Episode 2316 CWSA 12/08/23 News So Delicious I Can't Even Mention It In The Title
My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Grok, Mark Zuckerberg Threads, Tesla 48V Technology, Nuclear Energy, AI Learning Rate, AI Piloted Aircraft, Washington Post Strike, Home Ownership Program, Charles Payne, Ian Bremmer, Bill Ackman, UPenn President, Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, President Biden, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Nikki Haley, Stephen Collinson, Trump NYC Ruling, Hunter Biden Tax Problems, Stephen Miller, Van Jones, Vivek Ramaswamy, Replacement Theory, White Male Discrimination, Daily Show Guest Hosts, Glenn Greenwald, Pro-Palestinian Free Speech, Israel Hamas War, Ukraine War, Secretary Blinken, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization, at least until a big old asteroid destroys humanity.
But that's not going to happen right away.
Until that happens, would you like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand?
Sure you do.
You would love that.
And all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a gel or something, a Kemp tea jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure that dopamine at the end of the day is called a simultaneous sip.
What happens now?
How does that go?
You've been stipulated.
It's a sippery slope.
You take one sip, you'll be back every day.
Sipping every day, you can't even help yourself.
Yeah, it's a sippery slope.
You've been sippnotized.
I just stole that joke.
You've been sippnotized.
All right, let's talk about all the things, because there are lots of interesting news today in science and politics and racism and war and all that stuff.
These are a few of my favorite things.
All right, Grok is here.
That's the AI that Elon Musk has promised you.
It's now rolled out to Premium Plus users, I guess.
People will pay extra.
So I've got my copy, and I will give you my review of Grok, the new AI.
Number one, it's maybe 3.5 GPT level.
In other words, if you've used GPT 4.0, this will look a little primitive compared to that.
It doesn't have the features and bells and whistles yet, but one assumes that we're probably, you know, maybe one month away from parity, because the parity happens pretty quickly.
So I wouldn't judge it yet.
I would call it beta.
It feels kind of beta test-like.
We're going to collect a lot of opinions.
And let me tell you some of the things that we've learned so far.
Number one, you get really, really tired of its joking after about the third interaction.
The first time it gets kind of, let's say, friendly, because it's based on kind of a model where it jokes with you and it's always sort of non-serious.
Yeah, you're going to want to turn that off right away.
So it took me about a minute before I asked it to turn that off.
It's like, OK, that was fun almost once, but not really.
Because it doesn't quite feel like a personality.
It still feels like a machine pretending to be somebody else's personality.
So it doesn't hit you as, oh, it's a person or anything like that.
But it might someday.
It might.
So the other issue is that it lies.
And oh my god, does it lie.
Like about some serious stuff.
So I wouldn't use it for any fact-checking yet.
I'd kind of wait on that.
For example, I asked it if it had read my books.
I told it who I am, and it understood that I'm the Dilbert cartoonist guy.
So it knows who I am.
And it knows the name of my books.
And I asked him if he had read any.
He said, not only had I read my books, but had incorporated some of my writing techniques into his answers.
In other words, according to Grok, I was already part of his DNA.
But it's a liar.
When I first saw that, I thought, what?
Seriously?
It has some part of my personality in it, because it read my book and incorporated it into its personality.
That's what it told me.
But it turns out this is the sort of things it tells you just because you might want to hear it.
If you query it, it rapidly becomes clear it has not read any of my books.
And in other occasions I can ask it about my books and it won't know they exist, or it'll list some but not others.
So at the moment, the results are closer to random than anything that you could use with confidence.
Here's another example of that.
I saw that Sean Davis thought to ask this question first.
He asked if his content was being throttled on X. And then Grok said, yes, it was.
So Sean Davis finds out from Grok Apparently, that his own data is being throttled.
So I said to myself, whoa, I'm going to try this.
So I try it too, and it says the same thing.
I mean, different words, but it tells me that I've been labeled as sensitive content and throttled.
So Grok told me that my account was labeled sensitive content by Axe and throttled.
But here's the thing.
It's not true.
You know why I know it's not true?
There's no way Grok has access to that information.
Grok doesn't know who's Throttle.
There's no way he knows that.
Am I wrong?
Does anybody want to take a bet?
I will bet you a large sum of money that Grok does not have access to its own internal, not its own, but X's internal algorithms.
There's no way it has access to that.
No way.
Does anybody believe it has access to that information?
Or that it can determine it in some other pattern recognition way?
Here's what I do think is possible.
On YouTube, what people call censorship is actually an intelligent pairing of advertising content with the type of content That would not be offensive to advertisers.
Now, when you make provocative content, as I do, that feels like censorship.
But when YouTube's business people explain it to you, which they did to me, they personally explained it to me, it actually just sounds like business.
Because why would they have to pair my provocative content with their advertisers if the advertisers Specifically ask for it not to happen, which is what does happen on YouTube.
The advertisers say, don't pair us with this bad content.
So then they just do it.
It's just a business decision.
So that's one of the reasons I'm not really, really hard on YouTube for any censorship of provocative stuff.
It's just unpleasant things to put with advertising.
It's just not a good pair.
So I get that.
X is also an advertising model at the moment.
Less so because of subscriptions, but still an advertising model.
And would it surprise you if shows that are always about news, which is about death and destruction and all that stuff, would it surprise you if X had an internal rule that said advertisers like this content about kittens more than they like content about war?
That wouldn't be too surprising.
You know what?
Honestly, as long as X said that's what they were doing, I wouldn't have a terrible problem with it, actually.
Now, there would be the question of people who pay the higher price to have no advertisements.
So I would hope, if I'm being prevented from interacting with anybody because of advertising, if that's happening, I don't know that that's happening, but if it's happening, As long as it's only limited to people who see ads, that's not so bad, right?
So if you paid to not see ads, shouldn't you have full access to my provocative material?
I would say yes.
So because X is one of those halves, you know, partly subscription and partly, you know, wild advertising based, I wouldn't have the biggest problem in the world if they throttled me on the advertiser part of their business.
I mean, I would prefer they didn't.
But if it's just a business decision, I don't know.
As long as the people paying to not see ads are not throttled, it's not terrible.
To me, that would be just everybody getting something closer to what they want.
All right.
Let's check in on threads.
You know, Meta has this competitive product.
Apparently Mark Zuckerberg posted on it yesterday, which is big news because he hasn't posted on his own product in three weeks.
Ian Miles John noted that.
And I'm thinking to myself, yeah, that's pretty much all you need to know about threads.
Elon Musk is on X all day long.
And it definitely makes the product better because, you know, he's just there.
You just feel his personality all the time.
Yeah, I think Threads is dead.
I haven't even thought to check my Threads account, which I do have.
I haven't checked it in two months.
I haven't even had the slightest interest.
It's interesting why some things interest you and others don't.
But I'm pretty sure that I don't like Threads because there's no provocation on it.
It was just too ordinary.
There's just nothing there.
All right.
Tesla gave for free the technical guides to their new 40 volt technology, gave it to their competitors.
So Tesla gave their probably one of the most key important new technologies.
It's some upgraded way to Handle their electricity in their vehicles, 48 volt technology.
I guess most of it had been 12 volt, but they're going to 48 volt for some kind of major advantages.
So they actually gave the technology for free to Ford and other companies that make electric cars.
Now, put on your business hat.
Smart, Smart or not smart to give away this proprietary advanced technology to your competition?
Smart, yeah.
Now, this only makes sense because they have such a dominant position.
If you have a dominant position and you're pretty confident you can keep it, then you want everybody to build out the industry so that they're building chargers that you can use.
In the perfect world, Ford would make a charging station that a Tesla can use.
That's going to be way better for Tesla users than for Ford users.
I mean, it's probably going to work both ways.
You know, Tesla has opened up to other cars charging.
So yes, having some kind of voluntary standards for some of this stuff probably makes the industry better.
I mean, just knowing how to do a better technology and probably makes gas cars last less long.
You know, if the net effect of all of this is that Well, I'm a perfect example.
I am currently in the sort of general stage of looking for a new vehicle, right?
And so I've got to make the choice of electric versus non-electric car.
I was sure that by the time I made this choice, it would be an easy choice.
I thought that by the time I had to get another vehicle, you know, so several years ago, I got a gas vehicle.
And I thought that my next vehicle would be electric for sure, if not fully self-driving.
But now that I look at it, I think, you know what?
You know what is my biggest psychological block, and maybe this is useful for Tesla?
I have this issue where if somebody doesn't personally show me how to use a Tesla charging station, I will never buy a Tesla.
Does anybody have that?
And this is a defect.
It's a defect in my personality.
If a human doesn't drive me there in their own Tesla, while I'm in the passenger seat, and say, watch how easy this is.
You just wait in this line, you plug this in here, and you just sit here for 20 minutes.
If nobody shows it to me in person, I'm never going to buy that fucking car.
You know why?
And again, this is purely irrational.
This is a defect in me, so you don't have to say, you don't have to say, what's wrong with you, Scott?
You can just acknowledge that I say this is a defect.
It's the same reason I don't use car washes at gas stations.
I wrote about this.
Because if I don't know exactly how to use the car wash, the one you drive through yourself, I'm afraid that I'll get stuck in the car wash.
And they'll have to like, Dismantle the entire car wash to get me out and it'll be on the front page of the news.
Cartoonist drives car backwards into car wash.
Idiot doesn't know the first thing about washing cars.
So obvious they should have gone in forward.
How did he think it should go in backwards?
What was he thinking?
Dumbest cartoonist in the world.
No wonder he was cancelled.
Like that's what goes through my mind.
And I have the same feeling about the car charging station.
I feel like I would Get in the wrong line, as if there are wrong lines.
I don't even know if there are.
Is there a right line and a wrong line?
I would get in the wrong line, I'd get to the front, find out that I had the wrong nozzle for charging my car, but I'd be trapped there, so there wouldn't be a way to turn around, and everybody behind me would be honking at me and laughing.
Now, nothing like that's going to happen, right?
It's not a nozzle, I know.
It's funnier to say nozzle.
Nozzle is just a funny word.
Can you agree with me on that?
Nozzle is a funny word.
That's all.
So I do use it out of context because it's a funny word.
So why don't you get your nozzle out of my business?
See, it works in every context.
Will you keep your nozzle out of my business?
Yeah.
It's a great word.
You should use it.
Anyway, so if I were Tesla, I would make a little video that shows somebody pulling up and very easily charging their car.
And then showing how many charging stations there are in my area so I can say, oh, I'm never going to run out.
And also, also, what do you do when you run out of electricity?
I'm guessing there's somebody like a Tesla person with a truck who drives up and charges your car for you.
You don't tow it, right?
Just some Tesla facility of some kind comes and charges you up, right?
Now those are the things I don't know.
And if I saw a, if I saw really just a 30 second video, 30 seconds is all I need.
Drive up, take it out, stick it in.
You're good.
Here's all the charging stations.
If you run out of charge, here's the truck that comes and gets you.
Like 30 seconds and I'd be all good psychologically.
But psychologically, I can't get past that barrier.
Does anybody else have this?
I'm just trying to find out how unusual I am.
Does anybody else have the same thing I'm talking about?
Okay, a bunch of yeses.
On locals, there's lots of yeses.
Now, here's another industry where I have the same problem.
Two.
Here's two other businesses that I would have the same problem.
Number one, if you had never gotten a professional massage, and you didn't know somebody to talk to who did it all the time, would you sign up for one?
I wouldn't.
I would never sign up for a professional massage if I'd never talked in person to somebody who did it a lot and really could walk you through, you know, what's awkward and what's normal and, you know, how much of your clothes do you take off and where do they touch you?
Do you talk to them?
How do you tip?
Like all that stuff.
It would just be too awkward.
I wouldn't do it.
Now, luckily, I've passed through that barrier.
Here's another one.
I would love to take a yoga class.
I did a little yoga in college in the class once and I liked it.
Here's why I don't go.
Do I need to bring like my own little mat?
And what happens if I don't understand all the language like everybody else in the class?
What happens if they say, all right, downward dog?
And I'm like, I don't know what that is.
Do I just watch?
Is that enough?
Will they tease me if I can't keep up?
What happens if I can't keep up?
All right, so I just have a bunch of questions.
And it prevents me from ever signing up for class.
Plus, I never have them in the afternoon when I'm available, but that's another story.
All right, there's this big box that's your doctor now.
You can walk into a big box.
And they put the big boxes, they call them pods, but it's just a big box.
And it'll be in a mall.
They've got a few, they're being, they're actually, these are real.
These are being rolled out now.
So there's one, let's see, it's called Care Pod.
And it's a do-it-yourself health clinic in a box.
And you walk into one of these care pods, and it might be in your mall or some central place, but it could be just like a kiosk in a mall.
And you could go in and it will scan your whole body.
Apparently, you could just stand up like an airport scanner.
It just scans you.
Doesn't that seem dangerous?
How in the world can they scan you when you're just standing there?
If you go to an MRI, you've got to do all these.
And you can't have, like, infinite x-rays.
I don't know how any of that works.
They also have a way you can draw your own blood for a blood test.
Now, don't you wonder how that works?
I thought, how in the world do they have a robot that, like, puts a needle in?
Turns out there's no needle.
They can draw blood without a needle.
Did you know that?
Apparently, this is existing technology.
They put a little suction cup on your arm, or wherever you put it, and it just sucks.
And it can't get much blood because it's sucking through and there's no wound.
There's no hole.
It just starts sucking it directly out of your arm.
And if it sucks hard enough, it can get blood.
So it takes about four minutes, but it will just suck the blood right out of your arm.
Like a leech.
Isn't that cool?
It's kind of cool.
But anyway, so that's not all I can do.
I can do a bunch of things, check your heart, etc.
So I'm pretty sure, and then there are doctors that you can call for telehealth, so you can get a doctor on video to work with your other issues.
Very good.
All right, that should take a dent in.
See, I think where we're going on inflation is we'll get to the point where the normal things we have to do are much cheaper.
You know, I harp on this all the time.
But I think the process of getting food from a farm into your mouth is so amazingly inefficient because of all the transportation and rules and everything, that eventually you're going to have a little food-growing operation connected to your house.
So your own food costs will be maybe 20% of what they would have been otherwise.
But also these advances in healthcare, I think you're going to make healthcare 20% of what it could be.
I think people will still pay for the full-service one if they can afford it, but there'll be a whole bunch of people who go for the one that's 20% of the cost and gets you almost as good, maybe 95% as good as an expensive full-service model.
A lot of people are going to take that, especially younger people.
Nuclear energy is still surging, at least in interest, if not building.
20 plus countries have signed a declaration to triple nuclear capacity.
So nuclear is now Fully absolved of all this bad reputation.
You know, I'll tell you, I feel great satisfaction that I was one of a number of people who, for the last seven years or so, have been just hammering the reframing for nuclear.
Just hammering it.
It's like, okay, if you want green, if you don't want climate change, you're going to have to wake up on nuclear energy.
It's much safer than it used to be, etc.
So it looks like that message, you know, Michael Schellenberger and, you know, a lot of other people are the primary drivers of that.
And so congratulations to them.
There's a new AI product that can translate you into 130 or more languages, but a video of you.
So you already know the AI can listen to you speaking and then Dub in a different language, but your lips would not, yeah, and Mark, let's say shout out to Mark Schneider for his work on nuclear framing, especially Mark.
And anyway, so you know that AI could already translate you almost instantly, but your lips would not match up with the words.
However, there's a new product that actually will sync your lips on the video In other words, it will reanimate your mouth.
So it matches the language that you choose.
Now that's cool.
That's cool.
I keep waiting for stuff that's genuinely useful.
Because AI, I always tease AI because it looks like demo-ware.
It's like stuff that is demonstrating what it might be able to do later, but it can't do now.
And it's just so frustrating.
Look at what it almost can do.
But can I do it now?
No, but almost.
No.
Can I do it now?
Yes, you can do it now.
Well, why don't I know how to do it?
Well, you'd have to be trained.
Well, how long would it take to train?
A few days.
And in two days, would it be the same AI that I trained on?
No, no, that'll be totally replaced in two days.
So here's a, uh, I don't know if anybody has mentioned this before, so I'll put my own name on it.
The Adams rule of AI training, and in this case, training the human to use the AI.
Have you told yourself, Hey, I should spend a day learning how to use this AI?
I told you that in the beginning, you know, when AI first broke, I said, Oh, you should just, you should take a week and just like hunker down and learn everything about it.
Cause it's going to be everywhere.
Totally wrong.
Totally wrong.
You know why?
Nothing stayed the same.
In one week, you would become kind of a little expert, but everything you learned that week would be completely useless one week later.
For example.
And by the way, I'm a little bit proud that I predicted this.
I'll need some confirmation, because I might have predicted it in my head.
I don't know if I predicted it out loud, but here's what I predicted.
That the so-called super-prompts would not be useful in the long run.
In other words, the AI would keep changing so that using the exact right way to ask the question would become obsolete so quickly, because it wouldn't work on the next version, that there would be almost no point in having super-prompts.
That has happened.
is talking about this and what to do about it because he consults with tech companies about AI and provided lots of super prompts that he had tested to know that these are good prompts.
But he gives all his clients the super prompts and then the AI upgrades and they break.
And how would you know what to do for the next version?
You couldn't know.
So you can't know if your old super prompt works anymore.
Because maybe you're just using it as opposed to testing it every time you use it.
So they're already pre-tested, but not against the AI that's going to be there next week.
So whatever this rule is that you can't learn it as fast as it changes and makes your learning useless?
Has that ever happened before?
Is this the first time in history That the rate a human could learn a thing is too slow to use the thing.
Because the thing will never be the same thing you learned.
Now, I'll tell you the first time I learned this.
This happened to me in my career once.
I used to have a job in a laboratory in the phone company, one of my first jobs, to test brand new equipment, like new types of phones, to see if it would work with our digital products especially.
And so we would get all these new products, you know, AT&T would make a new phone or whatever, and we'd plug it in.
And it would take us a few weeks to test it all and everything.
And then I would write up a report so that the customers could know whether to buy this equipment and whether or not it would work with the phone company.
Because they didn't want to buy equipment unless the phone company was compatible.
And things were changing quickly.
So it would take me a few weeks to test things, get them in, put out my report.
And do you know what would happen by the time my report went out?
Every time?
The hardware that I tested had a firmware upgrade in the meantime.
What good was my test?
The test had no value at the moment it was published.
It had no value.
Because without the software or firmware of that product, you've tested nothing.
Because we know it physically connects.
Like, I wasn't testing to see if the plug goes into the hole.
I was seeing if the software and the firmware know what to do once it's plugged in.
So no, you could not test.
It wasn't possible to test fast enough that it would be useful.
So we ended up just winging it, basically.
Well, self-flying airplanes are coming.
The FAA has approved an uncrewed flight test.
So a remote-controlled, not even remote-controlled, it's flying on its own, but it would have humans who could sort of monitor it from a distance.
But having been at one point married to a pilot, I learned a little bit about the flying business, you know, from just osmosis being near it.
And one of the things I learned is that learning to fly is so unnecessarily complicated that it couldn't possibly last.
In other words, there is no way in 50 years that a pilot is going to have to learn how to fly by instruments.
There's no way.
The AI is just going to fly it if it's cloudy.
That's it.
The GPS is going to tell you where to go and when you get near the airport, the airport will talk to the Talk to the plane, you know, automatically, as well as human, if they need to.
And the plane will know everything it needs.
It will know what the traffic is in the air.
It will know what's on the ground.
It will know what's coming toward it.
It will know all the conditions.
And if it's like a wind shear on the way in, it will adjust with AI way faster than a human could.
Way faster.
If it was a JFK Junior, If he had AI, he wouldn't have died because he didn't know how to fly with instruments.
The instruments were just to take it over.
Because what would be the easiest thing for AI to do in an airplane?
The easiest thing is to fly straight.
There's nothing easier than that.
Right?
Fly straight.
And the reason that somebody like JFK Jr.
would die in a crash is that you lose your orientation in the clouds.
You actually don't know what's up and what's down.
Like, you know, yeah, you get vertigo.
So if you just push the AI button, say, can you take over so we get out of these clouds?
Fly me out of the clouds.
You would never have a crash because somebody couldn't fly by instruments.
And the total amount of processing you probably have to add to a flight to make it fully AI is probably the size of your phone.
There's no way added.
The airplane doesn't have any extra burden.
It would just be smarter.
So there is no way that people are going to be learning to fly the way they do now.
If they're even human pilots at all.
So everything in aviation is going to change drastically, very quickly.
All right.
I've got a prediction that the advertising model of The news and the advertising model of the big social media platforms cannot survive AI.
Have you reached the same conclusion?
That you can't have AI at the same time as you have an advertising model?
That they cannot coexist?
You all know that, right?
I'll give you the reason, but have you reached that conclusion on your own yet?
That's a big change.
Here's why.
As also Brian Ramelli teaches us, we're all going to have our own AI.
The AIs that we're using like Brock and ChatGPT are cloud-based.
You're typing at home, but the computing is happening somewhere in the internet.
Well, we already have, and apparently it's trivially easy technologically, to run an AI that's your own AI.
That's only on your devices, and nobody else can see it or play with it, and it knows you.
You can teach it about yourself, and you can train it to do just stuff you want it to do.
What's the first thing you're going to do?
If I get my good general purpose AI that's local, the first thing I'm going to do is say, go to CNN, download all their videos, remove the advertisements, edit them so they're tighter and faster, Speed them up to 1.4 speed, and then present them to me on a page.
Why wouldn't I do that?
You think AI can't download a video or something?
Download a video, strip out the ads, because who would know what an advertisement is, and then present it to you in a tighter form?
Of course it can.
Why would you ever watch it with the ad?
What would ever make you go to CNN's website again, if something could simply Click there and download it for you.
And I would tell my AI to do that for me before I wake up.
So I'd come in in the morning and I'd see a page that was curated just for me with no ads.
Now who would not do that?
Because at some point you'll be able to say, duplicate Scott's system.
And if I allowed you to know what that was, your AI would just go find me, duplicate the system, give it to you.
And then you'd have it.
All right.
Can AI embed ads?
Yeah, I guess it could.
AI could embed ads, too, if you go the other way.
But I think the ad model can survive, which also tells me that X might be the surviving platform in the long run.
In the long run, I think X might move to more subscriber than it should.
I think the other ones will be trying to catch up.
Well, the Washington Post strike is hilarious.
So it turns out that the owner is this rich white guy, and the Washington Post has been hiring people who really don't like rich white men.
You think Bezos has saw that coming?
So there's a video by the Strikers in which there's lots of images of the Strikers talking.
So one at a time, their face would appear, and then they'd say why they're striking.
How many white men do you think were in that group?
It's mostly women.
I don't know if it was mostly women who wanted to talk on camera, but they seem to be a female organization, primarily, based on the videos.
The Strikers look overwhelmingly female.
But also overwhelmingly people of color.
So it looks like they're being eaten alive by their own policies, in a sense.
And who was it that mocked them for writing articles about how great Bidenomics are, while complaining that they need a raise because of inflation?
So the same publication that's been telling you the economy is great, it's your imagination if you think otherwise.
They're striking because they can't pay the rent.
But who was it who said, damn it, I should have given credit to this, but one of their demands is they want to spend less time in the office.
So they want to have a guaranteed two days per week remote and one month a year that they can be anywhere, which is pretty, pretty aggressive bargaining.
But the way I read it is that they're striking to spend less time in the office with Phil Bump.
Is that too far?
I know if it were me, I'd strike so I can spend less time around Phil Bump.
Okay, he's my nemesis, so I like to tease.
I tease Phil Bump.
And if you think that his 23andMe indicates that he is 82% thumb, well, that's not true.
That's not true.
All right.
Big problems for Ramaswamy and Christie.
Apparently, to get in the next poll, you've got to be polling over 10% in the last several average of polls, and they're not.
So both Ramaswamy and Christie don't look like they're going to be in the next debate, the way things look based on current polling.
But Haley, Nikki Haley and Governor DeSantis will be there.
Now, why do you think that Nikki Haley?
It's just because she's a woman, right?
I'm pretty sure it's not because her policies are lighting anybody up.
Yeah, I think it's just she's a woman.
And by the way, that's fine.
That's not a problem.
If women or men want to have a woman in the job, I don't know, it's about time.
You know, as much as I rail against wokeness, I was actually happy we finally had a black president.
And I would be happy when we finally get a female president.
I'd like it to be a qualified person, of course.
But I feel like the country is better off if you just sort of cross those things off the list.
Just so we don't have to talk about it again.
Wouldn't you like it if the next time a major female candidate is within striking distance that we don't have to talk about her genitalia?
Wouldn't that be good?
Just get it off the conversation list.
How about a woman can be president?
How about being black does not prevent you from being president?
Okay, can we move on?
Are we done with that now?
Can we just move to something else?
Well, let's see, Biden doing more racist stuff.
So see how quickly you can determine how racist this is, right?
There's nothing that sounds racist.
But see how quickly you can identify it, because now you're tuned to it.
There's a story that says the Biden administration wants to help hundreds of thousands of households to realize their dream of home ownership.
So they're going to increase the supply of affordable homes by essentially paying people money so they can afford to buy a home.
So the government is going to help people buy affordable homes.
All people, do you think?
What kind of people?
Does that mean like all citizens, right?
Like every kind of citizen, if you don't have enough money?
No.
No, I didn't even have to read the article and I disavowed it for being racist in public and said I didn't read it.
I did that.
Was that embarrassing to me?
To disavow it for being racist without seeing anything racist about it?
Because I didn't even read the details?
No.
Because later, after I posted that it was racist, I looked at it, and of course it is.
Of course it is.
It's primarily to increase homeownership among groups that traditionally don't have as much homeownership.
What does that mean?
Not white men, basically.
Yeah.
It's just a purely, overtly, obviously, unambiguously racist use of my tax money.
And the argument is that white people had assets from their past that they're building on.
So it's way easier to own a home if you come from parents who also owned a home, etc.
Well, my parents owned a home.
But they didn't give any of that shit to me.
In fact, they died with more of my money in their estate than they have with their own money, I think.
So, why do I have to pay for somebody brown to buy a house with my money when I got no benefits from it whatsoever?
I had no benefits from, you know, assets.
But, anyway.
Anyway, so super racist.
We'll talk about all the things you're waiting for in a moment.
Here's a lesson on how not to do math in public.
So Ian Bremmer posts on X a list of all the things that are going right in the economy.
And then he made this mistake, which I caution you not to make.
Never use this sentence about your statements on social media unless you're really sure you're right.
So he shows a graph that shows a whole bunch of things that are going well in the country that people don't know are going well on economics.
And then he says, just going to leave this here.
Now, just going to leave this here is a strong statement that says, this is so right that you can't even argue it.
And by the way, I don't even have to explain to you why this is so right.
It's so obviously, clearly, unambiguously right.
I'm just going to leave this right here and just walk away.
I rest my case.
Now, again, I say, you got to make sure that you're right when you do that one.
So Fox News business host Charles Payne did the work for me, because I would have done it.
I would have done it, but he did the work for me.
And he says, I'm sick of media mocking folks about their struggles, meaning about their economic situation.
One-year parameter is a trap and disingenuous.
Yes, there it is.
He looked at a one-year period in which things are going well.
Because things were going so poorly before that.
It's the classic way to mislead the public.
The classic way to mislead the public is to give them a cherry-picked set of things.
So that's the first problem.
So, I'm sorry, Ian.
They left out, is there a gigantic debt problem that's going to destroy the country?
Like the most important thing about the economy.
Or can you, can you, can you afford gas and groceries as well as you could?
I mean, the basic questions you should have been asking were not included in this, in this little list that he, he just said he's just going to leave here.
But to his credit, Charles Payne would have none of that and quickly noticed it was a one year period, which is no way to look at anything.
And that, you know, I'll add that it leaves out some categories, of course.
Yeah.
And then Charles Payne, after dunking on Ian Bremmer, finishes with, I'm just going to leave it here.
So let me say this.
If you don't follow Ian Bremmer, you should.
Because on geopolitical stuff, very good.
Very good on geopolitical stuff.
A good follow.
However, and this is not an insult.
This is not an insult.
Charles Payne is a business guy, right?
So his background, his models, his frame of thinking, his business.
So when he looked at this, he immediately could identify the problem with it because he has that frame.
If you're not a business guy all day long, you could be forgiven for not noticing something was missing, right?
But, you know, I'm a business guy, business school background.
I could see it immediately, Charles Payne.
Business guy, I could see it immediately.
So, it does make a difference if you have those backgrounds.
All right, so I guess the University of Penn president, one of the three who refused to, as clearly as she might have, denounce, well, you know, the whole Hamas situation.
But now the University of Pennsylvania, they've got some kind of a Board, they're asking her to resign.
Should she resign?
What do you think?
Based on her inadequate public statements?
Well, this is what Bill Ackerman said that I thought was a really clever reframe.
All right, here's a reframe.
Think of the three college professors, MIT, Harvard, and UPenn, and think about their answers in public to Congress and how they were Smirky and kind of disgusting.
And Ackman asked this question.
If those three positions were open, if they were available, you know, available positions, does anybody think that any of those three current presidents would have even been considered based on what we know today?
No.
No, they wouldn't.
No.
So why are they presidents today?
This is Bill Ackman's frame, it's kind of brilliant.
Why are they presidents if everybody would agree that if the job were open, they would never be hired?
That seems like an easy decision, doesn't it?
But we'll see.
I think the donors are going to put too much pressure on the universities.
I think that they probably will be forced to resign, but we'll see.
So Alex Jones was on Tucker Carlson.
Of course, he makes a lot of news.
Let's talk about that.
Some of the things that we heard from Alex Jones are that, first of all, you should know that he's considered by many on the right to be practically psychic for his predictions that have been right on.
And the one that stands out is that before 9-11, I think only months before, he was saying that bin Laden Might be, let's say, framed for something that, you know, dark shadowy people do, and it might involve flying a jetliner into the World Trade Center.
He actually said that months before 9-11.
Is that crazy?
Now, here's the question.
Is he psychic?
Is he lucky?
Does he look at different source materials than you do, and therefore he can piece things together?
I don't know.
But I'll tell you my best guess.
I think he might be brilliant at pattern recognition.
And that the patterns often are subtle.
Which is, I don't know if it's exactly prediction, but I guess it would be.
Yeah, I guess it would be.
He talks about the materials he looked at before he came up with that prediction.
So apparently, here's things we knew.
I'd never heard of Bin Laden.
But if you read certain materials about, you know, potential terrorism, you would have heard that name.
So he knew who Bin Laden was, and he calls him an ex-CIA asset.
Right?
Now, I didn't know that.
Or I don't know about the CIA asset part.
But it's something he read.
Now we also know that the same, essentially the same group of terrorists, had tried to bomb the World Trade Center.
So now you've got the name of a terrorist, because he was better informed than the rest of us, and he was known to be a dangerous one.
We've got a target that they went after before, that seems likely they might try again.
So here's the pattern.
So now you've got a person who does this kind of thing, You can name a target because it's the same target they tried before.
And I think they, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they threaten to do it again?
Wasn't there some suggestion they'd threaten to do it again?
And then separately, there had been a story around that time about a plot to, I guess, have the CIA or somebody do a false flag with an American airline.
Now those three things were roiling around in his head at the same time.
Now if you're good at pattern recognition, you say to yourself, OK, something about Bin Laden, his name I keep seeing, something about World Trade Center, because they said they would go after it, and they're also talking about an airline, put them together, airline, World Trade Center, Bin Laden, boom.
Is that how he did it?
Maybe.
Maybe.
So it could actually be that he's good at pattern recognition, and that he simply read more source materials than you did.
By the way, that's what he says.
He says that's how he did it.
Maybe?
That might be exactly how he did it.
Now, before you go off and say, my god, he's right every time, it's amazing, I would caution you this.
If you don't have a list of all the things he's ever predicted, to know whether this was, like, You know, an amazing hit?
Or was it one of a hundred wild things he said?
Ten of them happened.
Ninety of them didn't.
Does that give you a different impression of what's going on?
I don't know.
Now, he also has one other characteristic which probably serves him well.
He assumes the worst about the government.
Now, I hate to say it, but if you just want to look psychic, Just predict that the government is lying about everything they say.
And you will look like a genius in five years.
Am I right?
So part of his trick is he just always assumes the government's up to no good.
And that turns out to be a pretty good assumption.
Not always, but pretty good.
So I don't know how to judge his accuracy, but he's got some genuine hits there that can't be ignored.
He also said that Joe Biden, that he knows that Joe Biden walks around the White House naked at night and is all drugged up, and that he and Tucker agreed, because Tucker apparently has confirmed information that Biden's on amphetamines, and that they pump him up with amphetamines just before public appearances, but then he's basically blithering idiot all the rest of the time.
Does that sound right?
I would say it not only sounds right, I feel like it's obvious.
Don't you think it's kind of obvious that he's drugged up when they brought him out in public?
To me, I'd say if this isn't true, I'd be really surprised.
Really, really surprised.
So at what point do you get your president drug tested?
Would it be reasonable to ask?
Because I don't believe when the White House doctor does an exam, aren't they supposed to tell us if the president's on drugs?
Is that not part of what the public should know?
Because what would be the point of saying, oh, this person is healthy, if we don't know they're on cocaine or something?
You think amphetamines have no impact on your decision-making?
Yeah.
Do you know what ISIS is given to go into battle and Hamas fighters are given to go into battle?
Amphetamines.
You know why they give them amphetamines?
Because it makes them do brave and reckless things.
It makes them do brave and reckless things.
In other words, they shouldn't have been brave about it.
They should have not done it at all.
How do you like knowing that your head of your military, who's involved in one hot war, and, you know, well, I guess he's involved in two hot wars, although not with soldiers yet.
How do you like the fact that that's the guy who might be taking a drug, almost certainly is, taking a drug that guaranteed Could he make you more, let's say, confident and therefore more prone to risk?
What do you think?
I feel like we need to know that.
And if we don't know it, that should be grounds for impeachment.
That's what I think.
There's a story that, this is how Tucker Carlson is framing it.
That the Biden administration is openly threatening that if we don't fund Ukraine, that our sons will be sent to die.
Now, I'm not sure that's exactly the way it was framed, but it's pretty close.
It's pretty close.
Here's what actually happened.
So, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told some members of the House in a closed briefing that if they don't appropriate more money for Ukraine, We'll end up sending your uncles and cousins and sons to fight in Russia.
Now, it's not exactly a threat.
It's more like a worst-case scenario.
Like if we don't do this, we might be forced to do this other thing that we also don't want to do.
But it does come across as a threat.
Even if that's not the intention.
He's using it literally to negotiate.
If you're using the risk of sending your children to die as your negotiating lever, well, that is sort of blackmail.
That is sort of blackmail, isn't it?
It's right on the line.
I mean, I guess you could say it's somewhat transparent, except that it was a closed-door meeting, I think, which is not so transparent.
I'd feel less bad if he said it in public, because at least, you know, we all see exactly what's going on.
But if he's using that as a method to threaten lawmakers behind closed doors, that's pretty not cool.
All right, Nikki Haley's campaign has an advisor that's already calling Vivek Ramaswamy's destruction of her during the debate as misogynist.
Let me give you some advice, Nikki Haley.
If you're running as a Republican and a woman, and somebody criticizes you, and your attack, at least through your proxies, I think she said it before, is that it's misogyny, you're no fucking Republican.
How in the world does she have enough support to make it into the next?
I mean, that's as un-Republican as you could be.
She's literally saying that her, like her, I mean, well, I don't even have to say more, do I?
Do I have to say more about that?
What else is there to say?
You could not be less qualified if that's the best you got.
The best you got is, oh, I'm a woman now and I'm superior because I'm a woman, which she said.
She actually says she's superior because she's a woman.
And that also anybody who has a criticism of her policies is a misogynist.
Fuck you, Nikki Haley.
You fucking cunt.
I do not want you anywhere near the Oval Office.
Because we don't need a sexist in the office, right?
We don't need somebody who's an obvious, misandrious, sexist, woke, bullshit artist, money-spending... ...piece of shit.
Well, that's just my opinion.
Alright, um... Let's see...
So see if you can recognize what this topic is.
I'll read a quote, and this comes out of a larger piece, but see if you can find the topic.
If the United States allows a country to be crushed in an illegal invasion, it will raise grave questions about the credibility of defense and strategic agreements that underpin the entire Western world.
So allows a country to be crushed By an illegal invasion.
He's talking about the border, right?
He's talking about our border, right?
Because we're being crushed by an illegal invasion, and it would hurt our credibility, our defense, our strategic agreements.
No, this is Stephen Collison talking about our need to fund Ukraine.
Yeah, we need to fund the border in Ukraine.
So that we're credible while our own border has people screaming across it.
He actually said that.
Imagine writing that, you know, with no sense of awareness about how that sounds.
Amazing.
Anyway.
Wow.
So there was a Trump ruling that Trump liked in New York City.
And so I saw Trump saying he was happy about the ruling, and so I said, ah, what is this ruling?
So I went to look for it.
Couldn't find it.
Couldn't find it.
So I finally had to ask Grok to go find me the news about why is Trump happy about some ruling.
So I found it out.
So that was one thing that Grok did that helped me.
I couldn't find it in the news.
It seemed like it would be big news.
But it wasn't on anybody's front page.
So here's the ruling.
I guess at the moment, the judge who's already ruled about Trump's so-called inflating his assets, etc.
So he's already ruled that that was fraudulent.
But then the question is, what's the penalty?
And one of the potential penalties is that Trump would lose all of his business or have to put it in some kind of a trust or something in New York.
So apparently the judge has decided, you know, to temporarily halt that.
So we don't know what happens in the long run, but at the moment the judge is not closing down Trump's business in New York.
Is that because it's so obvious that there was no victim of the crime and they would not close down anybody else's business in the same circumstance?
Is it just too embarrassing at this point?
Looks like it.
Well, Hunter Biden is in trouble now.
He's got some charges against him.
So he's got, what, nine charges, mostly for taxes, or all for taxes, I guess.
I guess he was writing off his hookers and his drugs and his sex clubs and everything else is business and treating things as loans.
And, oh my God, it was just a mess.
So apparently his tax cheating was just epic.
It wasn't just a little bit.
It wasn't just when he was on drugs.
He was just a gigantic tax cheat.
Allegedly.
We'll see if they prove it.
But here's what CNN says.
Oh, and by the way, there's no FARA charges.
So FARA is the thing that says you have to register as a foreign agent if you're doing work for other countries.
That would have a political impact I guess so he didn't register that way, but he was clearly taking money from China and Ukraine, etc.
So There's a thought that because the language that we've seen does mention his his work in the other countries and it mentions them specifically that Probably there might be some consideration of some further charges later about those not being a registered lobbyist.
I think At the moment it's just about his not paying taxes.
And he spent his money on drugs and escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels, rental properties, exotic cars, clothing and other items.
Yikes!
As Stephen Miller points out on X, you have to appreciate that the previous president's son, so Trump's son, was at a meeting once And it was a two-year-long news cycle.
Now we learned that the current president's son is basically Patrick Bateman and CNN's fact-checker.
CNN's fact-checker is away on leave, and the Washington Post's fact-checker is on strike.
So the Biden news comes out when the CNN fact-checker is on vacation, or on leave, and the Washington Post is on strike.
That's too good.
That is a good post, Stephen Miller.
Nicely done on that one.
So what do you think?
Do you think that the charges against Hunter are a clear indication that the Democrats have flipped on Biden and that they want him to get out of there as soon as possible and he's not going?
So they're just going to keep the pressure on?
That's what it looks like.
To me, it looks like Hunter was being protected politically.
And now they don't want to protect them.
In fact, they want to put pressure on Biden to get out of there.
I've got a feeling that's what's happening.
Now, I told you I thought Biden was hanging on so he could pardon Hunter, but at least some of the charges are California charges.
Am I right?
So you wouldn't be able to pardon him on any California charges.
These are pretty serious felony charges.
Delaware, you say?
Well, I see California listed as The state on these.
All right.
Those are California federal courts.
Oh, it's a federal court, but in California.
Is that what you're telling me?
Oh, okay.
Correction.
Correction.
It's a California-based, but it's a federal court in California.
All right.
Sorry.
I got that wrong.
Federal.
So all the charges are federal.
Is that correct?
So far, all charges are federal?
Well, isn't that convenient?
How convenient?
The charges against Trump end up being state charges.
Huh.
Huh.
But the charges against Hunter, all are conveniently federal.
How about that, huh?
Now, if he didn't pay his taxes, can we just, you know, let's just take this to the next level.
Are you seriously telling me That they're going to charge him federally for not paying his federal taxes.
But there's no state that wants to charge him for not paying his state taxes.
So do the federal charges cover not paying his state taxes?
I don't know.
I have questions about that.
All right.
Van Jones.
As you know, criticized Vivek Ramaswamy because Vivek said that there is something like a replacement theory happening, meaning that the white Americans are being replaced by foreigners.
And Van Jones said, well, that's pretty racist sounding thing to say that there's some kind of plan to replace white people with brown people.
And it took all of one day for Vivek And his team to find a video of Van Jones saying, this is actually Van Jones saying this in 2021.
The request from the racial justice left is we want the white majority to go from being a majority to being a minority and like it.
He says that's a tough request and change is hard.
So in Van Jones' own words, he says that the left, that's his group, Very directly, wants to get rid of the white majority, and wants the white majority to be happy about it.
He said that.
He said it directly.
That's exactly what Vivek is saying.
That there's an intention, it's not just happening accidentally, but the people on the left have an intention of replacing white people until they're not in charge anymore.
According to them.
Yeah.
Now, That's about as good a dunk as you can do.
It's hard to find a dunk that's this clean where somebody criticized you and then you find in 2021 a video of them saying exactly the thing they criticized you.
That's a good dunk.
According to City Journal, the University of Washington for years has been directly avoiding hiring white candidates.
And even if they were best qualified, they would use a process of making up different qualifications so they could hire someone else.
They would basically change the job requirements until it no longer fit the highly qualified person.
And something about life experience or something would fit somebody else.
All right.
So they actually have a handbook that's been obtained by the National Association of Scholars This spells out how to exclude candidates of, quote, undesirable races.
Yeah, I don't think this has undesirable races.
This is just somebody else's opinion that it's undesirable.
Or that they think it's undesirable.
So it's in writing.
It's in writing.
Yeah.
How about those air traffic controllers?
Apparently the House Republicans are taking action to reverse an Obama administration policy that would lower the skill requirement for air traffic controllers so they could get more diversity.
And the assessment reportedly gives more... I don't know if any of this is true.
This doesn't sound true.
But maybe.
But here's the claim.
That if you're an applicant to be an air traffic controller and you have a scientific background that they would ding you for it because it might make you sound too white or Asian if you understood science.
This is the most racist thing I've ever seen in my life.
Anyway, and then they'll give you extra points if you haven't been employed for three years.
So they want you not to understand science, but also to be somebody who's been unemployable in general for three years.
I will never fly again.
I'm not gonna fly until those damn planes are flying themselves.
You can't get me a self-flying plane fast enough.
I mean, seriously.
This is hilariously stupid.
But to their credit, the Republicans are trying to fix it.
Now, I've got a observation that you're seeing more people talk about.
Do you know, I think a lot of you do now, who is the most discriminated demographic group in the United States and has been for decades?
The most discriminated group for decades in the United States has been, well, I asked that question on a poll.
Let me Update it, see what people said.
So I said, what group in America experiences the most direct discrimination?
So not specific, but direct.
And then I cheekily said, I'm not including women in the survey for obvious reasons.
You know what the obvious reasons are?
That I'm not including women in the survey?
Because it's obviously not them.
They're obviously not the ones we're most discriminated against.
So there's no point in putting them in there.
So my categories were white men, black men, Asian men, and Hispanic men.
And here's how my followers, or at least the ones who saw this, so 7,800 votes, and 82% say white men are the group that experiences the most discrimination.
Next is Asian men at 9%, black men at 7, and Hispanic men at 2.
Now, do you wonder why Hispanic men are streaming into the country at record levels?
How about the fact that they experience the least amount of discrimination, including the people who are already here?
Imagine being Hispanic, and you're trying to come into the country illegally, and you find out not only can you come in illegally, but they'll be very polite to you at the border, They might give you food and medical care if you need it.
And then they will take you to a place that will provide you food and shelter until you can get established.
What would you think of America if that was your experience?
Because that's the experience of a whole lot of people right now.
I would love America.
Even though I might be in a bad situation until I can build something and get something going, I would love the fact that they embraced me when I walked in illegally.
How do you not love that?
It's pretty awesome.
So yeah, it makes sense.
But why do you think it is that the press and social media and most of the people who don't follow me on social media, why would they not answer that white men are the most discriminated class?
What would cause them not to know that?
In my opinion, there are something like 100,000,000 direct witnesses that this is true.
White men.
I'll say it again.
There are at least 100,000,000 direct eyewitnesses that white men are the most directly discriminated in America.
100,000,000 witnesses spanning at least 40 years.
So why did the rest of the country not know this?
If there are a hundred million witnesses.
A hundred million witnesses.
That's not... I don't think that's an exaggeration.
That might be low.
Like, I picked a conservative number.
It could be 200 million.
But at least a hundred million direct witnesses.
You know why it's not in the news and we act like we don't know it?
Because the other 250 million people are taking it as their full-time fucking job to make sure that the hundred million don't say it out loud.
Am I wrong?
250 million people are making goddamn sure that the 100 million don't talk.
Because if they do, the whole game is lost.
The whole game is to keep abusing this one class of citizens and make them say they like it.
You know who agrees with me?
Van fucking Jones.
He said it directly in 2021, that you're trying to get white people to like it, and that's a hard sell.
Because why would they?
Why would they?
Yeah.
So let me say it again.
There are a hundred million witnesses to this crime.
A hundred million.
And there are 250 fucking assholes telling them to stay the fuck shut.
Keep their mouth shut.
That's why, that's why people don't know about it.
That's the whole story right there.
Now, here's what I think.
I don't know if this is true for everybody.
I think white men are just done.
You know what that means, right?
We're done rolling over.
Because it didn't work.
Let me tell you about white men.
I can't speak for any other group, and I probably shouldn't speak for white men, but it's an observation.
It's not like a scientific fact.
But white men very much want to get along.
We just don't want to make trouble.
Just want to earn my money, take care of the family, stay out of trouble.
And as long as that works, we will eat so much shit.
As long as I'm making my money, taking care of the family, you know, I get to drink some beer and watch some sports, I'm good.
But once you get to the point where you can't earn money and you can't take care of your family, you don't have any reason to keep your mouth shut.
So you're gonna see some free speech like you never expected.
Because people like me are putting our entire lives on the line to make this possible for you.
You know that, right?
You know I put my life on the fucking line to make this possible for the rest of you to speak maybe a little bit more freely.
Yeah.
This is not just the social media doesn't like you.
It's not just, oh, you lost a little money.
We're putting our lives on the line.
And it's because we're done.
We're just done.
It's time to be honest.
And you're gonna get some honesty that you were not expecting.
And in the end it will be good.
In the end it will be good for everybody.
Because I don't think there's bad intentions anyway.
There's no bad intentions.
It's just we've aged shit for 40 fucking years and now we're done.
Let me say that again.
White man, we ate shit for 45 years, and now we're done.
So things will be different.
I don't know exactly how, but we're definitely done.
So just know that.
All right.
Charlemagne the God is one of the guest hosts of The Daily Show.
I guess they have a rotating schedule of guest hosts until they can find their permanent one.
Well, Charlemagne the God says he wants Biden to deliver the ultimate Christmas gift and drop out of the race.
Now, Charlemagne the God identifies presumably on left Democratic side of things.
And so he's saying it directly.
Now, I think that's useful and smart.
And I would give him credit for being a good citizen and a patriot in this regard.
I don't know what else he's done, but I kind of have a positive opinion of him for this.
So here's the interesting thing.
So I looked at some of the other people who were on board to maybe guest host.
And I was thinking, who would maybe not be able to get this job As a guest host on The Daily Show, who would be qualified?
Can you think of two people you know who would be totally qualified for the job, but could not get it if they applied for it?
Well, one would be me.
Would you agree?
Would you agree that I'm both qualified for the job?
I'm literally a humorist who talks about the news in a humorous fashion on a live stream seven days a week.
That's pretty qualified.
I have a long track record of success in professional domains very much like this.
Kind of perfect.
I've been offered jobs like this.
Years ago, ABC Good Morning America offered me a job to be a non-air commentator.
So I think I'd be qualified.
But do you think I could get that job in 2024?
No.
You know who else would never get hired for that job?
Here's the funny one.
I saved the funny one.
Jon Stewart.
Jon Stewart.
You think Jon Stewart could get a job on the Daily Show in 2024?
Doubt it.
So, Jon Stewart.
How you feeling now?
All right.
Glenn Greenwald continues to be, I don't know what the word for it is, but he is so useful to America, even though he doesn't live here, right?
He is so useful because he's willing to say any damn thing that is unpleasant, but you should hear it.
Like, I love that about him, even when I disagree with him, which happens sometimes.
Well, he said this, this has been the single best week in years for the cause of limiting free expression and free discourse.
In other words, he's saying, you know, censorship is an all-time high.
He says, anyone who claims they believe in free speech, while they cheer the union of hedge fund billionaire and DC politicians to impose speech limits, is a fraud.
So, I think what he's talking about, if I interpret this correctly, is that the people telling the pro-Palestinian people to shut up are anti-free speech.
Now, are those people making it very, very difficult for Jewish students to just enjoy their lives and feel safe and go to college?
Yeah!
Yeah.
Super, super uncomfortable.
And I don't know what you do about that.
And still maintain free speech.
So, it looks like the colleges are probably going to prefer keeping the students safe, I think, in the long run.
And that probably means limiting free speech.
Are you in favor of that?
Because the problem is that one person's incitement to violence is another person's ordinary talking.
So, and I think Glenn made this point, that when to Jewish and American ears, some of the things that the Palestinian supporters say, sound kind of like, kill them all.
And it sounds like that to me.
But his argument would be that they're not thinking it that way.
And therefore, we're misinterpreting to some extent.
I think it would be more fair to say, some of them are definitely thinking of it that way.
But others might not.
So what do you do with that?
That's a tough one.
So let me state again, I'm 100% in favor of Israel's response to October 7.
100%.
I think everything they've done so far looks right to me, in the sense that we would have done the same thing.
So I don't judge anybody who does exactly what I would have done in the same situation.
How can I?
So I'm 100% in favor of everything they've done so far.
Um, and that, and, and I take myself out of the conversation for everything that happened before October 7th.
Right?
So I'm not endorsing Israel.
I'm not condemning them.
I'm not interested.
I'm just not interested.
That's, that's their business.
They can work it out.
But if you're asking me about October 7th, yeah.
If that happens to your country, you're going to respond exactly the way Israel is if you're smart and you have the ability to do it.
But that said, there is some impact on free speech that's happening right now, and I'm glad that Glenn Greenwald is calling it out.
I'm going to give him a little bit of support on this while saying that I hate seeing the pictures of the Palestinians who seem to be horrifying The Jewish students, I don't see the benefit to it.
I don't like it.
I hate everything about it.
But you know, when Black Lives Matter was protesting, I was a little uncomfortable with that.
But except for the violent parts, I still support it.
When the racists, the Nazis, are getting their little group together of 12 people, that's all they can ever muster these days.
And the 12 people say terrible things.
I still favor their free speech.
Don't agree with their message.
So I'm on Greenwald's side.
I think that we're chipping away at free speech because we are too invested in protecting one side.
Now that's not a bad impulse.
I kind of like the fact that we're invested in protecting parts of our public.
So it's a tough one.
You almost can't have free speech and also protect the public the way it should be protected.
So it's going to be a tough one.
So I guess Israel is using seawater to flood those tunnels over there in Gaza now.
And we saw some videos that show a bunch of prisoners that came out of the tunnels rather than drown.
And some people are calling it a success way too early.
It looked like, I don't know, maybe 40 people they captured in one video.
That's not anywhere near the number that are down there.
So we don't know if it's working.
And we don't know if it's going to destroy the... The big risk, if you didn't know this, is that because it's underground stuff, if you bump a bunch of seawater in there, it's going to pollute the aquifer, which is freshwater.
So Gaza depends on drilling into the freshwater that will be polluted by, maybe, the saltwater.
So it's possible that the freshwater supply for Gaza Is gone forever.
Gone forever, right?
Because if you get the seawater in there, you can't really get it out.
It becomes unusable.
Now maybe there's some desalinization, you know, way to get around that, but that's a pretty big secondary effect.
And I would add this to my watch list of signals that suggest that Israel doesn't want to ever to be resettled.
Now, I'm not going to make that as an accusation.
I'm going to say I speculate that at least one possibility that would work for Israel is that nobody ever lives there again.
And removing the fresh water would certainly go a long way toward making that happen.
So, it could be they're getting a twofer out of this, but I don't want to accuse them of having that intention.
It might just be what ends up happening.
If you're looking for the intention, this would be one thing that would be consistent with it, but not proof of it.
And I have to say, if it were me, I might want to leave it uninhabited.
Otherwise, you just recreate the problem.
Let's see.
So Secretary Blinken Says that the Ukraine situation was more of a win-win than we realized.
90% of the money that we quote sent to Ukraine was actually spent on American military contractors and manufacturers.
First of all, do you believe that?
Because I thought we were Paying the pensions of politicians and we're feeding people and paying salaries of stuff.
Do you believe that 90% of it went right back to American producers?
And if it's true, does that make you feel good or bad?
If it's true, then I would say it's a really high signal that it's a unnecessary war and that we're doing it for the benefit of the people who got the money.
Have you ever heard of follow the money?
As in follow the money explains everything, usually, all the time, every time.
If you follow the money in this one, a bunch of money came out of your pocket, you know, indirectly, because we borrowed, I suppose.
It went right back into the pockets of these military contractors who have, you know, a huge lobbying impact on Congress.
Does that suggest that this is a war we should be supporting?
Or does it suggest it's the only war we had available to keep the military-industrial complex humming along?
To me it looks like an optional war, that we did it just to keep feeding the military-industrial complex.
If Ukraine went away tomorrow, do you think we wouldn't find another place to go to war?
Of course we would.
Because we have an entire industry that requires some kind of a brewing ha-or, or else they can't make as much money.
So, yeah.
So, yeah, so there are 600,000 dead Ukrainians.
Kim Dotcom was saying this.
You got over 600,000 dead Ukrainians.
And Blinken stands up there and says, it looks like a win-win scenario.
Because Ukraine lost, you know, Probably more than a million people, I'm sure.
And what we got was some good income.
He actually said that.
I mean, I'm paraphrasing it.
But he actually said it was a win-win.
That Ukraine is winning by somehow losing their entire, you know, young base.
That's a hell of a win.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes my comments.
The best you've ever seen.
I guess I was a little more honest than I was expecting today.
Let's keep an eye on Grok and see if it improves.
I think it'll be rapidly improving.
I wouldn't think too hard about its current flaws.
I think it's, you know, early release.
Wanted to get it out there and get some comments.
I think we're probably a few months away from Grok just blowing your mind, but we'll see.
