Autism and Hamas and Kimmel and Harris and other bad thingsPolitics, Jimmy Kimmel's Return, Charlie Kirk, Tom Homan Hoax, CA Anti-LEO Masking Law, RFK Jr., Autism, Meta-Studies Credibility, Tylenol, Autism Diagnosis Financial Incentives, Kamala Harris, Rachel Maddow, Antifa, Color Revolution Fake Protesters, UK Palestine Recognition, President Trump, Hamas Offers 60-Day Pause, Israel Hamas War, Ukraine Drone Warfare, Google Learn Your Way, Sarah Adams Terror Warning, Detroit 2020 Election Documents, Accurate Data Fallacy, 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 elevating your experience to levels that nobody can even understand with their tidy, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper amugger, a glass, a tanker, Chalis, Stein, a canteen, jugger, flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous app.
And it happens right now.
Spectacular.
Well, OpenAI and NVIDIA, the two giants in the AI business, are planning a combined $100 billion AI project that will require the power of at least 10 nuclear reactors, according to Ars Technica.
Benj Edwards writing about that.
So it says this enormous, enormous project.
Do you wonder if they know for sure that that would pay off?
Do you think they know enough, the people who are closest to it, the AI experts, to know that if they put $100 billion into it, and they, and that's not even counting the, that's probably not even counting the nuclear power plants, right?
Do they just sort of know that there's no way that could be anything but a good deal for them?
Makes me wonder.
We'll see.
Well, football retired football quarterback Tom Brady and his business partners are investing in a robotic massage massage robot.
So it's a robot you lay on the table like a regular massage and it massages you and it learns about you and it sort of figures out your body and where it would feel best and everything.
And apparently it already exists and it's already in production, already in the field and it works.
But you're probably saying to yourself, I'm not going to enjoy it if a machine does it.
Isn't it the human touch?
That's sort of the whole point of it.
Well, I'll tell you.
Right on the other side of my computer, I have a high-end massage chair.
It's like really high-end, very expensive.
And I got to tell you, every time I use that, it just floods me with, I don't know what, whatever happiness chemicals you get when you get a massage, it is really effective.
Jimmy Kimmel's Massage Chair00:12:57
I mean, you don't, you'll want to just sleep it off for an hour after that thing.
So if they made a better one that's like a big arm that massages you, would I like it even more?
I don't know.
The one I got is pretty, pretty darn good.
I don't know how it could be better, actually.
Well, Meta, the company, has introduced a AI-based, I guess you could call it a dating app, but it won't work like regular dating apps.
I guess it's sort of chat-based and you can tell it, you know, exactly what you're looking for, and it'll go off into the internet, probably just on Facebook, and look for somebody who meets all those qualifications.
Wouldn't that be amazing?
That you'd have AI being like a real matchmaker.
So it wouldn't be like, you know, Tinder or Hinge or OKCupid or any of those.
It would be more like a person that just happens to be AI and knows a lot about a lot of people.
So we got that.
My suggestion is to cut out the middleman and just date the AI directly.
I mean, it sounds funny, but let me ask you this.
If you had to compare spending time with whoever the AI decided you should spend time with or spending time with the AI, which one would you do?
Well, it's pretty close to a toss-up at the moment.
So I think the real win for AI would be to cut out the middleman and become the date.
Well, you've probably already heard that ABC and Jimmy Kimmel have agreed that he will be coming back in the air tonight.
Now, not all of the affiliates, that would be the local stations, they're not all going to automatically run it, although that could change by tonight.
But the Sinclair Group and Nexstar, they may not.
But they are also not the majority of the stations.
So they would still have plenty of stations, but they would lose maybe, I don't know, 20% or something if the Sinclair doesn't participate.
It doesn't seem to me that there's any possibility that they could make money on Kimmel since they weren't making money anyway.
But if they lose another 20% of their local affiliates, I don't think there's any chance that they can make money.
So I don't know what they're up to.
Here's my final take on it.
I doubt it'll be final.
I'm glad that he's going to be back on the air.
Now, I know you don't like it.
I know.
I know what I'm saying.
And I know you don't like it.
But this was uncomfortably close to something in the free speech domain.
It wasn't.
It was never a question of free speech because the FCC has a mandate to police the speech of the three networks.
It's actually their lawful legal job is to make sure that the three broadcast networks don't do something that would be bad for the public.
That means that it's their job to censor them.
So you can't say, hey, the government censored me when that's actually specifically their job for those three limited resources that not everybody could have at the same time.
So it was never really a free speech question, but it was uncomfortably similar to one or reminded you of one or made you feel like you were living in one.
And anytime it was a gray area, I would default to free speech.
But remember, it was up to it's a business decision, ultimately.
So my opinion about it doesn't matter.
Your opinion doesn't matter.
But I'm going to give you the kill shot on this topic.
Are you ready?
Here's the kill shot.
If I have not changed your mind that it should be appropriate or at least allowable that Jimmy Kimmel goes back in the air, here is the thing that ends the debate.
You ready?
What would Charlie Kirk have wanted?
If he could tell you what he wanted, would he want Jimmy Kimmler to be off the air because of what he said?
I don't know.
I mean, we can't know for sure, but I would say 99% chance that Charlie Kirk would have said, you know what?
I forgive him.
It was one little slip.
And I think he took enough heat that he learned his lesson.
Maybe I should go on his show.
I think if Charlie Kirk were here, I mean, obviously that's logically impossible as well as actually impossible.
But if he were here, he would say, can I go on your show and we'll talk about it?
Because that's who he was, right?
So does it make sense that you or I should be opposed to it when you're probably pretty sure he would not have been?
Because in many ways, he's better than us.
I hate to admit it.
But the reason that he's so beloved, Charlie Kirk, he's just better than us in a whole bunch of ways.
That's probably one of them.
So if you can tell me that you honestly believe that Charlie Kirk would be happier if Jimmy Kimmel got destroyed career-wise and all the people who work on his show lose their jobs, I don't think that was Charlie Kirk.
Was it?
If you disagree with me, I'd love to hear the counter argument.
But I feel that if you believe that Charlie would have handled it differently, kept him on the air and engaged him in conversation, which is what I think he would have done.
If you disagree, I'm open to the argument.
But if you don't disagree, then I think that the, let's say, the respectful play, the way that you could most respect the memory and legacy of Charlie is to do what you think he would have done.
Right?
I'll bet you hate how much that convinced you.
And also, I don't want to see the staff lose their jobs.
The staff didn't do anything, right?
There are a few dozen people on the staff.
And I was thinking about, you know, I have an empathy problem sometimes, like too much of it.
I was imagining how Jimmy Kimmel felt when he knew that he wouldn't personally be that affected by it because he's made his money by now.
But the staff, the staff would be struggling.
Imagine knowing that you're the reason your own stubbornness or stupidity, you probably thought of it that way, cost, I don't know, dozens of people that you really, really like, you know, they're your staff, cost them all their jobs because of some dumb damn thing you did.
Imagine how that would hurt.
Like if you were a normal person who cared about other people, that would really hurt.
So if you imagine that Jimmy Kimmel just had a few days off and then he's just back to work and everything's good, I wouldn't discount the fact that that must have been really painful.
Not for himself.
I don't think he probably worried too much about paying his own bills.
I doubt that was too high on his list.
But I'll bet he cared a lot, a lot about what it did to the staff.
So anyway, that is my final word.
Now you might say, but would he grant you the same grace?
To which I say that's not my, that's not my standard.
My standard is to be better than him.
My standard is not to be as good as him.
It's to be better than him.
You know, the Charlie Kirk way.
The Charlie Kirk way is to be the better person.
It's not to compete with the ugliness.
All right.
You know the story that allegedly Tom Holman took $50,000 in cash in a bag for potential services later should he become his current job and should Trump have gotten elected.
So this is before Trump got elected and before he was in his job.
Do you know what the White House's response to that story is?
It never happened.
The response is not he took the money, but it was a, you know, that's when he was a consultant and maybe he didn't do anything that was illegal.
It's not that.
They say it just didn't happen.
There was no transfer of money.
He didn't take any money.
Do you believe that?
That's a pretty bold claim if the allegation is allegedly on video.
The allegation is that it was a sting operation, which would mean that somebody in the FBI literally had the video of the transfer of money in a bag.
Do you think that if that exists and there's any chance that somebody would have access to the video and maybe got a copy, do you think that they would just say, no, it never happened.
There was no transfer of money whatsoever?
I don't know.
They must be pretty confident that nobody can prove them wrong because it's a, I mean, it's a binary.
It's yes or no.
It either exists or it doesn't exist.
But I am willing to believe that the White House is correct and maybe it doesn't exist.
It could be that they offered him the money and he didn't give a hard no, nor did he give a hard yes.
So maybe somehow that got turned into, well, he sort of took it even though he didn't take it.
I don't know.
Could be anything.
California is the first state to require masks on law enforcement and the Border Patrol enforcement people.
And I feel like they made a little mistake with that law.
So let me see if I understand this.
It would be illegal for these Border Patrol or border enforcement people, ICE, I guess, to wear masks, but there's no law against wearing makeup, right?
Can the women wear makeup?
I think they can.
No law against that.
Would there be a law against somebody wearing a fake beard?
Well, a fake beard is not a mask.
I don't believe that's covered.
How about somebody who put a fake nose and glasses on?
So you couldn't see their eyes or their nose.
Well, I don't think that's really a mask, is it?
What about fake boobs?
Suppose all the guys put in fake boobs and makeup and eyelashes.
And then they said, oh no, we're not doing border enforcement.
We're running a trans event.
It's a trans event because they'd be wearing boobs and fake eyelashes and makeup.
But then they'd say, transportation.
Wink wink.
So I'm just saying that the ICE could find a workaround, just turn it into a dress up trans event, transportation.
All right, I'm being silly.
Tylenol And Pregnancy Risks00:14:37
Well, as you know, Trump and RFK Jr. had a big announcement yesterday of what they found out so far, or believe they know, about autism.
And boy, did this get interesting.
So there are several things.
First of all, they said that Tylenol is not as, let's say, not as proven safe as they would like it to be.
And so some studies say that if a pregnant woman takes Tylenol or the acetaminophen, so there are other companies that make it besides the Tylenol Company.
But there's a bunch of studies that suggest that it's correlated and therefore causation.
But there are other studies that say, nope, there's no correlation at all.
But I think it was a Harvard group looked at all the studies and found out that there was, at least in their opinion, there was more evidence that there is a connection than that there isn't.
Do you know what it is?
Do you know what it's called when you look at a whole bunch of studies instead of just one?
You look at the bunch of them.
What's that called?
That's called a meta-study.
What if I taught you about meta-studies?
They're not a science.
That's not a science.
A meta-study has too much opinion baked into it, even though you don't think so.
The way the opinion is baked into it, a meta-study, which is a study of all the other studies, is that you have to make a decision about which studies to include.
So for example, if there was one study that was much bigger than the others, they sort of weighed all the studies by the number of participants.
So if there's one that was like 100 times bigger than all the other studies put together, well, you don't really need to look at all the other studies because the one would bias the total so much.
Then let's say there was one that went one direction, a study that went one direction, another study that pointed the other direction, but you as the researcher said, hmm, I don't think this one study was done with high enough quality.
So in my opinion, it should be left out of the bunch.
And then because you left it out, it biased it in the other direction.
So was that science?
Or was there something about your opinion that decided what was in the studies?
And really, you're measuring your own opinion of what should be in the studies, and you're not actually measuring any kind of average of the studies.
So in general, meta-studies are, in my opinion, not terribly reliable.
But to the credit of the administration, they're not saying we have proven the connection.
So I like that.
They're not saying, they are not saying we've proven the connection.
What they are saying is, it's sort of scary indications of what we're seeing.
And if I were you, I wouldn't be taking Tylenol if I were pregnant.
Although the doctors, a lot of them, not all of them, some doctors, I don't know what percentage disagree because the risk of not taking a painkiller might be, could turn out to be worse than the risk of the painkiller.
For example, if you don't treat something with Tylenol and the other painkillers are also not allowed when you're pregnant, so it's your only option.
If your only option to beat back the inflammation and the pain is Tylenol, then you've got this tough choice because the inflammation and the pain might cause its own set of problems.
It could be the same as it could cause autism, some people speculate.
So it could be, some say, that it's not that what you're measuring is not so much the Tylenol, but what you're measuring is that they had an underlying condition that required Tylenol.
How would you know the difference?
Suppose there's some fever or inflammation problem that's common enough and that people would normally take Tylenol for it.
Wouldn't it look like the Tylenol was the problem?
But really, it was the underlying inflammation because the people who didn't need the Tylenol also didn't have that underlying inflammation thing.
So there's all kinds of uncertainty.
But Trump, in his Trumpian ways, is basically saying, don't take Tylenol, don't take it.
You know, he admits that his administration does not say that.
He's just telling you as your leader, as your president, which I kind of like.
As long as it's clear that this is me saying this, this is not the medical people.
The medical people are saying, you know, use your judgment, use it when you need it, use it at the lowest amount, talk to your doctor.
Those are all the responsible right things.
Trump's giving you the common sense, don't do it.
But, like I said, your doctor might say, you know, in your specific case, it's worth a little risk.
So at least they're honest about, you know, leave it to your doctor.
All right.
So see what else.
There's also, let's see, there's also a new drug that's being rolled out for, I don't know if it's every kind of autism, but some.
And then you got, we don't know if that'll work yet, but I mean, it's approved.
There's a new approved drug for autism that looks like it can help some, if not all, patients.
And then I guess Trump suggested spacing out and delaying some vaccinations that are common vaccinations that typically everybody gets.
The science behind the spacing of it, so you don't get them all at once, also, I believe, is not proven.
But Trump, again, is being commonsensical and saying, if you don't have to give them all at the same time, can't you reduce one risk by not doing it at the same time?
Well, there is a counter to that.
The counter argument is if you have, let's say, you know, four vaccinations that are a really good idea that we know individually are good.
If you don't give them at the same time, the odds that they don't get the second dose that would be the other two goes way up.
So if you say, well, you only have to get one shot, you could probably talk parents and the kids into it, even though it's a combination of lots of different shots with unknown directions.
So you could get a higher rate of people getting the shots if you combine them, but you have a higher risk because they're combined.
Now, the higher risk, I mean the higher unknown.
I shouldn't say risk.
I should say there's a higher unknown.
But there is science, whether it's valid or not, that shows that even combining the shots doesn't make a difference.
Of course, there is some study that showed it made no difference for autism.
Is that a study valid?
We cannot trust any of the studies in this domain.
I wouldn't trust any.
I wouldn't trust any of the studies.
That's why you have to look at 46 of them and use magic to try to figure out which ones are real.
However, let's see what else.
Oh, also, hepatitis B, they would wait and not, you know, ideally not give it to kids until they're about 12 because it's a sexually transmitted disease.
And unless you got it from your mom at birth, which can happen, you don't need to be protected.
And it's routine, I believe, to screen the pregnant mother for hepatitis B so you could know in advance whether you know that newborn needs a shot or not.
All right, so those are all the things.
I think there's generally in the right direction, but I'm going to give you an alternative view that you can make your own opinion on.
So, this is from an ex-user named Cremieux, a French word, Cremieux.
Now, I mentioned him before because his analytical abilities are incredible.
And so, when he has an alternative point of view on something in the news, it's definitely worth listening to.
Doesn't mean he's right.
So, here's a long list that I printed out from his ex-account of his argument for why it might be that there is no increase in autism, but we only think there is.
Now, before I give you this, you know, the wonky, nerdy explanation of why he thinks maybe the data is all wrong.
I will acknowledge that if you talk to any school teacher today, they would say, There's at least one autistic kid in every class now, every class of 30 people.
Just there's at least one.
And when people like me were children, we believed that that was not the case.
We believed that that was rare.
I mean, I didn't even know any when I was a kid.
So, the lived experience of the people who are closest to this world, teachers, are 100% sure.
Oh, yeah, there's a gigantic increase.
And I feel like you see it in your own life, right?
Don't we observe it directly?
So, even though I'm going to give you a wonky argument that maybe it's not a big increase, there's a very compelling case that it is very compelling.
You know, it's not like RFK Jr. didn't look into this.
So, I took all of these reasons why maybe it's not a real increase and I fed into Grok so that when I talk to you today, I could go down the list and say, Grok says this is BS.
Grok debunked this.
Grok says no.
Uh, do you know what Grok said?
He said, true, or mostly true, or partly true for every one of these.
So, just remember when I when I read these off to you, I'm not saying they're true because remember, this is a domain in which you just there's just no way to know what's real.
Uh, so I don't claim that I know.
All right, so here are the claims: Autism is being diagnosed more and more with each year.
Grok said yes.
Uh, autistic traits are not any more common than when the DSM-3 first introduced modern diagnostic criteria in 1980.
Grok said yes, true.
Older prevalence estimates are based on inconsistent diagnostic criteria, so we can't really compare the past to the present because they didn't measure the same things.
Okay, that doesn't mean it's going up or down, it just means you wouldn't know.
Um, Here's the one that stopped me cold.
When researchers go out and attempt to diagnose everyone who has autism, they find equal prevalence estimates for youth and adult.
Now, if that's true, there is no increase in autism.
If you simply went out and said, I'm going to get a random sample of people, some of them were 70 years old, some of them were eight years old, and then you just looked for symptoms of autism.
You would find, according to Cremieu and whatever study he's referring to that's not mentioned, he claims that you would find that the 70-year-olds and the eight-year-olds have roughly the same amount of symptoms.
If that's true, then the only thing that's different is diagnosis.
Because there's no way that the 70-year-olds and the eight-year-olds would have roughly the same autism symptoms unless they'd always been here.
Because they're not getting it at 70, you know what I mean?
Let's see.
Familiar familial control studies show us that no vaccination has any causal relationship with autism.
So Cremieu believes that vaccinations have not been correlated with autism, which would go to the point that there's not an increase because of vaccinations, if this is true.
Now, if you're just joining, I'm not claiming anything I say here is true.
This is Cremieux's argument, and he's very good at arguments and data.
So he's a good source.
Rise in Non-Severe Autism00:04:41
He says that the rise in autism has overwhelmingly been due to non-severe varieties, non-severe varieties.
So if you had a little bit of it, you could probably function in the world and get along.
In the old days, life was simple.
So let's say, let's go way back.
Let's go back to the farming days of our early American experience.
If you were a farmhand and you didn't even have to own the farm or make the hard decision, you're just a farmhand.
How hard would it be for someone with a minor, non-severe version of autism to simply spend a lot of time alone, not make a lot of conversation, do their job, get paid, and nobody would think anything of it.
You just say it's a different personality.
So it seems to me that in the modern complicated world, if you had a little bit of autism, it might really trip you up and people would really spot it because it'd be things you don't do or things you can't do.
But back when everything was simple and all you did was milk a cow and cut some grass, nobody even noticed, would they?
So driven by classifying people with other conditions as autism, some of that.
And apparently, if you add a monetary incentive to schools, if they have people who are autistic, suddenly the number of autistic people at the school jumps by 25% in a single year because the funding follows the autistic kids.
So if you say you have more autistic kids, you get more funding for those kids.
So of course, follow the money would give you a 25% increase without any real increase in the condition.
No environmental toxicants have been found.
Here's one.
Adoption studies indicate that there's no apparent parental influence on kids' autistic traits, but there is parental influence on the child's likelihood of receiving a diagnosis.
So the kids, who your parents are, will not make a difference about whether you have it, but it will make a difference about whether you get diagnosed.
What's that tell you?
All right.
What else?
Non-severe.
What else?
So.
So that's the basic idea.
Now, when you heard those, when you heard those explanations, does they sound compelling to you?
Does the alternate explanation that, no, you just, you're measuring it wrong, does that sound compelling?
It would sound compelling to me.
It would, if there weren't so many teachers and parents who can tell you there's no way there's not more of this.
It's just everywhere all the time now.
And every group of 30 has one.
So I'm inclined to think that there is something real that's happening.
But I have to admit, that's a pretty strong argument.
And it's coming from somebody who's not wrong a lot.
So, you know, I just put that out there to show you that all data is fake, as I tell you often.
All data is unreliable.
So the autism medicine is called Leokovoran.
Leocovoran.
And if you happen to have cerebral folate deficiency, which I guess must be a partial cause or maybe an effect of autism, supposedly it can help.
And then the National Institute of Health is going to launch a big autism data science initiative so they can learn more.
And that sounds good.
I'll tell you what I like about this the most.
You could argue all day long about whether what Trump and RFK Jr. have done so far is the right answer, done enough.
Bullet Wound Debate00:03:24
Should they have done something else?
Are they looking at the right studies, blah, blah, blah.
Those are all good questions and concerns.
I'm sorry.
I've got to get rid of some.
There we go.
All right.
I have an update and correction on the Charlie Kirk magic bullet question.
Yesterday I told you with great confidence, incorrectly, that he probably, almost certainly, had a metal chest plate and the bullet probably hit it and ricocheted up and hit his neck.
Turns out, I have much better information today.
There definitely was no, there was no vest, there was no metal plate.
So that comes from the people closest to him.
So there definitely was no metal plate.
I've also learned from now three different sources that I consider highly reliable that if you're trying to figure out the path of a bullet when it enters a body, it could be anything.
So people are advising me, the people actually know, you know, they've shot things and they've seen a lot of wounds and they've killed a lot of wild boars like Alex Jones has.
Alex Jones has killed, he estimated 90 wild boars that he's personally shot to death.
That's a lot of mammals.
But apparently, if the bullet from that kind of a rifle, which could be a variety of different bullets, so if it's a hollow point versus some other variety, you would get a different fact pattern.
If it's a hollow point, it probably wouldn't leave a body.
Maybe it would still go through a neck, but the angle of attack appeared to be down.
So if I understand it correctly, the neck wound was the entry wound, but the bullet went into the body, may have destroyed his vertebrae and bounced around a little bit in his body, or not bounced around necessarily intact, but maybe in pieces.
So I don't want to say the good news, but the obvious, the obvious conclusion is that he died immediately because the internal damage was extraordinary.
And probably bones were hit, so the bullet or the shards bounced around.
So I believe that answers every question, except why would the entry wound be so large?
Because that doesn't make sense.
So I'm still waiting.
I guess I still have to ask that question.
But it does seem to me, and I would say that my sources at this point are insider sources.
So I'm talking about people who have talked to Charlie's widow and gotten the real story because the widow knows, right?
She knows what's going on.
Erica.
But I believe that question has been now answered, sort of, mostly.
Why Bones Were Hit00:10:57
Well, Kamala Harris trying to sell her stupid book was on Maddow show.
And I forgot how much fun it was to play, is she stupid or drunk?
And once again, I couldn't tell.
She was either being extra stupid or she was drunk.
You know, I know you're going to say, but Scott, it could be both.
Yeah, I know, it could be both.
But here are some of the things she said.
And, oh my God, did we dodge a bullet?
She is so stupid and so incompetent that it just screams when she's on TV now.
I mean, I guess maybe we got used to it and we're used to Joe Biden.
So seeing massive incompetence, it just didn't stand out so much, you know, compared to Biden.
But boy, does this stand out now?
So Maddow, who is famously in the LGBTQ community, she wasn't happy because she said to Harris, to say that you talk about Buddha Judge not being picked because he was gay.
She said, to say that he couldn't be on the ticket, Buddha Judge, effectively because he was gay, it's hard to hear.
Now, imagine you're Maddow and you've been massively supporting Harris.
And then you find out that Harris wouldn't put Pete Buddhaj on the team because she thought the gay guy couldn't win.
And Harris goes, no, no, no, that's not what I said.
With his stakes being so high, it made me very sad.
But I also realized it would be a real risk.
So she denied that she kept him off because he was gay.
And then she confirmed in her denial that she kept him off because he was gay.
Drunk or stupid?
Or both.
Or both.
Who answers that way?
No, it didn't happen and it totally happened.
And doesn't realize that that needs to be cleaned up a little bit.
Nope.
Nope.
So there's that.
And then she described Trump as a dictator and a tyrant.
And, you know, then she said they got to fight fire with fire.
What exactly would it mean to fight fire with fire if you're saying Trump is a dictator and a tyrant?
Is that not a call for violence?
Because what exactly is the fire that you're going to fight the fire with if you're fighting a dictator and a tyrant?
I mean, that sounds a little violent-y to me.
And she also claimed that she had, quote, had a certain responsibility to tell Biden not to run, but she admits she engaged in what she calls recklessness because she didn't want to be seen as self-serving.
Everything about that is wrong.
I mean, how in the world did she get that close to the presidency?
You're all just watching my cat now, aren't you?
So this cat is Roman with the blue color.
Hey, Roman.
I spend the first part of the day with my other cat on my lap.
Likes to be in my lap when I'm getting ready for the show.
But Roman now likes to likes to join us.
All right.
So Andy No is reporting in the post-millennial he's writing that Antifa could soon be branded a foreign terror group.
So I guess they're already designated a domestic terror group or something, but that doesn't have any teeth.
If they are branded a foreign terrorist group, which looks like that's imminent, then I think that opens up a number of tools that can be used against them that otherwise wouldn't.
So that's coming.
And it would allow sanctions overseas against networks and individuals, etc.
And I saw a post by somebody called Clandestine.
War Clandestine is the account.
And Clandestine says, do you see it?
Trump is neutralizing the Deep States playbook.
First, he cut off their money supply via USAID and foreign aid and going after the funding of Soros.
So, those would be like the Democrats piggybacks.
And now, clandestine says, now he's shutting down their brown shirts, Antifa.
Now, the reference there is to color revolutions.
The idea that Soros and the NGOs and the other dark funding mechanisms fund people to protest so that it can look like whatever it is they want looks like the public might want it too.
So, they basically organize protesters with money.
But if you take away the Soros money or you defang it and you make Antifa the fake, I'm going to call them fake protesters because I don't think they're organic in the least.
So, if you take away the fake protesters in the street and you take away the money, that goes a long way toward getting rid of the people trying to overthrow the government on a regular basis.
Well, Trump has spoken out against the UK for the UK decided to recognize Palestine as its own state, I guess.
And Trump says that Britain's recognition of Palestine is nothing more than a quote reward for Hamas.
It does nothing to free hostages or anything like that.
So, now the countries or allies that have accepted Palestine as a state include Britain, France, Belgium, Canada, Australia, and Portugal.
So, it's starting to make the USA look like we're a little bit on our own there.
There's still lots of other countries that haven't done it, but five is a lot anyway.
So, Trump's going to talk to the UN General Assembly today.
And some say that he's sort of boxed in by that stuff.
Maybe.
We'll see.
Anything could happen.
Hamas has cleverly made an offer directly to Trump, not through Israel, to, if he can get a 60-day pause, that a 60-day pause in fighting, if he can get that done, then Hamas will release half of the hostages.
We believe there are something like 20 hostages still alive, and then a bunch that would just be the bodies.
But 20 living hostages, and they would offer to release 10, I guess, ish, if he gets a 60-day pause.
What do you think?
Do you think there's Trump's going to take that deal?
No, I don't think Israel will let him take that deal, even if he wanted to.
But it's very clever from Hamas because it puts a wedge between Israel and the United States, because Trump really, really likes releasing hostages, not just these hostages, but he's got this great track record of being able to get hostages out, and he brags about it.
So, Hamas cleverly thinks there's no way Trump is going to say no to a sure thing.
It'd be a sure thing.
60 days of not fighting for half of the hostages.
And we don't know that there's any response, but I think it only matters what Israel thinks of it.
Turkish President Erdogan, who, as you know, is a member of NATO, was asked in an interview: do you consider what's happening in Gaza a genocide?
Erdogan says there's no other explanation.
This is a full-fledged genocide, and Netanyahu is responsible.
And the question that I ask is: what would it be if Hamas were the dominant military and Israel was just hiding in tunnels?
Would there be a genocide in that direction?
Yes, of course it would.
Hamas has been very clear that it would be a genocide as soon as they have the ability to do it.
So, my take is genocide is bad, with the single exception that if the other team is saying directly and consistently and for years, if we get a chance, we are going to genocide you so hard.
What else are you going to do?
It might still be a genocide, but you have to genocide a genocide.
How else would you stop it?
Because if the only thing that will stop them from killing you is completely taking them off the field, what are you going to do?
So Russia's been shooting down Ukrainian incoming drones like crazy, including a number of them who are heading toward Moscow.
Now, how would you feel if you lived in a major city anywhere and on a regular basis, your government had to shoot down incoming exploding death drones?
Like, even if they got them all, would you ever feel comfortable going outdoors?
I mean, it feels like it'd be really uncomfortable.
So it makes me wonder if the population in Moscow is starting to feel the war in a way that they hadn't felt it before.
You know, I think Moscow, you know, is most of the opinion that matters.
So I guess their anti-aircraft destroyed 81 Ukrainian drones in one night.
Population Feeling War's Impact00:10:27
And that's a lot.
Sweden says that they're prepared to shoot down any Russian jets that wander into their territory because, as you might know, for reasons that I'm not entirely clear about the purpose, Russia has been quite consciously wandering into the airspace of other neighboring countries.
So Estonia, Poland, Romania, Russia just keeps accidentally flying into their airspace, presumably putting pressure on or maybe testing defenses or both.
But Sweden says if Russia flies over their space, they're going to shoot it down.
And they say no warnings and no excuses.
Do they mean it?
I don't know.
We might find out.
I saw a post by Alex Prompter who says that Google is right on the border of revolutionizing education.
Apparently, Google has launched an AI, I guess, an app or a program called Learn Your Way.
So what it does is it gives a very personalized lesson to each student based on what they need, basically.
So if you have a different learning style, you know, if you need a mind map or an audio lesson, a timeline that you can click around on, or quizzes that will change based on what you know and what you don't know and that sort of thing.
So they tested it on 60 high schoolers and it worked great, apparently.
Every one of them said it made them more confident.
Scores were up.
And so basically, if AI could adapt its teaching method for each person and maybe each day, you know, maybe one day is different from another.
The potential for how well you could learn things apparently is really good.
So that might be a big deal.
Because, you know, in my opinion, the terrible school system is one of the biggest things that holds back people who are born into poverty is that they can't necessarily use school to escape.
And if you could fix that by making it sort of universally possible that everybody can get this kind of education with AI, then you would solve one of the biggest problems in the country.
And they may have solved it.
We may see that instead of regular classrooms, maybe you just go to a pod of a dozen people that decided to be in the same pod because none of them are travel makers.
And you just sit there for two hours a day learning stuff.
And maybe that's all you need.
Because you've heard that before, right?
That you could compress the entire school day into two hours if you knew how to do the two hours right.
I totally believe that.
There's no way that you're learning more than two hours worth of content in a school day.
So if you could compress it, yeah, that'd be quite a day.
Well, Sarah Adams, no relationship to me, former CIA intelligence expert.
You may have seen her on podcasts.
She says the terrorists are already set up here in America and they're planning on a major attack on the homeland.
Now, she's been saying this for a while, and long enough that you might say to yourself, but Scott, you don't need to be a former CIA intelligence expert to say that terrorists will eventually do a big attack on the homeland.
You know, if you don't know when it's going to happen or the specifics, we all could have made that same prediction.
So, as long as you're not held to the date or the approximate date, that's a pretty safe, it's a pretty safe prediction.
However, you want to get really scared now.
I hate to do this, but this seems like an unrelated story, but I'm not so sure.
Apparently, the Secret Service has found that there was this massive site in New York, somewhere near New York City, where there was a building with a whole bunch of equipment in it that was designed for no other purpose than to disrupt cell networks all over New York City.
And the thinking was that maybe it had to do with the United Nations meeting coming up, to which I say, would that really be worth it if they built this expensive, complicated facility?
Do you think that the best use of that would be to make the cell phones not work at the UN?
Does that seem like that would be what the plan was?
I've got a better suggestion that will scare you.
It could be that the plan to turn off the cell phones all over New York City could be related to that big terror attack.
If you were going to do a big terror attack and you had the option, you would turn off the cell phones in that area so that the first responders couldn't help.
And then nobody could figure out what's going on to figure out how to get out of the city.
So even if there was an escape, let's say there was one path to get out of the city, you wouldn't know because your cell phone didn't work and nothing would work.
So the funniest, not funny, it's not funny at all, but the oddest part of this story is that they're not even speculating who put that facility there.
Was it al-Qaeda?
If Al-Qaeda built that thing, then yes, it was part of a larger attack plan, which means that they're really, really serious about whatever the next one is.
They're not going to mess around.
But if it was maybe some black hat hacker group, maybe it's something they were using to make money somehow, which would be bad, but not nearly as bad as a joint attack with Al-Qaeda that also takes out your phones.
So that's scary.
I hope we find out more about that soon.
Well, Trump is said to have a victory on big pharma because there's a new drug coming out from Bristol Myers Squibbs that will cost the same all over the world.
So the United States will not be paying the 10 times more than other places.
And they're saying it's because of the president.
But it's only one drug.
Breitbart News is reporting on this.
It's a schizophrenia drug, Cobenfi.
It's going to launch in the UK.
And I guess the list price will be the same as in the US.
So I don't know what happens with all the other drugs.
Aren't they supposed to eventually be the same price everywhere?
Or are they only doing the new ones?
Something wrong with that story.
All right.
Here's a story that could be nothing or it could be everything.
The Gateway Pundits reporting this, Patty McMurray, that New Jersey man has somehow succeeded in getting a million documents from Detroit's 2020 election.
He'd been doing this long FOIA request thing, but he finally got them.
So he got a million documents.
That includes copies of absencee ballots and signed envelopes.
Basically, there was a picture of him with the back of a truck open, just tons of documents.
And Detroit is considered by some as one of the places that a cheat happened in 2020 presidential election.
Now, I'm not saying that because I don't personally have any evidence of that.
However, If these million documents pay off the way the individual who got these documents thinks they will, there will be proof that the election was stolen.
So, do you think that they gave him anything that would show proof that the election was stolen?
Or did it take so long because they had to look through it to make sure they didn't give him anything that would prove the election was stolen?
They just give him all the other stuff.
I don't know.
Yeah, I don't know.
So, we'll see.
According to Newsmax Money, the way we calculate the inflation is wrong.
And if we did it right, it would look a lot higher.
I remind you that all data is fake.
So, we don't know about autism because we don't trust the data.
We don't know about inflation because we don't trust the data.
We don't know about the election in 2020 because we don't trust the vote totals.
Do you see any pattern developing here?
There's no data that's reliable.
Now, that's something I've always known because I worked in jobs where it was my job to collect the data that was accurate.
And one thing I learned right away: it didn't matter what the domain was, it didn't matter what the source of the data was, it was always inaccurate.
And we used it anyway because you got to do something.
You can't just say, ah, I don't know.
We're just going to guess from now on.
So, yeah, all data is inaccurate or unreliable.
Data's Internal Clock00:01:49
Well, you know, we're heading toward another government shutdown possibility because we'll never agree on a budget, of course.
And the government funding as it is expires on September 30th.
And there are too many large differences between the Democrats and Republicans.
And it's Groundhog Day all over again.
I would expect to see some posts from Thomas Massey reminding us that there's no chance that Congress will act responsibly and come up with a budget that is the product of their negotiating and reduces the deficit, which is their main thing that they have to do.
Yeah.
But anyway, so if it's like every other time, they're going to do another continuing resolution.
They're not going to cut the budget.
They're not going to make any decisions.
And they'll just kick the can down the road because that is apparently all they're able to do.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I had to tell you.
Oh, that's pretty good.
I was shooting to end at eight o'clock.
Missed it by one minute.
That's pretty good for not watching.
I feel like I have this little internal clock that's weirdly accurate.
Yeah, it's a kick the can CR.
All right, what else are we saying?
I'm looking at some of your messages coming by.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for you.
I'm going to say some words to the beloved subscribers to my locals community.