Government shut-down fun, Gaza updates, and lots more headline yucks~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Falling On Stairs, Lesbian Divorce Rate, Status Stress, AI Press Releases, AI Movies, AI Learn By Watching, MSM Low Popularity, Nick Sorter Arrested, Antifa Training Events, Charisma-Challenged Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, TSA Quiet Skies, Sombrero Memes, Trump's Hilarious Trolling, Democrat Congressional Leadership, Kash Patel, J6 National Guard Delay, Nancy Pelosi, AG Leticia James, Bill Pulte, David Sacks, SLPC, Winning Wars, Scott Galloway, Democrat Imaginary Problems, Gavin Newsom, Hamas Rejects Deal, Tucker Israel's Influence, Greta Thunberg's Flotilla, FBI Arrests Success, MIT Concrete Battery Technology, Taiwan Chip Negotiations, 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.
Um so I don't know if most of you know that I do a pre-show before I do this every day.
And the pre-show is just me getting the cats, and I take a few puts on my putting green and uh play some drums and basically just get ready for the show while the chatters are talking to each other for the most part.
A lot of people think it's the best part of what I do, but uh this morning I uh had a little uh problem on my stairs, and I fell down the stairs.
Uh I'm not injured, but my uh my legs are weakened because I've had so much leg pain that I've been sitting and not walking.
So one of my legs was so weak, my left leg, that the first time I went up the stairs this morning, I thought, hmm.
It felt a little uh a little shaky.
So you know, I always make sure I'm holding on the rails.
I'm at that age where you never walk up downstairs while holding the rails, but I forgot something downstairs, so my my iPad.
So I went back downstairs and uh turned around.
You want to see me uh on live video falling down my own stairs?
So this is what the live stream audience saw just a few minutes ago.
I just had to get my okay.
Here I come.
Now I was only about 10 feet up the stairs.
It doesn't hurt.
Oh my flat on my back on the the bottom floor right now.
All right, you you're seeing my reflection now, not this.
Yes, I didn't fall down the stairs.
So that was exciting.
How's the stock market doing?
Little bit up, a little bit up.
All right, we'll take it.
We'll take it.
Yes, I will get an apple watch in case I fall down again.
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 tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper micro glass attacker chalice time the 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 the uh dope media the day.
The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip, and I will not be stopped.
Good stuff.
Good stuff.
All right, we got some news.
You want some news today?
Gonna put your comments up here so that I can more easily see them.
Come on.
Comments.
The feed.
Come on, guys.
There we go.
Bomb bum bum boom.
All right, we're all good to go now.
So um, according to a rasmus and poll, 84% of uh people are worried that online radicalization might drive more political violence.
Um eighty-four percent are worried that online radicalization will drive more violence.
Where do people Think it comes from.
If it doesn't come from online, what do you think it came for your neighbor?
Did your neighbor get you all worked up to do some political violence?
What would it be?
Except for online.
That's the only thing that gets us worked up about anything.
So yeah, Rasmussen, I believe your poll is correct.
If not low.
Should have been 100%.
Here's another one.
Let's let's see if you knew the answer to this one.
Uh Eric Dolan in Psypost is writing about a new study that tries to determine why lesbian couples face a higher divorce risk.
Okay.
Now the funny part about this topic is that it's literally a famous uh comedy routine about why why lesbians uh have more divorce.
But they looked into things like cohabitation length, prior children and shared children, and they found out that those were really very indicative.
So they're they're uh they're not really predictive.
So now they're conclusion is that it's a mystery why lesbians have the highest divorce rate.
They they couldn't figure out what the source problem was.
It's literally a comedy routine that everybody in the world understands.
If you if you put two women together, because women are usually the ones who are initiate divorces.
If you put the two, if you put the gender together that generally initiates the divorce, you get more divorces.
I think they could have just asked me.
I think they could have asked you too.
Nope.
But whatever you do, don't say women are the problem.
All right.
Uh here's another one from a side post, Karina Petrova.
Again, probably could have saved a little money just by asking me.
But they found out study to find out that your social status has a surprising, yeah, it's surprising influence on your biological stress responses.
That the lower your perceived status, the more likely you'll be stressed out because you can't change anything.
Well, I can tell you that uh I had the experience of having no status, you know, as you do when you're a child, and then I went to having no status as a young adult in my 20s, and uh into my 30s, no real status at all.
But then uh Dilbert hit, and I became a you know, sort of a minor celebrity, and I got some status.
I gotta tell you that having success and you know, associated status solves most of your stress.
I I guarantee you that if you ever hit it big, you know, and you become either either uh well known and or uh rich or both, it will make you more relaxed.
Uh you know, once you're once you're famous, you can walk into any situation with no no stress whatsoever because people come to you.
Uh let me give you just the cleanest example.
Um I get super stressed if I'm late for something.
You probably have that too, right?
Like if there's a meeting and you know people are already in the room.
Oh, that's the worst.
If they're already in the room and you're on the road, you know, you got caught up in traffic, that's really stressful.
So before I had status, if I were late, I would think, oh god, people are gonna hate me more, uh, my status.
You know, I'll I'll be you know, creeping into the meeting late, and ugh god, and it would bother me.
Once I became famous, a weird thing happened.
That if if I showed up late, the people who were already there would apologize for being early, or some variant variation of that.
In other words, they would never get on me because they usually needed me to approve something or wanted to work with me or something.
So I would go from the thing that bothered me the most being potentially late, To no problem at all.
It just disappears.
So, yes, the higher your status, it seems like it would be more work and more pressure.
In some ways, it is, but uh the benefits are just way, way better better than the cost.
Well, according to Cell Press, uh, AI was used to write nearly a quarter of corporate press releases in 2024.
Now I have been involved with many, many press releases, and let me tell you how press releases are written.
The whoever's in charge of whatever entity is supposed to do the press release, they look for the lowest uh the lowest uh ranked person in the office who can speak the language, and then they say, write us up a uh press release and make sure that it's the most boring, you know, looks like it came out of a form factory or something, and uh whatever you do, don't make it interesting, because that's the last thing you want to do.
So here's what I know that any of you have been involved with a lot of press releases can confirm.
A press release always looked like AI wrote it, it always looked like AI wrote it.
So to me, it seems like the most natural thing that you would replace with AI, because it's not gonna get worse.
I mean, press releases are just deadly boring, and they're always like I said, they're the first draft is always written by the worst writer in the office.
I hate to say it.
First draft is always the worst writer, and then it gets to the boss, and the boss doesn't want to rewrite the whole thing, so they just you know check the spelling or something, and then it gets to me.
Let's say the press release is about me, and I just don't give a fuck because I know nobody reads a press release.
So I've approved, I I can't tell you how many press releases about me that I've approved, you know, from publishers, et cetera, uh, that I didn't even read.
Because it doesn't matter, nobody else is gonna read it either.
It's it's the most unread document that will ever be created.
So yeah, quarter of them going to AI makes sense to me.
Um so open AI uh now has a Sora 2 uh app that can generate realistic videos of people doing things, and it's open AI, and they decided to model the new ability by showing a realistic looking video of their CEO, Sam Altman, shoplifting at Target.
It looks just like them and it sounds like them, and it looks like you're shoplifting at Target.
And I'm thinking to myself, no, I guess I guess this app is so you can make content for stuff like Meta and Instagram and TikTok and stuff.
It's sort of designed for what they call AI slop.
Have you heard that term yet?
AI slop, meaning that people are just generating all kinds of AI stuff, and it's not all good.
It's not all it's not all sombrero stuff.
Uh so they call it AI slop.
Anyway, so now we'll have video of every famous person shoplifting and committing crimes.
Step forward, step in the right direction.
And apparently, Sorrow Sora can't generate a continuous three-minute video from a photo, like, but uh there's an app called long shot that can.
So I guess three minutes might be sort of the current record of how long a video you can make from you know a single prompt.
Um, but and there's another one where you can splice together some shots of like a virtual room, and you could splice it together so you you walk through a bunch of personal rooms.
But it looks like it takes about six apps to make all that work.
So, as far as I can tell, based on what I've seen so far, in order to make a movie using AI, you would need all of the skills of a movie maker.
So you'd have to know how to cast the right people, even though casting would be digital.
You'd have to still understand scripts and story and you know the the nature of storytelling.
You'd have to be um you'd have to be basically a videographer, so that you could say, Oh, that's a that's a good look and all that.
So I you have to be an editor, you'd have to be a director, you'd have to still have to be a producer.
So it seems to me that the movie making business will probably no longer be the stupid people.
Don't you worry that movies were made by actors who just wanted a promotion, so they sort of turned into directors so they could get kind of a promotion, and that they weren't necessarily the smartest people you've ever met.
But it wasn't that hard, because if you're a director, you have all these well-trained people who know how to do all the the sub-tasks, right?
You don't have to be the videographer because you hired one, etc.
You don't have to be the lighting guy because you just hire one.
But now you would have to know a whole bunch about AI and how to use it, you know, probably several different apps, and they would be they would be getting updated, those apps, and they would new ones would be coming online, they were better, you'd have to try them all the time.
And you would have to have all the movie skills, but on top of that, in one person, because you you couldn't really, it'd be hard to build something that you um that you delegated to other humans.
So you could delegate it to the AI, but you wouldn't want to delegate it to humans because then there'd be too many humans doing too many prompts with too many AIs.
It would be impossible.
So in order for somebody to make a proper movie, you would have to have the deepest talent stack that I can even imagine.
It would have to go all the way through AI, which is hard enough, but then it would have to include all of the movie making skill.
Who's gonna be able to do that?
a few there will be a few people who can do that but it went from you know you could randomly pick 100 people and 80 of them could be a director But now, if you had a hundred people, probably none of them, if it's only a hundred, probably not one person would have the skill to make a movie with AI, even a few years from now.
That's my guess.
Maybe one in a thousand.
Well, Meta is going to use uh your chat conversations with AI for ad targeting, but uh according to Reclaim the Net, Ken Macon is writing about that.
And uh I guess we all figure that, right?
If if they can listen to you talking and send you ads based on what you're talking about in your kitchen, I'm not too surprised that they can give you an ad based on what you said on AI.
But uh, do you think we're getting close to the point where the AI will directly give you an ad?
As an AI, I need some suggestions where to eat.
And then the I the AI says, well, our sponsored restaurant is XYZ.
I'll bet it, I'll I'll bet that's where it's going, but they they probably need to hold off on that until we're all hooked on AI to the point where we won't turn it off when it gives us a commercial.
We're not there yet.
Um, this will sound like a little thing, but it might be a big thing.
Um that's from a post by Constantinos Busmalis.
Uh, you showed a video of a robot, in this case, it was just a robot arm with a must had some vision, but it was an arm.
And it was teaching another arm how to do a task.
So the one arm knew how to you know put a lid on something or take something off a wall, and then the other one just watched it, and then it could learn it by watching it.
Now, if that doesn't seem like a big deal to you, um, you haven't been watching the robot space, it's the biggest of big deals.
If the robot can learn by observation, it's the biggest of big deals.
That's that's as big a deal as you can get.
That that's like that's just everything right there.
Um, and it hasn't been able been able to do that.
So this might be the first indication that robots will work.
You know, they would have to learn by watching.
And I suppose if one of them learned by watching, then it can send a video to all the others and say, look what I learned by watching.
Uh Perplexity, the AI company has now their comet browser, it's called is out, and it works like an assistant.
So you can give it prompts and it will do a bunch of tasks.
Now that's not the interesting part because there'll be a lot of those.
But the thing that was interesting to me is once AI becomes ubiquitous, and every desk jockey has an AI and an AI assistant, which is coming.
I I think it's a hundred percent chance that we'll all be talking to our AIs to get basic stuff done, right?
There's no question about that.
Uh we'll all be using AI at our desks.
But what happens when people realize that the only the only really efficient way to do it is by voice?
All day long.
But if you could just talk to it, you will.
So does that mean that we'll have to work from home?
'Cause how in the world are we all gonna be talking to our AIs in an open office?
Can't do it.
First of all, your AI would be listening to your cubicle mate, and whoever walked in would trigger your AI and every other problem.
So I'm gonna make a prediction that AI will drive remote work so that people can talk to their AI, and then you're really gonna hate it when your partner works at home.
Oh man, you're gonna hate that.
But at least it won't be at work.
There's a Gallup poll, Newsmax and others reporting that uh apparently the uh media approval is at a new all-time low.
Um, how many people do you let's do a little test?
I like to test my audience for the new people.
Uh you'll be amazed.
Um I'm gonna see if you know before I tell you what percentage of people polled in the Gallup poll think that the mainstream media uh is doing a good job.
What percentage the mainstream media is doing a good job?
Oh, look at your guesses.
So accurate, you're almost there, 28%.
Yeah, yep.
Uh most of your betting were betting 25 or 26, but yeah, 28%.
I'm gonna give you full credit for for your guesses.
Now, if you're new, are you wondering how everybody knew the right answer?
It's because we have jokingly, but uh maybe accurately noted over the years that 20 something like a quarter of all people who answer polls have the dumbest possible answer.
The answer that no living smart human should ever say.
Who in the world trusts the mainstream media?
How in the world can you say, yo yeah, got a lot of trust for that mainstream media?
You would have to be paying no attention to anything, and this is another one of those 25%ers.
28 to be specific.
Well, did he is supposed to be sentenced today as it happened?
I mean, I'm in a different time zone, but does Diddy get his sentence?
Could be as long as 10 years, prosecutors are asking, because they they dropped the worst charges, the Rico and stuff got dropped.
But uh defense is asking for uh time served, basically, one year.
That would be close to time served.
So he's either gonna be released, time served, or maybe you would get up to 10 years.
So I guess he's teaching a business class to other uh other inmates so that he can get some you know, sort of jail credibility.
So good for him, at least the teaching part.
Um how many of you know conservative uh online um investigative reporter type Nick Sortor?
Um I quote him a lot, so he's a good fellow.
Apparently, he just got arrested in Portland, uh attending um as a as a journalist attending to see what was happening at an Antifa event in Portland, and I guess they set an American flag on fire and uh allegedly still fog of war, so we don't know exactly what happened, but uh allegedly he may have tried to put it out.
Now, I don't know how you put out a burning American flag.
Stomp on it?
How exactly would you put it out?
If you threw water on it, I would think, well, that's you know, respectful enough.
Uh, but if you had to stomp on it, I hope he didn't stop on it.
Seems like that would be making it worse.
But we'll uh keep an eye on that.
Um, I'm sure Nick will have an update whenever he's out, he may be out already.
I don't know if he got really arrested or they just that you know, I'm gonna say, well, I'll just say this so you've heard the alternative.
He might have been arrested because the police are assholes, right?
That that's the first thing you think is oh my god, the police are assholes if they arrested him for that.
But if they arrested him because that was the best way to get him out of the situation, because he might be you know beaten to death by Antifa, then that was good police work.
So one possibility is that they were pretending to arrest him just to get him out of the situation.
If that happened, good job.
Good job.
But we don't know that.
Andy No is uh who's on Newsmax uh reminding us that he's he's uh well aware of Antifa training events, which apparently are happening all over the place, and they're used to recruit and network and stuff.
So they have all these organized Antifa training events, and yet the Democrats say Antifa doesn't exist because it's you know there's no leadership or organization.
Well, apparently it's self-organizing at the very least, because they can have all these training events.
So if you're having training events all over the nation, in fact, all over the world, yeah, you're an organization, and uh you could get Rico, in my opinion.
Well, Politico is writing, uh, I I didn't read the article, just the headline, because the headline was good enough.
It said half of America doesn't know who Hakeem Jeffries is.
Uh, but he's seizing on the shutdown fight to change that.
Now uh as many of you know, the political competition between Democrats and Republicans was at one time a fair fight.
Do you remember that?
It's like, wow, those Democrats are putting up a good fight.
They they even won that one.
Oh, they they won that election.
Good fighting.
But now the the Democrat Party is in full collapse, and I can't think of anything that would be worse for the Democrat Party than uh raising the profile of Hakeem Jeffries, the the most uncharismatic person besides Chuck Schumer.
The two of them are just famously uncharismatic.
Like, oh my god, does the camera hate both of those motherfuckers?
Yeah, you you've heard you know the camera loves some people.
You know, some people just look good on camera, and some people don't look good on camera.
It's more of a camera thing.
You know, they might look perfectly normal in person, but both of these guys, Hakeem Jeffries and Schumer, are terrible on camera.
I mean, just terrible.
And I wouldn't say that about everybody.
You know, they're they're AOC is great on camera.
You know, if you want if you want the alternative, great on camera.
Mamdami, he's great on camera.
But they've decided that in the shutdown, they're gonna put the two least likable Democrats forward.
Oh my god, is Trump winning hard?
Every day that they that the Democrats are branding themselves with Hakeem Jeffries and his sombrero and uh and Schumer, every day that that goes on, they get weaker because nobody is looking at those two guys and saying, ooh, lead me, lead me.
Nobody.
Anyway, um, so that's the next biggest mistake they're making.
So apparently uh the House Democrats decided, I Jesse Waters was talking about this on Fox.
Uh, they decided that they would do this uh live stream that they would keep up for 24 hours.
Uh it would be a 24-hour live stream to just talk about the shutdown, so that nobody would, you know, nobody would forget about it and they could get their message out.
Um, and apparently uh at one point there were only 36 people watching them, and one of them was Fox News just to make fun of it.
And it was only at a thousand viewers at one point.
It was peaking live stream at a thousand viewers.
And they decided to just take it down and give up.
Because I saw the uh the setup for the podcast, and it was just two guys you didn't want to look at sitting awkwardly in chairs with microphones in front of their faces.
They couldn't even get the basic right.
If you want somebody to look good on a podcast, there are only two ways to do it.
Those people have to just look good.
That's one way.
Then it doesn't matter what they're doing, they just look good.
The other way is you have to put them behind a desk.
Because at least it doesn't show their lower body, and at least it doesn't show their bad posture, and you know, their little belly doesn't stick up when they lean back in their chair.
But no, they took two unappealing people and put them in full-length chairs.
That's just not knowing how to do a podcast.
That's literally just not knowing how anything works.
Now I did uh recently a podcast with uh Zuby, and the uh the two of us had that same setup with the separate chair that you could see the the whole body.
And I'm looking at Zuby and I'm thinking, damn it, if I look like him, I would I'd feel pretty good in a full chair.
But at the moment, I'm not feeling too too great about my physicality.
So when I saw it played back, I thought, you know, I'd look a lot better beyond a desk.
But Zuby looked great.
Zuby is great.
Um, so 40 million registered democrats, but at one point they could get 36 of them to watch that live stream.
They're just so not good at anything.
Well, Homeland Security, according to the Epic Times, uh removed five TSA officials because they were involved in that Biden era thing where they were putting people on the quiet skies, uh, were going to follow you around if you try to fly.
Apparently, that entire quiet skies thing caught exactly zero bad guys.
All it did was take away freedom from and privacy from a whole bunch of Americans.
Uh so do I think that those heads should be fired?
I do.
I do.
Now they might have been just you know following instructions, but you really just can't have that in your government.
So I'm in favor of those firings.
All right.
Um SNBC is creating some fake news about uh P. Heggseth.
Um, so they're they're doing their usual thing where they take something out of context, which is how, you know, I think most Democrats who are really worked up about the risk and the badness of Republicans almost entirely get their news out of context.
Have you noticed that?
If you if you could fix that one thing, that there would be no out-of-context news, it would change everything.
But you know, the TV news, especially, they could just say stuff and then not put on anybody else who doubts it.
And that's the news.
So here's an example.
Do you remember when P. Eggseth was saying that uh you know, he valued women in the military, but they would have to meet the same physical standards as men if they were going to be in combat roles.
Is that does that uh say anything?
It doesn't say anything.
It's saying that if you're gonna be in a combat role, you're gonna have to meet a certain standard, and we don't care what your genitalia is.
How do you get more fair than that?
Same standard, men and women.
What did MSNBC turn that into?
Uh their words uh is that he's uh ruling out women in combat roles.
Well, in effect, it would presumably reduce the number of women in combat roles if they had a higher standard than they've had before.
But it doesn't eliminate them.
It says if you can do the work, you got the job.
That's all it says.
If you can do the work, you're in.
So but they turn that into something it isn't by removing the context.
Well, you may have seen it already, but uh after uh after three days of winning the meme war, uh Trump with his uh memes of Hakeem Jeffries with his sombrero.
It's just the funniest thing.
Uh even uh what's the show, the daily show?
Uh you know, when when Jon Stewart's not the daily show host, I think he does one day a week.
But uh who is the Asian American guy who's the daily show host?
He's pretty funny.
But he uh he completely took uh the memes aside.
He he just couldn't get over how funny the meme was, even though he didn't understand the relevance of like why why does Hakeem Jeffries have a he didn't even know why Hakeem Jeffries was being put in a sombrero in a Mexican mustache?
The reason is that uh allegedly he wants to give uh budget money to undocumented uh people.
Um but you'd have to know that story, but still the the Daily Show guy said he didn't even know what it had to do with, but it would, but he couldn't stop laughing because it was hilarious, because it's hilarious.
And then and then he showed the third one in the series where Trump himself is wearing a sombrero and playing in the mariachi band, and then he's all confused.
Because is it good or bad to be a mariachi guy with a Mexican hat?
Wait a minute, if it's bad, why'd they put Trump in a hat?
Just perfect.
Just perfect.
But this morning I wake up to a new one.
It's the the mu music of Blue Oyster Cult.
Here comes the Reaper, uh, with a uh AI generated meme that shows Russ vote and uh Trump looking like reapers, and that they're gonna come after your uh after your uh Democrat uh employees and fire them, because I guess he can do a bunch of firing during the government close down, and he's gonna shut a bunch of ri Democrat entities and Democrat functions and fire a bunch of Democrats.
So instead of being coy about it, and it's instead of trying to lower the temperature, you know, what a normal president would do would be like, oh yeah, there might there might be a few layoffs.
Yeah, we we might be you know use that time to look at a few things we can adjust and try to minimize it.
No, instead of instead of trying to minimize it, Trump goes right at it with a meme of him as the as the reaper getting rid of all these democrats.
Oh no.
And then Trump said separately, I can't believe the radical left democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity.
They're not stupid people, so maybe this is their way of wanting to quietly and quickly make America great again.
So now he's speculating that Democrats are pretending to be incompetent so they can get some stuff done without stopping Trump from doing it.
Now I don't think that's exactly what's happening, but God, that's funny.
That is so funny.
That the fact that he's he's trolling them and beating them at the same time.
I could not enjoy this more.
And the fact that Trump knows he's entertaining his base while driving crazy his competition, it just doesn't get any better than this.
How are we ever going to enjoy another president?
This is the most fun.
Any president's ever been.
No, nobody's ever going to match this.
I mean, I I have a lot of confidence in JD Vance.
If he makes it in, I think he'll be terrific.
But man, you'll never match this.
You will never match this.
This is this is a form of genius, what Trump is executing right now.
It's a form of genius, like I don't think we'll ever see again, because he has that talent stack that you know goes across entertainment, you know, decades of experience.
Um, he just has exactly the right stack of talents to do this.
Nobody else does, only him.
Um, so Hakeem put in a uh post on X he says, we are ready to debate the government funding and the Republican health care crisis anytime, any place, with the cameras rolling.
He says, Trump, vice president, speaker Johnson, what say you?
And I looked in the comments to his to his aggressive challenge to uh debate it uh on camera.
And Michael Malice had a comment right below it in all caps.
He says, go back to Mexico.
Now, if you don't know who Michael Malis is, it's not as funny.
You would have you have to know he's just one of the funniest people in the world.
But we so don't take him seriously that nobody even cares that he wants to debate it on camera.
We're not even interested.
We're just go back to Mexico, where if you didn't know, he's not from Mexico, but he has been seen in a sombrero lately.
Go back to Mexico.
It'd be even funnier if uh Trump agreed to debate, but only with AOC.
This topic.
Oh, yeah, I'll do it, but only with AOC.
Anyway, um the smart people are pretty sure that the only way this uh the shutdown ends is with Democrats giving up.
Do you think that too?
Do you think the only way this ends is with Democrats saying, all right, all right, all right.
You know, we're we only have to wait seven weeks, and then we're back in negotiating the budget, so we could just wait seven weeks.
Uh I don't see it ending other any other way, do you?
As far as I can tell, Trump is perfectly happy torturing them with funny memes, keeping them off the job, and uh cutting all these, all this fat that he wanted to cut anyway.
So it definitely looks like all the cards are in Trump's favor right now.
It looks like it.
So I can't imagine it would go any direction other than yet another failure.
But during that time that they fail, they get to highlight their two leaders, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer.
That is all bad every day.
Every second that they're on TV, every second makes the Democrats less popular.
Because even the Democrats are not looking at those two guys and saying, hmm, hmm, there's my leaders right there.
So I mean, they I think if it were AOC, things might be going in the right direction.
You know, because they might say, All right, all right, I'll follow her.
Um, but they don't.
Uh Newt Gingrich had a good uh summary of it.
He says the Democrats just pulled off what he calls a double negative.
Uh, he was talking to Jesse Waters about this.
So the double negative is that there are two things that the American people want.
Just two things.
Well, they will want more than that, but two things the American people want on this topic.
Number one, do not close the government.
Number two, do not raise spending.
And then Newt points out.
So, what do the Democrats do?
They say, I'm gonna close the government until you raise spending.
That's a double negative.
To which I say, no, you're wrong.
You're wrong, Newt.
It's not a double negative.
Because they're doing it by putting forward uh Schumer and Jeffries.
It's a triple negative, it's a triple.
You can't you cannot discount that they're putting their least charismatic, you know, least likable two people as the face of this problem.
Yeah, that's three things we don't want to do.
We don't want to close the government, we don't want to raise spending, and we don't want to spend one more frickin' second looking at Hakeem Jeffries or Schumer on camera.
Can you give us somebody who's got a little bit of charisma?
Just a little bit.
Something interesting.
I'll watch.
Playing said, I'll watch AOC.
Yeah.
It's not about being a Democrat.
It's about being have a little bit of charisma, please.
Well, Cash Patel was asked the question about whether he thought Nancy Pelosi was behind planning the January 6th event to turn it into a you know uh insurrection narrative.
Now I will tell you that I am not persuaded by the new news that there were lots of FBI people in the crowd.
I understand what that means, that it means they could have been ordered to cause trouble.
Definitely could have, and and certainly it looks like the FBI in prior leadership, it looks like they were lying to us about the involvement.
But it doesn't necessarily mean that we have a direct smoking gun that they cause the trouble.
Because there's some people that look like they might have been operatives, you know, breaking windows and stuff like that, but we don't know.
I mean, they could have been some other kind of operative, not FBI.
So I'm personally not totally persuaded, but I'm open to it.
Definitely, definitely open to it, because it certainly opens up the extreme possibility that they were involved, but ah, don't have that last you know, whistleblower thing.
You know, by now, by now we would have at least one whistleblower says, here's the deal.
I was directly told to go turn this into a riot.
Short of that, and I think we would have seen that by now.
Short of that, I'm gonna I'm gonna just say fog of war still, and could go either way.
But as Cash Patel reminds us, um, remember when there was a claim that the National Guard had been offered but declined, and apparently Pelosi at the time said that was a lie.
And she's I think she was claiming, uh, if I have this story right, I believe I do.
She was claiming that that never happened.
There was no declining of the of the help.
Well, later, after Cash Patel's in there, they find the documents that it were indeed the declination of the help.
So now that's a proven lie that Nancy Pelosi had access to 10 to 20,000 National Guard and only had to say yes.
Only had to say yes.
And she said no in writing.
Now, why would she not say yes to something so obviously um protective?
Why?
Well, secondly, as Cash Patel points out, uh, Pelosi's daughter was filming a documentary about the events of that day.
What would be the better event?
What would make that documentary really shine?
Well, it wouldn't be if the National Guard came in and made immediate order and prevented people from trespassing.
There would have been what kind of movie would that be?
Oh, a bunch of people protested.
It was all very peaceful.
They went home, right?
So now here's the question.
If you were Nancy Pelosi and you were as clever and as experienced and weaselly as she is, do you think that you would be tempted to let trouble happen, including physical danger trouble, in order for your daughter's career to really take off?
And the answer is that's pretty much what politicians do.
They pretty much put other people at risk for their own personal benefit and their family's benefit.
That's the most common thing they do.
So, yes, I do believe that she would put people's lives at risk, absolutely, to just boost her daughter's career a little bit.
I do think that I can't think of a second reason that would make sense to me why you would decline the National Guard.
Right?
So I'm gonna say that given the given the things that we know for sure, daughter was doing a documentary, it got a lot more interesting when the danger started, and that she turned down help that was the obvious help to give.
And by the way, why would the person who's planning an insurrection offer to put in place the people who would stop the insurrection?
I mean, the whole narrative was completely ridiculous, and Pelosi was behind the narrative.
So I'm going to say that she was directly the cause of the insurrection, and that she knew that she could blame the insurrection on Trump supporters, which she did, if she made sure that there was not enough protection to keep people from getting out of line.
So I'm going to say my current uh working theory is that the FBI may not have been directly involved, but they wouldn't need to be.
Because if you have that many angry people, and you you have a no-show of force that it looks like they're not in any particular risk because there's not enough, not enough police there, that would be enough to guarantee there would be too much trouble.
Now she she may have uh overplayed her hand and it may have gotten more dangerous than she imagined it would get, especially dangerous to members of the Congress.
So she may have been surprised that it got worse than she thought.
But I'm gonna say this is 100% on her.
I believe January 6th was a op that was not planned, but rather in an opportunistic way.
Pelosi saw a situation forming that they could possibly take out Trump forever, but the risk of it would be some people would get hurt.
And I think that's what she did.
Uh I believe that she is 100% um behind that hoax, and that uh I don't have any more questions.
To me, it's it's asked and answered.
Maybe maybe there was a handful of FBI guys who are in on something, but I don't see it.
You know, you you could have to do better if you think that the FBI was involved.
They may have been, but I don't see it.
All I see is numbers, and that's that's completely different.
So all right.
Apparently, uh, according to Fox News, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack, two big uh housing giants are gonna leave New York State because it's uh too sketchy to be there when the attorney general is Letitia James.
So you might be aware that Bill Poulte has been uh uh found some news about uh Letitia James uh and her uh paperwork for housing and alleged uh mortgage type fraud that's not been proven, alleged.
Um, but now this is putting more pressure that you know, taking two big entities out of the state because uh it's just too dangerous to be in the state with her there.
And I would say that especially now, after those agencies were implicated in implicating her, and that we know she's a revenge monster, you have to take your business out of that state.
You can't even stay in the state with that attorney general, it's too risky.
So Pulte is right again, he's right again.
You it would just be dangerous to stay there.
Well, David Sachs and others are criticizing this group called the SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center, who exists sort of like the ADL does, to pretend to be finding bad people and racists, but really they're just a Democrat you know, hit entity trying to act like there's something else.
Sachs points out that if you search for Stephen Miller, the first thing that comes up uh on Google search is uh something that uh calls him names, what did he call them?
Anyway, so it's something that calls him a some kind of a racist or something.
And uh the SPLC um also has an article about me From 2020.
And it says uh it was about uh election denial.
So it put me in the election denial category.
And uh, which by the way, um, I don't believe I'm an election denier.
I have not seen proof that the election was uh rigged, but they they seem to think that I was on that team, uh, but the refusal to for Trump to concede, and said uh then a tweet response that I said, this is what they claim, that people have been brainwashed to accept Biden's win.
And uh and that that's part of the broader far-right rhetoric.
Now, did I say that people are brainwashed to accept Biden's win?
I don't know.
But that's not a claim about the election itself.
That would be a claim about how people come to believe what they believe about the election itself.
So I didn't have any comment about whether the election was rigged.
My comment was that the individuals who believe it wasn't were brainwashed to believe that.
It was not based on any data they could have possibly had access to, it was based on propaganda.
But anyway, they throw me on the list so that someday my name will be associated with this hate group or the group that finds eight groups.
Great.
So the SPLC and ADL really need to be uh eliminated from the United States.
There seems to be a lot of energy to get that done now.
So we'll see.
I'd be uh I think anybody who donates to either of those groups, they're just asking for trouble.
Because at this point, if somebody found out you don't donated to either of those groups, you would get boycotted immediately.
Um, and should be.
Yeah, they're they're despicable, both of them.
Well, I've been listening to an argument that Scott Galloway has been making about how Israel is not allowed to win a war, and that there's a double standard there.
Um I thought I would just talk about the argument itself.
So this is less about Israel.
This is just about um, is this argument good?
Okay.
So one of the arguments is that um in World War II, for example, the US um just did horrible things to the uh civilian populations of Germany and Japan, and nobody called that a genocide.
They just said, well, you know, it's a war, and if you're gonna win the war, you're gonna have to win the war.
And it's gonna be really ugly.
So that would be uh an example where America was allowed to win a war, whereas Israel is being um continuously um continuously persuaded to go light on civilian deaths,
but um it's war and the you know, as everybody knows the civilians are mixed in with the bad guys, so it's extra hard to to spare the civilians in this particular case.
Um but here's the part where he loses me.
Number one, analogies are a terrible form of argument.
Have I ever said that before?
Like almost every day.
If you have to use an analogy, it's because you don't have an argument.
Once you see that pattern, you'll never be able to unsee it.
Let me say it again.
If you have to use an analogy, not just if it's a convenience, if it's a convenience for describing something that somebody was unfamiliar with, that's perfectly good use of an analogy.
I'm just describing a thing.
But if it's your argument that this thing is like this, so they should operate the same, that's that means you don't have an argument.
Because the analogy is never the thing, it's a different thing.
You can't argue this thing with a different thing.
The fact that something about that thing reminds you of the other thing is no argument.
That's no argument.
So uh, and to prove my point, was the U.S. allowed to win the war in Afghanistan?
No.
The U.S. could have killed every civilian in Afghanistan and taken full control of the country, but we didn't.
So we had a constraint.
Did we do everything we could have done in Iraq?
Not really.
I mean, you could say we won the war, but do we run, do we own Iraq?
Are they even allies?
Doesn't look like it to me.
I think that we did not have the freedom to destroy enough of Iraq and their civilian base until we owned it.
We just didn't have that.
Um so I would say that the uh examples are bad.
And I would even say attacking Iran, all we could do is attack something that didn't look like it would have much um civilian casualties.
So at least not many.
So I would argue that first of all, the analogies don't work, and we're currently in a war with Russia, and we're also not killing too many of their civilians, all right.
So I would argue that probably what's happening is that in the modern world, it's harder to run a war where there are lots of civilian casualties.
It has more to do with social media and the the fact that the news is not completely controlled by governments anymore, and that people can find out directly what's happening.
If the more you know about it, the less freedom the military is gonna have, because there will always be people who say there's no reason to be killing so many people, but if you're not watching, I mean, if you're not watching, stuff gets done.
So I think it has more to do with the modern landscape of news and information than it does with a uh uh double standard.
So that's my first comment.
Analogies don't work as arguments.
The second thing is that Scott Galloway likes to use the argument that if you looked at it as a percentage, the percentage of Israelis that were killed on October 7th, and you applied that percentage to let's say the United States, it would be some big number, like 35,000 people.
And I think he used the example of uh the hostages would be like I don't know, the size of a whole college or something like that.
And he and he points out if that happened to us, 35,000 people and that many hostages as a percentage, that we would uh you know, we would basically just turn it into a parking lot.
That he used Mexico as an example.
He said, if Mexico did that to us, we would just level Mexico.
You know, there wouldn't be any of it left.
Yeah, maybe, maybe yes, or maybe, because it's the modern world and everybody would be watching, we wouldn't be able to level Mexico because there would be too much pushback, too much watching.
Um however, I would argue that in this domain, percentage is a propaganda number.
That's not that's not an information number.
The information number is the number of people.
Remember, I always tell you that if somebody concentrates on either the the percentage of a thing or the raw number and they try to minimize the other, that's propaganda every time.
If you're not willing to say cleanly and clearly, here's both numbers, you know, let's look at them and see what's important.
In my opinion, the number of people who died is all that matters.
In what world am I supposed to respect the percentage?
If one person dies anywhere, that's one person dead.
If one American dies, that's a tragedy.
If one Israeli dies, that's a tragedy.
If a 100 Israelis die, that's a tragedy of a hundred people.
If a hundred Americans die, that's a tragedy of exactly the same fucking size.
It's a hundred people.
The only reason you could say that Israel losing um their percentage is somehow worse than if that same number of people died in the United States.
The only way you could say that is if you thought the Israelis were the special people, that their lives were worth more than American lives.
No, a hundred dead Israelis is worth a hundred dead Americans because they're all the same in terms of the value of life.
So no, don't give me this bullshit about higher percentage.
I mean, I understand it.
I understand how they feel the way they feel.
So if the argument is, you know, people would feel worse, I get that.
But how they feel is not how they should prosecute a war.
That's not that's not the basis upon which you run your business.
So I think uh the ex the analogy is propaganda, and I think using that percentage argument is propaganda, and neither of those seem to be as reasonable arguments.
Um Speaking of imaginary democratic problems, Scott Galloway also on his podcast said he thinks that uh Trump will gin up a fake crisis before 2028 so that he can use that as an example to gain power.
Um also uh Madeline Dean, she's a Democrat from Pennsylvania, she went on CNN recently to claim that Donald Trump is aging and in cognitive decline.
What do those two stories have in common?
They are imaginary problems.
The Democrats are focusing extraordinarily on imaginary problems.
Well, we we imagine there's something wrong with his brain, even though we're not seeing any evidence.
We imagine he might try to gin up this problem in the future so that he can remain in power, but there's no evidence of that.
So once you realize that the Democrats are focusing on imaginary problems, you realize that the reason they do that is they don't have any solutions for real problems.
That's why.
Do you think that they would focus on imaginary problems if they had any kind of idea what to do about a real problem?
I don't think so.
Anyway.
Gavin Newsom found a way to make things worse.
So I guess uh Breibart News is writing about this, Paul Boyce.
Um, he's found a way to create a new problem where there was none.
So the federal government has uh provided standards to colleges to say if you sign this contract and you agree to you know this kind of behavior that you you know what Trump would ask for, right?
Less DEI and less uh men wearing dresses and sports and stuff like that.
So you know what Trump is going to ask for, but if the colleges sign that, then they would have full access to their government funding.
But if they're not willing to, they might have some of their government uh federal funding withheld.
Well, Governor Newsom, uh never one to let a good situation persist, decided that he would withhold uh state funds from colleges if they do sign it.
So now he's created a situation where colleges will definitely lose.
That's that's a Democrat plan.
So the college will lose if it doesn't sign the federal contract, and now because of uh newsome, they have a second way to lose, which is if they do sign the contract.
What exactly did the Democrats add to the world?
They remove the only escape path because it's not as if the colleges couldn't agree to stop discriminating and being anti-Semitic.
How hard is it to sign the contract that says, yeah, we'll try really hard not to be anti-Semitic and we'll stop discriminating?
That's not exactly some big problem.
But uh Newsom turned it into one.
So there's no good news that he can't turn into bad news.
How about that bullet train, huh?
So here's a shocker.
You won't believe this.
I mean, this will be the most surprising, amazing thing.
Can you believe this?
Hamas, military chief, has rejected Trump's ceasefire deal.
I was so sure Hamas was going to surrender.
No, I wasn't.
There was no chance that Hamas was ever going to say yes to this deal.
There was no chance.
They're not going to give up the hostages, they're not going to surrender, they're not, they're not going to essentially commit suicide by surrendering.
They'll either be in jail forever or they'll get hunted down and murdered separately.
And no matter what the agreement is, they're going to get hunted down and murdered.
Do you think that the Hamas military chief would be alive a year after they surrendered, even if Israel said, All right, we promise you safety.
If we could get her, if we can get her hostages back, we won't go after anybody.
Do you think that guy's going to be alive in a year.
No.
The only way he stays alive is if he stays in his little tunnel or wherever the hell he is and uh keeps trying to be relevant.
Otherwise, he'll be very dead and very not or not relevant.
So of course he's not going to take the deal.
However, that would be a giant win for Israel, because Israel will look like they made a legitimate offer, and it was pretty legitimate.
I would say it was close enough to legitimate that maybe they could have tweaked it a little bit, but the Hamas is not in the tweaking mode, they're just turning it down.
So that's going to give uh Israel a free pass to do whatever they need now.
So it looks like they'll just clear out Gaza and you can call it whatever you want to call it.
Well, Tucker Carlson is made a video which was quite provocative.
And his point was that Israel has too much uh impact on American leadership and American policy, and he wanted four things changed that he thinks would make the situation better.
Now, I'm just gonna say this is Tucker's argument, all right?
So don't associate it with me.
I'm just telling you an interesting news story that a major uh major voice in the media um is saying something that's kind of risky, kind of provocative.
But uh he makes a point.
I'll see if I can summarize it.
It's a pretty long video, uh, but actually worth watching the whole thing.
Uh, because his argument is interesting.
There are places where I would have said, too far, or maybe you should have put that in context better, but that's not the point.
The point is not whether I agree with him or not.
The point today is that he's making the argument at all.
Uh, so that's what I'm gonna be talking about.
This just the bravery and the risk it takes to make this argument.
Well, uh, his bigger point is that Israel's a tiny little country of nine million people with a uh economy less than New Jersey and a physical size less than New Jersey, and that we should not consider it our most important um thing, and that we act as though um nothing's more important than Israel.
And he is trying to put that back in context and say, um, actually they don't matter to us at all.
Now I know what you're gonna say, but yes, Scott, they do matter.
Why didn't he why didn't he mention that uh they're a class ally and they give us a they give us a you know um some purchase in the Middle East and uh it allows us to fight them over there before you know the bad guys come and fighting over here and all that.
So everybody knows the other argument, and he downplayed those.
That would be fair to say he was making his uh points, and when you make your point, you have that documentary effect where the whole point is that you know if you listen to a 91-minute video, it's pretty long.
Um it's not gonna be both sides, and when you're done, you're gonna be pretty persuaded because you listen to one point of view for a long period of time.
That's the the documentary problem.
So beware of the documentary problem on that, but um, but you should be aware of the argument.
So he doesn't want uh the U.S. to be ordered around by a client state.
He's heard stories of uh Mossad marching into the Pentagon and giving orders to the American military.
I don't know if I believe those stories.
That sounds exaggerated to me.
Here's here's what seems more likely true.
So that the story is that Mossad could just walk into the Pentagon and walk into a meeting and tell people what to do.
That feels like a little bit of a narrative.
It does seem to me that if the topic was a war in which Israel was the main player, that the people who were the main players would have the most information and the most uh incentive to talk to the right people and also the confidence to say you have to do this.
You're just gonna have to do this.
Let me explain.
We know everything about the area.
You you're gonna have to be with us, you're gonna have to do this.
Now, we might disagree.
Maybe we don't have to do that.
Maybe that's not necessary.
Maybe that's not in our best interest.
But it certainly makes sense that the people who are closest to it and feel that it's an existential risk, which it was for Israel.
Israel is dealing with an existential risk.
So yeah, they're going to be a little bit insistent that you do what they need to survive.
All right.
So if they're a little bit arrogant, a little bit pushy, um, you have every right not to like that.
But I certainly understand it, right?
If you were Israel and you thought it was an existential risk, it was that important, you'd push.
You would push until somebody was really unhappy how hard you were pushing.
So does that bother me?
Well, I don't know enough about, you know, I think you'd have to be in the room to know if they push too hard.
But I don't mind that there's a little bit of a little bit of pushback.
That seems healthy.
You can't, obviously, you can't let Israel run the Pentagon.
But in the in the case where they know the most and have the most at stake, yeah.
Yeah, of course you're gonna listen to them.
Um so anyway, uh let's see, and then um Tucker says that we should adjust our theological view of Israel, because a lot of uh a lot of Christians believe that God favors certain people in certain real state, and uh Tucker says, no, God doesn't do that.
That's the opposite of what God does, everybody's equal, there's no chosen people.
Uh he thinks Tucker thinks AIPAC should be registered as a foreign uh agent.
It's the one of the few that is not.
There's some technical reason why they're not.
Um I think the technical reason, well, it's not even technical.
Uh it's a direct reason.
The reason APAC is not registered is because it's a bunch of Americans doing things for America.
I don't know.
That doesn't even make sense.
Uh I've heard an argument why they're the exception, and I can't remember it now, which makes me think it's not a very good argument.
So uh there might be a technical reason they're not, but I would agree with uh um the idea that anybody's influencing the US in that way, you would want them to be part of Farah, but I don't see how it'd make any difference.
What difference would it make?
If they registered to be a Farah entity, isn't that just paperwork?
Wouldn't they do exactly the same things they're doing?
I don't know how that makes a difference.
Somebody will tell me.
And then Tucker said uh he doesn't like dual citizenship, but not limited to Israel, but limited to um any anybody.
So there are apparently there are a number of dual citizenship people in Congress.
So he's talking about Congress specifically.
He doesn't like people in Congress having dual citizenship.
What do you think about that?
Do you think people in Congress should have dual citizenship?
I say no.
Yeah, no.
This has nothing to do with Israel.
Um, I mean it does have to do with Israel, but not because of Israel.
I I don't want anybody in Congress with dual citizenship.
I don't want to have to worry about um any dual loyalties.
I'm not blame, I'm not criticizing anybody, but you shouldn't even have the uh appearance.
You know, you should you should manage the appearance of it as much as the actuality.
So yeah, I don't I'm not in favor of dual citizenship for people in Congress.
Um he says we should be more America first, and uh um I guess that's it.
So the brave part about this is that Tucker is being accused of being anti-Semitic because he doesn't he doesn't spend as much time uh talking in a pro-Israel way as he talks in a negative Israel way, but I would argue that the the pro-Israel argument is so completely obvious that you don't need to talk about it.
Is anybody in favor of Hamas, You know, massacring people.
I mean, do you do you have to mention that every time you talk about it?
Not really, because everybody's on the same side.
Um, do you have to say that we don't want uh radical extremist Islamic people to take over Israel?
Of course we don't.
Of course we don't.
Tucker doesn't, of course, nobody does.
So I'm not sure how much you even need to say that stuff.
Um, but you might have to say some other stuff.
Anyway, so I put my own comment on uh a post on it, and here's what I said, causing some trouble myself.
I said, as a rule, I don't criticize Israel because that would be a career death wish, as literally everyone knows.
I don't expect Tucker to survive this unscathed career-wise, career-wise.
I don't expect him to be unscathed, which will prove his point.
That will prove his point if he can't even talk about it with free speech.
Um, what do you think happened when I said I won't criticize Israel?
I was attacked by pro-Israel people for saying that I won't criticize Israel.
That actually happened.
So uh so you can attack for being a racist for saying that you don't want to take the risk of attacking Israel, because if you do, with any criticism at all, you'll be called a racist.
And to prove me wrong, people called me a racist.
To prove me wrong.
That's what I said would be the problem.
So to prove me wrong, they proved me right.
What else do I need to say?
Right.
Um, and then they were also so fucking dumb that they didn't know that I just gave the ultimate criticism to Israel by saying that I wasn't allowed to criticize them.
Wake up, people.
Wake the fuck up.
All right.
Uh the Israeli Navy Navy also intercepted uh the global Samood flotilla there with the uh that's the Greta Tunberg flotilla.
Greta did a little video saying that she'd been captured by the Israeli Navy.
Uh Grok tells us that uh most of the flotilla has been rounded up by the Israelis, but because it caused a uh I guess a disruption in the Israeli Navy to go you know deal with these people, it allowed the local fishermen to fish the coastal areas for the first time in years, uh, and they got this substantial fish catch.
So they're worried about starving, and apparently they're banned from fishing in their own waters.
So I'm sure there's uh another side to that story.
Um, because you gotta you gotta make sure that the water's not being used, you know, to ship in a bunch of weapons, which they would.
If fishing were allowed, I'm sure that the it would take 10 seconds for somebody to put some illegal weapons on a fishing boat and you know, try to try to get that in.
Um so Greta's Greta's captured.
And yesterday I told you there was allegedly a story that the flotilla had been uh funded by some Hamas entities.
I don't know if that's proven or not.
All right.
Um, in other news, the FBI did a nationwide crackdown this year, and they've got uh 8,000 arrests in three months, according to just the news.
Misty Severi is writing.
And I wondered, is that enough that we would see a difference?
They got they seized 2200 guns and have 8600 arrests in three months.
Is 8600 arrests of presumably these are some of the worst of the bad guys because the FBI was involved?
Will we notice that?
Is that enough?
What you you don't think Israel is pertinent to the US?
Somebody in the comments is saying it's embarrassing that I can't find uh US-based stories to talk about.
You you don't think Israel is a US-based story?
I think you're missing a lot.
That's a US-based story.
That's it's about as US-based as you can get.
Anyway, so let's hope that's a lot of bad guys that got caught.
There's a startup called ARC.
They've got a spaceship, and their plan is to have their spaceships orbiting the Earth so that they can deliver what you need within an hour to any place, primarily for military stuff at first.
I don't know what kind of stuff you would put in space just in case you needed it in a military sense, but it's kind of an interesting idea.
I don't know what their potential is on that, but it's kind of interesting that they would use space as their delivery highway, I guess.
All right.
MIT has developed a better concrete battery, so I guess they can mix some carbon cement supercapacitor stuff into your concrete, and you could store enough to take care of a house with one wall of concrete, basically.
So that would be cool.
Imagine if every house could be built with a concrete basement, and the concrete basement was a perpetual battery.
Like, it would never need to be changed, and it would be enough of a battery for your whole house.
And presumably, that would be a safe battery.
I'm worried about these standard batteries that you put on the outside of your house because sometimes
they can catch on fire but I can't imagine concrete catching on fire even if it had some um electrical qualities maybe I'm wrong but seems like this could have a lot of potential well Taiwan has rejected the U.S. proposal CNBC's saying that we were going to go 50 fit no we wanted uh Taiwan to make 50% of their chips in the US and they said no way so
this is part of the tariff negotiations I guess but the idea was that uh you know we would want to we would be safer in terms of our chip supply if at least some of them remain in the United States but Taiwan says no way and my question is what leverage does Taiwan have doesn't Taiwan need the U.S. military to protect them can they really say no to we want you to make 50% of it in the US you know not
right away, but that would be the plan.
I don't know.
Pretty gutsy if I want to negotiate, but if Trump gets tough, he will literally say, I'm going to withdraw my military support.
Now, I don't think he can, because we can't really risk losing those chips.
So probably we can't do that in reality, but he could certainly threaten it.
And that should send them into a tizzy.
Well, Trump is floating the idea, Just News is reporting, of doing rebate checks based on some but not all the tariff revenue coming in.
He's thinking of 1,000 to 2,000.
I'm generally opposed to that because I think we should be paying down the debt instead.
But it would be stimulative, and things are so tight at the moment that it probably would be a godsend to quite a few families.
So given the bad economic, the tightness of people's budgets at the lower income level, I'm softening to this.
It might be a way to give people just a little bit of a safety net without doing too much.
It won't look like it's a budget buster, but I wouldn't go too big.
But I would say I'm open to that where I was definitely not open to it before.
But I I'm open to it because the the budgets of ordinary people are just getting worse just so fast and I think we have to do something you know otherwise people are just literally going to be starving pretty soon all right that's all I got for you today I'll try not to fall down any more stairs today.
I promise I'll use the elevator.
And thanks for joining.
Um everybody, I'm gonna say a few words privately to my beloved subscribers on locals.
In three seconds, I'll be private with them and the rest of you.
