Weekly Roundup: What In The World Is Happening??

💥 What We Have In Store

The Deep Dive team unearths a chaotic confluence of radical US foreign policy, the collapse of media institutions, and administrative failures in sports and travel. The central theme is the frantic battle for control—over territory, narrative, and capital—in a system where global stability can be undone by a software glitch or an unpaid invoice.

Chapters

• 0:00 The Battle for Ideology and Territory
• 11:44 The Battle for Capital and Eyeballs
• 19:41 Chaos and Administrative Failure

Transcript

[Speaker 2] (0:00 - 0:12)
Welcome back to the Deep Dive. This week, our sources have just, I mean, they've dropped us into this incredible mix of chaos, high-stakes geopolitics, and just some truly stunning failures across the board.

[Speaker 1] (0:12 - 0:26)
It's a wild collection. We're talking about a complete reorientation of American foreign policy. You have media giants in what feels like a death spiral, and then these moments of just absurdity in sports and travel.

[Speaker 2] (0:26 - 0:32)
Right. And it feels like the central theme this week, the thing connecting all these dots, is this idea of control.

[Speaker 1] (0:32 - 0:42)
Exactly. Who's in control? Who controls territory?

Who controls the narrative? Who controls the flow of money? Our mission today is to connect these things that, on the surface, seem totally unrelated.

[Speaker 2] (0:42 - 0:47)
From a new presidential doctrine all the way down to the fine print that strips a world champion of his title.

[Speaker 1] (0:48 - 1:01)
It's a dense stack of material, and we want to promise you that we're going to tackle the really serious stuff. And there's some very serious stuff here, especially allegations of human rights abuses, with the careful sourcing and the impartiality that it demands.

[Speaker 2] (1:02 - 1:06)
We'll be really clear when we're reporting the contents of a specific analysis or a UN report.

[Speaker 1] (1:06 - 1:19)
Absolutely. But we also have to keep an eye on the moments of just inherent ridiculousness. Like you said, the boxer losing his belt over a fee, those moments kind of keep the whole chaotic picture in perspective.

[Speaker 2] (1:19 - 1:39)
I think that balance is what makes this so essential. So, okay, let's get into it. Let's start with the heaviest topic first.

Section one, the battle for ideology and territory. So we begin with the new national security strategy, the NSS. The Trump administration released it on December 4th, and the rollout itself was weird.

[Speaker 1] (1:39 - 1:46)
It was very strange. It came out late at night, almost no fanfare, and experts are already calling it, and this is a quote, more polemic than policy.

[Speaker 2] (1:46 - 1:49)
A polemic. So less of a strategy and more of an argument.

[Speaker 1] (1:49 - 2:01)
That's the idea. It's a radical departure from previous versions. What's immediately striking is just how different the ideological lens is.

The 2025 document is all about strict non-interventionism and America first.

[Speaker 2] (2:01 - 2:05)
Which means a deep skepticism of our allies of multinational agreements, that kind of thing.

[Speaker 1] (2:06 - 2:11)
Right. If you compare it to, say, the 2022 NSS, the difference is night and day.

[Speaker 2] (2:11 - 2:12)
How so?

[Speaker 1] (2:12 - 2:21)
Well, the 2022 strategy was all about strengthening democracy, preserving the world order, managing competition within a framework everyone agreed on.

[Speaker 2] (2:21 - 2:22)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (2:22 - 2:37)
This new one just turns that completely on its head. It treats international institutions with suspicion. Allies are seen as burdens or even competitors.

And it explicitly puts domestic security and economic nationalism above any kind of global consensus.

[Speaker 2] (2:38 - 2:44)
And the bizarre rollout, you know, dropping it late at night without a big speech, what does that signal?

[Speaker 1] (2:44 - 2:54)
It's a huge signal, or a lack of one. The consensus in our sources is that this suggests the White House basically sees the NSS as a box-checking exercise.

[Speaker 2] (2:54 - 2:58)
So it's just a legal requirement they had to fulfill, not a binding strategy they actually intend to follow.

[Speaker 1] (2:58 - 3:06)
That seems to be the interpretation. If the authors themselves don't treat it as binding, it just craters the credibility of the document for everyone else. Allies, adversaries, everyone.

[Speaker 2] (3:07 - 3:17)
But hold on. If you're an ally and you read a document that says the U.S. plans to cultivate resistance inside your country, which we'll get to, how can you just discount that?

[Speaker 1] (3:17 - 3:19)
You can't. And that's the core problem here.

[Speaker 2] (3:20 - 3:22)
The threat is on the page, whether they follow through or not.

[Speaker 1] (3:23 - 3:38)
Precisely. The intent is clear. So for allies, it serves as this public declaration of, frankly, hostile intent.

They have to plan for a worst-case scenario where the U.S. is no longer a reliable partner. It forces them to hedge their bets.

[Speaker 2] (3:39 - 3:42)
Which, in the long run, just accelerates the decline of U.S. influence.

[Speaker 1] (3:42 - 3:44)
Exactly. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Speaker 2] (3:45 - 3:51)
Okay. So let's get into the content, because it's pretty radical. First up, this reprioritization of the Western Hemisphere to priority number one.

[Speaker 1] (3:52 - 4:01)
This is a truly startling shift. You have to go back decades, to like 1987 or 2006, to find a time when the Western Hemisphere was seen as the single highest priority.

[Speaker 2] (4:01 - 4:05)
And even then, it was usually in the context of the Cold War or counterterrorism.

[Speaker 1] (4:05 - 4:16)
Right. To prioritize it now, over Asia, over Europe, over the Middle East, it signals this profound strategic retrenchment. Critics are calling it an isolationist retreat.

[Speaker 2] (4:16 - 4:21)
Basically ceding influence in other parts of the world, right when competitors are trying to expand theirs.

[Speaker 1] (4:21 - 4:30)
Exactly. And the threats that supposedly justify this shift are threefold. Mass migration, organized crime, and what they call hostile foreign incursion.

[Speaker 2] (4:31 - 4:33)
And the document spends a lot of time on migration.

[Speaker 1] (4:33 - 4:47)
A lot. It uses very controversial language. It calls for halting mass migration, a term they leave intentionally vague, so it covers both legal and illegal immigration.

And it says citizenship should be granted only rarely.

[Speaker 2] (4:48 - 4:49)
What's the justification they give for that?

[Speaker 1] (4:49 - 4:56)
The claims are pretty stark. The NSS says mass migration strains social cohesion, increases crime, and distorts labor markets.

[Speaker 2] (4:56 - 5:00)
Claims that are sources. Let's just say they push back on those pretty hard.

[Speaker 1] (5:00 - 5:13)
Oh, absolutely. The sources point out there is a mountain of academic research that questions these claims. But the strategy isn't interested in that nuance.

It frames the issue purely as a security risk and a national burden.

[Speaker 2] (5:13 - 5:18)
So the message to our neighbors is basically, help us control our border and we'll ease up on other stuff.

[Speaker 1] (5:19 - 5:26)
That seems to be the implication. Then you get to the cartels. The approach there is purely military.

[Speaker 2] (5:26 - 5:30)
Right. It calls for neutralizing them with lethal force using US military assets.

[Speaker 1] (5:30 - 5:46)
Correct. It's a classic case of framing a complex socioeconomic problem as a simple military one. And the analysis we have points out this massive glaring omission.

The document completely ignores the underlying business model of the cartels.

[Speaker 2] (5:46 - 5:47)
It's not just about drugs.

[Speaker 1] (5:48 - 5:59)
Not at all. It's about endemic corruption. It's about human trafficking, illegal mining.

And most importantly, it's about the sustained US and global demand for their products and services.

[Speaker 2] (5:59 - 6:06)
So if you just go after them with military force, but you don't address the corruption that lets them operate, you're basically just playing whack-a-mole.

[Speaker 1] (6:06 - 6:16)
Exactly. You're treating the symptoms, the violence, but you're not touching the disease, which is the systemic corruption. A strategy that ignores that is, you know, it's pretty much doomed from the start.

[Speaker 2] (6:16 - 6:27)
Okay. So let's shift over to Europe. If the Western hemisphere is now priority one, it feels like Europe, our oldest set of allies, has been demoted in a big way.

[Speaker 1] (6:27 - 6:39)
It's more than a demotion. This is probably the most ominous part of the entire document for the transatlantic relationship. The NSS frames Europe through this bizarre civilizational lens.

[Speaker 2] (6:39 - 6:41)
That's not normal language for a policy document.

[Speaker 1] (6:41 - 6:52)
It's the language of a culture critic, not a strategist. The document alleges Europe is suffering from economic stagnation, military weakness, and get this, civilizational erasure.

[Speaker 2] (6:52 - 6:53)
And what do they blame that on?

[Speaker 1] (6:53 - 6:58)
They explicitly attribute it to high levels of immigration and cratering birth rates.

[Speaker 2] (6:58 - 7:03)
So they've officially exported the culture wars and made them a pillar of U.S. foreign policy.

[Speaker 1] (7:03 - 7:14)
It certainly reads that way. And it gets worse. The NSS characterizes the European Union not as a partner, but as an adversary.

It accuses the EU of undermining the sovereignty of its member states.

[Speaker 2] (7:14 - 7:16)
And then comes the truly destabilizing part.

[Speaker 1] (7:16 - 7:20)
The pledge to actively endorse and cultivate resistance within European nations.

[Speaker 2] (7:20 - 7:27)
Using what they call patriotic parties, which our sources say is just code for far right parties.

[Speaker 1] (7:27 - 7:38)
That's the read. This is a declaration of meddling. No sovereign nation would tolerate an ally openly funding opposition parties designed to dismantle its core institutions.

[Speaker 2] (7:39 - 7:46)
It's an act of diplomatic hostility. So the test for being a good European partner isn't about shared democratic values anymore.

[Speaker 1] (7:46 - 8:00)
It seems not. It's about adherence to a specific brand of nationalist conservative values. Our sources suggest we could be seeing the end of the post-World War II alliance shifting toward what one analyst called an alliance of the liberals.

[Speaker 2] (8:00 - 8:04)
Unbelievable. So what about Russia in this new framework, our traditional rival?

[Speaker 1] (8:04 - 8:10)
Russia gets a surprisingly soft touch. The document actually declines to call Russia an adversary.

[Speaker 2] (8:10 - 8:11)
How do they phrase it?

[Speaker 1] (8:11 - 8:16)
It's this very strange wording. It says many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat.

[Speaker 2] (8:17 - 8:20)
So they're acknowledging what our allies think, but refusing to say it themselves.

[Speaker 1] (8:20 - 8:33)
Exactly. It's a way of distancing the U.S. view from the European view. Instead of confrontation, the document prioritizes the U.S.-Russia relationship, focusing on things like strategic stability and de-escalation.

[Speaker 2] (8:33 - 8:36)
Which seems totally at odds with, say, supporting Ukraine.

[Speaker 1] (8:36 - 8:53)
Well, it does mention Ukraine's survival as a viable state, but it offers no specifics on how to achieve that. And prioritizing stability with Moscow is basically telegraphing to Russia that arms control is more important to the U.S. than the security of its Eastern European allies.

[Speaker 2] (8:53 - 9:03)
Wow. That is, that's a heavy section. And we have to address this other claim that's emerged, where the president is apparently being hailed as the president of peace.

[Speaker 1] (9:03 - 9:11)
Right. For allegedly having settled eight raging conflicts. This is a huge claim, and the critical analysis we have finds it to be tendentious.

[Speaker 2] (9:11 - 9:13)
Meaning it's a bit of a stretch.

[Speaker 1] (9:13 - 9:18)
A big stretch, driven by an agenda. We should probably unpack these eight claims because the details really matter.

[Speaker 2] (9:18 - 9:19)
Okay, let's go through them.

[Speaker 1] (9:20 - 9:35)
So first you have two. Kosovo, Serbia, and Egypt, Ethiopia. The sources say there wasn't really an act of conflict to be extinguished in either case.

The underlying problems are still there, totally unresolved. So it was more like managing pensions than ending a war.

[Speaker 2] (9:35 - 9:37)
Okay, so that's two down. What's next?

[Speaker 1] (9:37 - 9:47)
The third is the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. That one had pretty much ended before this administration even took office. So taking credit for it is, you know, a bit retrospective.

[Speaker 2] (9:47 - 9:49)
Okay, that leaves five.

[Speaker 1] (9:49 - 10:01)
Then you have three ceasefires. India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, and Cambodia, Thailand. And while the administration may have helped lower the temperature, the sources describe all three of these as fraying.

They're incredibly fragile.

[Speaker 2] (10:01 - 10:03)
So they could reignite at any moment.

[Speaker 1] (10:03 - 10:06)
Very easily. And that leaves the last two, the big ones that are still in the headlines.

[Speaker 2] (10:07 - 10:09)
The DRC-Rwanda conflict and Israel-Hamas.

[Speaker 1] (10:09 - 10:23)
And our sources are very clear on this. These conflicts have hardly ended. The violence in the eastern DRC is still tragically high.

And the Israel-Hamas conflict continues despite some pauses. So the president of peace title seems very premature.

[Speaker 2] (10:24 - 10:29)
And it's so important to connect this political chaos back to the, you know, the human reality of it all.

[Speaker 1] (10:29 - 10:39)
Absolutely. The tension has these incredibly dark manifestations. We reviewed a UN report this week.

And we have to be extremely careful here. We are reporting the contents of the UN report itself.

[Speaker 2] (10:40 - 10:40)
Understood.

[Speaker 1] (10:41 - 10:51)
The report alleges that Israel has a de facto state policy of torture against Palestinian detainees. The claims in the report are just, they're horrific.

[Speaker 2] (10:51 - 10:52)
Like what?

[Speaker 1] (10:52 - 11:03)
Allegations that detainees were forced to act like animals, were urinated on by guards, denied medical care to the point where some required amputations. It's a stark reminder of the immense human toll of these conflicts.

[Speaker 2] (11:03 - 11:08)
It's just devastating. And yet, amid all that, we do see moments of international cooperation.

[Speaker 1] (11:08 - 11:19)
We do. In Sri Lanka, Cyclone Dittwa tragically claimed at least 80 lives. And India launched a rapid humanitarian response, Operation Sagar Bandhu, to rush relief materials.

[Speaker 2] (11:19 - 11:25)
So even with all the global tension, that core instinct to help in a disaster can still break through.

[Speaker 1] (11:25 - 11:33)
It's a heartening thing to see, yes. The Indian Navy sent an aircraft carrier. It shows that that kind of cooperation is still possible.

[Speaker 2] (11:33 - 11:44)
Okay, so that's a jarring, but I think necessary, transition from the battle for borders and territory to the battle for capital and eyeballs in our second section.

[Speaker 1] (11:44 - 11:53)
Yeah, if Section 1 was about nations fighting for dominance, Section 2 is about corporations fighting for survival. And the forces here are just as powerful.

[Speaker 2] (11:54 - 12:04)
Let's start with a huge one. The BBC. This is a massive public institution, and they're launching a radical plan called Project AIDA.

It sounds like a race to stay alive.

[Speaker 1] (12:04 - 12:13)
It's a critical survival measure. Project AIDA is designed to save a staggering 130 million pounds. That's about 162 million US dollars.

[Speaker 2] (12:13 - 12:15)
How are they planning to save that much money?

[Speaker 1] (12:15 - 12:27)
Primarily through outsourcing. They're looking at offloading thousands of non-content jobs, HR, finance, legal operations to private companies. The idea is to slim down to their core mission, which is making content.

[Speaker 2] (12:27 - 12:31)
A classic corporate move. But what about their digital products like iPlayer?

[Speaker 1] (12:31 - 12:40)
That's the other big piece. They're exploring spinning off a commercial unit to house the teams that run iPlayer and the BBC Sounds app.

[Speaker 2] (12:41 - 12:41)
Why do that?

[Speaker 1] (12:41 - 12:56)
Because operating under the rigid public service rules of the BBC limits their ability to innovate and, frankly, to make money. By spinning them off, they're trying to create a more agile commercial entity that can actually compete with Netflix or Spotify.

[Speaker 2] (12:56 - 13:02)
So it's an attempt to have it both ways. Keep the public service core, but build a commercial engine on the side.

[Speaker 1] (13:02 - 13:09)
That's exactly it. They're trying to build something that can attract top digital talent and capital, freed from all the bureaucracy.

[Speaker 2] (13:09 - 13:14)
Meanwhile, here in the US, we're seeing a massive power play in local news that's all about politics.

[Speaker 1] (13:15 - 13:25)
This brings us to Sinclair. Sinclair, which is already a giant in local broadcasting, has taken an 8.2% stake in EW scripts. And this is not a passive investment.

[Speaker 2] (13:25 - 13:26)
It's an aggressive move.

[Speaker 1] (13:26 - 13:31)
Very. It's a public push to combine the two largest local broadcasters in the country.

[Speaker 2] (13:31 - 13:35)
But wait, wouldn't that create a monopoly in some markets? Aren't there rules against that?

[Speaker 1] (13:35 - 13:44)
Yeah, there are, for now. Decades-old FCC ownership caps currently prevent a merger that big. But Sinclair's timing is everything.

[Speaker 2] (13:44 - 13:46)
They're betting the rules are about to change.

[Speaker 1] (13:46 - 13:58)
They are betting that the Trump-era FCC will roll back those ownership caps very soon. So they're positioning their assets now, trying to lock in the future of local broadcasting before the rules officially change.

[Speaker 2] (13:58 - 14:02)
It's financial leverage based entirely on a political calculation.

[Speaker 1] (14:02 - 14:04)
It's the ultimate fusion of politics and capital.

[Speaker 2] (14:04 - 14:14)
And while these giants are consolidating, we're seeing the older, more traditional models just collapse. We have to pour one out for the 208-year-old Farmers' Almanac.

[Speaker 1] (14:14 - 14:22)
Yes, the publication is shutting down after its 2026 issue. They're blaming growing financial challenges. It's a deeply symbolic loss.

[Speaker 2] (14:22 - 14:28)
It really is. It's not just about printing costs. It's the whole model.

Competition from the weather app on your phone.

[Speaker 1] (14:28 - 14:32)
Exactly. And we have to make a crucial clarification here for all the Almanac nerds out there.

[Speaker 2] (14:32 - 14:33)
A very important one.

[Speaker 1] (14:33 - 14:47)
This is not the even older, yellow, old Farmers' Almanac. That one was founded in 1792 and is still going. This is its slightly younger cousin.

Still, a huge piece of American publishing history is gone.

[Speaker 2] (14:47 - 14:53)
So while that's dying, NBC News is trying a new model, a direct-to-consumer subscription.

[Speaker 1] (14:53 - 15:03)
Right. It's an aggressive pivot. They're offering ad-free access to everything, their website, all their podcasts, content from Telemundo, local affiliate news, all bundled into one subscription.

[Speaker 2] (15:03 - 15:08)
They're trying to bypass the ad market and get revenue directly from their most loyal users.

[Speaker 1] (15:08 - 15:12)
It's a big bet that the breadth of their content is enough to justify a monthly fee.

[Speaker 2] (15:12 - 15:20)
And speaking of bypassing things, let's talk about Google. It feels like every publisher is terrified of them. And now Newsweek is partnering with them.

[Speaker 1] (15:20 - 15:29)
They're collaborating with Google Cloud to develop an AI-powered homepage. This is one of the biggest moves we've seen. It fundamentally changes what a news website is supposed to do.

[Speaker 2] (15:29 - 15:33)
So what does an AI-driven homepage actually look like for a user?

[Speaker 1] (15:33 - 15:44)
The goal is to make it conversational, like a utility. So instead of a grid of headlines, you visit the site and an AI might give you a custom summary of the top five stories since you last checked in.

[Speaker 2] (15:44 - 15:47)
Or maybe local weather, stock updates, that kind of thing.

[Speaker 1] (15:47 - 15:52)
Exactly. And the sources say it's personalized even if you're not logged in using geolocation.

[Speaker 2] (15:53 - 15:59)
And this is a direct response to the fact that Google Search is sending less and less traffic to news sites.

[Speaker 1] (15:59 - 16:13)
Precisely. Publishers know that Google is answering questions directly on the search page now. So Newsweek is trying to provide that same utility on their own turf.

The goal is to get you to spend more time on their site and rebuild that brand relationship.

[Speaker 2] (16:13 - 16:21)
And the incredible irony is that this is happening while a bunch of publishers are suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright violations.

[Speaker 1] (16:21 - 16:27)
It's the ultimate paradox. They're suing the technology while aggressively adopting it at the same time.

[Speaker 2] (16:27 - 16:35)
OK. From the future of digital news, let's pivot to mass entertainment. The box office is on fire, at least in some parts of the world.

[Speaker 1] (16:35 - 16:47)
It is. In Bollywood, Ranveer Singh's new action movie, The Rambar, has just smashed records. It set a new day one box office record, bringing in around 27 crore rupees.

[Speaker 2] (16:48 - 16:53)
And what's really fascinating is its runtime. It's the longest Bollywood film in almost 20 years.

[Speaker 1] (16:53 - 16:56)
It clocks in at three hours and 32 minutes.

[Speaker 2] (16:56 - 17:00)
That goes against every trend we hear about shortening attention spans.

[Speaker 1] (17:00 - 17:09)
It does. It proves that audiences will absolutely commit to a long film if the spectacle and the star power are there. And they're already planning the sequel.

[Speaker 2] (17:09 - 17:12)
Which is setting up a huge clash at the box office.

[Speaker 1] (17:12 - 17:21)
A massive one. Duran Har 2 is apparently being planned for release on the same day in 2026 as another huge film, Toxic. It just shows you the high stakes scheduling game they play.

[Speaker 2] (17:21 - 17:27)
All right, moving to Hollywood. Award season is starting to heat up. What are the early precursors telling us?

[Speaker 1] (17:27 - 17:39)
The Early Critics Awards are giving us our first read. And right now, Paul Thomas Anderson's new film, One Battle After Another, is showing serious strength. It's picking up best picture wins from groups that usually predict Oscar success.

[Speaker 2] (17:39 - 17:43)
So it's got that early momentum like Oppenheimer or everything everywhere all at once did.

[Speaker 1] (17:43 - 17:47)
Exactly. It's a sign that it has that broad, critical appeal that voters love.

[Speaker 2] (17:48 - 17:51)
And what about the acting categories? Anyone building buzz?

[Speaker 1] (17:52 - 18:02)
A lot of energy for Wagner Mora, for best actor in The Secret Agent. And Rose Byrne is getting a ton of buzz for best actress in a film called If I Had Legs, I'd Kick You.

[Speaker 2] (18:02 - 18:03)
What a title.

[Speaker 1] (18:03 - 18:09)
I know. And the film Sinners is also proving to be a big contender, picking up a lot of nominations across the board.

[Speaker 2] (18:09 - 18:15)
OK, we have two other critically acclaimed films that sound like they could not be more different from each other.

[Speaker 1] (18:15 - 18:23)
Let's start with a complete unknown. It's the Bob Dylan biopic, focusing on his switch from folk to electric in the early 60s.

[Speaker 2] (18:23 - 18:24)
And the critics love it.

[Speaker 1] (18:24 - 18:33)
They're raving. And it all seems to center on Timothy Chalamet's performance. He apparently learned to play the instruments and, crucially, he performed all the songs himself.

[Speaker 2] (18:33 - 18:37)
That's a huge deal for awards voters. It shows a different level of commitment.

[Speaker 1] (18:38 - 18:49)
It lends an authenticity that they absolutely reward. Then, on the complete other end of the spectrum, you have the film getting the most visceral reactions. Jennifer Lawrence in Die, My Love.

[Speaker 2] (18:49 - 18:51)
This sounds intense.

[Speaker 1] (18:51 - 18:51)
Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (18:51 - 18:54)
A dark, aggressive look at postpartum mental illness.

[Speaker 1] (18:54 - 19:07)
It's described as relentless and R-rated. The film deliberately avoids giving her character a clinical diagnosis. Instead, it just immerses you in her internal, primal descent into madness.

[Speaker 2] (19:08 - 19:12)
And critics are comparing her performance to Catherine Deneuve in Repulsion.

[Speaker 1] (19:12 - 19:20)
Which tells you everything you need to know. That's a legendary, terrifying performance in a classic psychological horror film. This is not an easy watch.

[Speaker 2] (19:20 - 19:21)
It sounds like a fever dream.

[Speaker 1] (19:21 - 19:35)
It is, and it's tackling something that's still so stigmatized. The darker, more uncontrollable feelings that can come with postpartum depression. The film is described as unruly, aggressive, and just a really powerful statement on the loss of control.

[Speaker 2] (19:35 - 19:41)
A powerful, uncomfortable note to end on, and a perfect bridge to the chaos and administrative failures in the world of sports.

[Speaker 1] (19:41 - 19:51)
Sports really give us these immediate, very visible consequences for all the themes we've been talking about. Money, pressure, and the fine print that can just change everything.

[Speaker 2] (19:51 - 19:59)
Let's start in the NBA, where an injury to a superstar, Giannis Antetokounmpo, has just poured gasoline on the trade rumors.

[Speaker 1] (19:59 - 20:11)
Right, he has a right calf strain. He's out for two to four weeks. And while the injury itself isn't a huge deal, the timing is critical.

His coach, Doc Rivers, has come out and said, Giannis never asked to be traded. Ever.

[Speaker 2] (20:12 - 20:15)
But his absence creates this moment of vulnerability for the Bucs.

[Speaker 1] (20:15 - 20:24)
Exactly. It doesn't hurt his value, but it signals this urgency for the team to maybe restructure, which just kickstarts these conversations that were already happening under the surface.

[Speaker 2] (20:25 - 20:28)
So who are the teams that could realistically make a trade for a player like that?

[Speaker 1] (20:29 - 20:40)
Well, in the East, the New York Knicks are always mentioned. They have the draft picks. Out West, you've got the Spurs, the Rockets, and the Warriors, who might be looking for one last big move to extend their championship window.

[Speaker 2] (20:40 - 20:43)
So a lot of pressure on the Milwaukee front office right now.

[Speaker 1] (20:43 - 20:55)
A ton. Now let's talk about a financial failure that is just. It's truly absurd.

Terrence Crawford, one of the best boxers in the world, was stripped of his WBC super middleweight title.

[Speaker 2] (20:55 - 20:57)
And not because he lost a fight.

[Speaker 1] (20:57 - 21:01)
No, he was stripped for allegedly failing to pay a sanctioning fee.

[Speaker 2] (21:01 - 21:02)
How much was the fee?

[Speaker 1] (21:02 - 21:04)
A reduced fee of $300,000.

[Speaker 2] (21:05 - 21:11)
Wait a minute. His estimated purse from the Canelo-Alvarez fight alone was $50 million.

[Speaker 1] (21:11 - 21:12)
$50 million, correct.

[Speaker 2] (21:12 - 21:17)
So they stripped his world title over a fee that was 0.6% of what he made in one night.

[Speaker 1] (21:17 - 21:29)
That is the claim. It is the ultimate example of contractual fine print just destroying athletic achievement. The WBC says they tried to collect the money.

He didn't pay. So they vacated the belt.

[Speaker 2] (21:29 - 21:32)
It just shows you the incredible power these sanctioning bodies have.

[Speaker 1] (21:32 - 21:38)
They control the entire narrative of who is and who isn't a champion. And if you don't follow their administrative rules, you're out.

[Speaker 2] (21:38 - 21:40)
And there was more drama in boxing this week too.

[Speaker 1] (21:41 - 21:46)
Yes. Janabek Alamkhanali was pulled from his title fight after he tested positive for meldonium.

[Speaker 2] (21:46 - 21:48)
That's a well-known endurance supplement.

[Speaker 1] (21:48 - 22:00)
Very well known. So you have one fighter out for a substance violation, another stripped of his title for a financial issue. It's just a really turbulent week for the integrity of the sport.

[Speaker 2] (22:00 - 22:04)
OK, let's shift to the NFL. Week 13 was apparently defined by pure chaos.

[Speaker 1] (22:04 - 22:16)
A truly chaotic week. Underdogs won all three Thanksgiving games and the Black Friday game. If you were a betting person who likes the favorites, you had a very bad weekend.

[Speaker 2] (22:16 - 22:17)
What were the big highlights from Sunday?

[Speaker 1] (22:18 - 22:28)
Josh Allen, the Bills quarterback, made history in their win over the Steelers. He ran for his 76th career rushing touchstone. That breaks Cam Newton's all-time record for a quarterback.

[Speaker 2] (22:28 - 22:29)
An incredible achievement.

[Speaker 1] (22:30 - 22:30)
And defensively.

[Speaker 2] (22:31 - 22:48)
The Seattle Seahawks just put on a clinic. They shut out the Vikings 26-0. They forced five turnovers, including four interceptions from the rookie quarterback Max Brosmer.

The Seahawks defense was just completely dominant. All right, let's move to college football. The playoff rankings are getting down to the wire and there was a small but critical shift.

[Speaker 1] (22:49 - 23:00)
A huge shift. In the penultimate rankings, Alabama edged ahead of Notre Dame for the number nine spot. This puts Alabama in one of the final at-large positions heading into championship weekend.

[Speaker 2] (23:00 - 23:04)
But Notre Dame had a big win over Stanford. Why did Alabama jump them?

[Speaker 1] (23:04 - 23:13)
The CFP chair, Hunter Urchak, gave a very specific reason. He cited Alabama's sharper first half in a rivalry setting in their win over Auburn.

[Speaker 2] (23:13 - 23:15)
A sharper first half. That's the justification.

[Speaker 1] (23:15 - 23:24)
What's the justification? It's this incredible nuance. It shows they value the perception of how you win in a high pressure game over just the raw score.

[Speaker 2] (23:25 - 23:29)
So a subjective call on a sharper 30 minutes of football could decide who gets a shot at the title.

[Speaker 1] (23:29 - 23:37)
That's exactly right. And Notre Dame is done. They have no more games to impress the committee.

Alabama still has championship weekend. The margins are just razor thin.

[Speaker 2] (23:38 - 23:44)
OK, from chaos to complete and total dominance. Let's talk about Scotty Sheffler in the world of golf.

[Speaker 1] (23:44 - 23:55)
Our sources are just calling it the Sheffler Show. He's trying to win the Hero World Challenge for the third straight time. It would be his seventh win this season.

He's had 18 top 10 finishes and 21 starts.

[Speaker 2] (23:56 - 23:58)
That level of consistency is just staggering.

[Speaker 1] (23:58 - 24:11)
It is. He's been world number one for 133 consecutive weeks. Tiger Woods himself compared Sheffler's run to his own legendary 1999-2000 season where Tiger had a 42% win rate.

[Speaker 2] (24:11 - 24:13)
So what's the secret? What do the stats say?

[Speaker 1] (24:13 - 24:28)
It's not about raw power. It's about control. He is number one in 23 major statistical categories.

But the two most important are proximity to the hole from 75 to 125 yards and from 200 to 225 yards.

[Speaker 2] (24:29 - 24:31)
Explain what that means. Why are those two windows so important?

[Speaker 1] (24:31 - 24:44)
That 75 to 125 yard range, that's the wedge game. That's where you score on the PGA Tour. He's the best in the world at it.

The 200 to 225 yard range, that's the long irons. That's how you attack par fives and tough par threes. He dominates both.

[Speaker 2] (24:44 - 24:46)
So he wins the short game and the long approach game.

[Speaker 1] (24:46 - 24:50)
He does. As Tiger said, Sheffler doesn't have lapses in a round like most players do.

[Speaker 2] (24:50 - 24:55)
OK, so from human excellence to systemic mechanical failure, let's talk about what's going on with Airbus.

[Speaker 1] (24:55 - 25:02)
Right. Back to the mundane incompetence that has global consequences. Airbus issued an alert for a huge number of its A320 family aircraft.

[Speaker 2] (25:03 - 25:05)
That's the workhorse for so many airlines.

[Speaker 1] (25:05 - 25:17)
It is. The alert required an immediate software change and some hardware tweaks. This impacts thousands of jets globally, hundreds in India alone.

It's a massive disruption.

[Speaker 2] (25:18 - 25:19)
Was it a major safety issue?

[Speaker 1] (25:19 - 25:31)
The sources say it was an operational alert for system stability, but it required grounding the planes to do the updates. And the sheer number of planes affected created this immediate system-wide failure.

[Speaker 2] (25:32 - 25:34)
And the fallout for travelers was a nightmare.

[Speaker 1] (25:34 - 25:43)
Especially in India, one major carrier, Indigo, had to cancel over a thousand flights. And we found this one anecdote in the sources that just perfectly sums up the whole mess.

[Speaker 2] (25:44 - 25:44)
What's that?

[Speaker 1] (25:44 - 25:50)
A techie couple in Bengaluru had to attend their own wedding reception virtually because their flight was canceled.

[Speaker 2] (25:50 - 25:52)
You're kidding me. They had to Zoom into their own wedding party.

[Speaker 1] (25:52 - 26:05)
Because an aerospace giant software update went sideways, it perfectly captures the fragility of modern life. Our entire global system can be brought to its knees not by some grand event, but by a software glitch.

[Speaker 2] (26:06 - 26:11)
Incredible. OK, let's wrap this up with a look at the future of entertainment, the Game Awards.

[Speaker 1] (26:11 - 26:19)
This is gaming's Oscars, but it's also the industry's biggest preview of the year ahead. And the volume of reveals expected is enormous.

[Speaker 2] (26:19 - 26:20)
What are the big rumors?

[Speaker 1] (26:20 - 26:28)
A new gothic multiplayer game from From Software, the studio behind Elden Ring, and it's allegedly for the Nintendo Switch 2.

[Speaker 2] (26:28 - 26:32)
A dark, hardcore game for a Nintendo console. That's a big shift.

[Speaker 1] (26:32 - 26:37)
It would signal a huge strategic change for Nintendo. Also rumors of a brand new Star Wars game.

[Speaker 2] (26:37 - 26:39)
And who's up for the big prize? Game of the Year.

[Speaker 1] (26:40 - 26:49)
It's a really strong list. You have Claire Obscure, Expedition 33, Death Stranding 2, Hades II, and the one everyone's been waiting for, Hollow Knight, Silksong.

[Speaker 2] (26:50 - 26:52)
And what are the confirmed reveals we should be watching for?

[Speaker 1] (26:52 - 27:08)
Capcom is expected to bring the big guns. They're going to show off the long-rumored Silent Hill remake and more gameplay for the new Resident Evil Requiem, which features fan favorite Leonis Kennedy. The show is really all about driving hype for 2026.

Hashtag tag tag outro.

[Speaker 2] (27:08 - 27:25)
So we have covered a truly remarkable amount of ground this week, from a radical U.S. foreign policy document to media giants trying to reinvent themselves, all the way down to a boxer losing his title over a rounding error and a couple zooming into their own wedding.

[Speaker 1] (27:26 - 27:42)
The central thread, the thing that ties all of this together is that battle for control. Control over territory, over money, and maybe most importantly, over the narrative. Everyone is fighting for leverage in what feels like a fundamentally unstable system.

[Speaker 2] (27:42 - 27:47)
It feels like everyone is fighting for that control, but the system itself just keeps tripping over its own feet.

[Speaker 1] (27:47 - 28:02)
That's a great way to put it. The chaos so often emerges from these mundane administrative details, not from some grand strategy. The biggest conflicts we talk about, you know, the great power competition, they're often decided not by military might, but by human incompetence or an overlooked contract.

[Speaker 2] (28:02 - 28:07)
So what does this all mean for you, our listener? What's the provocative thought to take away from this deep dive?

[Speaker 1] (28:07 - 28:28)
I think it raises a really important question that connects everything we talked about today. In a world where a $300,000 fee can strip a champion of his title and a single software alert can grind international travel to a halt, how much of the great power competition we read about is actually determined by the impressive resources of nations and corporations?

[Speaker 2] (28:28 - 28:31)
And how much is just dictated by mundane human error?

[Speaker 1] (28:32 - 28:42)
Exactly. Or bureaucratic incompetence, or some administrative detail that we should have been paying way more attention to all along. That's what you should be mulling over this week.

[Speaker 2] (28:43 - 28:52)
A truly great question to end on. The fate of the world determined by a software patch or an unpaid invoice. Thanks for guiding us through this.

It was fascinating and a little chaotic.

[Speaker 1] (28:52 - 28:53)
My pleasure.

[Speaker 2] (28:53 - 28:54)
We'll see you next time.