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, WaPo Mission Statement, SpaceX Launch, America Under Attack, Chinese Transformers, Gen Z Non-Drinkers, China's Government Rationality, Marc Andreessen, China's Manufacturing Ecosystem, Sea Level Prediction Flaw, Climate Prediction Incentives, Democrat Cause & Effect Education Failures, Bill Pulte FHFA Nomination, Trump's Secret Service Nomination, Sean Curran, Kevin O'Leary, President Biden's Net Worth, VP Harris Farewell, Mouth Chemistry, 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.
Thank you, Charles Ristein, a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sub, and it happens now.
Go.
Same shirt.
Are you just now noticing that I wear the same shirt every day?
It's true.
Sometimes not on laundry day, but most of the time.
Well, did you know that unsweetened coffee is associated with reduced risk of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, according to SIPOS? Yes.
There's nothing that coffee can't do.
And this is the reason that I stopped doing cold plunges.
You know, everybody's like, oh, take a cold plunge.
Take a cold plunge.
It hurts a lot.
It's so painful.
Do it.
Do it.
It's good for you.
And I say, how painful is that?
That looks like really painful.
Oh, it's really painful.
It's good for you.
So instead of cold plunges, I have a big vat full of warm coffee, and I just roll around in it every day.
And that's why I don't have Alzheimer's or Parkinson's.
It's not an accident, people.
Well, I hope you see the video that's going around of an Air Force veteran who...
He was assigned to pick up alien wreckage, and he would take his helicopter out, so the military assigned him to do this.
And he said most of the things he picked up were just, you know, secret government programs and stuff.
But once, once he saw non-human, egg-shaped aircraft while working on his secret UFO retrieval program, according to the New York Post.
Now, here's what's funny.
You'd have to see his eyes when he's describing it.
Now, I always tell you that the lying eyes are the ones that get wide.
If you watch the politicians, you can turn off the sound and you can still tell when they get to the lie because their forehead gets wrinkled because their eyes are so wide.
Now that you know that that's what a lie looks like, you know, it's like...
Yeah, I'm going to take office on the 19th, and I'll probably eliminate the deficit on the day one!
You know, when they get the lie.
But this guy's eyes, they look like saucers themselves.
I saw a UFO! It's not even slightly, slightly credible when you see his face.
If all you did is read about it or hear about it, you'd say, hmm.
A military veteran?
Probably credible.
Probably found an egg-shaped UFO. Sounds good.
And then we'll look at his face and you go, oh.
All right, you got to see it.
Oh, my favorite story of the day.
Every time the Washington Post does worse, I get a little charge of pleasure.
And I know I shouldn't.
You know, I shouldn't be reveling in the complete incompetence and destruction of...
Of a newspaper that canceled me worldwide.
They're the ones who kicked it off, by the way.
But here's the...
Oh, my God.
So the Washington Post came up with a new mission statement.
Thank you, God.
All I pray for is that I can use my Dilbert filter to mock the Washington Post.
And today you gave me, they have a new mission statement?
Oh, thank you, thank you.
I'm so grateful.
Here's their new mission statement.
I'm not making this up.
This is actually, I swear to God, this is what their new mission statement is.
You ready for this?
It's...
They're going to highlight their focus on...
No, their new mission statement is, quote, riveting storytelling for all America.
Storytelling?
Storytelling?
Newspaper, news, facts.
Storytelling.
I think they just created a mission statement that says their news isn't real.
Because do you use that language when you're talking about facts?
How about, we're going to tell you what you need to know?
How about all the important facts?
No, it's storytelling.
Now, are they completely unaware of what that sounds like?
When you hear storytelling, you don't think fact, you think fiction.
You think narrative.
And indeed, that's exactly what they are.
They accidentally picked a mission statement that describes exactly what they are.
They're storytellers.
They're storytellers.
Their own mission statement of a news organization left out the news.
They left out the news.
Stories.
Stories are not the news.
I mean, they can be based loosely on the news.
But then it gets better.
They said they're keeping their little tagline that they've had for a long time, that democracy dies in darkness.
What do you think causes the darkness?
Let me say, causes the darkness that would destroy democracy.
What would cause such darkness?
Would it be storytelling?
Could storytelling instead of telling real news?
Do you think that might cause the darkness that destroys democracy?
Now, you have to admire their transparency.
They basically told you that they're going to destroy democracy by telling you stories instead of news.
Am I over-interpreting this?
Or is that exactly what they're telling us?
I don't think you could be more clear about what you're doing.
I don't think it's intentional, but it's clear.
Washington Post failing again.
Meanwhile, I'd like to give you a SpaceX update.
I was watching the news yesterday, and I was looking at clips about the SpaceX launch, and I was reading all the news, and sometimes the clip would say that it was a success, and sometimes another clip would say that it failed.
And so all yesterday, I had this Schrodinger's Cat experience about the launch.
I was like, wait, did it fail but also succeed?
Wait, were there two rockets and one failed and one succeeded?
Because nobody told the whole story.
Every clip I had was like one pixel out of the story.
So I'm like, do I have to assemble this whole story in my head?
And I'm still not entirely sure what happened.
But my best...
My best understanding, reading all these clips, but of course I didn't want to go to the news.
Duh.
You know, if I went to the news, I don't know what I'm going to see.
It might be storytelling.
You know what I mean?
But I think what happened was it was one launch and one successful giant chopstick caught it, but it was only the booster that did well and the payload part, the upper stage.
They had to be destroyed.
So there was some kind of catastrophic failure.
It either blew up on its own or they destroyed it.
Anyway, so Elon considers it a success, as would I. This is the sort of, I'm going to put it in quotes, failure that is exactly the kind you want, where you're unambiguously learning something that puts you ahead.
You have the ability to keep going.
You take this, you've learned from it, you take it to the next level.
So it's hard for me to even call a test a failure if they found out what they needed to find out.
You know, it would be cool if they found out, oh, everything worked, but either way, if you find out, you're moving forward.
So I like the whole attitude about it, that it's a successful, successful test because they learned.
Critical things from the test that will move them forward.
Here's something I didn't know.
Nick Cruz-Petain on X said this, and then Elon Musk said yes to it.
So this sounds like it might be something SpaceX plans, which would be to be a general Earth transport to other places on Earth.
Now, you probably know that if you're in a vehicle that goes into space...
And then comes down in another place on Earth, it can go there faster than some airplane that's trying to go through the air because of the resistance and whatnot.
So that could take a trip from L.A. to New York.
Oh, the Supreme Court upholds the TikTok ban.
Oh, okay.
New news.
The Supreme Court upholds the TikTok ban.
Well, I guess it's gone.
We shall see.
I think there's more to happen on that story.
But anyway, if SpaceX does create a product where you can just take the rocket ship to another place on Earth, LA to New York, which would normally be five and a half hours, would be 25 minutes.
Can you imagine getting from LA to New York in 25 minutes?
How about London to New York?
29 minutes.
Wow.
Why is that 29 when the six-hour flight is 27?
I don't know.
The numbers don't look right.
But that would be pretty amazing.
But what would it cost to be on a rocket that uses that kind of fuel, even if it's re-landable?
I don't know.
But Elon said, yes, maybe this is the future.
Meanwhile, according to Interesting Engineering, China is testing a microwave weapon with what they call nuclear bomb-like power to kill satellites.
So Christopher McFadden and Interesting Engineering is writing it.
It's still experimental.
They haven't ruled it out, but it has the potential to take out swarms of drones or satellites.
So you can kind of see the future, can't you?
We've got all this high-tech stuff.
The satellite drones and the smart missiles and the robot dogs.
And then probably the superpowers will have these ginormous electronic devices to cancel out the electronics on these other weapons.
So the race to have the better robot military equipment It's going to meet with a race to find out a thing that can cancel all electronics in the area.
We'll see where that goes.
There's a massive fire, it's probably still burning, it was yesterday, at the lithium battery storage plant in California, of course.
Of course.
Now, when you hear that a lithium battery storage plant has a fire, you probably have to say to yourself, that's sort of lithium batteries.
That's not the biggest surprise in the world.
But when that fire has an impact on our whole power grid, presumably, and it comes right on the heels of several other fires in L.A., not all of them have known causes, here's what worries me.
If we were already under attack, This is exactly what it would look like.
Wouldn't it?
If the homeland was under a serious attack, you would see fires started in different places, in places that are highly valuable and hard to start.
You wouldn't see a fire in maybe the center of Detroit, because that could be kind of limited to one building.
But you would see it where you're seeing them.
And then you would see attacks on the grid.
And you would see them happening in bunches.
So it would look like, well, that's a big coincidence.
What, another fire?
Well, that's another big coincidence.
What, at the same time as the lithium battery storage plant?
Well, that's another coincidence.
Now, I'm not saying we're under attack.
I'm saying that if the real news looks exactly like an attack, you better pay attention.
Because one of these is going to be an attack, I feel like.
Someday, hope not soon.
But apparently, did you know the United States buys transformers for our power grid?
And we've got about, I don't know, close to 500 of them.
And one of them was once taken apart to see if there's anything dangerous in these Chinese transformers.
And they found that there was a way to turn it off remotely.
Right.
Meaning that...
If you were a Chinese agent, you could just walk up to a transformer in our grid, probably take out your phone and go, boop.
And if you had the right app, it would turn off the network.
They can just turn off our power now.
Pretty much, I don't know how many 500 transformers, you'd only need one transformer to get turned off in your network and the whole network after that transformer would be down.
That's a lot of power they have control over, theoretically, just by walking up to it, and maybe they don't even have to stand next to it.
Maybe they can do it remotely.
I don't know how remotely they have to be.
But apparently there's a back door, and we bought more of them instead of phasing them out, probably because we can't make stuff in this country affordably.
Anyway, Megyn Kelly reports that she had a woke friend who lost a home in the California fires and says, Quote, this is what the friend said, the woke friend.
Everyone I know is ready to vote Republican.
Nick Garamond, Red States reporting that.
And here's what I think.
You know, I live in California, and so I know lots of Californians.
I don't know any woke ones.
I don't know any woke ones.
You know, even my famous smartest Democrat friend that I often talk about is not really woke.
Just prefers the policies of the Democrats and thinks the Republicans are evil and stuff.
You know, normal stuff.
But not, you know, he's not like hosting drag queen hours or anything.
I don't know any.
I don't know any woke people.
I live in California.
I don't know any.
I literally don't know one.
I mean, I know they exist.
I think I've seen them, you know, in public.
But I don't know one.
So, I cannot confirm or deny that the people who are in that category that I don't even know on have decided they've had enough and they're going to vote Republican.
I honestly don't believe that.
I believe that only the people who lost their houses or got displaced are even thinking in that way.
Because whatever it is that makes the Democrats the way they are...
It would have to be a personal tragedy that would change their minds.
So those who are unfortunately having the personal tragedy, I definitely would agree that they're thinking about voting Republican.
You don't even have to ask them.
That's just sort of obvious.
But I'll bet you if you were one mile outside of the danger zone and you didn't have a good friend who was affected, you'd be like, well, Biden's still better than Trump.
And etc.
And my local mayor should be blue and all that stuff.
So we'll see how real that is.
Meanwhile, you know, I've reported this before, but I now have a hypothesis for it.
So Gen Z, who are the people between 13 years old and 28 years old at the moment, they're barely using alcohol compared to all the prior generations.
If you saw the bar graph, it'd be like, you know, there'd be a bar that's a foot tall, and then it immediately goes to like two inches tall for the current generation.
What is up with that?
You would think that the one universal throughout time has been if you have alcohol, you're going to drink it, and kids unfortunately have access, so they drink it.
Why would it just suddenly fall off a cliff?
I have a hypothesis.
My hypothesis goes like this.
That alcohol, people don't do it because it feels good.
They do it because it helps them socialize when they're shy.
And that among the young, it's not so much, yay, I like this feeling of being drunk.
It's, wow, I can finally figure out a way to talk to strangers and I'm not as shy.
Strangers drunk, so everything's easier.
So if the current generation uses the internet to make friends, And what I've observed is that young people will chat with somebody online that they've never met, but they will have shared pictures, they've checked each other's social networks, and they've chatted for a long time.
Then, if everything's going well, they like to chat, they like to look, they like the interaction, they decide to get together.
So you see what they've done?
They've taken the utility of alcohol.
The utility of alcohol is, how do I meet a new cool person that I want to spend time with?
There wasn't really a great way to do it when I was a kid.
So you would have a drink and go where there's other people drinking, and that was easier to be less shy.
But if I could meet, you know, if I imagine myself back at this young age where the main thing is friends and girlfriends and boyfriends, that I would think, well, if I can get all the...
If I can get all the social interaction I want through the internet, I don't know.
Do I want to feel drunk?
Do I want to take the chance?
It isn't really cool.
So, I don't know.
So, I just put that out as a hypothesis that the internet way of meeting people just replaced the utility of alcohol.
I mean, if that happened, maybe it's more good than bad.
Just a guess.
All right.
Well, the Wall Street Journal is talking again, you've heard this, that China's population continues to decline.
So it declined again last year.
The births edged up, but for the first time, there are more deaths than births.
Wow.
First time in eight years.
China had more deaths than births last year.
Wow.
That's definitely a turning point.
So that would be an indication of doom.
Kyle Bass, Investor Kyle Bass, who often talks about China, much the way I do, but he's far more informed.
He said today on X that China is experiencing a complete financial crash.
The 10-year government bonds are yielding only 1.65, and the overnight rate just spiked to 16%, which would be very bad.
And that maybe all of this economic...
All this economic unfolding in China might cause them to move on Taiwan sooner because that would unify the country maybe and be a distraction from their other problems.
I'm going to go opposite on that.
I agree that China has got some big economic challenges, no question.
But my take on China, just as an observer, no expert.
So I will defer to the experts if they say, Scott, you've got this totally wrong.
There's a history of them doing this exact thing.
My take on China is that they keep acting rationally.
Just rational, rational, rational.
Now, that's the current leadership who have lots of engineers in office.
Did you know that?
Did you know a lot of the top officials in the Chinese Communist Party?
The top officials, many of them are engineers.
So you have a really practical, level-headed, you know, what do we need to do to get from here to there?
The Chinese government always seemed to me rational, right?
There's some governments that maybe have a religious driving force, and to others they would not look rational.
But China always looks rational.
So my belief is that you could do a pretty good job of predicting what China will do.
Because it's what you would do if you were in the same situation.
And if I were struggling with all these domestic problems, and I were China, the last thing I'd want to do is make a move on Taiwan.
Because while there's some chance it could make things better, there's an equal risk it could make things so bad it would be the end of the regime.
Because China doesn't really know how the rest of the world would respond.
They think they do, but they don't, and they certainly don't know what Trump would do.
So my take on China is they're too risk-averse to do something that aggressive when they're already teetering on the edge.
Now, I am perfectly willing to be embarrassed and shamed for my lack of understanding of China if somebody says, Scott, you don't realize in the past, let's say just during the administration of...
President Xi.
If somebody said, but you saw what they did here, and I might go, oh, I forgot about that, or I didn't know about that.
But the brutal, I'm going to call it brutal.
The brutal, rational way that China operates is brutal rationalization.
Brutal, rational thinking, meaning they're not all about wokeness.
It's brutal.
It's like, does this work for China?
Yes, no.
That's it.
That's just brutal engineering thinking.
Does it work?
Yes, no.
So I don't think they're going to make a move on Taiwan because of their economic problems.
That doesn't square with me.
However, to be fair, Kyle Bass is a very good observer of things, and if he has a different opinion, I'd take that seriously.
I'm just giving you my perspective.
We'll see who's right over time.
But here's the thing.
Is America doing better than China?
It doesn't look like it to me.
Because, you know, we've got the immigration drag, we've got the corruption in every part of the everything.
And then if Doge doesn't work, we've got to get rid of $1.83 trillion deficit per year.
We're adding a trillion dollars every hundred days.
And really, I don't see an end in sight.
So we have a situation in which, I'm not positive, but it looks like the three biggest powers in the world are circling the drain at the same time.
Russia looks like it might be on the edge of economic collapse because of the war, but maybe not.
China looks like it might be on the edge of economic collapse because of various real estate crashing and demographics and whatever, but maybe not.
And the United States looks like it's circling the drain with no hope of recovery because of the debt.
But maybe not.
So I'm going to call it.
We're already in the middle of a world war.
It's just not with bullets.
Well, you could argue that Russia and Ukraine is a proxy war.
But we are now in a total, full-out world war.
At least the three major powers in which we're not trying to beat the other as much as we're trying to be the one that survives.
So beating China might be simply as simple as, I say as simple as, as simple to describe, really hard to do, to survive.
The war between the three superpowers may be down to, are you still here in 10 years?
Yes or no?
Because I think that If all three of them find a way through these extraordinary economic times, that would be great, I guess.
I mean, I don't really want to see China crumble because that feels like that would create more risk than it solves.
But it's kind of weird that we're already in a world war.
What America has to figure out, Mark Andreessen did a good job of explaining this, China has not just good manufacturing, but they have a network of component manufacturing for all the things that are most important.
So if we tried to build a, let's say, an iPhone assembly manufacturing thing in the United States, we wouldn't just build one factory that makes iPhones.
You would need the entire network of suppliers to that one factory, and we don't have any of that.
China does.
If we wanted to be good at making robots, we wouldn't build a robot factory.
You'd have to build an entire network of suppliers that make the parts that end up in the one factory.
We don't have any of that.
Now, Elon Musk would be the one exception because he's the one person we know of who's made manufacturing, at least some of the manufacturing in the United States work.
Even Elon Musk depends entirely on China for parts.
At least the battery parts.
I don't know what else.
So China has all of these things.
They can make the phones.
This is Marc Andreessen's point.
They can make the drones, the cars.
According to Andreessen, China is rolling out cars that are going to be high quality, meaning competitive with existing cars, that might cost...
A third or a quarter of the price of existing cars.
Do you know how big of a problem that is for us?
If they can make a car for 25% of what our cars now cost and they're just great?
That's a problem.
If they can make phones and drones and robots and cars because they have a complex ecosystem for manufacturing.
We don't have any of that.
Do you know that Andreessen said he was trying to, you know, I guess he invested in a company that makes drones, or tries to, in the United States, and they can't get parts because they don't have that ecosystem.
And if they try to create manufacturing, I don't know the details, but he said that the Biden administration basically just had a foot on them the whole time.
So presumably the Trump administration can open up.
You know, a little more freedom for the drone manufacturers.
I don't know if it's enough.
So what we have as an advantage in the U.S. is software and entrepreneurs, and we're probably better at AI, and we might be better eventually at humanoid robots and stuff.
But that's not much to hold on to.
It seems to me that China can get better at software and AI in the long term.
They can get better at those things than we are.
I just feel like you can steal it, learn it, catch up.
But by having an entire complex manufacturing ecosystem that's lower cost than we could ever match, what do we do about that?
So the odds of them closing their gap and learning software and being better at AI, that's not as big a stretch as what we'd have to do to catch up with them.
So it does seem that the US and China are going to depend on each other to a degree that War would just be stupid.
War would be stupid for both sides.
So I hope we avoid it.
Meanwhile, at Iowa State University, talking about how their glacier experts have found a critical flaw in the sea level predictions, sea level rising because of climate change.
What they found was that the way cold ice acts is different than warm ice.
So I learned today.
That there can be warm ice and cold ice.
Warm ice would be ice that's already slightly melting, like it's just barely ice.
And then cold ice would be something that's so cold that it's a solid.
What they found was that if you were to predict ice like it's all the same, you would get the wrong answer.
But it took them 10 years of experimenting.
They studied for 10 years because of various hiccups.
They got to the point where, whoa, this should change your sea level predictions.
Now, have you ever noticed that no matter how many times I tell you stories about some major assumption or variable being updated or changed or added to the climate models, that they still predict the same thing?
You can change all the inputs almost every day.
If you watch my show, you know that almost every day.
Seven days a week.
I tell you about a new thing in climate change that would change the variables you put in the model.
But yet, the models are all about the same.
That is the biggest tell that it's not real.
If no matter what the situation is, the models still say the same thing, or at least they're still within that narrow band, what are those models really doing?
That's a pretty big signal.
But here's what I've learned.
My experience with persuading people to have a more reasonable understanding of climate change.
Now, a reasonable understanding would be things might be getting warmer, and that should be paid attention to.
The humans might have something to do with it.
I don't know what percentage, but we should pay attention to it just to make sure we're not doing something dumb.
But the climate models, the projection models, those are clearly bullshit.
And if you try to explain it to people, you run into the same roadblocks.
So here's the problem.
If I were to try to explain to somebody who was not exposed whatsoever to these arguments, it would be a long conversation, and it wouldn't be one that you could possibly do over a thread on X, which is where everybody debates.
So you can't really break through if you're on a...
You know, a quick messaging thing where people are just arguing and blah, blah, blah.
You'd have to really sit down with somebody for like two hours to get them to the point where they understand why.
Not that the climate models are inaccurate.
If you think that's what I'm saying, I'm saying more than that.
I'm saying they couldn't be accurate, except by pure luck.
So here's what you'd want to explain if you had time.
You'd explain why.
The complicated models are driven by assumptions, not data.
Now, this is something I normally would not understand.
What do you mean it's driven by assumptions?
It's the data.
No, it's not.
It's what assumption you made about what data to put in it.
I know that because I used to make complicated prediction models for financial decisions at a bank and then at a phone company.
So I've made complicated financial predictions for years and years of my professional life.
And I can tell you with certainty what everyone who has ever made a complicated financial prediction has ever known.
It's your assumptions.
You can make it turn out to whatever your boss wants it to be.
That's the story.
And I know that for sure because I did that work.
So how hard would it be to explain to a normie that something as basic as, you know, it's just the assumptions you put into it.
This is not based on following the data, right?
It's the assumptions about the data we're following, not the data.
So that's a hard thing for a normie to understand if you haven't been, like, immersed in the field, or at least in any field that had a lot of variables.
Then, in order to understand why all these climate models seem to fit this narrow band, you would have to understand how scams work.
And one specific one, which I've explained too many times, About how if somebody made a model that was outside the zone of what the experts are expecting, you would just never see it.
Now, if you saw everybody's model all the time, that might be people trying to be honest about the models.
But if you know for sure that nobody could survive in their career publishing a model that was way above or way below the little zone, sort of the approved zone, you couldn't publish that.
So if you have a situation where the only models that can be published without losing your whole career or your funding have to be in a narrow zone, that's not science.
That's people doing what they have to do to make money.
If you simply follow human incentive, it couldn't possibly be true that all these models fit this narrow band.
That's just not real.
So it would take a while.
And then how about this?
How long would it take you to explain to a normie, let's say a Democrat, that the number of scientists who agree, no matter how violently they agree, no matter how adamant they are, that it doesn't mean anything?
Just think about how long it would take you to explain that.
Okay, let me start.
You've heard of cause and effect.
Okay, I think I've heard of that.
Did you know that people do things for money?
Did you know that?
They do?
Yeah, they do.
Well, I thought they did things because they're good people.
No, no.
No, they do things for money.
But not all the time.
Yeah, all the time.
Not every time.
Every time.
Every single time.
It's the most predictable thing in your entire life is that people do things for money.
So, if you could get paid for saying climate change is a crisis, and you could lose your job and your reputation and your family would starve if you go against the grain, what does it mean that 99% or whatever are on the same side?
And I know the real argument is it's not 98% on one side.
That's all fake.
I get it.
But just think how far you would have to go to explain things that we know.
That if you've never been exposed to them, it just takes forever to explain it.
So I would maintain that you don't need to be a scientist or anything like it to understand that the models are broken and couldn't possibly be right.
The only thing you need to know is how cause and effect works.
If you understand cause and effect, you know the models are bullshit.
If you're confused about the most simple thing in the world, like, If I change the incentives, will that change behavior?
Yes.
Yes.
Changing the incentives changed the behavior.
Yes.
Now, in order for me to be correct in this domain of climate change that is really about people who don't understand cause and effect, if you don't understand that people are going to lie for money, you don't know anything.
But let's see if that exists in any other domain.
Well, I was seeing Austin Allred today talking about how he said in a post, they, meaning the people in charge, looked at the data and saw that college graduates, on average, did better in life.
Now, that's true, right?
People who went to college do better in life.
Duh.
So how would you make equity?
If equity is what the Democrats want, what would be the way to get there?
If you know the people who didn't go to college, don't do as well as the people who went to college.
Simple.
You make it so that everybody can get into college regardless of their qualifications and regardless if they have money to pay.
That's it.
That's equity.
And then you find out that the real thing about college was the selection bias, not what the college taught you.
That the colleges were only, they only existed in many ways.
They existed as a way to certify that these were the smart people.
They didn't make them smart.
I mean, they may have trained them in some skills, but they didn't make them smart.
The being smart had to be there in the first place.
And then the smart people always find a way.
So this seems to be another example.
And then also the Democrats got rid of honors classes because they found out that people who went to honors classes did better in life and got into college.
And that was an unfair advantage.
So how do you fix that?
You get rid of the honors classes and then you don't have that problem.
So if you look at education, would it be fair to say that the reason it's so messed up and people have a gigantic crushing college loan debt and all they got from it was a degree and something useless?
All of these things are the same problem.
Not understanding how anything works.
Not understanding cause and effect.
Not understanding what's the real cause and what's just a correlation.
It's all the same.
The reason that Democrats don't understand climate change is they don't understand cause and effect and how money changes incentive and that people are basically liars.
And they think that college is just a matter of getting rid of the racism so that everybody can get in.
That was so not the problem.
Not even close.
A complete...
So I would say that you could find this consistently, that the people on the left, the woke left, don't understand cause and effect.
It really is that simple.
They don't know how money and incentives affect anything.
Well, here's some good news.
President Trump has picked Bill Pulte for director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
So that would be in charge of Freddie and Fannie.
So those would be two big programs that the government runs for making loans.
Now, here's what's good, great really, about having Bill Pulte.
The rumored, and I believe it's true, but the rumored goal of the Trump administration is to do away with government control of these two entities that used to not be government controlled.
Now, if you want to get rid of government control over these really Big dollar, gigantic dollar things.
Who are you going to hire?
Somebody who needs that job?
Or somebody who definitely doesn't need the job, but is such a patriot, is willing to take the pain to get something done.
That's Pulte.
Pulte is one of the most honest, effective people you'll ever know in your life.
I know him personally, so I can speak from authority on this.
This is another genius pick.
Trump is just nailing these picks.
I have to say I was cautious on Hegseth because I thought, hmm, is it too much emphasis on his TV qualities?
But I think he brought the goods.
I think he showed us what I wanted to see.
Pulte is the best pick for somebody to transfer control from the government to the private sector and then move on to another challenge.
He doesn't need the job.
Trust me, he doesn't need the job.
So this is just brilliant.
And all credit to Bill Pulte for being willing to take on what looks like a tough, tough job that we'd all be better off if he succeeds.
So good luck.
Good luck there.
All right.
Trump picked a head of secret service.
Which is the head of his current Secret Service detail, Sean Corrine.
Now, my first question was, how common is it that you would be promoted from the head of a detail, even a presidential detail, directly to the top of the entire Secret Service?
Has that happened before?
Or my Dilber filter on this, you know, the way most things work, is that you would go from the head of a detail to maybe, you know, The third in command of the entire network, and then maybe you could work yourself up to the top.
Has this ever happened, that you went from the head of a detail to the head of the whole thing?
Maybe it has.
It's entirely possible that that's more normal than I think.
But here's what it hints at.
What it hints at is that Trump doesn't trust the Secret Service.
And the one he does trust is the person who jumped on his body when the bullets were flying.
The only person he could trust to literally have his best interests in mind is the person who jumped on him when bullets were flying.
And I've got to say that sometimes Trump gets a hit for putting loyalty over maybe experience sometimes.
But this is a place where loyalty over experience, and the guy has plenty of experience, right?
He has all the experience in the world of what a presidential detail should be doing.
And apparently he's been advocating hard for more resources for the presidential detail and was getting blocked.
So he seems to have all the right stuff.
So I'm plus on this.
But I think the genius of it...
It is for Trump to feel comfortable that the person in charge really, really wants to keep him alive.
And I'm not sure he would have thought that before.
So this is a good change.
Kevin O'Leary was on CNN, and as one of his rhetorical flourishes with the Democrats he was arguing with, he said, everyone is wondering how Joe Biden got rich.
How did he get rich?
And he asked that several times while they were yammering at him.
And he just said, how'd he get rich?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, but how did Joe Biden get rich?
Now, I asked the search engine how rich he is, and the answer is something like $10 million net worth.
Now, could he have that net worth from his book sales and his speaking that he did in between when he held office?
Because he was paid a lot for a book, probably.
Probably paid a lot for his speaking.
And sometimes we think that's the way that politicians get bribed.
You know, if you do this now, I'll make sure that you get this big book deal later.
That sort of thing.
But I hate to tell you that $10 million is not as rich as it sounds.
It does sound sketchy to me.
You know, I don't think that anybody else who had his pay and a book deal and a little speaking would be at that value.
But most of the value is in his two homes.
So probably half or more is that he has two homes.
Now the question is, how do you get these two homes?
Because they're nice ones.
I don't know.
So $10 million doesn't seem like LBJ level of corruption.
You know, that was sort of off the chart.
But I don't think he could get there without something sketchy going on.
So that's a good question.
So you know that Biden, in his final speech there, his goodbye speech, he warned against the formation of tech oligarchies, which I think is just aimed at Elon Musk and maybe the fact that Zuckerberg's less pro-Democrat lately.
But what I loved about this, it was the final act of projection.
We keep saying that the real problem of the Democrats...
It's a mental health problem, some kind of weird thing where they do projection.
Everything that they're doing, they just blame Democrats at.
So what were they doing for years?
They were using their oligarch Soros and Reid Hoffman and other rich people who might be in jail to fund them, and that was okay.
But as soon as some rich people said, wait a minute, the fine people hoax isn't real?
Than some of his best backers.
I mean, Elon Musk was backing him before.
Some of his best backers have decided to go the other direction.
So this is his final act of projection.
The guy who benefited entirely from the billionaires saying, you better watch out for billionaires.
It's kind of perfect, isn't it?
That his final act was incompetent, laughable.
And almost a ridiculous level of persuasion.
All right.
So Biden has said that his problem was he spent too much time on policy and then not enough on politics.
Okay.
The gall it takes to say that your problem...
With your reputation was that you spent too much time on policy.
That sounds like when you go in for the job interview and you get that standard question.
It's like, all right, you know, are there any flaws about you that I should know about?
Well, sometimes I like to work too hard.
Yeah, sometimes I focus on the policy too hard.
It's the same damn thing.
Ridiculous.
And then, of course, MSNBC has been defending Biden's mental acuity right up till today.
So even Morning Joe is still saying, you know, he gets a word wrong here and there, but I spend time with him and he's fine.
He's fine.
So their entire brand, MSNBC, is that Biden's fine.
He's always been fine.
He's still fine.
I don't know what you're talking about.
So Lawrence O'Donnell from MSNBC gets to sit down with Biden.
From the network that defended Biden's mental acuity for years.
And Biden says this, quote, You've heard Barack get mad at me when I was a kid.
Um, what?
Barack got mad at him when he was a kid?
Now, I suppose he meant when I was vice president, but...
When I was a kid isn't really that close to when I was vice president.
That's a brain fart, and I get, by the way, forgetting a name, something I do all the time.
It's not that unusual.
But this is kind of embarrassing if you're one of the hosts of the Everything's Fine with Biden's Brain, and he gives you, you've heard Barack get mad at me when I was a kid.
Meanwhile, then, Harris.
She was signing her little desk in the vice president's office and talking in public.
I guess it was her goodbye, sort of.
And the big question was, is she drunk?
So I would like to do my impression of Kamala Harris in the news, not knowing if she's stupid or drunk, because it was so much fun trying to figure out, okay, is that stupid or is that drunk?
To me, she looked drunk in...
In the little episode yesterday.
But if it wasn't drunk, oh my God, it's worse.
You hope it's drunk.
Because if that's the way your real brain is working, oh, we got a problem.
So I'd like to give you my impression and see if you think this is drunk or stupid.
First of all, hands were involved.
So I'll do the hand stuff.
My work is not done.
We'll be working long hours.
It's not my nature to go quietly into the night.
Now, did that sound drunk or stupid?
Because I think I nailed it.
That was right on.
Biden's commuting the sentences of 2,500 people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses.
I'm roughly okay with that.
But I'd love to know if any of them were fentanyl dealers, because if they were, I'm not in favor of that.
The FBI shut down this DEI office just before Trump comes into office and tells them to shut it down.
But of course, they didn't really shut it down.
They just hid all the parts in other departments so that they don't have to call it DEI, but they can still do DEI. Trump has demanded that the FBI retain all his records.
About their so-called DEI office.
And if they get rid of their records, that seems like that would be a bad thing.
Meanwhile, scientists, according to KnowRidge, scientists have developed nanoparticles that target and remove plaque from inside the arteries.
But here's the exciting part.
They figured out a way to get the nanoparticle to get inside a cell and reprogram it.
So they were the cells that were the macrophages or whatever, the things that eat stuff.
And they can just goose them so that they do a better job of eating the things that you want them to eat, like the harmful plaque.
But what strikes me about this is this sounds exactly like a software upgrade to your body.
If you can reprogram through a nanoparticle that can get into a cell, and you can reprogram the function of the cell, I mean, it sounds dangerous, but if they figured out the safety part, they can do a software upgrade to your cells.
This looks like a real thing.
Now, it's not ruled out yet, but in the lab, they're upgrading your cells.
That's pretty amazing.
SciPost talks about a new study.
Eric Nolan says that...
There's an oral-brain axis.
Okay, this isn't as exciting as it sounds at first.
New research uncovers surprising links between the bacteria in your mouth and mental health symptoms.
So they discovered that people who have mental health symptoms have different mouth chemistry than people who don't have mental health problems.
I'm just going to say that one of those groups is glue.
And the other doesn't.
So I'm not sure the cause and the effect is exactly what they think, which makes me suspect the scientists are Democrats because there's one group that can't get cause and effect right.
All right.
That's all I got for you.
Stock market's up.
We're going into the weekend.
And so it's Sunday that's the inauguration, right?
I think we have to talk about the security of the inauguration day.
How in the world could you protect that?
It seems to me if a foreign power wanted to do something, they'd have the ability.
I don't know if a hobbyist could do it, like just some lone drone gunman or something, but they could get close.
I mean, I don't know how good the anti-drone...
Detection is.
And repulsion.
Yeah, I'm seeing the comments that Joe Biden's $10 million is not what it used to be.
Yeah.
Not what it used to be.
Yeah.
You could get there being very frugal.
Yeah, I don't think that's how it happened.
Now, there were two incomes for a long time.
Two incomes living in a relatively less expensive state.
Maybe you could get there.
But I doubt that's how it happened.
Yeah, there's a photo of Daniel Penny taking a subway again.
I tell you, however brave you think Daniel Penny is or was, he's probably braver than you think because he's just back on the subway.
And I love the fact that I don't think anybody's going to want to mess with him.
He would be the one person you wouldn't want to start a fight with.
I mean, you should never start a fight.
With somebody who is a young ex-Marine, because again, the ex part, you know, you could forget about.
You wouldn't want to, he looks like he's like 6'4".
How tall is he?
He's a big guy, right?
He looks like he's 6'4", young, and has been trained to tear people apart, and he's already killed one person, although I think that was more about the person than the act.
And he'd be scary.
Like, if you were a troublemaker and you looked up and you saw him, you'd be like, oh, God.
Last person you want to see in the assembly.
Unless you feel unsafe and then he's the first person you want to see.
You know, I don't even know...
I would love to know how the black community really thinks about that.
Have they been listening to Washington Post's storytelling?
Or do they just say, if the black people in the Daniel Penny subway car, if the other black passengers expressed relief that he stopped this guy, which is what happened, I don't know how you say that's racial.
If the other black passengers are like, yeah, I'm glad he did that.
You think everyone is drunk sounds stupid at this point.
Really?
Everyone?
You mean that one person who's obviously drunk?
Are you a Democrat?
You sound like a Democrat.
You don't understand cause and effect.
All right.
Everyone with a job.
Well, that's going too far.
Yeah, I think people, at least some people, respect somebody who steps in.
I would imagine there are plenty of people in the Black America community who are just saying, you know, that's not my cause.
He tried to help.
That's the end of that story.
That's what I think.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for now.
If you're watching the Dilbert comic, that you can only get by subscription on X or on the Locals platform.
ScottAdams.Locals.com You would see that the fires are approaching Dilbert's house.
So Dilbert and Dogbert are looking out the window.
The fire is approaching.
It's not controlled.
And they have to decide what they're going to do.
I'll give you a spoiler.
The spoiler is Dilbert is going to stay and try to protect his house as the fire approaches.
And Sunday will be my The big conclusion of that.
So you'll find out if Dilbert dies or not.
Which could happen, you know.
If I decided to retire, I might kill him.
It's possible.
So you never know.
You better watch it on Sunday.
All right.
That's all I got for you.
I'm going to go talk to the locals, people privately.
