Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazonhttps://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals:https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, President Trump, Prince Harry, Senator Kennedy, Trump's 60 Minutes Lawsuit, Adam Corolla, Democrat's Value Hierarchy, Identity Group Emphasis, DOGE Treasury, DOGE CFPB, Government Intentional Unaccountability, DOGE Social Security, Social Security Number Duplication, Scott Galloway, Chris Hayes, Patriotic Pluralism, Fentanyl Financial Impact, Biden Admin Security Clearances Revocation, Elizabeth Warren's Pharma Money, VOA, Radio Free Europe, Pacific Palisades Rebuilding, Perplexity AI, Climate Change Temperature Measurements, Cartel's US Military Equipment, Ukrainian Billionaires, Instigated Fake Riots, Estonia Energy, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, includingmicro-lessons on lots of useful topicsto build your talent stack, please seescottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
You could call this Super Bowl Sunday, too.
That's fine.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Ah.
So good.
Well, after this show, Owen Gregorian will be doing his Spaces.
That's the audio-only feature of X. So if you're on X, Check out Owen Gregorian's spaces right after the show.
Pretty soon after the show.
Well, the Super Bowl is today.
How many of you are watching the Super Bowl?
How many of you couldn't care less about the Super Bowl?
How many of you are only going to watch the Super Bowl to see if Elon Musk really bought $40 million worth of commercials to talk about Doge?
I don't know that that's confirmed.
I didn't see any reliable report on that.
So it'd be fun if he did, but I don't know that that's real.
I guess we'll find out.
Apparently non-alcoholic beer is surging.
Did you know that?
Is it going to be a big non-alcoholic beer commercial on the Super Bowl?
So I guess sales of non-alcoholic beer are up 26% in the last year.
Non-alcoholic beer is up 26% in one year.
Just this last year.
There's something happening.
Do any of you have an idea why this is happening?
Because it would seem to me that life is pointing in the direction of maybe you should drink more, not less.
You know, if you're all worried about the state of everything from climate change to politics to the deficit, why would people be drinking less?
I mean, I'm happy that they are.
I think it's the whole alcohol is poison meme.
Maybe.
Meanwhile, one of the AI companies called Pika Labs, they just introduced a new AI feature that blows my freaking mind, and you're going to see so much of this.
They can now take you, a video of you, and drop it into like a movie or an existing clip, and the existing clip will interact with you.
So the example was, Somebody made a video of themselves walking inside an AI environment that looked real and actually high-fived an AI character.
Just turned around and high-five.
So the AI actually makes the characters interact with you in the AI. So you can high-five a character and the character knows what you're up to and high-fives you back.
What?
Now, if you haven't seen the demo of it, it's just totally mind-blowing.
So how many times are you going to see somebody add themselves to some existing video, like an old movie?
You're going to be so sick of that.
Remember when we were first able to do an image of a public figure?
And we all had to do it like a hundred times.
But then once each of us did it a hundred times...
We didn't really need to do it 101 times.
And we didn't really need to see any more of it.
So you can get tired of it pretty quickly.
But it's going to take a while.
Because if you can drop yourselves into the Star Wars ship, you could actually be high-fiving the Wookiee and then send that...
I mean, think about the meme.
I think you could just do things like...
Alright, put me in the scene from Star Wars where I'm in the Millennial Falcon, is that what it's called?
And have me high-fiving a Wookiee.
And then it'll just appear.
My God.
Anyway.
That's coming.
Coming at you fast.
Well, Trump did what only Trump can do.
Insulted the royal family.
But made it so funny that that's the only thing we remember.
So I guess he was asked, Trump was asked on Friday if he wants to deport Prince Harry.
And he said he's not interested in deporting Harry.
He says, I don't want to do that.
I'll leave him alone.
He's got enough problems with his wife.
She's terrible.
Oh, my God.
Could we have a more entertaining president?
I'm not going to deport him because he's got enough problems with his wife.
She's terrible.
Now, if anyone else said that, you can imagine it would be like an international incident.
When Trump says it, I imagine King Charles over there, I imagine him just reading it and laughing.
How do you not laugh at that?
It's just beautiful.
Well, Senator Kennedy was talking about some...
I guess there's some issue about an island in the middle of nowhere that the United Nations wants the United States and maybe Great Britain to hand over to somebody.
And so I don't even know the issue.
But Kennedy was talking publicly and appealing to...
Prime Minister Starmer, over in the UK, and he says, put down the bong.
He said it three times.
You've got to put down the bong.
You know, when Kennedy is such a good communicator, that's why he always gets sound bites on TV, because he has a way with words.
But I always think like he's talking to me personally.
Like, that's the sign of a good communicator, is you think, I think he's talking to me personally.
Well, I've never felt it more strongly than then.
Let me tell you.
Anyway, here's another thing that Trump did that's funny.
So you know he had this lawsuit against 60 Minutes.
Apparently it was for $10 billion.
$10 billion.
And it was for the edits they did to the Kamala Harris interview on 60 Minutes.
And the thinking is that they fixed her answers.
They tightened them up with edits so that maybe she...
Would do better in the election.
So Trump is claiming $10 billion of injury.
But here's what he did.
He just increased it to $20 billion after they released the transcript.
Now, here's why that's brilliant.
If the only thing you know is that he doubled his ask from $10 billion to $20 billion, and the only thing that changed is that we got to see the full video and transcript from 60 Minutes, your automatic assumption is That his case is stronger, because he's asking for twice as much now, and the evidence is now public, and we can all see it.
Now, I would agree that the evidence was public, and we can all see it.
They definitely edited her answers to make her look more coherent.
That definitely happened.
I'm not sure he's going to win the suit, because it just wasn't that different from the way the media edits anybody else.
So that would be their natural defenses.
This is sort of what we do to everybody.
We make them look smarter as long as we don't change the answer.
As long as it's the same answer, you know, and that is generally considered ethical, or at least ethical enough.
The subject never likes it.
We like our entire quote to be there all the time.
But I'm not going to complain too much.
Did you know that in written interviews, It's not uncommon to put in quotes and attribute to a public figure such as myself something we didn't say.
Did you know that's standard?
How many of you knew that?
That they actually put in quotes like you really said this exact thing, something you never said.
And they do it explicitly because you didn't say exactly what they wanted you to say.
So they say it themselves and they attribute it to you.
Now you think I'm probably making that up.
Oh, but I've had it happen.
Yeah, more than once.
It's actually a fairly common thing.
Now, if you were just a consumer of news, would you know that?
Would you know that it's not even unusual for a major publication to just make up a quote and assign it to you?
Because they think it's a good...
Usually it's because they think it's a good summary of what you said.
Something like that.
Maybe they'll take two quotes and stick them together because they sound good if you put them together.
But they are made up.
If you didn't know that, welcome to the real world.
Not every time they're made up.
Sometimes they're just out of context.
Anyway, here's a funny summary by Adam Carolla of how Biden and Harris destroyed the Democratic Party.
Now, I've told you a number of times, there's nothing funnier Than a good summary.
Because sometimes the situation itself is just funny.
But if you describe it with too many words, you can take the funny out of it.
If you describe it with just enough words, just barely enough words, it's hilarious.
So Adam Carolla, being one of the better communicators in the world and also professional humorist, he gives you his summary.
Of what happened to the Democrats.
And I'd like to just read the whole thing.
Adam Carolla.
Quote, 10 minutes ago you had Joe Biden, who doesn't give a shit about black people and or women.
The guy's never even met his biological granddaughter, for fuck's sake.
You think he cares about women?
He doesn't give a shit about black people or women.
He decided that he needed a black female vice president.
Then took someone who was incompetent and put her into that position.
And then when the old man that you lied about ended up having dementia, he fell off.
And then you guys were stuck with an incompetent black woman, and you couldn't get rid of her because you can't get rid of a woman of color and replace her with a heterosexual white male.
So then she ran for president.
Nobody fucking liked her, and she lost the election.
So keep going, retards.
I think that summed up the entire situation.
That's what I saw.
So, you've heard of malicious compliance?
You've heard of that?
It's when somebody gets a command from their boss or from the government, says, you must do this.
But they find a way to do exactly that, but only that, which makes it not work.
In other words, if they didn't use their own judgment, You could come up with a bad solution.
So instead of using their judgment, they just follow the rules.
And if you just follow the rules, you can break anything.
So in a weird sense, this is sort of just a bad analogy, what the Democrats did was follow their own rules.
And their own rules are, okay, black woman higher than black man, black man higher than, you know.
White man.
So they've got this whole hierarchy of who's the most, I don't know, the most valuable person in the world, and then they rank them.
If they stick with that, they were guaranteed to paint themselves into this exact corner where they had to prefer the least qualified person who was possibly running because the new otherwise would be, well, you know, sort of racist.
So they created a system that guaranteed their failure, and then they sat in it and ran that system, which guaranteed their failure.
Guaranteed it.
You didn't know how, like you didn't know the specifics, but you could guarantee that if their main emphasis was identity over competence, the system would collapse.
And you could guarantee.
That if you told everybody they get to complain about the problems with their identity group, and that that's the most important thing they should do, that you would have a group that could never coordinate well enough to mount an effective attack.
Now, if they didn't have the entire fake news supporting them, there wouldn't be any Democrats.
The Democrat Party requires brainwashing.
If they had good policies, they wouldn't require it.
Even today, they're still confused because they think they had good policies and exactly the right messaging, and they just can't figure out.
Maybe there's just so many racists, I don't know why we lost.
They still can't figure it out.
Unbelievable.
Everybody knows what they did wrong, except them.
They're the only ones who can't figure it out?
Well, so a judge blocked the Doge project from access to the Treasury Department systems.
And why would they do that?
Well, it's because they're not civil servants.
The Doge people are not civil servants.
So the judge is blocking them.
Now it's temporary.
This could last a week and then go away.
But what's the law that supports the idea that you have to be a civil servant to have access to a system when the president, who is the boss of all the executive branch, appointed them to go look at it?
Are you telling me that if you had auditors and they were from, let's say, a private auditing company and you hired them to audit the government, they would not have access to any of the systems?
So it's kind of ridiculous.
So Musk is calling for an impeachment of the federal judge.
I don't think there's any practical way to do that.
I don't know much about how that works.
But it seems to me that you probably want it to be difficult to impeach a judge.
So I'm guessing it's not really something that's going to happen.
But unbelievable.
So here's a...
Well, there's more.
So, the Doge project has already penetrated the Consumer Protection Bureau, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, the CFPB. We're learning that there are so many entities.
I mean, we knew there were a lot of government entities, but it's just dizzying to hear all the names and figure out what they're up to.
So, I guess their website is glitching and the employees are mad.
The usual thing when Doge goes in there.
And they think it's a five-alarm crisis.
However, Russ Vogt, the new OMB director, he says he's notified the Federal Reserve that the CFPB will not be taking its next draw of unappropriated funding because it is not, quote, reasonably necessary to carry on its duties.
The Bureau's current balance of over $700 million is in fact excessive in the current fiscal environment.
This spigot, long contributing to their unaccountability, is now being turned off.
So unaccountability is going to be the key word.
The more Doge looks into the government's spending, the more you see, wait a minute, that's not audited?
Nobody's keeping track of this?
It gets much worse.
I was watching a video that, it's not a new one, but it's not too long ago.
Jon Stewart was interviewing the number two at the Pentagon about how their system, they seem to be losing a lot of money and it's not auditable.
And she was just sort of laughing and mocking him for not understanding that an audit, the inability to audit, is not related to his claims that there's fraud and abuse.
And Jon Stewart...
Despite being left-leaning, doesn't let her off the hook.
And he's like, well, you know, if you can't account for the money that we're giving you and you can't tell us where it was spent, that's a lot like waste, fraud, and abuse to most people.
And she argued that they were different.
No, no, no.
No, you have to distinguish between the ability to audit, which we don't have, and the waste, fraud, and abuse, which is not demonstrated.
Because we don't have the ability to audit.
But don't you, for a minute, think that our inability is intentional.
Of course it's intentional, because everybody knows how to build a system that can audit your expenses.
That's not unusual or hard.
So it's intentional that they have an unauditable system.
Are you telling me that somewhere there's a non-auditable system?
This spends over $800 billion a year, and there's no fraud, waste, or abuse.
It's probably mostly fraud, waste, and abuse, because if it's unaudited and it's nearing a trillion dollars, what the hell do you think is happening?
It's pretty predictable.
So there's that.
Anyway.
I think the Pentagon budget will be where we find out if Doge can survive.
Because, you know, you see the resistance trying to firm up.
You know, the media has got their little fake messaging.
So the fake news has surrounded USAID. Then the USAID people are saying, oh, no, we're just a charity, which, of course, they're not.
It's a fake charity.
But Democrats don't know the difference, apparently.
It's a real charity, but they only do the charity where they can influence other countries.
So they're not in it for the charity.
They're in it to influence the other countries.
So all that's happening.
But when Doge gets into the Pentagon, I think the level of resistance and the level of dirty tricks and the level of pushback, legal and illegal, is going to be through the roof.
Because there are some people who are going to go to jail, I think, when the Pentagon gets audited, if you can even do it.
So I think what Doge will find is there is no way to audit it.
One of the things that Elon wants to do with the Treasury Department is add codes to each expense so you can audit later.
It's not built to even pay attention to where money went.
The simplest thing that any system that handles money should do is make sure that every expense is documented or coded in a way that later you could sum them up and say, oh, look what we spent on this, look what we spent on that, and you'd know where your money went.
It's pretty basic stuff.
Every corporation would have it.
There would be no such thing as a corporation that didn't do it.
So it has to be intentional.
It has to be.
When I said that, I said it on X this morning, that it looks like the systems were intentionally designed for fraud.
Because it's so non-standard to have an unauditable financial system handling billions of dollars, trillions, trillions of dollars.
Unauditable?
You couldn't possibly do that unintentionally.
You couldn't accidentally do that.
There's no way you can get there unless that's actually intentional.
Now, that sounds like pretty conspiracy theory stuff, but I said that on X, and Elon Musk said, yes, 100%.
He actually backed up the theory that it appears to be, you can't read any minds, but it appears to be designed for fraud.
And it's really obvious, because nobody, nobody...
Nobody would build the system the way it is for any other reason.
There's no other reason to not track your expenses.
Can you think of one?
Let's put it under a thinking cap.
What's the other reason for not tracking expenses in the trillions of dollars?
Huh.
Well, I'm stymied.
I'm a professional creative guy.
I can't think of another reason.
So if anybody can come up with any other reason that they would design a system, the only one we know about, that's big dollars and doesn't track anything, the only one in the world, well, the only one in the United States, you just tell me, because then I'd like to see how I'm wrong.
Anyway, so it's the social...
Actually, it was the social security system.
There's the one that Elon responded to.
So listen to this.
The Social Security database, this is what Elon posted.
He said he just learned that the Social Security database is not deduplicated.
Now, if you don't know what deduplicated means, it means that it allows you to have the same Social Security number many times over.
Let me just say that again.
The Social Security budget is going out to all the people who have a Social Security number and have reached a certain age.
Social Security.
This system that does that, you're not even going to believe this, you're going to think I made this up, doesn't check to see if the same Social Security number has been used more than once.
I'm not making that up.
That's what Doge just discovered.
We didn't know that.
The Social Security system that decides who gets paid what doesn't know if you've used the same Social Security number 10,000 times.
What?
Now, this is the one where I said it looks like it's designed.
It's designed for fraud.
I was conflating it with the treasury system, which doesn't have the right codes.
In both cases, you would only design these systems this way for fraud.
Can you imagine if you were designing the social security system and you didn't check to see if there's a dupe?
The most basic thing you would want to check.
The most basic thing.
Now, you might say, oh, but Scott, the system was designed so long ago that they weren't so smart.
No, there was never a time they weren't that smart.
There was never a time when everybody didn't know the most important thing is to check you're not using the same social security number more than once.
Do you know why we have social security numbers?
So they don't get used more than once.
The whole point of them is to make them unique.
Why?
So you could check to make sure somebody didn't use it more than once.
And then they build a system that doesn't check to see if it got used more than once.
How is this even real?
People, how is this real?
Remember when I said I thought that it's possible that the entire $2 trillion deficit could be solved by getting rid of fraud and waste?
Now, Elon thought maybe a third to a half of it could be reduced by this fraud and waste.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Maybe all two trillion.
We have holes in our system that are so big.
And I've said this before, but I can never understand why there are so many rich people in the world.
Maybe this is why.
That some, you know, a third or half of all rich people got there through fraud.
Makes me wonder.
Anyway, some of you know who Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway are.
So they've got a podcast, I think it's called, I don't know what it's called, but they're sort of professional complainers about Republicans, basically.
And what Scott Galloway said on a recent podcast about the Doge people, he said, I want to see Democratic governors use the full faith and letter of the law to put those folks in prison.
He says Doge is a coup and he wants him put in prison for doing what the executive who is in charge asked him to do to check where the money was going.
And he wants him in prison.
Now, so Elon commented, he goes, Swisher and Galloway are threatening talented young software engineers or...
Who are giving up on high compensation for death threats in order to help the American people.
He says, shame on Swisher and Galloway, cruel, mean, and deceitful human beings that they are.
Well, to me, they look like just two people with severe mental illness who got a podcast.
And I say that with complete seriousness.
It just looks like mental illness.
It's hard to describe it.
I mean, it would be hard to understand it in any other way.
So one of the most dangerous things in the country is that people with severe mental illness can have podcasts.
It's pretty dangerous.
So I guess MSNBC's Chris Hayes was on Bill Maher's show recently on Friday, and he said that this is part of the Democrats trying to find the right messaging.
Because they still believe they have the right policies, despite every poll showing that they're unpopular.
You would think that if every poll showed that their policies are unpopular, like everyone, that they would say, huh, if every poll shows that they're unpopular, maybe we're unpopular.
No, they've decided that the words are the problem.
So instead of diversity, Chris Hayes points out that that word got politically failed.
So they should change the word, but mean the same thing, to patriotic pluralism.
Oh, well, let's see.
If I were racially discriminated against for 50 fucking years, which I was for being a white man, and they used that word diversity to racially discriminate against me for 50 fucking years.
Fuck you, every one of you who did it.
Mostly white people, by the way, just to be clear.
The people who discriminated against me were white men trying to save their own asses.
So fuck every one of them.
So I can say that because I'm a white man.
So fuck every white man who did this to other white men.
Patriotic pluralism.
Now, is this a case of somebody not understanding anything about the situation or the world?
Or nothing about how persuasion works.
I listened to my smartest Democrat friend the other day.
He gave a compliment to Trump.
And I was like, whoa, all right, this is progress.
You know, that there was actually a legitimate compliment that he gave to Trump.
Here was the compliment he gave.
That Trump is really good at marketing.
Wait, wait, what?
That's it?
He's good at marketing.
So that's why he won.
Because he's good at marketing.
You don't think it has something to do with the fact that he was backing the most popular policies in the country?
You think that that's marketing?
I mean, he's really good at branding and that stuff.
That's true.
But if you switch the policies, do you think Trump could have sold diversity and open borders?
And trans men in women's sports?
Do they really believe that?
That all you'd have to do is do a little bit of marketing and you can make the least popular ideas in the country the most popular?
What is wrong with them?
And the only thing I can think of is that it's just cognitive dissonance.
Because if they admit that they've been completely wrong, About everything.
How can they go back to work?
Their jobs are to be right about stuff.
They weren't just not right.
It was like they'd never had any experience in the field in which they were supposed to be experts.
The funniest thing that I hear when people criticize me is that when I talk about some topic in the news, there's always at least one troll that says something like, oh, Scott, now you're the expert in physics.
Oh, Scott, Oh, now you're the expert in international geopolitical affairs.
Oh, I see you're the expert on healthcare now, Scott.
And I say to myself, have you paid attention to how experts are doing?
I'm an expert at identifying bullshit.
That's what I am.
So why are you denigrating my expertise?
I have a pretty good track record of identifying bullshit before other people spotted it.
I'm literally famous for it.
So don't sell my expertise short.
Anyway, the fentanyl cost, according to Fox News, Emma Colton has a story about some people who did some estimates of what the fentanyl problem is causing the United States in terms of money.
Now, the way the calculation was done is they put a value on human life.
Okay, that's a little sketchy.
But then they said how many people had died and what age were they and how many years were taken away and what were those years worth in terms of value, plus other expenses.
And they came up with $2.7 trillion expense for the fentanyl that's coming, the opioid in general, but fentanyl being the biggest part of that.
Now, do you believe that anybody can calculate the financial cost of fentanyl?
Well, this is one of those things where your assumptions drive everything.
If you assume that a person's worth $10 million a year and how many years they're going to live, you can get to a pretty big number pretty quickly.
It makes me wonder if this is part of...
The Trump administration's negotiations.
So even if other people would debate whether you calculated this correctly, think how powerful it would be to go to China and say, all right, here's our study.
Apparently you just cost us $2.7 trillion.
Now let's talk about tariffs.
So number one, you're going to have to pay us back $2.7 trillion.
That's the starting place.
That's before we talk about the unfair balance of trade.
Day one, let me tell you, you owe us $2.7 trillion.
Then you go to Mexico, $2.7 trillion.
That's what you owe us.
So if we ask for less than that or we get less than that in a deal, you should be pretty happy because you owe us $2.7 trillion.
So for persuasion, really useful.
Really useful.
I'm glad they did the calculation.
Well, Trump continues to remove people's security clearance, and here's what's interesting about it.
The people he's removing the security clearance from seem to be the people who are most closely related to the worst parts of the government, you know, the deep state, the...
I would say the conspiracy, the RICO conspiracy against Trump.
I'm going to call it RICO because it looks like it.
As far as I can tell, it's organized.
It looks like they coordinated.
And it looks like it was to overthrow the legally elected president of the United States and to illegally keep him out of office with lawfare.
So they're the criminals.
These are the people that may not have broken an actual law.
But if you looked at the totality of their actions, all criminal.
Now, what's useful about canceling the security clearance is that it helps you identify the criminal conspiracy.
Now, again, this is my view of it.
So this is, you know, allegedly and speculatively, it's a conspiracy.
But to me, it looks very much like they coordinated, and I'd be literally amazed.
If it were not, you know, proven at some point.
But here are some of the characters who are losing their security clearance.
Anthony Blinken?
Yes.
Letitia James?
Alvin Bragg?
Yes and yes.
Jake Sullivan?
I don't know who Deputy Attorney General.
Lisa Monaco, she was Deputy Attorney General under Biden.
And then attorneys.
Andrew Weissman, Mark Zaid, and Norm Eisen.
Now that's interesting.
Why do they have security clearance?
They're the most anti-Trump people on MSN, the criminal organization.
So this is one way to identify all the prairie dogs who have been Doing what looks like a criminal conspiracy.
So I'll just keep saying it looks like one.
From as far as we can tell from our perspective, it looks like it was a criminal conspiracy and it's been going on for years.
Is it?
Well, we'll find out.
But it looks like it.
So Trump has ordered the Secret Service.
To give him every bit of information they have about his would-be assassins, the two attempts on his life.
Now here's my first question.
Wait a minute.
How long has Trump been president now?
I know it's only a few weeks, but are you telling me he still doesn't know everything to be known about the assassination attempts on his life?
What?
Shouldn't that be like one of the first meetings?
So now he's ordered them to tell him everything.
It's in the New York Post, Miranda Devine.
Yeah, he's writing about that.
And he said, I'm entitled to know.
Of course he's entitled to know.
Yes, yes.
He's the president of the whole United States.
He's entitled to know what the people in the executive branch know about his assassination attempt.
Why did he even have to ask for it?
My God, do you think they're going to give it to him if it's something that would implicate any of the people who have it?
No.
I don't think he's going to get it, but it certainly makes sense that he asked for it.
Well, Elizabeth Warren was, some say, destroyed by the Community Notes on X. So, in a little video bite, she was...
She was saying that she doesn't take any money from Big Pharma.
But apparently, her political action committee does take money from Big Pharma executives.
And at one point, she was against the political action committees, the PACs.
But she said, if other people have them, well, everybody has to have one to make it fair.
So she has one.
So yes.
She and Bernie Sanders apparently are two of the biggest recipients of pharma money to PACs.
Now, technically, that money isn't going to them because the PAC has to be a little hands-free.
There's got to be a little distance so that the candidate doesn't directly control the money.
But the PAC is only designed for the benefit of the candidate, one candidate in particular.
That's all it is.
So the fact that the candidate doesn't have direct control doesn't mean a lot, because presumably the people in the pack have enough coordination with the people who are not in the pack to find out what messages the leader would like them to give, even if it's not, you know, direct order.
They would know.
So it acts as though it's the same as if they were directing them, at least in some part.
So, yeah, can't trust anybody.
Meanwhile, Rick Grinnell.
Every time Rick Grinnell is in the news, it feels like something good's going to happen.
Have you noticed that?
Like, he's almost never in the news, unless there's some new victory.
So he's saying that Radio Free Europe and Voice of America are media outlets paid for by the American taxpayers, but they're filled with far-left activists, and he just thinks it's a relic of the past, and they should just be eliminated.
And that's, yeah, should just be eliminated.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Carrie Lake is in charge of Voice of America.
Now, what Voice of America and Radio Europe do is they're propaganda.
And by the way, that's not just my opinion.
That's literally what they're for.
It's propaganda to other countries.
But who's listening to the radio?
In 2025. I think people are just listening to podcasts.
I don't think these could possibly make any difference.
I mean, their reach can't be that important.
And it's a bunch of leftists running them, so who knows if they're even saying things we want them to say.
So I think having Carrie Lake head of Voice of America, you know, since she's pro-Trump.
She would be the perfect person to wind it down if it needs to be wound down.
So every time we identify another entity of the government that maybe should just go away, it's kind of exciting.
It feels good every time we say, how about we just get rid of this entirely?
It just feels right every time.
Well, let's see.
Governor Newsom is telling the residents of the Pacific Palisades, where the big fire was, that you can't rebuild with the same houses you had because it would still be dangerous.
They would burn down again, where there'd be a risk.
We have to rebuild with science.
We have to build with climate reality in mind.
Well, I have mixed feelings about that.
Number one, I don't like any delay to people getting their lives back.
But...
It wouldn't really make sense to rebuild a fire hazard, would it?
So, on one hand, I don't like the fact that he's insisting there would be something that would delay things.
On the other hand, doesn't it kind of make sense?
But here's why this is an interesting story.
We're right at the exact place in history where AI should solve this problem.
Here's what should happen.
Hey, AI, I'm going to give you the house plans and the dimensions of the house that used to be on this plot.
Can you redesign one that has perfect fire control and climate change and is good on energy and has the same number of bedrooms, same number of bathrooms?
Or maybe add a bathroom.
Yeah, yeah.
Because we can go 10% bigger.
So add a bathroom and maybe add a home office.
And it will be 10% bigger, but that's allowed now.
Now use the same property.
Start with the old house as your guide.
And now give me a whole new design that meets all of the building codes and is fire safe and climate risk minimized.
Don't we already have that?
Are you telling me that there's no large Architect firm that has already made big inroads with AI. Couldn't you take the...
I assume that they're probably public blueprints.
And don't you think that the government should be able to take the AI design thing, run it by some human experts to make sure the AI is doing it right, but just sort of check its work?
Just kind of quickly look at it and go, yeah, okay, oh yeah.
Yeah, you got that right.
Yep, yep, that's right.
And then maybe at some point you don't need to check it.
Probably that point won't come quickly.
But isn't this completely solvable with AI? If I were a homeowner, that's the first thing I'd look for.
I'd say, here's my plans, run it through the AI, and fix it.
And then just feed it back to me.
And then I'll start building.
I don't know.
This is where I'd like to see a big AI company step in and say, can you give us 10 minutes on this?
Just give us 10 minutes to work on this.
We'll see what we can do.
We'll do a couple of prototypes and see if...
I guess it would have to train the AI on California's, all of its building codes and the most local ones.
Then you tell it that it's an extra fire risk where it is.
And you tell it you want it to be efficient for energy, etc., but not crazy, so it can't be more expensive for the homeowner.
And then you just teach it architecture.
It should be able to make sure that you've got the right load-bearing walls and everything else.
Anyway, speaking of AI, I guess AI is starting to hurt Google because Google's regular search engine.
Is dropping off.
I will tell you that I've stopped using Google for almost everything.
I still use Gmail because it's my email.
But the thought of going to Google and doing a Google search, it doesn't even make sense.
It would be like just traveling back in time.
So I use perplexity.
And it's great.
I use perplexity so often that sometimes I'll leave it open when I'm preparing my notes for the show.
And there'll be all these questions where I'll need some context.
So later I'm going to talk about some climate change measuring stations.
And so I say things like, huh, I wonder how many climate change thermometer measuring stations there are.
So I just reach over and touch perplexity.
You know, you have to hold down the button.
How many of these temperature measurements are there for the National Oceanic AA, whatever it is?
And it comes back and tells me.
You can't beat that.
If you tried to do that same thing with Google, it would give you a page of sponsored answers.
You're like, oh, sponsored, never mind.
Okay, sponsored, never mind.
Okay, oh, there it is.
No, that's sponsored.
And then you're pissed off by the time you get to one that's not sponsored because you can't trust the sponsored ones.
And then you get to, oh, some people say this, and some people say that, and some people say that.
And it's like you can't even find anything.
But AI just tells you the answer.
Perplexity does, anyway.
So if I could invest in perplexity, I don't think it's public.
But if I could, I would.
Speaking of which, so did you know?
I want to tell you how the temperature is determined for climate change.
So this is going to get easier.
The more the doge works on the government, the easier it will be to convince people that climate change, at least the models, are fake.
Because once you learn that everything's fake, it's going to be hard to say, oh, everything but climate change is fake.
That's a little harder to believe.
If you think everything's true, then it's easy to say everything's true, including climate change, because it's in the category of everything.
Everything's true that the government tells us and science backs.
But what if everything that the government and science tells you isn't true, which is closer to the truth?
It's not everything, but it's a lot closer to the truth.
Most of it's fake and always has been.
Then once you realize that, then it's a lot easier to realize that, oh, maybe something's going on here.
So let me tell you just, I'll just give you a hint of it.
All right?
So you know that for climate change, they have all these temperature measuring stations.
And there's been an estimate, I think, by Heartland.
I think Heartland estimated that 96% of the temperature measuring things are now affected by the heat island effect.
Meaning that the city expanded over time, and because cities have concrete and such, if you're anywhere near it, the wind will eventually blow some warm air from that heat island, and it will artificially make your temperature go up.
Now, since the measurements, I think, look at highs and lows more than average, all it does is give you a high that's not a real high.
It's just because the heat island moved closer to it.
Then some of them have been decommissioned.
So some of them don't exist anymore, but they still record a temperature for them.
And I'll tell you how they do that.
This is a real thing.
There are a number of them that don't exist anymore.
They used to exist historically.
So they still create a number for them, even though they don't exist.
And then some of them, the paint on the outside of the measuring, It was like a kiosk, if you will.
When the paint wears off, it changes the temperature inside.
Because if you painted it white on day one, the white is going to reflect a certain amount of heat.
But if the paint comes off, then it's less white and it's reflecting less heat.
It's going to be warmer.
So you've got several things to adjust for.
So how do they make all those adjustments?
To get the right temperature.
Well, there are 9000 stations that measure the temperature.
But it's fairly common to use a subset of those, 1200 of them.
Now, if there are 9000, why would you ever choose to use only 1200 of them?
Well, that means that one of them is considered wrong.
And one of them is considered right.
Because if you have access to 9,000, you've got all the data.
It's not like you have to go read the temperature every time you need to do a model.
It's public information.
So why would there be a subset that they use instead of the whole thing every time?
I can't think of any good reason, can you?
Unless one of them is not accurate, like the 9,000.
Is it possible that you can get a better answer with 1,200 stations that are a subset of the 9,000?
Are there so many bad measuring stations that you're better if you don't use most of them?
Well, I don't know.
So that's just a question.
But this network has been largely superseded.
These are answers from perplexity.
So I gave you some background.
Let me tell you how they make some adjustments.
This is from Perplexity.
For example, NOAA's Global Historical Climatology Network and the newer one, I guess that's the subset database, they quote, use sophisticated algorithms to estimate missing data points How do you use a sophisticated algorithm to estimate the temperature where you're not measuring it?
Do you believe that's a thing?
Well, what they do is something like look at the closest other temperatures, and then they make essentially an assumption of what it might have been if it existed.
Do you trust that?
Does that sound like real science?
Well, we don't have the numbers, so we'll make an assumption of what the numbers would have been.
And they include stations that are no longer operational.
They just adjust using their sophisticated algorithms based on nearby stations and historical trends.
Huh.
The historical trend is what you're trying to discover.
You're not using the historical trend to tell you what the temperature is today.
If you're using the historical trend to figure out what the temperature is today, how can you use the temperature today to tell you what the historical trend is?
Does that make sense?
You're using the trend to figure out the temperature today, but you're also using the temperature today to tell you what the trend was.
Using your sophisticated algorithms to give you temperatures that don't exist.
All right.
All right.
This all sounds legit.
And then here's the best part.
This is also from Perplexity.
A 2010 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research and other analyses have indicated that NOAA's adjusted temperature data aligns well.
Oh, okay.
Good.
This is good news.
It aligns well with measurements from stations that meet optimal sighting standards.
Excellent.
Okay.
So they've done some double-checking.
So they know that the temperatures they use, they do align with stations that meet optimal sighting standards, suggesting that the estimation processes do not significantly distort long-term climate change.
So that's pretty good.
So...
In other words, you can determine the temperature without measuring it.
All you have to do is use your sophisticated algorithms.
So how are they testing that any of this is real?
Because if you don't have a standard that you know is real, what are you comparing it to to know that it's right?
How does any of it make sense?
Am I making my point yet?
That none of this sounds legitimate.
It literally sounds like people saying, our data is all bad, but we're not going to get funding for climate science and change the world and keep our jobs unless we use our sophisticated algorithms to come up with temperature measurements that don't exist.
So could it really be that you've got 9,000 measuring points, but you only use 1,200?
But somehow you know that 1,200 is as good as 9,000?
That doesn't make sense.
Can you really estimate the history from today's if the today's is determined by the history?
I don't know.
So I don't believe that any of this is real.
And I'm only scratching the surface.
The real problem with the models is that if there are any variables that change it, and the variables are based on assumptions, if you have 100 climate models, that means you don't believe the climate models.
Because if you believe that climate modeling was real, there would be one that's the best, and then that would be the end of the story.
If there are 100 and they're arguing that theirs is the best, well, then there's something wrong.
They're making different assumptions and getting different answers.
But then the climate change experts will say, Scott, I think you're being disingenuous.
If you look at all of the climate models, they do cluster around the same zone.
So even though they're different, they're directionally pretty similar.
To which I say, no, they're not.
No, they're not.
You fucking liar.
You just throw away the ones that are not in that little zone.
If I created a model that wasn't in that zone, it would never get published.
Because I would be laughed at.
I would be driven out of the entire business.
So no, they're not directionally aligned.
The ones that are not in that little band are just going to be tossed out.
That's why you have a hundred of them.
Because it might have started with 1,000.
They stopped with 100. Anyway, in other news, there's a company that's figured out a way to turn heat into electricity, which, of course, has always been a thing.
If you had enough heat, you could heat water.
The water would turn into steam.
It would turn into a turbine.
So heat has always been, in effect, a way to create energy, but not that efficiently.
So apparently there's this new company, according to Interesting Engineering, TPV Technologies.
They have figured out how to convert heat into electricity more efficiently than any current device.
So that seems like a really small story.
But when you think about how much heat there is in the world that's not being used for anything, now you might be able to just take advantage of any heat.
That's kind of a big deal.
If you could turn any significant heat into energy fairly easily, I don't know.
That seems like a big, big deal.
And then my favorite story is that there's a startup, according to ZME Science, there's a startup that's figuring out how to put milk protein into a potato.
So if you grow this potato, you'll have protein, not just carbs.
Now, I know what you're saying.
I don't need no Frankenstein food.
Keep your artificially grated potato away from me.
I don't want a potato that tastes like milk.
I won't live in a small house.
Soil and green is people.
Swimming is the best exercise.
Don't take all of my CO2 out of the air because it's plant food.
So, I know you don't like the idea, but...
Here's what I think.
I think one of the biggest things in the world would be if we could figure out how to grow some kind of a small, compact plant that had a good protein to it.
Then you could do an indoor garden and you could have what you need.
At the moment, if you had an indoor farm and you wanted to grow things that had good protein as well as carbs, there's no practical way to do it.
Because there are plenty of things that do have protein in them, but they take, you know, immense amount of space, you know, like lentils.
So lentils have good protein, but, you know, you need acres and acres and acres to get enough lentils.
Whereas if you're growing something like lettuce, well, you know, your little lettuce grows pretty well in your little indoor farm, so that works.
But imagine if you could grow potatoes.
That would have protein.
Now, it's just one kind of protein.
Maybe you want more different kinds of protein.
But if they can genetically create an indoor garden compact, doesn't take much space, doesn't use much water, that's a world-changing thing.
That's world-changing.
Because if you're watching the RFK Jr. saga, you know that probably...
The most dangerous thing in America is our food supply.
Imagine if you could just get off the grid.
Let's say you could add to the side of your house a 500-square-foot indoor garden and add protein as well as carbs.
You could get pretty close to a healthy diet, theoretically.
All right.
So, that's happening.
The Mexican president, Scheinbaum, she was giving a speech and she was wondering how the Mexican cartels have access to so much U.S. military weaponry.
So, as you know, the cartels are really well armed with military equipment and it's American stuff.
So, how'd they get it?
I think the answer is Ukraine, right?
Don't we believe that we keep funding Ukraine, but a lot of the stuff just gets sold to black market?
So I feel like the United States, by funding Ukraine and having most of it siphoned off, or some of it, is probably arming the cartels.
Now, she's acting like she doesn't know, but I think that's the answer.
I saw Tucker Carlson talking about how the Ukrainians are buying all the luxury goods in Europe.
If you go to a luxury good shop, there'll be some Ukrainian billionaire buying stuff.
And the idea is that there was so much corruption that we made a whole bunch of Ukrainians super rich.
And the first thing they did is leave Ukraine because, my God, who would want to be there?
And they took their billions that we gave them, and now they're on a shopping spree with our money.
I don't know how big that is, but I'll bet there is a little bit of it.
There's probably a little bit of it.
The other thing that Tucker said that I saw yesterday was that he was talking to Mike Benz on his podcast.
I didn't see this clip until yesterday.
But when Mike Benz started explaining how color revolutions are done and how the U.S. It helps overthrow other countries with coups.
And a big part of that is staging street protests.
And the street protests are always fake.
They're driven by the coup plotters.
But the point is to make the public think they're real and to think that there's social upheaval.
And that's good if you're planning a coup.
You want to make it look like the people were unhappy with the leader.
Look at them in the streets.
They're all protesting all the time.
And then Tucker says, you can see him putting it all together in his head.
He goes, if that's true, then the George Floyd riots may have been instigated.
And then he listed the Charlottesville march.
And that's when I said, there it is.
I've been saying that since almost day one.
That Charlottesville march doesn't look real to me in terms of organic.
I think the people were really racist.
But there's no way that they've ever organized that well.
And if they had done it once, they would do it again.
They just sort of disappeared.
But they happened to be there just when the bad guys were trying to create the narrative that Trump's a racist and it's obvious because look at all this street activity.
So, no, I don't believe that Charlottesville was anything but an op to get rid of Trump.
I don't think that January 6th was anything but an op.
Now, there were certainly people there that were there for their own reasons.
So the people are always real with these ops.
It's just that whatever got them on the street and got them organized sort of happens once.
Just when it's needed to create a narrative.
And when you saw that the Democrats turned a protest into an insurrection, just with the narrative because they controlled the media, that should have been your tip-off.
Because the whole time we're looking at it and saying, okay, I get that there were some violent people there, and they should be treated as violent people.
Now, the pardon question is separate, and it has to do with the fact that they've already served time, and if they'd been in a different context, that's all the time they would have served.
So that's a different story.
But yes, I believe the Black Lives Matter marches, the Antifa, the January 6th, the Charlottesville, all fake.
In my opinion, all fake.
And not just fake, but their textbook.
They just fit perfectly.
The narrative that there was...
Somebody behind the scenes instigating riots to take over from Trump.
Anyway, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia just announced they're cutting themselves off from Russia's electricity grid.
Now, I didn't know they were ever connected to it, but apparently they needed it for stability because their own internal power sources were not 100% reliable.
But they believe that they are now reliable enough.
That they don't need even sort of the stability backup connection to Russia, so they're just cutting the cable, so that Russia cannot use their electricity as a bargaining chip in the future.
Good.
Good for them.
I tell you, every time I hear a story about Estonia, it's them doing something smart.
Estonia, you should pay attention to Estonia.
It's...
It's a little country that's batting way above its weight class.
They just sort of do logical things all the time.
And I think they're well-educated at this point.
So they have kind of a tight little government, good little system.
Yeah, keep an eye on Estonia.
And that's all I have today.
Owen Gregorian has his spaces right after this.
So I'm going to talk to the people on Locals.
Probably while that's happening, Owen will be setting up his spaces or soon after.
So if you're on X, you can look for Owen Gregorian's account or you can look at my account.
I retweeted the spaces notice.
All right.
Okay.
All right.
Locals, I'm coming at you privately.
If you're on X or YouTube or Rumble, thanks for joining.
