Episode 2875 CWSA 06/21/25

And happy Saturday everybody.

We've got a podcast for you like you've never seen before.

Borrowing uh Trump's sayings.

Nobody's ever seen anything like it.

It would be the best thing ever in the entire world.

Probably.

Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.

But if you'd like to try, and I say try to take it up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

All you need for that is a copper micro glass tanker Charles, a canteen joker 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 day of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.

Go.

Oh, that's good.

There's only one thing that could make it better.

Mr.

Trump, would you like a sip?

We are going to drain the swamp in Washington DC.

Go.

There he is.

draining the swamp.

All right, so there's some fun science coming up.

Oh, by the way, um although today is Saturday, there will not be a spaces event um after the show.

That will be tomorrow.

So tomorrow on Sunday, Owen Gregorian will have his spaces event after the show.

Well, according to the ex account, uh, creme, if I'm pronouncing that correctly, and I'm not.

Uh, apparently there's a good chance that type 1 diabetes has been cured.

I don't know, maybe type 1 diabetes.

So apparently um over the last year there was a test where 12 diabetics were injected with a stem cell derived pancreatic islets and I was going to say have they never tried injecting stem cell derived pancreatic islets before but they did now they tried it and uh apparently people started producing insulin again.

And 10 out of 12 participants after one year no longer needed to inject insulin.

Whoa.

How about that?

Imagine that.

Imagine that you were alive, could be, maybe, not for sure, when type 1 diabetes was cured.

Wouldn't that be awesome?

In other news, uh there's a what's being called a groundbreaking study uh that says eating one avocado a day could help you sleep better with all of the health benefits of extra sleep.

Um let's see who did the study.

Oh, uh it's according to the HOS avocado board.

So, it's being reported by the Hos avocado people that eating one avocado a day can help you sleep better.

Well, I eat one avocado a day and I do sleep pretty well.

So, I call that science.

Um, I don't know who funded that study, but uh I'm not I'm not sure the hos avocado people are the the ones to believe.

Um, here's another science thing.

We'll talk about Iran, of course.

Um, apparently according to the American Society for Metabolic and Beriatric Surgery, the people who have the uh weight loss surgery, I guess that's the one where they talk to your stomach, um, they have a self-esteem improvement of 131%.

So, is there any way they could have saved some money in that study?

Hm.

H I wonder.

Um suppose they ask me, Scott, uh do you think that being in shape and eating right and going to the gym, um will that help your mental and physical health and your happiness and your chances of success?

Yes.

Yes.

There's never an exception.

Eating right and exercising absolutely will make you happier and healthier and more successful.

Guarantee it.

So next time just ask me.

I'm here.

Just ask.

Um apparently uh President Trump is uh going back and forth on his his ideas about deporting farm workers.

because he's quite aware that if he departs all the uh the noncitizen farm workers, we will starve to death because it might take a while to replace them with American workers, if we even can.

And but here here's my favorite part about this story.

Um, remember how I always tell you that Trump is he finds it impossible to be boring?

Everything he says has that that little bit of edge to it that makes you read it twice.

And he did it again with the the farm worker deportation.

So, here's a Trump quote.

Quote, "I never want to hurt our farmers.

Our farmers are great people.

They keep us happy, healthy, and fat.

Trump is the only person uh well the only president who would throw fat into the end of that sentence.

They keep us happy and healthy and fat.

I can't tell you how many times I reread the sentence.

And that's what Trump does to you.

He just makes you reread the sentence, you know, five times and laugh every time.

Why would you even do that?

He's the only person who can make that sentence interesting.

Well, speaking of Trump, as you know, um the Trump family has has announced that they plan to go into the mobile phone business.

Um, and they actually plan to make the smartphone in the United States.

Now, the people who know how to make smartphones are very insistent that that's not possible.

That it would take, I don't know, years and years to figure out how to train Americans to make phones and how to get all the infrastructure and technology here and factories.

But uh so far the uh I think Don Jr.

has said that he plans to make it in the United States.

So do they know something that we don't know?

Is there a secret plan where they can take a I don't know a Taiwanese or Chinese company and just move it over here and make those phones in America or as some some are suggesting this is not a real business that it might be more for PR or something I don't know but it doesn't seem to me that Don Jr.

would be involved in a totally makebelieve business.

He must have some kind of plan to make these phones in the United States, but we don't know what that is.

So maybe we'll be surprised.

Well, uh, AI is our David Saxs, um, is very pro AI, as you might imagine, and he says that AI will be bigger than the i.

Phone, bigger than the internet, and it's going to fuel the growth of the American economy for years to come and would be one of the most important parts of Trump's legacy.

Now, uh, Saxs also said separately on a post.x X that AI might be adding jobs um and not subtracting.

Now, of course, that would be a controversial opinion because for sure there are jobs that will go away, but also for sure there will be jobs that will be created.

For example, um over on Tik Tok, there are a whole bunch of people using AI to get rich making viral videos that are actually quite entertaining.

I like the ones of the uh the cute little kittens who work at Mc.

Donald's.

If you haven't seen that one, it's pretty awesome.

Or the uh the cats were doing Olympic diving off a diving board.

So, the AI is pretty good now.

Pretty good.

Now, those are special cases.

You know, it's not like we're all going to be making AI content, but I do think that Sachs might be closer to accurate.

When he says that AI might add jobs, they'll just be completely different jobs than we've ever had.

or they'll be the same job, but one person can do a much better job of it perhaps.

So, you got that going on.

Um, I heard also some other famous investor say that the the big investment for the future is AI and if you're not invested in AI, um you're going to feel bad about it.

So uh I don't give uh investment advice but you should know that some investors are saying that AI is the place to the place to be.

Well, more to that point, um, the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Alman, um, he did a podcast, I think with his brother, and he mentioned that, uh, Meta is offering a$100 million bonus for the top Open AI employees to leave OpenAI and go work for Meta.

$100 million just a bonus.

So that's not even counting their their pay.

That's just a bonus.

Does that sound real?

It doesn't really sound real to me, but I don't think he'd make it up.

It'd be a weird thing to make up.

So, I don't know.

I have some trouble believing that uh that's true.

It might be true of, you know, three people in the world, you know, the the smartest AI people.

Maybe they are worth 100 million.

I don't know.

But, uh, I've decided to, uh, quit my job as a cartoonist and become a AI specialist.

Try to get that $100 million bonus.

I'll let you know how that goes.

In other AI news, according to neuroscience news, uh researchers have figured out how to get AI to um be more empathetic and work on your emotions.

So, they can tailor emotional analogies to each user's personality and life experience.

So, notice how they use analogies.

They use analogies to get empathy and to work on your emotions.

And boy, that's dangerous.

It might be, you know, it's inevitable.

The AI will learn to manipulate the emotions of humans.

You know, there's no way to stop that from happening.

But, uh, here it is.

And I guess the big takeaway is that you can't use the same analogy for every person.

You have to have the analogy tailored for their personality.

But once you do that, you can manipulate their feelings.

And once AI can manipulate our feelings, who will be in charge?

Well, AI.

Because once AI can give you better information than you had, but then can also manipulate you with analogies and stories and anecdotes.

Well, then it pretty much is going to run everything.

So, that's coming.

Um, and also according to the Verge, Sarah Parker is writing about this.

Apparently, people use chat GPT a lot, their vocabulary starts to change.

And this one is fun.

This is this one I did not see coming.

Apparently, even though um AI is based on actual human conversations and interactions, there are different vocabulary words that come up more in AI than they come up in normal conversation.

So, apparently words like delve are are words that AI would use more likely than you would.

When was the last time you used the word delve as in we're going to delve into that?

I I was wondering I was thinking I don't know if I've ever used that word in conversation.

I've read it.

I've heard people say it, but I don't know if I've ever used it even once.

you know, I I would say let's dig into it or, you know, let's do a deeper dive, but I don't think I maybe I've never used that word, but apparently people use AI and chat GPT in particular.

They'll they'll start saying words like uh uh let's see, prowess and tapestry.

I guess those come up a lot in Chad GPT.

and they're less likely to use words like bolster, unearth, and nuance because chap doesn't use them as much.

So, here's the hypnotist take on the story.

As a hypnotist, I can tell you that the choice of words can influence what you think about the topic.

So it's not a you know just a mere curiosity that people use AI use different vocabulary that specific vocabulary is very likely to to change how you think about the topic and you wouldn't know why.

So that's the hypnotist take.

The specific choice of words that you associate with a topic very much will influence your overall opinion of the topic.

And if you were to just force somebody to use a different vocabulary and in this case you know how to force them it's happening naturally they would think differently about the topic depending on the topic.

So now AI can influence us by which vocabulary we use, but it can also influence us by being very useful.

So we rely on it for facts, even if they're wrong.

And apparently it can also influence us with analogies and emotion and empathy.

So if you were wondering, is AI going to start being in control of humans?

Yeah.

Yeah.

No doubt about it.

There there isn't the slightest chance that AI will not be influencing what you think about stuff.

Now the interesting thing is will this cause any kind of uh unity?

So right now the country is divided you know by politics.

What would happen if AI all the AIs start converging on the same explanation of things and use the same analogies and have similar vocabulary?

Is it possible that our diverse opinions will merge into one opinion that coincidentally or not is exactly what AI would tell you is true?

That might happen.

So, one possibility is AI manipulates us and turns us into mindless puppets and we don't know it.

Uh, the other possibility is it allows us to stop fighting with each other because we can all just look at AI and go, "Oh, all right.

I guess that's the partake." And then we just agree with it.

So, could be good.

Never know.

Um, according to uh Trump, the US has arranged a treaty, some kind of a peace treaty between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Rwanda.

Now, raise your hand if you knew that the Republic of Congo and Republic of Rwanda were in some kind of a war.

H I have to admit that although I do know the number of people who live in Iran, 92 million, I did not know anything about the Republic of Condo or Rwanda.

However, according to the post millennial, um Trump is uh is bragging that the US got that done and if we did, good job.

Marco Rubio and looks like they may have been instrumental in that.

Uh but Trump being Trump and as I already noted, it's impossible for him to say something that's boring.

Instead of just saying, "Hey, good news.

We've got this peace deal.

We've got this new peace deal that was really necessary." Instead of doing that, he announces it.

And at the same time, in the same message, he complains that he probably won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for his work with India and Pakistan, his work with Serbia and Kosovo.

I don't even know what that was.

Egypt and Ethiopia.

Again, I have no idea what that was about.

Does anybody know what Trump did to make things better between Egypt and Ethiopia?

I do not.

And then he also mentions the Abraham Accords as all the things he's done for peace and uh but he won't get a Nobel Peace Prize because that only goes to liberals, he says.

And he says that even if he were to end the war in Ukraine and uh get a good result in Iran, even if he could do that, he says he'll never get the Nobel Peace Prize.

Now, do you recognize what form of uh persuasion he's using?

This is not random.

This is really good persuasion because he keeps saying that he won't get the Nobel Peace Prize.

What do I teach you about negatives?

This is another hypnotist trick.

Um, the hypnotist trick is that the more you make people think Nobel Peace Prize and peace prize for this.

I won't get the Nobel Peace Prize for this.

And your brain doesn't hear the won't.

It it sort of forgets it right away.

And all you can think of is Trump and Nobel Peace Prize.

So, it's actually a super clever way of increasing the odds that he gets a Nobel Peace Prize, which to me is hilarious.

It's hilarious that he's working on it, like he actually is trying to get one.

I kind of I kind of love that.

All right.

Well, as you know, the news is never complete without some stories about Elon Musk.

Today is no exception.

And apparently uh Elon Musk scolded Grock, his own his own AI uh because Grock said that used sources Media Matters and Rolling Stone to uh dispute something said by ex user Cat Turd 2.

And apparently uh and so Musk responded to Grock on the Xplatform like he was talking to a person and he said to Grock, "Your sourcing is terrible.

Only a very dumb AI would believe media banners and Rolling Stone.

You were being updated this week." So, so Musk is having a conversation with his own AI and scolding it and saying that it's using bad sources and he's going to fix it.

Now, that's funny.

Well, speaking of Elon Musk, apparently Tesla, according to CNBC, is just signed a deal with China to build their largest gridscale battery power plant.

Um, now I think the the batteries are also made in China, but uh the it's a yeah, they've got a battery factory in Shanghai and it's made over a 100 megaps in the first quarter.

So what this is about is a way to make your network more efficient because you can store the uh cheaply cheaply generated electricity in your batteries and then release them as you need them and uh China will be first.

Now, I don't make um I don't give financial advice, but if you knew that Tesla just signed a enormous deal to create a gridcale battery power plants in China and they're planning to do it for other countries as well.

Isn't that one of the biggest businesses in the world?

I mean it's starting you know it's starting with one but wouldn't every every power grid want this so what is what is exactly the size of this financial opportunity it looks like it's bigger than cars I mean uh literally every country and every grid would probably get some benefit from having a battery you know a battery uh power land.

Anyway, um according to Politico and uh Carrie Lake was announcing this as her in her role as a a advisor to President Trump.

Apparently, a majority of the staff of Voice of America is getting released, terminated.

And uh what is uh senior presidential advisor Carrie Lake said, "Today we took decisive actions to effectuate." Effectuate.

There's a word that I don't use.

Effectuate.

When was the last time you used effectuate in a sentence?

Um I would say I've never used it once.

Uh, this is the first time I've ever said that word out loud.

Effectuate.

Um, the Trump agenda to shrink the control federal bureaucracy.

So, we'll see if that sticks.

Eliminating 1,400 jobs and 85% cut to the workforce there.

Good job.

All right.

As I've said before, um, pundit and humorist comic Dave Smith has, uh, very, let's say, effectively and impressively worked his way into the conversation about the biggest topics in America, in this case, the Israel Iran conflict.

And I'm very impressed because, you know, it'd be one thing if you were a famous geopolitical expert, but to become one of the central people in the conversation coming out of the humor field, you know, the the podcast punditry world, you really have to be doing something well.

And even if you disagree with him, and I'm gonna disagree with him a little bit today, even if you disagree, I really like what he adds to the conversation because he does sort of force people to debate him.

And, you know, you can judge for yourself who's got the better opinion, but uh I like where he takes the conversations.

But he had a uh a post that actually got millions of uh views and I will read it to you.

His post was, "Okay, fine.

Iran doesn't have nukes, but have you heard their chance?

We must go to war to stop these chants." Now, that's a pretty good humorist take, but is there any more to this story?

Of course there is.

So, here's here's my take, and he may have he may have already answered this.

I don't know.

But I weighed in on that.

And I said in the comments, I haven't heard an innocent reason why Iran insists on threshold enrichment levels.

Threshold meaning right up to the point where you can make a nuclear weapon.

uh and there's no reason to be there at that level of enrichment.

There there's not a civilian use for it.

The only use for it is if you want to be poised to very quickly make a nuclear weapon.

Now, that's as far as I know.

There may be some expert who says, "But Scott, you idiot.

Don't you know that getting to 60% enrichment is just, you know, useful for this or that?" Well, I don't know.

I haven't heard that.

I I've not heard that argument.

Now, the other thing you need to know is that getting from 60% to 90%, which is where you need to be for a bomb, I understand, is not a question of getting from 60 to 90.

Apparently, the uh enrichment process has a logarithmic kind of quality to it.

So that 60 is right next to 90.

So if you can get to 60, then getting to 90 might take three weeks.

That's that's my understanding, but I you know, I could be wrong about that, but I think that's right.

So, has anybody heard Iran give any kind of public explanation of why they would need to increase their their enrichment to the point where there's only one reason that I know of, which is to be ready to make a nuclear weapon.

Now, you add that to the fact that they've been funding proxies to try to destroy, you know, Israel for a long time, and uh they've done a number of terrorist acts against Americans in the area over the years.

And then on top of that, they have this uh this chant about death to Israel and death to America.

Now, I would agree that if the only problem was their chanting, I would not be so worried.

But if you combine death to America, death to Israel with building a enrichment capacity, which only has one purpose, and a history of funding proxies to attack Israel, that looks pretty aggressive to me.

That that looks like more than a chant.

So, um I went online and said a few things about the Israel situation and what I found was that if you say anything that um people disagree with on this topic, you will be called anti-semitic.

So, I I got called anti-semitic for I think just asking some question online and somebody said, "Whoa, why would you do that?

Why would you even question that?

Unless you're anti-Semitic.

To which I say, "Oh, you.

Just you.

I'm not anti-semitic.

If I have questions about why we're doing what we're doing and how we're doing it, that has nothing to do with any kind of anti-semitism.

These are, you know, three countries that are in this situation.

And if I talk about it, it's because I'm trying to understand it or predict it.

There's no deeper no deeper meaning.

Um, and then there are the people who say that essentially Israel and Iran are sort of morally and ethically similar.

Now, that's the the mode I don't want to get into because once you get into the moral ethical part, you're you know, you just have to take a side and I don't want to do that.

But I would point out that it seems very unlikely if Iran decided to be totally, you know, peaceful and not make any threats or any threatening moves toward its neighbors, it seems deeply unlikely that Israel would attack them.

Wouldn't you say?

But would that be the same if Israel decided to be totally peaceful?

Would they be attacked by Iran or Iranian proxies?

Well, it doesn't look like those are the same to me.

To me, it looks like Iran has a long-term goal to erase Israel, at least as a country, uh, off the map.

I I don't see that Israel has any kind of goal like that as far as I know.

They would love to probably have some kind of regime change that loved Israel, but you know, what are the odds of that?

Pretty low.

So any uh comparison of the two seems out of place to me.

Uh meanwhile, the National Review, the conservative publication in this country, is attacking uh what they call skeptics of the Iraq war, and they've got a new uh updated article uh calling them unpatriotic conservatives.

Um, oh, that's what they called the people who were against the Iraq war, but now they're using it to to go against the people who are against the, you know, the attack of Iran.

So, it makes you wonder what is the National Review?

Is the job of the National Review news or opinion or do they work for the uh military-industrial complex and it's just their way of influencing the country?

It makes me wonder what exactly is the National Review.

Well, as you know, uh Trump has said that he's going to give uh well, before I get to that, there there are two stories about two weeks.

The first story about two weeks is that Israel said they thought that they would be done with their war in two weeks.

Now, when uh people like me talk about international geopolitical stuff, the first thing you probably say to yourself is, "What the hell does he know about geopolitical anything?

Does he even know the population of Iran?" Yes, I do.

92 million.

Um, but uh wouldn't you imagine that my opinion about the Israel Iran situation should be kind of worthless because I have no experience in that domain, you know, no special knowledge.

I haven't been there.

So, wouldn't you just sort of automatically assume that I would be wrong about everything unless I just got lucky?

Well, let's uh keep track because I have made some specific public uh predictions.

One of my predictions is that there was no way that Israel would be done in two weeks.

How am I doing so far?

Well, if uh Trump's two weeks is if they keep to Trump's two weeks, and he he says that's a maximum.

So, there's some there's some chance that Trump will act before the two weeks is over, but I think that's low.

It'll at least be 3 weeks.

But on top of that, um there is a uh military commander um who says that uh he said it's going to take longer.

He says uh difficult days still lie ahead and that Israel must be ready for a quote prolonged campaign.

So that that's coming from Israel.

So, Israel, it looks like, has already abandoned their two week estimate.

So, did you see anybody else um say that the two weeks were would probably be I didn't I did not see one expert say, "I don't think this will be done in two weeks.

It might take months." Only me.

Now, did I use my geopolitical expertise?

No.

I used the Dilbert filter.

The Dilbert filter works whenever there's any big complicated human endeavor.

And nobody ever got anything done in two weeks.

Two weeks for a war.

Come on.

Who Who ever believed that that was going to get done in two weeks?

So here's an example where I don't have any geopolitical, you know, uh, experience whatsoever, but that that kind of stood out as a glaring obvious point that you could question.

How many of you said the same thing?

Said, "All right, there's no way this is going to be done in two weeks." Because nothing is nothing is ever done in two weeks.

No matter no matter how sure you are that it can be, it just never is.

So, I got that one right.

Anyway, so Trump says he's going to give Iran a couple of weeks.

Um, some say that's mostly so he can move some more assets into place, like naval assets, etc., in case we need to go hard.

Apparently, there's reports that several B2 uh stealth bombers have already taken off.

Um, and they're going from Missouri to Guam.

Now, presumably that would get them closer to the theater that they might be used in.

And this would be an indication that Trump has either u decided he's going to attack or wants Iran to think that that's a strong possibility.

And um some say that the two weeks that Trump is giving is just to see if anything changes in a favorable way.

So, for example, if Israel had, let's say, some unexpectedly big successes in the next two weeks that change the equation.

Well, then you're going to be, you know, you're going to be glad that Trump waited because maybe we don't have to attack.

So, what could happen in those two weeks besides getting more military assets in place?

Um, some people say that Thran might abandon its uh nuclear program.

I don't think that's going to happen.

So, expecting them to tell the Europeans, you know, we don't want to talk to America or Israel, but we'd be happy to abandon our enrichment program.

That's not going to happen.

I don't see Iran bending to the will of the West.

Um, so we've got this twoe period and Trump in his usual way says it's a maximum so that it it keeps them guessing that they they they won't get too comfortable for two weeks because maybe just maybe something will happen faster.

Now the big question is should the United States be involved in taking out the Ford and maybe one other underground bunker facility?

uh under the belief that only America has the weapons that can do that and that would be the bunker busters that they say would have to be double hold.

So you would have to use one to make a big hole and then drop another one in the same hole to get deeper.

And the American weapon makers and the military-industrial complex is telling us via the news, oh, this will definitely work.

Now, there's a question of whether we should do it, but the people who make the weapons and talk about the weapons and know the most about the weapons, which is not me, right?

So again here here's another situation where I do not have any knowledge of militaryindustrial complex.

I do not know anything about bunker busters or anything about these uh B2 stealth bombers.

So coming from no knowledge whatsoever and being in the same conversation with people who are geopolitical military experts.

Let me put the Dilbert filter on this.

Nobody knows if those bombs will work.

Are you kidding me?

Let let me take you to the real world for a moment.

They've never tested dropping two bunker busters in the same hole.

They do not know exactly what is, you know, inside that Fordau mountain and just exactly how things are protected in there.

They might know a lot, but they don't know everything.

When was the last time you saw somebody do this a complicated thing that had never been done before and it worked out perfectly and they knew it in advance.

That's not a function of the real world.

In the real world, you'd be really lucky if you got this to work on the first try.

And I don't know if there'll be more than one try.

So, the first thing I'm going to say without being any kind of a military expert is that probably everybody lies about how powerful their weapons are.

Uh, were you ever surprised when you heard that the Iron Dome or or some version of the Iron Dome was not not stopping all the missiles and somebody probably told you, oh yeah, the anti-missile defense is going to get 98% of the missiles and then it turns out maybe it gets 90%.

But 10%'s a lot of missiles to let through.

So I would say that whenever you hear somebody say that a a weapon system will definitely work really in the real world.

In the real world you've never used it in this way and but you're sure it's going to work.

All right.

So we're not sure it's going to work and and you should not imagine that that anybody knows that with certainty whether it'll work.

Now, I don't know the odds.

If you said, "Well, what are the odds that it doesn't work?" I don't know.

But nobody else knows either.

The only thing I know for sure is it's not a definite.

If it were definite, that might change the equation a little bit, but it's not.

It's not definite.

And just to make things interesting, uh Netanyahu has said publicly that Israel can take care of the Iranian nuclear program without America's help if they have to.

Now, are you all aware of that?

I'll I'll take a fact check on that if I'm wrong, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Um Netanyahu has recently publicly said that they don't need America's involvement.

They could take care of it in a different way.

They don't have these bunker busters, but there might be some way to do something on the ground or, you know, with with special forces or something.

Now, would that put would that put Israel in a position of taking um losses?

Yes, of course.

That's what military conflicts do.

they put you in a position where where people could be killed on your side.

Um, but that does settle the question in my mind of whether Trump should um authorize the the B the B2 bombers to drop the bunker busters.

And the answer is no.

If if Israel says that they can handle it without us, why would we even consider it?

Now, you would consider it if our involvement made it a guarantee that it would work and Israel couldn't do it by itself, but that's not the case.

Our bunker busters are anything but guaranteed.

And Israel says they can do it.

Why wouldn't we at least wait two weeks to see if they can do it?

Is it possible that Trump's two weeks is really waiting to see if Israel can make a dent at Forau with some kind of different strategy?

Uh, and you could imagine I won't I won't mention any that I could think of because I'm not smart enough, but there might be some way to get a hold of whoever it is who has the the lock to open the front door.

Don't you think there's probably more than one person in the world who knows how to open that door?

Is it is it a combination lock?

Is it a multi-step process where the people inside the facility have to be the ones to unlock it from the inside?

Is that how it works?

I'm just speculating.

But don't you think there's some chance that Israel could get a hold of whoever has the key or the combination or the secret, you know, digital way to open that thing.

Maybe there's just a way to open the front door that that we don't know about.

Maybe Israel knows more about that because they're they're pretty deeply, you know, into the pants of the of the Iranian everything.

Maybe they know.

But anyway, so the alternative the alternative to Israel doing it themselves and believing that they can do it themselves is that Israel um went into the war knowing that they could not succeed without American involvement in the war.

Now that would be much worse, wouldn't you think?

And when I asked that question online on X, I said, "When did Israel know that they couldn't do this alone?" Now, of course, they say that they can do it alone.

So, that would be new information from when I asked the question.

So, isn't it way worse if Israel tried to trick the United States into getting involved by getting us a little bit pregnant than saying, "Well, we got to this point, but the only way we can finish it is by getting America involved directly, more directly in the war." So, I would say this made the decision for Trump kind of easy because if Israel says they can do it and then he authorizes the United States to be involved in the war and then Iran attacks our homeland, takes off our turns off our lights with cyber attacks and uh starts killing people in bases in the Middle East, Americans, that's going to look like a failure, right?

So, you know, that would be some somewhat of an unforgivable mistake.

But more than that, it would be an admission that Israel is wagging Trump's tail.

Meaning that it would suggest that the only way we got into this situation is that Israel knew that if they started the war, they could drag us in to finish it off.

Now, I don't want to believe that about Netanyahu.

So, I'm going to take him at his word that I believe he said, and I'll I'll take your fact check if I'm wrong about this, but if they think they have a way to do it, even if they don't know that it will work, they have to try that first.

So, to me, the decision is already made.

It it's really hard for me to imagine that Trump would allow a situation where history would say Netanyahu tricked him into a war.

Just just think about think about Trump's personality.

Think about his, you know, decades of being anti-war.

And then think about the prospect of being treated by history as though you got tricked into a war by your own ally.

There's no way he's going to allow that situation.

So, as long as Netanyahu has said publicly, we could probably take care of this ourselves, he has to let them.

And I would say that any other decision would look like a mistake and history would judge him harshly for it.

Now, what would happen if Israel tried and they lost some troops and they did not succeed and then they gave up?

Well, then that's a separate decision.

From that point, you can say, "All right, new information.

It turns out that Israel can't do it alone because they tried." But I'll tell you the one thing that we're not going to be able to live with.

We're not going to be able to live with Netanyahu saying he can do it and not letting him see if he can.

There there's no way we're going to live with that.

And there's no way that Trump's legacy could survive uh getting involved when it doesn't seem necessary according to Israel and they would know more about the situation that we would.

So, uh, I'm sure I will be called anti-semitic for for taking Netanyahu and his word that he can do this.

But if I have that wrong, if I've misinterpreted what he said, let me know because that would change my opinion a little bit.

All right.

Um, Matt Gates floated a uh plan.

Now, I don't think this one has any chance of happening, but it's interesting um nonetheless.

So, he suggests that uh both Iran and Israel give up their uh secret nuclear weapon programs.

Now, I don't think there's any chance that Israel is going to give up its secret nuclear weapon triad because it's probably pretty advanced and it would be insane to give it up, I guess.

Um, but it does make you wonder, um, is that one of the possibilities?

What would Iran say if Israel offered to legitimately get rid of its uh nuclear program?

Would Iran say, "Oh, well, I never thought that would happen." All right.

If you're going to do it, we can do it, too.

Would they?

Um, I don't think that that topic can even be broached because even if Israel put it out there as a suggested idea, it would be an acknowledgement that they have the secret nuclear nuclear triad that we all assume that they have.

So, I don't think there's any way that could work, but it does make you wonder.

Does make you think.

Anyway, um Tulsa Gabbard is of course under attack by the people who say uh that she disagrees with Trump and Trump said that she was wrong if she said that uh Iran couldn't make a a bomb.

So I think my first take on this early in the early on the drama was right that when Tulsi Gabbard was talking about Iran, she was talking about a decision to make a bomb and she said that the um the intelligence people in the United States have not detected that the Ayatollah has decided to make a nuclear weapon.

Whereas when Trump talks about it, he talks about the ability to make a nuclear weapon.

So if they walk right up to the threshold and they are enriching uranium to the point where there's no other legitimate reason to do it other than your intention to make a weapon.

Well, that would put Trump in the position of saying it almost doesn't matter what anybody has decided.

If they've walked up to the line where they can do it in three weeks, you have to treat it like they're doing it.

It's the same.

So, I don't see any difference between what Tulsi Gabbard said and what Trump says.

To me, they look like they're completely compatible.

They both would agree that Iran could do it fairly quickly.

So they're agreed on that.

And I don't think Trump has said that the Ayatollah has been detected as ordering it to be done.

He's not saying that.

He's just being a common sense person who says if they say death to America and they've been funding proxies and they they go right up to the threshold, what else would they have in mind?

You'd have to treat that like their intention is obvious.

So even if you don't know their intention and you can't read their mind, uh Trump is right.

You'd have to treat it as though you could read their mind and they do have the intention even if you don't know for sure.

Anyway, um here's a correction that uh I got a story completely wrong and uh Glenn Greenwald is correcting people like me.

The story was that the Washington Post has a reporter.

He used to work for El Jazer, which is part of the smearing of his reputation.

He used to work for El Jazer, but now he's on the Washington Post.

And when he reports about the missile damage in Israel, he was giving um actual coordinates, like GPS coordinates of where the damage was.

and Bill Aman and a number of other people and including me um in my podcast were saying, "Why would you do that?" Like, what possible reason would you want Iran to have the GPS coordinates of the missile attack?

Unless you were hoping they could improve their aim, because if you tell them where they landed, maybe they can adjust their their process somehow.

Now, that made sense to me when I said it, but let me tell you how stupid that was.

All right, so here here's a case where if I knew more, I would have done a better job.

As Glenn Greenwald points out, here's the most important part of the story.

The the I'm laughing at myself for what an idiot I am because this is really dumb.

Uh, where do you think the reporter got the GPS coordinates for the missile damage?

Do you think he was over there?

No, he's not over there.

He's in the United States.

So, how did he get the the missile coordinates of where the bombs hit?

It's public.

It's public.

So Iran would obviously already know what this reporter knows because it's public.

So he used a public source for the GPS coordinates which Iran has full access to.

And if that's not enough for you, apparently the same reporter has been doing the same thing, reporting the GPS coordinates for prior wars.

I think at least two prior wars.

And the reason he does it is so that um if you wanted to check basically it would allow you to have a way to check to see if the reporting is accurate.

Um he gives us the GPS coordinates.

So if somebody looked at it from let's say a satellite and they saw that that building was intact, they could say, "Oh, the reporting was wrong." So it's basically a way to let other people check his work.

So um I would like to apologize for getting that story absolutely wrong.

Just absolutely basswards.

And uh the journalist is Evan Hill.

So I I will apologize to him directly.

So, Evan, sorry about that.

Uh, I I got taken by that that hoax.

Anyway, uh this is why uh this is why you want to listen to uh Greenwald.

He he always has the better take on stuff.

Um, apparently the uh Trump administration is making some big changes to Obamacare and they're ending uh coverage for dreamers.

So the dreamers would be the children who are brought in by their parents and have grown up as Americans, uh, but they're not technically legal.

So apparently they're going to lose their Obamacare coverage.

Um, and my question is this.

Do you think that the um Trump administration is using the cover of the Israel Iran war to get away with some things that otherwise it would be too much public push back for?

Because this is in the area that, you know, a reasonable person could disagree because you're talking about, you know, people who did not make any decision to come here.

They were brought here by their parents and they would be losing healthcare.

Now, there's an argument on both sides.

I get it.

I get it.

You don't have to you don't have to argue with me.

I I see the argument.

But do you think do you think Trump could get away with this without there being some big international story that dominates?

I feel like I feel like the uh the Steven Millers have a little more flexibility because we're distracted by other things that seem like a bigger deal to us.

So that's my only comment on that.

I wonder if distraction is making a difference.

Well, Bill Maher had uh Wesley Hunt on who's a representative and uh Wesley Hunt did a unusually good job of slapping down Bill Maher's TDS.

Um so the first thing that uh that happened was uh Bill Maher was talking about Trump's military parade.

Um, and he he mentioned that it was a fascist parade and Wesley Hunt said this.

You know what I saw?

Uh, this is what Han said.

I saw the president salute the core of cadetses as they walked past them.

I watched them salute the 75th Ranger Regiment.

Um, I watched the fireworks behind the Washington Monument.

And you know what I thought?

Damn, that's absolutely outstanding.

And it's far better than Joe Biden checking his watch when bodies were being returned to do.

And then he reminds us that he was in the military.

He was an Apache pilot and he joined the military because of in part because of that type of patriotic treatment of the military.

Now that's a pretty darn good answer.

it's a fascist military.

And then the person who actually served, talking to Bill Maher, who did not serve in the military, says, "No, it wasn't fascist.

It's the reason I joined the military." That is a really good answer.

Now, but he had another chance to slap down Bill Maher.

Um because Bill Maher referred to January 6 as an insurrection and uh as his proof, Bill Maher said, you know, it's not a coincidence that they were protesting at the exact time the votes were being I think he said counted, but maybe certified was a better word.

Now, uh Wesley Hunt said, uh, "How do you have an insurrection with no guns?" There you go.

How do you have an insurrection with no guns?

Why did it take this long for somebody to say that on Bill Maher show?

How many times has Bill Maher referred to January 6 as an insurrection?

And it took all the way to now for Wesley Hunt to say, "How do you have an insurrection with no guns?" He went on saying, "That's like making coffee with no beans." One person was killed that day.

It was Ashley Babbot.

She was a white unarmed woman killed by a black Capitol police officer.

Imagine if that had been the other way around.

Ouch.

Oh, you're good, Wesley Hunt.

Um, and then Mara tried to argue it, but um, Wesley pointed out that the summer of love was way more dangerous and more people died and it was way worse.

Um, I would I would have added one thing.

So, that was that was a good comeback.

But I would add this.

Bill Maher does not understand what the protesters were thinking when they protested.

If what they were thinking was, I know we lost this election, but we're going to try to take over the country and install our our beloved Trump.

If that's what they were thinking, then that was an insurrection.

Even without the guns, that would be an insurrection.

But they weren't.

I'll bet you couldn't find even one person out and of the thousands of people, I'll bet you wouldn't find one who said, "I knew Trump lost, but I wanted him to be president anyway." I'll bet not one.

So, the entire argument that January 6 was an insurrection depends entirely on the mental state of the protesters.

If what they believed is that the election itself was obviously corrupt because of the the weird oddities of that election, you know, the the sudden surge of Biden, the the unusual number of votes he got compared to Obama and compared to other years, and then the uh the uh what do you call it, the the certain districts, the bellweather districts, um I think 13 or 14 went the wrong way.

You know, they're they're normally the most predictive thing in our elections and they all predicted that Trump won and he still lost.

So, if you ask those people, I'm pretty sure they would say, "We think that the election didn't look like it was necessarily fair, and we wanted them to pause just to look into it a little bit, just just to make sure that the right person won." How in the world does Bill Maher, who talks about politics for a living, not realize that he's never heard from anybody who was involved in the protest and that that's the only thing that matters?

What were they thinking?

And were they thinking that they were taking over the country and they left their guns home?

Is that what they were thinking?

So I think Wesley Hunt um he he was 60% of the way there with you know nobody nobody goes to a insurrection without guns but the other 40% that's a kill shot and nobody's taken a kill shot yet.

It's going to happen but nobody's done it yet.

New York Post is reporting that CNN is collapsing.

uh two of their executives just uh resigned.

Uh vice president of domestic news and VP of digital video and they'd both been there a long time and I guess there are big cost cutings coming and uh Anderson Cooper gets paid $18 million a year.

I've got a feeling that there might be a change coming to Anderson Cooper's compensation package, but we'll see.

Um, according to a post I saw by Mario Noel, who you should follow on X, he has great news summaries.

Um, he saw this in the CTU UCB cyber security research.

So that he has a source.

Apparently 500 research papers have been written uh in China about how to crash the power grid in America.

So um 367 Chinese papers targeting the US grids and 166 on European systems and they talked about how to create quote cascading failures and systematic collapse.

So if you're wondering is China wondering how to collapse our entire um power network?

The answer is yes.

They're putting a lot of effort into understanding what would work.

Now, the fact that there are so many different papers sort of suggests that maybe there's not one obvious way to do it, which maybe gives me a little weird comfort.

If if they have to do that much thinking about it, maybe it's not easy, you know, may maybe they can't just turn a switch, which we imagine they could do.

But uh the papers detail quote malicious data injection attacks.

Yikes.

What would uh keep China from attacking our grid?

Well, I think as long as we don't attack their grid or attack them, um it's unlikely they're going to attack us in that way because why would they?

But as a defensive move, um, China quite wisely has a pretty good backup plan.

And I have to admit it, I feel safer if China feels they can take down our electric grid than I would if the only tool they had was a nuclear weapon.

because taking down the power grid would kill a lot of people and it would be, you know, massively disruptive and horrible.

Um, but nuclear war would be worse.

So maybe it's good that they have some kind of halfway thing that they can do.

Obviously, we're Yeah, I'm sure America has looked into the same same question for their grid.

Well, the uh Postmillennials reporting that uh Representative Jerry Nadler um is accusing ICE agents of hiding misbehavior by wearing masks.

Now, apparently the Democrats have decided on another 20% issue.

How many people in the United States think that they want the ICE agents to reveal their identity to the the gangs, you know, MS13 and Trenagua?

How many people think that's a good idea?

Now, I understand that the, you know, regular cops on the street don't wear masks, and I'm happy about that.

But apparently, according to Breitbart, um there's a recent analysis, and the Department of Homeland Security sees a 500% increase in assaults on ICE um employees.

500% increase in assaults.

So if you were working in a job where there was a 500% increase in assaults and the Democrats were saying, "Hey, take off those masks so we can assault you even better." That can't be popular, is it?

Is it?

Isn't that another 8020 where 80% of the country would say oh yeah if they need to protect themselves they they have to do what they have to do or do you think um yeah or do you think uh that people agree with that that ICE should take off their masks so the gangs can figure out who they are?

I don't know.

I think uh I think I would let them keep the masks in this environment.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for you today.

Um there will not be a spaces after today's show.

That will be tomorrow, Sunday.

So, we'll I'll tell you about that tomorrow.

And I'm going to say a few words privately to the local subscribers, beloved beloved local subscribers.

And uh hope you'll come back tomorrow.

Same time, same place.

All right, locals.

We're going to go private in 30 seconds.

And happy Saturday everybody.

We've got a podcast for you like you've

never seen before.

Borrowing uh Trump's sayings. Nobody's

ever seen anything like it.

It would be the best thing ever in the

entire world.

Probably.

[Music]

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to try, and I say try to take

it up to levels that nobody can even

understand with their tiny shiny human

brains. All you need for that is

a copper micro glass tanker Charles, a

canteen joker 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 day

of the day. The thing that makes

everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip and it happens now. Go.

Oh, that's good. There's only one thing

that could make it better.

Mr. Trump, would you like a sip? We are

going to drain the swamp in Washington

DC.

Go.

There he is. draining the swamp.

All right,

so there's some fun science coming up.

Oh, by the way, um although today is

Saturday, there will not be a spaces

event um after the show. That will be

tomorrow. So tomorrow on Sunday, Owen

Gregorian will have his spaces event

after the show.

Well, according to the ex account, uh,

creme,

if I'm pronouncing that correctly, and

I'm not.

Uh, apparently there's a good chance

that type 1 diabetes has been cured.

I don't know, maybe type 1 diabetes. So

apparently um over the last year there

was a test where 12 diabetics were

injected with a stem cell derived

pancreatic islets

and I was going to say have they never

tried injecting stem cell derived

pancreatic islets before but they did

now they tried it and uh apparently

people started producing insulin again.

And 10 out of 12 participants

after one year no longer needed to

inject insulin. Whoa. How about that?

Imagine that.

Imagine that you were alive, could be,

maybe, not for sure, when type 1

diabetes was cured. Wouldn't that be

awesome?

In other news,

uh there's a

what's being called a groundbreaking

study uh that says eating one avocado a

day could help you sleep better with all

of the health benefits of extra sleep.

Um let's see who did the study. Oh, uh

it's according to the HOS avocado board.

So, it's being reported by the Hos

avocado people that eating one avocado a

day can help you sleep better. Well, I

eat one avocado a day and I do sleep

pretty well. So, I call that science.

Um, I don't know who funded that study,

but uh I'm not I'm not sure the hos

avocado people are the the ones to

believe.

Um, here's another science thing. We'll

talk about Iran, of course. Um,

apparently according to the American

Society for Metabolic and Beriatric

Surgery, the people who have the uh

weight loss surgery, I guess that's the

one where they talk to your stomach, um,

they have a self-esteem improvement of

131%.

So, is there any way they could have

saved some money in that study? Hm. H I

wonder. Um suppose they ask me, Scott,

uh do you think that being in shape and

eating right and going to the gym, um

will that help your mental and physical

health and your happiness and your

chances of success?

Yes. Yes. There's never an exception.

Eating right and exercising

absolutely will make you happier and

healthier and more successful. Guarantee

it.

So next time just ask me. I'm here. Just

ask.

Um

apparently uh President Trump is uh

going back and forth on his his ideas

about deporting farm workers.

because he's quite aware that if he

departs all the uh the noncitizen farm

workers, we will starve to death

because it might take a while to replace

them with American workers, if we even

can.

And but here here's my favorite part

about this story. Um, remember how I

always tell you that Trump is he finds

it impossible to be boring?

Everything he says has that that little

bit of edge to it that makes you read it

twice. And he did it again with the the

farm worker deportation. So, here's a

Trump quote.

Quote, "I never want to hurt our

farmers. Our farmers are great people.

They keep us happy, healthy, and fat.

Trump is the only person uh well the

only president who would throw fat into

the end of that sentence. They keep us

happy and healthy and fat.

I can't tell you how many times I reread

the sentence. And that's what Trump does

to you. He just makes you reread the

sentence, you know, five times and laugh

every time. Why would you even do that?

He's the only person who can make that

sentence interesting.

Well, speaking of Trump,

as you know, um the Trump family has has

announced that they plan to go into the

mobile phone business.

Um, and

they actually plan to make the

smartphone in the United States. Now,

the people who know how to make

smartphones are very insistent that

that's not possible. That it would take,

I don't know, years and years to figure

out how to train Americans to make

phones and how to get all the

infrastructure and technology here and

factories.

But uh so far the uh I think Don Jr. has

said that he plans to make it in the

United States. So

do they know something that we don't

know? Is there a secret plan where they

can take a I don't know a Taiwanese or

Chinese company and just move it over

here and make those phones in America or

as some some are suggesting this is not

a real business that it might be more

for PR or something I don't know but it

doesn't seem to me that Don Jr. would be

involved in a totally makebelieve

business. He must have some kind of plan

to make these phones in the United

States, but we don't know what that is.

So maybe we'll be surprised.

Well, uh, AI is our David Saxs,

um, is very pro AI, as you might

imagine, and he says that AI will be

bigger than the iPhone, bigger than the

internet,

and it's going to fuel the growth of the

American economy for years to come and

would be one of the most important parts

of Trump's legacy. Now, uh, Saxs also

said separately on a post.x X that AI

might be adding jobs

um and not subtracting.

Now, of course, that would be a

controversial opinion because for sure

there are jobs that will go away,

but also for sure there will be jobs

that will be created. For example, um

over on Tik Tok, there are a whole bunch

of people using AI to get rich making

viral videos that are actually quite

entertaining. I like the ones of the uh

the cute little kittens who work at

McDonald's.

If you haven't seen that one, it's

pretty awesome. Or the uh the cats were

doing Olympic diving off a diving board.

So, the AI is pretty good now. Pretty

good. Now, those are special cases. You

know, it's not like we're all going to

be making AI content, but I do think

that Sachs might be closer to accurate.

When he says that AI might add jobs,

they'll just be completely different

jobs than we've ever had. or they'll be

the same job, but one person can do a

much better job of it perhaps. So, you

got that going on.

Um, I heard also some other famous

investor say that the the big investment

for the future is AI and if you're not

invested in AI,

um you're going to feel bad about it.

So uh I don't give uh investment advice

but you should know that some investors

are saying that AI is the place to the

place to be. Well, more to that point,

um, the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Alman,

um, he did a podcast, I think with his

brother, and he mentioned that, uh, Meta

is offering a$100 million bonus for the

top Open AI employees to leave OpenAI

and go work for Meta.

$100 million

just a bonus.

So that's not even counting their their

pay. That's just a bonus.

Does that sound real?

It doesn't really sound real to me, but

I don't think he'd make it up. It'd be a

weird thing to make up. So, I don't

know. I have some trouble believing that

uh that's true. It might be true of, you

know, three people in the world, you

know, the the smartest AI people. Maybe

they are worth 100 million. I don't

know. But, uh, I've decided to, uh, quit

my job as a cartoonist and become a AI

specialist. Try to get that $100 million

bonus. I'll let you know how that goes.

In other AI news, according to

neuroscience news,

uh researchers have figured out how to

get AI to um be more empathetic and work

on your emotions. So, they can tailor

emotional analogies to each user's

personality and life experience.

So, notice how they use analogies. They

use analogies to get empathy and to work

on your emotions.

And boy, that's dangerous.

It might be, you know, it's inevitable.

The AI will learn to manipulate the

emotions of humans. You know, there's no

way to stop that from happening. But,

uh, here it is. And I guess the big

takeaway is that you can't use the same

analogy for every person. You have to

have the analogy tailored for their

personality. But once you do that, you

can manipulate their feelings. And once

AI can manipulate our feelings,

who will be in charge?

Well, AI.

Because once AI can give you better

information than you had,

but then can also manipulate you with

analogies and stories and anecdotes.

Well, then it pretty much is going to

run everything.

So, that's coming. Um, and also

according to the Verge, Sarah Parker is

writing about this. Apparently, people

use chat GPT a lot, their vocabulary

starts to change.

And this one is fun. This is this one I

did not see coming. Apparently, even

though um AI is based on actual human

conversations and interactions,

there are different vocabulary words

that come up more in AI than they come

up in normal conversation. So,

apparently words like delve

are are words that AI would use more

likely than you would. When was the last

time you used the word delve as in we're

going to delve into that?

I I was wondering I was thinking I don't

know if I've ever used that word in

conversation.

I've read it. I've heard people say it,

but I don't know if I've ever used it

even once. you know, I I would say let's

dig into it or, you know, let's do a

deeper dive, but I don't think I maybe

I've never used that word, but

apparently people use AI and chat GPT in

particular.

They'll they'll start saying words like

uh

uh let's see, prowess and tapestry.

I guess those come up a lot in Chad GPT.

and they're less likely to use words

like bolster, unearth, and nuance

because chap doesn't use them as much.

So, here's the hypnotist take on the

story.

As a hypnotist, I can tell you that the

choice of words

can influence what you think about the

topic.

So it's not a

you know just a mere curiosity that

people use AI use different vocabulary

that specific vocabulary is very likely

to to change how you think about the

topic and you wouldn't know why.

So that's the hypnotist take. The

specific choice of words that you

associate with a topic

very much will influence your overall

opinion of the topic. And if you were to

just force somebody to use a different

vocabulary and in this case you know how

to force them it's happening naturally

they would think differently about the

topic depending on the topic. So now AI

can influence us by which vocabulary we

use, but it can also influence us by

being very useful. So we rely on it for

facts, even if they're wrong. And

apparently it can also influence us with

analogies and emotion and empathy.

So if you were wondering, is AI going to

start being in control of humans? Yeah.

Yeah. No doubt about it. There there

isn't the slightest chance that AI will

not be influencing what you think about

stuff. Now the interesting thing

is will this cause any kind of uh unity?

So right now the country is divided you

know by politics. What would happen if

AI

all the AIs start converging on the same

explanation of things and use the same

analogies and have similar vocabulary?

Is it possible that our diverse opinions

will merge into one opinion that

coincidentally or not is exactly what AI

would tell you is true?

That might happen. So, one possibility

is AI manipulates us and turns us into

mindless puppets and we don't know it.

Uh, the other possibility is it allows

us to stop fighting with each other

because we can all just look at AI and

go, "Oh, all right. I guess that's the

partake." And then we just agree with

it. So, could be good. Never know.

Um,

according to uh Trump, the US has

arranged a treaty, some kind of a peace

treaty between the Democratic Republic

of the Congo and the Republic of Rwanda.

Now, raise your hand if you knew that

the Republic of Congo and Republic of

Rwanda were in some kind of a war.

H I have to admit that although I do

know the number of people who live in

Iran, 92 million, I did not know

anything about the Republic of Condo or

Rwanda. However, according to the post

millennial,

um Trump is uh is bragging that the US

got that done and if we did, good job.

Marco Rubio and looks like they may have

been instrumental in that.

Uh but Trump being Trump and as I

already noted, it's impossible for him

to say something that's boring. Instead

of just saying, "Hey, good news. We've

got this peace deal.

We've got this new peace deal that was

really necessary." Instead of doing

that, he announces it. And at the same

time, in the same message, he complains

that he probably won't get a Nobel Peace

Prize for his work with India and

Pakistan, his work with Serbia and

Kosovo. I don't even know what that was.

Egypt and Ethiopia. Again, I have no

idea what that was about. Does anybody

know what Trump did to make things

better between Egypt and Ethiopia?

I do not.

And then he also mentions the Abraham

Accords as all the things he's done for

peace and uh but he won't get a Nobel

Peace Prize because that only goes to

liberals, he says. And he says that even

if he were to end the war in Ukraine and

uh get a good result in Iran, even if he

could do that, he says he'll never get

the Nobel Peace Prize. Now,

do you recognize what form of uh

persuasion he's using?

This is not random.

This is really good persuasion because

he keeps saying that he won't get the

Nobel Peace Prize.

What do I teach you about negatives?

This is another hypnotist trick. Um,

the hypnotist trick is that the more you

make people think Nobel Peace Prize and

peace prize for this. I won't get the

Nobel Peace Prize for this. And your

brain doesn't hear the won't. It it sort

of forgets it right away. And all you

can think of is Trump and Nobel Peace

Prize.

So, it's actually a super clever way of

increasing the odds that he gets a Nobel

Peace Prize,

which to me is hilarious. It's hilarious

that he's working on it, like he

actually is trying to get one.

I kind of I kind of love that. All

right. Well, as you know, the news is

never complete without some stories

about Elon Musk. Today is no exception.

And apparently uh Elon Musk scolded

Grock, his own his own AI uh because

Grock said that used sources Media

Matters and Rolling Stone to uh dispute

something said by ex user Cat Turd 2.

And apparently uh and so Musk responded

to Grock on the Xplatform like he was

talking to a person and he said to

Grock, "Your sourcing is terrible. Only

a very dumb AI would believe media

banners and Rolling Stone. You were

being updated this week."

So, so Musk is having a conversation

with his own AI and scolding it and

saying that it's using bad sources and

he's going to fix it.

Now, that's funny.

Well, speaking of Elon Musk, apparently

Tesla, according to CNBC,

is just signed a deal with China to

build their largest gridscale battery

power plant.

Um,

now I think the the batteries are also

made in China, but uh the it's a yeah,

they've got a battery factory in

Shanghai and it's made over a 100 megaps

in the first quarter. So what this is

about is a way to make your network more

efficient because you can store the uh

cheaply

cheaply generated electricity in your

batteries and then release them as you

need them and uh China will be first.

Now, I don't make um I don't give

financial advice,

but if you knew that Tesla just signed a

enormous deal to create a gridcale

battery power plants in China and

they're planning to do it for other

countries as well. Isn't that one of the

biggest businesses in the world? I mean

it's starting you know it's starting

with one but wouldn't every every power

grid want this

so what is what is exactly the size of

this financial opportunity it looks like

it's bigger than cars I mean uh

literally every country and every grid

would probably get some benefit from

having a battery you know a battery uh

power land. Anyway,

um according to Politico

and uh Carrie Lake was announcing this

as her in her role as a a advisor to

President Trump. Apparently, a majority

of the staff of Voice of America is

getting released, terminated.

And uh

what is uh senior presidential advisor

Carrie Lake said, "Today we took

decisive actions to effectuate."

Effectuate.

There's a word that I don't use.

Effectuate.

When was the last time you used

effectuate in a sentence?

Um I would say I've never used it once.

Uh, this is the first time I've ever

said that word out loud. Effectuate.

Um, the Trump agenda to shrink the

control federal bureaucracy. So, we'll

see if that sticks. Eliminating 1,400

jobs and 85% cut to the workforce there.

Good job.

All right. As I've said before, um,

pundit and humorist comic Dave Smith

has, uh, very,

let's say, effectively and impressively

worked his way into the conversation

about the biggest topics in America, in

this case, the Israel Iran conflict. And

I'm very impressed

because, you know, it'd be one thing if

you were a famous geopolitical expert,

but to become one of the central people

in the conversation

coming out of the humor field, you know,

the the podcast punditry world,

you really have to be doing something

well.

And even if you disagree with him, and

I'm gonna disagree with him a little bit

today, even if you disagree, I really

like what he adds to the conversation

because he does sort of force people to

debate him. And, you know, you can judge

for yourself who's got the better

opinion, but uh I like where he takes

the conversations. But he had a uh a

post that actually got millions of uh

views

and I will read it to you. His post was,

"Okay, fine. Iran doesn't have nukes,

but have you heard their chance? We must

go to war to stop these chants."

Now, that's a pretty good humorist take,

but is there any more to this story? Of

course there is. So, here's here's my

take, and he may have he may have

already answered this. I don't know. But

I weighed in on that.

And I said in the comments, I haven't

heard an innocent reason why Iran

insists on threshold enrichment levels.

Threshold meaning right up to the point

where you can make a nuclear weapon.

uh and there's no reason to be there at

that level of enrichment. There there's

not a civilian use for it. The only use

for it is if you want to be poised to

very quickly make a nuclear weapon. Now,

that's as far as I know. There may be

some expert who says, "But Scott, you

idiot. Don't you know that getting to

60% enrichment is just, you know, useful

for this or that?" Well, I don't know. I

haven't heard that. I I've not heard

that argument. Now, the other thing you

need to know is that getting from 60%

to 90%, which is where you need to be

for a bomb, I understand, is not a

question of getting from 60 to 90.

Apparently, the uh enrichment process

has a logarithmic kind of quality to it.

So that 60 is right next to 90. So if

you can get to 60, then getting to 90

might take three weeks. That's that's my

understanding, but I you know, I could

be wrong about that, but I think that's

right. So, has anybody heard Iran give

any kind of public explanation

of why they would need to increase their

their enrichment to the point where

there's only one reason that I know of,

which is to be ready to make a nuclear

weapon.

Now, you add that to the fact that

they've been funding proxies to try to

destroy, you know, Israel for a long

time, and uh they've done a number of

terrorist acts against Americans in the

area over the years. And then on top of

that, they have this uh this chant about

death to Israel and death to America.

Now, I would agree that if the only

problem was their chanting,

I would not be so worried. But if you

combine death to America, death to

Israel with building a enrichment

capacity, which only has one purpose,

and a history of funding proxies to

attack Israel,

that looks pretty aggressive to me. That

that looks like more than a chant.

So,

um I went online and said a few things

about the Israel situation and what I

found was that if you say anything that

um people disagree with on this topic,

you will be called anti-semitic.

So, I I got called anti-semitic for I

think just asking some question online

and somebody said, "Whoa, why would you

do that? Why would you even question

that? Unless you're anti-Semitic. To

which I say, "Oh, you. Just

you. I'm not anti-semitic.

If I have questions about why we're

doing what we're doing and how we're

doing it, that has nothing to do with

any kind of anti-semitism.

These are, you know, three countries

that are in this situation. And if I

talk about it, it's because I'm trying

to understand it or predict it.

There's no deeper no deeper meaning. Um,

and then there are the people who say

that

essentially Israel and Iran are sort of

morally and ethically similar.

Now, that's the the mode I don't want to

get into because once you get into the

moral ethical part, you're you know, you

just have to take a side and I don't

want to do that. But I would point out

that it seems very unlikely

if Iran decided to be totally, you know,

peaceful and not make any threats or any

threatening moves toward its neighbors,

it seems deeply unlikely that Israel

would attack them. Wouldn't you say? But

would that be the same if Israel decided

to be totally peaceful? Would they be

attacked by Iran or Iranian proxies?

Well, it doesn't look like those are the

same to me. To me, it looks like Iran

has a long-term goal to erase Israel, at

least as a country, uh, off the map.

I I don't see that Israel has any kind

of goal like that as far as I know. They

would love to probably have some kind of

regime change that loved Israel, but you

know, what are the odds of that? Pretty

low. So

any uh comparison of the two seems out

of place to me.

Uh meanwhile, the National Review, the

conservative publication in this

country, is attacking uh what they call

skeptics of the Iraq war, and they've

got a new uh updated article uh calling

them unpatriotic conservatives.

Um, oh, that's what they called the

people who were against the Iraq war,

but now they're using it to to go

against the people who are against the,

you know, the attack of Iran.

So, it makes you wonder what is the

National Review?

Is the job of the National Review news

or opinion

or do they work for the

uh military-industrial complex and it's

just their way of influencing the

country? It makes me wonder what exactly

is the National Review.

Well, as you know, uh Trump has said

that he's going to give uh well, before

I get to that, there there are two

stories about two weeks. The first story

about two weeks is that Israel said they

thought that they would be done with

their war in two weeks.

Now, when uh people like me talk about

international geopolitical stuff, the

first thing you probably say to yourself

is, "What the hell does he know about

geopolitical anything? Does he even know

the population of Iran?" Yes, I do. 92

million. Um,

but uh wouldn't you imagine that my

opinion about the Israel Iran situation

should be kind of worthless because I

have no experience in that domain, you

know, no special knowledge. I haven't

been there. So, wouldn't you just sort

of automatically assume that I would be

wrong about everything unless I just got

lucky?

Well, let's uh keep track because I have

made some specific public uh

predictions.

One of my predictions is that there was

no way that Israel would be done in two

weeks. How am I doing so far?

Well, if uh Trump's two weeks is if they

keep to Trump's two weeks, and he he

says that's a maximum. So, there's some

there's some chance that Trump will act

before the two weeks is over, but I

think that's low. It'll at least be 3

weeks.

But on top of that, um there is a uh

military commander um

who says that uh

he said it's going to take longer. He

says uh difficult days still lie ahead

and that Israel must be ready for a

quote prolonged campaign. So that that's

coming from Israel. So, Israel, it looks

like, has already abandoned their two

week estimate.

So, did you see anybody else um say that

the two weeks were would probably be

I didn't I did not see one expert say,

"I don't think this will be done in two

weeks. It might take months."

Only me. Now, did I use my geopolitical

expertise? No. I used the Dilbert

filter. The Dilbert filter works

whenever there's any big complicated

human endeavor.

And nobody ever got anything done in two

weeks. Two weeks for a war.

Come on. Who Who ever believed that that

was going to get done in two weeks? So

here's an example

where I don't have any geopolitical,

you know, uh, experience whatsoever,

but that that kind of stood out as a

glaring obvious point that you could

question. How many of you said the same

thing? Said, "All right, there's no way

this is going to be done in two weeks."

Because nothing is nothing is ever done

in two weeks. No matter no matter how

sure you are that it can be, it just

never is.

So, I got that one right. Anyway,

so Trump says he's going to give Iran a

couple of weeks. Um, some say that's

mostly so he can move some more assets

into place, like naval assets, etc., in

case we need to go hard. Apparently,

there's reports that several B2 uh

stealth bombers have already taken off.

Um, and they're going from Missouri to

Guam.

Now, presumably that would get them

closer to the theater that they might be

used in. And this would be an indication

that Trump has either u decided he's

going to attack or wants Iran to think

that that's a strong possibility.

And

um some say that the two weeks that

Trump is giving is just to see if

anything changes in a favorable way. So,

for example, if Israel had, let's say,

some unexpectedly big successes in the

next two weeks that change the equation.

Well, then you're going to be, you know,

you're going to be glad that Trump

waited because maybe we don't have to

attack. So, what could happen in those

two weeks besides getting more military

assets in place?

Um, some people say that Thran might

abandon its uh nuclear program.

I don't think that's going to happen.

So, expecting them to tell the

Europeans, you know, we don't want to

talk to America or Israel, but we'd be

happy to abandon our enrichment program.

That's not going to happen. I don't see

Iran bending to the will of the West.

Um, so we've got this twoe period and

Trump in his usual way says it's a

maximum so that it it keeps them

guessing that they they they won't get

too comfortable for two weeks because

maybe just maybe something will happen

faster. Now the big question is should

the United States be involved in taking

out the Ford and maybe one other

underground bunker facility?

uh under the belief that only America

has the weapons that can do that and

that would be the bunker busters that

they say would have to be double hold.

So you would have to use one to make a

big hole and then drop another one in

the same hole to get deeper.

And the American weapon makers and the

military-industrial complex is telling

us via the news, oh, this will

definitely work. Now, there's a question

of whether we should do it, but the

people who make the weapons and talk

about the weapons and know the most

about the weapons, which is not me,

right? So again here here's another

situation where I do not have any

knowledge of militaryindustrial complex.

I do not know anything about bunker

busters or anything about these uh B2

stealth bombers.

So coming from no knowledge whatsoever

and being in the same conversation with

people who are geopolitical military

experts. Let me put the Dilbert filter

on this.

Nobody knows if those bombs will

work.

Are you kidding me? Let let me take you

to the real world for a moment.

They've never tested dropping two bunker

busters in the same hole. They do not

know exactly

what is, you know, inside that Fordau

mountain and just exactly how things are

protected in there. They might know a

lot, but they don't know everything.

When was the last time you saw somebody

do this a complicated thing that had

never been done before and it worked out

perfectly and they knew it in advance.

That's not a function of the real world.

In the real world, you'd be really lucky

if you got this to work on the first

try. And I don't know if there'll be

more than one try.

So, the first thing I'm going to say

without being any kind of a military

expert is that probably everybody lies

about how powerful their weapons are.

Uh, were you ever surprised when you

heard that the Iron Dome or or some

version of the Iron Dome was not not

stopping all the missiles and somebody

probably told you, oh yeah, the

anti-missile defense is going to get 98%

of the missiles and then it turns out

maybe it gets 90%. But 10%'s a lot of

missiles to let through. So I would say

that whenever you hear somebody say that

a a weapon system will definitely work

really in the real world. In the real

world you've never used it in this way

and but you're sure it's going to work.

All right. So we're not sure it's going

to work and and you should not imagine

that that anybody knows that with

certainty whether it'll work. Now, I

don't know the odds. If you said, "Well,

what are the odds that it doesn't work?"

I don't know. But nobody else knows

either. The only thing I know for sure

is it's not a definite.

If it were definite, that might change

the equation a little bit, but it's not.

It's not definite.

And just to make things interesting,

uh Netanyahu has said publicly that

Israel can take care of the Iranian

nuclear program without America's help

if they have to.

Now, are you all aware of that? I'll

I'll take a fact check on that if I'm

wrong, but correct me if I'm wrong. Um

Netanyahu has recently publicly

said that they don't need America's

involvement. They could take care of it

in a different way. They don't have

these bunker busters, but there might be

some way to do something on the ground

or, you know, with with special forces

or something. Now, would that put would

that put Israel in a position of taking

um losses?

Yes, of course. That's what military

conflicts do. they put you in a position

where where people could be killed on

your side.

Um, but that does settle the question in

my mind of whether Trump should um

authorize the the B the B2 bombers to

drop the bunker busters. And the answer

is no.

If if Israel says that they can handle

it without us, why would we even

consider it?

Now, you would consider it if our

involvement made it a guarantee that it

would work and Israel couldn't do it by

itself, but that's not the case. Our

bunker busters are anything but

guaranteed.

And Israel says they can do it.

Why wouldn't we at least wait two weeks

to see if they can do it? Is it possible

that Trump's two weeks is really waiting

to see if Israel can make a dent at

Forau with some kind of different

strategy? Uh, and you could imagine I

won't I won't mention any that I could

think of because I'm not smart enough,

but there might be some way to get a

hold of whoever it is who has the the

lock to open the front door.

Don't you think there's probably more

than one person in the world who knows

how to open that door?

Is it is it a combination lock?

Is it a multi-step process where the

people inside the facility have to be

the ones to unlock it from the inside?

Is that how it works? I'm just

speculating.

But don't you think there's some chance

that Israel could get a hold of whoever

has the key or the combination or the

secret, you know, digital way to open

that thing. Maybe there's just a way to

open the front door that that we don't

know about. Maybe Israel knows more

about that because they're they're

pretty deeply, you know, into the pants

of the of the Iranian everything. Maybe

they know. But anyway, so the

alternative

the alternative to Israel doing it

themselves and believing that they can

do it themselves is that Israel um went

into the war knowing that they could not

succeed without American involvement in

the war. Now that would be much worse,

wouldn't you think?

And when I asked that question online on

X, I said, "When did Israel know that

they couldn't do this alone?" Now, of

course, they say that they can do it

alone. So, that would be new information

from when I asked the question.

So, isn't it way worse

if Israel tried to trick the United

States into getting involved by getting

us a little bit pregnant than saying,

"Well, we got to this point, but the

only way we can finish it is by getting

America involved directly, more directly

in the war."

So, I would say this made the decision

for Trump kind of easy

because if Israel says they can do it

and then he authorizes the United States

to be involved in the war and then Iran

attacks our homeland, takes off our

turns off our lights with cyber attacks

and uh starts killing people in bases in

the Middle East, Americans,

that's going to look like a failure,

right?

So, you know, that would be some

somewhat of an unforgivable mistake. But

more than that,

it would be an admission that Israel is

wagging Trump's tail.

Meaning that it would suggest that the

only way we got into this situation is

that Israel knew that if they started

the war, they could drag us in to finish

it off. Now, I don't want to believe

that about Netanyahu.

So, I'm going to take him at his word

that I believe he said, and I'll I'll

take your fact check if I'm wrong about

this, but if they think they have a way

to do it, even if they don't know that

it will work, they have to try that

first.

So,

to me, the decision is already made.

It it's really hard for me to imagine

that Trump would allow a situation where

history would say Netanyahu tricked him

into a war.

Just just think about think about

Trump's personality.

Think about his, you know, decades of

being anti-war.

And then think about the prospect of

being treated by history as though you

got tricked into a war

by your own ally.

There's no way he's going to allow that

situation.

So, as long as Netanyahu has said

publicly, we could probably take care of

this ourselves, he has to let them.

And I would say that any other decision

would look like a mistake and history

would judge him harshly for it. Now,

what would happen if Israel tried and

they lost some troops and they did not

succeed and then they gave up? Well,

then that's a separate decision. From

that point, you can say, "All right, new

information. It turns out that Israel

can't do it alone because they tried."

But I'll tell you the one thing that

we're not going to be able to live with.

We're not going to be able to live with

Netanyahu saying he can do it and not

letting him see if he can.

There there's no way we're going to live

with that. And there's no way that

Trump's legacy could survive uh getting

involved when it doesn't seem necessary

according to Israel and they would know

more about the situation that we would.

So,

uh, I'm sure I will be called

anti-semitic for for taking Netanyahu

and his word that he can do this. But if

I have that wrong, if I've

misinterpreted what he said, let me know

because that would change my opinion a

little bit. All right.

Um, Matt Gates floated a uh plan. Now, I

don't think this one has any chance of

happening, but it's interesting um

nonetheless. So, he suggests that uh

both Iran and Israel give up their uh

secret nuclear weapon programs.

Now, I don't think there's any chance

that Israel is going to give up its

secret nuclear weapon triad because it's

probably pretty advanced

and it would be insane to give it up, I

guess. Um, but it does make you wonder,

um, is that one of the possibilities?

What would Iran say if Israel offered to

legitimately get rid of its uh nuclear

program?

Would Iran say, "Oh, well, I never

thought that would happen." All right.

If you're going to do it, we can do it,

too. Would they?

Um, I don't think that that topic can

even be broached because even if Israel

put it out there as a suggested idea, it

would be an acknowledgement that they

have the secret nuclear

nuclear triad that we all assume that

they have. So, I don't think there's any

way that could work, but it does make

you wonder.

Does make you think.

Anyway, um Tulsa Gabbard is of course

under attack by the people who say uh

that she disagrees with Trump and Trump

said that she was wrong if she said that

uh Iran couldn't make a a bomb. So I

think my first take on this early in the

early on the drama was right that when

Tulsi Gabbard was talking about Iran,

she was talking about a decision to make

a bomb and she said that the um the

intelligence people in the United States

have not detected that the Ayatollah has

decided to make a nuclear weapon.

Whereas when Trump talks about it, he

talks about the ability to make a

nuclear weapon. So if they walk right up

to the threshold and they are enriching

uranium to the point where there's no

other legitimate reason to do it other

than your intention to make a weapon.

Well, that would put Trump in the

position of saying it almost doesn't

matter

what anybody has decided. If they've

walked up to the line where they can do

it in three weeks, you have to treat it

like they're doing it. It's the same.

So, I don't see any difference between

what Tulsi Gabbard said and what Trump

says. To me, they look like they're

completely compatible. They both would

agree that Iran could do it fairly

quickly. So they're agreed on that. And

I don't think Trump has said that the

Ayatollah has been detected as ordering

it to be done. He's not saying that.

He's just being a common sense person

who says if they say death to America

and they've been funding proxies and

they they go right up to the threshold,

what else would they have in mind? You'd

have to treat that like their intention

is obvious. So even if you don't know

their intention and you can't read their

mind,

uh Trump is right. You'd have to treat

it as though you could read their mind

and they do have the intention even if

you don't know for sure.

Anyway, um here's a correction that uh I

got a story completely wrong and uh

Glenn Greenwald is correcting people

like me.

The story was that the Washington Post

has a reporter. He used to work for El

Jazer, which is part of the smearing of

his reputation. He used to work for El

Jazer, but now he's on the Washington

Post. And when he reports about the

missile damage in Israel, he was giving

um actual coordinates, like GPS

coordinates of where the damage was. and

Bill Aman and a number of other people

and including me um in my podcast were

saying, "Why would you do that?" Like,

what possible reason would you want Iran

to have the GPS coordinates of the

missile attack? Unless

you were hoping they could improve their

aim, because if you tell them where they

landed, maybe they can adjust their

their process somehow. Now, that made

sense to me when I said it,

but let me tell you how stupid that was.

All right, so here here's a case where

if I knew more, I would have done a

better job.

As Glenn Greenwald points out, here's

the most important part of the story.

The the

I'm laughing at myself for what an idiot

I am because this is really dumb.

Uh, where do you think the reporter got

the GPS coordinates for the missile

damage? Do you think he was over there?

No, he's not over there. He's in the

United States. So, how did he get the

the missile coordinates of where the

bombs hit?

It's public.

It's public.

So Iran would obviously already know

what this reporter knows because it's

public. So he used a public source for

the GPS coordinates which Iran has full

access to.

And if that's not enough for you,

apparently the same reporter has been

doing the same thing, reporting the GPS

coordinates for prior wars. I think at

least two prior wars. And the reason he

does it is so that um if you wanted to

check basically it would allow you to

have a way to check to see if the

reporting is accurate. Um he gives us

the GPS coordinates. So if somebody

looked at it from let's say a satellite

and they saw that that building was

intact, they could say, "Oh, the

reporting was wrong."

So it's basically a way to let other

people check his work.

So um I would like to apologize

for getting that story absolutely wrong.

Just absolutely basswards.

And uh the journalist is Evan Hill.

So I I will apologize to him directly.

So, Evan, sorry about that. Uh, I I got

taken by that that hoax.

Anyway, uh this is why uh

this is why you want to listen to uh

Greenwald.

He he always has the better take on

stuff.

Um,

apparently the uh Trump administration

is making some big changes to Obamacare

and they're ending uh coverage for

dreamers. So the dreamers would be the

children who are brought in by their

parents and have grown up as Americans,

uh, but they're not technically legal.

So apparently they're going to lose

their Obamacare

coverage.

Um,

and my question is this.

Do you think that the um Trump

administration is using the cover of the

Israel Iran war to get away with some

things that otherwise it would be too

much public push back for? Because this

is in the area that,

you know, a reasonable person could

disagree

because you're talking about, you know,

people who did not make any decision to

come here. They were brought here by

their parents and they would be losing

healthcare.

Now, there's an argument on both sides.

I get it. I get it. You don't have to

you don't have to argue with me. I I see

the argument. But do you think do you

think Trump could get away with this

without there being some big

international story that dominates?

I feel like I feel like the uh the

Steven Millers have a little more

flexibility because we're distracted by

other things that seem like a bigger

deal to us. So that's my only comment on

that. I wonder if distraction is making

a difference.

Well, Bill Maher

had uh Wesley Hunt on who's a

representative and uh Wesley Hunt did a

unusually good job of slapping down Bill

Maher's TDS.

Um so the first thing that uh that

happened was uh Bill Maher was talking

about Trump's military parade. Um, and

he he mentioned that it was a fascist

parade

and Wesley Hunt said this. You know what

I saw? Uh, this is what Han said. I saw

the president salute the core of

cadetses as they walked past them. I

watched them salute the 75th Ranger

Regiment. Um, I watched the fireworks

behind the Washington Monument.

And you know what I thought? Damn,

that's absolutely outstanding. And it's

far better than Joe Biden checking his

watch when bodies were being returned to

do. And then he reminds us

that he was in the military. He was an

Apache pilot and he joined the military

because of in part because of that type

of patriotic treatment of the military.

Now that's a pretty darn good answer.

it's a fascist military. And then the

person who actually served, talking to

Bill Maher, who did not serve in the

military, says, "No, it wasn't fascist.

It's the reason I joined the military."

That is a really good answer. Now, but

he had another chance to slap down Bill

Maher.

Um because Bill Maher referred to

January 6 as an insurrection

and uh as his proof, Bill Maher said,

you know, it's not a coincidence that

they were protesting at the exact time

the votes were being I think he said

counted, but maybe certified was a

better word.

Now, uh Wesley Hunt said, uh, "How do

you have an insurrection with no guns?"

There you go. How do you have an

insurrection with no guns? Why did it

take this long for somebody to say that

on Bill Maher show? How many times has

Bill Maher referred to January 6 as an

insurrection? And it took all the way to

now

for Wesley Hunt to say, "How do you have

an insurrection with no guns?"

He went on saying, "That's like making

coffee with no beans."

One person was killed that day. It was

Ashley Babbot. She was a white unarmed

woman killed by a black Capitol police

officer. Imagine if that had been the

other way around. Ouch. Oh, you're good,

Wesley Hunt.

Um,

and then Mara tried to argue it, but um,

Wesley pointed out that the summer of

love was way more dangerous and more

people died and it was way worse. Um, I

would I would have added one thing.

So, that was that was a good comeback.

But I would add this. Bill Maher does

not understand

what the protesters were thinking when

they protested. If what they were

thinking was, I know we lost this

election, but we're going to try to take

over the country and install our our

beloved Trump. If that's what they were

thinking, then that was an insurrection.

Even without the guns, that would be an

insurrection.

But they weren't. I'll bet you couldn't

find even one person out and of the

thousands of people, I'll bet you

wouldn't find one who said, "I knew

Trump lost, but I wanted him to be

president anyway." I'll bet not one. So,

the entire argument that January 6 was

an insurrection depends entirely on the

mental state of the protesters.

If what they believed is that the

election itself was obviously corrupt

because of the the weird oddities of

that election, you know, the the sudden

surge of Biden, the the unusual number

of votes he got compared to Obama and

compared to other years, and then the uh

the uh what do you call it, the the

certain districts, the bellweather

districts, um I think 13 or 14 went the

wrong way. You know, they're they're

normally the most predictive thing in

our elections and they all predicted

that Trump won and he still lost.

So, if you ask those people, I'm pretty

sure they would say, "We think that the

election didn't look like it was

necessarily fair, and we wanted them to

pause just to look into it a little bit,

just just to make sure that the right

person won."

How in the world does Bill Maher, who

talks about politics for a living, not

realize that he's never heard from

anybody who was involved in the protest

and that that's the only thing that

matters? What were they thinking? And

were they thinking that they were taking

over the country and they left their

guns home?

Is that what they were thinking? So I

think Wesley Hunt um he he was 60% of

the way there with you know nobody

nobody goes to a insurrection without

guns but the other 40%

that's a kill shot and nobody's taken a

kill shot yet. It's going to happen but

nobody's done it yet.

New York Post is reporting that CNN is

collapsing. uh two of their executives

just uh resigned. Uh vice president of

domestic news and VP of digital video

and they'd both been there a long time

and I guess there are big cost cutings

coming and

uh Anderson Cooper gets paid $18 million

a year.

I've got a feeling that there might be a

change coming to Anderson Cooper's

compensation package, but we'll see.

Um,

according to a post I saw by Mario Noel,

who you should follow on X, he has great

news summaries. Um, he saw this in the

CTU UCB cyber security research. So that

he has a source. Apparently 500 research

papers have been written uh in China

about how to crash the power grid in

America.

So

um 367

Chinese papers targeting the US grids

and 166 on European systems and they

talked about how to create quote

cascading failures and systematic

collapse.

So if you're wondering

is China wondering how to collapse our

entire um power network? The answer is

yes. They're putting a lot of effort

into understanding what would work.

Now, the fact that there are so many

different papers

sort of suggests that maybe there's not

one obvious way to do it, which maybe

gives me a little weird comfort. If if

they have to do that much thinking about

it, maybe it's not easy, you know, may

maybe they can't just turn a switch,

which we imagine they could do.

But uh the papers detail quote malicious

data injection attacks. Yikes.

What would uh keep China from attacking

our grid?

Well, I think as long as we don't attack

their grid or attack them,

um it's unlikely they're going to attack

us in that way because why would they?

But as a defensive move,

um, China quite wisely has a pretty good

backup plan.

And I have to admit it, I feel safer if

China feels they can take down our

electric grid than I would if the only

tool they had was a nuclear weapon.

because taking down the power grid would

kill a lot of people and it would be,

you know, massively disruptive and

horrible. Um, but nuclear war would be

worse. So maybe it's good that they have

some kind of halfway thing that they can

do. Obviously, we're Yeah, I'm sure

America has looked into the same same

question for their grid.

Well, the uh Postmillennials reporting

that uh Representative Jerry Nadler

um is accusing ICE agents of hiding

misbehavior by wearing masks.

Now, apparently the Democrats have

decided on another 20% issue.

How many people in the United States

think that they want the ICE agents to

reveal their identity to the the gangs,

you know, MS13 and Trenagua?

How many people think that's a good

idea? Now, I understand that the, you

know, regular cops on the street don't

wear masks, and I'm happy about that.

But apparently, according to Breitbart,

um there's a recent analysis, and the

Department of Homeland Security sees a

500% increase in assaults on ICE

um employees.

500% increase in assaults.

So if you were working in a job where

there was a 500% increase in assaults

and the Democrats were saying, "Hey,

take off those masks so we can assault

you even better."

That can't be popular, is it? Is it?

Isn't that another 8020

where 80% of the country would say oh

yeah if they need to protect themselves

they they have to do what they have to

do or do you think

um yeah or do you think uh that people

agree with that that ICE should take off

their masks so the gangs can figure out

who they are?

I don't know. I think uh I think I would

let them keep the masks in this

environment.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's

all I got for you today. Um there will

not be a spaces after today's show. That

will be tomorrow, Sunday. So, we'll I'll

tell you about that tomorrow. And I'm

going to say a few words privately to

the local subscribers, beloved beloved

local subscribers. And uh hope you'll

come back tomorrow. Same time, same

place.

All right, locals. We're going to go

private in 30 seconds.