God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, RFK Jr., Nutrition, Bill Gates, Democrat Arabella Group, Conservative Anti-Crime Bill, Trans Mass-Shooting, Bluntness Trend, Robbie Starbuck, AI Deadbots, Nvidia, Revenue Sharing Pact, Alcohol is Poison, Word Association Programming, Worldwide Alcohol Decline, OpenAI Legal Reporting, Lisa Cook, DC Union Station, John Bolton, President Trump, RICO George & Alex Soros, Gavin Newsom, Democrat Dangerous Rhetoric, Wikipedia Bias Investigation, DNC Policy Platform, Autism Cause Investigation, CDC Director Firing, Susan Monarez, Covid Vaccine Policy, MI Teacher Certification, Gaza Hospitals, Trump's India Tariffs, Sand-Based Batteries, 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.
Let's do a show, because there's so much going on.
A lot.
Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
I feel a cat pulling on my leg.
Gary, come join us.
Oh, let's do that first.
Boom, boom, boom, boom.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlights of human civilization.
It's called Coffee Scott Adams.
You've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that no one has even experienced or seen before or could understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mugger glass attacker, Chelsea Steiner, canteen sugar 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 end of the day.
The thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, that was really good.
There we go.
Wait.
Everything's working?
Yeah.
Well, did you hear about the Florida man who stopped a burglar while he was in his Batman pajamas?
Now, what that burglar was doing in that man's Batman pajamas, I don't know.
No, it wasn't the burglar.
It was the man who stopped him who had the Batman pajamas.
And the best part about it is that when asked about the Batman pajamas, he said it gave me the confidence I needed.
Now that is a great answer.
I don't know if the man wearing the Batman pajamas had any kind of mental issues, but I hope he was just a normal person who likes Batman.
And then we got a chance to go all Batman on the burglary did, because I gave him the confidence he needed.
Well, I immediately ordered myself some Batman pajamas because although I wouldn't wear them every night to bed, what if you heard a noise downstairs?
Well, I would put on my Batman pajamas just to go downstairs.
Because if you're a burglar and you see the homeowner come down in Batman pajamas, you know he's going to attack.
You know you've got a fight coming.
So you might as well get out of the house.
Well, apparently the GDP has been revised and that was 3.3, which is really healthy.
That's a pretty good GDP.
So good news there.
Restaurants Struggling00:03:50
However, Fortune magazine reports that there's a noticeable drop in traffic at restaurants and shops and malls.
I have noticed that too.
Have you noticed that?
And it makes sense because people are feeling their budgets are constrained.
And what is the first thing you do if your budget is constrained?
You stop eating out.
That's like number one.
It's the first thing you stop doing.
And shopping for entertainment, you definitely wouldn't do that.
So I feel as though people are really going to have to try hard to reduce their food budget.
And I think restaurants can have some tough years ahead.
That's my guess.
Even if the economy is good.
It's just that food is ridiculous.
Cost of food.
Well, the middle-aged, according to the economist, the middle-aged people are no longer the most unhappy.
That has that honor has gone to the young.
So young people, according to new surveys, are the least happy.
So middle-aged people, you're winning.
I would guess that is 50% is economic because they feel like they can't succeed if they're young.
And about half of that is loneliness and inability to hook up with somebody.
So, yeah, I can see it.
There's definitely, if you change people's economic situation and their access to sex, they are going to be the least happy group.
So at least the middle-aged people can have some, you know, middle-aged sex and they might have a little bit of money compared to the young.
Well, RFK Jr. made a bunch of news, and the first part is that they're going to add nutrition education to pre-med programs across the country.
I don't know if they're making it mandatory or if they're just making it available, but you probably know that doctors will go through medical school without being trained in nutrition, which is mind-blowing.
Not trained in nutrition?
What?
But will that work?
In my lifetime, all the science about nutrition has been fake.
Do we believe, do you believe that after 300,000 years of civilization where people didn't know much about nutrition, do you believe that you were lucky enough to be born in the exact era that we figured out nutrition?
Well, it certainly didn't happen when I was young, but did it happen recently?
I thought it happened when I was young.
Do you think that we're going to find out that absolutely everything we believe about nutrition is wrong?
Maybe, because we found that out every other time in all of human history, we've never been right about nutrition.
But now we're right.
We finally got the right answer.
I don't know.
So I think it's probably a good idea to teach as much as we know, but I'll bet you a lot of our nutrition science is still crap.
Comprehensive Crime Bill Debate00:14:33
Well, apparently Bill Gates is going to discontinue funding something called the Arabella Group, which is some big Democrat-leaning organization.
And I don't know much about the Arabella Group, but I do know that Democrats, their entire structure, which we've learned in the past couple years, is this hugely complicated set of NGOs and charities and PACs and groups.
So tons of groups.
And if you have enough groups and they're all working together towards some common goal, such as Democrats being in charge, they can hide all kinds of money because it's kind of clever that you can give money to a charity, knowing that the charity is then going to give your money to some kind of politician.
So that's a pretty clever way to hide your money and what you're doing.
It makes me wonder, because I did hear that Bill Gates has met with Trump a couple of times.
And it seems to me that Bill Gates would have lots of things that he really needs the government to do in order for Bill Gates to do what he wants to do.
In other words, there might be regulations that prevent his investments in nuclear power.
Could be lots of things he needs the government to do.
Do you believe that Trump would have said, sure, tell me what you need from me and I'll go do it?
Does that sound like Trump?
Or is Trump the kind who would say, so what is it you need?
Okay, so if I do that for you, what are you going to do for me?
I've got an idea.
And he talks to his staff and they say, tell him that you'll do what he wants if he stops funding the Arabella group.
That might have happened.
Now, I have no information that would suggest it did, but it's hard for me to imagine that Gates would go to the White House unless there was something he needed or wanted, something specific.
And I can't imagine any scenario in which Trump would just give it to him, as opposed to saying, you know what?
There's something you could do for me.
Maybe this is it.
Or it could be that this is all part of the big money people saying the Democrats are broken and giving money to them just doesn't make any sense at all.
You know, the whole thing is collapsing.
So it might be that Gates just thought it was a waste of money.
And maybe he was looking for a way to stop doing it anyway.
So that maybe he agreed to give up something he wanted to give up anyway.
I don't know.
Maybe.
I'm just speculating.
All right.
Apparently, the House Republicans are moving to create a, quote, comprehensive crime bill.
Now, if you've been watching the news and opinion people, you know that they've been saying, hey, you know, this Washington, D.C. surge by the feds to take on crime, that seems to be working.
But what we really need is maybe some kind of comprehensive crime bill so that, for example, it might fund a bunch of more cops for cities across America, something like that.
They haven't figured out what that comprehensive crime bill would be.
It's comprehensive, so it would be, you know, something about cash bail, something about funding cops, I suppose.
But what I love about this is that I kept seeing, was it Harold Ford Jr. who kept saying almost every day on the five on Fox News, saying that the Democrats should try to be proactive and do something useful about crime instead of acting like maybe they're in favor of crime more than they are crime prevention.
And he kept saying, you know, they should propose a comprehensive crime bill.
Well, it looks like the Republicans just took that away from them by being the ones who are initiating the crime bill.
Now, of course, the Democrats would have trouble getting anything approved, but at least it would look like they were doing something.
You know, they could say, well, we don't agree with this federal takeover of Washington, D.C.'s police, but we are working on this crime bill.
Look how smart we are.
If we were in power, you'd have this crime bill and you'd like it.
But no, Republicans are going to take that completely away from them.
Will a comprehensive crime bill be popular?
Probably at least 60%.
I don't know if it's an 80-20, but yeah, I think it'll do fine with the public.
Well, you probably know there was another shooting yesterday, and I wasn't going to talk about it because the two topics that I try to avoid are anything with individual crime, like a mass shooting, and anything about trans.
Those are two topics I generally try to avoid.
It's only because the trans topic is just everybody's saying the same three things.
There's nothing to add, really.
And the mass shooting things, they all start to look alike.
And then you say all the same things.
It's like something about trans, and then people will say something about their hormones.
Elon Musk did.
He goes, this is Elon Musk.
Violent crimes per capita by trans-identified individuals is 10 times higher than the overall population.
Large doses of artificially administered hormones are driving them to extreme violence and murder.
These extreme hormone treatments should be withdrawn by the FDA.
Now, the first question is, is that per capita data correct?
Is it true that, you know, if you adjust for how many there are, that the trans people have a 10 times higher odds of violent crime?
Remember, my rule is I don't trust any crime data.
Don't trust any war data.
Don't trust any economic data.
Yeah, maybe, but I wouldn't automatically think that that was true.
But anecdotally, it looks true.
Anyway, and I don't know if, I don't know if we've proven that the artificially administered hormones are part of what's making them do what they do.
But it's a popular opinion.
A lot of people have that same opinion.
I don't know if they're right.
So we're going to talk about all the same boring things.
What's up with trans and gun laws and how do you get his guns and why didn't his parents know that this was going to come?
And then there's going to be the conversation about prescribed drugs, because I don't know if he was on any, but the obvious question is: were you on any anti-depression drugs that may also be implicated in causing people to be violent?
And then it was a Christian school, so we'll talk about Christianity being under attack.
There's nothing I can add to that, right?
The entire conversation is so scripted in advance that there's just nothing to add.
Yeah, everybody's going to say one of the eight things that people say about this sort of thing, which unfortunately happens somewhat regularly.
So you don't need me to say all the usual stuff.
But there is a new bluntness happening.
I don't know if you've noticed, but there's as wokeness is trying to be put back in a box.
People are being a lot more blunt about race and trans and everything else.
Robbie Starbuck was recently asked in an interview: aren't there some people who genuinely believe that they were born in the wrong body?
And Robbie says, yes, but there's also schizophrenic people who believe they're Batman.
Hmm, there's Batman again.
And think they can fly off the Empire State Building.
Pretending their delusion is true makes you evil, not virtuous.
Yeah.
And then Robbie on Expo says, today is a good day to remind people that there's nothing kind or virtuous about validating a delusion that leads to a dangerous mental spiral.
Now, am I wrong to say that you couldn't really say that in public just a few years ago?
Now, you know, I have a lot of empathy for people who are in that trans situation.
Whatever they're going through sounds tough.
So, you know, I feel like empathy is perfectly appropriate.
But I do agree with the idea that we are not obligated to join somebody's preferred view of reality.
The whole idea that you can transition is a view of reality.
And you're not really obligated to join it.
And you're not really obligated to make happy talk as if you do agree with it or you do enter that version of reality.
And I'm not going to make an opinion of who's right or who's wrong in this case.
I'm just going to say you're not really obligated to join somebody's reality.
If you're sure that it's just an imaginary structure in their head, you are not obligated.
Well, you know, I've talked quite a bit before about trying to create an agent that would look like me, like a clone of me, and would survive me and go on forever as my AI version of me.
Well, apparently, that's a growing industry.
They're called Deadbots, AI Deadbots.
And a Deadbot would be a bot or an agent or an AI entity that represents somebody who's passed away.
And apparently, this is like a real thing now.
And there are companies getting into it and managing your digital assets and stuff like that.
So the digital life, the digital afterlife industry, it's an actual thing, is expected to be like a really big industry.
I'm not aware of any company that can do this.
I know there are a lot of companies that can do parts of it.
There are companies that can make something that looks and talks just like you.
But I don't believe there's any company that can make something that looks and talks like you and doesn't hallucinate.
And I don't think that you could even make one with off-the-shelf apps anyway, that would even, you know, reliably look at a file you provided for some facts you wanted to get right all the time.
I don't think the technology is there.
So I don't know if this industry will really take off unless people are happy looking at their dead loved ones saying, you know, crap that never happened in the real world.
I mean, that would be weird.
Well, apparently, I think the White House was asking NVIDIA for a share of the revenue of chips that the White House would allow them to sell to China, which would not be their best ones because that would be too dangerous to let China have their best AI chips.
But NVIDIA is putting up a fight, and I guess they're saying that they'll fight any government action to try to get a revenue share.
So this is one of those cases where the government can blackmail a company, but I don't think it's like some other cases where the government is just being helpful and gets something in return, you know, like keeping them from becoming bankrupt and something.
They get something in return.
I feel like it's different if you just say, oh, well, I'm the only one that can approve this, but all they're doing is approving something.
Do you get 15% of revenue for just that particular kind of business just because you approved it when approving it is your job?
Because the government, it's their job to approve things or disapprove things, right?
So if they just do their job of approving a thing, why would they get 15% of revenue?
So I could see why NVIDIA would fight that.
I'll bet they can afford some really good lawyers.
Exact Craving Fulfillment00:03:41
So how many of you have had the following experience?
You mentioned something, you were having a conversation and you said something about, I don't know, I'll just make something up.
Bonsai trees.
And then you see that all your advertisements and all your devices have turned to, you know, are you interested in a bonsai tree?
And you say to yourself, ah, my technology is listening to me.
And it's modified the algorithm because it knows I want a bonsai tree.
Now, you've all had that experience, right?
Probably every one of you.
You've had that experience.
Well, there's another experience I want to see if any of you have had.
How many of you have had the experience where you were thinking really hard about a thing, but you never wrote it down and you never once even whispered it out loud.
And then your social media delivers something on that exact topic.
Have you had that weird experience yet?
Let me tell you mine.
So yesterday, I was craving a certain food from a certain restaurant.
And I was thinking to myself, you know what?
One of the things I love about this restaurant is that they deliver their food in these nice plastic, hard plastic containers.
And so I don't like it when it comes in cardboard or something, you know, some kind of paper product, because I feel like the food and the paper have merged by the time you get it.
You're eating paper.
But there aren't plastic ones.
To me, that seemed like a safe bet.
So all day long, I was thinking, God, I can't wait for dinner.
And this is unusual for me.
I usually don't have dinner cravings.
And I'm thinking, I can't wait to get that food that was so delicious before.
I'm going to get it.
And then I go on social media and there's a video from some American doctor saying that the most dangerous thing you could ever do is eat something in a black plastic container.
Specifically, a black plastic container.
That's literally what I was thinking like craving all day long as a thing coming in a black plastic container.
And apparently it's pretty bad.
Black plastic is made from recycled electronics, such as old televisions, computers, and other electronic waste.
So allegedly, the black plastic contains flame-retardant chemicals, just all kinds of chemicals, and you're eating it.
Now, how many of you have had that experience where the news serves up exactly, exactly what you were thinking?
And it wasn't even like a normal thing you're thinking.
Like, how much time have you ever spent thinking about the awesomeness of black plastic food containers?
I actually did that yesterday.
I actually almost posted that if your food comes in a black plastic container, that you'd be happier if you got DoorDash.
I can't believe that that exact thing came into my feed at that exact time.
So if we live in a simulation, the way you steer it is by what you're thinking about the most.
Alcohol as Poison Simulation00:03:26
One of my theories about why affirmations work, which is just speculative, is that reality is not what you think.
It's more of a simulation.
And the way that you can change the simulation is by what you're thinking about in the most dedicated way.
Maybe just thinking about those damn plastic containers changed reality until something was presented to me on that topic.
Maybe.
So that's all part of why affirmations might work.
Maybe.
Well, here's another one.
According to Canadian Affairs, I guess that's the publication.
There's a senator in Canada who wants alcohol to have warning labels on it because, as the headline says, alcohol is poison.
So Canada might label alcohol as poison.
You may be not using that word, but that's the sense of the story about it is that alcohol is poison.
Now, if you're new to me, you don't know that I've been saying for quite a number of years, alcohol is poison.
It's a refrain that helped a lot of people quit drinking.
They just have to hear those words.
Alcohol is poison.
And it's based on the idea that human brains are really like AI, and we're just programmed by the words that are most frequently repeated in our heads.
So if you say, hmm, alcohol is a beverage, I sure would like to have a beverage, you're going to do a lot more beverage drinking than you're going to be doing poison drinking.
So if it seems like, well, that couldn't possibly work, because all you did is call it a name, say, everybody knows what alcohol is.
The fact that you're calling it a poison, how's that going to help me stop drinking?
And the answer is, because that's all it takes.
The word that you most associate with it will reprogram you.
So if every time you think of it or someone offers it to you, you say, no, thanks, alcohol is poison.
Most of you, not all of you, but most of you, that would be enough to never have another drink again.
It works.
I hear all the time from people who used it successfully.
You'll probably see a few in the comments.
And apparently, Gen Z, as you know, is not drinking nearly as much, but that as in past generations.
But that's also worldwide.
So Germany's having a problem because, you know, they've got a big beer industry there.
And the young people are turning away from beer and alcohol in general.
Sure enough.
Now, only 38% of men in Germany under 25 drink at least once a week.
It used to be 55% a generation earlier.
And it was 85% in the mid-70s.
In the mid-70s in Germany, 85% of the population had to drink at least once a week.
85% To 38%00:02:44
85%.
And now that's down to 38% with men under 25.
That's a big change.
Wow.
If you're worried about AI affecting your privacy, well, I got a story for you.
A fairly open AI says it scans user conversations with its AI and can report some of them to the police, according to an article in Futurism.
Now, the things they would report would be the obvious things, like if somebody was asking how to end their own life, they might report that so the person could get help.
Or if they were saying something like, you know, how to hurt people or, I don't know, make a nuclear bomb or create a poison or something like that.
That, you know, obviously it's subjective.
But if AI spots that sort of thing, it surfaces it to some humans and the humans decide whether or not that should be turned over to law enforcement.
To which I say, that would really mean the AI is listening to everything you say and it's using a filter to judge whether you should be getting a contact from law enforcement.
That would really change the things I'm willing to use AI for.
Because I always thought one of the great advantages of AI is that it wouldn't be censored in any way.
I could ask all of those banned questions.
That doesn't mean I'm going to do something, but sometimes you're just curious.
You're just curious about a domain that would be very bad if you were to take that action.
But sometimes you just wonder about it.
And I guess you get turned into the police if you wonder about the wrong things while you're in the presence of the AI.
And it might not even be something that you ask the AI.
It might be just something it heard.
You know, if you had it in voice mode accidentally and you said something on another topic to another person, it could just overhear it.
And then next thing you know, knock, knock, knock.
So that's pretty creepy.
I'm not sure they should not do that.
I mean, I don't know how to judge that one.
Fed Governors and Controversies00:14:48
Well, as you know, Trump fired Lisa Cook, one of the Fed governors, because she's accused quite credibly, and I don't believe she's denied it, that she did some mortgage fraud when she was a little bit younger.
And she claimed two homes as her primary residence to get better rates, I guess, and that's illegal.
So she's fired, but I think she's going to fight it in court.
And I saw a post by Eric Doherty talking about how the experts were imagining that if he fired one of the Fed governors, it would cause all kinds of chaos in the market, and that'd be bad for investors.
Well, the stock market went up.
Now, it didn't go up because of that.
I think it went up because there's a recognition that her job is completely unimportant.
Now, I could be totally wrong about that.
But like I said yesterday when I was joking about it, what exactly does a Fed governor do?
And if suddenly one of them stopped doing it, do you think you'd even notice?
We don't even know what they do.
It's hard for me to get worried that there might be one less of them.
Oh no, we might have one fewer Fed governor than we had before.
Well, that will certainly change what?
Anything?
So I guess the markets were smart.
The funniest thing I'm starting to think is to imagine that the public will get really active and worked up about anything.
I don't think that's the thing.
I think the only thing that anybody gets worked up about are artificial, where there's somebody funding a protest.
But if nobody's funding a protest, things like this just don't happen.
Things like people going, oh no, he's firing a Fed governor.
I'll have to remove all my stock investments.
It just doesn't happen.
In the real world, people just look at the news and shrug.
They just go on with their lives.
I think only in the social media world do you imagine that this is going to cause some big reaction with the public.
Not really.
It's just one of a million things I had to process today.
Well, Trump, quite cleverly, the administration is looking to take over Washington, D.C.'s D.C. Union Station, where you grabbed a train, I guess.
New York Post is talking about this.
And it used to be, you know, sort of the jewel of DC, people say, but now it's too dangerous.
And if they take it over, I guess they can remove all the danger.
I think people are going to love that, don't you?
So I would say it's another home run by the Trump administration, simply identifying something that you're guaranteed to get people on your side.
How would you like it if we made that place that you all go to on a regular basis?
How about if we made it safe?
Yes, please.
Yes.
How about yes?
Even the mayor of DC is, I won't say she's pro-Trump, but she thanked him for surging all this resources into her city and reducing crime.
So, you know, there was some question.
At first, she seemed positive about it, and then she seemed negative about it.
Now she's back to some version of positive about it.
I feel like probably she's wrestling with the fact that she knows she wants it and she knows it's good, you know, the federal surging of law enforcement.
But the Democrats are probably pastoring her, saying, you can't say that.
Whatever you do, don't say it worked.
Don't.
And then she's thinking, you know, I'm just speculating.
I don't know.
And then I imagine her thinking, everybody knows this worked.
Everybody knows it worked.
And you're asking me to go in public and say, oh, this is a terrible mistake.
We like the crime.
I'm not going to do that.
So I have, if that's what happened, and it feels like that's what happened, I don't know.
If she's just rebelling against the stupidity of claiming something obvious didn't happen, well, I like it.
So good for you if that's what's happening.
Well, we're hearing a little bit more about John Bolton.
As you know, his house got raided and he was accused of doing some bad things with classified information.
But now we hear that the reason that we know this information was classified and that he was involved is that he used an unclassified email system to send some of it to someone close to him.
And apparently he was hacked or it was detected by a foreign country, a hostile foreign country.
And I guess we were hacking the hostile foreign country.
So somebody was watching John Bolton's email, but somebody else on our team, maybe in another country, was monitoring the people who were monitoring him somehow.
And so now we know that the information was at least seen by a hostile foreign country.
This is reported in the New York Times, which doesn't make it true, but, you know, it's a big media entity.
So here's my question: Isn't the person who leaked this story to the New York Times just as bad as Bolton?
I can't believe that there's a leak about the leaker because the New York Times should not know that there was a hostile foreign country that is the reason that we know about this.
They shouldn't know that, right?
So whoever leaked the story about the leaker is as bad as the leaker.
I mean, either way, it's pretty bad.
Well, here's something I thought I would never see.
Trump is turning on George and Alex Soros.
I'm going to just read what he said in True Social, but I didn't expect this.
So Trump says this: he goes, George Soros and his wonderful radical left son should be charged with RICO because of their support of violent protests and much more all throughout the United States.
We're not going to allow these lunatics to rip apart America anymore, never giving it so much as a chance to breathe and be free.
Soros and his group of psychopaths have caused great damage to our country.
That includes his crazy West Coast friends.
Be careful.
We're watching you.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, he always says.
So related to that, the Gateway pundit is reporting that Representative Luna had demanded earlier this year that Congress subpoena the Soros organization.
And the probe was around whether the agency had done something to expedite his acquisition of a whole bunch of radio stations, 220 radio stations.
So, you know, somebody like Soros is always going to be a suspect.
Well, what do you imagine they would discover if they started indicting Soros?
What would happen if through legal means the government got access to all the Soros organization emails for the past seven years or something?
What kind of things would they find out?
And would there be crimes involved?
So I don't know that there's really a RICO.
It does seem organized, but it seems organized in sort of a common political billionaire way.
He can give money to anybody he wants.
And if those people have decided to give that money that he gave them to somebody specific and he knew about it, is that a crime?
Maybe you don't like it, but is that a crime?
So I guess I would have to hear what crime they think he's done.
But I do think that having George Soros have that much control over the country is obviously bad.
So the fact that Trump is pushing back on it all seems good to me.
I just don't know if he has any levers for that.
We'll find out.
Well, did you know that that Fed governor, Lisa Cook, the one that got fired, and Letitia James and Hunter Biden, did you know they're all using the same lawyer at the moment?
It doesn't mean anything, just a coincidence.
But it does make me wonder, hmm, Fed governor, Letitia James, and Hunter Biden.
Is it possible that there is one billionaire who's funding the lawyer and trying to protect all good Democrats?
And is it possible that that's why they all have the same lawyer?
Because there's one lawyer who works with one billionaire, and the billionaire says, all right, we can't have Trump abusing all of our fine Democrats.
So you're going to be their lawyer.
I'll pay you.
Maybe.
There's a new drug coming out of China via the cartels, the usual way, that is way stronger than fentanyl, and you can't stop it with Narcan.
So it would be therefore way more dangerous than fentanyl.
It's already here, so it's not hypothetical.
And it sounds like the Chinese producers just keep finding ways to keep doing something like fentanyl or worse.
And they're just going to keep doing it.
So there's nothing we could do legally.
They'll just say, well, if that's illegal, what about this?
So it's called nitazines, N-I-T-A-Z, nitazines.
And they're not even included in routine drug tests.
So if he did a drug test and the person is too new, it wouldn't even show up.
So that's bad.
Well, Governor Newsom is ratcheting up his rhetoric, and he said at some politico event, he said, I'm absolutely convinced that there won't be an election in 2028.
And what he means is that he believes that Trump will not leave office.
And he's getting really animated about it.
And by animated, I mean jazz hands.
That will never be.
We'll never see an election in 2028.
Jazz hands.
Anyway, I feel like that has now crossed over into dangerous rhetoric because it does seem to me that the Democrats got the memo to stop saying Hitler, Hitler, Hiller, but they're just changing the words.
They're not changing the message that the Republicans are like a mortal danger to the Republic.
And this, I am absolutely convinced there won't be an election in 2028.
Just look at what he's doing.
Look at what he's doing.
That's pretty dangerous stuff, Newsom.
And I really have a problem with the Democrats' rhetoric that gets people into a dangerous headset.
And this is definitely it.
I mean, when he talks like that, it guarantees that if you're a Trump supporter, you can't be invited to the neighborhood block party.
It just guarantees it because nobody wants you on to socialize with you if you're going to be supporting what Newsom says, is this terrible dictator who's going to ruin our democracy.
So it's a kind of rhetoric that just destroys the country.
I don't know that, is there a Republican version of this?
You know, we do talk about if Mom Dummy gets in, he's going to ruin New York City.
But does that sound like a call to violence?
It doesn't, does it?
It's more like a, oh, this is going to be economically devastating, could be really bad.
But when you say that he's not going to leave the office and you guarantee it, like you're not even talking speculatively, you're just guaranteeing it.
He will not leave office and therefore you'll try to become a dictator.
That feels like a call to violence.
Doesn't it?
You know, I don't recommend any violence, but it feels like it.
Well, according to Newsmax, there's a government oversight committee that's going to look at Wikipedia and check it for bias.
Covid Vaccine Mandates Controversy00:13:22
Do you think they'll find any?
So James Comer, Republican, and Representative Nancy Mace are working on that.
Of course there's bias.
Of course there is.
Is there really any doubt about that?
So I don't know what they're going to do about it.
And I guess they're worried also that some of the bias might be coming from foreign entities pretending to be editors.
So we'll see.
Well, apparently the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, they've got their annual meeting and they were meeting in Minnesota.
And Victor Davis Hansen is writing about this.
I saw it in the post-millennial.
So they've been addressing their policy platform.
And what do you think that they decided to do now that their existing platform, the one that they had been pushing, once they realized that that completely destroyed the Democrat Party?
So obviously when they meet, they said, oh, we can't do any of this again because it destroyed our entire party.
So is that what happened?
Did they meet and say, we've got to really change everything because we really just destroyed everything that we hold dear?
Nope.
They double down.
Yep, they doubled down.
Apparently, Attorney General Keith Ellison got big applause when he said, we are not going to scapegoat our transgender community.
And Bill Owen of Tennessee is going hard at DEI in a good way.
He said, DEI is the very foundation of the Christian church.
Really?
DEI is the foundation of the Christian church.
I don't remember the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus said, whatever you do, don't hire those white guys.
Did I miss that page in the Bible?
The part where discriminating against white men was highly recommended.
No, I don't believe DEI is the basis of Christianity.
No, thank you.
Anyway, it appears that Democrats have learned exactly nothing.
Not a thing.
I feel like the problem is that you can only be an honest Democrat if there's no other Democrat in the room with you.
Like if you're just writing on your blog, you can say, oh, these Democrats need to try harder.
You know, I'm a Democrat.
We need to try harder.
But you can't do it if there's a crowd in front of you because there'd be too many people in the crowd who would turn on you.
You just couldn't do it.
You get booed.
So they don't have a chance.
Apparently, some activist judge in Utah is ordering the state to redraw the congressional map that would take one away from the GOP.
So it's sort of a technical argument about, you know, who can do what with redistricting.
But it looks like the order will take one away from the GOP.
So the GOP majority in the House looks like it's going to go down by one, and it's already razor thin.
That might make a difference.
All right.
Well, as I mentioned, RFK Jr. is saying, I guess he said in an interview today, that they're getting very close to revealing the true causes of autism.
Now, I don't know if they're going to claim they found all the true causes.
I don't know if that's the claim.
It might be weaker than that.
We'll see.
And that there will be regulatory action about those causes of autism.
And this is what RFK said.
Jr. said, he said, this is a crisis.
There is not a single cause.
So if you thought he was going to say, oh, it's those childhood vaccinations, probably not, because he says it's not a single cause.
He says there are many aggregations of causes.
We're now developing sufficient evidence to ask for regulatory action on some of those or recommendations.
So we're really going to find out something radical and interesting.
I assume that the reason he has some certainty about some things, but not others, is that there's data that looks credible about some of this stuff.
So what do you think?
How much of it do you think will be vaccinations?
And how much of it do you think will be diet?
And how much of it will be pollutants?
I don't know.
I don't think you could make a good guess on this at all.
It could really be a surprise.
It really could.
So we'll see.
And apparently there's other drama at the CDC.
So the director, Susan Monares, has been ousted by RFK Jr. because she was pushing for the COVID vaccine.
Now, I don't understand that story because my understanding is that Secretary Kennedy has okayed more of the COVID vaccine.
So I'm trying to fit these two stories together because they appear to be opposites.
So I don't know which one is true.
I do think it's true that the director is ousted.
I do think it's true that she was pro-COVID vaccines.
But let me tell you what Kennedy posted about his own accomplishments.
All right.
So this is part of the same story.
So Kennedy told us that he promised us four things.
One, to end COVID vaccine mandates.
Now, ending the mandate, I didn't even know there was a mandate, did you?
What mandate?
Was there a mandate for school children?
Still?
I wasn't even aware there was a mandate.
So I don't even know what he's talking about.
But he said he would end COVID vaccine mandates, and apparently he has.
He said he would keep vaccines available to people who want them, especially the vulnerable.
Now, if he's keeping the vaccines available to people who want them, wouldn't that suggest that he does not have definitive data that they're dangerous to some part of the population, I guess?
How in the world is that possible?
That he doesn't have data that would suggest he should cancel the COVID vaccines.
Do you think it's coming or that he's still studying it?
Or do you believe that the data on all things COVID is unreliable?
Because that's where I've been for a long time.
Yeah, I don't know if you can say they're safe or not safe.
The only thing you could say for sure is I wouldn't trust any of the data, no matter which way appointed.
I wouldn't trust any of it, no matter what it said.
So I'm a little confused on that.
And he said that he would demand placebo-controlled trials from companies, which apparently has.
Now, that doesn't mean that there are no things that have placebo-controlled trials already.
There were things.
So apparently he likes those things.
But I will be the, if you don't know this, those randomized controlled placebo trials.
That doesn't mean it's true.
You know that, right?
Because the way you can fake those is by what data you decide is good enough to be in your study.
So there's always this filter where you go, well, you know, the first two weeks of the data, we collected it a little bit differently.
So why don't we take that out?
Yeah, we'll just take out the first two weeks.
And then suddenly the data, you know, points in the opposite direction.
So there are ways that even the finest of controlled trials could be completely fraudulent.
That's a real thing that happens.
And he said he promised to end the emergency.
What was the emergency?
I guess it was an emergency classification that allowed them to do the vaccine mandates.
So he got rid of that.
So I don't know what mandates there were, unless he's talking about school children.
Is that the only one?
Or were there some mandates for maybe government people?
Maybe the military?
I don't think there were no mandates for the military still, were there?
Or maybe he's taking credit for getting rid of them.
But the FDA has now issued marketing authorization for the COVID shots for those who are at higher risk.
So how do you square in your mind that RFK Jr. is the most famous vaccine skeptic we know, not just the COVID shots, but vaccine skeptic in general.
He's the most famous vaccine skeptic.
And he's in charge of looking at all the data and deciding if the COVID vaccine is too dangerous to justify whatever benefits you might get from it, if any.
And at this point, he does not seem poised to ban it.
Does that mean that he hasn't finished looking at it?
Or does that mean that he looked at it and he's satisfied that the data is sufficiently good that it's useful for some classes of people who are higher risk?
Wouldn't that blow your mind?
It looks like, it looks like he must think the data suggests that it's better to take it than not take it for some categories of people.
Now, he does say that you should only do it if your doctor says to do it.
So he's not saying that you should just go to the drugstore and get it.
I feel like he's saying, but only if your doctor says you should get it.
So it's some acknowledgement that there's an extra risk involved.
But maybe there's some category of people he believes the data supports getting it.
I don't know.
Apparently in Michigan, there were teachers who were required to take a test to grade their levels of whiteness.
Wall Street Apes was talking about this on X. So there's a public school teacher who had been there for 31 years and she quit because she was unwilling to stand in a circle to rate her level of whiteness.
And I guess the problem was that the black students were struggling in their schools.
And so they want to figure out how their whiteness was affecting that.
And the things that they thought would affect their level of whiteness was how many people they referred for discipline and whether or not that was a balanced number.
And she said she had a higher percentage of black students that were referred for discipline, so that made her more white.
And let's see.
And also the lateness.
So if she marked the black kids late, that would be extra whiteness.
And she said, I was told to decrease the number of detentions that were issued for a certain race, obviously black.
They showed up late because culturally it's acceptable for them.
Now, isn't that the racist thing?
Imagine being in a training class.
where the class is told that black people are allowed to be late because it's culturally acceptable to them.
Isn't that racist?
Or do I not know what racist is?
I mean, the point of saying that they're more likely to be late because they're black, that's racist, right?
Am I hallucinating now?
Gaza's 36 Hospitals Bombing Crisis00:08:21
This is just crazy.
Anyway, so I don't know what that story was about.
Probably was interesting at one point.
So are you watching Israel and Gaza and all the hospital bombing stuff?
So probably the single most predictable thing about Israel getting into any kind of military conflict is that whoever they're fighting against will definitely claim that they bombed a hospital intentionally.
Now, I'm not there, and I don't know, is there some military doctrine that suggests that bombing a hospital is a good idea?
If you're trying to really conquer a population, has anybody ever heard of that?
Why would Israel intentionally bomb a hospital?
Now, obviously, sometimes they say, oh, it's because beneath the hospital, Hamas has some major facility.
And if we, you know, we can't leave them forever, so we'll just warn the hospital, tell them to get out of there, and then we'll bomb it.
But does that explain all the hospitals?
So I went to Grok and asked him a few questions because I wondered how big a thing this was.
First of all, there's a reported 36 hospitals in Gaza, or that's how many there were at the start of the conflict.
36.
Doesn't that seem like a lot of hospitals for that one little strip of land?
I feel like I'm having a hard time understanding the size of Gaza because I keep thinking it's tiny, but that 36 hospitals.
That's pretty serious.
Allegedly, 31 of the 36 have been damaged or destroyed in the conflict.
31 out of 36.
But, you know, damage is the big difference between damaged and destroyed.
And the World Health Organization says that only 19 of the 36 remain operational, which would be better than I thought.
When we see pictures of Gaza, we never see a building that's still standing and functional, right?
The only pictures I see are complete devastation.
So I'm kind of still impressed.
The half of the hospitals are still in some kind of business.
How do they even have electricity?
I don't.
It's kind of surprising.
I mean, my sense of what it's like there doesn't line up with there's still 19 hospitals that have electricity and they're functioning.
I mean, albeit with short on supplies.
But hmm.
So do you believe that Israel has a military reason to bomb a hospital?
You know, not counting the special cases where they think Hamas is below the hospital?
I don't know.
I guess I don't have evidence that would suggest that that makes sense as any kind of a military strategy.
But if somebody tells me, oh yeah, that's a classic military strategy, if it is, then I might change my mind.
But I've never heard that.
Have you?
Let me know if you've heard it.
All right.
Well, certainly they're trying to depopulate Gaza.
That's no secret.
Well, according to Breitbart News, Trump has implemented his 50% super tariff on India for buying Russian oil.
Now, India's being kind of tough about this, But they'll still have to pay the tariffs.
I mean, they're not going to get around it.
So I wonder if this will work.
It's not going to work right away if it does work.
But if this takes like a big bite out of the entire Russian economy, and it might, maybe enough that they all notice.
I don't know.
It's a pretty big deal because India is the number two buyer of energy from Russia.
And if this shuts it down, because it makes it too expensive for India to do it, if that shuts it down, it's going to be a big impact on Russia.
But I don't know if it's big enough to make a difference.
But I'll point out that Trump is once again monetized, a problem.
So now Trump has found a way to make money from selling weapons to Ukraine that will be paid for by Europeans.
And now he's making all kinds of tariff revenue from India buying Russian oil that they shouldn't be buying.
So he just monetizes it.
The more he monetizes it, the better his negotiating position gets because he's not losing people.
He's making money.
Let's end this tomorrow.
Whatever.
You guys do what you want to do.
Obviously, Ukraine wants to fight and Russia wants to fight.
And we've tried everything we can do, but now we'll just monetize it.
I don't hate that.
I do not hate that.
The monetizing part.
Apparently, there's a technology that's been spun up already successfully to turn sand into batteries.
So it's a gigantic container that they fill with sand because sand can hold heat really efficiently.
And in Finland, they just fill this with heat and it just stores it and can somehow release it to heat homes.
So it's a sand battery, but all it stores is heat.
It doesn't store electricity.
But they're working on having a store of heat, which they would use a separate technology to turn back into electricity.
So my suggestion for Gaza is to turn it into a battery.
There's a lot of sand there.
It's very hot.
All right.
And according to Interesting Engineering, there's now a new method that some U.S.-China team, there's a U.S.-China scientific team?
Why?
Why is it even legal for our scientists to be working with Chinese scientists?
Is it because we're picking up all these great ideas from the Chinese scientists?
Or is it possible that maybe China is stealing our ideas by working with our U.S. scientists?
I didn't know there were any U.S.-China teams.
But anyway, they allegedly figured out how to turn plastic into fuel at 95% efficiency in the transition.
So they can take this toxic plastic waste and at a room temperature process, they say they can turn it into a variety of chemicals and fuels.
It's a one-step conversion, which means that it might be economical.
Can you imagine that?
If they find a way to turn plastic into energy, that would be cool, wouldn't it?
All right, everybody.
It's a newsy day, but I just ran through it quickly because I know you need to get some more stuff done today.
And I hope you enjoyed listening to the news and my bad opinions about stuff.
And I'll see all the rest of you back here tomorrow, same time, same place.