Episode 2962 CWSA 09/18/25

on in.

It's time for us to reframe the world.

That's right.

We're going to reframe the whole world today.

I got my comic done for the day, but I couldn't load it up to X today yet.

Some kind of technical problem.

I think it's on their side, not mine, but I'll try again later.

All right, I'm going to get my comments going and then we got the show of shows.

often described as the best thing that has ever happened to the world.

Guaranteed.

See, let's move that over there.

Yeah, that's looking good.

All right.

Are you ready?

If you're ready, I'm ready.

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

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

But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

All you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tanker gels in a canine jugger flask.

A vessel of any kind.

and 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.

It happens now.

Go.

I'm trying something different with my lighting today, so we'll see if that works.

All right.

Uh, I wonder if there's any science that says that coffee is good for you.

Oh, here's some.

Um, it turns out there's a new study that says that uh people who drink coffee have more favorable body composition and inflammatory profiles.

All right.

Well, there's nobody more inflammatory than me, so I drink extra coffee just to tamp it down a little bit.

Oh, there he goes.

There he goes.

He's being inflammatory.

sip.

All right.

By far my favorite story of the day is that uh uh French President uh Emanuel Mcronone and his wife um they're going to you you know that uh Candace Owens accused uh Bridget Mcronone of being born a man uh and believes that he's still a man because I guess that's the way it works.

And uh so the news is that uh Mcronone and his wife are going to present photographic and scientific evidence to a US court to prove the f the French first lady is in fact a woman.

Photographic evidence and scientific evidence that she's in fact a woman.

All right.

Now, I've I've never quite bought into the idea that she was a man.

I was amused by the whole thing and and I was amazed at how much evidence that Candace could come up with that definitely look like it's possible.

I don't know if you've uh gone down that rabbit hole at all, but if you listen to Candace for 30 minutes talking about this, you will go away thinking it's real.

But that's the documentary effect.

You know, if you're if you're exposed to one point of view for half an hour, you're probably going to be convinced.

You know, that's all it takes is one point of view with now no counterpoint for half an hour.

And almost always you'll think it's true.

So, I will say that it's a con it's a persuasive argument Candace makes that my my own let's say gut feeling and common sense says probably not probably not but I think it's possible you know so the fact that she's going to give photographic evidence what exactly would the photograph be of is is Bridget Mcronone going to I just have this image of Bridget Mcronone.

She's at home and she's like, "All right.

Oh, I'll do my best French accent.

I'll try to." No, that's not French.

I won't do a French accent.

All right.

I need some pictures for the court.

Click.

Click.

Click.

Almost.

Click.

Click.

Click.

Yeah, there it is.

Oh, that's beautiful.

So, can we um I maybe it's just me, but I I like to look at these things from the entertainment perspective.

If you do it from the entertainment perspective and you realize that that Candace Owens is making the the wife of the president of France take pictures of her genitalia standing ovation.

Candace, I don't know if any of it's true.

I'm guessing it's not.

But but but there's not much that's funnier than making her take a picture of her junk.

All right, good job, Candace.

And other news, uh, you know that Meta has these new glasses that have all kinds of functions and I guess they can project a a screen on the glasses themselves that people will barely know you're looking at.

And uh I saw a review somebody who had tried a number of these different you know uh enhanced reality glasses had said that it's the best one he's seen and it's actually kind of awesome.

Costs about $800.

Um what do regular glasses cost?

If you bought regular glasses, um, if it's like a designer pair, it's several hundred, isn't it?

A designer pair.

So, I don't know, maybe maybe people will buy a free $100 if they can make those glasses prescription.

I didn't see in the story that they could do that, but I assume they can, right?

Do do you think that they would make them prescription?

It would be very disappointing if the only thing the glasses couldn't do is correct your vision.

I I feel like it ought to be able to do that.

However, if it really works, the odds of me trying it out at some point are pretty pretty good.

But apparently, you can slightly detect when somebody's not paying attention to you.

So, let me ask you this.

How happy would you be to spend time with a friend who has those glasses on and you don't really know if they're watching a TV show while while you're talking to them because apparently you can have all kinds of content in the glasses.

Uh I wouldn't like it at all.

I I don't think I would want to spend time having a conversation with somebody who was wearing those glasses because I would just assume that they're distracted, you know, even if I couldn't tell.

So, I think that's the big question.

The big question will be the social element to that.

All right.

So, um, you know how everybody's got a podcast these days?

There's millions of podcasts and it's kind of hard to get attention, you know, for your your one podcast.

And um, so people do a lot of teasing.

Uh, for example, I'm I'll be on Jesse Lee Peterson show on Friday, so that's a tease.

But the best tease I ever saw for a podcast comes from Pierce Morgan.

So, uh, there was a a post on X that said that journalist Don Lemon is showed a picture of him and it said he's waiting for his interview with Pierce Morgan and then Pierce uh reposts it, the picture of Don Lemon and him waiting for the interview.

Uh, and he and he just says four words.

the these are the most clever four words you'll ever use to tease somebody about your upcoming podcast.

And I quote, "It didn't go well." Now, how am I not going to watch that?

Are you kidding me?

Finding out that a Don Lemon interview with Pierce Morgan didn't go well.

That's genius.

That is so good.

Pierce, you nailed it.

There is a 100% chance I'm going to watch that because of what you said about it.

It didn't go well.

That's just the best the best teas.

Well, the Fed cut the interest rate 25 points, which really is 0.25.

And they think there might be a few more cuts this year, maybe another in 2026.

And if you're a economics nerd, you might recognize that although inflation is not quite where we want it to be.

It's 2.6, but uh wouldn't it be good to get it down to two?

However, the job market is starting to soften, and you usually have those two competing things.

you know, you don't want the interest rates high if you're trying to make sure jobs are good, but um if you jack up the interest rates too much, then you might cause some inflation because it might goose the economy and make it too hot.

But the Fed has decided to lean toward improving employment uh as opposed to perfectly optimizing inflation.

Is that the right choice?

Well, um I guess we'll always argue whether it could have been sooner, but it does seem it does seem like a responsible position in my opinion.

Well, we have to talk about Jimmy Kimmel, don't we?

How many of you were wondering what my take would be on Jimmy Kimmel?

Was there any point where you said, "All right, I got to I got to see what this guy says." I guess Adam Corolla has not yet weighed in publicly.

Um, I will definitely watch that whatever whatever Adam has to say about it because you know they they have a history from the man show and he's also a professional comedian type.

So, what do you say?

All right.

I'm going to start with the conclusion and then we'll talk about it.

All right.

Um, I'm on Jimmy Kimmel's side.

Sorry, I'm in his side now.

Do would I like some revenge?

Yes.

Yes, I would enjoy that.

But that doesn't mean I get it.

That doesn't mean I should pursue it.

Doesn't mean the world's a better place if if it happens.

Yeah.

I'd like a little shot and Freud because remember I got cancelled.

I get cancelled for something I said.

Very similar.

Do I think I should have been cancelled?

Nope.

Do I think Roseanne should have been cancelled?

Nope.

And I'm not going to change my mind because it's Jimmy Kimmel.

Did he say something offensive and incorrect?

Yeah.

Did it make the world a worse place?

Probably.

Um, but let's talk about all the things.

There are a lot of elements to this, but uh I would be very hypocritical if I were to be opposed to free speech.

All right.

So just as a review, um the the only speech that's not legal uh would be inciting violence and you know immediately you it's not even illegal to incite violence over time, you know, with some cumulative effect, which is what the Democrats have done.

The cumulative effect of all the Hiller Hill or Hiller stuff is that it incites violence.

But the law does not recognize cumulative effect.

It only it's only what do you what did you say just right now and did it cause somebody to do some violence right now that would be illegal and it's not because of the speech it's because you'd be inciting violence it's the violence that's the illegal part the inciting it so that's your little uh little background there uh the the best joke I've heard about it so far was from Joel Pollock who posted on Acts first They came for the bad comedians.

I was laughing out loud at that this morning.

First, they came for the bad comedians.

Anyway, uh, a lot of people are speculating because we're suspicious people.

We never believe anything in the news is real.

A lot of people are saying that, uh, Jimmy Kimmel's bosses, ABC News, I guess, ultimately.

um not ABC News but uh um Disney who owns ABC, who owns the show, etc.

So, some people are saying that uh they probably wanted to cancel him anyway because the show probably loses a ton of money.

So, you know, maybe it really was a business decision having nothing to do with anything except it was an opportunity to get rid of a expensive asset.

Maybe.

I don't know.

I I would guess that it's not unrelated.

Meaning that if he were making a billion dollars a year for ABC, do you think they would cancel?

Now, let me ask you, if he made a profit of $1 billion per year for his corporate owners, do you think they would have said, "Oh, that's that's a bad thing you did.

We got to get rid of you." I would say not a chance.

If he was losing money every week and it looked like there was no chance I was going to reverse, would they possibly find a convenient reason to get rid of them?

Maybe.

Well, it might not be enough.

Yeah, they might.

All right.

So, I wouldn't rule that out at all.

That's certainly, you know, follow the money always works.

So, I wouldn't say it's the only reason, but it's probably in there somewhere.

Um, let's see what else we got here.

So, he what he said was he he implied and I I guess some people said it was, you know, satire or parody or something, but it didn't look like it to me.

It looked like he was uh intentionally saying they believed that some MAGA person was responsible for killing uh Kirk.

And that's by the time he said it, that was known with pretty high level of certainty that that was not the case.

And the person who did it is almost certainly I put it at 95% 98% that it's a left learning leaning person who just hated uh hated the Trump administration and Charlie in particular.

So here's the question.

How in the world is it legal for the Trump administration, the government to put pressure on a private industry to maybe cancel somebody, which would look like a violation of free speech right now?

Here's what would be a violation of free speech.

If the president said, "ABC, if you don't fire this guy and shut him up, um, I will punish you in some specific way." That would be completely illegal.

Everybody understands that, right?

If the government tells you you can't talk, that's illegal.

That would not be allowing free speech.

But suppose as FCC chairman Brendan Carr explains, he was on Hannity I think explaining this.

The FCC has a very specific job within the government.

And what it does is it uh it's responsible for making sure that the public airwaves which are limited by nature, right?

There's not infinite um TV networks.

they're they're just, you know, the the uh there's not enough room on the airwaves for much more than we have.

So, because it's a public good, the the major networks, uh ABC, NBC, CBS, they operate at the pleasure of the government.

Now, that's different from almost anything else.

So if if uh Fox News said something that the government didn't like, the government has no role with Fox News because Fox News is cable.

So cable is not using a limited public good which is the airwaves because the airways are limited.

But ABC, NBC, CBS, if they if they violate what is the phrase, the public interest.

The public interest.

If they violate the public interest, then the FCC could act.

And that could include potentially removing their license.

Um, so what do what do you think the courts would say?

Let's say that went to the Supreme Court.

Do you think they'd say that's not that has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

The FCC's job is to say, "Hey, that thing you're doing is either in the public interest or is not." So, if you said that's not in the public interest, would you be violating free speech?

I feel like not.

I feel like that wouldn't be a violation of free speech, but only if you're talking about ABC, NBC, CBS, because the FCC specifically has the responsibility to make sure they don't get out of the line.

And what they're accused of is a pattern.

So, it's not just this one thing.

It's a pattern of misinformation, political especially.

Now, is that a good enough reason to pressure him to come off there?

or and and let me say this.

If the government is pressuring somebody, um even if it's not stated, but it's obvious, let's say the entity wants to do a big merger, and I think that's part of what's going on here.

Um the the entities involved don't want to make the government mad, and the government's making it pretty clear that they don't like this Jimmy Kimmel situation.

So does the government have to say directly if you keep him on we'll punish you?

You know that now the remember the FCC is a special case but just talking generally if a government said to somebody uh you should quiet down or else uh we won't approve whatever it is you ask for next.

But if they say it directly now that I got this from Grock by the way you all know that I'm not a lawyer right?

So, anything I say that sounds like a a legal opinion, probably wrong.

So, do your own research on this one, I'd say.

But I'll do my best.

All right.

So, if the government uh makes a direct threat, if you you know, outside of the FCC, that's a special case.

But if they made a direct threat, shut up or we'll do bad things for you.

That's totally illegal.

That would be absolutely a violation of free speech.

But what if they don't make a direct threat, but you just think they're the kind of people that would get revenge?

I don't know.

Because at some point, it's just an opinion.

Suppose the president said, "It's my opinion that Kimmel should be fired." Doesn't he have the right to just have an opinion?

If he said, "You should fire him or I'll punish you." totally illegal.

Totally illegal.

But if he just said, "It's my opinion.

They should get rid of him.

The country better be a better place." Is that illegal?

It's sort of a weird gray area, isn't it?

Because especially with Trump, you kind of say to yourself, well, I mean, he's clearly not going to be friendly with him when they come to get you some approval from the government, right?

Would you expect the Trump administration to be fully cooperative with an entity that wasn't doing what they wanted in a fairly what they might consider an important way?

I don't know.

That would be a I don't know if that kind of case has ever been tested, but uh some lawyer will tell me.

Somebody will fill me in.

All right.

So, the part I don't know is if uh Brendan Carr, the FCC chairman, has a solid enough argument that in the special case that is the FCC doing his job to make sure that the public interest is being met.

Does this meet the standard of violating the public interest?

Well, maybe not because some people would say, uh, he's a comedian and it is completely legal to lie.

It is completely legal to lie in the service of a joke or just entertaining the public.

You're allowed to lie, unfortunately.

I mean, it has to be that way because otherwise everybody would be in jail.

If he made it illegal to lie, there'd be nobody left.

So, it has to be that way.

Um, so, so I don't know the answer to the FCC part.

If it turns out that that's completely ordinary, then I might alter my opinion.

But as a uh humorist/carttorist who has been cancelled for something I said, uh I'm not going to be in favor of it.

In fact, uh my preference is that conservatives defend Kimmel on free speech.

Um now we might encourage him, you know, because remember this is private companies.

Private companies can fire anybody for whatever reason they want.

So the private company is in, you know, completely clear territory.

It's just a business decision.

So can't can't go after them.

But I think the world would be a little better and it it would change the news cycle in a way that would really flip the minds of the uh the Democrats.

I think we should support him and just say, "Nope, we do not want to go down the path of getting somebody fired." Now, keep in mind, I don't believe that FCC uh chair Brendan Carr, I don't believe he would be taking these moves unless he knew that at least the base would be happy with it.

Would you agree?

Do you think the FCC would would put any pressure on on Kimmel unless the public felt the same way?

No.

No, there's not really any chance of that because remember he's operating quote in the public interest.

If the public had no interest, I mean, I'm using interest differently here, but if the public said we don't care he said that, that doesn't bother us at all.

If they had said that, well, then there'd be no reason for the FCC to be involved and I'd have a problem with it.

But the fact that there are a lot of people almost entirely on the political right who say, "Yeah, yeah, that guy's got to be punished and it looks like there's a there's sort of a, you know, special case here where maybe he could be or at least pressure could be put on him.

Uh, go ahead and do it because we like the revenge and we like the Shod and Freud." I like the revenge.

I'll bet aside from Roseanne, there's nobody who likes this more than I do.

Right.

There's nobody who likes it more than I do.

But I asked Grock if Jimmy Kimmel ever mocked me for getting cancelled because I didn't know.

A lot of people did.

And Grock says no.

I I need a fact check on that.

Is it true that Jimmy Kimmel never mocked me for getting cancelled?

a lot of people did, you know, public figures, but uh I'll I'll ask separately.

Maybe somebody can.

So Grock says no.

Says there's no evidence that he ever mentioned me at all, which counts because that was a national story.

And if he just wanted to pound on some conservative types, there I was.

I mean, I was an easy I was an easy victim.

But if he said to himself, and I don't know this, this would be purely mind-reading speculation.

If he said to himself, you know what, I'm not going to go after a humorist.

I don't know if he did that, but if that's the reason he didn't mention it, I would respect that.

And I'm going to return the favor.

I don't want to live in a world where jokes are punished.

You'd have to be a really bad joke for me to do it.

So, I know this is very unpopular, but if you want to be on the side of the angels, I think we got to give them a pass.

I don't think it'll make a difference.

You know, I I suspect that this is a, you know, decision they're not going to reverse.

And I also don't think there's any chance that the majority of the political right will say, "Yeah, give them a pass." because I don't think people are thinking at it beyond the revenge, you know, the revenge level.

And by the way, like I say, I'm totally in favor of revenge and um mutually assured destruction so that there's a little balance and stuff.

Totally in favor of that.

I enjoy it.

It feels good, but it's not the world I want to live in.

I don't want to live in that world.

So even though um I believe I was treated unfairly in a similar situation um I just can't live in that world.

So that's my take.

All right.

Here's what um I mentioned this uh when I was on Tucker's uh show the other day.

There's something different about the lies that are being told today compared to the old times.

And it used to be that if you said, "Oh, that Reagan is Hitler." People understood that as just hyperbole, they didn't think, "Oh, he's actually Hitler." But when you're doing it 24 hours a day, Hitler, Hiller, Hitler, and every time you turn on CNN or MSNBC, every time somebody's comparing them to Hitler or Nazis, you should assume that young people who are exposed to that and it's all they know and they're not watching Fox News or just watching those networks.

Of course, some of them would reach the point of violence cuz they'd think, well, you know, everybody thinks they're Hitler as far as I can tell, so if I take out Hitler, I'm fine.

So, the laws as they were written were about uh slander.

You can't do slander, but you can lie and you can, you know, exaggerate and insult and all those other things.

So if the cumulative effect of wall-to-wall Hitler accusations creates a situation where violence is guaranteed, is that inciting violence?

The answer is not legally.

No, because it has to be immediate.

There's no such thing as a cumulative, you know, over time.

A lot of people did a lot of things and the cumulative effect was that somebody got killed.

Charlie Kirk in particular.

That's not illegal.

Should it be?

Well, it makes me wonder because when, you know, our free speech rules were created, this wasn't really an option.

There was no such thing as mass brainwashing that was coordinated through the government and the in my opinion and uh the news networks.

So, it's a it's a danger of free speech that simply didn't exist, at least at this level uh until fairly recently in history.

So, there might be something we need to rethink about that.

But, in general, I'm I'm going to I'm going to be biased toward free speech if there's any gray areas.

This one's a gray area, so I'm biased toward free speech.

Um, let's see what else.

Um, so what Kimmel actually said might be a little different from what people are imagining, you know.

Uh he said uh he said the MAGA people were trying hard to make it look like they were not responsible for it.

But you can interpret that two ways.

One, he's saying that MAGA is responsible for killing Charlie Kirk.

But would you take that seriously?

The other way you could interpret those exact words is that he's not saying Banker was responsible.

He's only saying that they're trying to make sure you know they're not responsible.

That's not so bad.

So, do you cancel somebody because they said something that could be taken two ways?

You see, this gets a little personal at this point.

Something that could be interpreted differently than it was intended.

Is that how you get cancelled?

That's what Roseanne got cancelled.

Roseanne got cancelled not for what she thought or what she said.

You know that, right?

It wasn't for what she thought, wasn't what she said, it was what other people misinterpreted as her intention got cancelled for that.

I would argue that although I was intentionally trying to cause some trouble, I was trying to do it for a positive uh purpose, including for black America, but because people chose to interpret what I said a little bit out of context because the larger context was, you know, DEI, etc.

Um, should I be cancelled because someone else interpreted what I said in a way that's not the way I intended it?

Is that a good enough reason to be canceled?

I don't know.

But there's some chance, and I wouldn't know because I'm not I can't read his mind.

There's some chance that Kimmel was trying to walk close to the line, but he wasn't quite not quite, you know, blaming MAGA for maybe doing it.

Um, I'm looking at a comment.

It's the fact that he ignored the horror and instead went political.

Um, that's just something you don't like.

That's not why you lose a job.

I I get what you're saying that he wasn't showing the uh Oh, no.

Actually, I think he did at some point I believe he did at some point um say the right words about the horror.

I think he did actually.

just a different day.

Um, I saw that Dave Portoi weighed in on this and he said it's not cancelling its consequences.

And that would be true if we're only looking at a business decision andor the FCC doing its job for the public interest.

If you think that getting rid of him is a public interest.

So, but I do think that Dave is, you know, sort of leaving out that the FCC is part of the government and you don't ever want the government trying to directly or indirectly, you know, impinge on free speech.

Um, but I understand what uh Dave is saying.

So, he's not wrong that it's primarily it's a consequence situation more than a more than a free speech situation.

But if it's got a little bit of free speech in it, I'm I'm still gonna go with the free speech.

You know, if you say, "Well, Scott, it's 90% he was a dick." Okay.

If it's 10% free speech, I'm going to still be biased for the free speech.

Um, Eric Swallwell uh was defending Kimmel.

Um, but of course the Democrats feel they have to swear and they're so bad at it.

Listen to this swearing from Eric Swallwell.

So he's talking about Kimmel and sort of defending him for his free speech, but he says it this way.

Quote, he's a comedian.

Now, Eric, let me give you a little advice.

Swearing is is good if you use it right.

Like, you know, Trump is just an expert at swearing in a in a way that people will laugh.

When he swears during a rally speech, people laugh because he puts it in just the right place.

You know, you don't expect it, etc.

And um he's also used it to make a really important point.

So you know, okay, Trump's not kidding about this one.

It's perfect use of cursing.

But Swallwell is just sort of randomly throwing it in a post.

He's a comedian.

You know what would have worked just as well?

He's a comedian.

Do you think that adding the fword made his point better?

Do you think it made him look tougher?

Did it make him look stronger?

Did it make him look like a better better politician?

Didn't do any of that.

No, that was just a mistake in communication.

And I it's like I feel like they don't even understand the point that you can definitely get away with some swearing if you're a little bit wise about when you do it.

This is not wise.

It's not even close to wise.

So uh I responded to Derek Swallwell who said he's an effing comedian by responding and I said so is Roseanne?

And then I said do cartoonists count?

you know, depending if you call me a comedian or not.

Um, let let me let me give you a little micro lesson now on something I've been meaning to discuss.

Trump has a technique that I don't think I've ever talked about and it's really, really good.

It's really good and I've never seen anybody use it.

So this is one of the most persuasive things he does and he he does it sort of all the time and it goes like this.

He always favors strength over getting something necessarily done.

So, for example, um when he says, uh, I'm going to do this with immigration, and then maybe the court blocks him and let's say it blocks him totally, he doesn't win in an appeal.

That would be him acting strong, but he got blocked.

What you remember about that is the strength.

And then the next thing comes up and once again he takes the most I don't want to say extreme because that's the wrong thing but the strongest the the firmst strongest take.

I will send the uh national guard into your city to stop crime.

That's the strong take.

Now suppose it never worked.

Suppose uh you know the courts or something else blocked him from doing it.

What you would remember is how strong he was in trying to stop crime.

And I could give you a hundred more examples that he always takes the strong point of view even if the odds of that succeeding are low because then you remember the strength.

And the reason that that's so important is that whenever the new thing comes up, whatever the new thing is, you're going to respect how hard he's going to go at it.

and that's going to modify how you respond and probably in a way that's good for Trump.

So, um, framing yourself as always the strong one in the conversation, the strong one in politics, that really works.

That and if I were to advise somebody say, "All right, do you want to be right about everything?

Do do you want everything you try to do to work?

or do you want to be seen as somebody who is stronger than a typical president?

Now, the risk is you get called an authoritarian and all that which we see happening.

That's a risk.

But, uh I would say that the the supporters of Trump are probably triggered more by the strength because you want to know that the person who's got your back, you know, the one who who literally has your back, you want to think he's the strongest person.

So, if you said to me, who who do you want protecting you?

Uh because this president, he tried to do something with I don't know, social security reform and it didn't work.

It wouldn't bother me at all.

But if he told me he did strong things on the border, strong things in the city about crime, you know, he went after other countries that weren't paying their their dues.

Uh, I'm gonna see a lot of strength and that is really, really good persuasion.

Even when stuff doesn't work out, it's still the right play.

That's the part people don't know.

The ordinary person would say, "I'm only going to try to do this if I've got a pretty good chance of succeeding." He doesn't need to do that.

He can try things that don't have a high chance of succeeding as long as it shows how strong he is.

Does that make sense?

I don't think this would work for most people, but it's definitely working for him.

All right.

Uh, according to the Daily Color News Foundation, Adam Pack is writing about this.

Uh, I guess Democrats are a little bit divided now over whether they should whether they should keep using incendiary rhetoric and calling the Trump administration people uh Nazis and Hitler.

Uh but George Takai, you remember him, Sulu from the original Star Trek.

Um he says that uh Trump employing the quote Nazi playbook to exploit Charlie Kirk's assassination.

Breitbart's writing about that Paul Boyce and uh can you imagine being George Tai and that that's the same week that Charlie Kirk is assassinated probably because of people like George Tai.

Let me say it directly.

People like George Dai cumulatively, not him specifically, but cumulatively they caused the death of Charlie Kirk.

Does anybody even doubt that?

Do you believe that there was any chance Kirk would have been assassinated?

Any chance if Democrats didn't talk that way, do you think they would have said, "I don't like his policies and he would have been shot." I don't I don't think there's any chance that I think they had to not like the policies but also think everybody thinks they sit.

I think I you know this would be popular.

I'll do this.

So um it will be funny to watch them make the same mistake over and over, but it's not funny if it causes somebody else to take a shot.

Um, you know the news, Blaze Media got a hold of, I guess they were first to look at it, a report by a private entity, who is the Capital Research Center, and they did a study on George Soros and his funding machine.

So, it I guess it mapped out all the nodes and, you know, where the money's coming and how much and stuff like that.

Now, that would be it's a 95page report and apparently uh that's going to be turned over to the Trump administration who also said they wanted to do some research on the Soros funding stuff.

I guess also uh there's some talk about Antifa being uh designated as a terrorist organization.

That hasn't happened yet.

But uh remember I said Trump is famous for taking the strong position.

Well, what would be stronger than designated Antifa as a terrorist organization?

Now suppose it doesn't work out like somehow he has to back up from that.

Would it be a mistake?

Nope.

It wouldn't be a mistake.

Even if he doesn't doesn't end up getting that dump, it wouldn't be a mistake because everybody would say, "Man, that's strength.

He's going hard at at the people who need to to get a little pressure on him.

Well, Israel has completed the iron beam system.

Um, I don't think it's fully implemented in the IDF, but technology-wise has passed its tests.

The iron beam is a laser that will shoot down drones.

Now, as you know, lasers don't work as well on cloudy or rainy days, but Israel would also still have the Iron Dome, which shoots up uh missiles to knock down other missiles.

But we are now uh we're now solidly in the domain of uh lasers shooting down stuff.

Uh, for Scott, uh, you got cancelled for telling the truth, but Kimmel was lying.

Yeah, that's not really the important part.

That's not how analogies work.

Analogies work when there's just one thing that they have in common that, you know, can tell a story.

And the one thing is that if you're both comedians, that's it.

Lying is not against the law.

I don't like it.

I wish there would be less of it, but it's not against the law.

And so, even if he does something I find very objectionable, and he did, uh, it's not objectionable in the free speech sense, unfortunately.

Yeah.

Or maybe fortunately.

Um anyway, this uh beam um I understand uh somebody can give me a fact check if I'm wrong about this, but my understanding is that um if the US is involved in maybe funding the development of weapons in Israel, that what Israel develops, and remember they're super high-tech, uh whatever they develop has some kind of licensing or or the US has the ability to use it, too.

So, I don't know about that for sure.

That's that's just the information I have right now.

But, uh, it's possible that Israel just developed one of the best weapons we'll ever have for defending the United States.

If that happened, then that would be on the plus side of arguing why funding Israel makes sense.

if they happen to have a a technical weapons development industry that's in any way in any pockets is better than ours and we have a deal where if we funded it we have access to some of that technology that might be a gigantic benefit for the United States.

So if you're looking at all the pluses and minuses I'm generally not in favor of funding other countries for anything.

I mean, I'm just not in favor of it.

But, uh, you can't argue if that's true that we would get that technology.

You can't argue that we don't get anything out of it.

In, uh, uh, what's her name?

Um, Kla Harris, she's got her new book out and she's she's saying in her book that Tim Walsh was not her first choice for running mate.

Her first choice was Pete Buddhajed because, as she said, quote, "He is a sincere public servant with the rare talent of being able to frame liberal arguments in a way that makes it possible for conservatives to hear them." Um, is that what you think?

Do you think Pete Buddha Judge has that rare talent to frame arguments so conservatives can hear them?

Wrong.

That's not even a little bit true.

I've listened to a lot of Pete Buddha judge.

Do you think he frames things in a way that conservatives go, you know, huh?

Oh, wow.

Wow.

I had the opposite opinion.

But now that I heard Pete Buddha Judge explain it with his, you know, his golden tongue, um, I've changed my mind.

That was pretty good argument there, Pete.

No, I don't think you'll find anyone who says, "Oh, you know, Pete Buddha Judge changed my mind on that topic." I don't know.

Kla Harris, she's funny.

Well, Trump's approval level doesn't look so good, but I'm not sure I care.

He's not going to run for office again.

Um, and it's kind of normal that the more somebody gets is on the job as president, he's going to do so many things that everyone is going to find at least one thing that they're not crazy about.

So, I don't know.

It just feels normal that no matter who the president is at this point, yeah, they're probably going to be a dip.

Um, no surprise.

I I'm not worried about that.

The Hill is reporting that um according to a uh Walton Family Foundation Gallup poll that just came out um only 35% of respondents are satisfied with the state of K through 12 education in the United States.

35%.

Now that would probably be the 35% whose kids are in good schools, don't you think?

Um, I have a question.

Is is the problem with schools, excuse me, is the problem with schools because they are a mess.

Is it the teachers?

Is it the lack of uh, let's say, physical resources?

I feel like it's the other students.

What do you think?

I feel like um you know 65% of the schools have just enough troublemakers that it ruins the whole experience for everybody.

Um now I do think that in many cases the teachers are bad but I don't think the teachers could help if the class has too many troublemakers in it.

you know, troublemakers.

What do you think?

And and it seems to me that private schools um solve for that because the only people who go to private schools are the people whose parents think that's going to work.

And uh it generally gets you a less troublemaking group of people.

And I I feel like the private school would kick you out if you were a troublemaker, whereas the the public school would have, you know, more of an obligation to keep you even if you're a little bit of a troublemaker.

But what is the problem?

Is it mostly the other people, the other students?

Um, imagine imagine if you will.

I spent a lot of time imagining what it would be like to be a poor black student.

Do you do that?

Maybe that's weird, but I I literally I spend a lot of time and always have wondering could you escape that trap?

So, let's say you're born into a poor single single parent situation and you go to school and 70% of the people in the class don't care about graduating, don't care about their grades, don't care about their future, and they're just causing trouble.

Can you escape that?

Can you use your, you know, let's say you've got good character and you're smart enough?

you're smart enough that you should do well in life.

Is that going to be enough?

If if you don't have the resources or wherewithal to go to a private school and you had to stay there, could you possibly get a good outcome if 70% of the students just came to cause trouble?

I would think there's not a chance, not a chance at all.

So the first problem with what you have to do to solve any problem is you have to figure out what the actual base problem is.

Some of it has to be the teachers.

But it does seem to me that as long as the students beyond a certain percentage of the class are troublemakers, it wouldn't matter who your who your teacher is, there's no way you could overcome that.

So now it could be that in the old days, let's say when I was a kid, uh, capital punishment was still okay.

I had a teacher who would beat you with a baseball bat if you got in line like an actual baseball bat.

He kept it, you know, kept it in the he actually kept it in the class and uh he would fi have fist fights.

Uh, he was pretty strong.

He he had this big monkey muscular body and he would have fist fights with kids.

And I'll tell you, we were pretty well behaved after a couple of bouts of violence.

And in a small town back in those days, if if you if a parent found out that the teacher punched a child, the first thing they would ask is, "What do you do?" That's the first question.

What'd he do?

And then he would tell them and they'd say, "Uh, all right.

Well, I don't love the fact that you punched him, but he had a common, you know, some version of that." And that unfortunately, and I'm not saying that's, you know, all good.

I mean, you you can have some childhood PTSD from that.

Um, but generally speaking, forget about that one teacher.

He was extreme, but generally speaking, there was just more discipline and it helped everybody in the class.

Now, I don't think we should necessarily go back to the old ways, but somehow you have to solve for the fact that not everybody in the room has the same goal, which is to learn.

Yeah, you got to solve that before you you have any chance.

All right.

And then back to my original point.

If your only problem was that you were poor and you had a single mother, but once you went to school, everything worked smoothly, I think you could you could do great.

I I think nothing would stop you under just those minimum conditions.

As long as school is good, you've got a way out.

That's the way it's supposed to work, right?

It's supposed to be that you can work your way out of poverty by working hard, going to school, developing a skill.

Tyson Food said it's going to halt the use of high fructose corn syrup, which many people say is not healthy.

Uh, The Hill is reporting on this.

Um, and they also apparently they already they're going to halt the use of sucralose.

It's a preservative, I guess.

And they're they've already removed petroleum based synthetic dyes.

How many of you knew you were eating oil?

That petroleum based synthetic dyes were in your food.

You're actually eating oil, right?

Or or is it processed to the point where that's an unfair thing to say?

Um so I think what's going to happen uh is that RFK Jr.

etc.

is creating a situation where all the big companies are going to have to act and if everybody has to act then presumably there will be industries and products that pop up to be alternatives to whatever the ingredients are that seem to be unhealthy.

If only one company wanted to switch to a healthier alternative.

it might not be enough to make a industry and of the alternative.

But if everybody kind of needs to because it'd be too much pressure from the public and RFK Jr.

then suddenly it's a big money situation to to get healthier and people might produce that product for you.

So I feel like everything's working going in the right direction on food.

It's just going to take a while.

Um, I saw a uh post by Siki Chen on X.

Siki is uh in in the tech world.

He's well known in the tech world.

Um, he said, "I've lived in the United States for almost 42 years.

I've been alive and never had people be openly racist to me until I heard from all the people either openly on X or privately in DMs hurling racist abuse at me for switching to the Republican party." and he says eye opening.

Now that's shocking.

That is shocking.

All right.

Um, so, so apparently the day before I saw this, Daniel Greenfield wrote about this that, uh, the day before Charlie Kirk was assassinated, there was a free speech ranking in a fire survey.

fire being the name of the company or the name of the entity fire uh fire survey of 68,000 college students whole bunch of universities and revealed that one in three students believe uh believe that using violence to stop a speaker they disagreed with on campus was acceptable.

One in three people thought violence was acceptable to stop people from saying things you don't like.

violence one and three.

Now, here's my take.

I don't believe that survey.

Do you do you think that's true?

That sounds a lot like something that college students say in an answer to a survey.

It doesn't sound like something they do.

So, you know, if you say to me, uh, do you think, uh, young people whose brains are not developed and they like causing trouble and, you know, maybe they like using a little hyperbole, I feel like it's something you say on a survey, if you're young, that isn't really something you believe or if or if you were in the situation, you wouldn't do any violence.

So, I feel like it's alarming and I would certainly keep an eye on it.

I wouldn't I wouldn't completely discount it.

I could be wrong.

It's happened, but I'm not entirely sure that's telling us what we think.

Remember, all data is fake.

Um, I told you that the US is going to overhaul the citizenship test.

Did you know that the citizenship was a 100 questions, but you only get 10 of them?

So, they randomly picked 10 of the questions.

Um, but you would have to study all hundred to make sure you can get uh most of them right.

So, so it used to be that you only need to get a six out of 10 right.

Uh, but now you'll need 12 correct out of 20.

And I looked at the questions and I'm happy to say I think I could pass it.

But if you had 128 facts that you had to learn and you only had to get 12 out of 20 right, how how long would you have to study before you could nail that?

You'd probably have to under Well, not probably, you'd have to understand English, otherwise you wouldn't be able to understand the test.

Uh, and I guess it's a verbal test.

It's not even written.

somebody somebody just asks you 10 questions and then checks it off.

But I don't know what was there really some reason that we had to add 28 questions.

I don't know.

But there's probably a good reason for it.

Um so according to just the news Ben Weeden already 2 million illegal uh residents have left the country.

400,000 directly deported and then 1.6 million self-epporting.

You know, when I heard this whole self-deporting thing, you know, the commercials you see on TV with Christy Gnome and she's saying, you know, if you leave now, there's a chance we would let you back in, but if you don't leave and we have to get rid of you, you'll never come back.

So, some number of people are self-epporting, way more than I thought.

I I thought everybody would just hang tight and try to ride it out, you know, try to hide from the law until there's a new new president or something.

But that is if if these numbers are right, and you know, there's always a question about that.

If really 1.6 million people left on their own on top of 400,000 deported, wouldn't you call that a really good job?

Because remember the at least the 400,000 are not all but a lot of them are the worst.

I don't know what percentage I don't think it's very high percentage actually but if they got a lot of the bad people first I don't know that feels very successful.

I would give a I would give a high mark for that number of people in six months.

Um David Saxs as you know he's in the administration he's got portfolio of crypto and I think AI and he says that uh there's big news from China and that Huawei their big tech company over there uh has introduced a new AI chip that's going to compete with Nvidia here.

We thought we were all awesome in the United States because we had better chips.

So, we could get better AI and, you know, rule the world.

But Huawei is uh competing.

Now, their chips are not as good as Nvidia.

And people are saying things like, "Well, it's going to be a long time before they can catch up." We don't know that.

We don't know how long it'll take them to catch up.

They've already figured out how to architect their lesser chips so that they act like better chips.

They just use more of them and they can, you know, approximate Nvidia.

They can't get there, but they can get close.

So, China is not really desperate for our chips and they're doing essentially what we're doing by trying to do better at mining rare earth so that we don't have to depend on them.

Well, they're doing the same thing, but what they're doing is building a chip building industry.

Now, um the problem is that Huawei will start selling its AI chips to other countries.

And if China is the one providing the AI tech and not the United States, then those countries are going to be a little bit under the uh thumb of China because they will depend on China for their technology and they have to have AI because everybody will have to have it.

So David Saxs is warning us that maybe uh we should look at loosening up our sales to the non-China companies so that they don't buy from China, which seems common sensical.

I would I would say that on the surface that makes sense.

Um, but I would also say that in general I feel like it's more likely that China will match Nvidia in a few short years than the chances that they won't.

Um, there's just too much too much writing on it and they'll do everything from bribery to blackmail to outright IP theft.

And I don't know, is it impossible for them to just get one of the Nvidia chips and look at the, you know, look at the architecture and copy it?

Is that not possible?

Or is it the software?

Well, even that they can copy.

So, I'm going to I'm going to bet that China will surprise us in how quickly they reach parody, if not more, to Nvidia.

Well, Ukraine has attacked yet another uh refinery in uh in Russia.

This a gasp prom refinery in Bashkurstan, Russia.

So, it's 1300 kilometers from the front line.

So, they're going pretty deep into Russia.

And they use scores of drones and they had a direct hit on the facility.

Now I don't know how much of it was destroyed or whether it stopped operation but I was wondering remember I've told you that I was guessing that if Ukraine could take out 20% that was my own estimate of the refining capacity or the energy resources in Russia that Russia's economy would be in such trouble that they might want to you know do a peace deal.

Well, according to uh whatever it was I was reading that I didn't write down the source.

Um they may have already expert projections indicate that sustained disruptions to 40 or 50% of the capacity could tip the balance.

So I said 20% would put him in trouble.

The experts say 40 to 50%.

Guess what they're at?

So, how much of that they disrupted so far?

Um, if I wrote it down, I think it was like 17 20% something like that.

Yeah, 17 to 24%.

So, it's possible that there that Ukraine is halfway and there's nothing that would stop them from getting to 40 or 50, but they're already halfway to the number that would collapse um the Russian economy.

Now, it's I would say it's obvious that that's the strategy because they don't really have any chance of winning, you know, a direct military battle, but they could definitely take out 40 to 50% of their refinery capacity and then things get pretty uh get pretty sketchy, assuming any of those numbers are real.

Now, obviously, Russia would up their uh up their response, so you can't predict that that would give Ukraine any victory or anything, but it might make Russia sufficiently incentivized to at least talk peace.

We'll see.

Um, California legislature, I can't even believe this, passed a bill to create subsidies for news entities for media, the media entities.

And uh, it's because Governor Nuome thinks that uh, the media entities in California need a little boost.

Now, how do you interpret that?

Uh, this is being reported by Just the News.

How do you how do you understand that except for a way for the governor to control the news?

Uh if you want your subsidy, you better do, you know, positive reporting about me or do you think it's just another way um for the government to launder money?

Do you think that there's anybody who's like a good friend or relative perhaps of Newsome who might be a recipient of some of those subsidies?

Well, that's the way it usually goes on the Democrat side.

If you hear they've created any kind of funding or subsidies for anything, the first thing you could know is that that money is going to go to their cronies and people were going to give some of it back to the politicians who who created that law.

So, I would say every part of this looks dirty to me.

Well, the Pope has weighed in.

He's slamming Elon Musk for what he calls obscene greed.

He said uh talking about money.

He said, "If that is the only thing that has any value anymore, then we're in big trouble." And he pointed out the continuous wider income gap.

He said, "Yesterday there was a news that Elon Musk is going to be the first trillionaire in the world." And then he says,"What does that mean?" And um so he he thinks that's bad.

If the only thing that has any value anymore, we're in trouble, blah blah blah.

Um now, I don't want to criticize the Pope, but I would point out that the Pope's expertise does not seem to extend to the business world.

Let me explain what the trillion dollars is all about.

The trillion dollars is not what he's going to spend on buying what?

Better t-shirts.

Elon Musk wears basically a t-shirt and jeans every single day.

Like what's he spending his trillion on?

Is it because he he has a private jet that he flies around?

That would be a necessity for anyone who has that many businesses.

If you have more than one business and you're a global kind of a company and uh you need to run businesses in different places and you've got yeah private plane is just business.

There's nothing wrong with that.

And it's not like he even has a mansion or anything.

He doesn't have a mansion.

I don't know if he ever will.

He seems uninterested in that kind of stuff.

So Elon Musk is the least consumerdriven person I've ever seen.

You know, Steve Jobs, you know, arguably was in that domain.

But I think it's a complete misunderstanding that the trillion dollars is just his money.

No, it's not.

The trillion dollars is the value of SpaceX and, you know, Tesla and those other companies.

He's building robots and going to Mars and, you know, solving all these uh physical problems with um the the brain chip thing.

Uh that trillion dollars is almost, I'd say, 98% for the public good.

He only does companies that are for the public good.

He's not making a video game, although he might someday.

the the things he does are so obviously good for the country, if not the world.

At the very least, it makes the US more competitive.

But it bothers me a little that the Pope would weigh in on this and be so wrong about understanding the general situation.

I want Elon Musk to have $2 trillion because his history is that he invests every penny he makes and that that's how he got to where he is.

He invests it all.

So, Pope, come on.

Come on, Pope.

All right.

I saw an estimate in tech explorer Andrew Zinnan is writing that according to the WTO AI might boost global trade values by at least 40%.

So so that would be a gigantic, you know, improvement in in business.

Do you believe that?

Do you believe that the WTO can do a a believable credible estimate about how much AI will boost global trade?

Let's see how well I've trained you.

Do you believe that's that's something they can estimate?

No.

This is as ridiculous as the climate models.

No.

There's no such thing as estimating the temperature in 20 years.

That's not a thing.

I mean, not credibly doing it.

And it's not a thing that you can figure out how AI will boost global trade.

Please.

Really?

Really?

Nobody knows what AI is going to do.

It might be better than that.

It might be worse, but nobody knows an estimate.

God.

All right.

Nobody can legitimately estimate that sort of thing.

And once you learn that, it will help you a lot because there there's a tendency if all these experts say, "Well, we we estimated this thing." And you say to yourself, "Well, experts estimated a thing.

That sounds pretty good to me." Um, but generally when experts are estimating a thing, the odds that they know what they're doing and the estimate is credible, very low.

It's very low.

All right, that's all I got to say today.

I've got my cat in my lap who has been enjoying the show more than you because the cat likes it when I'm busy doing something else and he's just laying on my lap.

So, Gary, uh, I'm done now with the main show and I'm going to go private with the, uh, beloved, very beloved local subscribers and the rest of you.

Thanks for joining.

Um, and we'll be back tomorrow, same time, same place.

All right, locals, I'm coming at you in 30 seconds.

30 seconds starting.

on in. It's time for us to reframe the

world. That's right. We're going to

reframe the whole world today.

I got my comic done for the day, but I

couldn't load it up to X today yet.

Some kind of technical problem. I think

it's on their side, not mine, but I'll

try again later.

All right, I'm going to get my comments

going and then we got the show of shows.

often described as the best thing that

has ever happened to the world.

Guaranteed.

See, let's move that over there. Yeah,

that's looking good.

[Music]

All right. Are you ready? If you're

ready, I'm ready.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance on elevating

your experience up to levels that nobody

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains. All you need for

that is a copper mug or a glass of

tanker gels in a canine jugger flask. A

vessel of any kind. and 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. It

happens now. Go.

I'm trying something different with my

lighting today,

so we'll see if that works.

All right. Uh, I wonder if there's any

science that says that coffee is good

for you. Oh, here's some. Um, it turns

out there's a new study that says that

uh people who drink coffee have more

favorable body composition and

inflammatory profiles.

All right. Well, there's nobody more

inflammatory than me, so I drink extra

coffee just to tamp it down a little

bit. Oh, there he goes. There he goes.

He's being inflammatory.

sip.

All right.

By far my favorite story of the day is

that uh uh French President uh Emanuel

Mcronone and his wife um they're going

to you you know that uh Candace Owens

accused uh Bridget Mcronone of being

born a man

uh and believes that he's still a man

because I guess that's the way it works.

And uh so the news is that uh Mcronone

and his wife are going to present

photographic and scientific evidence to

a US court to prove the f the French

first lady is in fact a woman.

[Laughter]

Photographic evidence and scientific

evidence that she's in fact a woman. All

right. Now,

I've I've never quite bought into the

idea that she was a man.

I was amused by the whole thing and and

I was amazed at how much evidence that

Candace could come up with that

definitely look like it's possible.

I don't know if you've uh gone down that

rabbit hole at all, but if you listen to

Candace for 30 minutes talking about

this, you will go away thinking it's

real.

But that's the documentary effect. You

know, if you're if you're exposed to one

point of view for half an hour, you're

probably going to be convinced. You

know, that's all it takes is one point

of view with now no counterpoint for

half an hour. And almost always you'll

think it's true.

So, I will say that it's a con it's a

persuasive argument Candace makes that

my

my own let's say gut feeling and common

sense says probably not probably not but

I think it's possible you know so the

fact that she's going to give

photographic evidence what exactly would

the photograph be of is is Bridget

Mcronone going to

I just have this image of Bridget

Mcronone. She's at home and she's like,

"All right. Oh, I'll do my best French

accent. I'll try to." No, that's not

French. I won't do a French accent. All

right. I need some pictures for the

court.

Click. Click. Click.

Almost. Click. Click. Click.

Yeah, there it is. Oh, that's beautiful.

So,

can we um I maybe it's just me, but I I

like to look at these things from the

entertainment perspective. If you do it

from the entertainment perspective and

you realize that

that Candace Owens is making the the

wife of the president of France take

pictures of her genitalia

standing ovation.

Candace,

I don't know if any of it's true. I'm

guessing it's not. But

but

but there's not much that's funnier than

making her take a picture of her junk.

All right, good job, Candace.

And other news,

uh, you know that Meta has these new

glasses that have all kinds of functions

and I guess they can project a a screen

on the glasses themselves that people

will barely know you're looking at. And

uh I saw a review somebody who had tried

a number of these different you know uh

enhanced reality

glasses had said that it's the best one

he's seen and it's actually kind of

awesome.

Costs about $800.

Um what do regular glasses cost?

If you bought regular glasses,

um, if it's like a designer pair, it's

several hundred, isn't it? A designer

pair. So, I don't know, maybe maybe

people will buy a free $100 if they can

make those glasses prescription.

I didn't see in the story that they

could do that, but I assume they can,

right? Do do you think that they would

make them prescription?

It would be very disappointing if the

only thing the glasses couldn't do is

correct your vision. I I feel like it

ought to be able to do that.

However, if it really works, the odds of

me trying it out at some point are

pretty pretty good. But apparently, you

can slightly detect when somebody's not

paying attention to you. So, let me ask

you this. How happy would you be to

spend time with a friend who has those

glasses on and you don't really know if

they're watching a TV show while while

you're talking to them

because apparently you can have all

kinds of content in the glasses.

Uh I wouldn't like it at all. I I don't

think I would want to spend time having

a conversation with somebody who was

wearing those glasses because I would

just assume that they're distracted, you

know, even if I couldn't tell. So, I

think that's the big question. The big

question will be the social element to

that.

All right. So, um, you know how

everybody's got a podcast these days?

There's millions of podcasts and it's

kind of hard to get attention, you know,

for your your one podcast. And um, so

people do a lot of teasing. Uh, for

example, I'm I'll be on Jesse Lee

Peterson show on Friday, so that's a

tease. But the best tease I ever saw for

a podcast comes from Pierce Morgan.

So, uh, there was a a post on X that

said that journalist Don Lemon is showed

a picture of him and it said he's

waiting for his interview with Pierce

Morgan

and then Pierce uh reposts it, the

picture of Don Lemon and him waiting for

the interview.

Uh, and he and he just says four words.

the these are the most clever four words

you'll ever use to tease somebody about

your upcoming podcast. And I quote, "It

didn't go well."

Now, how am I not going to watch that?

Are you kidding me? Finding out that a

Don Lemon interview with Pierce Morgan

didn't go well.

That's genius. That is so good. Pierce,

you nailed it.

There is a 100% chance I'm going to

watch that because of what you said

about it. It didn't go well.

That's just the best the best teas.

Well, the Fed cut the interest rate 25

points, which really is 0.25.

And they think there might be a few more

cuts this year, maybe another in 2026.

And if you're a economics nerd, you

might recognize that although inflation

is not quite where we want it to be.

It's 2.6, but uh wouldn't it be good to

get it down to two? However, the job

market is starting to soften, and you

usually have those two competing things.

you know, you don't want the interest

rates high if you're trying to make sure

jobs are good, but

um if you jack up the interest rates too

much, then you might cause some

inflation because it might goose the

economy and make it too hot. But the Fed

has decided to lean toward improving

employment

uh as opposed to perfectly optimizing

inflation. Is that the right choice?

Well, um I guess we'll always argue

whether it could have been sooner,

but it does seem it does seem like a

responsible position in my opinion.

Well, we have to talk about Jimmy

Kimmel, don't we?

How many of you were wondering what my

take would be on Jimmy Kimmel? Was there

any point where you said, "All right, I

got to I got to see what this guy says."

I guess Adam Corolla has not yet weighed

in publicly. Um, I will definitely watch

that whatever whatever Adam has to say

about it because you know they they have

a history from the man show

and he's also a professional comedian

type. So, what do you say? All right.

I'm going to start with the conclusion

and then we'll talk about it. All right.

Um, I'm on Jimmy Kimmel's side.

Sorry,

I'm in his side now.

Do would I like some revenge?

Yes. Yes, I would enjoy that. But that

doesn't mean I get it. That doesn't mean

I should pursue it. Doesn't mean the

world's a better place if if it happens.

Yeah. I'd like a little shot and Freud

because remember I got cancelled. I get

cancelled for something I said. Very

similar. Do I think I should have been

cancelled? Nope. Do I think Roseanne

should have been cancelled? Nope. And

I'm not going to change my mind because

it's Jimmy Kimmel. Did he say something

offensive and incorrect?

Yeah. Did it make the world a worse

place?

Probably.

Um, but let's talk about all the things.

There are a lot of elements to this,

but uh I would be very hypocritical

if I were to be opposed to free speech.

All right. So just as a review,

um the the only speech that's not legal

uh would be inciting violence and you

know immediately you it's not even

illegal to incite violence over time,

you know, with some cumulative effect,

which is what the Democrats have done.

The cumulative effect of all the Hiller

Hill or Hiller stuff is that it incites

violence. But the law does not recognize

cumulative effect. It only it's only

what do you what did you say just right

now and did it cause somebody to do some

violence right now that would be illegal

and it's not because of the speech it's

because you'd be inciting violence it's

the violence that's the illegal part the

inciting it

so that's your little uh little

background there uh the the best joke

I've heard about it so far was from Joel

Pollock who posted on Acts first They

came for the bad comedians.

I was laughing out loud at that this

morning. First, they came for the bad

comedians. Anyway, uh, a lot of people

are speculating because we're suspicious

people. We never believe anything in the

news is real. A lot of people are saying

that, uh, Jimmy Kimmel's bosses, ABC

News, I guess, ultimately. um not ABC

News but uh um Disney who owns ABC, who

owns the show, etc. So, some people are

saying that uh they probably wanted to

cancel him anyway because the show

probably loses a ton of money. So, you

know, maybe it really was a business

decision having nothing to do with

anything except it was an opportunity to

get rid of a expensive asset. Maybe. I

don't know. I I would guess that it's

not unrelated. Meaning that if he were

making a billion dollars a year for ABC,

do you think they would cancel? Now, let

me ask you, if he made a profit of $1

billion per year for his corporate

owners, do you think they would have

said, "Oh, that's that's a bad thing you

did. We got to get rid of you."

I would say not a chance. If he was

losing money every week and it looked

like there was no chance I was going to

reverse, would they possibly find a

convenient reason to get rid of them?

Maybe.

Well, it might not be enough. Yeah, they

might. All right. So, I wouldn't rule

that out at all. That's certainly, you

know, follow the money always works. So,

I wouldn't say it's the only reason, but

it's probably in there somewhere.

Um, let's see what else we got here. So,

he what he said was he he implied and I

I guess some people said it was, you

know, satire or parody or something, but

it didn't look like it to me. It looked

like he was uh intentionally saying they

believed that some MAGA person was

responsible for killing uh Kirk. And

that's by the time he said it, that was

known with pretty high level of

certainty that that was not the case.

And the person who did it is almost

certainly I put it at 95% 98% that it's

a left learning leaning person who just

hated uh hated the Trump administration

and Charlie in particular.

So here's the question. How in the world

is it legal for the Trump

administration, the government to put

pressure on a private industry to maybe

cancel somebody, which would look like a

violation of free speech right now?

Here's what would be a violation of free

speech. If the president said, "ABC, if

you don't fire this guy and shut him up,

um, I will punish you in some specific

way." That would be completely illegal.

Everybody understands that, right? If

the government tells you you can't talk,

that's illegal. That would not be

allowing free speech. But suppose

as FCC chairman Brendan Carr explains,

he was on Hannity I think explaining

this. The FCC has a very specific job

within the government. And what it does

is it uh it's responsible for making

sure that the public airwaves which are

limited by nature, right? There's not

infinite um TV networks. they're they're

just, you know, the the uh there's not

enough room on the airwaves for much

more than we have. So, because it's a

public good, the the major networks, uh

ABC, NBC, CBS, they operate at the

pleasure of the government.

Now, that's different from almost

anything else. So if if uh Fox News said

something that the government didn't

like, the government has no role with

Fox News because Fox News is cable. So

cable is not using a limited public good

which is the airwaves because the

airways are limited. But ABC, NBC, CBS,

if they if they violate what is the

phrase, the public interest. The public

interest.

If they violate the public interest,

then the FCC could act. And that could

include potentially removing their

license.

Um, so what do what do you think the

courts would say? Let's say that went to

the Supreme Court. Do you think they'd

say that's not that has nothing to do

with freedom of speech? The FCC's job is

to say, "Hey, that thing you're doing is

either in the public interest or is

not." So, if you said that's not in the

public interest,

would you be violating free speech?

I feel like not. I feel like that

wouldn't be a violation of free speech,

but only if you're talking about ABC,

NBC, CBS, because the FCC specifically

has the responsibility to make sure they

don't get out of the line. And what

they're accused of is a pattern. So,

it's not just this one thing. It's a

pattern of misinformation, political

especially.

Now, is that a good enough reason to

pressure him to come off there? or and

and let me say this. If the government

is pressuring somebody, um even if it's

not stated, but it's obvious, let's say

the entity wants to do a big merger, and

I think that's part of what's going on

here. Um the the entities involved don't

want to make the government mad, and the

government's making it pretty clear that

they don't like this Jimmy Kimmel

situation. So does the government have

to say directly if you keep him on we'll

punish you? You know that now the

remember the FCC is a special case but

just talking generally if a government

said to somebody uh you should quiet

down or else uh we won't approve

whatever it is you ask for next. But if

they say it directly now that I got this

from Grock by the way you all know that

I'm not a lawyer right? So, anything I

say that sounds like a a legal opinion,

probably wrong.

So, do your own research on this one,

I'd say. But I'll do my best. All right.

So, if the government

uh makes a direct threat, if you you

know, outside of the FCC, that's a

special case. But if they made a direct

threat, shut up or we'll do bad things

for you. That's totally illegal. That

would be absolutely a violation of free

speech. But what if they don't make a

direct threat, but you just think

they're the kind of people that would

get revenge?

I don't know. Because at some point,

it's just an opinion. Suppose the

president said, "It's my opinion that

Kimmel should be fired."

Doesn't he have the right to just have

an opinion?

If he said, "You should fire him or I'll

punish you." totally illegal. Totally

illegal. But if he just said, "It's my

opinion. They should get rid of him. The

country better be a better place." Is

that illegal?

It's sort of a weird gray area, isn't

it? Because especially with Trump, you

kind of say to yourself, well, I mean,

he's clearly not going to be friendly

with him when they come to get you some

approval from the government, right?

Would you expect the Trump

administration to be fully cooperative

with an entity that wasn't doing what

they wanted in a fairly what they might

consider an important way?

I don't know. That would be a I don't

know if that kind of case has ever been

tested, but uh some lawyer will tell me.

Somebody will fill me in. All right.

So, the part I don't know is if uh

Brendan Carr, the FCC chairman, has a

solid enough argument that in the

special case that is the FCC doing his

job to make sure that the public

interest is being met. Does this meet

the standard of violating the public

interest? Well,

maybe not because some people would say,

uh, he's a comedian

and it is completely legal to lie. It is

completely legal to lie in the service

of a joke or just entertaining the

public. You're allowed to lie,

unfortunately. I mean, it has to be that

way because otherwise everybody would be

in jail. If he made it illegal to lie,

there'd be nobody left.

So, it has to be that way. Um,

so,

so I don't know the answer to the FCC

part. If it turns out that that's

completely ordinary, then I might alter

my opinion. But as a uh

humorist/carttorist

who has been cancelled for something I

said, uh I'm not going to be in favor of

it. In fact, uh my preference is that

conservatives defend Kimmel on free

speech. Um now we might encourage him,

you know, because remember this is

private companies. Private companies can

fire anybody for whatever reason they

want. So the private company is in, you

know, completely clear territory. It's

just a business decision.

So can't can't go after them. But I

think the world would be a little better

and it it would change the news cycle in

a way that would really flip the minds

of the uh the Democrats. I think we

should support him and just say, "Nope,

we do not want to go down the path of

getting somebody fired." Now, keep in

mind, I don't believe that FCC uh chair

Brendan Carr, I don't believe he would

be taking these moves unless he knew

that at least the base would be happy

with it. Would you agree?

Do you think the FCC would would put any

pressure on on Kimmel unless

the public

felt the same way? No. No, there's not

really any chance of that because

remember he's operating quote in the

public interest. If the public had no

interest, I mean, I'm using interest

differently here, but if the public said

we don't care he said that, that doesn't

bother us at all. If they had said that,

well, then there'd be no reason for the

FCC to be involved and I'd have a

problem with it. But the fact that there

are a lot of people almost entirely on

the political right who say, "Yeah,

yeah, that guy's got to be punished and

it looks like there's a there's sort of

a, you know, special case here where

maybe he could be or at least pressure

could be put on him. Uh, go ahead and do

it because we like the revenge and we

like the Shod and Freud." I like the

revenge. I'll bet aside from Roseanne,

there's nobody who likes this more than

I do.

Right. There's nobody who likes it more

than I do. But I asked Grock if Jimmy

Kimmel ever mocked me for getting

cancelled because I didn't know. A lot

of people did. And Grock says no.

I I need a fact check on that. Is it

true that Jimmy Kimmel never mocked me

for getting cancelled? a lot of people

did, you know, public figures, but uh

I'll I'll ask separately. Maybe somebody

can. So Grock says no. Says there's no

evidence that he ever mentioned me at

all, which counts because that was a

national story. And if he just wanted to

pound on some conservative types, there

I was. I mean, I was an easy I was an

easy victim.

But if he said to himself, and I don't

know this, this would be purely

mind-reading speculation. If he said to

himself, you know what, I'm not going to

go after a humorist. I don't know if he

did that, but if that's the reason he

didn't mention it, I would respect that.

And I'm going to return the favor. I

don't want to live in a world where

jokes are punished.

You'd have to be a really bad joke for

me to do it. So, I know this is very

unpopular,

but if you want to be on the side of the

angels,

I think we got to give them a pass.

I don't think it'll make a difference.

You know, I I suspect that this is a,

you know, decision they're not going to

reverse. And I also don't think there's

any chance that the majority of the

political right will say, "Yeah, give

them a pass." because I don't think

people are thinking at it beyond the

revenge, you know, the revenge level.

And by the way, like I say, I'm totally

in favor of revenge and um mutually

assured destruction so that there's a

little balance and stuff. Totally in

favor of that. I enjoy it. It feels

good, but it's not the world I want to

live in. I don't want to live in that

world. So even though um I believe I was

treated unfairly in a similar situation

um I just can't live in that world. So

that's my take. All right.

Here's what um I mentioned this uh when

I was on Tucker's uh show the other day.

There's something different about the

lies that are being told today compared

to the old times. And it used to be that

if you said, "Oh, that Reagan is

Hitler."

People understood that as just

hyperbole, they didn't think, "Oh, he's

actually Hitler." But when you're doing

it 24 hours a day, Hitler, Hiller,

Hitler, and every time you turn on CNN

or MSNBC, every time somebody's

comparing them to Hitler or Nazis, you

should assume that young people who are

exposed to that and it's all they know

and they're not watching Fox News or

just watching those networks. Of course,

some of them would reach the point of

violence cuz they'd think, well, you

know, everybody thinks they're Hitler as

far as I can tell, so if I take out

Hitler, I'm fine. So, the laws as they

were written were about uh slander. You

can't do slander, but you can lie

and you can, you know, exaggerate and

insult and all those other things. So if

the cumulative effect of wall-to-wall

Hitler accusations

creates a situation where violence is

guaranteed, is that inciting violence?

The answer is not legally. No, because

it has to be immediate. There's no such

thing as a cumulative, you know, over

time. A lot of people did a lot of

things and the cumulative effect was

that somebody got killed. Charlie Kirk

in particular.

That's not illegal. Should it be? Well,

it makes me wonder because when, you

know, our free speech rules were

created,

this wasn't really an option. There was

no such thing as mass brainwashing that

was coordinated through the government

and the in my opinion and uh the news

networks. So, it's a it's a danger of

free speech that simply didn't exist, at

least at this level uh until fairly

recently in history. So, there might be

something we need to rethink about that.

But, in general, I'm I'm going to I'm

going to be biased toward free speech if

there's any gray areas. This one's a

gray area, so I'm biased toward free

speech.

Um, let's see what else.

Um,

so

what Kimmel actually said might be a

little different from what people are

imagining, you know. Uh

he said uh he said the MAGA people were

trying hard to make it look like they

were not responsible for it. But you can

interpret that two ways. One, he's

saying that MAGA is responsible for

killing Charlie Kirk. But

would you take that seriously? The other

way you could interpret those exact

words is that he's not saying Banker was

responsible. He's only saying that

they're trying to make sure you know

they're not responsible.

That's not so bad. So, do you cancel

somebody because they said something

that could be taken two ways? You see,

this gets a little personal at this

point. Something that could be

interpreted differently than it was

intended. Is that how you get cancelled?

That's what Roseanne got cancelled.

Roseanne got cancelled not for what she

thought or what she said. You know that,

right? It wasn't for what she thought,

wasn't what she said, it was what other

people misinterpreted

as her intention got cancelled for that.

I would argue that although I was

intentionally trying to cause some

trouble, I was trying to do it for a

positive

uh purpose, including for black America,

but because people chose to interpret

what I said a little bit out of context

because the larger context was, you

know, DEI, etc. Um,

should I be cancelled because someone

else interpreted what I said in a way

that's not the way I intended it? Is

that a good enough reason to be

canceled? I don't know. But there's some

chance, and I wouldn't know because I'm

not I can't read his mind. There's some

chance that Kimmel was trying to walk

close to the line, but he wasn't quite

not quite, you know, blaming MAGA for

maybe doing it.

Um, I'm looking at a comment. It's the

fact that he ignored the horror and

instead went political.

Um,

that's just something you don't like.

That's not why you lose a job.

I I get what you're saying that he

wasn't showing the uh Oh, no. Actually,

I think he did at some point I believe

he did at some point um say the right

words about the horror. I think he did

actually.

just a different day.

Um, I saw that Dave Portoi weighed in on

this and he said it's not cancelling its

consequences. And that would be true if

we're only looking at a business

decision andor the FCC doing its job for

the public interest. If you think that

getting rid of him is a public interest.

So, but I do think that Dave is, you

know, sort of leaving out that the FCC

is part of the government and you don't

ever want the government trying to

directly or indirectly, you know,

impinge on free speech. Um, but I

understand what uh Dave is saying. So,

he's not wrong that it's primarily it's

a consequence situation more than a more

than a free speech situation. But if

it's got a little bit of free speech in

it, I'm I'm still gonna go with the free

speech. You know, if you say, "Well,

Scott, it's 90% he was a dick."

Okay. If it's 10% free speech, I'm going

to still be biased for the free speech.

Um, Eric Swallwell

uh was defending Kimmel. Um, but of

course the Democrats feel they have to

swear and they're so bad at it. Listen

to this swearing from Eric Swallwell. So

he's talking about Kimmel and sort of

defending him for his free speech, but

he says it this way. Quote, he's a

comedian.

Now, Eric,

let me give you a little advice.

Swearing is is good if you use it right.

Like, you know, Trump is just an expert

at swearing in a in a way that people

will laugh. When he swears during a

rally speech, people laugh because he

puts it in just the right place. You

know, you don't expect it, etc. And um

he's also used it to make a really

important point. So you know, okay,

Trump's not kidding about this one. It's

perfect use of cursing. But Swallwell is

just sort of randomly throwing it in a

post. He's a comedian. You know

what would have worked just as well?

He's a comedian.

Do you think that adding the fword

made his point better? Do you think it

made him look tougher? Did it make him

look stronger? Did it make him look like

a better better politician? Didn't do

any of that. No, that was just a mistake

in communication. And I it's like I feel

like they don't even understand the

point that you can definitely get away

with some swearing if you're a little

bit wise about when you do it. This is

not wise. It's not even close to wise.

So uh I responded to Derek Swallwell who

said he's an effing comedian by

responding and I said so is Roseanne?

And then I said do cartoonists count?

you know, depending if you call me a

comedian or not. Um,

let let me let me give you a little

micro lesson now on something I've been

meaning to discuss. Trump has a

technique that I don't think I've ever

talked about and it's really, really

good. It's really good and I've never

seen anybody use it. So this is one of

the most persuasive

things he does and he he does it sort of

all the time and it goes like this. He

always favors strength

over getting something necessarily done.

So, for example, um when he says, uh,

I'm going to do this with immigration,

and then maybe the court blocks him and

let's say it blocks him totally, he

doesn't win in an appeal. That would be

him acting strong,

but he got blocked. What you remember

about that is the strength. And then the

next thing comes up and once again he

takes the most I don't want to say

extreme because that's the wrong thing

but the strongest the the firmst

strongest take. I will send the uh

national guard into your city to stop

crime. That's the strong take. Now

suppose it never worked. Suppose uh you

know the courts or something else

blocked him from doing it. What you

would remember is how strong he was in

trying to stop crime.

And I could give you a hundred more

examples that he always takes the strong

point of view even if the odds of that

succeeding are low because then you

remember the strength. And the reason

that that's so important is that

whenever the new thing comes up,

whatever the new thing is, you're going

to respect how hard he's going to go at

it. and that's going to modify how you

respond and probably in a way that's

good for Trump. So,

um, framing yourself as always the

strong one in the conversation, the

strong one in politics, that really

works. That and if I were to advise

somebody say, "All right, do you want to

be right about everything? Do do you

want everything you try to do to work?

or do you want to be seen as somebody

who is stronger than a typical

president? Now, the risk is you get

called an authoritarian and all that

which we see happening. That's a risk.

But, uh I would say that the the

supporters of Trump are probably

triggered more by the strength because

you want to know that the person who's

got your back, you know, the one who who

literally has your back, you want to

think he's the strongest person. So, if

you said to me, who who do you want

protecting you? Uh because this

president, he tried to do something with

I don't know, social security reform and

it didn't work.

It wouldn't bother me at all. But if he

told me he did strong things on the

border, strong things in the city about

crime, you know, he went after other

countries that weren't paying their

their dues. Uh, I'm gonna see a lot of

strength and that is really, really good

persuasion. Even when stuff doesn't work

out, it's still the right play. That's

the part people don't know. The ordinary

person would say, "I'm only going to try

to do this if I've got a pretty good

chance of succeeding." He doesn't need

to do that. He can try things that don't

have a high chance of succeeding as long

as it shows how strong he is. Does that

make sense?

I don't think this would work for most

people, but it's definitely working for

him.

All right. Uh, according to the Daily

Color News Foundation, Adam Pack is

writing about this. Uh, I guess

Democrats are a little bit divided now

over whether they should whether they

should keep using incendiary rhetoric

and calling

the Trump administration people uh Nazis

and Hitler. Uh but George Takai, you

remember him, Sulu from the original

Star Trek. Um he says that uh Trump

employing the quote Nazi playbook to

exploit Charlie Kirk's assassination.

Breitbart's writing about that Paul

Boyce and uh can you imagine being

George Tai

and that

that's the same week that Charlie Kirk

is assassinated probably because of

people like George Tai. Let me say it

directly. People like George Dai

cumulatively, not him specifically, but

cumulatively they caused the death of

Charlie Kirk. Does anybody even doubt

that? Do you believe that there was any

chance Kirk would have been

assassinated?

Any chance if Democrats didn't talk that

way, do you think they would have said,

"I don't like his policies and he would

have been shot." I don't I don't think

there's any chance that I think they had

to not like the policies but also think

everybody thinks they sit. I think I you

know this would be popular. I'll do

this.

So

um it will be funny to watch them make

the same mistake over and over, but it's

not funny if it causes somebody else to

take a shot.

Um, you know the news, Blaze Media got a

hold of, I guess they were first to look

at it, a report by a private entity, who

is the Capital Research Center, and they

did a study on George Soros and his

funding machine. So, it I guess it

mapped out all the nodes and, you know,

where the money's coming and how much

and stuff like that. Now, that would be

it's a 95page report and apparently uh

that's going to be turned over to the

Trump administration who also said they

wanted to do some

research on the Soros funding stuff.

I guess also uh

there's some talk about Antifa being uh

designated as a terrorist organization.

That hasn't happened yet. But uh

remember I said Trump is famous for

taking the strong position. Well, what

would be stronger than designated Antifa

as a terrorist organization? Now suppose

it doesn't work out like somehow he has

to back up from that. Would it be a

mistake? Nope. It wouldn't be a mistake.

Even if he doesn't doesn't end up

getting that dump, it wouldn't be a

mistake because everybody would say,

"Man, that's strength. He's going hard

at at the people who need to to get a

little pressure on him.

Well, Israel has completed the iron beam

system. Um, I don't think it's fully

implemented in the IDF, but

technology-wise has passed its tests.

The iron beam is a laser that will shoot

down drones. Now, as you know, lasers

don't work as well on cloudy or rainy

days, but Israel would also still have

the Iron Dome, which shoots up uh

missiles to knock down other missiles.

But we are now uh we're now solidly in

the domain of uh lasers shooting down

stuff.

Uh,

for Scott, uh, you got cancelled for

telling the truth, but Kimmel was lying.

Yeah, that's not really the important

part. That's not how analogies work.

Analogies work when there's just one

thing that they have in common that, you

know, can tell a story. And the one

thing is that if you're both comedians,

that's it. Lying is not against the law.

I don't like it. I wish there would be

less of it, but it's not against the

law. And so, even if he does something I

find very objectionable,

and he did, uh, it's not objectionable

in the free speech sense, unfortunately.

Yeah. Or maybe fortunately.

Um anyway, this uh beam um

I understand

uh somebody can give me a fact check if

I'm wrong about this, but my

understanding is that um if the US is

involved in maybe funding the

development of weapons in Israel, that

what Israel develops, and remember

they're super high-tech, uh whatever

they develop has some kind of licensing

or or the US has the ability to use it,

too. So, I don't know about that for

sure. That's that's just the information

I have right now. But, uh, it's possible

that Israel just developed one of the

best weapons we'll ever have for

defending the United States. If that

happened, then that would be on the plus

side of arguing why funding Israel makes

sense. if they happen to have a a

technical weapons development industry

that's in any way in any pockets is

better than ours

and we have a deal where if we funded it

we have access to some of that

technology

that might be a gigantic benefit for the

United States. So if you're looking at

all the pluses and minuses I'm generally

not in favor of funding other countries

for anything. I mean, I'm just not in

favor of it. But, uh, you can't argue if

that's true that we would get that

technology. You can't argue that we

don't get anything out of it.

In, uh,

uh, what's her name? Um, Kla Harris,

she's got her new book out and she's

she's saying in her book that Tim Walsh

was not her first choice for running

mate. Her first choice was Pete

Buddhajed because, as she said, quote,

"He is a sincere public servant with the

rare talent of being able to frame

liberal arguments in a way that makes it

possible for conservatives to hear

them."

Um, is that what you think? Do you think

Pete Buddha Judge has that rare talent

to frame arguments so conservatives can

hear them?

Wrong.

That's not even a little bit true. I've

listened to a lot of Pete Buddha judge.

Do you think he frames things in a way

that conservatives go, you know, huh?

Oh, wow. Wow. I had the opposite

opinion. But now that I heard Pete

Buddha Judge explain it with his, you

know, his golden tongue,

um, I've changed my mind. That was

pretty good argument there, Pete. No,

I don't think you'll find anyone who

says, "Oh, you know, Pete Buddha Judge

changed my mind on that topic."

I don't know. Kla Harris, she's funny.

Well, Trump's approval level doesn't

look so good, but I'm not sure I care.

He's not going to run for office again.

Um, and it's kind of normal that the

more somebody gets is on the job as

president, he's going to do so many

things that everyone is going to find at

least one thing that they're not crazy

about. So, I don't know. It just feels

normal that no matter who the president

is at this point, yeah, they're probably

going to be a dip. Um, no surprise. I

I'm not worried about that. The Hill is

reporting that

um

according to a uh Walton Family

Foundation Gallup poll that just came

out um only 35% of respondents

are satisfied with the state of K

through 12 education in the United

States. 35%.

Now that would probably be the 35% whose

kids are in good schools, don't you

think?

Um, I have a question.

Is is the problem with schools, excuse

me, is the problem with schools because

they are a mess. Is it the teachers?

Is it the lack of uh, let's say,

physical resources?

I feel like it's the other students.

What do you think?

I feel like um you know 65% of the

schools have just enough troublemakers

that it ruins the whole experience for

everybody.

Um now I do think that in many cases the

teachers are bad but I don't think the

teachers could help if the class has too

many troublemakers in it.

you know, troublemakers.

What do you think? And and it seems to

me that private schools um solve for

that because the only people who go to

private schools are the people whose

parents think that's going to work. And

uh it generally gets you a less

troublemaking group of people. And I I

feel like the private school would kick

you out if you were a troublemaker,

whereas the the public school would

have, you know, more of an obligation to

keep you even if you're a little bit of

a troublemaker. But what is the problem?

Is it mostly the other people, the other

students?

Um, imagine imagine if you will. I spent

a lot of time imagining what it would be

like to be a poor black student. Do you

do that?

Maybe that's weird, but I I literally I

spend a lot of time and always have

wondering

could you escape that trap? So, let's

say you're born into a poor single

single parent situation and you go to

school and 70% of the people in the

class don't care about graduating, don't

care about their grades, don't care

about their future, and they're just

causing trouble.

Can you escape that? Can you use your,

you know, let's say you've got good

character and you're smart enough?

you're smart enough that you should do

well in life. Is that going to be

enough? If if you don't have the

resources or wherewithal to go to a

private school and you had to stay

there, could you possibly get a good

outcome if 70% of the students just came

to cause trouble?

I would think there's not a chance, not

a chance at all.

So the first problem with

what you have to do to solve any problem

is you have to figure out what the

actual base problem is. Some of it has

to be the teachers. But it does seem to

me that as long as the students beyond a

certain percentage of the class are

troublemakers, it wouldn't matter who

your who your teacher is, there's no way

you could overcome that.

So now it could be that in the old days,

let's say when I was a kid, uh, capital

punishment was still okay. I had a

teacher who would beat you with a

baseball bat if you got in line like an

actual baseball bat. He kept it, you

know, kept it in the he actually kept it

in the class and uh he would fi have

fist fights. Uh, he was pretty strong.

He he had this big monkey muscular body

and he would have fist fights with kids.

And I'll tell you, we were pretty well

behaved after a couple of bouts of

violence. And in a small town back in

those days, if if you if a parent found

out that the teacher punched a child,

the first thing they would ask is, "What

do you do?" That's the first question.

What'd he do? And then he would tell

them and they'd say, "Uh, all right.

Well, I don't love the fact that you

punched him, but he had a common, you

know, some version of that." And that

unfortunately, and I'm not saying

that's, you know, all good. I mean, you

you can have some childhood PTSD from

that. Um, but generally speaking, forget

about that one teacher. He was extreme,

but generally speaking, there was just

more discipline

and it helped everybody in the class.

Now, I don't think we should necessarily

go back to the old ways, but somehow you

have to solve for the fact that not

everybody in the room has the same goal,

which is to learn. Yeah, you got to

solve that before you you have any

chance.

All right.

And then back to my original point. If

your only problem was that you were poor

and you had a single mother, but once

you went to school, everything worked

smoothly, I think you could you could do

great. I I think nothing would stop you

under just those minimum conditions. As

long as school is good, you've got a way

out. That's the way it's supposed to

work, right? It's supposed to be that

you can work your way out of poverty by

working hard, going to school,

developing a skill. Tyson Food said it's

going to halt the use of high fructose

corn syrup, which many people say is not

healthy. Uh, The Hill is reporting on

this. Um, and they also apparently they

already

they're going to halt the use of

sucralose.

It's a preservative, I guess. And

they're they've already removed

petroleum based synthetic dyes. How many

of you knew you were eating oil?

That petroleum

based synthetic dyes were in your food.

You're actually eating oil,

right? Or or is it processed to the

point where that's an unfair thing to

say? Um

so I think what's going to happen uh is

that RFK Jr. etc. is creating a

situation where all the big companies

are going to have to act and if

everybody has to act then presumably

there will be industries and products

that pop up to be alternatives to

whatever the ingredients are that seem

to be unhealthy. If only one company

wanted to switch to a healthier

alternative. it might not be enough to

make a industry and of the alternative.

But if everybody kind of needs to

because it'd be too much pressure from

the public and RFK Jr. then suddenly

it's a big money situation to to get

healthier and people might produce that

product for you. So I feel like

everything's working going in the right

direction on food. It's just going to

take a while.

Um, I saw a uh post by Siki Chen on X.

Siki is uh in in the tech world. He's

well known in the tech world. Um, he

said, "I've lived in the United States

for almost 42 years. I've been alive and

never had people be openly racist to me

until I heard from all the people either

openly on X or privately in DMs hurling

racist abuse at me for switching to the

Republican party." and he says eye

opening.

Now that's shocking.

That is shocking. All right.

Um,

so,

so apparently the day before I saw this,

Daniel Greenfield wrote about this that,

uh, the day before Charlie Kirk was

assassinated,

there was a free speech ranking in a

fire survey. fire being the name of the

company or the name of the entity fire

uh fire survey of 68,000 college

students whole bunch of universities and

revealed that one in three students

believe uh believe that using violence

to stop a speaker they disagreed with on

campus was acceptable.

One in three people thought violence was

acceptable to stop people from saying

things you don't like. violence one and

three.

Now, here's my take. I don't believe

that survey.

Do you do you think that's true? That

sounds a lot like something that college

students say in an answer to a survey.

It doesn't sound like something they do.

So, you know, if you say to me, uh, do

you think, uh, young people whose brains

are not developed and they like causing

trouble and, you know, maybe they like

using a little hyperbole,

I feel like it's something you say on a

survey, if you're young,

that isn't really something you believe

or if or if you were in the situation,

you wouldn't do any violence. So, I feel

like it's alarming and I would certainly

keep an eye on it. I wouldn't I wouldn't

completely discount it. I could be

wrong.

It's happened, but I'm not entirely sure

that's telling us what we think.

Remember, all data is fake.

Um, I told you that the US is going to

overhaul the citizenship test. Did you

know that the citizenship was a 100

questions, but you only get 10 of them?

So, they randomly picked 10 of the

questions. Um, but you would have to

study all hundred to make sure you can

get uh most of them right. So, so it

used to be that you only need to get a

six out of 10 right. Uh, but now you'll

need 12 correct out of 20.

And I looked at the questions and I'm

happy to say I think I could pass it.

But if you had 128 facts that you had to

learn and you only had to get 12 out of

20 right, how how long would you have to

study before you could nail that? You'd

probably have to under Well, not

probably, you'd have to understand

English, otherwise you wouldn't be able

to understand the test. Uh, and I guess

it's a verbal test. It's not even

written. somebody somebody just asks you

10 questions and then checks it off. But

I don't know what was there really some

reason that we had to add 28 questions.

I don't know.

But there's probably a good reason for

it.

Um so according to just the news Ben

Weeden already 2 million illegal uh

residents have left the country. 400,000

directly deported and then 1.6 million

self-epporting.

You know, when I heard this whole

self-deporting thing, you know, the

commercials you see on TV with Christy

Gnome and she's saying, you know, if you

leave now, there's a chance we would let

you back in, but if you don't leave and

we have to get rid of you, you'll never

come back. So, some number of people are

self-epporting,

way more than I thought. I I thought

everybody would just hang tight and try

to ride it out, you know, try to hide

from the law until there's a new new

president or something. But that is if

if these numbers are right, and you

know, there's always a question about

that. If really 1.6 million people left

on their own on top of 400,000 deported,

wouldn't you call that a really good

job? Because remember the at least the

400,000 are not all but a lot of them

are the worst. I don't know what

percentage I don't think it's very high

percentage actually but if they got a

lot of the bad people first I don't know

that feels very successful. I would give

a I would give a high mark for that

number of people in six months.

Um David Saxs as you know he's in the

administration he's got portfolio of

crypto and I think AI and he says that

uh there's big news from China and that

Huawei their big tech company over there

uh has introduced a new AI chip that's

going to compete with Nvidia here. We

thought we were all awesome in the

United States because we had better

chips. So, we could get better AI and,

you know, rule the world. But Huawei is

uh competing. Now, their chips are not

as good as Nvidia.

And people are saying things like,

"Well, it's going to be a long time

before they can catch up." We don't know

that. We don't know how long it'll take

them to catch up. They've already

figured out how to architect their

lesser chips so that they act like

better chips. They just use more of them

and they can, you know, approximate

Nvidia. They can't get there, but they

can get close.

So, China is not really desperate for

our chips and they're doing essentially

what we're doing by trying to do better

at mining rare earth so that we don't

have to depend on them. Well, they're

doing the same thing, but what they're

doing is building a chip building

industry. Now, um

the problem is that Huawei will start

selling its AI chips to other countries.

And if China is the one providing the AI

tech and not the United States, then

those countries are going to be a little

bit under the uh thumb of China because

they will depend on China for their

technology and they have to have AI

because everybody will have to have it.

So David Saxs is warning us that maybe

uh we should look at loosening up our

sales to the non-China companies so that

they don't buy from China,

which seems common sensical. I would I

would say that on the surface that makes

sense.

Um, but I would also say that in general

I feel like it's more likely that China

will match Nvidia in a few short years

than the chances that they won't. Um,

there's just too much too much writing

on it and they'll do everything from

bribery to blackmail to outright IP

theft. And I don't know, is it

impossible for them to just get one of

the Nvidia chips and look at the, you

know, look at the architecture and copy

it? Is that not possible? Or is it the

software? Well, even that they can copy.

So, I'm going to I'm going to bet that

China will surprise us in how quickly

they reach parody, if not more, to

Nvidia.

Well, Ukraine has attacked yet another

uh refinery in uh in Russia. This a gasp

prom refinery in Bashkurstan,

Russia. So, it's 1300 kilometers from

the front line. So, they're going pretty

deep into Russia. And they use scores of

drones and they had a direct hit on the

facility. Now I don't know how much of

it was destroyed or whether it stopped

operation but I was wondering remember

I've told you that I was guessing that

if Ukraine could take out 20% that was

my own estimate of the refining capacity

or the energy resources in Russia that

Russia's economy would be in such

trouble that they might want to you know

do a peace deal.

Well, according to

uh whatever it was I was reading that I

didn't write down the source. Um they

may have already expert projections

indicate that sustained disruptions to

40 or 50% of the capacity could tip the

balance. So I said 20% would put him in

trouble. The experts say 40 to 50%.

Guess what they're at?

So, how much of that they disrupted so

far? Um,

if I wrote it down, I think it was like

17 20% something like that. Yeah, 17 to

24%. So, it's possible that there that

Ukraine is halfway

and there's nothing that would stop them

from getting to 40 or 50, but they're

already halfway to the number that would

collapse um the Russian economy. Now,

it's I would say it's obvious that

that's the strategy because they don't

really have any chance of winning, you

know, a direct military battle, but they

could definitely take out 40 to 50% of

their refinery capacity and then things

get pretty uh

get pretty sketchy, assuming any of

those numbers are real.

Now, obviously, Russia would up their uh

up their response, so you can't predict

that that would give Ukraine any victory

or anything, but it might make Russia

sufficiently incentivized to at least

talk peace. We'll see.

Um, California legislature, I can't even

believe this, passed a bill to create

subsidies for news entities for media,

the media entities. And uh, it's because

Governor Nuome thinks that uh, the media

entities in California need a little

boost. Now, how do you interpret that?

Uh, this is being reported by Just the

News. How do you how do you understand

that except for a way for the governor

to control the news? Uh if you want your

subsidy,

you better do, you know, positive

reporting about me or do you think it's

just another way um for the government

to launder money? Do you think that

there's anybody who's like a good friend

or relative perhaps of Newsome who might

be a recipient of some of those

subsidies? Well, that's the way it

usually goes on the Democrat side. If

you hear they've created any kind of

funding or subsidies for anything, the

first thing you could know is that that

money is going to go to their cronies

and people were going to give some of it

back to the politicians who who created

that law. So, I would say every part of

this looks dirty to me.

Well, the Pope has weighed in. He's

slamming Elon Musk for what he calls

obscene greed. He said uh talking about

money. He said, "If that is the only

thing that has any value anymore, then

we're in big trouble." And he pointed

out the continuous wider income gap. He

said, "Yesterday there was a news that

Elon Musk is going to be the first

trillionaire in the world." And then he

says,"What does that mean?" And um so he

he thinks that's bad. If the only thing

that has any value anymore, we're in

trouble, blah blah blah. Um now, I don't

want to criticize the Pope,

but I would point out that the Pope's

expertise does not seem to extend to the

business world. Let me explain what the

trillion dollars is all about. The

trillion dollars is not what he's going

to spend on buying what? Better

t-shirts.

Elon Musk wears basically a t-shirt and

jeans every single day. Like what's he

spending his trillion on? Is it because

he he has a private jet that he flies

around? That would be a necessity for

anyone who has that many businesses.

If you have more than one business and

you're a global kind of a company and uh

you need to run businesses in different

places and you've got yeah private plane

is just business. There's nothing wrong

with that. And it's not like he even has

a mansion or anything. He doesn't have a

mansion. I don't know if he ever will.

He seems uninterested in that kind of

stuff. So Elon Musk is the least

consumerdriven person I've ever seen.

You know, Steve Jobs, you know, arguably

was in that domain.

But I think it's a complete

misunderstanding that the trillion

dollars is just his money.

No, it's not. The trillion dollars is

the value of SpaceX and, you know, Tesla

and those other companies. He's building

robots and going to Mars and, you know,

solving all these uh physical problems

with um the the brain chip thing. Uh

that trillion dollars is almost,

I'd say,

98%

for the public good. He only does

companies that are for the public good.

He's not making a video game, although

he might someday.

the the things he does are so obviously

good for the country, if not the world.

At the very least, it makes the US more

competitive.

But it bothers me a little that the Pope

would weigh in on this and be so wrong

about understanding the general

situation. I want Elon Musk to have $2

trillion

because his history is that he invests

every penny he makes and that that's how

he got to where he is. He invests it

all. So,

Pope, come on.

Come on, Pope.

All right. I saw an estimate in tech

explorer Andrew Zinnan is writing that

according to the WTO AI might boost

global trade values by at least 40%.

So so that would be a gigantic, you

know, improvement in in business.

Do you believe that? Do you believe that

the WTO can do a a believable credible

estimate about how much AI will boost

global trade?

Let's see how well I've trained you. Do

you believe that's that's something they

can estimate?

No. This is as ridiculous as the climate

models. No. There's no such thing as

estimating the temperature in 20 years.

That's not a thing. I mean, not credibly

doing it. And it's not a thing that you

can figure out how AI will boost global

trade. Please. Really? Really? Nobody

knows what AI is going to do. It might

be better than that. It might be worse,

but nobody knows an estimate. God.

All right. Nobody can legitimately

estimate that sort of thing. And once

you learn that, it will help you a lot

because there there's a tendency if all

these experts say, "Well, we we

estimated this thing." And you say to

yourself, "Well, experts estimated a

thing. That sounds pretty good to me."

Um, but generally when experts are

estimating a thing, the odds that they

know what they're doing and the estimate

is credible, very low. It's very low.

All right, that's all I got to say

today. I've got my cat in my lap

who has been enjoying the show more than

you because the cat likes it when I'm

busy doing something else and he's just

laying on my lap. So, Gary,

uh, I'm done now with the main show and

I'm going to go private with the, uh,

beloved,

very beloved local subscribers and the

rest of you. Thanks for joining.

Um, and we'll be back tomorrow, same

time, same place. All right, locals, I'm

coming at you in 30 seconds.

30 seconds starting.