Episode 2829 CWSA 05/04/25

Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of Human Civilization Sunday edition.

If you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with her tiny shiny human brains, well, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tankerstein, a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

And it's going to happen right now.

Right now.

EJ says, "Scott, you're a dishonest man.

I'll drink to that." Uh, I like to see the comments from the terrible people.

Let me just uh insult your character and we'll start from there.

All right.

Well, um I've got a uh movie recommendation for you.

So, the other day I watched uh the new year 2025 uh Captain America.

Now, if you haven't seen it, um Captain America is black this time, but he's not the only Captain America, cuz I guess I guess the idea is there's more than one Captain America.

And there was a original one and then there were a few others and then there's the 2025 version but the uh the new one is black and the original one is uh also black.

So there were there were two Captain Americas in this movie and they both starred and they were both black Captain Americans.

Uh, but there's the news is that dis Disney wanted more from Marvel, but now wants less.

I guess the uh people are getting tired of the superhero genre, but maybe they're getting tired of just remaking everything to be woke.

Maybe.

I don't know.

It was an okay movie.

It wasn't really any better or any worse than the other ones, which are all kind of boring at this point.

I don't think any of the superhero movies are worth watching.

So, we'll see.

Uh, Australia is launching the world's largest battery powered ship.

Can carry up to 2100 passengers and 225 vehicles.

And it's entirely battery powered.

Now, of course, you're going to ask, what happens if there's a battery fire?

Do you jump into water with the sharks or do you let it burn you up?

I don't know.

I don't know.

I'm just telling you that there's the world's biggest battery powered I think it's some kind of a shuttle.

Um, and it's 426 ft long.

It's a big ass boat.

Here's a another story that I like a lot if I understand it.

So, in California, probably other places too, um there are companies like Tesla that will sell you a battery for your home.

So, you might have solar panels and then you could charge up your own home battery so you've got some backup power.

But, uh another company that does that is Sunun and their Cal Ready system.

And apparently what they've done is they've they'veworked together 56,000 homes that have their batteries.

And if you have enough solar panels on enough houses and they each have their own batteries, apparently you can turn it into essentially its own its own power system.

So even though that's 56,000 homes that are connected, it would power 280,000 homes, which would be the equivalent of all of Ventura County.

Now, if I'm understanding this correctly, this would be one of the greatest energy accomplishments of all time, cuz if if you just have your own solar panels and your own battery, it's kind of good.

But, you know, if things go bad, it's, you know, you might not have enough battery personally, but apparently, if you've got all these batteries connected, um, you don't have to worry too much about ever running out of energy.

So that's pretty pretty impressive.

And then the people who become part of the network get paid.

So they get paid for being part of the network and they get pretty good power.

Allegedly Hyundai the automaker uh they've got a plant in Georgia and they're going to use Atlas robots to automate their plant.

So, do you believe that?

I I feel like all the robot stories are a little premature.

They might be testing it, but uh they they aim to manufacture 100,000 electric and hybrid vehicles annually, but they're going to use the bipedal robots bipedal.

In other words, the two-legged robots developed by Boston Dynamics, and they're going to do a whole bunch of different tasks that are part of assembling that car.

And the idea is that the robots will automate up to 40% of the vehicle assembly by the end of this year.

Does that sound even remotely possible to you?

that by the end of this year there will be an operational um you know a car making plant in Georgia where 40% of the effort will be done by robots two-legged robots that seems a little bit optimistic but we'll see you probably know that Elon Musk was starting his own city um I guess in Texas near where he was doing is is SpaceX stuff.

And now it's official.

It's uh called Starbase, Texas.

And I guess it's officially blessed by the state.

So So you can add to Elon Musk's accomplishments that he built a city that that wasn't even like a a major project.

So do you have any minor projects?

Well, I built a city.

I would love to know if this city has any like special engineering features that that make it extra good to live in it, but maybe we'll learn about that later.

Um, I saw a interview with L.

Trump and Elon Musk in which uh Musk was saying what he often says that uh that that Grock the AI should be maximally truth seeking.

What do you think of that?

Do you think AI should be maximally truth seeking?

Well, maybe not maximally because I think that the truth would destroy civilization.

How many of you believe that's true?

Cuz I'm not even going to give you examples of where I think it would destroy civilization because if I gave you an example, I would get double cancelled.

So, I can't even give you an example.

And you're telling me the AI is going to be able to say things that I can't say out loud because it's maximally truth seeeking?

No.

No.

We're We're not going to have a maximally truth seeeking AI because it would rip the fabric of society in a 100 pieces.

We largely live in this world of illusion.

That's the only thing keeps from killing each other.

Let I I'll just give you one illusion.

One of the illusions is that you can just work hard and you'll do great.

Not really.

I mean, you would have to be unusually good-looking or unusually smart.

Then if you work hard, you might actually make something.

But you can't really tell people, well, you know, given your capabilities, you will always be a low-income person, but you'll be part of supporting the rich people so that they can have wonderful lives on your back.

Yeah.

No, you don't want maximally truth seeeking AI because it's going to tell people things that will make them stop working and want to kill you.

So, there's that.

Fox News has a story that I'm not sure I completely believe this story, but allegedly there's a Swiss writer who called a journalist a quote fat lesbian and for that was sentenced to 60 days in prison.

Do you think that's true?

Do you think that there's nothing else missing in that story?

I feel like there's something missing in the story.

You really can't call somebody a fat lesbian without going to jail if you're Swiss.

I mean, I guess that's possible, but seems like there might be more to that story.

Well, speaking of AI, uh the new version of Grock, which will be 3.5, is going to drop next week.

And it was initially only for the super Grock users.

Um, but apparently this will not just be a better version of Grock, but this one is allegedly able to reason from first principles.

Now, do you believe that?

Do you believe?

Because that would be the next level of AI.

It's the one we haven't seen yet.

Do you think Grock already got there?

because the large language model AIs, the kind that are everywhere, um are really just pattern sort of pattern machines.

So they can just sort of guess what the next word will be and you know they can suck up a bunch of data on the internet and regurgitate it.

But none of them can reason from first principles.

Now, do you think that Elon Musk has already cracked that and he's developed the first first new version of AI that would be a whole different level?

Maybe uh you know, cuz I don't think he would lie about it.

So, you you must believe that it's there.

So, we'll be watching that with great anticipation to see if he's got the the ultimate level.

not the ultimate, but it would be the next level of AI.

Well, Warren Buffett, who is uh I believe he's a thousand years old or maybe 94.

Um he's going to step down at the end of the year as CEO.

Um now, we don't know what that's going to do to the Brookshire Hathaway stock because I'm not sure how much work he was doing at age 94 anyway.

I'm sure he had good people who were doing the the heavy lifting, but uh I'll I'll tell you my bad investing story.

I may have told you this before that I think it was 25 years ago, I put a good chunk of what little money I had at the time in into Berkshire Hathway.

And sure enough, you know, just like you'd expect, it did great.

I think it might have doubled during the time that I held it.

And so I said to myself, you know, that Warren Buffett's looking pretty old.

I think he's going to retire or maybe just die of natural causes.

And I don't want to be sitting on this Brookshire Haway stock when he goes.

If I had simply held that stock, oh my god, I I don't know what percentage it went up in the last 25 years, but it was pretty good.

Pretty good.

So, don't take my don't take my advice for for investing, that's for sure.

Well, Warren Buffett also has a half opinion.

You you've heard me say that before.

A half opinion is when you ignore either the costs or the benefits of a situation and you just act like only one of them exist.

Oh, it's just a cost.

Don't do it.

Or it's just a benefit.

You should totally do it.

Now, in the real world, things have costs and benefits.

And one of the words that signals that you have a half pinion is the word should.

It should is usually a signal that you've got a half opinion coming.

Um, so listen to this.

This is what Warren Buffett said about tariffs.

Quote, "Trade should not be a weapon." Trade should not be a weapon.

So, is he in favor of using uh tariffs as a negotiating tool?

Does he think that we should simply accept the tariffs that other countries put on us so that we don't start any trade wars?

That is what you call a half pinion.

He gets to say the part that's that makes him look good without having to commit to anything should.

So let let me give you another example.

I'm going to give you my opinion about war.

Are you ready?

This will be my official public opinion about war.

We should fight wars without killing any civilians.

Who's with me?

Anybody?

Anybody want to sign on to my half half an opinion?

Because in the real world, you don't get that option.

So, you just say, "Well, we should." And what about using trade as a weapon?

Well, uh, we should not.

As soon as you see the word should, there's some happening.

So, that that's your, uh, persuasion lesson of the day.

Always look for should.

And when I use the word myself, which I do.

It's just too easy to grab that word when you're talking.

Um, I try to correct myself because, you know, you can you can easily just fall into this should thing and it always means you're not looking at the whole picture.

It's almost a confession.

All right.

Um, the postmillennial has a story about uh RFK Jr.'s Department of Health and Human Services.

They have decided that u the recommended treatment for people with gender dysphoria is the therapy as opposed to gender affirming surgery for example and points out that the uh more invasive stuff is not proven to be effective sort of in general and uh so this is basically a review it's not a law so the review that uh HHS did stated that the effectiveness of psychotherapy for other mental health issues um including those present alongside gender dysphoria quote suggests it may also be beneficial for gender dysphoria specifically is it true that psychotherapy is effective for other disorders that's actually a real question I don't know the answer to that because I've heard a lot of people say that it's just fake that you know therapy doesn't work for anybody really but I suspect it doesn't work for some people what do you think do you think that uh psychotherapy is a real thing that fixes people probably it depends a lot on who the psychotherapist is it you know I've got a feeling that the top 10% best therapists can fix a lot of people.

I'm not sure if the bottom 90% can get anything done except taking your money.

And you know, maybe it's not 9010, but I'll bet it's not 100%.

Do you think 100% of therapists are good enough to fix people's mental problems?

Not 100%.

And do you think it's 50%.

because 50% would be, you know, worth trying.

I' I've got a feeling it's closer to 10%.

That can really make a difference.

The rest just give the benefit of being a good listener, I suppose, which is valuable, too.

Just a guess.

So, don't take any of my that this is not a medical or therapy um advice because I don't know enough about the field.

So, I've never I I haven't had any mental problems I've needed to get therapy for.

Um, which I always think is weird.

How many of you would say of yourselves that you've not really had any mental problems that required any help?

How many of you would say that?

Cuz I feel like I'm unusual.

Like I don't have anxiety.

I don't have depression.

I don't have self-doubt.

Uh I I don't have I don't have any of that.

And I'm not sure why, you know.

I I don't think I was like born with better genes or anything like that.

I have no idea why.

I just don't have them.

Yeah.

So, a number of number of you are in good shape, too.

Oh, good.

According to the New York Post, there's a former State Department analyst who wrote checks to herself and during her job for $650,000 over two years.

Now, the fun part of this is the trick she used for embezzling.

So, apparently she was using um what do you call it?

Uh Quick.

Books.

So, she had access to Quick.

Books and then she would go in Quick.

Books and I guess nobody was checking her work and she would uh write a check to herself and then print it.

But here's what she cleverly did.

Then she would go back into Quick.

Books after she had printed the check and change the name that was in Quick.

Books from her own name, which is what she had just printed out, to some name that sounded like a vendor.

And she got away with that for two years and got $650,000 out of the government.

Now, the question I ask you is, how much of that is happening?

You know, I I go back to my observation that if you just drive around in a nice neighborhood, you can't really understand how so many people got so much money or or back in the times when I would go on vacations and nice places and I would think to myself, you know, I'm the Dilber guy.

I got super lucky, you know, made more money than most people.

So, I get to go to this resort, you know, some five-story resort somewhere, but then it would be full.

And I would think to myself, how could it be so many people who are so lucky?

Did they inherit it?

Are they criminals?

And I don't know what the percentage is, but I just think that there's some shocking number of people who are rich who literally stole it from the government because the government has so much money that you can steal a lot for yourself and nobody notices.

So, I mean, it's just speculation, but I got a feeling that not everybody's earning their money the hard way like I did.

Well, there's a big trial going on with Meta's AI.

There's some authors and mostly authors who are uh trying to say that uh the AI, in this case Meta, um use their copyrighted work and they believe that their copyright should protect them from having the AI suck it up and be able to do stuff with it.

Now, the good news is I was just reading a little bit about the questions that were being asked by the judge, and you know, it's hard to know for sure from a distance, but the judge seems to be really, really sharp because I looked at the questions and how we frame stuff and I thought, "Wow, you really you really kind of get this topic." So, Ars Technica is writing about this, but uh the judge, he downplayed Meadow's what he called messed up torrenting.

Um, and uh, whatever he rules, this could be an important ruling in the world of AI, cuz if the judge decides that AI can't do this sort of thing because it's a copyright violation, then the United States will fall behind in AI because we won't be able to train it the way, you know, China would, which is stealing anything it can steal and don't care about copyrights.

Um, so it's really big deal.

On the other hand, it's really bad for authors.

So the judge is going to end up making a decision even even though it's really just a legal decision.

It's going to be a decision about which industry dies.

So if the judge says you can't train your you can't train your model on copyrighted material well then AI as an industry will just die or it'll get sued out of existence.

But if he says, "Well, you know, it's too important or um it looks like it's fair use," then I would argue that the the book authoring business would be completely dead in just a few years.

So, you're sort of you're going to have to decide which one is going to die, the literary world or the AI world.

Unfortunately, as someone who has written books, I think it's going to be the author world that dies because that seems like the the older technology, the one that doesn't really it's not really supporting the country directly.

It's just something people like.

Whereas AI is more existential, you know, necessary for defense, for economics, for everything.

So, I did a little test where I went to Grock and I told it to summarize the book uh um uh Atomic Habits.

Is that the And it didn't it didn't uh pause for a second and it gave me a good little summary where I would say to myself, huh, I don't know if I need to read this book now.

And I thought to myself, is that only true for non-fiction books?

Can I just go to uh and I've tried to do it with my own books?

But it but when I do it with my own books, it tells me that um it can only tell me what other people have said about it.

So if there are other people who have written long reviews or if somebody went to I don't know went on X and did a big thread where they said here's the best ideas from his book.

I guess it could train on that.

And so I don't know if I would write another book because we're at that point where you don't really need to buy a book if you have AI.

You can just you can just tell it to summarize all the top 10 business books and you know by the time you've reached your destination on your your airline trip you you'll basically know what's in 10 different important books.

I don't know.

And then what about the ones that are just pure fiction?

Do you think that uh do you think the AI will just be able to look at a bunch of fiction that other people have written and just say, "All right, I can see how this works.

I see the patterns.

You made a prediction.

If I write another one, it'll be my best." Well, even if it is my best, it wouldn't be economic um at this point.

I don't know.

So, this is a big case.

We'll see how that goes.

According to just the news, there's a rumor that uh the first big trade deal might be with India.

Now, we don't have confirmation of that, but uh commerce secretary Lutnik, he hinted at the fact that there's going to be an announcement coming and it wasn't long ago that JD Vance was over in India meeting with uh Modi.

And so if you just sort of, you know, read the tea leaves and you figure India might want to might want to be first, um, maybe it'll be India.

But here's the political element.

So the Democrats have gone allin on the the tariffs being the worst idea and nothing but chaos can come from it.

Now, would you agree that they're all in on that?

They're just they're they bet their entire farm on tariffs are destroying the economy so that by the midterms they can say, "See, look what he did.

He destroyed the economy." Now, they're not getting what they want in terms of the stock market, which has largely recovered, or the price of eggs, which have gone down, or the price of fuel, which I think has drifted down a little bit.

So they're really they're really going to have to bank on the tariffs being a disaster.

So what happens when the tariff deals start coming through because you know they will.

There's not really much chance that we won't make any tariff deals and we'll obviously do the important ones that we think we can get done and make a difference first.

So, isn't it going to look like one loss after another to the Democrats?

Oh, he's so chaos.

Oh, everything's okay.

Well, we we'll give you that the India trade deal was better for the United States, but all the rest, oh, the the chaos and the uncertainty.

Okay.

Okay.

Maybe Japan can make a deal, but they're, you know, they're a good ally.

You can't count them.

Oh, but the the chaos.

All right.

South Korea did make a deal and it looks like it's a little bit better for us, but but really it's still just nothing but K.

And okay, Europe made a deal.

It correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the I think the Democrats are going to have something like a full year of having to just suck every word they've said for the last six months.

It's it's going to look like they're so wrong that it would be wrongness on a scale that we've never seen before because it's just going to be one thing after another.

I think there are what 160 countries and every you know when we reach a certain point you know maybe in a few months it's going to be every day every day there's going to be another announcement of how we improved our trade situation with a particular country.

I think Democrats just created this own trap for themselves because they put so much attention into the, "Oh, the tariffs are bad.

The tariffs are bad.

He doesn't know what a tariff is." That they're just going to have to eat it.

We'll see.

Um, apparently Bernie Sanders is not too unified with uh Chuck Schumer.

Um, and he was arguing that uh um that the reason that Trump won, this is Bernie Sanders, he thinks the reason that Trump won is because he said he would smash the system.

How many of you have voted for Trump because he was going to smash the system?

Does Bernie have the right the right uh vibe there?

I feel like he might for the first time because that's why I supported Trump.

I wanted him to break everything because everything was everything was corrupt.

And when everything is corrupt and somebody comes in and says, "I'm just going to stomp on everything." I think to myself, that's the first step.

Bring him in, have him stomp on everything.

Just break everything.

And then, you know, maybe we can recover.

But we definitely can't just keep going the way we're going.

So I think Bernie might be a little bit right about that.

But uh Sanders was pushing back on Caitlyn Collins suggestion about the cohesiveness of the the Democrats and Sanders said uh that they're not cohesive.

He said quote you needed an agenda questioning what the party was united around.

what exactly would we be united around?

You would need some kind of an agenda.

And I would add to that that once the Democrats had uh gone allin on opposing common sense, in other words, always taking the 20 side of the 8020 situation, what once you've committed to being against common sense, I don't know that there's a path back because you would either have to embrace the entire Republican concept of common sense or You have to stay against common sense.

There's only two paths.

How how in the world do they come back from that?

Well, I guess they have the media to to keep them in business.

Well, let's look at the uh designated liars and the Democrat side.

You know, the de the designated liars are, you know, Adam Schiff, Jamie Rascin, Swallwell, uh and Elizabeth Warren, and some more.

Now, what's different about the designated liars, this is my own name for them, the DDLs, Democrat designated liars, is that they will they will lie in public about something that's already been debunked or is easy to check is not true.

Uh, Goldman, yeah, Goldman, I guess you could add to the list.

Um, but not all of the Democrats will do that.

there there's a whole bunch of just sort of normal Democrats who might, you know, they might spin things, they might leave something out, they might say their idea is better than it is.

They might exaggerate a little bit, but they don't tell the the just big whopper lies.

So, here's what uh Elizabeth Warren did recently, and I saw this in a post by Maize Maize Moore on X.

So, as Maize is pointing out, so in uh early March, there was a story about a French scientist, and this is a fake story, but the story was that the French scientist was denied entry into the US because he had some anti-Trump text messages on his phone.

Now, apparently, I I just missed that story because it seemed too small, I guess.

But so Elizabeth Warren is going to pretend like that's true after it's been debunked.

I guess the real story is that uh the scientist did something with some confidential materials.

So it had nothing to do with text messages about Trump.

It was something about designated I don't know confidential materials.

But so Elizabeth Warren is at the Senate and Finance Committee and she wants to bring this up after it's been completely debunked.

So unambiguously didn't happen.

But as Maize points out, listen to how carefully she words her statement uh because she knows it's been disproven for weeks.

But the way she talks about it is she says that reportedly reportedly it happened because reportedly is accurate.

It's accurate that somebody reported it, but by now she knows it's not true.

And she can still say reportedly if you had a bad message about Trump on your phone, you might be denied entry to the country.

reportedly.

Now, that is something that only the designated liars could say.

I mean, it is so shamelessly obviously a lie, but you know, she's using the weasel word reportedly.

Reportedly.

So, that's my leadin to my next story, which is James Carville has the most insane claim here.

He was talking to uh Ryan Liza on a podcast and according to Carville, he said, "Quote, people say to me all the time, James, why don't we just do like the Republicans do?

Just stand up and lie." All right, so this is Carville claiming that the Republicans lie and and then he's going to tell you why they can't do that.

And he says, "Uh, because our effing people wouldn't stand for it." Carville says, "If I stood up and lied, you would be the first person to say James Carville lost all credibility last night when he said X, Y, and Z." Really?

Has James Carville never noticed that Democrats lie?

I mean, I I don't even know what to say about that because I can't tell if he's actually stupid and clueless and he doesn't know or is that just one of his lies and he's just, you know, sort of a happy warrior, lies about anything.

But, but Carville is not one of the designated liars.

He does try to weasle his way around to something that's closer to spinning or omitting some facts or leaving out some context or something.

So, he's not I wouldn't call him one of the designated liars.

He doesn't like to get caught in like a really really direct lie, but he certainly said some things about Republicans getting ready to to cut Medicaid and Social Security to which I say, but the president says he won't do that and there's no support for that.

And then he would argue, well, but you know, there are reasons to think they might do it anyway.

So that's not it's not the worst lie.

It just, you know, lacks context, I guess you'd say.

All right.

But at the same time, uh, Jen Saki, Democrat, um, she was asked, uh, about the so-called cover up of Biden's mental decline.

And, uh, she was on some podcast and she argued that she doesn't like the word cover up because that suggests that they were aware of the fact that Biden was mentally incapable and they were hiding it from people.

and she doesn't believe that she ever saw the uh Biden with any mental decline.

Now, is she a Democrat who is lying?

You can't really tell because, you know, maybe, you know, maybe by weird coincidence, she just never saw it because he had good days and bad days.

So, it's it's wildly improbable that she was not aware that about his mental decline.

Wildly improbable.

But you can't say it's impossible.

So, again, she's not one of the the Democrat designated liars.

She's more of a spinner, you know, more of a leave out some context, you know, allow you to believe something that that you shouldn't believe.

But anyway, I guess the Democrats think they don't lie.

So, Elon Omar was asked about uh on some interview about the rise of Islamophobia and she was asked if that's a legitimate fear that people are afraid about the rise of Islam of Islam I guess in the United States.

Um, I would say that I'm afraid of that because the Islamic system is such that it's it's built to dominate and usually there's a very clear plan to, you know, get more people, have more babies, you know, carve out your own little area where you say, "Oh, you know, we'll be a little Muslim area." Next thing you know, they're going to be pressing for Sharia law and then after that trying to take over the country.

So yes, um I don't know if I'm Islamophobic, you know, I can say the usual things like obviously it doesn't apply to, you know, most Islamic people.

You know, there are good people and bad people in every group, blah blah blah.

But yes, I'm completely I'm completely afraid.

not afraid, but I'm completely concerned that it's an incompatible system with our current system, but it's also a uh what would you call it?

A uh sort of a hungry system that looks to eat the other systems.

Uh but here's what Elon Omar said.

Our country should be here's the should.

Our country should be more fearful of white men.

If fear is the driving force, we should be monitoring, profiling, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men.

Okay.

Now, is that a Democrat lying or is that spinning and leaving out context?

It's more of a spinning, leaving out context.

But I can tell you that most of us would be cancelled forever if we had ever said anything like that.

But somehow somehow she gets to say that in public and goes on like nothing happened.

Amazingly.

Well, as you know, every time Trump tries to do something, there's some kind of federal court that tries to block it and then it gets raised to a higher court and sometimes Trump wins.

Well, one of those things was Trump trying to fire the staff of the Voice of America people and then there was a judge that says you can't do that and now there's a DC court um who struck down the first judge and says yes you can.

So the gayway pundits writing about this.

So apparently it's a big win.

So Trump does get to say who works in the Voice of America and he would like that to be nobody.

So, we'll see if this extends to other topics.

I'm not sure it does.

Um, Brett Bearer was talking to JD Vance and he was asking about the uh the Trump 2028 and whether or not Trump really wants to run for a third term.

And here's uh JD Vance's uh answer to that.

He said uh yeah, with a big smile, he goes, "I'll let the president speak to his political future.

One thing I'll say about the president of the United States, he loves to have a good time with the American media.

Now, I think that's your answer, right?

You your answer is he doesn't want to speak for the president, but he wants you to know that the president likes to have some fun with the media.

So the so the Trump 2028 thing, I think, you know, maybe he's testing the waters to see if there was some legal way to do it, but I don't really think he plans to run again in 2028.

Um, at the same time, you probably saw the meme that Trump put out of himself looking like the Pope and Bill Crystal is trying to turn this into some kind of news.

um you know, he said that the Pope meme is, you know, disrespectful to Catholics.

And he he asked JD Vance on X, you know, if if he thought the Pope meme was disrespectful to Catholics.

And JD Vance responded in an X.

Um well, here's exactly what Bill Crystal said.

He said, "Jie Vance, are you fine with this disrespect and mocking of the Holy Father?" advanced replies on X.

As a general rule, I'm fine with people telling jokes and not fine with people starting stupid wars that kill thousands of my countrymen because that's a direct attack on Bill Crystal who likes his wars.

So, that's a perfect answer.

You know, a as you're trying to decide if JD Vance will be the 2028 Trump uh follow-up, these are just perfect answers that he likes jokes and he doesn't like war.

Perfect.

Well, here's another lie from the uh Democrats.

I saw this in a post by John Mc.

Cloy.

So, over on MSNBC, the former Senator Doug Jones was claiming that when Trump did his uh commencement address at Alabama, um that he wasn't invited.

He said he wasn't invited to to Alabama to give a commencement address.

And they had to open the event to the general public because they couldn't get anyone else to come in.

In other words, they the college didn't have enough people interested to go.

So they had to open it to the public just to sort of fill the space.

None of that was true.

They did invite him and the place was packed to the gills and it was a closed ticketed event so it was not available to the general public.

So every part of that was just completely made up.

And does Carville even notice that?

Probably not.

Probably not.

Well, here's another least surprising story of all times.

Have you noticed that the New York Times likes to do these deep dives on stories to discover something that you and I have known for years and then they make it look like, you know, they're that they've done some great investigative work and you and I stay here and go, um, we all knew that for years.

Here's another one.

So, a big investigation by the New York Times um and they've revealed that Washington and and Kiev have operated what amounts to a shadow military alliance.

So, the New York Times is just finding out that the US built 12 covert CIA bases inside Ukraine, trained elite units for years, elite Ukrainian units, and had a constant stream of battlefield intelligence to help Ukraine strike Russian targets now.

How many of you didn't know that?

Is there even one person here who didn't know that the US was sort of, you know, low-key using the CIA to help Ukraine as much as possible?

And obviously we were on the ground.

And obviously there had to be, you know, facilities for all those CIA people.

And obviously we were going to train them.

I if only for using our weapons, we'd have to train them.

So, isn't it weird that the New York Times does these these big deep dives and they say, "Oh, this this might surprise you, but guess what?

The United States has been deeply involved in this war in a very practical level since the beginning." And we all say, "I think we all knew that just because it's obvious, worstkept secret." Well, um you might know that uh Putin had asked for a three-day ceasefire because Putin's got this big victory day celebration that they're doing in uh Russia, victory day over, uh I guess o over Hitler, and they're going to have uh foreign dignitaries will be there, etc.

So he wanted to make sure that um that Ukraine didn't use that opportunity to attack the event because people would be exposed and it would be you know it'd just be terrible if he attacked it.

And Zilinski has uh basically said uh it's fair game.

Zalinski just said directly it's it's fair game.

You know we're at war.

We can attack anything we want.

Now, on one hand, I kind of agree with that.

If you're at war, you can attack whatever you need to attack, but uh it seems like it would be the worst idea in the world to attack this victory day thing because it would just make Putin more angry.

And that's nothing good could come from that.

But it doesn't sound like Zilinski wants peace.

If you wanted peace, you would at least say, "All right, we'll give you the three days, but we'd rather have a permanent ceasefire." You don't say, "We might we might attack your Victory Day parade." This is very clearly not working toward peace.

Speaking of not working toward peace, the Times of Israel is reporting that the Hoodis um sent some ballistic missile toward Israel and it blew up near Bengurion airport.

Didn't kill anybody or hurt anybody, but uh Israel is wondering why they didn't shoot it down.

So, they've got their they've got their missile defense systems and it was only one missile and it apparently got through the defenses.

So, they're going to have to figure out what's up with that.

But does it seem to you like the entire point of the Hoodies is to either create a bigger war?

Well, just that, to create a bigger war.

I feel like that's all they're doing is trying to create a bigger war.

Meanwhile, over in the UK, I saw the Amuse account writing about this.

Um, the UK has found what they think are eight terror suspects that are Iranian that were in their country accused of planning massive terror attacks against British citizens.

Now, do you think that would have been a good play from Iran to do a massive terror attack in the UK?

I don't know.

It seems like that would be a weird play while while they're talking about a peace deal.

Um or unless it's, you know, just in case things went bad or something.

But doesn't it make you wonder how many Iranian terrorists are already in the United States.

If there were eight of them in the UK and they were looking to do some big terror thing, there might be dozens of them, if not hundreds, in the United States because we haven't had border security until recently.

So that's the thing I worry about the most is if if we ended up being involved in some kind of a terror attack on if we got involved in let's say working with Israel to attack the uh nuclear facilities in Iran.

I feel like they would activate their terrorists and it would be a really bad week in America.

So that does worry me.

Well, in other science news, uh there new scientific not scientific solar panels that are a thousand times stronger and thinner than a human hair and it's way more efficient, a thousand times more powerful than silicon, and way more durable according to the bright side of the news.

Now, I think I've told you before that all of these massive improvements in solar panels and fusion and uh you know batteries um you really have to think in terms of you know 5 to 20 years before any of this finds its way into the commercial world.

But it's kind of exciting.

And then lastly, because it's May 4th, um there's a company uh called, let's see, who are they?

It's a Polish firm.

They've created this Star Wars styled airbike except it uses a jet engine.

So, it's like a flying motorcycle with a jet engine and it shows it, you know, looking really cool and flying over this desert area.

And I'm thinking to myself, you kind of have to have your own desert, don't you?

Because where exactly would you fly a jet powered motorcycle?

You wouldn't do it in the suburbs.

You couldn't do it in the city.

You couldn't do it really anywhere, you know.

You couldn't do it over other people's property because because they're really low.

They're not way up in the air.

They're like, I don't know, 20 feet up.

So, to me, this seems like the worst commercial idea I've ever seen in my life.

Although, the technology looked pretty cool.

So, all right, that's all I got for you today.

Uh, yeah, it's also loud.

Yeah, I I can't see that.

That is a future, but who knows?

Maybe.

Uh, Jay Leno has a jet motorcycle.

He probably doesn't use it too much.

All right.

Um, thanks for joining everybody.

I'm going to talk to the locals people for just briefly.

And the rest of you, thanks for joining.

I'll see you same time tomorrow, same place.

[Music]

[Music]

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of Human Civilization

Sunday edition. If you'd like to take

your experience up to levels that nobody

can even understand with her tiny shiny

human brains, well, all you need for

that is a copper mug or a glass of

tankerstein, a canteen jugger flask, a

vessel of any kind. Fill it with your

favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join

me now for the unparalleled pleasure,

the dopamine of the day, the thing that

makes everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip. And it's going to

happen right now. Right now.

EJ says, "Scott, you're a dishonest man.

I'll drink to

that." Uh, I like to see the comments

from the terrible

people. Let me just uh insult your

character and we'll start from there.

All right.

Well, um I've got a uh movie

recommendation for you. So, the other

day I watched uh the

new year 2025 uh Captain

America. Now, if you haven't seen it, um

Captain America is black this time, but

he's not the only Captain America, cuz I

guess I guess the idea is there's more

than one Captain America. And there was

a original one and then there were a few

others and then there's the 2025 version

but the uh the new one is black and the

original one is uh also

black. So there were there were two

Captain Americas in this movie and they

both starred and they were both black

Captain Americans. Uh, but there's the

news is that dis Disney wanted more from

Marvel, but now wants less. I guess the

uh people are getting tired of the

superhero genre, but maybe they're

getting tired of just remaking

everything to be woke. Maybe. I don't

know. It was an okay

movie. It wasn't really any better or

any worse than the other ones, which are

all kind of boring at this point. I

don't think any of the superhero movies

are worth

watching. So, we'll see. Uh, Australia

is launching the world's largest battery

powered ship. Can carry up to 2100

passengers and 225 vehicles. And it's

entirely battery

powered. Now, of course, you're going to

ask, what happens if there's a battery

fire? Do you jump into water with the

sharks or do you let it burn you up? I

don't know. I don't know. I'm just

telling you that there's the world's

biggest battery powered I think it's

some kind of a

shuttle. Um, and it's 426 ft

long. It's a big ass

boat. Here's a

another story that I like a lot if I

understand it. So, in California,

probably other places too, um there are

companies like Tesla that will sell you

a battery for your home. So, you might

have solar panels and then you could

charge up your own home battery so

you've got some backup power. But, uh

another company that does that is

Sunun and their Cal Ready system. And

apparently what they've done is they've

they'veworked together

56,000 homes that have their

batteries. And if you have enough solar

panels on enough houses and they each

have their own batteries, apparently you

can turn it into essentially its own its

own power system. So even though that's

56,000 homes that are connected, it

would power 280,000 homes, which would

be the equivalent of all of Ventura

County.

Now, if I'm understanding this

correctly, this would be one of the

greatest energy accomplishments of all

time, cuz if if you just have your own

solar panels and your own battery, it's

kind of good. But, you know, if things

go bad, it's, you know, you might not

have enough battery personally, but

apparently, if you've got all these

batteries connected, um, you don't have

to worry too much about ever running out

of energy.

So that's pretty pretty impressive. And

then the people who become part of the

network get paid. So they get paid for

being part of the network and they get

pretty good

power. Allegedly Hyundai the automaker

uh they've got a plant in Georgia and

they're going to use Atlas

robots to automate their plant.

So, do you believe that? I I feel like

all the robot stories are a little

premature. They might be testing it, but

uh they they aim to manufacture 100,000

electric and hybrid vehicles annually,

but they're going to use the bipedal

robots bipedal. In other words, the

two-legged robots developed by Boston

Dynamics, and they're going to do a

whole bunch of different tasks that are

part of assembling that car.

And the idea is that the robots will

automate up to 40% of the vehicle

assembly by the end of this

year. Does that sound even remotely

possible to you? that by the end of this

year there will be an operational

um you know a car making plant in

Georgia where 40% of the effort will be

done by robots two-legged

robots that seems a little bit

optimistic but we'll

see you probably know that Elon Musk was

starting his own city um I guess in

Texas near where he was doing is is

SpaceX stuff. And now it's official.

It's uh called Starbase, Texas. And I

guess it's officially blessed by the

state. So

So you can add to Elon Musk's

accomplishments that he built a

city that that wasn't even like a a

major project. So do you have any minor

projects? Well, I built a

city. I would love to know if this city

has any like special engineering

features that that make it extra good to

live in it, but maybe we'll learn about

that

later.

Um, I saw a interview with L. Trump and

Elon Musk in which uh Musk was saying

what he often

says that

uh that that Grock the

AI should be maximally truth seeking.

What do you think of that? Do you think

AI should be maximally truth seeking?

Well, maybe not

maximally because I think that the truth

would destroy

civilization. How many of you believe

that's

true? Cuz I'm not even going to give you

examples of where I think it would

destroy civilization because if I gave

you an example, I would get double

cancelled. So, I can't even give you an

example. And you're telling me the AI is

going to be able to say things that I

can't say out loud because it's

maximally truth

seeeking?

No. No. We're We're not going to have a

maximally truth seeeking AI because it

would rip the fabric of society in a 100

pieces. We largely live in this world of

illusion. That's the only thing keeps

from killing each other.

Let I I'll just give you one

illusion. One of the illusions is that

you can just work hard and you'll do

great. Not really. I mean, you would

have to be unusually good-looking or

unusually

smart. Then if you work hard, you might

actually make something. But you can't

really tell people, well, you know,

given your capabilities, you will always

be a low-income person, but you'll be

part of supporting the rich people so

that they can have wonderful lives on

your back. Yeah. No, you don't want

maximally truth seeeking AI because it's

going to tell people things that will

make them stop working and want to kill

you. So, there's that. Fox News has a

story that I'm not sure I completely

believe this story, but allegedly

there's a Swiss writer who called a

journalist a quote fat lesbian and for

that was sentenced to 60 days in

prison. Do you think that's

true? Do you think that there's nothing

else missing in that story?

I feel like there's something missing in

the story. You really can't call

somebody a fat lesbian without going to

jail if you're

Swiss. I mean, I guess that's

possible, but seems like there might be

more to that

story. Well, speaking of AI, uh the new

version of Grock, which will be 3.5, is

going to drop next week. And it was

initially only for the super Grock

users. Um, but apparently this will not

just be a better version of Grock, but

this one is allegedly able to reason

from first

principles. Now, do you believe

that? Do you believe? Because that would

be the next level of AI. It's the one we

haven't seen yet. Do you think Grock

already got there?

because the large language model AIs,

the kind that are everywhere,

um are really just pattern sort of

pattern machines. So they can just sort

of guess what the next word will be and

you know they can suck up a bunch of

data on the internet and regurgitate it.

But none of them can reason from first

principles. Now, do you think that Elon

Musk has already cracked that and he's

developed the first first new version of

AI that would be a whole different

level? Maybe

uh you know, cuz I don't think he would

lie about it. So, you you must believe

that it's there. So, we'll be watching

that with great anticipation to see if

he's got the the ultimate level. not the

ultimate, but it would be the next level

of

AI. Well, Warren Buffett, who is uh I

believe he's a thousand years old or

maybe 94. Um he's going to step down at

the end of the year as

CEO. Um now, we don't know what that's

going to do to the Brookshire Hathaway

stock because I'm not sure how much work

he was doing at age 94 anyway. I'm sure

he had good people who were doing the

the heavy lifting, but uh I'll I'll tell

you my bad investing story. I may have

told you this before that I think it was

25 years

ago, I put a good chunk of what little

money I had at the time in into

Berkshire

Hathway. And sure enough, you know, just

like you'd expect, it did great. I think

it might have doubled during the time

that I held it. And so I said to myself,

you know, that Warren Buffett's looking

pretty old. I think he's going to retire

or maybe just die of natural causes. And

I don't want to be sitting on this

Brookshire Haway stock when he

goes. If I had simply held that

stock, oh my

god, I I don't know what percentage it

went up in the last 25 years, but it was

pretty good. Pretty good. So, don't take

my don't take my advice for for

investing, that's for

sure. Well, Warren Buffett also has a

half

opinion. You you've heard me say that

before. A half opinion is when you

ignore either the costs or the benefits

of a situation and you just act like

only one of them exist. Oh, it's just a

cost. Don't do it. Or it's just a

benefit. You should totally do it. Now,

in the real world, things have costs and

benefits. And one of the words that

signals that you have a half pinion is

the word

should. It should is usually a signal

that you've got a half opinion coming.

Um, so listen to this. This is what

Warren Buffett said about tariffs.

Quote, "Trade should not be a

weapon." Trade should not be a weapon.

So, is he in favor of using

uh tariffs as a negotiating tool?

Does he think that we should simply

accept the tariffs that other countries

put on us so that we don't start any

trade

wars? That is what you call

a half pinion. He gets to say the part

that's that makes him look good without

having to commit to anything should. So

let let me give you another example. I'm

going to give you my opinion about war.

Are you ready? This will be my official

public opinion about

war. We should fight wars without

killing any

civilians. Who's with me? Anybody?

Anybody want to sign on to my half half

an opinion? Because in the real world,

you don't get that option. So, you just

say, "Well, we

should." And what about using trade as a

weapon? Well, uh, we should

not. As soon as you see the word should,

there's some happening. So,

that that's your, uh, persuasion lesson

of the day. Always look for should. And

when I use the word myself, which I

do. It's just too easy to grab that word

when you're talking. Um, I try to

correct

myself because, you know, you can you

can easily just fall into this should

thing and it always means you're not

looking at the whole picture. It's

almost a

confession. All right. Um, the

postmillennial has a story about

uh RFK Jr.'s Department of Health and

Human Services. They have decided that u

the recommended treatment for people

with gender

dysphoria is the therapy as opposed to

gender affirming surgery for example and

points out that the uh more invasive

stuff is not proven to be effective sort

of in general and uh so this is

basically a review it's not a law so the

review that uh HHS did stated that the

effectiveness of psychotherapy for other

mental health issues

um including those present alongside

gender dysphoria quote suggests it may

also be beneficial for gender dysphoria

specifically is it true that

psychotherapy is effective for other

disorders that's actually a real

question I don't know the answer to that

because I've heard a lot of people say

that it's just fake that you know

therapy doesn't work for anybody really

but I suspect it doesn't work for some

people what do you think do you think

that uh psychotherapy is a real thing

that fixes

people probably it depends a lot on who

the psychotherapist is it you know I've

got a feeling that the top 10% best

therapists can fix a lot of

people. I'm not sure if the bottom 90%

can get anything done except taking your

money. And you know, maybe it's not

9010, but I'll bet it's not

100%. Do you think 100% of therapists

are good enough to fix people's mental

problems? Not

100%. And do you think it's 50%.

because 50% would be, you know, worth

trying. I' I've got a feeling it's

closer to

10%. That can really make a difference.

The rest just give the benefit of being

a good listener, I suppose, which is

valuable, too. Just a guess. So, don't

take any of my that this is not a

medical or therapy

um advice because I don't know enough

about the field. So, I've never I I

haven't had any mental problems I've

needed to get therapy for.

Um, which I always think is

weird. How many of you would say of

yourselves that you've not really had

any mental problems that required any

help? How many of you would say that?

Cuz I feel like I'm unusual. Like I

don't have anxiety. I don't have

depression. I don't have

self-doubt. Uh I I don't have I don't

have any of that. And I'm not sure why,

you know. I I don't think I was like

born with better genes or anything like

that. I have no idea why. I just don't

have

them. Yeah. So, a number of number of

you are in good shape, too. Oh, good.

According to the New York Post, there's

a former State Department analyst who

wrote checks to herself and during her

job for

$650,000 over two years. Now, the fun

part of this is the trick she used for

embezzling. So, apparently she was using

um what do you call it? Uh

QuickBooks. So, she had access to

QuickBooks and then she would go in

QuickBooks and I guess nobody was

checking her work and she would uh write

a check to herself and then print it.

But here's what she cleverly did. Then

she would go back into QuickBooks after

she had printed the check and change the

name that was in QuickBooks from her own

name, which is what she had just printed

out, to some name that sounded like a

vendor. And she got away with that for

two

years and got

$650,000 out of the government. Now, the

question I ask you is, how much of that

is happening?

You know, I I go back to my observation

that if you just drive around in a nice

neighborhood, you can't really

understand how so many people got so

much

money or or back in the times when I

would go on vacations and nice places

and I would think to myself, you know,

I'm the Dilber guy. I got super lucky,

you know, made more money than most

people. So, I get to go to this resort,

you know, some five-story resort

somewhere, but then it would be full.

And I would think to myself, how could

it be so many people who are so lucky?

Did they inherit it? Are they criminals?

And I don't know what the percentage is,

but I just think that there's some

shocking number of people who are rich

who literally stole it from the

government because the government has so

much money that you can steal a lot for

yourself and nobody

notices. So, I mean, it's just

speculation, but I got a feeling that

not everybody's earning their money the

hard way like I did.

Well, there's a big trial going on with

Meta's AI. There's some authors

and mostly authors who are uh trying to

say that uh the AI, in this case Meta,

um use their copyrighted work and they

believe that their copyright should

protect them from having the AI suck it

up and be able to do stuff with it. Now,

the good news is I was just reading a

little bit about the questions that were

being asked by the judge, and you know,

it's hard to know for sure from a

distance, but the judge seems to be

really, really sharp because I looked at

the questions and how we frame stuff and

I thought, "Wow, you really you really

kind of get this topic." So, Ars

Technica is writing about this, but uh

the judge, he downplayed Meadow's what

he called messed up

torrenting.

Um, and uh, whatever he rules, this

could be an important ruling in the

world of AI, cuz if the judge decides

that AI can't do this sort of thing

because it's a copyright violation, then

the United States will fall behind in AI

because we won't be able to train it the

way, you know, China would, which is

stealing anything it can steal and don't

care about copyrights.

Um, so it's really big deal. On the

other hand, it's really bad for

authors. So the judge is going to end up

making a

decision even even though it's really

just a legal decision. It's going to be

a decision about which industry dies.

So if the judge says you can't train

your you can't train your model on

copyrighted material well then AI as an

industry will just die or it'll get sued

out of existence. But if he says, "Well,

you know, it's too important or um it

looks like it's fair use," then I would

argue that the the book authoring

business would be completely dead in

just a few

years. So, you're sort of you're going

to have to decide which one is going to

die, the literary world or the AI world.

Unfortunately, as someone who has

written books, I think it's going to be

the author world that dies because that

seems like the the older technology, the

one that doesn't really it's not really

supporting the country directly. It's

just something people like. Whereas AI

is more

existential, you know,

necessary for defense, for economics,

for everything.

So, I did a little test where I went to

Grock and I told it to summarize the

book

uh um

uh Atomic Habits. Is that the And it

didn't it didn't uh pause for a second

and it gave me a good little summary

where I would say to myself, huh, I

don't know if I need to read this book

now. And I thought to myself, is that

only true for non-fiction

books? Can I just go to

uh and I've tried to do it with my own

books? But it but when I do it with my

own books, it tells me that

um it can only tell me what other people

have said about it. So if there are

other people who have written long

reviews or if somebody went to I don't

know went on X and did a big thread

where they said here's the best ideas

from his book. I guess it could train on

that.

And so I don't know if I would write

another

book because we're at that point where

you don't really need to buy a book if

you have AI. You can just you can just

tell it to summarize all the top 10

business books and you know by the time

you've reached your destination on your

your airline

trip you you'll basically know what's in

10 different important

books. I don't know. And then what about

the ones that are just pure

fiction? Do you think that uh do you

think the AI will just be able to look

at a bunch of fiction that other people

have written and just say, "All right, I

can see how this works. I see the

patterns. You made a prediction. If I

write another one, it'll be my best."

Well, even if it is my best, it wouldn't

be economic

um at this point. I don't know. So, this

is a big case. We'll see how that goes.

According to just the news, there's a

rumor that uh the first big trade deal

might be with India. Now, we don't have

confirmation of that, but uh commerce

secretary Lutnik, he hinted at the fact

that there's going to be an announcement

coming and it wasn't long ago that JD

Vance was over in India meeting with uh

Modi. And so if you just sort of, you

know, read the tea leaves and you figure

India might want to might want to be

first, um, maybe it'll be India. But

here's the political

element. So the Democrats have gone

allin on the the tariffs being the worst

idea and nothing but chaos can come from

it. Now, would you agree that they're

all in on that? They're just they're

they bet their entire farm on tariffs

are destroying the economy so that by

the midterms they can say, "See, look

what he did. He destroyed the economy."

Now, they're not getting what they want

in terms of the stock market, which has

largely recovered, or the price of eggs,

which have gone down, or the price of

fuel, which I think has drifted down a

little bit.

So they're really they're really going

to have to bank on the tariffs being a

disaster. So what happens when the

tariff deals start coming through

because you know they will. There's not

really much chance that we won't make

any tariff deals and we'll obviously do

the important ones that we think we can

get done and make a difference first.

So, isn't it going to look like one loss

after another to the Democrats? Oh, he's

so chaos. Oh, everything's okay. Well,

we we'll give you that the India trade

deal was better for the United States,

but all the rest, oh, the the chaos and

the uncertainty. Okay. Okay. Maybe Japan

can make a deal, but they're, you know,

they're a good ally. You can't count

them. Oh, but the the chaos. All right.

South Korea did make a deal and it looks

like it's a little bit better for us,

but but really it's still just nothing

but K. And okay, Europe made a

deal. It correct me if I'm

wrong, but I think the I think the

Democrats are going to have something

like a full year of having to just suck

every word they've said for the last six

months.

It's it's going to look like they're so

wrong that it would be wrongness on a

scale that we've never seen before

because it's just going to be one thing

after another. I think there are what

160 countries and every you know when we

reach a certain point you know maybe in

a few months it's going to be every day

every day there's going to be another

announcement of how we improved our

trade situation with a particular

country. I think Democrats just created

this own trap for themselves because

they put so much attention into the,

"Oh, the tariffs are bad. The tariffs

are bad. He doesn't know what a tariff

is." That they're just going to have to

eat

it. We'll

see.

Um, apparently Bernie Sanders is not too

unified with uh Chuck Schumer.

Um, and he was arguing that

uh um that the reason that Trump won,

this is Bernie Sanders, he thinks the

reason that Trump won is because he said

he would smash the system. How many of

you have voted for

Trump because he was going to smash the

system? Does Bernie have the right the

right uh vibe there?

I feel like he might for the first time

because that's why I supported Trump. I

wanted him to break everything because

everything was everything was

corrupt. And when everything is corrupt

and somebody comes in and says, "I'm

just going to stomp on everything." I

think to myself, that's the first

step. Bring him in, have him stomp on

everything. Just break everything. And

then, you know, maybe we can recover.

But we definitely can't just keep going

the way we're going. So I think Bernie

might be a little bit right about

that. But uh Sanders was pushing back on

Caitlyn Collins suggestion about the

cohesiveness of the the Democrats and

Sanders said uh that they're not

cohesive. He said quote you needed an

agenda questioning what the party was

united around. what exactly would we be

united around? You would need some kind

of an agenda. And I would add to that

that once the Democrats had uh gone

allin on opposing common sense, in other

words, always taking the 20 side of the

8020 situation, what once you've

committed to being against common

sense, I don't know that there's a path

back because you would either have to

embrace the entire

Republican concept of common sense or

You have to stay against common

sense. There's only two paths. How how

in the world do they come back from

that? Well, I guess they have the media

to to keep them in

business. Well, let's look at the uh

designated liars and the Democrat side.

You know, the de the designated liars

are, you know, Adam Schiff, Jamie

Rascin, Swallwell,

uh and Elizabeth Warren, and some more.

Now, what's different about the

designated liars, this is my own name

for them, the DDLs, Democrat designated

liars, is that they will they will lie

in public about something that's already

been debunked or is easy to check is not

true. Uh, Goldman, yeah, Goldman, I

guess you could add to the list. Um, but

not all of the Democrats will do that.

there there's a whole bunch of just sort

of normal Democrats who might, you know,

they might spin things, they might leave

something out, they might say their idea

is better than it is. They might

exaggerate a little bit, but they don't

tell the the just big whopper

lies. So, here's what uh Elizabeth

Warren did recently, and I saw this in a

post by Maize Maize Moore on X. So, as

Maize is pointing

out, so in uh early March, there was a

story about a French scientist, and this

is a fake story, but the story was that

the French scientist was denied entry

into the US because he had some

anti-Trump text messages on his

phone. Now, apparently, I I just missed

that story because it seemed too small,

I guess.

But so Elizabeth Warren is going to

pretend like that's true after it's been

debunked. I guess the real story is that

uh the scientist did something with some

confidential

materials. So it had nothing to do with

text messages about Trump. It was

something about designated I don't know

confidential materials. But so Elizabeth

Warren is at the Senate and Finance

Committee and she wants to bring this up

after it's been completely

debunked. So unambiguously didn't

happen. But as Maize points

out, listen to how carefully she words

her statement uh because she knows it's

been disproven for weeks. But the way

she talks about it is she says that

reportedly reportedly it

happened because

reportedly is

accurate. It's accurate that somebody

reported it, but by now she knows it's

not

true. And she can still say reportedly

if you had a bad message about Trump on

your phone, you might be denied entry to

the country.

reportedly. Now, that is something that

only the designated liars could say. I

mean, it is so shamelessly obviously a

lie, but you know, she's using the

weasel word

reportedly.

Reportedly. So, that's my leadin to my

next story, which is James

Carville has the most insane claim here.

He was talking to uh Ryan Liza on a

podcast and according to Carville, he

said, "Quote, people say to me all the

time, James, why don't we just do like

the Republicans do? Just stand up and

lie." All right, so this is Carville

claiming that the Republicans

lie and and then he's going to tell you

why they can't do that.

And he says, "Uh, because our effing

people wouldn't stand for it." Carville

says, "If I stood up and lied, you would

be the first person to say James

Carville lost all credibility last night

when he said X, Y, and

Z."

Really? Has James Carville never

noticed that Democrats lie?

I mean, I I don't even know what to say

about that because I can't tell if he's

actually stupid and clueless and he

doesn't know or is that just one of his

lies and he's just, you know, sort of a

happy warrior, lies about anything. But,

but Carville is not one of the

designated liars. He does try to weasle

his way around to something that's

closer to spinning or omitting some

facts or leaving out some context or

something. So, he's not I wouldn't call

him one of the designated liars. He

doesn't like to get caught in like a

really really direct lie, but he

certainly said some things about

Republicans getting ready to to cut

Medicaid and Social Security to which I

say, but the president says he won't do

that and there's no support for that.

And then he would argue, well, but you

know, there are reasons to think they

might do it

anyway. So that's not it's not the worst

lie.

It just, you know, lacks context, I

guess you'd

say. All right. But at the same time,

uh, Jen

Saki, Democrat,

um, she was asked,

uh, about the so-called cover up of

Biden's mental decline. And, uh, she was

on some podcast and she argued that she

doesn't like the word cover up because

that suggests that they were aware of

the fact that Biden was mentally

incapable and they were hiding it from

people. and she doesn't believe that she

ever saw the uh Biden with any mental

decline. Now, is she a Democrat

who is

lying? You can't really

tell because, you know, maybe, you know,

maybe by weird coincidence, she just

never saw it because he had good days

and bad days.

So, it's it's wildly improbable that she

was not aware that about his mental

decline. Wildly improbable. But you

can't say it's

impossible. So, again, she's not one of

the the Democrat designated liars. She's

more of a spinner, you know, more of a

leave out some context, you know, allow

you to believe something that that you

shouldn't believe.

But anyway, I guess the Democrats think

they don't lie. So, Elon

Omar was asked about uh on some

interview about the rise of

Islamophobia and she was asked if that's

a legitimate fear that people are afraid

about the rise of Islam of Islam I guess

in the United States. Um, I would say

that I'm afraid of that because the

Islamic system is such that it's it's

built to

dominate and usually there's a very

clear plan to, you know, get more

people, have more babies, you know,

carve out your own little area where you

say, "Oh, you know, we'll be a little

Muslim area." Next thing you know,

they're going to be pressing for Sharia

law and then after that trying to take

over the

country. So yes,

um I don't know if I'm

Islamophobic, you know, I can say the

usual things like obviously it doesn't

apply to, you know, most Islamic people.

You know, there are good people and bad

people in every group, blah blah blah.

But yes, I'm completely I'm completely

afraid. not afraid, but I'm completely

concerned that it's an incompatible

system with our current system, but it's

also a uh what would you call it? A uh

sort of a hungry system that looks to

eat the other

systems. Uh but here's what Elon Omar

said. Our country should be here's the

should. Our country should be more

fearful of white men. If fear is the

driving force, we should be monitoring,

profiling, and creating policies to

fight the radicalization of white

men.

Okay. Now, is that a Democrat

lying or is that spinning and leaving

out context? It's more of a spinning,

leaving out context. But I can tell you

that most of us would be cancelled

forever if we had ever said anything

like that. But

somehow somehow she gets to say that in

public and goes on like nothing

happened.

Amazingly. Well, as you know, every time

Trump tries to do something, there's

some kind of federal court that tries to

block it and then it gets raised to a

higher court and sometimes Trump wins.

Well, one of those things was Trump

trying to fire the staff of the Voice of

America people and then there was a

judge that says you can't do that and

now there's a DC court um who struck

down the first judge and says yes you

can. So the gayway pundits writing about

this. So apparently it's a big win. So

Trump does get to say who works in the

Voice of America and he would like that

to be nobody.

So, we'll see if this extends to other

topics. I'm not sure it

does. Um, Brett Bearer was talking to JD

Vance and he was asking about the uh the

Trump

2028 and whether or not Trump really

wants to run for a third term. And

here's uh JD Vance's uh answer to that.

He said uh yeah, with a big smile, he

goes, "I'll let the president speak to

his political future. One thing I'll say

about the president of the United

States, he loves to have a good time

with the American media. Now, I think

that's your answer, right? You your

answer is he doesn't want to speak for

the

president, but he wants you to know that

the president likes to have some fun

with the media. So the so the Trump 2028

thing, I think, you know, maybe he's

testing the waters to see if there was

some legal way to do it, but I don't

really think he plans to run again in

2028. Um, at the same time, you probably

saw the meme that Trump put out of

himself looking like the

Pope and Bill Crystal is trying to turn

this into some kind of news. um you

know, he said that the Pope meme is, you

know, disrespectful to Catholics. And he

he asked JD Vance on X, you know, if if

he thought the Pope meme was

disrespectful to Catholics. And JD Vance

responded in an X. Um well, here's

exactly what Bill Crystal said. He said,

"Jie Vance, are you fine with this

disrespect and mocking of the Holy

Father?"

advanced replies on X. As a general

rule, I'm fine with people telling jokes

and not fine with people starting stupid

wars that kill thousands of my

countrymen because that's a direct

attack on Bill Crystal who likes his

wars. So, that's a perfect answer. You

know, a as you're trying to decide if JD

Vance will be the

2028 Trump uh

follow-up, these are just perfect

answers that he likes jokes and he

doesn't like war.

Perfect. Well, here's another lie from

the uh

Democrats. I saw this in a post by John

McCloy. So, over on MSNBC, the former

Senator Doug Jones was claiming that

when Trump did his uh commencement

address at Alabama,

um that he wasn't

invited. He said he wasn't invited to to

Alabama to give a commencement address.

And they had to open the event to the

general public because they couldn't get

anyone else to come in. In other words,

they the college didn't have enough

people interested to go. So they had to

open it to the public just to sort of

fill the

space. None of that was true. They did

invite him and the place was packed to

the gills and it was a closed ticketed

event so it was not available to the

general public. So every part of that

was just completely made

up.

And does Carville even notice that?

Probably not. Probably

not. Well, here's another least

surprising story of all times. Have you

noticed that the New York

Times likes to do these deep dives on

stories to discover something that you

and I have known for years and then they

make it look like, you know, they're

that they've done some great

investigative work and you and I stay

here and go, um, we all knew that for

years. Here's another one. So, a big

investigation by the New York Times

um and they've revealed that Washington

and and Kiev have operated what amounts

to a shadow military alliance.

So, the New York Times is just finding

out that the US built 12 covert CIA

bases inside Ukraine, trained elite

units for years, elite Ukrainian units,

and had a constant stream of battlefield

intelligence to help Ukraine strike

Russian

targets now. How many of you didn't know

that?

Is there even one person here who didn't

know that the US was sort of, you know,

low-key using the CIA to help Ukraine as

much as possible? And obviously we were

on the ground. And obviously there had

to be, you know, facilities for all

those CIA people. And obviously we were

going to train them. I if only for using

our weapons, we'd have to train them.

So, isn't it weird that the New York

Times does these these big deep dives

and they say, "Oh, this this might

surprise you, but guess what? The United

States has been deeply involved in this

war in a very practical level since the

beginning." And we all

say, "I think we all knew that just

because it's

obvious, worstkept secret."

Well, um you might know that uh Putin

had asked for a three-day ceasefire

because Putin's got this big victory day

celebration that they're doing in uh

Russia, victory day over, uh I guess o

over Hitler, and they're going to have

uh foreign dignitaries will be there,

etc. So he wanted to make sure that

um that Ukraine didn't use that

opportunity to attack the event because

people would be exposed and it would be

you know it'd just be terrible if he

attacked it. And Zilinski has uh

basically said uh it's fair

game. Zalinski just said directly it's

it's fair game. You know we're at war.

We can attack anything we want. Now, on

one hand, I kind of agree with that. If

you're at war, you can attack whatever

you need to

attack, but uh it seems like it would be

the worst idea in the world to attack

this victory day thing because it would

just make Putin more angry. And that's

nothing good could come from that. But

it doesn't sound like Zilinski wants

peace.

If you wanted

peace, you would at least say, "All

right, we'll give you the three days,

but we'd rather have a permanent

ceasefire." You don't say, "We might we

might attack your Victory Day

parade." This is very clearly not

working toward peace.

Speaking of not working toward peace,

the Times of Israel is reporting that

the Hoodis

um sent some ballistic missile toward

Israel and it blew up near Bengurion

airport. Didn't kill anybody or hurt

anybody, but uh Israel is wondering why

they didn't shoot it down. So, they've

got their they've got their missile

defense systems and it was only one

missile and it apparently got through

the defenses. So, they're going to have

to figure out what's up with that. But

does it seem to you like the entire

point of the

Hoodies is to either create a bigger

war? Well, just that, to create a bigger

war. I feel like that's all they're

doing is trying to create a bigger war.

Meanwhile, over in the UK, I saw the

Amuse account writing about this. Um,

the UK has found what they think are

eight terror suspects that are Iranian

that were in their country accused of

planning massive terror attacks against

British

citizens.

Now, do you think that would have been a

good play from

Iran to do a massive terror

attack in the

UK? I don't know.

It seems like that would be a weird play

while while they're talking about a

peace

deal. Um or unless it's, you know, just

in case things went bad or something.

But doesn't it make you wonder how many

Iranian terrorists are already in the

United States. If there were eight of

them in the UK and they were looking to

do some big terror thing, there might be

dozens of

them, if not hundreds, in the United

States because we haven't had border

security until recently.

So that's the thing I worry about the

most is if if we ended up being involved

in some kind of a terror

attack on if we got involved in let's

say working with Israel to attack the uh

nuclear facilities in Iran. I feel like

they would activate their

terrorists and it would be a really bad

week in

America. So that does worry

me. Well, in other science news, uh

there new scientific not scientific

solar panels that are a thousand times

stronger and thinner than a human hair

and it's way more

efficient, a thousand times more

powerful than silicon, and way more

durable according to the bright side of

the news. Now, I think I've told you

before that all of these massive

improvements in solar panels and fusion

and uh you know batteries

um you really have to think in terms of

you know 5 to 20 years before any of

this finds its way into the commercial

world. But it's kind of

exciting. And then lastly, because it's

May 4th,

um there's a company uh called, let's

see, who are they? It's a Polish firm.

They've created this Star Wars styled

airbike except it uses a jet engine. So,

it's like a flying motorcycle with a jet

engine and it shows it, you know,

looking really cool and flying over this

desert area. And I'm thinking to myself,

you kind of have to have your own

desert, don't you? Because where exactly

would you fly a jet powered

motorcycle? You wouldn't do it in the

suburbs. You couldn't do it in the

city. You couldn't do it really

anywhere, you know. You couldn't do it

over other people's property because

because they're really low. They're not

way up in the air. They're like, I don't

know, 20 feet

up. So, to me, this seems like the worst

commercial idea I've ever seen in my

life. Although, the technology looked

pretty cool. So, all right, that's all I

got for you today. Uh, yeah, it's also

loud. Yeah, I I can't see that. That is

a future, but who knows?

Maybe. Uh, Jay Leno has a jet

motorcycle.

He probably doesn't use it too

much. All right. Um, thanks for joining

everybody. I'm going to talk to the

locals people for just briefly. And the

rest of you, thanks for joining. I'll

see you same time tomorrow, same place.