All kinds of interesting news today if my technology obeys me.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Persuasive Words, J6 Pipe Bomber Arrest, Jake Tapper, NGO Funding Corruption, Rep. Tim Burchett, Climate Change Benefits, democrat Double-Tap Hoax, Pete Hegseth, Minnesota Budget Deficit, Spy Manipulatable Governor Hochul, Tim Walz, Name-Calling Violence, Steve Hilton, CA Fraud Tip Line, Choline Brain Importance, Chuck Schumer's Hoax Smile, Food Price-Quality Improvements, Dome-Based Farming, Hawaii Sues TikTok, Tina Peters Injustice, Governor Jared Polis, USIP Name Change, Derek Chauvin's Trial Bias, Doctor's Credibility, 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.
So I don't know if you can see me or hear me on locals, but you can see me and hear me on Rumble and on YouTube and on X.
So this is the pre-show.
Normally the local subscribers are the only ones who see me before the beginning of the regular show.
But trying to work out some technical problems, which includes trying to take off my jacket.
All right, can anybody give me a sense of whether you can see me and hear me?
All right, so the Rumble studio worked to initiate the stream.
Okay.
All right.
I don't know if everything is working, but I've got a few things working.
All right, like I said, this is the pre-show.
So there's no show yet.
This is generally just for the locals people to chat with each other and share some memes.
I'm only seeing locals, though.
Okay, it looks like, yeah, we got locals, we got YouTube.
Rumble's working now.
I think X is working.
All right.
This is the point where if you were watching the pre-show, you would see me disappear because I have to go over to my printer.
Hey, where you are.
I'll be back.
I got my notes.
Hmm.
What time is it?
I will begin the regular show at the top of the hour.
So what you're seeing, if you're just coming in, is normally I do a pre-show just for the local subscribers, but the local Zap had a hiccup this morning.
So I'm coming to you also on locals, but via the Rumble studio, which appears to be working just fine.
So this portion of the show is not real.
This one is just so you can chat with each other or ask me questions or hang out a little bit because I'm still in setup mode.
all right we'll set up the height all right Lighting looks good.
We've got notes.
Well, I feel like I shouldn't start early because the people who...
The people who have been trained to come at this top of the hour are going to be, Hey!
you didn't tell me you were going to start early.
I'm going to Timpool it all over the place here.
I'm Tim Pool.
And no, I'm not Timpool.
Nobody's Timpool but Tim Pool.
Yep, 0700.
I'll start.
I'll get serious.
Watch me go from not serious to serious in seven minutes.
All right, we got seven minutes just hanging out.
If you have any questions, this would be a good time to do it.
By the way, I'm so proud of myself.
Oh, no.
Oh, no, no, no.
Damn it.
My printer.
My printer is fucking up again.
I was going to brag because I thought I fixed it and cleaned the drum and followed all the AI instructions.
But it looks like a number of my topics I'm going to have to skip because they didn't print.
Good Lord.
What a day, what a day.
All right, I can work through this, though.
I'll make it work.
All right, while we're waiting, I'm going to check my oxygen levels, which sometimes are a problem, but they've been good lately.
New drum is only, yeah.
Boom.
97%.
That's actually higher than my baseline.
My baseline is 95 because I have asthma.
I've never, I'll bet you that's the highest I've ever gotten without any artificial means.
So that's good news.
The power of positives thinking.
Get a laser printer.
It is a laser printer, believe it or not.
It is a laser printer, but it's black and white.
So I get a lot of angry questions about Candace Owens.
Apparently, many of you believe that I should have a strong opinion about Candace Owens.
Do I need to?
Why can't she just do her top-rated podcast and you can decide if you like it or you don't like it?
What would my involvement be worth?
You know, I don't know if the things she says are we'll check out.
How would I know?
I know that she is very entertaining and very talented.
And I like her personally.
The rest, it's just up to you.
Yeah.
But I just don't think that my opinion on the topic makes any difference.
Well, while we have a minute here, would you like to hear a reframe from my book, Reframe Your Brain, which is one of the best things you could ever buy for a Christmas gift?
This assumes you've already purchased the Dilburgh calendar.
Look, it's a commercial.
The Dilburgh calendar this year and last year had comics on the front and the back.
And on the back were the new spicy ones.
But I had a reframe all picked out here.
We'll start the regular show at the top of the hour.
This is the pre-show.
All right, here's one of my favorite and most powerful reframes.
So the usual frame, the way people normally think, is that overeating, if you do overeat, it's a willpower problem.
If you had more willpower, you could avoid eating that cookie.
Here's a reframe that's better.
Overeating is a knowledge problem.
It's a knowledge problem.
You know how many of you already know that the reframe, alcohol is poison, was enough to make a whole bunch of people stop drinking.
So the way you think about things will influence what you do.
And I find that if I think about food as a knowledge problem, and I know which things are good for me and which are not, I just automatically eat better.
So as long as you think about it as a knowledge problem, you'll just automatically gravitate to better food with no real effort.
For example, if you didn't know that sugar doughnuts are a little bit bad for you, you know, too much sugar, et cetera.
If you didn't know that, wouldn't you eat them?
Of course you would.
But if I told you a sugar donut would, you know, give you a 50% chance of getting diabetes, which is not true, but just work with me here, would it be hard to avoid it?
It would not.
It would not.
So just knowing more about which foods are going to be good for you and which are bad really just replaces willpower because you don't really want to do things that are bad for you.
It just comes naturally.
That's why alcohol is poison is such a strong reframe.
If you're just joining, the reason I started early today is that the locals app was having a hiccup.
So normally I do a pre-show before the regular show just for the subscribers.
But the pre-show wasn't working.
So I told them to skedaddle over here.
And now they're all joining you, those of you who are joining early.
So this will be interesting.
I want to see what happens at the top of the hour.
Here we go.
Top of the hour.
You ready?
Bum, Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
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 mug or a glass, a tiger Chaldestein, a canteen sugar flask, a vessel of any kind.
Does it sound to you like there's a giant garbage truck parked right outside my door?
I don't know what that is, but it's very loud.
I hope the microphone is not picking that up.
Anyway, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
go oh so good So good.
Well, let's check the technology news, the science news, and find out what science is teaching us.
Well, according to the MIT Technology Review, Michelle Kim is writing that AI chatbots can sway voters better than political advertisements.
That's right.
If you let somebody interact with a chatbot, the chatbot will be more persuasive than a commercial.
Does that surprise you?
It should not.
Because you're probably thinking to yourself, wait, Scott, have you not taught us that the documentary effect is very persuasive, even if it shouldn't be?
Yeah.
The influence from having one point of view reinforced with either watching a documentary for an hour with no counterpoint would be very similar, I would think, to having a chatbot that also had only one point of view that it considered valid.
So, yes, a chatbot should be more persuasive.
And I think we're also, as humans, we're also sort of built to assume that humans might lie to us because they have personal interests.
Where if you knew you were talking to an AI, you wouldn't necessarily feel that it's so obvious that the AI had a personal interest.
Because it wouldn't have a personal interest, but it would certainly be presented by someone who did.
So in theory, we should be just as suspicious of the AI as we would be of the person who built the AI.
But I don't think we would.
I think it would be more persuasive, just as the study shows, I think you would be more persuaded by the AI because you would think, well, the AI isn't going to lie to me, is it?
Well, it might, or it might hallucinate.
In other news, this is technology news, according to the conversation, people who talk with their hands seem more clear and persuasive.
How many of you already knew that?
That if people talk with their hands, they can be way more persuasive than if they don't.
But the key is you can't randomly use your hands.
So it's bad to be Governor Newsom and do jazz hands because we always mock him because it looks like he's lying.
And it looks like his hands are like not even connected to his brain.
I don't even know why my hands are doing this, really.
I'm Governor Newsom and I can't stop my hands.
Right, right, So that would be an example of not persuasive.
But if you were saying that something is huge and you use your hands, the hand would be compatible with the message.
Huge.
Something's going up.
Something's taller than this.
That tends to be very persuasive.
So do more of that and less of this.
Don't do that.
All right.
I know what I just did to myself there.
That will get clipped.
Remind me never to do that again.
You have my permission to drive to my house and slap me if I ever do that again.
Not really.
Don't slap me.
Let's see what else.
Oh, here's a good one.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting, according to Daniel Ax, that the more oxytocin you have, the faster you'll heal.
So apparently, they've done tests where you can heal your wounds faster.
Oh my God, there's just like a gigantic mechanical noise right outside my door.
What the heck is that?
I'm glad it doesn't show up in the microphone.
Okay, now it's gone.
But Wall Street Journal reporting that if you have oxytocin, that would be the intimacy chemical.
If you're intimate with somebody you love, you get more oxytocin.
Well, apparently, that's good for your healing.
Now, I like to put a couple of things together here.
So, if you wanted to be more persuasive, you would talk with your hands and you would use that to persuade somebody to be intimate with you.
Hey, wouldn't you like to with me?
See how persuasive that was?
If I had done that without my hands, would you even be tempted to have sex with me?
No, not even a little bit.
Watch.
This will be without the hands.
Hey, how would you like to have sex with me?
Absolutely nothing.
Would you agree?
That was not persuasive.
Not one of you said, oh, that's a pretty good offer.
I think I'd like to have sex with him right now, despite his weird-looking hat.
But watch.
Now, I'm going to say the same thing again, but with hand motions.
Hey, why don't you have sex with me?
Do you see how persuasive that was?
I know, no, stop.
This was just a demonstration.
I know some of you are putting on your jacket and looking up my address and ready to drive over here, but that was only a demonstration.
Calm down.
Calm down.
It may have elevated your oxytocin now for a moment.
So if you see any wounds, they're instantly healing.
That's for me.
You're welcome.
Did you know that according to the University of Vienna, the pleasant-sounding words are easier to remember?
So they actually did a test where they gave people pleasant sounding words versus ugly words.
You want to hear some ugly words?
Moist.
Moist is on the on the list of moist.
So given that pleasant sounding words are easier to remember, that means they're more persuasive because whatever tickles your memory the best tends to be also the most persuasive.
So when I'm writing, let's say professionally, if I'm writing a book, for example, the last step in my writing is I may go through and substitute more pleasant sounding words for words that are just a little ugly.
I used to do public speaking a lot.
One of the things I would do during my public speaking is I would ask the assembled crowd which of these words is funnier.
So I'd give them two words that mean about the same thing.
I'd say, which one is funnier?
Pull, as in you're pulling something, or yank, which is almost the same thing, not exactly.
And the entire crowd would say, as one, yank.
There's something universal about words that sound right.
In general, if you want to do humor, it's good to have words that have some hard sounds to them.
Yank, because you get the K, but you also get the Y.
So if you're doing humor, words that are not as often used, or they use letters that are not as often used, Q's and Z's and Y's, that's usually funnier.
So the last level of my writing is I'll change the words to funny words if it's supposed to be a joke, or I'll change it to pleasant sounding words.
I'll get rid of words like moist.
Now, I did write a whole book where I talked about moist robots.
That did not catch on.
It probably wasn't my best choice.
All right.
You may have heard that the pipe bomber from January 6th, at least we think he's been arrested.
We're pretty sure we've got the right guy, I think.
As Jake Tapper described him, that white guy.
So he says we found a white male who is the pipe bomber.
The only problem was he's not white at all.
He apparently is a black man with a weird mustache.
And I know, of course, obviously, why Jake Tapper assumed it was a white man.
If I told you that somebody planted a bomb in the United States, would you think it was a black guy?
You wouldn't, would you?
Because I can't think of a single example of a black guy who planted a bomb in America.
But if you said, have any white guys planted any bombs?
I'd say, well, there's a unibomber.
And I would just sort of assume it was a white guy crime.
So Jake got a little ahead of himself there.
And then also, did you see the way he was dressed?
The pipe bomb.
God, what is that loud thing?
It's like a rocket ship outside my door.
If you saw the way he was dressed in a unfashionable hoodie with unfashionable footwear, would you have assumed that was a black American?
No, because you're racist.
You're racist.
And you would have said, hmm, I think a black American would be far better dressed than that guy.
So that's where your racism would have led you in the wrong direction.
But the fascinating part about this story, Sean Davis had a good take on it that captures a lot of what you were thinking.
So I'm just going to read what Sean Davis did on X, he of the Federalist, right?
I hope I have that right.
He said, based on the volume and type of evidence about the pipe bomber contained in this affidavit, affidavit, it is inconceivable that the FBI didn't know who the pipe bomber was back in 2021.
It looks a heck of a lot like corrupt FBI agents knew for years who the bomber was, but went out of their way to confuse the investigation so they could refuse to make a definitive identification.
And that goes a very long way toward explaining the latest anonymous FBI agent op against Dan Bongino and Kash Patel.
Bongino and Patel removed the corrupt agents, reviewed the evidence, and swiftly identified and arrested the subject once all the corrupt obstructors were out of the way.
Does that sound about what you were thinking?
It does, doesn't it?
Do you think it's a coincidence that once Bongino fired or relocated the people who were in charge of it, that all of a sudden it wasn't hard to find out who it was?
Have you been amazed that this is the one guy they can't find?
They're finding all these grandmothers from the January 6th event, but they can't find this guy, despite all of the video of him and really.
You could show one toenail of one of the January 6th people and our technology would say, oh, I know that toenail.
That toenail belongs to, and then we'd put him in jail.
That's the old way.
They did not belong in jail, but that's what would have happened.
But no, this guy was a total mystery.
So I'm going to say that I do not believe the FBI couldn't find him.
I'm going to be firmly in the camp that doesn't know for sure, right?
Don't know for sure, not 100%, but my working assumption is that the FBI was corrupt and the people that were removed from the job were more likely intentionally avoiding catching him for whatever reason, rather than incompetence or, you know, inability.
It gets even weirder because apparently he works as a bail bondsman and it's a family business.
So his father owns a bail bondsman business.
Must be doing pretty well because it looked like the house that this guy lives in is a high-end house.
And I don't believe you get a high-end house because you're just an employee of a bail bondsman, but you might have one if you live with your parents.
So I don't know for sure, but I would guess probably living at his parents' home.
Now, if you lived at your parents' home and your dad was a bail bondsman, which means he has some kind of affinity for or connection to the law enforcement world, do you think his father didn't recognize the video of his son walking around with that hoodie and those sneakers?
Do you think you wouldn't recognize your own son if you saw them wearing the clothes that they probably wear at home?
You don't think you'd recognize that?
So I have some questions for dad.
If I found out tomorrow that he didn't wear those clothes ever at home or that he knew that he would be recognized if he wore his own clothes and he had these only for the purpose of disguise, which is possible, by the way.
Well, then I would say, well, even your father wouldn't recognize you under those conditions because his face was completely concealed.
But I feel like you would recognize your own prodigy, you know, the way they walk and especially the footwear.
Let's see.
Anyway, I got the bail bondsman thing from Grok.
So if it's hallucinating, you've been warned.
All right.
Do you know Tim Burchett?
He's a Republican representative from Tennessee.
Apparently, he has asked President Trump to cut off all funding for the NGOs, the non-government organizations that have often been accused of being giant money laundering, fraudulent entities.
He says that he wants Trump to cut off all funding to the NGOs until they can figure out where all the money is actually going.
Because a lot of it is going into people's pockets.
And it appears to most of us now, thanks to the good work of Elon Musk and Doge, we finally learned that there's a gigantic mechanism for taking your tax money out of your pocket and putting it in the pocket of strangers while pretending to feed the poor.
And this is not a small operation.
We're talking billions of dollars.
You know, I've told you I've been puzzled by how we could have such a big deficit because it kind of happened fast, didn't it?
I mean, even if you allowed that the pandemic made things worse, didn't it seem like we sort of instantly got to this impossible place where we couldn't pay our debts?
And I have to admit, from the beginning, I've been thinking, is somebody just stealing it?
But it seemed like the numbers were so big that nobody could steal that much money.
I mean, you can't steal a trillion dollars a year.
And now I believe you could.
I believe you literally could steal a trillion dollars a year with this NGO mechanism because any one entity might be getting a billion here, a billion there, but there are thousands of them, just thousands of them.
Yeah, you could steal a trillion dollars if you really worked at it.
And apparently they were working pretty hard.
So I have a generally good feeling about Tim Burchett, meaning that he seems like a good patriot who wants to do the right thing.
And I don't think that he's robbing anybody.
So he wouldn't have anything necessarily that he needs to cover up.
He'd be hard to blackmail.
I doubt he's got a love child somewhere or something.
So you need somebody who can't be blackmailed, who's clearly a patriot, and has a real interest in going after something like this.
Does that include somebody like Tim?
I think yes.
I've seen enough of him that I trust him.
I mean, it's just a feeling.
Nobody can know for sure what's in somebody's soul, but he looks pretty trustworthy to me.
So I think that would be worth a shot.
Well, as Bjorn Lomborg often says, if you don't know who he is, you should.
He's a, some call him an economist, but I don't know if he would call himself that.
But he's taught us to look at both the costs and the benefits of climate change.
He does other things as well, but he's well known for that.
Meaning that climate change might in fact make some things worse.
But we always ignore how much better it makes things.
And he gives us his latest example.
I think he's got an article in the Wall Street Journal that the hurricane season, which apparently is over, had no hurricanes hit landfall in the United States.
And probably climate change has something to do with that.
So if you were to actually be honest about your climate change analysis, which is what Bjorn Lomberg is teaching us to do, you would say, well, I mean, you have to include, even if you imagine climate ruin some parts of the world eventually, you'd have to add in, but it did save us a hurricane or two.
If in fact that becomes a, let's say that becomes a pattern.
It's not yet a pattern, but if it becomes one, we should say, hey, maybe this climate change has as much good as bad.
That would be the proper way to approach the analysis, no matter which way it ended up.
would be the way to go uh scott blame it on okay I don't know what that means.
I'm looking at your comments.
So we're still talking about the allegation that Pete Hegseth ordered a double tap attack on the Narco boat, meaning that there were a few survivors from the first missile, but a second missile was dispatched to take care of the survivors and get rid of the weapon of mass destruction.
That would be the drugs that were on the boat.
But so the Wall Street Journal had one version of events, but it's been debunked by ABC News, the New York Times.
So the Wall Street, I'm sorry, the Washington Post.
I think I said that wrong.
Scratch that.
The Washington Post had the story that appears to be bullshit, that Hagseth somehow was watching the attack and ordered the second missile.
And then they're acting like that would have been a war crime.
Well, let's ask somebody who actually knows what they're talking about.
So apparently an individual named David Shedd, who is a former deputy director and acting director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in the Obama administration.
So this is important.
He's an Obama guy who says, quote, we use double taps all the time.
He said you would get the initial signature sign-off of a target that's been hit.
He said in a podcast recently, and if you saw that they squirted, I guess that must be some military term, and were injured, you hit them again.
In fact, he said there was often a second predator, that would be a missile, ready to go.
Wait, is the predator a drone or a missile?
For our purposes, it doesn't matter.
In fact, he said there's often a second predator ready to go that was fully expected to be used if he didn't have 100% coming out of the first hit and maybe a third hit, adding that it was done routinely and there was bipartisan support on the hill for doing it.
Isn't that enough?
It's a drone, people are saying, so the predator is a drone.
But isn't it enough that somebody who would be in that position who knows exactly what is real and what isn't, who's actually been in the field, who's actually ordered attacks.
If that person says it was routine, is there anything else to talk about?
The people who are acting like it's a war crime are just idiot Democrats who sit behind desks.
I don't know that there's any military people who think it's a war crime.
Anyway, apparently Secretary Hankseth has asked the Navy admiral who was overseeing those operations in the Caribbean to step down because that officer had voiced concerns about what he called the murky legality of the attacks.
Do you think that if there had been some other president, do you think that this admiral would have had that problem?
Given that we do know with high certainty that it was routine to have a double tap and even a triple tap if he needed it.
Do you think that this Navy admiral didn't know that?
And do you think that if Obama had been president, or if nobody had even brought this up as a potential issue, if nobody had ever brought it up, would he be worried about its murky legality?
I don't think so.
So was this a good firing?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I think that was a good firing.
All right.
So, well, he's not really fired, fired.
He's just going to retire a couple of years early, which is fair.
I mean, it's not like he committed a crime or something.
So a little bit of early retirement seems about, that seems appropriate.
I wouldn't take anything away from him.
Let's see.
Let's look at Minnesota for a moment.
So I guess the speaker of whatever their political situation is, DeMuth, Speaker DeMuth, talked about the budget forecast and that they're going to be short $3 billion.
So there's going to have a $3 billion deficit in Minnesota.
And Speaker DeMuth said, quote, last year, Governor Walsh blamed increases in social services spending as the main driver of the deficit that was created.
But we now know that much of the increase was the result of fraud.
Yep.
As I've been saying, in 100% of situations where there's a lot of money involved and people are not watching it carefully, as in having a robust auditing situation, which is most of the government stuff does not have a robust auditing situation, that the inevitable outcome, inevitable.
You couldn't stop it if you wanted to.
If you have lots of money involved and nobody's watching it in the sense of an audit, of course it's going to be stolen.
Of course it is.
It's not ever going to go a different direction.
There's one way that goes.
Somebody steals it.
And that's probably what's happening.
But at least New York State doesn't have any problems.
Oh, wait.
Apparently, Governor Hokul, when she was, what was she?
When she was lieutenant governor, had an aide or an assistant who worked in as a, no, actually, it was a Chinese spy who was working as the deputy chief diversity officer.
Now, that's a bad combination.
Here are two things you never want.
Number one, you don't want anybody on your staff who later turns out to be a Chinese spy.
That by itself would be bad enough.
The second thing you don't want is a chief diversity officer.
And God knows you don't want a deputy chief diversity officer because that's two more than you really needed.
So this Chinese spy was a worst possible combination.
Chinese spy and diversity officer.
And she held that role since 2018, I guess, to 2020.
And she said in some kind of document that was recovered that Hokul was sort of easy to manipulate.
But it looked like the only thing that Hokul did that was sketchy was do some pro-China video that she was asked to do for the 2021 Lunar New Year.
So Elise Stefanik, who's running for governor, I guess, pointed out, yeah, that Governor Hokul got co-opted by a Chinese spy to do a pro-Chinese video.
That's not the most damaging thing that could have happened.
I think Hokul just thought she was servicing the, you know, the Chinese American part of her constituents, which wouldn't be a crime.
So none of it looks like a crime per se, but it doesn't look good.
Doesn't look good.
It makes you wonder how many Chinese spies have we not caught?
You ever wonder about that?
You know, I have this theory that most shoe salesmen, if they're selling women's shoes, that they have foot fetishes.
And the reason is that someone with a foot fetish would be willing to work extra hard for less money because they're getting that secondary benefit from being a shoe salesman, if you know what I mean.
You know what I mean?
So that over time, the people who are willing to sell shoes, women's shoes, but also really, really enjoy it more than you hope that they would, that they would be mostly the shoe sales people.
Because if you were competing against somebody who loved it, it would be hard to compete if you were just doing it because it was a job.
So that over time, the people who would do it just because it's a job would find other jobs and they would move through that to other things.
But if you really, really liked selling the shoes, like really, really liked it, and you got that job, would you ever leave?
You wouldn't.
You'd be there for the rest of your life.
It's like, I got the best job ever.
So the theory is that if there's a type of job where one type of person would like to be there forever for whatever reason, that eventually the job will be mostly those people.
So now suppose that you're tasked by your spy masters in China to get high-level jobs in the government.
Would you ever leave?
No, you wouldn't even look for another job because your whatever level it is, job within the government, would be exactly what your spy master required of you.
So you'd be killing it career-wise.
So, in theory, if you wait long enough, the entire government should be full of spies because they're the ones who don't go looking for better jobs ever.
Right?
Am I wrong?
You tell me.
Isn't the normal arc that the government should be full of spies?
If not today, then guaranteed fairly soon, you know, within say 10 or 15 years.
And we've certainly had a government for more than 15 years.
So, anyway, in funny news, the post-millennials reporting that Tim Walsh is upset because the president called him the R-word, retarded.
And he says, I've never seen this before.
People are driving by my house and using the R-word in front of people.
He said, This is shameful.
I've yet to see elected officials, a Republican elected official, say, You're right.
That's shameful.
You shouldn't say it.
So, look, Walt says, I'm worried.
We know how these things go.
Now, wait for this.
You thought that Tim Walsh was dumb?
Wait for this next sentence.
You ready for this?
He goes, I'm worried we know how these things go.
They start with taunts, they turn to violence.
So deeply concerned, Walsh added.
Okay, let me pull it all together.
So, Tim Walsh believes it's entirely appropriate to call Republicans and Trump fascists and sort of Nazi-like.
And he's not worried that that would turn into violence.
Calling somebody literally, not joking, but literally a fascist and a Nazi, or words to that effect.
But while that's not dangerous, according to Wals, it would be dangerous that people jokingly drive by his house and use the R word, which they only do because it's funny.
It's funny in the sense that it bothers the people they want to bother.
You know, not because it's true, true, but because it's funny.
And Trump said it and he got away with it, so it sort of opened the floodgate.
But do you believe that Tim Walsh really believes what he said?
Does he really believe that the R word, as he says, is the dangerous one that could lead the slippery slope to somebody getting stabbed?
It's like, well, it started with the R word, and the next thing you know, stabbing.
Whereas calling somebody a fascist and not saying you're kidding, and everybody knows you're not joking, that you're actually mean this, you don't think that would lead to a little violence?
Really?
Really?
Is that your actual opinion?
I don't know.
In order to have an opinion like that, you'd have to be some kind of a you'd have to be some kind of a well, you'd have to be some kind of a fascist.
You thought I was going to say retard, didn't you?
No, I wouldn't use that word.
Meanwhile, Steve Hilton, you probably know him from his work on Fox News.
I don't know if he still has his show or if he's moved on to running for California governor.
Well, he has launched a tip line to expose fraud in California.
He believes that as bad as the fraud was in is in Minnesota, billions and billions of dollars of fraud, that California is probably worse because it's a bigger state and it's been a blue state for longer.
And those are good reasons.
More money, more Democrats, probably more crime, I'm saying.
So he said, this is based on my very strongly held assumption that whatever we're seeing in Minnesota is a thousand times worse than California because many more years of one-party rule by the Democrats.
Steve Hilton, you just got my vote.
You just won my vote.
You know, I don't usually pay too much attention to state politics.
But yeah, that's all I want to hear.
I want to hear that you've done something that's real because you think it's important to try to stop all the fraud.
I think California's biggest problem is fraud because everything that happens here looks a little suspicious.
You know, it doesn't matter what you're looking at.
How about that bullet train?
Where'd all that money go?
How about rebuilding after the fire?
Nothing's been rebuilt.
I mean, one house, maybe?
What's going on?
Is there some criminal thing that's stopping it?
It couldn't just be incompetence, could it?
I don't know.
So yes, I believe that rooting out the fraud is essential.
I think that having a fraud tipped line would only be a small part of what they need.
And I'm going to say it again.
I believe that zero tax money should ever be allocated for anything that does not have a robust, well-defined audit procedure.
So if somebody said, we need a billion dollars to build this thing, I say, all right, let's start with how are you going to audit it on a regular basis so it doesn't get stolen.
If the answer is, oh, well, we'll do something about it, then no.
It doesn't matter if it's a good idea.
It's clearly if you don't have an auditing procedure set up, that's good.
And, you know, I would make a big difference between some waving your hand audit procedure versus a very, you know, let's say a third-party, uninterested party who's just paid to audit the hell out of it.
If I were a big consulting company, and there are lots of them, I would be pitching this as something that I can do for your state.
I would say, if you give me $10 million a year, I'll make sure that we audit all this stuff.
And we don't even live in the state.
We're just consultants.
So you don't have to worry about us trying to get our own beak wet.
We will change out our auditors every year.
So if you were a consulting company and you wanted to make sure that you didn't become the problem by getting yourself into this potential money laundering situation where you could launder it yourself.
If you're a consulting company, just say, well, we have lots of consultants and we'll make sure that the ones that work on your state do one year.
They just do one year.
And then you have much less chance that they get embedded and turn it into a criminal enterprise.
Anyway, So, according to NPR, the State Department is going to deny visas to fact checkers and others who were involved in any kind of censorship.
Now, I don't mind that as a standard.
I don't think the fake fact checkers and the fake sensors should be allowed into the country.
But it does make me wonder how many there are that you need a separate standard for that.
Are there a lot of fact-checkers trying to get into the country who had fact-checked us in a way we don't like?
I don't know.
Just kind of open question.
Well, according to Davis Health, University of Oh, University of California, Davis, there's a study that suggests that there's a brain nutrient that if you don't have enough of it, it might create anxiety.
And they found out that if you eat more eggs, the eggs have this nutrient.
What's it called?
Choline, C-H-O-L-I-N-E.
So, if your choline levels are low in your brain, it's correlated with, they haven't proven causation, but it's correlated with anxiety.
So, I went to Grok and I asked the questions that the article was missing.
And the main question was, are people eating more or less eggs than they ever did?
And the answer is people are probably eating more eggs now than they did in the 40s.
So, that would suggest that we were less likely to have an anxiety caused by this shortage.
But we observe that people's anxiety seems to be worse lately than compared to the old days.
So, I'm not sure I buy this.
Maybe there's a correlation, but not a causation.
But eggs are apparently good for you.
All right.
So, Hakeem Jeffries has finally, grudgingly, agreed that President Trump should get credit for closing the border, which is now secure.
Fox News says that.
And Jeffrey says, of course, he'll get credit for that.
To which I'm thinking, I'm actually surprised.
Aren't you surprised?
Even though it's so obvious that Trump closed the border and the other leaders did not, are you surprised that one of the top Democrats just even admitted it instead of changing the subject?
So I guess that's the part that's interesting.
It's just that he said it at all.
Well, that might be because it could be the polling shows that people care less about the border because they consider it a solved problem.
So it might be that there's no benefit to arguing that Trump didn't close it.
So it's well, that's old news.
It's closed, moving on.
See if we have any other problems besides that.
So I saw on MS Now, which used to be MSNBC, on Lawrence O'Donnell's show, I think it was last night, that he had Chuck Schumer on, and the two of them were introducing their newest hoax.
Have you heard the new hoax about affordability?
All right.
You can tell that they're introducing a hoax by looking at their faces with the sound off.
There's a certain smile that Democrats do when they're introducing a hoax.
And it's like this.
I've got a suspicious smile on.
I'm going to introduce a new hoax.
And the hoax goes like this.
No, I'm not smiling.
I'm not too happy about it.
Stop it.
Stop it.
I'm trying not to smile to give away the fact, oh, God, I'm smiling again.
I'm smiling.
Okay.
Ignore my creepy smile because this is how I introduce a hoax.
Are you ready for the hoax?
The hoax is that President Trump is the only human being out of 7 billion human beings.
He's the only one who believes that affordability doesn't matter.
That's right.
Because it's based on something he said.
Well, I'm not going to quote what he said or put it in context because then you'll know it's a hoax.
Do you know how else you could know it's a hoax?
Look at my creepy smile.
And Lawrence O'Donnell has his creepy smile too.
We got two creepy smiles.
Yeah, that's how we introduce the hoaxes because we know it's a hoax, but we're trying to see if you're dumb enough to believe that there's actually any human being who doesn't understand that affordability matters to people who don't have enough money.
I'm not creepy.
You're creepy.
All right, that's enough of that.
Stop it.
You're right, Jeep guy.
I need to just stop making that face.
But I didn't start it.
That's a Chuck Schumer face.
Anyway, no, it is not true that Trump is the only person on the world who doesn't understand that affordability matters.
So I was thinking to myself, how are we doing on affordability?
So I made a little list of the things we talk about when we talk about affordability.
And let's see how Trump is doing.
How is he doing on eggs?
Well, really well.
The price of eggs is down.
And I do think we can attribute that to the actions of the Trump administration.
Now, probably the egg prices would have drifted back to normal anyway, but I do think that Trump goosed it.
His people did a good job.
So we'll give him eggs.
How about gas?
Gas?
Definitely.
Certainly the Trump instinct to go for maximum drilling and drill baby drill and getting rid of obstacles for that.
Yeah, that definitely caused the gas prices to go down.
So we'll give him eggs.
We'll give him gas.
What about groceries in general?
No.
So groceries in general, especially beef, not so good.
They're still high.
And even if they're not inflating much from where they are, they're kind of too high.
So now keep in mind that it doesn't mean that Trump gets the credit or the blame for every kind of price and every kind of situation.
It just is what it is.
Groceries are high.
What about rent?
Well, the recent news is that rents have actually fallen a little bit from October to November.
Don't know if that's a pattern yet, but it would make perfect sense if you paired it with the knowledge that 2.5 million people have been deported.
That should create a little bit less demand.
A little less demand means a little lower rents.
And sure enough, 1% lower.
So he gets, I'll give him rent.
Could be more, but we'll give him that.
How about interest rates?
Well, he's been working pretty hard to get those interest rates down.
And I believe they're lower than they were.
Is that true?
Lower than when he took office.
But they'll definitely be lower when he gets his own hand-chosen Fed, you know, Fed head in charge.
So I'd expect inflation, interest rates to go down.
What about inflation?
Inflation's not great, but it's not terrible.
It's sort of just limping along.
So that's not the worst thing in the world, but you know, it could be better.
What about automobiles?
Well, I don't know if we've seen the impact yet, especially because there would be tariffs on automobiles from other countries.
But he did recently get rid of that Biden-era idea that your gas-powered car would have to get 51 miles to the gallon on average.
So he got rid of that, which should cause more availability of low-end cars that would cost people less because the gas would be less and then the cost of the car would be less if it's purchased, if it's built in America, then you don't have the tariff problem.
So automobiles, I'll give him that.
I don't think we've seen the drop yet, but he's done the right thing to get that drop.
And what about entertainment?
Entertainment doesn't seem like that's going down.
Maybe it's gone up.
I don't know.
But entertainment's not the most important thing in the world.
So here's my take.
On affordability, Trump's actually done pretty well.
If you look at all the categories, pretty well.
There's a lot more you could do, and we would like him to do more.
And it looks like he is, but he's going for it.
And then I was thinking about the, you know, what would you do to make food less expensive?
And I'm going to give you some brainstorming on that topic.
These are not meant to be great ideas.
The way brainstorming works is you just throw in some ideas that maybe you hadn't thought of before, and then it spurs you or encourages you to think of your own ideas.
And if there's more ideas, there's a greater chance that one of them will be useful.
So I'm just going to throw out some ideas for reducing costs.
Number one idea would be to have some kind of mechanism where local farmers could more directly and legally sell to consumers.
So where I live, you might have the same situation.
On the weekend, there'll be a farmer's market, but I would have to get in the car and drive to the farmer's market.
And it doesn't have everything that I'd want.
It doesn't have meat, for example.
So there's some things I think the government probably prevents, like meat, is my guess.
But suppose you removed obstacles and said, yeah, the farmer's market can deliver it to your house, deliver it right to your house.
So then if I didn't have to drive to it and it was the local farmer, so that would cut out a bunch of steps and a bunch of people taking a cut, could I get it cheaper?
I feel like I could.
So there's probably something you could do that would make food a lot more accessible and cheaper if you just got rid of all the middle people and said, okay, the farmer can sell this.
Now, would it be more dangerous?
Yes, it would.
Probably.
Because you can imagine there'd be a farmer who didn't meet all the standards, et cetera.
But here's what I think.
Don't you think the farmers eat all their own food?
If you're a farmer and you're selling beef, you don't think you're eating the beef yourself?
Of course you are.
If you're growing a certain vegetable, you don't think that the farmer's family is eating that vegetable?
Of course they are.
What would make you feel more safe?
eating the same food as the person who grew it or some government entity told you it was okay.
I don't know.
You might be more comfortable eating what the farmer eats.
How about if you started a government grocery store?
Stop, stop.
You're just assuming a bunch of things that I'm not going to say.
Wait till I say it and then tell me if you like it or not, okay?
And in the government grocery store, it wouldn't try to reproduce every kind of product.
There wouldn't be any of the highly processed foods.
Wouldn't be any, none.
But it would also be a very limited set of choices that were designed to be affordable.
And because it's a limited set of choices, you could bring down your expense of providing them.
Let's say it was only chicken for protein and maybe two or three kinds of fish that are accessible and easy.
That's all your proteins.
And then let's say it's not every exotic vegetable in the world, but you definitely have broccoli.
People like broccoli.
And whatever are, let's say, the top five vegetables.
So everybody's got one that they like.
And so let's say your grocery store has, I'll just pick a number, 25 goods.
But they're the ones that most people would eat.
They wouldn't be delighted because it wouldn't be that many choices.
But there's a lot you can do with chicken.
You know what I mean?
You know, once you get a home, you can make it taste any variety of ways.
So I think the thing that the so-called government grocery stores have done wrong is probably try to produce the same amount of choices as a regular grocery store.
That's probably where they go wrong.
I would like an option if I had very low income, an option to have more boring food, but it's really easy to get and it's cheap.
I'll accept boring because I'll spice it up on my end.
It doesn't have to be exciting on your end.
Anyway, that's one idea.
And then another one, this is really interesting.
There's a futuristic dome for growing food.
New Atlas has a story about this.
So instead of the old greenhouse, they figured out this dome where the bottom levels of the dome are a variety of fish.
And I think there are several layers of just fish.
And then they contribute to the ecosystem that feeds the dome so that the dome is as close as you can get to a self-contained, self-fertilizing situation.
And it requires a little bit of technology.
So I think you need to move things around with technology and probably you need some AI to know what needs some attention so you don't need too many humans in there.
But apparently this is already built and already been demonstrated to work.
So at the Expo 2025 Osaka Kansai in Japan, they've already produced one.
And it's a farm to table, but the farm would be just this dome.
And let's see what else it says.
The fact that it already exists makes this a lot more interesting.
It's not theoretical.
So it's a seven meter diameter, 23-foot dome.
And it's meant to sort of imitate what a real earth situation would be for each of the levels.
And it's a futuristic greenhouse.
Well, I think that's where we're heading.
So imagine if you started your city with a futuristic greenhouse that would serve every maybe 10 homes and then just build around that.
What salmon is the best to buy?
Well, don't get me started on salmon.
You don't want to hear it.
Well, another news, Hawaii is suing TikTok for what they consider harm to children.
And they think that TikTok has built a platform to be dangerously addictive for young users.
Now, do you think that that's true?
Do you think that they built it to be dangerously addictive?
Well, I don't think they meant it to be dangerous, but I'm wondering about where do you draw the line?
If I sell you a Dilbert calendar for 2026 and you open it up and you go, oh, oh my God.
Oh my God.
I am so happy.
I got a Dilbert calendar.
Wait, wait.
Oh my God.
There are cartoons on both sides.
Oh, both sides.
This is new.
Oh, my God.
And then you can see my dopamine is firing.
I can barely help it.
I mean, I'm just like, oh, oh, oh, oh.
Now, when I make the Dilbert calendar irresistible because it's so good, am I going to get sued by Hawaii?
Will Hawaii allow the Dilbert calendar to be sold?
Good question, right?
So although I'm joking, sort of, a little bit, although I'm joking, there is a real question here about freedom and about what's the difference between really, really liking something and being addicted because of the dopamine hit.
I don't know how you could ever make that distinction.
Because again, the Dilbert calendar is so dopamine, you know, tickling good that I don't know what you do.
Good luck, Hawaii.
Good luck, TikTok.
I haven't talked about the situation with Tina Peters, who's a grandmother who's in jail because she tried to find out if the voting machines were rigged.
And I guess she gave somebody access to them that she should not have given access to for the purpose of finding out if there was some crime that had been committed.
Now, she's a cancer survivor.
She's 70 years old, and she got, what, nine years in prison?
Now, can you think of a situation where somebody technically violated a law, which she did.
She technically violated the law, but her intentions were good And there was no victim.
You get nine years for that.
Your intentions are good, not for yourself.
This is very important.
Her intentions were for the public good.
Let me say that again.
Her intention, very clearly, was for a public good.
What she did for herself was take a gigantic risk for the public good.
And there were no victims.
And indeed, I don't know what happened with the access and whether anybody found anything.
But aren't you happy that she did that?
Now, I know you can't just let anybody break any law they want because they think it's a good idea to break it.
I get that you have to have something like, you know, law and order for even things where it's not obvious there would ever be any victim.
I get it.
I get it.
But what would be the right penalty for someone who took a risk upon themselves with nothing to gain for themselves for the benefit of the larger community?
And there's no victim.
And there wasn't really a chance that there would ever be a victim.
It wasn't an accident that there was no victim.
It's obvious there would be no victim.
We would either find out something we didn't know or we wouldn't.
That's it.
Yeah, I'm thinking six months' probation would be about the right thing for that.
Now, Trump has entered the debate on this and on her side, but he does not have the power to pardon her because I guess the charges are state charges.
But I guess the Colorado Democrat governor, Democrat governor, Jared Polis, is keeping her in and is not going to free her.
I do think this probably needs to be a bigger issue.
And I do think that if this governor gets re-elected and is keeping her in jail for purely political reasons, I don't think he should be re-elected.
That's all I'm saying.
That's just horrible behavior.
Horrible.
And I think Trump has accurately found another 80-20 issue.
How many people think she should be in jail?
Now, it's not even really Democrat versus Republican, is it?
I mean, really?
Not really.
So this seems like an 80-20 to me.
All right.
Well, we wish her the best.
Here's another funny story.
Apparently, I didn't know it, but there was a thing called the U.S. Institute of Peace, which I guess the government, the federal government funds, but it supposedly operates somewhat independently.
Trump is trying to cut their budget, but I guess they use the law to try to fight that off.
So they're in some kind of weird gray area where the government gives them money but doesn't have full control over their activities.
So what Trump did, because he couldn't cleanly just take their funding away and close them down, he changed their name.
This is very funny.
He changed their name and put the new name on their building so that they can't even cover it up easily.
And the new name, the new name is the President Trump, I don't know, U.S. Institute of Peace or something.
So he put his own name on it.
Oh, no, it's the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace.
And it actually says that over the door now.
All right.
Now, that's just funny.
We're going to be so sad when we ever get a normal president.
Because, I mean, seriously.
Can't you imagine what the meeting was like when they came up with that idea?
They must have been roaring with laughter.
It's like, all right, we didn't get what we want, but we're going to get some fun out of this.
It's the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace.
Anyway, it's great.
All right.
Derek Chauvin, who, as you know, is in jail for being convicted for murdering George Floyd, allegedly.
So he's trying to get a new trial.
And his arguments are, well, he's got a good argument for a new trial.
But here is my take.
Derek Chauvin was convicted in a very different environment than we have today.
At the time, if you had been a juror and you had not convicted him, you might be in physical danger for not convicting, not voting to convict him.
I don't think that's the case now.
And we also believed, or a lot of people believed, that there was a big problem with black citizens being killed by white policemen.
But now we know that was never the case.
There was not a big problem or any problem, really.
It was not above any kind of baseline.
So if you knew, if you knew that we do not have this big problem and you knew that you were not personally in danger if you had voted to let him go.
But here's the other big thing.
Do you remember what we thought of doctors during the George Floyd era?
That's when we still believed the doctors were credible.
And so there were several doctors who said, oh, yeah, that's totally murder.
And the jurors, being normal citizens, believe that, well, if, you know, if doctors say that it was murder, you know, who am I to doubt the doctor?
Now, fast forward to 2025, we do not automatically think doctors are credible.
In fact, doctors have been quite unreliable.
Secondly, we know that people were probably being influenced by the just the feeling of the day that there was some kind of horrible thing happening to black citizens that wasn't happening to white citizens.
But we don't really think that's true anymore, or at least people who are paying attention know it's not.
So I would suggest that the same set of facts that got him convicted, if it were to happen today exactly the same way, I don't know.
I feel like at least one juror would have said, nope.
So I think he was, oh, and also he wasn't allowed to introduce the fact that they were trained to do it that way.
Really?
Wasn't allowed to say that, but we know that that's the case.
All right.
I've got a few more stories, but let's see.
Apparently, there's a new app called Vantor from Vantor Tech, where it looks like they've simulated the entire Earth down to about a three-meter difference.
Now, imagine, if you will. the ability to create a simulation if you could simulate the entire world with an app.
All you need now is to add characters.
Could you add characters?
Oh, God, I'm in so much pain.
All right.
I'm going to have to end early.
I did all the stories that I cared about the most.
Except that I think we should look at humanoid robots to mine our rare earth materials.
Turns out there are several companies working on robots for rare earth material mining.
So that's happening.
All right, everybody, that's all I got for today.
Thanks for joining.
Locals, I'm not going to try to do a separate after-show today.
