Episode 2939 CWSA 08/26/25

Good stretch.

Oh, come on, dear.

It's good to see you.

You're right on time.

I love your punctuality.

Just one of your many good character traits.

Come on in and grab a seat.

I'll fire up your comments here so I can see what the locals people are up to.

Mom.

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

It's the best time you'll ever have in your life.

But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that no one has ever seen with their tiny shiny human brains.

Well, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass, a tanker, gel or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

It's called the simultaneous sip.

And it happens.

Yeah, that's right.

Right now, sublime.

So good.

Well, according to uh Eric Dolan, who is writing for Scypost, if you have a virtual workout partner or partners, I guess, um you it'll still boost your exercise motivation.

So, if you put on your virtual reality glasses or I don't know, maybe if you watch them on the screen, if uh if you see recorded images of real people who did the same workout as you, so that you're doing it at the same time, that you will feel a that the social effect of that.

So, even though you know they're not real people, you'll still be more motivated to work out.

Do you do you think that would work with you?

Do you believe that you would be more motivated if other people were working out at the same time, but but you knew they were fake people.

They're not real people.

Well, I don't know if that would work for me, but um I can tell you that when I've gone to real gyms, I'm only motivated if there are attractive women also at the gym.

And do any of you have that same problem?

Any of the guys, if the gym is nothing but middle-aged fat men, which you know, depending when you go, I used to go in the afternoon.

It would be a lot of handicap people and people who are 80 years old and people who are trying a a personal trainer for the first time.

It's not going well.

It is not motivating.

It's not motivating at all.

But boy, when you walk in the gym, it's all the the young strong people and even the guys are motivating if they're really in good shape because you look at them, you go, "God, that guy's in such good shape.

We're going to have to take it up a level." So, it might work.

I don't know.

But did you know separately according to the independent Albert Toth is writing that four in 10 Gen Z employees would rather go into work because they feel lonely at home.

They feel lonely.

I was trying to imagine what kind of a hell I would be living in if I were in my early 20s and I had an office job but I could do it at home in my apartment where I lived alone.

you would have you would have no access to the primary social outlet that a young person has, which is whatever the hell you're doing at work for eight hours a day.

So, I understand that.

However, I've got a suggestion for the four and 10 employees who for whatever reason are not working in the office but are lonely.

They should uh do virtual workouts or or better yet, instead of having a virtual workout partner, you have a virtual co-orker.

And they're and once again, they're based on real video of your actual co-workers, but they're just sort of doing their thing, you know, in your general area.

I'll bet that would work.

I'll bet you would feel less lonely if you were in a virtual world.

Now, probably it would have to work that you could interact with them, you know, so that maybe they'd have to be at home, but their avatar would be in the office at the same time.

Something like that's going to happen.

Yeah, I feel like the uh Gen Z employ employees are going to be working in the office, but the office will be virtual.

Well, right before I got on here, I saw that uh home prices are in freef fall.

Somebody said, I think home prices are going down where I live you a little bit, but they were so high uh they need to go down.

So, is it good news the home prices are going down because then more people can afford them or is it bad news because the people who own them just got poorer?

A little bit of both.

But it probably uh probably accrews more benefit to the people who were just trying to jump on the, you know, home ownership bandwagon.

Well, I saw a post on X from Eric Ericson.

Most of you probably know him, a well-known uh Republican for a long time.

Eric Ericson.

And he was he says u he was trying to help a guy I don't know find a job in tech.

Reached out to a friend and explained the basics.

My friend, senior level at a tech company said, "Let me guess.

White male over 40." Yep.

My friend was telling me how American tech companies have shut out that group.

Um, Eric, uh, I hate to tell you, but this news is approximately 45 years old.

Now, I do believe that there that there's a guy who recently could not get a job because he was a white guy over 40.

Um, but that started 45 years ago.

Right.

I mean, when 45 years ago, we were having the same conversation.

White guy over 40 was being, you know, sort of discriminated against.

Nothing changed to.

But, um, it's shocking to me that, uh, anybody would be surprised by it or believe that you don't know what's happening and that you need to know.

Oh, I better tell people about this.

45 years unbroken every year and it's never been better and it's never been worse.

It's always been the same.

45 years.

So glad you noticed.

Well, now according to the brighter side news, uh they can stimulate your brain in very specific places, but in a different way for different people depending on what that one person needs to keep their concentration.

So, you know how your your brain goes all over the place?

It's hard to concentrate on boring stuff.

Well, apparently now now researchers have figured out how to put a little electrical stimulation to your brain, but make it customized for your brain specifically.

So, it really, really can get in there.

And there's a suggestion that they already know how to make you concentrate better.

Now, what does that say about your free will or what I like to call your illusion of free will?

Cuz free will is absurd.

Um, but a lot of people think they have it.

So, if they can put a little electricity into your brain and cause you to act differently, does that mean that free will doesn't exist?

Because if you had free will, it wouldn't matter what's happening electrically or chemically in your brain.

You'd just be able to override it with your free will.

But there is no free will.

There is just chemical interactions.

And then your impression is that you were part of it.

Well, you were more an observer who was trying to explain it to yourself in a way that didn't make you crazy.

and uh you didn't have any choice about that either.

So that's your your two state wisdom right there.

Um so apparently the Trump administration is according to Reuters is uh thinking about putting sanctions on officials in the EU who were involved with implementing the uh that digital what's it called that digital stupid act that they do over there too.

the digital services act.

So that's the one that would put pressure on our tech companies to I don't know have less privacy and less free speech I guess.

And so the Trump administration is fighting back against that and might uh restrict the visas from some of their EU officials unless they change their minds.

But I don't think that's official yet.

I think they're just thinking about it.

It would be unprecedented that we sanction the European Union.

That that would be sort of a new level of uh um of I don't know disagreement.

So I don't know what's going to happen, but it might.

In other news, the AI company called Perplexity, which I've talked about a bunch of times, it's a really good app.

you know, I have to say, um, I got hooked on it because it was really well executed and primarily I used it just as a search app um because it just searched better than other things and hallucinated a lot less.

It did hallucinate a little bit about me, I'll have to say, but um Perplexity um now has new program that will pay publishers for being surfaced by their app.

So if you went to the app and you said, "Hey, what's the latest news about this or that?" and then it found a news article and showed it to you, they would uh pay the the source, the news article.

Now, what's interesting about this is that I don't know if the business model will work, but it might keep them from getting sued and you know, maybe they just have to do that.

But I wonder if it'll put pressure on the other AI companies that they'll all have to do some kind of micro payments to um all the sources that they're sending traffic or stealing from, I guess you could say.

And I feel like it will um if perplexity is decided that it has a market value.

Let think about it this way.

You know, it's the sort of thing that always turns into court cases.

And if you went into court um and you were the publisher, you could now argue that the market value of your product as surfaced by an AI has been established by perplexity because they're literally paying for it.

So that that's what the market value is.

The market value is what somebody's willing to pay.

So that would suggest that the other AI companies might be forced.

Um I'm no lawyer so don't believe anything I say about legal stuff but it feels like it would put pressure on the other ones.

So little legal pressure if not moral pressure.

Meanwhile, the X company is uh you know, Elon Musk is suing Apple and Open AI uh alleging some kind of antirust collusion over chat GPT because you know if you have an Apple phone um it's sort of mated with open AI and I guess X believes that maybe they're they're getting less visibility because of that.

So, we'll see see where that goes.

I feel like all these big companies are just suing each other all the time.

Have you noticed that all the news is about lawsuits now?

Like, that's all that's all it is.

Or court cases.

It's just and somebody is suing somebody and somebody got arrested and there's a grand jury.

It's like everything about the government and everything about AI and big business.

It's all sort of somebody's suing somebody for something.

We're in that permanent lawsuit kind of a world.

Apparently, the Coast Guard allegedly uh just pulled off the most successful, meaning biggest drug bust operation in history.

They got 1.3 million kilograms of cocaine.

and they said they um they grabbed drugs that had a total value of $45 billion.

Now, that can't be true, right?

45 million doesn't sound like it would be maybe the biggest in history, but could they really have one shipment that had $4 billion of value?

Would uh would the cartels put $45 billion of product on one boat?

I mean, uh I don't want to tout or talk up the cartels, but aren't they pretty good at this smuggling stuff?

Would you put $4 billion product value on one ship?

Would you?

That would be a weird choice.

So, I don't know if there's a typo in this story or what, but let's just say I'm skeptical.

There's something about that that doesn't track.

Well, JB Pritsker, governor of Illinois, wanted to make sure that you knew that Chicago is no hell hole.

Oh, no.

Chicago is no hell hole.

In fact, he uh proved it by taking a walk in one of the safest Chicago neighborhoods early in the morning when all the bad people were still asleep.

And he said, "Look at this.

Looks safe to me." Um, is it my imagination?

And may, you know, I think maybe it's entirely based on my own bias, but does anybody else have the feeling that the Democratic governors are sort of clowns?

Has does anybody have that that impression?

Now, arguably, you know, John Bolton is kind of a clown, you know, in a in his own way, but doesn't it seem like the Democrat governors couldn't possibly be serious with half of the stuff they're doing?

They they just don't seem like they're serious politicians.

They seem like they're there for the the jester work or the clowning or the attention.

I mean, honestly, JB Pritzker, he doesn't even look like he's trying to be some kind of professional politician.

He just looks like he's clowning.

Every time I see him, he I can't even take him seriously.

Is it I don't know any Republican governors who when you watch them, your your impression is, is he even serious?

Are you even trying to do your job?

you know, uh, is that all on one side?

Am I Am I just biased?

You know, maybe you could name 10 Republican governors that are just, you know, ridiculous characters.

What about uh Tim Walls?

Isn't Tim Walls a ridiculous character?

He just looks like a clown.

Like a crazy clown.

Well, who is who is the Republican version of that where forget about your politics, it's just that you watch them and you go, "God, what a what a character.

What a clown.

I don't know if there are any." Or they they stay under the uh limelight, which would make sense.

Anyway, um UC Berkeley is getting sued by uh uh Dr.

Yale Nut Nativ is a woman who tried to get a job there and was told that she wouldn't be hired by UC Berkeley because she's um Israeli.

They didn't say Jewish, but they said because she's Israeli.

And they thought that the uh the atmosphere there would be too dangerous and or you know it would cause too much trouble to have an Israeli on their staff.

And so she was denied the job for which apparently she was qualified and would otherwise have had.

Can you even imagine that?

Now, I don't know how that lawsuit's going to go, but I've got a feeling that the person who got turned down because of their country of origin probably has a pretty good case.

Um, have you heard about uh there's a movement called Raise the Colors?

It originated in the UK, but I guess it's in maybe some other places in the European Union.

And uh people are painting, at least in the case of the UK, they're painting a uh flag uh in various places like on the street, you know, it's a patriotic thing.

So they're they're putting up flags and they're painting flags on objects and stuff like that.

And the thinking is that it's a far right, you know, you know those far-right people that they're behind it.

But maybe not.

It might be actually organic and might be just a bunch of people who think I feel like, you know, we should express our uh our our patriotism.

Now, of course, um not of course, but just so you know, they're they're against uh the immigration um rules of the country.

So, I guess it's like a a red cross is what it is.

So, that's what they're painting on stuff.

I saw Elon Musk boosting that online.

So, maybe that'll be a thing.

I don't know.

Uh I don't believe that England has much fight left in it.

I think it's kind of going to roll over to just becoming an Islamic country.

And uh a lot of it has to do with the fact that you don't you don't really kill people just for being different than you, you know, like the old days.

So I don't think there's any fight that's going to happen.

I mean, I think they'll say things and they'll paint on stuff and they'll wave some flags, but I think things are going to keep going in whatever direction they're already going.

According to Rasmusen, uh 53% of uh I think they really do likely voters say that in-person voting is more secure than mailin ballots.

Can you believe that only 53% of adults understand that if you're there in person, it's more likely that you you are who you say you are than if there's a mail in ballot.

How is that how is that even a subject of disagreement?

I would have expected it to be more like 90% uh understand that mail and ballots are riskier, but a lot of people still think that the convenience is worth, you know, a little bit of extra risk.

Now, that would be if I heard that, I'd say, "Oh, well, those are smart people." you know, they they know there's a difference in the security, but you know, maybe they're willing to trade that off for a little convenience and, you know, more access to voting.

Nope.

Only 53% even understand that mailin ballots are just by their nature harder to police.

Anyway, um so Trump is uh you know leading the movement to try to get rid of mail and ballots as well as electronic voting machines.

And uh Rasmusson says that 48% approve of this idea.

48%.

So roughly half of the country is on board with getting rid of uh electronic voting machines and mailin ballots.

I'm going to assume that some of those people just like the convenience of voting by mail.

I have to admit I voted by mail as well and uh I don't know if I would have voted if I had to go in person.

Yeah, I'm I'm I'm sort of different because I don't go places too much.

It's not my thing.

Uh but I don't think I would have voted.

Now, I also am in favor of getting rid of mail and uh voting uh except for the special cases like people in the military and people who are shutins and stuff.

Oh, actually, I could probably I I probably could get some kind of medical exemption and get a mail in vote no matter what.

So, see what happens there.

Usually Trump likes the uh you know 60 or 80% things where he's he's on that side.

But in this case I think he's willing to push for election integrity because he believes I believe he believes I can't read his mind but it would be reasonable to assume based on everything we've heard that he believes that Republicans would win more if the election didn't have mail and ballots.

So, I don't know about the electronic part.

And so, just imagine this.

You and I have no evidence, I believe, unless you have some.

I don't have any.

We have no evidence that electronic voting machines have ever been rigged in the United States to the level that it would affect the election.

I don't have any evidence of that.

But imagine if you're the president and you have access to all the, you know, the classified information.

Do you think that Trump is aware because he would have the right to know this if he asked, do you think that he is aware and I don't know that this is case, but do you think that he knows that uh electronic voting machines have been rigged in other countries?

And the reason we would know that is because we're the ones who rigged them.

Do you believe that that's a thing first of all that it's ever happened and that uh somebody like Trump or any president would know for sure if they're hackable and you can get away with it.

See, that's that's the part I find interesting because Trump wouldn't be able to tell us because it would be like the most highly classified thing of all time because we would want to keep doing it to other countries if it works.

And again, I'm not suggesting I know that it does.

I'm just saying that hypothetically Trump knows for sure if electronic voting machines can be corrupted by US intelligence people.

I feel like he wouldn't be guessing.

I feel like he would know.

You know, somebody would know.

Well, Trump has attempted, some would say he succeeded in firing for the first time ever, a sitting Federal Reserve governor.

That's that Lisa Cook.

Is that her name?

Um, so she was the first black woman to be on the Federal Reserve.

So that adds a little spice to the story.

Um but uh Bill PTE um has told us that she apparently claimed two primary residences which is illegal form of fraud I believe um because you would do that to lower your uh your mortgage rate and fairly common crime I would imagine.

But here's the wrinkle.

So Trump basically says, "You're fired." And then she says, "No, I'm not.

You don't have the authority to fire me.

Um because you could only fire me for a cause and your your explanation of the cause is basically.

So I'm not leaving." To which I say, "Uh, what happens now?" Because it's not like Trump can tell the head of the Fed, Powell, to hey, make sure you clean out her desk.

I don't know if they have desks.

Um, but make sure you exclude her cuz she's fired.

He doesn't have to do that, does he?

Cuz he's independent.

So, he could just say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah.

You think she's fired?" but uh we're just gonna keep on going and keep paying her and she'll still come to work like always.

What would happen then?

You know, would would Trump uh send some kind of, you know, physical authority like the police or something?

I mean, what do you do to what do you do then?

So, this will be an interesting uh standoff.

I don't know who wins this one.

This is different than the uh Texas one where the Democrats left the state so they didn't have to, you know, vote on redistricting.

You knew how that was going to end, right?

Everybody knew that eventually they'd have to come back and eventually because the Republicans had the advantage, it was going to pass.

But at this one, I don't know.

I'm not sure that Trump's firing will stick.

Maybe it goes to court.

I don't know.

But I wouldn't expect her to leave anytime soon.

All right.

So, here's a story that we will all disagree on.

We will disagree on what our opinions are about it, but more importantly, we will disagree about what the facts of the story are.

And I'm not sure I'm going to be able to help on this one because it's really confusing.

And the story is that Trump has signed an executive order about flag burning.

Now, do you see how carefully I worded that?

I said it was an executive or order about flag burning.

What I didn't say is that he said it is now illegal to burn a flag because he didn't say that.

So I would I would ask you to, you know, Google it or uh AI it and look at the actual wording of the executive order.

I believe it was written by somebody who is drunk or stupid.

You can't even you you can barely understand what the executive order is trying to do.

So here's what I here's what I think is happening.

Uh, and by the way, I'll I'll withdraw my comment that it was looks like it was written by somebody drunk or somebody stupid cuz I think there's a explanation in which it is intentionally hard to understand.

It looks like it's intentional.

So, that's why I'm withdrawing my my insult to the author of it.

Obviously, Trump doesn't, you know, write the verbiage himself.

Um, but it is so confusing that it has the look of trying to make the news get the wrong story and start reporting that he's going to ban the burning of flags, which didn't happen.

That didn't happen.

The executive order says things like, "Oh, you must now really obey the existing laws of the state and federal government." Uh, wasn't that always the case?

Weren't we weren't we always supposed to to obey the existing laws?

So, that's part of it.

Then uh there's a part where he's encouraging the attorney general to press some legal cases to find out where the borderline is where you can prosecute somebody.

So that's more about determining where the line is of existing law of existing law.

It's not attempting to make a new law.

is attempting to clarify through the court cases I guess what exactly would be going too far.

Now the things that we know are illegal would be you know inciting violence and stuff like that.

So if you were burning your flag in the context of inciting violence, then I guess there would be some clarifications maybe to figure out if it was something you could prosecute.

Anyway, do your own reading.

You will find that uh there will be great disagreement on what the executive order says.

But what it doesn't do is change the law.

So, it doesn't change the law.

It's the existing law.

It might uh cause some differences in how it's enforced, but um I so I I don't even know how to have an opinion on it.

It It looks like my best guess is that uh most of the purpose of it that's Gary purring into the microphone if you hear extra sound there.

Um, it looks like Trump is just doing one of those uh Trumpian things where he makes the uh the press and all of his enemies talk about something that's not even real and nobody really cares about that much.

And if they're talking about flag burning, uh it it it would be more along the lines of, "Hey, uh, Democrats, what do you think about crime in the cities?" Well, you must be in favor of it.

Hey, what do you think about that border?

Well, you must be in favor of gangs coming across the border.

Now, what do you think of burning flags?

And basically, you'll just get them all worked up and they'll be on the side of burning flags, which I am.

I'm on the side of it should be free speech.

Um, but if you're a Democrat and you come out uh against flags and in favor of crime and open borders, uh, all of it looks like a trap to me.

So maybe it's more about that.

So the EO says it directs aggressive prosecution of related crimes.

Related crimes.

You see how weasly this is?

The executive order directs aggressive prosecution of related crimes.

Not burning the flag cuz that's still, you know, not illegal, but if there were any related crimes, make sure you press those.

And there's also uh something about uh nonitizens.

So if a foreign national is doing it, then Homeland Security and the Secretary of State can send them home, I guess.

But I feel like that was also something they always could have done, right?

Isn't it true that currently um if the Secretary of State says, "Whoa, that's a that's a bad behavior in our country," then he just has to say, "That's bad behavior.

You're going home." Am I wrong?

I don't think they have to break a law.

So, I don't even know if that part's different, but but it might be enforced differently.

If if a foreign national is burning a flag, maybe that would uh trigger the deportation.

Um Trump is also citing executive order to eliminate uh federal funding for any any place that has cashless bail.

Boy, Trump is really using that uh federal funding thing as quite the weapon, you know, between his tariffs to punish other countries and then is eliminating federal funding to punish any states and localities that are disobeying him.

Um, do you think he'll get away with that?

Can Trump use federal funding to make the local jurisdictions change their laws?

I hope not.

So, I'd be in favor of ending cashless bail, but I'm not in favor of the federal government being able to tell the states or the cities any thing it wants.

Um, I'd like you all to put your heads in a bucket of ice water.

Why?

Hey, why would we do that?

Well, if you don't, I'm going to cut your federal funding.

Uh, now I'd like you to remove your clothes and run around in the public square while we mock you.

Well, why would I do that?

Well, you don't have to, but I've got an executive order here that will pull your federal funding if you don't.

So, I don't know how far you could push this.

Uh, I will eliminate your federal funding.

But I don't like it.

I don't like it.

I do like it when uh, let's say the sanctuary cities are defying the law of the land.

If you're defying the law of the land by not letting the federal government, you know, do its constitutional duty to protect the borders, then maybe withdrawing your federal funding makes sense.

If you're discriminating and you're col you're a college and you're being anti-semitic, well, yeah, maybe you lose your federal funding.

But the places that have cashless bail, wasn't that decided by the residents?

And isn't it totally legal?

It's unwise.

It's very bad, but isn't it totally legal?

So if Trump starts using the threat of federal funding against people who are doing things that are totally legal within their state, I don't know.

That feels like a new level.

It feels like a you wouldn't want that president.

But like I said, if he's if he's taking funding away because somebody's breaking the law, they're either discriminating, they're anti-Semitic, they're um doing, you know, protecting the uh illegals, then it's different.

Um Trump said he's going to file a lawsuit um against California for their move to redistrict.

Now, he didn't say what would be the, you know, the the cause of the lawsuit.

Does it bother you at all that the government, because they have unlimited um access to other people's money, meaning ours, that they can fight any legal battle they want any time?

So, they just fight everything in court.

Everything.

Doesn't matter who does what.

Somebody's going to find some damn reason that the courts should reject it.

And I'm thinking that this wouldn't happen if if they were forced to be in a budget of some kind.

You you wouldn't take 100% of everything to court and sue over it.

If you had a budget you're worried about, but if you're spending somebody else's money, um, apparently there's no limit to how much you can sue people.

Well, CNN's uh data guy, Harry Anton, he uh he made a a devastating uh comparison.

He said the Democratic Party is about as popular as the Cracker Barrel logo rebrand.

Ouch.

How would you like to be the CEO of uh Cracker Barrel?

Um who I refer to as the Owl Wannabe.

Um, if you've seen a picture, that's hilarious.

Anyway, uh, imagine being the architect of the rebrand that's so bad that CNN casually uses that as an example of the worst you can be.

It's not even a conversation.

It's not even the left and the right have different opinions.

He He's, you know, presumably closer to the left.

And he uses that as an example.

you know, of a gigantic mistake.

Like it's not even a question, you know, there's nothing to say.

It's obviously a gigantic mistake.

Anyway, um and he points out that voter registration for the GOP is surging in the swing states, which he says is bad bad for Democrats.

Um there is some organization called Cook Political who does predictions about midterms and they have updated their predictions and they give the Republicans the edge in the House in the midterms.

Now, that would be a big deal because it's very unusual um for the party that has the presidency to also win the midterms in the House.

It just it's automatic that it goes the other way because the public doesn't like it when one party has too much power.

basically.

Um, however, this might be the exception because things are going so poorly for Democrats.

Um, and uh, the cooked political people, they they're predicting a Republican victory in the midterms.

Now, I don't know.

I don't have any insight into midterms, so I don't have a reason to disagree with them, but we'll see.

um Roger Stone um post this.

So, I'm just going to read what Roger Stone said on X.

He said, "I was arrested at 6:06 a.m.

at 6, but at 6:22 a.m., so just a few minutes later, Sarah Murray of CNN sent my lawyer a draft of my criminal indictment, which was sealed until 10:30 that morning.

And the metadata tags were the initials of the man who wrote it and leaked it uh was was Andrew Weisman who is one of the legal pundits on CNN.

So Roger Stone says no wonder CNN was there.

So, uh, if I understand this, he believes that Andrew Weissman, uh, wrote he wrote the indictment and also works for or with CNN and that he's kind of assuming that's where the leak came from.

Well, maybe.

So, uh, apparently, um, a bunch of Epstein survivors, the young women who were the victims, will hold a press conference, um, on Capitol Hill on September 3rd.

Now, do you believe that the victims, the survivors will have something new to say?

because it's starting to look like Jeffrey Epstein was mostly a money laundering expert who was teaching the rich and powerful how to hide their money and you know essentially keep it from the government or I don't know their spouse or wherever they're keeping it from and that he was definitely the one who did a lot of the sex crimes and there might have been a few buddies that were in on it but so far we're not seeing proof that there's like a client list and it's a blackmail operation and it might have been and it might have been like a a subtle blackmail operation where he didn't actually blackmail anybody but anybody who got into that kind of illegal activity with him would just sort of know it would be better to keep him happy than not.

So it doesn't have to be blackmail.

It could just be putting them in sensitive situations.

So they're more likely to play ball with him in the future.

Could be could be just that.

I don't know.

So here's what I expect.

There will be no new prominent names named at the press conference.

Anybody want to take the other side of that bet?

I say there will be no new person implicated.

Might be a name you've heard before, you know, like Prince Andrew, but I'm going to say no new names will be presented.

Just a prediction.

Uh Trump's floating the idea of renaming the Pentagon back to what it used to be, the Department of War.

He says it's because we won World War II and won World War I.

Although uh there might be some disagreement about that from the Russians and maybe some others, but that's Trump's version that we're winning all these wars and that uh Pentagon should be called the Department of War.

All right, here's why that's a terrible idea.

And I'm very surprised that Trump doesn't have the same opinion I'm going to tell you right now.

Words matter.

You all know cuz I talk about it too often, my reframe uh about alcohol where I say alcohol is poison and then people with that one sentence in their head can stop a lifetime of overdrinking.

Now maybe it doesn't work for alcoholics, but people who just wanted to, you know, get alcohol out of their life, it works really well.

Now, why does it work?

it it only works because the words in the sentence.

Words are how you program a brain.

That's why large language models are just combinations of words and that once they figure out the pattern, you've got something that acts artificially intelligent.

But I would say I'm not sure that's artificial because the way your own brain is organized is that the things you think are your logic and your thinking are really just words and the way they fit together and the frequency of them.

You just believe that you're doing something that you think is thinking, but you're doing what the large language model is doing.

You're just looking for the repetitive strongest patterns and then just following them.

So my point is if you name your Pentagon the Department of War, the odds of having a war go way up.

Now that that's a hypnotist lesson right there.

If if you said it's the department of making peace with everybody, people would just sort of think that's what they do.

And then they would organize all their thinking and their budget and their activities around making peace with people.

If you call it the department of war, people will operationalize around that word.

The word doesn't just change how cool it sounds or, you know, change how you feel about it patriotically.

It might do that, too, but it's going to change how people act.

And if you want more of a thing, put it in the title.

Let me say that again.

If you want more of a thing, whatever the thing is, put it in the name of the department that's in charge and you're going to get more of that.

Um so putting war in the name will buy you more war that you know I mean it's not guaranteed but um statistically speaking you're going to sort of um you're going to manage toward that thing that is the the word in your head.

That's just how brains work.

They work toward words.

Um as you know uh Trump administration has taken at 10% uh I guess is an investment because they put money into it ownership stake in Intel.

And when asked about that Trump says uh he he would take on stakes in other businesses.

I want to try to get as much as I can.

He said, "Now, if you don't like fascism, where the government and the big businesses were sort of in bed together, then you probably don't like the government owning a private company, even though it's just 10%.

But they're not going to be able to control it with a 10% equity." Um, however, we should look at some examples where government has done this before.

If you're old enough, you remember that uh General Motors, the government invested 50 billion in General Motors and got a 61% equity stake um when the company was restructuring and going bankrupt in 2009.

But eventually the Treasury sold its shares and uh uh incurred a loss of about 10 billion.

So the investment in General Motors didn't work out.

But there was also an investment in Chrysler in which the government put in 12 a.5 billion took an 8% equity stake uh and then sold it later with a loss of approximately 1.3 billion.

So that's two examples where the US um revived a company and took a loss in doing it.

However, if those companies are paying taxes and the and the people who work there are getting a salary and also paying taxes, it could be that the US government still made money because the US would get the uh higher, you know, tax benefits if if the economy still has these big companies in it.

Then there was uh AIG, big insurance group.

um they were having problems some years ago and the government took a 80% equity in it and uh uh eventually they profited 23 billion when they sold their stake.

Let's let's see where so what are we at?

So they're up 23 billion but they lost one on Chrysler and 10 on General Motors.

All right.

So so far if you look at the average so far they would be up and then there were banks and financial institutions um in which Tarp funds were used to uh prop up some of the big banks and the government I guess received equity uh in return for that uh and there was a net profit.

So, by the way, this is from Grock.

So, if Grock is hallucinating, don't blame me.

Except blame me for using Grock, I guess.

Um, so it looks like in some cases the government just gets in, stays there for several years, and then they sell out and get out of it, and uh they could make a lot of money.

If you look at all the deals collectively, they were solidly positive, although a few of them were negative, but overall they were positive.

So, I'm in favor of Trump um strategically helping some big industries when there's a chance we can get our money back, either directly or indirectly.

So, I'm in favor of it.

Well, MSNBC had George Conway on who's sort of only got one thing he ever says.

And you wouldn't believe this, but he compared what Trump is doing cleaning up Washington DC to 1933 Nazi Germany.

It's all George Conway can do is find ways to compare Trump to Nazis.

So, he is an analogy thinker.

An analogy thinker is someone who is just reminded of something else.

It's not thinking.

Hey, I'm reminded of a thing.

It doesn't mean it predicts.

It means you're bad at thinking.

Analogy thinkers, by the way, are an example of large language models or or how we're not really thinking species.

We just feel like we are because the words fit together.

you know, the words, "Oh, this reminds me of Nazi Germany," the words fit together.

So, and uh once it becomes the thing that the people say the most, then everybody believes it's true and they'll say it even more.

So, there's a lot of that going on.

Um there's a senior Chinese trade negotiation negotiator who's coming to Washington to talk to talk to us about our trade deals.

According to writers, I don't think that necessarily believes means that we're close to a deal with China.

It just means we're serious about talking to him, I guess.

Here's a story that there must be more to the story than we know because it doesn't make sense on the surface.

Trump has apparently approved up to 600,000 Chinese college students in America.

Now, you might say to yourself, "Whoa, you mean he's not going to stop Chinese students?

I thought he was going to stop them." No, it's not that.

Oh, you mean he's going to let it just go to the same level it was at before?

No.

No.

This is way bigger than the level it has ever been.

Uh, at the moment, there are 270,000 Chinese students in US universities.

He would allow that to go up to 600,000, more than double.

600,000 Chinese students who by their own law would have to report whatever they they know to the Chinese government.

Now, the first thing I would ask is, does that apply to every major?

Because if that applies to, you know, the STEM stuff, you know, the high-tech stuff, I'm a little bit worried.

If we don't care how many Chinese students take psychology courses or anthropology, you know, and we just say, I don't care, as many as you want.

We we'll teach you all the anthropology you want because that's not going to hurt us.

That would be different.

But I haven't seen anything that would suggest that it would be limited to certain colleges or certain majors.

So if it's not um why is he doing that?

Because it would seem like the opposite of America first.

It seems like it would be good for the Chinese students and less good for us perhaps at least in terms of risk.

But uh the counterargument um which is not being made entirely but you can imagine it um that we get a lot of well not we the universities would get a lot of revenue from those 600,000 students and would be worth over 14 billion so US would bring in another $14 billion and so this would be again Trump monetizing a problem, which the more you see it, the more impressive it is that every time he's got some big hard to hard to handle problem, he just monetizes it and that it doesn't bother you so much.

So, um, I like the fact that the Chinese students would be paying so much because they're, you know, they're not going to get aid or anything like that that they would be essentially funding US colleges to which I say, could you really get, you know, the funding of the US colleges without really much risk to the country of having all the people from your adversary country in your colleges.

I don't know because the thing I don't know is do we end up better off if there are 600,000 Chinese students who have a positive experience in the United States and you know learn to speak perfect English and uh you know learn our system of government and get to compare it to what they had back there.

I I feel like the more people we educate uh again with the exception of maybe some of the high like the more people we educate from any other country the more likely they're going to be a little bit on our side you know not completely but it seems like it would move them in our direction and then I guess uh Secretary Howard Lutnik said that if we don't have that many Chinese students that the bottom 15% of universities would go out of business.

To which I say, shouldn't they?

But shouldn't the bottom 15% go out of business?

In every other industry, doesn't the bottom 15% always go out of business?

Is there any industry that has, you know, lots of participants in which the bottom 15% don't predictably go out of business?

Why would universities be the ones that we have to protect with what potentially could be some security risk?

I don't know.

But probably the bigger reason is that Trump's trying to get a trade deal and it could be that there's some conversations behind the scenes.

It could be that we're going to get something um and maybe we'll never know.

Uh we could be getting something in return and it might be big.

So, it's hard to judge this one because I believe that Trump wouldn't do it unless he knows there's something we're getting that's much bigger than the risk of this.

Uh, and maybe he can't say it directly because we're still in a sensitive conversations with China.

And maybe we can't say it because we just don't want to say it out loud.

Because if the answer is, yeah, this is how we propagandize them to make them more pro-American, that might be the reason, in which if I heard that argument, I'd probably say, I don't know if smart people think that's true.

I don't really have a counterargument to that, but I don't think we could say that out loud.

Um, you know, there might be some versions of that we could, but anyway, we'll probably never know.

the president of South Korea was visiting, seemed very friendly with Trump.

They got along great.

And u he said that uh this is what the president of South Korea said sitting next to Trump.

He said, "I would like to mention that the only remaining divided nation in the world is the Korean Peninsula." Is that true?

the only remaining divided nation.

Well, maybe Putin would have a different opinion about Russia.

And anyway, but then he goes on, he said, "Uh, and I would like to ask for your role in establishing peace." He's talking to Trump, your role in establishing peace on the Korean Peninsula.

So, I look forward to your meeting with Chairman Kim Jong-un and uh and construction of a Trump Tower in North Korea and playing golf at that place.

Uh I believe he will be waiting for you.

Now, of course, there's no plans for a Trump Tower in North Korea, but I do like the fact that the South Korean president has studied our situation well enough to know where all the buttons are and he knows that if he, you know, compliments Trump for his peacemaking skills that that will be good.

So, he does.

He knows that if he speaks uh visually, so you're imagining Trump Tower or you're imagining playing golf, that's really good technique.

It's it's Trumpian technique.

If he's talking about the future, you know, benefits as opposed to the past negative stuff, that's very Trump.

and and then the confidence that he's putting in Trump that, you know, sort of he alone could make something good happen on the Korean peninsula.

And then he also mentions uh he'd like to play golf.

He he hit every note.

So, um I'm gonna I'm gonna put up the warning flag for you right now.

the South Korean president and I understand the South Korean presidents don't last very long.

Don't a lot of them end up getting deposed and in trouble and whatever.

But this guy um he is signaling that he has the entire range of persuasion skills because this was quite capable.

That statement is so cleverly and professionally crafted by somebody who really understands persuasion that uh keep an eye on that guy.

He he might be I I'm very early, you know, cuz I don't know anything about this South Korean president, but just based on this one paragraph, it is so smartly persuasion perfect, very rare, you don't see stuff like this, that I'm going to predict he might be the most consequential South Korean president that we'll know in our lifetime at least.

So, keep an eye on him.

He might be a a rising international, you know, leader, star kind of a guy.

Um, I've got I've got good feeling about him.

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

Um, I might have missed a few stories.

It's a busy day, but I'm going to see if I can go private and talk to my beloved subscribers.

Uh my I just saw a funny meme go by.

Uh my beloved subscribers and locals and the rest of you, thanks for joining.

I hope you'll be back tomorrow for more fun.

All right, let's see if I can go private in 30 seconds.

Good stretch.

Oh, come on, dear. It's good to see you.

You're right on time. I love your

punctuality.

Just one of your many good character

traits. Come on in and grab a seat. I'll

fire up your comments here so I can see

what the locals people are up to.

Mom.

[Music]

Good morning everyone and welcome to the

highlight of human civilization.

It's the best time you'll ever have in

your life. But if you'd like to take a

chance on elevating your experience up

to levels that no one has ever seen with

their tiny shiny human brains.

Well, all you need for that is a copper

mug or a glass, a tanker, gel or stein,

a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any

kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee. And join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of

the day, the thing that makes everything

better. It's called the simultaneous

sip. And it happens. Yeah, that's right.

Right now,

sublime.

So good. Well, according to uh Eric

Dolan, who is writing for Scypost,

if you have a virtual workout partner or

partners, I guess, um you it'll still

boost your exercise motivation.

So, if you put on your virtual reality

glasses or I don't know, maybe if you

watch them on the screen, if uh if you

see recorded images of real people who

did the same workout as you, so that

you're doing it at the same time, that

you will feel a that the social effect

of that. So, even though you know

they're not real people, you'll still be

more motivated to work out.

Do you do you think that would work with

you? Do you believe that you would be

more motivated if other people were

working out at the same time, but but

you knew they were fake people. They're

not real people.

Well, I don't know if that would work

for me, but um I can tell you that when

I've gone to real gyms, I'm only

motivated if there are attractive women

also at the gym.

And do any of you have that same

problem? Any of the guys,

if the gym is nothing but middle-aged

fat men, which you know, depending when

you go, I used to go in the afternoon.

It would be a lot of handicap people and

people who are 80 years old and people

who are trying a a personal trainer for

the first time. It's not going well. It

is not motivating. It's not motivating

at all. But boy, when you walk in the

gym, it's all the the young strong

people and even the guys are motivating

if they're really in good shape because

you look at them, you go, "God, that

guy's in such good shape. We're going to

have to take it up a level." So, it

might work. I don't know. But did you

know separately according to the

independent Albert Toth is writing that

four in 10 Gen Z employees would rather

go into work because they feel lonely at

home.

They feel lonely. I was trying to

imagine what kind of a hell I would be

living in if I were in my early 20s and

I had an office job but I could do it at

home in my apartment where I lived

alone.

you would have you would have no access

to the primary social outlet that a

young person has, which is whatever the

hell you're doing at work for eight

hours a day.

So, I understand that. However, I've got

a suggestion for the four and 10

employees who for whatever reason are

not working in the office but are

lonely.

They should uh do virtual workouts

or or better yet, instead of having a

virtual workout partner, you have a

virtual co-orker. And they're and once

again, they're based on real video of

your actual co-workers, but they're just

sort of doing their thing, you know, in

your general area. I'll bet that would

work. I'll bet you would feel less

lonely if you were in a virtual world.

Now, probably it would have to work that

you could interact with them, you know,

so that maybe they'd have to be at home,

but their avatar would be in the office

at the same time. Something like that's

going to happen. Yeah, I feel like the

uh Gen Z employ employees are going to

be working in the office, but the office

will be virtual.

Well, right before I got on here, I saw

that uh home prices are in freef fall.

Somebody said, I think home prices are

going down where I live you a little

bit, but they were so high uh they need

to go down. So, is it good news the home

prices are going down because then more

people can afford them or is it bad news

because the people who own them just got

poorer? A little bit of both. But it

probably uh probably accrews more

benefit to the people who were just

trying to jump on the,

you know, home ownership bandwagon.

Well, I saw a post on X from Eric

Ericson.

Most of you probably know him, a

well-known uh Republican for a long

time. Eric Ericson. And he was he says u

he was trying to help a guy I don't know

find a job in tech. Reached out to a

friend and explained the basics. My

friend, senior level at a tech company

said, "Let me guess. White male over

40." Yep. My friend was telling me how

American tech companies have shut out

that group. Um, Eric,

uh, I hate to tell you, but this news is

approximately 45 years old.

Now, I do believe that there that

there's a guy who recently could not get

a job because he was a white guy over

40. Um, but that started 45 years ago.

Right.

I mean, when 45 years ago, we were

having the same conversation. White guy

over 40 was being, you know, sort of

discriminated against. Nothing changed

to. But, um, it's shocking to me that,

uh, anybody would be surprised by it or

believe that you don't know what's

happening and that you need to know. Oh,

I better tell people about this. 45

years unbroken

every year and it's never been better

and it's never been worse. It's always

been the same. 45 years.

So glad you noticed.

Well, now according to the brighter side

news, uh they can stimulate your brain

in very specific places, but in a

different way for different people

depending on what that one person needs

to keep their concentration.

So, you know how your your brain goes

all over the place? It's hard to

concentrate on boring stuff. Well,

apparently now now researchers have

figured out how to put a little

electrical stimulation to your brain,

but make it customized for your brain

specifically. So, it really, really can

get in there. And there's a suggestion

that they already know how to make you

concentrate better.

Now,

what does that say about your free will

or what I like to call your illusion of

free will? Cuz free will is absurd. Um,

but a lot of people think they have it.

So, if they can put a little electricity

into your brain and cause you to act

differently,

does that mean that free will doesn't

exist? Because if you had free will, it

wouldn't matter what's happening

electrically or chemically in your

brain. You'd just be able to override it

with your free will.

But there is no free will. There is just

chemical interactions. And then your

impression is that you were part of it.

Well, you were more an observer who was

trying to explain it to yourself in a

way that didn't make you crazy. and uh

you didn't have any choice about that

either.

So that's your your two state wisdom

right there. Um so apparently the Trump

administration is according to Reuters

is uh thinking about putting sanctions

on officials in the EU who were involved

with implementing the uh that digital

what's it called that digital stupid act

that they do over there too. the digital

services act. So that's the one that

would put pressure on our tech companies

to

I don't know have less privacy and less

free speech I guess. And so the Trump

administration is fighting back against

that and might uh restrict the visas

from some of their EU officials unless

they change their minds. But I don't

think that's official yet. I think

they're just thinking about it. It would

be unprecedented

that we sanction the European Union.

That that would be sort of a new level

of uh um of I don't know disagreement.

So I don't know what's going to happen,

but it might. In other news, the AI

company called Perplexity, which I've

talked about a bunch of times, it's a

really good app. you know, I have to

say, um, I got hooked on it because it

was really well executed and primarily I

used it just as a search app um because

it just searched better than other

things and hallucinated a lot less. It

did hallucinate a little bit about me,

I'll have to say, but um Perplexity

um now has new program that will pay

publishers

for

being surfaced by their app. So if you

went to the app and you said, "Hey,

what's the latest news about this or

that?" and then it found a news article

and showed it to you, they would uh pay

the the source, the news article. Now,

what's interesting about this is that I

don't know if the business model will

work, but it might keep them from

getting sued and you know, maybe they

just have to do that. But I wonder if

it'll put pressure on the other AI

companies that they'll all have to do

some kind of micro payments to um all

the sources that they're sending traffic

or stealing from, I guess you could say.

And I feel like it will

um if perplexity is decided that it has

a market value. Let think about it this

way. You know, it's the sort of thing

that always turns into court cases. And

if you went into court

um and you were the publisher, you could

now argue that the market value of your

product as surfaced by an AI has been

established by perplexity because

they're literally paying for it. So that

that's what the market value is. The

market value is what somebody's willing

to pay. So that would suggest that the

other AI companies might be forced.

Um I'm no lawyer so don't believe

anything I say about legal stuff but it

feels like it would put pressure on the

other ones. So little legal pressure if

not moral pressure.

Meanwhile, the X company is uh you know,

Elon Musk is suing Apple and Open AI uh

alleging some kind of antirust collusion

over chat GPT because you know if you

have an Apple phone um it's sort of

mated with open AI and I guess X

believes that maybe they're they're

getting less visibility because of that.

So, we'll see

see where that goes. I feel like all

these big companies are just suing each

other all the time. Have you noticed

that all the news is about lawsuits now?

Like, that's all that's all it is. Or

court cases. It's just and somebody is

suing somebody and somebody got arrested

and there's a grand jury. It's like

everything about the government and

everything about AI and big business.

It's all sort of somebody's suing

somebody for something. We're in that

permanent lawsuit kind of a world.

Apparently, the Coast Guard allegedly

uh just pulled off the most successful,

meaning biggest drug bust operation in

history.

They got 1.3 million kilograms of

cocaine. and they said they um they

grabbed drugs that had a total value of

$45 billion.

Now, that can't be true, right?

45 million doesn't sound like it would

be maybe the biggest in history, but

could they really

have one shipment that had $4 billion of

value? Would uh would the cartels put

$45 billion of product on one boat?

I mean, uh I don't want to tout or talk

up the cartels, but aren't they pretty

good at this smuggling stuff? Would you

put $4 billion product value on one

ship?

Would you? That would be a weird choice.

So, I don't know if there's a typo in

this story or what, but let's just say

I'm skeptical. There's something about

that that doesn't track. Well, JB

Pritsker, governor of Illinois, wanted

to make sure that you knew that Chicago

is no hell hole. Oh, no. Chicago is no

hell hole. In fact, he uh proved it by

taking a walk in one of the safest

Chicago neighborhoods early in the

morning when all the bad people were

still asleep. And he said, "Look at

this. Looks safe to me."

Um, is it my imagination?

And may, you know, I think maybe it's

entirely based on my own bias, but does

anybody else have the feeling that the

Democratic governors are sort of clowns?

Has does anybody have that that

impression? Now, arguably,

you know, John Bolton is kind of a

clown, you know, in a in his own way,

but doesn't it seem like the Democrat

governors couldn't possibly be serious

with half of the stuff they're doing?

They they just don't seem

like they're serious politicians. They

seem like they're there for the the

jester work or the clowning or the

attention. I mean, honestly, JB

Pritzker,

he doesn't even look like he's trying to

be some kind of professional politician.

He just looks like he's clowning.

Every time I see him, he I can't even

take him seriously. Is it I don't know

any Republican governors

who when you watch them, your your

impression is, is he even serious? Are

you even trying to do your job? you

know, uh, is that all on one side? Am I

Am I just biased? You know, maybe you

could name 10 Republican governors that

are just, you know, ridiculous

characters. What about uh Tim Walls?

Isn't Tim Walls a ridiculous character?

He just looks like a clown. Like a crazy

clown. Well, who is who is the

Republican version of that where forget

about your politics,

it's just that you watch them and you

go, "God, what a what a character. What

a clown. I don't know if there are any."

Or they they stay under the uh

limelight, which would make sense.

Anyway,

um UC Berkeley is getting sued

by uh

uh Dr. Yale Nut Nativ is a woman who

tried to get a job there and was told

that she wouldn't be hired by UC

Berkeley because she's um Israeli.

They didn't say Jewish, but they said

because she's Israeli. And they thought

that the uh

the atmosphere there would be too

dangerous and or you know it would cause

too much trouble to have an Israeli on

their staff.

And so she was denied the job for which

apparently she was qualified and would

otherwise have had.

Can you even imagine that?

Now, I don't know how that lawsuit's

going to go, but I've got a feeling that

the person who got turned down because

of their country of origin probably has

a pretty good case.

Um,

have you heard about uh there's a

movement called Raise the Colors?

It originated in the UK, but I guess

it's in maybe some other places in the

European Union. And uh people are

painting, at least in the case of the

UK, they're painting a uh flag

uh in various places like on the street,

you know, it's a patriotic thing. So

they're they're putting up flags and

they're painting flags on objects and

stuff like that. And the thinking is

that it's a far right, you know, you

know those far-right people that they're

behind it. But maybe not. It might be

actually organic and might be just a

bunch of people who think I feel like,

you know, we should express our uh our

our patriotism. Now, of course, um not

of course, but just so you know, they're

they're against uh the immigration

um rules of the country. So, I guess

it's like a a red cross

is what it is. So, that's what they're

painting on stuff. I saw Elon Musk

boosting that online. So, maybe that'll

be a thing. I don't know. Uh I don't

believe that England

has much fight left in it. I think it's

kind of going to roll over to just

becoming an Islamic country. And

uh a lot of it has to do with the fact

that you don't you don't really kill

people just for being different than

you, you know, like the old days.

So I don't think there's any fight

that's going to happen. I mean, I think

they'll say things and they'll paint on

stuff and they'll wave some flags, but I

think things are going to keep going in

whatever direction they're already

going.

According to Rasmusen,

uh 53% of uh I think they really do

likely voters say that in-person voting

is more secure than mailin ballots.

Can you believe that only 53%

of adults

understand that if you're there in

person, it's more likely that you you

are who you say you are than if there's

a mail in ballot.

How is that how is that even a subject

of disagreement?

I would have expected it to be more like

90%

uh understand that mail and ballots are

riskier, but a lot of people still think

that the convenience is worth, you know,

a little bit of extra risk. Now, that

would be if I heard that, I'd say, "Oh,

well, those are smart people." you know,

they they know there's a difference in

the security, but you know, maybe

they're willing to trade that off for a

little convenience and, you know, more

access to voting. Nope.

Only 53%

even understand that mailin ballots are

just by their nature harder to police.

Anyway, um so Trump is uh you know

leading the movement to try to get rid

of mail and ballots as well as

electronic voting machines. And uh

Rasmusson says that 48%

approve of this idea.

48%. So roughly half of the country is

on board with getting rid of uh

electronic voting machines and mailin

ballots. I'm going to assume

that some of those people just like the

convenience of voting by mail. I have to

admit I voted by mail as well and uh I

don't know if I would have voted if I

had to go in person.

Yeah, I'm I'm I'm sort of different

because I don't go places too much. It's

not my thing. Uh but I don't think I

would have voted. Now, I also am in

favor of getting rid of mail and uh

voting uh except for the special cases

like people in the military and people

who are shutins and stuff. Oh, actually,

I could probably

I I probably could get some kind of

medical exemption and get a mail in vote

no matter what.

So,

see what happens there. Usually Trump

likes the uh you know 60 or 80% things

where he's he's on that side. But in

this case I think he's willing to push

for election integrity because he

believes I believe he believes I can't

read his mind but it would be reasonable

to assume based on everything we've

heard that he believes that Republicans

would win more if the election didn't

have mail and ballots.

So, I don't know about the electronic

part. And so, just imagine this.

You and I have no evidence, I believe,

unless you have some. I don't have any.

We have no evidence that electronic

voting machines have ever been rigged in

the United States to the level that it

would affect the election. I don't have

any evidence of that.

But imagine if you're the president and

you have access to all the, you know,

the classified information.

Do you think that Trump is aware because

he would have the right to know this if

he asked, do you think that he is aware

and I don't know that this is case, but

do you think

that he knows that uh electronic voting

machines have been rigged in other

countries? And the reason we would know

that is because we're the ones who

rigged them.

Do you believe that that's a thing first

of all that it's ever happened and that

uh somebody like Trump or any president

would know for sure if they're hackable

and you can get away with it. See,

that's that's the part I find

interesting because Trump wouldn't be

able to tell us because it would be like

the most highly classified thing of all

time because we would want to keep doing

it to other countries if it works. And

again, I'm not suggesting I know that it

does. I'm just saying that

hypothetically

Trump knows for sure if electronic

voting machines can be corrupted

by US intelligence people.

I feel like he wouldn't be guessing. I

feel like he would know. You know,

somebody would know.

Well, Trump has attempted, some would

say he succeeded in firing for the first

time ever, a sitting Federal Reserve

governor. That's that Lisa Cook. Is that

her name? Um, so she was the first black

woman to be on the Federal Reserve.

So that adds a little spice to the

story. Um but uh Bill PTE um has told us

that she apparently claimed two primary

residences which is illegal form of

fraud I believe um because you would do

that to lower your uh your mortgage rate

and fairly common crime I would imagine.

But here's the wrinkle. So Trump

basically says, "You're fired." And then

she says, "No, I'm not. You don't have

the authority to fire me. Um because you

could only fire me for a cause and your

your explanation of the cause is

basically. So I'm not

leaving." To which I say, "Uh, what

happens now?"

Because it's not like Trump can tell the

head of the Fed, Powell, to hey, make

sure you clean out her desk. I don't

know if they have desks. Um, but make

sure you exclude her cuz she's fired.

He doesn't have to do that, does he? Cuz

he's independent. So, he could just say,

"Yeah, yeah, yeah. You think she's

fired?" but uh we're just gonna keep on

going and keep paying her and she'll

still come to work like always.

What would happen then?

You know, would would Trump uh send some

kind of, you know, physical authority

like the police or something? I mean,

what do you do to what do you do then?

So, this will be an interesting uh

standoff. I don't know who wins this

one. This is different than the uh Texas

one where the Democrats left the state

so they didn't have to, you know, vote

on redistricting. You knew how that was

going to end, right? Everybody knew that

eventually they'd have to come back and

eventually because the Republicans had

the advantage, it was going to pass. But

at this one, I don't know. I'm not sure

that Trump's firing will stick. Maybe it

goes to court. I don't know.

But I wouldn't expect her to leave

anytime soon.

All right. So, here's a story that we

will all disagree on. We will disagree

on what our opinions are about it, but

more importantly, we will disagree about

what the facts of the story are. And I'm

not sure I'm going to be able to help on

this one because it's really confusing.

And the story is that Trump has signed

an executive order about flag burning.

Now, do you see how carefully I worded

that? I said it was an executive or

order about flag burning. What I didn't

say is that he said it is now illegal to

burn a flag because he didn't say that.

So I would I would ask you to, you know,

Google it or uh AI it and look at the

actual wording of the executive order. I

believe it was written by somebody who

is drunk

or stupid.

You can't even you you can barely

understand what the executive order is

trying to do. So here's what I here's

what I think is happening. Uh, and by

the way, I'll I'll withdraw my comment

that it was looks like it was written by

somebody drunk or somebody stupid cuz I

think there's a explanation in which it

is intentionally hard to understand.

It looks like it's intentional.

So, that's why I'm withdrawing my my

insult to the author of it.

Obviously, Trump doesn't, you know,

write the verbiage himself. Um, but it

is so confusing

that it has the look of trying to make

the news get the wrong story and start

reporting that he's going to ban the

burning of flags, which didn't happen.

That didn't happen.

The executive order says things like,

"Oh, you must now really obey the

existing laws of the state and federal

government."

Uh,

wasn't that always the case?

Weren't we

weren't we always supposed to to obey

the existing laws? So, that's part of

it. Then uh there's a part where he's

encouraging the attorney general to

press some legal cases to find out where

the borderline is where you can

prosecute somebody. So that's more about

determining where the line is

of existing law of existing law. It's

not attempting to make a new law. is

attempting to clarify

through the court cases I guess what

exactly would be going too far. Now the

things that we know are illegal would be

you know inciting violence and stuff

like that. So if you were burning your

flag in the context of inciting

violence,

then I guess there would be some

clarifications

maybe to figure out if it was something

you could prosecute.

Anyway, do your own reading. You will

find that uh there will be great

disagreement on what the executive order

says. But what it doesn't do is change

the law.

So, it doesn't change the law. It's the

existing law. It might

uh cause some differences in how it's

enforced,

but um I

so I I don't even know how to have an

opinion on it. It It looks like my best

guess is that uh most of the purpose of

it that's Gary purring into the

microphone if you hear extra sound

there. Um,

it looks like Trump is just doing one of

those uh Trumpian things where he makes

the uh the press and all of his enemies

talk about something that's not even

real and nobody really cares about that

much.

And if they're talking about flag

burning, uh it it it would be more along

the lines of, "Hey, uh, Democrats, what

do you think about crime in the cities?"

Well, you must be in favor of it. Hey,

what do you think about that border?

Well, you must be in favor of gangs

coming across the border. Now, what do

you think of burning flags? And

basically, you'll just get them all

worked up and they'll be on the side of

burning flags, which I am. I'm on the

side of it should be free speech. Um,

but if you're a Democrat and you come

out uh against flags and in favor of

crime and open borders,

uh, all of it looks like a trap to me.

So maybe it's more about that.

So the EO says it directs aggressive

prosecution of related crimes.

Related crimes.

You see how weasly this is? The

executive order directs aggressive

prosecution of related crimes. Not

burning the flag cuz that's still, you

know, not illegal, but if there were any

related crimes, make sure you press

those. And there's also uh

something about uh nonitizens. So if a

foreign national is doing it, then

Homeland Security and the Secretary of

State can send them home, I guess. But I

feel like that was also something they

always could have done, right? Isn't it

true that currently

um if the Secretary of State says,

"Whoa, that's a that's a bad behavior in

our country," then he just has to say,

"That's bad behavior. You're going

home." Am I wrong? I don't think they

have to break a law. So, I don't even

know if that part's different, but but

it might be enforced differently. If if

a foreign national is burning a flag,

maybe

that would uh trigger the deportation.

Um Trump is also citing executive order

to eliminate uh federal funding for any

any place that has cashless bail.

Boy, Trump is really using that uh

federal funding thing as quite the

weapon, you know, between his tariffs to

punish other countries and then is

eliminating federal funding to punish

any states and localities that are

disobeying him. Um, do you think he'll

get away with that? Can Trump use

federal funding to make the local

jurisdictions change their laws?

I hope not. So, I'd be in favor of

ending cashless bail, but I'm not in

favor of the federal government being

able to tell the states or the cities

any thing it wants.

Um, I'd like you all to put your heads

in a bucket of ice water. Why? Hey, why

would we do that? Well, if you don't,

I'm going to cut your federal funding.

Uh, now I'd like you to remove your

clothes and run around in the public

square while we mock you. Well, why

would I do that? Well, you don't have

to, but I've got an executive order here

that will pull your federal funding if

you don't.

So, I don't know how far you could push

this. Uh, I will eliminate your federal

funding. But I don't like it. I don't

like it.

I do like it when uh, let's say the

sanctuary cities are defying the law of

the land. If you're defying the law of

the land by not letting the federal

government, you know, do its

constitutional duty to protect the

borders, then maybe withdrawing your

federal funding makes sense. If you're

discriminating

and you're col you're a college and

you're being anti-semitic,

well, yeah, maybe you lose your federal

funding. But the places that have

cashless bail,

wasn't that decided by the residents?

And isn't it totally legal? It's unwise.

It's very bad, but isn't it totally

legal? So if Trump starts using the

threat of federal funding

against people who are doing things that

are totally legal within their state, I

don't know. That feels like a new level.

It feels like a you wouldn't want that

president. But like I said, if he's if

he's taking funding away because

somebody's breaking the law, they're

either discriminating, they're

anti-Semitic, they're um doing, you

know, protecting the uh illegals,

then it's different.

Um Trump said he's going to file a

lawsuit

um against California for their move to

redistrict.

Now, he didn't say what would be the,

you know, the the cause of the lawsuit.

Does it bother you at all that the

government, because they have unlimited

um access to other people's money,

meaning ours, that they can fight any

legal battle they want any time? So,

they just fight everything in court.

Everything. Doesn't matter who does

what. Somebody's going to find some damn

reason that the courts should reject it.

And I'm thinking that this wouldn't

happen if if they were forced to be in a

budget of some kind.

You you wouldn't take 100% of everything

to court and sue over it. If you had a

budget you're worried about, but if

you're spending somebody else's money,

um, apparently there's no limit to how

much you can sue people.

Well, CNN's uh data guy, Harry Anton, he

uh he made a a devastating uh

comparison. He said the Democratic Party

is about as popular as the Cracker

Barrel logo rebrand.

Ouch. How would you like to be the CEO

of uh Cracker Barrel? Um who I refer to

as the Owl Wannabe. Um, if you've seen a

picture, that's hilarious. Anyway,

uh, imagine being the architect of the

rebrand that's so bad that CNN casually

uses that as an example of the worst you

can be.

It's not even a conversation. It's not

even the left and the right have

different opinions. He He's, you know,

presumably closer to the left. And he

uses that as an example. you know, of a

gigantic mistake.

Like it's not even a question, you know,

there's nothing to say. It's obviously a

gigantic mistake.

Anyway, um and he points out that voter

registration for the GOP is surging in

the swing states, which he says is bad

bad for Democrats.

Um there is some organization called

Cook Political

who does predictions about midterms and

they have updated their predictions and

they give the Republicans the edge in

the House in the midterms. Now, that

would be a big deal because it's very

unusual

um for the party that has the presidency

to also win the midterms in the House.

It just it's automatic that it goes the

other way because the public doesn't

like it when one party has too much

power. basically.

Um, however, this might be the exception

because things are going so poorly for

Democrats.

Um, and uh, the cooked political people,

they they're predicting a Republican

victory in the midterms. Now, I don't

know. I don't have any insight into

midterms,

so I don't have a reason to disagree

with them, but we'll see.

um

Roger Stone

um post this. So, I'm just going to read

what Roger Stone said on X. He said, "I

was arrested at 6:06 a.m. at 6, but at

6:22 a.m., so just a few minutes later,

Sarah Murray of CNN sent my lawyer a

draft of my criminal indictment, which

was sealed until 10:30 that morning. And

the metadata tags were the initials of

the man who wrote it and leaked it uh

was was Andrew Weisman

who is one of the legal pundits on CNN.

So Roger Stone says no wonder CNN was

there. So, uh, if I understand this, he

believes that Andrew Weissman,

uh, wrote

he wrote the indictment and also works

for or with CNN and that he's kind of

assuming that's where the leak came

from. Well,

maybe.

So, uh,

apparently, um, a bunch of Epstein

survivors, the young women who were the

victims, will hold a press conference,

um, on Capitol Hill on September 3rd.

Now, do you believe that the victims,

the survivors will have something new to

say?

because it's starting to look like

Jeffrey Epstein was mostly a money

laundering expert who was teaching the

rich and powerful how to hide their

money and you know essentially keep it

from the government or I don't know

their spouse or wherever they're keeping

it from and

that he was definitely the one who did a

lot of the sex crimes and there might

have been a few buddies that were in on

it but so far we're not seeing proof

that there's like a client list and it's

a blackmail operation and it might have

been and it might have been like a a

subtle blackmail operation where he

didn't actually blackmail anybody but

anybody who got into that kind of

illegal activity with him would just

sort of know it would be better to keep

him happy than not. So it doesn't have

to be blackmail.

It could just be putting them in

sensitive situations. So they're more

likely to play ball with him in the

future. Could be could be just that.

I don't know. So here's what I expect.

There will be no new prominent names

named at the press conference. Anybody

want to take the other side of that bet?

I say there will be no new person

implicated. Might be a name you've heard

before, you know, like Prince Andrew,

but I'm going to say no new names will

be presented.

Just a prediction.

Uh Trump's floating the idea of renaming

the Pentagon back to what it used to be,

the Department of War. He says it's

because we won World War II and won

World War I. Although uh there might be

some disagreement about that from the

Russians

and maybe some others, but that's

Trump's version that we're winning all

these wars and that uh Pentagon should

be called the Department of War. All

right, here's why that's a terrible

idea. And I'm very surprised that Trump

doesn't have the same opinion I'm going

to tell you right now.

Words matter.

You all know cuz I talk about it too

often, my reframe uh about alcohol where

I say alcohol is poison and then people

with that one sentence in their head can

stop a lifetime of overdrinking. Now

maybe it doesn't work for alcoholics,

but people who just wanted to, you know,

get alcohol out of their life, it works

really well. Now, why does it work? it

it only works because the words in the

sentence. Words are how you program a

brain. That's why large language models

are just combinations of words and that

once they figure out the pattern, you've

got something that acts artificially

intelligent. But I would say I'm not

sure that's artificial

because the way your own brain is

organized is that the things you think

are your logic and your thinking are

really just words and the way they fit

together and the frequency of them. You

just believe that you're doing something

that you think is thinking, but you're

doing what the large language model is

doing. You're just looking for the

repetitive strongest patterns and then

just following them.

So my point is if you name your Pentagon

the Department of War, the odds of

having a war go way up.

Now that that's a hypnotist lesson right

there. If if you said it's the

department of making peace with

everybody,

people would just sort of think that's

what they do. And then they would

organize all their thinking and their

budget and their activities around

making peace with people. If you call it

the department of war,

people will operationalize around that

word. The word doesn't just change how

cool it sounds or, you know, change how

you feel about it patriotically. It

might do that, too, but it's going to

change how people act. And if you want

more of a thing, put it in the title.

Let me say that again. If you want more

of a thing, whatever the thing is, put

it in the name of the department that's

in charge and you're going to get more

of that.

Um so putting war in the name will buy

you more war

that you know I mean it's not guaranteed

but um statistically speaking you're

going to sort of um you're going to

manage toward that thing that is the the

word in your head. That's just how

brains work. They work toward words.

Um

as you know uh Trump administration has

taken at 10% uh I guess is an investment

because they put money into it ownership

stake in Intel. And when asked about

that Trump says uh he he would take on

stakes in other businesses. I want to

try to get as much as I can. He said,

"Now, if you don't like fascism, where

the government and the big businesses

were sort of in bed together, then you

probably don't like the government

owning a private company, even though

it's just 10%. But they're not going to

be able to control it with a 10%

equity." Um, however, we should look at

some examples where government has done

this before. If you're old enough, you

remember that uh General Motors, the

government invested 50 billion in

General Motors and got a 61% equity

stake um when the company was

restructuring and going bankrupt in

2009. But eventually the Treasury sold

its shares

and uh uh incurred a loss of about 10

billion.

So the investment in General Motors

didn't work out. But there was also an

investment in Chrysler in which the

government put in 12 a.5 billion took an

8% equity stake uh and then sold it

later with a loss of approximately 1.3

billion.

So that's two examples where the US um

revived a company and took a loss in

doing it. However, if those companies

are paying taxes and the and the people

who work there are getting a salary and

also paying taxes, it could be that the

US government still made money because

the US would get the uh higher, you

know, tax benefits if if the economy

still has these big companies in it.

Then there was uh AIG, big insurance

group. um they were having problems some

years ago and the government took a 80%

equity in it and uh

uh eventually they profited 23 billion

when they sold their stake. Let's let's

see where so what are we at? So they're

up 23 billion but they lost one on

Chrysler

and 10 on General Motors. All right. So

so far if you look at the average so far

they would be up

and then there were banks and financial

institutions

um in which Tarp funds were used to uh

prop up some of the big banks and the

government I guess received equity

uh in return for that uh and there was a

net profit. So, by the way, this is from

Grock. So, if Grock is hallucinating,

don't blame me. Except blame me for

using Grock, I guess. Um, so it looks

like in some cases the government just

gets in, stays there for several years,

and then they sell out and get out of

it, and uh they could make a lot of

money. If you look at all the deals

collectively, they were solidly

positive, although a few of them were

negative, but overall they were

positive. So, I'm in favor of Trump

um strategically helping some big

industries when there's a chance we can

get our money back, either directly or

indirectly. So, I'm in favor of it.

Well, MSNBC had George Conway on who's

sort of only got one thing he ever says.

And you wouldn't believe this, but he

compared what Trump is doing cleaning up

Washington DC to 1933 Nazi Germany.

It's all George Conway can do is find

ways to compare Trump to Nazis. So, he

is an analogy thinker. An analogy

thinker is someone who is just reminded

of something else. It's not thinking.

Hey, I'm reminded of a thing. It doesn't

mean it predicts. It means you're bad at

thinking.

Analogy thinkers, by the way, are an

example of large language models or or

how we're not really thinking species.

We just feel like we are because the

words fit together. you know, the words,

"Oh, this reminds me of Nazi Germany,"

the words fit together. So, and uh once

it becomes the thing that the people say

the most, then everybody believes it's

true and they'll say it even more. So,

there's a lot of that going on. Um

there's a senior Chinese trade

negotiation negotiator who's coming to

Washington to talk to talk to us about

our trade deals. According to writers, I

don't think that necessarily believes

means that we're close to a deal with

China. It just means we're serious about

talking to him, I guess.

Here's a story that there must be more

to the story than we know because it

doesn't make sense on the surface. Trump

has apparently approved up to 600,000

Chinese college students in America.

Now, you might say to yourself, "Whoa,

you mean he's not going to stop Chinese

students? I thought he was going to stop

them."

No, it's not that. Oh, you mean he's

going to let it just go to the same

level it was at before?

No. No. This is way bigger than the

level it has ever been. Uh, at the

moment, there are 270,000 Chinese

students in US universities. He would

allow that to go up to 600,000, more

than double. 600,000

Chinese students who by their own law

would have to report whatever they they

know to the Chinese government.

Now, the first thing I would ask is,

does that apply to every major? Because

if that applies to, you know, the STEM

stuff, you know, the high-tech stuff,

I'm a little bit worried. If we don't

care how many Chinese students take

psychology courses or anthropology,

you know, and we just say, I don't care,

as many as you want. We we'll teach you

all the anthropology you want because

that's not going to hurt us.

That would be different. But I haven't

seen anything that would suggest that it

would be limited to certain colleges or

certain majors. So

if it's not

um why is he doing that? Because it

would seem like the opposite of America

first. It seems like it would be good

for the Chinese students and less good

for us perhaps at least in terms of

risk. But uh the counterargument

um which is not being made entirely but

you can imagine it um that we get a lot

of well not we the universities would

get a lot of revenue from those 600,000

students and would be worth over 14

billion

so US would bring in another $14 billion

and so this would be again Trump

monetizing a problem,

which the more you see it, the more

impressive it is that every time he's

got some big hard to hard to handle

problem, he just monetizes it and that

it doesn't bother you so much. So, um, I

like the fact that the Chinese students

would be paying so much because they're,

you know, they're not going to get aid

or anything like that

that they would be essentially funding

US colleges

to which I say,

could you really get, you know, the

funding of the US colleges

without really much risk to the country

of having all the people from your

adversary country in your colleges. I

don't know because the thing I don't

know is do we end up better off if there

are 600,000 Chinese students who have a

positive experience in the United States

and you know learn to speak perfect

English and uh you know learn our system

of government and get to compare it to

what they had back there. I I feel like

the more people we educate

uh again with the exception of maybe

some of the high like the more people we

educate from any other country the more

likely they're going to be a little bit

on our side you know not completely but

it seems like it would move them in our

direction

and then I guess uh Secretary Howard

Lutnik

said that if we don't have that many

Chinese students that the bottom 15% of

universities would go out of business.

To which I say, shouldn't they? But

shouldn't the bottom 15% go out of

business? In every other industry,

doesn't the bottom 15% always go out of

business? Is there any industry that

has, you know, lots of participants in

which the bottom 15%

don't predictably go out of business?

Why would universities be the ones that

we have to protect with what potentially

could be some security risk? I don't

know. But probably the bigger reason is

that Trump's trying to get a trade deal

and it could be that there's some

conversations behind the scenes. It

could be that we're going to get

something um and maybe we'll never know.

Uh we could be getting something in

return and it might be big. So, it's

hard to judge this one because I believe

that Trump wouldn't do it unless he

knows there's something we're getting

that's much bigger than the risk of

this.

Uh, and maybe he can't say it directly

because we're still in a sensitive

conversations with China. And maybe we

can't say it because we just don't want

to say it out loud. Because if the

answer is, yeah, this is how we

propagandize them to make them more

pro-American,

that might be the reason, in which if I

heard that argument, I'd probably say, I

don't know if smart people think that's

true. I don't really have a

counterargument to that, but I don't

think we could say that out loud.

Um, you know, there might be some

versions of that we could, but anyway,

we'll probably never know.

the president of South Korea was

visiting, seemed very friendly with

Trump. They got along great. And u he

said that uh this is what the president

of South Korea said sitting next to

Trump. He said, "I would like to mention

that the only remaining divided nation

in the world is the Korean Peninsula."

Is that true? the only remaining divided

nation.

Well, maybe Putin would have a different

opinion about Russia. And anyway, but

then he goes on, he said, "Uh, and I

would like to ask for your role in

establishing peace." He's talking to

Trump, your role in establishing peace

on the Korean Peninsula. So, I look

forward to your meeting with Chairman

Kim Jong-un and uh and construction of a

Trump Tower in North Korea and playing

golf at that place. Uh I believe he will

be waiting for you.

Now, of course, there's no plans for a

Trump Tower in North Korea, but I do

like the fact that the South Korean

president has studied our situation well

enough to know where all the buttons are

and he knows that if he, you know,

compliments Trump for his peacemaking

skills that that will be good. So, he

does. He knows that if he speaks uh

visually, so you're imagining Trump

Tower or you're imagining playing golf,

that's really good technique. It's it's

Trumpian technique. If he's talking

about the future, you know, benefits as

opposed to the past negative stuff,

that's very Trump. and and then the

confidence that he's putting in Trump

that, you know, sort of he alone could

make something good happen on the Korean

peninsula.

And then he also mentions uh he'd like

to play golf.

He he hit every note.

So, um I'm gonna I'm gonna put up the

warning flag for you right now. the

South Korean president and I understand

the South Korean presidents don't last

very long. Don't a lot of them end up

getting deposed and in trouble and

whatever. But this guy um he is

signaling that he has the entire range

of persuasion skills because this was

quite capable. That statement is so

cleverly and professionally crafted by

somebody who really understands

persuasion

that uh keep an eye on that guy.

He he might be

I I'm very early, you know, cuz I don't

know anything about this South Korean

president, but just based on this one

paragraph, it is so smartly persuasion

perfect, very rare, you don't see stuff

like this, that I'm going to predict

he might be the most consequential South

Korean president that we'll know in our

lifetime at least.

So, keep an eye on him. He might be a a

rising international,

you know, leader, star kind of a guy.

Um, I've got I've got good feeling about

him.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's

all I got for you today. Um, I might

have missed a few stories. It's a busy

day, but I'm going to see if I can go

private and talk to my beloved

subscribers.

Uh

my I just saw a funny meme go by. Uh my

beloved subscribers and locals and the

rest of you, thanks for joining. I hope

you'll be back tomorrow for more fun.

All right, let's see if I can go private

in 30 seconds.