God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, President Trump, Trump Teases Big Announcement, Iran Talks, Tariff Trade Deals, Yemen Port Bombed, James O'Keefe, India Bombs Pakistan, President Sheinbaum, Mexican Cartels, Major Fentanyl Seizure, China Trade Negotiations, Biden Authorized Non-Criminal Behavior Investigations, NGO Corruption, African Development Foundation, President Biden, AI Powered Medical Scans, FutureHouse AI Biology Analysis, Scott Jennings, Halfpinions, democrat Lawfare, CA Gas Price Increase, CA Disfunction, Climate Models Whistleblower, CBS News China, PM Carney, Canada 51st US State, Nuclear Reactor Regulatory Reduction, Trump Anti-Crime Success, Columbia University Layoffs, Senator Tillis Motivations, Ed Martin Confirmation, Maduro TdA, 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, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance on taking it up to the levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it's going to happen right now.
Go.
That's good.
That's good.
Well, happy hump day, although I'm going to call it Trump Day.
Because the theme of my notes today is that it feels like everything's going Trump's way suddenly.
Now, I don't know that that's true.
It might be just a weirdness of the way the news broke.
But there's a lot of stuff that seems to go pro-Trump suddenly.
Let's get into it.
First of all, Trump is teasing us that, quote, we have a big announcement to make.
It's going to be a truly earth-shattering and positive development for this country.
And it's not about trade.
What do you think it is?
What would be a truly earth-shattering and positive development that we don't yet know about and is not about trade?
Could it be the end of a war?
That doesn't feel like that would be...
You know, positive development for this country.
It'd be good for the world, but I don't know if he'd say it that way.
Could it be...
Well, I don't know.
What do you think it is?
He's so good at the show.
I don't know.
You know, we'll talk about that.
So we'll talk about all the things that are happening.
But they don't seem to fit.
Truly earth-shattering and positive developments for this country.
There's a bunch of things that could be happening for other countries.
Mostly, you know, their benefit.
I don't think it's that.
I don't know what it is.
So we'll see.
Anyway.
Believe it or not, according to the National Pulse, the U.S. and the U.K. are set to sign a bilateral trade deal.
Oh, here it comes.
All right, the first thing they need to know about all the announcements of trade deals, probably they're over, they're exaggerated.
Meaning if somebody says to you today, hey, we got a trade deal with fill-in-the-blank-whatever-country, it probably means not really.
It probably means that it's close, it looks like it might happen.
Maybe in a month.
Maybe if we make some agreements that we haven't made yet.
So I'm not willing to believe any of the we almost have a trade deal.
But that's the news.
And the early reporting is that the UK is poised to sign a bilateral trade agreement.
But they would not accept our food products.
That's part of the reporting.
It's not confirmed.
So this is unconfirmed stuff.
But I wouldn't be surprised if they say we won't accept your food products because it has hormones or whatever.
Now, wouldn't you like an option to buy the European version of American food?
Would you buy that?
So we've got various chemicals and treatments and hormones and whatever in our food.
And the Europeans use that as an excuse not to buy our food.
But I would love a section of the store where it's our food, but it's made in a way that only Europeans will accept.
So there's no chemicals.
I would buy the European version of American food, you know, grown in America.
So maybe there's something good that will happen to that.
U.S. and Iran are going to hold the fourth round of talks.
And I guess it's good that there's a fourth round, and there's also some clarity of what Trump would accept.
And if you combine it with what Rubio said, they're looking for a complete dismantling of Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapon.
But it looks like, according to Rubio, there might be a path.
If Iran agreed, there might be a path for Iran to have domestic nuclear power, which would be unfair for us to deny, I think.
So we'll see.
More on that in a minute.
And then Trump envoy Witkoff, according to Jewish News Syndicate, he's sensing that the Abraham Accords might have a breakthrough, that That we can know something about it by next year.
So that would be like a real alignment of the Middle East.
I think a lot of it is just, will you accept Israel's existence, and will you all do trade with each other?
And it looks positive.
So Iran is the big stinker in the Middle East, and we're even negotiating with them.
So that all looks like it's heading in the right direction.
So you see why I say it's not just hump day today?
It might be Trump day.
So everything is either teasing that something really good is coming in a variety of areas, from trade deals to whatever Trump was teasing about to the Abraham Accords to at least we're talking to Iran.
I mean, they're willing to have a fourth round of talk.
I'm still not super optimistic about that, but...
Better than not talking.
And then Trump was teasing that India might drop all tariffs.
Then I saw separately that they might only drop tariffs on auto parts and steel.
So I would say that story is unconfirmed, and I'd wait a little bit more for that.
But it does look like India is willing to do something that we would really like.
You know, the details of that to be determined.
But we might be looking at trade deals with the UK and trade deals with India fairly soon.
Now, you should understand that the trade deals are not really going to be fully signed and everything.
They usually start with some kind of letter of understanding.
So the letter of understanding would be, well, it is our intention.
To do this, and it's your intention to do that.
Do you agree?
But it's not the deal.
The deal has to be really detailed and have every kind of contingency worked into it, and that takes a lot longer.
But Trump says that India has, quote, already agreed to eliminate all tariffs on the U.S. goods.
I don't know if that's true.
I think Trump might be getting ahead of himself a little bit on some of the claims.
Let's say it's directionally true, because Trump is usually pretty good in directionality, meaning that we might be close to a deal, or that's how it's going to turn out, or it'll be something like that.
So that's all positive.
Then on top of that, you know, I was a little suspicious.
Whether the Houthis genuinely said that they wanted to stop fighting with the United States and stop bombing our ships.
And so far it looks like it might be true.
Because what the Houthis did say is that they're going to keep attacking Israel.
And if they have the ability to give a statement that says we're still going after Israel, and vice versa, Israel's going after them.
That would have been the opportunity for them to say, and we're still going after everybody, or Trump is lying, we don't really have a ceasefire deal.
But they didn't.
So, I guess we're negotiating with them through some other country.
But it looks like it's possible that Trump did something that I didn't think was actually...
Possible to do in the real world.
He may have bombed them into exactly what he wanted, which is to stop bothering us in the Red Sea, bothering our ships.
Now, it almost seems impossible, doesn't it?
And I was saying it doesn't look possible to me.
I didn't have a better idea, so maybe it was worth a shot.
I didn't really see that there would be some situation where he would just bomb the living crap out of Yemen and then the Houthis would say, all right, you made your point.
Yep, we surrender.
We're not going to bother you anymore.
Did anybody think that would work?
And we don't know the details.
But it seems to me that in Trump's first term, he also had some wins we weren't expecting against ISIS, for example.
And it was always the same thing.
Like, if you look behind the curtain and find out why he had some success that we had not had before, it's usually because he unleashed the full lethality of the military and there wasn't much reporting on it.
So if what happened is a Hegseth being focused on, you know, lethality and not focused on trans in the military, if they just said you can make your own local decisions, you know, you don't have to check in if you see a target, because that was a big problem before, you can go after any site that looks like it would be productive for our national interests.
Maybe that's all it took.
Maybe the only thing we really needed to do was unleash the military's full lethality, and then Yemen said, okay, we weren't expecting that, and we'd better surrender.
Well, at the same time, you probably remember that Israel, because the Houthis had sent a missile that came close to Ben-Gurion airport, that the...
Israelis destroyed the port where Yemen was importing 80% of their food, and I think they may have, I don't know if they already destroyed the main airport in Yemen, but that's a pretty big response.
And it makes sense, because Israel can't really be Israel if they can't have their own airport, because the Houthis might missile attack it at any minute.
So for Israel to respond in what looks like an over-response, taking out the port that handles 80% of their food, that's a big response.
And taking out maybe their only airport, that's a big response.
So we'll see where that goes.
Anyway, so if it's true that Trump at least got the Houdis to agree not to attack the ships in the Red Sea, Maybe except for his real ships, because they have something still going on.
That would look like one of the greatest achievements of his presidency.
It would be quite impressive.
I didn't expect it to happen.
And I'm not positive it's happened.
But remember, this is a hump day.
But it's actually Trump Day.
So we're just going to...
Let's just assume it's real.
Just for today.
Because it feels good.
Well, allegedly, James O 'Keefe is going to have some kind of story today that would be the reason that he disappeared for a while, because he was afraid that he would get killed.
Now, Alex Jones teased that Alex Jones knows some of what the topic of the story will be, but he doesn't know the details.
And Alex Jones agrees this is big.
Now, has it been released yet?
Because sometimes this stuff happens while I'm talking to you.
But has James O 'Keefe released his newest story?
I have to admit, I'm interested.
Now, given the nature of James O 'Keefe's stories, do you think it will be good for Trump?
Meaning that it will be something that shows that there's very bad behavior by Democrats?
Or do you think it'll be bad for Trump because it would go after some Republican thing?
Well, if you look at history, you would probably assume that whatever it is that James O 'Keefe is up to, you know, if he drops his story today, it's probably bad for Democrats, which would mean it's a perfect story for Trump Day.
Yeah, not hump day, Trump Day.
Now, on the scarier side of things, you probably heard that India did an attack on Pakistan that was in response to a Pakistani militant attack that killed 26 people in India.
And, of course, this is a long-term thing that's been simmering forever and occasionally there's some action back and forth.
But they are both nuclear countries, and these are bigger attacks than what we normally see.
And I guess Pakistan is already responding to India's response, so with some artillery.
But artillery seems like maybe it could have been worse.
I think India was sending in missiles, and if the response is artillery, it would feel like...
They're just making sure that India didn't get a free punch.
So I'm not sure they're escalating.
They may have just said, all right, all right, you did this, we did that.
Let's get a go.
So I'm not afraid of that yet.
And I don't think that that has anything to do with Trump at the moment.
There's nothing you can do about it.
Speaking of Trump...
He's escalated his public calls for military action against the Mexican cartels.
And he said that he had made an offer on Monday to the Mexican president.
And this is what he said about the president of Mexico.
Now, I ask you, would any other president ever use these words?
There's some things that Trump does so perfectly that it doesn't look like a president should even do this stuff.
But when you just sort of look at it, you go, that's sort of perfect.
This is what Trump said about the Scheinbaum, the Mexican president.
Quote, she is so afraid of the cartel she can't even think straight.
She is so afraid of the cartels, she can't even think straight.
Now, the funny thing about that is it rings true, doesn't it?
Like, when you hear that, you think, okay, you just got to the center of it.
She must be afraid of the cartels.
We all knew that, right?
That's not news.
But when you add the she can't even think straight, It probably is because when he talks to her, he's talking about, you know, solving the cartel problem and she's not responding like she wants to solve it.
You know, that would look like she's not thinking straight.
So I just love that framing.
She was so afraid of the cartel, she gave her things straight.
So now that Trump has moved our military...
To a lot of locations on the border with Mexico.
I think it's causing some of the cartels to have to arrange their business differently, and I guess the cartels are fighting each other, which I always wonder if we're behind that.
Do you ever wonder if we're behind that?
Like, wouldn't it be easier for us to get the cartels to fight each other than it would be for us to fight them?
So, I always wonder.
Do we send some information to one that sort of suggests maybe they should fight with the other one?
I don't know.
We should.
If we're not doing that, we're missing an obvious move.
Anyway, so my question is this.
Do you think Trump would ever attack the cartels in Mexico without approval of the president of Mexico?
One possibility is that he could give her deniability.
So she could continue to say, no, you are definitely not allowed to use your military.
But then we could maybe use the military.
And then she could say, I told you not to use the military.
We'll do everything we can in our power to stop you from using your military.
I mean, they're not going to.
Attack our military.
That would be suicide.
So maybe there's a good cop, bad cop situation where the president of Mexico, Sheinbaum, can pretend that she's opposed to it while letting it happen.
Well, not letting it happen.
What the hell could she do, really?
Because she's not going to turn the Mexican military on the U.S. military.
I mean, that would just be insane.
So I think that they would stand down and they would just complain a lot.
But maybe they'd be getting what they wanted, which is the cartels getting whacked.
Here's what I predict.
I predict that after a given amount of time, and it might not be right away, that there will be a limited attack, probably by a drone.
So not with boots on the ground, but by drone, on a cartel facility.
Maybe a military, you know, maybe they'll find the cartel has an ammo dump or something, and we'll go after it because it's really just military.
And it'll be a test.
And then Scheinbaum will say, damn it, I told you to keep your military out of our country.
You can't do that again.
Whatever you do, don't do that again.
And then we'd see how bad it was.
And we'd be like, all right, that wasn't so bad.
Maybe we'll try it again.
So I think Trump is likely to test it out and see what the public reaction is, see what the Mexican public thinks, because I'm not sure what the Mexican public would think.
Would the Mexican public...
Really be angry if we took in a cartel facility?
Or would they say, okay, we're not supporting the cartel, but you can't do that in our country?
Or would they say, finally?
Finally, because our own government won't do this.
Finally, somebody's going to take on the cartels.
Which would they do?
Probably a little of both, right?
There's always people on both sides of everything.
I don't know.
In related news, One America News is reporting that Bondi has announced one of the largest fentanyl seizures in the U.S. history.
And they also captured one of the Sinaloa cartel leaders, who I believe was in the United States, operating somewhat freely in the United States.
Now, one of the largest fentanyl seizures, it came with a bunch of other drugs as well.
But you shouldn't get excited about large fentanyl seizures because the ability of the cartels to just make more large fentanyl shipments is really high right now.
So if you get a million pills, they just say, all right, we're going to have to work overtime tonight, make another million pills.
It's not the biggest problem in the world.
And I think it's all sort of factored into the cartel business model.
Okay, we're going to have a certain amount of very large captures.
So they just make sure they make enough that the large captures don't change the nature of what they're doing.
So I don't think that's going to help too much.
But it's better than not.
You know it's better than not catching him Well apparently Apparently, Scott Besant, Treasury Secretary, and our Trade Representative Greer are going to meet with the Chinese, what would you call them?
Sort of a trade, they're not really a trade delegation, but they're going to serve a capacity at the moment, in Switzerland.
Now, that turned out to be the perfect solution because China didn't want to look like it was You know, anybody's slave.
So if we had said to them, hey, let's talk, and then we said the place that we're going to talk, then China would say, hmm, you can't push this around.
We're not going to go where you want us to go.
So what we found was the place they were going to be anyway.
They were going to be in Switzerland for other business.
So then Besant says, well, why don't I just meet you in Switzerland?
Could that be more perfect?
No.
I mean, Switzerland being famous for being unaligned, and they're going to be there anyway.
So it's just the perfect opening to have the conversation about, you know, how do we talk about trade?
Now, you should not expect that any agreements will be made, except agreements to make agreements, basically.
But they'll be talking on Saturday and Sunday, and Besant is trying to make sure that you curb your enthusiasm about what's possible.
He said, we're going to agree about what we're going to talk about.
And then he says, my sense is that it'll be about de-escalation, not about big trade deals.
So de-escalation would mean that we say something like, Okay, we intend to do trade talks.
We intend to.
So in the meantime, can we drop some of these tariffs?
So maybe?
And then China would not feel like they're being under duress.
They would feel like they're negotiating with a peer, which is what they've asked for.
So it looks like there's a path.
And it looks like everybody knows what the path is, which is first you de-escalate, you treat them like a peer, not like somebody that you're pushing around.
So far, so good.
And, you know, the thing that Trump did is he made it at everybody's top priority.
Without that, I don't think anything would be happening.
So Trump gets the win for making it a top priority.
And then the market has to deal with the fact that the thing they were most afraid of is that China, you know, our China trade deals would go off the rails, everything would be bad, and that would be bad for the market.
But now you can see that there might be a fairly reasonable path, which is first you meet and agree upon what you're going to talk about.
Probably you'd talk more about de-escalating instead of a whole trade deal.
And then everybody goes, whew, we've got 90 days or maybe to the end of the year or whatever they need.
And in that time, we're going to talk about all those trade-related things and tariffs and IP theft and everything else that were bothered by China.
And then the markets are going to say, all right.
It looks like a step in the right direction.
And that's why I call it Trump Day instead of hump day.
According to Just the News, Tulsi Gabbard, the DNI, has released a fully unredacted version of a Biden memo directing federal law enforcement.
To go after non-criminals in the United States.
Just think about that.
There was a Biden memo authorizing federal law enforcement, this was four years ago, to target Americans who were engaged in, and remember, none of these are illegal.
So they were authorized to go after Americans engaged in.
Concerning non-criminal behavior.
Non-criminal.
In the name of fighting domestic terrorism.
So with a specific eye on those serving in the military, what?
They're going to especially look at people just serving patriotically in the military?
Really?
People who own firearms.
What?
People who legally own firearms?
Are they going to be targets of law enforcement?
Or spreading what officials consider to be xenophobic disinformation?
What?
Xenophobic disinformation?
I feel like you could put a lot in that bucket.
Un-freaking-believable.
It was a June 2021 memo.
So now you understand why the FBI was monitoring conservative Catholics and parents who protested against school boards.
And, I mean, this is just head-shaking.
Now, this is the sort of news that won't make it onto the major media news, right?
So Democrats will never hear this news.
But do you think Democrats would be happy knowing that Biden had ever authorized federal law enforcement to go after people who were explicitly not accused of any crime?
Not accused of any crime.
And also not accused of preparing for a crime, as far as I can tell.
Unbelievable.
But of course, good for Trump.
So it's another good for Trump thing.
The Daily Wire is doing an investigation into the African Development Foundation, which is one of those organizations that Doge tried to penetrate.
And when Doge went after them, the African Development Foundation CFO refused to let them see the books.
And tried to lock them out and file a lawsuit.
And you say to yourself, that's pretty aggressive.
Why would the CFO try so hard to deny Doge looking at their books?
Well, it turns out there's a reason.
The CFO had been steering, allegedly, had been steering fake contracts to a friend of his, who then wired cash back to the CFO.
Oh, God.
Everything is exactly what you thought it was.
You thought these various charitable groups and NGOs, you thought that they looked like money laundering operations because there was no real audit trail for anything.
It was exactly what it looked like.
It was exactly what it looked like.
It was just gigantic money laundering.
Theft.
Un-frickin-believable.
But again, it makes the Trump administration look like the honest ones who are, you know, fighting crime, and it makes it look like the Biden administration either wasn't good at finding and fighting crime, or they were in on it.
So, again, it's not just hump day today.
It's Trump Day.
Everything's going his way.
Then meanwhile, Joe Biden did a BBC interview.
Did any of you see a clip from that?
So Biden decides that he'll talk to the BBC.
Now, maybe that's because all the American media is pretending that they're mad at him for his insiders not telling anybody that he was mentally deficient.
So is that why he's talking to a foreign press?
Because, you know, he doesn't have that friction with them?
I don't know.
But it was a bad idea because Biden looks completely mentally deficient in the interview.
And, you know, you sort of forget how much we got used to.
Now, I don't forgive anybody for not being able to see it, because it was still pretty damn obvious for the entire term of Biden's, well, even before he got in office, it was obvious.
But when you see it again after you haven't seen it for a few months, because we've been sort of denied any Biden spontaneous comments, you know, we've only seen him read a speech.
But when he tries to talk on his own, oh, my God.
How in the world did we put up with that for so long?
So that was a total failure, which is good for Trump on hump day that's now Trump Day.
Well, in other news that doesn't have to do with Trump, the UK is going wild in a good way with AI-powered scans.
So apparently they've got a new AI-powered 3D heart imaging.
The 56 hospitals have.
That's going to turn routine CT scans into precise, personalized coronary maps.
So apparently it's going to replace a lot of work that doctors would do, but it'll do an even better diagnosis than the doctor.
And they're already rolling it out.
So I feel like one of the biggest things that's going to happen...
And maybe Trump will just get lucky because he happens to be in office when this just coincidentally happens, is I think there's going to be this enormous cost-saving trend in healthcare.
Now, maybe it'll start in other countries and spread to us.
But think of all the things that AI could do and robots could do that we haven't quite implemented.
For example, I'm pretty sure that robots can do surgery better than human surgeons.
Now, I wouldn't personally want to go under the knife with a robot doctor, but I could probably get used to it.
You know, if I saw enough science that said it's better.
But I'd need a human to be watching.
You know, I'd want the...
The surgeon, even if it's in a different country, they could be eating a sandwich and playing a video game.
But every once in a while, I'd like them to look at what the robot doctor is doing to say, no, no, that's the wrong organ.
No, no, no.
He's here for a heart problem.
You're taking on his kidney.
Stop doing that.
So if the AI is better at imaging and we can reduce the cost of imaging, Which I think is, it seems likely, doesn't it?
Doesn't it seem to you that the cost of these big CT and PET scans and all those things, doesn't it feel like the natural direction for those would be much lower cost over time?
Because we'll innovate and there'll be a better way to do it, etc.
So I'm thinking that the diagnosis part of medicine is going to get real cheap because of AI.
And startups.
And then I'm thinking that the treatment, in many cases, will also get a lot cheaper.
The hard part will be the hospital stays.
So here's just a question I was noodling on.
If you have a hospital, you have to be ready for pretty much anything that could happen, right?
So you're ready for every kind of possibility.
So you need to have every machine, which probably means a lot of your equipment is sitting around idle.
I'm just guessing.
So I don't know anything about this industry.
So what would happen, hypothetically, if startups started doing little hospital functions where they only do one thing?
So let's say, for example, there's a mini hospital that pops up.
That only does hip replacement surgery.
Because probably there's a certain set of machines that you use just for that.
And then you can make sure that you have real specialists who are just good at that.
Wouldn't it be cheaper?
Wouldn't you be able to get all kinds of efficiencies if you only worked on the one thing?
And there's plenty of them.
I mean, you wouldn't run out of hip surgery possibilities.
So I'm just wondering if there's some way that the whole hospital thing could be rethought so that the more, you know, the common problems, you know, if they're not life-threatening, the life-threatening stuff, you just have to be ready for everything.
But if it's just an ordinary surgery, couldn't you have a place that just is specializing in that and it would be cheaper?
I don't know.
Maybe.
But I think healthcare costs have some possibility going down.
Apparently, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt is one of the backers of a startup called Future House, and they've just released an AI agent for discovery and biology.
Now, it's currently in beta, but apparently it can do open-ended and directed data analysis.
So if you give it a whole bunch of data...
It can look for whatever you tell it to look for, but it can also look at the data and just see if it finds anything that might be interesting that you didn't know to ask for.
Now, that would be amazing.
But here's my question.
So, I'm seeing Adam Dopamine says, healthcare isn't expensive because of doctors.
That's true.
It is expensive because the government killed the free market for healthcare.
I'm open to that argument.
That's an area I don't know enough about.
But it wouldn't surprise me if the Trump administration could sign some executive orders to make the healthcare market more competitive.
So, you know, maybe that's coming.
Anyway, so my question is this.
We've had AI for a while now.
Has AI ever...
Come up with a genuine insight in any domain.
Now, is that what this biology-based AI agent is going to do?
So it's an AI agent for discovery in biology.
So it's going to be zipping through data.
Is it going to come up with...
Its own, like, great insights that we didn't know to ask it to look for?
Because I've not heard of any example where somebody said, you know what?
I can't believe how dumb we were.
We've been looking at this data forever, and until we turned the AI onto it, we didn't realize that we were sitting on the answer to our problems.
We just weren't asking the right questions.
Has that happened even once?
I don't know.
So it's making me wonder if AI can ever do that, or at least the current technology of AI.
I feel like by now we would have seen all these great insights, and it would be posting on X better than Naval, and it'd be saying things that you knew were good for you, but if it hadn't framed it that way, you weren't going to do anything about it.
I mean, just think of some of the things that I've done.
For example, you know, if you're new to me, this will sound weird.
But those of you who have been here for a while, it won't sound weird.
So how many of you have heard me say something or write something in one of my books that caused you to change your life?
Either lose weight or stop drinking or exercise more or build a talent stack or do systems over goals?
Now, those are insights.
Those are reframes in some case.
But basically, they're designed to make you see something that was sort of always there.
It's just that I saw it differently.
And in seeing it differently, or even just putting it in different words, I could turn your general desire to improve into you actually doing things.
And then you would actually improve.
Now, that is a genuine insight.
Has AI done anything that would cause people to go, whoa, there's a new way of thinking.
I'm going to try that out, see how it works.
I don't think so.
So it makes me wonder if there's any kind of cap on that, that AI can't get past.
We'll find out.
Well, Scott Jennings, who continues to be the star of CNN, he was talking about what I would call the half-pinion of Democrats.
Now, that's my word, the half-pinion.
But he says, ask a liberal for their trade strategy, and they'll say a lot of words that essentially translate into, let China keep eating our lunch.
Now, that's his own take on it, which is funny.
But it's right.
If you say, well, what should we do about the fact that China has unfair trade practices?
Well, we shouldn't do a tariff war.
Okay, so that if we don't do the tariff war, then they just keep eating our lunch.
Well, but tariffs are bad.
Okay, I hear you.
But if we don't do the tariffs, You're okay with us just continuing to be robbed.
It's like they can't really consider the full picture.
But you see that continuously in the differences of opinions, that the Democrats have half opinions.
I would say that Gaza, the people who want Israel to stop dominating Gaza, also a half opinion.
Now, no matter what you think about the ethics or the morality of what's going on over there, I just stay out of that completely, because that's not my domain.
You'd have to admit that if you say, I want the killing to stop, you're sort of ignoring half of the question, which is, what would happen if the killing stopped?
Would they just reconstitute Hamas after a while?
And then Israel got nothing out of all that devastation.
That's not really an opinion.
It's half an opinion.
I want people to stop fighting.
Not really an opinion.
It's halfway there.
Anyway, same with Doge using a scalpel.
What would happen if Doge had tried to do things the normal way that people try to do things?
How would that go?
They would walk in and they'd say, we'd like to have access to all your books and see what we can cut in your organization.
But of course, we're going to do it the right way.
So we would like to check with you leaders of this group to make sure that we're not doing anything that's inappropriate.
And then the leader says, good, that's exactly what you should be doing.
And by the way, there's nothing here that could be cut.
None of that would work.
So if you don't like the chainsaw with the break you first and then fix it, if you have to, you're not really talking about the real world.
It's a half pinion.
My half pinion is we should not do anything that's a mistake.
Okay.
Yeah, you wouldn't do anything if you never wanted to make a mistake.
That just doesn't work for any domain.
So here's something I've noticed as a general trend.
Republicans try to do policy, and Democrats play with the rules.
And I'm going to give you some examples of that.
So here's the theme.
The theme is that Republicans try to fix actual problems, and Democrats, not having a better idea for fixing problems, try to use the rules.
They game the rules.
Here's some examples.
The elections.
So the Democrats have just wildly gamed the election laws.
To make legal voting without ID and voting from home and a whole bunch of things.
But all of this seems to be rules related.
The Republicans are more like they just want a fair election.
But then the Democrats are all about, let's play with these rules.
What about the Maryland dad?
The Republicans just want to get rid of somebody who's...
Looks to be an MS-13 bad guy.
They just want less crime, fewer criminals.
What do the Democrats complain about?
The process.
We're going to talk about the process.
How about the...
We were just talking about Doge.
They wanted to complain about the process of Doge, whereas Republicans were...
Can we just get in there and cut all of this garbage?
And if we cut too much, somebody will scream and we'll fix it, which is what they did.
And meanwhile, the Democrats are just trapped on process.
Yeah, but you should have used a scalpel, which means nothing, really.
What about Trump's tariffs and trade wars?
Same thing.
Trump says, we're getting ripped off.
I'm going to stop it.
So he does a very big move to do these wild tariff reciprocity and more.
And he's going after the problem.
The problem is that countries are ripping us off and they're not paying attention to us when we say, stop ripping us off.
Now they're paying attention.
So he's getting close to a solution.
So what do the Democrats do?
They complain about the way he's doing it.
Again, it's not about the solution.
It's about the way he's doing it.
And of course, they complain endlessly about Trump's personality, which has nothing to do with anything.
And there's the lawfare.
The lawfare is not about really having a better country or fixing crime.
It's about...
Manipulating the law to win, basically.
So again, it's about manipulating the rules and the law and the standards, basically.
Going after a president with every possible way you can with these bullshit lawfare things.
That's new.
What about all the censorship attempts that we learned about with the Twitter files?
And we learned about...
With this latest Biden memo that came out.
Again, instead of just having free speech, which would be sort of a Republican goal, free speech, they go after all the rules.
They find these clever ways to build NGOs and have the external forces turned internally.
So that we can censor Americans.
Again, playing with the rules.
What about the fake news?
Again, it's not about what's real in the real world.
It's about a narrative so that people don't know exactly what's real.
But they're playing with the rules of the fake news, basically.
What about all these NGOs?
Again, creating a whole rules-based...
What structure that they can hide money and get stuff done that maybe nobody wanted done?
What about all those Soros prosecutors?
Again, it's playing with the rules.
What about climate change being a driver of everything?
Playing with the rules.
Where the better goal would have been, let's get as much energy as possible.
I think Doug Burgum was the one who explained it really well recently, that even if you think that we need to get to a point where there's less CO2 in the atmosphere, even if you believe you have to get there, Burgum correctly says the only way you could ever get there is through technical innovation.
And the only way we're going to survive to get to a point with technical innovation at that level is if we have Tons of energy right now from every way we can get it, because AI in particular will be sucking up that energy.
So AI might be actually the technology that determines how real any of the climate stuff is, and if it is real and has to be solved, probably would be the technology that figures out the best way to do it.
So, in general, Republicans try to get some policy done and Democrats try to game the rules.
It's just so consistent.
It's weird.
Well, meanwhile, in my state, there's an estimate by the center square.
That's what's writing about it.
There's a new study from the University of Southern California.
Michael Misch.
And he's looked at what is likely to be Californian gas prices by the end of 2026.
And that would be after the two refineries that say they're going to close have closed.
And that would be one-fifth of our state's refining capacity.
So currently, we have the nation's highest gas prices, $4.78 per gallon, which, by the way, is cheaper than I've seen anywhere.
So I haven't seen 478 on the sign, but I don't get out much.
I haven't seen anything under 5, so I don't know if that's my local area or it changed recently, and I just haven't gotten gas in a month.
But the estimate is that California gas, by the end of 2026, will cost $8.44 per gallon.
Based on the things that we know are going to happen.
Not based on weird speculation, but based on the things that we already know are definitely going to happen.
Our state is so pathetic.
Here are a few things that we don't get to have in our state.
A movie business.
Remember when California had a movie business?
Can you believe that we destroyed the entire film and movie business?
We completely own that, and it's completely dead because of taxes and basically bad management.
We're not going to have gas because half of the citizens won't be able to afford gas if it's $8.44.
We don't have fire insurance, and we don't have fire mitigation.
So it's more important to have fire insurance than ever.
We don't have safety on the streets or in the stores.
We don't have electricity when it's windy.
Let me say that again if you didn't know that.
We don't have electricity when it gets windy.
That's because the wind might blow some power lines down and start a fire.
That's a real thing.
In Southern California.
I don't think it sent me in Northern California yet, but it could.
When the wind reaches a certain level, they turn off the electricity in my state.
And for all of that, we have the highest state taxes and unaffordable homes.
So that's what California got for you.
Good job, California.
Anyway.
And then here's some news from the brighter side of news.
Joshua Chavit is writing about this.
So there's some new research.
One of the things I enjoy is making a prediction years before it could come true and then knowing it's going to be true.
And then just watching it develop.
Now, here's just one that makes me laugh.
There's new research that reveals that plants absorb 31% more CO2 than previously thought.
Now, suppose this is true.
How good are those climate models if they got...
If they got plant absorption of CO2 off by 31%, do you think that they put those 100 variable climate models, everything was fine, but they had this one little thing, and if they just tweak that, then it'll be just right.
So the thing I've been saying on social media for a while that just always makes me laugh whenever I see a story like this, I always say, wait until you find out about the climate models.
In my opinion, there's a 100% chance that sometime, probably in your lifetime, there will be a whistleblower.
And the whistleblower will be somebody who worked with climate models and will be maybe done with that industry or maybe they're just brave.
And they're going to come out and they're going to say, all right, the climate models are not real.
How do I know?
I made climate models.
What do you mean they're not real?
Okay, we were just guessing.
If you tweak anything, you can get any number you want.
Every now and then we would produce an estimate that was outside the zone that the industry would allow.
So we just tweaked it so it was in the zone.
There's going to be a whistleblower on the climate models.
You wait for that.
I guarantee it.
It's the most predictable thing in the world.
Because I think everybody who's worked with any kind of prediction models, I think we all, which I have, in the financial realm, not in the climate realm, but it's the same thing.
Once you add a certain number of variables to a prediction model, it's completely useless.
You can't predict the future.
And nobody's ever figured out to predict the future with You know, a hundred variables.
So just wait till you find out when the whistleblower appears.
It's coming.
According to Modernity, Steve Watson is writing, that CBS News did a piece about China that almost seems like CBS wants China to win the trade war.
So CBS News sent a correspondent over to the...
Manufacturing Fair in China.
And the theme of the report was that the poor factory workers and manufacturing people in China were being punished for, quote, being good at exporting their products.
So we're punishing the poor Chinese workers for simply being good at what they do.
And it's terribly unfair, and what we're doing to China is very mean.
That's CBS News.
All right.
According to the National Pulse, there are some medium-sized companies, manufacturing companies, that are just swamped with new business in America.
Because people are looking for alternatives to Chinese products.
So in some cases, there are things we don't make in America.
In other cases, there are things we do make that maybe were a little more expensive than the Chinese version.
But with the tariffs, they're just doing great business right now.
So, for example, U.S. manufacturers such as Juergens, Grand River, Rubber and Plastic, SafeSource, Direct, Accurounds, Whirlpool, and AccelDryer, they're all reporting just businesses booming because they're American businesses.
And they were doing something that China was doing a little bit cheaper, but maybe not now.
So this is sort of a hidden benefit because these are not the biggest companies.
They're located in various places, Ohio, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Michigan, and they're just doing booming work.
And that is your hump day that's really Trump day.
Well, I don't know if you saw the clips of Prime Minister Carney of Canada meeting with Trump, but it was very interesting.
So Trump managed to balance the fact...
You know, that we have this friction with Canada with the fact that his charisma is so strong that he can make Prime Minister Carney sort of smile and have a good time while he's telling him he wants to take over his country.
And he actually pulled it off, which is funny.
So Carney tried to frame the idea that, you know, Canada would ever become a...
The 51st state of the United States.
He said that Canada is not for sale.
So he said it very well.
He said some things are never for sale and Canada will never be for sale.
But when did we say we wanted to buy them?
I don't recall that.
I think Trump was just saying it just makes more sense we would be one country.
He didn't say we want to buy you.
And I would agree there's no price.
So yeah, I would agree with Carney.
Canada is not for sale, and it should not be for sale.
But Trump calls it a potential marriage.
A marriage where two people say, you know what?
This would be a good deal for both of us.
That's a completely different frame.
And then Trump reinforces the fact that they're getting $200 billion a year of free military protection from the United States.
I don't know if that's a real number, but it's the one he's using.
And that would be something that wouldn't be unfair if we were part of the same country.
And then you wouldn't have to worry about any tariffs on anything because we'd be part of the same country.
And maybe the cost of government may be reduced, because instead of two entirely different governments, maybe you just have one.
Now, I'm not going to say that it's likely that Canada and the U.S. will have a marriage and become one, but right in front of the entire world, after Carney says in front of the press that Canada is not for sale, Trump just shrugs and he goes, never say never.
And he says, I've had many, many things that were not doable and ended up being doable.
And I thought to myself, okay, that really is true.
There's nobody I know more than Trump, except maybe Elon Musk, who's taken on things that everybody knew were undoable and sort of made it work.
Closing the border was undoable, but he did it.
Becoming president the first time was undoable, but he did it.
Becoming president the second time was undoable, but he did it.
Getting the Hooties to stop attacking the ships seemed undoable, but he did it.
So he does have a track record of doing the undoable.
It's hard to deny him that.
But I would say that, and there's also reports that Carney privately asked Trump to stop talking about making Canada the 51st state, and I agree.
I agree.
We should stop talking about making Canada the 51st state, and we should adopt Trump's newer model, if you wanted any kind of marriage to happen there, to talk about it more like a marriage.
Meaning that it would happen if both sides say, you know what, this is a good idea.
And at the moment, there's no proposition on the table that Canada could look at and say, oh, actually, if that's what you're talking about, that wouldn't be a bad idea at all.
So there's nothing really for Canada to look at at this point.
It just feels like Trump is just making the impossible seem like Maybe.
And I think he's actually pulled it off.
Because if you asked me a few months ago, what are the odds that U.S. and Canada would become one country?
I would have said, come on.
That's not going to happen.
There's no scenario in which they're going to sell the country.
No, that's not going to happen.
If you asked me today, I'd say, probably not.
But it's not impossible.
So Trump pulled that off.
He actually changed my mind from completely ridiculous to, huh, I don't know.
You could imagine there's a scenario in which there's a proposition that's just so good for Canada, maybe lowers their taxes.
I don't know.
I mean, our systems are different enough that it would be a massive transition or problem if we ever did it.
And you'd have to figure out a way that it didn't make them look like the little, you know, the little partner that's being dragged along, but rather, you know, they got their full respect.
And I think it could be done.
I'm not going to predict it will be done.
But the fact that he turned it from this is ridiculous to maybe is pretty impressive.
Well, I guess Trump's also issued some or is expecting to issue some executive orders.
Zero Hedge is reporting on this.
Actually, Axios reported on it first, I think.
To accelerate the deployment of nuclear reactors, mostly getting rid of the regulatory burden.
That's a big deal.
I thought that something like that had been worked on before, but not through the president's office.
I think maybe the energy department or something had been trying to reduce regulations, but maybe they didn't get there.
So if we get to the point where we can make the small nuclear reactors and just approve a few designs...
Then we could just say, all right, as long as it's this design, just go wild and make a bunch of them, you know, the smaller reactors.
That's probably where the big win is.
So this, again, is another potentially gigantically important thing that Trump could do that nobody else did, reducing the regulations for nuclear power plants.
It's Trump Day.
CNN's polling data guy, Harry Enten, was talking about Trump and how he's doing on crime.
And apparently Trump is doing well on crime and doing, quote, far better than Joe Biden, who is so far underwater, Enten said, that my goodness, he was setting records at minus 26 points.
You rarely ever see it.
So apparently Biden was so bad on crime, That he set records for being bad on crime.
And then Trump ran on law and order.
And it was one of the reasons he got elected.
And now he's he's now plus two net approval rating on that.
But listen to this.
Emton said, if we go back to March of 2024.
All right, so that's a year ago.
March of 2024.
Trump was underwater on crime at minus 13. And he got all the way back.
So he's doing 15 points better than he was a year ago in terms of how people are viewing him on crime.
One of the main things that the public cares about.
And then Enten mentions something that we've been talking about.
He said the Alcatraz idea was a way to focus the public on the fact that Trump is the anti-crime guy.
Exactly.
Exactly.
So even Harry Inton completely gets Trump at this point, that maybe Alcatraz is a place that could end up being a prison.
Maybe.
But even if it doesn't, the fact that he put it in your head, Makes you think, oh, that Trump is the anti-crime guy.
I mean, Biden never would have done that.
So Alcatraz doesn't have to happen.
It just has to inhabit your brain and sit next to Trump is strong on crime.
Yeah, he must be strong on crime.
He's trying to turn Alcatraz into a place to handle more criminals.
I love the fact that even Harry Enten completely understands that play.
Columbia University, one of the universities that was losing federal funding because they didn't do enough about anti-Semitism at their school, they lost $400 million in federal funding and now they're going to lay off 180 staff members that do administrative stuff.
Do you think that maybe they had 180 too many staff members anyway?
Don't you think that maybe they won't even notice the difference if 180 staff members go away?
I feel like that might be less of a problem than it sounds like on paper.
So they probably only cut the fat out.
A lot of the federal funding for Quote, research at these schools.
I think most of the money actually just went to administrative stuff.
And very little of it, as a percentage, went to the actual research.
So, I don't know.
It seems like it's moving in the right direction.
Now, you've heard this story before, but it's getting weirder.
What is the name?
Tillis.
So Senator Tom Tillis, he's opposing the confirmation or nomination of Ed Martin for the job of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.
Now, what you need to know is that the person who's in that job as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia is going to be in charge of some of the most important stuff because it's D.C. So, whoever's in that position is going to have tremendous influence on the world.
If he doesn't get confirmed, it's possible that because of the weird way that D.C. works, Judge Bosberg would be the one who appoints the replacement.
So, we could go from the friendliest of the mega Trump people that you could have, Ed Martin, To the worst thing that could ever happen.
And it could happen because Tom Tillis doesn't like Ed Martin.
So I ask myself, as does the news, what is it that Tillis has against Ed Martin?
Well, you've heard before that he doesn't like the fact that Ed Martin, well, he doesn't like his views on January 6th.
So let me give you a little bit more about that.
So Tillis, this is according to reporting, he doesn't like the fact that Ed Martin might pursue the Fed's erection idea, the fact that the Feds were maybe a little too active in causing the events of January 6th.
That is unconfirmed at this point, but if Ed Martin thinks it's worth looking into and Tillis does not, that would be a difference.
Ed Martin was a little more favorable to the pardons of the January 6 people, where Tillis thinks they should have all been in jail if they violated the law.
And doesn't like his involvement in the Stop the Steal movement, which had baseless claims of election fraud.
And Tillis said, He might support Martin for a role that wasn't the D.C. district, but not in Washington, he said, where the January 6th events occurred, citing that as a friction.
But then he also goes on, he doesn't like Martin's, quote, lack of prosecutorial experience and controversial actions, such as failing to disclose over 150 appearances on Russian state media.
And sending threatening letters to political opponents.
Now, here's a little rule that I learned a long time ago, and I've mentioned it before.
I've had to detect a lie.
If somebody says, oh, sorry I'm late, traffic was bad, that might be true, because it's one reason.
If somebody says, oh, I'm sorry I'm late, Traffic was bad, and my car got a flat tire, and I had the wrong time on my calendar.
That's a little less likely to be true.
People who have real reasons usually have one.
There's like one good reason.
But when you start throwing the entire laundry basket at it, it's like, well...
I'd be okay with him being in this job if it were not Washington, D.C. And then he throws in the lack of prosecutorial experience, which would be the opposite of his earlier point.
His earlier point would be, oh, he'd be perfectly fine for someplace not Washington, D.C. But then he says he has a lack of prosecutorial experience, which would suggest...
That he thinks he's not qualified for those other places that are not D.C. Right?
So there's something that just smells a little wrong about the reasons he's giving.
And then there's this one about 150 appearances on Russian state media.
So that would be RT, I'm pretty sure.
The outlet RT.
Now RT is definitely Russian state media.
There's no doubt about it.
But I, too, have appeared on RT, not recently, but during the first election cycle for Trump.
And I remember I was getting lots of requests because I had a different take on Trump, that he was persuasive.
So RT would often invite me on, and then I would do an interview, usually live, and they would show the entire thing.
And they wouldn't have much pushback.
And I thought to myself, is that really a problem for me?
Because I was fully aware that RT meant Russia today and that it was a Russia-dominated media.
I was completely aware of that.
But it didn't matter because as long as they didn't edit what I said, why did I care who it was?
So I've stopped.
I stopped accepting offers from RT because they got too much heat.
And I understand why.
Because they can also influence things by who they have on.
So if they have on one set of views but not another, I could see how that would be propaganda-ish.
But from my personal perspective, as long as they didn't edit what I said...
Why did I care what outlet it was?
They got to hear me.
I just didn't care.
So at the moment, I'm playing it cautiously, and I wouldn't go on RT.
But there was a time when a lot of people who were normies went on RT because they didn't get edited.
So what was the problem?
It was also before Russia attacked Ukraine.
So things were different then.
I don't know.
So my take on Tillis is there's something else that is the problem.
I believe he's trying to protect something or hide something, and I do not trust that the reasons he's giving are real reasons.
There's something fishy about this, something really fishy.
I don't know if we'll ever find out, if that's true, but it smells fishy to me.
The Postmillennium is saying that there's a new report by the National Intelligence Council that it's probably not true that the head of Venezuela is controlling the activities of the Trenda Aragua gang in the United States.
But it's probably true that members of the Maduro regime were active in helping them.
Get to the United States and other countries as a destabilizing force.
So it's probably not true that they're operating like a wing of the Maduro government, you know, like a paramilitary force or something, because they're kind of independent and spread out and they're kind of concentrating on smaller crimes, you know, not big terrorist acts or something.
So that sounds true.
So there's probably some understanding that if it's destabilizing to the United States, they're kind of okay with it.
But beyond that, I don't think that they're giving them orders.
So it's probably less likely that you're going to see some big Trenda, Aragua terrorist event orchestrated by the head of Venezuela.
Probably not.
But there may be plenty of people in the government of Venezuela who are happy to see us struggling with the gangs.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is my show for today.
I think I've made my point that it's Trump Day, not Hump Day.
So we'll see how much more good news there is coming.