Mini wars, bad behavior all over, plus news you can't use~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Carl the Fly, Elon Musk, Encyclopedia Galactica, Anti-Hemp Legislation, NGO Indivisible, Chuck Schumer, Testosterone Sensing, Mayor Mamdani, 911 Social Workers Dispatch, democrat Systems Management, MAHA Accomplishments, Cable News Funding, gop Healthcare, Robot Healthcare Plan, Michael Wolff, Jeffrey Epstein, CA Redistricting Lawsuit, John Fetterman, Media Censorship, Bad Behavior Delayed Justice, Narco Boats, 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.
Not a good day for the stock market, but on the other hand, it always goes up and down.
No big deal, right?
All right, let's see.
i believe i needed this everybody stream on in here You don't want to miss the good stuff.
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 experiment, trying to take 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 a mug or a glass of tanker chelser stein, a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.
All right, how many would like me to say that again?
But an old-timey voice.
Old-timey voice, okay?
Same thing, but old-timey voice.
Yeah, there's a cup and a mug and a glass, and there's a tanker chalicer stand.
If you had a canteen jugger flask, but a vessel of any kind.
You fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day.
Thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous tip from the 40s.
And it happens now.
Did you ever wonder why everybody talk like that?
I've never figured that out.
Like, did they all get together and say, hey, Bob, the way you're talking, that's very cool.
I think I'll copy it now.
I don't know if you can.
It's just the way I talk.
Just watch me.
See, I'm doing it too.
And then, you know, somebody else hears them like, what are you guys doing?
You talking old-timey?
How do you know it's old-timey?
It's still the present day.
I know.
I just feel it will be old-timey someday.
Next thing you know, everybody's talking that.
That's how it happens.
All right, you're wondering, where is your reframe for the day that will change your life?
Make everything better.
Better.
I just happen to have one for you.
It's all queued up.
Do you ever have a situation where there's something you know you need to do, but you can't get yourself motivated to do it because it's hard or it's unpleasant or it's going to hurt?
Everybody, right?
So we all have these procrastination situations, not because we're procrastinators, per se, but because the thing is just sort of unpleasant, so you just keep putting it off.
But you know you have to do it, you know, like a dental appointment or something.
You know you have to do it.
So here's the reframe.
Instead of I'm afraid to do the thing I know I should do, it's usually fear that keeps you from doing it.
Instead of that, you say life is short.
Now you might say to me, Scott, that doesn't really seem to line up with the original frame.
Is that really the answer to I'm afraid to do the things I know I should do?
Is the answer that life is short?
And the answer is yes.
Because once you set your brain to the idea that you don't have infinite time, then everything seems more important, including that thing you have to do.
So as long as you say life is short, and then you just sort of think that way for a moment, watch how easy it is to do unpleasant things.
Because you'll think, you know what?
Life is short.
It's also easier to do pleasant things when you say life is short.
But you'd be surprised how unpleasant things become easy when you think in those terms.
That's your reframe for the day.
That one you're going to have to try because logic will not tell you that that works.
I've told you before that reframes are special in the sense that they don't have to make sense.
I don't know how many things would fall into that category, but it's a unique category.
The reframe doesn't have to be logical or factual, it just has to work.
If putting yourself in that frame of mind, that life is short, if it works, well, you just do it.
That's the whole idea.
Now, some of you want to catch up on the saga of Carl the Fly.
If you were here yesterday, you know that Carl the Fly was a very plucky and determined fly.
And he decided that for my entire show, he would have someplace to sit on my body to give me the most unpleasant morning you've ever had that involved a fly.
And so I promised you that I would hunt that fly to the end of the earth.
And so after the show was over, I made many attempts to take out Carl.
But damn, Carl is good.
Carl is maybe the smartest and strongest fly I've ever had the pleasure to have known.
So I tried slapping him, and several times, of course, I thought I got him.
You know how you do that really good slap?
You're like, oh, I don't see the body.
I don't see the corpse, but there's no way, no way Carl could have gotten away.
And then Carl flies by.
You're like, oh, damn it.
Damn it.
So finally, after much work, I killed Carl.
I killed Carl.
I trapped him in his space.
It's a long story, but I got him.
And I happily told my caretaker, I was like, got him, I got Carl.
Finally.
How long did it take before the real Carl showed up?
And I learned that Carl not only is strong and smart and plucky, but he had a body double.
He had a body double.
I did not see that coming.
I was outsmarted by the fly.
So I did what anyone would do if they were Ukrainian.
I immediately asked the United States for some military assistance.
And as luck would have it, I got a salt gun that literally shoots grains of salt at flies.
And I deputized my caretaker to operate the weapon.
And she did a little safari inside my man cave here.
There were a few misses.
But once she got him down, oh man, it was brutal.
She got him on the ground and she just started blasting his little body.
And even that wouldn't kill him.
I swear he had some kind of a flak jacket on or something.
I've just never seen a fly that tough.
But in the end, he did fall to our superior military power.
I did have to use a drone with a GPS.
Anyway, Carl the Fly, we loved him, but he had to go.
Speaking of horrible little disgusting things, oh, this could go the wrong direction if I say the next thing I was going to say.
Back that up, because it's going to sound like I'm talking about the person, not the thing.
I'm talking about a thing, not a person.
Palmer Lucky, who's awesome, by the way, I like Palmer Lucky.
He said in a podcast recently, he said, I flirt with the idea that smart TVs should be illegal.
I hate them so much.
What's funny about that is that just yesterday I was talking about throwing away my television because not a single time have I been able to make it work.
Why?
It's a smart TV.
And my current setup in my house is using Apple TVs individually for each TV, which is a really good system.
But if you try to put your Apple TV on your smart TV, you don't know what the heck's going to happen.
I mean, just all kinds of things start showing up and advertisements and you don't even know what mode it's in.
You can't tell the business model they're using.
You're just totally lost.
And every time it happened, I would use up all the time I had for watching TV with trying to make the TV work.
And my reasoning was very simple.
If I can get this to work, that's just once I have to do that.
And then after that, I'll happily be watching TV.
Nope, not with this smart TV.
No, it outsmarted me like Carl the Fly.
It would act differently.
It would throw me things that would sometimes work and sometimes not.
Sometimes you have to reboot, sometimes it seemed like there were two different ways or three different ways to get the Apple TV.
And so yesterday I was literally in my living room talking to somebody and said, you know, I just want to throw that away because not once.
And by the way, this is the TV in my living room.
So it's one of the ones you would use if it worked.
And now it's been, I don't know how many years, maybe five years.
It's probably been five years and I've not watched a single show on that TV because I can't.
But you don't want to throw away a TV, right?
Like your brain can't really wrap its head around that.
Like, I'm not going to throw away a TV.
Yes, I am.
I'm going to throw away the TV.
If anybody wants a smart TV, come and get it.
No, don't do that.
Don't come to my house for my TV because somebody will get here first and then you'll be mad.
Well, you know that Wikipedia has a competitor, Grok, Grokapedia.
Turns out that was a temporary name.
Elon says that once Grokapedia, his version of Wikipedia, once it becomes what he calls good enough, he's going to rebrand it to Encyclopedia Galactica.
I can't even tell you how much I love that.
Isn't, can somebody give me a fact check on this?
Isn't Elon Musk supposed to be not good at this?
You know, meaning he's on the spectrum?
How can he be good at this too?
This meaning coming up with clever names for stuff that are catchy?
That's a really good name.
Am I wrong?
Or do you see it as soon as you see the names?
You say, oh, whoa, that's a pretty good name.
And that's very rare.
If you look at all the times that anybody has renamed anything in any domain, usually you're ambivalent or you're like, I don't like it.
But this is just a dead cold winner.
Did he come up with that?
Or was he smart enough to recognize how good it was?
You know, it's weird.
Every time Elon does something that clearly shows he has a very advanced sense of humor, isn't that exactly what you're not supposed to have?
Like the whole point of being on the spectrum is you get maybe, in some cases, certain advantages, but there's a trade-off.
Maybe the trade-off is social awareness.
I don't think he has any problem with social awareness.
I don't think he has a problem with humor.
And he certainly can read the room and come up with a good name of a product.
And he obviously all of his products have one thing in common, that he got the user interface and the user interaction right.
How do you do that if you're on the spectrum?
There's something unexplained about him that I find fascinating.
You know, he's now supposed to be good at this too.
So I guess he is.
There's a new report from Marijuana Moment.
Kyle Jager, or Jagger, is writing about it.
He says that women who use marijuana at a, quote, high intensity report greater romantic relationship satisfaction, but it doesn't work for men.
So if women do a lot of marijuana intensely, they have better romantic relationships.
But it doesn't work for men.
I mean, men are happy with a relationship with a woman, but if the man is the one who's intensely doing it.
How many of you didn't know that?
Just try to imagine this for a second.
You're in your 20s.
I'll just pick a time.
And you're in a long-term relationship.
And you come home and your wife or your significant other is really, really high.
What's your first thought, men?
I'll just wait on this one.
What's your first thought, men?
What crosses your mind when you come home and find your woman is really, really high?
That's right.
I don't have to.
Do I have to finish this?
If you come home and you find out that your wife is really stoned, you're thinking sex.
You're thinking sex.
Are you happier?
Yeah, probably.
Is it more likely that you're going to have some?
Oh, yeah, definitely.
Definitely.
All right, now let's reverse it.
Wife comes home with a girlfriend, and she's not high, but she sees that her spouse, the guy, is high as a kite.
What's her first thought?
Oh, damn it.
He's going to be playing video games with his buddies all night.
What you don't think is that, oh, he's suddenly ready for sex because he's always ready for sex.
So that's not even a variable that you need to check.
But if he's really high, he might not want to go out with you and your friends.
He might want to stay home and play some video games.
So there's no way in the world that you didn't all know that if the wife is stoned, it might be a good news.
And if the husband's stoned, it might be bad news.
Come on.
You all knew that.
Even Carl the Fly knew that.
All right.
Here's a story I should have followed more closely, but I thought it was about something else.
So there's some new legislation about the hemp industry.
And apparently they made it illegal to have any kind of hemp product that would have any THC in it at all, basically.
I thought it was about hemp.
I didn't realize that it would include the active ingredient stuff.
So of course I'm not in favor of this.
I'm not even sure if the people who voted for it even understood what they were voting for.
I really don't.
But they're going to ban all hemp-derived products containing THC.
I didn't realize that in the farm bill of 2018, they had legalized hemp.
And then a whole bunch of farmers said, oh, we can make some money on this hemp stuff.
And so they made a bunch of money on the hemp.
And then I think it was Rand Paul who was pointing out that if you yank it away, your government is just screwing with you.
You know, at the very least, your government should not make things worse.
Am I right?
It just shouldn't make things worse.
But imagine using your legislation to essentially create an entire industry in the ag domain, which is hemp.
Then a whole bunch of people say, oh, I can finally survive because the other farming things weren't working out.
So they start a hemp farm and it works, and they make money, and they get a few good years of hemp.
And then the government comes back and says, oh, by the way, it's illegal now.
Are you kidding me?
Are you kidding me?
I don't even care what the details are of the hemp, of why they did it or or why they wouldn't want to do it, I don't care.
You cannot be a government and yank farmers around you.
Gotta, you gotta settle into something now.
Obviously, if there's a problem, you want to fix the problem, but was this a problem people were complaining about?
Do you remember anybody coming up to you and saying, oh, my goodness the, the legalized hemp is causing me so much trouble?
No no, you don't yank that away from the farmers.
So if there's one thing I can teach you about economics, that there are only a few things about economics that are just absolutely, you know, ironclad rule.
One of the ironclad rules of at least national economics is, you don't mess with stuff unless you have a really good reason.
You don't check, you don't change the taxes, even if they're too high.
Unless you have a good reason, you don't change the tariffs, you don't change anything.
You don't change anything in the ec, in the economy, unless you got a really, really strong reason.
I don't think they have one.
To me this looks like a just a mistake, so I hope it gets corrected.
We'll see.
Congress is also going to have some hearings on congressional stock trading.
You know that Congress is the only ones who can do insider trading legally.
What do you think Congress will decide about their own ability to do insider trading and make a lot of money without any risk well, any any legal risk for insider trading?
I feel like this is just for a show.
Do you think there's any chance in the world they're going to ban insider trading?
But here's what i'd love and i'll bet you'll never see it.
Do you think you're going to see the argument in favor of insider trading?
How many of you think that somebody's going to stand up in Congress somebody elected to be a member of Congress and give an argument in favor of insider trading, but only for them?
Do you think that's going to happen?
Because that's that's what's being called for, right?
The entire point of having the hearing is that we hear the argument on both sides.
Well, the argument against it is moronically simple right, I don't even need to repeat it.
Every single person understands the argument against it.
What exactly is the argument for it?
Now, i've actually heard somebody support it.
I won't I won't mention who, but the support was, we don't make enough money unless we do this from an actual you know member of the government.
We don't make enough money to essentially support living here and having a house in our district, plus all the other things that don't get reimbursed.
Uh, we just don't have a way to survive unless we're doing insider trading legally, legally.
What do you think of that argument?
I don't think they can say that out loud because it just doesn't sound good, even if that's what you're thinking.
So, if you were going to compromise, I would offer the following.
You know that there's at least one entity, there might be more by now, that are tracking the insider trading of at least Nancy Pelosi when she was doing it.
And then they would give you an option of buying what they bought.
Would you be happy if it was way more easy and everybody understood that they too could get the benefit of insider trading by doing a fast follow, maybe even automated, of the insiders?
Oh, Andy, you're too smart.
What do you think of that?
Because there's no way that they're going to get rid of it because it's just too profitable.
And there's no way that the issue will go away, so we'll keep complaining about it.
If you were going to try to find a middle ground, something we could all live with, I would be semi-okay.
It's not ideal, but I'd be okay if I could just fast-follow and say, 12 seconds after your trade goes in, mine just follows.
I put some limit on it, so it's not a lot of money, but it would just be some fund of money that matches roughly matches what you're doing.
Well, that's the best idea I have.
Probably nothing to happen.
Can you believe that a Soros-backed group called Indivisible, Soros backs a lot of groups, but that's one of his big ones that we hear about?
Indivisible is trying to get rid of Chuck Schumer.
New York Post is reporting.
And as you know, Republicans are not a big fan of Schumer.
So, how would you like to be Chuck Schumer?
And you can't make either Trump or Soros happy about what you're doing, and they both want to get rid of you.
Actually, I don't even know if Trump wants to get rid of him.
Trump might be happy having him because he's such a weak, weak better.
But nobody loves him.
But finally, the good news is that Chuck Schumer has found a way to unite us.
Is there even one topic in the entire country where a severe leftist and I would completely agree?
Like, you can imagine this situation, right?
Somebody with green hair and all kinds of tattoos and annoying signs walks up to me and says, We got to get rid of Chuck Schumer.
Are you on board?
And then I, looking like a CPA, go, Yeah, I'm on board.
Let's get this done.
We'll get rid of Schumer.
Unifying.
Well, Trump has okayed some oil and gas drilling in Alaska's wildlife refuge.
This is the sort of story I feel I'm underserved on.
If I told you that Trump had approved drilling or explanation exploration on this wildlife refuge, what's the first question you'd ask?
And is the answer to that question, or even the fact that it's a question, in the article?
What's the number one thing you'd want to know to understand this?
The number one thing you want to know is what percentage of the total wildlife refuge would be impacted, especially if something went wrong.
Let's say worst case scenario, something breaks, pipeline breaks.
What percentage of the total area would be destroyed?
Well, I don't know the answer to that, and I don't even have a guess.
I don't even have a sense of range.
It's not 75%, right?
If there were a pipeline leak, would it destroy 75% of the wildlife refuge?
I doubt it.
I don't know what the real number is, but it's probably not 75%.
Would it be 10%?
Do you think 10% of our invaluable, irreplaceable wildlife could be destroyed if worst case, I'm saying worst case scenario, 10%?
I don't think so.
Do you have any idea how much land would be 10%?
I mean, that would be a lot.
So I feel like this is the kind of story that if you don't know that it's a postage stamp-sized risk, if it is, by the way, if it's not that small a risk, somebody fact-check me.
I don't want to mislead you.
So if you ask me if I'm in favor of it or not in favor of it, how can I decide?
They have not given me enough information to decide.
Obviously, I'm biased toward more energy exploration.
You know that.
But I don't know.
Is it 1%?
10%?
Here's a study that feels like it just comes out every year for decades.
According to the University of Victoria, testosterone in your body odor is linked to perceptions of social status.
Apparently, both men and women can smell your testosterone.
Does that make you afraid a little bit that men and women can smell your testosterone?
It's true.
We're very sensitive to it.
In fact, when Carl the Fly was fighting me, I got a little whiff of his testosterone, and I gotta say, I was impressed.
That little guy, he was just packed with testosterone.
Anyway, if you're joining the stream late, I love how nonsensical that sounded.
You'll just have to ask somebody else about Carl the Fly.
But it seems to me that for decades, that same study has been coming out.
Oh, women can smell testosterone again.
Oh, women can smell testosterone.
Oh, men can smell testosterone.
I don't know why we keep studying it.
Just ask me.
I would have told you.
Well, Zoran Mandani, he wants to use more social workers for the 911 calls as opposed to the fire department and police.
And apparently, that's been something they've been testing prior to Momdami.
So they've been testing it since 19, I'm sorry, 20, since 2019, 2021.
So they've been testing it.
It's called Be Heard.
So it's a pilot program.
Now, a pilot program that's been running for five years, isn't it sort of time to decide whether it worked?
What do you think?
Did the pilot program work in which they would more likely send you a social worker than a police or fire department person?
Did that work?
It's been five years.
So now they would have a good, good sense of whether it works or not.
Well, according to a political veteran named Bill Cunningham, who once served under Michael Bloomberg when he was mayor, Cunningham says that the program needs, quote, stronger management.
Oh, I think I found the problem.
In what world do Democrats give strong management to anything?
In what world?
No, I'm going to argue with him.
You're saying dumb idea.
So I'm going to surprise you.
The question of whether replacing the first responder types with social workers, that has not been tested.
Even though it's a pilot program and it's run for five years, they haven't tested it.
Why?
Exactly what Cunningham is saying, is that it needs stronger management.
If you take a great idea and then you throw terrible bananas at it or you hire people for it that are your cronies, it's not going to work.
It doesn't matter how good the idea is.
So we really don't know if this could work.
Is that fair?
Now, I realize that with my audience, I'm supposed to say Mom Dami is a communist or at least a socialist, and what we should do is get rid of him.
And every single one of his ideas is bad.
I really don't think every one of his ideas is bad unless you overlay on it that it will be managed by Democrats.
Because I don't think that they hire for merit.
I think they hire for identity.
They kind of say they do.
So if you take any good idea in the world, any good idea, and then you have it run by people who can't make anything work, and then it doesn't work, do you conclude that the idea was bad?
That's not really, that doesn't follow.
The only thing you can conclude is that one group of people, Democrats, don't seem to be good at managing anything.
Now, you could argue, and I wouldn't push back too hard, that Republicans, if they're part of the government, also don't do anything well.
The government never does anything.
The more money you give to the government, the worse it is, etc.
I wouldn't push back on that.
But there definitely seems to be a difference between Democrats just trying to manage anything versus Republicans trying to manage anything.
There does seem to be a difference.
So here's what I would caution against.
You know, I know you don't want Mom Dami to be too successful, but why would you throw away the idea that you might have some option for lower cost 911 responses?
That would be part of the benefit if he did it right.
And that it might be more on point, because for some of them, it's not about the danger.
It's about the specific situation.
Now, most of you understood, right?
I think you understood that nobody ever said send the social worker to a domestic violence place where the violence is happening at the moment.
You all know that, right?
That's sort of just something somebody says to mock it.
They're not sending somebody instead of the police to anything dangerous.
If it's dangerous, they would still send the police even under the pilot program.
So there's no scenario where you send an untrained person into a dangerous situation, either now or with a new program.
Comedy Newsom wasn't implemented correctly.
Well, did I say that?
Here I love it when people have to make up a quote for me and put it in quotes to prove me wrong.
So somebody just did that trick in the comments.
So somebody put in quotes as if it's something I did say or would say, that communism was great if it had been implemented correctly.
Did I say that?
Was there someplace that I don't remember this morning where I said every idea in the world is a great idea.
You just have to implement it correctly.
Did somebody hear me say that?
Did I hallucinate that?
No, you fucking idiot.
Every idea is a different idea.
Sometimes they're good ideas.
Sometimes they're bad ideas.
What do you like?
Do you like to do?
Never mind.
You're not worth it.
You're just not fucking worth it.
Can we make one agreement?
There is such thing as good ideas and bad ideas.
Can we get that far?
Can we agree that there's such a thing as good ideas and bad ideas?
Can we further agree that a good idea will never work?
if you have bad implementation.
Can we agree on that?
Can we also agree that if it's a bad idea, good implementation probably won't save it.
Can we agree on that?
I'm not saying anything you don't agree with.
So stop pretending and putting my stop putting my words in fake quotes and acting like I'm a fucking idiot because I agree with you completely.
Right?
If we're on the same side on this topic, calling me dumb about it is kind of calling yourself dumb.
Anyway, stocks plunged because the market reopened because the government reopened.
Does that give you any confidence in your government?
That the minute it reopens, the stocks plunge, but when it was closed, the stocks were resuming.
The moment we think the government might do something, oh no.
Oh no, the government might do something.
Well, that's so good.
We don't want our government doing stuff.
Sell your stocks.
Well, according to PJ Media, Catherine Salgato is writing that 500,000 double dippers on the SNAP program.
So SNAP is where people who need help with food can get the government food assistance called SNAP.
And there are 500,000 of them that were double dipping, meaning that they were getting more than one dose of it.
And there were 5,000 dead people on the just in 29 states.
Now that's just 29 states.
So the other states, I think, didn't allow them to look into it or something, but we assume it's at least that much problem or worse.
How in the world do we get to this?
I swear to God, when I drive around, I look at how expensive the houses are in some areas, not everywhere.
I think to myself, my common sense doesn't understand how this many people could buy this many good houses.
You ever had that thought?
And I think to myself, is this because of crime?
If you had a secret way to view your residential neighborhood, so somehow you could just put on glasses and you could tell which of the homes were only afforded because of a criminal activity.
It'd be like more than you think.
How many of them are only affordable because somebody had an estate that they inherited?
Well, it'd be a few.
But what you wouldn't find is a whole bunch of people who got a good job and they could afford a nice house.
There'd be a lot of that.
But there's a tremendous amount of wealth in this country that's sketchy.
And I'm thinking that the sketchy amounts are bigger than the legitimate amounts at this point.
It feels that way.
Does it not feel that way to you?
Like, seriously, it looks like people are embezzling from their company or they stole from somebody.
I can't understand how so many people could have so many nice houses, given the cost of living in California.
Now, I understand why I have a nice house.
You know, I'm a public figure.
I have a kind of job where you can guess how much I make practically.
So I understand why I do, but why do all the other people have nice houses?
Do they all have amazing jobs?
I don't know.
Something's going on.
Well, here's another evergreen story that just never goes away.
There's a therapist who says that Trump derangement syndrome is real.
How many times do we have to hear that?
Doesn't everybody know that Trump derangement syndrome is real?
It's about as real as you can get.
Yeah, it's very real.
Let's see.
Joe Rogan had a guest, Gavin DeBecker, who's an interesting guy.
Gavin, I've had some brief interactions with him, and he was very kind, very generous.
So I like Gavin DeBacker.
Anyway, he says that we're not hearing enough about what the Maha people and RFK Jr. in particular are succeeding at.
So he says that there have been some significant wins for RFK Jr., but the press is kind of downplaying them.
But let's test.
So he gave some examples.
Removing mercury from all vaccines.
So that's something that RFK Jr. got done.
How many of you knew that he got mercury removed from all vaccines?
Now, I don't think that there were many left that had it.
I think there was a relatively small number of vaccines that still had it, but he got rid of them.
Now, I don't know if, I don't think there's a counter-argument.
I guess there's always a counter-argument.
But maybe that made a difference.
I'm no scientist, so I don't know for sure, but maybe it made a difference.
He stopped a bunch of mRNA research projects that didn't look promising.
That's again Gavin DeBecker's take.
He said you stopped fluoride and water, or he's recommending against it.
I don't know if he stopped it or recommended against it.
If that made a difference, that seems pretty big.
And a bunch of things he's doing with food, more about the dyes, I think.
So there's a lot happening there.
I'm not sure we're totally informed.
But the reason that we don't necessarily hear that government good and big pharma and big ag not always so good is that DeBecker says that something like over 90% of cable news channels are sponsored by pharma.
In fact, something like 80-something percent is just Pfizer all by itself.
Is that true?
Is it true that 80% of cable news funding is one company?
I knew it was big, but is it that big?
Wow.
Yeah.
And I'd also use a point to something that, oh, what's his name?
The seven words you can't say on TV.
Who's the famous comedian whose name I'm blanking on?
You know who he is.
But anyway, he said that you don't have to have a conspiracy if everybody knows what they're supposed to do.
And certainly every single member of the cable news world.
Yeah, George Carlin, thank you.
George Carlin is the answer.
So George Carlin pointed out that the bad guys, you know, the rich people, they don't have to have a meeting to coordinate because they all know what's good for rich guys.
So they just all do what's good for them.
And that's good for the other rich guys.
I think this is one of those cases that you don't have to tell the on-air host what they can and cannot say.
They know what they can and cannot say.
So it looks like an invisible crime.
It's not really a crime, but an invisible bad behavior.
All right.
I hate to bring it up, but do any of you know what the Republican health care plan is?
Anybody?
What do you think is the quote, Republican health care plan?
And can you take the Republicans seriously if they don't have one?
You know, every now and then, some Democrat will be debating me on whether Trump's a good idea or a bad idea.
And when they get to healthcare, I just go, I'm out.
Nope.
As far as I know, Republicans are doing basically nothing on healthcare.
And it's one of our biggest problems.
If you argue that healthcare is a big component of the debt, which it probably is, then it's extra bad, right?
So here I had to ask Grok, because I didn't even know what Republicans were sort of pushing.
Here are some of the things that Grok says Republicans are pushing.
Block grants to states for Medicaid.
Okay.
How is that a plan?
That's not a plan.
That's just giving them money to do the thing they're already doing.
That's not a plan.
That's nothing.
Well, are you supposed to save money by doing that?
What exactly would be even the point?
Obviously, you want to fund healthcare, but is that the good way to do it?
What's the argument?
I don't even get that.
Then Republicans like health savings accounts, where you could put money in your own account and it would grow.
And someday, if you had a problem, you could use it.
I don't really think that's an answer.
That doesn't look like a real answer.
It might be an answer on top of a health care plan, but it's not a healthcare plan.
Tort reform, where it would be harder to sue your doctor.
You know, I would listen to the argument on that.
I can imagine that tort reform is necessary, but is that your health care plan?
Tort reform?
How about price transparency at hospitals?
So Republicans want more price transparency.
Haven't we wanted that for 25 years and nothing happens?
Presumably because eventually it reaches somebody who makes money by not telling you the prices of things.
And they have some political connection, so they just stop it.
So it looks to me like the Republicans have a grab bag of things that are sort of in that domain, but nothing like a plan.
Do you know why Republicans don't have a health care plan?
Do you know the reason?
I know the reason.
None of you know the reason.
It's the same reason the Democrats don't have a workable health care plan.
Does that help?
So the Democrats have a plan, which is just spend unlimited money on it and you'd be fine.
That's not really a plan.
So why is it that neither the left nor the right can even come up with a plan?
Something you would call a plan.
Like they might call it a plan, but would you call it a plan if the plan is just, oh, allocate more money, you'll be fine.
It's not really a plan, not much of a plan.
The answer is this: nobody knows how to do it.
If somebody on the left or somebody on the right had an idea and they could explain it and it made sense and it could save money, well, then we might have something to talk about, right?
Nobody has an idea.
Do you know the only way out of this is if Elon Musk makes a robot hospital, nothing else is going to work.
Let me say it again.
The one and only way to get a healthcare plan, as far as I can tell, if you've got a better idea, let me know.
Would be Elon Musk literally building a robot hospital to test it.
And then maybe later there would be robot, you know, urgent carers and robot general practitioners and stuff like that.
But there doesn't seem to be a path where human beings are providing health care and everybody can afford it.
The everybody could afford it part could be solved by the robots.
The access, even if you're in a remote place, can be solved by robots.
Your robot can show up in the middle of the night.
Do you know how many times I've had a medical problem on a weekend?
Good luck.
You have to go to the emergency room.
But wouldn't it be better if your Tesla self-driving doctor pulled up to your house at any time of day because they don't have to sleep.
And if you needed a specialty piece of equipment, then the robot would already be on the line and say, we're going to need an echocardiogram.
Here's the address.
And then suddenly another Tesla pulls up and the only thing it's doing is delivering that piece of equipment that will be used then and then return to the big bucket in the sky.
So unless you're thinking of healthcare so radically that you're completely just redoing it and ripping it out, the way Elon approaches something, by the way, have you heard Elon Musk talk about the biggest problem that engineers make?
Boy, does this apply in this case.
He says the biggest problem the engineers make on any domain is that they try to optimize something that shouldn't have existed.
Now, healthcare should exist, but should we be optimizing human healthcare in hospitals?
You have to ask that question.
Is that the thing we should be optimizing?
Well, a little bit, because they exist and you don't want them to fall apart and stuff.
But shouldn't we be looking at something that's completely different, built from the bottom up?
There's only one person I know in the United States who could pull that off, and he's kind of busy at the moment.
And I don't even know if it'd be profitable.
So I don't, you know, you need it to be profitable.
But I would say that here's what we need: we need some way to at least tell a story that we can move from what we have to something like an AI-driven, robot-driven.
Somebody will come to your house.
You'll always be one call away from some advanced intelligence that knows what you need.
So it seems to me that without that level of deep, deep re-engineering, we don't have a chance.
We don't have a chance.
At the very least, I would love to hear what, let's say, Mark Cuban, Elon Musk, I'll throw in Bill Gates.
I know what you think about that.
Why are not our smartest people already telling us how to do this?
Is it because they can't figure it out either?
It might be.
It might be they can't figure it out either.
But I would love to see the most aggressive.
And by the way, all this can be tested small.
So you don't have to turn the entire United States into a different system and hope you got lucky.
You could say, all right, we're going to test this in this one county.
It's not even that populated.
And we'll do a bunch of things, but in another county, maybe we'll try a few other things.
And then in a year, we'll look at it.
I would be happy, er, if somebody said, we don't have any way to reduce the cost today.
So we're just going to fund it.
But in five years, you're definitely going to have an AI doctor, or some people will, not everybody.
And then you draw your budget such that it goes down because you're getting rid of the people.
Getting rid of the people is not the goal.
But you're reducing costs over time by bringing the AI in.
So I also wonder what percentage of all our healthcare costs are administrative and bullshit and government regulations and paperwork.
If it turns out that that's like 40% of the cost, and it might be, right?
If you had to guess how much of the healthcare costs is the paperwork and bullshit, would you say 40%?
You know, without knowing too much about the industry, which I don't, it seems like everything's at least that much.
So could you cut that in half?
Probably, if you just had a smarter way to administer it.
All right, moving on.
You know, Michael Wolf, he's the slash author.
He's the one who is the advisor slash friend of Epstein.
It turns out that we know now he tried to blackmail Trump.
He tried to talk Epstein into blackmailing Trump.
Now, if I said to you, I'd like to engineer for you the worst reputation you could ever have.
And I'd say, well, if you're going to make it the worst reputation anybody had, you're going to have to throw in some underage stuff.
You know what I mean?
And sure enough, he was hanging out with the underage stuff guy.
So that's not good for your look.
And then it turns out he may have been one of the people teaching Epstein how to be a blackmailer.
There's no evidence that he taught him how to be a blackmailer, but there is some documentation that they're looking at Trump.
And I guess Wolf said in a text message or an email to Epstein, quote, I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you, either on air or in Scrum afterwards.
This is 2015, so 2015.
And then Wolf said to Epstein, I think you should let him hang himself.
Quote, if he says he hasn't been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency.
In other words, he could keep Trump's secret and act like he had not been on the house or not been on the plane.
But he had the option of blackmailing him.
Might want to keep that option open, according to Wolf.
And also he goes, listen to directly says, he says, if he says he hasn't been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency.
You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you.
I can't even believe people talk like this.
Can you?
This is the way people talk.
Oh my God.
Or if it really looks like he could win the presidency, you could save him and generating a debt.
Oh my God.
Pure blackmail.
How would you like to be the person so dark that you're the one who taught Epstein how to blackmail better?
Does it get worse than that?
But I was laughing at the fact that the New York Post referred to Michael Wolfe as discredited.
He's a discredited author.
And I was thinking what they refer to me as.
So I'm a no, I'm not discredited.
I'm what do they call me?
Remind me what they call me.
I'm not discredited.
I'm just something disgusting.
Anyway, once people like me and him get canceled, we get a new name.
All right.
So good luck with that.
Oh, they also call him Trump Obsess.
So he's discredited and Trump obsessed.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department is suing disgraced.
Thank you.
Yes, they call me Disgraced instead of discredited.
I like disgrace.
So the Justice Department is going to sue to block California from their new intention of redistricting.
And it makes me wonder: should we just change our system for everything?
And instead of just doing it and waiting for the lawsuit, just make the lawsuit part of the process.
Because if we sue everybody about everything, which is our current situation, you might as well just build that into the process.
That, you know, first you pass the law, but then it just goes automatically to some political entity.
That's my idea for the day.
John Fetterman had some kind of cardiac incident.
It doesn't seem doesn't seem too serious, but it did cause him to black out and fall in his face.
And got some minor injuries.
I guess he's staying in the hospital to be evaluated.
And it makes me wonder: so John Fetterman was in the news already.
Like in a big way, he was in the news.
And then this happens, which obviously he did not plan, which puts him in the news again.
Does it feel like he's not an NPC?
Does it feel like he's a player?
Because why is he in the news so much?
By coincidence, he's in the news so much.
I don't know.
I think the simulation has plans for him.
That's what it looks like.
All right, I'm going to take a challenge.
Challenge is this.
I'm going to read a headline from the Hungarian Conservative.
And I want you to see if this shocks you.
So how shocked are you?
Zelensky's inner circle rocked by massive corruption scandal.
How many of you are shocked, shocked, that Ukraine is being accused of a massive corruption scandal?
What are the odds of that, I ask you, the most corrupt place on earth?
What are the odds of that?
Anyway, so there's allegations of as much as $100 million got siphoned off by his cronies.
One specific one in particular, there's some businessman named Timur Meindich.
And I guess he's being accused of being part of whatever this allegedly is.
California is, let's see, do you get sued for issuing all those illegal commercial driver's license?
Yeah, I think the Trump administration is going after them for that.
Oh, so the Trump administration will withhold up to $160 million in federal funds unless California revokes, quote, every illegally issued commercial driver's license, of which there are quite a few.
Do you think that Gavin is going to do that or is he going to give up the $160 million in federal funding?
Well, I think it'll go to court.
What do you think?
It should just go to court immediately, automatically.
It's going to end up there.
Well, I saw in the news today on Reclaim the Net, Cindy Herper's writing, that Israel has a bill that they're considering now that would allow the Israeli government to shut down foreign media outlets.
So it passed the first reading, which means it has some potential of becoming law, but it's not there yet.
And what do you think of that?
And when I saw that, I thought, well, isn't that the same as the United States?
Doesn't the United States block foreign news platforms?
Without looking it up, here's your challenge.
Without looking it up, tell me in the comments, do you believe that the United States already had this either law or right or something, that we were already banning foreign platforms?
I thought we were.
Because when was the last time you saw Russia today, RT?
They used to be everywhere and then they disappeared.
Right.
And I think there might be a few other examples.
So I asked Grok to look into it.
And it turns out that we do not have that law.
What we have is something better.
We have massive censorship.
So if you're RT and you're trying to get some traffic and some income on YouTube, good luck.
You're going to be treated like that guy, Scott Adams.
Have you heard of him?
No, I'm just joking.
Yeah.
So if you want to be alarmed, what is more alarming than the fact that we don't need that law because we already banned people just with our normal censorship tools?
And banning a Russian entity, especially really easy.
Real easy.
I don't even know if this is another one of those George Carlin situations.
Did somebody need to actually contact YouTube and say, hey, God, there's something happening right outside my house.
I don't know what, but it's big.
Yeah, they didn't have to coordinate.
They all just knew what to do.
So before you mock Israel for their censorship, we're not so different.
Here's another story.
The Federalists, M.T. Kittle is writing about this.
That the same Department of Justice partisans, as they're called, partisans, that drove the Arctic Frost investigation.
Let's see, what is this story?
You know what?
I'm going to tell you the story I was going to tell you instead of what the story is.
Is it my imagination, or has all the stories about Eric Frost and the Russia collusion and all the bad behavior in the old Obama, have they now become just noise?
Like if this story had broken when it was fresh, it would be the biggest story.
But because time has gone by and now we've been confused by all these similar sounding stories, like if I hear one more story that Jack Smith did something that we think might have been sketchy, how am I even going to sort that in my head with all the other stories about Jack Smith allegedly did something sketchy?
I can't keep them straight.
So I'm completely lost.
And I don't know if any of this is intentional.
I mean, certainly not by the people reporting it.
But there's something about time plus complexity that just hides any bad behavior.
And I think we've reached it.
Because I don't think there's going to be any justice for any of these older acts.
But it's hard to get people all worked up about them because we don't really follow it.
Meaning that even if you read the story, you end up thinking, is that the one I read last week?
Well, let me ask you, I'll ask you this way.
How many of you have recently read a story?
It might have been in just the news or it could have been something else.
And you thought to yourself, is that a new story?
Or is that reiterating an old story?
Or is it an old story that they added a new email to?
Did the new email change what we knew about the old story?
Or did it just bolster it?
The whole idea that we can figure out what these bad actors may or may not have done, I think it's gone.
I think the complexity and time have just sort of erased the crimes in a practical sense, meaning that they'll never be held accountable.
So I didn't know that was a thing, but it looks like it's a thing.
Speaking of stories that you don't know if they're new or old, apparently Nevada is going to be reopening the case of what they call the fake electors.
So Ella Lee is writing for the Hill.
Now, I want you to see some of the language that she used in the story.
So you remember the 2024 election, I'm sure you remember.
And you remember that there was an effort to get alternative electors.
Now, why did she call them fake electors when they were very publicly alternative electors?
Meaning that if something went one direction, they would be activated, but if it went another direction, they wouldn't.
What makes them fake?
Isn't fake kind of subjective?
Because it certainly seems to me that there was some possibility that they would cast the real vote.
How about they also say talking about people who, quote, falsely claimed that Trump won the 2020 presidential election?
How does she know, or anybody know, that it was falsely?
What process was used to determine that Trump didn't win?
I don't know.
There's any way to know.
The whole reason that we're talking about getting rid of election machines, the whole reason we're talking about same-day voting, the whole reason we're talking about user ID for voting, the only reason that those are conversations is that reasonable people know that we can't be entirely sure who won the election.
So how do you get off saying falsely claimed?
You could say not supported.
You could say unproven.
You could say baseless, if that were true, but you really can't say falsely claimed.
That's an overclaim, right?
How would you know?
You would know.
I don't know that it was fake, but I also don't know that it wasn't.
I wouldn't know.
So this feels like one of those evergreen stories that, but I guess they were fighting over some process thing.
So it got delayed.
Otherwise, it would have already been resolved.
But anyway.
Elon Musk is dunking on the head of the EU, somebody whose name is von der Leyen.
Ursula von der Leyen.
Apparently Ursula said, she was talking about building the European Democracy Shield.
And she said that if democracy is the foundation of freedom, oh, I'm sorry.
No, that's what Elon said.
So she was talking about Europe's democracy shield.
And Elon dunked on her on X by saying, if democracy is the foundation of freedom, shouldn't your position be elected by the people?
She's not elected.
She has an unelected position.
All right.
What else we got going on here?
According to Axios, some lawmakers were concerned that they weren't getting enough briefings about the narco boats being blown up.
So you know what Trump did about that?
He said, give them more briefings.
The reason I wrote this down as a story is that how often do you hear that?
Hey, we've got a problem.
There's not enough of X. All right, we're going to do more X. Anything else?
You just don't see somebody complain and then somebody said, fixed, done.
But what it made me wonder is how many boats there are.
If you were to count up all the boats that could be used in this way, there can't be that many narco boats, right?
How many are there?
So now we've blown up, what, 20 of them?
Given that you could put a bazillion dollars worth of drugs on one narco boat, how many were there in the first place?
Like, if you wanted to make sure that one of your narco boats got through, how many do you need to have?
Five?
And then, you know, multiple cartels, so each of them maybe have five.
But what it made me wonder is how the narco boat salespeople sell their boats now.
Because somebody still has to go to the narco boat sales place to buy a new narco boat, right?
Because they're running out of boats.
So what does the salesperson say in those situations?
Ah, we make the finest narco boats.
We promise, and this is our commitment to you, if you buy our narco boats with our extra fast motors and our good navigation, if you buy our narco boats, we can guarantee that you will reach your destination unexploded up to 5% of the time.
But what is happening to the other 95%?
And why do I have a bad Mexican accent?
And then the salesperson would say, oh, but you have to compare us to the competition.
The competition loses, I don't know, 98% of the boats.
We can get you there 5% of the time, and that's better than you can get from the cartels.
Well, maybe I'll go back to the cartels and tell them that there's no practical way for me to get this job done.
Well, you could, you could.
You could definitely play it that way.
You could go back to your cartel boss, and in about a minute and a half, they would tie you to a chair and torture you, but you could do that.
Or you could overpay for this boat and have a 5% chance of surviving.
Take your pick.
Well, I'm just saying it would be hard to be a buyer of narco boats.
Chinese astronauts are returning to Earth in a different ship because the one they were in got cracks in it from some debris in space.
Can you imagine being in space and looking at your windshield and seeing it cracked?
What would be scarier than being in a rocket ship and looking over and seeing that your window is cracked and that it might keep cracking?
That would be pretty scary.
But the Chinese astronauts are made of tougher stuff than I am.
And they just waited for a new ship, jumped on it.
It looks like they'll be fine.
Meanwhile, German police have been looking to solve the mystery of who blew up their pipeline, then Nordstream 2.
Now, I don't think it's a mystery who blew it up so much as it is finding the specific people and punishing them.
But here are some numbers you might not have known.
So how much money has Germany donated to the Ukrainian defense?
The answer is 37 billion Euros.
They are the number two biggest funder of Ukrainians' military defense after the United States.
So isn't that great that they're so friendly with Ukraine and they get along so well that Germany will put 37 billion euros in it.
Oh, but wait, they actually spent a lot more than that because once the war started and the pipeline blew up, I guess the cost of energy in Germany went through the roof.
So Germany ended up spending maybe 100 billion extra euros that they wouldn't have had to spend except for the Ukraine war and maybe something with the blown-up pipeline.
So how do you get a situation in which Germany is funding Ukraine's defense while Ukraine is blowing up valuable German assets and acting like they didn't do it?
That is a complicated part of the world, isn't it?
I don't know how the Germans put up with that, but I don't know how they put up with anything.
I do not understand Germany.
And apparently the P. Hagseth has announced that the new operation called Southern Spear is going to squash the narco-terrorists in the Western Hemisphere.
I think we knew that was happening, but at least it has a name now.
At least it has a name.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is all I wanted to say today.
I think we've covered everything from Nord Stream 2 to Carl the Fly to, yeah, I think we covered everything.
Is there anything interesting happening today?
Not that I know of.
Well, that means it's time for breakfast, everybody.
Another shiny object?
Okay.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, thanks for joining.
I'm going to talk to the beloved local subscribers next.
That will be private.
So, the rest of you, I will be seeing you tomorrow, I hope.
