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, Kamala Kwanza Video, California Shoplifting Illegal Again, Attractive Hazard, Catturd vs Crenshaw, Free Speech Firing Court Case, Argentina Tax Source Reduction, Kevin O'Leary, Trump's Canada Purchase, DARPA Behavior Prediction Programs, Theory of Mind Algorithm, Mexico Deportation Shelters, H-1B Visa Program Controversy, Top Engineer Importation, Theo Wold, Foreign Worker Acquisition System Corruption, Vivek Ramaswamy, Democrat Election Loss Analysis, Cancer Cell Targeting, Congress Election Certification J6, Sergey Lavrov, Ukraine Peace Talks, Negotiating With Yourself, EV Battery Cost, Houthi Leadership, Hamas Hostages, 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
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that no one can even comprehend with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice, a 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Oh, so good.
Well, I wonder if I'll have a new study that says that coffee is good for your health.
Hmm, checking notes.
Oh yeah, there is.
There's a new study.
It says that coffee consumption can improve the gut bacteria and reduces your cancer risk, strengthens your immune system.
And reduces your inflammation according to Nutrition Insight.
And, you know, this, of course, I'm a professional humorist.
So suddenly I'm wondering about, you know, but I'm not a biblical scholar, so there's some things I don't know about.
But I wonder if, back in Jesus' time, do you think he ever just said, well...
I think I can cure your leprosy.
Boom.
And he'd use his heavenly powers.
But what if somebody had a smaller problem and they're like, hey, I've got a little inflammation in my back.
Did Jesus also use his heavenly powers?
Or did he say, let's just have a coffee.
Why don't you come have a coffee with me?
You'll be fine.
That's just something I wonder as a professional writer.
All right, so if you haven't bought your Dilbert calendar yet...
You could probably still get it around the first week of January, which is almost just as good.
I guess I should tell you this.
It wouldn't be fair to tell you this, I just realized.
Probably at some point in January-ish, if not before, the annual Dilbert calendar, the little page-a-day calendar, That you can only buy on Dilbert.com, by the way.
There's no other source.
Go to Dilbert.com and see the link.
But if you were to get it sometime in January, it's probably going to be 10% cheaper.
So we haven't lowered the price because there's a technical question about just how long that takes or if that's easy or hard.
But probably soon.
If you wanted to wait until next week, probably 10% cheaper, but I can't guarantee it.
It would make sense.
Meanwhile, you probably know that I still produce Dilbert, Dilbert Reborn, it's called, and only the subscribers to me on X and also on the Locals platform get to see it.
But I publish in both places the new one for the day, Which in this case is about Dilbert's company shutting down their DEI group.
But then I also checked the one that was 10 years ago because I put that on a digital calendar, which has nothing to do with the paper calendar.
And today is one of those days Where both the 10-year-ago comic and the one I wrote for today are really funny.
Sometimes I'll look at the two of them and I'll say, ooh, the calendar was better than today's comic, or the comic's better than the calendar was, which would have been 10 years ago.
But today they're both right on point, so check that out.
You may have seen a video of a Kamala Harris Praising the wonders of Kwanzaa and how much she enjoyed celebrating as a young person.
Now, of course, everybody's mocking her for various different things, but I'll just point out one thing.
If you turn off the sound and you just look at her, she looks really high.
If she's not drunk or totally inebriated in that video, I don't know how you'd explain her face.
I can't even do an impression of it.
It's something you would have to be on drugs to even make that face.
I've never seen anybody who wasn't on drugs who had any kind of mannerisms like that.
So I think we dodged a bullet there.
Meanwhile, over in Chicago, where you thought Chicago was totally lost, the End Wokeness account tells us that arrests are way up.
So shoplifting and theft may be finally not legal.
So why is suddenly a big improvement in Chicago?
Well, turns out that the Soros-funded DA, Kim Fox, is out.
And there's a new DA in, and the new DA wants to actually make crime illegal, I guess.
So felony theft charges have surged by 154% just this month after O'Neill Burke took over.
So here's my question.
I, of course, am completely in favor of, you know, improving the laws and the enforcement in the big cities, right?
Because there's a problem everywhere.
So I'm totally in favor of this.
But there is a question that pops up that I feel like we need to be adult about.
And it goes like this.
You probably saw a video, it was kind of viral, of two young black women.
I don't know if they were over 18, but they were somewhere in that age range.
And they were casually doing some shoplifting at some box store.
And they were captured at the exit, and they were put in handcuffs, and they were acting surprised.
And there's a video of them talking to each other in the back of the squad car where they're saying, it's illegal now?
Like, they didn't know that the law, you know, that there had been a change in society and that enforcement would be aggressive.
And I get that.
Not everybody follows the news, and certainly not everybody follows the political news.
So if you're a young person, did you really know?
I mean, seriously?
Was there any way you would know that the situation had changed from there's no real risk to you're going to jail?
Now, here's where it gets tricky.
Again, I'm going to tell you I'm completely in favor of the new enforcement.
So don't interpret this as softening my stance.
Completely in favor of it.
But, I'm going to ask you this question just as a human.
Stepping outside of just the political or the legal or the how do you save the city?
Those are all important, and they're more important than what I'm going to say next.
But I feel like it's necessary.
Those cities created an attractive nuisance.
Do you know what that means?
An attractive nuisance?
In other words, by making it legal to shoplift, They essentially encouraged it.
Would you agree?
Here's some free stuff.
There's no penalty.
And then word gets around and people are taking advantage of the free stuff with no penalty.
Yes, they need to go to jail.
Remember, I'm not arguing against it.
But does that seem fair to you?
Now, remember, I always make fun of fairness because fairness is what I say was invented so children and idiots could have conversations with each other.
Fairness isn't a real thing.
But sometimes there are things that just strike you as a human.
Here's what I think.
I think if you pick up an 18-year-old who has no criminal record, who did not know that this was now more criminalized, it was always illegal, but it's more criminalized.
If they didn't know, I would blame the city for creating an attractive hazard.
The attractive hazard was the city itself had basically said, come steal our shit.
And so when two 18-year-old young women went to do exactly that, the rules had changed.
Honestly, I'd let them go.
I'd let them go.
Because I would blame the city for putting them in a situation where they were attracted to crime.
Your city should be pushing you from crime.
If the city spent one fucking minute making crime attractive, which they did for a lot longer than a minute, I feel like there needs to be some kind of period of forgiveness.
So, arresting them and putting them in handcuffs and putting them in the back of the squad car, 100% on board.
100%.
But once they enter the legal system, I would like to hear their lawyer say, Your Honor, this law only recently changed.
The city had created an attractive hazard.
I think that has to be taken into account.
And I would love the judge to say, Ladies, if you do that again, you're going straight to jail.
But your defense has a reasonable argument that reasonable people can agree on.
I wasn't comfortable putting them in jail once the city had set them up.
I'm not for that.
But again, we have to have laws and they have to be enforced.
Apparently online there's a debate between Representative Crenshaw and a popular ex-personality cat turd.
Now, apparently cat turds made some claims about Crenshaw, and Crenshaw's said that the claims are fake and suggested they would sue him.
Some of you are taking sides.
You don't like Crenshaw's views on war, and there was something else you mentioned.
So you didn't like some of his policies, and I get that.
I would just note that if you're trying to figure out who's the bad guy in this situation, Cat Turd lied about me in public.
Cat Turd went after my reputation with lies.
Well, or maybe just wrong.
I can't tell if he was just stupid or wrong.
But I blocked him a long time ago because he's not a good guy and he's not smart.
He's entertaining.
He's very entertaining, but he's not a good guy.
He's not smart.
Just make sure you know that because he's a public figure and it's fair to just know who you're dealing with.
So I'm not going to take sides on this because I don't know exactly the issue, but I'll tell you that Cat Turd is not a good guy.
I don't consider him a good guy.
He's entertaining.
So if you're following him for the entertainment, sure.
Jonathan Turley is writing today about a big win for free speech.
So there was this doctor, Dr. Tara Gostillo.
So she won a big free speech appellate court victory against her healthcare system where she worked.
So she was removed from her position after she criticized Black Lives Matter, critical race theory, and some parts of the COVID narrative.
Just free speech.
She just criticized those things, and she got fired, and that was reversed.
Now, here's the payoff.
If I told you that there was somebody who got fired for criticizing Black Lives Matter, critical race theory, and COVID, aren't you thinking to yourself, sounds like some basic white conservative...
Here's what we know about this Filipina-American doctor.
So, first of all, Filipina.
Second of all, she had a stellar record.
She raised black children.
Oh.
Wait, what?
If somebody who raises black children criticizes Black Lives Matter and you're canceling her?
What?
That's pretty extreme.
I mean, I don't know how much each of these things figured into it.
And apparently she credited with, according to Jonathan Turley, she's credited with creating a program to reflect cultural differences in birthing practices to better serve her diverse patients.
Now, you know, I'm not the woke guy.
But isn't that like a really good piece of work?
Changing the birthing practices so they take into account any cultural differences.
Now, to me, that's just good.
That's all good, right?
You know, I get the argument, you don't want the country overrun with new cultures and stuff.
But if you're dealing with real human beings and real medical situations in America, yes, there's specific cultural situations should be accounted for.
And then apparently she argued that her colleagues turned it into a program for, quote, racially segregated care, which was not the idea.
That's not the idea.
I mean, that's completely ruining the idea.
And objected to certain orthodoxy over race-essential views.
So Dr. Tara Gostillo sounds like one of the best human beings I've ever heard, like from top to bottom.
And she won.
Sometimes the good people win.
Argentina, their new president, Millet, he announced something that confused me, so I spread some fake news that I quickly deleted after I found out.
But somebody...
Somebody summarized the news in a way that was misleading, and it fooled me.
But said, Mille has announced that he's abolished over 90% of Argentina's taxes.
Now, I thought...
That that meant he got rid of 90% of Argentina's taxes.
But apparently, getting rid of 90% of Argentina's taxes, what it really means is sources of taxes.
It's not 90% of the taxes.
It's 90% of the sources of taxation.
So apparently, they got taxed for just about everything they did.
He thinks he can get it down to six kinds of taxes, which would be good.
But I'm going to go on record uh just so i've said it this argentina miracle does not look real to me it it's it's pinging every one of my warning flags warning warning this story might be a little bit too hyperbolic because it looks a little too magically successful The real world is way messier than this sounds.
I mean, if you come in and you make these major structural changes, I do believe that the kinds of changes he's making will set up Argentina for a very bright future.
So I do believe it's all good.
I don't believe that it's all good so fast.
It's the so fast part that I'm like, hmm, really?
On the other hand, so we'll argue both sides of this, If I were the person transforming the country and part of my success depended on people thinking I could do that and I could do more, I probably would exaggerate my success early.
And I'd tell everybody, ah, it's working like crazy.
It's so fast.
I'll do more of it.
So on one hand, I don't mind.
I mean, it seems a functional bit of marketing if you say you're doing a little bit better than you are.
I just feel like if he can get everything good without any notable negatives, that would be the first time in history anybody did it.
But hey, maybe.
You never know.
Anything's possible.
I'm rooting for him, and I think everything he's doing makes sense.
I just think maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves on the actual produced results.
Well, meanwhile, the conversation about Trump wanting to buy Canada has created a little attention by Kevin O'Leary.
He's one of the Shark Tank stars, but better known as being one of the more successful investors.
And he's Canadian.
And he says that there's actually interest in Canada In merging with the United States.
Now, he just means conversationally not in the government.
The government is probably 100% against it.
But he thinks he wants to try to sell it.
So he wants to see if he can pitch it and maybe broker a deal with Trump and form some kind of what he calls an economic union.
So an economic union would not be a merger, so they'd still have some regular government, I guess.
But yeah, maybe.
I don't know what he has in mind, but he is a serious person who wants what's best for both countries and probably has a good idea what would get us there.
So if Kevin O'Leary is weighing in, I feel like Kevin O'Leary is in that category of the pirate ship.
So not only did Trump attract people who used to be Democrats or still are Democrats, But he also got a Canadian.
He got a Canadian.
The Trump effect is so strong that there's somebody...
Actually, I don't know his current nationality, so I don't know if he...
He's probably still a Canadian citizen, I think.
Yeah, he's called a Canadian investor.
But I just love the fact...
That the incoming Trump administration seems solid enough and capable enough that somebody like Kevin O'Leary would say, let me spend a bunch of time seeing if I can get this very big thing done that might be great for both countries.
Just people volunteering.
It's like doge, right?
It's like people volunteering to put their own lives on hold Really good lives.
Like we're talking about people who could just go to the beach all day if they wanted to.
And they've decided to sacrifice for some kind of national or double national benefit.
I just appreciate him.
So I'm just going to give a shout out to Kevin O'Leary for putting his risk capital out there in favor of two nations that need a little help.
Thanks.
Well, there's a new update in New York Post.
Of course, we'll talk about the foreign worker thing.
I'm just waiting for people to stream in so we can hit that when we're all here at the same time.
Apparently, the intelligence spy bosses, they silenced the Defense Department back when the COVID leak was still being discussed.
And people were saying, is it a lab leak or is it a natural thing?
And apparently the Defense Department had good evidence it was a designed thing in the lab, and the spy bosses decided to take that out of the briefing so that Biden did not hear that it came from a lab.
What would you do with a spy chief who was hiding the most vital information from the commander-in-chief?
Now, I don't think it's illegal, but you should never work in that job again.
Anybody who's hiding the most important information from the president while working for the president It's got to be fired right away.
I mean, there's no real second chance for that kind of stuff.
So I don't know who it was, but maybe when Trump gets in there, we can get a better idea which spy chief silenced the truth from the commander in chief.
On the other hand, Biden wasn't really totally functional, so...
And then the funniest thing about this story is when they talk about the spy chiefs and the Pentagon, and they did all their research, and they found out things that nobody could have ever known, and then it's taken years for them to come, you know, finally tell you what they think they know.
And I've told you before, but it's funny.
I think probably like maybe a week after the COVID pandemic hit, that one of my smartest friends called me and said, Here's a picture on Google Maps that wet market is directly across the street from the Wuhan lab that does exactly this kind of work.
So on week one, I knew for sure.
Was I doubting that the lab that was across the street was a real problem as opposed to the wet markets that have operated forever and never had this kind of problem exactly?
So pretending that anybody didn't know on day one, Or at least day seven.
It's just kind of funny.
Because if I knew...
I mean, I knew for sure in a week.
I was just waiting for the rest of the country to catch up.
I thought it'd be easy, but it took years.
All right.
DARPA, according to Reclaim the Net, DARPA has created what they call a theory of mind.
So they're using technology and software to predict and influence behavior.
What?
So apparently they think they can predict what people do and they claim that they will use it against their adversaries.
Because if you know what your adversaries are going to do, well, you have an advantage.
Now, do you think this would stay limited to use against our adversaries?
Of course not, because every time the intelligence people find something that works against our adversaries, unless it's a kinetic thing, you know, like a bomb, it ends up getting employed domestically because If we're trying to control people in other countries, sooner or later, somebody says, you know, there are a few people in this country who could use a little control.
Why don't we use that external thing to control these rogues inside the country?
So of course it will come internally.
Of course it will.
Now the question is, do you think it's real?
Do you think even if they try really hard and the smartest people and they use AI, that they will be able to predict People's actions in the future?
Well, how could they if you have free will?
If you have free will, there's no way they're going to predict what you're going to do.
I'm just joking.
You don't have free will.
So they'll totally be able to predict what you're going to do.
It's really an information problem.
If they knew enough about you, they could get it 80% of the time.
They could probably do populations faster.
They could probably look at a politician's message and then look at how that'll affect the election and know who's going to win based on the messaging, or maybe even the personality.
So there's some things that it definitely will be able to predict, you know, more so than anything we're doing today.
Because polling predicts, if you do it legitimately, a lot of our polling is not legitimate, But if he did it legitimately, like the internal polling for the Trump campaign, it told him he was going to win.
It literally predicted the future.
So yes, there will be other ways to do that too.
I believe that AI will use pattern recognition To predict the future for individuals, but it won't be able to do that until it knows enough about those individuals, which I don't know how they'll do that.
Maybe if they knew everything about your social media and everything you've ever done, all your resumes and everything you've ever written, probably it could do it.
But it'd have to have access to all that information.
Probably will have that access.
Well, the Trump effect continues to get things done without him actually doing anything yet.
Well, he's doing a lot, but not specifically this.
So Mexico is going to open shelters to house over 12,000 of its own citizens who might get deported when Trump takes over.
Twenty-five planned shelters, and it's a strategic plan to accommodate exclusively the people who get deported after January 20th.
And Mexico says they're taking Trump's threats seriously, and they're preparing the facilities to accept.
Now, doesn't that make his job a lot easier?
If Mexico has already built the receiving facilities, it's going to be a lot more humane and a lot more politically acceptable if Mexico, instead of arguing like crazy you shouldn't send them back, is building facilities to accept them.
That's the Trump effect.
They're acting in a way that is the adult way to act simply because dad came home.
Like, everybody's starting to pick up their toys.
Oh, Dad's home.
I don't need to be told I'm going to pick up all my toys because it would be way worse if I don't pick up my toys.
So that's what's happened.
All right.
You probably know that yesterday there was a big brouhaha on the internet on Axe about the issue of issuing visas or whatever the approval is to work in the United States for foreign workers.
And the debate comes down to, hey, if we're America first, why would you bring in any foreign workers?
But Elon Musk says, it took a while to clarify, but he said, we're really talking about the 0.01% of the top engineers.
Now, according to Elon Musk, Those are jobs which are really, really hard to fill, and there are tons of openings, and it wouldn't really be possible to train some Americans to be in the top 0-1% of engineering in the next few years.
If you have a 20-year buildup, yes.
In 20 years, we might create enough top engineers that we don't think about taking anybody from another country.
Maybe.
Possible.
But at the moment, If you want to compete in AI and crypto and quantum computing and robots, those are all the things that are going to drive economies in the future, and the people who drive them the most are going to be the engineers in the top.01.
In fact, open AI only exists Because Sam Altman brought over some Indian engineer who made the breakthroughs that made AI essentially possible.
So even AI wouldn't even exist if we hadn't brought in one of those.01 engineers and he hadn't done what he did.
So keep that in mind.
Now, I weighed in and immediately it just caused more problems than it solved.
Because what I didn't understand is that people were not on the same topic.
So there are a few topics, and individually they're all important, but they all got sort of conflated, and people were mad about things that they were on the wrong topic.
So let me tell you what my view is, and then we'll talk about the topic.
My old view...
Prior to Biden.
And it's now changed because of Biden.
But my old view is that you want to keep everybody smart.
So if somebody wants to come in and they've got a high education in some valuable field, or even if they just want to be an optometrist or make money, That the country's better off every time you bring in somebody who's going to add to the tax base, in other words, pay taxes, and is not going to take much.
So my old view, and again, this is revised, but my old view is you take everybody who is smart and additive.
Now, how you decide whether somebody is smart enough and additive, I don't think we have a good system for that.
So my desires are not supported by any kind of good system.
After Biden opened the border and MAGA became the dominant majority opinion in the country, they were very, very, very clear about limiting immigration.
Under that environment, it probably makes sense to not allow in the country people who would be additive.
Do you get that?
So under the current cultural, political situation, I think it would just disturb too many people to bring in people who even would add to the country, even if you're sure of it, they would add.
So at the moment, I'm opposed because Biden essentially ruined the atmosphere for immigrants.
He ruined it.
But by making it just everybody come on, then all the nuances just drained out of it.
And we probably have to work pretty hard to, you know, correct things.
But the argument does not apply to the.01 engineer.
So let me say this as completely...
This is the most firm, confident opinion I'll ever get you.
You cannot have enough.01 top engineers.
Because engineers are not like optometrists and doctors and lawyers.
The.01 engineer is developing the future.
Like, the very civilization-changing work.
You want all of those, and we don't have anywhere near enough.
Not even close, you know, as Elon Musk reminds us.
Now, a lot of people argue that Elon Musk doesn't understand the topic of hiring top engineers, to which, if I may do a faceplant, So I spent some of my time explaining that Elon Musk probably knows a little bit about hiring top engineers.
I don't think I need to develop my argument on that too hard.
But there was a...
So that's the first thing.
So it's unambiguously good for the country to bring in the top engineers.
And anybody who would argue that, that would be stupid, honestly.
I wouldn't even listen to the argument on the other side.
It would just be stupid.
Because you're not talking about changing the culture of the United States.
You're talking about people who almost always already speak English better than you do and are the top, top, top, top, top, top students.
That's a completely different situation than bringing in Uber drivers.
I'm not in favor of that.
At the moment.
Now, I think you can say all those things while still saying that immigrants are the reason the country is strong, etc.
That's all true.
It's just that Biden ruined the atmosphere for bringing in immigrants, even the ones who could add.
He just ruined it.
We might be able to get back to that, but not until Trump gets things under control.
So, That's where I'm at.
Now, secondly, the argument that I just gave you is a conceptual argument.
Wouldn't it be nice to have only these people?
And at the moment, it would be impractical, really, to just open it up to everybody.
But second to that, that's sort of the goal or where you'd like to end up, is that the systems we have for deciding who comes in are completely corrupted.
So some people were getting really mad that they thought I didn't understand that our current systems are not picking just the best of the best.
They're pretty much abused by big companies just to get cheap labor.
Everybody on board with that?
Our current systems, all of them, 100% of our current systems are so gameable that big companies are using them not in the way that you want them to be used.
Now, there is a question about what would happen to your inflation if they hired more expensive labor from the US.
So if you're willing to pay for more inflation, then you would also be in favor of them not having these programs that let them game the system to bring in cheap labor.
So can we all agree on the following statement of assumptions?
Our current systems are wholly inadequate to getting what you want as a citizen of the United States.
They do seem to work in the favor of quite a number of corporations.
And the corporations are the ones who argue for keeping the current completely broken and corrupt system.
Because it works for them.
It just doesn't work for, you know, workers, for example, American workers.
So I think we can all agree on the fact that the current system is broken.
Now, what is Trump's take on this?
I actually don't know.
Which is the weirdest thing about this conversation.
I don't know where Trump's at.
At one point, he was at where I was.
At one point, he agreed with my old view, that as long as they're additive, yes, yes, everybody additive.
Everybody additive.
So that used to be his view as well.
But after he's watched this whole brouhaha, and after Biden let in everybody, I feel like he may have adjusted his own views, but I haven't seen it yet.
So that's the most fascinating thing about the story, is that the base was having this heated argument yesterday all over social media.
Of course Trump was watching.
Of course he was.
And it's helping him, I'm sure, helping him come up with his statement on the thing.
But there are a number of things that come up.
Number one...
Oh, the other thing that we can agree on is that big companies like Google and Apple...
Have the resources to put people in another country and really, really vet the top engineers.
But that's not going to work for a small company.
Somebody said my opinions were invalid because I'd never tried to hire foreign engineers.
Well, I've actually tried hiring India-based programmers at least twice for side projects I was doing.
And it's a nightmare.
If you're not Google and Apple and you want to get somebody who can do a good job, so you find somebody in India who says, oh yeah, just tell us what you want.
We'll give you a price.
We'll assign some programmers and we'll write that code for you.
Absolutely none of that worked.
Because I'd talk to somebody smart who would make the sale, but then they would assign it to somebody who was completely incompetent.
So nobody could perform anything.
I didn't get anything.
I paid money and got nothing.
Twice.
So hiring employees to work from the other country...
If you were thinking about it, I wouldn't do it.
Everything I saw says it doesn't work.
If they're not in the same room with you, don't do a tech project.
Not at all.
So certainly that's part of something that needs to be fixed.
So I was listening to...
Theo Wald, who was a former deputy assistant to Trump in the first administration, and he was in charge of drafting the legislation to create a new legal immigration framework.
So he's the one who said that when he looked at all the various, and there are quite a few of them, the various pathways that foreign workers can get into the United States, that they're all corrupt.
So Yesterday I was seeing some people saying, well, you're talking about this H-1B visa thing.
Yeah, that's bad.
But there's this other thing to get the geniuses that's not so bad.
Well, in the real world, according to Theo Wald, the guy who was in charge of making it all work, he said, no, they're all corrupt.
So you should assume 100% of our foreign worker acquisition is totally broken and has to be fixed.
That was the best context I've seen.
So when I talk about this topic, I talk about what we want to achieve.
Usually I talk about systems.
You know, I always say systems are better than goals.
But sometimes it's obvious what you want to achieve.
We want American workers to have jobs that are good jobs and blah, blah, blah.
But this brought up a really...
Troubling thing.
So Vivek Ramaswamy weighed into the debate.
He said one of the reasons that maybe foreign workers are being favored by tech companies is that there's a cultural difference.
And he described the cultural difference as some of the Asian and Indian companies or countries, but their families, he described, would put a focus on educational attainment and professional success, whereas in America, you might have far less of it.
Now, that caused all the dumb people To assume that his generality was referring to every family in both countries.
So if you fell into that trap and you said, wait a minute, that's not true.
I know this one American family that does everything right.
Or if you said, wait a minute, I've seen pictures of India and it's people living in garbage piles.
Why do I want the people living in garbage piles to teach me how to have a better culture?
I don't want to live in a garbage pile.
Now, those are ridiculous.
Those are ridiculous comments because he's using a generality.
Is it a useful generality that the Indian and Asian employees that are at least the topic of conversation, the ones who have technical skills, is it true that they probably had a lot of family support?
Probably.
Are they the majority of India?
I don't know, but probably not.
But they're the only ones we care about because they're the ones who are getting technical skills and they may or may not come to the United States.
That's the population we're talking about.
They definitely have the tiger moms.
Most of them.
But again, we're not talking about the exceptions.
So, here's how people took it.
They said, Vivek...
First of all, a number of people didn't think Vivek was an American citizen.
May I give myself another facepalm?
This is to the people who argued with me that he's not an American citizen.
Okay, I just had to do that.
Born in this country, risking his fucking life to fix the Doge thing?
He's risking his life.
Elon Musk risking his life, not hyperbole, Not hyperbole.
Death threats, death threats, death threats.
They're risking their fucking lives for your benefit.
Do you think that they're doing it to make extra money?
Well, they might.
I mean, they might make extra money, but clearly that's not the main incentive.
Veik is more American.
I said this to somebody.
I said he's more American than you are.
He's more supportive of the American experience, the American whatever makes us good people.
He probably knows more about American history than just about any one of you.
You can't get more American than Vivek.
That's like peak American.
And people got on me for defending, because I got pretty aggressive yesterday on social media, for defending Vivek's take about our cultures and also Elon's take about needing engineers.
And people said to me, are you just making money?
Is it because Elon pays you?
Pays me?
I mean, obviously, I'm monetized on X, but you think that's why I'm doing it?
You think I'm supporting the idea of bringing the top 1% engineers because I get paid on X? That was literally the last thing I was even in my mind.
Never once did that even occur to me.
Here's what occurred to me.
When I watch Elon and Vivek, Take on the hardest, most thankless job that America has ever produced short of war, which is to take on trimming the government.
That's patriotism at a level that I can't even conceive.
I mean, it's beyond me.
Given that, and given my current age, I've kind of done what I need to do.
I would take a bullet for either one of them.
Actually, literally take a bullet.
Because the two of them are doing the only thing that can save our country.
If we can't get the debt under control, we're all dead.
We're all dead.
And there are only two people who happen to be extraordinarily brilliant, incredibly brave, Capable beyond anything that you and I can really understand.
And they're taking on the hardest job in the world for you, if you're American.
For you.
And also for me.
I would take a bullet to keep them in that job.
Like, actually, I'd take a bullet.
Like, if you said to me, you know, you're going to have to die, but you'll save one of those two people.
I would take the bullet.
Like, actually, literally, that's not a joke.
So if you see me defending them aggressively on social media, I would take a bullet for them.
Because they would take a bullet for me.
Right?
They're doing it right in front of you.
I don't have to guess if they would take a bullet.
Because they put themselves in a position where the odds of danger and death threats is through the roof.
So if they would do that for me, I would do it for them.
And same with Trump.
How did you feel when Trump took a bullet for you?
Right?
That's different.
If somebody takes a bullet for you, and Trump did, You get bonded to them.
And you should.
So a lot of people were on that.
So let me say this.
So some people interpreted Vivek as this Indian guy who was criticizing white American culture in the United States.
And a lot of people thought it was kind of a put-down, kind of an insult to American culture.
To which I said, what are you talking about?
An insult to American culture?
What American culture are you talking about?
The American culture that I live in has free speech and we have a superpower.
Our culture, American culture, has a superpower.
And it looks like this.
When we fail and we get ashamed, we learn things, get stronger, We eat that shame, we eat that failure, and then we go and win.
In other countries, and in other cultures, they do not criticize their culture, and if they fail, well, they don't want to fail, so they don't do a startup.
They just take a job where they're less likely to fail.
So, when you say that Vivek is somehow insulting America, By saying that the culture needs a tweak, needs an upgrade?
That's the most American thing you can do.
Criticizing an American system, and culture is basically a system, criticizing an American system, even down to the family level, if it's necessary, that's what we do.
You can't get more American than that.
We criticize ourselves in public because we have the gift of free speech-ish.
And if something needs to be fixed and you're going to get a big blowback for saying it, we'll still say it.
I said what I needed to say at the risk of getting canceled.
Very American, right?
You could disagree with everything I said or did.
That's fine.
But would you agree that That me saying what I thought I needed to say at the moment, and I had good intentions, that's a longer story, and then getting cancelled for it, failing, basically that would be a failure, my entire career wiped out.
You watch me, you watch what happened when I got cancelled, right?
I just recovered, got stronger.
I got a million followers on X. It basically supercharged me.
So that was a failure.
It was a shame.
I didn't feel any shame, but you could imagine that it would be accompanied usually.
And so I just took that failure and I ate it for breakfast, I used it for energy, and I went on.
And in some ways, accomplished more than I would have accomplished if I had not been cancelled, because it creates a lot of attention.
So yes, Vivek, you can criticize any American system from culture to finance to government.
That's what I want.
I want our smartest people telling us where we should focus, even if he's wrong sometimes, right?
We're not looking for perfection.
So yes, I'm defending Vivek aggressively.
Now this brought up a number of comments Because the hidden topic within this foreign employee stuff is a number of people kept saying, but Scott, don't you understand?
I'm a trained engineer and I can't get a job.
What do I say to somebody who says that on social media?
I don't know them.
They say, I'm a trained engineer, experienced, and I can't get a job.
I say, what color are you?
You're white, right?
So mixed in with this whole foreign worker thing is the fact that there's been massive systemic racism against white men for what Sequoia partner Sean McGuire thinks may have been going on for the past 10 years.
Here's what he said.
He said, I was told I can't be promoted for being a white man explicitly at Google.
And then he suggested that that's been going on for at least 10 years.
Do you know when I got that talk?
The first time I got the talk, I can't promote you because you're a white male?
The 80s.
37 years ago.
For 37 fucking years, this has been the way everything in corporate America worked.
No, we're not going to promote you for a white man.
Prudent Thinker on X says, I've had the same experience elsewhere in big tech.
Also been told we want less people who look like you because it messes up our DEI commitment.
Also been told whatever you do, do not hire a white man.
This is a white man.
Also been told everyone is invited except you.
We want to put out the image of diversity.
And I've even been plagiarized by the DEI hire later to learn I was hired for that very purpose.
Oh, no.
And then deplorable garbage.
That's the name of his account, was told the same thing by a big law firm and notes, if an entity like that, a big law firm, isn't afraid to openly do it, discriminate against race, he says it's everywhere.
Russell says, at an intel corporation, we restricted hiring white males unless approved at a senior VP level.
And that was more than 10 years ago.
Imagine what it's like now.
No, this has been 37 fucking years, at least.
That's when it hit me.
It may have been earlier in California, where I was.
So, why didn't people know this?
It's because white guys just suck it up and get to work.
That's it.
White guys will complain privately, will complain to our family, complain to our spouse, but we're not necessarily organizing a protest.
We just say, all right, I'm not going to work there.
I'll go work somewhere else.
So that's why you don't know.
Also, I found out 30 years ago that if I mentioned in public that I was being discriminated against for being white, What did people call me?
A white racist liar.
So they already decided I'm a white racist just because I'm white.
And then I say I was unable to be promoted in two corporations in a row because they told me I'm white male and I can't promote you.
And I say that and they say, oh, well, you're lying.
Oh, great.
So if I tell you the truth, I'm a white racist and now also a liar.
30 years, over three decades, almost four decades, white men had to keep this secret because if you said it out loud, you were a fucking liar.
And that's a real thing that happened in the United States for decades.
Still happening.
All right.
Then somebody weighed in thinking they would add some nuance and said, no, it's because somebody else labeled it as an anti-white bias, which it is.
And then a commenter said, well, you know, technically is it an anti-white bias?
It might have also been anti-Asian American because I'm sure they discriminated against Asians.
I need one more face plant.
Can I give it to you?
In colleges, they definitely discriminated against Asians.
True.
In corporations, they hired the Asians, not the white guy.
If you had lots of diversity of Asian Americans, it was considered like the, what's the good analogy, like the methadone for the heroin or something.
They wanted heroin, which would be black women, lesbian employees.
You know, that would be like, oh, home run.
But if they couldn't get that, they definitely wanted as many Asian-looking people to put on the company picture.
So no, I've never once, I've never even heard of it.
Have you?
Is there anybody in the comments who's ever even heard of an Asian American being turned down at a big corporation because that wasn't diverse enough?
I've never heard of it.
Now, if it turned out that Asian Americans have been keeping this secret for 40 years, like white Americans, You know, I guess I'd have to say I shouldn't be surprised.
So it could be.
It could be true.
But I've never seen it or heard of it.
Never once.
Well, then, Wired Publication.
They say it's the year of the influencer political takeover.
So, of course, a lot of people are writing about how the podcasters and the online influencers are now the important thing and the mainstream news and the New York Times are unimportant, etc.
But here's what I think about that conversation.
I think this is sort of putting the Dilber filter on it.
When all these smart people, the Democrats, say that they finally understand that what they needed to do better was take advantage of the influencer podcasting ecosystem, and that the Republicans really had that nailed down.
You know, they really had a good ecosystem for that, so that maybe is why they lost.
So, do you think that's why they lost?
Watching Democrats not understand anything, it never gets less entertaining.
It is true that Trump did a much better job with the podcaster-influencer situation.
That's true.
But the reason they lost is that they did everything wrong.
They had the worst candidate running against the best candidate of all time.
They had no policies that were in the top three of the American public.
They wasted $1.5 billion on God knows what.
Probably half of it was stolen.
You could make a list of all the things you should do right, and the only things they did well were the ones that don't matter to the election.
The ground game.
They always teased Trump for not having a ground game, but never asked themselves the Elon Musk question, which is, do we need a ground game?
And the answer is, probably not.
In the current age, there was a time when the ground game was everything, but probably not now.
You know, people learn online.
They don't need the ground game.
But here's my Dilber filter take on it.
The fact that the Democrats think the podcaster world is just where they need to go.
I think that the Democrat, let's say the The people who would be helping with campaigns in the future.
If you were going to work on a campaign, which thing would you rather do?
Organize a door-knocking thing?
Or do another boring interview, print interview with the New York Times?
Or interact with some of the coolest, hottest podcasters and influencers in the world?
Which way do you want to spend your day?
Do you want to spend your day talking to famous, sexy, young people killing it so that you can take a picture and show it to your kid?
It's the easiest job in the world because you get to sit in the studio and maybe watch the podcast and that's your job for that day.
I've got a feeling that the Democrats are moving toward this whole, we've got to have more podcasting and influencers because that's fun.
And then they justify it as like, oh, this is a big problem.
Got to fix this podcasting situation.
There's no way we can be competitive until we have a Joe Rogan of our own.
I don't know.
So there's something true about it, which is they probably need to be better in that domain.
But there's also something that screams we would rather do things that are pleasurable than things that are hard.
And I don't think that's a winner's attitude.
We'd rather do things that are pleasurable than hard.
That might be their entire problem.
Anyway, and I also think it's funny, harking back to the prior conversation, that they canceled me at exactly the time when I was the most dangerous because the podcasting world was starting to dominate.
Again, dumbest mistake they could have made.
They should have said, Scott, we'd like you to spend all of your time on cartooning, so why don't we give you a big contract to write twice as many cartoons?
If they'd done that, they could have bought me out of the race.
Well, I don't know, but it would have been worth a shot if they offered enough.
Anyways, according to study farms, scientists figured out how to transform red blood cells into precision cancer-fighting drones.
And I guess they can tweak it as your cancer morphs into a different form.
They can tweak it again so it gets added again.
So this is actually pretty exciting.
They've got some kind of molecule that'll stick to parts of the RNA and inhibit regular activities.
So the reason that this is important is it feels less destructive, meaning if you do something that's just put some destruction on your body, But you hope the cancer cells die faster than your healthy cells, you know, like chemo.
You're just hoping that your healthy cells survive, but they're going to get whacked.
So this is the second anti-cancer possibility, which doesn't seem to have that mechanism, which attacks your healthy stuff.
Don't know if it'll work yet, but I love all the new news about it.
Now, there's an article in The Hill, an opinion piece by Evan Davis and David Schult, and they say Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office.
The lawmakers must act now.
So the idea is, according to them, the Constitution provides that any oath-breaking insurrectionist can't run for office.
And then they gave their evidence for how Trump is an oath-breaking insurrectionist.
Of course, all their evidence was completely debunked and laughed at by people like Jeff Clark, also an attorney who got in trouble for that January 6th stuff.
For doing basically nothing that anybody should have ever gotten in trouble for.
That's another story.
But...
So apparently, I didn't know this, but apparently if they try to make this move to not allow Trump to take office, it would take a two-thirds vote.
Did I have that right?
Two-thirds vote in each House.
So in both Senate and the House, two-thirds vote.
Now, I don't think there's...
Would you agree there's not a chance in the world that two-thirds of the people are going to vote to not put Trump in office, right?
So there's not any practical way this could happen, as far as I can tell.
But I kind of want them to try.
Don't you?
Don't you want them to try?
Because the Democrat Party is on life support.
If they try to keep Trump out of office with some weird lawfare, somebody's going to yank the life support out of whatever's left of the Democratic Party.
That would be the end.
That would just be the end.
Now, I know you want me to say, oh, if that happened, it would be an armed revolution.
No, they won't.
Against who?
What are you going to do?
Shoot your neighbor because some politicians did something?
You're not going to shoot your neighbor.
We like the neighbor.
So, I would just say this.
I just wish they...
I kind of hope they do it.
I hope they take their strongest play to try to keep them out of office.
They will fail.
But this is the ultimate, you know, F around and find out situation.
I'd really love them to find out.
Not with violence.
No violence, please.
But no violence would be necessary.
Because we would just look at the situation and say...
Nope.
Nope.
Now, speaking of violence, which I do not recommend, but you can state facts about violence, right?
So that's fair.
You can say somebody did some violence, there's a risk of some violence, but I don't recommend it.
Don't do any violence.
However, Can you imagine the security situation for anybody who voted to keep Trump out of office at this point?
If in Congress they voted to use this insurrection thing to keep them...
Can you imagine what that would do to their security situation?
Again, please don't do any violence.
But we live in a country where people wouldn't take this sitting down.
And anybody who voted to keep Trump out of office for this insurrection bullshit I would recommend you look at your budget, because if you don't have a budget for increasing security, I wouldn't vote this way.
Now, I wouldn't say that about many things.
I can't even think of one other thing I would have ever said that about.
The people who vote for this are really going to put themselves in a physical jeopardy.
Don't do anything to them.
Don't, don't, don't.
We want peace.
We don't want to be that kind of country.
But the reality is, we live in a dangerous country full of guns, and people have the guns for that reason.
They have the guns for this reason.
Don't use them for this reason.
This isn't a good enough reason.
But that's why they have them.
So if they think that it would be safe to vote that they're not going to put the winner of the popular vote into office, just think about your budget.
Just think about it.
Well, Russia is open to conversation about Ukraine, but they say Trump has to go first.
He has to make the first move to improve ties, according to Breitbart, Simon Kent.
And what would the first move be?
So let's talk about that.
If Russia says, yeah, we're open, but you've got to make the first move.
All right, here's the wrong answer.
The first move should not be a peace proposal.
By the way, Lavrov, so he's the Russian, what would you call him?
He's the main guy who talks to the United States about foreign policy and stuff like that.
So Lavrov says...
Lavrov says that a truce is a path to nowhere.
So a ceasefire doesn't have any interest for Russia.
Russia is saying, we're looking for a big deal, something enduring, something comprehensive.
We're not looking for, let's stop shooting on Tuesday.
Is he right about that?
Yes.
Yes.
Lavrov is completely right.
Having a ceasefire would save lives.
But beyond that, it wouldn't hasten the end of the war, I don't think.
So what would Trump do?
He can't say, let's do a ceasefire.
I agree.
Russia is correct on that.
But here's what he's being set up for.
Negotiating with himself.
Have you ever heard that term?
In the negotiating world, there's a thing that's considered a classic error.
And the error is to negotiate against yourself.
And the way that looks is you say first, all right, here's the deal.
I'll do this if you do that.
And then the other side says, no.
And then you go back, and here's the error, and you come back with a new offer, and they haven't made an offer.
If you do that, it's called negotiating against yourself, and you've been tricked into making the first offer, and then responding to them making a new offer, and you've already talked yourself down.
They haven't even made an offer, and you talked yourself down.
So that's considered a classic mistake.
I learned that when I was negotiating with Disney.
Years ago, there was an idea of making a Dilbert Disney animated movie.
And we made an offer to Disney and Disney said, no, that's not good enough.
Come back with another offer.
And the head of my syndication company said, how about we're done now and we'll never work with you again.
That's how it ended.
And I completely supported it.
Yeah, you don't negotiate with yourself.
Period.
And by the way, he told them, we're not going to negotiate with ourselves.
If you've got an offer, we'll look at it.
So they knew why.
But they didn't want to make an offer.
So we said, well, maybe we'll make an offer with somebody who knows how negotiation works.
Now, maybe it works for Disney.
Maybe sometimes they get somebody dumb enough to do that.
But thank goodness You know, the professional I was working with knows how this works.
And he just closed them down.
So, nope, don't negotiate it with ourselves.
We'll take this somewhere else.
And that's why there's no Dilbert movie.
No, we did take it somewhere else, but, you know, things didn't work out in other places either.
Anyway, so he shouldn't make an offer, but he has to do something.
So what would it look like if Trump did something first, but it wasn't an offer for a peace deal?
What would that look like?
I don't know.
But Trump is the best at this.
Suppose Trump said, how about let's have a summit?
Would that be an offer?
Kind of.
An offer to do a summit with himself and Putin, I would feel like that would be going first, but without making the offer.
So I think there's room to play.
I think there's room to play.
And when Russia says you have to go first, what they're doing is trying to dominate Trump.
Because they're trying to say, all right, we made you do the first thing.
Like, why does Trump have to go first?
Why does he have to go first?
They both want peace.
So if Lavrov can sort of manipulate Trump into going first, then he's sort of won the first round.
Trump will know that, because unlike ordinary politicians, Trump knows how this works.
He's done this before.
So he's not going to fall for the you have to go first, unless it looks like something that would be ordinary to do.
Now, a summit, at least with Trump, would be an ordinary thing to do.
So I think that would not look like going first, but would still be close enough to get things done.
So we'll see.
There's a giant breakthrough coming in EV batteries.
Are you surprised?
I tell you one of these stories every day.
The reason I do it is to help you predict the future.
And here's the future.
If this new leap, let's see, it's according to the Mark Maynard in the Pasadena Star News, The new breakthrough just uses a new kind of material and it uses 10 times less anode material, which is a big deal, and might cut the cost someday of the battery.
By a huge amount.
Did you know that the cost of the battery in an electric car could be up to 40% of the cost of the car?
And that this is a battery that works in the lab.
And if it worked in the real world, it would cut that cost by about half.
So 40% of your car cut by half just because of the battery.
So we're at the point where we're probably one more Big battery breakthrough.
Like one of these many ones that I talk about every day on the show.
They're all different.
But one of them is going to break through.
And if it doubles capacity and doubles batteries, that's not just better stuff.
Like if you're thinking, oh, I'd like to get a few extra miles on my car battery if I have an electric car.
No, we're not talking about that.
You'd get that too.
What we're talking about is a complete transformation of civilization because it's what makes your robot a good deal.
It's what allows you to get off the grid.
If you had a real cheap battery that you could put on the side of your house and collect the sun during the day and use it at the night, you might just get off the grid.
You might have electric airplanes.
So the major source of CO2, if you're worried about that, would be removed because airlines are really, really bad on that.
So one more leap, just one more big leap in batteries.
I'm not talking about the 10%, 20% improvement.
I'm talking about the big leap, and there are a bunch of them that are brewing.
One more big leap changes all of air travel, Well, travel.
Our entire transportation would change.
It would lower costs to the point where it would make a difference in inflation.
It would lower inflation.
Transportation would be different.
The time you spent charging would go down to minutes instead of hours.
It would be really transformational, and it's definitely going to happen.
Meanwhile, Israel has declared on Tuesday that it's going to start killing the leaders of the Houthis.
So the Houthis in Yemen have been shooting rockets into Israel, and prior to that they've been putting missiles at shipping boats in the area.
So the Houthis are real bad news, and they're backed by...
Iran, and Iran is weakened, but the Houthis are still active.
Now, when Israel says we're going to take out your leaders, it just tells me we're at a strange point in history.
So nobody's talking about taking out Putin in some kind of a decapitation strike because he's got nukes and he's got backup and whoever comes after him isn't necessarily going to be the good guy.
And probably the same is true with an American president.
If you're Russia or China, you're probably not thinking even for one second about a decapitation strike on the United States because we'd still be too strong.
Likewise, we will not think even for one second about a decapitation strike on China because it would just be destabilizing and it would just ruin everything.
So decapitation strikes definitely don't work once a country reaches a certain status.
And they also don't work when your little scrappy terrorist cells are so small that That you can't even figure out where they're operating from or who's in charge.
So in those cases, a decapitation strike's no good.
The one time it's good is if you happen to have massive digital footprints everywhere so you can find stuff, and the entity has not created a structure that can go on easily without the leaders.
In other words, the leaders are kind of key to keeping it together.
And that's not the case in America.
We change out our leaders all the time.
So there's this one little area of history where we can find them easily because we got satellites, we've got cell phones, we've got AI. So we can find them and we have missiles and drones that can hit anything from anywhere.
So I would say the Houthis are in a lot of trouble because it seems to be Israel's ability to take out the leaders of any group that's against them is now 100% operational.
And all the Houthi leaders are going to just start despairing.
And I think it works because they're leader-driven organizations.
So good luck.
Good hunting, Israel.
I saw an article by Barack Ravid on X. He says that the people in Israel and the U.S. even, who are negotiating for the end of the hostages, not the end, but the release, that it's unlikely that they're going to get that done before Trump takes office.
I would go further and say, that's not going to happen.
Why would Hamas suddenly become rational?
Because Trump's going into office.
They're clearly not afraid of dying.
And the captives give them a little bit of leverage.
So why would they?
I can't see any reason that they would do it.
Now, I think that they'll keep the hostages.
And then when Trump comes in, he's going to say, all right, you had a chance, but I'll give you one more chance now that I'm actually in office.
You've got a few days.
I want the hostages all back.
And we're not negotiating for it.
You just give them all back.
Now, that probably won't happen.
And then Trump will have to figure out how to respond.
And I feel sorry for Gaza.
Because if the hostages don't come back, there will never be a life there.
And I don't think they're coming back.
So I think Gaza is just permanently out of business.
There's no such thing as, you know, Gaza is going to rebuild and they're all going to go live there happily.
I think it's just Israel's territory.
And the cost of that, unfortunately, is going to be these hostages.
As long as the hostages are held...
It's hard to criticize Israel for anything.
People do, but I wouldn't.
Meanwhile, the New York Post is reporting that there's a woman who was born with two vaginas that are fully functional and even possibly capable of both of them getting pregnant.
So she has two vaginas.
She's a grown woman.
And she says it's been very difficult dating.
Because as soon as she tells her date that she has two vaginas, more often than not, they get an idea.
Hey, two of them, you say?
Two of them.
I'm just going to spitball here, a little brainstorming.
Something that I have never done before, but...
I've got a buddy.
And then she has to shut him down right away.
No, you can stop there.
I know you have a male friend.
Stop.
Nope.
Stop.
Stop.
And I was thinking to myself, she could never date a professional humorist such as myself.
I wouldn't be able to think of anything else.
If you put me in that situation where I'm dating the woman with two vaginas, I'm going to think of a lot of puns, and they're not going to be appreciated.
So I'm sure she has a sense of humor.
But, you know, there are also men, this is rare, but some men are born with two penises.
I've got two words to describe a situation of the woman with two vaginas and the man with two penises.
Soulmates.
Soulmates.
Is that one word or two?
I guess that's one word.
Soulmates.
Well, I wish her luck.
And the funniest comment I saw in this was from one of the local subscribers who said, and I quote, did she save one for after marriage?
Slow clap.
Very good.
All right.
We don't mean to make fun of this woman, but she seems to be well adjusted and healthy.
She's perfectly healthy.
And she's also quite ethical.
She discloses it.
I wish the best for her.
I don't mean to...
I don't mean to be mean, but she's having fun with it, I think.
There's at least some part of it that she probably thinks is fun.
So, in that spirit, I only have good thoughts.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to go talk to the local subscribers privately.
I don't know if there's anything I forgot about today.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, if you're on YouTube or X or Rumble, I will see you tomorrow.
