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 an elevating your experience to levels that nobody can even understand with their tidy, shiny human brains.
All you need for that is uh copper amugger or glass attacker, chalic stein, a canteen jugger flask, uh vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine's end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous ep.
And it happens right now.
Go.
Spectacular.
Well, open AI and Nvidia, the two giants in the AI business are planning a combined hundred billion dollar AI project that will require the power of at least 10 nuclear reactors, according to uh Ars Technica.
Uh Ben 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 a hundred billion dollars into it, and they and that that's not even counting the that's probably not even counting the nuclear power plants, right?
Um do they just sort of know that there's no way that could be anything but a good 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 uh 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's already it already exists, and it's already in production, already in the field, and uh it works.
But you're probably saying to yourself, I'm not gonna enjoy it if uh if a machine does it.
Isn't it uh is it the human touch?
That's sort of the whole point of it.
Well, I'll tell you, uh right on the other side of my computer.
I have a high-end massage chair.
Um, it's like really high-end, very expensive, and uh I gotta tell you, every time I use that, is it is just floods me with I don't know what uh whatever happiness chemicals you get when you get a massage.
I it is really effective.
I mean, you don't you'll 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 uh AI-based uh, 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 in the internet, probably just on Facebook, and look for somebody who meets all those qualifications.
But 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 uh it would be more like uh a person that just happens to be AI and knows a lot about a lot of people.
So we got that.
Um I 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 uh AI would be to cut out the middleman and become the date.
Well, you 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 gonna automatically run it, although that could change by tonight.
But the Sinclair group and Nextar, um 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 uh 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.
Um here's uh here's my final take on it.
I doubt it'll be final.
Um I'm glad that he's gonna 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 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 you know, their lawful legal job is to make sure that the three broadcast networks um 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's not 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 there's a gray area, I would default, you know, 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.
Um, but I'm gonna 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 we can't know for sure, but I would say 99% chance that Charlie Kirk would have said, you know what?
Um I forgive him.
It was one little slip, and uh I think he took enough heat that he learned his lesson.
Maybe Maybe I should go on his show.
I think if Charlie Kirk were here, I mean, obviously that's uh 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 a in many ways he's better than us.
I hate to admit it, but yeah, that 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 you know 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?
You know, if you disagree with me, I'd love 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 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 um, 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 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 you know a few days off and then he's just back to work and everything's good.
I I wouldn't, you know, 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 you know paying his own bills.
I 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.
Um you might say, but would he grant you the same uh grace?
To which I say, that's not my that 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.
Um, you know the story that allegedly Tom Holman took $50,000 in cash in a in a bag uh for potential services later, uh, should he become uh his current job and should Trump have gotten elected.
So this is before Trump got elected and before he was in his shop.
Um 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 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 maybe somehow that got turned into, well, he sort of took it even though he didn't take it.
I don't know, couldn't be anything.
Um California is the first state to require masks on law enforcement and uh the border patrol enforcement people.
And uh 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 uh or border enforcement people, ice, I guess, to uh 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 it's not a mask.
I don't 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 uh nose.
Well, uh I don't think that's really a mask, is it?
What about fake boobs?
Suppose the uh all the 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 you know boobs and fake eyelashes and makeup, but then they'd say trans portation.
Wink wink.
So I'm just saying that the ice could uh find a work around, just turn it into a uh dress up uh trans event, trans portation.
Yeah, all right, I'm being silly.
Well, as you know, uh Trump and RFK Jr. had a big announcement yesterday of what they found out so far or believe they know about autism.
And uh boy, did this get interesting.
So there's 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 uh if a pregnant woman takes Tylenol or the acetaminophen, so there are other companies that make it besides the Tylenol Company, but uh there's a bunch of studies that suggest that it's correlated and therefore causation.
Um, but there are other studies that say nope, there's no correlation at all.
But uh I think it was uh 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 You look at the the bunch of them.
What's that called?
That's called a meta study.
What if I taught you about meta studies?
They're 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 they sort of weight all the studies by the number of participants.
So if there's one that was like a hundred 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 you know 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 uh sort of a scary indications of what we're seeing, and if I were you, I wouldn't be taking Tylenol if I were pregnant.
Although the the doctors, this a lot of them, not all of them, some doctors, I don't know what percentage, disagree because the 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.
Um, 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 you know 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.
Um Trump um in his Trumpian ways is basically saying don't take Tylenol, don't take it.
Um, you know, he he admits that his uh 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, and 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, this in your specific case, it's worth a little risk.
So at least at least they're honest about, you know, leave it to your doctor.
All right.
So let's see what else is gonna.
There's also uh also, let's see.
Um there's there's also a uh new drug that's being rolled out for uh I don't know if it's every kind of autism, but some, and then you got uh we don't know if that'll work yet, but I mean it's approved.
There's an new approved drug for autism that looks like it can help some, if not all patients.
Um, and then I guess Trump suggested spacing out 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 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 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 uh unknown unknown directions.
So you could get 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 can uh 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 i have to look at 46 of them and use magic to try to figure out which ones are real um however let's see what else oh
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 it 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 uh newborn needs a shot or not.
All right, so those are all the things.
I think there's you know, generally in the right direction, but I'm gonna give you an alternative view that uh you can you can make your own opinion on.
So this is from a ex-user named cremu, a French French word, cremeux.
I mentioned him before because his uh his analytical abilities are incredible.
Um when he has a uh alternative point of view on something in the news, it's definitely worth listening to.
Doesn't mean he's right.
So here's uh 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.
Um, I will acknowledge that if you talk To any school teacher today, they would say, uh, there's there's at least one autistic kid in every class now, every class of 30 people, just there's at least one.
And when you were when people like me were children, we believed that that was not the case.
We believe 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 don't we observe it directly?
So even though I'm going to give you a wonky argument that maybe it's not a it's not a big increase, um 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 it into Grok so that when I talked to you today, I could go down the list and say, Grok says this is BS.
Grok uh debunked this, grok says no.
Uh, do you know what Grok said?
It 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 DSM3 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 the past to the present because they didn't measure the same things.
Okay, that 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 they find equal prevalence estimates for youth and adult.
Now, if that's true, there is there is no increase in autism.
If you simply went out and said, I'm gonna get a random sample of people, some of them were seven years old, some of them were eight years old, and then you just looked for symptoms of autism, you would find, according to Cremiew, and whatever study he's referring to that's not mentioned, uh, he 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 diagnosis.
If you know, because there's no way that the 70-year-olds and the eight-year-olds would have roughly the same autism symptoms, uh, unless it had always been here, because they're not getting it at 70, you know what I mean.
Uh, let's see.
Um familial control studies show us that no vaccination has any causal relationship with autism.
So cremew believes that vaccinations have not been correlated with autism.
Um, which 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 any anything I say here is true.
This is creme's argument, and he's very good at arguments and data.
So it's it's a he's a good source.
Um he says that uh the rise in autism has overwhelmingly been due to non-severe varieties, non-severe varieties.
So you if you had a little bit of it, you could probably function in the world and uh get along.
In the old days, life was simple.
So let's say, let's see, let's go way back.
Let's go back to the farming days of our early early American experience.
If you were a farm hand, 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 uh autism to simply spend a lot of time alone, not make a lot of conversation, do their job and 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 uh you know, cause some grass, nobody even noticed, would they?
Um driven by classifying people with other conditions as autism, some of that.
Um apparently, if you add a monetary incentive to schools, if they 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 uh 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 the condition.
Uh no environmental toxicants have been found.
Um here's one.
Uh 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 that 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.
Uh well, do the non-severe, what else?
So that's that's the basic idea.
Now, when you heard those, when you heard those explanations, did they sound compelling to you?
Does the 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, you I just put that out there to show you that uh all data is fake, as I tell you often, all data is unreliable.
So the autism medicine is called uh Leo Covorin, leak of oran.
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 uh 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.
Um you could argue all day long about whether what Trump and RFK Jr. have done so far is the right answer done enough?
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 something.
There we go.
Um, 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 uh light there was no vest, there was no metal plate.
So that that comes from the people closest to him.
So there definitely was no metal pillow.
Uh 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 that they've shot things and they've they've seen a lot of wounds and they killed a lot of wild boars like Alex Jones has.
Alex Jones has killed he he estimated 90 wild boars that he's personally shot to death.
That's a lot of mammals.
But apparently, if the uh bullet from that kind of a rifle, which could be a variety of different bullets, so if it's uh hollow point versus some other variety, uh you would get a you know a different uh fact pattern.
If it's hollow point, it probably wouldn't leave a body.
Um it probably maybe it would still go through a neck, but the angle of attack appeared to be down.
And so the uh if I understand it correctly, the the neck wound was the entry wound, but the bullet um went into the body, may have may have destroyed his uh vertebrae and bounced around a little bit in his body, or not bounced around necessarily intact, but maybe in you know in pieces.
So the um I don't want to say the good news, but the the obvious uh uh the obvious conclusion is that he died immediately because the internal damage was extraordinary.
And um, probably bones were hit, so the you know the bullet of the shards bounced around.
So I believe that answers every question except why would the entry wound be so large?
Because that's not that doesn't make sense.
So I'm still waiting, I I guess I still have to ask that question.
But it does seem to be, and I would say that my sources at this point are insider sources.
So we're talking about people who you know have talked to the uh Charlie's uh widow and you know, gotten the real story because the widow knows, right?
She knows what's going on.
Erica.
Um but I believe that question has been no answered, sort of, mostly.
Well, Kamala Harris trying to sell her stupid book.
Um was on Madow show, and uh I forgot how much fun it was to play is she's 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 gonna say, but Scott, it could be both.
Yeah, I know it could be both.
But uh here are some of the things she said, and uh, oh my god, did we dodge a bullet?
She is so stupid and so incompetent that it just 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 uh famously in the LGBTQ community, Um she wasn't happy because uh she said uh to Harris to say that uh he was talking about Buddha Judge not being picked because he was gay.
Uh 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 mad now and you've been massively supporting Harris, and then you find out that Harris wouldn't put uh Pete Budig on the team because she thought the gay guy couldn't win.
And Harris goes, no, no, no, that's not what I said.
Uh, 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 uh she described drunk uh Trump as a dictator and a tyrant, and you know, then she said they gotta 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 gonna fight the fire with if you're fighting a dictator and a tyrant?
I mean that sounds a little violent-y to me.
Um, she also claimed that she had, quote, had a certain responsibility to tell Biden not to run.
Uh, but uh 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 do she get that close to the presidency?
You're all just watching my cat now, aren't you?
So that this cat is Roman with the blue collar.
Hey Roman.
Uh I spend the first part of the day with uh my other cat on my lap.
Likes to be on my lap when I'm when I'm getting ready for the show.
But Roman now likes to likes to join us.
All right.
Um so Andy No is reporting in the post-millennial, he's writing that uh Antifa could soon be branded a foreign terror group.
So um, I guess they're already designated uh domestic terror group or something, but that doesn't have any teeth.
If they're 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 uh overseas against networks and uh individuals, etc.
And uh I I saw a post by somebody called Clandestine, uh war clandestine is the the account, and uh 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 uh going after the funding of Soros.
So those would be like the Democrats piggy banks, and uh now Clandestine says now he is 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 uh people to protest so that it can look like whatever it is they want, looks like uh the public might want it too.
So they 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 gonna call them fake protesters, because I don't 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, um that goes a long way toward getting rid of the people trying to overthrow the government on a regular basis.
Well, Trump uh has uh spoken out against the UK for uh the UK decided to recognize uh Palestine as uh its own state, I guess.
And uh Trump says that uh 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 are 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 um on our own there.
There's still lots of other countries that haven't done it, but uh five's a lot.
Anyway, so Trump's gonna talk to the uh UN General Assembly today.
Um say that he's sort of boxed in by that stuff.
Maybe we'll see.
Anything could happen.
Umas has cleverly made an offer directly to Trump, not through Israel, to if if he can get a 60-day pause that uh a six-day pause in fighting, if he can get that done, then the Hamas will release half of the hostages.
Uh, we believe there are something like 20 hostages still alive, and then a bunch that would just be the the bodies, but uh 20 living hostages, and they would offer to release 10, I guess, ish, um, if he gets a six to day pause.
What do you think?
Do you think there's you think Trump's gonna take that deal?
No, I don't think Israel will let him take that deal, even if he wanted to.
Um, 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 he's got this great track record of being able to get hostages out, and he brags about it.
So Hamas cleverly thinks uh there's no way Trump is gonna say no to a sure thing, it'd be a sure thing, 60 days uh of not fighting for half of the hostages, and uh we don't know that there's any response, but I think it only matters what Israel thinks of it.
Uh Turkish President Erdogan, who as you know is a member of NATO, um, 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 you know hiding in tunnels?
Would that 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 you if we get a chance, we are gonna genocide you so hard.
What else are you gonna 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 you know, completely taking them off the field, what are you gonna do?
So Russia's been shooting down Ukrainian incoming drones like crazy, including a number of them who were 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 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 uh opinion that matters.
So uh, I guess they're anti-aircraft destroyed 81 Ukrainian drones in one night.
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, uh 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, you know, Russia just keeps accidentally flying into their airspace, presumably putting pressure on, or maybe testing defenses, or both or what.
But Sweden says if uh Russia flies over their space, they're gonna shoot it down.
No they say no warnings and no excuses.
Do they mean it?
I don't know.
We might find out.
I saw a uh post by Alex Prompter, who says that Google is uh right on the border of revolutionizing education.
Apparently, Google has launched a uh AI um, I guess an app or a program called Learn Your Way.
So, what it does is uh 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 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 uh it worked great, apparently.
Every one of them said it made them more confident, scores were up, and uh so basically if AI could adapt its uh teaching method for each person, and maybe each day, you know, maybe one day is different from another.
Um, the potential for how well you could learn things, uh, apparently is really good.
So that might be a big deal.
Because, you know, in my opinion, the the terrible school system is one of the biggest things that holds back, you know, people were born into poverty, is that they can't they can't necessarily use school to escape.
And if you can fix that by making it sort of universally possible that everybody can get this kind of education with AI, um then you would solve one of the biggest problems in the country, and they may they may have solved it.
You know, we we may see that uh that instead of regular classrooms, maybe you just go to a pod of uh you know a dozen people that decided to be in the same pod because none of them are troublemakers, 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, is 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 uh 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 it as long as you're not held to the date uh or the approximate date, that's a pretty safe um, it's a pretty safe prediction.
However, you want to get really scared now.
Uh 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 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 uh the 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 you know one path to get out of the city, you you wouldn't know because your cell phone didn't work and nothing would work.
So uh 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 they're not going to mess around.
Um, but if it was maybe some uh black cat hack or 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 uh that's scary.
I hope we find out more about that soon.
Well, Trump is uh 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 you know paying the 10 times more than other places, and they're saying it's you know because of the president.
Uh, but it's only one drug.
Breitbar News is reporting on this.
Um, it's a schizophrenia drug, Cobenfee.
It's gonna launch in the UK, and uh, 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.
Uh the gateway pundits reporting this, Patty McMurray, that uh New Jersey man has somehow succeeded in getting a million documents from Detroit's 2020 elections.
He says he'd been doing this long FOIA request thing, but he finally got them.
So he got a million documents that includes copies of absence ballots and signed envelopes.
Um basically there was a picture of him with the back of a truck open, just you know, tons of documents.
And Detroit is uh considered by some as one of the places that a cheat happened in 2020 presidential election.
Now I'm not saying that I don't personally have any evidence of that.
However, um 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 all the other stuff.
I don't know yeah I don't know so we'll see um according to newsmax money the way we calculate the 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.
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.
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.
