Episode 3018 CWSA 11/14/25

Hey, come on in.

Grab a seat.

There's room up front.

Uh, we won't mention your stocks today.

Not a good day for the stock market, but on the other hand, it always goes up and down.

No big deal, right?

All right, let's see.

I believe I needed this Hey everybody, stream on in here.

You don't want to miss the good stuff.

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 experiment trying to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tanker gels or steeen jugger flask a vessel of any kind.

All right.

How many would like me to say that again but in old timey voice?

Old timey voice.

Okay.

Same thing but old timey voice.

Ah, there's a cup in a mug and a glass and uh there's a tanker chain.

We had a Keen joker flask for a vessel of any kind.

You'd fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day.

Thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip from the 40s that it happens.

Now, did you ever wonder why everybody talk like that?

I've never figured that out.

Like, did they all get together and say, "Hey, Bob, the way you're talking, that's very cool.

I think I'll copy it now." I don't know if you can.

It's just the way I talk.

Just watch me.

See, I'm doing it, too.

And then, you know, somebody else hears them like, "What are you guys doing?

You talking old timey?

How do you know it's old timey?

It's still the present day.

I don't know.

I just feel it will be old timey someday." Next thing you know, everybody's talking that.

That's how it happens.

All right.

You're wondering where is your reframe for the day that will change your life, make everything better?

Better.

I just happen to have one for you.

It's all queued up.

Um, do you ever have a situation where there's something you know you need to do, but you can't get yourself motivated to do it because it's hard or it's unpleasant or it's going to hurt everybody, right?

So, we all have these procrastination situations, not because we're procrastinators per se, but because the thing is just sort of unpleasant.

So, you could just keep putting it off, but you know you have to do it.

you know, like a dental appointment or something, you know, you have to do it.

So, here's the reframe.

Instead of I'm afraid to do the thing I know I should do, it's usually fear that keeps you from doing it.

Instead of that, you say life is short.

Now, you might say to me, Scott, that doesn't really seem to line up with the original frame.

Is that really the answer to I'm afraid to do the things I know I should do?

Is the answer that life is short?

And the answer is yes.

Because once you set your brain to the idea that you don't have infinite time, then everything seems more important, including that thing you have to do.

So as long as you say life is short and then you just sort of think that way for a moment, watch how easy it is to do unpleasant things because you'll think, you know what, life is short.

It's also easier to do pleasant things when you say life is short.

But you'd be surprised how unpleasant things become easy when you think in those terms.

That's your reframe for the day.

That one you're going to have to try because logic will not tell you that that works.

And I've told you before that reframes are special in the sense that uh they don't have to make sense.

I don't know how many things would fall into that category, but it's a unique category.

The the reframe doesn't have to be logical or factual.

It just has to work.

And if putting yourself in that frame of mind that life is short, if it works, well, you just do it.

That's that's the whole that's the whole idea.

Now, some of you want to catch up on the saga of Carl the Fly.

If you were here yesterday, you know that Carl the Fly was a very plucky and determined fly.

and he decided that for my entire show, he would have someplace to sit on my body to give me the most unpleasant morning you've ever had that involved a fly.

And so I promised you that I would hunt that fly to the end of the earth.

And so after the show was over, I made many attempts to take out Carl.

But damn, Carl is good.

Carl is my maybe the smartest and strongest fly I've ever I've ever had the pleasure to have known.

So, I tried slapping him and several times, of course, I thought I got him.

You know how you do that really good slap?

You're like, "Oh, I don't see the body.

I don't see the corpse, but there's no way.

No way Carl could have gotten away." And then Carl flies by.

You're like, "Oh, damn it.

Damn it." So, finally, after much work, I killed Carl.

I killed Carl.

I trapped him in a space.

It's a long story, but I got him.

And uh I I happily told my caretaker.

I got him.

I got Carl finally.

How long did it take before the real Carl showed up?

And I learned that Carl not only is strong and smart and pluckucky, but he had a body double.

He had a body double.

I did not see that coming.

I was outsmarted by the fly.

So, I did what anyone would do if they were Ukrainian.

I immediately asked the United States for some military assistance.

And uh, as luck would have it, I got a salt gun that literally shoots grains of salt at flies.

And I um I deputized my caretaker to uh operate the weapon.

And uh she did a little safari inside my man cave here.

Um there were a few misses, but once she got him down, oh man, it was brutal.

She got him on the ground and she just started blasting his little body and even that wouldn't kill him.

I swear he had a he had some kind of a flack jacket on or something.

I've never just never seen a fly that tough.

But uh in the end, he did fall to our superior military power.

I did have to use a drone with a with a GPS.

>> >> Anyway, Carl the Fly, we loved him, but he had to go.

Speaking of horrible little disgusting things.

Oh, this could go the wrong direction if I say the next thing I was going to say.

Uh, back that up because it's going to sound like I'm talking about the person, not the thing.

I'm talking about a thing, not a person.

Uh, Palmer Lucky, who's awesome, by the way.

I like Papa Malaki.

Uh he said in a podcast recently, he said, quote, "I flirt with the idea that smart TVs should be illegal.

I hate them so much." What's funny about that is that just yesterday I was talking about throwing away my television because not a single time have I been able to make it work.

Why?

It's a smart TV.

And uh uh my current setup in my house is using Apple TVs uh individually for each TV, which is a really good system.

But if you try to put your Apple TV on your smart TV, you don't know what the heck's going to happen.

I mean, just all kinds of things start showing up and advertisements and you don't even know what mode it's in.

You can't tell the you can't tell the business model they're using.

You're just totally lost.

And and every time it happened, I would use up all the time I had for watching TV with trying to make the TV work.

And my my reasoning was very simple.

If I can get this to work, that's just once I have to do that.

And then after that, I'll happily be watching TV.

Nope.

Not with this smart TV.

No, it outsmarted me like Carl the Fly.

It uh it would act differently.

It would throw me things.

It was sometimes working, sometimes not.

Sometimes you have to reboot, sometimes you, it seemed like there were two different ways or three different ways to get to Apple TV.

And so yesterday I was literally in my living room talking to somebody and said, you know, I just want to throw that away because not once and this, by the way, this is the TV in my living room.

So it's one of the ones you would use if it worked.

And now it's been I don't know how many years, maybe five years.

It's probably been five years and I've not watched a single show on that TV because I can't.

But you don't want to throw away a TV, right?

Like your brain can't really wrap its head around that.

Like I'm not going to throw away a TV.

Yes, I am.

I'm going to throw away the TV.

If anybody wants a smart TV, come and get it.

No, don't don't do that.

Don't come to my house for my TV because somebody will get here first and then you'll be mad.

Well, you know that uh Wikipedia has a competitor, Grock.

Garacipedia.

Turns out that was a temporary name.

Elon says that once Garacipedia, his version of Wikipedia, once it becomes what he calls good enough, uh he's going to rebrand it to Encyclopedia Galactica.

I I can't even tell you how much I love that.

Isn't Can somebody give me a fact check on this?

Isn't Elon Musk supposed to be not good at this?

You know, meaning he's on the spectrum.

How can he be good at this, too?

This meaning coming up with clever names for stuff that are that are catchy.

That's a really good name.

Am I wrong?

or or do you do you see it as soon as you see the name, do you say, "Oh, whoa, that's a pretty good name." And that's very rare.

If you look at all the times that anybody has renamed anything in any domain, usually you're ambivalent or you're like, "I don't like it." But this is just a dead cold winner.

Did he come up with that or did he was he smart enough to recognize how good it was?

You know, it it's weird.

Every time Elon does something that's clearly shows he has a very advanced sense of humor.

Isn't that exactly what you're not supposed to have like the whole point of being on the spectrum is you get maybe in some cases certain advantages but there's a trade-off and maybe the trade-off is you know social awareness.

I don't think he has any problem with social awareness.

I don't think he has a problem with humor and he certainly he can read the room and come up with a good name of a product and he obviously all of his products have one thing in common that he got the user interface and the user interaction right.

How do you do that if you're on the spectrum?

That there there's something unexplained about him that I find fascinating.

You know, he's now supposed to be good at this, too.

So, I guess he is.

There's a new report from Marijuana Moment.

Kyle Jagger or Jagger is writing about it.

It says that women who use marijuana at a quote high intensity report greater romantic relationship satisfaction, but it doesn't work for men.

So, if women do a lot of marijuana intensely, they have better romantic relationships.

But it doesn't work for men.

Uh I mean men are happy with a relationship with a woman, but if the man is the one who's intensely doing it, how many of you didn't know that?

Ju just try to imagine this for a second.

You're uh you're in your 20s.

I'll just pick a time.

And you're in this a long-term relationship.

and you come home and your your wife or your significant other is really really high.

What's your first thought, men?

Uh, I'll just I'll just wait on this one.

What's your first thought, men?

What what what crosses your mind when you come home and find your woman is really really high?

That's right.

I I don't have to.

Do I have to finish this?

If you come home and you find out that your your wife is really stoned, you're thinking sex.

You're thinking sex.

Are you happier?

Yeah, probably.

Is it more likely that you're going to have some?

Oh, yeah.

Definitely.

Definitely.

All right.

Now, let's reverse it.

Uh wife comes home with a girlfriend and uh she's not high, but she sees that her her spouse, the guy, is high as a kite.

What's her first thought?

Oh, damn it.

He's going to be playing video games with his buddies all night.

Yeah.

What you don't think is that, oh, he's suddenly ready for sex because he's always ready for sex.

So that that's not even a variable that you need to check.

But but if he's really high, he might not want to go out with you and your friends.

He might want to stay home and play some video games.

So there's no way in the world that you didn't all know that if the wife is stoned, it might be a good news.

And if the husband's stoned, it might be bad news.

Come on.

You all knew that.

Even Carl the Fly knew that.

All right.

Um, here's a story I should have followed more closely, but I thought it was about something else.

So, the there's some new legislation about the hemp industry and uh apparently they made it illegal to have any kind of hemp product that would have any THC in it at all.

Basically, uh I thought it was about hemp.

I didn't realize that it would include the active ingredient stuff.

So, of course, I'm not in favor of this.

I'm not even sure if the people are voting for it even understood what they were voting for.

I really don't.

Um, but they're going to ban all hemp derived products containing THC.

I didn't realize that in the farm bill of 2018, they had legalized hemp and then a whole bunch of farmers said, "Oh, we can make some money on this hemp stuff." And so, they made a bunch of money on the hemp.

And then, I think it was Rand Paul who was pointing out that uh if you yank it away, your government is just screwing with you.

You know, at the very least, your government should not make things worse.

Am I right?

It just shouldn't make things worse.

But imagine imagine using your legislation to essentially create an entire industry in the egg domain, which is hemp.

Then a whole bunch of people say, "Oh, I can finally survive." Because, you know, the other farming things weren't working out.

So they start a a hemp farm and it works and they make money and they get a few good years of hemp and then the government comes back and said, "Oh, by the way, it's it's illegal now." Are you kidding me?

Are you kidding me?

I don't even care what the details are of the hemp of why they did it or or why they wouldn't want to do it.

I don't care.

You cannot be a government and yank farmers around.

You got to you got to settle into something.

Now, obviously, if there's a problem, you want to fix the problem.

But was this a problem people were complaining about?

Do you remember anybody coming up to you and saying, "Oh my goodness, the the legalized hemp is causing me so much trouble." No.

No.

You don't yank that away from the farmers.

So if there's one thing I can teach you about economics there there only a few things about economics that are just absolutely you know ironclad rule.

One of the ironclad rules of at least national economics is you don't mess with stuff unless you have a really good reason.

You don't check you don't change the taxes even if they're too high unless you have a good reason.

You don't change the tariffs.

You don't change anything.

You don't change anything in the e in the economy unless you got a really really strong reason.

I don't think they have one.

To me, this looks like a just a mistake.

So, I hope it gets corrected.

We'll see.

Congress is also going to have some hearings on congressional stock trading.

You know that Congress is the only ones who can do insider trading legally.

What do you think Congress will decide about their own ability to do insider trading and make a lot of money without any risk?

Well, any any legal risk for insider trading?

I feel like this is just for a show.

Do you think there's any chance in the world they're going to ban insider trading?

But here's what I'd love, and I'll bet you'll never see it.

Do you think you're going to see the argument in favor of insider trading?

How many of you think that somebody's going to stand up in Congress, somebody elected to be a member of Congress, and give an argument in favor of insider trading, but only for them?

Do you think that's going to happen?

Because that's that's what's being called for, right?

The entire point of having the hearing is that we hear the argument on both sides.

Well, the argument against it is moronically simple, right?

I don't even need to repeat it.

Every single person understands the argument against it.

What exactly is the argument for it?

Now, I've actually heard somebody support it.

I won't I won't mention who, but the support was we don't make enough money unless we do this from an actual, you know, member of the government.

We don't make enough money to essentially support living here and having a house in our district.

plus all the other things that don't get reimbursed.

Uh we just don't have a way to survive unless we're doing insider trading legally.

Legally.

What do you think of that argument?

I don't think they can say that out loud because it just doesn't sound good even if that's what you're thinking.

So if you were going to compromise, I would offer the following.

You know that there's at least one entity.

There might be more by now that are tracking the insider trading of at least Nancy Pelosi when she was doing it and then they would give you an option of buying what they bought.

Would you be happy if it was way more easy and everybody understood that they too could get the benefit of insider trading by doing a fast follow, maybe even automated of the insiders?

Oh, Andy, you're too smart.

Um, what do you think of that?

because there's no way that they're going to get rid of it because it's just too profitable and there's no way that the issue will go away so we'll keep complaining about it.

If you were going to try to find a middle ground, something we could all live with, I would be semi okay, it's not ideal, but I'd be okay if I could just fast follow and say, uh, 12 seconds after your trade goes in, mine just follows.

I put some limit on it.

So, it's it's not a lot of money, but it would just be some fund of money that matches roughly matches what you're doing.

Well, that's the best idea I have.

It's probably not going to happen.

Can you believe that a Sorosbacked group called Indivisible, Soros backs a lot of groups, but that's one of his big ones that we hear about.

Uh, Indivisible is trying to get rid of Chuck Schumer.

New York Post is reporting and uh, as you know, Republicans are not a big fan of Schumer.

So, how would you like to meet Chuck Schumer and you can't make either Trump or Soros happy about what you're doing?

And they both want to get rid of you.

Actually, I don't even know if Trump wants to get rid of him.

Trump might be happy having him because he's such a weak weak competitor.

But uh nobody loves him and but finally uh so the good news is that Chuck Schuber has found a way to unite us.

Is is there even one topic in the entire country where a severe leftist and I would completely agree?

Like you could you could imagine this situation, right?

somebody with green hair and all kinds of tattoos and annoying signs walks up to me and says, "We got to get rid of Chuck Schumer.

Are you on board?" And then I look looking like a CPA go, "Yeah, I'm on board.

Let's get this done.

We'll get rid of Schumer." Unifying.

Well, Trump has uh okay some boiler gas drilling in Alaska's a wildlife refuge.

This is the sort of story I feel I'm under served on.

If I told you that uh Trump had approved drilling or explanation exploration uh on this wildlife refuge, what's the first question you'd ask?

and is the answer to that question or even the fact that it's a question in the article.

What's the number one thing you'd want to know to understand this?

The number one thing you want to know is what percentage of the total wildlife refuge would be impacted, especially if something went wrong.

Let's say worst case scenario, something breaks, pipeline breaks, what percentage of the total area would be destroyed?

Well, I don't know the answer to that and I don't even have a guess.

I don't even have a sense of range.

It's not 75%, right?

If there were a pipeline leak, would it destroy 75% of the wildlife refuge?

I doubt it.

I don't know what the real number is, but it's probably not 75%.

Would it be 10%.

Do you think 10% of our invaluable irreplaceable wildlife could be destroyed if worst case I'm saying worst case scenario 10%.

I don't think so.

Do you have any idea how much land would be 10%.

I mean that would be a lot.

So I feel like this is a kind of story that if you don't know that it's a you know postage stamp sized risk.

If it is, by the way, if it's not that small a risk, somebody fact check me.

I don't want to mislead you.

Um, so if you ask me if I'm in favor of it or not in favor of it, how could I decide?

They have not given me enough information to decide.

Obviously, I'm biased toward more energy explanation exploration.

You know that.

But I don't know, is it 1% 10%.

Here, here's a study that feels like it just comes out every year for decades.

According to the University of Victoria, testosterone in your body odor is linked to perceptions of social status.

Apparently, both men and women can smell your testosterone.

Does that does that make you afraid a little bit that men and women can smell your testosterone?

It's true.

We're very sensitive to it.

In fact, when uh Carl the Fly was fighting me, I got a little whiff of his testosterone, and I I got to say, I was impressed.

That little guy, he was just packed with testosterone.

Anyway, if you're if you're joining the stream late, I love how nonsensical that sounded.

You'll just have to ask somebody else about Carl the Fly.

Um, but it seems to me that for decades the same study has been coming out.

Oh, women can smell testosterone again.

Oh, women can smell testosterone.

Oh, men can smell testosterone.

I don't know why we keep studying it.

Just ask me.

I would have told you.

Well, Zoran Mandani, he wants to uh use more social workers for the 911 calls as opposed to the fire department and police.

And apparently that's been something they've been testing uh prior to Mum Dami.

So they've been testing it since 19 I'm sorry 20 since uh 20 uh 19 2021.

So they've been testing it's called Be Heard.

So it's a pilot program now.

A pilot program that's been running for five years.

Isn't it sort of time to decide whether it worked?

What do you think?

Did the pilot program work in which they would more likely send you a social worker than a a police or a fire department person?

Did that work?

It's been five years.

So now they would have a good good sense of whether it works or not.

Well, according to uh a political veteran named Bill Cunningham, who once served under Michael Bloomberg when he was mayor, um Cunningham says uh that the program needs quote stronger management.

Oh, I think I found the problem.

In what world do Democrats give strong management to anything?

In what world?

No, I'm going to argue with him.

you're you're saying dumb idea.

So, I'm going to surprise you.

The question of whether replacing the uh the first responder types with social workers that has not been tested even though it's a pilot program and it's run for 5 years, they haven't tested it.

Why?

Exactly what Cunningham is saying is that it needs stronger management.

If you take a great idea and then you throw terrible management at it or you hire people for it that are your cronies, it's not going to work.

It doesn't matter how good the idea is.

So, we really don't know if this could work.

Is that fair?

Now, I realize that with my audience, I'm supposed to say Mami is a communist or at least a socialist and what we should do is get rid of him and every single one of his ideas is bad.

I really don't think every one of his ideas is bad unless you overlay on it that it will be managed by Democrats because I don't think that they hire for merit.

I think they hire for identity that they kind of say they do.

Right.

So if you take any good idea in the world, any good idea, and then you have it run by people who can't make anything work and then it doesn't work, do you conclude that the idea was bad?

That's not really that doesn't follow.

The only thing you can conclude is that one group of people, Democrats, don't seem to be good at managing anything.

Now, you could argue, and I wouldn't push back too hard, that uh Republicans, if they're part of the government, also don't do anything well.

The government never does anything.

The more money you give to the government, the worse it is, etc.

I wouldn't push back on that.

But there definitely seems to be a difference between Democrats just trying to manage anything versus Republicans trying to manage anything.

There does seem to be a difference.

So here's what I would caution against.

You know, I know you don't want mom dummy to be too successful, but why would you throw away the idea that you might have some option for lower cost 911 responses?

That would be part of the benefit if he did it right.

And that it might be more on point because for some of them, it's not about the danger, it's about the um it's about the specific situation.

Now, most of you understood, right?

I think you understood that nobody ever said, "Send the social worker to a domestic violence place where the violence is happening at the moment." You all know that, right?

That that's sort of just something somebody says to mock it.

They're not sending somebody instead of the police to anything dangerous.

If it's dangerous, they would still send the police even under the pilot program.

So there's no scenario where you send an untrained person into a dangerous situation either either now or with a new program.

Uh communism wasn't implemented correctly.

Well, did I say that here?

Here.

I love it when people have to make up a quote for me and put it in quotes to prove me wrong.

So, somebody just did that trick in the comments.

So, somebody put in quotes as if it's something I did say or would say that communism was great if it had been if it had been implemented correctly.

Did I say that?

Was was there some place that I don't remember this morning where I said every idea in the world is a great idea.

You just have to implement it correctly.

Did somebody hear me say that?

Did I hallucinate that?

No, you idiot.

Every idea is a different idea.

Sometimes they're good ideas.

Sometimes they're bad ideas.

What do you like?

Do you like to do uh Never mind.

You're not worth it.

You're just not worth it.

Can we make one agreement there is such thing as good ideas and bad ideas?

That can we get that far?

Can we agree that there's such a thing as good ideas and bad ideas?

Can we further agree that a good idea will never work if you have bad implementation?

Can we agree on that?

Can we also agree that if it's a bad idea, good implementation probably won't save it.

Can we agree on that?

I'm not saying anything you don't agree with.

So, stop pretending and putting my stop putting my words in fake quotes and acting like I'm a idiot because I agree with you completely.

Right?

If we're on the same side on this topic, calling me dumb about it is kind of calling yourself dumb.

Anyway, stocks uh plunged because the market re because the government reopened.

Does that give you any confidence in your government that the minute it reopens the stocks plunge but when it was closed the stocks resuming the moment that we think the government might do something?

Oh no.

Oh no.

The government might do something.

That's so good.

We don't want our government doing stuff.

Sell your stocks.

Well, according to PJ Media, Katherine Salgado is writing that uh 500,000 double dippers on the SNAP program.

So, SNAP is where people who need help with food can get uh the government food assistance called SNAP.

And there are 500,000 of them that were double dipping, meaning that they were getting more than one dose of it.

And there were 5,000 dead people on the uh just in 29 states.

Now that's just 29 states.

So the other states I think didn't allow them to look into it or something, but we assume it's at least that much problem or worse.

Um how in the world do we get to this?

I swear to God.

Um, when I drive around, I look at the how expensive the houses are uh in some areas, not everywhere.

I think to myself, my common sense doesn't understand how this many people could buy this many good houses.

You ever had that thought?

And I think to myself, is this because of crime?

If you had a a secret way to view your residential neighborhood, so somehow you could just put on glasses and you could tell which of the homes were only afforded because of a criminal activity.

Maybe like more than you think.

Uh how many of them are only affordable because somebody somebody uh had an estate that they inherited?

Well, it'll be a few.

Um, but what you wouldn't find is a whole bunch of people who got a good job and they could afford a nice house.

There'd be a lot of that, but there's a tremendous amount of wealth in this country that's sketchy.

And I'm thinking that the sketchy amounts are bigger than the legitimate amounts at this point.

It feels that way.

Does it not feel that way to you?

Like I seriously it looks like people are embezzling from their company or they stole from somebody.

I can't understand how so many people could have so many nice houses given the cost of living in California.

Now I understand why I have a nice house.

You know, I'm a public figure.

I have a I have a kind of job where you could guess how much I make practically.

So I understand why I do.

But why do all the other people have nice houses?

Do they all have amazing jobs?

I don't know.

Something's going on.

Well, here's another evergreen story that just never goes away.

There's a therapist who says that Trump derangement syndrome is real.

How many times do we have to hear that?

Doesn't everybody know that Trump derangement syndrome is real?

It's about as real as you can get.

Yeah, it's very real.

Um, let's see.

Joe Rogan had a guest, Gavin Debecker, who's uh who's a interesting guy.

Um, and Gavin I' I've had some brief interactions with him and he was very kind, very generous.

Um, so I like Gavin Debecker.

Anyway, he says that uh we're not hearing enough about what the Maha people and RFK Jr.

in particular are succeeding at.

So he says that there have been some significant wins for RFK Jr.

but the press is kind of downplaying them.

But let's let's test.

So he gave some examples.

Uh removing mercury from all vaccines.

So that's something that RFK Jr.

got done.

How many of you knew that he got mercury removed from all um vaccines?

Now I don't think that there were many left that had it.

I I think there was a relatively small number of vaccines that still had it, but he got rid of them.

Now, I don't know if um I don't think there's a counterargument.

I guess there's always a counterargument, but um maybe that made a difference.

I'm no scientist, so I don't know for sure, but maybe it made a difference.

He stopped a bunch of mRNA research projects that didn't look promising.

That's again Gavin Debecker's take.

He said he stopped fluoride in water or he's recommending against it.

I don't know if he stopped it or recommending against it if that made a difference.

That seems pretty big.

Um and a bunch of things he's doing with food.

More about the dies I think.

Um so there's a lot happening there.

I'm not sure we're totally totally informed.

But the reason that we don't necessarily hear that government good and big pharma and big egg not always so good is that Debecer says that something like over 90% of cable news channels are sponsored by pharma.

In fact, something like 80s something% is just fizer all by itself.

Is that true?

Is it true that 80% of cable news funding is one company?

I knew it was big, but is it that big?

Wow.

Um, yeah.

And and I'd also use I'll point to something that Oh, what's his name?

The the seven words you can't say on TV.

who who's the famous comedian whose name I'm blanking on.

All right, you know who he is.

But anyway, he said that you don't have to have a you don't have to have a conspiracy if everybody knows what they're supposed to do.

And certainly every single member of the cable news world, yeah, George Carlin, thank you.

George Carlin is the answer.

So George Carlin pointed out that the bad guys, you know, the the rich people, they don't have to have a meeting to coordinate because they all know what's good for rich guys.

So they just all do what's good for them and that's good for the other rich guys.

I think this is one of those cases that you don't have to tell the on air host what they can and cannot say.

They know what they can and cannot say.

So it's it looks like an invisible crime.

It's not really a crime, but you know, an invisible bad behavior.

All right.

I hate to bring it up, but do any of you know what the Republican health care plan is?

Anybody?

What do you think is the quote Republican health care plan?

And can you take the Republicans seriously if they don't have one?

Uh, you know, every now and then some Democrat will, you know, be debating me on whether Trump's a good idea or a bad idea.

And when they get to healthcare, I just go, I'm out.

Nope.

As far as I know, Republicans are doing basically nothing on healthcare.

And it's our, you know, one of our biggest problems.

If you argue that healthcare is a big component of the debt, which it probably is, um, then it's extra bad, right?

So, here I had to ask uh Grock because I didn't even know what what Republicans were sort of pushing.

Here are some of the things that Grock says Republicans are pushing.

Block grants to states for Medicaid.

Okay.

How is that a plan?

That's not a plan.

That's just giving them money to do the thing they they're already doing.

That's not a plan.

That's nothing.

Well, are you supposed to save money by doing that?

What exactly would be even the point?

Obviously, you want to fund health care, but is that the good way to do it?

What's the argument?

I don't even get that.

Then uh Republicans like health savings accounts where you could put money in your own account and it would grow and someday if you had a problem you could use it.

I don't really think that's an answer.

That doesn't look like a real It might be on It might be an answer on top of a health care plan, but it's not a health care plan.

Uh tort reform where it would be harder to sue your doctor.

Yeah, I I would listen to the argument on that.

I can imagine that tort reform is necessary, but is that is that your health care plan?

Tort reform?

How about uh price transparency at hospitals?

So, Republicans want more price transparency.

Haven't we wanted that for 25 years and nothing happens?

presumably because you know eventually it reaches somebody who makes money by makes money by uh not telling you the prices of things and you know they have some political connection so they just stop it.

So it looks to me like the Republicans have a a grab bag of things that are sort of in that domain but nothing like a plan.

Do you know why Republicans don't have a healthcare plan?

Do you know the reason?

I know the reason.

None of you know the reason.

It's the same same reason the Democrats don't have a workable health care plan.

Does that help?

So the Democrats have a plan which is just spend unlimited money on it and you'll be fine.

That's not really a plan.

So why is it that neither the left nor the right can even come up with a plan?

It's something you would call a plan.

Like they might call it a plan, but would you call it a plan if the plan is just, oh, allocate more money, you'll be fine.

It's not really a plan.

Not much of a plan.

The answer is this.

Nobody knows how to do it.

If if somebody on the left or somebody on the right had an idea and they could explain it and it made sense and it could save money, well then we might have something to talk about, right?

Nobody has an idea.

Do you know the only way out of this is if Elon Musk makes a robot hospital?

Nothing else is going to work.

Let me say it again.

The one and only way to get a health care plan, as far as I can tell, if you've got a better idea, let me know.

Would be Elon Musk literally building a robot hospital to test it.

And then maybe later there would be robot, you know, urgent cares and robot general practitioners and stuff like that.

But there doesn't seem to be a path where human beings are providing health care and everybody can afford it.

The everybody can afford it part can be solved by the robots.

The access, even if you're in a remote place, can be solved by robots.

Your robot can show up in the middle of the night.

Uh, do you know how many times I've had a medical problem on a weekend?

Good luck.

You have to go to the emergency room.

But wouldn't it be better if your Tesla self-driving doctor pulled up to your house at any time of day because they don't have to sleep?

And uh and if you needed a specialty piece of equipment, then the robot would already be on the the line and say, "Uh, we're going to need an echo cardiogram.

Um, here's the address." And then suddenly another Tesla pulls up and the only thing it's doing is delivering that piece of equipment that will be used then and then return to the return to the to the big bucket in the sky.

So unless you're thinking of healthcare so radically that you're completely just redoing it and ripping it out.

Uh the way the way Elon approaches something by the way you have you heard uh Elon Musk talk about the biggest problem that engineers make boy does this apply in this case.

He says the biggest problem the engineers make on any any domain is that they try to optimize something that shouldn't have existed.

Now, health care should exist, but should we be optimizing human health care in hospitals?

You have to ask that question.

Is that the thing we should be optimizing?

Well, a little bit, because they exist, and you don't want them to fall apart and stuff.

But shouldn't we be looking at something that's completely different, built from the bottom up?

There's only one person I know in the United States who could pull that off, and he's kind of busy at the moment.

Um, and I don't even know if it'd be profitable.

So, I don't, you know, you need it to be profitable, but I would say that here's what we need.

We need some way to at least tell a story that we can move from what we have to something like an AI driven, robot driven, somebody will come to your house.

um you'll always be, you know, one call away from some advanced intelligence that knows what you need.

Um so it seems to me that without that level of um you know deep deep re-engineering, we don't have a chance.

We don't have a chance.

At the very least, I would love to hear what let's say Mark Cuban, Elon Musk, uh I'll throw in Bill Gates.

I know I know what you think about that.

Um, what why are not our smartest people already telling us how to do this?

Is it because they can't figure it out either?

It might be.

It might be they can't figure it out either.

But I would love to see the most aggressive.

And by the way, all of this can be tested small.

So you don't have to turn the entire United States into a different system and hope you got lucky.

You could say, "All right, we're going to test this in this one county.

It's not even that populated, and we'll do a bunch of things, but in another county, maybe we'll try a few other things, and then uh in a year, we'll we'll look at it." I would be happy or if somebody said, "We don't have any way to reduce the cost today, so we're just going to fund it." But in five years, you're definitely going to have an AI doctor or some people will, not everybody.

And then you you draw your budget such that it it goes down because you're getting rid of the people getting rid of the people's not the goal, but you're reducing costs over time by bringing the AI in.

So I I also wonder what percentage of all our health care costs are administrative and and government regulations and paperwork.

If it turns out that that's like 40% of the cost and it might be right.

If you had to guess how much of the health care costs is the paperwork and would you say 40%.

You know without knowing too much about the industry which I don't.

It seems like everything's at least that much.

So, could you cut that in half?

Probably if you just had a smarter way to administer it.

All right, moving on.

You know, uh Michael Wolf, he's the uh slashauthor.

Um he's the one who is the adviser friend of Epstein.

Turns out that we know now he uh tried to blackmail Trump.

He tried to get he tried to talk Epstein into blackmailing Trump.

Now, if I said to you, uh, I'd like to engineer for you the worst reputation you could ever have.

And I'd say, well, if if you're going to make it the worst reputation anybody had, you're going to have to throw in some, you know, underage stuff.

You know what I mean?

And sure enough, he was hanging out with the underage stuff guy.

So that's not good for your look.

And then it turns out he may have been one of the people teaching Epstein how to be a black mailer.

There's no evidence they taught him how to be a black mailer, but there there is some documentation uh that uh they're looking at Trump and I guess Wol said in a in a text message or an email to Epstein, quote, I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you either on air or in scrum afterwards.

This is 2015.

So 2015.

And then uh Wolf said to Epstein, "I think you should let him hang himself." Quote, "If he says he hasn't been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency." In other words, he could keep Trump's secret and act like he had not been on the House or not been on the plane, but he had the option of blackmailing him.

Might want to keep that option open.

Um according to Wolf uh and and also he goes listen directly says he says if he says he hasn't been on the plane or to the house then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency.

You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you.

I can't even believe people talk like this.

Can you?

This is this is the way people talk.

Oh my god.

Uh or if it really looks like he could win the presidency, you could save him and generating a debt.

Oh my god.

Pure blackmail.

How would you like to be the person so dark that you're the one who taught Epstein how to blackmail better?

Does it get worse than that?

But I was laughing at the fact that the New York Post referred to Michael Wolf as discredited.

He's a discredited author.

And I was thinking what they refer to me as.

So I'm a No, I'm not discredited.

I'm a What do they call me?

Remind me what they call me.

I'm not discredited.

I'm just something disgusting.

Anyway, once people like me and him get cancelceled, we get a we get a new name.

All right.

Um, so good luck with that.

Oh, they also call him a a Trump obsessed.

So, he's discredited and Trump obsessed.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department is suing uh disgraced.

Thank you.

Yes, they call me disgraced instead of discredited.

I like disgraced.

Um, so the Justice Department is going to sue to block California from their new intention of uh redistricting.

And it makes me wonder, should we just change our system for everything?

And instead of uh instead of just doing it and waiting for the lawsuit, just make the lawsuit part of the process.

Because if we sue everybody about everything, which is our current situation, you might as well just build that into the process that you know, first you pass the law, but then it just goes automatically to some political some core entity.

That's my idea for the day.

John Federman had some kind of cardiac incident.

doesn't seem um doesn't seem too serious, but it did cause him to black out and fall on his face and uh got some minor injuries.

Like I say, staying in the hospital to be evaluated.

And it makes me wonder, so John Federman was in the news already, like in a big way.

He was in the news and then this happens, which obviously he did not plan, which puts him in the news again.

Does it feel like he's not an NPC?

Does it feel like he's a player?

Because why is he in the news so much?

By coincidence, he's in the news so much.

I don't know.

I think the simulation has plans for him.

That's what it looks like.

All right, I'm going to take a challenge.

Challenge is this.

I'm going to read a headline from the Hungarian conservative and I want you to see uh if this uh shocks you.

So, how shocked are you?

Zilinsk's inner circle rocked by massive corruption scandal.

How many of you are shocked?

Shocked that Ukraine is being accused of a massive corruption scandal.

What are the odds of that?

I ask you, the most corrupt place on earth.

What are the odds of that?

Anyway, so there's a allegations of as much as a hund00 million got siphoned off by his cronies.

So, one specific one in particular, there's some businessman named Teamer Mindic, and I guess he he's being accused of being part of whatever this allegedly is.

California is uh uh let's see, do you get sued for issuing all those illegal commercial driver's license?

Yeah, I think the Trump administration is going after them for that.

Um Oh, so the Trump administration will uh withhold up to 160 million in federal funds unless California revokes quote every illegally issued commercial driver's license, of which there are quite a few.

Do you think that Gavin is going to do that or is he going to give up the $160 million in federal funding?

Well, I think it'll go to court.

What do you think?

It should just go to court im, you know, immediately automatically.

It's going to end up there.

Well, I saw in the news today on Reclaim the Net, Cindy Harper is writing that Israel has a bill that's uh they're considering now that would allow the Israeli government to shut down foreign media outlets.

Um, so it passed the first reading, which means it has some potential of becoming law, but it's not there yet.

And uh, what do you think of that?

And when I saw that, I thought, well, isn't that the same as the United States?

Doesn't the United States block foreign uh news platforms without looking it up?

All right, here's your challenge.

Without looking it up, tell me in the comments, do you believe that the United States already had this either law or right or something that we were already banning foreign platforms?

I thought we were because when was the last time you saw Russia today, RG?

They used to be everywhere and then they disappeared, right?

And I think there might have be a few other examples.

So I asked Grock to look into it.

And it turns out that we do not have that law.

What we have is something better.

We have massive censorship.

So, if you're RT and you're trying to get some traffic and some income on You.

Tube, good luck.

You're going to be treated like that guy Scott Adams.

Have you heard of him?

No, I'm just joking.

Yeah.

So, if you want to be alarmed, what is more alarming than the fact that we don't need that law because we already banned people just with our normal censorship tools?

and banning a Russian entity especially really easy.

Really easy.

I don't even know if this is another one of those George Carlin situations.

Did Did somebody need to actually contact You.

Tube and say, "Hey, God, there's something happening right outside my house." I don't know what, but it's big.

Um, yeah, they didn't have to coordinate.

They all just knew what to do.

So, before you mock Israel for their censorship, we're not so different.

Um, here's another story.

the federalists MD KD is writing about this that uh the the same Department of Justice partisans as they're called partisans that drove the Arctic Frost investigation.

Uh let's see what was the story.

You know what I'm I'm going to tell you the story I was going to tell you instead of what the story is.

Is it my imagination or has all the stories about Oric Frost and um the Russia collusion and all the bad behavior and the old Obama, have they now become just noise?

Like like if this story had broken when it was fresh, it would be the biggest story.

But because time has gone by and now we've been confused by all these similar sounding stories, like if I hear one more story that Jack Smith did something that we think might have been sketchy, how am I even going to sort that in my head with all the other stories about Jack Smith allegedly did something sketchy?

I can't keep them straight.

So, I'm completely lost.

And I don't know if if any of this is intentional.

I mean, certainly not by the people reporting it, but there's something about time plus complexity that just hides any bad behavior.

And I think we've reached it because I don't think there's going to be any justice for any of these older acts.

But it's hard to get people all worked up about them because we don't we don't really follow it.

Meaning that even if you read the story, you end up thinking, "Is that the one I read last week?" Well, let me ask I'll ask you this way.

How many of you have recently read a story?

It might have been in just the news or it could have been something else.

And and you thought to yourself, is that a new story or is that reiterating an old story or is it an old story that they added a new email to?

Did the new email change what we knew about the old story or did it just bolster it?

the the whole idea that we can figure out what these bad actors may or may not have done, I think is gone.

I think the complexity and time have just sort of erased the crimes in a practical sense, meaning that they'll never be held accountable.

So, I didn't know that was a thing, but it looks like it's a thing.

Speaking of stories that you don't know if they're new or old, uh, apparently Nevada is going to be reopening the case of what they call the fake electors.

So, Ella Lee is writing for the Hill and I want you to see some of the language that she used in the in the story.

So, you remember the uh 2024 election.

I'm sure you remember.

And you remember that there was an effort to get alternative electors.

Now, why did she call them fake electors when they were very publicly uh alternative electors?

Meaning that if something went one direction, they would be activated, but if it went another direction, they wouldn't.

What makes them fake?

Isn't fake kind of subjective?

Because it certainly seems to me that there was some possibility that they they would cast the real vote.

How about uh they also say uh talking about people who quote falsely claimed that Trump won the 2020 presidential election.

How how does she know or anybody know that it was falsely?

What uh process was used to determine that that Trump didn't win?

I don't know if there's any way to know.

the the whole reason that we're talking about getting rid of uh election machines, the whole reason we're talking about same day voting, the whole reason we're talking about uh user ID for voting, the only reason that those are conversations is that reasonable people know that we can't be entirely sure who won the election.

So, how do you get off saying falsely claimed?

You could say not supported.

You could say unproven.

You could say baseless if if that were true.

But you really can't say falsely claimed.

That's that's an over claim, right?

How would you know?

You would know.

I don't know that it was fake, but I also don't know that it wasn't.

I wouldn't know.

Um, so this feels like one of those evergreen stories that but I guess they were fighting over some process thing, so it got delayed.

Otherwise, it would have already been resolved.

But anyway, Elon Musk is dunking on the head of the EU.

Somebody's somebody whose name is a Vanderlayan.

Ursula Vanderlayan.

Uh, apparently Ursula said uh she was talking about building the European Democracy Shield and she said that if democracy is the foundation of freedom.

Um, oh, I'm sorry.

No, that's what Elon said.

So, she was talking about Europe Europe's uh democracy shield and Elon dunked on her on X by saying, "If democracy is the foundation of freedom, shouldn't your position be elected by the people?" She's not elected.

She has an unelected position.

All right.

What else we got going on here?

Um, according to Axios, um, some lawmakers were cons were concerned that they weren't getting enough briefings about, uh, the narco boats being blown up.

So, you know what Trump did about that?

He said, "Give them more briefings." The The reason I wrote this down as a story is that how often do you hear that?

Hey, we've got a problem.

There's not enough of X.

All right, we're going to do more X.

Anything else?

You just don't see somebody complained and then somebody said fixed.

Done.

But what it made me wonder is uh how many boats there are.

If you were to count up all the boats that could be used in this way, there can't be that many narco boats, right?

How many are there?

So now we've blown up what 20 of them.

Um given that you could put a bazillion dollars worth of drugs on one narco boat.

How many were there in the first place?

Like if you if you wanted to make sure that one of your narco boats got through, how many do you need to have?

Five.

And then you know multiple cartels.

So each of them maybe have five.

But what what it made me wonder is how the narco boat salespeople sell their boats now because somebody still has to go to the narco boat sales sales sales place to buy a new narco boat, right?

Because they're running out of boats.

So what does the salesperson say in those situations?

Oh, we make the finest narco boats.

You you will we promise and this is our commitment to you.

If you buy our narco boats with our extra fast motors and our good navigation, if you buy our narco boats, we can guarantee that you will reach your destination unexloded up to 5% of the time.

Uh but what is happening to the other 95%.

And why do I have a bad Mexican accent?

And then the salesperson would say, "Oh, but you have to compare us to the competition." The competition loses, I don't know, 98% of the boats.

We can get you there 5% of the time, and that's better than you can get from the cartels.

Well, maybe I'll go back to the cartels and tell them that there's no practical way for me to get this job done.

Well, you could.

You could.

That you could definitely play it that way.

You could go back to your cartel boss and in about a minute and a half they would tie you to a chair and torture you, but you could do that.

Or you could overpay for this boat and have a 5% chance of surviving.

Take your pick.

Well, I'm just saying it would be hard to be a a buyer of narcoats.

Uh, Chinese astronauts are returning to Earth in a different ship because the one they were in got cracks in it from some debris in space.

Can you imagine being in space and looking at your windshield and seeing it cracked?

What what what would be scarier than being in a rocket ship and looking over and seeing that your window is cracked and that it might keep cracking?

That would be pretty scary.

But the Chinese astronauts are made of tougher stuff than I am and uh they just waited for a new ship, jumped on it.

It looks like they'll be fine.

Um meanwhile, uh German police have been looking to uh solve the mystery of who blew up their pipeline, the Nordstream, too.

Now, I don't think it's a mystery who blew it up so much as is finding the specific people and punishing them.

But here are some numbers you might not have known.

So, how much money has Germany donated to the Ukrainian defense?

The answer is 37 billion euros.

They are the number two biggest funer of Ukrainian's military defense after the United States.

So, isn't that great that uh they're they're so friendly with Ukraine and they get along so well that Germany will put 37 billion euros in it.

But oh, but wait, they actually spent a lot more than that because once the uh once the war started and the pipeline blew up, um I guess the cost of energy in Germany went through the roof.

So Germany ended up spending maybe a hundred billion extra euros that they wouldn't have had to spend except for the Ukraine war and maybe something with the blown up pipeline.

So how do you get a situation in which Germany is funding Ukraine's defense while Ukraine is blowing up valuable German assets and acting like they didn't do it?

That is a complicated part of the world, isn't it?

I don't know how the Germans put up with that, but I don't know how they put up with anything.

I do not understand Germany.

Um, and apparently the uh P Hagsath has announced that the U the new operation called Southern Spear is going to squash the narco terrorists in the Western Hemisphere.

I think we knew that was happening.

But at least it has a name now.

At least it has a name.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is all I wanted to say today.

Uh I think we've covered everything from Nordstream 2 to Carl the Fly to uh Yeah, I think we covered everything.

Is there anything interesting happening today?

Not that I know of.

Well, that means it's time for breakfast, everybody.

Another shiny object.

Okay.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, thanks for joining.

I'm going to talk to the uh beloved local subscribers next.

That will be private.

So, the rest of you, I will be seeing you tomorrow.

I hope.

Same time, same place.

You're always a treat.

Hey, come on in. Grab a seat. There's

room up front. Uh, we won't mention your

stocks today.

Not a good day for the stock market, but

on the other hand, it always goes up and

down. No big deal, right?

All right, let's see. I believe I needed

this

Hey everybody, stream on in here. You

don't want to miss the good stuff.

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 experiment trying to take

this experience up to levels that nobody

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains, all you need for

that is a copper mug or a glass of

tanker gels or steeen jugger flask a

vessel of any kind. All right. How many

would like me to say that again but in

old timey voice?

Old timey voice. Okay. Same thing but

old timey voice.

Ah, there's a cup in a mug and a glass

and uh there's a tanker chain. We had a

Keen joker flask for a vessel of any

kind. You'd fill it with your favorite

liquid. I like coffee. Join [snorts] me

now for the unparalleled pleasure of the

dopamine of the day. Thing that makes

everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip from the 40s that it

happens. Now,

did you ever wonder why everybody talk

like that?

I've never figured that out. Like, did

they all get together and say, "Hey,

Bob, the way you're talking, that's very

cool. I think I'll copy it now." I don't

know if you can. It's just the way I

talk. Just watch me. See, I'm doing it,

too. And then, you know, somebody else

hears them like, "What are you guys

doing? You talking old timey? How do you

know it's old timey? It's still the

present day. I don't know. I just feel

it will be old timey someday." Next

thing you know, everybody's talking

that. That's how it happens. All right.

You're wondering where is your reframe

for the day

that will change your life, make

everything better? Better.

I just happen to have one for you. It's

all queued up.

Um, do you ever have a situation where

there's something you know you need to

do, but you can't get yourself motivated

to do it because it's hard or it's

unpleasant or it's going to hurt

everybody, right? So, we all have these

procrastination situations, not because

we're procrastinators per se, but

because the thing is just sort of

unpleasant. So, you could just keep

putting it off, but you know you have to

do it. you know, like a dental

appointment or something, you know, you

have to do it. So, here's the reframe.

Instead of I'm afraid to do the thing I

know I should do, it's usually fear that

keeps you from doing it. Instead of

that, you say life is short. Now, you

might say to me, Scott, that doesn't

really seem to line up with the original

frame.

Is that really the answer to I'm afraid

to do the things I know I should do? Is

the answer that life is short?

And the answer is yes. Because once you

set your brain to the idea that you

don't have infinite time, then

everything seems more important,

including that thing you have to do. So

as long as you say life is short and

then you just sort of think that way for

a moment, watch how easy it is to do

unpleasant things

because you'll think, you know what,

life is short. It's also easier to do

pleasant things when you say life is

short. But you'd be surprised how

unpleasant things become easy when you

think in those terms. That's your

reframe for the day. That one you're

going to have to try because logic will

not tell you that that works. And I've

told you before that reframes are

special in the sense that uh they don't

have to make sense.

I don't know how many things would fall

into that category, but it's a unique

category. The the reframe doesn't have

to be logical or factual. It just has to

work. And if putting yourself in that

frame of mind that life is short, if it

works, well, you just do it. That's

that's the whole that's the whole idea.

Now, some of you want to catch up on the

saga of Carl the Fly. If you were here

yesterday, you know that Carl the Fly

was a very plucky and determined fly.

and he decided that for my entire show,

he would have someplace to sit on my

body to give me the most unpleasant

morning you've ever had that involved a

fly.

And so I promised you that I would hunt

that fly to the end of the earth. And so

after the show was over, I made many

attempts to take out Carl. But damn,

Carl is good. Carl is my maybe the

smartest and strongest fly I've ever

I've ever had the pleasure to have

known. So, I tried slapping him and

several times, of course, I thought I

got him. You know how you do that really

good slap? You're like, "Oh, I don't see

the body. I don't see the corpse, but

there's no way. No way Carl could have

gotten away." And then Carl flies by.

You're like, "Oh, damn it. Damn it." So,

finally, after much work, I killed Carl.

I killed Carl. I trapped him in a space.

It's a long story, but I got him. And uh

I I happily told my caretaker. I got

him. I got Carl finally. How long did it

take before the real Carl showed up? And

I learned that Carl not only is strong

and smart and pluckucky, but he had a

body double. He had a body double. I did

not see that coming. I was outsmarted by

the fly.

So, I did what anyone would do if they

were Ukrainian.

I immediately asked the United States

for some military assistance. And uh, as

luck would have it, I got a salt gun

that literally shoots grains of salt at

flies. And I um I deputized my caretaker

to uh operate the weapon. And uh she did

a little safari inside my man cave here.

Um there were a few misses, but once she

got him down, oh man, it was brutal. She

got him on the ground and she just

started blasting his little body and

even that wouldn't kill him. I swear he

had a he had some kind of a flack jacket

on or something. I've never just never

seen a fly that tough. But uh in the

end, he did fall to our superior

military power. I did have to use a

drone with a with a GPS.

>> [laughter]

>> Anyway, Carl the Fly,

we loved him, but he had to go. Speaking

of horrible little disgusting things.

Oh, this could go the wrong direction if

I say the next thing I was going to say.

Uh, [laughter]

back that up because it's going to sound

like I'm talking about the person, not

the thing. I'm talking about a thing,

not a person.

Uh, Palmer Lucky, who's awesome, by the

way. I like Papa Malaki. Uh he said in a

podcast recently, he said, quote, "I

flirt with the idea that smart TVs

should be illegal. I hate them so much."

What's funny about that is that just

yesterday I was talking about throwing

away my television because not a single

time have I been able to make it work.

Why? It's a smart TV.

And [clears throat]

uh uh my current setup in my house is

using Apple TVs

uh individually for each TV, which is a

really good system. But if you try to

put your Apple TV on your smart TV,

you don't know what the heck's going to

happen. I mean, just all kinds of things

start showing up and advertisements and

you don't even know what mode it's in.

You can't tell the you can't tell the

business model they're using. You're

just totally lost. And and every time it

happened, I would use up all the time I

had for watching TV

with trying to make the TV work. And my

my reasoning was very simple. If I can

get this to work, that's just once I

have to do that. And then after that,

I'll happily be watching TV. Nope. Not

with this smart TV. No, it outsmarted me

like Carl the Fly. It uh it would act

differently. It would throw me things.

It was sometimes working, sometimes not.

Sometimes you have to reboot, sometimes

you, it seemed like there were two

different ways or three different ways

to get to Apple TV.

And so yesterday I was literally in my

living room talking to somebody and

said, you know, I just want to throw

that away because not once and this, by

the way, this is the TV in my living

room. So it's one of the ones you would

use if it worked. [laughter]

And now it's been I don't know how many

years, maybe five years. It's probably

been five years and I've not watched a

single show on that TV because I can't.

But you don't want to throw away a TV,

right? Like your brain can't really wrap

its head around that. Like I'm not going

to throw away a TV. Yes, I am. I'm going

to throw away the TV. If anybody wants a

smart TV, come and get it. No, don't

don't do that. Don't come to my house

for my TV because somebody will get here

first and then you'll be mad.

Well, you know that uh Wikipedia has a

competitor, Grock. Garacipedia. Turns

out that was a temporary name. Elon says

that once Garacipedia, his version of

Wikipedia, once it becomes what he calls

good enough,

uh he's going to rebrand it to

Encyclopedia Galactica.

I I can't even tell you how much I love

that.

Isn't Can somebody give me a fact check

on this?

Isn't Elon Musk supposed to be not good

at this? You know, meaning he's on the

spectrum.

How can he be good at this, too? This

meaning coming up with clever names for

stuff that are that are catchy. That's a

really good name.

Am I wrong?

or or do you do you see it as soon as

you see the name, do you say, "Oh, whoa,

that's a pretty good name." And that's

very rare. If you look at all the times

that anybody has renamed anything in any

domain, usually you're ambivalent or

you're like, "I don't like it." But this

is just a dead cold winner. Did he come

up with that or did he was he smart

enough to recognize how good it was? You

know, it it's weird. Every time Elon

does something that's clearly shows he

has a very advanced sense of humor.

Isn't that exactly what you're not

supposed to have like the whole point of

being on the spectrum is you get maybe

in some cases certain advantages but

there's a trade-off and maybe the

trade-off is you know social awareness.

I don't think he has any problem with

social awareness. I don't think he has a

problem with humor and he certainly he

can read the room and come up with a

good name of a product and he obviously

all of his products have one thing in

common that he got the user interface

and the user interaction right. How do

you do that if you're on the spectrum?

That there there's something unexplained

about him that I find fascinating. You

know, he's now supposed to be good at

this, too. So, I guess he is. There's a

new report from Marijuana Moment. Kyle

Jagger or Jagger is writing about it. It

says that women who use marijuana at a

quote high intensity report greater

romantic relationship satisfaction,

but it doesn't work for men.

So, if women do a lot of marijuana

intensely, they have better romantic

relationships.

But it doesn't work for men. Uh I mean

men are happy with a relationship with a

woman, but if the man is the one who's

intensely doing it, how many of you

didn't know that?

Ju just try to imagine this for a

second.

You're uh you're in your 20s. I'll just

pick a time. And you're in this a

long-term relationship. and you come

home and your your wife or your

significant other is really really high.

What's your first thought, men?

Uh, I'll just I'll just wait on this

one. What's your first thought, men?

What what what crosses your mind when

you come home and find your woman is

really really high?

That's right. [laughter]

I I don't have to. Do I have to finish

this? If you come home and you find out

that your your wife is really stoned,

you're thinking sex. You're thinking

sex. Are you happier? Yeah, probably. Is

it more likely that you're going to have

some? Oh, yeah. Definitely.

Definitely. All right. Now, let's

reverse it.

Uh wife comes home with a girlfriend and

uh she's not high, but she sees that her

her spouse, the guy, is high as a kite.

What's her first thought? Oh, damn it.

He's going to be playing video games

with his buddies all night. [laughter]

Yeah. What you don't think is that, oh,

he's suddenly ready for sex because he's

always ready for sex. So that that's not

even a variable that you need to check.

But but if he's [clears throat] really

high, he might not want to go out with

you and your friends. He might want to

stay home and play some video games. So

there's no way in the world that you

didn't all know that if the wife is

stoned, it might be a good news. And if

the husband's stoned, it might be bad

news. Come on. You all knew that.

Even Carl the Fly knew that.

All right.

Um, here's a story I should have

followed more closely, but I thought it

was about something else. So, the

there's some new legislation about the

hemp industry

and uh

apparently they made it illegal to have

any kind of hemp product that would have

any THC in it at all. Basically,

uh I thought it was about hemp. I didn't

realize that it would include the active

ingredient stuff.

So, of course, I'm not in favor of this.

I'm not even sure if the people are

voting for it even understood what they

were voting for. I really don't. Um, but

they're going to ban all hemp derived

products containing THC.

I didn't realize that in the farm bill

of 2018,

they had legalized hemp and then a whole

bunch of farmers said, "Oh, we can make

some money on this hemp stuff." And so,

they made a bunch of money on the hemp.

And then, I think it was Rand Paul who

was pointing out that uh if you yank it

away, your government is just screwing

with you. You know, at the very least,

your government should not make things

worse. Am I right? It just shouldn't

make things worse. But imagine imagine

using your legislation to essentially

create an entire industry in the egg

domain, which is hemp. Then a whole

bunch of people say, "Oh, I can finally

survive." Because, you know, the other

farming things weren't working out. So

they start a a hemp farm and it works

and they make money and they get a few

good years of hemp and then the

government comes back and said, "Oh, by

the way, it's it's illegal now." Are you

kidding me?

Are you kidding me? I don't even care

what the details are of the hemp of why

they did it or or why they wouldn't want

to do it. I don't care. You cannot be a

government and yank farmers around. You

got to you got to settle into something.

Now, obviously, if there's a problem,

you want to fix the problem. But was

this a problem people were complaining

about?

Do you remember anybody coming up to you

and saying, "Oh my goodness, the the

legalized hemp is causing me so much

trouble." No. No. You don't yank that

away from the farmers. So if there's one

thing I can teach you about economics

there there only a few things about

economics that are just absolutely

you know ironclad rule. One of the

ironclad rules of at least national

economics is you don't mess with stuff

unless you have a really good reason.

You don't check you don't change the

taxes even if they're too high unless

you have a good reason. You don't change

the tariffs. You don't change anything.

You don't change anything in the e in

the economy unless you got a really

really strong reason. I don't think they

have one. To me, this looks like a just

a mistake. So, I hope it gets corrected.

We'll see. Congress is also going to

have some hearings on congressional

stock trading. You know that Congress is

the only ones who can do insider trading

legally.

What do you think Congress will decide

about their own ability to do insider

trading and make a lot of money without

any risk? Well, any any legal risk for

insider trading?

I feel like this is just for a show. Do

you think there's any chance in the

world they're going to ban insider

trading?

But here's what I'd love, and I'll bet

you'll never see it. Do you think you're

going to see the argument in favor of

insider trading?

How many of you think that somebody's

going to stand up in Congress, somebody

elected to be a member of Congress, and

give an argument in favor of insider

trading, but only for them?

Do you think that's going to happen?

Because that's that's what's being

called for, right? The entire point of

having the hearing is that we hear the

argument on both sides. Well, the

argument against it is moronically

simple, right? I don't even need to

repeat it. Every single person

understands the argument against it.

What exactly is the argument for it?

Now, I've actually heard somebody

support it. I won't I won't mention who,

but the support was we don't make enough

money unless we do this

from an actual, you know, member of the

government. We don't make enough money

to essentially support living here and

having a house in our district.

plus all the other things that don't get

reimbursed. Uh we just don't have a way

to survive unless we're doing insider

trading legally. Legally.

What do you think of that argument? I

don't think they can say that out loud

because it just doesn't sound good even

if that's what you're thinking.

So if you were going to compromise, I

would offer the following. You know that

there's at least one entity. There might

be more by now that are tracking the

insider trading of at least Nancy Pelosi

when she was doing it and then they

would give you an option of buying what

they bought. Would you be happy if it

was way more easy and everybody

understood that they too could get the

benefit of insider trading by doing a

fast follow, maybe even automated of the

insiders?

Oh, Andy, you're too smart.

Um,

what do you think of that? because

there's no way that they're going to get

rid of it because it's just too

profitable and there's no way that the

issue will go away so we'll keep

complaining about it. If you were going

to try to find a middle ground,

something we could all live with, I

would be semi okay, it's not ideal, but

I'd be okay if I could just fast follow

and say, uh, 12 seconds after your trade

goes in, mine just follows. I put some

limit on it. So, it's it's not a lot of

money, but it would just be some fund of

money that matches roughly matches what

you're doing.

Well, that's the best idea I have. It's

probably not going to happen.

Can you believe that a Sorosbacked group

called Indivisible, Soros backs a lot of

groups, but that's one of his big ones

that we hear about. Uh, Indivisible is

trying to get rid of Chuck Schumer. New

York Post is reporting and uh, as you

know, Republicans are not a big fan of

Schumer. So, how would you like to meet

Chuck Schumer and you can't make either

Trump or Soros happy about what you're

doing? And they both want to get rid of

you. Actually, I don't even know if

Trump wants to get rid of him. Trump

might be happy having him because he's

such a weak weak competitor.

But uh nobody loves him and but finally

uh so the good news is that Chuck

Schuber has found a way to unite us. Is

is there even one topic in the entire

country where a severe leftist and I

would completely agree?

Like you could you could imagine this

situation, right? somebody with green

hair and all kinds of tattoos and

annoying signs walks up to me and says,

"We got to get rid of Chuck Schumer. Are

you on board?"

And then I look looking like a CPA go,

"Yeah, I'm on board. Let's

[clears throat] get this done.

[laughter] We'll get rid of Schumer."

Unifying.

Well, Trump has uh okay some boiler gas

drilling in Alaska's a wildlife refuge.

This is the sort of story I feel I'm

under served on. If I told you that uh

Trump had approved drilling or

explanation exploration uh on this

wildlife refuge, what's the first

question you'd ask?

and is the answer to that question or

even the fact that it's a question in

the article. What's the number one thing

you'd want to know to understand this?

The number one thing you want to know is

what percentage of the total wildlife

refuge would be impacted, especially if

something went wrong. Let's say worst

case scenario, something breaks,

pipeline breaks, what percentage

of the total area would be destroyed?

Well, I don't know the answer to that

and I don't even have a guess. I don't

even have a sense of range. It's not

75%, right? If there were a pipeline

leak, would it destroy 75% of the

wildlife refuge? I doubt it. I don't

know what the real number is, but it's

probably not 75%.

Would it be 10%.

Do you think 10% of our invaluable

irreplaceable

wildlife could be destroyed if worst

case I'm saying worst case scenario 10%.

I don't think so. Do you have any idea

how much land would be 10%.

I mean that would be a lot. So I feel

[clears throat] like this is a kind of

story that if you don't know that it's a

you know postage stamp

sized risk. If it is, by the way, if

it's not that small a risk, somebody

fact check me. I don't want to mislead

you. Um, so if you ask me if I'm in

favor of it or not in favor of it, how

could I decide?

They have not given me enough

information to decide. Obviously, I'm

biased toward more energy explanation

exploration. You know that. But I don't

know, is it 1% 10%. Here, here's a study

that feels like it just comes out every

year for decades. According to the

University of Victoria, testosterone in

your body odor is linked to perceptions

of social status. Apparently, both men

and women can smell your testosterone.

Does that does that make you afraid a

little bit that men and women can smell

your testosterone?

It's true. We're very sensitive to it.

In fact, when uh Carl the Fly was

fighting me, I got a little whiff of his

testosterone, and I I got to say, I was

impressed. That little guy, he was just

packed with testosterone. Anyway, if

you're if you're joining the stream

late, I love how nonsensical that

sounded. [laughter]

You'll just have to ask somebody else

about Carl the Fly.

Um,

but it seems to me that for decades the

same study has been coming out. Oh,

women can smell testosterone again. Oh,

women can smell testosterone. Oh, men

can smell testosterone. I don't know why

we keep studying it. Just ask me. I

would have told you.

Well, Zoran Mandani, he wants to uh use

more social workers for the 911 calls as

opposed to the fire department and

police.

And apparently that's been something

they've been testing uh prior to Mum

Dami. So they've been testing it since

19 I'm sorry 20 since uh 20 uh 19

2021. So they've been testing it's

called Be Heard. So it's a pilot program

now. A pilot program that's been running

for five years.

Isn't it sort of time to decide whether

it worked? What do you think? Did the

pilot program work in which they would

more likely send you a social worker

than a a police or a fire department

person? Did that work? It's been five

years. So now they would have a good

good sense of whether it works or not.

Well, according to uh a political

veteran named Bill Cunningham, who once

served under Michael Bloomberg when he

was mayor, um Cunningham says uh that

the program needs quote stronger

management.

Oh, I think I found the problem.

In what world do Democrats give strong

management to anything?

In what world? No, I'm going to argue

with him. you're you're saying dumb

idea. So, I'm going to surprise you.

The question of whether replacing the uh

the first responder types with social

workers that has not been tested

even though it's a pilot program and

it's run for 5 years, they haven't

tested it. Why? Exactly what Cunningham

is saying is that it needs stronger

management. If you take a great idea and

then you throw terrible management at it

or you hire people for it that are your

cronies, it's not going to work. It

doesn't matter how good the idea is. So,

we really don't know if this could work.

Is that fair?

Now, I realize that with my audience,

I'm supposed to say Mami is a communist

or at least a socialist and what we

should do is get rid of him and every

single one of his ideas is bad. I really

don't think every one of his ideas is

bad

unless you overlay on it that it will be

managed by Democrats

because I don't think that they hire for

merit. I think they hire for identity

that they kind of say they do. Right. So

if you take any good idea in the world,

any good idea, and then you have it run

by people who can't make anything work

and then it doesn't work, do you

conclude that the idea was bad? That's

not really that doesn't follow. The only

thing you can conclude is that one group

of people, Democrats, don't seem to be

good at managing anything. Now, you

could argue, and I wouldn't push back

too hard, that uh Republicans, if

they're part of the government, also

don't do anything well. The government

never does anything. The more money you

give to the government, the worse it is,

etc. I wouldn't push back on that. But

there definitely seems to be a

difference between Democrats just trying

to manage anything

versus Republicans trying to manage

anything. There does seem to be a

difference.

So here's what I would caution against.

You know, I know you don't want mom

dummy to be too successful, but why

would you throw away the idea that you

might have some option for lower cost

911 responses? That would be part of the

benefit if he did it right. And that it

might be more on point because for some

of them, it's not about the danger, it's

about the um it's about the specific

situation. Now, most of you understood,

right? I think you understood that

nobody ever said, "Send the social

worker to a domestic violence place

where the violence is happening at the

moment." You all know that, right? That

that's sort of just something somebody

says to mock it. They're not sending

somebody instead of the police

to anything dangerous. If it's

dangerous, they would still send the

police even under the pilot program. So

there's no scenario

where you send an untrained person into

a dangerous situation either either now

or with a new program.

Uh

[laughter]

communism wasn't implemented correctly.

Well, did I say that here? Here. I love

it when people have to make up a quote

for me and put it in quotes to prove me

wrong. So, somebody just did that trick

in the comments. So, somebody put in

quotes as if it's something I did say or

would say that communism was great if it

had been if it had been implemented

correctly. Did I say that? Was was there

some place [clears throat] that I don't

remember this morning where I said every

idea in the world is a great idea. You

just have to implement it correctly. Did

somebody hear me say that? Did I

hallucinate that? No, you idiot.

Every idea is a different idea.

Sometimes they're good ideas. Sometimes

they're bad ideas. What do you like? Do

you like to do uh

Never mind. You're not worth it. You're

just not worth it.

Can we make one agreement

there is such thing as good ideas and

bad ideas? That can we get that far? Can

we agree that there's such a thing as

good ideas and bad ideas? Can we further

agree that a good idea will never work

if you have bad implementation? Can we

agree on that? Can we also agree that if

it's a bad idea, good [clears throat]

implementation probably won't save it.

Can we agree on that? I'm not saying

anything you don't agree with. So, stop

pretending and putting my stop putting

my words in fake quotes and acting like

I'm a idiot because I agree with

you completely.

Right? If we're on the same side on this

topic, calling me dumb about it is kind

of calling yourself dumb.

Anyway, stocks uh plunged because the

market re because the government

reopened. Does that give you any

confidence in your government that the

minute it reopens the stocks plunge but

when it was closed the stocks resuming

the moment that we think the government

might do something? Oh no. Oh no. The

government might do something. That's so

good. We don't want our government doing

stuff. Sell your stocks.

Well, according to PJ Media, Katherine

Salgado is writing

that uh 500,000 double dippers on the

SNAP program. So, SNAP is where people

who need help with food can get uh the

government food assistance called SNAP.

And there are 500,000 of them that were

double dipping, meaning that they were

getting more than one dose of it. And

there were 5,000 dead people on the uh

just in 29 states. Now that's just 29

states. So the other states I think

didn't allow them to look into it or

something, but we assume it's at least

that much problem or worse.

Um

how in the world do we get to this? I

swear to God.

Um, when I drive around, I look at the

how expensive the houses are

uh in some areas, not everywhere. I

think to myself, my common sense doesn't

understand how this many people could

buy this many good houses.

You ever had that thought? And I think

to myself,

is this because of crime? [laughter]

If you had a a secret way to view your

residential neighborhood, so somehow you

could just put on glasses and you could

tell which of the homes were only

afforded because of a criminal activity.

Maybe like more than you think. Uh how

many of them are only affordable because

somebody somebody uh had an estate that

they inherited? Well, it'll be a few.

Um, but what you wouldn't find is a

whole bunch of people who got a good job

and they could afford a nice house.

There'd be a lot of that, but there's a

tremendous amount of wealth in this

country that's sketchy.

And I'm thinking that the sketchy

amounts are bigger than the legitimate

amounts at this point. It feels that

way. Does it not feel that way to you?

Like I seriously it looks like people

are embezzling from their company or

they stole from somebody. I can't

understand how so many people could have

so many nice houses given the cost of

living in California. Now I understand

why I have a nice house.

You know, I'm a public figure. I have a

I have a kind of job where you could

guess how much I make practically. So I

understand why I do. But why do all the

other people have nice houses? Do they

all have amazing jobs?

I don't know. Something's going on.

Well, here's another evergreen story

that just never goes away. There's a

therapist who says that Trump

derangement syndrome is real. How many

times do we have to hear that?

Doesn't everybody know that Trump

derangement syndrome is real? It's about

as real as you can get. Yeah, it's very

real.

Um, let's see. Joe Rogan [clears throat]

had a guest, Gavin Debecker, who's uh

who's a interesting guy. Um, and Gavin

I' I've had some brief interactions with

him and he was very kind, very generous.

Um, so I like Gavin Debecker.

Anyway, he says that uh we're not

hearing enough about what the Maha

people and RFK Jr. in particular are

succeeding at. So he says that there

have been some significant wins for RFK

Jr. but the press is kind of downplaying

them. But let's let's test. So he gave

some examples. Uh removing mercury from

all vaccines.

So that's something that RFK Jr. got

done. How many of you knew

that he got mercury removed from all um

vaccines? Now I don't think that there

were many left that had it. I I think

there was a relatively small number of

vaccines that still had it, but he got

rid of them. Now, I don't know if um I

don't think there's a counterargument.

I guess there's always a

counterargument, but um maybe that made

a difference. I'm no scientist, so I

don't know for sure, but maybe it made a

difference. He stopped a bunch of mRNA

research projects that didn't look

promising. That's again Gavin Debecker's

take. He said he stopped fluoride in

water or he's recommending against it. I

don't know if he stopped it or

recommending against it if that made a

difference. That seems pretty big. Um

and a bunch of things he's doing with

food. More about the dies I think. Um so

there's a lot happening there. I'm not

sure we're totally

totally informed. But the reason that we

don't necessarily hear that government

good and big pharma and big egg not

always so good is that Debecer says that

something like over 90% of cable news

channels are sponsored by pharma.

In fact, something like 80s something%

is just fizer all by itself. Is that

true?

Is it true that 80% of cable news

funding is one company? I knew it was

big,

but is it that big? Wow.

Um,

yeah. And and I'd also use I'll point to

something that Oh, what's his name? The

the seven words you can't say on TV.

who who's the famous comedian whose name

I'm blanking on.

All right, you know who he is. But

anyway, he said that you don't have to

have a you don't have to have a

conspiracy

if everybody knows what they're supposed

to do. And certainly every single member

of the cable news world,

yeah, George Carlin, thank you. George

Carlin is the answer. So George Carlin

pointed out that the bad guys, you know,

the the rich people, they don't have to

have a meeting to coordinate because

they all know what's good for rich guys.

So they just all do what's good for them

and [clears throat] that's good for the

other rich guys. I think this is one of

those cases that you don't have to tell

the on air host what they can and cannot

say. They know what they can and cannot

say. So it's it looks like an invisible

crime. It's not really a crime, but you

know, an invisible bad behavior.

All right.

I hate to bring it up, but do any of you

know what the Republican health care

plan is?

Anybody? What do you think is the quote

Republican health care plan? And can you

take the Republicans seriously

if they don't have one?

Uh, you know, every now and then some

Democrat will, you know, be debating me

on whether Trump's a good idea or a bad

idea. And when they get to healthcare,

I just go, I'm out. Nope. As far as I

know, Republicans are doing basically

nothing on healthcare. And it's our, you

know, one of our biggest problems. If

you argue that healthcare is a big

component of the debt, which it probably

is, um, then it's extra bad,

right? So, here I had to ask uh Grock

because I didn't even know what what

Republicans were sort of pushing. Here

are some of the things that Grock says

Republicans are pushing. Block grants to

states for Medicaid.

Okay. How is that a plan?

That's not a plan. That's just giving

them money to do the thing they they're

already doing. That's not a plan. That's

nothing. Well, are you supposed to save

money by doing that? What exactly would

be even the point? Obviously, you want

to fund health care, but is that the

good way to do it? What's the argument?

I don't even get that. Then uh

Republicans like health savings accounts

where you could put money in your own

account and it would grow and someday if

you had a problem you could use it.

I don't really think that's an answer.

That doesn't look like a real It might

be on It might be an answer on top of a

health care plan, but it's not a health

care plan.

Uh tort reform where it would be harder

to sue your doctor. Yeah, I I would

listen to the argument on that. I can

imagine that tort reform is necessary,

but is that is that your health care

plan? Tort reform? How about uh

price transparency at hospitals? So,

Republicans want more price

transparency.

Haven't we wanted that for 25 years and

nothing happens? presumably because you

know eventually it reaches somebody who

makes money by makes money by uh not

telling you the prices of things and you

know they have some political connection

so they just stop it. So it looks to me

like the Republicans have a a grab bag

of things that are sort of in that

domain but nothing like a plan. Do you

know why Republicans don't have a

healthcare plan?

Do you know the reason?

I know the reason. None of you know the

reason.

It's the same same reason the Democrats

don't have a workable health care plan.

Does that help?

So

the Democrats have a plan which is just

spend unlimited money on it and you'll

be fine. That's not really a plan.

So why is it that neither the left nor

the right can even come up with a plan?

It's something you would call a plan.

Like they might call it a plan, but

would you call it a plan if the plan is

just, oh, allocate more money, you'll be

fine. It's not really a plan. Not much

of a plan. The answer is this. Nobody

knows how to do it. If if somebody on

the left or somebody on the right had an

idea

and they could explain it and it made

sense and it could save money,

well then we might have something to

talk about, right? Nobody has an idea.

Do you know the only way out of this is

if Elon Musk makes a robot hospital?

Nothing else is going to work.

[laughter] Let me say it again. The one

and only way to get a health care plan,

as far as I can tell, if you've got a

better idea, let me know. Would be Elon

Musk literally building a robot hospital

to test it. And then maybe later there

would be robot, you know, urgent cares

and robot general practitioners and

stuff like that. But there doesn't seem

to be a path

where human beings

are providing health care and everybody

can afford it. The everybody can afford

it part can be solved by the robots. The

access, even if you're in a remote

place, can be solved by robots. Your

robot can show up in the middle of the

night. Uh, do you know how many times

I've had a medical problem on a weekend?

Good luck. You have to go to the

emergency room. But wouldn't it be

better if your Tesla self-driving doctor

pulled up to your house at any time of

day because they don't have to sleep?

And uh and if you needed a specialty

piece of equipment, then the robot would

already be on the the line and say, "Uh,

we're going to need an echo cardiogram.

Um, here's the address." And then

suddenly another Tesla pulls up and the

only thing it's doing is delivering that

piece of equipment that will be used

then and then return to the return to

the

to the big bucket in the sky.

So unless you're thinking of healthcare

so radically

that you're completely just redoing it

and ripping it out. Uh the way the way

Elon approaches something by the way you

have you heard uh Elon Musk talk about

the biggest problem that engineers make

boy does this apply in this case. He

says the biggest problem the engineers

make on any any domain is that they try

to optimize something that shouldn't

have existed.

Now, health care should exist, but

should we be optimizing human health

care in hospitals? You have to ask that

question. Is that the thing we should be

optimizing? Well, a little bit, because

they exist, and you don't want them to

fall apart and stuff. But shouldn't we

be looking at something that's

completely different,

built from the bottom up?

There's only one person I know in the

United States who could pull that off,

and he's kind of busy at the moment. Um,

and I don't even know if it'd be

profitable. So, I don't, you know, you

need it to be profitable, but I would

say that here's what we need. We need

some way to at least tell a story that

we can move from what we have to

something like an AI driven, robot

driven, somebody will come to your

house.

um you'll always be, you know, one call

away from

some advanced intelligence that knows

what you need.

Um so it seems to me that without that

level of um you know deep deep

re-engineering,

we don't have a chance.

We don't have a chance. At the very

least,

I would love to hear what let's say Mark

Cuban, Elon Musk, uh I'll throw in Bill

Gates. I know I know what you think

about that. Um, what why are not our

smartest people already telling us how

to do this? Is it because they can't

figure it out either?

It might be. It might be they can't

figure it out either. But I would love

to see the most aggressive. And by the

way, all of this can be tested small. So

you don't have to turn the entire United

States into a different system and hope

you got lucky. You could say, "All

right, we're going to test this in this

one county. It's not even that

populated, and we'll do a bunch of

things, but in another county, maybe

we'll try a few other things, and then

uh in a year, we'll we'll look at it." I

would be happy

or

if somebody said, "We don't have any way

to reduce the cost today, so we're just

going to fund it." But in five years,

you're definitely going to have an AI

doctor or some people will, not

everybody. And then you you draw your

budget such that it it goes down because

you're getting rid of the people

getting rid of the people's not the

goal, but you're reducing costs over

time by bringing the AI in.

So

I I also wonder what percentage of all

our health care costs are administrative

and and government regulations

and paperwork.

If it turns out that that's like 40% of

the cost and it might be right. If you

had to guess how much of the health care

costs is the paperwork and

would you say 40%. You know without

knowing too much about the industry

which I don't. It seems like

everything's at least that much. So,

could you cut that in half? Probably if

you just had a smarter way to administer

it. All right, moving on. You know, uh

Michael Wolf, he's the uh slashauthor.

Um he's the one who is the adviser

friend of Epstein. Turns out that we

know now he uh tried to blackmail Trump.

He tried to get he tried to talk Epstein

into blackmailing Trump. Now, if I said

to you,

uh, I'd like to engineer for you the

worst reputation you could ever have.

And I'd say, well, if if you're going to

make it the worst reputation anybody

had, you're going to have to throw in

some, you know, underage

stuff. You know what I mean? And sure

enough, he was hanging out with the

underage stuff guy. So that's not good

for your look. And then it turns out he

may have been one of the people teaching

Epstein how to be a black mailer.

There's no evidence they taught him how

to be a black mailer, but there there is

some documentation

uh that uh they're looking at Trump

and I guess Wol said in a in a text

message or an email to Epstein, quote, I

hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight

about his relationship with you either

on air or in scrum afterwards. This is

2015. So 2015.

And then uh Wolf said to Epstein, "I

think you should let him hang himself."

Quote, "If he says he hasn't been on the

plane or to the house, then that gives

you a valuable PR and political

currency." In other words, he could keep

Trump's secret

and act like he had not been on the

House or not been on the plane, but he

had the option of blackmailing him.

Might want to keep that option open.

Um according to Wolf

uh

and and also he goes listen directly

says he says if he says he hasn't been

on the plane or to the house then that

gives you a valuable PR and political

currency. You can hang him in a way that

potentially generates a positive benefit

for you. I can't even believe people

talk like this. Can you? This is this is

the way people talk. Oh my god. Uh or if

it really looks like he could win the

presidency, you could save him and

generating a debt. Oh my god. Pure

blackmail.

How would you like to be the person so

dark that you're the one who taught

Epstein how to blackmail better?

Does it get worse than that?

But I was laughing at the fact that the

New York Post referred to Michael Wolf

as discredited.

He's a discredited author.

And I was thinking what they refer to me

as. So I'm a No, I'm not discredited.

I'm a

What do they call me? Remind me what

they call me. I'm not discredited. I'm

just something disgusting.

Anyway,

once people like me and him get

cancelceled, we get a we get a new name.

All right. Um,

so good luck with that.

Oh, they also call him a a Trump

obsessed.

So, he's discredited and Trump obsessed.

[snorts] Meanwhile, the Justice

Department is suing

uh disgraced. Thank you. Yes, they call

me disgraced instead of discredited. I

like disgraced.

Um, so the Justice Department is going

to sue to block California from their

new intention of uh redistricting.

And it makes me wonder, should we just

change our system for everything? And

instead of uh

instead of just doing it and waiting for

the lawsuit, just make the lawsuit part

of the process. Because if we sue

everybody about everything, which is our

current situation, you might as well

just build that into the process that

you know, first you pass the law, but

then it just goes automatically to some

political some core entity.

That's my idea for the day. John

Federman had some kind of cardiac

incident. doesn't seem um doesn't seem

too serious, but it did cause him to

black out and fall on his face and uh

got some minor injuries. Like I say,

staying in the hospital to be evaluated.

And it makes me wonder, so John Federman

was in the news already,

like in a big way. He was in the news

and then this happens, which obviously

he did not plan, which puts him in the

news again. Does it feel like

he's not an NPC?

Does it feel like he's a player? Because

why is he in the news so much? By

coincidence, he's in the news so much. I

don't know. I think the simulation has

plans for him. That's what it looks

like.

All right, I'm going to take a

challenge. Challenge is this. I'm going

to read a headline from the Hungarian

conservative

and I want you to see uh if this uh

shocks you. So, how shocked are you?

Zilinsk's inner circle rocked by massive

corruption scandal.

How many of you are shocked? Shocked

that Ukraine is being accused of a

massive corruption scandal.

What are the odds of that? I ask you,

the most corrupt place on earth. What

are the odds of that?

Anyway, so there's a allegations of as

much as a hund00 million

got siphoned off by his cronies. So, one

specific one in particular, there's some

businessman named Teamer Mindic,

and I guess he he's being accused of

being part of whatever this allegedly

is.

California is uh

uh let's see,

do you get sued for issuing all those

illegal commercial driver's license?

Yeah, I think the Trump administration

is going after them for that.

Um Oh, so the Trump administration will

uh withhold up to 160 million in federal

funds unless California revokes quote

every illegally issued commercial

driver's license, of which there are

quite a few. Do you think that Gavin is

going to do that or is he going to give

up the $160 million in federal funding?

Well, I think it'll go to court. What do

you think? It should just go to court

im, you know, immediately automatically.

It's going to end up there.

Well, I saw in the news today on Reclaim

the Net, Cindy Harper is writing that

Israel has a bill that's uh they're

considering now that would allow the

Israeli government to shut down foreign

media outlets.

Um, so it passed the first reading,

which means it has some potential of

becoming law, but it's not there yet.

And uh, what do you think of that? And

when I saw that, I thought, well, isn't

that the same as the United States?

Doesn't the United States block foreign

uh news platforms

without looking it up? All right, here's

your challenge. Without looking it up,

tell me in the comments, do you believe

that the United States already had this

either law or right or something that we

were already banning foreign platforms?

I thought we were

because when was the last time you saw

Russia today, RG? They used to be

everywhere and then they disappeared,

right? And I think there might have be a

few other examples. So I asked Grock to

look into it. And it turns out that we

do not have that law. What we have is

something better. We have massive

censorship.

So, if you're RT and you're trying to

get some traffic and some income on

YouTube, good luck. You're going to be

treated like that guy Scott Adams. Have

you heard of him? No, I'm just joking.

Yeah. So, if you want to be alarmed,

what is more alarming than the fact that

we don't need that law because we

already banned people just with our

normal censorship tools?

and banning a Russian entity especially

really easy.

Really easy.

I don't even know if this is another one

of those George Carlin situations. Did

Did somebody need to actually contact

YouTube and say, "Hey,

God, there's something happening right

outside my house."

I don't know what, but it's big. Um,

yeah, they didn't have to coordinate.

They all just knew what to do. So,

before you mock Israel for their

censorship,

we're not so different.

Um,

here's another story. the federalists MD

KD is writing about this that uh the the

same Department of Justice partisans as

they're called partisans

that drove the Arctic Frost

investigation.

Uh

let's see what was the story.

You know what I'm I'm going to tell you

the story I was going to tell you

instead of what the story is.

Is it my imagination or has all the

stories about Oric Frost and um the

Russia collusion and all the bad

behavior and the old Obama, have they

now become just noise?

Like like if this story had broken when

it was fresh, it would be the biggest

story. But because time has gone by and

now we've been confused by all these

similar sounding stories, like if I hear

one more story that Jack Smith did

something that we think might have been

sketchy, how am I even going to sort

that in my head with all the other

stories about Jack Smith allegedly did

something sketchy? I can't keep them

straight. So, I'm completely lost.

And

I don't know if if any of this is

intentional. I mean, certainly not by

the people reporting it, but there's

something about time plus complexity

that just hides any bad behavior. And I

think we've reached it because I don't

think there's going to be any justice

for any of these older acts.

But it's hard to get people all worked

up about them because we don't we don't

really follow it. Meaning that even if

you read the story, you end up thinking,

"Is that the one I read last week?"

Well, let me ask I'll ask you this way.

How many of you have recently read a

story? It might have been in just the

news or it could have been something

else. And and you thought to yourself,

is that a new story or is that

reiterating an old story or is it an old

story that they added a new email to?

Did the new email change what we knew

about the old story or did it just

bolster it?

the the whole idea that we can figure

out what these bad actors may or may not

have done, I think is gone.

I think the complexity and time have

just sort of erased the crimes in a

practical sense, meaning that they'll

never be held accountable.

So, I didn't know that was a thing, but

it looks like it's a thing.

Speaking of stories that you don't know

if they're new or old, uh, apparently

Nevada

is going to be reopening the case of

what they call the fake electors. So,

Ella Lee is writing for the Hill and I

want you to see some of the language

that she used in the in the story. So,

you remember the

uh 2024 election. I'm sure you remember.

And you remember that there was an

effort to get alternative electors. Now,

why did she call them fake electors

when they were very publicly uh

alternative electors? Meaning that if

something went one direction, they would

be activated, but if it went another

direction, they wouldn't.

What makes them fake?

Isn't fake kind of subjective?

Because it certainly seems to me that

there was some possibility that they

they would cast the real vote. How about

uh

they also say uh

talking about people who quote falsely

claimed that Trump won the 2020

presidential election.

How how does she know or anybody know

that it was falsely?

What uh process was used to determine

that

that Trump didn't win?

I don't know if there's any way to know.

the the whole reason that we're talking

about getting rid of uh election

machines, the whole reason we're talking

about same day voting, the whole reason

we're talking about uh user ID for

voting, the only reason that those are

conversations

is that reasonable people know that we

can't be entirely sure who won the

election.

So, how do you get off saying falsely

claimed? You could say not supported.

You could say unproven.

You could say baseless if if that were

true. But you really can't say falsely

claimed.

That's that's an over claim, right? How

would you know? You would know.

I don't know that it was fake, but I

also don't know that it wasn't. I

wouldn't know.

Um, so this feels like one of those

evergreen stories that but I guess they

were fighting over some process thing,

so it got delayed. Otherwise, it would

have already been resolved. But anyway,

Elon Musk is dunking on the head of the

EU.

Somebody's somebody whose name is a

Vanderlayan.

Ursula Vanderlayan.

Uh, apparently Ursula said uh

she was talking about building the

European Democracy Shield

and she said that if democracy is the

foundation of freedom. Um, oh, I'm

sorry. No, that's what Elon said. So,

she was talking about Europe Europe's uh

democracy shield and Elon dunked on her

on X by saying, "If democracy is the

foundation of freedom, shouldn't your

position be elected by the people?"

She's [clears throat] not elected. She

has an unelected position.

All right. What else we got going on

here?

Um,

according to Axios,

um, some lawmakers were cons were

concerned that they weren't getting

enough briefings about, uh, the narco

boats being blown up. So, you know what

Trump did about that? He said, "Give

them more briefings."

The The reason I wrote this down as a

story is that how often do you hear

that? Hey, we've got a problem. There's

not enough of X. All right, we're going

to do more X.

Anything else?

[laughter] You just don't see somebody

complained and then somebody said fixed.

Done.

But what it made me wonder is uh how

many boats there are.

If you were to count up all the boats

that could be used in this way, there

can't be that many narco boats, right?

How many are there? So now we've blown

up what 20 of them.

Um given that you could put a bazillion

dollars worth of drugs on one narco

boat. How many were there in the first

place? Like if you if you wanted to make

sure that one of your narco boats got

through, how many do you need to have?

Five.

And then you know multiple cartels. So

each of them maybe have five. But what

what it made me wonder is how the narco

boat salespeople sell their boats now

because somebody still has to go to the

narco boat sales sales

sales place to buy a new narco boat,

right? Because they're running out of

boats. So what does the salesperson say

in those situations?

Oh, we make the finest narco boats.

[clears throat]

You you will we promise and this is our

commitment to you. If you buy our narco

boats with our extra fast motors and our

good navigation, if you buy our narco

boats, we can guarantee that you will

reach your destination unexloded up to

5% of the time.

Uh but what is happening to the other

95%.

And why do I have a bad Mexican accent?

And then the salesperson would say, "Oh,

but you have to compare us to the

competition." The competition loses, I

don't know, 98% of the boats. We can get

you there 5% of the time, and that's

better than you can get from the

cartels. Well, maybe I'll go back to the

cartels and tell them that there's no

practical way for me to get this job

done. Well, you could. You could. That

you could definitely play it that way.

You could go back to your cartel boss

and in about a minute and a half they

would tie you to a chair and torture

you, but you could do that.

[clears throat]

Or you could overpay for this boat and

have a 5% chance of surviving.

Take your pick.

Well, I'm just saying it would be hard

to be a a buyer of narcoats.

Uh, Chinese astronauts are returning to

Earth in a different ship because the

one they were in got cracks in it from

some debris in space. Can you imagine

being in space and looking at your

windshield and seeing it cracked?

[laughter]

What what what would be scarier than

being in a rocket ship and looking over

and seeing that your window is cracked

and that it might keep cracking? That

would be pretty scary. [snorts] But the

Chinese astronauts are made of tougher

stuff than I am and uh they just waited

for a new ship, jumped on it. It looks

like they'll be fine.

Um

meanwhile, uh German police have been

looking to uh solve the mystery of who

blew up their pipeline, the Nordstream,

[clears throat]

too. Now, I don't think it's a mystery

who blew it up so much as is finding the

specific people and punishing them. But

here are some numbers you might not have

known. So, how much money has Germany

donated to the Ukrainian defense? The

answer is 37 billion euros.

They are the number two biggest funer of

Ukrainian's military defense after the

United States. So, isn't that great that

uh they're they're so friendly with

Ukraine and they get along so well that

Germany will put 37 billion euros in it.

But oh, but wait, they actually spent a

lot more than that because once the uh

once the war started and the pipeline

blew up, um I guess the cost of energy

in Germany went through the roof.

So Germany ended up spending maybe a

hundred billion extra euros that they

wouldn't have had to spend except for

the Ukraine war and maybe something with

the blown up pipeline.

So how do you get a situation

in which Germany is funding Ukraine's

defense while Ukraine is blowing up

valuable German assets

and acting like they didn't do it?

That is a complicated part of the world,

isn't it? I don't know how the Germans

put up with that, but I don't know how

they put up with anything. I do not

understand Germany.

Um,

and apparently the uh P Hagsath has

announced that the U the new operation

called Southern Spear is going to squash

the narco terrorists in the Western

Hemisphere.

I think we knew that was happening. But

at least it has a name now. At least it

has a name. All right, ladies and

gentlemen, that is all I wanted to say

today. Uh I think we've covered

everything from Nordstream 2 to Carl the

Fly

to uh Yeah, I think we covered

everything.

Is there anything interesting happening

today?

Not that I know of. Well, that means

it's time for breakfast, everybody.

Another shiny object. Okay.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, thanks

for joining. I'm going to talk to the uh

beloved

local subscribers next. That will be

private. So, the rest of you, I will be

seeing you tomorrow. I hope. Same time,

same place. You're always a treat.