Special Guest: Joel Pollak @JoelPollakOpinion Editor CA Post https://CaliforniaPost.comDiscussion: Longevity BBC Obsessed, Jeffery Epstein Iran War Fraud-Based Election System Save Act CA Voter ID Scott Adams BiographyHosts: Erica @ZiaErica Owen @OwenGregorian Marcela @MarcelaMarjean~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DISCLAIMER: This podcast makes no warranties or representations about the accuracy or completeness of the information provided. Viewers assume all risks associated with using or relying on this content.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Merch Link: https://emblempromos.chipply.com/cat/CWSA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So it is March 26th, 2026 in the year of our Lord.
What does that mean in the year of our Lord?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Well, that's the, because we measure our calendar from the year that Christ was born.
So there's before Christ and after Christ.
I think it's Apre Dominium, but AD is basically after Christ.
And so it's the year of our Lord because it's been 2026 years since he was born.
Oh my God.
I mean, I probably could have figured that out, but it's so much easier when you do it.
Oh, there's Punchy.
I see my little punch monkey in the locals chat.
You guys, just a reminder to you all, if you are on locals and you're like, oh, I don't really know everybody.
You know, I'm kind of new or whatever it is, just chat.
Like, don't feel like I don't know what to say.
Like, we want to see you chatting.
Same with YouTube.
Chat away.
Don't be shy.
Be kind.
But we love to see you guys chatting.
And also on YouTube, if you hit the subscribe, if you haven't already, it's free.
It doesn't mean anything other than when we go live, it'll kind of push our show up to you.
And it really helps us to keep going.
So there's like on YouTube, there's a thumbs up.
There's a notification bell so you know exactly when we go live and a subscribe.
And if you guys on YouTube would hit all three, that would be amazing.
And a thumbs up every day would be amazing.
And locals, you guys have the heart.
There's a little heart if you click that.
And Rumble, you have, I forget what Rumbles is, but Rumble has something too.
And X, X, what's up?
Share us, please.
Okay, I think we have all strumbled in and we're ready to get going.
And we have a guest joining us in a minute and I'll explain what's happening.
Okay, here we go.
And all you need to enjoy the news today is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice, just diet, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
The thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip.
Go.
That was a quick sip today.
So welcome.
My name is Erica.
You're here at the Scott Adams School.
I still always want to say coffee with Scott Adams.
It's every day.
So you might be expecting Steve Cortez.
Steve had an unavoidable situation he had to take care of, and he is going to be coming on in the near future, but I'll let him tell you why he couldn't be here today when he comes.
And in a minute, we're going to be joined by Joel Pollack, and he's going to spend a half hour with us talking news.
And he is the opinion editor of the California Post and also Scott's biographer for Scott's upcoming biography that's going to be so good.
And he's hoping to have it done.
We'll ask him by October.
So in the meantime, I thought we'd start with some light news.
And I know Marcella picked out a couple of stories.
And Owen, you know, maybe Marcella, if you want to grab a light story.
And when Joel gets here, we'll go deeper.
We'll start with Iran.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Just a light little story.
So there was, there was a, there's a story I saw on X for coffee.
And I thought, oh my gosh, I need to bring it on.
I don't know.
I always did for Scott.
So Scoffee for Gray Matter study, an article on the register highlighted a study.
Maybe Owen has talked about this before, but I thought it was interesting that moderate coffee intake, two to three cups daily, correlates to 18% reduced dementia risk.
And this was a Mass General Brigham study tracked over 130,000 people for 43 years.
So it was sort of a very long study, sort of, it was.
And 11,000 of the 130,000 developed dementia.
And the observation, it was an observational analysis.
Of course, it shows association, which one came first.
Did the coffee relate to the, you know, the dementia and all that?
So it saves off dementia is what I've been hearing, but it has to be caffeine.
It can't be decaf.
That, that I know.
So make sure you have the full test, you guys.
Yes.
And then I know some of you know my, my grandma turned 100 years old yesterday.
And some of you guys were asking, like, what is the, what's the secret?
When, well, she never worked out.
Yeah.
She never went to the gym.
The other secret is she lives in El Salvador.
Every relative I have that lives in El Salvador is still alive, unless it was a war-related thing.
So maybe a slower pace of life.
And one of the things is when you're older in El Salvador, you still have a social network and you don't live by yourself.
You live with like many people.
It's like a, what would you call it?
It's a name to it, but it's like you like a commune.
You live with children.
Oh, like generational.
Generational.
And then you also live near each other.
Like in California, if I want to see, there's some people on the chat that like we talked about maybe meeting up, but it takes like even driving like from sunset to some other place in LA,
it takes me like 30 minutes and it's like a mile.
Yeah.
So our separations, you know, so that's one of the things everybody's list all moved to El Salvador in natural food.
But one of the things that she always had and still does is coffee.
Coffee was a great and important task for her.
Always not decaffeinated.
She even made it, meaning from the bean to actually drinking it.
So she still has dementia at the age of 100.
So she doesn't.
No, she doesn't.
The best part about this is she didn't work out.
I like that.
I mean, yeah, although I don't think I would recommend that as a longevity strategy.
But I was just listening to a podcast of one of the longevity guys that's working on some of this tech.
I forget his name.
Sorry.
But he is it Brian Johnson?
No, it wasn't him.
It was somebody else that was doing like gene therapy.
I could probably find it, but I don't know if I could pull it up right now.
But the, you know, part of the discussion was like, what are all the things you can do to live longer?
And he didn't mention coffee, although I have seen several studies that talk about that, that it does increase longevity.
So definitely that's part of it.
Although he did talk about polyphenols, and that's the part of coffee that people think make you live longer.
So it does tie into that.
And he talked about some other supplements and some other things, but a lot of it was like, yes, you should exercise.
And I think they said you need to get up to the point where you can't have a conversation.
Like you're breathing hard enough that you wouldn't be able to talk to somebody for at least five minutes.
And that's not a long time, right?
So you should be able to do that.
But if you're, you know, and I think what I've read about elsewhere is like what they call hit or high intensity interval training is one of the best forms of exercise.
And that basically is where you get really high up in your heart rate, but only for like a minute at a time.
And then you cool down for a couple minutes.
And then you do it again for a minute.
And then you cool down and you keep cycling through it for maybe 15 or 20 minutes, but you're really only going hard for a minute at a time or maybe even 30 seconds at a time.
Like there's different cycles you can do.
But by getting your heart rate up to that high level, but only for short periods of time, it seems to do better effects than if you were just slow running or something.
I think with the weather breaking, I'm going to commit to some things like that.
I've already decided it wasn't just this conversation, but, you know, long live Erica.
All right.
I think this means we need another quick sip with all this like coffee is good for you.
Coffee.
Yeah.
Let's just have a quick sip.
Owen, you give us a little story.
Joel's trying to get in, y'all.
He's on his way.
Well, the Palantir CEO is apparently saying that only the neurodivergent will survive the AI takeover.
He did also allow for people with vocational training.
But it says, you know, neurodiverse people deal with all sorts of variations on neurology that have historically labeled them as other.
Apparently this person, Carp, seems to think that, you know, they are the ones that are going to have the opportunities.
I don't know if that's just because that's a type of thinking that's different than what the AIs will be thinking.
It wasn't entirely clear, but he seemed to be saying that neurodivergent are going to have some kind of advantage going forward.
So I thought that was interesting.
Not really sure if that's how things are going to work out.
I'm still kind of skeptical that AI is going to take all our jobs, but I do certainly find it useful.
And I think it's a great way to augment your job.
And it has absolutely helped me save many hours and create software that I never would have imagined I could create.
And so it is pretty amazing.
But I don't think we're anywhere close to the point where you could just say, okay, I've got all these agents and now I don't need employees anymore.
I can just have everybody be a virtual agent.
Right.
I think that's going to probably blow up on people.
And I think it probably is already.
I know there was at least like AWS recently that had a massive outage because of AI and they weren't, you know, they weren't checking the code enough or whatever it was.
And I think with all these big companies that are kind of diving headfirst into this, I think they're going too fast.
I think they're not really working out the guardrails the way they need to.
And I've already made a prediction.
I think there's going to be at least one company that goes out of business because of AI, that they'll go bankrupt.
Probably.
I mean, it's got, but will they go bankrupt because of AI or they already had financial problems and they're just using AI as no?
I mean, my prediction is it'll be something that AI does that blows up the company.
Oh, okay.
Like an AI company that ends up okay.
Well, it could be an AI company itself, or it could be, you know, a tech company or it could be some other company.
But like, you know, you've had these incidents, right, where like a customer service bot will say something and then it wasn't what they were supposed to say.
And then the customer is like, well, the, you know, this chatbot told me this.
And I think the court case on that one was an airline where somebody reached out to the chatbot and said, I have a funeral.
Can I get the funeral fare or whatever it is?
And they're like, oh, yeah, you can have that.
And then they didn't apparently go through the right process because the chatbot said they didn't need to.
And, you know, they weren't going to honor the fare or whatever.
And so the guy sued the company and said, your chatbot told me that I qualified.
And the court basically said, yep, if your chatbot said that, then you're held accountable to that.
You have to honor that.
And, you know, that sort of thing is just a little example.
But I think when you have these tech companies where, you know, they're putting out all these code updates all the time, it could very easily open them up to some kind of hack or, you know, break their systems in a way that might even be hard to recover from.
And the further they go down the path, the more of this AI code is in there.
And they don't know what's out there, essentially, because no one's ever looked at it.
No one's ever thought about, is this the right code?
Do we have the right security?
Do we have the right things here?
And I think we're going to probably have at least one instance of a company that says, you know, we're, it just ruined our revenues or it, it, you know, all our customers went away or something.
Jeez.
Let's let's welcome Joel in.
Rumble was rumbling today, so he's coming up now too.
Thank you, Joel.
Who knows?
Rumble's amazing.
Welcome.
Can you guys hear me?
We can.
Oh, great.
Yeah.
Rumble did not load for me on my usual device.
So see you guys.
It's not just me.
It's not just Scott.
It happened.
Yeah.
I couldn't figure it out.
Anyway, thank you for your patience.
And I'm very glad to be joining you today.
Oh, we're so thrilled that you could jump on with us.
And everybody in the chat was looking forward to you.
We had our sip and we were just talking about, you know, world domination by AI.
But I know the one thing they want to hear off the bat because we were talking about it, two things.
One was, you know, how things were going at the California Post as you are the opinion editor out there.
How are things?
Things are going great.
You know, it's officially two months today that we've been in print.
And, you know, there's a steep learning curve.
For me, the big challenge is managing my schedule because I'm balancing the post with my four kids, my beautiful wife, the other things I do in my life, trying to stay healthy,
trying to write Scott's biography and all the things, which is going well, by the way.
I want to talk about that.
Same.
But, you know, over time, you do learn the new skills you're going to need for the new tasks you have.
And I'm starting to feel more comfortable in the job.
At first, it was all adrenaline, but you can't really run that way.
And then you have to find routines that work for you.
So we're sort of getting there.
I mean, we still have a long way to go before it feels really locked in, but it's definitely getting smoother and we're enjoying it.
So I'd like to incredibly interesting campaign season here in California.
So that's good too.
Oh, right.
That's great news fodder.
So, Joel, when we were at Scott's Memorial on a Sunday, the next day, the California Post was launching.
So, that, I mean, talk about, you know, running around and all of that good stuff.
So, you know, like us, Joel, we all kind of started something new basically at the same time.
And so I know Owen and Marcella can also appreciate the things that we also do in our daily life like you, families, jobs, other jobs, other things that we're doing, and the adrenaline with the Scott Adams School.
So we feel that and like so sympathetic to like the, oh my gosh, I have so many irons in a fire.
So I kind of like that we started this at the same time.
Yeah.
So let me talk about a few things I'm sure people are thinking about and I'm getting questions about from friends and things like that.
So I want to talk about the war in Iran briefly, if I could.
Yeah.
And I want to tell you an interesting story.
So I'm in LA right now.
I was in DC earlier in the week and I was taking the last flight out of DC to LA.
And I wanted to be at the airport early because I heard all the stories about the TSA lines.
And it turns out the TSA problem has largely been solved.
As of yesterday, I haven't checked yet today, but as of yesterday, the problem was basically half a dozen airports.
So everyone's showing you these long lines at Houston at George Bush airport there in Houston.
That's the biggest problem.
And then there are lines in the New York airports, which are also having other problems with the crash at LaGuardia and everything.
But aside from Salt Lake City and one or two other places, things are actually running pretty smoothly.
And ICE has managed to help in Atlanta and help in other places.
And anyway, I didn't know that at the time I was going to the airport to fly to LA.
So I was pretty nervous and I decided to leave as early as I could.
But on my way, I got this message from a producer at the BBC, the British broadcasting company.
I had been on their show a few times in the past and they wanted to know if I could do a panel discussion.
And I said, what time?
And they said, well, it's going to be, I think it was 5.30 p.m. Eastern, which I could only do in theory if everything else had gone right and I had packed my bags on time and I got my kids home from school and I, you know,
because I was basically driving from my kids' school, dropping them at home and then going to the airport.
So I managed to work it out and I moved mountains to get there.
And I show up outside the Capitol building with my suitcase and my backpack and everything and my motorcycle gloves because I couldn't find my regular gloves and it was pretty cold.
DC is weird.
It's 74 degrees one day, 47 degrees the next day right now in spring.
I get there and I do this panel discussion and what do they want to talk about?
They want to talk about Jeffrey Epstein.
Now, this was funny to me because every time I've been on this network, that's all they want to talk about.
I'm not kidding.
For months, all I have ever been asked about on that network is Jeffrey Epstein.
They are obsessed with Jeffrey Epstein.
And I can understand it from one point of view because Prince Andrew obviously is a big figure in the UK and they are still generating news about that.
And it's something people are talking about.
On the other hand, it's completely, transparently clear that they believe that the Jeffrey Epstein story is going to bring down Donald Trump in some way.
That if he's not implicated, and he hasn't been, but if he's not implicated, then at least his base will abandon him over Jeffrey Epstein.
And they've bet huge on that outcome.
So they keep bringing up Jeffrey Epstein.
It's not primarily about concern for the victims, I'm sorry to say, because if that were the case, they would have approached the story completely differently.
They're just turning it into their nightly thing.
I mean, it's how do we vet against them?
Because I don't see that happening.
If anything, I think the Epstein files have exonerated Trump.
Right.
So they're going after.
Anyway, so, but they invited me to talk about Iran.
Okay.
So I show up thinking I'm talking about Iran and it's a whole setup with the Epstein files.
So I answer a question about the Epstein files and then I get to a question about Iran.
Now, I want to talk about what they asked me.
They asked me, they hadn't heard this yet.
I had already read the news coverage, but there was a 15-point plan you might have heard about that was proposed by President Trump to end the war with Iran and create this peace agreement to end the fighting.
And I had read bits and pieces of it earlier in the day and they were just hearing about it.
And so they asked me about it.
And what would Scott have said immediately straight off the bat?
Can you think about what Scott would have said?
Because that was the thought that entered my mind about this plan.
I don't know which direction.
Laundry list persuasion, maybe?
Path to sale.
I think Owen's sort of on the right track, but you're going to kick yourself when you hear, because he said it a lot.
Too many points, right?
15 points.
Too many points.
Make your one point.
Yeah.
Who has 15 points for anything?
So I said, they asked me, what do you think about this 15-point plan?
I said, you know, Woodrow Wilson ended the First World War with a 14-point plan.
I think 15 points is too many.
Like, it's just too many.
And so then I said, the one point that's missing from all these proposals is human rights.
That if Trump proposed a deal with Iran where Iran would have to obey human rights and there'd be some kind of monitoring mechanism and some kind of accountability for progress,
then that would be a good deal because not only would conditions improve for the people of Iran, but it would also give the outside world leverage inside Iran.
And we've seen this work before.
There were agreements with the Soviet Union that forced the Soviet Union to open up because they had to abide by these human rights rules that they had agreed to to get access to international markets.
And it would also look good.
I mean, if you're just talking about all these geopolitical issues, people don't really care that much, but you talk about human rights and democracy.
It connects with people a little bit more.
And the weirdest thing was that everybody agreed with me.
So I came into this panel discussion where they hate Trump and they're talking about Epstein.
And I was with this democratic strategist, very elegant lady, very well-spoken, but totally just reciting talking points, interrupting me and telling me that I was wrong about everything.
And I just let it roll.
I didn't react to that, but she was dead set against Trump.
And suddenly they're all agreeing with me.
And I thought that was one of the best interviews I've ever done.
It was probably top five.
I called my wife on the way to the train to get to the airport.
I made my flight.
And there was no TSA line, by the way, at Dulles International.
Good.
And I said that was probably top five interview.
I can't believe how well that went.
I just totally crushed it.
I don't normally feel that way after interviews, but this was amazing.
I can't wait till they put the clips up.
Oh, no.
Well, I waited and I waited and I waited and I waited.
And they put clips up about Jeffrey Epstein and more about Jeffrey Epstein and interviewing Thomas Massey about Jeffrey Epstein.
And tomorrow we're going to have a special on Jeffrey Epstein.
So I wrote to them and I said, hey, you know, would love to see a clip up from the interview, blah, blah, blah.
So they put up the Jeffrey Epstein question, which I have since reposted on X.
And I'll tell you what I said.
You can watch it.
It's 59 seconds.
It's not very long.
But they asked me, what do I think of this whole thing?
And I think the specific question was, are victims being silenced in America?
And I said, no.
And it's good that victims are being heard.
But new victims are being created.
And I gestured toward the Capitol building and I said, you have members of Congress going on the floor and reading the names of men who happened to be mentioned in the Epstein files or who had the same name as people in the Epstein files,
but who are totally innocent and had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein.
I could have been even more specific.
I probably should have been.
Scott would have wanted me to be.
There was a mechanic in Queens who was named by Rokana as being in the Epstein files.
And it was a mistake.
It was a guy with the same name, but he mentioned this guy.
So Rokana, I think of the six people he mentioned, I think four of them were completely innocent.
Two of them were well-known associates of Epstein and the other four were just random guys.
And he mentioned them on the floor of the house.
Why?
Because they have parliamentary immunity from defamation lawsuits for everything they say.
It's under the speech and debate clause of the Constitution.
So I said, you're creating new victims in the building behind me because members of Congress are reading names of innocent people and falsely accusing them of being involved with Jeffrey Epstein.
So the tragedy is that new victims are being created.
And it blew their minds that I said that.
And so they just didn't come back to the point.
They just want to talk about whether it's going to separate him from his base.
They're like, well, will it separate him from his base?
And how about Iran and Venezuela and all these things?
And I said, no, I don't think so.
There are some people in MAGA world who don't like these policies, but people support him and they're giving him a chance to work things out in Iran.
And the Democrat lady just bit my head off after that.
But they don't put that up.
They didn't put that part up either.
They just put up the Jeffrey Epstein part.
And I think it's so interesting how the media operate to censor whatever doesn't fit their narrative.
And the only reason they put that Epstein clip up of me was because it fit in with their whole storyline.
And I guess I pressured them enough.
And they knew that I made a huge effort to be there.
But I said to them, I made a point about the Iran war that everybody agreed with.
I made a point about human rights.
You could get a peace deal with human rights and it would be great for everybody.
And they said, well, you know, we just ran out of social media slots, you know, our team is very busy and all that stuff.
The bits are too expensive, right?
I wrote to a friend and said they're more interested in a dead pervert than in solving the Middle East.
I mean, it's like, it's crazy to me.
I understand.
Yes, Epstein is a serious issue, but like to the exclusion of everything else, it's just nuts.
So anyway, it does seem to me like the UK and Europe is taking the Epstein thing a lot more seriously than they are in the United States at this point.
And it probably is because they're just behind.
Like they probably never really dealt with it years ago like we did.
And we didn't have, you know, a big blow up with the first version of the Epstein files.
And now the way it rolled out here, it was kind of like, okay, there's more Epstein files.
Like I'm kind of tired of hearing this headline and I've seen it so many times and I'm not really thinking there's anything new here.
And, you know, Scott talked about that, where it's like you're just, after a while, you become numb to it or it becomes normal and you don't really think of it as a big story anymore.
And I think it's a newer story over there and that because they are actually taking people down over there.
Like people are losing their jobs.
Some of them are getting charged criminally and none of that has happened here.
Right.
So it seems to me like they really are taking it more seriously over there than they are here.
I think it's just about Trump.
But go ahead, John.
Criminally over there.
But if you look at what they're being charged with, it's mostly nonsense.
I mean, Prince Andrew is being charged with something like misgovernance.
It's like a kind of crime that doesn't exist in the United States.
I mean, we'd have to indict all of Congress if it came to misgovernance.
It's just you just see, you see why we broke away from Britain, because at some level. the state has a form of absolute power, even in the UK.
I mean, the UK invented modern parliamentary democracy, but they also had a parliament that was out of control, which is why the 13 colonies separated and created checks and balances.
And I think that there could be more people in the United States who could face criminal liability.
Maybe the statute of limitations has expired.
And Scott used to say, we'll never know the full story on the Epstein files because there are people who will just make sure we never know.
And you can insert whatever you want into that space.
But there is a lot else going on in the world.
And it's not like that's not important, but we have a war that's being fought right now.
And I just came up with what I think would actually be a reasonable solution.
And you guys know, before the war, I was saying I preferred a peace agreement.
And I'm pretty hawkish on these issues.
But I was saying, let's come up with a better agreement because I think it would be preferable to war.
I do think Trump tried.
I think now that we're in a war, we have to win it.
I think we're going to win it, by the way.
Also, another Scott point.
We don't know what's going on.
So all these experts on TV and all these people saying they know what's happening and this they have no idea.
We have no idea.
The only thing we know is gas prices are going up.
And so if people are opposed to the war because gas prices are going up, you can totally understand that because that's a tangible thing.
I do think it's funny that when gas prices were going down under Trump, nobody talked about all the things that were becoming cheaper because gas prices were going down.
They're always reminding us now of all the things that are more expensive because gas prices are going up.
But, you know, I think that Trump is going to win in a big way here.
And the reason is not just because he's a master persuader, as Scott said.
I just think he has no choice.
I think once you're in this situation, you have to win.
The good news is there's nothing left of Iran's command structure.
The Israeli military just wiped out the leadership of the Iranian Navy.
The Europeans have finally realized they need to be involved.
So they're going to send minesweepers to clear the Strait of Hormuz.
The Arab states are urging Trump and helping Trump.
And they want to win the war because Iran attacked them unprovoked.
They don't want to live in the shadow of an Iran that can do that.
So I think everything is actually moving toward victory.
But as Scott often said, you can't tell when you're in the middle of it.
The difference between success and failure isn't clear when you're in the middle of it.
Sometimes the moment before success feels like failure.
So I just think we don't know how this is going to shake out.
I totally understand people who oppose it.
I think there's a reasonable argument against it.
And even though I'm supportive of it, I think I probably gave the best argument against it, or at least the best alternative to war.
And nobody was interested, not even the BBC.
So, you know, I think that we just have to wait and see and watch.
And I think Scott would have been, I mean, this is just my personal opinion.
I can't speak for him, obviously.
I think he would have been opposed to getting into this, but I think he would be supportive of winning it as long as it didn't involve large, you know, ground troops and whatever.
But again, people can also differ on that.
I think it's okay.
I just think it's interesting that when you come up with a solution, they don't want to talk about it.
They want to talk about Jeffrey Epstein.
So it's like you can't have a discussion about the alternative to war because even the anti-Trump people don't want to talk about it.
So what do you think about Schrodinger's negotiation on the ending the Iran war?
Like it seems to me like it's really hard to know what's real and what might just be a head fake or even some kind of psyop or persuasion play.
Because I read an article where they took the opinion that this is all basically psychological warfare on Trump's part to create division and to create uncertainty and to pit all the Iranian leadership that's left against each other.
And that initially maybe there wasn't any talks and he said there were talks and so everybody's looking at each other, like who's talking to him?
And then apparently they did say there are talks, but I think one of them even said there's not talks, but there are negotiations, which like I don't know what the difference.
So keep in mind, the Iranian leadership, most of them have been killed.
There are still some around, but they don't want to use their cell phones.
They can't communicate with each other because when they use their cell phones, they reveal their locations.
They don't want to meet face to face because if someone happens to know where one of them is, then they all get wiped out, which is how they killed the Ali Khamenei, the Ayatollah.
So they can't even communicate with each other.
So I do think that Trump is using psychological warfare in that sense.
But I also think that if he could get a deal with some faction of the Iranian regime, he would totally drive that and say, I have a deal with Iran.
And that would create massive problems for the remnants of the Iranian regime that didn't want to end the war.
And in fact, I think when Trump said, I've already changed the regime, I think that's what he meant.
He meant basically, I think there are elements within the Iranian regime that want to do a deal with me.
And now he says they're afraid of being killed, which I think they are.
But I think if he could get, let's say, the speaker of the Iranian parliament to sign on to these 15 impossible points, then I think he would say, okay, we've actually achieved regime change because now we have someone in power in Iran who is willing to do this deal,
which means that a new force is running Iran.
It's a way of intervening politically inside Iran without actually having boots on the ground in Iran, at least, you know, military boots.
We probably have some intelligence boots there.
But, you know, I think it was a great play, but more basically, on a more basic level, and this is what I told the BBC.
You could watch it yourself if you were in England, by the way, or Great Britain or anywhere the BBC broadcasts.
I couldn't even watch the whole video.
They did put the video up of the show, but you can't see it outside the UK.
But what I said, what I said was on some level, Trump is just playing for time because there are several thousand Marines on their way to the region and they're not there yet.
So as well, I think.
What's that?
I think there's an army unit going as well.
Yeah, the 82nd Airborne.
And I don't think it's going to be a massive mobilization.
I think that's the lesson of Iraq.
They don't want to bring a lot of troops in.
What I think they're going to do, and I said this again on the BBC, they didn't put it on because it doesn't fit the narrative, but I said Trump's basically going to take control of the Strait of Hormuz, that land area right around the strait, the Navy.
And he's also going to take this island called Karg Island, where apparently all of Iran's oil passes through the island.
So if you control that island, you control Iran's oil exporting ability.
And so Trump basically can turn the tap on and off, not just for oil leaving Iran, but for money getting into Iran.
And I think once that happens, the war is over because you don't need to do anything else.
The regime, if it can't spend money and it can't send oil, it can't continue.
So I think that's as simple as it's going to be.
And okay, I think there, obviously, there are lots of things we don't know.
So yes, it could be more complicated than that.
But I said that on the BBC and they're like, but how's he going to do that?
And I was like, we have a navy.
Like, you know, like we, I mean, people forget how many assets we have.
And anyway, I just think this is heading in a positive direction for Trump, even though it doesn't look like it.
And if you watch cable news, it'll drive you crazy.
And I'm not, again, you guys were there in the beginning.
I said it in January that I thought a peace agreement was preferable to me anyway.
So it's not like I'm gung-ho for this.
And I've heard some people who are gung-ho, like some of the people on Fox News, they are saying some of the same things you heard about the Iraq war.
And I sort of scratch my head and I say, really?
You would use that argument again?
I don't know.
I wouldn't go there with that argument.
But to me, I feel that it's clear Trump probably tried to exhaust all the diplomatic alternatives and he saw an opportunity.
And ironically, and this gets back to domestic politics, ironically, it does seem likely the Democrats will win the House just because of sheer numbers and also because they have all this enthusiasm.
They don't really have any issues that are working for them really well, but they have a lot of enthusiasm and it could go otherwise.
But ironically, the fact that Trump believes he is likely to lose the House means that he's getting as much done in the year that he can before Democrats take the House so that he can achieve all of these things and then ride it out for the last two years and do whatever he can.
But I think there's a sense of urgency, and that might also be why he did this, because he doesn't want to be known as the president who passed along these major problems to his successor, the way Obama passed on North Korea.
He's saying, okay, I want to deal with this and get it out of the way.
So, yeah.
And I would question how different it'll really be in the last two years because he can still do executive orders.
He can veto anything that makes it through Congress, which probably nothing will, because I think the chances are still pretty good that we'll maintain control of the Senate.
But even if we didn't, they're not going to have enough to impeach him at a trial.
So they might have some more fake impeachments and waste some more time in the Senate with those trials, but nothing really is going to happen there.
And I don't really see much getting through Congress as it is.
So I don't, you know, other than maybe some more government shutdowns, which always resolve themselves eventually.
I do think what will happen is the Democrats will take control of congressional committees.
They'll subpoena everybody in the administration.
They'll shut down as much as they can through subpoenas, through oversight hearings, and the media will eat it up.
They might flood the zone too much.
You get to that laundry list problem where there are too many things to look at.
You can't actually figure out what's going wrong.
So that could happen.
But there's a chance that Republicans hold the House.
It is possible.
A lot can happen over the next several months.
And I do think that if the war is successful and the economy roars back, and it's still doing pretty well, but if it really comes back in a big way over the summer with the tax refunds coming soon and all the other things, I think it's going to go very well.
So again, one thing I've said publicly is I don't think that it helps to think about midterm elections as being a response to poor performance.
In fact, the irony is the better you do in office, the more likely you might be to lose the midterms.
And that's because I have a different frame, a different filter.
I actually talked to Scott about this a little bit.
My filter on understanding democracy changed after 2020.
Before 2020 and the recount, not the recount, the whole stop this deal debacle.
I thought, like everybody else, elections are about counting votes and the majority wins.
And then I realized at their best, our system of elections, the way we've set it up, is not actually about counting votes because the Constitution set up a system that allowed for fraud.
It actually allowed for fraud.
The Electoral College is a way of resolving disputes when there have been fraudulent elections.
There was a massive fraudulent election.
I think it was Benjamin Harrison in the late 19th century who was elected president, even though Republicans massively cheated in Indiana in that election.
And after that happened, the country decided on nationwide voting reforms.
They were done state by state.
It wasn't done federally, but they basically came up with a secret ballot out of that.
Because before, when you voted, you had to walk into the polling place and tell everyone who you were voting for.
So they did that with Harrison.
The Republicans in Indiana basically strong-armed everyone into voting for Harrison.
So he won Indiana.
So he won the presidency, but it was so corrupt and people knew what was going on that after that they created the secret ballot in a lot of states, which we've now undone through vote by mail.
Vote by mail is not a secret ballot anymore.
It just isn't.
We're not voting anymore in the same way we once did.
But I realized that the Electoral College is this stopgap measure to have an election even when nobody can agree on who actually won.
And so democracy is actually a system of taking turns.
It's not a system of majority rule.
Yes, majority is the sort of mechanism by which it functions.
You don't just get to lose again and again and again and then govern because it's your turn.
But in a closely divided society, we kind of take turns.
And I think what happens is when your party does a lot in office, the other party wants its turn.
And it wants its turn more and more badly the more you do.
Now, that could also be true if you do bad things.
So I think the Tea Party arose because Obama was doing a lot of bad stuff.
But it can also arise if you're doing good things.
And I think you look around the country and the secure border and the one big beautiful bill and economic growth, low unemployment, and all the fraud investigations going on, all these different things Trump is doing.
And the Democrats are looking at it and saying, why didn't we have this for four years?
We had, you know, a sleepy Joe who couldn't do anything.
But why did, I mean, I'll just tell you anecdotally, what I'm hearing from people in government is that even Democrats who were in the civil service and who were inclined to help Biden, they couldn't get anything done in government because there was no leadership in the White House.
That whole idea that Biden didn't even know he was president, I mean, it's a joke, sort of, but he was put into power by his advisors who then helped themselves to various opportunities and put various woke policies in place, but he wasn't driving anything.
And so when you don't have a leader who drives anything, the members of the agencies don't know what to do.
So Democrats got their turn after watching Trump in the first administration.
Now they want their turn again because Trump 2 is even more energetic than Trump 1.
And I think that's the reason the midterms are likely to go to Democrats, just because they want their turn.
Now, the problem they have is that nobody likes them.
If you look at all the polls, even though Democrats are looking likely to win the House, their approval is through the floor.
And if you look at progressive ideology, nobody likes it.
Nobody likes wokeism.
Nobody likes what Democrats are selling.
And this whole thing about we're going to let illegal aliens run wild and murder people.
And they haven't really changed their agenda after losing to Trump in 2024.
Right.
Gavin Newsom, who's off the reservation, is the sanest among them, except maybe Josh Shapiro as well.
But even Shapiro says crazy stuff.
They're just in a world of crazy, but it's not going to matter.
I think Republicans can hold on to the House if they focus on how crazy the Democrats are.
But it might not happen just because Democrats want their turn.
And that's our system, like it or not.
What do you think about the SAVE Act not passing?
Is that going to help, hurt?
Who's it helping?
And will it pass?
What's going on?
I give you my opinion.
This is not going to be pleasing to some people.
I don't think the SAVE Act should pass.
Here's why.
It takes a beat.
Why?
I don't think the federal government should decide the rules for our elections.
For federal elections?
Yeah, I think we have to go state by state.
And the good news is there are only 14 states that don't have voter ID.
Like you have to have some form of ID when you show up.
I think it's something like 36 states.
But it's not ID.
It's proving that you are a citizen.
So the ID thing, I understand, but you perfectly helped improve citizenship.
I would love it.
Let me put it this way.
I'm going to read it.
Let me clarify.
I would love it if the SAVE Act passed.
If we had a system like that.
I just don't want to see the filibuster thrown away and the Save Act sort of imposed by the federal government because then the Democrats will come in and do the same thing when they eventually do get power.
Remember, democracy is about taking turns.
They're going to get power again and they will pass HR1, which is their ridiculous California-style voting bill that Nancy Pelosi wanted four years ago.
And that will destroy our elections forever, forever, forever, forever.
There will be ballot harvesting on a national scale that's in the bill.
There will be all kinds of other provisions that allow for all kinds of shenanigans to go on.
And once that happens, you will never undo it.
And so I think that what's happening in California, ironically, and I mentioned some interesting stuff is happening in California.
California is passing voter ID, likely on a ballot referendum that's being pushed by a group called Reform California, headed by Carl DeMayo, who's a longtime Republican activist, one of the smartest guys in the state assembly.
And he's very controversial, but he's got this great idea and he's basically pushing voter ID in California.
And it looks like it's going to pass.
Initially, it's even in the polls, 44 to 45, but that's only because there hasn't been any advertising yet.
And also because the people who are against it know that it's a Republican thing and that's why they oppose it.
But if you ask them in polls if they think people should have to have ID to vote, most of them say yes.
The crazy thing about the latest poll about it is that immigrants favor voter ID more than native-born Americans in California.
And Spanish-speaking immigrants favor it overwhelmingly more than English-speaking immigrants.
And it tells you that people with an experience of corruption in other societies understand that ID is necessary.
And so I think this is likely to pass with enough energy and momentum behind it.
And I think if California passes voter ID, then other states will follow.
And I think that's the model we should try to preserve, where you go state by state and you do this state by state and you embarrass the states that don't have it.
So if California moves, then you're going to be left with Illinois, New York, the places that people are leaving.
Okay.
And I think if you can pass voter ID on a referendum, which has popular support, it's preferable to having the SAVE Act pass where you have the federal government telling people what to do,
and you probably have to do this filibuster change to do it.
And I just feel like we're going to see Democrats in power at some point again in our lifetimes, and they are going to try to ram everything down our throats.
And I am a conservative small C in that regard.
I really believe in preserving whatever checks and balances you have already because I think these people are unhinged.
I think they're unhinged.
And they're going to try to do whatever they think Trump did.
And they're going to go further.
And I'm not afraid of them, but I think you have to think about the battles that are ahead.
And so I think you win this thing state by state rather than on a federal level.
Now, having said that, I think proposing the SAVE Act is a good idea because you make it clear to the country that your priorities are free and fair elections, voter ID, and all the other things in the bill, and that Democrats are rejecting it.
So I think it's a useful exercise in showing the country what the choice is.
Just like having people stand up or sit down at the State of the Union, whether they want Americans to come before illegal aliens is a good idea.
It doesn't mean any laws have passed, but it really tells you where people stand or sit.
But I think that I'm hopeful that there will be change in California.
Now, if voter ID fails in California, then my view will probably change.
Then I'll say, okay, yeah, just does the DeMayo proposition help in regards to, because in California, when you register to vote, you don't have to prove citizenship.
You just may just sign an affidavit.
And I think Nick Shergley was did a video of how like they take your word for it.
I'm a citizen.
Here you go.
I'm registering to vote.
And as you know, illegal immigrants can have IDs in California and driver's licenses.
Right.
So they're requiring forms of proof that require citizenship in California.
But what's interesting, I asked Carl de Mayo, how are you going to have voter ID when two-thirds of the state votes by mail, including a lot of Republicans now who got used to voting by mail?
He said, you choose the form of identification.
So either your passport or your driver's license, whatever it is, but it's got to be some form of ID where you have to be a citizen to have it.
And you tell the state through whatever website the last four digits.
So you give them like the four digit pin.
And when you cast your ballot, you have to have your four digit pin on your ballot so that they and then they match that instead of this signature business because the signature business is totally corrupt.
I mean, I think they change the parameters on the machines when they read signatures for different purposes because they can dial it up or dial it down how strict it is in terms of rejecting or accepting signatures.
And I think for small elections or primary elections or special elections, they're much stricter.
But when they have millions and millions and millions of people voting in a general election, I think they lower the standards because they just don't have time to go through all those signatures more carefully.
And I think that the signature verification is almost arbitrary.
And that's why you get a situation where there are massive errors in a primary election with signature verification.
But somehow when you get to the general election, it's less than 1%.
You didn't improve this from like 25% errors to 1% errors in like a few months.
You just changed the parameters or you changed how you measure it.
That was very obvious in Arizona in 2020 with Carrie Lake's election and with the presidential election too.
Yeah.
Historically, every time it was like a two or two and a half percent rejection rate, and then all of a sudden it was like 0.5%.
And yeah, and you saw in the instructions, they basically said, you know, don't check it.
And they had evidence that like they were scanning these things and supposedly checking the signatures, but it was like doing it at like, you know, a thousand a second where it wasn't really spending any time doing it.
Right.
So that is consistent with a theory of fraud.
It's also a consistent, it's also consistent with just a theory of large numbers.
Like we don't have time.
If we're going to get the numbers in, we just got to move these ballots through as soon as possible.
So, you know, you pick whichever theory you want.
But my point is just signature verification is manipulable.
And I don't think that the pin number is manipulable.
So I think Carl de Mayo has got a cool idea.
I think it might pass in California.
And if it doesn't, then I do think California is cooked.
And then maybe, you know, if you're going to lose the House on the national level, then maybe you push the SAVE Act through and you do all this stuff.
I'm open to it then.
But while there is this option still of starting with California and going through the last remaining blue states that ridiculously claim it's racist to demand ID, then I think you can do it state by state and preserve this division of powers that prevents us from having to deal with a hyper-adrenalized,
crazy radical AOC style Democrat control in the future.
I mean, that's what I want to avoid for America because I don't think we come back from that.
Well, this was definitely one of Scott's most major peeves and issues was having faith in our election system and in voting.
And I don't feel like even with the SAVE Act, that is really going to change anything.
I mean, to me, it should just be like they always say a national holiday.
You have one day.
I don't even know why we have mail-in voting.
Like just go vote in person, show your freaking ID.
And honestly, if it's too much for you, then don't vote.
You know, like if you want to vote, make it happen.
like show up and vote.
And somebody suggested to me, like, oh, somebody's like, I don't, you know, I can't get to a poll or I don't know how to get my birth certificate.
Okay, well, we'll help you.
Well, let's let's embrace that and amplify it.
And we'll help you get it.
And I'll take people and show them how, but that's not the problem.
And I just, I don't understand why it can't just be one day in person with ID, boom, done.
You have all year to figure out how to make that happen and how to get there.
I have a couple more things I want to talk about very quickly.
And I normally can't stay this long, but I've just decided to miss my morning meeting to be with you guys.
So sometimes I think the technical delay helped me make that decision, by the way.
I was like, oh, well, I'm running late anyway.
Let me just stay longer.
I want to give you guys some news first of all.
So I showed you a few months ago that I started Scott's biography and I'm writing it longhand, okay?
For the first draft.
There'll be a second draft and a third draft.
But so this is this is what I've been working on every day, six days a week for the last two months.
And I'm at the last three, well, last three pages.
So the last six pages really, but in three days, I'm really neatly three days.
So beautiful.
By the end of the month, we'll have a draft.
Guys, don't you just want to grab it right out of his hands right now and return it?
I know.
I'm interested to know how you end it.
Well, you'll have to wait right now.
No, look, it's a good question.
I don't think this is going to be how it ends in the final form necessarily.
But the challenge, the reason I do this this way is that when you sit down at a computer to write, computers are great editing tools, but they're not great writing tools.
At least if you're old-fashioned.
I mean, I'm not having AI do it, you know.
So if you sit down at a computer, you always want it to be perfect.
And so you delete a lot and you start over a lot and you end up looking at a blank screen for a long time.
I do this longhand because I think when you create a physical product, it feels like you're making progress and then you can keep going.
So it doesn't have to be perfect.
You know it's not going to be perfect.
I can't hand this in to the publisher.
I've got to recopy it.
So I know that I'm committing to an imperfect first draft, but that doesn't stop me from going.
And then I keep going.
Right now, I'm just trying to wrap my hands around the narrative.
So it's chronological.
And the plan I have for the last three pages, I've just reached the point where Scott has to leave the experimental drug trial because his tumors start growing again and he has to go on radiation,
which means he can't do the experimental trial.
So basically I'm right up to December, December last year.
And the last page, well, so the next page that I'm doing tomorrow will probably be about his death and the last few weeks of his life.
And then about the memorial service and the tributes.
And then I think the last two pages, in other words, four pages, because they're each double-sided, the last four pages will be looking back at his life and career and trying to summarize it and understand what it meant and what the common themes were.
And I think I need to do that as I close this draft out.
I'm not sure that's how I'll end the book, but I need to look back at all this because this has been a journey for me as well.
I've learned things I didn't know, not just by talking to people.
And by the way, people who've wanted to talk about Scott, who have approached me, I haven't written back to everybody except sometimes to say thank you for writing.
I'm reaching out to you for the second draft because that's the draft where I'm going to be filling in different things and adding details.
But I just needed to know where's all this going.
So I learned even just from looking back at Scott's life and some of the notes I did on interviews with him and some of the books that he published.
I had never read God's Debris, to be honest, before working on the biography.
I think just to give you a little preview of where I'm at with summarizing it, I actually think God's Debris is the most important book Scott wrote.
And it's not the most influential book, and it's maybe not even the most useful book.
But I think if you read God's Debris, it's the blueprint for the next 25 years of Scott's life.
And so you can understand everything that happened if you understand the characters and the plot of God's Debris.
It's almost like he visualized his future and lived it.
It's absolutely incredible.
And there's a detail in God's Debris that blew my mind when I realized it.
And I had asked Scott before about certain details in certain books, if they were Easter eggs, if we were meant to see something or notice something.
And he said no.
But I think this one was.
I think this one was, because it was so emphasized.
And so I think it's going to be interesting.
I don't want to spoil the surprise.
You'll have to see the biography.
Now I'm going to give you a little emotion before we're done with the hour, I guess.
And I'll tear up a little bit.
But the thing was when you write the last chapter, like I was going through my messages with Scott to try to remember just chronologically, like what happened.
You know, he was sick.
He knew he was sick and he told me.
And very few people knew.
And even though he was absolutely clear from the beginning that he was likely to die, he just kept reaching out and asking how he could help because he told me he was sick on December 4th, 2024.
And then the Palisades fire happened on January 7th, 2025.
So about five weeks later.
He just kept asking me if I needed help.
And I didn't, I didn't.
You know, we kept it together in every way.
And, you know, we kind of made it by through the skin of our teeth.
But, you know, I just, I realized just you don't see it in the moment.
You realize, you know, because I don't think it dawned on us really in a full way that he was dying.
I knew he was struggling with a health issue.
Obviously, it was kind of a terminal diagnosis and all that.
But in the moment, I'm also like running literally to put out a fire and try to move my family and all this stuff.
I just realized that he was thinking about other people's needs when he had the most pressing need any of us could ever have facing a life or death situation.
And it just, it just, again, just moved me so much.
I was writing it yesterday.
I called my wife.
I said, I was tearing up as I was writing this thing.
I can't believe it.
Just looking back on it, you know, how concerned he was about my family and other friends who lived in Palisades.
And just what an extraordinary human being.
But that also comes out of God's Debris is that Scott envisioned a role for himself in his life where he would be helping other people.
And it's not what you might expect necessarily from the cartoonist who gave us Dilbert or the brilliant strategist who came up with how to fail at everything and still win and how and win bigly and loser think.
I mean, but that was the essence of it all.
God's Debris ties it all together in that way.
And you realize that Scott's mission was to be useful to other people.
And Dilbert was a vehicle for doing that, but the underlying mission was to be as useful as he could be.
So I just the interesting part about God's Debris, sorry, I'm tearing up, is that he thought of it while in the shower, I think, or something like that.
Well, he was, he just got the entire book all at once, which he said that that was very different than any other book.
It's like it came from God.
You know, he didn't say God, the simulation or however it is, you know?
So I once asked him about another author whose name was Adams.
If you've read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams.
And in Douglas Adams' book, it turns out that the earth is a giant computer that was created by a super intelligent group of beings to try to solve the riddle of the universe.
And the, I won't ruin, if you haven't read Hitchhiker's Guide in the whole series, I won't ruin it for you.
But the experiment fails because of some things that go wrong with the computer.
But the one person who seems to know what the answer is where the experiment might not have failed just has a moment of inspiration.
And it's almost like Douglas Adams kind of hints that when the computer was done with its calculation, it sort of expressed itself to this person, this woman.
And she doesn't really say what the answer is.
You never quite find out.
And you don't even know if it's the right one because the computer wasn't working properly.
But I think that those moments do happen.
I mean, I think Scott would relate to that, that if we're in a simulation, that sometimes the calculation just produces, it produces a result.
And so you could look at it as God giving him a message or suddenly the program has now reached its run for however many years and now it's put out the output of the program.
I want to say one more thing.
And I don't want to trivialize any of the sort of heavy stuff we were talking about, but I feel like it's important just to talk about only because what's going on in my world right now.
And Scott cared about animals.
So I think he'll excuse this diversion into pets.
But I don't have dogs or cats, but my kids have a hamster.
And we had this hamster from July 2024 until sadly this morning when the hamster died.
Oh.
Oh my God.
You know, a hamster is really, it's a rodent.
It's a small animal.
And the kids were sad.
I'm not at home, so I didn't experience it firsthand, but she was getting kind of slow in the last month or so.
And my wife just found her not moving this morning.
And I said, you know, we had that hamster at the peak of our life in our home in Palisades before the fire.
And then we rescued her when we evacuated.
And then she moved from house to house with us.
And then we took her on the plane when we moved across the country.
I'm crying over a hamster.
We moved across the country.
And then the hamster got out of her cage in my parents' house in Chicago.
And the kids were devastated.
And then they found her.
We kind of used logic to find where would you go if you were a hamster.
We found her in the warm space between the drying machine and the wall.
And she was hiding there because she was warm.
And then she was desperately thirsty.
And we gave her water and she recovered.
And then she came with us to DC and all this.
And I said, you know, this hamster was kind of there in a way as part of our transition through this whole emergency situation that we're still living in.
And I feel like our journey is a journey back home.
I really feel that.
But, you know, you lose some things on the way and some things are not restored, right?
Some things you grieve.
And you are going to lose some things even when you get back home.
And I think that that's something I've also had to think about.
And I think that that is also something we think about with Scott, that this program and other programs are so important to keeping his legacy alive.
And yet there's also just the part of it that's just grief.
And, you know, it doesn't leave you, but that's also part of being alive.
And Scott said A reframe of death was not seeing death as being sad, but being glad that the life happened.
And, you know, that's why we do this.
And it's also, you know, just how all of us are going to go.
And I think it's good for my kids to experience a death that was natural, you know, because before Scott died, they lost their grandmother to cancer.
And we've lost other people to sudden medical emergencies.
And, you know, when I was a kid, I lost pets to accident, you know, dogs running into the street and getting hit by cars more than once.
And it's something to see out the term of a life, right?
Someone comes into your life and they spend time in your life and then they're not there anymore.
And it's in a hamster lifespan is two years.
This hamster lived the lifespan of a hamster.
What was his name?
Button.
Hamster was button.
And I just think it's healthy for children to understand and also healthy maybe for adults to understand that this is how we all are.
And we all have a mission.
And even this little hamster in its own small way had a mission, which was to be a companion for my children, a constant presence when everything around them was changing.
And I think Scott understood his mission.
And, you know, I don't know what my mission is, honestly.
I ask myself, but I think the only way to know is to find out.
That's true.
Anyway, so this has been, I've had a lot to say from the warranty on to the biography to the hamster, but I'm really grateful that you guys are here.
And this was, this was a deeper interaction than I had anticipated.
And I'm grateful for it.
I'm grateful for it too.
Difficulties have a purpose too.
Yeah.
I mean, some, you know.
Okay.
So, Joel, I told you, like, I just feel so connected to you after the memorial and we had that talk together.
And I think sometimes you just need to remember that, you know, we're still going through it.
And I feel so bad that you have to write these next pages.
It's going to be so hard.
So I'll be thinking about you.
And just thank you so much for sharing everything you share with us and coming on here and to everybody that shows up.
You know, like I always say, it's, you know, it's for Scott.
You know, we're here because of Scott, for Scott, to just keep it going.
So this is the first time I've gone over on a show for good reason.
Sorry.
No, I mean, I listen, it's just so, you're amazing.
And I always say that you're the perfect person to be writing this biography.
I could not even imagine anyone else doing it because the amount of respect and care that you have for Scott and who he was and who he will be going forward in this world, you're the perfect, perfect person to write this.
So I think everybody's kind of going through stuff and we're not alone.
You know, we're not alone.
We're all going through stuff and we can all lean on each other.
We have the book to look forward to, which I can't wait to hold it in my hands and just be like, oh my God, here's a whole book, you guys, that we'll be able to absorb about our Scott.
And I can't wait.
I can't wait.
So, Joel, thank you so much for coming on and like for answering my texts this morning and for giving us all this time.
We could never thank you enough.
And thanks, everyone.
It's always good to be with you.
Same.
All right, you guys, let's have a closing sip to Scott and Marcel and Owen.
I love you guys so much.
I love everybody in the chat.
We will be back tomorrow.
And let's please be useful.
We are Scott's Debris.
Let's get out there.
And if you haven't read God's Debris, now's the time.