Trump wins Asia. More election fun. Lot of tech news today.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Self-Affirmations, Pluvicto, Grokipedia, Self-Driving Airport Teslas, Neuralink, Elon Musk, X For You Bug, AOC Offensive Salute, ChatGPT Suicidal Intent, Stephen King, Mamdani Eyes Smile Match, Taqiyya, ChatGPT Suicidal Intent, Stephen King, Lawrence O'Donnell, CA Prop 50, President Trump, Federal Workers Union, Speaker Johnson, GOP Healthcare Plan, Trump's Asian Trade Deals, Japanese Gift Giving, 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.
Well, let me adjust this because you can look at a comic behind me.
sort of look at it i just like to have it on the screen All right.
I know why you're here.
Same reason I'm here.
Your stocks are up.
How about that?
Moving a little bit slowly today.
Body's falling apart pretty quickly.
But we got good news today.
i'll tell you in a minute 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 this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mugger, a glass of tanker, Charles to Stein, a canteen, a jug, or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparallel pleasure, the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
So good.
Let us soak in.
Savor it.
Savor it.
All right.
Tradition requires, I'll be giving you a reframe to change your life from my book, Reframe Your Brain.
How many of you have already had some kind of a good feeling or success from just the reframes I read before I start the show?
I want to see how many of you have gotten some kind of an immediate benefit.
Watch in the comments how many people got an immediate benefit from at least one of these reframes.
All right, I'll pick another.
Where did I leave off?
There we go.
Have you ever heard people say you should measure twice and cut once?
Carpenters say that.
Look at all the yeses.
Carpenters say you should measure something once and cut twice.
Did you know that if you're talking about things like software, it should be the reverse?
You should just try things.
Because if you're doing software and you just try something, it doesn't really hurt too much.
It's not like cutting a board and then you need a new board.
So in the modern world, the reframe is reversed.
It made sense for most of human history.
It made sense to measure twice before you use up your limited resource of one piece of lumber before you cut it.
But now, you should just try a lot of things.
And if it doesn't kill you, try another thing.
And if that doesn't kill you, try another thing.
Even if none of those things work, you'll be building your, probably, building a talent stack that makes it more likely the next thing will work.
So if you see it as a cascade of probability, the more things you fail at, the closer you are to success.
And that's your reframe for the day.
I wonder if there's any science that didn't need to be done because they could have just asked Scott.
Oh, here we go.
From the American Psychological Association, they did a study and found out those self-affirmations, basically just talking to yourself and saying that you're a good person, is good for you.
It increases people's general well-being.
All right, now seriously, was there anybody who didn't know that?
It's the entire basis for all self-help everywhere, all the time, and always has been, that if you don't say good things about yourself, you will program yourself not to be that good person.
Your brain is completely malleable.
If you tell your brain you're a good person who can do good things, it will just sort of become that.
Now, there's, you know, obviously everybody has a limit.
We can't all play in the NBA.
We can't, we're not all rocket scientists.
But if you want to figure out what your limit is, you probably don't know until you program your brain.
That's what reframing your brain knows all about.
It's how to program your bank, your brain.
And yes, the simplest and yet most important part of reprogramming your brain is self-affirmations.
I can do this.
I can figure it out.
I'll survive.
I'll win.
I always win.
That's why I always tell you about my Prisoner Island story.
So there's a story in my head.
Most of you have heard this before from me.
That who I am is a survivor, which is kind of handy to have at the moment.
And no matter how many times you drop me off on Prisoner Island, the place where only the prisoners are, so they're killing each other.
If you come back in five years, I'm going to own Prisoner Island.
It'll be tough.
But if you come back in five years, I'm going to be in charge of Prisoner Island.
So that's the story I tell myself.
Doesn't need to be true.
Doesn't need to be true.
Speaking of Prisoner Island, most of you know that I have a terminal cancer diagnosis, prostate cancer, which has metastasized to all over my body.
So I'm riddled with tumors at the moment.
What I was hoping for for my possible, but only possible escape from this particular prisoner island, you know, the death sentence, the death sentence of certain deaths through cancer.
My hope was that I would someday be approved for this brand new drug.
It's only a few months approved in the U.S. called Pluvicto.
But you have to go through a process with your healthcare provider to make sure that you're qualified, you have the right kind of cancer.
They do a test to see that the radioactive stuff will stick to your tumors, which they did with me.
And as of last night, I'm approved for Pluvicto.
So we still have to schedule it.
If it's scheduled too far out, I'll be dead anyway.
But Prisoner Island just turned from an absolute guaranteed death sentence to maybe.
And it's only a maybe in the sense that it's definitely not a cure, right?
Just to be clear, this is not meant to be a cure.
They don't sell it as a cure.
The people who make it are not claiming it cures anything.
All it can do is knock back the tumors so that your sense of the thing would be less.
Now, if it knocks it back enough, and let's say I got lucky and bought a few years, then we would be solidly in the domain of probably dozens of new AI-generated potential cures going from treatments to cures.
So I feel like my prisoner island escape path is just to stay alive long enough that the almost certain better stuff that's coming down the road gets to me before I got before I got got.
You know what I mean?
So that's tying it all together for you, folks.
So we'll see if that becomes good news.
I'm failing pretty fast.
I won't give you all the details, but my body's really falling apart fast.
So I don't know if it'll be in time, and I don't know what functions I can recover.
I can just barely use my left hand now.
May or may not be because of a tumor.
Don't know yet.
Grackapedia was launched.
I think it was a little bumpy launch.
They may have had to take it down and put it back up a few times.
But Grackapedia will be Elon Musk's competition to Wikipedia.
Ideally, it will be less biased.
I checked out my page.
I didn't have time to read it all, but wow, it's long.
So the two things I know for sure is that it also includes a major mistake about my opinions of the pandemic because it can't recognize a hoax on its own.
It would have to be told by somebody else when I'm joking and when I'm not.
So you miss that.
But it's not the worst mistake in the world because it simply took a joke as a serious.
And I didn't tell people it was a joke at the time.
So that's a little bit on me.
But it looked like a giant step forward.
So even with some tweaks I'd like to make to it.
So I was suggesting before the show started, I was talking to my pre-show audience.
And what I'd like to see on Wikipedia and on Grockapedia is a place where the person who's being talked about on the page can do a rebuttal.
Just a quick one.
Doesn't have to be long.
But I would love to be able to say, oh, everything looks right.
except for this one thing.
They got that backwards.
Wouldn't you appreciate that?
If you were the reader of the page, wouldn't that be useful to you?
Not to know who's right, because I could be lying, but you need to know what my defense is.
You know, if somebody blames me for something, don't you need to know my side?
Of course you do.
And you need to know it in my words, because if Grok tries to defend me, maybe it does a good job.
Maybe it doesn't know all the facts.
I'm the only one who can do that.
So I'd love to see that upgrade.
A little box for the affected person.
If you haven't seen it yet, I did a podcast yesterday with Paul Leslie.
So just if you're on X, probably on YouTube too, search for the Paul Leslie Hour if you want to see me talking to Paul.
He asks really good questions, so it's not the usual boring stuff.
He made me go pretty deep.
That might be my last podcast as a guest, not as a host.
There might be a lot of things that will be my last coming up, but I don't know that I'll ever do another podcast as a guest.
You'll see plenty of me because I'll still be here every day as long as I can.
Well, also, Elon Musk, who likes to make news, you could take a self-driving Tesla to San Jose airport now.
Now, I didn't see where the pickup places are, probably just right around San Francisco where they've been practicing with the self-driving cars.
And I don't know why you'd necessarily want to go from San Francisco to San Jose instead of flying out of San Francisco.
But that probably indicates there's a bigger pickup area that I'm aware of.
Let me tell you, San Jose Airport is a good one.
So number one, you need to know that's a good airport.
People like using that one.
It's convenient.
But if you add a self-driving Tesla to the airport that's already a good airport, that's a pretty good package.
Because just getting to the airport is such a pain in the ass.
I think I would trust the self-driving car before I'd trust myself not to take a wrong turn at traffic.
Also, more Elon Musk news, Neuralink.
They've got their first patient in the UK, somebody named Paul, who, according to Doge designers talking about this X, he got a brain implant.
And then just hours after surgery, this is the impressive part.
Only hours after surgery, he was able to control a computer with his thoughts.
And he's now using them to play games and regain independence.
Holy shit.
So impressive.
That's just so, so impressive.
Good luck, Paul.
And here's more Elon Musk tech news.
He said, what I like about this is not only that they fixed this bug, but he's saying publicly we have a significant bug in the X for you algorithm.
He said that that bug has resulted in users seeing far fewer posts from people they follow.
Thank you.
I thought I was going crazy.
Didn't you if you're on X?
Didn't you think, is it me?
Like, why am I now seeing the people I would most want to see?
I'm seeing all the people.
But it turns out there's a significant bug.
Now, I trust Elon to say that it's a bug and not some intentional thing this unemployee tried to do.
I feel like if somebody had intentionally done it, that he would have said, yeah, we already fired that person.
It's going to get fixed.
Because he's pretty transparent about that.
But if he doesn't say there's anybody to be fired, it wasn't intentional.
It's just a bug.
That was one of the biggest bugs of all time in the history of bugs.
That's just one of the biggest ones I've ever seen.
And it persisted for a long time.
So he said it should be fixed by tomorrow.
He said that yesterday.
And then did you see a difference in your X feed for those of you on X?
I did.
I suddenly started getting all kinds of porn.
Did anybody get porn in their feed as soon as he fixed the bug?
Now, I always make sure that I don't look for porn in X. Like, even if it's newsworthy or something, I still won't look for it because I don't want to train the algorithm to feed me porn, you know, that it just things I want.
Because I look at maybe I looked at some news story about somebody being naughty, but it fed me some straight-up X-rated porn.
So I blocked it, and I haven't seen it yet.
So I think the blocking teaches it not to give you more.
That's what I hope.
Anyway, did you see the you probably saw a video of the events where New York Mayor candidate Mom Donnie was with AOC and with Sanders, and they gave a rousing big rally, very successful.
And then when they were done, all three of them got off stage and gave Nazi salutes.
Did you see that?
All three of them gave Nazi salutes.
What?
Are you saying they weren't Nazi salutes?
Oh, really?
I'm looking at the comments and I'm shocked.
Are you telling me that adult public figures can raise their arms in the air in recognition of the audience?
That's not a Nazi salute?
What?
What?
So Ted Cruz commented on one of the photos of them with their arms raised.
He says, are those Nazi salutes?
I think he got 33 million views on that.
Are those not Nazi salutes?
Then Elon Musk, of course, had to weigh in.
He goes, sure looks like it.
Now, obviously, Elon is just poking fun because it doesn't look like it.
He was just accused of a Nazi salute because he raised his arm once in a crowd.
But to watch them do exactly the same thing that we, how many news cycles did we have to go through where Democrats were pretending that was a real thing that happened in the real world?
Pretending that Musk had actually, literally, done a Nazi salute.
Days and days and days and weeks of listening to that bullshit.
And then as soon as these cats get on stage, they're like, oh, I'm not even going to raise my arm because I know what happened.
According to The Guardian, Nick Robbins Early, are you kidding me?
There's somebody whose name was Robbins, who must have married somebody whose last name was Early.
Aren't Robbins your sign of early things?
Because the Robin comes in the spring.
And the actual last name is now hyphenated Robbins Early.
Come on, that can't be real.
Anyway, Robbins Early says in The Guardian that more than a million people every week show suicidal intent when chatting with ChatBT, ChatGPT.
One million people every week show suicidal intent.
Now, the real question is, can you really determine intent?
Because I'm pretty sure I would be counted as one of the million.
And, you know, I don't have any immediate plans.
I have, you know, when I thought the cancer was going to get me in June.
But I got a little reprieve there.
That actually seems low to me.
I would actually expect that number to be larger.
If people thought that they were not being monitored, wouldn't they at least sort of wrestle with the concept a little bit with the AI just to see what it said?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't think the chat GPT is causing that.
I think that's just a place people feel safe with ideas.
They wouldn't feel safe talking to people.
All right, let's talk about some other Democrats.
See how the Democrats are doing.
We'll check in with this author Stephen King.
How's he doing?
Well, he posted yesterday, the day before I forget.
He says, Trump says he won't invite either team playing in the World Series to the White House.
He can't rise above this petty political concerns, even for the great American game.
If anything, it shows what a louse he is.
That's it.
What a louse he is.
Did he travel back to the 40s to make this post?
Yeah, you dirty louse.
I got you.
You dirty rat.
You louse.
Anyway, he got community noted because nothing like that happened in the real world.
Trump never said anything about inviting or not inviting any World Series people.
And community notes says the claim stems from a fabricated screenshot.
Fact checks on the White House confirms no such Trump post exists.
The image came from a satire account and never appeared on his platform.
So it's a completely imaginary problem, which I've taken the initiative, as you know, I do.
I like taking initiative.
I took the initiative to refer this matter to the Department of Imaginary Concerns, which handles all of the Democrat problems because they're all imaginary concerns.
But Stephen King, to his credit, when fact-checked, he realized that he had spread some bullshit.
And he went on and said it was bullshit and said it was his mistake.
So he took responsibility for it.
I'll give him that.
Meanwhile, over in MSNBC that's soon going to be MSN now, Lawrence O'Donnell tried to dunk on Scott Jennings for being what he said: CNN eagerly pays a Trump supporter, Scott Jennings, to lie every day and night for Donald Trump.
So MSNBC is now going after CNN as an enemy because CNN's not as right-leaning crazy as they used to be.
They actually have somebody on there that will do a very good job of spreading the Trump-ish point of view.
But he claimed, and I wondered about this, Lawrence O'Donnell claimed that his show at the same time slot as where Jennings appears on Phil says he has triple the audience.
Do you think that's true?
He has triple the audience?
Because that would not be a good look for CNN if MSNBC has triple the audience for their what I think is their weakest, their weakest host, Lawrence O'Donnell.
But maybe he brings some people in.
Maybe they like hearing him say bad stuff about Trump.
Anyway, it's just amazing that if CNN adds some balance to the reporting, that's a whole segment on MSNBC about how they shouldn't be adding any balance to the reporting.
So good job there, Lawrence O'Donnell.
Meanwhile, you all know about Prop 50 in California.
It's a proposition that would, if passed next week, would allow California to do some extra, extra, extra partisan redistricting.
And that would give them maybe one more representative in Congress if they do it right.
That's the plan anyway.
However, according to people who understand constitutions and laws and stuff like that, which seems relevant to this topic, it probably won't survive a court challenge, at least Supreme Court, because it explicitly uses race as the dominant factor in deciding where to redraw the lines.
And I thought to myself, wait a minute, I'm no constitutional scholar, but if you ask me on a multiple choice test, will the Supreme Court be in favor of racial discrimination or opposed to it?
I think I would say they'd be opposed to it, at least by a conservative majority.
So I don't feel like this is going to make it.
That argument seems like a slam dunk, doesn't it?
As soon as the conservative majority Supreme Court hears, wait, how did you draw these new lines?
Well, we drew it so we could get more black representation.
What?
That is exactly what's illegal.
Exactly that.
That's exactly what's illegal.
So, I don't know.
We'll see.
But not to be outdone, Indiana governor, Republican, according to Newsmax, he wants to do some redistricting too.
We'll see if that happens.
And I did a post yesterday that I got so much pushback, but it's because people didn't read my post carefully.
So let me do a correction.
It's a correction in the sense that I should have been extra, extra clear about something I was clear about.
I mean, I wrote it very clearly, but sometimes you just have to hit a point more than once because you know it's not going to say again.
So that's on me.
So yesterday I saw what was a PR photo of Momdani, and I noted that his eyes and his smile are compatible.
Now, if you know the science of spotting liars, which I spend a lot of time kind of studying because it's sort of a hobby, not the lying, the studying of the lying.
Lying is not my hobby.
One of the biggest tells is if somebody's smiling, but their eyes are not joining in on the smile.
You've heard that one before, right?
Is that something you're familiar with?
That's how you tell somebody's a psycho or has mental problems or they're lying to you.
It's like so his eyes match his smile.
And so I did a post where I said, you know, I wasn't supporting him as a candidate.
I was just saying that it's just a fact that part of his success may lie directly with the fact that his eyes and his mouth match, which gives you the sense of credibility and honesty.
Now, where did I go wrong there?
Everybody said, but Scott, don't you know that it's been photoshopped?
To which I said, yeah, but I've seen his videos.
I mean, I've seen him live lots of times, and his eyes also match his smile most of the time.
Then people would send me one photo where he wasn't smiling.
Okay, that's not really a debate.
And then people would say, but Scott, he's Muslim.
So he's doing this, how do you pronounce it?
Takiya thing.
Every time there's a Muslim in the news, some Republican will tell me, but Scott, they have a whole belief system around lying to people who are not Islamic.
It has a name, Takiya.
Is that what it's called?
I think I'm pronouncing it wrong, but it's something in that category.
To which I say, okay, where's the part where I said he's telling the truth?
That's where I went wrong.
So I was trying to carefully say he looks credible, which would be a distinction between looking and being honest and all that.
I don't know if he's honest.
I can't read his mind.
So I'm not really dealing in the domain of whether he's lying or not lying.
But that was my mistake because people thought that's what I was doing.
No, I was saying he looks, he's got the look, which could propel him through politics.
But then I thought it would be extra helpful to tell you about people who don't have that look.
So they're fighting against it.
Yeah, T-A-Q-I-Y-Y-A.
Is that the right word?
Anyway, think about Hakeem Jeffries.
Hakeem Jeffries has a creepy smile, and sadly, there's nothing you can do about it, but he was just born with creepy eyes.
So that doesn't really work for politics.
Like he can never be president with those eyes, unfortunately, for him.
Think about Chuck Schumer.
Think about him smiling, and it seems like he's got a weasel smile that doesn't match his eyes, right?
So you can, but then think of Scott Besant, Treasury Secretary.
His smile and his eyes match.
So one of the reasons that he has credibility is, you know, he has great experience.
He's done a great job so far, obviously.
But he also has a look, just his face.
His smile, which he smiles often, matches his eyes, which are smiley.
How about Marco Rubio?
Same.
When he's in a jocular mood, which is not always, I mean, he has a serious job, so lots of times he has to act serious.
But when he's just joking around, do his eyes match his smile?
Yeah, they do.
Yeah.
Yep.
Rubio's face totally works.
How about Vance, JD Vance?
He's a little more complicated because he has a little bit more of a theatrical control over his facial muscles, meaning that he can change his face to fit whatever situation he's talking about.
So he's got more of a range.
So he's sort of in a different category because he can really manage the whole facial thing better than other people.
But Trump has the ultimate facial game.
Have you noticed that?
I give you as my argument his What's the photo when they book you for a crime?
His mugshot.
You remember his mugshot?
Now, the face he gave on the mugshot was obviously intentional and obviously world-class.
You've seen him also, you know, smiling at things and you've seen him grimacing at the press.
So, Trump actually, I don't know if you know this, but a million years ago when he was a young man, he actually was serious about becoming a thespian, an actor.
And he does have those skills.
He just brought them to politics after he was done with TV.
And watching him manage his face is a whole other level of persuasion goodness that you can learn by watching it.
This brings me to the following: We're going to talk about Trump in Japan.
He had a little face management problem there.
He looks tired to me.
Does he look tired to you?
I mean, he should be.
He's an international trip with a million points of energy he needs.
So he should be tired.
But I saw him smiling for the camera, and he had the fakest camera smile you've ever seen.
His eyes were not into it.
But I believe it's because he's actually not happy.
Even the way he's walking seems a little bit slower than normal.
Have you noticed that?
Seems a little bit more bent over.
And there's some talk that he got an MRI, but didn't need one.
When do you get an MRI when you don't need one?
So there might be some minor medical thing he's battling that he's trying to keep from the public, which will be fine.
I mean, if it's minor, if it's minor, it would be on brand, totally on brand, for him to be in continuous pain and still do the full job.
That would be so Republican.
I try to model that myself as best I can.
Yeah.
All right, we'll see.
In other surprising news, I guess it's the biggest union in the country.
The American Federation of Government Employees Union is demanding that Democrats end the government shutdown.
So that's amazing.
So the fact that it's the biggest union in the country and unions are almost always pro-Democrat, this is big news because the Federation of Government Employees, the biggest one, is basically blaming the Democrats for keeping the government closed.
That would also signal something like the total collapse of the Democrat Party, which I've been talking about for a while now.
If you lose it, I mean, and would this be the beginning of any other unions flipping?
They're not flipping to Republican.
They're just flipping on this specific issue.
I don't know.
Might be the beginning of something.
We'll see.
Meanwhile, Speaker Johnson says that the GOP is working on a Republican health care plan.
So they'll have that healthcare plan all ready to propose should the government reopen.
Emily Brooks of The Hill is writing about this.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that there's a credible or even might be a credible Republican plan for healthcare?
Nope.
No, Speaker Johnson.
I do not believe anything you said about that.
I do believe it's important to say you're working on it.
And I do believe they probably had a meeting or two, maybe more than that.
But if you want me to be serious that Republicans are working on a health care plan that's a Republican plan, there's only one thing I need to see.
Who's on that team?
Because if they're doing a healthcare plan with the usual bunch of idiots, you know, just your normal elected people who are willing to do it, that's not going to get it done.
We don't have people in Congress who are smart enough to do that kind of work.
Not even close.
The only way I would believe that there was a, quote, Republican healthcare plan is if I saw that a team had been appointed by Trump and they were sufficiently MA and they were sufficiently outsiders and they were sufficiently, and here's the important part, fucking brilliant.
Not even just regular smart, because healthcare is not a normal problem.
This is not a normal problem.
This is one of the biggest problems anybody's ever had anywhere at any time.
The complexity of it alone is overwhelming.
It's like, I don't even know if Doge could have figured it out with all their big balls and geniuses.
This is the big, big, big problem.
So if you tell me, oh, I got these three senators working on it who you never heard of.
No, that's not a plan.
Nope.
You started with the wrong people.
That goes nowhere.
Let me tell you what it would look like if it were real.
It would look like Trump announcing, all right, I'm going to put together this team and we're going to have, I'm going to throw out some names of smart people, not necessarily that they should be on this team, but just to make my point.
So if he came up and said, we've asked David Sachs, Mark Cuban, who's not Republican, not Republican, but he knows a lot about healthcare and drugs specifically, Mark Cuban and RFK Jr. to be the triumvirate, and then they can also in turn get people to work for them, but they'll be the three.
If Trump came out and said these three guys, and we could add women, so we're not a sexist, these three guys will be in charge of figuring out how to figure it out.
They don't even have to be the ones to figure it out.
They have to be in charge of figuring out how to figure it out.
Could those three people do that?
Do you think if David Sachs, sorry, Sachs, I'm just throwing your name around because you're smart, not because this is the right thing for you to be doing.
But if Sachs, Mark Cuban, and RFK Jr. sat in the room and said, all right, it's all on us.
It's on us.
But we have unlimited support from the president, and they will take us seriously, even if we suggest something that takes some pain.
That's what I would call a healthcare plan, even before the plan.
If you at least have a plan to get your best people to figure out how to figure it out, that's a lot, because we've never done that before, right?
Never done that before.
And the reason I throw into the mix a Mark Cuban and an RFK Jr. specifically is that they're not identified as mega absolutists.
So the Democrats don't need to disagree with them automatically.
They might, but they don't need to, you know, the way they would need to if it was just standard mega people.
So I throw those names out as patriots who are above the bar of smart enough to figure out how to figure out.
Again, not to figure out, but to figure out how to figure out.
That's three people who could do it, and especially working together if they wanted to.
So I don't mean to put any kind of actual pressure on those three individuals.
They got lots to do, and they're doing it well.
But you get the idea, right?
I don't want to hear Speaker Johnson tell me that three turtles are coming up with an idea that we'll never see and will never work.
Just don't even tell me about it.
I don't care.
It's not a real thing.
And the problem that the Republicans have with a healthcare plan is it's hard to imagine anything they could come up with that didn't also reduce access to health care because they're not the just adding money to it party.
They're the, you know, we've got to put some discipline on it party.
So it's almost certainly going to reduce somebody's health care.
How do you sell that to the public?
It's tough.
Anyway, that's enough on healthcare.
Trump's in Asia, winning big, signing deals.
He's got almost a half a trillion investment deal with Japan.
And he's just owning it.
And you have to look at his Asian trip as a China encirclement play that apparently is working.
And what I mean by encirclement is as he visits all of our allies that sort of ring that rings China and he makes deals with them.
The deals he's making are China's deals.
They're the deals we should have been making with China, but they're not getting it done with their trade deals.
They're not giving us what we want.
So China has to just sit there passively, uninvited and watching while Trump takes away their business one deal at a time.
Mostly the rare earth mineral stuff.
So he signs a big rare earth mineral thing with Japan, but it also included a whole bunch of high-tech investments, the ones you're used to.
So we got that done.
And it looks like he's been treated like a star.
But one of the little vignettes of his trip to Japan just really hit me at home.
So when I was a young man, I lived for about 15 years.
I was in a relationship with a Japanese-American woman here in America.
And her extended family, all the older generation, they all came from Japan.
So it was a very Japanese situation.
She was born in America, so she was Japanese-American.
So when they would have an event, let's say somebody's, I don't know, graduation or marriage or something, they would often have it in the Japanese temple or church or whatever they call it.
And I would see there would be a table up front where the aunties, the aunts, they call them the aunties, would be writing down what gifts people were giving to whoever was the purpose of the event.
And the reason that they would write down the gifts is that most of them were money.
So if, let's say, your kid was graduating from high school and somebody would give you a gift, the auntie would write down $50 from this family.
And I asked, why are they writing down the gifts?
To me, as generic white-bred white boy, I was like, what's going on here?
Why do you need to write it down?
And the answer was so that the gift giving, when it got reversed, people would know, oh, this family gave us $50.
Their kid is graduating, $50.
So it was just for matching.
But the larger part of the story is that Japanese gift giving is next level.
They are so good at picking the right gift.
That's what I observed, right?
This is anecdotal, so it's not based on a survey or anything.
But anecdotally, living in that world for over a decade, the level of the gift giving, so smart, so well thought out.
And then you look at Japan and the new prime minister.
Yeah, Japan's new prime minister, a woman whose name I didn't write down.
You can grock it.
She gifted Trump with the prior prime minister's old putter because they were golfing buddies.
It was his actual putter, not a reproduction, the actual putter.
Now, that's like one of the best gifts you've ever seen in your life.
The other leaders, they're not matching that.
The other leaders will like give them a horse or something, you know?
Like, ah, I don't want a horse.
But that putter, you could pretty much guarantee that that meant something to him.
So Japan knows how to do that.
Stocks are way up.
We're getting new records today.
Bitcoin's up.
All these trade deals are looking good, and they do seem to be moving China in the right direction.
It's always too early to say that there's going to be a China deal because they're always pulling the rug out last minute.
But it looks like we're getting close.
A lot of stuff's going right.
In other news, Just the News is reporting, I think Wall Street Journal was reporting on this, that the House Oversight Committee is going to refer some of the Biden Autopen orders where the automatic pen signed his name instead of Biden.
They're going to refer it to the Department of Justice to investigate.
Because after they did their own investigation, which is a non non-courtroom investigation, the House Oversight Committee decided that Biden might not have even been aware of some of the things that he allegedly signed with the Autopen.
And that maybe the Department of Justice should look into this.
I don't think there's any crime involved.
Do you?
It seems to me what they had was a really bad system, which needs to be, you know, maybe have better guardrails, but a crime.
I mean, if you have a situation where all you have to do is say to the president, are you okay with this list of things we're going to sign?
And let's say he doesn't want to look at it and he just says, yeah, because we have thousands of pardons.
Do you want to look at them individually?
Yeah, no.
You know, just do what you think is right.
Let me know.
Under those conditions, would you say that the president approved them?
Because all I care about is, did he actually approve the specific things?
And I wouldn't care too much if he approves some things generically without knowing the details.
He's the president.
If the president wants to pardon somebody with a terrible reason, they have that right.
We don't get to check their reason for a pardon.
It's just the president.
So the fact that I don't like that the president might not be aware of something he approved, but maybe he had approved it in some general way, like, yeah, you take care of that.
I'll be okay with whatever, whatever you want to do.
Just consider it approved.
If he did something like that, he might have.
Would that be against the law?
I don't think so.
That would be him just deciding what to sign and what not to sign, but didn't use his own hand.
So I don't think there's going to be a prosecution for that, but it might be embarrassing for the Democrats.
And maybe that's good enough for the Republicans.
According to Reuters, Amazon's going to lay off 14,000 people real soon, like maybe today, in favor of artificial intelligence.
Now, here's a little rule that you can learn the difference between Amazon and Tesla.
Do you remember?
This is a real thing, by the way.
You'll think I'm making this up if you haven't heard it before, but this is a real thing.
A number of years ago, Elon Musk said that one of their operating principles for Tesla, way before he was political and way before I was political, he said that one of their operating principles was, and it's in writing, it's actually written down, that the Tesla employees should not do something that is likely to be in a Dilbert comic or something that could easily be put in a Dilburgh comic.
Now, is that good advice?
It's really good advice because weirdly, if you're familiar with the Dilburgh comic, you kind of know what would be in there, don't you?
Like, you could look at a real world suggestion, and people do this all the time.
They'll be sitting in a meeting and they'll look at each other and like, is this going to be in a Dilburgh comic?
Because it sounds exactly like it could be.
And that if you use that as your guardrail, could it ever be in a Dilburgh comic?
That it'll keep you out of doing the stupidest things.
So Elon Musk says, if it might be in a Dilbert comic, don't do it.
Now let's compare.
What do you think my Dilburgh comics have been about this month?
Literally this month, because Dilburgh still runs.
It's just behind the paywall now.
Literally this month, my jokes were about big companies implementing AI and then having to reverse it because AI is not nearly where it needs to be to do anything useful.
I'm literally mocking what Amazon is doing while it's doing it.
I didn't know that they were doing it necessarily.
It was just a big company thing.
Well, I don't think I've heard Tesla say that they're firing people to reduce staff because of AI.
Has Musk ever said that?
Because if you look at that stark difference, if I had to guess, Amazon is either totally making it up that the reason for the layoffs is AI.
If you spend a trillion dollars on AI, I don't know what Amazon's spending, but it's going to be in the hundreds of billions.
If you spend hundreds of billions on AI and kind of made it like the future of your company, you'd better kind of get on the board of firing some people and at least telling the public.
There's that weird voice again.
And at least telling the public that you're doing it because AI is so good and you spend so much on it, it's totally going to work.
So if I were to compare these two situations, I'm going to have to give the win to Elon Musk.
According to stockmarket.news, also on X, there's some speculation that there's leaked documents showing that the robotics team actually plans to automate 75% of operations, which would replace potentially 600,000 warehouse workers by 2033.
And that they're already allegedly, right?
This is all just alleged.
So I don't know much about the source, anything about the source.
So don't automatically assume this is true.
This is rumor.
So we're in rumor territory only here.
If it gets debunked tomorrow, don't be surprised.
And that Amazon is drafting PR strategies to brace for the backlash.
You know, one of the things that people like the most about Amazon is that although it was causing small businesses to go out of business, they were hiring a lot of people for other jobs.
So you could say to yourself, well, yeah, the small businesses did get squashed, but that's the way capitalism works.
At least people got jobs, different people, different jobs.
But if they squash all the small companies and it's only run by robots, they do have a PR problem they're going to need to manage.
All right, let's see how some other Democrats are faring.
We've got Nicole Wallace, who is on MSNBC, who said recently that no one calls Trump Hitler.
Now, what do you think happened when Nicole Wallace said on TV that no one calls Trump Hiller?
Well, the most predictable thing was that there was immediately a clip compilation put together because the Magna people are so good at this now.
They're so good at the social media game.
It's almost laughably good at how well they are.
Hours later, there's eight examples of people saying it on her show.
But there is a small nuance that gives her a cover.
What she said specifically was, no one calls Trump Hiller.
But when you listen to all the examples of people calling him Hitler, they don't actually use the word.
So she's sort of kind of technically almost correct.
But they say things like, well, it looks like the early days of Germany in the 30s.
Well, they mean that Trump is Hitler, but they didn't say it.
They say things like, oh, the darkness is gathering.
And this is the sort of thing you see when authoritarian governments get together.
And the next thing you know, there'll be a Holocaust.
I'm making this one up.
But that's also not really calling Trump Hiller, just saying that he would act exactly like him.
So here's the pattern I see from the Democrats on all different topics.
They start by doing a bad thing.
In this case, the bad thing is referring to Trump as Hitler in 100 different ways.
Then they do that bad thing often and harder.
They just hit it, hit it, hit it, hit it, bad thing, bad thing, bad thing.
Then when it becomes a liability, because they've gone too far, they deny that any of it ever happened.
Nothing like that happened.
Nobody called him Hitler.
What are you talking about?
What are you crazy?
Are you gaslighting me?
And they'll claim you're gaslighting them because you have a compilation clip of them doing the exact thing that they say they don't do.
A compilation clip.
So then they wait for the inevitable compilation clip.
And then what do they do when the compilation clip comes out?
Proving that they've been lying grossly all the time.
Then they double down and call Trump Hitler twice as often while denying it twice as hard.
They have this whole imaginary situation that's incredible.
Now, what does that do?
Does that cause any violence?
Well, let's check in with the post-millennial.
There's a story about a turning point USA student leader, 19-year-old, who was attacked near UC Boulder campus for being a leader in that organization.
And he was, in fact, stalked and attacked with a hockey stick by a member of a group that Democrats say doesn't even exist, the Colorado Antifa Group.
Huh.
What did I tell you is what Democrats do?
They do something hard and often, Antifa.
And then when they go too far and it becomes a liability, they say, what, Antifa?
Antifa isn't even an organization.
It doesn't even exist.
And then, when the compilation clips come out, or when they will, compilation clips of people claiming that they are Antifa, stories about Antifa attacking people, stories about Antifa organizing stuff.
What will they do after the compilation clip shows that, of course, there's Antifa, and they're doing exactly what the Republicans said they would do.
They will call Trump Hitler, and they will double down on Antifa not existing because that's what they do.
Well, importantly, let's check in with Rosie O'Donnell, whose opinion is more important than all of ours put together.
And she said, I feel like we're in a dystopian nightmare, and no one is doing anything about it.
He's talking about Trump, he says he's a criminal con man.
There's no way you can look at the facts about this man and believe in him.
Okay, here's my suggestion: it feels to me that one of the things that social media has led us into doing is treating politics and bad mental health as if they're somehow the same thing.
This is not a political opinion, people.
There's no politics in that.
That is just mental health.
But we report it and talk about it, including me, in the context of politics.
There's no politics in that.
None at all.
That is just somebody suffering.
And when you look at the things that Democrats have that they can hold over MAGA, because Trump's doing quite a good job at the moment, in my opinion, they have to say these generic stuff.
Listen to the generic stuff.
Dystopian nightmare.
I can use some details.
He's stealing our democracy.
The oligarchy is running things.
He's drifting in an authoritarian direction.
Do you see what all those have in common?
You don't need any details.
There's no argument there.
These are almost all signals of bad mental health by the people who are using these words.
What do people with good mental health say?
They say things like, Mike Johnson is not telling you the truth about some kind of Republican health care plan.
Now, that's pretty specific, isn't it?
You can tell the difference between somebody who's talking politics.
Yeah, healthcare plan, you know, who's working on it.
We need to know the names.
Those are really specific details.
So probably it's not coming from my bad mental health.
But if all I could say was, we're losing democracy to the authoritarian oligarchs, and it's going to be a dystopian nightmare.
And it's Germany, 1933.
That's mental health.
Know the difference.
All right, I'm going to claim a victory even if I had nothing to do with this whatsoever.
Remember, I started the podcast telling you that positive affirmations are good for your mental health.
I'm going to give myself a positive affirmation.
Not because it's good for you.
It's just good for my health.
Do you mind?
Do you mind if I give myself a little good mental health by an affirmation?
Well, I'll tell you the story, and then I want you to see if I can twist this into something I may have contributed to.
There's no evidence whatsoever that I contributed to this.
But for my mental health, I might sort of accept that maybe I have something to do with it.
Are you ready?
According to ABC News, Bill Gates says climate change is still a serious problem, but wait for it.
But says it's time to focus on fighting poverty and preventing disease.
Bill Gates thinks climate change is a serious problem, but it won't be the end of civilization.
This is ABC reporting this.
He thinks scientific innovation will curb it.
And it's instead time for a strategic pivot.
Who's that sound like?
He thinks scientific innovation will curb it, climate change, and it's instead time for a strategic pivot in the global climate fight from focusing on limiting rising temperatures to fighting poverty and preventing disease.
He says a doomsday outlook has led the climate community to focus too much on near-term goals, blah, blah, blah, of reducing commission.
And he says the world's primary goal should instead be to prevent suffering, particularly for those in the toughest conditions in the poorest countries.
What is your judgment?
In 2016 or so, you know that I publicly committed myself to emphasizing nuclear power as a green technology solution that you would want to do whether there was climate change or not.
You know that for 10 years I've been telling you that climate models couldn't possibly be valid for all the reasons that affect any kind of complex model.
It doesn't even have to do with climate change.
It just has to do with complex models.
They just don't work.
You know that for 10 years I've been advocating very publicly with my full suite of persuasion techniques that the emphasis should change from, oh no, we're all going to die from carbon to let's fix as many problems as we can and get our technology as strong as possible and our economy as strong as possible.
And that will protect us the most.
That's exactly what Bill Gates is saying now.
So Bill Gates' opinion on this, a little bit different from mine, a little bit, but now 95% compatible.
And he's also in the business of he's invested in TerraPower.
That's that thorium, it's the Gen 4 nuclear power plant.
If you were the guy who invested quite wisely, I don't know, a decade ago or longer, in nuclear power, and it turns out it's working out.
Yeah, you do a strategic pivot because now you have a real genuine path to just making everybody richer and safer at the same time that you can monitor climate change, see if you need to do anything there.
I do think that there's no way that Bill Gates is unaffected by the fact that sea level has not risen.
Are you with me on that?
You can imagine some characters like Greta blowing it off if after 20 years of saying the water will rise, if it hasn't risen at all.
You can imagine the people who are just non-scientific, you know, just protester types saying, oh, it'll happen.
It's going to happen any moment now.
But Bill Gates is sort of the ultimate rational guy.
He's closer to being a robot than a human, as some of our best billionaires are.
There's no way he's going to ignore 20 years of things not going the way the models say they will.
Not forever.
At some point, it's just overwhelming.
I think we reached the overwhelming part where he just had to back down and say, all right, let's fix these gigantic problems that we know how to fix.
Let's get our economy and our technology as sharp as possible.
And that's our best bet against climate change if it's a problem.
I add the if.
He doesn't add the if.
So that's our tiny little difference.
All right.
So do you give me any credit for that?
I doubt that Bill Gates has heard anything I've said on the topic directly.
But the way persuasion works is you persuade other people.
And if you do it well, they adopt your language because they like the way you said it.
So the thing I can add to a process such as this is I can help people who want to be an advocate to agree with me to give them the kind of language that would be persuasive to other people.
So I've been trying to do this for 10 years.
You've watched it.
Many of you have been with me the entire time.
And it could be a total coincidence that climate change and nuclear power both ended up exactly where I was trying to put them, exactly where I was trying to put them.
That might be a coincidence.
Might not be.
No way to know.
Anyway, Charlie Sheen was on Bill Maher's show.
What's that one called?
Not his regular show, his Club Random.
And Charlie Sheen had what Bill Maher considered an amazingly good idea, which is also amazingly compatible with one of my good ideas and amazingly compatible.
I think you've heard Greg Goffeld say the same thing.
But if it comes from Charlie Sheen and the way he said it was especially good.
Let me just tell you what it is.
Why am I giving you this big wind up?
Let me just tell you what he said.
So Bill Maher was pointing out that most of the crime problem is committed by only about 600 people per city.
And then Sheen lied, so if you're able to build statistics from that, you clearly know who the F they are, meaning the criminals.
So why not just take those 600 people and build a special place for them?
Call it the 600 building.
And Marr liked that.
He goes, that's good.
That's very good.
This is why Republicans get elected, because Democrats run cities and they don't do that.
Now, how many of you remember me saying that at least the homeless, and that would include a lot of people who are repeat criminals as well, should be given their own place to live, just away from us?
I talked about in California, you could almost build it outdoors.
It wouldn't need a ton of heating and cooling.
You could, if they want to live outdoors, and the street people certainly do.
Now, here I'm talking about the so-called homeless more than the so-called repeat criminals.
But you've heard the idea of not treating the people who are in a special situation, repeat criminals or street people.
Their situation is not like anybody else's.
So maybe you need a place that's not like the way we treat everything else.
Maybe jail is where a normal person who made a mistake or two ends up.
But maybe the lifetime repeat criminals don't go to jail.
Maybe they've got this 600 building.
Maybe they've got a campsite.
But you just don't come back.
You just don't come back.
That's the important part.
So yes, Charlie Sheen, your idea is excellent.
There are probably a variety of ways to do it.
Byron York is reminding us how John Brennan lied to Congress.
You know, the thing I worry about this is that whole Russia gate hoax thing, as it ages, Democrats will forget it ever happened.
And indeed, I wonder how many of them could tell you that this was a real story.
I feel like it's none.
So I'm going to read you what Byron York summarized about John Brennan lying to Congress.
And I want you to decide how many of your Democrat friends would know this?
This is so, so important.
If you didn't know this, almost nothing would make sense about what Trump is doing for, you know, to get his enemies or nothing would make sense.
And also, let's say the credibility that you put in our election systems would be totally influenced by whether or not people knew that this happened, which has nothing to do with the election per se.
It's in that domain.
But if you realize how crooked the people at the top were during the time that elections were being held, it's really hard to imagine that this was the only bad thing they did.
So here's Byron New York on X. He goes, how John Brennan lied to Congress?
Here's the bottom line.
When Republicans have believed for a long time, which Republicans have believed for a long time, in the politically supercharged atmosphere of late 2016 and early 2017, the FBI and CIA both knew the dossier, that's the Steele dossier, was BS.
All right.
So 2017, the FBI and CIA both knew the dossier was BS.
That fact may be known to zero Democrats.
And it's the most, one of the most important facts in the history of the United States.
I'll bet they don't know it.
Going on.
So even though they knew the dossier was BS, they knew they had no business including it in their assessment of Russia's 2016 activities.
But they included it anyway because it told them what they wanted to hear, that Donald Trump had colluded with Russia.
He did not collude with Russia.
Then under oath before Congress, John Brennan lied about it.
So it's bad enough that they did it.
But the part that can really land you in jail is the lying about it to Congress.
If you gave a serious survey to Democrats, how many would know that this happened?
How many would know that in 2017 that at the very top, Obama, Brennan, they all knew that the Steele dossier was bullshit, but they knew it could take on a president, maybe, and change the government of the United States.
That's a coup, right?
That's a coup.
But they've been taught that January 6th was a coup and that Republicans try to take over countries by bringing no weapons and marching around in one building for an afternoon.
And that's how they overthrow a country.
Not that they did what they said they were doing, which was we're trying to make sure this election wasn't rigged.
Can you give us the day?
Just give us a little time to make sure this wasn't rigged.
That's what actually happened.
Anyway, so I worry that's being forgotten.
I had a little back and forth with Jessica Tarlov.
You know her from the five on Fox.
And she said about the question of opening up the government.
On X, she said, don't Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House asking for a friend.
Now, you've heard the Democrats say this, right?
You've heard them say, it's the Republicans who run everything.
You know, they've got the House, the Supreme Court, they've got the Senate, they've got the presidency.
So if the government is closed, it clearly, clearly must be the people who are in charge.
So I replied to Jessica on X, and I said, you're failing the Turing test, Jessica.
A human would remember 60 votes are needed.
So the Democrats who are underinformed on this topic, apparently, not the people at top.
Jessica knows exactly the situation.
She understands it perfectly.
But she's trying to use the Republicans who are in charge as sort of, I'll say, a narrative.
So I said, you're failing the Turing test, Jessica.
A human would remember that 60 votes are needed.
The Republicans have 52, I think.
So they would absolutely need Democrats to reopen the government because all the Republicans are saying yes, except one.
So then Jessica replied and she said, indeed, exclamation mark, I know full well, which is what I told you.
Of course she knows.
She understands the government.
She's not confused.
She knows the news.
She goes, I know full well, which is true.
But like when, now listen to this, but like when Democrats are in power, it's on them to compromise to get the votes they need.
Johnson doesn't seem to get that.
You know why Johnson doesn't get that?
Because that's not a thing.
That's not a thing.
Where's the logical connection between Democrats are not in power and therefore the people who are in power should compromise to the people who are not in power?
Where is that written?
What if the compromise is, what if the most reasonable compromise is, let's just pay people till we work it out because it's only weeks.
That would be the reasonable thing.
So here's what I think.
I think Jessica being unusually smart and well-informed, she knows that her argument's not like a real argument.
It's more of a narrative, you know, more of a my team kind of thing.
But no, there's no requirement that the Republicans, it's not in the Constitution, it's not my expectations.
Aren't they both just supposed to play for the benefit of the public?
Where's the part where they're going to do what's good for the public?
Maybe they have an obligation to do that, to do what's good for the public, you know, like paying people.
However, I appreciate Jessica's back and forth.
And I'll say again, I think she's the best that the five has had in the Democrat chair.
You know, the five always has one prominent Democrat, and they take them around.
Sometimes Harold Ford Jr.
Harold Ford Jr. is great, but I think Jessica brings a little more fire.
She has a better understanding of the better understanding of how the, let's say, the interplay should work for entertainment purposes.
I think Harold Ford Jr. is one of the greatest character role models you'll ever see.
Just seems like a great guy.
But he likes to decrease the tension, whereas it's a TV show where a little bit of tension, a little bit of tension would be fun.
So I think Jessica has the best understanding of the TV show, as well as the government.
Rick Scott was recently interviewed on 60 Minutes, and he was asked if we're getting ready to invade Venezuela.
Said he'd be surprised if we invaded Venezuela, which is an interesting political answer.
I think I'm going to use that answer from now on.
Well, I'd be surprised.
Does that really tell you that he knows what's going to happen and it's not going to happen?
It does not.
But he wouldn't know.
I mean, in theory, he shouldn't know.
It would only be the, you know, probably the only person who would know would be Trump and maybe Hegseth if they'd made that determination.
Maybe a general.
But he'd be surprised if we invaded Venezuela.
I think I would be surprised too if it was some kind of a general military invasion.
I don't think that's going to happen to you.
But the CIA has been approved for covert activities.
And the other thing that Rick Scott said, which makes me think he's talked to the boss before he did it, Trump being the boss, he said, quote, if I was Maduro, I'd head to Russia or China right now, Rick Scott said.
His days are numbered.
So it could be that our government wants Rick Scott and people like him to say, you know, smart move is to leave.
And then you don't need to do an invasion.
So the smart move is to get him out of the country, install your preferred puppet who wants Trump to get the Nobel Peace Rise.
And then Rick Scott pointed out, I think he was him that pointed out, that that would also be the end of Cuba because Cuba is being propped up by cheap or subsidized Venezuelan oil.
So would that give us, the United States, anything we want out of Cuba?
Or would that be bad for us?
I feel like it might stimulate a massive wave of illegal immigration from Cuba, right?
So we might have a Cuba risk if we go hard on Venezuela.
It looks like we're going to go hard on them.
So I wouldn't be surprised if some regime change chicanery is going on in Venezuela right now.
But I do worry about the Cuba effect.
Let's check in with another anti-Trumper.
So remember the Premier, the Canadian Premier Doug Ford?
He was the one who created that Ronald Reagan anti-tariff advertisement that got Trump so mad that he canceled trade negotiations with Canada over the over an ad.
But here's what Doug Ford says about his gigantic mistake, which is what I call it.
Quote, my intention was to make sure the American people were informed and have a conversation, and it really started a conversation.
Okay, here's a little tip for you.
The biggest red flag for incompetence is saying that what you're shooting for is a conversation.
If anybody ever tells you, well, I did this so we could have a conversation about this or that, they don't have a plan.
They don't have a suggestion.
They don't have anything.
They have nothing.
All they're doing is getting attention and saying, well, we ought to have a conversation.
Do you think we didn't want to have a conversation about tariffs?
Do you think we weren't having a conversation about tariffs?
Did you think having a conversation about them would solve anything?
So he replaced a negotiation, which would be a path to a solution, with a conversation.
Conversations don't do anything.
It literally is a weak, it's just a weak word.
Like if the best you can do is put a weak word on it and then run an ad that canceled all of trade negotiations, this guy's the biggest clown in Canada.
Canada is sitting that they're bleeding tariffs because this idiot thought that he wanted to create a conversation about Reagan.
Now, I get that you love your Reagan, some of you do.
But how is he relevant?
How is he even a little bit relevant?
Not at all.
It's not a conversation we need, not a conversation to help.
No, you're dope.
And that's the bottom line.
All right.
I think we've done what we wanted to do today.
If you joined late, I'll give you my personal update: that I have been, as of last night, approved for the Pluvicto cancer drug that's new.
And it's not a cure.
But for a lot of people, it gives them some degree of relief.
I hope I'm one of them.
I will let you know how that goes.
I've got MRIs coming and radiation coming and treatment coming.
I'm falling apart pretty fast.
But we do have a narrow path off of Prisoner Island.
And I will be balancing on that narrow path for a few weeks.
And I'll let you know how it goes.
At the moment, I've almost lost full control of my left hand.
It's maybe 10% strength.
which is the hand I've been drawing with for the last several months because my right hand's already burned out.
So if I lose my ability to draw, which might happen in the next, could happen in days actually, because the numbness is increasing.
But we'll try to take a bite out of that too.
We'll see how long I last.
At the moment, I can draw better than I've ever drawn because my fingers that hold the stylus are still good, but they're weak.
And weak fingers are really good for drawing.
They're not good for anything else.
But for drawing, it gives you actually extra control.
It's the damnedest thing.
So last night I was doing a man cave where we got a new device that can put my phone camera barely over the art so people can watch my hands as I'm drawing.
And it works really well.
So I'll probably do it again.
All right.
I'm going to talk privately just for a minute to the beloved local subscribers.
The rest of you, thanks for coming.
I hope I added some value to you today.
I tried.
More than just a conversation.
Oh, no, not working.
So today my update button is non-functional, so I can't go private like I wanted to.
So sorry, locals.
I'll catch up with you what's tonight?
Tuesday?
Yeah, I'll catch up with you in the man cave tonight.
And we'll talk then.
But for now, I guess I'm done.
So thanks for joining me, everybody.
I might have to close the app and open it and reclose it.
