Episode 2945 CWSA 09/01/25

Come on in.

It's time.

Happy Labor Day.

Unlike all those lazy podcasters, I'm still working.

Yep.

Every day.

Because you deserve it, my beloved audience.

Not as beloved as my local subscribers, but still fairly beloved.

All right.

How we looking?

Let me get my comments working and then we got a show.

Don't you love the fact that depending on which platform you're using that you get an hour of entertainment without commercials?

I mean, you'd have to be paying on You.

Tube to get that deal, but or on locals or on X.

Lots of ways to do it.

All right.

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

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

But if you'd like to take a chance of elevating your experience to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need is a copper mug or a glass attack canteen sugar 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

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

Ah, unbelievably good.

So, so good.

Well, I've decided uh as of this morning, I was watching you all the news news uh bits and I've decided to start judging people by their hairstyle.

Are you with me?

I was looking at Greta Tunberg.

Uh, I'll talk about her.

And I thought to myself, you know what?

Her haircut tells me everything I need to know about her.

Then I saw another story about some liberal person doing something terrible.

And I said, you know what?

I could have guessed by your haircut that there's something deeply wrong with you.

And so if you don't mind, from now on, even if it's people I like, even if they're sort of on my side, I'm still going to judge them by their haircuts.

You know that uh Alex Karp, the head of Palunteer, and he he's got this, you know, gigantic hair situation.

It looks like looks like it looks like he lost a bet.

And I say to myself, I can't get past that.

You're going to have to do something with your damn hair or I I just can't take you seriously.

And if you don't believe that you can judge people by their haircuts, well, let me let me prove to you that it's it's something you can do.

See, now if this were my natural hair, would you take me seriously at all?

No.

No, you would not.

Let me read this news story and uh we'll uh we'll see if my hairstyle is distracting.

I'll bet it is.

I'll bet it is.

Um well, according to ZME Science, the world's largest uh solar plant is being put up in Tibet.

How big is it?

Well, it's going to be the size of Chicago.

So, it's a solar plant in Tibet the size of Chicago.

I feel like there would be less murder.

It would only be the size of Chicago, but much safer.

It makes me wonder if it's uh if it's cost effective and maybe even essential for China to have the uh a solar plant that's the size of Chicago.

Are we going to do that?

I feel like we're going to go hard at nuclear, but maybe maybe solar is faster.

You could probably put up a a solar outdoor facility in say 5 years with all the permitting and whatnot, but how long would it take you to build a nuclear power plant?

Longer than five years is my bet.

Well, as you know, there's a mayoral race coming up in New York City.

Hey, look who's visiting.

It's uh it's Gary the cat trying to steal the show.

Um I was hoping Gary wouldn't recognize me with my new hairstyle, but apparently he does.

All right, Gary, I'm talking about cats.

The story is about cats.

So Curtis Siwa has uh recommended feral cat colonies to deal with all the rats in New York City.

So um I have a special guest that I would like to interview about this idea of cats and it's featuring Gary the Cat.

Gary the cat.

Gary, what do you think of the idea of introducing feral cats to deal with the rat problem in New York City?

Uh-huh.

Uh-huh.

Now, if you don't understand purr talk, that's how cats communicate.

I'll translate it for you.

Say more.

Uhhuh.

Uhhuh.

Okay.

All right.

It turns out Gary is a big fan of Curtis Leewa and absolutely supports the idea of cats solving all of our problems.

Now, you might ask, Scott, how many problems can cats solve?

I don't know, but I feel like it could be all of them.

I mean, they could end wars.

They could make you less lonely.

Yeah, they could keep uh keep marriages together.

I think cats could do all of that.

Meanwhile, in California, um the California Highway Patrol is going to team up with local law enforcement to sort of surge against crime.

Now, that seems like a reasonably Gary um it seems like a reasonably good idea, but do you think that California would do that if uh Trump had not put the pressure on, you know, in DC and talking about Chicago and talking about going into California?

I don't think so.

So, while this looks like a win for Newsome because it makes it look like he's dealing with a crime problem, I feel like that's not the message I'm getting.

The message I'm getting is that he wasn't going to deal with a crime problem until Trump embarrassed him publicly.

Is that what you see?

Or do you see this go-getter governor who's who's all over this problem and he recognizes what the regular people are feeling about crime and so he's activated his resources.

I don't feel that at all.

I feel like the only way this would have happened and it's probably a good thing is because Trump embarrassed him.

I'm going to give the win to Trump if this works, right?

I don't think that's unreasonable to say that this would be a Trump success if Nuome is successful because he wouldn't have done it.

I mean, I'm not a mind readader, but really, did you see any movement in this direction?

No, not until Trump made it a very big thing.

Well, here's a story from Ars Technica.

Samuel Axen is writing about this.

Apparently Microsoft, which as you know is in this deep partnership with Open AI and uses Open AI as its as its own uh AI as well as what it's producing.

Um, weirdly Microsoft separate from Open AI is developing AI.

So does that signal that there's something wrong with the partnership?

Did did somebody not foresee some problem happening?

Now they're they're trying to pass it off as these are more specifically trained AIs that would be, you know, a little bit more powerful than open AI would be because that's more of a general AI.

To which I say, really, you couldn't you couldn't just train the general model which you have some degree of control over.

You couldn't just make open AI know how to do the specific AI things as well.

I don't know.

Do you need your own AI for other stuff that open AI can't do?

I don't know.

I don't know.

So, I guess what I'm suggesting is there might be this might be telling us something, but I don't know what.

So, it might be telling us that open AI doesn't have a future.

Now, I'm not I don't see evidence of that specifically, but why would they be building alternative models when they have the dominant AI model in the world and it doesn't, you know, does that make sense?

So, I'm not buying the story of why they have multiple AIs, but it does make me think that they have some, let's say, insecurity that OpenAI will do what they want it to do in the future and meet all their needs as well as other people's, I guess.

So, I'd say keep an eye on that.

Um, I just saw a chart.

I don't know if it's right, but let's say it is because it's Labor Day and it'll be fun to say it's right.

um where are the large language models, the AIs get their facts.

So apparently the most uh the the single biggest uh source I guess of training is Reddit posts.

Are you comfortable knowing that the advanced intelligence learned to be that way by Reddit posts?

Do you see do you see any problem that that might cause?

Um, number two is Wikipedia.

Do you see any problem that that might cause?

And then there's You.

Tube where people like me are literally, as far as I can tell, capped in influence.

Do you think the fact that I'm somehow throttled or or I don't know semicled by You.

Tube, do you think that that affects how the u large language models um let's say get trained on my material?

Maybe.

I don't know.

And then there's Google and Yelp.

Uh, you know, I used to own a small business and I can tell you that Yelp uh is something that I deeply hate because people would give me a bad Yelp review for my restaurant if they didn't like my opinion on some political thing or some social thing.

If there was anything that I disagreed with them, they would go to Yelp and give my restaurant, which had nothing to do with anything.

I didn't even manage it directly.

Give it they would give it a bad review.

So that's Yelp.

You know, as soon as Yelp uh started to become a thing, I said to myself, I hope all the businesses are smart enough to starve it so that it goes out of business because otherwise it would have the power to destroy your business.

And sure enough, it has the power to destroy your business.

And then the next uh biggest source would be Facebook.

So Reddit, Wikipedia, You.

Tube, Google, Yelp, and Facebook would be most of the training.

You okay with that?

That that just seems like asking for trouble, doesn't it?

I don't trust any of those sources, but I guess uh I don't know if uh it's the facts.

Well, I don't know.

They may have some way to compensate for the low credibility of some of these sources, but I'll I'll keep an open mind.

Well, as you know, for the last several days, the internet has been a buzz with what's going on with Trump.

Apparently, he's not dead because he was shown going golfing with his granddaughter, Kai.

and uh he's been posting, but some people think that that could be other people posting for him, but I guess yesterday he posted in all caps, "Never felt better in my life." So, he wants you to know he's never felt better in his life.

Now, of all the things that could be going on, it could be something medical.

I mean suppose let's say uh he was just getting ready for a colonoscopy he might not want to tell you that and it would take you know the preparation day and then the day it happens and you know so it could be some you know routine medical thing he just want doesn't want to get into.

Yeah.

So, I know he's got those problems on his hands.

So, I don't know if that's anything to worry about or not.

So, I saw some photos today of the actor, The Rock.

Do you remember the last movie you saw with The Rock, and he probably was just gigantic, like just so muscular, it's like crazy?

Well, it turns out he's lost his muscles.

So, the story is that he's getting ready for a role as a MMA fighter, but it's um the MMA fighter that he's going to portray is not nearly as big as a big muscular guy.

So, he's got to get down to a sort of a fighting weight that would be more similar to a MMA guy.

But, uh, I'll tell you, he doesn't look healthy, and he he lost the thing that made him special.

I'm a big fan of The Rock, by the way.

I think he's incredibly um talented and hardworking and, you know, I I just sort of like everything about him.

But one of the things that worked so well about him is that his personality and his physical situation were sort of an interesting combination.

I don't know what's going to happen because it looks like he's looking for a permanent downsizing of his muscles cuz he's 52 years old and I guess it's hard on the body to maintain that when you're 52.

Duh.

um and carrying away carrying around all that extra weight because his muscles were so big.

It was like, you know, carrying a barrel of oil with you wherever he went.

So, probably it makes sense from a, you know, long-term health perspective.

Um some people are saying he he must have been on steroids and now he's off.

Maybe.

I don't know.

Maybe.

Um, but I'm certainly uh hopeful that he's found some healthy path, but he doesn't look healthy.

So, unfortunately, I don't know if it's because of what I'm used to cuz I imagine him as that more robust version, but I hope there's nothing else to the story, but that he's preparing for a role and trying to be a more healthy person into his older age.

Well, here's a story I don't fully believe, but maybe.

So, apparently the European Commission president that Ursula Vanderlayan, uh, a name I have to say more than once because it's so fun to say.

Say it with me.

Ursula Vanderlayan.

That was kind of fun.

All right.

But apparently she she was on a plane and she was wanting to land in Bulgaria and there was some kind of GPS interference attack that made the airplane blind to GPS.

Now they they were still able to land safely after circling for an hour.

Uh, the pilot used analog maps.

To which I say, I wonder how old the pilot was because I I hope the pilot was, you know, trained at a time when they just didn't use GPS.

Well, how long how old is GPS?

Um, I don't know how long GPS has been around.

So, maybe that's not possible to have a pilot that old, but it was somebody who obviously knew how to do it without.

So, she was she safely landed, but they're blaming the attack on Russia.

Do you think that Russia tried to murder the European Commission president in a way that people would probably guess was Russia?

Does that story track with you or does it feel more likely that the GPS equipment on the plane just malfunctioned?

Which one sounds more likely?

I don't know.

I'm I'm not automatically going to buy the Russia tried to assassinate the European Union leader cuz it's a little bit too on the nose, especially if somebody like Zilinski, just say to pick a name randomly, was planning to try to assassinate Putin, right?

If if you could be sold on the story that Putin may have tried to kill the uh president of the European Union, wouldn't you be far more accepting if somebody like Zilinski murdered Putin?

You'd say to yourself, well, I mean, he he tried to take out a leader in Europe.

Zalinski took him out.

It's not like we started it.

So, I'm just totally skeptical that this is the kind of story where we know all the details correctly.

I mean, it could be anything.

I'm I'm not saying it's, you know, necessarily a plot, but uh I don't believe the cover the the surface story.

Well, according to PJ Media, Katherine Salgado is writing that the Doge people um I guess they regularly do reports on what money they've saved or what programs they cut and they're cutting a lot of them.

They have silly sounding missions or at least missions where you say to yourself, why is my tax money being used for that, for example?

Um and apparently they're finding billions that they're cancelling.

So over the last uh five days, they terminated 50 what they called wasteful contracts that were worth up to about $3 billion and they saved maybe 762 million.

How many contracts does our government have?

Oh my god.

These are just the that one week of canceled unnecessary contracts.

$3 billion.

That's one week.

Five days.

one.

It's It's not even a week.

It's work week.

So, here are some of the things that got cancelled.

Um, transgender health medical evaluation unit services.

Uh, I don't know.

That was in the Department of Defense.

Now, we don't know what that was all about, but it does make me ask this question.

Well, I'll I'll give you the next one.

was there was also a Department of Defense contract that got cancelled for LGBTQ magazine advertising campaign.

Do you think we really needed to spend that money on it was $129 million on an LGBTQ magazine advertising campaign?

I don't even know that magazines are still a thing.

When when was the last time a LGBTQ member read a a magazine?

I can't tell you the last time I read one.

I don't even remember.

I guess they still exist.

Uh and then there was a 49 million for a US aid contract uh for quote the Bellarus regional initiative to provide transition activities in Barus and other countries in Europe.

Okay.

I have no idea what that's about.

It sounds like it might have been, you know, I don't know, maybe some spook or CIA or defense related thing disguised as some other thing.

Maybe.

I don't know.

But I don't think I can live in a world where I pay my taxes into a black box and then a bunch of people say, you know, it you shouldn't know what we're spending this on because it'll ruin the whole thing.

It's a big old secret.

So, we're going to spend a lot of your money on big old secret stuff, but trust us, we looked into it really carefully and it's a really good use of money because we say so.

I don't know.

So, definitely I think Doge will end up canceling some things that are tragic.

On the other hand, uh I oppose the idea that some people have special problems.

Don't you all have problems?

You know, if your problem is that you're trans or LGBTQ or that you're uh descended from slaves, those are real problems.

But why are they special problems?

But why why is somebody else's problem because they're a member of some group?

Why is that more important than whatever problem you and I have?

I'll bet I could randomly pick any one of you and say, "Do you have any problems?" and you say, "Oh my god, yes, there would be some health problem or you know, you're you're short, which is a big problem in the US, or you have some body problem, or you're disabled, or uh you're in a you're in a dangerously abusive relationship.

Don't we all have gigantic problems?" And that that that's life that we're all navigating our own little problems.

But why do some people have special problems that my money needs to go away from me where I would be using it for my own problems and my family's problems and that sort of thing.

Uh so who who gets to say that any class of people have special problems that have to be funded with my money?

Certainly there I do agree that there are some things that the you know the government should take care of because nobody else could that sort of thing.

But I don't know how many things fall into that category.

Uh let's see what else.

Um so apparently Florida is going to get into the redistricting.

Oh I didn't even notice this is my other cat Roman.

I thought it was Gary again.

Hey, Roman.

Say hi to everybody.

Roman does not have nearly the personality of his sibling, Gary.

Roman's more of a I'm just passing through.

Uh, I don't need to interact with you.

I mean, I appreciate a pet now and then, but I'm not obsessed by it.

I'm not addicted to it.

So, you can keep your pets if you want to.

I mean, I'm not going to tell you they're great or anything.

That would be Gary.

Gary, I'm sorry.

That would be Roman.

Gary believes that all human contact is incredible.

Okay, we'll be knocking things on the floor.

Um anyway, uh PJ Media Matt Margolus is writing about uh how Florida um I've got a twocat wrestling situation going on here.

So, it's going to get intense in a moment.

Let Let me just give you a preview of what's about to develop here.

Yeah.

You don't like it when I pay attention to you.

They're going to fight.

All right, you watch that while I tell you the news.

So, Florida is going to get into redistricting, which would be um part of a larger move where the Republicans are going to make a big gain on redistricting.

That's enough of that.

So, I'll tell you the Democrats, um, it looks like they're going to lose the redistricting game and they're going to lose it big.

Oh, well.

Well, speaking of Greta Tun Tunberg, she's now boarded a boat to go break the siege, as she says, in Gaza.

And, uh, she's saying that Israel can't stop her this time.

Hm.

Israel can't stop Greta.

H um how many how many journalists have been slain in Gaza so far?

Because I would say that Israel stopped them.

Stopped 200 journalists.

Some of them might have been actually closer to Hamas operatives than journalists, but they managed to stop 200 of them.

Do you think they can stop one more?

I think they can.

Now, I don't think that Israel would intentionally target Greta, but you know, it's a war zone.

Things happen.

Things happen.

No, I don't think that they care because I don't think Greta has enough uh pull that it would even that it would even be worth targeting her.

Um, she seems like a sort of a ridiculous character now cuz one of the things that happened is she got a lot older except the way she looks.

So, she looks like one of those uh troll dolls.

What were they called?

Were they called troll dolls that had the little You know what I'm talking about?

So, she's no longer the the cute young person who's so young that that's what makes it special.

Now, she's exactly the same as she was, except she's older and it kind of doesn't work anymore.

Kind of doesn't work.

So, we'll see if she can solve that whole Gaza thing.

But, it turns out that the according to the New York Post, there's some big plan.

Uh I don't know to what extent Trump is behind this, but it's being announced that uh there would be a Gaza rebuilding plan.

It would be a 10-year plan to move out all the residents to all of them, just move everybody out uh so that it can be rebuilt.

And the plan is that they would be given $5,000 a piece to relocate.

Uh they'd have to relocate for 10 years.

I couldn't come back and that during that time the Gaza Strip would be transformed into the Riviera of the Middle East.

So, at least the coastal part, they're imagining, you know, hotels and recreation and they're imagining that uh there would be businesses around the perimeter, I guess, and they'd build it all up and uh the the people would be asked to leave for the $5,000 cash would also get four years of free rent somewhere else and a year's supply of food, again, somewhere else.

Now, the part that's unspecified is who's going to pay for all of this.

The idea is that somehow the United States would be, I don't know, some some kind of owning or governing the area, but maybe not officially.

Um, but then when it was all built up and ready to go, there would be presumably, you know, some temporary entity of, uh, you know, Arab leaders getting behind it.

So, I don't know who would pay for all this, but uh we'll see.

I I would have to say I if if the United States is paying for it, I'm opposed to it.

And I would also say that if the way it's received is that it makes the United States more actively involved in depopulating Gaza, I'm not sure we want that on our permanent record.

because that would make you more of a target for terrorism, wouldn't it?

Whereas, if we say, "Hey, you know, we just want everybody to be alive.

Israel's doing what Israel does.

We're not trying to stop it, but, you know, we recognize their right to do what they need to do." So I would be concerned that although this is an impressive offer, it's probably good from the perspective of showing that there's some path potentially that the people won't lose hope, although that might feel like losing hope.

I don't know.

Um, so it's probably good.

I would say it's a good idea that there's something out there that people can talk about because it it shows that there's some thought about keeping people safe, but they're not going to like it.

They're not going to like anything that comes out of this war, of course.

So, I don't know if it'll solve anything.

Could make things worse for the United States, and I would not be in favor of making anything worse for the United States.

And let's see what else.

Um, looks like it might be well the and then the thinking is that whoever invests in this project uh we get a four-fold return over 10 years.

I don't think anybody can really predict that kind of thing.

Um, but at least it makes sense that they can present it as a money-making opportunity for the people who put money into it.

It might be, but it also would suggest that the prior owners, the pal the uh the Palestinian well the Gaza residents presumably they would be losing everything to these investors or almost everything.

Um I saw saw an article by Red State saying that the Democrats are losing credibility because they cried wolf too often.

In other words, they deny the obvious too often, like Biden especially.

Oh, Biden's fine.

And now the Democrats have to look at their own party and say, "Uh, did my own party lie to the whole country, including me, about how safe we were with Biden as president?

And would that influence how much trust they have in their leadership going forward?" Well, common sense tells you that Democrats would notice that they've been lied to by their own team.

And not not a small lie, not a little one, a really really big one, like a historically big lie.

Uh that matters.

Well, I guess uh Charlemagne, the god, as we call them, um is making that case that they're not to be trusted at this point.

Um he said quote but here's the thing if you shout apocalypse every day and the constitution is still stand oh oh wait no I think this is from the author of the article if you shout apocalypse every day and the constitution is still standing nine years later people tune out that's what I think is happening with all the Hitler stuff we had years of people calling Trump Hitler and he hasn't done any Hitler stuff the only the only thing they've done is the part that they're also lying about, which is that January 6 was an insurrection when obviously it was not.

And you would have to be deeply um hypnotized to imagine that the most armed population in the world held a insurrection and left their guns home.

That that's the first thing.

But also, there's not a single person who's ever been interviewed from the thousands and thousands of people on January 6, not a single person, not one has ever said, you know, I really thought we could overthrow the country because nobody had that plan.

They were literally protesting.

They weren't overthrowing anything.

They didn't have any mechanism to overthrow anything.

No plan, no secret meetings.

Not a single single person said, "Yeah, you know, I thought we could we could trespass our way to taking over the country." There's nothing you can even say that wouldn't sound ridiculous.

You know, I really thought it'd work.

Not once.

How hard would it be to get one of the attendees who protested on January 6?

How hard would it be to get them on camera and say, "All right, we just have to understand.

Did you think you were overthrowing the country?" And they they wouldn't even understand the question.

It's like, "What?

How in the world could I overthrow the country wandering around taking selfies?" Like, what what was the mechanism that connects those two things?

All right.

So, yeah, Charlemagne, you're right.

I saw a uh article in science by Kai Cup Kapperment.

Um there's a new study that looked at US and Brazil and they're looking at ways to counter what they call election misinformation.

Red flag red flag.

When anyone writes an article about countering election misinformation, what should your brain immediately lead you to believe?

That's an intelligence operation by somebody.

Yeah.

that the the article treats it as a objective fact that we know that the US and Brazil do not have rigged elections and that the real problem is that people believe they might be.

You you can't get past like the first sentence without knowing, oh, this isn't real science, is it?

This is more like people want you to believe that the system is secure.

So, here we are.

Um, apparently in January 2023, thousands of people stormed Brazil's national congress.

Uh, and this is from the uh the article in science.

Um, convinced that the country's presidential election had been stolen.

Now, why didn't they call it an insurrection?

What's the difference between a whole bunch of Brazilians, thousands of them, quote, storming the National Congress because they thought the election was rigged?

That's exactly January 6.

But why is one an insurrection and the other is a protest?

This is this is all just madeup facts, you know?

These are all narratives.

But they did a study and they found that uh in both countries people's trust of the election increased after receiving uh both a warning that they might see some misinformation.

Now do do you see that this is propaganda?

They say that when they warn people that they might see misinformation that those people are better equipped to, you know, to know what to trust.

Well, why is it that there's one entity that knows what's true and what isn't?

That doesn't exist.

How in the world can they can they uh pre-bunk stuff?

So, they call it pre-bunking uh where they tell people in advance that people will make claims and they won't be true.

And they also call it inoculation.

If you see pre-bunking and inoculation in the same story, that's propaganda.

They're they're they're trying to tell you that there's somebody, the people in charge, who know what's true, and here's the important part.

Not only do they know what's true, unlike you, but they really want to tell you the truth.

Do you live in that world where your government knows what's true and they want you to know the truth?

We don't live in any kind of a world like that.

The government wants you to believe whatever is best for the government.

You know, it might also be best for the country, but no, that's all propaganda.

It's all brainwashing.

So, um then you also have to watch out for the documentary effect.

If uh you could have just asked me, Scott, if you can make people sit down and pay attention to an argument that says that the election uh mechanisms are all trustworthy, and there's no counterargument.

It's just you have to listen for half an hour while we tell you why cheating would be almost impossible with this election.

Of course, it would work.

It's a documentary effect.

If anybody gets to give you one side of an argument and you'll listen to it for half an hour, you will go away thinking there was something to it, even if there isn't.

It's just how we were wired.

So, yeah, of course, pre-bunking and inoculation work.

But the only people who talk that way are the people who are trying to hide the truth, not reveal it.

That's what I say.

Um, according to Eric Dolan writing in Scypost, people who believe in conspiracy theories process information differently at a neural level.

So they're not saying that people's brains have, you know, different big areas and active areas.

Well, maybe active areas, but that they can actually, you know, look at what your brain is doing when you're processing conspiracy theories and they can find this.

Some people use use a structure of the brain that other people don't use.

So, didn't you all know?

Didn't you all know that conspiracy theorists, their brains are wired differently?

I feel like we all knew that because you know what?

Your brain is very involved with what your choices and your beliefs are.

Yeah, that's right.

So people have different choices and different beliefs are obviously using a different set of neural you know pathways.

Um and it's not a matter of being more gullible.

It's a matter of which parts of the brain are part of the processing.

They say I don't know.

I think everything's So doesn't matter what part of your brain you use, you're not going to get the right answer.

that is not available to usually.

Well, speaking of crazy people, Illinois Governor Pritsker um he's now floating the conspiracy theory that Trump has other reasons for wanting to flow the National Guard into our cities and that uh he wants to do it so he can come up with some excuse for why the 2026 or 2028 election should be cancelled.

and then he would stay in power uh because the election is canled and he would have his private army.

That's why he would say uh the national guard in all the major metropolitan areas.

So Pritkar says about Trump, he has other aims other than fighting crime.

Uh he said to face the nation.

So here's my question about Pritsker.

Does he believe that?

Does he really?

Does he really believe that?

Or does he know exactly what he's doing?

And he's part of the Democrat obviously is coordinated where they get to say, "All right, we don't have any policies and we don't have any good candidates.

So, the best we can do is make up another Russia hoax about Trump." So, it's not Russia related.

Yeah.

But it's still just a madeup bunch of It's just made up stuff.

So the the Democrats only have one mode, which is, oh, we don't have a policy that people would like, and we don't have candidates that people would like, but I'll bet we've got a story that would light up the neural networks of the conspiracy theorists.

So, let's try that.

So, it's disgusting and ridiculous and obscene.

Um, one of the White House, one of the White House communications people uh referred to Prriskin as a slob.

And obviously that's Trump's framing, but it's funnier when the staff starts picking it up and she's calling the governor a slob.

You know, it works because people don't want to listen to or follow a slob.

It's just one of those words that gets right to our, you know, our core icky feeling.

You just don't really want to spend any time around somebody that you think is a slob.

So Trump just has to say it a number of times until it's the first thing you think of when you see him, which is what it's the first thing I think of when I see him now.

And it will chip away at his credibility.

Slav is a really powerful word.

And uh let's see.

Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago says that Trump has declared a war on poor people.

A war on poor people.

Okay.

He got Brandon Johnson finds new levels of incompetence every week.

Uh yeah, he declared a war on poor people.

Okay.

And I guess he's saying that uh because he's taking Medicaid and SNAP away from the residents.

Now, of course, he's not taking that away.

He's just making sure that people who shouldn't be on those programs don't have access to it or or they have to do something to get it, which is reasonable.

But I'm trying to connect the dots.

So if support of the phrase that uh Trump is declaring war on poor people, the evidence for that is that some people who probably shouldn't be getting it would be losing Medicaid and SNAP.

So connect the dots for me.

Let's see.

Um because because the the context is reducing violent crime.

So, is Mayor Brandon Johnson saying that people are doing more murdering um because they're trying to make money to pay for their healthcare that they lost?

Are they doing more murdering so that they can buy soda with their SNAP payments?

How in the world does polit does violence come out of the idea that there's a war on poor people?

None of it fits together.

It's just like nonsense words stuck together.

So, Mayor Brandon Johnson is stuck in some kind of a conspiracy theory delusional thinking to war on poor people.

Um, but Trump did target affordable housing programs or one one in particular.

Apparently, according to the AP, there was some very large government program uh called the home investment partnership program.

I guess it was through HUD and uh and funded over 1.3 million affordable homes.

Now, what that means, it was it was some com combination of subsidies to fix up existing homes and helping people get into their first home.

and uh it was a it was a variety of things, but uh a lot of those homes that were being helped by that were in rural districts.

So the story is that Trump is hurting his own voter base by taking a government program away from them to help them get a home.

But I say, wouldn't the free market solve that faster?

And is the reason that the free market isn't making homes available is that the federal government had done all the wrong things so that you couldn't build homes easily.

Wouldn't it make more sense that instead of the government getting in to subsidize these, you know, use of inefficient real estate in a non-free market, wouldn't it make more sense for the government to get out of the way?

If the government just said, "How about we don't do anything?

We won't have any regulations or rules you have to follow." I mean, I'm exaggerating just to make the point.

You'd you'd want some.

Um, it just got out of the way.

Don't you think the free market would provide more housing at a lower cost over time?

I don't know.

And what about those freedom cities that Trump promised us?

I don't see any of that happen.

So, I would be happy if Trump said, uh, we're going to do something in the US that's at least as good as what we plan for Gaza.

We're going to take some government land and we're going to say, uh, the government is not going to build the cities or even design them.

We want private people to do it.

The only thing we're going to do is make make some government land of which we have lots of uh available.

So, I'd like to see that.

So, there was a guest on Tucker Carlson's show.

I didn't have his name when I talked about him before.

Psychiatrist Joseph Wit Doring.

So that psychiatrist Whiting says millions of Americans are taking these anti-depressant SSRIs long-term.

And he says there is no safety data.

Well, I don't know if there's no safety data, but maybe there's not anything that's sufficient.

Um, and apparently it's 7 to 10% of Americans are on these long-term drugs.

So, I don't have an opinion of how safe or unsafe those are, but it does seem to me yet another example where you thought there was lots of science, but maybe there isn't.

May maybe this maybe the science is Maybe the only science was funded by the people who want to sell you these pills for life.

Well, I saw related to this um tangentially is I saw a post by the real IRC saying that the uh that new fat miracle drug, the GLP1 receptor agonist, apparently there's a claim that they have um other uh massive health benefits.

Now, I'm going to read what the claims are, but then I'm going to tell you that Grock says that those claims are Okay?

So, before you say, "Wait a minute, that's not true." Just remember that that's what I'm going to say when I'm done telling you that it's not true.

Uh, suicide 58% reduction.

So, that the claim is that people on the GLP1, that drug, also get these other benefits that we weren't expecting.

depression down 37%, substance use down 42%.

By the way, that one might be real, uh, etc.

So, I asked I asked uh Grock, I said, uh, is it true that these GLP1s are having all these other related health benefits?

And he says, Grock says that is not fully substantiated.

There there is there is some evidence that would give you the suggestion that maybe it's true, but it's not proven at a scientific level.

the the thing I think that's closest to being true is the sub the substance abuse because I believe that whatever it is that makes you eat less has a you know close cousin mechanism to make you do fewer drugs or alcohol.

So I'm not 100% sure that's true but at least it's more believable than the other stuff.

Anyway, it could be that it is a miracle drug, but I would suspect that the people looking to sell it to you are behind most of those studies.

And once again, the topic of birth control pills um ruining your brain.

There's a there's a article in medical express and I saw Elon Musk had boosted that on on X.

So, um, new research suggests that the pill isn't, uh, isn't just stopping pregnancy, but it might be re rewiring how your brain feels and remembers stuff and not in a good way, according to Medical Express.

So, there's a new study, Rice University, that found that girls on hormonal birth control had way stronger emotional reactions and remembered fewer details from bad moments.

Now, you might say it's it's good that you remembered fewer bad moments, but if your brain is not um designed for that, you know, it might give you an unintended bad part.

Anyway, so do you believe that's true?

So, allegedly the pill would give some people mood swings, emotional numbness, weird memory glitches, etc.

Um, well, I don't know that it's true, but what would you look for in the world as, you know, let's say circumstantial evidence that it might be true that people on the pill are having more emotional problems?

Well, if you're looking at politics, you would say to yourself, why is it that there are so many single young women, white women, um, who are Democrats, and why is it that when we see them, um, talking, they seem like they're emotionally out of control.

Now, we see lots of people, male and female, um being assertive, you know, like uh Randy Weine Garden.

She she dances around and yells and stuff, but to me that just looks like theater.

She looks like she knows exactly what she's doing.

She doesn't look emotional and crazy.

So, it's not like it's, you know, something that affects all Democrat females.

But I'm wondering, is it possible that the reason that the Democrats seem to own the market for young white, highly educated women, is it because they're more likely to be on the pill and then they could be manipulated by emotions?

So are the people who want to take care of all the immigrants and leave the border open, are they operating on logic or emotion?

Emotion, right?

Because in the long run, it would be bad for everybody.

The whole country would fail if you just let everybody in.

So I went to Grock and I said, uh, what, uh, demographic is on the pill the most?

And it's white women.

It's white women.

And I said, um, is it more for educated women?

Yep.

If you're more educated and you're white, your odds of being the pill are much higher.

And it makes me wonder if the things you think are political conversations are nothing but medical malpractice.

I'll just let that one sit there.

All right.

Um, What else?

So, here's a little sort of a mystery, but maybe not.

How many of you believe that uh it is now proven by science and certainly sufficient studies that there was nobody who was better off getting the the COVID vaccination?

How many of you believe that to be true?

that we now have evidence, like strong scientific evidence, that literally no one was better off on a riskreward basis for getting the shot.

How many of you believe that?

So, while I'm waiting for your messages to appear because I'm wondering who believes that.

Um, how if you did believe that, how would you explain that RFK Jr., who's probably the most famous antivaccination person, but that's really not fair.

I wouldn't call him antivax, but you know what I mean, right?

He would be the strongest skeptic.

It's not anti because he's in favor of some kind of vaccinations.

He's just wants more science.

So, if RFK Jr.

is now in charge of deciding whether the co vaccination is going to kill you or not.

I mean whether it's safe enough to be uh available.

He seems to at the moment not see enough science to tell to say that people over 60 over 65 I guess um who have a comorbidity he doesn't have evidence to say that they would be worse off getting vaccinated.

Now, does that surprise you?

Because remember, he would be the one guy who if that evidence existed that everybody over 65 with a comorbidity probably would have been, you know, on average would have been better off if they hadn't been vaccinated.

If that existed, don't you think we'd know about it by now?

Because Kennedy would say, "All right, I looked at the science.

It's very clear that there is no group there's no group that can be benefited by it more than they might be hurt.

Wouldn't you know that by now?

And so I'm wondering cuz I'm coming from a point of ignorance, not from a point of if it sounds like I'm trying to win an argument here, that's not what's happening.

I'm trying to understand how the things I'm observing fit together.

How could it be that the number one strongest skeptic, I'll use that word, of vaccinations, who has now access to the most reliable complete evidence on the topic, he's not yet having been there for months and months, he's not there yet to say that the uh CO is more bad than good.

And I my understanding which could be wrong is that the reason some people left the CDC is that Kennedy is leaning toward but doesn't have science to back it yet.

Leaning toward that the co vac maybe wasn't good for anybody.

Uh when I say anybody there still could be some specific exceptions but but generally speaking it wouldn't be wouldn't be good.

So, I don't know if that's true, but the the one thing that we can say with some confidence is that there is not really strong evidence that is always bad all the time, right?

Are we all on the same page?

Because Kennedy would be all over that.

He he would I think he would fight that to the death.

If if the science said nobody benefited under any condition, he would tell us that, right?

So, it has to be true that even though there might be some studies that suggest that that maybe they're not meeting the scientific standard that he's comfortable with, which is to me this is a tremendous credibility booster because the easiest thing for him to do would be to sort of agree with the public.

All right, we're going to get rid of these.

Um well actually I don't know what percentage of the public agrees with that but certainly the the Republicans would be more likely to say all right we like that and he still doesn't have the data to do it anyway.

He might.

So I'm not I'm not going to predict that it will never exist.

It might um but it doesn't exist yet.

Apparently apparently it doesn't exist.

Well, uh Putin's doing that 4-day visit in China, and uh they're trying to make it look like they're best buds now, China and Russia, and it's signaling that um the tariffs won't work because, you know, they'll just do more business with China.

To which I say, why is it that we can't tell as consumers of news, we really can't tell if the Russian economy is on the brink of collapse, which some people say, or is it invulnerable because they can always just do more business with China if they need to.

So, which is it?

Is China on the ver is Russia on the verge of economic collapse or is it nowhere near it?

My uh I don't know the answer to that, but I'm going to say that my gut is that they're not that close to any kind of collapse.

Um I'd be I'd be surprised actually because they they just have too much energy.

They're there's going to they're going to find some way to sell the energy no matter what.

All right, that ladies and gentlemen is my Labor Day show.

I feel it was a lot better with the wig gum, but I'll take it off for the end.

I'm going to say a few words privately to the beloved uh subscribers at locals.

The rest of you have a good day off.

I hope I hope most of you have the day off.

And uh we'll uh we'll see you tomorrow.

Same time, same place.

Locals, I'll be private with you in 30 seconds, which gives us just enough time.

Come on in. It's time.

Happy Labor Day.

Unlike all those lazy podcasters,

I'm still working. Yep. Every day.

Because you deserve it, my beloved

audience. Not as beloved as my local

subscribers, but still fairly beloved.

All right. How we looking?

Let me get my comments working and then

we got a show.

Don't you love the fact that depending

on which platform you're using that you

get an hour of entertainment

without commercials? I mean, you'd have

to be paying on YouTube to get that

deal, but or on locals or on X.

Lots of ways to do it. All right.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

I guarantee you've never had a better

time. But if you'd like to take a chance

of elevating your experience to levels

that no one can even understand with

their tiny shiny human brains, all you

need is a copper mug or a glass attack

canteen sugar 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 hit of the day, the thing

that makes everything better. It's

called the simultaneous sip and it

happens now.

Ah, unbelievably good.

So, so good.

Well, I've decided uh as of this

morning, I was watching you all the news

news uh bits and I've decided to start

judging people by their hairstyle.

Are you with me?

I was looking at Greta Tunberg. Uh, I'll

talk about her. And I thought to myself,

you know what? Her haircut tells me

everything I need to know about her.

Then I saw another story about some

liberal person doing something terrible.

And I said, you know what? I could have

guessed by your haircut

that there's something deeply wrong with

you.

And so if you don't mind, from now on,

even if it's people I like, even if

they're sort of on my side, I'm still

going to judge them by their haircuts.

You know that uh Alex Karp, the head of

Palunteer,

and he he's got this, you know, gigantic

hair situation. It looks like looks like

it looks like he lost a bet.

And I say to myself, I can't get past

that. You're going to have to do

something with your damn hair or I I

just can't take you seriously.

And if you don't believe that you can

judge people by their haircuts, well,

let me

let me prove to you that it's it's

something you can do. See, now if this

were my natural hair, would you take me

seriously at all? No. No, you would not.

Let me read this news story

and uh we'll uh we'll see if my

hairstyle is distracting. I'll bet it

is.

I'll bet it is. Um well, according to

ZME Science, the world's largest uh

solar plant is being put up in Tibet.

How big is it? Well, it's going to be

the size of Chicago.

So, it's a solar plant in Tibet the size

of Chicago. I feel like there would be

less murder. It would only be the size

of Chicago, but much safer.

It makes me wonder if it's uh if it's

cost effective and maybe even essential

for China to have the uh a solar plant

that's the size of Chicago.

Are we going to do that?

I feel like we're going to go hard at

nuclear, but maybe maybe solar is

faster. You could probably put up a a

solar outdoor facility in say 5 years

with all the permitting and whatnot, but

how long would it take you to build a

nuclear power plant? Longer than five

years is my bet. Well, as you know,

there's a mayoral race coming up in New

York City. Hey,

look who's visiting.

It's uh

it's Gary the cat

trying to steal the show.

Um I was hoping Gary wouldn't recognize

me with my new hairstyle, but apparently

he does.

All right, Gary, I'm talking about cats.

The story is about cats. So Curtis Siwa

has uh recommended feral cat colonies to

deal with all the rats in New York City.

So um I have a special guest that I

would like to interview about this idea

of cats and it's featuring Gary the Cat.

Gary the cat. Gary, what do you think of

the idea of introducing feral cats to

deal with the rat problem in New York

City?

Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Now, if you don't

understand purr talk, that's how cats

communicate. I'll translate it for you.

Say more. Uhhuh. Uhhuh. Okay. All right.

It turns out Gary is a big fan of Curtis

Leewa and absolutely supports the idea

of cats solving all of our problems.

Now, you might ask, Scott, how many

problems can cats solve? I don't know,

but I feel like it could be all of them.

I mean, they could end wars. They could

make you less lonely. Yeah, they could

keep uh keep marriages together. I think

cats could do all of that.

Meanwhile, in California,

um the California Highway Patrol is

going to team up with local law

enforcement to sort of surge against

crime.

Now, that seems like a reasonably

Gary um it seems like a reasonably good

idea, but do you think that California

would do that if uh Trump had not put

the pressure on, you know, in DC and

talking about Chicago and talking about

going into California? I don't think so.

So, while this looks like a win for

Newsome because it makes it look like

he's dealing with a crime problem,

I feel like that's not the message I'm

getting. The message I'm getting is that

he wasn't going to deal with a crime

problem until Trump embarrassed him

publicly.

Is that what you see? Or do you see this

go-getter governor who's who's all over

this problem and he recognizes what the

regular people are feeling about crime

and so he's activated his resources.

I don't feel that at all. I feel like

the only way this would have happened

and it's probably a good thing is

because Trump embarrassed him. I'm going

to give the win to Trump if this works,

right? I don't think that's unreasonable

to say that this would be a Trump

success

if Nuome is successful because he

wouldn't have done it. I mean, I'm not a

mind readader, but really, did you see

any movement in this direction? No, not

until Trump made it a very big thing.

Well, here's a story from Ars Technica.

Samuel Axen is writing about this.

Apparently Microsoft, which as you know

is in this deep partnership with Open AI

and uses Open AI as its as its own uh AI

as well as what it's producing. Um,

weirdly Microsoft separate from Open AI

is developing AI.

So

does that signal that there's something

wrong with the partnership?

Did

did somebody not foresee some problem

happening? Now they're they're trying to

pass it off as these are more

specifically trained AIs that would be,

you know, a little bit more powerful

than open AI would be because that's

more of a general AI. To which I say,

really, you couldn't you couldn't just

train the general model which you have

some degree of control over. You

couldn't just make open AI know how to

do the specific AI things as well.

I don't know. Do you need your own AI

for other stuff that open AI can't do? I

don't know. I don't know.

So, I guess what I'm suggesting is there

might be this might be telling us

something, but I don't know what. So, it

might be telling us that open AI doesn't

have a future.

Now, I'm not I don't see evidence of

that specifically, but why would they be

building alternative models when they

have the dominant AI model in the world

and it doesn't, you know, does that make

sense?

So, I'm not buying the story of why they

have multiple AIs, but it does make me

think that they have some, let's say,

insecurity

that OpenAI will do what they want it to

do in the future and meet all their

needs as well as other people's, I

guess. So, I'd say keep an eye on that.

Um, I just saw a chart. I don't know if

it's right, but let's say it is because

it's Labor Day and it'll be fun to say

it's right. um where are the large

language models, the AIs get their

facts.

So apparently the most uh the the single

biggest uh source I guess of training is

Reddit posts.

Are you comfortable knowing that the

advanced intelligence learned to be that

way by Reddit posts?

Do you see do you see any problem that

that might cause?

Um, number two is Wikipedia.

Do you see any problem that that might

cause?

And then there's YouTube where people

like me are literally, as far as I can

tell, capped in influence.

Do you think the fact that I'm

somehow throttled or or I don't know

semicled by YouTube, do you think that

that affects how the u large language

models

um let's say get trained on my material?

Maybe. I don't know. And then there's

Google and Yelp. Uh,

you know, I used to own a small business

and I can tell you that Yelp uh is

something that I deeply hate

because people would give me a bad Yelp

review for my restaurant if they didn't

like my opinion on some political thing

or some social thing. If there was

anything that I disagreed with them,

they would go to Yelp and give my

restaurant, which had nothing to do with

anything. I didn't even manage it

directly. Give it they would give it a

bad review. So that's Yelp.

You know, as soon as Yelp uh started to

become a thing, I said to myself, I hope

all the businesses are smart enough to

starve it so that it goes out of

business because otherwise

it would have the power to destroy your

business. And sure enough, it has the

power to destroy your business.

And then the next uh biggest source

would be Facebook. So Reddit, Wikipedia,

YouTube, Google, Yelp, and Facebook

would be most of the training.

You okay with that?

That that just seems like asking for

trouble, doesn't it? I don't trust any

of those sources, but I guess uh I don't

know if uh it's the facts.

Well, I don't know. They may have some

way to compensate for the low

credibility of some of these sources,

but I'll I'll keep an open mind. Well,

as you know, for the last several days,

the internet has been a buzz with what's

going on with Trump. Apparently, he's

not dead because he was shown going

golfing with his granddaughter, Kai. and

uh he's been posting, but some people

think that that could be other people

posting for him, but I guess yesterday

he posted in all caps, "Never felt

better in my life."

So, he wants you to know he's never felt

better in his life. Now, of all the

things that could be going on, it could

be something medical. I mean suppose

let's say uh he was just getting ready

for a colonoscopy

he might not want to tell you that and

it would take you know the preparation

day and then the day it happens and you

know so it could be some you know

routine medical thing he just want

doesn't want to get into.

Yeah. So, I know he's got those problems

on his hands.

So, I don't know if that's anything to

worry about or not. So, I saw some

photos today of the actor, The Rock. Do

you remember the last movie you saw with

The Rock, and he probably was just

gigantic, like just so muscular, it's

like crazy?

Well, it turns out he's lost his

muscles. So, the story is that he's

getting ready for a role as a MMA

fighter, but it's um the MMA fighter

that he's going to portray is not nearly

as big as a big muscular guy. So, he's

got to get down to a sort of a fighting

weight that would be more similar to a

MMA guy. But, uh,

I'll tell you,

he doesn't look healthy, and he he lost

the thing that made him special.

I'm a big fan of The Rock, by the way. I

think he's incredibly

um talented and hardworking and, you

know, I I just sort of like everything

about him. But one of the things that

worked so well about him is that his

personality and his physical

situation were sort of an interesting

combination. I don't know what's going

to happen because it looks like he's

looking for a permanent downsizing of

his muscles cuz he's 52 years old and I

guess it's hard on the body to maintain

that when you're 52. Duh.

um and carrying away carrying around all

that extra weight because his muscles

were so big. It was like, you know,

carrying a barrel of oil with you

wherever he went. So, probably it makes

sense

from a, you know, long-term health

perspective. Um some people are saying

he he must have been on steroids and now

he's off. Maybe. I don't know. Maybe.

Um,

but I'm certainly uh hopeful that he's

found some healthy path, but he doesn't

look healthy. So, unfortunately,

I don't know if it's because of what I'm

used to cuz I imagine him as that more

robust version, but I hope there's

nothing else to the story, but that he's

preparing for a role and trying to be a

more healthy person into his older age.

Well, here's a story I don't fully

believe, but maybe. So, apparently the

European Commission president that

Ursula Vanderlayan,

uh, a name I have to say more than once

because it's so fun to say. Say it with

me. Ursula Vanderlayan.

That was kind of fun. All right. But

apparently she she was on a plane and

she was wanting to land in Bulgaria

and there was some kind of GPS

interference attack that made the

airplane blind to GPS.

Now they they were still able to land

safely after circling for an hour. Uh,

the pilot used analog maps.

To which I say, I wonder how old the

pilot was because I I hope the pilot

was, you know, trained at a time when

they just didn't use GPS. Well, how long

how old is GPS?

Um,

I don't know how long GPS has been

around. So, maybe that's not possible to

have a pilot that old, but it was

somebody who obviously knew how to do it

without. So, she was she safely landed,

but they're blaming the attack on

Russia.

Do you think that Russia tried to murder

the European Commission president in a

way that people would probably guess was

Russia? Does that story track with you

or does it feel more likely that the GPS

equipment on the plane just

malfunctioned?

Which one sounds more likely?

I don't know. I'm I'm not automatically

going to buy the Russia tried to

assassinate the European Union leader

cuz it's a little bit too on the nose,

especially if somebody like Zilinski,

just say to pick a name randomly, was

planning to try to assassinate Putin,

right?

If if you could be sold on the story

that Putin may have tried to kill the uh

president of the European Union,

wouldn't you be far more accepting if

somebody like Zilinski murdered Putin?

You'd say to yourself, well, I mean, he

he tried to take out a leader in Europe.

Zalinski took him out. It's not like we

started it. So, I'm just totally

skeptical that this is the kind of story

where we know all the details correctly.

I mean, it could be anything. I'm I'm

not saying it's, you know, necessarily a

plot, but uh I don't believe the cover

the the surface story.

Well, according to PJ Media, Katherine

Salgado is writing that the Doge people

um I guess they regularly do reports on

what money they've saved or what

programs they cut and they're cutting a

lot of them. They have silly sounding

missions or at least missions where you

say to yourself, why is my tax money

being used for that, for example?

Um and apparently they're finding

billions that they're cancelling. So

over the last uh five days, they

terminated 50 what they called wasteful

contracts that were worth up to about $3

billion and they saved maybe 762

million.

How many contracts does our government

have? Oh my god. These are just the that

one week of canceled unnecessary

contracts. $3 billion. That's one week.

Five days. one. It's It's not even a

week. It's work week. So, here are some

of the things that got cancelled. Um,

transgender health medical evaluation

unit services.

Uh,

I don't know. That was in the Department

of Defense. Now, we don't know what that

was all about, but it does make me ask

this question. Well, I'll I'll give you

the next one. was there was also a

Department of Defense contract that got

cancelled for LGBTQ

magazine advertising campaign.

Do you think we really needed to spend

that money on it was $129 million

on an LGBTQ

magazine advertising campaign? I don't

even know that magazines are still a

thing. When when was the last time a

LGBTQ

member read a a magazine?

I can't tell you the last time I read

one. I don't even remember. I guess they

still exist.

Uh and then there was a 49 million for a

US aid contract uh for quote the

Bellarus regional initiative to provide

transition activities in Barus and other

countries in Europe.

Okay. I have no idea what that's about.

It sounds like it might have been, you

know, I don't know, maybe some spook or

CIA or defense related thing disguised

as some other thing. Maybe. I don't

know. But I don't think I can live in a

world where I pay my taxes into a black

box and then a bunch of people say, you

know, it you shouldn't know what we're

spending this on because it'll ruin the

whole thing. It's a big old secret. So,

we're going to spend a lot of your money

on big old secret stuff, but trust us,

we looked into it really carefully and

it's a really good use of money because

we say so. I don't know. So, definitely

I think Doge will end up canceling some

things that are tragic.

On the other hand, uh I oppose the idea

that some people have special problems.

Don't you all have problems?

You know, if your problem is that you're

trans or LGBTQ or that you're uh

descended from slaves, those are real

problems. But why are they special

problems?

But why why is somebody else's problem

because they're a member of some group?

Why is that more important than whatever

problem you and I have? I'll bet I could

randomly pick any one of you and say,

"Do you have any problems?" and you say,

"Oh my god, yes, there would be some

health problem or you know, you're

you're short, which is a big problem in

the US, or you have some body problem,

or you're disabled, or uh you're in a

you're in a dangerously abusive

relationship.

Don't we all have gigantic problems?"

And that that that's life that we're all

navigating our own little problems. But

why do some people have special problems

that my money needs to go away from me

where I would be using it for my own

problems and my family's problems and

that sort of thing. Uh

so who who gets to say that any class of

people have special problems that have

to be funded with my money?

Certainly there I do agree that there

are some things that the you know the

government should take care of because

nobody else could that sort of thing.

But I don't know how many things fall

into that category.

Uh let's see what else. Um so apparently

Florida is going to get into the

redistricting.

Oh I didn't even notice this is my other

cat Roman. I thought it was Gary again.

Hey, Roman.

Say hi to everybody.

Roman does not have nearly the

personality

of his sibling,

Gary.

Roman's more of a I'm just passing

through. Uh, I don't need to interact

with you. I mean, I appreciate a pet now

and then, but I'm not obsessed by it.

I'm not addicted to it. So, you can keep

your pets if you want to. I mean, I'm

not going to tell you they're great or

anything. That would be Gary. Gary, I'm

sorry. That would be Roman. Gary

believes that all human contact is

incredible.

Okay, we'll be knocking things on the

floor.

Um anyway, uh PJ Media Matt Margolus is

writing about uh how Florida

um I've got a twocat wrestling situation

going on here. So, it's going to get

intense in a moment.

Let Let me just give you a preview of

what's about to develop here.

Yeah. You don't like it when I pay

attention to you.

They're going to fight. All right, you

watch that while I tell you the news.

So, Florida is going to get into

redistricting,

which would be um part of a larger move

where the Republicans are going to make

a big gain on redistricting.

That's enough of that.

So, I'll tell you the Democrats, um,

it looks like they're going to lose the

redistricting game and they're going to

lose it big.

Oh, well.

Well, speaking of Greta Tun Tunberg,

she's now

boarded a boat to go break the siege, as

she says, in Gaza. And, uh, she's saying

that Israel can't stop her this time.

Hm. Israel can't stop Greta. H

um how many how many journalists have

been slain in Gaza so far? Because I

would say that Israel stopped them.

Stopped 200 journalists.

Some of them might have been actually

closer to Hamas operatives than

journalists, but they managed to stop

200 of them. Do you think they can stop

one more? I think they can. Now, I don't

think that Israel would intentionally

target Greta,

but you know, it's a war zone. Things

happen. Things happen. No, I don't think

that they care because I don't think

Greta has enough uh pull that it would

even that it would even be worth

targeting her. Um, she seems like a

sort of a ridiculous character now cuz

one of the things that happened is she

got a lot older

except the way she looks.

So, she looks like one of those uh troll

dolls. What were they called? Were they

called troll dolls that had the little

You know what I'm talking about? So,

she's no longer the the cute young

person who's so young that that's what

makes it special. Now, she's exactly the

same as she was, except she's older and

it kind of doesn't work anymore.

Kind of doesn't work. So, we'll see if

she can solve that whole Gaza thing.

But, it turns out that the according to

the New York Post, there's some big

plan. Uh I don't know to what extent

Trump is behind this, but it's being

announced

that uh there would be a Gaza rebuilding

plan. It would be a 10-year plan to move

out all the residents to all of them,

just move everybody out uh so that it

can be rebuilt. And the plan is that

they would be given $5,000 a piece to

relocate. Uh they'd have to relocate for

10 years. I couldn't come back and that

during that time the Gaza Strip would be

transformed into the Riviera of the

Middle East. So, at least the coastal

part, they're imagining, you know,

hotels and recreation and they're

imagining that uh there would be

businesses around the perimeter, I

guess, and they'd build it all up and uh

the the people would be asked to leave

for the $5,000 cash would also get four

years of free rent somewhere else and a

year's supply of food, again, somewhere

else. Now, the part that's unspecified

is who's going to pay for all of this.

The idea is that somehow the United

States would be, I don't know, some some

kind of owning or governing the area,

but maybe not officially. Um, but then

when it was all built up and ready to

go, there would be presumably,

you know, some temporary entity of, uh,

you know, Arab leaders getting behind

it. So, I don't know who would pay for

all this,

but uh

we'll see. I I would have to say I if if

the United States is paying for it, I'm

opposed to it. And I would also say that

if the way it's received is that it

makes the United States more actively

involved in depopulating Gaza, I'm not

sure we want that on our permanent

record.

because that would make you more of a

target for terrorism, wouldn't it?

Whereas, if we say, "Hey, you know, we

just want everybody to be alive.

Israel's doing what Israel does. We're

not trying to stop it, but, you know, we

recognize their right to do what they

need to do."

So I would be concerned that although

this is an impressive offer, it's

probably good from the perspective of

showing that there's some path

potentially that the people won't lose

hope,

although that might feel like losing

hope. I don't know. Um,

so it's probably good. I would say it's

a good idea that there's something out

there that people can talk about because

it it shows that there's some thought

about keeping people safe, but they're

not going to like it.

They're not going to like anything that

comes out of this war, of course. So, I

don't know if it'll solve anything.

Could make things worse for the United

States, and I would not be in favor of

making anything worse for the United

States.

And let's see what else.

Um,

looks like it might be well the and then

the thinking is that whoever invests in

this project uh we get a four-fold

return over 10 years. I don't think

anybody can really predict that kind of

thing. Um, but at least it makes sense

that they can present it as a

money-making opportunity for the people

who put money into it. It might be, but

it also would suggest that the prior

owners, the pal the uh the Palestinian

well the Gaza residents presumably they

would be losing everything to these

investors or almost everything.

Um I saw saw an article by Red State

saying that the Democrats are losing

credibility because they cried wolf too

often. In other words, they deny the

obvious too often, like Biden

especially. Oh, Biden's fine. And now

the Democrats have to look at their own

party and say, "Uh, did my own party lie

to the whole country, including me,

about how safe we were with Biden as

president?

And would that influence how much trust

they have in their leadership going

forward?" Well, common sense tells you

that Democrats would notice that they've

been lied to by their own team. And not

not a small lie, not a little one, a

really really big one, like a

historically big lie. Uh that matters.

Well, I guess uh Charlemagne, the god,

as we call them, um is making that case

that they're not to be trusted at this

point.

Um

he said quote but here's the thing if

you shout apocalypse every day and the

constitution is still stand oh oh wait

no I think this is from the author of

the article if you shout apocalypse

every day and the constitution is still

standing nine years later people tune

out that's what I think is happening

with all the Hitler stuff we had years

of people calling Trump Hitler and he

hasn't done any Hitler stuff the only

the only thing they've done is the part

that they're also lying about, which is

that January 6 was an insurrection when

obviously it was not. And you would have

to be deeply

um hypnotized to imagine that the most

armed population in the world held a

insurrection and left their guns home.

That that's the first thing. But also,

there's not a single person who's ever

been interviewed from the thousands and

thousands of people on January 6, not a

single person, not one has ever said,

you know, I really thought we could

overthrow the country

because nobody had that plan. They were

literally protesting. They weren't

overthrowing anything. They didn't have

any mechanism to overthrow anything. No

plan, no secret meetings. Not a single

single person

said, "Yeah, you know, I thought we

could we could trespass our way to

taking over the country." There's

nothing you can even say that wouldn't

sound ridiculous. You know, I really

thought it'd work.

Not once. How hard would it be to get

one of the attendees who protested on

January 6? How hard would it be to get

them on camera and say, "All right, we

just have to understand. Did you think

you were overthrowing the country?" And

they they wouldn't even understand the

question. It's like, "What? How in the

world could I overthrow the country

wandering around taking selfies?" Like,

what what was the mechanism that

connects those two things?

All right. So, yeah, Charlemagne, you're

right.

I saw a uh article in science by Kai Cup

Kapperment.

Um there's a new study that looked at US

and Brazil and they're looking at ways

to counter what they call election

misinformation.

Red flag

red flag. When anyone writes an article

about countering election

misinformation,

what should your brain immediately lead

you to believe? That's an intelligence

operation by somebody.

Yeah. that the the article treats

it as a objective fact that we know that

the US and Brazil do not have rigged

elections and that the real problem is

that people believe they might be.

You you can't get past like the first

sentence without knowing, oh, this isn't

real science, is it? This is more like

people want you to believe that the

system is secure. So, here we are. Um,

apparently in January 2023, thousands of

people stormed Brazil's national

congress. Uh, and this is from the uh

the article in science. Um,

convinced that the country's

presidential election had been stolen.

Now, why didn't they call it an

insurrection?

What's the difference between a whole

bunch of Brazilians, thousands of them,

quote, storming the National Congress

because they thought the election was

rigged?

That's exactly January 6. But why is one

an insurrection and the other is a

protest?

This is this is all just madeup facts,

you know? These are all narratives.

But they did a study and they found that

uh in both countries people's trust of

the election increased after receiving

uh both a warning that they might see

some misinformation.

Now do do you see that this is

propaganda?

They say that when they warn people that

they might see misinformation

that those people are better equipped

to, you know, to know what to trust.

Well, why is it that there's one entity

that knows what's true and what isn't?

That doesn't exist. How in the world can

they can they uh pre-bunk stuff? So,

they call it pre-bunking

uh where they tell people in advance

that people will make claims and they

won't be true. And they also call it

inoculation.

If you see pre-bunking and inoculation

in the same story,

that's propaganda.

They're they're they're trying to tell

you that there's somebody, the people in

charge, who know what's true, and here's

the important part. Not only do they

know what's true, unlike you,

but they really want to tell you the

truth. Do you live in that world where

your government knows what's true and

they want you to know the truth? We

don't live in any kind of a world like

that.

The government wants you to believe

whatever is best for the government. You

know, it might also be best for the

country, but no, that's all propaganda.

It's all brainwashing.

So, um then you also have to watch out

for the documentary effect. If uh you

could have just asked me, Scott, if you

can make people sit down and pay

attention to an argument that says that

the election uh mechanisms are all

trustworthy, and there's no

counterargument. It's just you have to

listen for half an hour while we tell

you why cheating would be almost

impossible with this election. Of

course, it would work. It's a

documentary effect. If anybody gets to

give you one side of an argument and

you'll listen to it for half an hour,

you will go away thinking there was

something to it, even if there isn't.

It's just how we were wired. So, yeah,

of course, pre-bunking and inoculation

work. But the only people who talk that

way are the people who are trying to

hide the truth, not reveal it. That's

what I say.

Um, according to Eric Dolan writing in

Scypost, people who believe in

conspiracy theories process information

differently at a neural level. So

they're not saying that people's brains

have, you know, different big areas and

active areas. Well, maybe active areas,

but that they can actually, you know,

look at what your brain is doing when

you're processing conspiracy theories

and they can find this. Some people use

use a structure of the brain that other

people don't use. So,

didn't you all know?

Didn't you all know that conspiracy

theorists, their brains are wired

differently?

I feel like we all knew that because you

know what? Your brain is very involved

with what your choices and your beliefs

are. Yeah, that's right. So people have

different choices and different beliefs

are obviously using a different set of

neural you know pathways.

Um

and it's not a matter of being more

gullible. It's a matter of which parts

of the brain are part of the processing.

They say I don't know.

I think everything's So

doesn't matter what part of your brain

you use, you're not going to get the

right answer.

that is not available to usually.

Well, speaking of crazy people, Illinois

Governor Pritsker

um he's now floating the conspiracy

theory that Trump has other reasons for

wanting to flow the National Guard into

our cities and that uh he wants to do it

so he can come up with some excuse for

why the 2026 or 2028 election should be

cancelled. and then he would stay in

power

uh because the election is canled and he

would have his private army. That's why

he would say uh the national guard in

all the major metropolitan areas.

So Pritkar says about Trump, he has

other aims other than fighting crime. Uh

he said to face the nation. So here's my

question about Pritsker.

Does he believe that?

Does he really? Does he really believe

that? Or does he know exactly what he's

doing? And he's part of the Democrat

obviously is coordinated where they get

to say, "All right, we don't have any

policies and we don't have any good

candidates. So, the best we can do is

make up another Russia hoax about

Trump."

So, it's not Russia related. Yeah. But

it's still just a madeup bunch of

It's just made up stuff. So the the

Democrats only have one mode, which is,

oh, we don't have a policy that people

would like, and we don't have candidates

that people would like, but I'll bet

we've got a story that would light up

the neural networks of the conspiracy

theorists. So, let's try that.

So, it's disgusting and ridiculous and

obscene.

Um, one of the White House, one of the

White House communications people uh

referred to Prriskin as a slob.

And obviously that's Trump's framing,

but it's funnier when the staff starts

picking it up and she's calling the

governor a slob.

You know, it works because people don't

want to listen to or follow a slob. It's

just one of those words that gets right

to our, you know, our core icky feeling.

You just don't really want to spend any

time around somebody that you think is a

slob. So Trump just has to say it a

number of times until it's the first

thing you think of when you see him,

which is what it's the first thing I

think of when I see him now. And it will

chip away at his credibility. Slav is a

really powerful word.

And uh let's see. Mayor Brandon Johnson

of Chicago says that Trump has declared

a war on poor people.

A war on poor people. Okay. He got

Brandon Johnson finds new levels of

incompetence every week. Uh yeah, he

declared a war on poor people. Okay. And

I guess he's saying that uh because he's

taking Medicaid and SNAP away from the

residents. Now, of course, he's not

taking that away. He's just making sure

that people who shouldn't be on those

programs don't have access to it or or

they have to do something to get it,

which is reasonable. But I'm trying to

connect the dots. So if support of the

phrase that uh Trump is declaring war on

poor people, the evidence for that is

that some people who probably shouldn't

be getting it would be losing Medicaid

and SNAP.

So connect the dots for me. Let's see.

Um because

because the the context is reducing

violent crime.

So, is Mayor Brandon Johnson saying that

people are doing more murdering

um because they're trying to make money

to pay for their healthcare that they

lost? Are they doing more murdering so

that they can buy soda with their SNAP

payments?

How in the world does polit does

violence

come out of the idea that there's a war

on poor people? None of it fits

together. It's just like nonsense words

stuck together. So, Mayor Brandon

Johnson is stuck in some kind of a

conspiracy theory

delusional thinking to war on poor

people. Um,

but Trump did target affordable housing

programs or one one in particular.

Apparently, according to the AP, there

was some very large government program

uh called the home investment

partnership program. I guess it was

through HUD and uh and funded over 1.3

million affordable homes. Now, what that

means, it was it was some com

combination of subsidies to fix up

existing homes and helping people get

into their first home. and uh it was a

it was a variety of things, but uh a lot

of those homes that were being helped by

that were in rural districts. So the

story is that Trump is hurting his own

voter base by taking a government

program away from them to help them get

a home.

But I say,

wouldn't the free market solve that

faster?

And is the reason that the free market

isn't making homes available is that the

federal government had done all the

wrong things so that you couldn't build

homes easily. Wouldn't it make more

sense that instead of the government

getting in to subsidize these, you know,

use of inefficient real estate in a

non-free market, wouldn't it make more

sense for the government to get out of

the way? If the government just said,

"How about we don't do anything?

We won't have any regulations or rules

you have to follow." I mean, I'm

exaggerating just to make the point.

You'd you'd want some. Um, it just got

out of the way. Don't you think the free

market would provide more housing at a

lower cost over time? I don't know. And

what about those freedom cities that

Trump promised us? I don't see any of

that happen. So, I would be happy if

Trump said, uh, we're going to do

something in the US that's at least as

good as what we plan for Gaza. We're

going to take some government land and

we're going to say, uh, the government

is not going to build the cities or even

design them. We want private people to

do it. The only thing we're going to do

is make make some government land of

which we have lots of uh available.

So, I'd like to see that.

So, there was a guest on Tucker

Carlson's show. I didn't have his name

when I talked about him before.

Psychiatrist Joseph Wit Doring. So that

psychiatrist Whiting says millions of

Americans are taking these

anti-depressant SSRIs

long-term. And he says there is no

safety data. Well, I don't know if

there's no safety data, but maybe

there's not anything that's sufficient.

Um, and apparently it's 7 to 10% of

Americans are on these long-term drugs.

So, I don't have an opinion of how safe

or unsafe those are, but it does seem to

me yet another example where you thought

there was lots of science, but maybe

there isn't.

May maybe this maybe the science is

Maybe the only science was

funded by the people who want to sell

you these pills for life.

Well, I saw related to this um

tangentially is I saw a post by the real

IRC

saying that the uh that new fat miracle

drug, the GLP1 receptor agonist,

apparently there's a claim that they

have um other

uh massive health benefits. Now, I'm

going to read what the claims are, but

then I'm going to tell you that Grock

says that those claims are

Okay? So, before you say, "Wait a

minute, that's not true." Just remember

that that's what I'm going to say when

I'm done telling you that it's not true.

Uh, suicide 58% reduction. So, that the

claim is that people on the GLP1, that

drug, also get these other benefits that

we weren't expecting. depression down

37%, substance use down 42%. By the way,

that one might be real,

uh, etc. So, I asked I asked uh Grock, I

said, uh, is it true that these GLP1s

are having all these other related

health benefits? And he says, Grock says

that is not fully substantiated. There

there is there is some evidence that

would give you the suggestion that maybe

it's true, but it's not proven at a

scientific level. the the thing I think

that's closest to being true

is the sub the substance abuse because I

believe that whatever it is that makes

you eat less has a you know close cousin

mechanism to make you do fewer drugs or

alcohol. So I'm not 100% sure that's

true but at least it's more believable

than the other stuff. Anyway, it could

be that it is a miracle drug, but I

would suspect that the people looking to

sell it to you are behind most of those

studies.

And once again, the topic of birth

control pills

um ruining your brain. There's a there's

a article in medical express and I saw

Elon Musk had boosted that on on X. So,

um, new research suggests that the pill

isn't, uh, isn't just stopping

pregnancy, but it might be re rewiring

how your brain feels and remembers stuff

and not in a good way, according to

Medical Express. So, there's a new

study, Rice University, that found that

girls on hormonal birth control had way

stronger emotional reactions and

remembered fewer details from bad

moments. Now, you might say it's it's

good that you remembered fewer bad

moments, but if your brain is not um

designed for that, you know, it might

give you an unintended bad part.

Anyway, so do you believe that's true?

So, allegedly the pill would give some

people mood swings, emotional numbness,

weird memory glitches, etc.

Um,

well, I don't know that it's true, but

what would you look for in the world as,

you know, let's say

circumstantial evidence that it might be

true that people on the pill are having

more emotional problems? Well, if you're

looking at politics, you would say to

yourself, why is it that there are so

many single young women, white women,

um, who are Democrats, and why is it

that when we see them, um, talking, they

seem like they're emotionally out of

control. Now, we see lots of people,

male and female, um being assertive,

you know, like uh Randy Weine Garden.

She she dances around and yells and

stuff, but to me that just looks like

theater. She looks like she knows

exactly what she's doing. She doesn't

look emotional and crazy. So, it's not

like it's, you know, something that

affects all Democrat females. But I'm

wondering, is it possible that the

reason that the Democrats seem to own

the market for young white, highly

educated women, is it because they're

more likely to be on the pill and then

they could be manipulated by emotions?

So are the people who want to take care

of all the immigrants and leave the

border open, are they operating on logic

or emotion?

Emotion, right? Because in the long run,

it would be bad for everybody. The whole

country would fail if you just let

everybody in.

So I went to Grock and I said, uh, what,

uh, demographic is on the pill the most?

And it's white women. It's white women.

And I said, um, is it more for educated

women? Yep. If you're more educated and

you're white, your odds of being the

pill are much higher. And it makes me

wonder if the things you think are

political conversations are nothing but

medical malpractice.

I'll just let that one sit there.

All right. Um,

What else? So, here's a little sort of a

mystery, but maybe not. How many of you

believe

that uh it is now proven by science and

certainly sufficient studies that there

was nobody who was better off getting

the the COVID vaccination? How many of

you believe that to be true? that we now

have evidence, like strong scientific

evidence, that literally no one was

better off on a riskreward basis for

getting the shot. How many of you

believe that?

So, while I'm waiting for your messages

to appear because I'm wondering who

believes that.

Um, how if you did believe that, how

would you explain that RFK Jr., who's

probably the most famous antivaccination

person, but that's really not fair. I

wouldn't call him antivax,

but you know what I mean, right? He

would be the strongest skeptic. It's not

anti because he's in favor of some kind

of vaccinations. He's just wants more

science.

So, if RFK Jr. is now in charge of

deciding whether the co vaccination is

going to kill you or not. I mean whether

it's safe enough to be uh available. He

seems to at the moment not see enough

science to tell to say that people over

60 over 65 I guess um who have a

comorbidity

he doesn't have evidence to say that

they would be worse off getting

vaccinated.

Now, does that surprise you? Because

remember, he would be the one guy who if

that evidence existed

that everybody over 65 with a

comorbidity

probably would have been, you know, on

average would have been better off if

they hadn't been vaccinated. If that

existed,

don't you think we'd know about it by

now? Because Kennedy would say, "All

right, I looked at the science. It's

very clear that there is no group

there's no group that can be benefited

by it more than they might be hurt.

Wouldn't you know that by now? And so

I'm wondering cuz I'm coming from a

point of ignorance, not from a point of

if it sounds like I'm trying to win an

argument here, that's not what's

happening. I'm trying to understand how

the things I'm observing fit together.

How could it be that the number one

strongest skeptic, I'll use that word,

of vaccinations, who has now access to

the most reliable complete evidence on

the topic,

he's not yet

having been there for months and months,

he's not there yet to say that the uh CO

is more bad than good. And I my

understanding which could be wrong is

that the reason some people left the CDC

is that Kennedy is leaning toward but

doesn't have science to back it yet.

Leaning toward that the co vac maybe

wasn't good for anybody.

Uh when I say anybody there still could

be some specific exceptions but but

generally speaking it wouldn't be

wouldn't be good. So, I don't know if

that's true, but the the one thing that

we can say with some confidence is that

there is not really strong evidence

that is always bad all the time,

right? Are we all on the same page?

Because Kennedy would be all over that.

He he would I think he would fight that

to the death. If if the science said

nobody benefited under any condition, he

would tell us that, right? So, it has to

be true that even though there might be

some studies that suggest that that

maybe they're not meeting the scientific

standard that he's comfortable with,

which is to me this is a tremendous

credibility booster

because the easiest thing for him to do

would be to sort of agree with the

public. All right, we're going to get

rid of these. Um well actually I don't

know what percentage of the public

agrees with that but certainly the the

Republicans would be more likely to say

all right we like that and he still

doesn't have the data to do it

anyway. He might. So I'm not I'm not

going to predict that it will never

exist. It might um but it doesn't exist

yet. Apparently apparently it doesn't

exist.

Well, uh Putin's doing that 4-day visit

in China,

and uh they're trying to make it look

like they're best buds now, China and

Russia, and it's signaling that um the

tariffs won't work because, you know,

they'll just do more business with

China. To which I say, why is it that we

can't tell as consumers of news, we

really can't tell if the Russian economy

is on the brink of collapse, which some

people say, or is it invulnerable

because they can always just do more

business with China if they need to. So,

which is it? Is China on the ver is

Russia on the verge of economic collapse

or is it nowhere near it?

My uh I don't know the answer to that,

but I'm going to say that my gut

is that they're not that close to any

kind of collapse.

Um I'd be I'd be surprised actually

because they they just have too much

energy. They're there's going to they're

going to find some way to sell the

energy no matter what.

All right,

that ladies and gentlemen is my Labor

Day show.

I feel it was a lot better with the wig

gum, but I'll take it off for the end.

I'm going to say a few words privately

to the beloved uh subscribers at locals.

The rest of you have a good day off. I

hope I hope most of you have the day

off. And uh

we'll uh we'll see you tomorrow. Same

time, same place. Locals, I'll be

private with you in 30 seconds, which

gives us just enough time.