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, Electric Cars Future, Science Credibility, Climate Change, NJ Mystery Drones, Senator Van Drew, West Point PR Lies, Pete Hegseth, Cousin Marriage Ban, Catholic Church, Anti-Trump Sarah Longwell, Mark Zuckerberg Inauguration Donation, President Biden Pardons, Kari Lake Nomination, Voice of America, Empathy Theatrics, Woody Allen's Chef, Syria Rebel Leader's Resume, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, Senator Fetterman's Strategy, Byron York, Jordan Neely, Anti-Trump Bureaucracy Plotting, Canadian Euthanasia, Mitch McConnell's Motivation, Empire Expansion, Rachael Maddow Salary, xAI Nvidia Chip Networking, Elon Musk, 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
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and 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 for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tanker gels with stein, a canteen, a jug, a 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Today with extra oxytocin.
Go.
Oh, that's good.
By the way, for those of you who have not figured it out, this isn't really the show that you watch to get the most accurate news reports, although we try our best.
This is the live stream you watch because you like having a secret friend.
So unlike your friend who You don't have much to say, but your friend is very talkative, so you just sort of let them run on while you're getting about your business.
So that's what I am.
I'm your invisible secret friend.
Yeah, just for you.
Now let's talk about some things.
Would you be surprised that there's some new science about coffee that's good for you?
Yes, in Parade magazine, In case you wondered, it does hydrate you.
So some people say, don't drink coffee because you'll pee too much and you'll be dehydrated.
No.
The science says that for regular amounts of coffee, if you don't have too much, that it adds more to your hydration than it subtracts.
So it's good for you.
Did you know how many people around the U.S. and even around the world do not drink coffee?
Let me see.
It's a well-known wonder drug that's good for you in almost every possible way that a thing could be good for you.
What percentage of the world would not Do the thing that's universally good for everybody.
What percent would not?
Yeah, that's right.
That's right.
27% is the exact number.
A quarter of the country will get every question wrong.
Doesn't matter what the question is.
And this is the case.
73% of Americans drink coffee every day, so...
27%, you've got some explaining to do.
And you'd be amazed to know there's a breakthrough in EV batteries.
Another one, yes.
In this case, Wonderful Engineering is reporting that they've got a battery now that's, I think it's a regular lithium, but they souped it up so they got 5 million miles on one battery and 20,000 charges.
And it's so robust that If they can get to the point where it lasts longer than the car, then you can throw the rest of the car away, take the battery out, and it might be, let's say, 80% still useful, and just use it as a battery backup for your house.
So think about that.
There might be a market coming for repurposing batteries that came out of your car.
You just use them at your house.
Maybe.
What I think they really need to do is develop a battery made entirely from coffee.
Because if you've been paying attention, coffee can do it all.
So I'm pretty sure you could make a battery out of coffee that would be better.
Elon Musk said yesterday on X, he predicted that 98% of vehicles will be electric eventually.
What do you think?
Do you think 98% of the vehicles would become electric?
And that there will still be gas-powered cars, but it would be kind of like using a flip phone.
Somebody's going to do it, but it'll be rare.
I think so.
You know, if you had not listened to my live stream every day, and I don't know why you wouldn't, you wouldn't know that there's a breakthrough in battery technology just about every day.
And if we keep having breakthroughs in batteries, it kind of guarantees that all of your cars are going to be electric.
Because the economics are all just moving in one direction.
It's not like gas is getting that much cheaper.
But electricity?
It might, if we build enough nuclear power plants and do that kind of stuff.
But I'd like to use this as an example of an investment approach.
So, I don't know if I've heard anybody talk about this investment approach.
Now, I don't give investment advice, specific investment advice, so I'll just put this out as a hypothesis.
But it's one I've used, and it seems to work.
It goes like this.
If you're trying to pick winning companies, you're probably going to lose, like, I don't know, 95% of the time.
You might get lucky.
You might get lucky 5% of the time, but you're going to lose about 95% of that.
So in general, you should get an index fund and diversify and just let it do what it does.
But there's one thing I've been tracking for my entire life to see if it would be an investment opportunity.
And there's one thing that appears to me to work way more than half of the time.
And that is that when there's a one-time change in the economy, if you bet on the strongest company that's involved in that one-time change, like I mean one time ever, like it'll never happen again, then you could probably make money.
For example, in the early days of personal computers, there was only one time in human history when personal computers would go from nobody has one to everybody has one.
That's only once in human history that'll happen.
So if you were to find the strongest company in that domain, which would have been hard because a lot of them were coming and going, but if you'd put your money in, say, Dell or Apple, you probably would have had a winner, like a really big winner.
Imagine if you put early money into Dell, computers, or Apple.
Now, if you'd put your early money into IBM, IBM got ahead of that business, but even the IBM stock did pretty well.
So then the cell phones came along.
Well, first, before they were smartphones, they were just these small cell phones.
And I worked for the phone company.
And I said to myself, huh, there will only be one time in human history...
When people go from their landlines to a handheld phone.
So if you were to invest in any of those major phone companies that were rolling out cell phones, you would have made a lot of money.
And probably two out of three of companies that you picked in that domain would have been winners.
Then there was the internet.
I remember at the birth of the internet, when it was called the World Wide Web, and nobody even knew the words for it, I asked an engineer, what should I invest in to get in the bottom floor of this internet thing?
It looks like it could be big.
And the engineer said, Cisco.
And I said, what's that?
And he said, well, they make these things called network, blah, blah, blah.
And I didn't buy that stock.
If I had bought Netscape before, you had never heard of the word internet.
Literally.
Literally, you would never have even heard of it yet.
Do you know how much money I would have made on that one time ever change in society?
So then the smartphone comes along.
You know, you could be forgiven if you didn't think it was going to be a hit because the first smartphones were terrible.
But...
It was the one time in human history that we would move to smartphones.
So if you bought Apple stock, boy, would you be happy.
These one time changes.
So that's what I see with electric vehicles.
And it's what I see with Tesla.
So Tesla is the leading company.
In a thing that will happen only once in human history, which is gas automobiles will, you know, be dismissed in favor of electric.
So, I don't give investment advice, but I would point out that if you can find anything that's going to happen only once in human history, and it's unavoidable and it's definitely going to happen, You probably have a 2 out of 3 chance of picking a super winner out of the lot.
It's not 100%, but it would go from a coin flip to 2 out of 3, I think, pretty quickly.
All right.
According to study finds, climate change was greatly overestimated because oceans cool the earth in more than one way.
So one of the ways that apparently we did not realize until recently is that the ocean puts off sulfur gas produced by the marine life.
I don't know if it's fish farting or what they're doing, but some kind of marine life puts off sulfur.
And apparently that's a really powerful chemistry to put into the atmosphere because it produces a lot of cooling, more than you'd think, I guess.
Now, how many times have I read you a story about a major variable that had been missed in climate change, and now they have to put it in there, but now everything will be good.
I mean, it was almost perfect, but now we made this little tweak, even better.
It feels to me that our confidence in the models...
Tell me if I'm wrong...
The confidence that science had in their models when they had, oh, let's say 10 major variables completely wrong, is exactly the same as their current confidence when they believe they've accurately added Ten more variables, and surprisingly, it didn't really change the model at all.
Now, if you know what to look for in terms of scams, this one could not be screaming any louder that the climate models are basically bullshit.
Now, what I'm not saying, because I know I'll get quoted out of context, I'm not saying the Earth isn't warming.
I wouldn't know.
How would I know?
And I'm not saying that humans have nothing to do with it.
Again, how would I know?
The only thing I know is what science tells me, and science is so lying about anything important that it's like nothing happened.
It's as if science didn't even weigh in.
It has no credibility whatsoever at this point.
So when I look at climate models and you see that they keep adding major variables, major variables, like, oh, we didn't realize the sun was doing all this, and oh, the cloud cover, and oh, it turns out that the oceans, in at least three different ways, is more of a counteracting of heat than we thought.
So, if you ever see that the model worked when it was all completely different, and amazingly, it still works now after you've changed all the assumptions, that's bullshit.
That's bullshit.
One of two things should have happened after 10 years of finding out we have major, major variable problems.
Either they should have said, well, it looks like it's way less of a problem than we thought, or, oh, damn, this is a much bigger problem than we thought.
We're going to be dead in six years, not 12. But what are the odds that you can change all the assumptions going into your model, and the model stays the same for 20 years?
Yeah, that's bullshit.
Well, those New Jersey drones, and I guess other places too, just gets more interesting.
As you know, Senator Van Drew from New Jersey believes he has good sources that said the drones were being released every night from an Iranian mothership parked off the coast.
The Pentagon said, quote, there's no so-called mothership launching drones toward the United States.
And I believe I heard that Van Drew has doubled down.
And says that there are drones coming out of an Iranian ship.
He believes in sources.
I believe that Van Drew probably is getting crackened, meaning somebody is feeding him some lies so that he disgraces himself in public and becomes less electable because of it.
So it feels like somebody's playing a dirty trick on him, but I can't be sure.
It's just what it looks like.
So here's what's the funny things.
I think it's funny that the American public, I saw some people asking this question.
I wondered if it was influenced by me.
But I saw some people asking the question.
Government, I have a question.
If you say you know that the drones are not from a foreign adversary, and you also know that they're not dangerous, How could you know they're not dangerous and also know that they're not from a foreign adversary unless you know what they are?
Is that not the right question?
Unless you do know what they are, you can't tell us they're not coming from a foreign adversary because that means you either know what they are or you don't.
If you don't know what they are, then you also don't know how dangerous they are.
Is that not common sense?
Now, if they had said to us, well, we do have a way of knowing that they're not dangerous.
For example, if they said, yeah, we can tell they're made of balsa wood and it looks like a hobbyist, I'd say, oh, okay.
That's a good reason to say it doesn't sound like an adversary or dangerous.
But they're not saying that.
They're not giving you any indication that they have even a clue what these are.
But they know they're not dangerous.
And also, the air is not full of military assets trying to bring them down and or figuring out what they are.
Do you need any more evidence that these are U.S. military tests?
Now, the U.S. military might not own the drones.
It might be the vendors still own them and they're just demonstrating.
Or they could be from another, you know, maybe it's a product of another country's military that's allied with us.
Could be a NATO country that has drones and they're testing them out and see if we want to get in on them and, you know, maybe recommend them for NATO or something.
But it's definitely us.
Do you all agree?
The drones is us.
It's got to be American drones.
It's got to be military, because otherwise the military would be up there shooting them down.
So here's the other thing that I've heard that's just crazy, that they're invisible to people in helicopters.
Come on!
Come on!
Really?
They're invisible only to people in helicopters?
You mean the easiest way that you could go up and check what's going on, a helicopter?
They're invisible.
You can see them clearly from the ground for miles.
They have lights on them.
They have running lights, you know, like a regular commercial drone.
And you're telling me that the helicopters can't see them.
So apparently America is trying out our helicopter-only invisibility cloak.
Oh yeah, you can see them from the ground.
But boy, you get in a helicopter, nothing.
The ridiculousness that we're being set up with here is crazy.
It's crazy that we're being asked to believe this.
Now, here's what...
Oh, here's the other thing that's making me laugh.
When the drones come out, it's between 4 and 11 p.m.
nightly.
Between 4 and 11 p.m.
is exactly the time that a human being would want to test something at night.
After 11 o'clock, everybody wants to go home, right?
Because they have families and stuff.
So you don't want to go past 11. And you want to wait until it's dark.
So you start around 4 or 5. It's so obviously Americans testing these.
If it were one person or an attack, do you think it would stick to evening hours between 4 and 11?
You don't think they'd do a little attacking after midnight?
If it was some kind of clever plot?
Or if it were hobbyists, you think all the hobbyists go home at 11 o'clock?
No, it's obviously a group of people Because they've agreed as a group what the starting time is and what the ending time is.
You would not get this consistency if it were one person or a military thing or something that was trying to be unpredictable.
But you would definitely get, let's do this from 4 to 11. Everybody good with that?
Yeah, yeah.
We know we have to do it at night.
Don't want to go past 11. Yeah, 4 to 11 sounds good.
So, yes, we know it's a group of Americans deciding what time to do it.
So, it's the military.
They also say that the drones can't be detected by radio.
Now, what does that mean?
Does that mean that they can't jam them and they don't get a signal that tells them it's being controlled from afar?
Because here's what I think.
One of the things they might be testing is AI navigations.
Meaning that they're not using GPS, and for the time that it's over in the residential area, where maybe you can check for the radio signals, that it's not using any.
So it might be flying independently under the direction of whoever sent it, but using an AI to decide what to do and how to get back.
So that would make sense.
I mean, obviously, if you had an advanced drone, the thing you would definitely be testing Can somebody detect your radio signal and jam it?
So, it makes sense.
Anyway, here's what I think we should do.
We should demand the resignation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because they seem to have demonstrated and told us with complete clarity that there's no homeland defense.
Am I right?
They have proven, if we're to take them seriously, If we take the military seriously that they're not their drones, which is trying to tell us that they're not involved, but they don't say that because they're involved, obviously.
We should call their bluff.
And say, oh my God, we have no defense of our skies and the homeland whatsoever.
So this tells us that we wouldn't know if there's an Iranian mothership, and we wouldn't be able to shoot down anything that's predictable and small and helpless.
We wouldn't be able to shoot them down.
That would indicate we have no homeland defense whatsoever, which we found out a little bit on 9-11, didn't we?
Didn't you think that in 9-11, there would be, you know, at the first sign of trouble, the U.S. military would be in the air and shooting down any trouble?
Well, maybe they shot down one, maybe they didn't, depending on what you believe about the one that went down in Pennsylvania.
And then the Chinese spy balloon comes over, and it looks like, again, we have no air defense whatsoever.
Is it possible that the country has no air defense?
I think it is.
I think that's actually possible, that the United States has no defense whatsoever.
And it's also possible that we don't need one.
Because if anybody came and bombed the American homeland, They would, you know, evaporate a day later.
So it would never make sense for anybody to attack the U.S. homeland if we could determine who they were.
And that would be just suicide.
So maybe we don't need any.
It could be that the military people said, you know what?
You know, if anybody attacks us, we'll destroy their entire homeland in five minutes, so they probably won't.
I don't know.
But they're pretending as if we have no homeland defense whatsoever, and I think that's a firing offense.
Inflation is up more than people thought, if you believe statistics, which I don't.
So I'm not even going to talk about that.
I don't believe economic statistics.
There's a new P, Hegseth hoax, that fortunately got debunked in time.
So apparently West Point's Public Affairs Office lied to a publication called ProPublica And they said that P. Hegseth never even applied to West Point.
I guess P. Hegseth said he had applied, but didn't go there.
And it turns out that Hegseth actually kept the letter that he got in 1999 that was a West Point acceptance letter.
He actually had it.
He actually kept the record.
When does that ever happen?
And I guess ProPublica tried twice to follow up to make sure that West Point really, really checked the records and they really knew for sure that he had not applied.
And they swore that he had not applied.
And then he showed the letter that showed he'd applied.
And it was accepted.
Well, if you haven't seen it yet, there's a clip going around by the Trigonometry podcast guys that is just really good.
I highly recommend it.
I'm going to give you the highlights.
But they had a British academic, smart guy, Rafe Heydel Mancou.
And he was trying to explain why the West has apparently, you know, Had more genius and exceptionalism than a lot of other places.
Now, this is why he says, I'm not so sure that we've got only genius and exceptionalism.
I don't know about that.
But what he says about it is fascinating.
So hydrated.
Good coffee.
What he says is that one of the reasons the West did well And last several hundred years is that the Catholic Church banned cousin marriages.
Did you know that?
That was a little bit of history I wasn't aware of.
I mean, I knew that we don't do cousin marriages, but I didn't know that there was some specific, you know, point at which history turned on that.
But I guess the Catholic Church at one point banned cousin marriages.
Now, this part is a little unclear to me, but if I understand it, Once you've banned cousin marriages, you're going to drift toward nuclear families that are not related to the rest of your family.
So in other words, you would move from something that's more tribal, where literally you keep things in the family, so to speak, to where you forge out on your own and you become a little nuclear family, and then you've got to figure out how to make it without the big tribal support.
Now, if you're trying to make it as a family unit, You will necessarily need to rely on non-family people.
I'll call them strangers, but they're people that you meet, who make deals with you.
So I'll grow some food, I'll give you money for it, you work here, I'll pay you.
Basically a high-trust society.
And so I've always wondered about this.
I always wondered how The United States and some other Western countries have a situation where if somebody says they'll do some work, they usually do it.
And you usually pay.
I mean, every now and then you get a bad egg.
But basically we trust strangers.
Like our entire economy is not completely trusting them.
Like we'll do what we can to protect ourselves.
But ultimately you do have to trust strangers.
And so the family unit, which was caused by an end to cousin marriages, causes more trust of strangers, which creates a far more dynamic system for inventing stuff.
And Rafe said that, I don't know if this is true, but he said 75% of the world still has cousin marriages, Does that sound right?
75% of the world has cousin marriages?
That sounds high to me.
Are you telling me that China has routinely cousin marriages?
If it does, I didn't know that.
I mean, I'm not saying it doesn't.
But that sounds high.
He also says 90% of the world doesn't have the same notion of exclusive nuclear families.
That doesn't sound right either.
I thought the vast majority of modern, you know, not just Western, but any modern country, I thought most of them had nuclear families as their core.
Am I wrong about that?
So there's some stuff about this I don't fully understand.
But I would note, because I know you're going to be shouting it in the comments.
I know you.
You're going to be saying in the comments, That the end of cousin marriages probably increased the IQ of the people who banned cousin marriages compared to the ones who are still marrying their cousins.
That's what you're going to say, isn't it?
You're going to say that it just made the Western people smarter.
They just had fewer cousin marriages, fewer problems.
I don't know if that's true.
I'm no expert on cousin marriages, but it's something that's floating around the Internet.
So that would answer a lot.
And that would suggest that we have somewhat of a big advantage, but that we're losing it because people are not in nuclear families anymore.
But even if they're not, even if they're operating as individuals, then they need even more trust.
Because an individual doesn't even have family members to rely on.
So I think we may be moving to an even higher high trust.
Which is another advantage.
The other advantage I always hear about the West, but America in particular.
So this is an advantage of America over even Great Britain.
And the advantage is, in America, if you try something big and it fails, what you mostly get out of that is experience, so you can try another thing, and maybe that fails too.
But if you keep trying, you'll get a winner, and then you will be hailed as a winner.
And then you'll be happy and people will respect you.
I guess in Great Britain, if you try a startup and it doesn't work, you must spend the rest of your life trying to erase the shame.
Shame.
So I think, you know, some of the Asian countries would have the same problem.
That if you fail, everybody knows and then your family is disgraced.
And that's the end of that story.
So don't try anything risky because failure is too much of a problem.
I literally wrote a book called How to Failed Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
And you've probably seen a number of books that came after it that also had a similar theme, and even before it, a similar theme that failure is basically a pathway to success.
That's very American, it turns out.
It's super American.
Honestly, I didn't even know when I wrote the book That it was not just important to say that failure is more of a path than it is a destination.
I didn't realize that that little message is what keeps America, America, maybe more than anything.
The fact that we're willing to try things even if they might fail.
And we can live with it.
We just get over it.
Somebody was asking me the other day about regret, and I said, I've never experienced it.
What's it feel like?
I don't even know what it feels like.
I can't think of anything I've ever regretted.
There are just things that work and things that don't, but even the things that didn't work taught me something useful, so it was on my path to success.
So regret?
I'm exactly where I want to be.
Well, what am I regretting?
So that might be a very American thing, and it makes me happy that my book could be part of the American psyche, a small part, but a small part of making sure that you know that failure is not the end point.
Failure is just a path.
All right.
Every morning I wake up to the hilarity of another Democrat who doesn't understand why they lost, but tries to explain it like they do.
I saw a clip with a bunch of people after the election talking, some on each side.
And somebody named Sarah Longwell, must be a journalist associated with the left-leaning politics.
She said that Trump won because he does more lying, and therefore he's better at it.
Now, I'm paraphrasing, but I think that's pretty close to what she said, that Trump lies about everything, Therefore he got a lot of practice at it, and then he was really good at it, and then that excellent lying is what put him over the top.
Does Sarah Longwell think that the Democrats didn't do any lying?
How could you be alive for the last eight years and think that Trump is just all by himself off there lying?
I sure like that everybody else is telling the truth.
But that Trump, he's the one politician that lies.
And again, I always say...
That you can't evaluate the lying by the quantity of them.
Trump did, you know, infinite interviews.
So if he had any one thing he said that was like a little hyperbole, he would say it in all of his interviews.
And then they would count them as, there's one, there's one, there's one.
Meanwhile, the Democrats would be putting together this massive intelligence-led FBI-supported hoax With, you know, many moving parts and getting the media involved and, like, the really big lies.
Like, the really big ones.
Like the fine people hoax and the Russia collusion and the drinking bleach hoax and all those other things.
Like, big, organized, multi-member, thousands of people involved in the media keeping the lie alive and knowing it.
And knowing that they were keeping the lie alive.
They knew it.
How do you compare that...
To Trump saying that your TV might go off if the wind stops blowing.
When you know it's just iverbally.
And they would just count that as one lie for Trump and none for them.
Because they think the hoaxes are real.
Imagine thinking that the Democrats have been telling the truth for eight years.
How could you even function?
You would be so confused about anything you saw if you thought your team was telling you the truth all the time.
Anyway, Zuckerberg and Metta have donated a million dollars to Trump's inaugural fund.
Now, that's a pretty clever move.
So as you know, Zuckerberg is trying to disassociate himself from the crazy left.
He's not trying to make himself part of the right.
He would just like to be less involved in the political stuff because it didn't work out when he did it.
So he probably knows he didn't help.
He may have hurt for $400 million.
He may have spent $400 million making things worse.
So I think he's learned his lesson, because if there's one thing you can say about Mark Zuckerberg that everyone should agree with, he is really smart.
I don't know if you noticed, but he's really smart, like crazy smart.
So yes, when he does something that doesn't work, and then he adjusts, that's that smarter thing.
There it is.
So he failed like an American, and instead of Wallowing in his shame forever.
He said, oh, well, that didn't work.
What do we do now?
Oh, we'll donate to the inaugural process and Because that's not really donating to the politics of it.
Perfect.
That's perfect.
So he's helping out, giving his million, which is not much, you know, for them.
And it's the thing that's the least political thing you could ever give it to, the inauguration, because presumably, you know, he would do it for anybody's inauguration at this point.
Nicely done.
Yeah.
But it also is an indication that the way the smart people are seeing Trump is as someone they can work with.
Right?
That's a big deal.
Because before they saw him as something they needed to defeat.
And now the smart people, all the smart people, are saying, we can work with this.
Wait, you want fewer regulations?
Oh, well, yeah, we can work with that.
Wait, you want to lower taxes?
You have my attention.
You want to put criminals back in jail?
I think this is very commonsensical.
I'm seeing the comments, the pictures of Trump on the cover of Time magazine.
Person of the Year.
Now, if Trump had not been the Person of the Year, wouldn't you kind of question whether Time magazine had lost it?
Because remember, Time Magazine, when they pick the person of the year, they're not saying the person we love the most, because I think Hitler and Menachem Begin have been on the cover, just the most impactful one.
Who else was close?
You know, you might say Elon Musk did more, and you could make a strong argument for that, but Trump did it in a storybook way.
Even more than Elon Musk's giant chopsticks catching a rocket, which is one of the most crazy, awesome things we've ever watched in our lives.
Still, I think Trump's story was the more interesting one.
I think they got this one right.
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton, according to Brabant News, he was talking to somebody in public...
Oh, he's on The View...
And he said he was open to discussing with Biden a preemptive pardon for Hillary before Trump comes in.
I don't think there's any chance that Trump's going after Hillary Clinton.
Am I reading the room wrong?
Now, if I were her, I'd be worried, because she knows what she has done, and she plays a tough sport, politics.
But in my view, there's not any risk at all to her.
Now, would he go after some people who are really directly related at a lower level, say, some ex-FBI people who tried to run the Russia collusion hoax?
Maybe.
And I'd be all for that.
If they knew they were acting illegally, yeah, I'm all for it.
But even if Clinton was a little bit illegal...
I think Trump would be the smart George Washington here to say, you know what?
I hear what you're saying about Hillary Clinton, but we can't go there.
We just have to let that go, because it'll pull the country apart, and there's not enough upside.
So I think Trump knows that, and I've heard him talk in that form before.
So I do trust Trump to not threaten Hillary.
I don't think he'll threaten her, because she's no longer much of a risk to him.
And it would be a terrible, terrible look after he got law-fared and law-fared and law-fared to just return the lawfare, especially to a stale case.
Because Hillary's not exactly on the top of, you know, the au courant things these days.
Anyway, you want to hear about the most asshole thing that Biden ever did?
I know it's a long list, but the following is something that Joe Biden just did.
When I tell you, see if you can not say, that freaking asshole.
He just did clemency and pardons.
So he pardoned 39 Americans and And he commuted the sentences of nearly 1,500 others.
1,500.
What's that remind you of?
1,500 people he commuted their sentences and let them out of jail.
1,500.
You fucking cunt.
That's exactly the number of J6ers in jail.
Now, maybe this is a coincidence, but there are a lot of numbers in the world.
You had to pick 1500?
You fucking asshole.
You fucking asshole.
Those people need to be released immediately.
And January 21st can't come fast enough because I'm pretty sure Trump's going to let, you know, most or all of them out.
But this is...
Was there no time that anybody said 1,500 is a bad number?
You know, make it 1,600.
Make it 1,499.
But don't make it fucking 1,500.
That's just rubbing it in our faces, you asshole.
Fucking asshole.
Honestly.
Doesn't feel like politics.
Doesn't feel like stupid.
It feels like you're just being a fucking asshole now.
That's what it feels like.
Free the J6ers.
So, Carrie Lake has been selected by Trump for the head of the Voice of America.
Now, Voice of America is a media outlet that the government runs in 40 different languages.
Yeah, 40 languages and broadcasts all over the world in various forums from radio to television to social media.
Now, I asked social media, I'm sorry, I asked AI if Voice of America is America's propaganda network.
And AI didn't want to say that.
It says the editorial, it's independent editorial stuff.
Is it?
Is it really?
Is it really independent?
My understanding, give me a fact check on this, but isn't the only reason the Voice of America exists is for American propaganda to reach other markets?
I didn't know there was any other reason for it.
Now, I think when they say that they don't step on the editorial, Probably means they also don't hire anybody who doesn't understand the mission of the Voice of America.
I mean, I suppose if they made a mistake and accidentally hired somebody who didn't know what the whole purpose of the organization was, they might write something anti-American.
But I don't think they would last very long on the job.
The government of America is not going to pay to broadcast bad American stuff to other countries and make them hate us.
So I don't think you have to edit it.
It doesn't require a lot of editing because everybody knows what the job is.
Now, if it sounded like I'm criticizing Voice of America, I'm not.
We probably need it.
To me, it sounds like something that's probably really useful.
So here's a question that's on my mind.
So Carrie Lake, of course, a national figure, well-recognized, came close to being governor, close to being senator, and you think to yourself, is this a big enough job?
Like, my first thought was, hmm, feels like not high enough leverage for a Republican with that much skill.
And then I thought to myself, hmm, I wonder if the plan is to tweak the Voice of America for good purposes.
And then I thought to myself, what if they used Voice of America as one way to correct the fake news?
And I wonder if they had that conversation, because that would be interesting.
Could you imagine, for example, that Voice of America continues to say positive things about America, so it doesn't change its basic mission?
But what if, on top of that, it became so credible that it was a source for telling you what hoaxes are being told by the other networks?
Because in a way, the other networks are like the opposite propaganda.
You know, if you've got a Republican president The fake news is going to be saying, the President of the United States is garbage and making all the wrong decisions.
Well, you don't really want your enemies to hear that because they will not fear us and respect us.
So suppose the Voice of America was the reference that Trump could always use and say, look, CNN says this, but here's what's really happening, and then forward a Voice of America article.
Because if you put Carrie Lake in charge of the Voice of America, there's zero chance that they're going to be reporting hoaxes as if they're real.
There's no chance of that.
I mean, not intentionally, of course.
But it's one more place that Trump can maybe guarantee that there's a place that you can look at That has credibility that can debunk the other hoaxes that are surely coming.
So if that's what the plan is, you know, a little bit, a little extra on the mission, then it's definitely the right person for it because she's got, you know, great experience in that domain specifically, meaning TV news, etc.
So I think the fit is great.
I just hope that Trump is looking at it and that Carrie Lake is looking at it as maybe Voice of America could be a little extra, something we need.
So I would like to get into this conversation.
This gamified murder thing.
Have you noticed that because of the internet, we've managed to turn every tragedy into sort of a game?
So I'd like to explain the game.
So the game here with the CEO murder is that you have to pretend that the people you don't like are not showing enough empathy to the victim.
But that you, unlike Whoever you're talking about, you have the proper and exact right amount of empathy, and you want to misrepresent the other person so it seems like they have less empathy.
So I'm going to give you an example of that.
I'm going to misinterpret Elizabeth Warren and show you with my theatrics that I'm much better than her as a human being.
Now remember, this is just gamified.
I'm not actually better than her as a human being.
Maybe I am, but that's not the point.
The point is that we've gamified this.
All right, let me get into character, because I have to act as if I'm actually offended by this.
All right.
Well, there's a story about Elizabeth Warren.
Oh, my God.
She said that the, quote, visceral response to the insurance CEO's killing should be, quote, a warning to everyone else in the health care system.
Oh, my God.
How can Elizabeth Warren show so little sympathy to the family and the victim?
I'm so much better than her.
I'm so much better.
Watch this.
Elizabeth Warren, don't you understand that this was a senseless killing of someone who didn't deserve it?
And the family has to deal with this?
And you're acting as though the murder was justified?
Really?
Really?
You're acting like it's justified?
I spit on you for your lack of empathy.
Not like my empathy, which is excellent.
So the bottom line here is I think I won this round by showing that my empathy for the victim is way better than hers.
Way better.
I love winning.
Meanwhile, Woody Allen's chef is going to sue him for firing.
And...
Apparently the problem was that it was somebody who was in the military reserves.
And he said he was in the military reserves when he got hired.
Now that means that he would miss some days every month.
Because he has a military obligation.
So he went off to a two-day military thing, which would have been completely understood and approved.
But I guess he came back a day longer because the training lasted a day longer.
And then he got fired.
Now, they also complained about his cooking.
So if you're a chef and they don't like your cooking, that'd be a good reason to fire you.
But imagine, if you will, that let's say, I don't know if this is the case, but let's say he was a chef for five days a week.
So Woody and Suni are thinking, yay, five days a week, we don't have to cook.
But then he says, well, I'm going to be going two of those five, but also I have the weekends off.
So that's four of the seven days I won't be around.
And they're like, all right, well, that's what we agreed to.
Okay.
And then he says, oh, I'm also not going to come in the day after because the training went long.
So there'll be two days I'm off and three days that I'm away.
And my job was to cook for you five days a week.
So they fired him because it was obvious that this might happen again.
His cooking wasn't that good anyway, they say.
Now, I have some insight into this because...
I got sued for the same reason.
There is a law that says if you hire somebody who's in the reserves and you know that they have an obligation to, say, work on some periods, that you have to let them do it and you have to pay them.
So they have to be paid.
They have to be paid.
And you have to allow them to have the time.
And if you fire them for that, if you fire them for being away from work for their military reserve, that's the end of the court case.
The court just gives that automatically to the military reserve person.
If there's any question that you got fired for even partially Because you had a military commitment, you lose the case.
There's nothing you can say.
You can't say, but my company would suffer.
Nope.
That counts for nothing.
You can't say, I can't function.
I'd have to close my business if I'm paying this person to do the job, but then I have to pay a second person to fill in for them because they can't be there to do the job.
If I have to do that, I have to close my company.
I can't make enough money.
You have to close the company.
There's nothing you can do.
There is no defense.
If you tell a military person that you're going to fire them for doing what the military required them to do, that's the end of the case.
So the lawsuit is almost certainly Woody writes a check for $100,000, the lawyer keeps 30%, and the chef gets another job.
That's the way these are settled.
Because the lawyer for Woody would know that you can't take this to court.
It's 100% chance of losing, 100%.
He has no chance of winning.
And I'm not even sure that's a bad idea.
So in his case, probably the chef was a weekday chef.
But if you hire somebody who's in the reserves, you have to know that if you thought they were going to work on weekends, you're not getting what you thought you were going to get.
So in my restaurant days, my restaurant partner hired somebody in reserves for the job of the weekend manager.
And then later, he informed us that he couldn't work weekends quite often because of his military service.
So my manager said, oh, well, the only reason you were promoted is to work weekends because those are the days I don't work.
So given that it was the only reason you were promoted, and now you say you can't do it, we'll put you back in your old job, which was a server.
The server, I think, made as much money, by the way.
And he was a server before that.
And he sued.
And our defense was, well, wait a minute.
We hired him to do a thing, and he says because of the military service, he can't do the thing.
We only hired him for the one specific thing, and he says that's the one specific thing he can't do.
So we would have to pay two people.
One to do the job he's not doing, and then him as well.
And it's a small business.
And the lawyer said, give it up.
Forget it.
Pay him.
Make an offer.
You can't win this.
And so we did.
We paid him.
So it's probably the same situation.
Let's see.
What else is going on?
So the leader of Syria, you know, the rebels took over Syria.
And Here is his resume.
He was the commander of ISIS in Syria, then he was the founder and leader of Jebat al-Nusra in Al-Qaeda in Syria.
He was the leader of Jebat al-Sham, later the leader of Hayat al-Mur al-Sham, I guess they're Fundamentalist groups.
And now he's the leader of Free Syria.
I saw him doing some kind of public thing the other day.
And I swear that he was sounding like he was a Democrat.
And he was saying that he wanted to be the leader of all the people.
And, you know, he made it sound like he wasn't going to be discriminating and being a terrorist and killing people.
But correct me if I'm wrong.
Is it not the strategy that when you first give power, and before you've consolidated it, you tell the world that you're not going to be in any trouble at all, and then you consolidate power, maybe it takes five years, and then you do anything you want it to do, no matter how bad it is.
So I suspect things might be not terrible for the Christians in Syria, still a little bit terrible, but probably Probably if they hang around, it's going to get worse.
That would be my guess.
So I hope they get out.
And I think the leaders of Syria are probably trying to form a caliphate.
So I'd watch out for the caliphate.
Now, here's the thing I wonder.
If the Middle East, let's say some charismatic leader, and maybe this is the charismatic leader, rises, What's his name?
I didn't get his name.
But given that we know that war is going to be drone warfare in the future, The Middle East isn't going to be able to make a lot of drones.
They're not exactly a manufacturing power.
So they'd have to depend on somebody like China to give them all their war drones if they wanted to conquer enough territory to have a caliphate.
Caliphate?
Caliphate?
I don't know how to say that.
So, I don't know, the nature of war is changing so that the Middle East countries are going to have a big disadvantage, I think.
So the countries that can Design and crank out drones are going to own everything.
So that's China, US, maybe Russia.
Fetterman.
Just gave a double thumbs up to Republican Elise Stefanik, who was picked as UN ambassador.
So Breitbart's reporting this.
So Fetterman continues to do smart things.
He's finding very small ways, and this is a very small way, To act like a common-sense person who agrees with the Republicans when it makes sense to agree with them and disagrees with them when, in his opinion, it makes sense to disagree.
Now, I saw some people being confused that when I say good things about Fetterman, that it's like I don't understand that he votes for the most progressive things and, you know, he's a dangerous voter.
I get it.
I understand that.
I'm not saying he should be running the country.
I'm only talking about his technique.
So the same way that I talked about AOC having good persuasion technique, which she doesn't anymore.
I think she had an advisor that she may have lost.
But Fetterman, every time he does something where in the smallest way, he can say, you know, Republicans, you're good people.
And I agree with you on this one.
He gets closer and closer to being a national candidate.
He's closer and closer.
And the thing I appreciate about it is the technique.
So the technique is that when there's a little thing he can agree with, he says it publicly and without any pullback.
He just says it, you know, clearly and cleanly.
Yeah, that's common sense.
I'm in favor of that.
That is really strong technique.
Because when he disagrees with us, what's the first thing you're going to think?
You're going to rethink your own thoughts or your own position.
Because if somebody is just always on one side and there only can ever be on one side, you discount their opinion completely.
Because you know it didn't matter if they even thought through they were going to be on that side.
But if somebody sends the impression that That on every topic, he's going to look at it commonsensically and give some examples.
Oh, this is a good candidate.
It's a Republican, but it's a good candidate.
Two thumbs up.
Every time he does that, he sends a signal that he's thinking about it from the ground up.
So if he does three or four things that Republicans say, yeah, well, yeah, that's a good point.
We agree with that.
Common sense.
And then he says something you don't agree with politically.
Something that agrees a little bit more with the progressive agenda.
Your first thought should be, I don't like that.
But why is the smart guy saying it?
See, that's the superpower that Trump has at the moment.
Trump's superpower, with his pirate ship of advisors from, you know, Elon Musk to RFK Jr. and Tulsi, etc., it makes you think that they must be operating on some kind of common sense basis, otherwise they couldn't get along.
Because, you know, you have ex-Democrats who presumably wouldn't easily embrace the right unless there was some common sense thing they could hang on to.
And they are.
So Trump has the common sense advantage in the sense that it's clear that he will look at both sides and listen to the voices from both sides and go after it as a common sense thing, whatever it is.
So Fetterman's building that.
He doesn't have it yet, but watching him do it is fun.
The Washington Post continues to move a little bit toward being useful instead of just being a propaganda rag.
So it could be that Jeff Bezos is pretty serious about turning the WAPO Washington Post into more of a credible publication instead of the propaganda rag it has been.
But Byron York is pointing out that they've got an editorial about the Jordan Neely, the man who died with the Penny situation on the subway.
And.
And I just want to describe how Byron York describes the editorial.
I like how he did this.
He said the liberal editorial board wants to say Jordan Neely should have been committed.
That is self-evidently true.
But it causes the writers so much pain that they have to lard it with so much of the criminal is really the victim, and we failed Jordan, and we're not racist, verbiage, that it takes them a while to get to the point.
But they finally get there.
So this is the corner that the identity people paint themselves into, that if they want to pretend they're moving toward common sense, They have to somehow shed everything they've ever said and thought before because it was identity-based like this was.
So common sense screams that this poor Jordan Neely guy should have gotten some help and you wish the government had some kind of facility to do it.
So we can certainly agree on that.
According to Kerry Pickett, who writes for The Washington Times, the FBI is trying to anti-Trump the FBI before he gets there.
So Christopher Wray said he would be, I guess, retiring from that job before Trump gets in office so he doesn't have to get fired.
That's a good play.
But before he does that, he's also apparently doing a bunch of promotions.
So he's promoting people into positions that unless Trump's FBI guy gets rid of them, there might be a lot of people who don't like Trump in major FBI positions.
So this is from an inside source.
And there's a plan to slow walk the new FBI director's entry into the agency for three to four months.
So they're literally plotting to make sure that their own management can't be effective.
Now, if any of that's true, 100% of them need to be fired, or at least the ones involved with it.
If they're literally just trying to make changes so it's harder for Trump to do his job...
Everybody involved with that needs to get fired, even if you got promoted yesterday.
If you're any part of that.
No, it's not your job to make it hard for your boss to do the job of the people of the United States.
No, you need to be fired for that.
Well, Cenk Uygur has been going on some conservative podcasts, and he said this.
He thought that the left needed to hear it.
He said, two amazing things just happened.
First, I went on about a half a dozen right-wing shows, and they all agreed, he says, in capitals, we should cut the Pentagon, prevent generals from working for defense contractors, and Edward Snowden should be pardoned.
And he says the second thing is that absolutely no one on the left believes the right.
So six out of six podcasts all said, yeah, we like all that stuff.
And not a single person on the left believes that's true.
What do these things all have in common?
Cutting the Pentagon, preventing generals from becoming defense contractors, and pardoning Snowden.
Now, the Snowden one's a little different, but the first two are just common sense.
Common sense tells you the Pentagon has some bloat.
Of course you want to cut it.
The bloat.
And preventing generals from having a conflict of interest?
That's not political.
That's just common sense.
That's just basic common sense.
So how weird is it that Republicans who are the common sense party, for the most part, offer common sense opinions on common sense things, and the Democrats are like, oh, no, I don't believe that.
I don't believe that at all.
They're pretty gone.
Pretty gone.
Anyway, my opinion is this.
I think there's only two ways for somebody to become president and stay president without being assassinated.
And I think that you either have to agree in advance, or they know in advance, that you're going to start major optional wars.
So that feeds a military-industrial complex, extra wars.
Or if you're not going to do extra wars, like would be Trump, for example, or Reagan, for example...
You have to agree to rebuild the military.
So you have to say, our military has fallen apart.
We're going to need to spend a ton of money rebuilding that military.
I think if you do one of those two things, you can stay alive and stay in office.
Otherwise, you get impeached or assassinated.
Because I think the military-industrial complex is basically full of professional killers Right?
The whole industry is full of people who have literally killed people professionally in the military.
And yeah, I think any president should be afraid of that group.
So I don't think they would put up with anything less than major money going toward their direction.
Canada, as you know, has euthanasia, is legal.
So if you've got a terminal illness, you can get that option.
But also, they recently said if you have a chronic illness that just makes your life terrible, you can check out from life on your own.
And let's say 15,000 people did it last year.
So almost 5% of the deaths in the country are people choosing to do it themselves.
But here's the interesting political part.
96% of the people who are choosing the option to end their own lives are white.
96% are white.
But only 70% of the country is white.
So it's legal, and it's mostly killing white people.
It's legal, and it's overwhelmingly mostly killing white people.
Now, nobody knows why.
I mean, I could offer some guesses, but I don't know why.
But suppose I had gone the other way.
Suppose for whatever cultural or other mysterious reasons, white people weren't taking this option, but black citizens were taking it in an overwhelming number.
Do you think this would be legal?
Do you think it would be legal to have a law that was disproportionately killing by their own choice, but killing minorities?
Not a chance.
There's not a chance that that would be legal.
But as long as white people are killing themselves, yeah, no problem.
And by the way, I'm in favor of it, so I don't want them to change the law.
We have the same law in California.
I was part of the lobbying to get that an option in California.
You never know if you might need it.
Meanwhile, there's a story about Mitch McConnell.
Some call him Mitch.
He thinks that it's a dangerous world, and if America stays out of the wars and the business in other countries, and we become more isolationist, that it would be reminiscent of before World War II, He says, even the slogan is the same, America first.
That's what they said in the 30s.
So Mitch McConnell, you didn't know that I'm in favor of euthanasia?
I've always been in favor of it.
I'm one of the main people in favor of it.
I'm surprised you didn't know that.
Anyway, So, here's my problem with McConnell and the other isolationists.
I don't believe anything McConnell says as his reasons for why he wants anything.
I just think he's...
Well, let me say it directly.
I believe that when somebody is that old and that infirmed and they stay in their job in Congress, that the only reason for it is they're covering up their own crimes or somebody they care about.
Because nobody in their right mind would keep working in this condition.
Feinstein, McConnell.
It doesn't make any sense.
Pelosi.
There's got to be some reason that goes beyond, you know, serving the country or whatever, because they all know somebody else could do a better job.
Now, some of it might be that when you reach a senior position, your own team won't let you leave because they need somebody in the senior position.
Maybe they like you in there.
But here's my problem.
The logic of this isn't holding up, unless you think Putin and Hitler are basically the same guy.
Now, my understanding of history, which is not so terrific, is that the problem with Hitler is he was conquering other countries, and it didn't look like he was willing to ever stop.
So that's a bad thing.
If you were staying out of that, you could make an argument, oh, if you stay out of that, eventually he conquers everything, gets all the resources and then conquers you.
Makes sense.
But is Putin somebody who's trying to conquer the world?
Or is he trying to maybe increase the Russian Empire, but only to Russian-speaking people who are on his border, and I'm not defending him, I'm just describing, that maybe he does have ambitions to increase, but not to people who are not Russian-friendly, Russian-speaking, historically Russian.
Now, I don't think he should be doing any of that, but I don't think he wants to conquer Britain, does he?
Do you think Putin, if he could, he'd be, you know, blitzkrieging across Europe and going for France?
I don't think so.
But then let's turn it around.
The United States recently conquered Ukraine.
The United States conquered a country that's like a cousin to Russia with great history, lots of Russian speakers, you know, at least on the border.
Aren't we the Hitler in this case?
If you had to say, all right, who's the Hitler?
The United States conquering a Russian cousin entity right on their border.
Or Putin, who wants to control Russian entities on his border.
Now, both of them are military.
Both of them are killing people to get the thing that they want.
But I feel like in this analogy, we're Hiller.
Are we not?
We're the ones taking over a country that we had no business taking over.
And we're doing it for empire reasons.
Very clearly, empire reasons.
We're the Hiller.
You know that, right?
Now, here's where it gets complicated.
I don't know if it's a bad thing.
Obviously, it would be a bad thing to literally be Hiller, killing minorities for being minorities, but we're not doing that.
What we are doing as a country, and we've done it for a couple hundred years, is every dirty trick in the book to expand our empire.
That's who we are.
That's who America is.
We're dirty tricksters who try to conquer every country we can because the more control we have, the better we think our own futures will be.
It's for the money, mostly, but money and national defense are basically the same thing.
So, yeah, no, we're the Hiller.
McConnell, you have this backwards.
So do you think that McConnell is saying what he believes?
Do you think that he believes that That this is like the run-up to World War II. Or does he know that America is the Hitler in this case and he's just propagandizing?
I feel like he knows we're the Hitler.
But again, I'm not going to criticize anybody who says we have to be an empire or we become nothing.
We either have to be an empire or slaves, basically.
And I think it's been like that through all of history.
So anyway, that's happening.
According to John Hopkins, Bloomberg School of Public Health, half of the calories that people eat at home are ultra-processed foods.
Now, if you tried to not eat food that's bad for you in America, it would either be really expensive or really time-consuming, Or you'd have to do tons of research to find out what's good for you and what isn't.
I feel like there needs to be a new model for making and preparing and eating food.
Like really a basically different model.
And now I ask the following question.
Do you think that after all these years of people trying various indoor farming experiments, And the fact that indoor farming still hasn't caught on, at least wherever there's outdoor farming, is easily available.
Do you think that the big food has been destroying any innovation in indoor farming because indoor farming would allow people to do it themselves locally and it would cut out big food for at least the people who use the indoor farms?
I feel as if it's nearly impossible that we could have gotten to 2024 with, you know, all the things we can do technically, and that we can't build an indoor farm that's local, maybe attached to your house, but very, very local, and is cost effective and low maintenance and low cost.
We can't do that.
It feels like there must be some large entity that's trying to make sure that we can't.
And the only one I could think of would be big food because everybody else would like good food.
So this is just my pre-conspiracy theory.
I don't have any evidence there's any kind of conspiracy like that.
But I did work in the food industry for a while because I made a food product, the Dilburrito.
And one of the things I learned working in the food industry is that it's completely corrupt.
The food industry is mostly criminals.
That was my experience.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen.
I've worked at banking, and bankers are not angels all the time, but they run a pretty clean shop.
They weren't all criminals.
They were just doing their job.
Phone company.
I worked for the phone company for years.
Not all go-getters.
But they were good people, honest mostly, you know, just trying to do their job.
But my experience in the food distribution and grocery industry, I think they're pretty much all crooks.
I saw some shit you don't even want to know about.
It's almost a criminal enterprise.
So I have no evidence that they've suppressed indoor farming innovations.
But I'd love to talk to Kimball Musk about it.
I know he was into indoor farming.
He would know the real story.
So maybe I'll look into that.
PJ Media is reporting that the mainstream media finally admits Obamacare is a failure, but primarily in cost.
It's a success in signing people up, so that's what the Democrats say.
But it would be a failure in controlling costs, just so you know.
Rachel Maddow's ratings have tanked along with MSNBC in general.
So OAN is reporting that...
So she's now got...
Her show went from five days a week where she was paid $30 million and she was like the face of the network.
Then she, for her own personal reasons, had to go back to one day a week, just Monday, and she got paid the same because she was still on contract.
Then when the contract was to be renewed, still working one day a week, they negotiated that she would get 25 million dollars for one day a week.
So let's go back to my hypothesis and prediction.
You remember my prediction that DEI kills everything it touches, but the prediction is That it kills first and fastest wherever it is introduced first and most aggressively.
So wherever it's introduced early and aggressively, those places will die first.
So that's how you know DEI is toxic, because there should be a perfect correlation between how aggressive and early you were in it and how soon you die, you know, your organization.
So Imagine trying to sell MSNBC when one of your stars works one day a week for $30 million.
Nobody would buy that.
But why do they have to keep paying her so much money?
Does it have to do with the fact that she is a lesbian and a woman?
Is it DEI? Probably.
Now, I can't say that for sure, because you'd have to be, like, in the room with them to know what's real.
But the prediction is, if you go early and hard at DEI, you will destroy yourself pretty quickly.
MSNBC went early and super hard at DEI, and now they've got somebody who's not doing much work.
They're paying $30 million, Probably Joy Reid can't be fired.
And she's making them look like idiots.
Management.
She makes the management look like idiots.
And that's got to be DEI. So I think MSNBC is, you know, added to the list of examples of the sooner and the harder you go on DEI, the sooner and more guaranteed your destruction.
So just look for the pattern.
The sooner and the harder you go on DEI, the sooner you're destroyed.
Well, the defense who defended Daniel Penny is considering going after D.A. Alvin Bragg for malicious prosecution.
So that would be a lawsuit, so it wouldn't be criminal.
But if they can prove that Bragg was orchestrating the Daniel Penny thing for his personal reasons, as opposed to it's just doing the job, then it might be a lawsuit.
And the personal reason, which is just speculated here, is that Alvin Bragg knew that if Daniel Penny walked free, that there would be riots, and that that would make him look bad.
Because he's the law and order guy.
So if there are riots, you look like you're not doing something.
And everybody would say, why didn't you do something more?
So the idea is that if Alvin Bragg, if it could be demonstrated, if there are any documents or witnesses, that the decision to go after Daniel Penny was not based on the law or what is precedent, but only based on protecting Alvin Bragg's own reputation and job.
Then the lawsuit, I think, could succeed.
So we don't know that this is going to happen, but I think they need to look into it pretty good.
Find out if there's something there, maybe.
In other news, I heard a few things about the AI that Elon Musk was doing, the ex-AI. And I heard a story.
Let's see if I can retell the story.
It was some expert, was it on, I think on the all-in pod, talking to Jason.
And I didn't get the name of the expert when I watched the clip.
I wish I had.
So if anybody knows what I'm talking about, put the name of the expert in the comments.
But the expert said that if you get these NVIDIA boards that are necessary for AI, that apparently you can only put, if I have this right, 20,000 of them.
Kind of network together to work as one.
And that was a physical limitation.
It would be, you know, engineering wise, it would be impossible to put more than 20,000 working as a team.
And then that would limit how smart your AI could be.
Because the more that you could put on the same, let's say, processing speed, you know, parallel processing, the more you have, the smarter you are in AI. So the story is that Elon Musk didn't like that, spent some time doing a deep dive, and I don't know if anybody helped him or it was completely his own idea, but in fairly short order, Elon Musk figured out how to network 100,000 together.
Where it was presumed by every expert that 20,000 was the highest it could ever go.
There would be a physical or physics limitation.
You just couldn't go beyond that.
And then he five times it.
He five times it.
Probably because he got personally involved.
I imagine there were other engineers in the room, obviously.
But I... That's like one of the greatest engineering stories of all time.
But if you put it on Elon Musk's resume, it just disappears with all the other stuff.
He's done so many things that make you go, wow, you did that?
You created giant chopsticks to catch a rocket?
Really?
Wow.
And there are probably a dozen things I could add to the, really?
Really?
You put a network of satellites in the air so that everybody from these rural counties can get cheap, high-speed internet?
Wow.
And I could just keep going and going and going.
But this little one just impresses the hell out of me, if it's true, that he figured out what everybody said in the industry.
In the industry, he wasn't in.
This is the other important part.
In the industry, he was not part of.
The moment he walked in, he solved their biggest problem, times five.
Did that really happen?
I mean, I think...
I want to believe it did.
So, wow.
But on top of that, Grok III... Is predicted to be the best AI sometime in that, maybe February, because they have just monstrous hardware training that thing.
So, Elon Musk, in theory, will be the leading AI person with his products in the world in February.
Now...
I don't know what to make of that.
You know how important it is that Musk bought X, right?
Because he saved free speech.
But what would happen to free speech if AI becomes the main way we interact with everything and the main way we get information, and it was just completely censored and biased, but we didn't know how much?
It would be the same problem.
Your free speech would be completely...
Completely at risk because AI might have limitations on what it can and cannot do for you.
You know, it might censor you or censor itself.
But now maybe the best AI would be the one that's not going to do that.
So if the best AI doesn't censor you and lets you do the images you wanted to do and wasn't always messing with your creative impulses, then you're free.
I think Grok 3, if it really leapfrogs the competition, because the reason historically I haven't used Grok much is that it wasn't quite up to speed.
And we all knew that.
We knew that it was going to catch up and had a good chance of surpassing.
But it looks like it's going to happen.
And wow, that's really impressive.
So this would be Elon Musk saving the planet.
By making us into planetary, saving the country by preserving free speech, and saving the future of humanity by creating an AI that's less subject to manipulation.
That's a lot of saving.
That's a lot of saving.
He's saving the world from climate change, maybe.
We'll see.
How many times does he need to save us?
He saved the country by getting Trump elected?
I mean, seriously, how many times does he need to save us and in how many ways?
Maybe the rest of us should do a little work, huh?
He's making me feel lazy.
All right, that's all I got for now.
I knew I went long.
I'll talk to the locals, people, privately, and the rest of you on YouTube and X and Rumble.
