Episode 1376 Scott Adams: UFOs Are Eating Our Earth Fish, the Cost of Opposing Trump, Solar Powered Slavery
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
California keeps mask mandate
Biden reinstated regulations?
Inauditable election by human intention?
John Kerry asked about China slave labor
Solar energy...bad on every level?
Critical infrastructure being ignored
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Oh, yeah, I'm wearing my mask because I live in California.
And I don't know if you know this about California, but unlike a lot of the states where they'll use data and science and stuff like that, we don't do that here.
Nope, nope. We just wear masks.
That's all we do. You're probably saying, but Scott...
You're all alone and there's nobody near you.
Well, that's true. But that's no reason to let down your guard, is it?
No, it's not.
No, it's not. Alright, I'm just kidding.
But, here's the good news.
And I'll tell you this right after the simultaneous sip.
Yeah, you're about to be wandering into the best part of your day.
You didn't really even try very hard.
All you did is click a link and here you are.
Just about the best thing that's going to happen.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a gel, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind, and fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes, oh, just everything better.
Everything. It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it's going to happen now if you're ready.
Go. So, as you know, the CDC has said, That masks are not terribly necessary if you're fully vaccinated.
But states still get to make up their own decisions.
So my state, the dumbest and most incompetent of all states in the universe, has decided it's going to keep its mask mandate in place.
Now, I was walking around a little bit since the mandate had been lifted by the federal government.
And I do note that California is fully compliant.
People riding their bikes all by themselves wearing masks.
People jogging all by themselves with nobody within viewing distance.
Masked up? Yeah, we are so fully masked in California you can't get a virus past us, let me tell you.
Several retailers, Walmart, Costco, Trader Joe's, have said that you don't need a mask if you're fully vaccinated, but of course the state can overrule that, as it does in California.
But here's what you need to know.
Governments, they rule when they're credible.
If your government is doing reasonable enough stuff, the public will probably follow them.
When your government, be it federal or be it state, starts doing things which are obviously not reasonable, I mean just obviously not reasonable, at that point your obligation to obey them disappears.
Now there's a risk, right?
You still take the risk if you obey them, but your obligation is gone.
You don't have an ethical or moral obligation To obey any government rule that's unreasonable.
You don't. I mean, there's a risk, so I'm not suggesting that you disobey any rules or regulations, but you have no moral or ethical responsibility to obey unreasonable authority.
That alone will guarantee that things will fix themselves pretty quickly.
When you combine that with the fact that there will be an intense competitive pressure...
Imagine if you will, I can't imagine this quite because I'm in California, but imagine if you were in a different state, and there was a store here that said you had to wear a mask if you're fully vaccinated, and then there's one right next to it selling similar products, but one has a mask requirement and one doesn't.
There's no competition.
The moment the competitive difference becomes obvious, which will be in the first week of sales, the very first day one grocery store requires a mask and the other one doesn't, the sales are going to reflect that immediately.
How long Do stockholders put up with somebody not obeying the federal government's guidelines, the CDC, and it's lowering their profits?
How long do the stockholders put up with that?
Wait a minute. You're not following the CDC standard and it's lowering your profit?
And all you have to do is say, stop doing that?
You don't have to build something.
You don't need to invest in something.
You don't need to move anything or change anything.
You just need to put out a thing that says, well, just stop requiring that.
And then your profits will go up.
There isn't any chance that you're going to have a long-term situation where there's a competitive business that requires a mask.
Right? As long as their competitors are not.
And of course that's going to happen.
So I wouldn't worry about this all working itself out in the next, I don't know, 30 days or so.
But it's taking longer than it should.
Alec Baldwin is in the news complaining about cancel culture.
It's like a forest fire that just needs more fuel.
Now, when Alec Baldwin is complaining about cancel culture, which could also be described as completely agreeing with President Trump, cancel culture's In trouble, isn't it? Because I think cancel culture has now clearly jumped the shark.
When Alec Baldwin is complaining about cancel culture, because it did happen to him.
I mean, he has a legitimate complaint.
It happened to his wife. I feel like cancel culture is sort of running out of fuel a little bit.
Because if you get the leftiest lefty guy to like it, There's not much left, right?
Now, of course, it will plague us for a while, but you can see there seems to be a turning point, I would say.
And I would say the turning point is Alec Baldwin speaking out in public about it.
It'd be one thing if he had a private opinion about it, but Alec Baldwin's saying it in public.
So I think we're turning the corner on that.
I continue to look at the cost of opposing Trump.
Because you've seen that so many people who are anti-Trump, something bad happens to them.
Have you noticed that? I don't know if it's a selective memory or just the way the news works.
Probably that. But it seems like Trump's opposition, not only it's bad for them personally, but then there's a big cost to it.
For example, Apparently Biden, who knows if this is true, right?
But Biden reportedly lashed down at his own Health and Human Services head over the handling of the migrant children.
So Joe Biden, it is reported, but again, I think it's an anonymous report about a private conversation in the Oval Office.
What credibility do you put on a private...
Anonymous report of something.
Well, not much, right?
But in this case, it is a...
Do you remember that all the leaks from anonymous sources about Trump were negative for Trump?
But here's a leak, I guess it'd be a leak, about a story about Joe Biden that makes Joe Biden look extra good behind closed doors.
Not only is Joe Biden fighting for the migrant children, but he's even beating up his own appointed person for not fighting hard enough or doing well enough to save the children.
Totally credible, anonymous report that makes Joe Biden look like a good fighter.
I believe the story is fake news, or at least planted news.
You could call that fake news or not, because it could be true, but also a strategic leak.
But my point is that if that works in favor of Joe Biden, then the story that I get from this is that fixing this problem turned out to be really hard.
And it wasn't just a case of whether you were Republican or Democrat.
It's just hard to fix it.
So even Biden, with all the resources in the world and all of the good intentions...
Apparently he couldn't even get his own hand-picked person to fix it well enough.
So I think that gives us a little perspective about Trump's performance on that same topic.
Now I also asked on Twitter, how many executive orders did Trump make in which he cut regulations?
Do you know the number? Because I remember, I feel like it was reported at one time, because he was doing that thing where they'd cut ten regulations for every one that they introduced.
What did the number get up to?
Can somebody tell me in the comments?
Google that for me. And tell me how many regulations he got rid of.
Is it in the hundreds or is it in the thousands?
It's a lot, right? So I think it's at least high hundreds.
Am I wrong about that? Somebody's saying 500, but I don't know if you actually know the number.
Alright, so let's say it's some big number, whether it's hundreds or low thousands.
It's somewhere in that range.
How many of them have been reversed by Biden?
Do you know? What percentage?
We hear about some specific ones, right?
You've heard about some of his executive orders that have been reversed, but reversing an executive order is different than From reinstituting some regulations that Trump got rid of with an executive order.
Right? So we do know that executive orders have been reversed, but what percentage of the, let's say, hundreds of regulations have been reversed by Biden because he really liked those regulations?
Why don't you know that?
Why don't I know it?
Why is there no headline on that?
How big a story is that?
It's pretty big, right?
Because that would tell you, that would tell you if Trump did something that's amazing, you know, he got rid of a whole bunch of regulations, and when they were looked at carefully, even Biden didn't want them?
Is that what happened? Because I don't know that that's what happened.
Is it possible that they're privately being reversed and it's just not being reported?
Because I feel like it would be reported if there was any big action on it.
So one of two things is possible.
Either Trump did an amazing job of getting rid of unnecessary regulations, or Biden is reversing lots of regulations back to having a regulation, and we don't know about it.
Which would also be a big story.
Am I wrong that this is a gigantic story that is completely ignored?
Have you seen the story about it?
It was a pretty big deal.
When I would talk to my anti-Trump friends, one of the top, I don't know, top five things that they would say is that Trump has gotten rid of all these regulations that were protecting us.
So, how about a little follow-up?
How many people have died so far because of those lack of protections?
How much economic development did we have that we wouldn't have had because he got rid of those, I don't know, do you know?
Pretty big question.
Total lack of reporting.
China landed its rover on Mars at the same time that we have our Assets up there on Mars.
So what's that tell you?
Talk about the future.
Let's talk about the future.
So it looks like China and the United States are already in a land grab for Mars.
You knew it was going to happen.
You just didn't know when.
But now it's happening.
Allow me to make the following suggestion.
We should get a military asset up there really quickly.
Just one kind of rover that could maybe...
Maybe it's one of those flying drones.
But just bring one military asset up there that can take out somebody else's drone.
And I imagine we could do it without getting caught.
I think just the video would go off and they wouldn't know what happened.
Yeah, our rover should have been armed.
Maybe it is, we don't know.
Because at some point, we're going to have to prevent China from having assets on Mars.
I feel like that's going to have to happen.
And whoever gets there first...
With some serious equipment, should be able to stop anything that lands from that point on.
Because everything would be weak when it lands, right?
Anything that's going through that, what is it, seven minutes of bad turbulence before you land on Mars and there's no communication, if you could take it out while it's still weak and before it's actually set up and transmitting back to Earth, who would know?
Who would know? So we should militarize Mars right away, is my opinion, because if China does it first, we could be in trouble.
So keep an eye on that.
So here's a story about some more UFO sightings.
And apparently...
There's yet another oval-shaped grainy image of a UFO that was flying over the ocean, fairly low over the ocean, for a long time.
I mean, they followed this thing for a long time, so we do know for sure that it was a grainy oval.
That much is confirmed.
And then the grainy oval dived into the ocean.
Wow. You didn't even know UFOs could do that, did you?
I mean, if you were a spaceship from another planet, it would be hard enough to get all the way to Earth with a device that can actually fly in our atmosphere and not run out of fuel and all that.
But apparently they're so good...
That they can even fly through the atmosphere, they can fly through space, they can fly through Earth's atmosphere, and then they can dive into our oceans.
And then, later, the reports are that the UFO, after it dived into the ocean, it re-emerged with a smaller UFO in its beak.
Now, if that's not proof that UFOs are real, I don't know what is.
I mean, We have this good image of UFOs splashing into the water in a place where aquatic birds are plentiful.
And when you look at these birds on infrared, as these images are, they're infrared, It turns out that the wings don't show up as well as the body, because the body is warmer, or it's a different temperature from the surface.
But the wings are closer to the same temperature as the outside air.
So it turns out that when you do an infrared picture of a bird in flight, it looks like sort of a grainy oval thing that seems to move in a way that physics can't explain.
And not only that, but physics can't explain how it dives into the water now and then when it's hungry, and it merges with a small UFO in its beak.
So this is all a mystery, and I hope somebody smart can unravel this, because it looks like we've been visited by extraterrestrials.
Today I invested in some Ericsson stock, you know, the telecom company from Sweden.
They make equipment that competes with Huawei in China.
And Beijing is apparently threatening Sweden, because Sweden banned Huawei's technology, and is threatening to retaliate against Ericsson, because that's a big company in Sweden.
So, just to support Ericsson, I immediately went online and bought a bunch of their stock.
Now, let me be careful here.
I don't necessarily believe that's a good investment.
You understand that, right?
It's not a recommendation.
I don't make financial recommendations except to diversify.
And I got rid of my Turkish telecom.
By the way, an update.
I used to have some stock in the Turkish cell phone company.
But I sold that last week for patriotic reasons.
Because Turkey is just not playing nice.
And now I'm buying some Ericsson also to defend them.
Basically just to defend their stock.
Now, I don't think that it's priced.
Apparently the analysts are not in love with it.
So I can't tell you that you should buy a lot of it, but if you wanted to buy it for, let's just say, anti-China reasons, that's an option.
So Israel apparently gave some warning recently to a building that had Al Jazeera and the Associated Press, but reportedly also maybe some Hamas secret service in it.
I don't know for sure. I don't know that that's a confirmed thing.
But they gave them a little warning, and then it looks like they shot two missiles into the base of the building.
And it was a very impressive...
A relatively controlled explosion in which the building sort of went down like this-ish.
It was impressive.
I didn't know that you could bring down a building almost like a controlled demolition if you hit it just right and you know how the building is built, apparently.
But they can, because that's what happened.
And I have the following comments about this.
I think that going forward, and certainly it's already been true, That when there's a military action between a strong military power and, let's say, a smaller military power, could be terrorists, could be ISIS or something, that the first thing the strong military wants to do is get rid of the media.
Because the strongest military can't do what it needs to do, which is going to get really bloody and there's going to be a lot of bodies.
Some of them will be civilians, maybe a lot of them.
In order to win, the bigger military has to first get rid of the cameras and the reporting.
So the first thing you need to do is take out the press, ideally not killing them, but just taking them off the field so that they can't report.
That's what happened with ISIS. I mean, the fact that there was no good reporting on the ground allowed the military to do what they needed to do, which I imagine was pretty bad.
Right? Because that's the job of the military.
If you see pictures, it makes you think, oh, we've got to stop doing this.
If you don't see pictures, you don't necessarily think you need to stop doing it.
Because pictures are what influence us.
So get rid of the media, get rid of the pictures.
Now, I would imagine that this kind of pressure on the media, even if nobody got hurt, which I hope is the case, It's going to make them feel like maybe they need to do what Israel wants them to do in the future, right?
If you want to keep your building.
So there's that. Now, there's also the story, and Joel Pollack was reporting on this in Breitbart, that Israel apparently faked a ground invasion.
To get all of the fighters into the tunnels, big tunnel network, and then they bombed the tunnel network.
So they bombed a tunnel network, and the news is reporting something like 100 deaths, like, altogether.
Do you think that after bombing the tunnel network that, number one, we can count the number of deaths because they're still in the tunnels?
Do you think it's only 100 people who died after the tunnel network got bombed?
Was the tunnel network so lame that there were only a few dozen people in it?
I feel like they got a lot more deaths than this, but who knows, right?
It's going to be hard to count people who are pre-buried.
So the beauty of bombing the terrorists in the tunnels...
Is that you don't have to have a funeral with a body.
There's no photograph of the body.
There's just bombs.
And then that's all you know.
They're pre-buried.
So, then there's an additional story that says that maybe Israel used the foreign press and lied to them.
This is the allegation.
That Israel directly and repeatedly lied to entities like the New York Times.
So that they would report there was going to be a ground invasion.
At the same time, reportedly, I don't know how reliable this is, but reportedly, Israel was telling Israeli media sources, no, there's totally not going to be a ground invasion.
Now, I don't know if this is true.
Is it true that they really told the local media no ground invasion at the same time they were telling the New York Times and others, oh, totally ground invasion?
No, no. But what is the net effect of that?
Well, the net effect of that is to make the press that is not already owned by, presumably, the Israeli Secret Service or whatever, it makes any independent press in another country less credible.
Less credible. Because If you knew that the main press in the United States had gotten a story this big about an Israeli invasion and gotten it wrong, what are you going to think the next time they have a story about Israel?
You're going to think, well, this is the same one who got that last story wrong.
So Israel is taking out the media.
They're taking out any media in terms of credibility.
And they're taking out a building of the media, which feels like a warning as well, even if the real target was some other asset in the building.
Glenn Greenwald has a good Substack article on Liz Cheney and says that she lied about her role in spreading the discredited CIA Russian bounty story.
Now, the dispute is that Cheney was asked about it and said that She had only talked about it as an if.
As in, if it's true, then we should act a certain way.
And if it's true, then Trump is doing the wrong stuff.
If it's true.
Now, her claim is that she always talked about it in the conditional.
If it's true. Glenn Greenwald objects to that characterization with lots of examples.
Of things she said.
But when I look at exactly the things she said, it's really carefully chosen.
For example, some of her words were about, it is reported.
If somebody says, it has been reported that, does that sound like if to you?
Does that sound like if it's true?
If somebody says, it has been reported.
Well, I think if I interpret Glenn Greenwald correctly, and I might not be, but if I do, he's saying that that's more of a direct statement than it's true because you're mentioning the report.
You're not using the word if.
But it's really kind of gray in my opinion because it's really careful wording to say it's reported because it's reported is true.
What you don't know is that the thing actually happened.
The only thing that's true is it's reported.
But then, as Greenwald points out, it's a common trick that her father used, which was to leak a story to the press and then talk about the story in the press as if it's public information now, and it must be true because it's in the press.
So you've got to watch out for that trick because you'll see it a lot.
I saw a tweet by an attorney, Matthew DiPerno, and he's talking about Michigan counties and there's apparently some audit stuff going on about the election.
And it seems that there's evidence now in writing that a number of the counties decided to not Keep the image of the ballots.
So the machines will count the ballots, but they also take an image of them to store.
And in order to not store the image, you have to actively turn it off.
Because the default, the way it's built to work...
The way it's built to work, thank you, Optimus.
So, Michigan, apparently, many of the counties decided to actively turn off the image control.
Why would they do that?
What would be a legitimate reason for turning off a function which is built into the machine as an audit security safeguard?
Why would you turn it off?
Give me a legitimate reason.
Any legitimate reason.
Now, it sounds like they turned it off because maybe they didn't want to go through the bother of an audit or something, but is that a good reason?
That doesn't sound like a reason, does it?
So the first thing you need to know is that any story about the election has to be judged with a lot of skepticism.
So I don't know if it's true that Michigan County has decided to turn off this feature, but if it's true, and there does seem to be evidence of it, The question that Matthew asks is, was a crime committed and does RICO apply?
Because if these counties organized, in other words, they talked to each other and they said, hey, if you turn it off, I'll turn it off and we'll be fine, then they're coordinating a criminal activity, which is a RICO problem.
Now, am I wrong that there is also some disappearing data in Arizona?
So that we've got at least two or three of the trouble, or at least the places that people have questions about the election.
How many of them have to be erased before you say, uh-oh?
And let me ask you this.
Let's say the only thing you knew is that there was one state that couldn't be audited.
Suppose that's all you knew.
And let's say that Democrats and Republicans agreed on the following point, hypothetically.
So I'll use my if here.
If it's true that both Arizona and Michigan, and maybe another state, there's still some suspicion about some other states, but if there was something that could have been audited and should have been maintained and was deleted before an audit, is the election still valid?
Is it? Because it seems to me, and my guess is that it's still legally valid, yes.
But in your mind, would you trust an election in which the ability to audit it was intentionally erased?
And intentionally is the important part.
If data had been, let's say, accidentally destroyed, then I would say, well, there's nothing to see here.
Accidents happen. But...
If there's an intention, and it appears to be some kind of an intention involved here, to delete auditable records, was the election still valid?
I feel as if you could make an argument that the election is not valid if it can't be audited.
And that the reason it can't be audited, this is important, that the reason it can't be audited is because people made specific decisions to get rid of stuff.
If that's true, it's not a legitimate election.
Now, it might be legal, it might be certified, it might be done and done.
I'm not saying that anything would be reversed or anything would happen, or even that the system didn't work, more or less.
I'm just saying you couldn't really call it legitimate if it became unauditable by human intention, Immediately after the election.
I mean, if I were the Supreme Court, I would actually overturn the election if this were true.
Now, I don't know if there's a legal basis for that, but I might look for one.
Because if you're the Supreme Court...
Part of the reason it's human beings is that they do get to look at the big picture, like what is really good for the world and also compatible with the Constitution.
Ideally, you want them only to be compatible with the Constitution.
But if there's any gray area, that's why we have humans.
That's why we pick wise, educated people to be on the Supreme Court.
Because sometimes, sometimes you need to You know, move into the gray area to get a better outcome.
And I don't know.
If I'm the Supreme Court and I look at information being deleted after the election and before an audit, personally I would throw out the election.
That's what I would do. But I don't know that they could actually get away with that.
All right. Here's my question for you.
We're talking about infrastructure all the time and everybody's arguing about what is and what is not infrastructure.
I'm on the side of defining it broadly.
You know, I don't really have a complaint with Buttigieg or the Democrats calling things infrastructure that are barely infrastructure.
As long as they also need to get funded.
You know, elections have consequences, right?
I mean, the Democrats get to throw some stuff in this bag.
As a process, I'm not too concerned about it.
Even if I might disagree a lot about some of the specifics, I'm not too concerned that they're calling things, you know, infrastructure.
That's just a way to get there.
But here's my question to you.
If you were to list our most important infrastructure for national security, what would be on the list?
So here's my list.
I would have 5G really close to the top of infrastructure priorities, especially making sure there's no Huawei in there.
And also making sure that we have enough of a 5G industry that we can help our allies not have Huawei technology.
I'd also say that NASA and militarizing space is a top infrastructure.
Because it doesn't matter so much today, but in 20 years it might be the only thing that matters.
Who controls space?
So Space Force and working with NASA or whoever else they need to work with, I think space infrastructure has got to be a really high priority for the future.
I would say nuclear energy, right at the top of the list, both for powering our space exploration and control, and also for climate change, and also for just having enough electricity that's clean.
So I would say nuclear energy would be right in the top five.
I'd say our energy grid, and controlling it, and I would include in energy grid pipelines.
And cybersecurity.
I worry that our cybersecurity is really just nothing more than mutually assured destruction, which isn't good enough if they're private hackers, because we can't find them.
So those are the ones that just jump to the top of my list.
Manage our forests.
Yeah, I mean, in California, managing our forests is way up there because of the fires.
Yeah, the government's priority is to find all the white supremacists that don't exist.
All right, so those would be my priorities.
So Joe Biden's climate czar, John Kerry, was asked about slave labor in China, specifically the Uyghurs.
Being part of making solar panels that apparently we'd have to buy a lot of, or at least components of, if we wanted to go big on climate, green energy.
And John Kerry, amazingly, said he couldn't guarantee that we wouldn't be buying products of slave labor and genocide.
And I feel like he made an argument that we might have to live with that.
That in order to deal with an existential crisis, as he would say, but I don't, of climate change, that you might have to deal with a genocidal group and allow their slave labor and their genocide to make the products that keeps us safe from running out of energy and polluting the world.
How is that moral argument sitting with you?
Pretty good, huh?
Why is it that we're building infrastructure and we're trying to solve climate change and we're buying shit from China?
Doesn't it seem like infrastructure should include making our own stuff?
Now the other issue, of course, is that the solar panels and solar energy takes gigantic amounts of land, which nuclear does not, and other things do not as much, And the waste created by it is amazing, and it's made by slaves.
So it might be that solar energy, and then it also is not consistently powering anything because the sun is not consistent.
So it could be that we're coming around to the thought that solar energy, at least the way we can do it now, is the worst thing we can do.
And I feel like there's a good argument that it's literally the worst thing you can do.
Now, we might have to do some things in the short term, just because it takes a while to do nuclear energy.
But, yeah, solar has turned into bad on every level.
Bad on land use.
Bad on pollution in the sense that the panels have to go somewhere.
Bad on ethics because slave labor is making it.
Bad on economics because we're giving money to China.
Bad on national security because we're giving money to China.
So, you know, I guess we're finally wising up to the real costs and benefits of solar.
And there's also a big question about, apparently Biden approved the first major offshore wind farm that will power 400,000 homes, so it's a really massively big project, about 12 miles off the coast in Massachusetts.
Now, you might imagine that lots of people oppose this.
But once again, the parts for these windmills are mostly made in Europe.
Mostly made in Europe.
Shouldn't our infrastructure include funding or something to make this stuff in the United States?
There's no way we can make this stuff competitively.
You know, Apple can't make a windmill.
Probably don't want to because it kills a lot of birds.
But I don't know how many jobs that's going to create if the parts are made in Europe.
So, we'll see.
Made in China too, people are saying on the comments.
Alright, how many birds will it take out?
Yeah, exactly. You know, it's amazing to me that we can't figure out how to keep birds away from windmills.
Doesn't it seem like that's doable?
I mean, what would it take to scare a bird away?
I feel like the bar is not that high, right?
I feel like there's something you could do with, I don't know, infrared or something fluttering or some big scary owls or something.
If you made the windmills at the top look like a predator, with like a beak and big predator eyes and stuff, would birds see the big predator head and still fly directly into it?
Yeah, a giant owl statue.
Right. I feel like there's a way to handle this problem.
Maybe it doesn't work at night or something.
Well, you can light it.
Send the UFOs after them.
Yeah, the other problem is that these windmills have apparently destroyed hundreds of UFOs.
Just hundreds of UFOs have been just chopped up in these windmills.
Yeah, what about hurricanes?
It's a good question. I assume that they're built to withstand hurricanes, although I don't know how.
How would a windmill ever survive a hurricane?
And do you have any hurricane risk 12 miles outside of Massachusetts?
Maybe a little bit.
Even firecrackers, he keeps coming back.
I don't know who you're talking about. Oh, you're talking about a bird.
So you've got a bird that just keeps coming back.
Nuclear means nationalization of the power grid.
I don't know that point.
So somebody's saying that if we go more nuclear, we have to nationalize the power grid.
I don't understand that point at all.
What's the connecting tissue?
All right. Let me tell you in advance, I'm planning a trip in June, so I might miss a few days of this.
I want to give you some warning about that, but that's in June.
I'll tell you about it when we get there.
And... Oh, yes, Juan reminds me that chip manufacturing should be in the top five.
It turns out that the United States doesn't do much making chips anymore.
And I don't know when that changed.
I thought there was one point...
When the United States made most of the chips, am I wrong about that?
And now we barely are in the business or something?
I don't know how many we make, but it's mostly overseas.
So it does seem like we should have chips and 5G and some other stuff here.
Yeah, we make junk food over here.
That's our specialty in America, making food that will kill us.
Hey, Zach, thank you.
You know, I appreciate the offer.
Maybe I'll just say this here.
A lot of people say they'd like to grab a cup of coffee or something when they're in the area.
And I always appreciate it, because it means people are enjoying what I do.
But I pretty much never say yes to that.
So I have barely enough time to do the things I need to do, and really I don't have enough time to do them.
So I don't really ever just sort of take a coffee.
I just don't do it.
But thank you for offering.
Why shouldn't it be done by private companies?
I don't know what you mean. All right.
All right. Thanks so much for watching today.
And those of you who are subscribing on Locals, we've got a deal going on right now.
You can get a year subscription with two months free if you wanted to try it out.
That's over at Locals. Just go to Locals.com and look for me.
And it's where I do all the naughty stuff and the provocative stuff that I don't show you here.
