happens. It's baseball teams get shut out It is what it is But I'll be willing to go right back to the dod going right back to the astros tonight going up against jp sears Let's get to the dinger calls to close things out Going to go with hose al-tube as I mentioned Big on him tonight going up against jp sears al-tube a player that can really go for multiple home runs Not only this season as we've seen him recently last week But over the course of his career a player that can you know, hit it lead off home run Get on base again score another run whatever might be always interested in getting that type of player Into my lineups and then cody bellinger at cores field for the chicago cubs. This is obviously a pretty one He's 40 pretty easy one. He's 4600 tonight. Obviously. It's a very very expensive salary but The upside that he brings the consistency that he's had this season and that was at the best hitters park in the Lee is certainly a spot that i'll always be looking to get exposure So cody bellinger and hose al-tube for the two dinger calls tonight All right, so that does it for today's podcast Is always this one of the many shows on the fandal podcast network You can find that whether it's on apple podcast whether it's on spotify the video version Going to be found on the fandal youtube page Going to be found on fandal tv plus going to found on fandal comm slash watch You can follow me on twitter at tom underscore vekia one until next time. Good luck with your contest