Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 24, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:24:11

Episode 2515 CWSA 06/24/24

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Even understand with their tiny, smooth human brains.
	All you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, chalice or stein, a kenteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
	Fill it with your favorite liquid.
	I like coffee.
	And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
	It's the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
	It's called the simultaneous sip.
	And it's going to happen now.
	Go.
	So good.
	So good.
	That was a little extra today, a little extra good.
	Well, I hadn't heard much from Bry.ai, Prince of Fakes.
	He started a company to make a sex toy that uses some AI for some extra, extra good time.
	And I got a little update from him on the X platform today.
	He said, Our original plan at Orifice, that's the name of his company, Orifice, was to only hire female developers since everyone told us we can hire them for the same work as 75 cents on a dollar.
	That's a pretty solid plan.
	Turns out they want the same rate for the same work.
	What?
	What?
	The ladies are asking for the same pay for the same work?
	When did that start?
	But yeah, so I guess that whole plan just went to hell, because the women are asking for the same amount of pay.
	What has the world come to?
	But then Bry goes on, not to be defeated, he said that after learning that Disney won't hire a white man, we decided to hire only white men.
	Now that's some smart thinking, because you can get a white man now for 75 cents on a dollar.
	Because nobody wants them.
	It's just supply and demand, people.
	It's supply and demand.
	Yeah, white people on sale!
	If you'd like a white developer, I think you could offer them 75 cents on a dollar now.
	All right, now the big question that people have been asking is the big debate is coming on Thursday.
	Could change the fate of the world.
	It might actually change the fate of the world.
	And people are saying, what kind of drug cocktail is Biden going to be on to get him through that?
	Well, I don't know for sure, but I'm going to use all of my medical knowledge to speculate.
	All of it.
	Yeah.
	I'm not going to leave any of my vast medical knowledge on the sideline.
	I'm going to use all of it.
	Uh, I think he's going to need some kind of a stimulant.
	So I would go with Adderall because you want to stay legal.
	You'll probably have some kind of dementia specific drug.
	I don't know too much about those, but there's probably something out there that gets you a little extra poop.
	But I think he's also going to have Viagra.
	Two reasons that I can think of.
	Number one, he has trouble knowing which way to go when he gets done, so this will help point the way.
	Okay, the other reason, might be a better one, is it could be used as a memory device, a memory device, the Viagra.
	Now, there was a study that said that Viagra literally helps you process stuff better.
	It helps your brain.
	Might be good for your brain.
	But beyond that, it's also a memory device.
	Does that make sense to you?
	They would use it as like a mnemonic, a memory device?
	All right, let me explain.
	I guess that's not obvious how he would do that.
	Let's say he's talking about January 6th, and he loses his train of thought.
	And it might go like this.
	Uh, that mean old Trump, uh, January 6th, uh, uh, you said that, uh, you saw, you all saw it, uh, uh, uh, you saw it, uh, uh, uh, he led an INSA.
	He led a, he's leading, uh, January 6th, he led the INSA, the INSA, the INSA.
	Insurrection!
	Insurrection!
	That's what it was.
	So it's like a memory.
	It's a memory device.
	All right.
	Raise your hands if you've seen the new Disney movie called The Acolyte.
	I'm just joking.
	Nobody saw that movie.
	Because it's the worst movie they've ever made.
	It's woke garbage.
	And the new fun part About that, uh, is that the, uh, the woman who made it, Leslie Hedlund, uh, apparently she's, uh, identifies as a lesbian and she says, uh, before the movie came out that she wanted to quote, tick off their problematic male dominated audience.
	So she actually made a movie that would tick off male audiences.
	Well, good job.
	You did it.
	You may have miscalculated a little bit.
	Let me explain a few things.
	Some things that maybe weren't obvious.
	Maybe you should have sought some other opinions.
	But here's what you might have missed.
	It's not that white men aren't going to watch your movie.
	Is that what you think is going to happen?
	No, that's not the problem.
	The problem is not white men not watching your movie.
	No, the problem is white men aren't going to watch another one of your fucking movies ever.
	No, we're never going to watch another fucking Star Wars.
	The whole thing is dead.
	It's dead now.
	I wouldn't watch it if it got the best reviews of any Star Wars.
	It's fucking dead.
	You know what else is dead?
	Your whole fucking company, Disney.
	Right.
	Now, if you'd asked me ahead of time, Do you think people will watch the movie anyway?
	I would have said, well, it depends.
	How woke is it?
	Once I found out, I might have said, you know, probably not.
	Probably not.
	And then she would have said, perhaps, but they'll watch the next movie, right?
	If it's a little less woke, they'll watch the next one.
	And then I would have advised her, no, fuck you.
	We're not going to watch the next one either.
	Even if it's great.
	And then she would say, but you're still going to go to Disney World, right?
	Because that has nothing to do with this movie.
	To which I would have said, no, fuck you.
	We're not going to Disney World ever.
	Your whole goddamn country, your whole company is going to be destroyed by you.
	That's on you now.
	You just destroyed one of the greatest companies in America.
	Congratulations.
	But on the good side, you did accomplish your goal.
	Of taking off the problematic male-dominated audience.
	So good work.
	Yeah, we're gone forever.
	We're not coming back.
	Research suggests that they might figure out how to make airplanes not make noise.
	Now that doesn't seem like a big deal to you, but to me it's a pretty big deal because I live near an airport.
	It's a small airport, you know, it's just a local regional one.
	But, oh my god, every single time I walk outdoors I hear an airplane.
	Do you have that?
	You know, it's bad enough that there's leaf blowers 90% of the time when you walk outside, but there's always an airplane engine when you walk outdoors, where I live anyway.
	So, apparently they figured out how to do some echo cancellation, and I think the big secret was That they have to consider the entire airplane as the thing creating the noise.
	And if they're a little bit smarter about it, at the University of Bristol, the researchers think they can actually make an energy efficient way to get rid of the noise.
	That'd be kind of amazing.
	Well, here's some good news, bad news.
	The good news is that for the first time, there are 23 inmates Who have earned bachelor's degrees from the University of California.
	And they got these degrees.
	So, I mean, that's the good news.
	Imagine that.
	The jail system has allowed 23 inmates to improve their lives and get college degrees.
	So that's the good news.
	Let's see, what were the degrees and their majors were?
	Okay, all 23 of them majored in sociology degrees.
	Well, here again, this might have been something they should have consulted me on.
	I mean, I could have helped Disney out.
	They'd just have to ask.
	And here again, you should have asked me.
	Next time, just drop me a call.
	You know where to find me.
	And say, can we fix these prisoners lives by giving them degrees in sociology?
	And I would have said, you know, there are two things that are making it hard to get a job.
	One is a criminal record.
	And the other is a sociology degree.
	You don't want to punish them twice.
	I feel like there's some kind of double jeopardy situation here.
	They maybe have a lawsuit.
	Not only did you put me in jail for the crime, but then you made me get a sociology degree.
	Well, they didn't make them, but it's funnier that way.
	Yeah, I can't think of a less useful thing to do than give sociology degrees to inmates.
	Anyway, there's a new budget that's being worked over by the thing we call our government, but indeed is really our enemy.
	If it were our government, it would sometimes work in our favor.
	It would do things we like.
	Instead, it's decided to spend us into oblivion.
	And I say to myself, well, who does that?
	Does your friend take all of your money involuntarily and spend it on bullshit until you're all broke and poor and die of starvation?
	Is that what friends do?
	Is that what a government would do if it's working for you?
	No.
	No, so the government is obviously full-blown enemy at this point and they're stealing your money and they're telling you directly they're gonna throw it all away.
	Now the biggest thing that they're spending money on is Obamacare.
	Apparently it's outrageously expensive.
	So many people are signing up and especially free health care and of course some of that is for the migrants but that's not the biggest part.
	And so the Medicare is going up and the student debt is being paid off and you got your military budgets and Oh, we're going to be trillions of dollars more in debt, and there's nobody who gives a fuck about it who works for the government and has any power, apparently.
	So we've designed a system which can only lead to ruin.
	That is to say, we've created some kind of a government where if they say, I'd like to cut some budget, they'll lose their job.
	Right?
	They'll lose their job.
	But if they say, well, How about, we'll be okay if you spend money on your thing, if you're okay if we spend money on our thing, and we'll kick the can down the road and maybe we'll both be dead before the whole country comes to a crash.
	That they can do.
	But they can't say no to spending.
	Can't do that.
	Our system doesn't allow it.
	With, you know, they can't keep their job if they do it.
	So we've designed a system that, on paper, just on paper, Forget about people being, you know, criminal.
	Forget about people being incompetent.
	It's not really about that.
	This is actually a system that if you were to draw it up on paper and show it to me ahead of time, say, how do you think this will go?
	And I'd say, all right, so if they spend too much of the people's money, they'll get fired, right?
	No, no, no.
	It works the other way.
	If they don't spend all of the people's money, plus money the people don't even have, but will have to pay later, If you don't do that, you'll lose your job.
	And then I'd look at it and say, well, isn't that exactly the opposite of a good system?
	I would think a good system on paper would say that if you overspend the people's money, you'd have the penalty of some kind.
	No, no, it's the opposite.
	If you overspend the people's money, you get to claim you did that in your campaign and you'll get reelected.
	I brought you money for this and that.
	I increased your welfare.
	I increased your Medicare.
	Yeah, we want you in office.
	You're our person.
	So, how do we ever recover from this?
	Is it distressing to you that not only is there not an obvious way out, but there's literally nobody in the government, none, who have told you, okay, there is a way out.
	This is what it looks like.
	Now, here's something I plan to talk to Michael Ian Black tomorrow about.
	You probably know him from Twitter and from the comedy world, and he agreed to talk to me on the question of, if I think all the news is fake, which I've said, how do I know what's true?
	And on one hand, it looks like a sort of a provocative question by somebody who's, you know, opposite political preferences.
	And he does have pretty much opposite political preferences.
	But it's also a good question.
	It's a good question.
	And let me give you part of the answer.
	I'll give a longer answer when I talk to him.
	So I'll be talking to him on Tuesday, tomorrow.
	Assuming it happens, it'll be 11 a.m.
	my time, 2 p.m.
	Eastern time.
	It'll be live.
	And I will explain to him how I know what's true and what isn't.
	I'll give you an example.
	When President Trump was asked about how to handle this deficit, he said he prefers using growth.
	In other words, you improve the GDP, then you have more taxes, you know, in the natural way, because people made more money, and then you use the extra taxes to pay down the debt.
	Badaboom!
	Now, if you did not know anything about business and economics and had not been paying attention, you'd say to yourself, well, that sounds great.
	Wait a minute, you're saying that everybody gets richer because the GDP is better, but also it pays down the debt?
	It solves all of our problems and you can give that to us?
	Wow, I'm all in.
	Well, that's what you'd say if you didn't have a background in economics.
	If you did, you would say to yourself something like that, like this.
	You might say, You know, that sounds like a heck of a good plan.
	If our total debt were in the range of one trillion dollars, and maybe we're adding to it at, let's say, one or two hundred billion a year.
	We were in that situation.
	Under that situation, yeah, you actually, you might be able to grow out of it.
	That's actually a real thing.
	You know, with a little bit of inflation and etc., you could probably grow out of it.
	You can't do it at $35 trillion.
	You can't GDP your way out of a $35 trillion debt.
	There's nobody who's studied economics for five minutes who thinks that's possible.
	But whoever asked the question probably didn't know the difference.
	And so Trump gets to say that and move on.
	Here's the only thing I can see as a potential solution.
	And by the way, before I get you all gloomy, I will remind you that this would not be the first time we see a gigantic problem ahead that will kill us for sure.
	Remember when we were all going to run out of food?
	Didn't happen.
	Remember in the 70s when we were all going to run out of oil?
	Nope.
	Tons of oil.
	Remember when the ozone was going to open up and fry us?
	Didn't happen.
	Do you remember when there was definitely going to be a nuclear war sooner or later with Russia?
	There was just no way to avoid it.
	Was it going to happen?
	Nope.
	Didn't happen.
	So, we've been through, you know, countless there's-no-way-out situations.
	Yeah, now we got climate change, some say, etc.
	So, it's pretty normal to have, you know, world-ending problems that we just figure out.
	And I call this the Adam's Law of Slow-Moving Disasters.
	Where it's not obvious that you could ever solve it.
	And that, but if you have enough time and enough people are focusing on it, they do.
	Now this would be, I hope, one of those.
	I hope it's one of those.
	And let me just throw out some ideas of how it could happen.
	If one of your biggest expenses is doctors, what happens when AI is a better doctor than your doctor?
	And a robot is as coordinated as a doctor, and could put a band-aid on you, set a broken bone, give you a shot.
	What happens then?
	Well, I would argue that we're on the cusp, maybe five years away, from healthcare costs dropping to close to nothing, except for hospital stays.
	So you still need insurance for a hospital stay, But you might not need any doctoring or any doctor visits ever again once your robot can do it for you.
	That's a real thing.
	In fact, it's far more likely to happen than not.
	Almost guaranteed, really.
	Because if you have an experiment with AI, try asking AI a medical question.
	Now, you can't trust it completely because, you know, you still have some hallucinating.
	But I've gone through this experiment, you know, asking it a multivariable, what if this, what if that, you know, situation.
	It's great!
	Now, it can't, it can't yet write a prescription, but one imagines that'll get fixed.
	You know, one way or another, that'll get fixed.
	Maybe there's some human who has to sign off or something, but eventually your robot will be able to diagnose you.
	Maybe run some tests, you know, with some in-home equipment.
	You know, you could test blood pressure and some easy stuff.
	Maybe even test blood.
	You know, some years ago I saw a technology that would allow you to do blood tests without putting a needle in you and taking out blood.
	I don't know if it worked, but the idea was it was a little like a piece of adhesive
	They had little spikes in it so you just put the adhesive on your arm and it would go in just deep enough to get a little bit of something and you take it off like a band-aid and your arm looks fine and you just put it in the machine that was so sensitive that it would it would be a whole range of blood tests and it would just be a tabletop device you could actually have one at home you know or you could have one for the neighborhood or something like that so if you combine the fact that medical equipment
	It's going to keep dropping in price and be in your home.
	You add that to a robot with AI that'll be better than the best doctor.
	It's sense of even doing stuff like reading x-rays.
	I wouldn't be surprised if you have something like an imaging device in your home at some point.
	Some kind of handheld robot related thing and they can use AI to figure out what's inside your body.
	Have you seen the experiments where the robot can read Wi-Fi signals And it can figure out where the people are in the house.
	And the reason it can do it is that it's good at pattern recognition.
	So you can just have it look at a Wi-Fi signal from a house and it can draw a picture of the shapes of the people in the house and where they are and what they're doing.
	Did you know that?
	Now take that.
	It can take Wi-Fi signals and figure out where you are and actually show an outline of you in your actual physical space inside a house.
	Now imagine you take that technology, put it into a handheld imaging device, I don't know what kind it would be, but it wouldn't be as good as, let's say, an MRI.
	You know, an MRI, you gotta, it's this big machine, you gotta be inside the tube and all that.
	But, that's because the MRI has to take a clean picture.
	What if the robot doesn't need a clean picture?
	I mean, much the way it uses Wi-Fi, and it figures out what the picture would look like?
	Maybe you could use a much less sensitive imaging device just to hold it up to the person like a like a Star Trek thing.
	And it does some imaging, but it's not that great.
	But the robot can figure it out.
	Because it doesn't need to be great for the robot.
	Oh, there's a tumor.
	So you're going to have doctoring expenses will go under a major overall.
	At the same time, At the same time, there's going to be a once-ever shift into a robot AI economy.
	If Elon Musk is correct, there will be 20 billion robots.
	And that's not counting the AI that would be often separate from the robots.
	So we're looking at a once-ever massive increase in GDP.
	Unless it also causes massive unemployment, so we don't know what the net is.
	But usually the net is positive.
	Or at least we'll make sure it does.
	Make sure it's positive.
	So we might have a once-ever organic increase in taxes and GDP.
	But I've got something a little more interesting.
	Here will be the weirdest prediction yet.
	You ready?
	Weird prediction that when you first hear, you'll just dismiss it in a hand.
	And in 10 or 20 years when it's the reality, you're gonna say, my God, only one person got that.
	And here it is.
	In the future, humans will not be taxed.
	Only robots.
	That's it.
	The only tax will be on robots.
	So if you don't have one, you won't have any taxes.
	If you happen to be poor, no taxes.
	But that's pretty similar to now, right?
	You don't pay much taxes if you're poor.
	If you're rich and you can afford a robot, it'll be like a property tax or maybe even an income tax.
	Because when robots become legal, I'm not going to get just one, you know, because I have resources.
	So I'm going to get one for the house, but I'm going to give five to rent out.
	Now, I won't have to keep them in my garage or anything.
	There'll just be some company by then that says, hey, if you buy five of these robots, we'll organize sending them out to work for people, day labor, that sort of thing.
	We'll just give you a percentage.
	And then I'll pay income tax on the robots' work.
	I do think we'll get to the point where only robots pay taxes.
	And maybe it's enough to pay off the debt.
	So here's the bottom line.
	We've never, probably never, been in a situation where the entire economy was going to transform so fundamentally.
	You know, even the industrial revolution and even, you know, even the introduction of computers and smartphones, which seem gigantic in their day, might look minor compared to robots and AI.
	Yeah.
	Remember every car is going to get replaced with a self-driving car.
	It's pretty much guaranteed that the, the size and scope of the change that's coming is not even something you can hold in your brain.
	Then on top of that, I think we're guaranteed to build brand new cities and that's going to be a huge driver of economics.
	So maybe there are enough moving parts that if we did all that and maybe introduced a cryptocurrency.
	Here's what I think might happen.
	I think the government might introduce a brand new cryptocurrency, and say, on day one, it only has one purpose.
	Day one, one purpose.
	We're going to exchange it for the dollars that we owe people.
	And we're going to only pay them in crypto.
	So if you have US government debt, you'll get fully paid off, But only in this crypto that we made out of nothing, and we just magically said it's worth $100 trillion.
	Now you might say, but Scott, I don't want your stupid crypto.
	What if nobody takes it?
	If I get a dollar, I know I can buy something.
	But if you give, you know, your brand new magic crypto, who's going to take that?
	And the answer is, the US government.
	They can create the money, but they also become the demand for the same money.
	And they have a gigantic demand.
	So you can always trade your crypto for a dollar to somebody who wants to use a dollar for something else, and somebody else needs the crypto to pay their taxes.
	So, does that work?
	I don't know.
	But I also don't know why it wouldn't work.
	I'm not sure it works, but I can't really think of a reason why it wouldn't.
	It's because I don't know enough about crypto, obviously.
	Correct me if I'm wrong, but crypto does make a thing out of nothing, right?
	You just have to agree it's a thing.
	If everybody agrees it's a thing, it's a thing.
	And if the government says we will always accept it in payment of taxes, they create a value.
	Now, I don't know if that would cause massive inflation, or would it be that if you siloed it off just for debt payment or tax payment, it doesn't?
	Because paying your taxes doesn't increase inflation, right?
	Right?
	It's buying stuff that increases inflation, not paying your taxes.
	So if you siloed it off, at least in the beginning, and said, the only thing you can do with this is pay taxes, and then other people say, you know what?
	If you've got that crypto, and I can use it to pay taxes, but you can't use it for anything else, and you don't have enough taxes that you need to pay, I'll buy your crypto, but I'll only pay you 95 cents on a dollar.
	And you go, oh, well, I could get a dollar out of a dollar if I use it to pay my own taxes, but I'd rather have the cash.
	So you trade me and I get 5% off of my taxes effectively.
	You get cash.
	And there was no inflation.
	Was there?
	Because it's the same amount of cash.
	Yeah.
	As long as I use it to pay the taxes, I think there's no inflation.
	All right.
	So just, I don't know if any of those ideas are good.
	I'm just telling you that there are enough variables in play, that the Adams Law of slow-moving disasters probably will work.
	If I had to bet on it, we're gonna be okay.
	I just don't know the exact way it'll happen.
	All right, we know that the Biden administration, in the not-too-distant past, asked Amazon to suppress books that were vaccine-critical.
	Including ones that were just sort of generally critical of vaccines in general, including ones written by doctors, and including ones that had studies in it that were just valid scientific studies.
	That's a real thing that happened.
	And Trump's going into a debate in which Biden is going to say that Trump is the one who's trying to get rid of your democracy.
	I'm pretty sure Trump never tried to ban any books.
	Well, except to kids, right?
	The conservatives like to ban books that are sexual to kids.
	And then the Democrats like to say, you're a book banner!
	You know, leaving out the important part.
	It was pornographic stuff for children we wanted to ban.
	That's all we wanted to ban.
	All right.
	Here's the real problem with that.
	The problem is not that books were banned.
	Although that seems like a problem, doesn't it?
	There's a much bigger problem.
	Do you see it?
	The problem is that the people on the political left, the Democrats, believe they knew the truth and that the other people don't have truth.
	That's the problem.
	The fact that they acted on it is just how we know it.
	But the problem is that there's one side who believes they're getting accurate information about things, which means that they believe science is real.
	Maybe it used to be.
	And they believe that, you know, their politicians are telling them the truth.
	That's a big problem.
	Let me tell you why science isn't real.
	If you haven't thought of this yourself, you're going to be really mad that it took me to explain it.
	Why were there so many doctors who were unwilling to be independent during the pandemic?
	Well, it turns out that almost all doctors have bosses now.
	That was something that snuck up on us.
	I always think of my doctor as somewhat independent, you know, it's their own business, but not really.
	They have to have permission to work at hospitals, and they usually work for hospitals.
	So most doctors had a boss.
	If you have a boss, and it's part of a larger entity, What does a larger entity have to do in all situations?
	In all situations, a larger entity, especially if they have stockholders, they have to do what will make them money.
	So they have to go with the popular narrative that comes from their government.
	They can't take the chance.
	So if you have a boss, maybe if you didn't have one, you could be independent, because then you're just taking your own risk.
	If you have a boss, the boss has to manage their risk.
	And their risk is that, there's no question, you just have to follow the narrative.
	As a big company that's responsible to stockholders, you can't take that chance on behalf of the stockholders.
	Your fiduciary responsibility, as they call it, which is a duty to, you know, do what's best for the stockholders in this case.
	Your fiduciary responsibility makes you not rebel against the common narrative.
	It's only somebody who doesn't have an economic hammer over their head that can do it, and there are almost no doctors in that situation now.
	How many of you knew that?
	That even if the doctors knew the truth and wanted to say it, they really couldn't.
	They would be throwing away all of their education in medical school, their reputations, everything.
	Yeah, so on paper, there's no such thing as independent doctors anymore.
	On paper.
	If you just looked at the design of the system, you'd say, oh, wow, in this system design, where doctors have bosses and the bosses work for big companies, and big companies always have to follow the common narrative.
	It would be insane not to.
	You can't get truth.
	So we figured out a system that guarantees that our experts on our health not only will lie to us, but they have to.
	We designed that system.
	If that system isn't working, well, there's a reason for it.
	On paper, it can't work.
	You want another one?
	It gets worse.
	If you wanted to know what is a dependable study, what would you say?
	We all learned this during the pandemic, if you didn't already know it.
	You'd say to yourself, well, the only good studies, the ones you can really trust, would be a large scale, randomized, controlled, Experiment where you've got a, you know, you've got a proper prediction of what could happen.
	You've got a proper control group.
	It's all random and it's large, right?
	So there are two situations here.
	Number one, there are small entities who can't afford to do a randomized controlled study because it costs many millions of dollars.
	So if you're just a researcher, And you say, I'd like to study this thing, you know, independent of the pharmaceutical industry.
	I just want to know what's true.
	You would never get enough money for that.
	Almost impossible.
	And if you came up with an answer that the pharmaceutical industry didn't like, you're probably in the same domain of science as that pharmaceutical company you're studying, because otherwise you'd have no business studying it.
	So you would be in the domain in which if you wanted to get, let's say, a speaking agreement, You'd need people like the pharmaceutical companies to be on your side.
	So there's a gigantic financial incentive.
	Essentially, it's impossible for anybody who's not a pharmaceutical company to do a large-scale, multi-year, many-million-dollar trial.
	So that leaves exactly one entity who has the wherewithal and the interest to do a large-scale trial.
	The people who want most to lie to you, the pharmaceutical companies.
	So in theory, the way the system is designed on paper, again we're not talking about anybody who's a bad actor, we're not talking about incompetence, selfishness, nothing.
	It's the design of the system.
	The current design of the system is the only people who can afford it are the people who want to lie to you because they have a financial incentive.
	So if they do a large-scale study and it doesn't give them the answer they want, do you ever see it?
	Of course not!
	Why would they show you that?
	They'd say the study was flawed, and they're gonna have to do it again, or they'd be quiet about it.
	So, there are only two ways you can get... well, there's one way.
	You have to do a randomized controlled study, and ideally other people would do studies to confirm your study.
	I mean, that's the real test.
	That can't happen.
	You're lucky if you get one, And the one would be funded by the people that you would trust the least to give you an honest accounting of what's going on.
	Now even a large randomized controlled study, you know that could be totally rigged, right?
	Just because it's large and randomized and controlled, and just because it's peer-reviewed, it could still be totally rigged.
	That's why you would need to do multiple randomized controlled studies before you really know anything.
	If the only one you have is from the pharmaceutical company, it actually has close to zero credibility.
	So if you're going to listen to your experts, you have to understand that even if the experts mean well, they operate within a system in which they can't tell you the truth, even if they knew it.
	So when you have these idiots in the Democrat side who tell you this book is wrong and this book is right, they have put themselves in the situation of actually knowing what's true and what's not.
	They don't because they don't have any access to the truth.
	Nobody does.
	You don't, I don't, we're all guessing.
	The best you can do in that situation is let everybody talk.
	And that's the one thing that they tried to stop.
	They tried to stop letting everybody talk by suppressing books on Amazon.
	Do you think the left understands that they don't have access to real information?
	And they can't.
	Even trying harder wouldn't get there.
	Because the system is designed on paper.
	You can see it.
	Any engineer who looked at the system on paper would say, hmm, looks like you've designed a system specifically to hide the truth.
	That's what it would look like as a design.
	And that's what it does.
	All right, Senator Warren, she says the Democrats want a pathway to citizenship for all non-citizens.
	What do you think of that?
	Well, of course, that's batshit crazy stuff, but the only thing I want to say about it is it's another great example of lying eyes.
	If you don't know anything about body language, well, let's go back in time.
	I remember when I was young, And the first time a book came out and it was like purported to tell you something about what somebody's feeling or thinking by their body language.
	And I remember saying to myself, uh, that sounds a little horoscopy.
	I mean, I was only a child, but even as a child, I was like, really, can you tell what I'm thinking by my crossed arms?
	Really?
	You can tell what I'm thinking by my eye contact.
	I don't think you can do that.
	So, you know, as a child, I thought, it's fun.
	I mean, it's a fun thing, but it doesn't really tell you what people are thinking.
	Then I became a hypnotist.
	And then I started studying, you know, more and more evidence about this body language thing.
	Turns out it's really powerful.
	People do signal very clearly.
	They signal very clearly what they're thinking and what they're feeling.
	You just have to learn the language.
	And the one that I keep telling you is the wide eyes.
	So watch the Elizabeth Warren interview.
	You can find it, it's all over social media today.
	I forget who she was talking to, but if you just, you know, look for Elizabeth Warren and what she said about Pathway to Citizenship, you'll find it.
	Play it with the sound off.
	All right.
	Play it with the sound off and then watch for the lie.
	You can spot the lie with the sound off, actually easily, because her eyes are normal when she's just saying things that you and I would agree are true, such as Democrats want to give a pathway to citizenship.
	So if you look at her saying that, her eyes would be normal.
	But once it gets into, you know, obviously ridiculous stuff, her eyes go wide open.
	Her eyebrows go up to her hairline, and it wrinkles, and she leans into the camera.
	And this is what people do when they know that they're talking pure imaginary bullshit, but they want you to join their imaginary world.
	Look at my eyes!
	I know the words that are coming out of my mouth are complete nonsense, but look at my eyes!
	They're so truthful!
	They're wide open!
	Yeah.
	You can see the lie with the sound off.
	Honestly, you can see it.
	You have to experience it to be able to recognize it in the future.
	So if you're trying to learn how to spot a lie in the TV politician sense, look for the wide eyes.
	It's just such a giveaway.
	Well, CNN is being sued.
	Newsbusters has this report.
	And apparently Jake Tapper's in the middle of this.
	They could be sued for up to a billion dollars.
	Apparently the problem is that, let's see, they said they allegedly defamed somebody who was working on getting people out of Afghanistan.
	So they didn't like him because he was trying to get people out of Afghanistan.
	And I don't know exactly what the problem was, but he says they defamed him.
	Now, in order to prove defamation, it's got to be intentional, and it has to be with malice.
	So you have to have something, you want to hurt the person, so it has to be demonstrated in court, which is hard to do, that the intention was, you know, we don't like this person, we're going to get him.
	But then you also have to know that the things you're saying aren't true, because otherwise it's just a case of being wrong, and that's not illegal.
	So being wrong is not a crime.
	Knowing you're wrong and saying it anyway and defaming somebody in public, that's defamation.
	So apparently they've got the individual involved here has access to the internal communications.
	And here are some of the things that were said in CNN's private communications.
	Correspondent Alex Marquette Who is called the primary reporter on this story.
	He sent a message to a colleague that he wanted to, quote, nail the Zachary Young motherfucker.
	And he thought the story would be Young's, quote, funeral.
	And he wanted to nail him.
	And then the CNN editor, Matthew Phillips, responded, allegedly, going to hold you to that, cowboy.
	So that would be the malice part.
	So apparently they have demonstrated malice.
	That's a lot of malice there.
	But I didn't see in the story where they demonstrated that they knew they were lying.
	And I don't know how they could be found liable if they didn't know they were lying.
	So I haven't seen what facts they claimed were true that they might have thought were not true.
	So if I had to bet, I think CNN's going to win that, just based on what I know, but I don't know enough, so maybe there's something I don't know about it.
	CNN also had an interview with Casey Hunt, one of their correspondents.
	Casey Hunt.
	Casey Hunt.
	All right, here's a little parenting advice.
	If your last name is Hunt, And you have a daughter.
	Rule out any first names that start with a K sound.
	That's all I'm going to say.
	You don't want Kelsey.
	You don't want Carol.
	With a K. You don't want that.
	Because when she goes to school, she will be Kay Hunt.
	Well, you know where this is going.
	I don't have to finish that.
	Anyway, so she was interviewing Trump campaign spokeswoman Caroline Leavitt.
	And when Caroline started saying that, you know, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash were biased people and the debate was coming up and CNN's always been biased, that Casey Hunt didn't like the maligning of her co-workers and she pulled the plug after warning her a few times and pulled the plug.
	Now here's the thing.
	Were the claims true?
	Because if it's true, that those correspondents have been clearly and plainly anti-Trump forever, then all she did is say something that's true, which was relevant to the topic.
	And like Amazon, and like the Twitter files, and now like CNN, They're not really big on hearing the other side, are they?
	Not so good.
	Now, if they say something painful, you know, like against their colleagues, I guess they're not going to put up with that.
	So they cut her off.
	But what I thought was the funniest part is if you see the split screen and you see the CNN host and then you see the Trump representative, it looks like a before and after picture.
	Somebody who finally got their life together?
	Now that part's funny.
	You know, we always kid that the Republicans are more attractive.
	You have to see it to know how funny that is.
	All right.
	Rasmussen did a poll on who people think will win the debate, and it's Trump.
	47% thought Trump would win the debate, and 37% think Biden will win.
	That's probably bad news.
	For Trump supporters, because it means the expectations are high for Trump, which means it will be easier for him to not hit the expectations, which means it will be easier for Biden to survive.
	I think we can all see what's going to happen.
	It doesn't matter what happens.
	I can write the MSNBC review of the debate before it happens.
	Would you like to hear it?
	Well, the expectations for Biden were low, but not only did he clear those expectations with his soaring rhetoric and steel-tight logic, he was like a bulldozer who destroyed that chaotic Trump who was trying to steal your democracy right in front of you.
	But thank God we've got good leadership in Biden, who some say is not on his game, but he proved today that he's got the goods.
	Now, they would say that even if he passed out and wet himself on the stage.
	It's like you don't have to wonder how it ends.
	There's something comforting about knowing exactly how it goes, no matter what.
	You don't even have to watch it.
	You could just write the review right now.
	All right, but here's the most fun story of the day.
	Snopes, which leans heavily Democratic, has a fact check, and I don't know exactly when they do it.
	Somebody did it.
	And it might be an update, but they now fact-check the fine people hoax as a hoax.
	They say it directly, that the president disavowed the neo-Nazis and did not call them fine people.
	Now, they're not all the way there, because they still say there's some controversy about his lack of clarity, but they do say directly That he did not call neo-Nazis fine people.
	Now, if you're familiar with the hoax, when people find out it didn't happen, they always revert down the, what I call the hoax funnel.
	And the second thing they'll say is, and it happens every time, well, but how could it be possible, Scott?
	I mean, really, if they were marching with the racists, I mean, come on, if they were marching with the racists, you can't really say they're not racist.
	They were marching with them.
	To which I say, you just hallucinated the part they're marching with them.
	Where is that in evidence?
	That's not an evidence.
	It was a big place.
	You know, so then I say, I talked to them.
	I talked to them personally, which is true.
	I talked to some people who called themselves fine people who attended.
	And I said, what's up?
	Why would you attend a Nazi neo-Nazi rally?
	And they said, Well, we live in Charlottesville.
	The local news said there's this event about the statues.
	Nobody said we couldn't go.
	We had an opinion about outsiders coming into our town and telling us what statues to have.
	We hate the Nazis.
	We disavow them.
	But we kind of like to have an opinion about our own statues.
	Maybe all these out-of-town people, maybe should be up to us.
	Now, would you call them fine people?
	I would.
	They seemed like quite fine people.
	And they never saw that it was, you know, limited to the Nazis.
	I mean, Antifa was there.
	They knew it was a Nazi thing.
	They had their own reasons for being there, to be against the Nazis.
	The other people had their own reasons.
	In America, if you have that many people who go to an event, you'll have a little of everything.
	In America.
	Every big event gets a little bit of everything.
	So when Trump said, you know, there are fine people there, he didn't know for sure.
	But he was right.
	And that's not really the question.
	Even in the unlikely event that there had not been a single fine person there, it was reasonable to assume they were.
	That was just a reasonable assumption.
	So Snopes is not your friend.
	They're still, you know, sort of lying on a little bit of this story.
	But they do say directly he didn't call the neo-Nazis fine people.
	So, here's what's interesting about that.
	So, somebody brought it to my attention yesterday on social media, and I had not noticed that, or maybe I had and forgot, I don't know.
	But I reposted it because it's now more salient because the debate is coming, and it was Biden's primary thing that he ran on in 2020.
	So, it's more salient, and if you look today, it's trending.
	So it's trending on X. And, you know, most of the big names in the conservative pro-Trump-ish world are reposting it saying, gotcha, basically.
	Gotcha.
	This is Trump's third act.
	This is the big one.
	Now, we don't know if he's going to execute, in which case it would not be his third act.
	But if he goes into that debate, And he manages to debunk the Find People hoax and say, look, don't listen to me.
	Go to Snopes.
	That's a left-leaning site.
	And you'll see that Biden ran on a lie.
	And in fact, everything he said is a lie.
	But this is one you can verify yourself.
	Just go to Snopes.
	Look for the Fine People Oaks.
	Now, that would be huge.
	Now, what else is interesting is that Jake Tapper is one of the hosts.
	Here's a little inside knowledge.
	So I was briefly working with Jake Tapper on some cartooning stuff for veterans.
	And so I got to talk to him on the phone a number of times.
	And I wanted to know if he knew that that was a hoax.
	So I explained it to him, told him the transcript clearly shows, you know, that he disavowed the neo-Nazis.
	And Jake went down the hoax funnel, you know, he did the campaign to find people at a Nazi rally, I explained that, etc.
	And the very next time that he was on the air and it came up in a little group discussion, he actually fact-checked them.
	Somebody said he called the neo-Nazis fine people, and Jake said on CNN, on live air, well actually he disavowed them in direct language.
	So, now that we know that, let's say Democrats are maybe not as keen on Biden as they had been, especially his handling of Israel is probably causing some issues with people, there is a non-zero chance That Jake Tapper is going to take him out of the race tomorrow.
	Because all it's going to take is for either Jake to ask the question, Mr. Biden, you ran on the fine people issue.
	Snopes says it didn't happen.
	Can you explain?
	But it did happen.
	But Snopes says it didn't.
	And here's a quote from it.
	I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis.
	They should be condemned totally.
	That's the end of Biden's campaign.
	Third act.
	And while you assume that Trump might be the assassin, if Jake is even doing his job a little bit, Jake's going to take him out.
	And not that he wants to.
	Not that he wants to, right?
	Who knows who he actually wants to win.
	But I have a feeling that Jake can't live it alone.
	It's too big.
	It's too important.
	And it's the lie that's been driving the country into absolute ruin.
	That lie has to be fixed.
	You're not going to heal until you fix that.
	We're not going to come together until you fix that.
	Now, if you think, but wait, maybe, maybe Snopes took a turn back to the right somehow.
	Nope.
	I just checked the, uh, the, uh, drinking bleach oaks.
	Snopes actually fact checks the drinking bleach oaks.
	They turn it into disinfectants as true that the president once suggested putting household cleaners into your body.
	Now, That very much didn't happen.
	He was only ever talking about light therapy, which was an actual thing that was being tested at the time, which I know because I was tweeting about that very technology and I'm sure that the White House saw it.
	So they were aware that there was a technology with UV light injected into the body.
	The president very clearly said UV light, but he once said disinfectants in the context of the UV light being the disinfectant.
	And that was enough.
	For the bad guys, they say, Oh, I think he said bleach, which never happened.
	And by the way, do you know how to know that didn't happen without doing the research?
	It's the Scott Alexander technique.
	That's a pseudonym for a blogger who had great ideas.
	And one of them goes like this.
	If a dog bites a man, well, that's not even going to be in the news because that's ordinary.
	But, If a man bites a dog, there are two things you can be sure about.
	Number one, it will be in the news, because that's unusual.
	And number two, and this is the important part, it didn't really happen.
	There's like a 20 to 1 odds that it didn't happen.
	So if something is interesting enough to make you go, what?
	What?
	I can't believe that happened.
	You just wait a little while and you'll find out it didn't.
	The thing that makes it so mind-blowing is that you can't imagine a thing like that would happen in your world.
	And it didn't.
	19 out of 20 times, it didn't.
	So when you heard that the President of the United States stood in front of people and with knowing exactly where we would be, like there were no surprises, nothing spontaneous, and you thought that he praised neo-Nazis?
	You should have said to yourself, oh, that's one of those Scott Alexander things.
	That obviously didn't happen.
	I wonder why people think it did, but it obviously didn't.
	You didn't have to research it to know it didn't happen.
	You just apply the Scott Alexander, 19 out of 20, it didn't happen.
	And sure enough, it didn't.
	Now let's do it with the hoax thing.
	Same thing.
	Seriously?
	You think the president suggested putting a household disinfectants in your body?
	Of course he didn't.
	Nobody would.
	Apparently you're not aware of the Scott Alexander effect, if you ever thought that was true.
	You should have started with, well that obviously didn't happen, and then maybe someday you'd look into why they thought it happened when it didn't.
	But the last thing you should think is, I think that might have happened.
	That's the wrong instinct.
	When you hear something that's crazy, you start with, that probably didn't happen.
	And then you work from there.
	All right, so here's another system design problem.
	Apparently the federal government requires that anybody in the government who comes in contact with a citizen has to give them voter registration stuff.
	Now the problem is that the government comes in contact with a lot of migrants who are not citizens, and the law requires That because they come in contact with them, they have to give them voter registration stuff.
	But here's the fun part.
	If they were to fill out the voter registration and then actually voted, they'd be breaking the law.
	So we have a system designed that we give people documents that if they fill them out and use them exactly as the documents describe, they could go to jail.
	And by the way, I'm not making this up.
	This was described in detail by some woman who works for one of the states.
	Who was it?
	Rosemary Jenks.
	She says Biden's immigration accountability project estimates there are 30 million non-citizens.
	And the problem that we have now is that the Biden administration has an executive order That all federal agencies have to give voter registration to everyone they come in contact with.
	Doesn't matter if they're citizens.
	Now, nobody saw that being a problem.
	Nobody could work that out as maybe a problem.
	I'm seeing somebody saying that one of the organizers for the Charlottesville thing was a quote, what, government operative.
	I think it's pretty clear that the Charlottesville thing was not organic.
	I'm sure there were real racists, but they're not really well organized, right?
	And you notice there's never been another one?
	Never been another one.
	Interesting.
	Yeah, that was all fake.
	The Charlottesville thing was an op.
	All right, here's a little bit of a persuasion tip of the day.
	All right, so you may have seen that Reid Hoffman was one of the PayPal Mafia guys, and started LinkedIn, he's a big billionaire, and he's one of the, he might be the biggest funder now, maybe second to Soros, for the Democrats.
	And also very active in all kinds of political stuff.
	So Reid Hoffman, you know, one of the big, big powers behind the Democrats.
	But David Sachs, who worked with him on that PayPal project, so they would know each other really well.
	David Sachs is now pro-Trump, at least in this election anyway.
	And so Reid Hoffman wrote a very long social media post to say why David Sachs got everything wrong.
	Now, I thought, oh, this is going to be interesting, because I'd like to hear an argument that disagrees with me, because I would agree with basically everything Sachs says, or have.
	And so I read it and I thought, whoa, what's wrong with this?
	It's like, it was just like crazy talk.
	It was a terrible argument from one of the smartest people in the game.
	And I thought, how do you get a crazy argument from the smartest person?
	And trust me, he's one of the smartest people you'll ever meet.
	And like, crazy smart.
	But it was just almost nonsense when I read it.
	So apparently Sax had the same opinion, and he said, this is why Reed was dispatched to write that embarrassing word salad of Campaign talking points.
	They're panicking.
	There it is.
	The word salad.
	Have I ever taught you what creates word salad?
	The word salad thing doesn't happen always just because you're bad at writing.
	Reid Hoffman is not bad at writing, and it doesn't happen just because you're bad at thinking.
	Reid Hoffman is not bad at thinking.
	He would be like one of the very best people in the world for thinking.
	And yet, it looked like word salad to me.
	I mean, that's exactly the phrase in my head when I read it.
	It's like, God, this looks like word salad.
	And Sacks had the same take.
	It looks like word salad.
	What causes that?
	That's the number one tell for cognitive dissonance.
	What causes cognitive dissonance?
	Cognitive dissonance is caused by finding yourself in a situation That is opposite of who you are.
	Now, this is my private definition.
	The official one is, there are two things you can't reconcile in your head.
	But I go further, that one of the things you can't reconcile in your head is about you.
	That's when you really get it.
	If you just have two facts about something you don't care about, and they're not reconciled, you usually don't get cognitive dissonance, because you don't care that much.
	It's just a mystery.
	You just leave it a mystery.
	But if it's about you, Of course you're going to act.
	So imagine this.
	You're one of the main, powerful funders of the Democrats.
	But your candidate is a pretty well-established criminal, one of the biggest liars of all time, who ran for office on the most divisive and destructive race hoax in American history, who has clearly got dementia, and his team is keeping him in the game.
	And then you're one of the smartest people in the world and you're backing them.
	See the problem?
	That is the most classic setup for cognitive dissonance there has ever been.
	You're the smartest person and you're spending millions of your own money on something that might have seemed like a pretty good idea in 2020.
	You know, if you were anti-Trump, maybe you took some of the imperfections with Biden and said, you know, Just like Trump supporters, they say, we don't like everything, but we like the package.
	Now in 2020, that could have made sense.
	I can see how a reasonable person could get to that point of view, even though it wasn't my point of view.
	But at this point, as I've described to you, you can't be smart and a Trump supporter and a Biden supporter at the same time.
	Because he's simply gone.
	It's not about politics.
	The human being is no longer Joe Biden.
	Whatever that bag of organic matter is that's walking around has no capability to be our president.
	We all know we're totally fucked if he does another four years.
	We all know that.
	You don't think that Reid Hoffman knows that, that Biden's gone?
	Of course he does.
	So he's got to figure out how the smartest person in the game Literally one of the smartest people the country has ever produced.
	How is he doing something so obviously fucking stupid?
	And what you do in those cases is you almost never say, I gotta admit, I was wrong about everything.
	I'm just going to fund Trump.
	Hope for the best.
	Nobody does that.
	It's just not what humans do.
	You double down and then you start spewing word salad that in your own mind sounds right.
	But that's the illusion that you've created with your own cognitive dissonance.
	So the only person who would read it and say, that looks right, would be somebody suffering.
	Let me give you just one example.
	He pointed out that the job growth was much stronger under Biden.
	Leaving out that the pandemic is why jobs were down under Trump.
	Do you think that Reid Hoffman didn't know?
	That the pandemic was what caused the job difference?
	Of course he did.
	Do you think he was just lying?
	Well, I don't really have any evidence that he's ever lied about anything.
	I think he actually saw it that way, meaning that his view was probably distorted by the cognitive dissonance.
	Now, of course, I can't read minds.
	So it would not be fair for me to say 100% chance, you know, I'm diagnosing him as having cognitive dissonance.
	I will just say this, the setup of where he found himself, which is supporting a dead guy, that will cause cognitive dissonance in every person in that situation.
	Probably no exception.
	The only people who wouldn't have that problem are the ones who knew that Biden was a walking dead man, And but maybe they had some self-interest and they knew where they were pursuing it.
	So that would all be consistent.
	They would just be liars.
	So lying doesn't make you a cognitive dissonance sufferer.
	You have to be in that deluded situation.
	So I think, so learn to spot the setup.
	So that my lesson here is if you understand the setup, A person who found themselves in an absurd situation and needed to explain it away.
	That will always cause cognitive dissonance.
	Always.
	You can count on it.
	All right, so a post by Jason DeBolt, who's saying that over in Ukraine... Have you noticed that Ukraine stopped asking for tanks?
	The dog not barking?
	Weren't they like, give us Bradleys, give us tanks?
	We want tanks.
	We want artillery.
	And I'm not hearing as much of that.
	Now, maybe it's in the budget that they got.
	But the point by Jason DeBolt is that it's become a drone war on both sides, apparently, and that a $400 drone can take out a tank.
	So you don't want to send a $10 million tank into a drone war.
	You can't win.
	So if you have enough drones, tanks are worthless.
	You just have to have enough.
	And now it looks like the drone-making capability of Ukraine, you know, with U.S.
	help, has come a long way.
	So at this point, Ukrainians are begging for drones, and that may be all they need to pin down the Russians permanently.
	It might be that they can never gain ground.
	And I would like to say that I am the only person I know who at the beginning of the war said it's going to turn into a drone war and that Russia does not have a gigantic military advantage, which everybody said they have.
	And I said, I get that they have more big stuff.
	I get that they have more soldiers.
	I get that they have more bullets and I get that they have more everything.
	But nobody's seen a drone war yet, and that there's not really enough defense against a drone war.
	They do have the countermeasures, but apparently they're countering the countermeasures now.
	So drone swarms are going to be the future military.
	There's no doubt about it.
	And I'll tell you how I predicted it.
	So the reason I predicted it at the start, that it would become a drone war, Is years before, now it might be like seven years ago or something.
	I saw a Berkeley startup pitch event.
	So I was a judge at a pitch event and it was startup saying, here's my new thing.
	You know, then the judges would say that's good or that's bad.
	And one of them was a drone propeller startup maker.
	They had figured out a different shape for a drone propeller.
	And what it did was it substantially increased its carrying ability.
	So for the same drone, all you had to do is change the shape of the propeller, and suddenly it could carry packages.
	Now, at the moment, we see drones carrying packages somewhat regularly, and also munitions, but at the time they weren't strong enough.
	So seven years ago, your drone could, you know, lift up a piece of paper, but it couldn't really carry too much more than itself.
	And then I saw this new propeller, and after I saw the presentation, I asked the question of the startup.
	And I said, huh, given that it can now carry payloads, and that you're going to make that practical where it had not been practical before, is your main customer the military?
	Now, I want you to remember this scene.
	It's Berkeley, seven years ago.
	The most anti-war place on earth.
	This poor startup is telling us how they're going to be delivering packages, and I raise my hand and say, you know, maybe the more obvious application would be bombs.
	You should have seen his face when he realized That he did not have the ability to prevent the military from using this technology, and that he had just created death from the sky and didn't know it.
	So, one of the visions that I had in that particular situation is that I was about seven years ahead of you.
	If all you knew is what drones were already built, you might have said to yourself, yeah, but they can't carry much of a bomb.
	So if it can't carry much of a bomb, it's not going to be that big a deal in war.
	But seven years ago, I knew it could carry a big fucking bomb.
	You know, it was just a matter of time for the technology to work through the system.
	And it was obvious all along that battery technology was improving a lot.
	So if you had better batteries, And you add that to AI, so it doesn't need GPS anymore.
	That was also very easy to predict, that it would use AI.
	AI can just look at the ground.
	You know that, right?
	If you have AI, you can lose its GPS and still find the target.
	Because it would just say, all right, I have in my database what the ground looks like from the satellite imagery.
	I'll just follow that.
	Looks like that's Route 40.
	I'll just follow Route 40.
	Oh, there's a tank.
	I recognize the tank.
	Looks like a Russian one, based on my AI.
	Send a message back.
	Hey, attack this tank.
	Oh, there's no communication, but I have orders to attack it anyway.
	Boom.
	Tank is gone.
	All of this was predictable years ago.
	So here we are.
	There's a San Francisco McDonald's that's going to close.
	They're blaming The new higher $20 minimum wage.
	Now, I'm not positive this is true, but when I was in business school, I was taught that only one McDonald's had ever closed.
	It was the San Ysidro one where there had been a mass shooting, and even though they could have opened up, there was just too much of a stain on the location that they decided to close forever.
	Now, that became the story because it was such an extreme situation, a mass shooting, that it's the only thing that could stop at McDonald's from making money.
	But apparently there are two things that can stop at McDonald's from making money.
	I guess this $20 minimum wage.
	Now, as somebody said in the comments, a commenter Went immediately to McDonald's profits, saw that McDonald's Corporation is making huge profits, and mockingly, as a communist socialist would do, said, oh sure, they can't afford to pay their workers a living wage, even though they're making bazillions of dollars.
	Now, here's your next persuasion lesson in understanding the news.
	And I'll tell you this a million times.
	This will be the hundred thousandth time I've said it.
	If you have background in business, let's say an economics degree, a business degree, and business experience, there are things you know that other people just don't know.
	You can see around corners.
	And one of the things I know is that McDonald's is mostly a franchise business.
	Meaning that each individual store, there are some exceptions, they do own some company stores, but most of the stores are just owned by an individual owner who has individual profits and does not share in McDonald's profits.
	So if McDonald's makes $100 billion, none of that goes to the store.
	It was the store paying them.
	You get that?
	The store pays McDonald's for the right to say they're a McDonald's and to get the support about all the technology and the process.
	So, a typical, you know, leftist Antifa view is, hey, McDonald's has all this money and they're being cheap to their employees.
	Nothing like that happened.
	That absolutely didn't happen.
	Fake news.
	You can be pretty sure that it was a franchise store and not a company store.
	If it were a company store, I think they would have left it open.
	For exactly the reasons that somebody said.
	But it probably wasn't.
	All right.
	I saw a long piece, but damn it, I didn't write down who this was.
	Oh, I did.
	Mike Davis.
	So Mike Davis has a piece on why Merrick Garland should go to jail.
	And it's complicated enough.
	Well, complicated in that it has some moving parts.
	I want to just read it.
	So this is from Mike Davis.
	He says that Attorney General Merrick Garland is prosecuting Trump for presidential records he's allowed to have under the Presidential Records Act.
	So that would be the first thing against him is, why are you even prosecuting this?
	Now, it's not that they don't have an argument for prosecuting.
	But I think the smarter argument is, if this were not Trump, do you think this would be happening?
	And nobody thinks that.
	We all think it's only Trump, right?
	If you're smart, you only think that.
	So that's the first problem with Garland.
	He's going after something that you don't imagine anybody would have gone after except for political reasons.
	And he says, while protecting Biden for stolen classified records that he shared with his ghostwriter for an $8 million book.
	Now, let me explain to you, $8 million as an advance for a book is just bribery.
	Because the publishing company knows they will not make $8 million back on the book.
	Not even close.
	So I call it bribery, but let's say there's some other reason.
	The only thing we know is that they didn't do it to make money.
	Nobody believed that Joe Biden was going to sell enough books that the publisher could pay him $8 million and still come out ahead.
	Trust me.
	I'm in the bookmaking business.
	I can tell you that for sure.
	They did not expect to make money.
	Who gives somebody $8 million and doesn't expect to make money?
	Well, there's something going on there.
	I don't know what.
	But what it is is not normal economics.
	All right.
	Then Mike Davis goes on.
	He says Garland prosecuted top Trump presidential advisers Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon for contempt after Trump's valid claims of executive privilege.
	And yet Garland blocked prosecution of himself for contempt.
	After Biden's legal frivolous claims of executive privilege.
	And Garland refused to prosecute Hunter for contempt after Hunter held this drive-by political press conference and refused to comply with a subpoena.
	And then Garland politicized and weaponized the FACE Act to persecute Christians and protect bigots.
	I don't know what that issue is.
	Garland sicked the, by the way, sicked?
	How many of you could spell sicked as in you sick a dog on somebody?
	It's just the coolest word, S-I-C-C-E-D.
	Anyway, Garland sicked the FBI after parents protested at school board meetings while coddling Hamas supporters terrorizing Jews on college campuses.
	He is prosecuting the lead presidential candidate for lawfully objecting to the last election under the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
	While Garland wages his own unprecedented Republican-ending lawfare and election interference.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	Garland belongs in prison.
	And Davis says the House must give him his first taste of that by holding him in inherent contempt of Congress and ordering the House Sergeant at Varnes to arrest and jail him, which apparently could happen.
	It's actually possible that the House Sergeant at Arms could treat it as, you know, a House thing, not a larger legal thing, and could just arrest him.
	Apparently they have the legal authority to do that.
	Now, I don't know about all of the claims here, but there's enough going on with Garland that does make me think that as long as Peter Navarro is in jail, I want him in jail.
	As long as Peter Navarro is in jail, I want the Attorney General in jail.
	That's what I want.
	All right, also in the lawfare world, second day of, there's these pretrial hearings.
	Um, on the box, the Mar-a-Lago box case stuff.
	And the question is whether the prosecutor, this Jack Smith guy, was lawfully put into his, uh, his position.
	And the argument is that he was not lawfully put there by this, who is it?
	I guess the Senate has to do it.
	And therefore everything should be thrown out because he's not lawfully there.
	So we'll see.
	I don't know if that's going to make any difference.
	And then we expect this week, unless it happened in the last hour, that sometime the Supreme Court is going to rule on the presidential immunity thing.
	The smart people say they're not going to say presidents have full immunity for everything, because that would allow the president to break every rule in the book while the president.
	You don't want that.
	But you do want the president to have the full flexibility that if they're trying to do their best for the country under the color of office, and they're generally just trying to do a good job, and maybe a law gets broken, that that should not be cause for stopping the government and Going after him right away.
	There is a process for that.
	You could do impeachment first, remove him from office, and then prosecute.
	But you want to make it hard to go after a president, any president, who's just trying to do what's right for the country, but maybe cut a corner, right?
	You kind of want your president to cut some corners, don't you?
	You know, there are too many, the world is too messy.
	To get anything done, you're going to cut a corner.
	So if the most, you know, the most important person in the country is the only one who can't cut a corner in a world where you just always have to, that's a big problem.
	So I think the Supreme Court, I'm going to agree with the smart people who say that they'll probably cut the baby in half.
	And say that he can't be prosecuted while he's in office for doing things that are official, but that if it's purely personal, maybe yes.
	I'd be happy with that.
	Boris Johnson is insisting it's not his fault that there's a war in Ukraine, although he's blamed for being the one who tried to stop peace talks.
	He says that's not the case.
	And he says that the people of Ukraine voted overwhelmingly in 1991 to be sovereign and independent country, and they were perfectly entitled to seek both NATO and EU membership.
	Does that sound even close to the history of Ukraine that you know, if you spend like a minute on X?
	The history of Ukraine that I know is not a bunch of democracy-loving people who got together and voted themselves some independents.
	I thought the CIA staged a coup, put in a puppet, and it's all part of a plot to get, you know, to degrade Russia and get energy, I guess.
	So, but according to Boris, it's all perfectly copacetic and those people just voted for it.
	But I would argue that the people in the occupied territories that used to be Ukraine, but now Russia has a control of, I would argue that they did have a vote and that they voted strongly to go with Russia.
	Now, you're going to say to me, Scott, You're so skeptical about this other stuff, but why do you think that vote held by the Russians was a real vote?
	I don't.
	I don't.
	So I don't think that the vote was anything but rigged.
	However, there is a dog not barking, which is I've not seen anybody say that if they had done a proper election, it would have gone a different way.
	And I think we'd know that.
	I think we'd know.
	So probably, even though the election was, probably there was a finger on the scale there, probably, especially the ones who were mostly Russian-speaking and had no love for the most corrupt government in the world, Ukraine, they might have been perfectly happy to be Russian.
	I don't know.
	So you can't believe anything that's coming out of the war zone, but I definitely wouldn't believe Boris Johnson.
	All right.
	With that, ladies and gentlemen, are my prepared remarks.
	Another great show, I think you would agree.
	I'm going to say bye to the YouTube and Rumble and X people watching right now, and talk privately to my beloved subscribers on the local app.

▲