Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/
God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, UHC CEO Brian Thompson, Jeff Bezos, Government Over-Regulation, Kash Patel, Biden Preemptive Pardons, J6 Political Prisoner Pardons, 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
All right, let me call up your comments here on Locals to make sure I'm seeing the best of it.
Here it is.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
You've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen 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, the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
go so so good Well, the first Starlink satellite direct-to-cell phone constellation is now complete.
I think that means you can't quite use it yet, but the physical assets of satellites are in the right place.
So very soon, according to Elon Musk...
You'll be able to use your regular unmodified cell phone to use Starlink as a phone network.
And apparently there's also something happening with Starlink that's going to greatly reduce the latency, which is a big deal with the satellite stuff.
I guess the next ring of satellites is going to be closer to the Earth.
It's going to make a big, big difference in how fast your Starlink speed is.
So, that's cool.
And other cool news, according to Zion Lights, which is the name of a person, by the way, Zion Lights, Britain is installing its first nuclear reactor in 30 years at Hinkley Point.
So, that's good news, right?
Do you remember when the UK used to be an ally of the United States?
I remember that.
That was cool.
But now they're...
I don't know what they are now, but they're going to have a lot of nuclear power.
So it would have been good if they had done that 30 years ago, maybe.
There was an accidental scientific discovery.
Live Science is reporting it, according to Owen Hughes.
They accidentally discovered something that could lower the The energy needed to store things...
The energy needed to store data could go down by up to a billion times.
It could be a billion times more energy efficient than current technology.
Now, I don't think we have any idea...
Of how good the golden age could be?
It could be really good.
Because if we've got Europe putting in nuclear energy and we've got Starlink giving us competition with satellites and phones and we've got a billion times advantage.
I mean, it's early in the technology.
They haven't developed it yet.
But it looks like it would work.
And then we've got, according to the Guardian, Google's DeepMind, their AI, can predict weather way better than the other way they've been doing it.
So they're using artificial intelligence.
And it's 20% better than what they've been using up to now.
Yeah, it seems like a 20% advantage in forecasting the weather would make a big deal.
Because I make a lot of decisions based on the weather.
Don't you?
And if you get it wrong, it can be expensive.
Like, you could actually probably save a lot of money just by having better weather forecasts.
So that's cool.
According to Futurity, that's a publication, and Byron Spice, He says that robots are getting some new tech that allows them to figure out how to manipulate their physical environment without understanding everything about the objects.
So, in other words, robots are pretty good at doing the exact same thing over and over.
But if you show them, let's say, a table full of dishes and you say, pick up these dishes or set this table or cook a meal and ask to figure out every new move like the first time it's ever seen it.
It's not good at that.
But apparently there's a new approach.
And it's making a big deal.
So some PhD student, Murtaza Dalai, at the School of Computer Science and Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon, Apparently, they've got this new breakthrough so they can just sort of show it its situation and tell it what to do and it can figure out how to manipulate every object in its domain.
That would be amazing.
Now, but the thing I always complain about with robots is that they're always slow and I just don't get that.
And I've said this before, but Correct me if I'm wrong.
I have to do my robot impression again.
If you saw a robot in the 1950s try to do anything, it would be...
And then if you see a robot 50 years later with all the modern technology and supercomputing, the robot is still like...
They couldn't make it faster.
I get that it's hard to make it accurate, but they can never make it faster.
So it always has to go slow, slowly.
I don't know.
I don't get that part.
Well, the Daniel Penny jury is maybe back deliberating.
I have not yet heard of a conclusion.
So I believe the Daniel Penny jury got sent home yesterday because they had not made a decision.
So they should be back at it today.
I think Judge Jeanine on the 5 said with some confidence that we'll see a verdict today.
I love Judge Jeanine's context lots of times because she's got the experience.
So she can just sort of look at this case and say, oh yeah, they'll have a verdict today.
She's probably right.
And here's what I think the verdict will be.
Hung jury.
Hung jury.
I predict that they will not be able to make a decision because it's just too political.
There's going to be at least one person on that jury who says he has to go to jail because they don't want to face the angry crowds outside or they just think that's the right thing to do.
I guarantee there will be at least one person on the jury who says, you're going to have to kill me before you put this guy in jail.
Let me say that again.
There's a very high chance there's at least one person on that jury who's saying, effectively, not out loud, but effectively, you'd have to kill me to put him in jail.
Because that's what I'd be thinking.
If you put me on that jury...
I would say, I don't care what the other 11 of you have to say.
You would have to kill me to put him in jail under these circumstances.
You would have to kill me.
So, hung jury.
I don't think there's any way to get a verdict.
Do you?
Do you see any way that 12 people will agree that he's either completely guilty or completely not guilty?
I don't see it.
Because there's way too much subjectivity in this.
There shouldn't be, but there is.
So that's my prediction.
Hungary.
Breitbart News is reporting.
This is my favorite story of the day.
That the VA, Veterans Administration, official in a Tennessee Veterans Hospital, apparently they were having all kinds of sex orgies at the VA hospital.
And there was one VA official who allegedly had sex with 32 different co-workers.
And they didn't include a photo?
Are you just teasing me?
Are you telling me that there's a citizen who is so sexy that he or she, I don't know if it was a he or she, was capable of having sex with 32 different co-workers?
I've got to see a picture.
You can't tease me with a headline like that and not show me the picture, especially if it was a dude.
Because they don't say male or female.
I'm assuming female, just because that's a lot of numbers.
But what if it was a guy?
Wouldn't you like to see a picture of a guy who could successfully have sex with 32 co-workers?
Like, that must be the best-looking guy in the world.
Unless it's a woman.
Then maybe, you know, lower standard.
Still, need a photo.
All right, I know you want to talk about the tragedy of the murder of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, healthcare insurance company.
And here are the things we know about it.
Apparently, he was a CEO of an insurer who was famous for turning down the most requests for coverage.
So they seem to have an industry wildly highest declines.
Now, I don't know if that had to do with what market they were serving.
It could be that they were serving a down market and so there was just more fraud or something.
But they were famous for declining, I guess, insurance claims.
When we watched the video, I think all of you saw the video of the murder on the streets of New York and Manhattan.
How many of you said when you saw it, well, there's a professional hit right there.
In the comments, tell me.
How many of you said, there's a professional hit?
Did any of you say that?
Because I watched it too.
And if there's one thing I can tell you for sure, that was no professional hit.
That was someone who never even used the gun he used for the hit.
Do you think he had ever used that gun with a silencer?
No.
No.
He never shot it even once.
Because once you saw how many times he had to clear it or reload it or re-cock it or whatever the hell he was doing, it was obvious that he did not have practice.
I mean, it was just the wrong device.
Now, I saw a lot of the people who know way more about guns than I do debating what the actual gun was.
And the person who seemed to know the most seemed to indicate that he didn't know how to match his silencer with his weapon.
So I don't know enough about this topic, but apparently you need the right kind of silencer for the right kind of weapon, and you need the right kind of ammunition depending on what you're doing.
So it looked like he did not have that all figured out.
So professional hitman?
Probably not.
The other thing arguing against it is the first shot was from a distance, which doesn't seem professional.
I think the first one should have been closer.
Police are saying that, I think.
And he had a cell phone on him, which is a strange thing to do if you're a murderer.
And he left on a traceable rented bike.
Now, Despite those things, he did get away.
So I don't think you can use these as examples of somebody who didn't know how to do a murder and get away with it, since he did a murder and he got away with it.
So he definitely did some thinking, and it wasn't a random act.
It wasn't something that was, well, it wasn't random.
It was obviously directed at this one person.
So my take is that it's somebody smart enough to do some research and put together a fairly complicated plan, including a getaway, but not somebody who did it for a living.
It didn't look like a professional.
And not only that, but he left him alive when he left the guy.
He was still alive when he left.
They tried to save him, but they couldn't.
Now, there will be much speculation about About this.
But we're still in the fog of crime.
You know, the fog of war when all the news is wrong.
And later, three weeks later, you find out, ooh, all the initial reports were wrong.
Well, one of the initial reports, I think ABC News had it, is that some of the bullets found at the scene, some of the...
Apparently, he had some...
You know, actual rounds that hadn't been fired, they left in the scene because he was loading one round at a time into his weird little gun, and some of them dropped.
So none of this makes complete sense, but apparently...
The reporting, which I'm going to tell you I don't believe, is that the rounds had the words deny, defend, and depose on the shell casings.
Oh, the shell casings, not the actual round, maybe.
I'm not sure if it was a shell casing.
That means it was a spent round, right?
And it said it was left of the scene.
Now, those words are the title of a book about how insurers don't pay claims.
Now, first of all, is it true that the name of a book is written on some of those shell casings?
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that these shell casings have the name of a book on them?
I'm going to say no.
I'm going to say that's a little bit...
I don't know.
I don't know.
I just don't see it.
Because at the very least, it would be one more way to get caught, right?
So, here's one possibility.
One possibility is that because he was in an industry where customers can get really mad if their claims are denied, That maybe somebody had a personal reason to kill him, but they're diverting attention over to this unprovable everybody in the world wants to kill him because the business he's in.
It's kind of a perfect cover.
And if you were trying to divert to an alibi story or some alternative explanation, you might write the name of a healthcare book on your bullets.
But otherwise, I don't think you'd write it on the bullet casing.
None of this sounds real.
So I'm going to guess.
So here's my first speculation.
My first speculation is the ABC report is fake and that there's nothing written on any bullets or casings.
That's my first thing.
If there is something written on the bullet casings, That doesn't mean that was the real reason.
Because it's just as easy to imagine that that was a diversion than it was a real reason.
So, there could be any number of dozen different reasons.
There was some report about the CEO being investigated for insider trading, but I have no reason to believe that's true.
Everything you hear is going to be fog of war, fog of crime.
So, So I guess the first thing I'd say is, since these are all innocent civilians as far as we know, not to make any claims about any bad behavior by the people who are the victims.
So at this point, we have a family that are victims, and that's all we know.
So I wouldn't speculate beyond that.
But I would speculate that early information about it is probably wrong.
And I'm certain it's not a professional.
It's a professional who didn't know to cover his nose with his mask.
I mean, it didn't look that professional to me.
Maybe it was a bad professional.
Maybe it was his first day at work.
Anyway...
Wired says they can trick AI-powered robots into doing dangerous and violent things with a variety of tricks.
And it makes me wonder, especially after this CEO tragedy murder, it makes me wonder if we're near the end of human murder because it'll be so much easier to send a machine to do it.
There'll still be a human who's behind the murder.
But if you could get a drone to do it for you, I feel like you'd send the robot or you'd send the drone or you'd hack into the self-driving car.
I feel like all murder in 10 years is going to be via robot or AI or self-driving car or airplane that falls out of the sky on top of you or something.
So I got a feeling murder is going to look really different.
Well, according to...
Who was this?
According to somebody...
I think this was Rasmussen.
Rasmussen said that Hank Seth has a lot of support with GOP voters, as you would suspect.
And Democrats don't like it, as you would suspect.
Which makes me think, I wonder about this whole confirmation process.
If the confirmation process turns into, predictably, you know exactly what the Democrats are going to vote for, and you know exactly what the Republicans are going to vote for, it makes me wonder if the whole approving of people is, we have to do something different.
Because if it just lines up along party lines every time, It really doesn't work.
So this might be the cycle that tells us to rethink that whole situation.
Well, according to Also Wired, they checked a bunch of random phones from people who thought that they might have problems with their phones.
So it wasn't completely random.
It was people who suspected there might be some spyware on their phones because they had those kinds of jobs.
And sure enough, They found seven phones out of 2,500?
Yeah, out of 2,500 devices, they found seven of them had that Pegasus infection.
Now, Pegasus is the super bad spy version.
It's not the one you want on your phone at all.
But here's my problem.
The company that found it makes an app or software, I guess, that checks for that kind of infection.
How can you ever check or how can you ever trust the company that makes the software that checks for the viruses?
How can you ever trust them?
Like, I get that I can't trust the virus, but But if somebody's in the business of essentially having enough control over your phone that they can see if you have a virus, wouldn't they be the perfect carrier for a virus?
So I'm not making any accusations about any specific companies.
I'm just saying, if you let somebody have full access to your device to check if somebody else had full access to your device, I feel like you might be trading one problem for another.
So, I don't know.
I guess I don't have any trust for virus scanning companies.
But there's also a report that China says that the telecoms in the U.S. all got hacked.
Well, not all of them, but AT&T, Verizon, and others.
And that the hackers, Chinese hackers allegedly...
Got into live calls, call records, and even top-secret systems in D.C. And the government is advising, if you want to be safe, you should use encrypted apps like Signal and WhatsApp.
Now, here's one of those stories.
If you were a casual consumer of news, that would all make sense, wouldn't it?
Oh, let's see.
If my regular phone might be corrupted by hackers, I could just use an encrypted app.
Oh!
And the government recommends it.
Well, that's a good idea.
That's if you didn't know that the government almost certainly has a backdoor to those encrypted apps.
So you'd be basically giving away...
I don't know.
There's no way you're not going to be hacked.
If the government doesn't have you already, the Chinese hackers will get you, the phone company themselves will have insiders.
You just have to assume that everything you write and everything you've ever said is discoverable.
And I don't know how many times I'll need to tell you that, probably until you get caught on your own.
But there's no such thing as privacy.
This is one of those things I predicted years ago.
So years ago, I predicted that fighting over whether we'd protect our privacy, it's worth the fight, but you weren't going to win.
The direction of technology pretty much guarantees a complete loss of privacy.
And I'm not saying it should, but we will be seduced by various features of technology.
Most of us are going to have a robot in our homes.
Do you know what loss of privacy you're going to have when you have a robot in your house?
Listening to every conversation, it knows who you're having sex with because it sees you come and go.
We're about to give up whatever's left of your privacy by having a little recording device following you around.
I mean, it's not bad enough.
I've got a recording device right behind me and one in my hand.
They're already able to record anything that some hacker wants them to record.
But if the robot is actually following me from room to room, good luck with your privacy.
All right.
Stephen Miller, advisor to Trump, he was outlining Trump's first 100 days and he says it's going to be a new golden age.
A new golden age.
I believe I started predicting the golden age in 2017. Got derailed by at least four years.
But maybe we're there.
Maybe the golden age is kicking off.
And one of the things that Stephen Miller points out is what he calls a rapid, total, complete deregulation of American energy exploration.
Is that accurate?
Yes.
Do we really want a rapid, total, and complete deregulation?
I don't know enough about that domain to know if that makes sense.
Because my common sense tells me there must be some regulation that makes sense.
Literally, is there no regulation?
There's not even one?
In this entire domain of energy exploration, there's not one thing that keeps you safe without a big cost that's not worth it.
I don't know.
I think it's hyperbole, but maybe not.
This is one where I can't tell.
Is it hyperbole to say that it's going to be complete deregulation?
Or is it maybe just federal deregulation and there might be some state regulations?
I don't know.
It sounds good, but I've got questions about it.
But there's a funny thing happening here with common sense.
And let me just skip ahead.
So Jeff Bezos of Amazon, he was asked at some event about Trump 2.0, and he said he's very optimistic.
Because there are too many regulations.
And listen to what he says.
This is Jeff Bezos.
He says, quote, I'm actually very optimistic this time around, meaning Trump's second term.
He seems to have a lot of energy around reducing regulation.
And from my point of view, if I can help him do that, I'm going to help him.
Because we do have too many regulations.
I think he was talking about Elon Musk as well as Trump.
If you look at the national debt...
Blah, blah, blah.
The only way we can get out of it is by growing out of it, and the only way we're going to do that is by slashing regulations.
Now, what part of that was anything but common sense?
That was just common sense, right?
And I don't see Republican and Democrat anymore.
Those categories, they seem to be dissolving.
I mean, I was watching another clip from Bill Maher, and Bill Maher is very cleanly in the common sense category.
And he was talking to his guests.
I'm not sure when this was filmed, but I just saw the clip today.
And he was saying that this country does need a big disruption.
So Bill Maher, one of the biggest critics of Trump ever, has said he's not predicting success, but he's not going to criticize in advance because the country needs basically a slap, you know, a colonoscopy and a slap in the face, I think he said.
And so that's a completely common sense point of view.
Because a reasonable person can say we have to grow faster to get out of our debt.
A reasonable person would say we need something kind of more dramatic change than we've had before.
These are all just perfectly sensible points of view.
And none of this is Republican.
Is it?
I mean, you can't really say that Democrats love over-regulation.
That's not really a thing.
So something just wonderful is happening.
About people you'd expect to be on the other team saying, wait a second, wait a second.
Are you just doing common sense over there?
Because I can sign up for common sense.
I can't sign up for your party.
But all those things look smart.
Why can't we do the things that make sense?
So big props to Jeff Bezos.
And Bill Maher in this context, I'll have other things I might want to complain about, but in this context, Bill Maher is definitely on the side of the patriots, I would say.
So good to have him on board.
Not completely.
He'll still be a Trump critic, but he's not abandoning common sense to get there.
Let me do a clarification about something I said about the Kash Patel nomination.
So I mentioned on X and then people jumped all over me because I think they misinterpreted what I meant on X, but on X you can't give as much context.
So if they didn't hear me talk about it, they probably didn't have a good idea what I was up about.
So According to the Vigilant Fox, which is one of the accounts I like to follow on X, and the Vigilant Fox is completely right-leaning bias, right?
So they're completely right-leaning.
But...
They referenced Mediaite's list of Kash Patel's, what they would call an enemies list, people he thinks need to be dealt with, either by their security clearance being taken away or there might be some legal issues.
So some people went after me and said, Oh, you believe this bad Mediaite source?
Well, no.
But I'm pretty sure that it's agreed on by both sides.
So if Mediate were the only one publishing an enemies list and nobody else did, and nobody else thought there was an enemies list, then I'm saying, hmm, I don't even think there is one.
Sounds like fake news.
But the Vigilant Fox seems to think that this list is reasonably close to reality.
Somebody said that Cash has a book which lists people and maybe a more complete argument for why they would be targeted.
But let me clarify.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a target list.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a target list.
I'm saying that publishing it is a really bad idea.
Because if you publish a target list, then you immediately fall into the Stalin model.
of naming the person before the crime.
Now, the fact that Mediaite can turn it into just a list of targets and they can strip out the alleged crimes puts you in a real dangerous place, especially if you make the mistake of repeating their list without the list of allegations against them.
Now, if it had been always the person plus the allegation, Then I would say, I don't love this, but at least you're making sure that we see the alleged crime first.
If you show me the person first, separated from the crime, even if your enemy is the one who made the list, you're in a disadvantaged situation.
But it gets worse.
Why would you ever telegraph to your, let's call them enemies, what your plan is?
So as of yesterday, we find out that there's conversation about preemptive pardoning of people that might be targeted by Kash Patel.
So it might include Fauci and Liz Cheney and Adam Schiff.
So in other words, having a list of who you're going to go after is also the list of pardons.
So at the last day, Biden could say, all right, every single person who's on this Kash Patel target list, you're all pardoned.
And you know what I would say?
Nothing.
Because if you make it this easy for the other side to pardon everybody that you want to go after, I mean, you're kind of bringing this on yourself.
I would be happy just to have them out of public office and not having influence.
But if you publish their names first and then that causes them all to get preemptive pardons, I'm not even going to bitch about it because you just walk right into that.
It's like you set your own trap and then you triggered your own trap.
You trapped yourself.
So just to be clear, I'm not defending any of the people who are on the list, because there's some pretty sketchy behavior on that list.
I'm just saying that approaching it as a list of enemies, even if you've got really good arguments, and there are good arguments, it's not a good strategy.
It's just a bad strategy.
It's a bad look, and I think it's bad for the supporters, because it makes you look like you're supporting Stalin, basically.
I'll give you the list of people, and we'll figure out later what they did, because we don't like them.
So, now I'm not saying that, further clarification, I'm not saying that Cash would make up crimes.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that the way that it's presented makes it easy to attack as if he is doing that.
So don't do that.
But it's too late.
It's already done.
But, let's see.
Speaking of Cash, he also sent out a legal notice.
This is according to the George account on X. So Cash Patel, his lawyers, sent out a legal notice to Mike Pence's advisor.
Somebody named Olivia Troia, because she was on the Joy Reid show recently, and she said some things about Kash Patel that I guess Kash and his lawyers think are complete fabrications, and asking them to take them back.
So she said, Kash Patel is a delusional liar, and he lied about intelligence, and he made things up, and she had to check his work, and blah, blah, blah.
So Patel's lawyers are threatening litigation.
And here's the thing that I think is the most interesting part about this story.
Mike Pence has advisors.
Mike Pence has advisors.
Let's check their work.
Let's see.
Mike Pence is the only person in politics who rose to the level of vice president, but at the moment would not be able to get any job in politics.
Am I right?
Mike Pence would not be able to get any job in politics.
So, so far the advisor is not killing it, but politics is not the only game.
At least he could, you know, Mike Pence could get a job working for the news.
Oh, no, he probably can't.
Because the news on the right or right-leaning networks wouldn't want to have anything to do with them.
And left-leaning networks wouldn't want to have anything to do with them.
So let's see.
Mike Pence has advisors.
And where he's ended up at the result of this advice is can't get a job in any domain in which he's qualified.
She's advised him into complete irrelevance if not bankruptcy.
Now, I shouldn't be laughing at him because I don't think he deserves that, but Mike Pence has advisors?
Anyway, I thought that was funny.
According to an AP poll, J.D. Vance was right.
Female cat owners voted for Harris 59% and Trump 40%.
But Trump, I think Trump won all the other pet owners, but the only pet owners he lost were female cat owners.
J.D. Vance totally called it.
Female cat owners.
All right.
That was exactly what it looked like.
Washington Examiner says that...
68% of the public is in favor of January 6 prisoner pardons in a case-by-case basis.
So people are way less interested in a broad general pardon, but they say in a case-by-case basis.
In my opinion, that's a good first opinion.
I say that because it was my first opinion, too.
My first opinion was, yeah, you have to look at each one individually.
There are 1,500 of them.
Did any of you sort of lose count of how many people had been rounded up for being Republicans?
There are 1,500 people in jail for January 6. How long would it take to look individually at all 1,500?
That's all I need to know.
If it's going to take you a year to figure out which of them individually should be released, you've got to release them all now.
You have to do them all now.
If waiting to look at them individually is going to take months or years, I can't put up with that.
I can't put up with basically people I consider 100% innocent.
Of the 1,500, at least 1,000 didn't do anything but show up and express their opinion, in my opinion.
So you're going to let 1,000 people rot in jail for another few months so you can look individually at those other ones?
Nope.
Not good enough.
That is not good enough.
You want a better argument?
No.
The better argument is that none of those bad people, the ones that you might look at individually and say, oh, this one was actually violent, none of that would have happened if the election had not been obviously looking rigged, We have the ability to do elections that don't look rigged, and I'm only talking about the appearance, because I don't know, you know, I don't have facts that would justify claiming certainty of it being rigged.
I am certain that it looked rigged, and I'm certain that we have the ability and the knowledge of how to do an election that the entire public would say, oh, that looked fair.
We do know how to do that, and we choose not to.
If we do know how to do it, and we choose not to, And people react to that?
What's the base cause of the problem?
The base cause of the problem is not the protesters.
The base cause of the problem is that we intentionally ran an election which should have created violence.
I'm not in That election should have created violence on paper.
You should have been able to predict it.
If you had known that the election was going to go that weird way, where suddenly there were a whole bunch of votes at the end that flipped the election, if you had known that in advance, you would have also known that there was going to be violence, or the odds of it were going to be pretty high.
So whoever designs our elections has to take some responsibility for creating a system that had a very high likelihood of generating violence.
Secondly, if you know that that's a possibility, and there was lots of talk about it before January 6th, if the Democrat leadership failed to properly protect the place, that is also a base problem.
The protesters actually did the illegal acts, are legally banned.
It's their legal responsibility.
So I'm making a distinction...
Between the people who are legally responsible for their actions, which is only the people who did them, right?
So from a legal perspective, the people who did the violence, it's just their fault.
Violence, yeah, you have to...
You can't design a legal system where you're blaming society and, you know, what happened before.
It's the person who actually did the act who's going to go to jail or not go to jail.
But...
This is bigger than just the individual criminal acts.
It's bigger.
Because the election is bigger than the individual act and the integrity of the country and justice in general and the thousand people who will rot in jail for an extra month or two or whatever if they have to figure them out individually.
So given that, in my opinion, the base problem was the design of the election system to be non-credible, Followed by a very non-credible outcome, according to, you know, 40% of the country probably.
Followed by a complete failure to protect the public by not having the right amount of security where you know you needed it.
Now, I can still say that the individuals who did the crime broke the law and that the law was the right thing to deal with it.
But at this point, given that maybe a thousand people that I would not consider criminals at all have been lumped into that group, you've got to pardon them all.
So there are too many innocent people in this story for the guilty people in this story To continue to ruin the lives of the innocent people in the story.
Innocent has to be bigger than guilty in our world.
So I think you've got at least three arguments for doing all of them right away.
And I think the country would get over it.
You know, there would be a huge outcry and it would be a headline for two weeks and the Democrats would complain and they'd do stories about, oh, this one hurt somebody in particular, so why'd they do this one?
But we wouldn't care that much.
We would definitely get over it.
The country would move on.
We don't want to linger on that.
Nobody's going to be harping on it two years from now.
So I think it's a slam dunk.
I think you'd do them all.
I'd be very disappointed if they did case by case.
But it makes sense to say case by case until you actually make the decision.
All right.
So, your two cats agree?
All right.
Well, 100 people are free before one innocent person.
Yeah.
I'm just looking at your comments and agreeing with you.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, before we go, I'd like to show you two comics.
They're two Dilbert comics, one from 10 years ago on the same date, calendar date, and one from today.
And I want you to judge if I've lost a step.
So I want you to see, am I as funny as I was 10 years ago when Dilbert was closer to his peak?
Have I lost anything?
So here will be the two comics.
Let's see.
So here's from Dilbert Reborn.
Now these normally would not be available to the general public.
These are only for subscribers on X or subscribers on Locals.
But here, Dogbert's working the tech support.
Colin says, what kind of genital add-ons do you sell for robots?
This is part of a continuing series where Dogbert has started a startup where he's selling genital add-ons for your robot.
So what kind of genital add-ons do you sell for robots?
And Dogbert says, our most popular model is called the LeBron.
But for half the price, you might be interested in our starter set we call the Olbermann.
And the person on the phone says, will the robot be happy either way?
And Dogware says, we see a lot of sobbing with the Olbermann.
All right, so that's the one for today.
Now, if I can properly operate this...
I'll show you the calendar one.
So this is a digital calendar.
This is not related to the physical calendar that's coming out for 2025. It's just a digital thing I do for subscribers.
So here, Bob the Dinosaur.
He's talking to Dilbert, and Bob the Dinosaur says, ha ha, I am now the coolest member of the household because I have a smartwatch.
Hello, watch.
What time is it?
And the watch says, this is the Anthropocene epoch.
And Bob the Dinosaur says, wow, that carbon dates me.
All right, so that was 10 years ago.
So, am I funnier today or was I funnier 10 years ago?
Well, you can decide that.
I just thought I'd send you that one.
One of the things I do track One of the reasons that I do the 10 years ago is I do track to see if I've lost it.
Like, can I still be funny?
Now, I have an advantage with the Dilbert Reborn comic because I can be a little naughtier.
And that's just way easier to write if you can be a little bit naughty.
So, if you're wondering what the physical Dilbert calendar, which is available only on At the link at Dilbert.com.
It's not available at Amazon.
It's not available in stores.
Only online at the link at Dilbert.com.
But it has the classic comics, ones that have been published before, on the front of each page, but on the back has the slightly naughtier comics like the one I just read.
So twice as many comics than any prior year and made in America.
The calendar is made in America for the first time.
That was something I just had to do.
All right, I'm going to say a few words to the local subscribers privately.
