God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Wisconsin Reapportionment, Elon Musk, Liberation Day, Trump Tariffs, US Oil Production, Cory Booker, Trump Maher Meeting, White Doctor Hoax, Lab Grown Meat, Hunter Biden Laptop Coverup, NYT US-Ukraine War, TikTok Sale, NY Prisoner Release, Rebranding DEI Ploy, Dept. of Imaginary Concerns, Grok Misunderstands Fascism, Anti-Wealth Violence, Pro-Bono Conservative Legal, Drone Warfare Dominance, Ukraine War Peace Deal, IBM DEI, 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 probably 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 cupper, a mug, or a glass of tankard, chalicestine, a canteen jugger 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 dinner of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens right now.
Go. So good.
Well, you probably heard by now, actor Val Kilmer has tragically died at age 65 from pneumonia in Los Angeles.
I don't have anything to say about that, but when people who are younger than me die, it bothers me a little extra, I have to say.
So, rest in peace, Val Kilmer.
All right, shall we do some fake news?
Let's look at some fake news.
According to Futurism, Maggie Harrison Dupre is writing that after a single concussion, kids are 15% less likely to go to college.
Does that sound like real science to you?
After one concussion, kids are 15% less likely to go to college.
Do you know what else could be behind that number?
Could it be that smart kids get fewer head injuries?
I'm just asking.
If I showed you a bunch of mathletes, and they were standing next to a bunch of athletes, the athletes probably are going to break their heads a little bit more often, and the mathletes are probably going to be joining the band and maybe working on the, I don't know, Working on some clubs?
I hate to be all stereotypical, but I'm pretty sure that intelligence is highly correlated with protecting your head.
What do you think?
Do you think that people of all intelligence levels are equally likely to wear a helmet?
To ride a bicycle?
It's not been my experience.
My experience is the dumber you are, the less likely you'll wear a helmet when you're riding your bicycle.
Anyway, I thought that was funny.
Well, the Wisconsin Supreme Court elections didn't go the way a lot of Republicans wanted it to go, so the Democrat Crawford won, which means That there will be likely some reapportionment, which means Wisconsin will subtract some Republicans and add some Democrats to the House, which means the Republicans could lose the majority in the House.
Now, I don't know how close it is to guaranteeing that that will happen.
How close are we to guaranteeing that we lose the majority, or Republicans lose?
Is it just very likely?
Or is it guaranteed now?
Because anything could happen.
But let's talk about why that happened.
Why the heck did that happen?
According to The Hill, they say that Elon Musk might be toxic to elections.
Charlie Kirk says that the low propensity voters, a lot of low propensity voters voted for Trump, but if Trump's not on the ticket, are they really going to show up for, you know, a local election?
That might be part of it.
I think a lot of it is that the Democrats had nothing else going for them.
So they had this one thing that if they could find this clever way to sort of beat the system, That they wouldn't have to act like they live in a democratic society.
They'd rather live in a lawfare driven kleptocracy or something.
So they found this little weaselly way to win if they could put all their energy into it.
But they didn't have anything else to put energy into.
They had no policies, no ideas, but they sure like this idea of reapportioning so they have power.
Some of it has to do with the fact that nothing else was happening, and so they could put all of their hopes and dreams and energy into this one little Weasley thing.
And I'll tell you, Democrats love Weasley shit.
It's like, lawfare?
Sign me up!
Reapportion to win?
Absolutely! So it's all trickery.
Trickery and schemes.
So, but do you think Elon Musk is toxic to elections and that that might lead to the midterms?
Do you think the midterms will go poorly because of Elon?
Well, that might...
The interesting part is that he'll be done with his role.
It's supposed to only last 130 days, so he'll be done, I don't know, before the summer or something.
And he thinks he can get his trillion dollars of savings before he's done.
Now, if he does that, if he succeeds and, you know, the major news sources agree that, okay, he did find a trillion dollars.
Didn't think he could do it.
Will that still make him toxic?
Well, maybe.
But it seems like after he's no longer working, And the government, isn't it going to be harder to say it's his fault?
Because the actual cuts are going to be made by, you know, cabinet heads and group leaders who are in the government.
So are you really going to blame Doge or Musk if they get a trillion dollars and every one of the cuts, every one of them at this point would be approved by people who, you know, are at least, uh, Most of them I think had to be at least approved by Congress before they can get in their job.
I don't know, it could feel completely different in six months.
Just the fact that you don't see his face associated with it all the time.
And the main thing is, when it comes to Democrats, I saw Dr. Insensitive Jerk on X saying that you won't understand Democrats Until you understand that they're thieves, and they like letting people into prison, and they like prisoners having freedom because they relate to the thieves.
That's pretty harsh.
But it does seem a little bit like when you show them a...
Let's put it this way.
It seems to me that Democrats are about transferring wealth from people who made it.
And Republicans are about creating wealth.
So you got one party that creates wealth and that's their main thing.
And one party that wants to just take it away from them.
I don't know how that could, how could that even be a thing, but it feels like that's what it is.
Well, today's Liberation Day, April 2nd, and the president Trump will be announcing at 4pm, I think, in East Coast time.
From the Rose Garden, he'll tell you what exactly the tariffs are going to look like.
Will they be just straight reciprocal?
Will they be done with a scalpel or a jackhammer?
It doesn't matter what he does, the press is going to say they hate it, because what else do they have to do except say they hate everything he does?
We'll see how that goes.
That's what's roiling the stock market today.
The stock market's gonna react to the uncertainty.
Now, Israel, quite cleverly, got out in front of it and dropped all their duties and tariffs on American goods, to which a lot of us said, wait a minute, they had tariffs on American goods?
I thought they were our friends, and they had tariffs on American goods.
They weren't very high, and there wasn't much of it, so they didn't give up much by giving up their tariffs.
But it's so smart to do it before the tariffs kick in.
Like, given that there wasn't much money involved, and Israel's very free-market oriented, it was just a clever move.
To get out of it and be one of the first, let's call it a victory for Trump because sure enough, he threatens and Israel just says, okay, we'll drop ours.
So that's how the negotiation is supposed to work.
India did the same.
Somebody says, I haven't seen that in the news.
Did India drop all of its tariffs?
I think they only reduced them.
So I'll have to check on that.
Give me a fact check on that.
Did India drop their tariffs in anticipation of the U.S. tariffs, or did they only adjust them downward?
I think they only adjusted them downward, which would be not nothing.
So we'll see how that goes.
You know, the funny part is people are still treating it like it's intended to be permanent.
And it doesn't matter how many times it's explained, No, the point of this is to not have tariffs.
The end goal is that we don't have tariffs, they don't have tariffs.
So we'll see.
Unusual Wales on X, that's an account on X, said that tariffs would add as much as $10,000 to the cost of the average new home.
What do you think of that as a data point?
That the costs of tariffs, the extra cost, would add $10,000 to the price of building the average new home.
Now that's per CNBC.
Here's what I say.
What's the first thing I teach you when they show you a number without a percentage?
Or a percentage without a number?
What does it mean when the news gives you a number without the percentage or the percentage without the number?
Because you don't know how much the average house costs to build, do you?
You don't know if that's 20%, 2%, 1%, do you?
So this is propaganda, or just really lazy, lazy work.
Because I had to go to AI and say, what's the cost of the average house?
And somewhere in the 300,000 range would be the average cost of a new house.
So $10,000 added to that would be about 3% extra.
Now, would it be fair to say that, now that we know the number and the percentage, would it be fair to say that the tariffs will add 3%?
No! No!
Because the point of the tariffs is not to leave them in place.
The point of the tariffs is to negotiate.
So, what we don't know is where it all shakes out.
But what we do know for sure is that nobody, including the administration, plans for them to be permanent and just add cost to the U.S. consumer.
So, everything about that estimate is misleading.
First of all, that it would last.
And, or even ever, it's possible it'll never even touch us, because maybe things will happen so quickly.
It's possible.
And the other thing is, it's 3%.
10,000 sounds like a lot, 3%.
I don't know that you would notice it, would you?
On a house?
I mean, nobody wants to spend 3% more, but would you even know the difference?
If I told you that the cost of a new house was $300,000 blah blah blah versus the first time I ever talked to you about it, I told you it was 3% higher, it wouldn't make any difference to your decision, would it? 3%?
I almost certainly know.
All right.
According to Mario Noffel, and he's quoting He's quoting somebody named Alec Stapp.
So, I guess Mario thinks this is a real number.
Maybe it is.
But the stat is that the U.S. is now producing 50% more oil than Saudi Arabia.
Does that sound right to you?
Does it sound right that The U.S. is producing 50% more oil than Saudi Arabia?
I think I'm going to need a fact check on that one too.
If it's true, it's amazing.
So, I guess Saudis share of the world oil has declined steadily.
Anyway, so the U.S. is leading the world.
Accounting for 16% of the total global output, whereas Saudi is 11% and Russia is 12%.
Now, if this is true, and it's newish, I also don't know how newish it is, but if we suddenly have created a surge in oil production, wouldn't that tell you that that would make a bigger difference to lowering prices Then the tariffs might have to increase in prices, if it's true.
Let's see, I've got...
Yeah. All right.
So, I'm not even sure I believe that.
It sounds like almost too good to be true.
Well, as you know, Mr. Cory Booker, he broke the record for talking non-stop.
In Congress or at the Senate.
But they're calling it a talk-a-thon, not a filibuster, because it's not a filibuster because he wasn't trying to stop any particular legislation.
So why was he doing it?
I don't know.
I've been watching this news for like two days and it's a headline story.
I don't know.
I don't even think the news told us why he did it.
I feel like he just needed some attention and so he just put on a play.
What are we going to do?
I don't know.
How about I put on a play and I'll pretend to be the very tired senator who cares a lot and talks for 25 hours and breaks the record.
And I'm thinking, It's pure theater.
There's not even a specific thing he wanted.
Somebody said it had something to do with immigration.
But what exactly is he disagreeing about immigration?
So, the ridiculousness of it, the complete weakness of it, can only be beaten By the fact that apparently his really good friend, who works for him sometimes, was led into the building around the security check, and then later he told people he had a gun.
He was immediately arrested because no guns are allowed in the Senate.
But it's a little unclear whether Senator Booker is the one who escorted him in.
Because it seems like Booker was probably just at the podium most of the time.
Or somebody else did.
But I think it was reported as a member of Congress led him in and led him around the screening.
Why does anybody get to go around the screening?
If you're the security person and a member of Congress says, oh, this is somebody I know really well.
We're going to let him go around the screening.
I would say to you, isn't that the most dangerous person who came to the building?
The one who has a, you know, somebody who's going to take him around the screening?
Why would you ever let anybody do that?
So first of all, I'd probably fire the security people for allowing a member of Congress to take anybody around the screening, especially when you find out later they have a gun.
Now, apparently there was nothing dangerous about it, but I mean, he wasn't threatening anybody or anything like that.
But that's just crazy.
Now, do you think that's bigger?
Or is that a worse problem than Mike Waltz?
Fat fingering?
Probably. We don't know the exact story.
But however, he invited Jeffrey Goldberg accidentally.
And then he saw some plans for the attack.
Which they don't call plans for the attack.
I don't know.
I think these are both nothings.
You know, they both led to nothing.
Nobody got hurt.
You know, could have been a problem, but wasn't.
So I'm gonna treat this, you know, the friend who brought a gun in, I'm gonna treat this the same as the Mike Waltz thing.
I don't really think, you know, even if Booker is the one who Who took him around the security?
We don't know that, but even if he is, I don't think Booker should be, you know, resigning.
I don't think Mike Walsh should be resigning.
These are just tiny little, you know, human problems.
They were dumb.
You know, I'm not defending any of it, but not the biggest problem in the world.
Well, meanwhile, CNN and Harry N Has some new numbers that are bad for Democrats.
So, according to a new poll, Quinnipiac, Democrats' opinion of their own, well actually the entire voters' opinion, of Democrats in Congress is a 21% approval.
Now this is Democrats in Congress, so it's not about the party of Democrats, just the ones that are elected in Congress.
And only 40% of Democrats approve of their own bunch of Congress people.
It's the lowest approval on record per Quinnipiac.
So even though the Democrats had a good day yesterday in Wisconsin, so they can do their little reapportionment scheme, they're not doing so well.
By the way, there were also some Elections in Florida, some special elections and the Republicans both won, but not by as much as people thought they would.
So it kind of, everything is sort of suggesting all the special elections are sort of suggesting that the Republicans have some weakness whenever Trump is not on the ticket.
So that could be a bad signal coming up.
All right, so yesterday I didn't know during the show that Bill Maher had already had dinner with Trump at the White House.
And there's a little bit of feedback.
I think Bill Maher is going to talk about it on Friday on his show.
That will be interesting.
But the dinner was Bill Maher, Trump, Kid Rock, who set it up, and Dana White, who was just there because he's a good dinner date, I guess.
And I was thinking to myself, how could that not be fun?
I mean, just think about it.
Bill Maher, Trump, Kid Rock, Dana White.
There was no chance that that could be anything but a good time.
But here are the little bit of stories we've heard from it.
We'll hear more.
I think I heard this on Gutfeld, that Bill Maher brought with him A list of insults Trump had said about Bill Maher over the years and handed it to him.
So what do you think Trump did with it?
The list of insults that Trump had used against Bill Maher.
What's the funniest thing that Trump could do?
He autographed it and gave it back.
He signed it.
Now, how much do you love that?
And how disarming is that?
So you're Bill Maher, and you're coming in with, okay, these are all the things you said about me, which, you know, in itself was kind of a humorous thing to do.
But I think Trump topped him by signing it, especially if he hadn't been asked to sign it.
It's funnier if Bill Maher didn't ask him to sign it, and he just said, give me a pen.
Oh, that was funny.
But apparently a good time was had by all.
They got along and there was a little guided tour of the White House and even the private residence.
That's the good stuff.
People don't get to usually see that.
And then we learned that Bill Maher, the Democrat that he's been forever, has never been to the White House.
Even I've been to the White House.
There's so many, like, podcasters and Republicans of all kinds who have been invited to the White House, generally, you know, because the president wants to, you know, make sure you're on board and just work the crowd a little bit.
But Bill Maher never been invited.
But here's the kill shot.
Now, we might hear more about this, but this is what we know so far, that Apparently, during dinner, Trump asked Bill Maher about Maher's opinion about Iran and Israel and the Middle East.
Now, what I was looking for was the kill shot.
The kill shot is where Trump, who has crazy charisma, he can turn anybody in person.
Like, you cannot dislike him in person.
It would just be so hard.
Because in person, I mean, he just glows.
I had the experience.
You just want to be talking to him, and he never runs out of things to say.
He always gives you full attention and treats you like you're the only person in the room.
But here's the kill shot.
Imagine being Bill Maher, and you think of yourself as basically a well-informed political comedian.
And then the most Powerful and important person maybe in the world?
The President of the United States looks at you and says, what do you think I should do about the Middle East?
And you might actually have some ideas because you've been thinking about it and you're well informed.
I can tell you what happened next because I experienced it.
Whatever Marr said, unless he just said a joke, Which I doubt, so maybe we'll find out about that later.
If he gave him any actual advice, or treated it as seriously, like, you know, I think the only thing you can do is this or that, I guarantee you that Trump gave him his full attention, listened to him completely without interrupting, and then, you know, maybe commented on his comments or something.
Do you know what that does to a person?
I had that experience where, I've told you this story before, it's not really private.
When Trump asked me who I thought would be his running opponent the next time he ran, because I saw him in 2018, and I said I thought it would be Kamala Harris.
And then, you know, he said he thought it would be Biden.
So he was right.
When the President of the United States asks for your opinion, and then he listens for the answer, like he really actually, no joke, in the real world, wanted to hear your opinion, the power of that is incalculable.
So, I expect Bill Maher will try to act like nothing happened, you know, like they're, you know, Two adversaries who had a good dinner and it was fun, but it doesn't change anything about how he feels or how he's going to act or how hard he's going to be on Trump.
I imagine that that's the look we're going to get.
But I'll tell you, that experience will change you.
And that's one of the superpowers that Trump has.
He can ask for your opinion, treat you like you're the only one in the room and your opinion matters, And you'll never be the same.
You'll never be the same.
It will just change you forever.
It's like an incredible thing.
Anyway, do you remember a while back, it was in 2020, there was a study that went all over the internet that said that black infants have a lower survival rate if they're cared for by white doctors.
How many of you remember that?
I remember it.
So that would be pretty horrible, right?
It's so racist if black infants didn't do as well if they had white doctors.
So guess what happened?
Turns out somebody looked at the data and found out the data was maybe not so reliable, and here's why.
There was a little bit of a selection bias.
It's so bad.
Science is so terrible.
Here's what the selection bias was.
There are more white doctors in the specialties where you go to those specialties because somebody might die.
So the white doctors were in the sort of dangerous jobs, more of them, there were more of them.
So that it looked like when you went to a white doctor, you'd have bad outcomes, but you would only go to those specialists who just happened to be more staffed by white doctors if you were already in dire trouble, right?
So it might be the oncologist or, you know, heart surgeon or something like that.
So all it was was they had, They didn't select, you know, an equal set of black doctors and an equal set of white doctors.
The white doctors were more often in specialties that involved, you know, more dangerous kinds of situations.
And that's all it was.
And if you, once you corrected for that, the difference kind of went away.
Now, you know, even if you didn't know that, What was the credibility you should have given the study from day one, as soon as you heard it?
The answer is none.
From the first time you heard it, without even knowing what the problem was, you should have said, oh, it's one of those.
Here's why.
Half of all these studies, half, are not reproducible, meaning that it's a coin flip.
Whether it's real or not, even if it's peer-reviewed, there's a 50% chance it's not reproducible, meaning it was never valid in the first place.
Now, if the question is sort of a yes-no, which this is, do the black babies do as well if the doctor is a different race?
Yes or no, right?
It's like a coin flip.
It's yes or no.
Under those conditions, when the studies themselves Are only 50% reliable?
What is the difference between doing a study and not knowing if it's reproducible and flipping a coin?
Because it's just going to be yes or no, heads or tails.
And the answer is there's no difference.
There's no difference between that study, even if you didn't know that it was flawed.
At the start of it, you should have said, well, that means nothing.
Now, it could become It could become meaningful.
Let's say if the study were reproducible.
That would mean something.
Suppose other people did studies in the same domain and got similar answers.
Well, now you have my attention.
You know, as long as it's not all being funded by one kind of entity that has a horse in the race.
But no, when you first hear a study like this, it's just a coin flip.
It means nothing.
Here's another one.
Lab-grown meat.
I saw this on the internet today.
Lab-grown meat, potentially worse for the environment than retail beef.
So this is told to us by an account called No Farms No Food.
So it's an entity that is sort of pro-farm, which means probably not pro-lab-grown meat.
And They say an interdepartmental study from the University of California, University of California, concluded that lab-grown meat may be up to 25 times worse for the environment than natural pasture-raised cattle retail beef.
Now, here's the first tell that something's amiss.
The poster that's pro-farm Did a screenshot instead of a link So if I wanted to click and see the details of the study Couldn't do it.
So that's your first, you know, that's a that's a little signal there Secondly, we don't know who funded the study.
Was it Big Meat?
I mean who else would fund it?
Is there anybody else even going to look into it?
I don't know.
So if you don't know who funded it, you should ignore it.
And then again, you have to put it into the context of the studies being 50% false anyway.
So I don't know.
I don't know if any of that's true.
But it's a low reliability.
Speaking of low reliability, Catherine Herridge and a number of other people reporting about the I guess we have some new information about the internal deliberations at the FBI during the time that the Hunter laptop story was breaking.
And the news is that the FBI knew that it was real, but they just shut up and told everybody to shut up about it.
Now, did you have the same experience with this story that I did, if you already heard it?
That didn't you think Didn't we already know that everybody in the government was lying about the laptop and that they knew it was real?
I had trouble figuring out what was the new part.
Maybe I just assumed it.
Didn't you?
Is there even one person listening who thought the FBI thought that that was fake?
Or the Department of Justice?
Or those 51 Intel people who said it looked like Russian craft or something like that.
I didn't think that there was anybody who thought that was real.
I didn't think there was anybody who thought it was anything but real.
I thought we knew everybody in the government was lying, in every capacity, in every place, including the FBI.
But, I guess Catherine Herridge is going to do an exposé or a deep dive with Michael Schellenberger.
I don't think they've worked together before, so this could be interesting.
And so they got newly released FBI chat messages, and basically people were told to stand down and shut up about it.
But again, why does it feel like, it feels like I saw the future or something, right?
Because I kept reading and thinking, didn't everybody know this?
Didn't everybody know the FBI was lying if they were involved at all?
know. Thank you.
Stop acting surprised that the FBI lied to you.
Well, the New York Times has inexplicably written a very long story about the U.S. involvement in Ukraine.
I guess this was yesterday or the day before.
And it kind of reveals what all of us already knew again.
So this is like the same thing I said about the last story.
Didn't you already know that the U.S. was deeply involved in creating the situation that caused war in Ukraine?
But now the New York Times is revealing to us through their investigation Yes, the U.S. was very involved, but what they were keying on here is that the targeting information was coming from U.S. people at a German military base,
and even General Milley was directly involved in planning for the Ukrainian military, and there were even troops on the ground, U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine, presumably advising But I would think helping with targeting, and I would think helping tell people which button to push on the weapons, if they're American weapons.
So again, I ask the question, didn't we all know that?
Is there anybody who is watching this who didn't know that there must have been US military people sort of embedded with the Ukrainians from day one?
I just thought everybody knew that.
So now it's a big story in the New York Times and people are like, what?
But seriously, in the comments, didn't you all know that we had boots on the ground from day one?
Because that's the way everything works.
You don't have to know about Ukraine.
You just have to know anything about the United States.
And anything about the United States would tell you, of course we had people Pretending not to be our military, who are our military.
Might have been CIA, might have been just special forces or something.
But they just take off their outfits, dress like Ukrainians, which I guess dress like Americans.
And they're just training them.
Maybe they're just training them.
This is the least surprising story of all, but there's some speculation.
I saw Jack Posabic talking about it.
And that the New York Times might be trying to maybe cover their own asses or get ahead of the fact that there will be more coming out so it doesn't look like they didn't do their job.
So I don't know.
So apparently the U.S. has been directly involved in a war with Russia the entire time, which again, I thought everybody knew it.
None of you are surprised, right?
It's just how we operate.
Anyway. So now that there are multiple offers for TikTok, Wall Street Journal is reporting that Trump is going to be briefed on all the offers and make some kind of a decision.
But here's my question.
Isn't it up to China?
If China says you can't sell it or TikTok says it, but really, we would imagine that China was behind it.
And I don't think China is going to sell it.
So if I had to predict, I think that China would eat the billions of dollars of revenue that they could have made, 50 billion or whatever it is, because a lot of that would go to the investors.
It wouldn't go to China.
If you were China, And you knew you were going to lose control of TikTok in America anyway, just America.
Would you sell it?
If you thought you had a little money involved, you know, maybe a billion here or there, or, or would you just say, no, we'll just go into business in America and just sell it everywhere else.
I think China is not going to approve the sale.
So I think Trump is going to have to kill TikTok.
Which China would be challenging him to do, because you know how unpopular that would be?
That would be super unpopular because even Trump has said he's for TikTok.
So I think that China is going to want to corner Trump and put him, especially during the tariff situation, they're going to want to corner and embarrass Trump by saying, hard now, We're not selling it.
So if you want to put it out of business, that will be you, Trump, putting it out of business.
So explain that to all the small businesses who go out of business because they lose their TikTok access.
It would be a nightmare.
So I feel like Trump may have accidentally walked into a trap that he set himself.
How in the world does he get out of this?
So that's my prediction.
China will be hard now on the sale, and they'd rather embarrass Trump into being the one who kills TikTok.
I think that's where it's heading.
Apparently in New York State, there was some kind of a big strike by the corrections professionals.
And so there won't be enough or there are not enough people To operate the jails So what they're gonna do is release a whole bunch of prisoners not not the most dangerous ones But they're gonna release some massive amount of prisoners that should be in jail Just by saying they don't have jails They don't have a staff to manage it So
I guess the corrections officers have been on strike since February They don't like the forced overtime and tough working conditions.
To which I say, why did you ask for a job in a prison?
Why? Why?
Imagine asking for a job in a prison and then complaining about the difficult working conditions.
What did you think it would be?
Like when you decided to work in a prison?
Did you think you'd have a nice cubicle and a window view?
It seems to me that job would be the hardest job of all jobs, and also the most dangerous.
So, I certainly understand why they'd go on strike.
I just don't understand why they'd take the job in the first place.
Well, meanwhile, Project Veritas has a new undercover video.
Involving the NASA and the State Department, in which the employees are saying that they're not getting rid of DEI, they're just rebranding it.
And they're going to defy Trump's orders on DEI being illegal.
So they said they canceled their DEI stuff, but people just did it and called it something else.
They work around the rules.
What do you think is going to happen?
Do you think that the Department of Justice, I guess it would be them, Pam Bondi, would come after them when the undercover investigation shows that they were just lying, and they were just continuing to racially discriminate?
At what point do you go to jail for it?
Because it's illegal.
If you're If you're doing a scheme so that you can continue illegally discriminating against white people, is there no jail for that?
You know, at what point is it jailable?
You know, maybe is it a civil, you know, you get sued for it?
You lose your funding?
What exactly is a penalty for that?
Because if there's no penalty, nothing's going to happen.
But apparently racism is very important too.
NASA and the State Department, at least parts of it.
Well, according to The Hill, Tim Walz's daughter has decided not to go to grad school.
It turns out the daughter might be as dumb as Tim Walz.
So listen to her reason for not going to grad school.
And she announced this on TikTok, that she's not going to go to grad school because she says there's a A lack of support, at least in the school that she wanted to go to, for the right to protest at higher education institutions.
She said, I applied for one school.
I kind of had my heart set on it.
I'm not going to name the institution, but given the recent events, I'm not going to give my money, go into debt for or support institutions that do not support students and the right to protest and speak out for their communities.
So that's why she's not going to graduate school?
So she's destroyed her own career because she thinks she doesn't have free speech on a college campus?
I'm not entirely sure this was about free speech, was it?
I thought it was about gross antisemitism.
Was anybody complaining about free speech?
Because I don't know that free speech protects you from a level of anti-semitism that pretty much guarantees there's going to be violence attached.
I don't know.
Tim Walz's daughter?
I don't think you made a good decision.
Well, let's check in with the Department of Imaginary Concerns.
As you know, Democrats have a lot of drama.
And a lot of imaginary concerns.
So we're going to check in on those.
Imaginary concern number one.
Elon Musk is not elected.
That is an imaginary concern.
Now it's true.
He's not elected.
You know what else is true?
There are only two people in the executive branch who are elected.
Just two.
But I haven't given you the percentage yet.
Remember, a number within a percentage is misleading.
Uh, but there are about 2.4 million federal government workers.
I think those are just within the, the president's domain.
So of the millions, let's just say a few million, um, of the millions of workers, only two of them are elected.
The rest are appointed or in some cases Congress had to agree, but the vast majority of people who work.
For the executive base, the vast majority, like 99.99999% are all unelected.
So the unelected claim is both true, but it belongs in the domain of the imaginary concerns.
We'll put that with things that could have happened but didn't.
Anyway, here's another one.
There's a Yale professor who said, I think this was on MSNBC, they're interviewing a Yale professor who's going to leave the United States for Canada because he fears that Trump is implementing fascism and he wants to highlight it, make a point. So he's a professor of fascism.
So he's a scholarly expert on fascism.
Now, what happens if you're a scholarly expert on fascism?
Do you notice a lot of it?
Yes, you do.
What would happen if you were a scholarly expert on ghosts?
Would you see more ghosts than other people?
Yes, you would.
Suppose you were a scholarly expert on narcissists.
Do you think you'd see more of them than other people?
Yes, you would.
You'd see them everywhere.
So whatever you're the scholarly expert on, you're just going to sort of be primed to see it everywhere.
But what examples do you think are there?
Because you've been hearing it too, right?
Trump's a fascist.
Trump's a fascist.
What exactly are the examples?
So I went to Grok.
To find out what Trump is doing specifically that his critics would call fascism.
And here's what Grok told me fits under that category of fascism.
And what I want you to look for is, is this the sort of thing that looks like confirmation bias?
Meaning if you were the Yale fascism scholar expert, you could interpret all of this as fascism.
But if you are not fucking crazy, you can interpret it as just ordinary stuff.
All right?
So the first indication that Trump is a fascist is his America First policy.
If you happen to be the Yale fascism scholar expert, well, that's a pretty big signal that you're going to be a fascist.
If you are a normal person who is not batshit crazy, you'd say, oh, you mean like every country does?
Is there a country that doesn't put themselves first?
Well, maybe Great Britain.
Maybe France and a little bit of Germany at the point.
But don't you think that countries in general should manage their own situation first with an eye to the fact that they have to work productively with other countries?
So taking care of America first And doing things like making sure that our tariff situation is at least reciprocal?
Is that what makes a fascist?
Only if that's how you're primed.
If you're not primed to see it, it just looks like ordinary.
The most obvious ordinary thing that the president has the country in mind first.
Here's another one.
Trump pardoned the January Sixers.
Which would suggest that he is, you know, in support of violent insurrectionists.
Hmm. But that's just a media narrative.
It's not true.
What's true is it was a protest.
It's not true they were insurrectionists.
So if you believe they were insurrectionists and you pardon them, well, I could see how you might think, well, that's a little too far.
But if you happen to know that the media and the Democrats cooked up this horrific scheme to hunt and jail Republicans, then you would say, oh, well, this is just justice.
What part of justice is fascism?
And has not Trump also pardoned over time a lot of other people who are not a bunch of white Republicans?
He has.
So looking at pardons, because pardons are always sketchy, you know, every president does pardons, does at least a few that you say, what?
So pardons, I think that's a crazy standard.
How about strict immigration policies?
Again, this is from Grok, trying to give you examples of how Trump is a fascist, or his critics would say it.
Grok is not saying it.
Strict immigration policies?
That's just common sense.
That's literally just protecting your country from, what, criminal Venezuelan gangs and degradation of the workforce in the United States, or at least the pay for it.
How in the world is that fascist to not let other people come in and take your stuff?
Then Grok says Trump has a He has a rhetoric that talks about toughness, like, you know, break those heads and, you know, we might involve the military to do this.
But that's just talk.
And it's just how it gets reframed.
If you said to yourself, that's just how he talks, it means nothing.
If you say to yourself, well, that's the only, the only people who talk like that are fascists, because you're the Yale fascism scholar expert.
Well, then suddenly it looks like something.
But it's so thin.
Then about Trump makes attacks on the media.
So this is on Grok's list of why Trump's critics call him a fascist.
Attacks on the media.
Well, if you thought that the media was fair and honest, then attacking it would look a little fascist.
And do you think that the Yale fascism scholar expert believes that CNN and MSNBC...
He was actually appearing on MSNBC!
He was appearing on MSNBC!
And didn't notice that the entire media landscape is so biased that attacking it is just common sense.
Because they're, in many cases, just completely lying.
And there are plenty of examples where the media just ran schemes.
They ran plays against Trump.
And they knew they were doing it.
We know they knew they were doing it.
So attacking the media makes sense if the media is worthy of attack.
And boy, are they.
And then Grok says that on Twitter, Trump allegedly praised Hitler.
Okay, I don't need to tell you that never happened.
But there it is.
That's what Grok says.
No, that never happened.
And then they're saying that Trump made racist stereotypes of prosecutors.
Did he?
I think the racist stereotype, if he did anything, was that there's a coincidence to the type of people who were coming after him, which we all noticed.
Which is not a racist stereotype, it's more a complaining about people being racist against him.
Now, and then the summary is that Trump likes nationalism, suppression of dissent, and authoritarian government.
Suppression of dissent?
What part was that?
Attacking the media?
The media are liars.
It's suppression of misinformation, maybe, by arguing back.
An authoritarian government?
What makes it authoritarian versus effective?
Where's the line between getting stuff done and being an authoritarian?
Does the authoritarian ask Kid Rock and Bill Maher to go to dinner?
It seems to me that this is one of those framing hypnosis cult situations, where if you've been trained to see the world through the eyes of everything's fascism, or it's not, then you could sort of talk yourself into it.
But no, the evidence is purely open to interpretation, and I don't see it.
But once you're a ghost hunter, you're going to see a lot of ghosts.
According to the Daily Signal is writing, Tyler O'Neill, that Tesla owners not connected to Doge, just people who own a Tesla, are acceptable victims according to 31% of Democrats.
So roughly a third of Democrats in a poll I said that attacking people who simply owned a Tesla, which would include, you know, probably half of them are Democrats or leading Democrat, that they would be acceptable targets.
Now, remember I told you that Democrats are basically the thieves, and they're looking to take things from people who have things.
That includes Democrats who have things.
So if anybody has nice things, you're going to find a lot of Democrats who are willing to take it away.
And I don't think it goes deeper than that.
So I think that probably 31% of Democrats can't afford a Tesla.
So if you say to them, hey, how about these people who can afford a Tesla or even just afford a car, what do you think of them?
And they're like, ah, I think they should be victims just because I don't like Elon Musk.
But really, is that the reason?
Or is it just because they can afford a nice car and you can't?
So, that's crazy.
I think in general that people who don't have money are in favor of violence against people who do.
Do you think that's a good generalization?
People who don't have money and don't expect that they're going to make any in any legal way are gonna say they're gonna be open to violence to take money from the people who have it.
Because everybody wants more money, and if you can't figure out a way to make it yourself, maybe you'd rather take it from people.
I had the experience of going from a low-income situation to a high-income situation, and I can tell you that while I thought my character was improving and my morality, Yes, I got richer.
I eventually realized I was protecting my own class.
I became really anti-crime when I had money that people could steal from me.
But when I had nothing, and I saw somebody maybe ripped off a rich person, it didn't bother me a bit.
Is it because I used to have low character, and then I developed A conscience and higher character and morality and ethics?
No, probably just made more money and then joined the people who said, you shouldn't attack people who have more money because they earned it themselves.
So the difference, I think, with Republicans who don't have money and Democrats who don't have money is that Republicans who don't have money are more likely to think But I could have money if I worked harder and did all the obvious things that people do to make money.
So they're not thinking, I want to steal things and go to jail.
They're thinking, how do I work harder?
Where's my mentor?
You know, where do I get a foot in the door so I can make something of myself?
I think the Democrats are more likely to think that the system is rigged and they need some reparations or they need some Basically, they need the government to take money from the rich and give it to them.
And whether you deserved it or worked for it, none of that matters.
They just don't have money.
Other people do.
So they're trying to figure out ways to get it.
And if you can make the government be your criminal enterprise, which is what Democrats have done, you notice that Democrats have turned the entire Anyway,
here's a story that sounds like you've heard it before, but it's actually just a third one like it.
There's yet another law firm that Trump went after because they had been involved in investigating the January 6 attacks and some other stuff.
And let's see, this one is called Wilkie, Farr, and Gallagher.
So Trump was getting ready to go after them, but they cleverly got ahead of it.
And they said that they'll provide the equivalent of a hundred million dollars in pro bono legal services for causes the administration supports.
Now, this is the third major law firm to offer a gigantic pro bono, you know, essentially bribe.
Could you call it a bribe?
They don't call it a bribe.
Let's not call it that.
But here's my question so pro bono means that nobody would have to pay for it and they would do a hundred million dollars in legal services for Trump related or Republican related areas Now here's my question Do they put the top lawyers on that kind of pro bono work?
Are you gonna get the a-plus players or are you gonna get the The lawyers that maybe won't make it with the law firm and, you know, they're junior and, you know, well, we can say we tried, but, you know, we put our, we put our lawyers on it and we did not prevail, but, uh, I'm going to call that $10 million of legal service.
And nobody's really going to check that it was really $10 million of legal service.
And they will burn through that a hundred million commitment in no time at all.
And they will probably not win a single case.
It seems to me that the odds of them giving the A team to the pro bono work for the other side is really low.
Really low.
So I'm not so sure that this is a real victory, but it's fun.
All right, here's a question that I can't wrap my head around.
It doesn't seem like that long ago we were talking about China was in terrible trouble because their demographics are bad, they don't have enough young people, they're full of bureaucracy and they can't get anything done and they might have a lot of debt and they build a bunch of cities that they're just knocking down because it was a waste of money.
And they're stretched kind of thin everywhere, and they're getting ready to collapse at any moment because the U.S. is moving its manufacturing out of there, etc.
On the other hand, it seems like the United States doesn't know how to make anything, and China has entire industries of people that they've trained in the art of making stuff.
So if you wanted to build a manufacturing facility in the United States, you'd have to find somebody who knows how to do that, and there aren't that many, compared to China, where I think it's a major.
And you've got all these armies of trained engineers and everything else, who just know how to build a manufacturing plant.
So how do you compete with that?
We've got our kids who can barely read.
Every time there's a new report coming out, it's worse.
So China is educating its kids, we're not.
It feels like we stopped being able to invent things.
Only a few things have come out recently, mostly AI.
But China's AI seems to be cheaper and open source.
So if they keep their AI almost as good and cheaper and open source, how do our big companies that we think are the Are the jewels in our crown?
How do they even survive?
How would ChatGPT survive if it's competing against just as good and almost free?
I don't know how.
And I don't think that China's gonna, you know, suddenly start charging for AI, or at least charging more.
Suppose there's a war.
The smart people, I think Naval said this recently, whoever has the most drones that are, you know, at least good enough to be in military, whoever has the most drones is going to win every war because they're going to be all drone wars and whoever has the most is going to win.
How in the world are we going to have more drones than China?
China will instantly go to complete military dominance Because it can manufacture.
It can just make drones all day long.
And they would have rare earth minerals, and they would have everything they needed.
They wouldn't need anything from anybody.
So that's crazy.
So, here's what I can't tell.
Is China in trouble?
Do they have debt problems, and population problems, and bureaucracy, and they can't get anything done?
monster that will never be able to match militarily, technologically, or manufacturing-wise?
And if we can't match them as an economy, then dominate us.
And it seems like there's nothing we could do about it.
I saw a post by HotepJesus on X, and HotepJesus is funny because he says things that You're not supposed to say in public.
Very provocative things.
And I don't have an exact quote, but I think you said something like, if you're not expanding your empire, somebody is going to basically expand onto you.
So you don't have a choice of just staying the same.
In this world, that's just not an option.
You can be growing and growing your empire, or somebody else is going to grow their empire and take yours.
Those really are the only two choices.
Because if you look at any, any civilization that was thriving, they were usually conquering at the same time.
You know, whether it was Rome when it was growing, China right now is looking to, you know, conquer, it's already conquered, what, Tibet, and now it's going to conquer Taiwan, it's already conquered Hong Kong.
So China's And it's looking to dominate the oceans around China.
It's expanding.
Russia is expanding.
It got bigger and in a pretty important way.
And we don't know.
I mean, it doesn't look like he's done.
He just added more people.
He just increased the size of his army substantially.
Putin did.
And then the United States.
We're looking to pick up Greenland and maybe something about Panama and maybe even Canada.
So when you see Trump overtly trying to expand, don't feel like that's a risk to the United States.
Think about it in terms of there are only two ways that big countries can go.
They can keep expanding or they die.
Somebody else expands onto them.
So, you know, maybe Europe is the only place that's operating the opposite, and it looks like they're doomed, right?
So I don't see anybody in Europe who's trying to expand their country.
Instead, they're looking to give it away through mass migration.
So you should be able to predict that Europe is doomed.
And that the U.S., Russia, and China are still expansionist countries, and we might, you know, come to blows with each other.
I think we'd be smart enough to avoid world wars, but those are three healthy competitive situations if we don't go broke from debt.
Anyway, Russia says it won't accept the U.S. ceasefire proposal because it doesn't give them what they want.
Which is no NATO in Ukraine and something else.
Some kind of security guarantee.
No, what is it?
What are they saying?
They want to, I don't know, consolidate the land that they've already gotten and make sure that there's no NATO and blah blah.
So, but I'm going to go further.
I don't think that Putin's going to say yes to any deal.
So, I hate to predict this, Because I would have well I did I predicted that Trump could wrap up the Ukraine war fairly quickly Because I thought to myself well, he's just gonna say there's an obvious deal to be made Russia keeps what it already got Ukraine doesn't join NATO, but as it's shaping up.
I think I'm gonna bet against any kind of a peace deal I wouldn't bet That will necessarily stay supporting Ukraine, which maybe isn't the worst thing that could happen.
So I'm going to say that there's not going to be a Ukraine peace deal.
And I don't think Putin wants it.
I don't think Zelensky wants it.
I don't think the European Union wants it, but the U.S. wants it.
So I think we'll just bow out.
I think maybe we might sell weapons to people who want to buy them.
But I think Europe's gonna have to cash the check.
So yes, no peace deal in my opinion.
It doesn't look like anything's pointing in that direction.
According to Tech Explorer, there's this new EV battery breakthrough that you could charge 500% faster even in sub-zero weather.
University of Michigan engineers have it.
And apparently it's working so well that it's already being commercialized.
So we might see that.
If battery-driven cars didn't have the cold weather problem, and you could also charge them 500% faster, that's a big deal.
Now, I will tell you that I do see a battery breakthrough story every single day.
But they all started sounding the same, so I stopped reporting on all of them, but the battery stuff is really interesting.
It's really interesting.
All right, here's on Andrew Huberman's show, Huberman Lab.
He had an expert on who said that if a mom has diabetes, The risk of an autistic child doubles.
If the mom has obesity, the risk of having an autistic child doubles.
And if the mom has diabetes and obesity, which often go together, it would quadruple the risk of the autistic child.
Now, I don't know if I'm fully believing that yet, because that would fall into the somebody did a study, but I don't know.
But first of all, it doesn't match any of my anecdotal experience.
Because every time I think of somebody who had an autistic kid, I don't really think of them as being overweight.
And I don't know that they had diabetes.
So I haven't really seen it.
It's not like something I've noticed or anything like that.
So I'm a little skeptical of this one.
If it's true, it might be at least part of the puzzle of why there's so much of it lately.
And it wouldn't surprise me if diabetes and obesity, you know, created a whole bunch of, you know, health problems that you didn't see coming.
So that part sort of makes sense, but I don't know if I'm quite buying into that it might be a big part of the answer.
I don't know.
I'm a little skeptical, but it could be that there are multiple reasons, and they're all environmental and or health, and it'll be hard to untangle it.
Meanwhile, according to HR Dive, Emily Shumway is writing that the judge says that IBM must face the discrimination claim from the white male worker who believes that he was fired Because he was white so that the bosses could make room for their diversity goals.
And let me just read this part.
The plaintiff alleged that IBM's CEO set specific percentage targets for the racial and gender composition of IBM's workforce.
Now, I know that's true because I've seen video of the CEO saying exactly that.
And then IBM implemented a system of financial incentives To reward executives who work to achieve those targets, the DEI targets, according to the lawsuit.
And the IBM CEO suggested that executives who did not make progress on getting that diversity they wanted could be penalized or be fired or have their pay reduced.
Now, this is the goal versus system problem.
As a goal, a little extra diversity might be just positive.
As a goal.
But you have to develop a system to make it happen.
The system that he developed, IBM's CEO, guarantees that there would be massive discrimination against white people.
Why? Follow the money.
He created a A massive financial interest in discriminating against white people and trying to make it look like it didn't happen.
So suddenly this guy who had been getting good reviews suddenly gets put on a performance improvement plan, which is sort of the last thing they do before they fire you, so that they would have some paperwork, allegedly, they would have some paperwork that would support the firing the white guy.
Because every time you fired a white guy and replaced him with a non-white guy, you would make more money.
Or to put it the other way, the more successful you were discriminating against your white workforce, the less risk there would be that you would get fired.
Which is all about money too.
So how in the world does the CEO of IBM Not understand how money is an incentive.
And he didn't realize that people would massively break the law as soon as money was involved.
Because they could pretend they weren't doing it.
It wouldn't be hard to pretend, right?
No, Karl was doing an inexplicably bad job.
Autism Capital is saying that Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum says she will not impose reciprocal tariffs on the U.S. Hmm, I'll need to know more about that.
But today is going to be fascinating.
So if the stock market turns green today, and it might, it would be because a few countries, it wouldn't take many, decided to play ball with Russia, I'm sorry, play ball with Yeah.
and just be reasonable and come up with something that makes sense.
So maybe that's what Mexico is doing.
Maybe that's what Israel did, although they didn't have much tariffs.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
I think there is a real good chance that the stock market will end up in positive territory by the end of the day.
All it takes is a little bit of...
A little bit of a trend.
The countries are looking to avoid the economic war and make something work.
It wouldn't take much.
Maybe two or three countries and the stock market is going to love it.
So we'll see.
Oh, but I think Trump's announcement will be after the market closes?
Not sure.
Yeah. So we'll see.
All right.
So IBM's got to figure that out.
Elon Musk is getting a lot of attention for saying, he posted on X, as I mentioned several years ago, it is increasingly, it increasingly appears that humanity is a biological bootloader for digital superintelligence.
Now, of course, he's 100% right.
It's just an analogy.
It's not like It's not like you have to buy into the analogy.
But here's what I think.
The reason that Elon Musk says we need to be an interplanetary species is that if you stayed on Earth, eventually you would be destroyed by a meteor or the sun burns down or something.
So the only way humans can survive is if they're interplanetary.
And even that seems like a risk.
Because, you know, I mean, Mars might get destroyed before the United States and before we find a third planet, because it's not like there's a bunch of other planets.
But suppose there was some kind of gigantic risk to all life on Earth.
Would that risk be equal to the AI?
Could you launch a rocket It just takes the best AIs and puts them on there and has solar panels and the AI just lives forever as a digital entity that's super intelligence.
So it could be that you need the biological entities, we humans, for a brief period of time just to get super intelligence going, which could last forever, potentially.
could last through suns burning out and everything else, whereas the biological parts are unlikely to survive as easily for millions of years anyway.
I think you're fine this week.
I don't know.
I agree with his statement, but people are taking it wrong.
They're taking it as if he's saying that AI is more important than human beings, which is exactly the opposite of anything that Elon Musk ever said or believed.
Wait, the stock market's already up?
Is that true?
Oh, I'll be damned, the stock market's up already.
Well, there you go.
There you go.
All right, everybody, that's all I have for today.