Episode 2967 CWSA 09/23/25

Come on in.

We're getting ready to do a show.

Well, you knew that.

Looks like stocks are Let's see.

Flat.

Kind of flat.

All right.

Well, then we'll do a show.

Get our own excitement.

We don't need a stock market.

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 in elevating your experience 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 or ste a canteen jugger flask a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

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

Go spectacular.

Well, Open AI and Nvidia, the two giants in the AI business, are planning a combined hundred billion dollar AI project that will require the power of at least 10 nuclear reactors according to Ars Technica uh Ben Edwards writing about that.

So, it's this enormous enormous project.

Do you wonder if they know for sure that that would pay off?

Do you think they know enough, the people who are closest to it, the AI experts to know that if they put a hundred billion dollars into it and they and that that's not even counting the that's probably not even counting the nuclear power plants, right?

Um do they just sort of know that there's no way that could be anything but a good good deal for them?

Makes me wonder.

We'll see.

Well, football retired football quarterback Tom Brady and his business partners are investing in a robotic massage uh massage robot.

So, it's a robot you lay on the table like a regular massage and it massages you and it learns about you and it sort of figures out your body and where it would feel best and everything.

And apparently it's it already exists and it's already in production already in the field and uh it works.

But you're probably saying to yourself, I'm not going to enjoy it if a if a machine does it.

Isn't it the isn't it the human touch that's sort of the whole point of it?

Well, I'll tell you.

Uh right on the other side of my computer, I have a high-end massage chair.

Um, it's like really high-end, very expensive.

And, uh, I got to tell you, every time I use that, it is just floods me with I don't know what uh, whatever happiness chemicals you get when you get a massage.

I It is really effective.

I mean, you don't you'll you'll want to just sleep it off for an hour after that thing.

So, if they made a better one that's like a big arm that massages you, would I like it even more?

I don't know.

The one I got is pretty pretty darn good.

I don't know how it could be better, actually.

Well, Meta, the company, has introduced a AI based uh I guess you could call it a dating app, but it won't work like regular dating apps.

I guess it's sort of chatbased and you can tell it, you know, exactly what you're looking for and it'll go off into the internet probably just on Facebook and look for somebody who meets all those qualifications.

Wouldn't that be amazing that you'd have AI being like a real matchmaker?

So, it wouldn't be like, you know, Tinder or Hinge or Okay.

Cid or any of those.

it would uh it would be more like a person that just happens to be AI and knows a lot about a lot of people.

So, we got that.

Uh my suggestion is to cut out the middleman and just date the AI directly.

I mean, it sounds funny, but let me ask you this.

If you had to compare spending time with whoever the AI decided you should spend time with or spending time with the AI, which one would you do?

Well, it's pretty close to a tossup at the moment.

So, I think the real win for AI would be to cut out the middleman and become the date.

Well, you've probably already heard that ABC and Jimmy Kimmel have agreed that he will be coming back on the air tonight.

Now, not all of the affiliates, that would be the local stations, they're not all going to automatically run it, although that could change by tonight.

But the Sinclair Group and Nextar, um, they may not, but they are also not the majority of the stations.

So, they would still have plenty of stations, but they would lose maybe, I don't know, 20% or something if the uh Sinclair doesn't participate.

It doesn't seem to me that there's any possibility that they could make money on Kimble since they weren't making money anyway.

But if they lose another 20% of their local affiliates, I don't think there's any chance that they could make money.

So, I don't know what they're up to.

Um, here's uh here's my final take on it.

I doubt it'll be final.

Um, I'm glad that he's going to be back on the air.

Now, I know you don't like it.

I know I know what I'm saying and I know you don't like it, but this was uncomfortably close to something in the free speech domain.

It wasn't.

It was never it was never a question of free speech because the FCC has a mandate to police the speech of the three networks.

It it's actually their, you know, their lawful legal job is to make sure that the three broadcast networks um don't do something that bad for the public.

That means that it's their job to censor them.

So you can't say, "Hey, the government censored me." When that's actually specifically their job for those three limited resources that not everybody could have at the same time.

So it's not it was never really a free speech question, but it was uncomfortably similar to one or reminded you of one or made you feel like you were living in one.

And anytime there's a gray area, I would default, you know, to free speech.

But remember, it was up to it's a business decision ultimately.

So my opinion about it doesn't matter.

Your opinion doesn't matter.

Uh but I'm going to give you the kill shot on this topic.

Are you ready?

Here's the kill shot.

If I have not changed your mind that it should be appropriate or at least allowable that Jimmy Kimmel goes back on the air, here is the thing that ends the debate.

You ready?

What would Charlie Kirk have wanted?

If he could tell you what he wanted, would he want Jimmy Kimmel to be off the air because of what he said?

I don't know.

I mean, we we can't know for sure, but I would say 99% chance that Charlie Kirk would have said, "You know what?

Um, I forgive him.

It was one little slip and uh I think he took enough heat that he learned his lesson.

Maybe maybe I should go on his show." I think if Charlie Kirk were here, I mean, obviously that's logically impossible as well as actually impossible, but if he were here, he would say, "Can I go on your show and we'll talk about it?" Because that's who he was, right?

So, do does it make sense that you or I should be opposed to it when you're probably pretty sure he would not have been because in a in in many ways he's better than us.

I hate to admit it, but you know that the reason that he's so beloved, Charlie Kirk, he's just better than us in in a whole bunch of ways.

That's probably one of them.

So, if you can tell me that you honestly believe that Charlie Kirk would be happier if Jimmy Kimmel got, you know, destroyed career-wise and all the people who work on his show lose their jobs.

I don't think that was Charlie Kirk.

Was it?

You know, if you disagree with me, I'd love I'd love to hear the counterargument, but I feel that if you believe that Charlie would have handled it differently, kept him on the air and engaged him in conversation, which is what I think he would have done.

If you disagree, I'm open to the argument.

But if you don't disagree, then I think that the let's say the respectful play, the the way that you could most respect the memory and legacy of Charlie is to do what you think he would have done, right?

I'll bet you hate how much that convinced you.

And also, I don't want to see the staff lose their jobs.

the staff didn't do anything right.

There are a few dozen people on the staff and I was thinking about um you know I have an empathy problem sometimes like too much of it.

I was imagining how Jimmy Kimmel felt when he knew that he wouldn't personally be that affected by it because he's made his money by now but the staff the staff would be struggling.

Imagine knowing that you're the reason your your own stubbornness or stupidity, you probably thought of it that way, cost, I don't know, dozens of people that you really really like.

You know, they're your staff.

Cost them all their jobs because of some dumb damn thing you did.

Imagine how that would hurt.

Like if you were a normal person who cared about other people, that would really hurt.

So, if you imagine that Jimmy Kimmel just had a, you know, a few days off and then he's just back to work and everything's good, I I wouldn't, you know, I wouldn't discount the fact that that must have been really painful.

Not for himself.

I don't think he probably worried too much about, you know, paying his own bills.

I I doubt that was too high on his list.

But I'll bet he cared a lot a lot about what it did to the staff.

So anyway, that is my final word.

Um, now you might say, but would he grant you the same uh grace?

To which I say, that's not my that that's not my standard.

My standard is to be better than him.

My standard is not to be as good as him.

is to be better than him.

You know, the Charlie Kirk way, the Charlie Kirk way is to be the better person.

It's not to compete with the ugliness.

All right.

Um, you know, the story that allegedly Tom Hman took $50,000 in cash in a in a bag uh for potential services later should he become his current job.

And should Trump have gotten elected?

So, this was before Trump got elected and before he was in his job.

Um, do you know what the White House's response to that story is?

It never happened.

The response is not he took the money, but it was a, you know, that's when he was a consultant and maybe he didn't do anything that was illegal.

It's not that.

They say it just didn't happen.

There was no transfer of money.

He didn't take any money.

Do you believe that?

That's a pretty bold claim.

If the if the allegation is allegedly on video, the allegation is that it was a sting operation, which would mean that somebody in the FBI literally had the video of the transfer of money in a bag.

Do you think that if that exists and there's any chance that somebody would have access to the video and maybe got a copy, do you think that they would just say, "No, it never happened.

There was no transfer of money whatsoever." I don't know.

They They must be pretty confident that nobody can prove them wrong because it's a I mean, it's a binary.

It's yes or no.

It either exists or it doesn't exist.

But I am willing to believe that the White House is correct and maybe it doesn't exist.

It could be that they offered him the money and he didn't give a hard no, nor did he give a hard yes.

So maybe maybe somehow that got turned into well, he sort of took it even though he didn't take it.

I don't know.

Could be anything.

Um, California is the first state to require masks on law enforcement and the the border patrol enforcement people.

And uh, I feel like they made a little mistake with that law.

So, let me see if I understand this.

It would be illegal for these border patrol uh or border enforcement people, ICE, I guess, to uh wear masks, but there's no law against wearing makeup, right?

Can the women wear makeup?

I think they can.

No law against that.

Would there be a law against somebody wearing a fake beard?

Well, a fake beard is not a is not a mask.

I don't I don't believe that's covered.

How about somebody who put a fake nose and glasses on so you couldn't see their their eyes or their uh nose?

Well, I don't think that's really a mask, is it?

What about fake boobs?

Suppose the uh all the all the guys put in fake boobs and makeup and eyelashes and then they said, "Oh, no.

We're not doing border enforcement.

We're running a trans event.

It's a trans event because they'd be wearing, you know, boobs and fake eyelashes and makeup, but then they'd say transportation.

Wink wink.

So, I'm just saying that the ice could uh find a workaround.

Just turn it into a dress up uh trans event.

transportation.

All right, I'm being silly.

Well, as you know, uh Trump and RFK Jr.

had a big announcement yesterday of what they found out so far or believe they know about autism.

And uh boy, did this get interesting.

So, uh there are several things.

First of all, they said that Tylenol um is not as let's say not as proven safe as they would like it to be.

And so some studies say that if a pregnant woman takes Tylenol or the acetaminophen, so there are other companies that make it besides the Tylenol company.

But uh there's a bunch of studies that suggest that it's correlated and therefore causation.

Um but there are other studies that say nope, there's no correlation at all.

But uh I think it was a Harvard group looked at all the studies and found out that there was at least in their opinion there was more evidence that there is a connection than that there isn't.

Do you know what it is?

Do you know what it's called when you look at a whole bunch of studies instead of just one you you look at the the bunch of them?

What's that called?

That's called a meta study.

What if I taught you about meta studies?

They're they're not a science.

That that's not a science.

A meta study has too much opinion baked into it.

Even though you don't think so.

The way the opinion is baked into it, a meta study, which is a study of all the other studies, is that you have to make a decision about um which studies to include.

So for example, if there was one study that was much bigger than the others, they they sort of they sort of weigh all the studies by the number of participants.

So if there's one that was like 100 times bigger than all the other studies put together, well, you don't really need to look at all the other studies because the one would bias, you know, the total so much.

Then let's say there was one that went one direction, a study that went one direction, another study that pointed the other direction, but you as the researcher said, I don't think this one study was done with high enough quality.

So in my opinion, it should be left out of the bunch and then because you left it out, it biased it in the other direction.

So was that science or was there something about your opinion that decided what was in the studies and really you're measuring your own opinion of what should be in the studies and you're not actually measuring any kind of average of the studies.

So in general meta studies are in my opinion not terribly reliable but to the credit of the administration they're not saying we have proven the connection.

So, I like that they're not saying they are not saying we've proven the connection.

What they are saying is it's a sort of a scary indications of what we're seeing and if I were you, I wouldn't be taking Tylenol if I were pregnant.

Although the the doctors dis a lot of them not all of them some doctors I don't know what percentage disagree because the the risk of not taking a painkiller might be could turn out to be worse than the risk of the painkiller for example if you don't treat something with Tylenol and the other painkillers are also not allowed when you're pregnant.

So, it's your only option.

If your only option to beat back the inflammation and the pain is Tylenol, then you've got this tough choice because the inflammation in the pain might cause its own set of problems.

It could be the same as it could cause autism.

Some people speculate.

Um, so it could be some say that it's not that what you're measuring is not so much the Tylenol, but what you're measuring is that they had an underlying condition that required Tylenol.

How would you know the difference?

Suppose there's some, you know, fever or inflammation problem that's common enough and that people would normally take Tylenol for it.

Wouldn't it look like the Tylenol was the problem, but really it was the underlying inflammation because the people who didn't need the Tylenol also didn't have that underlying inflammation thing.

So there's all kinds of uncertainty.

Um but Trump um in his Trumpian ways is basically saying don't take Tylenol, don't take it.

um you know he he admits that his his uh administration does not say that he's just telling you as your leader as your president which I kind of like as long as he's clear that this is me saying this this is not the medical people the medical people are saying you know use your judgment use it when you need it use it at the lowest amount talk to your doctor and those are all the responsible right things.

Trump's giving you the common sense, don't do it.

But like I said, your doctor might say, you know, this in your specific case, it's worth a little risk.

So at least at least they're honest about, you know, leave it to your doctor.

All right.

So see what else got there's also uh also let's see um there's there's also a new drug that's being rolled out for I don't know if it's every kind of autism but some and then you got uh we don't know if that'll work yet but I mean it's approved there's an new approved drug for autism um that looks like it could help some if not all patients.

Um and then I guess Trump suggested spacing out spacing out and delaying some vaccinations that are common vaccinations that typically everybody gets.

The science behind the spacing of it so you don't get them all at once also I believe is not proven.

But Trump again is being common sensical and saying if you don't have to give them all at the same time, can't you reduce one risk by not doing it at the same time?

Well, there is a counter to that.

The counterargument is if you have, let's say, you know, four vaccinations that are really good idea that we know individually are good.

If you don't give them at the same time, the odds that they don't get the the second dose, that would be the other two, goes way up.

So, if you say, well, you only have to get one shot, you could probably talk parents and the kids into it, even though it's a combination of lots of different shots with unknown unknown directions.

So you could get higher rate of people getting the shots if you combine them, but you have a higher risk because they're combined.

Now the higher risk, I mean the higher unknown.

I shouldn't say risk.

I should say there's a higher unknown.

But there is science whether it's valid or not that shows that even can combining the shots doesn't make a difference.

Of course, there is some study that showed it made no difference for autism.

Is that a study valid?

We cannot trust any of the studies in this domain.

I wouldn't trust any I wouldn't trust any of the studies.

That's why you have to look at 46 of them and use magic to try to figure out which ones are real.

Um, however, let's see what else.

Oh, also hepatitis B, they would wait not, you know, ideally not give it to kids until they're about 12 because it's a sexually transmitted disease.

And unless you got it from your mom at birth, which it which can happen, you don't need to be protected.

And it's routine, I believe, to screen the pregnant mother for hepatitis B, so you could know in advance whether you know that newborn needs a shot or not.

All right.

So, those are all the things I think there's, you know, generally in the right direction, but I'm going to give you a alternative view that uh you you can make your own opinion on.

So, this is from a ex user named Cremeu, a French French word, creme.

Now, I mentioned him before because his uh his analytical abilities are incredible.

Um, and so when he has a a alternative point of view on something in the news, it's definitely worth listening to.

Doesn't mean he's right.

So, here's a here's a long list that I printed out from his X account of his argument for why.

It might be that there is no increase in autism, but we only think there is.

Now, before I give you this, you know, the the wonky nerdy explanation of why he thinks maybe the data is all wrong, um I will acknowledge that if you talk to any school teacher today, they would say, uh there's there's at least one autistic kid in every class now.

Every class of 30 people, just there's at least one.

And when you were when people like me were children, we believed that that was not the case.

We believed that that was rare.

I mean, I didn't even know any when I was a kid.

So, the lived experience of the people who are closest to this world, teachers are 100% sure, oh yeah, there's a gigantic increase.

And I feel like you see it in your own life, right?

Don't don't we observe it directly?

So, even though I'm going to give you a wonky argument that maybe it's not a it's not a big increase, um there there's a very compelling case that it is very compelling.

You know, it's not like RFK Jr.

didn't look into this.

So, I took all of these reasons why maybe it's not a real increase and I fed into Grock so that when I talk to you today, I could go down the list and say, "Grock says this is BS." Grock, debunk this.

Grock says no.

Uh, do you know what Grock said?

They said true or mostly true or partly true for every one of these.

So, just remember when I when I read these off to you, I'm not saying they're true because remember this is a domain in which you just there's just no way to know what's real.

Uh so I don't claim that I know.

All right, so here are the claims.

Autism is being diagnosed more and more with each year.

Grock said yes.

Uh, autistic traits are not any more common than when the DSM3 first introduced modern diagnostic criteria in 1980.

Grock said, "Yes, true.

Older prevalence estimates are based on inconsistent diagnostic criteria.

So, we can't really compare the the past to the present because they didn't measure the same things." Okay?

That that doesn't mean it's going up or down.

It just means you wouldn't know.

Um, here's the one that stopped me cold.

When researchers go out and attempt to diagnose everyone who has autism, they they find equal prevalence estimates for youth and adult.

Now, if that's true, there is there is no increase in autism.

I if if you simply went out and said, I'm going to get a random sample of people, some of them were 70 years old, some of them were 8 years old, and then you just looked for symptoms of autism, you would find according to creme and whatever study he's referring to that's not mentioned, uh he he claims that you would find that the 70 year olds and the eight-year-olds have roughly the same amount of symptoms.

If that's true, then the only thing that's different is diagnos diagnosis.

If you know, because there's no way that the 70year-olds and the 8-year-olds would have roughly the same autism symptoms, uh unless it had always been here because they're not getting it at 70, you know what I mean?

Uh let's see.

um familiar familial control studies show us that no vaccination has any causal relationship with autism.

So, creme believes that vac vaccinations have not been correlated with autism.

Um which which would go to the point that there's not a increase because of vaccinations.

If this is true, now if you're just joining, I'm not claiming any anything I say here is true.

This is Kremu's argument and he's very good at arguments and data.

So it's it's a he's a good source.

Um he says that uh the rise in autism has overwhelmingly been due to non severe varieties.

Non severe varieties.

So you if you had a little bit of it, you could probably function in the world and get along.

In the old days, life was simple.

So let let's say let's see let's go way back.

Let's go back to the, you know, farming days of our early early American experience.

If you were a farm hand and you didn't even have to own the farm or make the hard decision, you're just a farm hand.

How hard would it be for someone with a minor non severe version of uh autism to simply spend a lot of time alone, not make a lot of conversation, do their job, get paid, and nobody would think anything of it.

You just say it's a different personality.

So, it seems to me that in the modern complicated world, if you had a little bit of autism, it might really trip you up.

and people would really spot it because there' be things you don't do or things you can't do.

But back when everything was simple and all you did was milk a cow and you know cause some grass, nobody even noticed, would they?

Um so driven by classifying people with other conditions as autism, some of that.

Um and apparently if you add a monetary incentive to schools if they if they have people who are autistic suddenly the number of autistic people at the school jumps by 25% in a single year because the the uh funding follows the autistic kids.

So if you say you have more autistic kids you get more funding for those kids.

So, of course, follow the money would give you a 25% increase without any real increase in the the condition.

Uh, no environmental toxicants have been found.

Um, no, here's one.

uh adoption studies indicate that there's no apparent parental influence on kids autistic traits, but there is parental influence on a child's likelihood of receiving a diagnosis.

So the kids that who your parents are will not make a difference about whether you have it, but it will make a difference about whether you get diagnosed.

What's that tell you?

All right.

Uh well due to non severe what else?

So that's that's the basic idea.

Now when you heard those when you heard those explanations did they sound compelling to you?

Does the the alternate explanation that no you're just you're measuring it wrong.

Does that sound compelling?

It would sound compelling to me.

it would if there weren't so many teachers and parents who can tell you there's no way there's not more of this.

It's just everywhere all the time now and every group of 30 has one.

So I'm inclined to think that there is something real that's happening.

But I have to admit that's a pretty strong argument and it's coming from somebody who's not wrong a lot.

So, you know, I I just put that out there to show you that all data is fake.

As I tell you often, all data is unreliable.

So, the autism medicine is called the Leaorin Leakavorin.

And if you happen to have cerebral folate deficiency, which I guess must be a partial cause or maybe an effect of autism, supposedly it can help.

And then the National Institute of Health is going to launch a big autism data science initiative so they can learn more.

And that sounds good.

I'll tell you what I like about this the most.

Um, you could argue all day long about whether what Trump and RFK Jr.

have done so far is the right answer, done enough, should they have done something else?

Are they looking at the right studies?

Blah, blah, blah.

Those are all good questions and concerns.

>> Sorry, I've got to get rid of something.

There we go.

Um, all right.

I have an update and correction on the Charlie Kirk magic bullet question.

Yesterday I told you with great confidence incorrectly that he probably almost certainly had a metal chest plate and the bullet probably hit it and ricocheted up and hit his neck.

Turns out I have much better information today.

There definitely was no uh light.

There was no vest.

There was no metal plate.

So that that comes from the people closest to him.

So there definitely was no metal plate.

Uh I've also learned from now three different sources that I consider highly reliable that if you're trying to figure out the path of a bullet when it enters a body, it could be anything.

So people are advising me, the people who actually know, you know, they've shot things and they've they've seen a lot of wounds and they've killed a lot of wild boores like Alex Jones has.

Alex Jones has killed he he estimated 90 wild boores that he's personally shot to death.

That's a lot of mammals.

But apparently if the uh bullet from that kind of a rifle, which could be a variety of different bullets.

So if it's a hollow point versus some other variety, you would get a you know a different fact pattern.

If it's a hollow point, it probably wouldn't leave the body.

Um it it probably maybe it would still go through a neck, but the angle of attack appeared to be down.

So the uh if I understand it correctly, the the neck wound was the entry wound, but the bullet um went into the body, may have may have destroyed his uh vertebrae and bounced around a little bit in his body or not bounced around necessarily intact, but maybe in, you know, in pieces.

So the um I don't want to say the good news, but the the obvious uh the obvious conclusion is that he died immediately because the internal damage was extraordinary and um probably bones were hit.

So the you know the bullet or the shards bounced around.

So I believe that answers every question except why would the entry wound be so large because that's not that doesn't make sense.

So, I'm still wait I I guess I still have to ask that question.

But it does seem to me and and I would say that my sources at this point are insider sources.

So, I'm talking about people who, you know, have talked to Charlie's widow and, you know, gotten the real story because the widow knows, right?

She knows what's going on.

Erica.

Um, but I believe that question has been now answered sort of mostly.

Well, Kamla Harris trying to sell her stupid book um was on Matto show and uh I forgot how much fun it was to play is she's stupid or drunk.

And once again, I couldn't tell.

She was either being extra stupid or she was drunk.

You know, I know you're going to say, "But Scott, it could be both." Yeah, I know.

It could be both.

But, uh, here are some of the things she said.

And, uh, oh my god, did we dodge a bullet?

She is so stupid and so incompetent that it just it just screams when she's on TV now.

I mean, I guess maybe we got used to it and we're used to Joe Biden, so seeing massive incompetence, it just didn't stand out so much, you know, compared to Biden.

But boy, does it stand out now.

So, Matto, who is uh famously in the LGBTQ community, um she wasn't happy because uh she said uh to Harris to say that uh he was talking about Buddha Judge not being picked because he was gay.

Uh she said to say that he couldn't be on the ticket Buddha judge effectively because he was gay is hard to hear.

Now imagine you're mad and you've been massively supporting Harris and then you find out that Harris wouldn't put uh Pete Buddha Judge on the team because she thought the gay guy couldn't win.

And Harris goes, "No, no, no.

That's not what I said.

Uh with the stakes being so high, it made me very sad, but I also realized it would be a real risk." So she denied that she kept him off because he was gay.

And then she confirmed in her denial that she kept him off because he was gay.

Drunk or stupid or both?

Or both.

Who answers that way?

No, it didn't happen and it totally happened and doesn't realize that that needs to be cleaned up a little bit.

Nope.

Nope.

So there's that.

And then the she described druh Trump as a dictator and a tyrant and you know then she said they got to fight fire with fire.

What exactly would it mean to fight fire with fire?

If you're saying Trump is a dictator and a tyrant, is that not a call for violence?

Because what exactly is the fire that you're going to fight the fire with if you're fighting a dictator and a tyrant?

I that sounds a little violenty to me.

Um and she also claimed that she had quote had a certain responsibility to tell Biden not to run.

Uh, but she admits she engaged in what she calls recklessness because she didn't want to be seen as self-erving.

Like everything about that is wrong.

I mean, how in the world did she get that close to the presidency?

You're all just watching my cat now, aren't you?

So, that this cat is Roman with the blue collar.

Hey, Roman.

I I spend the first part of the day with my other cat on my lap.

Likes to be on my lap when I'm when I'm getting ready for the show, but Roman now likes to likes to join us.

All right.

Um, so Andy No is reporting in post the post millennial he's writing that uh Antifa could soon be branded a foreign terror group.

So um I guess they're already designated a domestic terror group or something, but that doesn't have any teeth.

If they're if they are branded a foreign terrorist group, which looks like that's imminent, then I think that opens up a number of tools that can be used against them that otherwise wouldn't.

So that's coming and it would allow sanctions uh overseas against networks and individuals etc.

And uh I I saw a post by somebody called clandestine uh war clandestine is the the account and clandestine says do you see it?

Trump is neutralizing the deep states playbook.

First he cut off their money supply via US ID and foreign aid and going after uh going after the funding of Soros.

So those would be like the Democrats piggy banks.

And now clandestine says now he's shutting down their brown shirts.

Antifa.

Now the reference there is to color revolutions.

The idea that Soros and the NOS's and the other dark funding mechanisms fund uh people to protest so that it can look like whatever it is they want looks like uh the public might want it too.

So they they basically organize protesters with money.

But if you take away the Soros money or you defang it and you make Antifa the fake I'm going to call them fake protesters because I don't I don't think they're organic in the least.

So if you take away the fake protesters in the street and you take away the money, um that goes a long way toward getting rid of the people trying to overthrow the government on a regular basis.

Well, Trump uh has uh spoken out against the UK for uh the UK decided to recognize uh Palestine as its own state, I guess.

And uh Trump says that uh Britain's recognition of Palestine is nothing more than a quote reward for Hamas.

It does nothing to free hostages or anything like that.

So now the countries or allies that have accepted Palestine as a state include Britain, France, Belgium, Canada, Australia, and Portugal.

So, it's starting to make the USA look like we're a little bit um on our own there.

There still lots of other countries that haven't done it, but uh five is a lot.

Anyway, so Trump's going to talk to the UN General Assembly today.

Um and uh some say that he's sort of boxed in by that stuff.

Maybe.

We'll see.

Anything could happen.

Um, Hamas has cleverly made an offer directly to Trump, not through Israel, to if if he can get a 60-day pause that uh a six day pause in fighting.

If he can get that done, then the Hamas will release half of the hostages.

We believe there are something like 20 hostages still alive and then a bunch that would just be the the bodies.

But uh 20 living hostages and they would offer to release 10 I guess is um if he gets a 60-day pause.

What do you think?

Do you think there's you think Trump's going to take that deal?

No.

I I don't think Israel will let him take that deal even if he wanted to.

Uh, but it's very clever from Hamas because it puts a wedge between Israel and the United States because Trump really really likes releasing hostages, not just these hostages, but he he's got this great track record of being able to get hostages out and he brags about it.

So, Hamas cleverly thinks uh there's no way Trump is going to say no to a sure thing.

It' be a sure thing.

60 days.

of not fighting for half of the hostages and uh we don't know that there's any response but I think it only matters what Israel thinks of it.

Uh Turkish President Erdogan who as you know is a member of NATO was asked in an interview do you consider what's happening in Gaza a genocide?

Erdogan says there's no other explanation.

This is a full-fledged genocide and Netanyahu is responsible.

And the question that I ask is what would it be if Hamas were the dominant military and Israel was just, you know, hiding in tunnels?

Would that would there be a genocide in that direction?

Yes, of course it would.

Hamas has been very clear that it would be a genocide as soon as they have the ability to do it.

So my take is genocide is bad with the single exception that if the other team is saying directly and consistently and for years if you if we get a chance we are going to genocide you so hard.

What else are you going to do?

It might still be a genocide but you have to genocide a genocide.

How else would you stop it?

Because if the only thing that will stop them from killing you is, you know, completely taking them off the field, what are you going to do?

So, Russia's been shooting down Ukrainian incoming drones like crazy, including a number of them were heading toward Moscow.

Now, how would you feel if you lived in a major city anywhere and on a regular basis your government had to shoot down incoming exploding death drones?

Like, even if they got them all, would you ever feel comfortable going outdoors?

I mean, it feels like it'd be really uncomfortable.

So, makes me wonder if the population in Moscow is starting to feel the war in a way that they hadn't felt it before.

You know, I think Moscow, you know, is most of the opinion that matters.

So, uh I guess they their anti-aircraft destroyed 81 Ukrainian drones in one night.

And that's a lot.

Sweden says that they're prepared to shoot down any Russian jets that wander into their territory because as you might know uh for reasons that I'm not entirely clear about the purpose, Russia has been quite consciously wandering into the airspace of other neighboring countries.

So Estonia, Poland, Romania, you know, Russia just keeps accidentally flying into their airspace, presumably putting pressure on or maybe testing defenses or both or what?

But Sweden says if Russia flies over their space, they're going to shoot it down.

No, they say no warnings and no excuses.

Do they mean it?

I don't know.

We might find out.

I saw a uh post by Alex Prompter who says that Google is uh right on the border of revolutionizing education.

Apparently Google has launched a uh AI um I guess an app or a program called Learn Your Way.

So what it does is uh it it gives a very personalized lesson to each student based on what they need basically.

So if you have a different learning style, you know, if you need a mind map or an audio lesson, a timeline that you could click around on or or quizzes that will change based on what you know and what you don't know and that sort of thing.

So they tested it on 60 high schoolers and it worked great.

Apparently, every one of them said it made him more confident.

Scores were up and uh so basically if AI could adapt its uh teaching method for each person and maybe each day, you know, maybe one day is different from another.

Um the the potential for how well you could learn things uh apparently is really good.

So that might be a a big deal because, you know, in my opinion, the the terrible school system is one of the biggest things that holds back, you know, people were born into poverty is that they can't they can't necessarily use school to escape.

And if you could fix that by making it sort of universally possible that everybody can get this kind of education with AI um then you would solve one of the biggest problems in the country and they may they may have solved it.

You know, we we may see that uh that instead of regular classrooms, maybe you just go to a pod of, you know, a dozen people that decided to be in the same pod because none of them are troublemakers.

And you just sit there for two hours a day learning stuff and maybe that's all you need because you've heard that before, right?

That you could compress the entire school day into two hours if you knew how to do the two hours, right?

I totally believe that.

There's no way that you're learning more than two hours worth of content in a school day.

So, if you could compress it, >> yeah, >> that'd be quite a day.

Well, Sarah Adams, no relationship to me, is former CIA intelligence expert.

You may have seen her on podcasts.

She says the terrorists are already set up here in America and they're planning on a major attack on the homeland.

Now, she's been saying this for a while and uh long enough that you might say to yourself, "But Scott, you don't need to be a former CIA intelligence expert to say that terrorists will eventually do a big attack on the homeland.

You know, if you don't know when it's going to happen or the specifics, we all could have made that same prediction.

So, it as long as you're not held to the date uh or the approximate date, that's a pretty safe um it's a pretty safe prediction.

However, you want to get really scared now.

Uh I hate to do this, but this seems like an unrelated story, but I'm not so sure.

Apparently, the Secret Service has found that there was this massive site in New York, somewhere near New York City, where there was a building with a whole bunch of equipment in it that was designed for no other purpose than to disrupt cell networks all over New York City.

And the thinking was that maybe had to do with the United Nations meeting coming up.

To which I say, would that really be worth it if they if they built this expensive, complicated facility?

Do you think that the best use of that would be to make the cell phones not work at the UN?

Does that seem like that would be what the plan was?

I've got a better suggestion that will scare you.

It could be that the uh the the plan to turn off the cell phones all over New York City could be related to that big terror attack.

If you were going to do a big terror attack and you had the option, you would turn off the cell phones in that area so that the first responders couldn't help and then nobody could figure out what's going on to figure out how to get out of the city.

So even if there was an escape, let's say there was, you know, one path to get out of the city, you you wouldn't know because your cell phone didn't work and nothing would work.

So the funniest, not funny, it's not funny at all.

But the oddest part of this story is that they're not even speculating who put that facility there.

Was it al-Qaeda?

If al-Qaeda built that thing, then yes, it was part of a larger attack plan, which means that they're really, really serious about whatever the next one is.

They're they're not going to mess around.

Um, but if it was maybe some u black hat hacker group, maybe it's something they were using to make money somehow, which would be bad, but not nearly as bad as a joint attack with al-Qaeda that also takes out your phones.

So, uh, that's scary.

Hope we find out more about that soon.

Well, Trump is said to have a victory on big pharma because there's a new drug coming out from Bristol Meyer Squibs that will cost the same all over the world.

So, the United States will not be, you know, paying the 10 times more than other places and they're saying it's, you know, because of the president.

Uh, but it's only one drug.

Breitbart News is reporting on this.

Um, it's a schizophrenia drug coenvi.

It's going to launch in the UK and uh I guess the list price will be the same as in the US.

So, I don't know what happens with all the other drugs.

Aren't they supposed to eventually be the same price everywhere or are they only doing the new ones?

Something wrong with that story.

All right, here's a story that could be nothing or it could be everything.

Uh, the Gateway pundits reporting this, Patty Mc.

Murray, that uh, New Jersey man has somehow succeeded in getting a million documents from Detroit's 2020 election.

He says he'd been doing this long foyer request thing, but he finally got them.

So, he got a million documents that includes copies of absency ballots and signed envelopes.

Um, basically there was a picture of him with a back of a truck open, just, you know, tons of documents.

And Detroit is uh considered by some as one of the places that a cheat happened in 2020 presidential election.

Now, I'm not saying that because I don't personally have any evidence of that.

However, um if these million documents pay off the way the individual who got these documents thinks they will, there will be proof that the election was stolen.

So, do you think that they gave him anything that would show proof that the election was stolen?

Or did it take so long because they had to look through it to make sure they didn't give them anything that would prove the election was stolen.

They just give him all the other stuff.

I don't know.

Yeah.

I don't know.

So, we'll see.

Um, according to Newsmax Money, the way we calculate the the inflation is wrong.

And if we did it right, it would look a lot higher.

I remind you that all data is fake.

So we don't know about autism because we don't trust the data.

We don't know about uh we don't know about uh um inflation because we don't trust the data.

We don't know about the election in 2020 because we don't trust the vote totals.

Do you see any pattern developing here?

There's no data that's reliable.

Now, that's something I've always known because I I worked in jobs where it was my job to collect the data that was accurate.

And one thing I learned right away, it didn't matter what the domain was.

It didn't matter what the source of the data was, it was always inaccurate.

And we used it anyway because you got to do something.

You can't you can't just say, "Ah, I don't know.

We're just going to guess from now on.

So, uh, yeah, all data is inaccurate or unreliable.

Well, you know, we're heading toward another uh government shutdown possibility because we'll never agree on a budget, of course, and the government funding as it is expires on September 30th and there are too many large differences between the Democrats and the Republicans and it's Groundhog Day all over again.

Uh, I would expect to see some posts from Thomas Massie reminding us that there's no chance that Congress will act responsibly and come up with a budget that is, you know, the product of their negotiating and reduces the deficit, which is their main thing that they have to do.

Uh, yeah.

Anyway, so if it's like every other time, they're going to do another continuing resolution.

They're not going to cut the budget.

They're not going to make any decisions.

And they'll just kick the can down the road because that is apparently all they're able to do.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I had to tell you.

Oh, that's pretty good.

I was shooting to end at 8:00.

Missed it by one minute.

That's pretty good for not watching.

I I feel like I have this little internal clock that's that's weirdly accurate.

Yeah, it's a kick the can.

All right, what else are we saying?

Uh I'm looking at some of your messages coming by.

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

I'm going to say some words to the beloved uh subscribers to my local community.

The rest of you, thanks for joining.

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

See you later in 30 seconds.

Come on in.

We're getting ready to do a show. Well,

you knew that.

Looks like stocks are Let's see.

Flat. Kind of flat. All right. Well,

then we'll do a show. Get our own

excitement. We don't need a stock

market.

[Music]

[Music]

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance on in

elevating your experience 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 or ste a canteen

jugger flask a vessel of any kind. Fill

it with your favorite liquid. I like

coffee. And join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of

the day. The thing that makes everything

better. It's called the simultaneous and

it happens right now. Go

spectacular.

Well, Open AI and Nvidia, the two giants

in the AI business, are planning a

combined hundred billion dollar AI

project that will require the power of

at least 10 nuclear reactors

according to Ars Technica

uh Ben Edwards writing about that. So,

it's this enormous enormous project.

Do you wonder if they know for sure that

that would pay off? Do you think they

know enough, the people who are closest

to it, the AI experts to know that if

they put a hundred billion dollars into

it and they and that that's not even

counting the that's probably not even

counting the nuclear power plants,

right? Um do they just sort of know that

there's no way that could be anything

but a good good deal for them? Makes me

wonder. We'll see.

Well, football retired football

quarterback Tom Brady and his business

partners are investing in a robotic

massage uh massage robot.

So, it's a robot you lay on the table

like a regular massage and it massages

you and it learns about you and it sort

of figures out your body and where it

would feel best and everything.

And apparently it's it already exists

and it's already in production already

in the field and uh it works. But you're

probably saying to yourself, I'm not

going to enjoy it if a if a machine does

it. Isn't it the isn't it the human

touch that's sort of the whole point of

it? Well, I'll tell you. Uh right on the

other side of my computer, I have a

high-end massage chair.

Um, it's like really high-end, very

expensive. And,

uh, I got to tell you, every time I use

that,

it is just floods me with I don't know

what uh, whatever happiness chemicals

you get when you get a massage. I It is

really effective. I mean, you don't

you'll you'll want to just sleep it off

for an hour after that thing. So, if

they made a better one that's like a big

arm that massages you, would I like it

even more? I don't know. The one I got

is pretty pretty darn good. I don't know

how it could be better, actually.

Well, Meta, the company, has introduced

a AI based uh I guess you could call it

a dating app, but it won't work like

regular dating apps. I guess it's sort

of chatbased and you can tell it, you

know, exactly what you're looking for

and it'll go off into the internet

probably just on Facebook and look for

somebody who meets all those

qualifications.

Wouldn't that be amazing that you'd have

AI being like a real matchmaker? So, it

wouldn't be like, you know, Tinder or

Hinge or OkayCid or any of those. it

would uh it would be more like a person

that just happens to be AI and knows a

lot about a lot of people. So, we got

that. Uh my suggestion is to cut out the

middleman and just date the AI directly.

I mean, it sounds funny,

but let me ask you this. If you had to

compare

spending time with whoever the AI

decided you should spend time with or

spending time with the AI,

which one would you do? Well, it's

pretty close to a tossup at the moment.

So, I think the real win for AI would be

to cut out the middleman and become the

date.

Well, you've probably already heard that

ABC and Jimmy Kimmel have agreed that he

will be coming back on the air tonight.

Now, not all of the affiliates, that

would be the local stations, they're not

all going to automatically run it,

although that could change by tonight.

But the Sinclair Group and Nextar, um,

they may not, but they are also not the

majority of the stations. So, they would

still have plenty of stations, but they

would lose maybe, I don't know, 20% or

something if the uh Sinclair doesn't

participate.

It doesn't seem to me that there's any

possibility that they could make money

on Kimble since they weren't making

money anyway. But if they lose another

20% of their local affiliates, I don't

think there's any chance that they could

make money. So, I don't know what

they're up to. Um, here's uh here's my

final take on it. I doubt it'll be

final. Um, I'm glad that he's going to

be back on the air.

Now, I know you don't like it. I know I

know what I'm saying and I know you

don't like it, but this was

uncomfortably close to something in the

free speech domain. It wasn't. It was

never it was never a question of free

speech because the FCC has a mandate to

police the speech of the three networks.

It it's actually their, you know, their

lawful legal job is to make sure that

the three broadcast networks um don't do

something that bad for the public. That

means that it's their job to censor

them. So you can't say, "Hey, the

government censored me." When that's

actually specifically their job for

those three limited resources that not

everybody could have at the same time.

So it's not it was never really a free

speech question,

but it was uncomfortably similar to one

or reminded you of one or made you feel

like you were living in one. And anytime

there's a gray area, I would default,

you know, to free speech. But remember,

it was up to it's a business decision

ultimately. So my opinion about it

doesn't matter. Your opinion doesn't

matter. Uh but I'm going to give you the

kill shot on this topic. Are you ready?

Here's the kill shot. If I have not

changed your mind that it should be

appropriate or at least allowable that

Jimmy Kimmel goes back on the air, here

is the thing that

ends the debate. You ready?

What would Charlie Kirk have wanted?

If he could tell you what he wanted,

would he want Jimmy Kimmel to be off the

air because of what he said?

I don't know. I mean, we we can't know

for sure, but I would say 99% chance

that Charlie Kirk would have said, "You

know what? Um, I forgive him. It was one

little slip and uh I think he took

enough heat that he learned his lesson.

Maybe maybe I should go on his show."

I think if Charlie Kirk were here, I

mean, obviously that's logically

impossible as well as actually

impossible, but if he were here, he

would say, "Can I go on your show and

we'll talk about it?" Because that's who

he was, right?

So, do does it make sense that you or I

should be opposed to it when you're

probably pretty sure he would not have

been because in a in in many ways he's

better than us.

I hate to admit it, but you know that

the reason that he's so beloved, Charlie

Kirk, he's just better than us in in a

whole bunch of ways. That's probably one

of them. So, if you can tell me that you

honestly believe that Charlie Kirk would

be happier if Jimmy Kimmel got, you

know, destroyed career-wise and all the

people who work on his show lose their

jobs.

I don't think that was Charlie Kirk.

Was it? You know, if you disagree with

me, I'd love I'd love to hear the

counterargument,

but I feel that if you believe that

Charlie would have handled it

differently, kept him on the air and

engaged him in conversation, which is

what I think he would have done. If you

disagree,

I'm open to the argument. But if you

don't disagree,

then I think that the

let's say the respectful play, the the

way that you could most respect the

memory and legacy of Charlie is to do

what you think he would have done,

right?

I'll bet you hate how much that

convinced you.

And also, I don't want to see the staff

lose their jobs. the staff didn't do

anything right. There are a few dozen

people on the staff and I was thinking

about um you know I have an empathy

problem sometimes like too much of it. I

was imagining how Jimmy Kimmel felt when

he knew that he wouldn't personally be

that affected by it because he's made

his money by now but the staff the staff

would be struggling. Imagine

knowing that you're the reason your your

own stubbornness or stupidity, you

probably thought of it that way, cost, I

don't know, dozens of people that you

really really like. You know, they're

your staff. Cost them all their jobs

because of some dumb damn thing you did.

Imagine how that would hurt. Like if you

were a normal person who cared about

other people, that would really hurt.

So, if you imagine that Jimmy Kimmel

just had a, you know, a few days off and

then he's just back to work and

everything's good, I I wouldn't, you

know, I wouldn't discount the fact that

that must have been really painful. Not

for himself. I don't think he probably

worried too much about, you know, paying

his own bills. I I doubt that was too

high on his list. But I'll bet he cared

a lot a lot about what it did to the

staff.

So

anyway,

that is my final word. Um,

now you might say, but would he grant

you the same uh grace? To which I say,

that's not my

that that's not my standard. My standard

is to be better than him.

My standard is not to be as good as him.

is to be better than him. You know, the

Charlie Kirk way, the Charlie Kirk way

is to be the better person. It's not to

compete with the ugliness.

All right.

Um, you know, the story that allegedly

Tom Hman took $50,000 in cash in a in a

bag uh for potential services later

should he become

his current job. And should Trump have

gotten elected? So, this was before

Trump got elected and before he was in

his job. Um, do you know what the White

House's response to that story is?

It never happened.

The response is not he took the money,

but it was a, you know, that's when he

was a consultant and maybe he didn't do

anything that was illegal. It's not

that. They say it just didn't happen.

There was no transfer of money. He

didn't take any money.

Do you believe that? That's a pretty

bold claim. If the if the allegation is

allegedly on video, the allegation is

that it was a sting operation, which

would mean that somebody in the FBI

literally had the video of the transfer

of money in a bag.

Do you think that if that exists and

there's any chance that somebody would

have access to the video and maybe got a

copy, do you think that they would just

say, "No, it never happened. There was

no transfer of money whatsoever."

I don't know. They They must be pretty

confident that nobody can prove them

wrong because it's a I mean, it's a

binary. It's yes or no. It either exists

or it doesn't exist.

But I am willing to believe that the

White House is correct and maybe it

doesn't exist. It could be that they

offered him the money and he didn't give

a hard no, nor did he give a hard yes.

So maybe maybe somehow that got turned

into well, he sort of took it even

though he didn't take it. I don't know.

Could be anything.

Um, California is the first state to

require masks on law enforcement and the

the border patrol enforcement people.

And uh, I feel like they made a little

mistake with that law.

So, let me see if I understand this. It

would be illegal for these border patrol

uh or border enforcement people, ICE, I

guess, to uh wear masks, but there's no

law against wearing makeup, right? Can

the women wear makeup? I think they can.

No law against that. Would there be a

law against somebody wearing a fake

beard? Well, a fake beard is not a is

not a mask. I don't I don't believe

that's covered. How about somebody who

put a fake nose and glasses on so you

couldn't see their their eyes or their

uh nose? Well, I don't think that's

really a mask, is it? What about fake

boobs?

Suppose the uh all the all the guys put

in fake boobs and makeup and eyelashes

and then they said, "Oh, no. We're not

doing border enforcement. We're running

a trans event. It's a trans event

because they'd be wearing, you know,

boobs and fake eyelashes and makeup, but

then they'd say transportation.

Wink wink.

So, I'm just saying that the ice could

uh find a workaround. Just turn it into

a dress up uh trans event.

transportation.

All right, I'm being silly.

Well, as you know, uh Trump and RFK Jr.

had a big announcement yesterday of what

they found out so far or believe they

know about autism. And uh boy, did this

get interesting. So, uh there are

several things. First of all, they said

that Tylenol

um is not as let's say not as proven

safe as they would like it to be. And so

some studies say that if a pregnant

woman takes Tylenol or the

acetaminophen, so there are other

companies that make it besides the

Tylenol company. But uh there's a bunch

of studies that suggest that it's

correlated and therefore causation.

Um but there are other studies that say

nope, there's no correlation at all. But

uh I think it was a Harvard group looked

at all the studies and found out that

there was at least in their opinion

there was more evidence that there is a

connection than that there isn't. Do you

know what it is? Do you know what it's

called when you look at a whole bunch of

studies instead of just one you you look

at the the bunch of them? What's that

called?

That's called a meta study. What if I

taught you about meta studies?

They're they're not a science.

That that's not a science. A meta study

has too much opinion baked into it. Even

though you don't think so. The way the

opinion is baked into it, a meta study,

which is a study of all the other

studies, is that you have to make a

decision about

um which studies to include.

So for example, if there was one study

that was much bigger than the others,

they they sort of they sort of weigh all

the studies by the number of

participants. So if there's one that was

like 100 times bigger than all the other

studies put together, well, you don't

really need to look at all the other

studies because the one would bias, you

know, the total so much. Then let's say

there was one that went one direction, a

study that went one direction, another

study that pointed the other direction,

but you as the researcher said, I don't

think this one study was done with high

enough quality. So in my opinion, it

should be left out of the bunch and then

because you left it out, it biased it in

the other direction. So was that science

or was there something about your

opinion that decided what was in the

studies and really you're measuring your

own opinion of what should be in the

studies and you're not actually

measuring any kind of average of the

studies. So in general meta studies are

in my opinion not terribly reliable

but to the credit of the administration

they're not saying we have proven the

connection.

So, I like that they're not saying they

are not saying we've proven the

connection. What they are saying is it's

a sort of a scary indications of what

we're seeing and if I were you, I

wouldn't be taking Tylenol if I were

pregnant. Although the the doctors dis a

lot of them not all of them some doctors

I don't know what percentage disagree

because the the risk of not taking a

painkiller

might be could turn out to be worse than

the risk of the painkiller

for example if you don't treat something

with Tylenol and the other painkillers

are also not allowed when you're

pregnant. So, it's your only option. If

your only option to beat back the

inflammation and the pain is Tylenol,

then you've got this tough choice

because the inflammation in the pain

might cause its own set of problems. It

could be the same as it could cause

autism. Some people speculate. Um, so it

could be some say that it's not that

what you're measuring is not so much the

Tylenol, but what you're measuring is

that they had an underlying condition

that required Tylenol.

How would you know the difference?

Suppose there's some, you know, fever or

inflammation problem that's common

enough and that people would normally

take Tylenol for it. Wouldn't it look

like the Tylenol was the problem, but

really it was the underlying

inflammation because the people who

didn't need the Tylenol also didn't have

that underlying inflammation thing.

So there's all kinds of uncertainty.

Um but Trump um in his Trumpian ways is

basically saying don't take Tylenol,

don't take it. um you know he he admits

that his his uh administration

does not say that he's just telling you

as your leader as your president which I

kind of like as long as he's clear that

this is me saying this this is not the

medical people the medical people are

saying you know use your judgment use it

when you need it use it at the lowest

amount talk to your doctor and those are

all the responsible right things.

Trump's giving you the common sense,

don't do it.

But like I said, your doctor might say,

you know, this in your specific case,

it's worth a little risk. So at least at

least they're honest about, you know,

leave it to your doctor.

All right. So

see what else got there's also uh

also let's see

um there's there's also a new drug

that's being rolled out for I don't know

if it's every kind of autism but some

and then you got uh we don't know if

that'll work yet but I mean it's

approved there's an new approved drug

for autism um that looks like it could

help some if not all patients.

Um and then I guess Trump suggested

spacing out spacing out and delaying

some vaccinations that are common

vaccinations that typically everybody

gets.

The science behind the spacing of it so

you don't get them all at once also I

believe is not proven. But Trump again

is being common sensical and saying if

you don't have to give them all at the

same time, can't you reduce one risk by

not doing it at the same time? Well,

there is a counter to that. The

counterargument is if you have, let's

say, you know, four vaccinations that

are really good idea that we know

individually are good. If you don't give

them at the same time, the odds that

they don't get the the second dose, that

would be the other two, goes way up. So,

if you say, well, you only have to get

one shot, you could probably talk

parents and the kids into it, even

though it's a combination of lots of

different shots with unknown unknown

directions.

So you could get higher rate of people

getting the shots if you combine them,

but you have a higher risk because

they're combined. Now the higher risk, I

mean the higher unknown. I shouldn't say

risk. I should say there's a higher

unknown. But there is science

whether it's valid or not that shows

that even can combining the shots

doesn't make a difference. Of course,

there is some study that showed it made

no difference for autism.

Is that a study valid? We cannot trust

any of the studies in this domain. I

wouldn't trust any I wouldn't trust any

of the studies. That's why you have to

look at 46 of them and use magic to try

to figure out which ones are real. Um,

however,

let's see what else. Oh, also hepatitis

B, they would wait not, you know,

ideally not give it to kids until

they're about 12 because it's a sexually

transmitted disease. And unless you got

it from your mom at birth, which it

which can happen, you don't need to be

protected. And it's routine, I believe,

to screen the pregnant mother for

hepatitis B, so you could know in

advance whether you know that newborn

needs a shot or not.

All right. So, those are all the things

I think there's, you know, generally in

the right direction, but I'm going to

give you a alternative view

that uh you you can make your own

opinion on. So, this is from a ex user

named Cremeu, a French French word,

creme. Now, I mentioned him before

because his uh his analytical abilities

are incredible.

Um, and so when he has a a alternative

point of view on something in the news,

it's definitely worth listening to.

Doesn't mean he's right.

So, here's a here's a long list that I

printed out from his X account of his

argument for why. It might be that there

is no increase in autism, but we only

think there is. Now, before I give you

this, you know, the the wonky nerdy

explanation of why he thinks maybe the

data is all wrong, um I will acknowledge

that if you talk to any school teacher

today, they would say, uh there's

there's at least one autistic kid in

every class now. Every class of 30

people, just there's at least one. And

when you were when people like me were

children,

we believed that that was not the case.

We believed that that was rare. I mean,

I didn't even know any when I was a kid.

So, the lived experience of the people

who are closest to this world, teachers

are 100% sure, oh yeah, there's a

gigantic increase. And I feel like you

see it in your own life, right? Don't

don't we observe it directly? So, even

though I'm going to give you a wonky

argument that maybe it's not a it's not

a big increase,

um

there there's a very compelling case

that it is very compelling. You know,

it's not like RFK Jr. didn't look into

this. So, I took all of these reasons

why maybe it's not a real increase and I

fed into Grock so that when I talk to

you today, I could go down the list and

say, "Grock says this is BS." Grock,

debunk this. Grock says no.

Uh, do you know what Grock said? They

said true or mostly true or partly true

for every one of these.

So, just remember when I when I read

these off to you, I'm not saying they're

true because remember this is a domain

in which you just there's just no way to

know what's real. Uh so I don't claim

that I know.

All right, so here are the claims.

Autism is being diagnosed more and more

with each year. Grock said yes. Uh,

autistic traits are not any more common

than when the DSM3 first introduced

modern diagnostic criteria in 1980.

Grock said, "Yes, true. Older prevalence

estimates are based on inconsistent

diagnostic criteria. So, we can't really

compare the the past to the present

because they didn't measure the same

things." Okay? That that doesn't mean

it's going up or down. It just means you

wouldn't know. Um,

here's the one that stopped me cold.

When researchers go out and attempt to

diagnose everyone who has autism, they

they find equal prevalence estimates for

youth and adult.

Now,

if that's true,

there is there is no increase in autism.

I if if you simply went out and said,

I'm going to get a random sample of

people, some of them were 70 years old,

some of them were 8 years old, and then

you just looked for symptoms of autism,

you would find

according to creme and whatever study

he's referring to that's not mentioned,

uh he he claims that you would find that

the 70 year olds and the eight-year-olds

have roughly the same amount of

symptoms. If that's true,

then the only thing that's different is

diagnos diagnosis.

If you know, because there's no way that

the 70year-olds and the 8-year-olds

would have roughly the same autism

symptoms,

uh unless it had always been here

because they're not getting it at 70,

you know what I mean? Uh let's see.

um familiar

familial control studies show us that no

vaccination has any causal relationship

with autism.

So, creme believes that vac vaccinations

have not been correlated with autism. Um

which which would go to the point that

there's not a increase because of

vaccinations. If this is true, now if

you're just joining, I'm not claiming

any anything I say here is true. This is

Kremu's argument and he's very good at

arguments and data. So it's it's a he's

a good source. Um

he says that uh the rise in autism has

overwhelmingly been due to non severe

varieties.

Non severe varieties.

So you if you had a little bit of it,

you could probably function in the world

and get along. In the old days, life was

simple. So let let's say let's see let's

go way back. Let's go back to the, you

know, farming days of our early early

American experience. If you were a farm

hand and you didn't even have to own the

farm or make the hard decision, you're

just a farm hand. How hard would it be

for someone with a minor non severe

version of uh autism to simply spend a

lot of time alone, not make a lot of

conversation, do their job, get paid,

and nobody would think anything of it.

You just say it's a different

personality.

So,

it seems to me that in the modern

complicated world, if you had a little

bit of autism, it might really trip you

up. and people would really spot it

because there' be things you don't do or

things you can't do. But back when

everything was simple and all you did

was milk a cow and you know cause some

grass, nobody even noticed, would they?

Um

so

driven by classifying people with other

conditions as autism, some of that. Um

and apparently if you add a monetary

incentive to schools if they if they

have people who are autistic suddenly

the number of autistic people at the

school jumps by 25% in a single year

because the the uh funding follows the

autistic kids. So if you say you have

more autistic kids you get more funding

for those kids. So, of course, follow

the money would give you a 25% increase

without any real increase in the the

condition.

Uh, no environmental toxicants have been

found. Um,

no, here's one. uh adoption studies

indicate that there's no apparent

parental influence on kids autistic

traits, but there is parental influence

on a child's likelihood of receiving a

diagnosis.

So the kids that who your parents are

will not make a difference about whether

you have it, but it will make a

difference about whether you get

diagnosed.

What's that tell you?

All right.

Uh

well due to non severe what else? So

that's that's the basic idea. Now when

you heard those when you heard those

explanations did they sound compelling

to you? Does the the alternate

explanation that no you're just you're

measuring it wrong. Does that sound

compelling? It would sound compelling to

me. it would if there weren't so many

teachers and parents who can tell you

there's no way there's not more of this.

It's just everywhere all the time now

and every group of 30 has one. So I'm

inclined to think that there is

something real that's happening.

But I have to admit that's a pretty

strong argument and it's coming from

somebody who's not wrong a lot. So, you

know, I I just put that out there to

show you that all data is fake. As I

tell you often,

all data is unreliable.

So, the autism medicine is called the

Leaorin

Leakavorin.

And if you happen to have cerebral

folate deficiency, which I guess must be

a partial cause or maybe an effect of

autism,

supposedly it can help. And then the

National Institute of Health is going to

launch a big autism data science

initiative so they can learn more. And

that sounds good. I'll tell you what I

like about this the most. Um, you could

argue all day long about whether what

Trump and RFK Jr. have done so far is

the right answer, done enough, should

they have done something else? Are they

looking at the right studies? Blah,

blah, blah. Those are all good questions

and concerns.

>> Sorry, I've got to get rid of something.

There we go. Um,

all right. I have an update and

correction on the Charlie Kirk magic

bullet question. Yesterday I told you

with great confidence incorrectly that

he probably almost certainly had a metal

chest plate and the bullet probably hit

it and ricocheted up and hit his neck.

Turns out I have much better information

today. There definitely was no uh light.

There was no vest. There was no metal

plate. So that that comes from the

people closest to him. So there

definitely was no metal plate. Uh I've

also learned from now three different

sources that I consider highly reliable

that if you're trying to figure out the

path of a bullet when it enters a body,

it could be anything. So people are

advising me, the people who actually

know, you know, they've shot things and

they've they've seen a lot of wounds and

they've killed a lot of wild boores like

Alex Jones has. Alex Jones has killed he

he estimated 90 wild boores that he's

personally shot to death.

That's a lot of mammals. But apparently

if the uh bullet from that kind of a

rifle, which could be a variety of

different bullets. So if it's a hollow

point versus some other variety, you

would get a you know a different fact

pattern. If it's a hollow point, it

probably wouldn't leave the body. Um it

it probably maybe it would still go

through a neck, but the angle of attack

appeared to be down. So the uh if I

understand it correctly, the the neck

wound was the entry wound, but the

bullet um went into the body, may have

may have destroyed his uh vertebrae and

bounced around a little bit in his body

or not bounced around necessarily

intact, but maybe in, you know, in

pieces.

So the um

I don't want to say the good news, but

the the obvious

uh the obvious conclusion is that he

died immediately because the internal

damage was extraordinary and

um probably bones were hit. So the you

know the bullet or the shards bounced

around. So I believe that answers every

question except why would the entry

wound be so large because that's not

that doesn't make sense. So, I'm still

wait I I guess I still have to ask that

question. But it does seem to me and and

I would say that my sources at this

point are insider sources. So, I'm

talking about people who, you know, have

talked to Charlie's widow and, you know,

gotten the real story because the widow

knows, right? She knows what's going on.

Erica.

Um,

but I believe that question has been now

answered sort of mostly. Well, Kamla

Harris trying to sell her stupid book um

was on Matto show and uh I forgot how

much fun it was to play is she's stupid

or drunk. And once again, I couldn't

tell.

She was either being extra stupid or she

was drunk. You know, I know you're going

to say, "But Scott, it could be both."

Yeah, I know. It could be both. But, uh,

here are some of the things she said.

And, uh, oh my god, did we dodge a

bullet? She is so stupid and so

incompetent that it just it just screams

when she's on TV now. I mean, I guess

maybe we got used to it and we're used

to Joe Biden, so seeing massive

incompetence,

it just didn't stand out so much, you

know, compared to Biden. But boy, does

it stand out now.

So, Matto,

who is uh famously in the LGBTQ

community, um

she wasn't happy because uh she said uh

to Harris to say that uh he was talking

about Buddha Judge not being picked

because he was gay. Uh she said to say

that he couldn't be on the ticket Buddha

judge effectively because he was gay is

hard to hear. Now imagine you're mad and

you've been massively

supporting Harris and then you find out

that Harris wouldn't put uh Pete Buddha

Judge on the team because she thought

the gay guy couldn't win.

And Harris goes, "No, no, no. That's not

what I said. Uh with the stakes being so

high, it made me very sad, but I also

realized it would be a real risk." So

she denied that she kept him off because

he was gay. And then she confirmed in

her denial that she kept him off because

he was gay. Drunk or stupid

or both? Or both. Who answers that way?

No, it didn't happen and it totally

happened and doesn't realize that that

needs to be cleaned up a little bit.

Nope. Nope.

So there's that. And then the she

described druh Trump as a dictator and a

tyrant and you know then she said they

got to fight fire with fire. What

exactly would it mean to fight fire with

fire?

If you're saying Trump is a dictator and

a tyrant, is that not a call for

violence?

Because what exactly is the fire that

you're going to fight the fire with if

you're fighting a dictator and a tyrant?

I that sounds a little violenty to me.

Um

and she also claimed that she had quote

had a certain responsibility to tell

Biden not to run. Uh, but she admits she

engaged in what she calls recklessness

because she didn't want to be seen as

self-erving.

Like everything about that is wrong. I

mean, how in the world did she get that

close to the presidency?

You're all just watching my cat now,

aren't you?

So, that this cat is Roman with the blue

collar.

Hey, Roman.

I I spend the first part of the day with

my other cat on my lap. Likes to be on

my lap when I'm when I'm getting ready

for the show, but Roman now likes to

likes to join us. All right. Um,

so Andy No is reporting

in post the post millennial he's writing

that uh Antifa could soon be branded a

foreign terror group. So um I guess

they're already designated a domestic

terror group or something, but that

doesn't have any teeth. If they're

if they are branded a foreign terrorist

group, which looks like that's imminent,

then I think that opens up a number of

tools that can be used against them that

otherwise wouldn't.

So that's coming and it would allow

sanctions uh overseas against networks

and individuals etc.

And uh I I saw a post by somebody called

clandestine

uh war clandestine is the the account

and clandestine says do you see it?

Trump is neutralizing the deep states

playbook. First he cut off their money

supply via US ID and foreign aid and

going after uh going after the funding

of Soros. So those would be like the

Democrats piggy banks. And now

clandestine says now he's shutting down

their brown shirts. Antifa. Now the

reference there is to color revolutions.

The idea that Soros and the NOS's and

the other dark funding mechanisms fund

uh people to protest so that it can look

like whatever it is they want looks like

uh the public might want it too. So they

they basically organize protesters with

money. But if you take away the Soros

money or you defang it and you make

Antifa the fake I'm going to call them

fake protesters because I don't I don't

think they're organic in the least. So

if you take away the fake protesters in

the street and you take away the money,

um that goes a long way toward getting

rid of the people trying to overthrow

the government on a regular basis.

Well, Trump uh has uh spoken out against

the UK for uh the UK decided to

recognize uh Palestine as its own state,

I guess. And uh Trump says that uh

Britain's recognition of Palestine is

nothing more than a quote reward for

Hamas.

It does nothing to free hostages or

anything like that. So now the countries

or allies that have accepted Palestine

as a state include Britain, France,

Belgium, Canada, Australia, and

Portugal.

So, it's starting to make the USA look

like we're a little bit um on our own

there. There still lots of other

countries that haven't done it, but uh

five is a lot.

Anyway, so Trump's going to talk to the

UN General Assembly today. Um and uh

some say that he's sort of boxed in by

that stuff. Maybe. We'll see. Anything

could happen.

Um, Hamas has cleverly made an offer

directly to Trump, not through Israel,

to if if he can get a 60-day pause that

uh a six day pause in fighting. If he

can get that done, then the Hamas will

release half of the hostages.

We believe there are something like 20

hostages still alive and then a bunch

that would just be the the bodies. But

uh 20 living hostages and they would

offer to release 10 I guess is um if he

gets a 60-day pause. What do you think?

Do you think there's you think Trump's

going to take that deal?

No. I I don't think Israel will let him

take that deal even if he wanted to. Uh,

but it's very clever from Hamas because

it puts a wedge between Israel and the

United States because Trump really

really likes releasing hostages, not

just these hostages, but he he's got

this great track record of being able to

get hostages out and he brags about it.

So, Hamas cleverly thinks uh there's no

way Trump is going to say no to a sure

thing.

It' be a sure thing. 60 days. of not

fighting for half of the hostages and uh

we don't know that there's any response

but I think it only matters what Israel

thinks of it. Uh Turkish President

Erdogan

who as you know is a member of NATO was

asked in an interview do you consider

what's happening in Gaza a genocide?

Erdogan says there's no other

explanation. This is a full-fledged

genocide and Netanyahu is responsible.

And the question that I ask is what

would it be if Hamas were the dominant

military and Israel was just, you know,

hiding in tunnels?

Would that would there be a genocide in

that direction? Yes, of course it would.

Hamas has been very clear that it would

be a genocide

as soon as they have the ability to do

it. So my take is genocide is bad with

the single exception

that if the other team is saying

directly and consistently and for years

if you if we get a chance we are going

to genocide you so hard.

What else are you going to do?

It might still be a genocide

but you have to genocide a genocide. How

else would you stop it? Because if the

only thing that will stop them from

killing you is, you know, completely

taking them off the field,

what are you going to do?

So, Russia's been shooting down

Ukrainian incoming drones like crazy,

including a number of them were heading

toward Moscow.

Now, how would you feel if you lived in

a major city anywhere and on a regular

basis your government had to shoot down

incoming exploding death drones? Like,

even if they got them all,

would you ever feel comfortable going

outdoors?

I mean, it feels like it'd be really

uncomfortable.

So, makes me wonder if the population in

Moscow is starting to feel the war in a

way that they hadn't felt it before. You

know, I think Moscow, you know, is most

of the opinion that matters.

So, uh I guess they their anti-aircraft

destroyed 81 Ukrainian drones in one

night.

And that's a lot.

Sweden says that they're prepared to

shoot down any Russian jets that wander

into their territory because as you

might know uh for reasons that I'm not

entirely clear about the purpose, Russia

has been quite consciously wandering

into the airspace of other neighboring

countries. So Estonia, Poland, Romania,

you know, Russia just keeps accidentally

flying into their airspace, presumably

putting pressure on or maybe testing

defenses or both or what? But Sweden

says if Russia flies over their space,

they're going to shoot it down. No, they

say no warnings and no excuses. Do they

mean it? I don't know. We might find

out.

I saw a uh post by Alex Prompter

who says that Google is uh right on the

border of revolutionizing education.

Apparently Google has launched a uh AI

um I guess an app or a program called

Learn Your Way. So what it does is uh it

it gives a very personalized lesson to

each student based on what they need

basically. So if you have a different

learning style, you know, if you need a

mind map or an audio lesson, a timeline

that you could click around on or or

quizzes that will change based on what

you know and what you don't know and

that sort of thing. So they tested it on

60 high schoolers and it worked great.

Apparently, every one of them said it

made him more confident. Scores were up

and uh

so basically if AI could adapt

its uh teaching method for each person

and maybe each day, you know, maybe one

day is different from another. Um the

the potential for how well you could

learn things uh apparently is really

good. So that might be a a big deal

because, you know, in my opinion, the

the terrible school system is one of the

biggest things that holds back, you

know, people were born into poverty is

that they can't they can't necessarily

use school to escape.

And if you could fix that by making it

sort of universally possible that

everybody can get this kind of education

with AI

um then you would solve one of the

biggest problems in the country and they

may they may have solved it. You know,

we we may see that uh that instead of

regular classrooms, maybe you just go to

a pod of, you know, a dozen people that

decided to be in the same pod because

none of them are troublemakers. And you

just sit there for two hours a day

learning stuff and maybe that's all you

need because you've heard that before,

right? That you could compress the

entire school day into two hours if you

knew how to do the two hours, right? I

totally believe that. There's no way

that you're learning more than two hours

worth of content in a school day. So, if

you could compress it,

>> yeah,

>> that'd be quite a day.

Well, Sarah Adams, no relationship to

me, is former CIA intelligence expert.

You may have seen her on podcasts. She

says the terrorists are already set up

here in America and they're planning on

a major attack on the homeland. Now,

she's been saying this for a while and

uh long enough that you might say to

yourself, "But Scott, you don't need to

be a former CIA intelligence expert to

say that terrorists will eventually do a

big attack on the homeland. You know, if

you don't know when it's going to happen

or the specifics,

we all could have made that same

prediction. So, it as long as you're not

held to the date uh or the approximate

date, that's a pretty safe

um it's a pretty safe prediction.

However, you want to get really scared

now.

Uh I hate to do this, but this seems

like an unrelated story, but I'm not so

sure. Apparently, the Secret Service has

found that there was this massive site

in New York, somewhere near New York

City, where there was a building with a

whole bunch of equipment in it that was

designed for no other purpose than to

disrupt cell networks all over New York

City.

And the thinking was that maybe had to

do with the United Nations meeting

coming up. To which I say, would that

really be worth it if they if they built

this expensive, complicated facility? Do

you think that the best use of that

would be to make the cell phones not

work at the UN?

Does that seem like that would be what

the plan was?

I've got a better suggestion that will

scare you. It could be that the uh the

the plan to turn off the cell phones all

over New York City could be related to

that big terror attack. If you were

going to do a big terror attack and you

had the option, you would turn off the

cell phones in that area so that the

first responders couldn't help and then

nobody could figure out what's going on

to figure out how to get out of the

city. So even if there was an escape,

let's say there was, you know, one path

to get out of the city, you you wouldn't

know because your cell phone didn't work

and nothing would work.

So the funniest, not funny, it's not

funny at all. But the oddest part of

this story is that they're not even

speculating who put that facility there.

Was it al-Qaeda? If al-Qaeda built that

thing,

then yes, it was part of a larger attack

plan, which means that they're really,

really serious about whatever the next

one is. They're they're not going to

mess around. Um, but if it was maybe

some u black hat hacker group, maybe

it's something they were using to make

money somehow, which would be bad, but

not nearly as bad as a joint attack with

al-Qaeda that also takes out your

phones.

So,

uh, that's scary. Hope we find out more

about that soon.

Well, Trump is said to have a victory on

big pharma because there's a new drug

coming out from Bristol Meyer Squibs

that will cost the same all over the

world. So, the United States will not

be, you know, paying the 10 times more

than other places and they're saying

it's, you know, because of the

president. Uh, but it's only one drug.

Breitbart News is reporting on this. Um,

it's a schizophrenia drug coenvi.

It's going to launch in the UK and uh I

guess the list price will be the same as

in the US. So, I don't know what happens

with all the other drugs. Aren't they

supposed to eventually be the same price

everywhere or are they only doing the

new ones? Something wrong with that

story.

All right, here's a story that could be

nothing or it could be everything. Uh,

the Gateway pundits reporting this,

Patty McMurray, that uh, New Jersey man

has somehow succeeded in getting a

million documents from Detroit's 2020

election. He says he'd been doing this

long foyer request thing, but he finally

got them. So, he got a million documents

that includes copies of absency ballots

and signed envelopes. Um, basically

there was a picture of him with a back

of a truck open, just, you know, tons of

documents. And

Detroit is uh considered by some as one

of the places that a cheat happened in

2020 presidential election. Now, I'm not

saying that because I don't personally

have any evidence of that. However, um

if these million documents

pay off the way the individual who got

these documents thinks they will, there

will be proof that the election was

stolen.

So, do you think that they gave him

anything that would show proof that the

election was stolen? Or did it take so

long because they had to look through it

to make sure they didn't give them

anything that would prove the election

was stolen. They just give him all the

other stuff. I don't know.

Yeah. I don't know. So, we'll see. Um,

according to Newsmax Money, the way we

calculate the the inflation is wrong.

And if we did it right, it would look a

lot higher. I remind you that all data

is fake. So we don't know about autism

because we don't trust the data. We

don't know about uh we don't know about

uh um inflation because we don't trust

the data. We don't know about the

election in 2020 because we don't trust

the vote totals.

Do you see any pattern developing here?

There's no data that's reliable.

Now, that's something I've always known

because I I worked in jobs where it was

my job to collect the data that was

accurate. And one thing I learned right

away, it didn't matter what the domain

was. It didn't matter what the source of

the data was, it was always inaccurate.

And we used it anyway because you got to

do something. You can't you can't just

say, "Ah, I don't know. We're just going

to guess from now on. So, uh, yeah, all

data is inaccurate or unreliable.

Well, you know, we're heading toward

another uh government shutdown

possibility because we'll never agree on

a budget, of course, and the government

funding as it is expires on September

30th and there are too many large

differences between the Democrats and

the Republicans and it's Groundhog Day

all over again. Uh, I would expect to

see some posts from Thomas Massie

reminding us that there's no chance that

Congress will act responsibly and come

up with a budget that is, you know, the

product of their negotiating and reduces

the deficit, which is their main thing

that they have to do.

Uh,

yeah.

Anyway,

so

if it's like every other time, they're

going to do another continuing

resolution. They're not going to cut the

budget. They're not going to make any

decisions. And they'll just kick the can

down the road because that is apparently

all they're able to do.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I

had to tell you. Oh, that's pretty good.

I was shooting to end at 8:00. Missed it

by one minute.

That's pretty good for not watching. I I

feel like I have this little internal

clock that's that's weirdly accurate.

Yeah, it's a kick the can.

All right, what else are we saying? Uh

I'm looking at some of your messages

coming by.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's

all I got for you. I'm going to say some

words to the beloved

uh subscribers to my local community.

The rest of you, thanks for joining.

I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same

place.

See you later in 30 seconds.