Trump and the fat drug cost reduction, persuasion lessons based on the news today.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Coffee Tariffs, Senator Mike Crapo, Elon Musk, Optimus Hand Dexterity, Tesla Chip Factory, Mega Battery Power Plants, Nancy Pelosi Retirement, President Trump, Passport Gender Options, Obesity Healthcare Costs, RFK Jr., GLP-1 Price Reduction, Dr. Oz, Fetterman's Persuasion Skill, NOAA Stations Out-of-Service, James Carville, democrat 2028 Plans, Jon Stewart, Rural Health Fund, Mamdani's Donation Plea, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Let me check and see if it's a smile or a grimace.
Continue.
Smile or grimace.
It's a grimace.
Ramp, ramp, ramp.
What did Tesla do after the big announcement?
I wonder if these are old.
Is this yesterday's numbers?
I don't see how Tesla could have gone down after yesterday.
Did it?
Looks like it's just wrong.
Maybe that's not updated.
Yeah.
All right.
we'll wait and see 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 mugger, a glass of tanker chels, a stein and canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous zephyr happens now.
go.
All right.
Let me make sure I can see your locals' comments special.
It would be right over here.
If you don't mind, I'm a little slow and getting a little less done because I'm literally working with one hand today.
One hand and half a brain.
There you are.
Comments are working.
Everything's looking good.
Looking good.
Hey.
Do you know what day today is?
Does anybody know what day today is?
It's the day you find out that the Dilbert calendar is available and for sale for those few of you who have not already scooped it up.
I see a lot of you are being smart and acting fast.
I swear to God, the next thing I say is actually literally true and not just the ordinary marketing thing that people say all the time in this situation.
We probably didn't make enough of them.
So if you're thinking to yourself, and by the way, we did that intentionally because I have to pay for them advance because it's an American situation and we worked on a deal where I would make sure that they would limit any risk on their side, which seemed fair because my precarious situation.
So I've already paid for the calendars to be printed, but I didn't want to print three times more than people might want.
So we're a little bit underprinted, we think, but we don't know, right?
It's hard to anticipate.
But I wouldn't wait, is what I'm saying.
If you thought you wanted one, waiting would be a bad strategy.
Sooner is better.
All right.
And as you know, I like to start the show while people are streaming in with a reframe from my book that's been out for a while, but it's the newest one.
Reframe your brain.
Changing lives every day.
Let's see.
I'm going to change somebody's life today with a new reframe.
If you're new to this, a reframe doesn't require any work on your part.
You just have to hear it.
And if it's a good one and if it applies to you, the hypnosis will kick in.
It's not really hypnosis.
It's just persuasive.
All right, here's one.
Death is a tragedy, and I need to feel bad about it.
Do any of you have an issue about maybe you lost a loved one and you feel obligated to feel bad about it?
I mean, not just obligated, but you feel bad about it.
Well, death is a tragedy, and there's nothing wrong with feeling bad about it, but you don't want to do it forever.
Here's the reframe.
The person who's deceased has no more problems.
How did I make this about me?
How do you make it about yourself?
This is literally only about the deceased person, and their problems just ended.
So as soon as you make it not about yourself, you can get by it a lot easier, right?
You've solved all the problems for the deceased.
They have nothing else to worry about.
Their work is done.
And if the reason you feel bad is because they were so good in this world or you love them so much, well, then your work is really done because you have the right feeling about them and they did the right things.
And that was great.
And nothing lasts forever.
How about here's another one on the same topic?
So you've got two to work with on death.
One is that, and this, by the way, I've used this one before, with the public, I mean.
And some people have reported back that this completely changes the reaction to a death of somebody that they cared about.
All right, listen to this one.
So the usual frame is that death is a tragedy.
Duh, of course, death is a tragedy.
But that leaves you in that tragedy hole, if that's how you're seeing it.
If it's only a tragedy, that's pretty bad.
It's going to last.
But here's a way to reframe it.
It's not more true or less true.
It's just useful to frame it this way.
Remember, it's not about truth.
It's about how you manage your brain.
And you can create new circuitry by just thinking about one thing more than another.
That's all it takes.
And that will make that circuit a little stronger.
So instead of saying death is a tragedy, the reframe is it is an honor to help another person pass.
I don't think there's a bigger honor than that.
If you've watched family members, you've been part of it, who were an integral part of letting somebody pass to the next phase of their existence, whatever that is, that is the biggest honor you can have.
And everybody's going to, you know, everybody's going to die.
So there's nothing you can do about it sometimes.
So it's not always a tragedy explicit.
Well, it's not only, it's not necessarily a tragedy only.
It is a tremendous honor that you get to be the person who's there on the final voyage.
That will help you a lot.
And everybody dies.
All right.
I wonder if there's any science that they didn't need to do because they could have just asked Scott.
Oh, here's some.
In SciPost, Karina Petrova is writing that there's a new statistical model that successfully sorted people into their political group based on their use of X.
So apparently you can feed just their raw posts from X and AI will figure out not only are they Republican or Democrat, but it'll figure out sort of where they fit even within those worlds.
Now, did they really need to do that study?
Do you think I couldn't look at a politician's posts and guess where they fit in the political world?
Did I really need AI to do that?
No, they should have just asked me.
You know, maybe Fetterman would have confused me, but AI didn't get them all right.
I think AI only got 75% of them right, to which I say, I'm not really impressed by 75%.
I'm pretty sure I could have hit 90 without breaking a sweat.
So can you.
Next time, just ask me.
Well, there's a new bill being floated.
We don't know how it'll do, but it's called the U.S. Senate is looking at a bill called the No Coffee Tax Act, the No Coffee Tax Act.
Now, as Owen Gregorian pointed out on X, that is a really bad naming convention because the first part of it is no coffee.
I don't want to vote for anything that has the words no coffee in it.
I don't even care that after it says no coffee right now, but I'll give you a million dollars if you drink coffee in one minute.
I'd still be a little put off by the no coffee.
You know what I mean?
So here's your persuasion lesson of the day.
There's going to be some more.
We've got some more persuasion coming up if you like that stuff.
Don't name your thing the opposite of what it is.
The whole point of this is that we get more coffee.
Coffee.
Sorry.
You're making me say coffee in my New York accent.
I didn't mean to slip into it, but sometimes.
Coffee.
How do you people say it?
Coffee?
Well, I'm going to stick with coffee for now.
So what it really is, is I guess Rand Paul is behind this.
And I did not know this, but coffee in particular, coffee.
Stop mocking me for the way I say it.
You're mocking me at home.
I can hear you mocking me from home.
Stop it.
Now you're talking to your dog.
Saying, look at this guy.
Can't even say coffee.
Coffee.
All right.
Nick Brown from Daily Coffee News is reporting that this Nick Brown from Daily Coffee News.
What a name.
All right.
The idea is that apparently there's big tariffs on coffee from Brazil in particular, which is the biggest impact on us.
So the tariffs are as high as 50%.
And that's enough to basically just, you know, destroy Starbucks.
I don't know if it will, but that's bad enough.
So it's a big impact on our economy and on our people and on our budgets.
And tariffs, you know, you could call a tariff a tax.
Rand Paul does, apparently.
And I wouldn't argue with that.
It's a form of a tax.
It's just not a normal one.
It has some advantages that taxes don't have, meaning that you can use them to negotiate with other entities.
Taxes don't usually have that.
But apparently they tried to get it through the no-tax part.
They tried to get that through with a procedure that if you have unanimous consent, meaning that there's not even one person who says no to it, you can just kind of get it through without all the trouble.
So they tried that, and there was exactly one person.
So there's a video of the session that shows that one person, his name is a Republican from Ido, and his name is Senator Mike Krapo, C-R-A-P-O.
So Mr. Krapo said no, so that's sent it back to, I guess, whatever process the full Senate has to follow, which is going to take forever.
And your coffee will still cost too much.
So thanks for nothing, Krapo.
Crapo.
Crapo!
That would be better than Khan.
If I were writing that Star Trek, remember the Star Trek movie where Captain Kirk is being thwarted by Khan, K-H-A-N, K-H-A-N-Kon, and there's that famous thing where the bad actor, the bad actor playing Captain Kirk, goes, Con!
Con!
Wouldn't that be better if he was fighting Crapo?
Crapo!
All right, that's just me.
Well, there's a big Tesla event.
I think it's a big annual event.
And boy, was there news.
Ow.
Plenty of news.
Where do we start?
Let's see.
So apparently there's a video of a hand, a robot hand for Optimus that looks like so amazing you can't believe that they got hands that good.
So somebody, I think it was Mario, an awful, posted the video of the hand.
And Elon said, that's version two.
Version three is way better.
If version three robot hand is better than the version two that I saw, that's going to be a big good hand.
And I heard Elon talking about it, the hands, and they would be better surgeons than people very soon.
Maybe in a year, there'll be better surgeons than people.
And there'll be better dexterity than people with hands.
You always thought that, oh, maybe they can see better or hear better or remember better, but their hands will never be as good.
Well, apparently we're at the crossover point.
So you were born in the age when robots became more capable, more capable than people.
What are the odds of that?
Doesn't that feel like a simulation to you?
Like, what are the odds?
No, I didn't skip the sip.
You missed the sip.
Don't blame me for skipping the sip.
Sometimes I skip the sip, but I did not skip it today.
You're the skipper.
I call you the skipper, not me.
Skipper.
All right.
Lots of other Tesla news.
Elon says that Tesla is already the biggest robot company in the world, in part because their cars are all robots.
They're just robots with wheels.
I accept that definition.
They are the biggest robot company.
Oh, I should tell you, I do own some, not a lot, but I own Tesla stock.
So anything I say about Tesla, you should put under the umbrella of that guy likes that stock.
It might go up.
So maybe he's trying to drive up the stock.
Do not do anything that I do financially.
I do not give good financial advice.
You should not follow my advice.
If I thought my advice was better than other people financially, I'd tell you.
I'm not shy.
I'd tell you if it was better.
It just isn't.
Anyway, here are the shocking things.
Elon believes that they're not going to have a way to get enough chips to do all the stuff.
You know, their robots and cars and stuff that they need, and they might have to make their own.
So they're thinking about building a, quote, gigantic chip factory.
What does gigantic mean in Elon's world?
Because every time he does something, it's so big you can't even hold it in your head.
Gigantic.
And I think you said something about working with Intel, but it would make more sense to buy them, wouldn't it?
Wouldn't it make more sense for Tesla just to buy a chip company?
Then the part I wonder about is that would we have the right skills in the United States to make the right kind of chips when no other country knows how to do it except Taiwan?
If Taiwan's the only place that knows how to make these chips, are they going to help Tesla?
Why would they?
Instead of just selling them the chips.
So I don't know where that goes, but I do trust that Elon's probably one of the few people in the world that could solve the not enough AI chips problem.
Elon also says the entire Earth can be powered by sustainable energy with tech that exists today.
And then he talked about the mega-pack battery storage plants.
You know, whenever anybody says, Scott, you fool, you're so behind the times when you don't understand that no matter how much solar power you have, Scott, did you know?
And I know, Scott, you look like an idiot, so you probably didn't know this, but I'll talk slowly so you understand, Scott.
The sun is not out at night.
Okay, I'm done.
You fool.
Like, how can you think this solar power is to power the whole world when the sun isn't even down at night?
You idiot, you fool, get out of my house.
That's what they usually say to me.
But did you know there are things called batteries?
Batteries.
B-A-T-T-E-R-I-E-S, batteries.
It's a word you should learn.
And apparently, what they'll do is they will store energy.
They'll actually store that energy all night long if you want, if you've got a big enough mega factory.
So these mega-pack mega factories are a big part of the structure.
But also, those might be as much, you know, for Tesla's own use.
They'll need these big factories for their own AI powering.
But did you know that if you add in the Tesla power walls, those would be the big batteries that you could add to your private home, that they're also networked.
I guess that's just part of it.
So you could store things in your home battery.
And if you stored more than you wanted to use, you could donate that to the network if it were set to do that.
I don't think it's quite set up to do exactly this, but a couple of buttons and it's ready to go.
So they could work together.
There's already a million power walls installed.
A million.
He thinks big.
All right, so they can work together as a virtual power plant.
And Elon also talked about the age of permanent abundance.
I don't know if he used those words, but that's what it meant.
And he thinks that robots will basically provide all of our goods and services at what will approach zero cost over time.
And everybody will have everything.
So poverty will be eliminated.
Everybody will have enough food because the robots will just be out there tilling the fields as robots do and making this food.
And eventually he wants to get the cost of a robot down to 20,000.
And here's what's interesting about this.
In order for a lot of Elon's predictions to come right, you know, things about robots and things about power and things about cars and stuff, and even things about interplanetary travel, in order for all of that stuff to work, or even any of it to work, he would have to understand human motivation and how people think and how they act and what they care about.
Now, how does that fit with the common assumption that he's Asperger's or we don't use that anymore on the spectrum?
This is what confuses me.
How can you be on the spectrum and also be really good at humor, which he is, And really good at figuring out human motivation, which he is.
Those are pretty much as close as you can get to the opposite of being on the spectrum.
Or does he compensate, not for the humor part, that's got to be natural, but does he compensate for being different than other people by just learning how they think and just studying them like you study a maze?
And then you know how to get out of the maze.
It's not your maze, you just studied it.
So I'm fascinated by that.
You know, I've never talked to him in person.
It'll probably take me five minutes to figure out what's going on in person.
But I only hear good things.
I only hear good things.
So this is amazing.
Anyway, but what I thought about while I was reading all these things he's introducing to the world, that he might be the first human being who could legitimately satisfy the political left and the political right.
Now he can't run for president because he wasn't born here, but he's really the only one because somehow he made most of the people on the right appreciate him because he helped Trump get elected.
But then he also left under tremendous pressure by the left.
And but what he left to was this highly successful company that looks like it will solve the left's biggest concern, climate.
Now, even if you say, but climate is not a crisis, whatever, it's nonetheless true that he's doing exactly what the left would want somebody to do, which is build a bunch of electric solar plants and batteries and electric cars.
Now, in the short run, you might argue, but, but, but, Scott, don't you know that they use more fossil fuels and regular fuels to build that stuff than they save?
I don't even know if that's true.
But I do know that in the long run, you would get rid of those other sources and you could use the sun, and then everything that Elan's trying to do would come true.
The left would be delighted, even if there's no climate crisis, they'd be happy about it.
And the right would be happy because they like his general work hard, build things, America first.
I mean, he's very, he's very on point for the right.
At the same time, he's very on point for the left.
Name one other person in the world who is this perfectly suited for both the left and the right.
Now, again, I don't think he's going to write, he's not going to run for office, that'd be crazy if he did.
Even, you know, he's not going to run for senator, that would be too small, and president's out of reach because of the Constitution.
But boy, do I like him being involved, just in general.
I guess his trillion-dollar incentive package got approved by shareholders with a 75% vote.
That means 25% thought it wasn't a good idea to have him properly incentivized.
25% thought it was a bad idea to give the most productive person in the history of the planet a little extra if and if he does a lot extra, a lot extra.
You should see the terms of the deal.
For him to get a trillion dollars, do you have any idea what he would have to accomplish to get that?
Like, we act like that's just going to automatically happen or something.
No, you don't, you don't automatically just go to work and then one day somebody gives you a trillion dollars.
First of all, let me teach you about how the news works.
Years ago, when Dilber was newish and we were trying to get attention, I got a multi-book book deal with a big publisher, which we reported as a $25 million book deal.
Do you think I got $25 million from a book deal?
We told everybody it was a $25 million book deal.
So wouldn't you think that I, as the author, would get $25 million?
Nope.
Nothing like that.
Nothing like that.
That was the biggest number that the publisher would pay under the most optimistic assumptions for, I think, five books.
So first of all, it was five books.
So it'd be $5 million a piece.
Second of all, I shared 50% of what I made from Dilbert books with my publisher.
I'm sorry, with my syndicate.
And then I shared what's left with the publisher.
And then I paid taxes.
Do you know how much was left from the 25 billion?
I don't know.
It might have been five.
Maybe over the entire length of time, it might have been five, something like that.
So when you see that somebody's got a trillion dollar pay package, the thing you should first ask is over how many years?
The answer is 10.
So a trillion dollars over 10 years is 100 billion a year.
Seems like he's worth it.
But here's what he would have to deliver.
Tesla would have to go to $8.5 trillion market cap, and it's only at 1.4 today.
Now, in 10 years, could you get there?
That would be a 466% increase from today.
Do you think he can do that?
I think he probably can, but it's not guaranteed, that's for sure.
So the first thing you need to know is you can't treat a trillion dollars that you might get the same as a trillion dollars you're definitely going to get.
And you can't treat money that's going to be spread over 10 years like it's money that you're getting today.
First of all, you know, the value of money declines over time, et cetera.
A lot of things could happen.
We don't even know if people have automobiles in 10 years.
He's got to deliver 20 million vehicles cumulative.
I think that means since the beginning of Tesla.
He's got to deliver a million Optimus robots, humanoid robots, sold.
They actually have to be sold, a million.
A million robo-taxis in operation and 10 million full self-driving subscriptions.
Now, what we don't know is if he gets a portion of the trillion, if he gets a portion of these, but not all of them.
That's a big deal.
I mean, if he really doesn't get anything, unless he gets all of them, I don't think he would agree to that deal, but it's impressive.
And if successful, he would become the world's fullest trillionaire.
No, he wouldn't.
I think this is just people who don't know how deals work.
Nobody's ever going to give him a trillion dollars.
There's no check for a trillion dollars.
It's over 10 years.
And I don't know if there's any sub-payments in the 10 years or if he has to wait the whole 10 years.
But even when it's paid, remember, some of it goes to taxes.
Nobody's going to get a check for a trillion dollars.
All right.
But how many of his products that he's working on now could become the biggest in that category forever?
All right, here are just a few things.
If Elon starts making chips, and he's the best at manufacturing things that people didn't know how to manufacture, and chips are mostly a challenge of how do you manufacture them.
They're just hard to make.
So he would be the best person who could ever take it on that challenge.
So what if he makes the biggest chip company?
Totally possible.
Even if the only person who buys them is his own company.
You'd still be the biggest chip maker.
What about his power stuff?
Could be the biggest in the world.
What about his AI?
Could be the biggest in the world.
What about his robots and his cars?
Could be the biggest in the world.
Yep, he's worth a trillion.
Well, as you know, Nancy Pelosi has announced her retirement.
And I wonder what Trump said about that.
Now, you might know that it was only recently that Pelosi said some terrible things about Trump.
Just terrible things.
He was stealing your democracy.
And he's the worst.
I think she said something like he's the worst person in the world because he's not just bad, but he's the president.
So he has power, plus, he's bad.
So he's the worst person in the world.
The worst person in the world.
So Trump pays her back because he's in the press conference there.
Somebody asked her about retirement, and he made sure that he thought this through and gave them a quote which would guarantee that it dominated the news.
Did it?
Yes, it did.
Here's his quote.
About Nancy Pelosi?
I think she's an evil woman.
I'm glad she's retiring.
I think she did the country a great service by retiring.
Now, Trump.
About Nancy Pelosi?
Oh, yeah.
Okay.
I'm just repeating the same thing.
The dictation services are funny.
So my one hand is too paralyzed now to type.
So I've been using voice dictation.
And I found out that if you want to do the word country, C-O-U-N-T-R-Y, I won't even tell you what it wrote down.
It was so naughty.
Very naughty.
Well, the Supreme Court made a decision that if you have a passport, you can only list yourself as male or female.
There will be no in-betweens or no trans, no anything but male or female.
Now, I have mixed feelings about that, honestly.
For adults, we're only going to talk about adults.
We're not talking about children.
Children should not be, you know, I have the same opinion you do, but most of you anyway.
But for adults, I do think that adults should be able to run their own life.
And if they want to be trans, I'm okay with that.
Why wouldn't I be?
It's not my life.
You know, if it doesn't bother me, yeah, just do whatever you need to do.
If you're an adult and it's not, you know, scaring the horses or something, go ahead.
So I'm pro-trans in the freedom sense.
Everybody should have the freedom to do what they do that they need to do because they need to do it.
It's none of my business if it doesn't bother me.
And it doesn't.
So I do wonder about the trade-off, because if somebody shows up in their trans identity, wouldn't that be harder for the passport people to sort that out?
So aren't we trying to make sure that it's easier, faster?
Easier, faster would be, I'm trans.
And then the person looks at him to go, oh, okay, you do look, maybe they do look a little bit male.
Maybe they got an Adam's apple or something.
I'm no expert on any of this stuff.
And then that would perfectly explain why they were looking one way, but listed as another way.
Wouldn't that be safer?
If the only thing you care about is how safe you are, wouldn't you be safer if they listed themselves the way they look so you could know exactly what's going on there?
No?
All right, so I'm a little bit mixed on this one.
I think I could be persuaded in either direction.
But that's what happened.
So I guess it's a done deal for now.
Did you see the video of Trump was announcing that They made a tremendous success in lowering the cost of these weight loss drugs.
So, who was involved?
It's less about the pharma, but there were a few pharma companies that got together and vastly lowered their cost for the weight loss drug from something like $1,000 to something like $100 something.
So, a gigantic decrease in probably the most important thing.
Now, the news part of it is that Trump is delivering on at least lowering the costs of some important drugs.
But here's the part you might have missed.
When RFK Jr. was talking about it, he had his moment to talk there at the Oval Office with all the executives assembled.
And we'll talk about the guy who passed out.
But RFK Jr. is explaining to us what a big lever this is.
Because something like half of all of our healthcare costs are driven by obesity.
And we could practically eliminate it with these drugs if they were affordable.
And Trump just made them affordable for a lot more people, not everybody, of course.
We'll have to figure out a way so everybody can get them.
But this goes a long way, goes a long way to lowering your healthcare costs because it lowers them two ways.
It's not just immediately lowering them because you wanted to take the fat drug, but you couldn't afford it, but now you can.
But on top of that, he said that obesity is driving 50% of our healthcare costs.
Had you ever heard that before?
50%?
I knew it was a lot.
But here's what I like about RFK Jr.'s approach to everything.
He finds the best lever.
He doesn't go for the low-hanging fruit.
He goes for the high-hanging lever.
Because if you can get that lever, you change everything.
Imagine if the United States became not an obese country.
50% of, I think half of all adults are obese.
If he took that down to 25% just by this kind of action, that would be one of the greatest accomplishments, certainly of any cabinet member.
Maybe the greatest accomplishment of any cabinet member.
And I don't think it would have happened without RFK Jr., do you?
Do you think this would have happened with just some kind of normal, you know, ordinary corporate guy who got the job because he was connected to somebody or something?
No.
No.
Trump took a chance.
And now you're seeing that his instinct is good.
Trump's instinct that he could go with somebody who's a lifelong Democrat and it would help America, that was a tough choice.
Do you even understand how tough that was?
If this had not worked out and RFK Jr. had turned out not to be the man that he is, this would be a total problem.
But not only is he the man that he is, but he might be more than the man that he is.
You might not even understand the level of sacrifice that he's taking and has taken just to get to that point where he could stand in front of the country and say, you're all going to get the fat drug or close to it.
Amazing, amazing accomplishment.
All right.
But the drama was that one of the executives who was there to just attend, he was in the background, he had some kind of medical event.
We don't know the details.
We don't need to.
We're told that he's fine now, but he passed out.
Now, what did the Democrats say about this?
Of course, they took one picture out of context to say that Trump must be a psychopath because he's just standing there looking.
What?
What?
What kind of standard is that for judging people?
All right, let me tell you what I saw.
And then you tell me if that's what you saw.
Now I'm just going to read my post because I liked how I wrote it.
So right in the middle of Trump's Oval Office announcement on slashing prices for weight loss meds, like Wagovian Zipbound, this Novo Nordisk executive, his name is Gordon Finlay.
So he passed out.
Now here's what all the participants did when the event happened.
So the first thing that happened was that the man starts to collapse.
He looks like he's unsteady.
And the speaker notices.
The speaker was one of the CEOs.
So the first thing that the speaker does is he stops what he's doing and he turns his attention to the person who looks like he's having a medical problem.
Was that the right thing to do?
Yes, it was.
Yeah.
So as gigantic as this moment was for both the pharma and for Trump, everybody knew to stop what they're doing and give their full attention to whatever this was because it was more important at the moment.
The people standing next to him that just happened to be closest, they saw him going down and they grabbed him and they protected him as he fell.
So they protected him so he went gently down to the floor where you'd want him to be if he can't stand and didn't hit his head or anything.
They just gently put him down.
So they acted immediately to his service.
As soon as the guy hit the floor, and even before he was on the floor, Dr. Oz, who I believe was the closest doctor, was already on it.
He had already rushed in and was starting to give whatever doctors do when they get there first.
So Dr. Oz rushes in.
If you watch the video, you'll see that RFK Jr., who would be standing in the back, immediately moves in the other direction away from the guy.
What do you think he was doing?
I don't know.
But if I were RFK Jr., I would know that there is always medical staff on the other side of the wall from wherever the president is, right?
There's no way there wouldn't be a gurney and an ambulance and a medical staff right on the other side of the wall because they wouldn't be in the room, but they would be right nearby.
Now, RFK Jr. probably, and this is just a guess, I can't read his mind, probably said, we'd better make sure that those guys, the medical people with the gurneys and the ambulance, better make sure that the door is unlocked and they know to come in.
So probably he did the thing that is the smartest thing he could have done, which is make sure they had already been alerted.
And if they had been alerted, just open the door.
Just open the door and let them in.
Because maybe somebody needs to hold the door.
So RFK did exactly what he should do because he's not the doctor.
Dr. Oz did exactly what he should do because he is the doctor.
And then Trump, what should Trump do in this situation?
Should Trump push them away and administer CPR?
No.
No.
He's got a room full of people who probably included more than one doctor.
And probably there were doctors on the other side of the door, as I said.
No.
What he should do, because Trump is not in charge of that patient, Trump is in charge of the room.
He's in charge of the room and also the country.
So what did you want him to do as the guy who's in charge of the room?
I'll tell you what I wanted.
I wanted him to stand up to show the respect that this situation demands.
He stood up.
I want him to look at what's happening because this situation demands that he look at it and assess what's going on and decide what, if any, involvement he should have.
Having looked at it and stood, he was then in charge of the room, not the patient.
He was in charge of the room, not the patient.
And the room didn't know what was going on.
But having your president standing up there, resolute, and knowing that he's trusting the experts behind him to do what needs to be done, and they did.
And fortunately, the gentleman appears to be fine.
We don't know this problem.
But that's what I wanted him to do.
I wanted him to show respect, wait, and know when it's his time.
So what Trump knew is that this was not his time.
This was not his time.
And so he stepped back.
What do you want this better than that?
You know, he's getting, people are calling him a psychopath because he didn't rip the guy's shirt off and give him the kind of a treatment or something.
What exactly was he supposed to do?
Was he supposed to push Dr. Oz away and say, I got this because the cameras are rolling?
No, he did exactly what I want my president to do.
Not only did he hire competent people who immediately acted in exactly the right way, but he knew when to stay out of the way.
You can't beat that, really.
Now, some of you might recognize how biased I am on this topic.
Did you pick that up?
Did you pick up any obvious bias from me on this topic?
Oh, I have bias.
So here was my real situation.
So I was busy most of the day.
So I was catching up with the story, the story about the guy who collapsed in the office.
And I'm reading about how Dr. Oz was the first one to step in.
Now, Dr. Oz was also, he also was one of the people that Trump asked to get involved in my situation when I needed a little boost with my healthcare provider.
Now, I don't know if, you know, I still don't know the reality of what did or did not happen.
So I'm not blaming Kaiser for anything, just that I had a lack of information for a while and it took longer than I thought.
That's all I know.
That took longer than I thought, and I didn't know why.
So Dr. Oz solved that for me.
And as I'm reading the story about how he had also jumped in to fix this guy, I'm thinking to myself, why is it that these Trump-related people have learned that they can do more than regular people?
How do they get so much done?
Like, how do they just, how do they get so much done?
And as I'm reading about Dr. Oz, and I'm thinking, you know, fondly about how he had helped me personally, maybe kept me alive.
I don't know.
Maybe he made the difference between life and death.
Could have been.
My phone rings.
And it's Dr. Oz.
I swear to God, this really happened.
I'm reading about him for the first time, about this incident for the first time.
And Dr. Oz calls me and he asks me how I'm doing and if I'm getting enough help from my medical providers, because that's what he made sure happened.
And the answer is yes.
Yes, I am.
I'm getting great, great reaction from my medical care, Kaiser, Northern California.
So I'll give him the shout out.
You know, the way I judge everything?
The way I judge everything is not by any mistake.
I judge everything by reaction.
What did you do when somebody complained?
If I judged Kaiser by how happy I was a month ago, that would be different from how happy I am now because the way they reacted to it was excellent.
So they're doing a great job at the moment.
So that's my thing.
Now, do you realize how weird it is to be me that you're reading a story in the news and then the subject of the news calls you as you're reading the story?
It's so weird.
It's totally weird.
But we're a simulation, maybe.
All right.
So I guess after all that, Democrats will claim that Trump stole their democracy by not giving CPR to the guy who fell down or some damn thing.
Moving on.
Even John Fetterman, he praised on Trump, said that Trump did a great job on slashing that weight loss drug price from $1,000 to as low as $149.
And he told his story about being a stroke survivor, and apparently he used Monjero for his heart health, which I believe is one of the drugs involved.
And he said, I've called to make these drugs more accessible, blah, blah, blah.
All right, here's my take.
If you're not tired about me talking about Fetterman too much, I get it.
I get it.
He's on the other side.
You don't want to give him attention, blah, blah.
But I'm going to talk about his persuasion game so that you can learn that, okay?
So this is about learning persuasion.
It's not about me wanting Fetterman to be my next president or anything like that.
Just focus on the persuasion part.
You'll be fine.
So I love the fact that he found his own lane, meaning that as soon as the president does something that you could sort of imagine a reasonable Democrat might be in favor of, and this would be obviously something a reasonable Democrat should be in favor of, the press knows to go to him first.
Not only because he's good at the quotes that they can use, because he speaks in abbreviated, non-word solid way, maybe because of the stroke, maybe.
Maybe he was just always brief.
I don't know.
But he's good at being brief.
And that makes better quotes.
So he's carved out this little niche where he will always get attention from, I don't know, maybe half of all topics will come to him first.
That is so good.
And persuasion-wise, if you can camp out as a person they have to talk to first because everybody expects you to, then you've accomplished the Trump first and most important play.
Remember in 2015, everybody said, well, you can't win just by getting the most attention.
Can't you?
Maybe you can win by getting the most attention.
No, that's not enough.
You still have to have a lot going for you.
But he solves for one of the problems that you got all these other politicians.
Maybe a lot of them would like to be president someday.
But he's figured out how to make them come to him.
That's what Trump does.
He makes them come to him just by being more interesting and by doing something that's not the same freaking thing that everybody else is doing.
So in terms of attention grabbing, A plus.
So learn that lesson.
Learn that lesson.
But there's more.
Here's the bigger lesson.
Do you remember in the first term and really into the second election cycle, the Democrats were all about Trump's bad personality.
It's like, oh, he says bad things about people.
Oh, our allies will not trust us as much because he can't be trusted.
Oh, he told four gazillion bazillion, 14 bazillion lies.
And it was all about his character and his personality.
When was the last time you saw the enemy press, enemy to Trump, when was the last time they reported the number of lies he's told?
Did anybody notice they stopped doing that?
They just stopped.
wasn't it the number one thing they reported all the time well he's got to five more lies today and three were in the sentence and two in this and they don't even bother fact-checking him Do you know why they don't fact-check him?
Because people got used to it.
Remember the Virginia Adams rule?
People can get used to anything if they do it long enough.
Anything.
So I think the world just got used to Trump.
He was normalized.
And of course, it only helps because he did a good job as president.
You wouldn't want to normalize something that was bad.
But he's totally normalized.
So now when he says something like, he's dumping on Nancy Pelosi, like earlier, can you imagine any other president doing that?
You can't.
But in the old days, they would have said no other president would do that.
And therefore, it was a mistake for him to do it.
Do they do that now?
No, they don't.
Now they just say, it's just what he does.
So once you've normalized it, you have this superpower.
So Trump can simply say and do things that other people can't say and do because he got you used to it.
Fetterman's doing the same thing.
I don't know how conscious this is.
But what Fetterman is doing is making the Democrats get used to the idea that he could agree with the Republicans.
The first 20 times he does it, they won't be used to it.
Maybe the first 50 times, they won't be used to it.
But somewhere around the hundredth time, you know, because you can repeat the same things over and over, somewhere around the hundredth time, they're just going to want to think about something else, and they'll just get used to it.
And then he'll be the only person who can do this, and we'd be used to it.
That's when he becomes dangerous.
If we get used to this, meaning Democrats specifically, he's going to have a little superpower there in persuasion.
And just watch that.
Here's another guy named John Shuchuk.
I think he's at Climate Craze.
One of the things he does is he looks for data recording stations, temperature recording stations, that are out of service but have not been reported as out of service.
So so far he's found his post on X, 196 ghost stations where the NOAA fabricates temperatures.
In other words, they just estimate the temperatures because the actual data doesn't exist.
Now, how comfortable do you feel if I tell you that 196 temperature stations are not even real?
And if you don't have the right data for temperature, then you have trillions of dollars that could be wasted because you had the wrong temperatures.
All right, I'm watching in the comments to see if you know where I'm going on this.
Do you know where I'm going on this?
How many times have I told you?
You're going to be mad at yourself if you didn't get this one before I tell you.
What's it mean when they tell you the number without the percentage?
What's it mean if they tell you the percentage but not the raw number?
It means it's bullshit.
Now, I hate the fact that this guy's on my side because I think that the temperature measurements are probably pretty sketchy.
So I'm on his side in general.
But if you're looking at it just as persuasion, when somebody gives you a raw number without the what's the total number of now, if I had asked you how many do you think there are?
How many temperature measurements stations are there?
What do you think?
196 were ghosts that exist.
Well, how many do exist?
In America, it's over 10,000.
In the world, it's over 20,000.
And already, according to Grok, I'm going to assume that's true.
So that would be 1.85% of just the U.S. measurements.
If 1.85% of the U.S. measurements were interpolated, you know, just took an average of what was around it, would you get necessarily a terrible answer?
I don't know.
I don't know.
But it makes a big difference if you think 196 is a big number versus less than 2%.
But the bigger problem is, really, there's 10,000 of these measurements in the U.S., but only 20,000 in the rest of the whole world.
I mean, that would be another 10,000.
Does that mean that what happens in the U.S. just sort of naturally counts for more?
And wouldn't that distort things?
So I just have a question mark about that.
All right.
So I don't want to criticize John because I do love his work, meaning that if he's really finding the number of ghost stations, that could only be good.
I mean, there's no downside to that.
So that's good work.
Appreciate it.
But just know that I'm teaching my audience that the raw number without the percentage, that's not good.
And vice versa.
I have to drink like Trump did in that one video where we have to use both hands.
I also have to stay hydrated, get all the radiation out of me.
All right.
Here's something I taught you on persuasion, but I'm going to give you another example, which should be helpful.
I call it the category problem.
Have you heard me talk about this?
If you're trying to decide if something is true or false, you see something in the news.
The first filter I put on is what I call the category problem.
Now, the category problem is that has something that sounds like this ever been true?
Not this, but things that sound like it.
For example, if you got an email that a Nigerian prince had this deal for you and was going to give you a bunch of money if you floated them a little money in advance, would you consider that likely to be true or likely to be false?
Well, the category is false every time.
But that doesn't mean there couldn't ever be a Nigerian prince, right?
Like maybe they're all false until they're not.
No, it's best to assume it's false because the category is just such a big red flag.
Here's another one.
If somebody says they have a universal cancer cure in the form of a pill and it already works on rats, are you going to get that cancer pill in a few years?
No, you're not.
No.
Because how many times has cancer been cured in the news, but not in reality?
Thousands of times.
So that category, I just like, there was one in the news today exactly like that.
Oh, we've got a cure for all cancers.
I didn't even post it because it's a category that's just never true.
Here's another one.
A pill that reverses aging.
If you see a story that the scientists are now come up with a pill that reverses aging, that's in the category of things that are never true.
I don't know anything about that particular pill, but the category, never true.
And that brings us to my next story.
Some scientists in China claim they've invented a pill that gives you the same benefits of exercise in terms of your overall health.
You know, exercise is good for you in all the different ways.
But they allege they've created a pill that would give you the same benefits of exercise.
You still have to exercise if you want bigger muscles.
It doesn't give you muscles.
So just to be clear, it doesn't make your muscles bigger.
It gives you just some of the health benefits that exercise would give you.
Do you believe that's true?
Category problem.
It's a big category problem.
No, I don't believe it's true.
I do not believe that as soon as they're done testing on the rats, you know, in say three years or whatever, that they're going to have a pill that makes you young again or makes you feel healthier again in all the ways that youth does.
I doubt it.
Well, the other big question, oh, and then Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg are, believe it or not, they were on the A16Z podcast, which I haven't seen yet, but I imagine is an amazing podcast because that would be amazing people involved.
So I guess Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, were on, Dr. Priscilla Chan, and they've created this initiative where they're trying to basically cure and prevent and manage all disease by the end of the century.
All disease.
By the end of the century.
Well, that'll take some work.
Anyway, do you think that they will cure all disease by the end of the century?
I don't know, but I'm in favor of them trying.
Sure.
You know, I always say that's the beauty of the American billionaires.
If you're an American billionaire, you have a lot of pressure to invest in things that could be big, you know, benefits to the world, but the government isn't on it for some reason.
I mean, I would feel that if I were a billionaire.
So that's the good thing our billionaires can do.
James Carville said that he would, quote, bet a lot of money that Democrats will win in 2028 to get the presidency and the House, and that they would pack the Supreme Court to 13 people so they could control it.
He says that first they would do the normal bureaucracy thing where they would just have some committee and the committee would come back and say, oh, yes, the fairest, best thing we can do is 13 people on the Supreme Court.
And then he says they'll definitely do it.
And he says the Democrats will definitely win the presidency in 2028.
What do I say in response to that?
The Democrat will definitely win the presidency in 2028.
Now, we're hearing also from a lot of pro-MAGA people.
I think I saw Mike Cernovich say something on this topic on X, that we don't really have a Republican Party that's strong.
There's a MAGA faction that's strong, but even the MAGA faction is empty without Trump.
So that it's really just a Trump party.
And if he leaves, that we don't really have anybody who could win.
Is that true?
Do you think JD couldn't win?
A lot of people act like he's the obvious choice.
I've also acted like he's the obvious choice, but that doesn't mean he'll be the choice.
It just means he's the obvious one from this point of view at this time, etc.
And his skills are impressive.
His skill stacks impressive.
He's not Trump, though, right?
And so what I say to James Carville is challenge accepted.
I believe that a Republican can win in 2028, but that we have not necessarily identified that Republican, not necessarily.
But they would need some persuasion training, which I believe none of them have.
I'd be happy to give it to them if they need it.
But trained properly in persuasion, I think a Republican who is at least Trumpy enough in policies could win, but it would take tremendous skill.
It would take a lot of skill.
I do believe that Devance is somebody who could pick up a talent sack in an hour.
That's the kind of intelligence we're talking about.
Somebody could learn a whole thing in an hour.
Like a complicated thing.
And if they play it right, they can win this.
But they don't have anybody, in my opinion, they probably don't have anybody who's the right person with the right training right now.
Like if they had the election today, I don't think a Republican would win.
But could they win in 2028 with the right positioning, et cetera?
It's doable.
It's doable, but it's going to be hard, like really hard, but doable.
Here's the weirdest part about 2028.
The weirdest part is if Trump solves too many problems during his term, and he's on the verge of doing that, there won't be enough problems left to solve for a potential Republican.
If the reason you voted for Trump is because of the border and it's just solved, why would you vote for the other Republican?
You'd need another reason.
The border was a real good reason because that was just so scary and so big and it just had so much impact on everything.
But what's the thing after that?
Unfortunately, it's affordability.
And the Democrats are owning affordability at the moment.
So there's going to have to be some problems that Trump doesn't solve just so the next Republican candidate has something to talk about.
They're running out of things to talk about, right?
I mean, if it turns out that, you know, three years from now, everybody smart agrees that tariffs were a tremendous idea and they brought in money and it didn't break too many things.
Well, then whoever the Republican is will just keep doing it.
But it's not like a winning strategy or anything.
So you got to find that thing that everybody understands, needs to be solved.
And unfortunately, I would hate to say that the only thing left to solve would be the debt, because I don't know what the hell you do about that.
Anyway, maybe it's the tariffs that solve the debt.
So, but Jon Stewart, I think we're at the phase where everybody's worried about their own team.
Jon Stewart said that Democrats are still a mess after the last election.
And he says, I truly believe they're a mess.
And then he says, I tried to capture the essence of this quote.
I might have missed a word.
He said, there's an underlying energy in the country that none of us could have imagined and that needs to be channeled.
None of us could have imagined.
I'm pretty sure every Republican imagined it.
That's why Trump's the president.
The Republicans were totally imagining it.
They didn't have to imagine it.
They felt it.
They were in it.
They were part of it.
So, I guess he's talking about Democrats had no idea what the country is really like.
Now, I love Jon Stewart as an entertainer, and I think he adds a lot even to the political process, despite being an entertainer first.
But he never is, he looks like a guy who's never had like a regular job, has he?
Because there's some things he's just sort of missing that feel like you would not be missing if you had a regular job with co-workers and stuff.
You know, maybe being around normal people.
The people who work in comedy, I think, hang around with people in comedy more than anything else.
Anyway, so when he says there's an underlying energy in the country that none of us could imagine needs to be channeled, to me, that's just a word-salad way of saying your policies are bad.
If the Democrats had better policies, you don't think they would own everything.
I think they'd be in charge, they just need better ideas.
So, every time they think it's not that their candidates are bad and their policies are bad, they're just lost.
They're going to have to say, Our policies are bad, our candidates are bad, get a better candidate, do something.
Anyway, apparently, every state has now applied for the $50 billion or a piece of the $50 billion rural health fund, which was approved in the big beautiful bill.
The Hill is writing about this, Nate Wakele.
So, I guess they all had to apply for their part, but they all have done it, so that's good.
And that's the money that would transform rural health so that they can get health care to poor people in rural places that don't have, I guess it's people who don't have healthcare.
So, each state has to say how they're going to use the money and get it approved.
And that was the backstop against whatever's going to happen.
Now, if JD or any other future Republican could figure out a real workable plan that would either make food substantially cheaper or make healthcare substantially cheaper, I don't think Trump's going to solve those.
I think he'll take a bite at them.
You know, I think he'll do what's doable, but there's always going to be something left over that's not doable easily.
So, so getting everybody health care, I think, is worth doing some way.
But there's got to be a Republican way to do that, or I'll call it a say an independent way to do it.
I don't want to do it just by giving more money to people who can pay double for Obamacare.
There's got to be some just fundamental reworking of how we do stuff, and it may be AI.
I've always thought that the government should offer the let me let me run this idea by you.
I don't know if I've ever mentioned this before, but I always had the idea that maybe everybody could have what they want, which is what if the people who want to be socialists and want to get cheap food and all that, what if the government gave it to them and said, all right, you guys, you guys are going to live the socialist path, and the rest of you will pay as you go, but you won't have to pay for the socialists somehow.
Is there any way that you could have the socialist plan work somewhere where if you really, really wanted that to be your life, you could go to, you know, let's say some part of some state and you can move there and say, look, you could have everything you asked for.
We don't know if that'll be good for you, but you're adults.
You get to pick.
So, if you live here, you get to have a Community garden, and you'll share some food, and maybe you won't have a car for everybody, and maybe you don't mind they have to walk everywhere, right?
But it seems like there's some way you could carve out the people who aren't going to get health care under a current costly system or even enough food under a costly system and just put them in their own little bucket with fewer choices.
So I think they'd be okay if they had fewer choices if the alternative is not having anything.
Yeah, anyway.
An appeals court is going to let Trump revive his bid to overturn criminal convictions in that hush money case, the hush money case.
There were 34 convictions on them.
So Just the News is writing about this.
So the second circuit court are going to let him keep going on that.
So we'll see if that ever gets overturned.
It was a three-judge panel.
And the three-judge panel said that the court had bypassed what we consider to be important issues bearing on the ultimate issue of good cause.
So they did not rule on whether Trump is guilty or innocent.
They just ruled on, they ruled on ruling, basically.
Here's a funny comment from somebody on Twitchy, Doug P.
He notes that Mom Domini is asking people to send him money so that they could get free stuff in return, which is a funny way to frame it.
And it's exactly right.
So the candidate who's promising you free stuff can't give you free stuff until you give him money.
Wait, that's not free.
Well, I guess you don't have to personally give him money, but unless a lot of people give him money, he won't be able to give you money back.
Now, I guess the promise is if you give him enough money and then he gets elected, which he did, he would help you get some money back.
So basically, it's just a money laundering operation that he's disguised as a candidacy.
That's what it looks like.
Anyway, that's what's happening there.
And then Fox News is reporting that the reason the Democrats won big on those three big elections recently is that they focus on domestic economic policy.
Emma Bussey's writing this on Fox News.
Do you think that's it?
Do you think it's because they focus on domestic stuff as opposed to international stuff?
I don't know.
I didn't really see that happening.
I don't remember anybody bringing up, well, maybe they did if you're talking about specifically Israel.
Yeah, I'll withdraw my comment.
Yeah, it did turn into a lot of Israel talk when it could have been a lot more about affordability.
Now, when I was praising Mom Donnie's communication skills about the word affordability, somebody pushed back on me on X and said, Scott, politicians have been promising affordability since the beginning of time.
Why is that so new?
To which I said, really?
Which politician was using the word affordability?
Can you think of one?
Can anybody think of one who used the word, not the concept?
I'm talking about the word affordability.
I don't remember anybody doing that.
They may have used it in a sentence once, but it was never a key part of any platform that I'm aware of.
And so my critic, after I said, I'm not aware of anybody use it, said he did a search and he put affordability in quotes and asked if anybody had pushed affordability in quotes as a politician.
And guess what?
It turns out that if you put it in quotes, people have done it.
But that's not the same thing.
I'm talking about the actual choice of the specific word, affordability.
It doesn't count.
if you were talking about lowering costs.
You had to use the actual word.
I don't remember anybody doing it.
I saw some people saying Kemp and Clinton, but I was alive then.
I don't remember that.
Don't remember it at all.
All right.
There's a study, University of British Columbia, Tom Leslie's writing about this, that if you talk with your hands, there's a way to do it that makes you more persuasive.
Ooh.
But it's not just moving your hands randomly.
So I have trouble lifting my arm now.
But if you're just going blah, blah, blah randomly with your hands, that doesn't add anything.
But if you use your hands to tell the story, apparently that registers quite strongly as making you more persuasive.
So the example they use is if you caught a fish and you're telling the story, it helps to use your hands to show the size of the fish.
Because then it becomes like a visual slash verbal story.
So you could have just asked me, Scott, if you use your hands to make the story more visual, will it be more persuasive?
Yes.
I've been teaching you for years that visual beats purely audio.
If you add the two of them together, it's better than either one of them, either one by themselves.
Japan's going to team up with the U.S. to mine some rare earth in the Pacific.
So Bloomberg's reporting this.
That seems good.
They're going to go into that rare earth-rich mud that's 6,000 feet down.
I don't know how much work the U.S. is doing on that, but I'm pretty happy how the administration is capitalizing on our allies, which might be leaning on them.
We might be leaning on them a little bit, but they need the rare earth too.
So if us plus them can get us both more rare earth, win-win.
And I don't think there was a better way to do it.
Don't think there was a better way to do it.
But let me give you an instant prediction that I've never made before because I've never thought about it until right now.
If the biggest problem in the world turns out to be not enough rare earth minerals, how long will it be before Elon Musk looks at all of his assets and says, you know, robots could dig a lot of rare earth materials.
You know, the electric cars could carry them away.
And now he's introducing the electric, the all-electric big trucks, the big rigs.
So he can transport it.
He can dig it.
He can dig it.
I don't know if they need satellites to locate it, but he's got those.
And he would be the best engineer to figure out how to do it safely, maybe just with robots.
So my prediction is this.
If we don't get on top of this problem soon, I think there will be pressure on Elon to solve it because people will say, we're pretty sure nobody else could solve this.
It would just be capability.
He'd be able to do it.
Maybe nobody else could.
They would just ask him to step in.
Could happen.
And let's see.
As you know, the Columbian is reporting, Kelly Livingston, that the Department of Energy wants to quadruple our nuclear power over the next 25 years, but that would require tripling our workforce that are trained in nuclear stuff.
We are very underskilled for nuclear compared to how much we want to build it out.
So, does that seem on that?
That seems solvable.
I think if you took a bunch of engineers or engineering students, you said you got three or four years to learn nuclear, they'd be in pretty good shape after three or four years.
So, as long as we're producing them at the source and that enough people are signing up for those majors, we'll be fine.
Oh, here's some good news: Kazakhstan is joining the Abraham Accords.
Kazakhstan.
Now, a lot of you were waiting for this.
A lot of people said to me, you know, I like those Abraham Accords, but where's Kazakhstan?
Why is Kazakhstan so silent over this?
Well, Albonia is also silent.
We have heard nothing about Elbonia, but Kazakhstan, they're in.
Maybe there'll be more later.
We'll see.
All right.
People, people, that's my one-handed show.
No, not what you think.
But it took me a little longer to get it all done today because I'm literally using one hand.
We're hoping that some of the achievements will fix the other hand, but I don't know.
Maybe, maybe, yes.
I might be done drawing because I can't draw with my left hand.
And at the moment, I'm pretty sure I can't draw with my left hand, but I'll try it today just to see.
So I might be retiring today, or I might be taking a month off to see if I can get my muscles back.
But I'm going to have to work this out.
So we'll work it out together one way or the other.
I could always sketch it more generally and then have my art director finish it.
So there's always a plan.
It won't necessarily mean there's less Dilbert.
It might mean there's less of my artwork that goes into the first draft, probably.
Probably.
And you already know that I switched from right-handed to left-handed to draw because I burned out my right hand just from regular drawing.
Yeah.
Well, you know, nothing's perfect.
Nothing's perfect.
Everybody's got a problem.
All right, I'm going to say a few words privately to the locals subscribers.
If I can get my one defective hand to click the right place.
Let me get this hand.
One hand doesn't lift up and the other hand is too weak.
All right.
So everybody else, I'll see you, I hope, tomorrow.
