God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Ezra Klein, National Diversity Council, Smithsonian Divisive Narratives, TikTok Purchase Proposal, Deterrent Act Foreign Gift Reporting, BlackRock, RFK Jr., Vaccine Safety Investigation, Tim Walz DEI Immigration, Bret Baier, DOGE Elon Interview, Medicaid Duplicate Payments, Katherine Maher, Tesla Domestic Terrorism, Judge Boasberg, Anti-Trump Lawfare, Trump's Anti-Lawfare Pushback, WTO, Jasmine Crockett, AI Exponential Growth Expectations, Dept. of Imaginary Concerns, President Zelensky, Ukraine War, 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.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
You've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or shells, just dine a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens right now.
Yes, exactly.
Go. Fully recharged.
I'm working at full strength today.
We got news.
We're going to pound right through it.
You ready for this?
Happy Friday, by the way.
Let's see.
Is there any new science that they could have completely skipped just by asking Scott?
Oh, yeah.
Here's one.
The University of South Australia found out that being happy in your career doesn't make you happy in life, but being happy in general in your life can make you enjoy your career that you have more.
They could have just asked me.
Yes. It's called baseline happiness, and if you're happy in general, everything else in your life looks better.
How many of you didn't know that?
Was there anybody who thought, you know, if I were depressed, but I got a better job, I'll bet that would cheer me up.
No, it doesn't work that way.
If you're happy, then even your crap job seems pretty good to you.
And if you're unhappy...
It doesn't matter how good your job is.
You're still going to be unhappy.
So just ask me next time.
I could have cleared that up.
Saved you a lot of money.
Well, according to Marine Insight publication, over in Germany, there's this revolutionary new wastewater processing plant.
It's a wastewater processing plant.
And what's revolutionary is that they can convert the wastewater into methanol.
Which I guess is kind of climate neutral.
And you can use that for marine fuels.
Now, I wonder if there's anybody who works on the wastewater project that would tell us that we live in a simulation.
Let's see.
The wastewater is being explained by Dr. Wissing.
W-S-S-I-N-G.
Wissing. So, Dr. Whizzing can tell you about the wastewater.
Apparently, Dr. Pooping was not.
He's the number two.
Yep. Dr. Whizzing for wastewater.
Okay. All right.
All right.
Judge me.
You can judge me on that one.
This you knew was coming.
NextGen Defense was reporting that Maxar Intelligence, they've developed a vision-based software that can make GPS unnecessary for your drone.
So in other words, if your drone gets jammed and it can't see the GPS signal, it doesn't care because Maxar Intelligence has these databases that are really detailed.
They've got 3D terrain data.
For 34 million square miles.
So it can just switch to, or maybe it doesn't even need, GPS.
Which means that there is practically no defense against drones now.
If your drone can't be jammed, if you can't jam the GPS, that seems like a problem.
So yes, as Naval Ravikant said recently, it's...
Really inevitable that all warfare will be drones, because why would you need anything else?
It's all going to be drones.
Well, if you haven't yet seen Ezra Klein on Jon Stewart's podcast, oh, you have to see this.
I so recommend this.
So look for the clips.
If you just see the clips, you'll see everything you need to see.
So Ezra Klein is a co-author of the book Abundance.
And he's doing, you know, I have to say, my first impression was, hey, you're just writing a book that says Democrats should act more like Republicans if they want to win anything.
So I wasn't sure it was adding much to the world.
But now I think it is.
So I'm going to switch to full compliment to Ezra Klein.
And I guess Derek Thompson, the two co-authors.
So the thing that was amazing is that you've heard Ezra Klein talk about how the Democrats are good at funding impressive things, but then for reasons that I didn't quite understand, nothing got done.
So there was the funding of the high-speed rail in California that didn't get done.
There was the funding of the...
The rural broadband internet that didn't get done.
There was the funding of the nationwide charging stations that didn't get done.
All good ideas, in theory, but all they can do is give them money and not get anything done.
And if you wondered why it is that nothing gets done, you just have to.
You just have to.
Hear Ezra Klein go through the 14 steps it would have taken to approve just the project for the car charging stations.
Oh, my God.
I'm not going to run through the 14 because it's pretty pedantic.
But you have to watch Jon Stewart for the first time understanding how completely doomed the Democrat way of work is.
Because the regulations are mostly...
I'm thinking mostly Democrat created.
And if you looked at any one of them individually, you'd probably say to yourself, all right, well, I can see why you'd want this group to review it.
Or I can see why you'd want to run it through this group for approval.
But once you get to 14 different steps and everybody's got to review it and analyze it and they got time for comment, it becomes literally Impossible.
So it's not just that it didn't happen.
It's that the system was impossible.
So anybody who tried to apply to be one of the people who executed on these funded projects couldn't get through it.
It would take you the rest of your life if you got through it at all.
So there is no way to actually execute On these well-meaning Democrat gigantic projects.
There is no way.
Now, what is it I always say about the difference between Republicans and Democrats?
Democrats are really good at goals.
High-speed rail.
That's a goal.
I like it.
Rural internet broadband.
I like it.
A nationwide...
Charging stations for electric cars?
Sounds pretty good.
Those are good goals.
I like it.
But they also developed a system that made it impossible.
Now, let's compare that to the Republicans.
Republicans would say, get rid of all this red tape.
And then it works.
That's it.
So the Republicans have a system.
Which is, in general, get rid of the red tape.
Now, beyond that, if you got rid of enough red tape, maybe you don't even need much government funding.
Maybe the private sector can do it.
But the Republicans consistently have systems that would work.
And the Democrats consistently have pretty good goals.
We'd like everybody to do well.
We'd like the schools to do well.
Take public education.
The Democrats have a very good goal that no matter what your income is or what your situation is in life, you should get a good education and the government can help you on that.
But then they overlay it with the Department of Education, which was a problem.
They overlay it with the Teachers Union.
And you very quickly get to the point where the system for providing that thing which is a good goal, it just doesn't work.
And that's what we observe.
Scores are going down in every way.
Whereas the Republicans would say, well, nothing works unless there's competition.
So let's make sure there's a lot more competition for private schools or alternative schools.
So again, in every domain, it's the same.
Democrats, good on goals.
Don't have systems.
Let's check in on DEI.
Charlie Kirk has a post where he's talking about a Daily Wire story by Luke Rosiak.
I guess he did a great job on this.
And the story is about a group called the National Diversity Council.
Now, remember I tell you that...
It turns out that you can tell all the fraudulent organizations because they string together words that sound good.
So instead of the National Diversity Council, it could have been the American Fairness Initiative.
You can just put any words together.
The Freedom Diversity Association.
And then you start getting money.
Well, one of the founders, Dennis Kennedy, allegedly paid himself $450,000 a year for 10 hours of work a week.
But then in 2022, allegedly, at the peak of DEI mania, he and a few other executives decided that they were really owed another $3 million in back pay.
And so they looted the organization, is the accusation.
And now the organization is filing for bankruptcy, with the board saying that Kennedy systematically looted it by funneling his assets to a for-profit firm controlled by himself.
Does that sound familiar?
That's exactly what we were finding out with all the NGOs.
If the NGO gets a lot of funding, let's say from the government, could be private donations, Then the first thing they'll do is say, here's how we're spending that money.
We're going to hire this for-profit entity that just happens to be my wife or just happens to be me with another name.
And we're not going to have any accounting so that it's not as obvious what we're doing.
It's the same scam everywhere.
And once you realize the pattern, you can just pick it up instantly.
It's like, oh.
You got a bunch of money, you gave yourself a generic name like the National Diversity Council, and you can protect yourself by accusing any of your critics of being racist.
Ah! See, that's important.
Because if you don't have an audit process and you're planning to loot the organization, you want to make sure that if anybody blames you of anything, you can say, oh, my God, what are you, some kind of white supremacist who hates...
Who hates diversity?
Don't you see that diversity is in the name of our organization?
Of course it's good, because it says diversity right in it.
It's right in the name.
You racist.
I think we're onto it now.
I think we can spot these a little easier.
Well, Mario Knopfel is reporting that Trump has threatened to defund the Smithsonian over what he calls divisive narratives.
And he's ordered J.D. Vance to go clean house, whatever that means.
And what he wants to do is remove what he calls improper ideology, or else they'll lose federal funding.
And he accuses the museum of pushing a decades-long effort to rewrite U.S. history with distorted ideological narratives instead of facts.
So they're going to have to get rid of all the divisive content, or else the government won't fund them anymore.
And to me, I can see why they're doing it.
I'm sure it's a good idea.
But history has always been fake.
So when you take one version of fake history and somebody's trying to rewrite it to another version of fake history, it doesn't make it more accurate.
But there is a version of history that's better for the country.
And if you're deciding to change the history to white people suck, Now, I haven't seen what the Smithsonian is up to, but I'm just going to take a wild guess that what they're saying is that white people are the problem, they killed all the Native Americans, they created all the slavery, they stole all the money, and white people are bad.
Just a guess.
I don't have any information that that's what the Smithsonian was doing, but what do you think?
What else would it be?
So, yeah.
It's very, very damaging to have a fake history that says the people who live here today are part of the problem.
You don't want that.
So it is better, even if it's fake history, to say that your country was awesome and you're still awesome.
It's better.
Well, here's a story that really sounds great for America.
Just listen to this.
According to Interesting Engineering...
An enormous, massive lithium deposits have been discovered in the U.S., worth $540 billion, so much that it would vastly reduce China's grip on the United States for lithium.
So I'm reading this and I'm like, wow, $540 billion worth of lithium, and it seems to be accessible.
Isn't that the greatest story?
The only thing that could be bad about this is if it's in California.
Don't be in California.
Please don't be in California.
Please, please don't be in California.
It's in California, beneath the surface of the Sultan Sea.
So I guess the value is not 540 billion.
It would be closer to...
Let me call up Ezra Klein.
Ezra, there's $540 billion worth of lithium in California under the Salton Sea.
Do you think we can...
Okay, calm down, Ezra.
Calm down.
Okay, I know we'll never get it.
Yeah, I know.
14 steps.
Okay, we'll just leave it there.
Never mind.
Thank you.
Goodbye. Yeah, that's a complete waste of time because it's in California.
I'd love to be wrong.
I would love to be wrong.
But no, it's worth nothing because it's in California.
That's all you need to know.
Trump has floated the idea of maybe easing off on tariffs, according to Reuters, on China, if China approves the sale of TikTok to an American entity.
What do you think of that idea?
Going easy on tariffs on China if they approve a TikTok deal.
Here's the problem.
That would be transferring wealth from the citizens of the United States to the rich people in the United States who bought TikTok.
So the benefactors would be the billionaires who buy TikTok.
And that would be paid for partly by money that would have otherwise gone into the Treasury.
So, how is Trump going to think this through?
Now, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, by the way.
What I'm saying is, how do you sell it?
Because it's total oligarch-friendly, citizen-unfriendly, American-last.
I mean, to me, it looks like it'd be kind of good for China and good for a few oligarchs who buy it, who are his buddies.
And I don't see how you sell this thing.
Now, I will give you one possibility.
One of the things that Trump said was that the U.S. government, if it's being helpful in making the deal happen, should get a percentage of TikTok.
Oh. Now, that was not part of this story, but remember, Trump has floated that idea, and he was serious about it, and it makes sense.
If the government is doing something important to make a private investment worth something, from zero to maybe be worth a trillion dollars someday, why don't we get a piece of it?
If you give me a piece of it, meaning the citizens, I'm all in.
Yeah. If you say we're going to reduce tariffs a little bit on China to get this deal done, but in the end, the United States, let's say, are a sovereign fund.
I think we're going to have trouble funding the sovereign fund.
There's some technical reason why the sovereign fund might be in jeopardy.
But this seems like a perfect use for a sovereign fund where we invest literally zero.
And we get a percentage of TikTok?
I'd be happy with more of that.
So if Trump combines two things he's floated, one is the reduction of tariffs to get the deal done, and the other is the U.S. gets a piece of the deal, he can sell that.
That would be sellable.
Well, the House is...
According to Just the News, the House passed some legislation to keep foreign influence out of higher education, called the Deterrent Act.
And let's see what it does.
It mandates that schools have to report foreign gifts.
I think this is mostly universities and colleges.
Have to report foreign gifts that are at least $50,000 or more.
And they have to report it to the checking notes.
They have to report that to the Department of Education.
Huh. Do you see any problem with the legislation?
Because the Department of Education is being closed.
Don't they need to update that?
I swear, I don't even know what I'm reading at this point.
Is this true?
Did they just yesterday, the Republicans, this would only be through the House, not the Senate, but did they really just pass some legislation in the House that says somebody has to report to the Department of no longer existing?
There must be something wrong with this story, but maybe not.
Well, RFK Jr., who I thought was being a little bit quiet, You know, until he got his sea legs and figured out what was what.
But boy, he's not quiet now.
I saw Wall Street Apes had a video.
I couldn't tell how old it was.
But he was talking how BlackRock owns all of the meatpackers in the United States.
There are only four big companies.
But BlackRock owns them all.
And they...
According to RFK, they also own a lot of the big pharma.
Now, I don't know if own is the right description.
They might own a percentage, but does BlackRock own a controlling interest in pharma?
Because that would be something I'd never heard before.
I definitely knew that they were heavily invested in everything that matters, pretty much every industry that matters.
But a controlling interest?
I don't know.
And do they have a controlling interest or already own the meatpackers?
So I have some questions about that, but that's something RFK Jr. is bringing up.
Seems important to me.
Then he also reported that some of the career civil servant bureaucrats were keeping RFK Jr. from accessing databases That would have information about risks and dangers of certain drugs and medical interventions.
Can you imagine that?
And RFK Jr. says that these bureaucrats are seemingly only serving the industries they were supposed to regulate.
So everything that RFK Jr. has been telling us before he got the job, you know, to be in charge of all this stuff, it looks like it's all true.
It looks like these are completely broken industries that are just serving the pharma industries.
It just seems broken entirely.
But RFK Jr. was on Chris Cuomo's show at NewsNation, and he said the CDC, so that would be under him, is launching a new sub-agency to specialize in vaccine injuries.
So that should make you happy.
Now, he's very careful about the fact that it's not going to be based on the hearsay or anecdote.
They're going to look into it with the best gold standard science that they can, which has not been applied to this question yet.
So if the only thing he does is apply the best science to it, even if it finds out that the vaccines weren't as bad as you thought, You're going to be a lot happier.
Now, I think most of you are expecting to find out that the vaccinations, various ones, not just COVID.
But I think you expect, at least this audience does, that it's going to find out that they were much more dangerous than you thought.
But either way, we need to know.
We need to know.
I'm open to the fact that it might go either way.
But we definitely need to know.
It's right at the top of things we should be caring about.
And then RFK Jr. was talking about Elon Musk using AI to improve health and efficiency and improve delivery.
So he said they've had a bunch of geniuses come over to RFK Jr.'s domain to try to figure out how to do that.
Can you imagine how much money could be driven out of healthcare?
If you only knew what worked and what doesn't.
Separately, I saw another story, I didn't write this one down, about how there's a large number of complications with medications that are very specific to your genetic makeup.
So if you could, of course there's a problem, you know, anytime your genetic makeup is part of a database, you have to worry about that.
Imagine if we just had those two databases.
What's your genetic makeup?
And how does this drug do for people with your genetic makeup?
And you could get rid of something like 9% of all the injury.
That's huge.
That's huge.
But think of all the different ways that AI could just make everything work better.
Do you think you've ever taken a medication?
That didn't work well with the other medications you were taking and you just didn't know it?
Probably. Probably.
And AI could help you with that.
So at the very least, you should take a picture of all your pill bottles with AI.
The next time you get a prescription and say, I got a new prescription.
Is it going to work well with all the ones I already have?
And by the way, if you use ChatGPT at the highest level, Expensive one.
You can literally do that.
You could just put all your pill bottles in a row and just put it on video and just take a picture of all your pill bottles and say, I'm going to add this pill.
My doctor said to add this one, and it will tell you.
It'll tell you which ones don't work with other ones.
More so, I think, even than your doctor would.
I mean, they're supposed to flag it, but you can't expect them to know every interaction.
I've never seen a doctor look up an interaction while I was talking to him.
I wonder if this system does that for him.
My healthcare system is pretty well automated.
So it might be that if they just prescribe it, maybe it puts up a warning.
I don't know.
I'm kind of skeptical that it's already built into the system, but it could be.
It could be big.
Meanwhile, dumb old Tim Walsh, he was at some kind of event, and he was urging Democrats to get more serious about DEI and immigration.
He thinks that the problem was they didn't go hard enough on those things.
So he goes, quote, we let them define the issue on immigration.
We let them define the issue on DEI.
We let them define what woke is.
We got ourselves in this mess because we weren't bold enough.
To stand up and say, you're damn right, we're proud of these policies.
We're going to put them in and sue them, and we're going to execute them.
I think the only thing he executed were whatever was the remaining of the Democrats' chance of ever having a president again.
Let's be serious.
Is this the dumbest fucking guy you've ever seen in your life?
Tim Walsh is just not smart.
He's just not smart.
So, wow.
Every time I see one of their, you know, leaders say something, I just shake my head.
You know, and keep in mind, you know, I just want to give you some reference.
When I used to watch Bill Clinton talk, I used to think, wow, he's really smart, even if I didn't agree with him.
When I saw Obama talk, I would say, well, at least you're very smart, even if I didn't agree with him.
But when I see Wallstock or Jasmine Crockett, I just think, God, you're dumb.
And I disagree with you.
That's a tough combo to be dumb and wrong at the same time.
All right.
Many of you may have seen clips or watched Brett Baer on Fox News and a few Doge and Elon Musk.
And I got to say, I was so impressed.
Now, here's something that I say all the time, and it's because I'm a nerd, but Fox News has the best producers.
If you look at that again, just look how good the lighting is, the set, the makeup, the hair, the clothes, the physical setup, and the whole thing.
They're just so good at producing.
What they do.
They're the best in the industry by far.
So anyway, I've never seen Musk look so good.
Maybe sometimes he's more tired or the lighting's bad or whatever, but he looked great.
He looked healthy and completely in charge.
So that was great.
But the other thing that I noticed is that Musk is a talent stack guy.
Meaning that whatever talents he has, which are considerable, of course, he is continually adding to them.
And I believe that his close association with Trump is teaching him things about communications and things about persuasion that is taking him to the next level.
Because very few people can master those domains as well as, let's say, a technical domain.
But if you look at Musk today, his ability to come up with a sentence you'll remember forever is almost Trump-like.
I mean, nobody can match Trump.
He's a category by himself.
But you can see the transfer of skill.
You can tell that he's impressed.
This is just me reading minds.
But you can tell that if he's normal, he's impressed by Trump's ability to communicate.
And to control the crowd and to control the narrative.
And boy, has he learned well.
So I watched a number of, mostly I saw the clips.
I didn't see 100% of it.
But I was impressed completely about how succinctly Musk can explain an idea and you'll remember it forever.
I'll give you an example.
He said that they're already finding, or their goal.
Is to find $4 billion per day in savings, and they're on track to be mostly done in 130 days, which is what he's authorized for.
How clean and simple is that?
And Brett Baer says, well, are you going to be doing reports?
And Musk says, we're doing the actual savings.
So, I mean, they're reporting the savings, but you don't need a report.
Because every time they add another billion dollars or whatever the savings, they put it on the website.
So you don't need a report because it's reported as it happens.
So that's a perfect answer.
The $4 billion per day, I'll remember that.
If he had said something like, you can imagine somebody who was bad at it, saying, well, we're finding anything from $1 to $8 billion per day.
You know, we're hoping that that's enough.
No. He tells you $4 billion per day for roughly 130 days is going to get to you, we think, a trillion dollars in savings, which is 50% of the deficit spending.
The other trillion, Trump is going to handle with growth, we hope.
So that's perfect.
Just communication-wise, absolutely perfect.
You could not improve on that.
It's so clean.
$4 billion a day, 130 days to $1 trillion.
I'll never forget that.
And then they add the anecdotes.
Imagine all the complicated things that Doge is looking into.
And imagine if they tried to explain the complicated things.
You'd be like, oh, that sounds pretty complicated, but you go wild.
Instead, he gives the cleanest little anecdotal example to back up the numbers.
And he says that at one point, nearly a billion dollars was allocated, I think, per year.
For some company that would do a survey that apparently nobody needed or wanted, there didn't even seem to be any obvious customer for it.
A billion dollars a year for one little survey that looked like it was done by a high school group.
A complete ripoff as far as we can tell.
Now, will you remember that?
One billion, real easy to remember.
For one survey that looks like it was done by high school kids, you'll remember that forever, right?
That one's just perfect for communication.
And even having the, I guess it was the other Doge leaders sitting behind them, that was great.
Then the other thing he said, and this is just perfect genius of communication, you know how the biggest problem with Doge is, hey, You're using a chainsaw instead of a scalpel.
Stop using the chainsaw when all of us smart people who are Democrats know you should be using a scalpel.
Where's the scalpel?
So the way he handled that was he said that they're measuring everything twice, if not thrice, before they cut.
So the old saying is, you know, Measure twice, cut once.
So he's moving away from the, you know, the scalpel chainsaw thing.
But he's letting you know that they're not making any cuts unless they've measured twice, if not thrice.
Do you notice that twice and thrice rhyme?
Who's that remind you of?
Johnny Cochran.
If the club doesn't fit, you must acquit.
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.
We'll measure it twice, if not thrice.
It is a well-known persuasion fact that if something rhymes, it's more persuasive.
When California tried to get people to wear seatbelts and they told them they were going to get a ticket, unless they did, the campaign was click it or ticket.
Basically, click your seatbelt where you get a ticket.
Click it or tick it.
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.
We're measuring it twice, if not thrice.
Perfect. Perfect.
Now, if he had said, and I would have made this mistake, I think, if he would have said, you know, but sometimes you need a chainsaw.
That might be true.
It might be smart, but it would not be the right answer for communicating to the public.
What the public wants to hear, and the only thing they want to hear is, I'm going to measure it twice, if not thrice.
So, what I saw was an absolute lesson on how to be perfect.
That was from the producers of the show to Brett Baer's questions, which were excellent.
He's always excellent in that domain.
To Musk's specific answers.
To the people who were the head of Doge sitting behind him and backing him up with answers.
Every part of that was the highest quality you'll ever see for something like this.
It was really, really impressive.
Anyway. Moving on.
According to the Wall Street Journal, billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on duplicate Medicaid payments.
And Musk has already said that Doge will fix that.
Now, how did that happen?
The Daily Wire is talking about it, but I think Wall Street Journal did the original investigation.
And what they found was there are a number of cases where people should have been reimbursed by their insurance company.
Or I guess Medicaid was going to pay the insurance company.
But then they moved.
And so the systems were not clever enough to pick up the fact that it was the same person, but at a different address.
So apparently these big insurance companies, the biggest ones in the country, health insurance, were receiving two payments for a whole bunch of people if they had moved during some certain time.
The dollar amounts were massive, totaling up to at least $4.3 billion.
$4.3 billion that went to insurance companies from the government.
It didn't go to the individuals, so it wasn't like none of the people involved were involved in fraud, so they didn't break any laws.
They just moved.
And so UnitedHealth, remember UnitedHealth?
I'm not going to say it.
I'm not going to say it.
I'm just going to say UnitedHealth was one of them.
Elevance Health and Centenni.
I don't know any of those.
They received hundreds of millions of dollars each in duplicate payments.
You know what this story doesn't include?
It doesn't include that those insurance companies are going to pay back the taxpayers who are owed that money.
Are they?
It's such massive amounts that it probably would eliminate their profit for a year or two.
I don't know what their profits are.
But don't they have to pay that back?
Because nobody's arguing that they were owed the payment.
It seems like it's easy to demonstrate that these were duplicate payments.
So where's our check?
It feels to me we should be clawing that all back.
If it's possible.
Well, here's an update on Catherine Marr, the CEO of NPR.
I picked up on this yesterday, but Britt Hume had a take on X. He says, when you read or hear about NPR chief Catherine Marr being grilled about her hard-left views as expressed on Twitter in 2020, remember, that's five years ago, remember, It was three years after those tweets that she was made head of NPR.
So did NPR know what her views were?
Because she claims now that they're different, that her views have evolved in five years.
But do you know what Catherine Marr calls five years?
She calls it half a decade.
I was listening to her being grilled by the Congress, and when she said, But, you know, that was half a decade ago.
Half a decade?
That's five years.
How many people have a complete transformation of political opinion in five years?
And it's not on one topic.
Like, I could see how somebody would say, oh, I used to believe in this hoax, but I found out, blah, blah, blah.
But how do you have a total revamp of your political opinions from crazy far left to something more moderate?
In half a decade.
Half a decade.
You lying.
Whatever. Here's something I didn't know.
I had to look it up.
One to three percent of their funding comes from the government.
So I don't really care about this too much.
One to three percent of their funding?
It seems like we should just yank the funding because one to three percent is something that can certainly handle.
And why am I paying for any of this?
Then Christopher Ruffo on X reminds us, he says, don't forget that NPRCR CEO Catherine Marr is also the board chairman of Signal.
She's the board chairman of Signal.
Come on.
Are we living in a simulation?
How is that even possible?
The only thing that could be weirder is if she were like the daughter of Judge Boesberg.
She's not, by the way.
But it's the only thing that would make this weirder.
And then Rufo goes on and says, and she spent a decade working on regime change operations in the Middle East and North Africa.
Now, I don't think anybody has had a more obvious connection to the CIA than she has.
Now, I can't confirm that.
I don't have proof of that.
All of this from being CEO of NPR to being on the chairman of the board of Signal to being working on regime change operations in the Middle East and North Africa.
What does that sound like to you?
Does that sound like just a bunch of coincidences?
Sometimes things are just what you think.
Well, one of the biggest Tesla domestic terrorists has been caught.
In Las Vegas, I guess.
Police made an arrest.
It was the guy who did the most elaborate domestic violence.
He's the one who set on fire in multiple cars at a, I guess it was a Tesla facility for repair, I think, collision repair.
And he used a gun.
Fired some shots and used some Molotov cocktails.
And of course, he has a history of being, he's 36 years old, has a history of being associated with the Communist Party and anything else that's bad.
Anyway, he was booked on 15 counts.
He could get up to 20 years in prison.
Also, a woman seen king at Tesla in Washington has been identified.
She's in trouble.
Also, that 450-pound guy who was on some kind of a scooter thing and ramming the side of a car, he's been easily identified, and that's not a complete list.
How many of the domestic terrorists have now been completely identified?
Because I feel like we'll get just about all of them, you know, the ones that showed their faces.
So it looks like the world is starting to get back in balance, meaning that...
As long as there's a continual drip of the domestic terrorists getting serious jail sentences, maybe it'll decrease.
Maybe the Democrats will get tired of it.
I don't know.
Maybe they'll run into crazy people.
I saw a post by Insurrection Barbie.
It was a great follow, by the way.
If you're not following on X, Insurrection Barbie, you're missing a lot of great content.
But Insurrection Barbie says, the entire resistance to Donald Trump is made up of like 300 super-connected Democrats and a bunch of paid protesters.
Easy to realize why they lost the election and why they are continuously bleeding voters.
But this is your daily reminder that 300 powerful Democrats and their NGOs are trying to hold the country hostage.
And I think Elon Musk agreed with that estimate, that there are about 300 highly-connected Democrats.
Who are pretending to be the Democrats, basically.
They're the ones in charge.
That number completely agrees with my understanding of the world.
About 300.
And of course, within the 300, there would be 50 who are super important.
And maybe 10 who are head of the pyramid.
But we do see the same names, don't we?
It feels like...
If there's something terrible happening, lawfare or something else, it feels like the same set of people just keep popping up over and over again.
So yeah, it's about 300.
They just act like they're more.
So Trump wants an investigation of how it is possible, according to Washington Times, that he keeps getting bad judges by chance.
So apparently these...
D.C. judges should be assigned randomly.
They've got some kind of wheel they spin.
But yet, this Judge Boesberg, who is, let's say, the Trump supporters think he's been highly biased and has conflicts, they would say, and he was nominated by Barack Obama, et cetera, and that somehow, amazingly, he got this newest case about the Signal app and whether
That has to do with possibility of any federal records being destroyed because the app automatically deletes things.
So what are the odds that he would be chosen yet again for another Trump-related case?
Well, it turns out, as the Washington Times reports, and this is good reporting, by the way, I didn't know that there are 20. So if you're going to say, How does this one guy get four of these Trump cases when it's one out of 20 every time?
Well, it would help if you knew that there's another judge, Gia Cobb, who has at least 10 Trump-related cases.
But I've never heard that name.
Have you?
Judge Cobb?
How could one judge have 10 Trump-related cases and I've never heard the name?
My guess is that there are 10 cases that aren't that important.
And there are three other judges that have six each.
Two of them have five each, and several judges have four.
Well, the first thing you need to know is that there are so many of these lawfare situations against Trump that if you only have 20 judges, they're all going to get half a dozen.
Because even if you did it randomly, There are just so many judges that they're just all going to come up half a dozen times.
That's exactly what's happening.
But I don't believe it's random.
Here's what I think.
I think it depends who filed the lawsuit.
I think if one of the 300, which is really one of a half dozen, I think there are some lawyers that if they're involved, they seem to get the right judge.
I don't think that it's a coincidence that Judge Cobb has 10 cases, and I've never heard that name.
They can't be the important ones.
So I've got a feeling it's not random, even though a lot of people have a lot of cases.
So Trump, also according to the Washington Times, Jeff Mordock's writing about this, Trump is stripping security clearance from yet another law firm.
What is it?
Wilmer Hale.
It's a high-powered Washington law firm.
And they had once employed Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
And this is what the executive order banning them from working on government stuff says.
It says that the law firm has abandoned the profession's highest ideals.
And abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine the justice and interest of the United States.
And I give some examples.
Its supported efforts to discriminate based on race, I assume that means DEI stuff, backs the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our border, and furthers the degradation of the quality of American elections.
including supporting efforts designed to enable non-citizens to vote.
Here's my problem.
That's sort of the job of lawyers.
Lawyers don't just represent innocent people who are angels.
Our system completely depends on qualified lawyers also taking cases that you and I hate and say, why are you doing that?
Why are you doing that pro bono thing for these terrible people?
So, to me, this looks like lawfare.
And remember, I said from the beginning, I've told you, if it looks like lawfare to me, I'm going to call it out.
It's a little hard to be a team player and be in favor of lawfare.
However, I'm going to soften it a little bit.
Because there's so much lawfare against the president that is completely out of And of the norm.
That this looks like a brushback pitch to me.
As in, if I keep getting law fared, I'm going to take you all down.
And even if I lose every one of these in some upper court, I'm going to make sure you're spending all your time, wasting your time trying to fight this.
Because you all suck, and you're all political, and you can pretend that you're just helping your clients.
But you're obviously just a lawfare organ of the Democrats, and we have a completely broken system where the lawyers are trying to basically run the whole fucking country.
Now, under those conditions, I'm okay with lawfare, because the lawfare is a brushback pitch.
I'm not in favor of going to a baseball game and watching the pitcher throw unlimited pitches at the head of the opposing batter.
No, I don't want to watch that.
But if that team does something really messed up and the pitcher decides to put water right into the body of the batter, you understand that, don't you?
You understand that they're trying to get balance back.
Now, you might not love it because it's violent.
I'm not recommending it.
But we do see that in the real world, if you don't have mutually assured destruction, everything falls apart.
So if you look at it as just lawfare, it's bad.
But if you look at it as a response to lawfare, which is what it is, it's a response to lawfare.
If they lawfare them back just as hard, that is establishing mutually assured destruction.
And it may have more to do with suppressing the next thing they do than it does with, you know, addressing anything in the past.
So I'm in favor of it.
I'm in favor of it.
And I think it's lawfare.
And I think it's appropriate.
According to Breitbart News, Simon Kent is writing that the Trump administration is going to suspend contributions to the WTO, the World Trade Organization.
So I had to look up, what the heck does the World Trade Organization do?
And what it does is, allegedly, At least up till now.
It has opened markets to 160 different countries and lowered tariffs and made it easier to dispute trade problems across borders and basically greased the wheels to make it easier for every country to do business with every other country.
So you might ask, why do we want to suspend our contribution to that?
And I think the answer is because If your organization is trying to find a middle ground where everybody's happy, it's not America first.
It could be, well, let's make sure that China and the United States are both kind of happy but kind of unhappy, but maybe we could have done a better deal.
So I don't know if this will work out or not work out, but the idea that...
We can handle our own tariffs and our own disputes, and we've got enough market muscle to say, look, if you don't handle this dispute, we're just not going to do business with you, or we're going to tariff the bejesus out of you.
So, tentatively, this looks like a good idea, because the WTO is not meant to be America First, so maybe we can do better on our own.
We'll see.
That wouldn't be true for smaller countries, I suppose, but for America, maybe.
Well, as you know, the story you've heard before that Jasmine Crockett called Governor Abbott of Texas Governor Hot Wheels, because Abbott's in a wheelchair.
And this, of course, caused the Democrats to bring up what they probably think is true, by the way, but it's a hoax.
That Trump ever mocked a reporter who had a disability with an arm.
Now, I saw Brendan Straka doing a great job of debunking that, and I've seen the Debunk America doing a great job of debunking it.
It's the most thoroughly debunked thing, and it's easy to debunk because you can show the video from before the incident with the reporter.
Where he would do the same action when he was talking about anybody who couldn't answer a question or anybody who was doing a bad job communicating, basically.
It was his way of mocking them.
But you also know that Jasmine Crockett tried to explain her comment as not really being about the wheelchair and that the Hot Wheels comment was something about transporting immigrants or something.
So, without further ado, I would like to do my impression of Jasmine Crockett trying to explain why she called Governor Abbott Hot Wheels, but it really didn't have anything to do with his disability.
And this is Jasmine Crockett.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
See how that works?
All right.
I saw Sabine Hassenfelder on X, she's a German physicist, saying she said, I genuinely don't understand why some people are still bullish about LLMs, the technology behind AI.
And she talks about how she's used a bunch of the AIs and she's doing it for her work in science and that it often gives her...
Sources that don't exist or there's a 404 error.
It'll tell her that a document that says 2025 on it is from 2023.
So she has to continually fact check the AI's work and it just looks kind of limited to her and wonders why people are so enthusiastic about its future.
Now, I've said similar things.
And people's response to me and to other people who have had this experience, they say, you just don't understand how...
You don't understand how...
What is it?
Oh, what's the word?
Don't understand how exponential improvements work.
So the smartest people...
Like AI, are saying, Scott, Scott, Scott.
You're so dumb.
Let me explain how the world works, can I?
AI is not supposed to be the best it will ever be today.
It's going to get better, like, really fast.
And there's going to be this exponential growth that's going to happen any minute now.
And when that kicks in, you're going to look like such a fool.
Oh man, a fool.
Because you don't understand how exponential growth works.
Yeah, it seems slow, slow, slow, slow.
But then when it kicks in, boom!
And that's why you're not seeing.
Because you're not, you know, you don't understand technology like we do.
To which I say, have you ever heard of Moore's Law?
About the microchips getting...
Better every year.
It's a straight line.
No exponential period.
Have you ever heard of a thing called fusion?
Nuclear fusion?
That was first proposed and worked on 93 years ago.
93 years.
Still waiting for the exponential growth part.
93 years.
What about airline travel?
I'm waiting for the exponential growth in that, because since I was a child, it's been largely the same, and the planes don't even change.
They're like 40 years old.
Yeah, so we got that.
So what else we got?
What about batteries?
I'm always talking about all these breakthroughs in batteries.
Now, that's a case where I think there will be an exponential growth.
And the reason is that there are people all over the world who know there's enormous money to be made in making a better battery.
Enormous. So you've got all kinds of people, the best people working on it all over the world, and they're trying different technologies.
So if you have the best people all over the world and trying money involved and they're working on different technologies, The odds of one of them being 10 times as good as the old one are pretty good.
So if you said to me, Scott, don't you know that batteries may be chugging along for a while, but once we get to a certain point, man, those batteries are going to be amazing.
I would believe that one.
I believe that one.
It's just that not everything can turn into everything else.
What about smartphones?
So are smartphones kind of...
Came kind of awesome because they're smartphones.
But how different is your current smartphone from the last one?
I feel like smartphones sort of peaked.
I'm waiting for that exponential growth, but I don't think it's coming with smartphones.
Probably some other technology.
So here's what I think.
I used AI five times already this morning.
Mostly Grok.
It was great.
Because that's how I know that Fusion has been worked on for 93 years.
I just asked Grok.
And that's how I knew what the WTO does.
I asked Grok.
So if you're a writer, or you're working in this kind of world, this podcasting world, and you're trying to get context, and you're trying to get an understanding of a new topic quickly, oh, it is great.
It is great.
So in some professions, and Bill Gates was saying that medical profession, legal profession, some other ones, we're going to see AI take over.
And I believe that.
So I'm very pro-AI.
It's just that I don't think the current technology, the large language models, are ever going to help Sabine.
Do her science stuff because you can't rely on it being right.
It might be that you always have to fact check the facts if you're doing science stuff.
The stuff I do, I can get a fact wrong and nobody would die.
Tomorrow, somebody would say, on the show yesterday, you said fusion's been around 93 years, but really it's 50. I'd say, oh, okay.
It works great whenever you're in a domain where if something's wrong, it's not the biggest problem in the world.
But do you think an LLM will ever become the pilot of your commercial aircraft?
I'm going to say no.
Do you think LLM will be good enough to be the robot that can do generic tasks and you just have to show it or teach it?
I'm skeptical.
Because you wouldn't want a robot in your house.
That was lossy, meaning that you couldn't know exactly what was going to happen.
So I'm going to say that the LLMs have amazing potential for a whole bunch of different things, but we're going to need to invent a whole different kind of thing for the artificial general intelligence, the one that thinks like we do and is less lossy.
That's what I think.
Anyway, the Gateway...
Gateway Pundit is reporting on my idea of creating the Department of Imaginary Concerns to handle all the fake Democrat problems.
Michael Lachance wrote about this.
And if he hadn't heard about that, the idea is that Democrats have a whole bunch of imaginary problems, everything from climate crisis to Russia collusion, the signal controversy.
Elon Musk stealing your Social Security numbers.
Like, just a whole bunch of fake stuff.
Trump's going to become Hitler.
He's Putin's best friend.
All that stuff.
So you just put that in the Department of Imaginary Concerns.
Now, the reason I brought it up is I want to give you a very quick persuasion lesson.
A few people said, hey, don't call it the Department of Imaginary Concerns.
Call it the imaginary problems or the imaginary policies or something like that.
The word concerns is what made this viral.
So that's actually the active word.
So if you didn't understand persuasion, you would say, hmm, concerns is too generic or it's off point or something.
If you do understand it, you know that that's the word that sold it.
When you see concerns, It tells you that somebody's concerned as opposed to it's a problem or anything in the real world.
And it's a non-standard word in this domain.
You wouldn't expect to see the word concerns in the name of a title of a department.
So it's the mistake, or isn't the mistake, that makes it viral.
So that's what made it sticky.
Meanwhile, Zelensky is...
Self-immolating.
So he launched, according to the National Pulse, Christopher Tomlinson.
He's attacking Trump's team.
And he said the following stuff.
He said that Europe, unlike the United States, has discipline and no chaos.
Chaos. Who says the United States has chaos?
Democrats. Right?
Have you ever heard a Republican say, oh, we've got a bunch of chaos?
Nope. It's just a Democrat thing.
And now Zelensky is taking that approach, and he says, Europe good, U.S. chaos.
And then he accused Witkoff.
He said, I can't be ungrateful to the Americans for everything they did, but they are often, unfortunately, under the influence of Russian narratives.
And then he went off on Wyckoff, and he says, he doesn't look like a military man.
He doesn't look like a general, and he doesn't have such experience.
As far as I know, he is very good at selling and buying real estate, and this is a little different.
Well, Zelensky, good luck, because America's out.
You just made it impossible.
To get peace in Ukraine with America's help.
Apparently, he really wants a permanent war and Europe's on his team.
And I say, good luck, guys.
Good luck.
You can fight Russia all day long, but there's no freaking way after you've insulted Wyckoff and Trump that you're going to get what you want from the United States.
You just close that door.
You idiot.
Or maybe he knows exactly what he's doing.
But there's no reason for us to be involved anymore.
He made it easy to walk away.
And then he said that he's rejecting any idea for a peace deal that would not involve Russia giving back all the territory that they've conquered, including Crimea.
Now, given that we know there's no way that's ever going to happen, Has he just slammed the door shut on any kind of a peace deal and America being productive in any of it?
He has.
The door's shut.
So I don't care what the news is tomorrow or the next day.
I don't care if he changes his mind.
I don't care if he apologizes.
It's over.
I'm going to call it.
We're out.
Now, the United States has not said that.
Trump has not said that.
I don't think he's commented exactly, but...
I feel pretty confident that this just ended the productive relationship with the United States and Ukraine.
We're definitely not going to be helping them defend themselves at this point.
Now, something could change, I suppose, but I think we're done.
But at the same time, and this is fascinating, Jack Posobiec of Human Events was talking to Scott Besant.
And Scott Besant says that they've got a 100-page Ukraine deal about the minerals, not about peace, but about minerals, that he hopes will be signed next week.
Now, it is possible that we can make a mineral deal.
It's not impossible, because the mineral deal would not be promising anything about security.
It would just be a way for them to make money and for us to make money.
So they might say yes to making money.
Because they need money to fight their war.
And from our perspective, it might give them a little what Besson calls not a security guarantee, but is an economic security pact.
Now, I'm not so sure the United States would want to get involved in some place that didn't have good defense against Russia coming in and taking the rest of the country.
So I don't know if we can actually get private companies to do the work.
I guess that would be a pretty big risk.
But if it works, that'd be great.
But I think in terms of the U.S. funding Ukraine's military adventure, I think that's over.
I think we're done with that.
Meanwhile, the Greenland trip is getting spicy.
You knew that J.D. Vance and his wife were going over there.
But here's the funny part.
Apparently, Mike Walsh was always Intended to be part of the trip, but they had forgotten about him when they did the notice.
So National Security Advisor Mike Walsh will also be attending the trip.
All I can hope is they don't accidentally invite Jeffrey Goldberg on the trip.
That's a callback.
Can you imagine them being on the plane and they look over and it's like, Oh, my God.
And Jeffrey Goldberg was accidentally invited on the trip.
All right.
That's all I got for you.
Thanks for putting up with me.
That's all I've got for today.
I'm going to talk to the local subscribers privately for a minute.
The rest of you, make sure you come back tomorrow.