Episode 3037 CWSA 12/05/25

We've got a little uh technical problem with the locals platform this morning.

So, I don't know if you can see me or hear me on locals, but you can see me and hear me on Rumble and on You.

Tube and on X.

So, this is uh the pre-show.

Normally the uh local subscribers are the only ones who see me before the beginning of the regular show, but trying to work out some technical problems which includes trying to take off my jacket.

All right.

Can anybody give me a sense of whether you can see me and hear me?

All right.

So, the Rumble Studio worked to initiate the uh stream.

Okay.

All right.

I don't know if everything is working, but got a few things working.

All right.

Like I said, this is the pre-show, so there's no show yet.

This is generally just for the uh locals, people to chat with each other and share some memes.

Um, I'm only seeing locals, though.

Okay, looks like uh, yeah, we got locals.

We got You.

Tube.

Rumble's working now.

I think X is working.

All right.

Uh, this is the point where if you were watching the pre-show, you would see me disappear because I have to go over to my printer.

Stay where you are.

I'll be back.

All right, I got my notes.

What time is it?

I will begin the regular show at the top of the hour.

Um, so what what you're seeing if you're just coming in is normally I do a pre-show just for the local subscribers, but the locals app had a hiccup this morning.

So I'm coming to you also on locals but via the Rumble studio which appears to be working just fine.

So this portion of the show is not real.

This one is just so you can chat with each other or ask me questions or hang out a little bit because I'm still in setup mode.

All right, we'll set up the height.

All right, lighting looks good.

Got notes.

Well, I feel like I shouldn't start early because the people who purr the people who have been trained to come at this top of the hour are going to be Hey, you didn't tell me you were going to start early.

I'm going to Tim it all all over the place here.

I'm Tim Pool.

And no, I'm not Tim Pool.

Nobody's Tim Pool, but Tim Pool.

Yep.

0700.

I'll start.

I'll get serious.

Watch me go from not serious to serious in seven minutes.

All we got seven minutes just hanging out.

If you have any questions, this would be a good time to do it.

By the way, I'm so proud of myself.

Oh no.

Oh no.

No.

No.

Damn it.

My printer.

My printer is up again.

I I was going to brag because I thought I fixed it and cleaned the drum and followed all the AI instructions, but uh looks like a number of my topics I'm going to have to skip because they didn't print.

Good lord.

What a day.

What a day.

All right, I can work through this though.

I'll make it work.

All right, while we're waiting, I'm going to check my oxygen levels, which sometimes are a problem, but they've been good lately.

Uh, new drum is only Yeah.

Boom.

97%.

That's actually higher than my baseline.

My baseline is 95 because I have asthma.

I've never I'll bet you that's the highest I've ever uh Yeah, I think that's the highest I've ever uh gotten without any artificial means.

So, that's good news.

The power of positive thinking.

Get a laser printer.

It is a laser printer.

Believe it or not, it is a laser printer, but it's black and white.

And uh so I get a lot of angry angry questions about Candace Owens.

Apparently many of you believe that I should have a strong opinion about Candace Owens.

Do I need to?

Why why can't she just do her top rated podcast and you can decide if you like it or you don't like it?

What what would my involvement be worth?

You know, yeah, I don't know if the things she says are will check out.

How would I know?

I know that she is very entertaining and very talented and I like her personally.

the rest.

It's just up to you.

Yeah.

But I I I just don't think that my opinion on the topic makes any difference.

Well, while we have a minute here, would you like to hear a reframe from my book, Reframe Your Brain, which is one of the best things you could ever buy for a Christmas gift.

This assumes you have already you've already purchased the Dilbert calendar.

Look, it's a commercial.

The Dilbert calendar this year and last year.

had comics on the front and the back.

And on the back were the new spicy ones.

But I had a reframe all picked out here.

We'll start the regular show at the top of the hour.

This is the pre-show.

All right.

Uh here's one of my favorite and most powerful reframes.

So the usual frame, the way people normally think is that overeating, if you do overeat, it's a willpower problem.

If you had more willpower, uh you could avoid eating that cookie.

Here's a reframe that's better.

Overeating is a knowledge problem.

It's a knowledge problem.

You know how um many of you already know that the uh the reframe uh alcohol is poison was enough to make a whole bunch of people stop drinking.

So the way you think about things will influence what you do.

And I find that if I think about food as a knowledge problem and I know which things are good for me and which are not, I just automatically eat better.

So as long as you think about it as a knowledge problem, you'll just automatically gravitate to better food with no no real effort.

For example, if you didn't know that sugar donuts are a little bit bad for you, you know, too much sugar, etc.

If you didn't know that, wouldn't you eat them?

Of course you would.

But if I told you a sugar donut would, you know, give you a 50% chance of getting diabetes, which is not not true, but just work with me here, would it be hard to avoid it?

It would not.

It would not.

So just knowing more about which foods are going to be good for you and which are bad really just replaces willpower because you don't really want to do things that are bad for you.

It just comes naturally.

That's why alcohol is poison uh is such a strong reframe.

If you're just joining, the reason I started early today is that the locals app was having a hiccup.

So, normally I do a pre-show before the regular show just for the subscribers, but the the pre-show wasn't working.

So, I told them to scattle over here and now they're all joining you.

Um, those of you who are joining early.

So, this will be interesting.

I want to see what happens at the top of the hour.

Here we go.

Top of the hour.

You ready?

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

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.

You've never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass, a tanker, gels, canteen, sugar flask, a vessel of any kind.

Does it sound to you like there's a giant garbage truck parked right outside my door?

I don't know what that is, but it's very loud.

I don't I hope the microphone is not picking that up.

Anyway, uh fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

Join me now for the unparallel pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

And it happens now.

Go.

So good.

So good.

Well, let's check the uh let's check the technology news, the science news, and find out what science is teaching us.

Well, according to the MIT technology review, Michelle Kim is writing that AI chatbots can sway voters better than political advertisements.

That's right.

If you let somebody interact with a chatbot, uh the chatbot will be more persuasive than a commercial.

Does that surprise you?

It should not.

Because uh you're probably thinking to yourself, "Wait, Scott, have you not taught us that the documentary effect is very persuasive even if it shouldn't be?" Yeah.

the the uh influence from having one point of view uh reinforced, you know, with either watching a documentary for an hour with no counterpoint would be very similar, I would think, to having a chatbot that also had only one point of view that it considered valid.

So, um, yes, a chatbot should be more persuasive.

And I think we're also as humans, we're also sort of built to assume that humans might lie to us because they have personal interests where if you knew you were talking to an AI, you wouldn't necessarily feel that so obvious that the AI had a personal interest because it wouldn't have a personal interest, but it would certainly be um presented by someone who did.

So in theory, we should be just as suspicious of the AI as we would be of the person who built the AI.

But I don't think we would.

I think you would be more persuasy shows.

I think you would be more persuaded by the AI because you would think, well, the AI isn't going to lie to me, is it?

Well, it might or it might hallucinate.

In other news, yeah, this is technology news.

According to the conversation, people who talk with their hands seem more clear and persuasive.

How many of you already knew that?

That if people talk with their hands, they can be way more persuasive than if they don't.

But the key is you can't randomly use your hands.

So, it's bad to be Governor Nuome and do jazz hands because we always mock him because it looks like he's lying and it looks like his hands are like not even connected to his brain.

I don't even know why my hands are doing this really.

I'm Governor Nuome and I can't stop my hands.

So that would be an example of not persuasive.

But if you were saying that uh something is huge and you use your hands, the hand would be compatible with the message huge.

Something's going up.

Something's taller than this.

That tends to be very persuasive.

So, do more of that and less of this.

Don't do that.

All right.

I know what I just did to myself there.

That will get clipped.

Remind me never to do that again.

You You have my permission to drive to my house and slap me if I ever do that again.

Not really.

Don't slap me.

Um, let's see what else.

Oh, here's a good one.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting, according to Daniel Axe, that uh the more oxytocin you have, the faster you'll heal.

So, apparently they've done tests where you can heal your wounds faster.

Oh my god, there's just like a gigantic mechanical noise right outside my door.

What the heck is that?

I'm glad it doesn't show up in the microphone.

Um, okay, now it's gone.

But, uh, Wall Street Journal reporting that if you have oxytocin, that would be the intimacy chemical.

If you're intimate with somebody you love, you get more oxytocin.

Well, apparently that's good for your healing.

Now, I like to put a couple of things together here.

Uh, so if you want to be more persuasive, you would talk with your hands and you would use that to persuade somebody to be intimate with you.

Hey, wouldn't you like to with me?

See how persuasive that was?

If I had done that without my hands, would you even be tempted to have sex with me?

No.

Not even a little bit.

Watch.

This will be without the hands.

Hey, how would you like to have sex with me?

Absolutely nothing.

Would you agree?

That was not persuasive.

Not one of you said, "Oh, that's a pretty good offer.

I I think I'd like to have sex with him right now, despite his weird looking hat." But watch.

Now I'm going to say the same thing again, but with hand motions.

Hey, why don't you have sex with me?

Do you see how persuasive that was?

I know.

No, go back.

Stop.

This was just a demonstration.

I know some of you are putting on your jacket and looking up my address and ready to drive over here, but that was only demonstration.

Calm down.

Calm down.

It may have elevated your oxytocin though for a moment.

So if you see any wounds, they're instantly healing.

That's that's for me.

You're welcome.

Uh did you know that according to the University of Vienna that pleasant sounding words are easier to remember?

So they actually did a test where they gave people pleasant sounding words versus ugly words.

You want to hear some ugly words?

Moist.

Moist is on the the on the list of moist.

So given that pleasant sounding words are easier to remember, um that means they're more persuasive because whatever tickles your memory the best tends to be also the most persuasive.

So when I'm writing, let's say professionally, if I'm writing a book, for example, um the last step in my writing is I may go through and substitute uh more pleasant sounding words for words that are just a little ugly.

I used to do uh public speaking a lot.

One of the things I would uh do during my public speaking is I would ask the assembled crowd which of these words is funnier.

So I'd give them two words that mean about the same thing.

I say which which one is funnier?

Pull as in you're pulling something or yank which is almost the same thing not exactly.

and the entire crowd would say as one, yank.

There's something universal about words that sound right.

In general, if you want to do humor, it's good to have words that have uh some hard sounds to them.

Yank, because you get the you get the K, but you also get the Y.

So, if you're if you're doing humor, words that are not as often used or they use letters that are not as often used, Q's and Z's and Y's, um, that's usually funnier.

So, the last level of my writing is I'll change the words to funny words if it's supposed to be a joke or I'll change it to pleasant sounding words.

I'll get rid of words like moist.

Now, I did write a whole book where I talked about moist robots.

Um, that did not catch on.

It probably wasn't my best choice.

All right.

You may have heard that the uh pipe bomber from January 6, uh, at least we think he's been arrested.

We pretty sure we got the right guy.

I think um, as Jake Tapper described him, that white guy.

So he says, "We found a a white male who was the pipe bomber.

The only problem was he is not white at all.

He apparently is a black man with a weird mustache.

Uh and uh I I I know, of course, obviously why Jake Tapper assumed it was a white man.

If I told you that somebody planted a bomb in the United States, would you think it was a black guy?

You wouldn't, would you?

Cuz I don't I can't think of a single example of a black guy who planted a bomb in America.

But if you said, "Have any white guys planted any bombs?" I'd say, "Well, there's a uni bomber." And I would just sort of assume it was a white guy crime.

So Jake uh got a little ahead of himself there, but uh uh and then also, did you see the way he was dressed?

The bite bomb.

God, what is that that loud thing?

It's like a rocket ship outside my door.

Uh, if you saw the way he was dressed in a unfashionable hoodie with unfashionable uh footwear, would you have assumed that was a black American?

No, cuz you're racist.

You're racist.

And you would have said, I think a black American would be far better dressed than uh than that guy.

So that's where your racism would have led you in the wrong direction.

But the uh the fascinating part about this story uh Shaun Davis had a good take on it that captures a lot of what you were thinking.

So I'm just going to read what Shawn Davis um did on X.

He of the Federalist, right?

I hope I have that right.

Uh he said uh based on the volume and type of evidence about the pipe bomber contained in this affidavit affidavit, it is inconceivable that the FBI didn't know who the pipe bomber was back in 2021.

It looks a heck of a lot like corrupt FBI agents knew for years who the bomber was, but went out of their way to confuse the investigation so they could refuse to make a definitive identification.

Huh.

And that goes a very long way toward explaining the latest anonymous FBI agent op against Dan Bonino and Cash Patel.

Bonjino and Patel removed the corrupt agents, reviewed the evidence, and swiftly identified and arrested the subject once all the corrupt obstructors were out of the way.

Does that sound about what you were thinking?

It does, doesn't it?

Do you think it's a coincidence that once Bonino fired or relocated the people who were in charge of it that all of a sudden it wasn't hard to find out who it was?

Have you been amazed that this is the one guy they can't find?

They're finding all these grandmothers from the January 6 event, but they can't find this guy despite all of the video of him.

And really, you know, you could show one toenail of one of the January 6 people and uh our technology would say, "Oh, I know that toenail.

That toenail belongs to." And then we'd put him in jail.

That's the old way.

They did not belong in jail.

But that's what would have happened.

But no, this uh this guy was a total mystery.

So, I'm going to say uh that I do not believe the FBI couldn't find him.

Uh I'm going to be firmly in the camp that doesn't know for sure, right?

Don't know for sure, not 100%.

But my working assumption is that the FBI was corrupt and the people that were removed from the job were more likely intentionally uh avoiding catching him for whatever reason uh rather than incompetence or you know inability.

It gets even weirder because apparently he works as a bale bondsman and it's a family business.

So, his father owns a bale bondsman business.

Must be doing pretty well because it looked like the house that this guy lives in is a high-end house.

And I don't believe you get a high-end house cuz you're just an employee of a bail bondsman, but you might have one if you live with your parents.

So, I don't know for sure, but I would guess probably living at his parents' home.

Now, if you lived at your parents' home and uh your your dad was a bail bondsman, which means he has some kind of affinity for or connection to the law enforcement world, do you think his father didn't recognize the video of his son walking around with that hoodie and those sneakers?

Do you think you wouldn't recognize your own son if you saw them wearing the clothes that they probably wear at home?

You don't think you'd recognize that?

So, I have some questions for dad.

Um, is this, you know, if I found out tomorrow that he didn't wear those clothes ever at home or that he knew that he would be recognized if he wore his own clothes and he had these only for the purpose of disguise, which is possible, by the way.

Well, then I would say, well, even your father wouldn't recognize you under those conditions because his face his face was completely concealed.

But I feel like you would recognize your own prodigy you know, the way they walk and especially the footwear.

Uh, let's see.

Anyway, I got I got the bail bonsman thing from Grock, so if it's hallucinating, um, you've been warned.

All right.

Do you know Tim Burchett?

He's Republican representative from Tennessee.

Apparently, he has asked President Trump to cut off all funding for the NOS, the non-government organizations that have often been accused of being giant money laundering fraudulent entities.

Um he says that he wants him he wants Trump to cut off all funding to the NOS's until they can figure out where all the money is actually going because a lot of it is going into people's pockets.

And it appears to most of us now, thanks to the good work of Elon Musk and Doge, we finally learned that uh there's a gigantic mechanism for taking your tax money out of your pocket and putting it in the pocket of strangers while pretending to feed the poor.

And this is not a small operation.

We're talking billions of dollars.

Um, you know, I I I've told you I've been puzzled by how we could have such a big deficit because it kind of happened fast, didn't it?

I mean, even if you even if you allowed that the pandemic made things worse, didn't it seem like we sort of instantly got to this impossible, you know, place where we couldn't pay our debts?

And I have to admit from the beginning I've been thinking is somebody just stealing it.

But it seemed like the numbers were so big that nobody could steal that much money.

I mean you can't steal you can't steal a trillion dollars a year.

And now I believe you could.

I believe you literally could steal a trillion dollars a year with this NGO mechanism because any one any one entity might be getting a billion here, a billion there, but there are thousands of them.

Just thousands of them.

Yeah, you could steal a trillion dollars if you if you really worked at it.

And apparently they were working pretty hard.

So, I have a generally good feeling about Tim Bett, meaning that he seems like a good patriot who wants to do the right thing.

And uh I I don't think that he's robbing anybody.

So, he wouldn't have anything necessarily that he needs to cover up.

He'd be hard to blackmail.

I doubt I doubt he's got a, you know, love child somewhere or something.

So, you need somebody who can't be blackmailed, who's clearly a patriot, and has a real interest in going after something like this.

Does that does that include somebody like Tim?

I think yes.

You know, I've seen enough of him that I trust him.

I mean, it's just a feeling, you know, nobody can know for sure what's in somebody's soul, but he looks pretty trustworthy to me.

So, I think that would be worth a shot.

Well, as Bujorn Lomborg often says, um, if you don't know who he is, you should.

He's a, uh, some call him an economist, but I don't know if he would call himself that, but he's, uh, taught us to look at both the costs and the benefits of climate change.

He does other things as well, but he's well known for that.

uh meaning that climate change might in fact make some things worse, but we always ignore how much better it makes things.

And he gives us his latest example, I think he's got an article in the Wall Street Journal, um that the the hurricane season, which apparently is over, had no hurricanes hit landfall in the United States.

And probably climate change has something to do with that.

So if you were to actually be honest about your climate change analysis, which is what Bejorn Lombberg is teaching us to do, you would say, well, I mean, you have to include even if you imagine climate, you know, ruined some parts of the world eventually, you'd have to add him, but it did save us a hurricane or two.

uh if in fact that becomes a a uh let's say that becomes a pattern.

It's not yet a pattern but if it becomes one uh we should say hey maybe this climate change has as much good as bad would be the proper way to approach the analysis.

Um no matter which way it ended up that would be the way to go.

Uh, Scott, blame it on Okay, I don't know what that means.

I'm looking at your comments.

So, we're still talking about the allegation that Pete Haggsath ordered a double tap attack on the Narco boat, meaning that there were a few survivors from the first missile, but a second missile was uh dispatched to take care of the the survivors and get rid of the uh weapon of mass destruction.

That would be the drugs that were on the boat.

Um, but so the Wall Street Journal had one version of events, but it's been debunked by ABC News, the New York Times.

So the Wall Street, I'm sorry, the Washington Post, I think I said that wrong.

Scratch that.

The Washington Post had the story that appears to be um that Hegs Seth somehow was watching the attack and ordered the second missile and then they're they're acting like that would have been a a war crime.

Well, let's ask somebody who actually knows what they're talking about.

Uh so apparently a individual named David who is a former deputy director and acting director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in the Obama administration.

So, this is important.

He He's an Obama guy who says, quote, um, we use double taps all the time.

He said, you would get the initial signature uh sign off of a target that's been hit.

He he uh he said in a podcast recently, "And if you saw that they squirted, I guess that must be some military term, and were injured, you hit them again." In fact, he said there was often a second predator that would be a missile ready to go.

Wait, is a predator a drone or a missile?

And for our purposes, it doesn't matter.

In fact, he said there's often a second predator ready to go that was fully expected to be used if he didn't have a 100% coming out of the first hit and maybe a third hit, adding that uh it was done routinely and there was bipartisan support on the Hill for doing it.

Isn't that enough?

Isn't it's a drone?

People are saying so the predator is a drone.

But isn't it enough that somebody who would be in that position who knows exactly what is real and what isn't, who's actually been in the field, who's actually, you know, ordered attacks.

If that person says it was routine, is there anything else to talk about?

You know, the the people who are acting like it's a war crime are just idiot Democrats who sit behind desks.

I don't know that there's any military people who think it's a war crime.

Anyway, um apparently Secretary Hanksth has asked the uh Navy admiral who was overseeing those operations in the Caribbean to step down uh because that officer had voiced concerns about what he called the murky legality of the attacks.

Do you think that if there had been some other president, do you think that this uh this admiral would have had that problem?

Given that we do know with high certainty that it was routine to have a double tap and even a triple tap if he needed it, do you think that this Navy admiral didn't know that?

And do you think that if Obama had been president or if nobody had even brought this up as a potential issue?

If nobody had ever brought it up, would he be worried about its murky legality?

I don't think so.

So, was this a good firing?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Uh, I think that was a good firing.

All right.

So, well, he's not really fired fired.

He's just going to retire a couple couple years early.

which is fair.

I mean, he did.

It's not like he committed a crime or something.

So, a little bit of early retirement seems seems about that seems appropriate.

I wouldn't take anything away from him.

Um, let's see.

Let's uh let's look at Minnesota for a moment.

So, I guess the uh speaker of whatever their political situation is, Demouth, Speaker Demouth, uh talked about the budget forecast and that they're going to be short $3 billion.

So, there's going to have a $3 billion deficit in Minnesota.

And uh Speaker Demouth said, quote, "Last year, Governor Walsh blamed increases in social services spending as the main driver of the deficit that was created.

We now know that much of the increase was the result of fraud.

Yep.

As I've been saying, in a 100% of situations where there's a lot of money involved and people are not watching it carefully, as in having a robust auditing situation, which is most of the government stuff does not have a robust auditing situation, that the inevitable outcome inevitable.

You can't you couldn't stop it if you wanted to.

If you have lots of money involved and nobody's watching it in in the sense of an audit, of course it's going to be stolen.

Of course it is.

It's not ever going to go a different direction.

There's one way that goes.

Somebody steals it.

And uh that's probably what's happening.

But at least New York State doesn't have any problems.

Oh, wait.

Apparently, Governor Hokll when she was uh what was she?

When she was lieutenant governor had a aid or an assistant who worked in as a No, actually it was a Chinese spy who was working as the deputy chief diversity officer.

Now, that's a bad combination.

Here are two things you never want.

Number one, you don't want anybody on your staff who later turns out to be a Chinese spy.

That by itself would be bad enough.

The second thing you don't want is a chief diversity officer.

And God knows you don't want a deputy chief diversity officer because that's two more than you really needed.

So this Chinese spy was a it was the worst possible combination.

Chinese spy and diversity officer.

Um and she held that role since 2018 I guess um to 2020.

Um, and uh, she said in some kind of document that was recovered that Hokll was uh, sort of easy to manipulate, but uh, it looked like the only thing that Hokll did that was sketchy was do some pro-China video that she was asked to do for the 2021 Lunar New Year.

So Elise Stefanic, who's running for governor, I guess, pointed out uh yeah, that Governor Hokll got co-opted by a Chinese spy to do a pro-Chinese video.

That's not the most damaging thing that could have happened.

Um I I think Hokll just thought she was servicing the, you know, the Chinese American part of her uh constituents, which wouldn't be a crime.

So, none of it looks like a crime, per se, but it doesn't look good.

Doesn't look good.

It makes you wonder how many Chinese spies have we not caught.

You ever wonder about that?

You know, I I have this theory that most uh shoe salesmen, if they're if they're selling women's shoes, that they have uh foot fetishes.

And the reason is that someone with a foot fetish would be willing to work extra hard for less money because they're getting that secondary benefit from being a shoe salesman if you know what I mean.

You know what I mean?

So that over time the people who are willing to sell shoes, women shoes, but also really really enjoy it more than you hope that they would, uh, that they would be mostly the shoe sales people.

Because if you were competing against somebody who loved it, it would be hard to compete if you were just doing it because it was a job.

So over time, the people who would do it just because it's a job would find other jobs and they would move through that to other things.

But if you really really like selling the shoes, like really really liked it, and you got that job, would you ever leave?

You wouldn't.

you'd be there for the rest of your life.

It's like, I got the best job ever.

So, the theory is that if there's a type of job where one type of person would like to be there forever for whatever reason, that eventually the job will be mostly those people.

So, now suppose that you're tasked by your your spy masters in China to get high level jobs in the government.

Would you ever leave?

No.

You wouldn't even look for another job because your whatever level it is job within the government would be exactly what your spy master required of you.

So, you'd be killing it career-wise.

So, in theory, if you wait long enough, uh the entire government should be full of spies because they're the ones who don't go looking for better jobs ever.

Right?

Am I wrong?

You tell me.

Isn't the normal arc that the government should be full of spies if not today than guaranteed fairly soon you know within say 10 or 15 years and we've certainly had a government for more than 15 years.

So, uh, anyway, uh, in funny news, the postmillennials reporting that Tim Walsh is upset because, uh, the president called him the rword, And he says, "I've never seen this before.

People are driving by my house and using the Rword in front of people." He said, "This is shameful.

I have yet to see elected officials, a Republican elected official say, "You're right.

That's shameful.

You shouldn't say it." So, look, Walsh says, "I'm worried.

We know uh we know how these things go." Now, wait for this.

You thought that Tim Walsh was dumb.

Wait for this next sentence.

You ready for this?

Uh, he goes, "I'm worried.

We know how these things go.

They start with taunts.

They turn to violence so deeply concerned, Wals added.

Okay, let me pull it all together.

So Tim Walsh believes it's entirely appropriate to call Republicans and Trump fascists and, you know, sort of Nazilike.

And he's not worried that that would turn into violence, calling somebody literally, not joking, but literally a fascist and a Nazi or words to that effect.

But while that's not dangerous, according to Wals, um it would be dangerous that people jokingly drive by his house and use the Rword, which they only do because it's funny.

It's funny in the sense that it bothers the people they want to bother.

You not because it's true true, but because it's funny and Trump said it and he got away with it, so it sort of opened the floodgate.

But do you believe that Tim Walsh really believes what he said?

Does he really believe that the Rword, as he says, is the dangerous one that could lead the slippery slope to somebody getting stabbed?

It's like, well, it started with the R word and next thing you know, stabbing.

Whereas calling somebody a fascist and not saying you're kidding and everybody knows you're not joking, that you're actually meanness.

You don't think that would lead to a little violence?

Really?

Really?

Is that your actual opinion?

I don't know.

In order to have an opinion like that, you'd have to be some kind of a You'd have to be some kind of a Well, you'd have to be some kind of a fascist.

You thought I was going to say didn't you?

No, I wouldn't use that word.

Meanwhile, Steve Hilton, you probably know him from uh his work on Fox News.

I don't don't know if he still has his show or if he's moved on to running for California governor.

Well, he has uh launched a tip line to expose fraud in California.

He believes that as bad as the fraud was in is in Minnesota, billions and billions of dollars of fraud, that California is probably worse because it's a bigger state and it's been a blue state for longer.

And those are good reasons.

More money, more Democrats, probably more crime.

I'm saying so he said uh this is based on my very strongly held assumption that whatever we're seeing in Minnesota is a thousand times worse in California because of many more years of one party rule by the Democrats.

Steve Hilton, you just got my vote.

You you just won my vote.

Uh, you know, I don't usually pay too much attention to state politics, but uh, yeah, that's all I want to hear.

I want to hear that you're you've done something that's real because you think it's important to try to stop all the fraud.

I think California's biggest problem is fraud because everything that happens here looks a little suspicious.

You know, it doesn't matter what you're looking at.

How about that bullet train?

Uh, where'd all that money go?

How about uh you rebuilding after the uh the fire?

Uh, nothing's been rebuilt.

I mean, one house maybe.

What's going on?

Is somebody Is there some criminal thing that's stopping it?

It It couldn't just be incompetence, could it?

I don't know.

So, yes, I believe that rooting out the fraud is essential.

I I think that having a fraud tip line would only be a small part of what they need.

And I'm going to say it again.

Uh I believe that zero tax money should ever be allocated for anything that does not have a robust well-defined audit procedure.

So if somebody said we need a billion dollars to build this thing, I say all right, let's start with how are you going to audit it on a regular basis so it doesn't get stolen?

If the answer is uh oh well uh we we'll we'll do something about it then no.

It doesn't matter if it's a good idea.

It's clearly if you don't have an auditing procedure set up that's good.

And you know, I I would make a big difference between some waving your hand audit procedure versus a very, you know, let's say a third-party uninterested party who's just paid to audit the hell out of it.

If I were a big consulting company, um, and there are lots of them, I would be pitching this as something that I could do for your state.

I would say if you give me $10 million a year, um, I'll I'll make sure that we audit all this stuff and we're not we don't even live in the state.

We're just consultants.

So, you don't have to worry about us trying to get our own beak wet.

We will change out our uh auditors every year.

So if you were a consulting company and you wanted to make sure that you didn't become the problem by, you know, getting yourself into this potential moneyaundering situation where you could you could launder it yourself.

If you're a consulting company, just say, "Well, we have lots of consultants and we'll make sure that uh the ones that work on your state do one year." they just do one year and then you have much less chance that they get embedded and turn it into a criminal enterprise.

Yeah.

Anyway, um so the uh according to NPR, the State Department is going to deny visas to fact checkers and others who were involved in any kind of censorship.

Now, I don't mind that as a standard.

I don't think the fake fact checkers and the fake sensors should be uh allowed into the country but it does make me wonder how many there are that you need you need a separate you know standard for that are are there a lot of fact checkers trying to get into the country who had fact checked us in a in a way we don't like I don't know just kind of open question well according to Davis health University of Oh, the University of California, Davis.

Um, there's a study that suggests that there's a brain nutrient that if you don't have enough of it, it might create anxiety.

And they found out that uh if you eat more eggs, the eggs have this uh this nutrient, what's it called?

Choline C H O L I N E.

So if your choline levels are low in your brain, it's correlated with they haven't proven causation, but it's correlated with anxiety.

So I went to Grock and I asked the questions that the article was missing.

And the main question was, are people eating more or less eggs than they ever did?

And the answer is people are probably eating more eggs now than they did in the 40s.

So that would suggest that we were less likely to have a anxiety caused by this shortage.

But we observe that people's anxiety seems to be worse lately than compared to the old days.

So I'm not sure I buy this.

Maybe there's a correlation but not a causation.

But eggs are apparently good for you.

All right.

Um, so Hakee Jeff has finally grudgingly agreed that President Trump uh should get credit for closing the border, which is now secure.

Fox News says that.

And Jeffree says, "Of course he'll get credit for that." To which I'm thinking, "Huh, I'm actually surprised.

Aren't you surprised that even though it's so obvious that uh Trump closed the border and the other leaders did not?

Aren't you surprised that one of the top Democrats just even admitted it instead of changing the subject?

So, I guess that that's the part that's interesting is just that he said it at all.

Well, that might be because the uh it could be the polling shows that people care less about the border because they consider it a solved problem.

So, it might be that, you know, there's no benefit to arguing that Trump didn't close it, you know.

So, it's well, that's old news is closed.

Moving on.

See if we have any other problems besides that.

Um, so I I saw on MS Now, which used to be MSNBC, on Lawrence O'Donnell's show, I think it was last night, that uh he had Chuck Schumer on and the two of them were introducing their newest hoax.

Um, have you heard the new hoax about affordability?

All right.

You can tell that they're introducing a hoax by looking at their faces with the sound off.

There's a certain smile that Democrats do when they're introducing a hoax.

And it's like this.

I've got a suspicious smile on.

I'm going to introduce a new hoax.

And the hoax goes like this.

No, I'm not smiling.

I'm not I'm not too happy about it.

Well, stop it.

Stop it.

Stop it.

I I'm trying not to smile to give away the fact.

Oh god, I'm smiling again.

I'm smiling.

Uh, okay.

Ignore my creepy smile because this is how I introduce a hoax.

Are you ready for the hoax?

The hoax is that President Trump is the only human being out of 7 billion human beings.

He's the only one who believes that affordability doesn't matter.

That's right.

Because it's based on something he said.

Well, I'm not going to quote what he said or put it in context because then you'll know it's a hoax.

Do you know how else you could know it's a hoax?

Look at my creepy smile.

And Lawrence O'Donnell has this creepy smile, too.

We We got two creepy smiles.

Yeah, that's how we introduce the hoaxes because we know it's a hoax, but we're trying to see if you're dumb enough to believe that there's actually any human being who doesn't understand that affordability matters to people who don't have enough money.

I'm not creepy.

You're creepy.

All right, that's enough of that.

Stop it.

You're right, Jeep guy.

I need to just stop making that face.

But I didn't start it.

That's a That's a Chuck Schumer face.

Anyway, no, it is not true that Trump is the only person on the world who doesn't understand that affordability matters.

So, I was thinking to myself, how are we doing on affordability?

So, I made a little list of the things we talk about when we talk about affordability.

And let's uh see how Trump is doing.

How is he doing on eggs?

Well, really well.

The price of eggs is down.

And I do think we can attribute that to the actions of the Trump administration.

Now, probably the egg prices would have drifted back to normal.

Uh anyway, but I do think that uh Trump goose it.

his people did a good job.

So, we'll give him eggs.

How about gas?

Gas, definitely.

Um certainly the uh the Trump instinct to go for maximum drilling and drill baby drill and getting rid of obstacles for that.

Yeah, that definitely caused the gas prices to go down.

So, we'll give them eggs, we'll give them gas.

What about groceries in general?

No.

to groceries in general, especially beef, uh, not so good.

They're they're still high.

And even if they're not inflating much from where they are, they're kind of too high.

So, um, now keep in mind that it doesn't mean that Trump gets the the credit or the blame for every kind of price and every kind of situation.

It's just is what it is.

Groceries are high.

What about rent?

Well, the recent news is that rents have actually fallen a little bit from October to November.

Don't know if that's a pattern yet, but it would make perfect sense if you paired it with the the knowledge that uh 2.5 million uh people have been deported.

That should create a little bit less demand.

Little less demand means a little lower rents.

And sure enough, 1% lower.

So, he gets I'll give him rent.

Could be more, but we'll give him that.

How about interest rates?

Well, he's been working pretty hard to get those interest rates down.

And I believe they're lower than they were.

Is that true?

Lower than when he took office, but they'll definitely be lower when he gets his own handchosen Fed uh you know, Fed head in charge.

So, I expect I expect inflation uh interest rates to go down.

What about inflation?

Uh inflation's not great, but it's not terrible.

It's sort of just limping along.

So, it's not the worst thing in the world, but you know, could be better.

Uh what about automobiles?

Well, I don't know if we've seen the impact yet.

Um especially because there would be tariffs on automobiles from other countries.

But um he did recently get rid of that uh Biden era idea that uh your your gas powered car would have to get 51 miles to the gallon on average.

So, he got rid of that, which should cause uh more availability of low-end cars that uh would cost people less because the gas would be less and um and then the cost of the car would be less if it's purchased.

Uh if it's built in America, then you don't have the tariff problem.

So, automobiles, I'll give him that.

Uh I don't think we've seen the drop yet, but he's done the right thing to get that drop.

And what about entertainment?

Um, entertainment doesn't seem like that's going down.

Maybe it's gone up.

I don't know.

But entertainment is not the most important thing in the world.

So, here's my take um on affordability.

Trump's actually done pretty well if if you look at all the categories.

Pretty well.

there's a lot more you could do and we would like him to do more and it looks like he is but uh he's going for it.

Um and then I was thinking about the you know what would you do to make food less expensive and I'm going to give you some brainstorming on that on that topic.

These are not meant to be great ideas.

The way brainstorming works is you just throw some ideas that maybe you hadn't thought of before and then it spurs you or encourages you to think of your own ideas and if there's more ideas there's a greater chance that one of them will be useful.

So I'm just going to throw out some ideas for reducing um costs.

Number one idea would be to have some kind of mechanism where local farmers could more directly and legally sell to consumers.

So where I live, you might have the same situation.

On the weekend, there'll be a farmers market and but I would have to get in the car and drive to the farmers market and it doesn't have everything that I'd want.

Doesn't have meat for example.

Um, so there's some things I think the government probably prevents like meat is my guess.

Um, but suppose you removed obstacles and said, "Yeah, the farmers market can deliver it to your house.

Deliver it right to your house." So then if I didn't have to drive to it and it was the local farmer, so that would cut out uh a bunch of steps and a bunch of people taking a cut.

Could I get it cheaper?

I feel like I could.

So, there's probably something you could do that would make food a lot more accessible and cheaper if you just got rid of all the middle people and said, "Okay, the farmer can sell this." Now, would it be more dangerous?

Yes, it would.

Probably because you can imagine there'd be, you know, a farmer who didn't meet all the standards, etc.

But here's what I think.

Don't you think the farmers eat all their own food?

If you're a farmer and you're selling beef, you don't think you're eating the beef yourself?

Of course you are.

If you're growing a certain vegetable, you don't think that the farmer's family is eating that vegetable?

Of course they are.

What would make you feel more safe?

Eating the same food as the person who grew it or some government entity told you it was okay?

I don't know.

you you might be more comfortable eating what the farmer eats.

Um, how about if you started a uh a government grocery store?

Stop.

Stop.

You're just assuming a bunch of things that I'm not going to say.

Wait till I say it and then tell me if you like it or not.

Okay.

And in the government grocery store, it wouldn't try to reproduce every kind of product.

there wouldn't be any um of the highly processed foods.

Wouldn't be any none.

But it would also be a very limited set of choices that were designed to be affordable.

And because it's a limited set of choices, you could bring down your expense of providing them.

Let's say it was only chicken for protein and maybe two or three kinds of fish that are, you know, accessible and easy.

That's all your proteins.

And then let's say it's not every exotic vegetable in the world, but you definitely have broccoli.

People like broccoli.

And whatever are, let's say, the top five vegetables, so everybody's got one that they like.

Um, and and so let's say your grocery store has I'll just pick a number, 25 goods, but they're the ones that most people would eat.

They wouldn't be delighted because it wouldn't be that many choices.

But there's a lot you can do with chicken.

You know what I mean?

You know, once you get it home, you can make it taste, you know, any any variety of ways.

So, I think the thing that the so-called government grocery stores have done wrong is probably try to produce the same amount of choices as a regular grocery store.

That's probably where they go wrong.

Uh, I would like an option if I had very low income, an option to have more boring food, but it's really easy to get and it's cheap.

I I'll accept boring because I'll I'll spice it up on my end.

It doesn't have to be exciting on your end.

Anyway, that's one idea.

And then another one, this is really interesting.

There's a futuristic uh dome for growing food.

New Atlas has a story about this.

So, instead of the old uh greenhouse, they figured out this dome where the bottom levels of the dome are a variety of fish.

I think there are several layers of just fish and then they contribute to the ecosystem that feeds the dome so that the dome is as close as you can get to a self-contained self-fertilizing um situation and it requires a little bit of technology.

So, I think you need to move things around with technology and probably you need some AI to know what needs some attention.

So, you don't need too many humans in there.

But apparently, this is already built and uh already been demonstrated to work.

So, at the Expo 2025 Osaka Kai in Japan, um they've already produced one and it's a farmtotable, but the farm would be just this dome.

And let's see what else it says.

Um the fact that it already exists makes this a lot more interesting.

It's not it's not uh theoretical.

So, it's a 7 meter diameter, 23 foot dome.

Um, and it it's meant to sort of uh imitate what a real Earth situation would be for each of the levels.

And it's a futuristic greenhouse.

Well, I think that's where we're heading.

So imagine if you started your city with a futuristic greenhouse that would serve every maybe 10 homes.

Uh and then you just build around that.

What salmon is the best to buy?

Well, don't get me started on salmon.

You don't want to hear it.

Well, in other news, Hawaii is suing Tik Tok for uh what they consider harm to children and they think that Tik Tok has built a platform to be dangerously addictive for young users.

Now, do you think that that's true?

Do you think that they built it to be dangerously addictive?

Well, I don't think they meant it to be dangerous, but I I'm wondering about where do you draw the line?

If if I sell you a Dilbert calendar for 2026 and you open it up and you go, "Oh, oh my god.

Oh, oh my god, it's Oh, these I I am so happy I got a Dilbert calendar." Wait, wait.

Oh my god.

There There are cartoons on both sides.

Oh, both sides.

This is new.

Oh my god.

And then you can see my my dopamine is is firing.

I can barely help it.

I mean, I'm just like, now when I make the Dilbert calendar irresistible because it's so good.

Am I going to get sued by Hawaii?

Will Hawaii allow the Dilbert calendar to be sold?

Good question, right?

So although I'm joking sort of a little bit although I'm joking there is a real question here about freedom and about uh what's the difference between really really liking something and being addicted because of the dopamine hit.

I don't know how you could ever make that distinction because again the Dilbert calendar's so dopamine, you know, tickling good that I don't know what you do.

Good luck Hawaii.

Good luck, Tik Tok.

Um, I haven't talked about this situation with Tina Peters, who is a grandmother who was in jail, because she tried to um find out if the uh the voting machines were rigged and I guess she gave somebody access to them that she should not have given access to for the purpose of finding out if there was some crime that had been committed.

Now, she's a cancer survivor.

She's 70 years old and she got what?

9 years in prison.

Now, can you think of a situation where somebody technically violated a law, which she did?

She technically violated a law, but her intentions were good and there was no victim.

You get nine years for that.

Your intentions are good.

Not for yourself.

This is very important.

Her intentions were for the public good.

Let me say that again.

Her intention very clearly was for a public good.

What she did for herself was take a gigantic risk for the public good.

And there were no victims.

And indeed, uh, I don't know what happened with the with the access and whether anybody found anything, but aren't you happy that she did that?

Now, I know you can't just let anybody break any law they want because they think it's a good idea to break it.

I I get that you have to have something like, you know, law and order for even things where it's not obvious there would ever be any victim.

I get it.

I get it.

But what would be the right penalty for someone who took a risk upon themselves with nothing to gain for themsel for the benefit of the larger community and there's no victim and there wasn't really an there wasn't really a chance that there would ever be a victim.

It wasn't an accident that there was no victim.

It's obvious there would be no victim.

We would either find out something we didn't know or we wouldn't.

That's it.

Yeah.

I'm thinking six months probation would be about the right thing for that.

Now, Trump has entered the uh the debate on this and on her side.

Uh but he does not have the power to pardon her because I guess the charges are state charges.

But um I guess the Colorado Democrat governor Democrat governor Jared Polus um is keeping her in and is not is uh not going to free her.

I do think this probably needs to be a bigger uh a bigger issue.

And I do think that if this uh if this governor gets reelected and is keeping her in jail for purely political reasons, uh I don't think he he should be reelected.

That's all I'm saying.

That's just horrible behavior.

Horrible.

And I think Trump has uh accurately found another 8020 issue.

It How many people think she should be in jail?

Now, it's not even really Democrat versus Republican, is it?

I mean, really, not really.

Um, so this seems like an 8020 to me.

All right.

Well, we wish her the best.

Um, here's another funny story.

Apparently, uh I didn't know it, but there was a thing called the US Institute of Peace, which I guess the government, the federal government funds, but it supposedly operates somewhat independently.

Trump is trying to uh cut their budget, but I guess they use the law to try to fight that off.

So they're in some kind of weird gray area where the government gives them money but doesn't have full control over their activities.

So what Trump did because he couldn't cleanly just take take their funding away and close them down.

Uh he changed their name.

This is very funny.

He changed their name and and put the new name uh on their building so that they can't even cover it up easily.

And the new name the new name is the uh the President Trump uh I don't know US Institute of Peace or something.

So he put his own name on it.

Oh no, it's the Donald J.

Trump Institute of Peace.

And it actually it actually says that over the door now.

All right.

Now that's just funny.

We're going to be so sad when we ever get a normal president cuz I mean seriously, can't you imagine what the meeting was like when they came up with that idea?

They must have been roaring with laughter.

It's like, "All right, we didn't get what we want, but we're going to get some fun out of this.

It's the Donald J.

Trump Institute of Peace." Anyway, just great.

All right.

Uh Derek Schovin, who as you know is in jail for being convicted for murdering uh George Floyd allegedly.

Um so he's uh he's trying to get a new trial and uh his arguments are well he's got a good argument um for a new trial.

But here is my take.

Derek Schovin was convicted in a very different environment than we have today.

Uh at the time, if you had been a juror and you had not convicted him, you might be in physical danger for not convicting, not voting to convict them.

I don't think that's the case now.

And we also believed, or a lot of people believed that there was a big problem with uh black citizens being killed by white policemen.

But now we know that was never the case.

It was not a big problem or any problem really.

It was not above, you know, any kind of baseline.

So if you knew if you knew that we do not have this big problem and you knew that you were not personally in danger uh if you had voted to, you know, let him go.

But here's the other big thing.

Do you remember what we thought of doctors during the George Floyd's uh era?

That's when we still believe the doctors were credible.

And so there were several doctors who said, "Oh yeah, that's totally murder." And the jurors being normal citizens believe that uh well if you know if doctors say that uh it was murder you know who am I to doubt the doctor.

Now fast forward to 2025 we do not automatically think doctors are credible.

In fact doctors have been quite unreliable.

Secondly, we know that people were probably being influenced by the um just the feeling of the day that there was some kind of, you know, horrible thing happening to black citizens that wasn't happening to white citizens.

But we don't really think that's true anymore, or at least people are paying attention know it's not.

So I would suggest that the same set of facts that got him convicted, if it were to happen today exactly the same way, I don't know.

I feel like at least one juror would have said, "Nope." So I think Oh, and also he wasn't allowed to introduce the fact that they were trained to do it that way.

Really wasn't allowed to say that.

But we know that that's the case.

All right.

Um I've got a few more stories, but let's see.

Um apparently there's a new app called Vantor from Vantor Tech where it looks like they've simulated the entire Earth down to about a 3 meter um difference.

Now imagine if you will um the ability to create a simulation if you could simulate the entire world with an app.

All you need now is to add characters.

Could you add characters?

Oh god, I'm in so much pain.

All right, I I'm gonna have to end early.

Um, I did all the stories that I cared about the most except that I think we should look at humanoid robots to mine our rare earth materials.

Turns out there are several companies working on robots for rare earth material mining.

So, that's happening.

All right, everybody.

That's all I got for today.

Thanks for joining.

Uh, locals, I'm not going to try to do a separate after show today.

Not sure that technology even works.

But I will see all of you tomorrow.

Tomorrow.

Bye for now.

We've got a little uh technical problem

with the locals platform this morning.

So, I don't know if you can see me or

hear me on locals, but you can see me

and hear me on

Rumble and on YouTube and on X.

So, this is uh the pre-show.

Normally the uh local subscribers are

the only ones who see me before the

beginning of the regular show,

but

trying to work out some technical

problems

which includes trying to take off my

jacket.

All right. Can anybody give me a sense

of whether you can see me and hear me?

All right. So, the Rumble Studio worked

to initiate the uh stream. Okay.

All right.

I don't know if everything is working,

but got a few things working. All right.

Like I said, this is the pre-show,

so there's no show yet.

This is generally just for the uh

locals, people to chat with each other

and share some memes.

Um, I'm only seeing locals, though.

Okay,

looks like uh,

yeah, we got locals. We got YouTube.

Rumble's working now. I think X is

working.

All right. Uh, this is the point where

if you were watching the pre-show,

you would see me disappear because I

have to go over to my printer.

Stay where you are.

I'll be back.

All right,

I got my notes.

What time is it?

I will begin the regular show at the top

of the hour. Um, so what what you're

seeing if you're just coming in is

normally I do a pre-show just for the

local subscribers, but the locals app

had a hiccup this morning.

So I'm coming to you also on locals but

via the Rumble studio which appears to

be working just fine.

So this portion of the show is not real.

This one is just so you can chat with

each other or ask me questions or hang

out a little bit

because I'm still in setup mode.

All right, we'll set up the height.

All right,

lighting looks good.

Got notes.

Well, I feel like I shouldn't start

early because the people who purr

the people who have been trained to come

at this top of the hour are going to be

Hey, you didn't tell me you were going

to start early.

I'm going to Tim it all all over the

place here.

I'm Tim Pool.

And

no, I'm not Tim Pool. Nobody's Tim Pool,

but Tim Pool.

Yep. 0700. I'll start. I'll get serious.

Watch me go from not serious to serious

in

seven minutes. All we got seven minutes

just hanging out.

If you have any questions,

this would be a good time to do it.

By the way, I'm so proud of myself. Oh

no.

Oh no. No. No.

Damn it.

My printer.

My printer is up again. I I was

going to brag because I thought I fixed

it and cleaned the drum and followed all

the AI instructions,

but uh looks like a number of my

topics I'm going to have to skip because

they didn't print.

Good lord.

What a day. What a day.

All right, I can work through this

though. I'll make it work.

All right, while we're waiting,

I'm going to check my oxygen levels,

which sometimes are a problem, but

they've been good lately.

Uh,

new drum is only Yeah.

Boom.

97%.

That's actually higher than my baseline.

My baseline is 95 because I have asthma.

I've never

I'll bet you that's the highest I've

ever uh

Yeah, I think that's the highest I've

ever uh gotten without any artificial

means.

So, that's good news.

The power of positive thinking.

Get a laser printer. It is a laser

printer. Believe it or not, it is a

laser printer, but it's black and white.

And

uh so I get a lot of angry angry

questions

about Candace Owens.

Apparently many of you believe

that I should have a strong opinion

about Candace Owens.

Do I need to?

Why why can't she just do her top rated

podcast and you can decide if you like

it or you don't like it? What what would

my involvement

be worth?

You know, yeah, I don't know if the

things she says are will check out. How

would I know? I know that she is very

entertaining

and very talented

and I like her personally.

the rest. It's just up to you.

Yeah. But I I I just don't think

that my opinion on the topic makes any

difference.

Well, while we have a minute here,

would you like to hear a reframe from my

book, Reframe Your Brain, which is one

of the best things you could ever buy

for a Christmas gift. This assumes you

have already you've already purchased

the Dilbert calendar.

Look, it's a commercial. The Dilbert

calendar this year and last year. had

comics on the front and the back. And on

the back were the new spicy ones.

But I had a

reframe all picked out here.

We'll start the regular show at the top

of the hour. This is the pre-show.

All right. Uh here's one of my favorite

and most powerful reframes.

So the usual frame, the way people

normally think is that overeating, if

you do overeat, it's a willpower

problem.

If you had more willpower, uh you could

avoid eating that cookie. Here's a

reframe that's better. Overeating is a

knowledge problem.

It's a knowledge problem. You know how

um many of you already know that the uh

the reframe uh alcohol is poison was

enough to make a whole bunch of people

stop drinking.

So the way you think about things will

influence what you do. And I find that

if I think about food as a knowledge

problem and I know which things are good

for me and which are not, I just

automatically eat better. So as long as

you think about it as a knowledge

problem, you'll just automatically

gravitate to better food with no no real

effort.

For example, if you didn't know

that sugar donuts are a little bit bad

for you, you know, too much sugar, etc.

If you didn't know that,

wouldn't you eat them? Of course you

would. But if I told you a sugar donut

would, you know, give you a 50% chance

of getting diabetes, which is not not

true, but just work with me here, would

it be hard to avoid it? It would not. It

would not.

So just knowing more about which foods

are going to be good for you and which

are bad

really just replaces willpower because

you don't really want to do things that

are bad for you. It just comes

naturally. That's why alcohol is poison

uh is such a strong reframe.

If you're just joining, the reason I

started early today is that the locals

app was having a hiccup. So, normally I

do a pre-show before the regular show

just for the subscribers,

but the the pre-show wasn't working.

So, I told them to scattle over here

and now they're all joining you. Um,

those of you who are joining early.

So, this will be interesting. I want to

see what happens at the top of the hour.

Here we go. Top of the hour. You ready?

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.

You've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance on elevating

your experience to levels that nobody

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains, all you need for

that is a copper mug or a glass, a

tanker, gels,

canteen, sugar flask, a vessel of any

kind.

Does it sound to you like there's a

giant garbage truck parked right outside

my door?

I don't know what that is, but it's very

loud. I don't I hope the microphone is

not picking that up. Anyway, uh fill it

with your favorite liquid. I like

coffee. Join me now for the unparallel

pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day,

the thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip. And it

happens now. Go.

So good. So good.

Well, let's check the uh let's check the

technology news, the science news, and

find out what science is teaching us.

Well, according to the MIT technology

review, Michelle Kim is writing that AI

chatbots can sway voters better than

political advertisements.

That's right. If you let somebody

interact with a chatbot,

uh the chatbot will be more persuasive

than a commercial. Does that surprise

you? It should not. Because uh you're

probably thinking to yourself, "Wait,

Scott, have you not taught us that the

documentary effect is very persuasive

even if it shouldn't be?" Yeah. the the

uh influence

from having one point of view uh

reinforced, you know, with either

watching a documentary for an hour with

no counterpoint would be very similar, I

would think, to having a chatbot that

also had only one point of view that it

considered valid. So, um, yes, a chatbot

should be more persuasive. And I think

we're also

as humans, we're also sort of built to

assume that humans might lie to us

because they have personal interests

where if you knew you were talking to an

AI, you wouldn't necessarily feel

that so obvious that the AI had a

personal interest because it wouldn't

have a personal interest, but it would

certainly be um presented by someone who

did. So in theory, we should be just as

suspicious of the AI as we would be of

the person who built the AI. But I don't

think we would. I think you would be

more persuasy

shows. I think you would be more

persuaded by the AI because you would

think, well, the AI isn't going to lie

to me, is it? Well, it might or it might

hallucinate.

In other news, [clears throat] yeah,

this is technology news. According to

the conversation,

people who talk with their hands seem

more clear and persuasive.

How many of you already knew that? That

if people talk with their hands, they

can be way more persuasive

than if they don't. But the key is you

can't randomly use your hands. So, it's

bad to be Governor Nuome

and do jazz hands because we always mock

him because it looks like he's lying

and it looks like his hands are like not

even connected to his brain. I don't

even know why my hands are doing this

really.

I'm Governor Nuome and I can't stop my

hands.

So that would be an example of not

persuasive.

But if you were saying that uh something

is huge and you use your hands, the hand

would be compatible with the message

huge. Something's going up. Something's

taller than this. That tends to be very

persuasive. So, do more of that and less

of this. Don't do that.

All right. I know what I just did to

myself there. That will get clipped.

Remind me never to do that again.

You You have my permission to drive to

my house and slap me if I ever do that

again.

Not really. Don't slap me. Um, let's see

what else.

Oh, here's a good one. The Wall Street

Journal is reporting, according to

Daniel Axe,

that uh the more oxytocin you have,

the faster you'll heal. So, apparently

they've done tests where you can heal

your wounds

faster. Oh my god, there's just like a

gigantic

mechanical noise right outside my door.

What the heck is that? I'm glad it

doesn't show up in the microphone. Um,

okay, now it's gone. But, uh, Wall

Street Journal reporting that if you

have oxytocin, that would be the

intimacy chemical. If you're intimate

with somebody you love, you get more

oxytocin. Well, apparently that's good

for your healing. Now, I like to put a

couple of things together here.

Uh, so if you want to be more

persuasive,

you would talk with your hands

and you would use that to persuade

somebody to be intimate with you. Hey,

wouldn't you like to

with me? See how persuasive that was? If

I had done that without my hands, would

you even be tempted to have sex with me?

No. Not even a little bit. Watch. This

will be without the hands. Hey, how

would you like to have sex with me?

Absolutely nothing. Would you agree?

That was not persuasive. Not one of you

said, "Oh, that's a pretty good offer. I

I think I'd like to have sex with him

right now, despite his weird looking

hat." But watch. Now I'm going to say

the same thing again, but with hand

motions. Hey, why don't you

have sex with me? Do you see how

persuasive that was? I know. No, go

back. Stop. This was just a

demonstration. I know some of you are

putting on your jacket and looking up my

address and ready to drive over here,

but that was only demonstration. Calm

down. Calm down.

It may have elevated your oxytocin

though for a moment. So if you see any

wounds, they're instantly healing.

That's that's for me. You're welcome.

Uh did you know that according to the

University of Vienna that pleasant

sounding words are easier to remember?

So they actually did a test where they

gave people pleasant sounding words

versus ugly words. You want to hear some

ugly words?

Moist.

Moist is on the the on the list of

moist.

So

given that pleasant sounding words are

easier to remember,

um that means they're more persuasive

because whatever tickles your memory the

best tends to be also the most

persuasive.

So when I'm writing, let's say

professionally, if I'm writing a book,

for example, um the last step in my

writing is I may go through and

substitute

uh more pleasant sounding words for

words that are just a little ugly. I

used to do uh public speaking a lot. One

of the things I would uh do during my

public speaking is I would ask the

assembled crowd which of these words is

funnier. So I'd give them two words that

mean about the same thing. I say which

which one is funnier? Pull as in you're

pulling something or yank which is

almost the same thing not exactly. and

the entire crowd would say as one, yank.

There's something universal about words

that sound right. In general, if you

want to do humor, it's good to have

words that have uh some hard sounds to

them. Yank, because you get the you get

the K, but you also get the Y. So, if

you're if you're doing humor, words that

are not as often used or they use

letters that are not as often used, Q's

and Z's and Y's, um, that's usually

funnier.

So, the last level of my writing is I'll

change the words to funny words if it's

supposed to be a joke or I'll change it

to pleasant sounding words. I'll get rid

of words like moist.

Now, I did write a whole book where I

talked about moist robots.

Um, that did not catch on.

It probably wasn't my best choice.

All right.

You may have heard that the uh pipe

bomber from January 6, uh, at least we

think he's been arrested. We pretty sure

we got the right guy. I think um, as

Jake Tapper described him, that white

guy. So he says, "We found a a white

male who was the pipe bomber. The only

problem was he is not white at all. He

apparently is a black man with a weird

mustache.

Uh and uh I I I know, of course,

obviously why Jake Tapper assumed it was

a white man.

If I told you that somebody planted a

bomb in the United States, would you

think it was a black guy? You wouldn't,

would you? Cuz I don't I can't think of

a single

example of a black guy who planted a

bomb in America. But if you said, "Have

any white guys planted any bombs?" I'd

say, "Well, there's a uni bomber." And I

would just sort of assume it was a white

guy crime. So Jake uh got a little ahead

of himself there, but uh

uh and then also, did you see the way he

was dressed?

The bite bomb. God, what is that that

loud thing? It's like a rocket ship

outside my door. Uh,

if you saw the way he was dressed in a

unfashionable hoodie with unfashionable

uh footwear, would you have assumed that

was a black American?

No, cuz you're racist. You're racist.

And you would have said, I think a black

American would be far better dressed

than uh than that guy. So that's where

your racism would have led you in the

wrong direction.

But the uh the fascinating part about

this story uh Shaun Davis had a good

take on it that captures a lot of what

you were thinking. So I'm just going to

read what Shawn Davis um did on X. He of

the Federalist, right? I hope I have

that right. Uh he said uh based on the

volume and type of evidence about the

pipe bomber contained in this affidavit

affidavit, it is inconceivable that the

FBI didn't know who the pipe bomber was

back in 2021. It looks a heck of a lot

like corrupt FBI agents knew for years

who the bomber was, but went out of

their way to confuse the investigation

so they could refuse to make a

definitive identification.

Huh. And that goes a very long way

toward explaining the latest anonymous

FBI agent op against Dan Bonino and Cash

Patel. Bonjino and Patel removed the

corrupt agents, reviewed the evidence,

and swiftly identified and arrested the

subject once all the corrupt obstructors

were out of the way.

Does that sound about what you were

thinking? It does, doesn't it? Do you

think it's a coincidence that once

Bonino fired or relocated the people who

were in charge of it that all of a

sudden it wasn't hard to find out who it

was? Have you been amazed that this is

the one guy they can't find? They're

finding all these grandmothers from the

January 6 event, but they can't find

this guy despite all of the video of

him. And really, you know, you could

show one toenail of one of the January 6

people and uh our technology would say,

"Oh, I know that toenail. That toenail

belongs to." And then we'd put him in

jail. That's the old way. They did not

belong in jail. But that's what would

have happened. But no, this uh this guy

was a total mystery. So, I'm going to

say uh that I do not believe the FBI

couldn't find him. Uh I'm going to be

firmly in the camp that doesn't know for

sure, right? Don't know for sure, not

100%. But my working assumption is that

the FBI was corrupt and the people that

were removed from the job were more

likely intentionally

uh avoiding catching him for whatever

reason uh rather than incompetence or

you know inability.

It gets even weirder because apparently

he works as a bale bondsman and it's a

family business.

So, his father owns a bale bondsman

business. Must be doing pretty well

because it looked like the house that

this guy lives in is a high-end house.

And I don't believe you get a high-end

house cuz you're just an employee of a

bail bondsman, but you might have one if

you live with your parents. So, I don't

know for sure, but I would guess

probably living at his parents' home.

Now, if you lived at your parents' home

and uh your your dad was a bail

bondsman, which means he has some kind

of affinity for or connection to the law

enforcement world, do you think his

father didn't recognize the video of his

son walking around with that hoodie and

those sneakers?

Do you think you wouldn't recognize your

own son if you saw them wearing the

clothes that they probably wear at home?

You don't think you'd recognize that?

So, I have some questions for dad.

Um, is this, you know, if I found out

tomorrow that he didn't wear those

clothes ever at home or that he knew

that he would be recognized if he wore

his own clothes and he had these only

for the purpose of disguise, which is

possible, by the way. Well, then I would

say, well, even your father wouldn't

recognize you under those conditions

because his face his face was completely

concealed.

But I feel like you would recognize your

own prodigy you know, the way they walk

and especially the footwear.

Uh, let's see. Anyway, I got I got the

bail bonsman thing from Grock, so if

it's hallucinating,

um, you've been warned.

All right. Do you know Tim Burchett?

He's Republican representative from

Tennessee. Apparently, he has asked

President Trump to cut off all funding

for the NOS, the non-government

organizations that have often been

accused of being giant money laundering

fraudulent

entities.

Um he says that he wants him he wants

Trump to cut off all funding to the

NOS's until they can figure out where

all the money is actually going

because a lot of it is going into

people's pockets.

And it appears to most of us now, thanks

to the good work of Elon Musk and Doge,

we finally learned that uh there's a

gigantic mechanism for taking your tax

money out of your pocket and putting it

in the pocket of strangers while

pretending to feed the poor. And this is

not a small operation. We're talking

billions of dollars.

Um, you know, I I I've told you I've

been puzzled by how we could have such a

big deficit because it kind of happened

fast, didn't it? I mean, even if you

even if you allowed that the pandemic

made things worse,

didn't it seem like we sort of instantly

got to this impossible, you know, place

where we couldn't pay our debts? And I

have to admit from the beginning I've

been thinking is somebody just stealing

it.

But it seemed like the numbers were so

big that nobody could steal that much

money. I mean you can't steal you can't

steal a trillion dollars a year. And now

I believe you could. I believe you

literally could steal a trillion dollars

a year with this NGO mechanism because

any one any one entity might be getting

a billion here, a billion there, but

there are thousands of them. Just

thousands of them. Yeah, you could steal

a trillion dollars if you if you really

worked at it. And apparently they were

working pretty hard.

So, I have a generally good feeling

about Tim Bett, meaning that he seems

like a good patriot who wants to do the

right thing. And uh I I don't think that

he's robbing anybody. So, he wouldn't

have anything necessarily that he needs

to cover up. He'd be hard to blackmail.

I doubt I doubt he's got a, you know,

love child somewhere or something. So,

you need somebody who can't be

blackmailed, who's clearly a patriot,

and has a real interest in going after

something like this. Does that does that

include somebody like Tim? I think yes.

You know, I've seen enough of him that I

trust him.

I mean, it's just a feeling, you know,

nobody can know for sure what's in

somebody's soul, but he looks pretty

trustworthy to me. So, I think that

would be worth a shot.

Well, as Bujorn Lomborg often says, um,

if you don't know who he is, you should.

He's a, uh, some call him an economist,

but I don't know if he would call

himself that, but he's, uh, taught us to

look at both the costs and the benefits

of climate change. He does other things

as well, but he's well known for that.

uh meaning that climate change might in

fact make some things worse, but we

always ignore how much better it makes

things. And he gives us his latest

example, I think he's got an article in

the Wall Street Journal,

um that the the hurricane season, which

apparently is over, had no hurricanes

hit landfall in the United States. And

probably climate change has something to

do with that. So if you were to actually

be honest about your climate change

analysis, which is what Bejorn Lombberg

is teaching us to do, you would say,

well, I mean, you have to include even

if you imagine climate, you know, ruined

some parts of the world eventually,

you'd have to add him, but it did save

us a hurricane or two. uh if in fact

that becomes a a uh let's say that

becomes a pattern. It's not yet a

pattern but if it becomes one

uh we should say hey maybe this climate

change has as much good as bad would be

the proper way to approach the analysis.

Um no matter which way it ended up that

would be the way to go.

Uh, Scott, blame it on Okay, I don't

know what that means. I'm looking at

your comments.

So, we're still talking about the

allegation that Pete Haggsath ordered a

double tap attack on the Narco boat,

meaning that there were a few survivors

from the first missile, but a second

missile was uh dispatched to take care

of the the survivors and get rid of the

uh weapon of mass destruction. That

would be the drugs that were on the

boat. Um,

but so the Wall Street Journal had one

version of events, but it's been

debunked by ABC News, the New York

Times. So the Wall Street, I'm sorry,

the Washington Post, I think I said that

wrong. Scratch that. The Washington Post

had the story that appears to be

um that Hegs Seth somehow was watching

the attack and ordered the second

missile and then they're they're acting

like that would have been a a war crime.

Well, let's ask somebody who actually

knows what they're talking about. Uh so

apparently a individual named David

who is a former deputy director and

acting director of the Defense

Intelligence Agency in the Obama

administration. So, this is important.

He He's an Obama guy

who says, quote, um, we use double taps

all the time. He said, you would get the

initial signature uh sign off of a

target that's been hit. He he uh he said

in a podcast recently, "And if you saw

that they squirted, I guess that must be

some military term, and were injured,

you hit them again." In fact, he said

there was often a second predator that

would be a missile ready to go. Wait, is

a predator a drone or a missile?

And for our purposes, it doesn't matter.

In fact, he said there's often a second

predator ready to go that was fully

expected to be used if he didn't have a

100% coming out of the first hit and

maybe a third hit, adding that uh it was

done routinely and there was bipartisan

support on the Hill for doing it.

Isn't that enough?

Isn't it's a drone? People are saying so

the predator is a drone. But isn't it

enough

that somebody who would be in that

position who knows exactly what is real

and what isn't, who's actually been in

the field, who's actually, you know,

ordered attacks.

If that person says it was routine, is

there anything else to talk about? You

know, the the people who are acting like

it's a war crime are just idiot

Democrats who sit behind desks. I don't

know that there's any military people

who think it's a war crime.

Anyway, um apparently Secretary Hanksth

has asked the uh Navy admiral who was

overseeing those operations in the

Caribbean to step down uh because that

officer had voiced concerns about what

he called the murky legality of the

attacks.

Do you think that if there had been some

other president,

do you think that this uh this admiral

would have had that problem? Given that

we do know with high certainty that it

was routine to have a double tap and

even a triple tap if he needed it, do

you think that this Navy admiral didn't

know that? And do you think that if

Obama had been president or if nobody

had even brought this up as a potential

issue? If nobody had ever brought it up,

would he be worried about its murky

legality?

I don't think so. So, was this a good

firing? Yeah. Yeah. Uh, I think that was

a good firing.

All right. So, well, he's not really

fired fired. He's just going to retire a

couple couple years early. which is

fair. I mean, he did. It's not like he

committed a crime or something. So, a

little bit of early retirement seems

seems about that seems appropriate. I

wouldn't take anything away from him.

Um,

let's see.

Let's uh let's look at Minnesota for a

moment. So, I guess the uh speaker of

whatever their political situation is,

Demouth, Speaker Demouth, uh talked

about the budget forecast and that

they're going to be short $3 billion.

So, there's going to have a $3 billion

deficit in Minnesota.

And uh Speaker Demouth said, quote,

"Last year, Governor Walsh blamed

increases in social services spending as

the main driver of the deficit that was

created. We now know that much of the

increase was the result of fraud.

Yep.

As I've been saying, in a 100% of

situations where there's a lot of money

involved and people are not watching it

carefully, as in having a robust

auditing situation, which is most of the

government stuff does not have a robust

auditing situation, that the inevitable

outcome inevitable. You can't you

couldn't stop it if you wanted to. If

you have lots of money involved

and nobody's watching it in in the sense

of an audit, of course it's going to be

stolen.

Of course it is. It's not ever going to

go a different direction. There's one

way that goes. Somebody steals it. And

uh that's probably what's happening. But

at least New York State doesn't have any

problems.

Oh, wait.

Apparently, Governor Hokll when she was

uh what was she? When she was lieutenant

governor had a aid or an assistant who

worked in as a No, actually it was a

Chinese spy who was working as the

deputy chief diversity officer.

Now, that's a bad combination.

Here are two things you never want.

Number one, you don't want anybody on

your staff who later turns out to be a

Chinese spy. That by itself would be bad

enough. The second thing you don't want

is a chief diversity officer. And God

knows you don't want a deputy chief

diversity officer because that's two

more than you really needed.

So this Chinese spy was a [laughter]

it was the [clears throat] worst

possible combination. Chinese spy and

diversity officer. Um and she held that

role since 2018 I guess um to 2020. Um,

and uh, she said in some kind of

document that was recovered that Hokll

was uh, sort of easy to manipulate,

but uh, it looked like the only thing

that Hokll did that was sketchy was do

some pro-China video that she was asked

to do for the 2021 Lunar New Year. So

Elise Stefanic, who's running for

governor, I guess, pointed out uh yeah,

that Governor Hokll got co-opted by a

Chinese spy to do a pro-Chinese video.

That's not the most damaging thing that

could have happened. Um I I think Hokll

just thought she was servicing the, you

know, the Chinese American part of her

uh constituents, which wouldn't be a

crime. So, none of it looks like a

crime, per se, but it doesn't look good.

Doesn't look good. It makes you wonder

how many Chinese spies have we not

caught. You ever wonder about that?

You know, I I have this theory that most

uh shoe salesmen, if they're if they're

selling women's shoes, that they have uh

foot fetishes.

And the reason is that someone with a

foot fetish would be willing to work

extra hard for less money because

they're getting that secondary benefit

from being a shoe salesman if you know

what I mean. You know what I mean? So

that over time the people who are

willing to sell shoes, women shoes, but

also really really enjoy it more than

you hope that they would, uh, that they

would be mostly the shoe sales people.

Because if you were competing against

somebody who loved it, [laughter]

it would be hard to compete if you were

just doing it because it was a job. So

over time, the people who would do it

just because it's a job would find other

jobs and they would move through that to

other things. But if you really really

like selling the shoes, like really

really liked it, and you got that job,

would you ever leave? You wouldn't.

you'd be there for the rest of your

life. It's like, I got the best job

ever. So, the theory is that if there's

a type of job where one type of person

would like to be there forever for

whatever reason, that eventually the job

will be mostly those people. So, now

suppose that you're tasked by your your

spy masters in China to get high level

jobs in the government. Would you ever

leave? No. You wouldn't even look for

another job because your whatever level

it is job within the government would be

exactly what your spy master required of

you. So, you'd be killing it

career-wise.

So, in theory, if you wait long enough,

uh the entire government should be full

of spies because they're the ones who

don't go looking for better jobs ever.

Right?

Am I wrong? You tell me. Isn't the

normal arc that the government should be

full of spies if not today

than guaranteed

fairly soon you know within say 10 or 15

years and we've certainly had a

government for more than 15 years. So,

uh, anyway, uh, in funny news, the

postmillennials reporting that

[clears throat] Tim Walsh is upset

because, uh, the president called him

the rword,

And he says, "I've never seen this

before. People are driving by my house

and using the Rword in front of people."

He said, "This is shameful. I have yet

to see elected officials, a Republican

elected official say, "You're right.

That's shameful. You shouldn't say it."

So, look, Walsh says, "I'm worried. We

know uh we know how these things go."

Now, wait for this. You thought that Tim

Walsh was dumb.

Wait for this next sentence. You ready

for this?

Uh, he goes, "I'm worried. We know how

these things go. They start with taunts.

They turn to violence so deeply

concerned, Wals added. Okay, let me pull

it all together. So Tim Walsh believes

it's entirely appropriate to call

Republicans and Trump fascists

and, you know, sort of Nazilike.

And he's not worried that that would

turn into violence, calling somebody

literally, not joking, but literally a

fascist and a Nazi or words to that

effect.

But while that's not dangerous,

according to Wals,

um it would be dangerous that people

jokingly drive by his house and use the

Rword,

which they only do because it's funny.

It's funny in the sense that it bothers

the people they want to bother. You not

because it's true true, but because it's

funny and Trump said it and he got away

with it, so it sort of opened the

floodgate.

But do you believe that Tim Walsh really

believes what he said? Does he really

believe that the Rword, as he says, is

the dangerous one that could lead the

slippery slope to somebody getting

stabbed? It's like, well, it started

with the R word and next thing you know,

stabbing.

Whereas calling somebody a fascist and

not saying you're kidding and everybody

knows you're not joking, that you're

actually meanness. You don't think that

would lead to a little violence?

Really? Really? Is that your actual

opinion?

I don't know. In order to have an

opinion like that, you'd have to be some

kind of a

You'd have to be some kind of a

Well, you'd have to be some kind of a

fascist.

You thought I was going to say

didn't you? No, I wouldn't use that

word.

Meanwhile, Steve Hilton, you probably

know him from uh his work on Fox News. I

don't don't know if he still has his

show or if he's moved on to running for

California governor. Well, he has uh

launched a tip line to expose fraud in

California. He believes that as bad as

the fraud was in is in Minnesota,

billions and billions of dollars of

fraud, that California is probably worse

because it's a bigger state and it's

been a blue state for longer. And those

are good reasons. More money, more

Democrats, probably more crime. I'm

saying so he said uh this is based on my

very strongly held assumption that

whatever we're seeing in Minnesota is a

thousand times worse in California

because of many more years of one party

rule by the Democrats.

Steve Hilton, you just got my vote.

You you just won my vote. Uh, you know,

I don't usually pay too much attention

to state politics, but uh, yeah, that's

all I want to hear. I want to hear that

you're you've done something that's real

because you think it's important to try

to stop all the fraud. I think

California's biggest problem is fraud

because everything that happens here

looks a little suspicious. You know, it

doesn't matter what you're looking at.

How about that bullet train? Uh, where'd

all that money go? How about uh you

rebuilding after the uh the fire? Uh,

nothing's been rebuilt. I mean, one

house maybe. What's going on? Is

somebody Is there some criminal thing

that's stopping it? It It couldn't just

be incompetence, could it? I don't know.

So, yes, I believe that rooting out the

fraud is essential. I I think that

having a fraud tip line would only be a

small part of what they need. And I'm

going to say it again. Uh I believe that

zero tax money should ever be allocated

for anything that does not have a robust

well-defined audit procedure. So if

somebody said we need a billion dollars

to build this thing, I say all right,

let's start with how are you going to

audit it on a regular basis so it

doesn't get stolen? If the answer is uh

oh well uh we we'll we'll do something

about it then no. It doesn't matter if

it's a good idea. It's clearly if you

don't have an auditing procedure set up

that's good. And you know, I I would

make a big difference between some

waving your hand audit procedure versus

a very, you know, let's say a

third-party uninterested party who's

just paid to audit the hell out of it.

If I were a big consulting company,

um, and there are lots of them, I would

be pitching this as something that I

could do for your state. I would say if

you give me $10 million a year, um, I'll

I'll make sure that we audit all this

stuff and we're not we don't even live

in the state. We're just consultants.

So, you don't have to worry about us

trying to get our own beak wet. We will

change out our uh auditors every year.

So if you were a consulting company and

you wanted to make sure that you didn't

become the problem by, you know, getting

yourself into this potential

moneyaundering situation where you could

you could launder it yourself.

If you're a consulting company, just

say, "Well, we have lots of consultants

and we'll make sure that uh the ones

that work on your state do one year."

they just do one year and then you have

much less chance that they get embedded

and turn it into a criminal enterprise.

Yeah. Anyway, um so the uh according to

NPR, the State Department is going to

deny visas to fact checkers and others

who were involved in any kind of

censorship. Now, I don't mind that as a

standard. I don't think the fake fact

checkers and the fake sensors should be

uh allowed into the country but it does

make me wonder how many there are that

you need you need a separate you know

standard for that are are there a lot of

fact checkers trying to get into the

country who had fact checked us in a in

a way we don't like I don't know just

kind of open question

well according to Davis health

University of Oh, the University of

California, Davis.

Um, there's a study that suggests that

there's a brain nutrient

that if you don't have enough of it, it

might create anxiety.

And they found out that uh

if you eat more eggs,

the eggs have this uh this nutrient,

what's it called? Choline C H O L I N E.

So if your choline levels are low in

your brain, it's correlated with they

haven't proven causation, but it's

correlated with anxiety. So I went to

Grock and I asked the questions that the

article was missing. And the main

question was, are people eating more or

less eggs

than they ever did? And the answer is

people are probably eating more eggs now

than they did in the 40s. So that would

suggest that we were less likely to have

a anxiety caused by this shortage. But

we observe that people's anxiety seems

to be worse lately than compared to the

old days. So I'm not sure I buy this.

Maybe there's a correlation but not a

causation.

But eggs are apparently good for you.

All right. Um,

so Hakee Jeff has finally grudgingly

agreed that President Trump uh should

get credit for closing the border, which

is now secure. Fox News says that. And

Jeffree says, "Of course he'll get

credit for that."

To which I'm thinking, "Huh, I'm

actually surprised.

Aren't you surprised that even though

it's so obvious that uh Trump closed the

border and the other leaders did not?

Aren't you surprised that one of the top

Democrats just even admitted it instead

of changing the subject? So, I guess

that that's the part that's interesting

is just that he said it at all.

Well, that might be because the uh it

could be the polling shows that people

care less about the border because they

consider it a solved problem. So, it

might be that, you know, there's no

benefit to arguing that Trump didn't

close it, you know. So, it's well,

that's old news is closed. Moving on.

See if we have any other problems

besides that.

Um,

so I I saw on MS Now, which used to be

MSNBC,

on Lawrence O'Donnell's show, I think it

was last night, that uh he had Chuck

Schumer on and the two of them were

introducing their newest hoax.

Um, have you heard the new hoax about

affordability?

All right. You can tell that they're

introducing a hoax by looking at their

faces with the sound off.

There's a certain smile that Democrats

do when they're introducing a hoax. And

it's like this.

I've got a suspicious smile on. I'm

going to introduce a new hoax. And the

hoax goes like this. No, I'm not

smiling. I'm not I'm not too happy about

it. Well, stop it. Stop it. Stop it. I

I'm trying not to smile to give away the

fact. Oh god, I'm smiling again. I'm

smiling. Uh, okay. Ignore my creepy

smile because this is how I introduce a

hoax. Are you ready for the hoax? The

hoax is that President Trump is the only

human being out of 7 billion human

beings. He's the only one who believes

that affordability

doesn't matter.

That's right. Because it's based on

something he said.

Well, I'm not going to quote what he

said or put it in context because then

you'll know it's a hoax. Do you know how

else you could know it's a hoax? Look at

my creepy smile. And Lawrence O'Donnell

has this creepy smile, too. We We got

two creepy smiles. Yeah, that's how we

introduce the hoaxes because we know

it's a hoax, but we're trying to see if

you're dumb enough to believe that

there's actually any human being who

doesn't understand that affordability

matters to people who don't have enough

money.

I'm not creepy. You're creepy.

All right, that's enough of that.

Stop it. You're right, Jeep guy. I need

to just stop making that face. But I

didn't start it. That's a That's a Chuck

Schumer face.

Anyway, no, it is not true that Trump is

the only person on the world who doesn't

understand that affordability

matters.

So, I was thinking to myself, how are we

doing on affordability?

So, I made a little list of the things

we talk about when we talk about

affordability. And let's uh see how

Trump is doing. How is he doing on eggs?

Well, really well. The price of eggs is

down. And I do think we can attribute

that to the actions of the Trump

administration.

Now, probably the egg prices would have

drifted back to normal. Uh anyway, but I

do think that uh Trump goose it. his

people did a good job. So, we'll give

him eggs. How about gas? Gas,

definitely. Um certainly the uh the

Trump instinct to go for maximum

drilling and drill baby drill and

getting rid of obstacles for that. Yeah,

that definitely caused the gas prices to

go down. So, we'll give them eggs, we'll

give them gas. What about groceries in

general? No. to groceries in general,

especially beef, uh, not so good.

They're they're still high. And even if

they're not inflating much from where

they are, they're kind of too high. So,

um, now keep in mind that it doesn't

mean that Trump gets the the credit or

the blame for every kind of price and

every kind of situation. It's just is

what it is. Groceries are high.

What about rent?

Well, the recent news is that rents have

actually fallen a little bit from

October to November. Don't know if

that's a pattern yet, but it would make

perfect sense if you paired it with the

the knowledge that uh 2.5 million uh

people have been deported. That should

create a little bit less demand. Little

less demand means a little lower rents.

And sure enough, 1% lower. So, he gets

I'll give him rent. Could be more, but

we'll give him that. How about interest

rates? Well, he's been working pretty

hard to get those interest rates down.

And I believe they're lower than they

were. Is that true? Lower than when he

took office, but they'll definitely be

lower when he gets his own handchosen

Fed uh you know, Fed head in charge. So,

I expect I expect inflation uh interest

rates to go down. What about inflation?

Uh inflation's not great, but it's not

terrible. It's sort of just limping

along. So, it's not the worst thing in

the world, but you know, could be

better. Uh what about automobiles?

Well, I don't know if we've seen the

impact yet. Um especially because there

would be tariffs on automobiles from

other countries. But um he did recently

get rid of that uh Biden era idea that

uh your your gas powered car would have

to get 51 miles to the gallon on

average. So, he got rid of that, which

should cause uh more availability of

low-end cars that uh would cost people

less because the gas would be less and

um and then the cost of the car would be

less if it's purchased. Uh if it's built

in America, then you don't have the

tariff problem. So, automobiles, I'll

give him that. Uh I don't think we've

seen the drop yet, but he's done the

right thing to get that drop. And what

about entertainment?

Um, entertainment doesn't seem like

that's going down. Maybe it's gone up. I

don't know. But entertainment is not the

most important thing in the world.

So, here's my take um on affordability.

Trump's actually done pretty well if if

you look at all the categories. Pretty

well. there's a lot more you could do

and we would like him to do more and it

looks like he is but uh he's going for

it. Um and then I was thinking about

the you know what would you do to make

food less expensive and I'm going to

give you some brainstorming on that on

that topic. These are not meant to be

great ideas. The way brainstorming works

is you just throw some ideas that maybe

you hadn't thought of before and then it

spurs you or encourages you to think of

your own ideas and if there's more ideas

there's a greater chance that one of

them will be useful. So I'm just going

to throw out some ideas for reducing um

costs. Number one idea would be to have

some kind of mechanism where local

farmers could more directly and legally

sell to consumers. So where I live, you

might have the same situation. On the

weekend, there'll be a farmers market

and but I would have to get in the car

and drive to the farmers market and it

doesn't have everything that I'd want.

Doesn't have meat for example. Um, so

there's some things I think the

government probably prevents like meat

is my guess. Um, but suppose you removed

obstacles and said, "Yeah, the farmers

market can deliver it to your house.

Deliver it right to your house." So then

if I didn't have to drive to it and it

was the local farmer, so that would cut

out uh a bunch of steps and a bunch of

people taking a cut. Could I get it

cheaper? I feel like I could. So,

there's probably something you could do

that would make food a lot more

accessible and cheaper if you just got

rid of all the middle people and said,

"Okay, the farmer can sell this." Now,

would it be more dangerous? Yes, it

would. [laughter]

Probably because you [clears throat] can

imagine there'd be, you know, a farmer

who didn't meet all the standards, etc.

But here's what I think. Don't you think

the farmers eat all their own food?

If you're a farmer and you're selling

beef, you don't think you're eating the

beef yourself? Of course you are. If

you're growing a certain vegetable, you

don't think that the farmer's family is

eating that vegetable? Of course they

are. What would make you feel more safe?

Eating the same food as the person who

grew it or some government entity told

you it was okay?

I don't know. you you might be more

comfortable eating what the farmer eats.

Um,

how about if you started a uh a

government grocery store? Stop. Stop.

You're just assuming a bunch of things

that I'm not going to say. Wait till I

say it and then tell me if you like it

or not. Okay. And in the government

grocery store, it wouldn't try to

reproduce every kind of product. there

wouldn't be any um of the highly

processed foods. Wouldn't be any none.

But it would also be a very limited set

of choices that were designed to be

affordable. And because it's a limited

set of choices, you could bring down

your expense of providing them. Let's

say it was only chicken for protein and

maybe two or three kinds of fish that

are, you know, accessible and easy.

That's all your proteins. And then let's

say it's not every exotic vegetable in

the world, but you definitely have

broccoli. People like broccoli. And

whatever are, let's say, the top five

vegetables, so everybody's got one that

they like. Um, and and so let's say your

grocery store has I'll just pick a

number, 25 goods, but they're the ones

that most people would eat. They

wouldn't be delighted because it

wouldn't be that many choices. But

there's a lot you can do with chicken.

You know what I mean? You know, once you

get it home, you can make it taste, you

know, any any variety of ways. So, I

think the thing that the so-called

government grocery stores have done

wrong is probably try to produce the

same amount of choices as a regular

grocery store. That's probably where

they go wrong. Uh, I would like an

option if I had very low income, an

option to have more boring food, but

it's really easy to get and it's cheap.

I I'll accept boring because I'll I'll

spice it up on my end. It doesn't have

to be exciting on your end.

Anyway, that's one idea. And then

another one, this is really interesting.

There's a futuristic uh dome for growing

food. New Atlas has a story about this.

So, instead of the old uh greenhouse,

they figured out this dome where the

bottom levels of the dome are a variety

of fish. I think there are several

layers of just fish and then they

contribute to the ecosystem that feeds

the dome so that the dome is as close as

you can get to a self-contained

self-fertilizing

um situation

and it requires a little bit of

technology. So, I think you need to move

things around with technology and

probably you need some AI to know what

needs some attention. So, you don't need

too many humans in there. But

apparently, this is already built and uh

already been demonstrated to work. So,

at the Expo 2025 Osaka Kai in Japan, um

they've already produced one and it's a

farmtotable, but the farm would be just

this dome.

And let's see what else it says. Um the

fact that it already exists makes this a

lot more interesting. It's not it's not

uh theoretical.

So, it's a 7 meter diameter, 23 foot

dome. Um, and it it's meant to sort of

uh imitate what a real Earth situation

would be for each of the levels. And

it's a futuristic greenhouse. Well, I

think that's where we're heading. So

imagine if you started your city with a

futuristic greenhouse that would serve

every maybe 10 homes.

Uh and then you just build around that.

What salmon is the best to buy?

Well,

don't get me started on salmon. You

don't want to hear it.

Well, in other news, Hawaii is suing Tik

Tok for uh what they consider harm to

children and they think that Tik Tok has

built a platform to be dangerously

addictive for young users.

Now, do you think that that's true? Do

you think that they built it to be

dangerously addictive? Well, I don't

think they meant it to be dangerous,

but I I'm wondering about where do you

draw the line?

If if I sell you a

Dilbert calendar for 2026

and you open it up and you go, "Oh, oh

my god. Oh, oh my god, it's Oh, these I

I am so happy I got a Dilbert calendar."

Wait, wait. Oh my god. There There are

cartoons on both sides. Oh, both sides.

This is new. Oh my god. [laughter]

And then you can see my my dopamine is

is firing. I can barely help it. I mean,

I'm just like,

now when I make the Dilbert calendar

irresistible

because it's so good. Am I going to get

sued by Hawaii? Will Hawaii allow the

Dilbert calendar to be sold?

Good question, right? So although I'm

joking

sort of

a little bit although I'm joking there

is a real question here about freedom

and about uh what's the difference

between really really liking something

and being addicted because of the

dopamine hit. I don't know how you could

ever make that distinction

because again the Dilbert calendar's so

dopamine,

you know, tickling good that I don't

know what you do. Good luck Hawaii. Good

luck, Tik Tok.

Um, I haven't talked about this

situation with Tina Peters, who is a

grandmother who was in jail, because she

tried to um find out if the uh the

voting machines were rigged and I guess

she gave somebody access to them that

she should not have given access to for

the purpose of finding out if there was

some crime that had been committed. Now,

she's a cancer survivor. She's 70 years

old and she got what? 9 years in prison.

Now, can you think of a situation where

somebody technically violated a law,

which she did? She technically violated

a law, but her intentions were good

and there was no victim.

You get nine years for that. Your

intentions are good. Not for yourself.

This is very important. Her intentions

were for the public good.

Let me say that again. Her intention

very clearly was for a public good. What

she did for herself was take a gigantic

risk

for the public good.

And there were no victims. And indeed,

uh, I don't know what happened with the

with the access and whether anybody

found anything, but aren't you happy

that she did that? Now, I know you can't

just let anybody break any law they want

because they think it's a good idea to

break it. I I get that you have to have

something like, you know, law and order

for even things where it's not obvious

there would ever be any victim. I get

it. I get it. But what would be the

right penalty for someone who took a

risk upon themselves

with nothing to gain for themsel for the

benefit of the larger community

and there's no victim and there wasn't

really an there wasn't really a chance

that there would ever be a victim. It

wasn't an accident that there was no

victim.

It's obvious there would be no victim.

We would either find out something we

didn't know or we wouldn't. That's it.

Yeah. I'm thinking six months probation

would be about the right thing for that.

Now, Trump has entered the uh the debate

on this and on her side. Uh but he does

not have the power to pardon her because

I guess the charges are state charges.

But um I guess the Colorado Democrat

governor Democrat governor Jared Polus

um is keeping her in and is not

is uh not going to free her. I do think

this probably needs to be a bigger uh a

bigger issue.

And I do think that if this uh if this

governor gets reelected

and is keeping her in jail for purely

political reasons,

uh I don't think he he should be

reelected. That's all I'm saying. That's

just horrible behavior. Horrible. And I

think Trump has uh accurately found

another 8020 issue.

It How many people think she should be

in jail? Now, it's not even really

Democrat versus Republican, is it? I

mean, really, not really.

Um, so this seems like an 8020 to me.

All right. Well, we wish her the best.

Um, here's another funny story.

Apparently,

uh I didn't know it, but there was a

thing called the US Institute of Peace,

which I guess the government, the

federal government funds, but it

supposedly operates somewhat

independently. Trump is trying to uh cut

their budget, but I guess they use the

law to try to fight that off.

So they're in some kind of weird gray

area where the government gives them

money but doesn't have full control over

their activities.

So what Trump did because he couldn't

cleanly just take take their funding

away and close them down. Uh

he changed their name. [laughter]

This is very funny. He changed their

name and and put the new name [laughter]

uh on their building so that they can't

even cover it up easily. And the new

name [laughter]

the [clears throat] new name is the uh

the President Trump uh I don't know US

Institute of Peace or something. So he

put his own name on it. Oh no, it's the

Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace. And

it actually it actually says that over

the door now.

All right. Now that's just funny.

We're going to be so sad when we ever

get a normal president cuz I mean

seriously, can't you imagine what the

meeting was like when they came up with

that idea? They must have been roaring

with laughter. It's like, "All right, we

didn't get what we want, but we're going

to get some fun out of this. It's the

Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace."

[clears throat] Anyway, just great.

[snorts]

All right. Uh

Derek Schovin, who as you know is in

jail for being convicted for murdering

uh George Floyd allegedly.

Um

so he's uh he's trying to get a new

trial and uh his arguments are well he's

got a good argument um for a new trial.

But here is my take.

Derek Schovin was convicted in a very

different environment than we have

today. Uh at the time, if you had been a

juror and you had not convicted him, you

might be in physical danger for not

convicting, not voting to convict them.

I don't think that's the case now. And

we also believed, or a lot of people

believed that there was a big problem

with uh black citizens being killed by

white policemen.

But now we know that was never the case.

It was not a big problem or any problem

really. It was not above, you know, any

kind of baseline. So if you knew

if you knew that we do not have this big

problem

and you knew that you were not

personally in danger

uh if you had voted to, you know, let

him go. But here's the other big thing.

Do you remember what we thought of

doctors during the George Floyd's uh

era?

That's when we still believe the doctors

were credible.

And so there were several doctors who

said, "Oh yeah, that's totally murder."

And the jurors being normal citizens

believe that uh well if you know if

doctors say that uh it was murder you

know who am I to doubt the doctor. Now

fast forward to 2025

we do not automatically think doctors

are credible. In fact doctors have been

quite unreliable.

Secondly, we know that people were

probably being influenced by the um just

the feeling of the day that there was

some kind of, you know, horrible thing

happening to black citizens that wasn't

happening to white citizens. But we

don't really think that's true anymore,

or at least people are paying attention

know it's not.

So I would suggest that the same set of

facts that got him convicted, if it were

to happen today

exactly the same way, I don't know. I

feel like at least one juror would have

said, "Nope."

So I think Oh, and also he wasn't

allowed to introduce the fact that they

were trained to do it that way. Really

wasn't allowed to say that. But we know

that that's the case.

All right.

Um I've got a few more stories, but

let's see.

Um apparently there's a new app called

Vantor from Vantor Tech where it looks

like they've simulated the entire Earth

down to about a 3 meter um difference.

Now imagine if you will

um the ability to create a simulation

if you could simulate the entire world

with an app.

All you need now is to add characters.

Could you add characters? Oh god, I'm in

so much pain. All right, I I'm gonna

have to end early. Um,

I did all the stories that I cared about

the most

except that I think we should look at

humanoid robots to mine our rare earth

materials. Turns out there are several

companies working on robots for rare

earth material mining. So, that's

happening. All right, everybody. That's

all I got for today. Thanks for joining.

Uh, locals, I'm not going to try to do a

separate after show today. Not sure that

technology even works. But I will see

all of you tomorrow.

Tomorrow. Bye for now.