er. If 25 percent of those crowds were violent and destroying things, the rate of destruction would be way beyond what we've seen, I think. But that's without data. That's just sort of living in the world. It has that feeling about it. You know what I mean? Sort of my collective experience of the world says that if 25 percent of those crowds were destroying things there would be no cities left. I think it's one percent, but I don't know.

So before you decide that Black Lives Matter was or was not violent in their protests or the January 6ers were or were not violent, you're going to have to figure out what percentage you would say makes them violent. And then also it would be fair if you treated both sides roughly the same. That would be fair in your thinking. It would be fair. So I'd love to know that.

Anyway, so Tucker talks to the security guard and it's important to the story that he was a Black guy. He's a Biden voter. Biden voter. And the way he was treated is disgusting. Now we may be missing some facts, but the facts that are reported based on his story is that he was there that day. He was a Capitol Police guy. He says they were not informed that the protest was going to be as big as it was. So he thought that his management failed him for reasons he doesn't know.

And what happened was he says that as he was walking through the crowd somebody put a MAGA hat on his head. And he quickly realized that that was the safest thing he could do to walk through the crowd. Yeah, he must have still had his uniform on. But once he had the MAGA hat on, and he's Black, right? So if you see a Black guy in a Capitol uniform with a MAGA hat in the middle of the protest, I'm guessing that makes you completely safe. Would you agree? Like that hat would be like a force field.

So he puts on this hat in the middle of this dangerous chaos, right? Very unpredictable dangerous chaos. Then violence was happening. He puts on the hat to keep himself safe. Clearly not a supporter. Clearly not a supporter. Just thinking fast and being smart. I mean, how would you... I can't describe that anyway other than smart. That's the only description, right?

He got fired for it. He got fired because there's a picture taken of him in the hat. And then he wasn't interviewed by the January 6 people, I think. Oh I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm getting the story a little bit wrong. Somebody's correcting me here. He was put on some kind of leave indefinitely and then he quit during the leave which lost his pension or something like that. Suspended. Suspended. Put on leave. Something like that. Yeah. So basically he got a penalty for doing a smart thing.

And I don't know if there's a counter argument. I just feel like everybody turned into a turd at the same day. Like the press, you know, all everybody talking about it practically. We all turned bad one way or another. It was like everything was bad from top to bottom. Like it was this moment of extraordinary disgusting ugliness that swept over everybody for a little while. It was like a mass hysteria that took too many people in. And I'd just like to forget the whole thing. Yeah, I guess we can't forget it. We have to figure out what happened. But the faster we get past that the better.

All right. Of all of the many terrible things, this one bothered me the most because he got punished for doing something smart like that. Just that hurts my head so hard as the creator of the Dilbert comic, right? Like that's right in my field. I hate that.

And then I guess this video now. Tucker has that the narrative about Brian Sicknick by some people, and I don't know who had it right and who had it wrong in the media, was wrong. I feel as if the media was a little more accurate that he was not killed by the protesters. But I feel that the politicians kept conflating his death as if the protesters did it. Does that feel right to you? New York Times tells the fake story.

So on Twitter there was a community notes put up on a tweet that said the Washington Post and I think somebody else, Reuters maybe, reported it correctly. Which would mean some of the media got it right. But I haven't confirmed that. So my best guess is that the media, some got it right, some got it wrong. And as long as some of the media got it wrong that gave the politicians cover to intentionally get it wrong. I think that's what happened.

Now what do you think of that? Now I don't mind so much that the media got a story wrong because you have to live in a world where stories are wrong sometimes. Case in point. But I don't know. It's just hideous behavior by Congress. They should be in jail. The January 6 people who perpetrated this hoax. Now I'm going to call it a hoax because they left out, they did not provide the exculpatory or potentially exculpatory. I think with the QAnon Shaman the video is highly exculpatory. Highly. I don't know how much it is for the other people but at least a little bit probably. So yeah, this is just disgusting.

All right. So I'm revising my opinion about the cartel violence on a car of four Americans who went into Mexico. Some cartel shot them, killed two tragically. My first thing was that they knew they were Americans. So when in the initial reporting I felt like they knew they were Americans and they took them hostage. That didn't happen. It looks like they were mistaken for a Haitian gang. Looks like they were Black. So they mistook them. They might have avoided maybe avoided a checkpoint after they went through or something. So there's something that didn't look right.

And the cartel guards, who apparently there's two checkpoints. You get across the border legally and then as soon as you're over the cartel checks you a second time. Did you know that? Did you know that the cartel has its own guard post at the border? If you didn't know that.

So this is the sort of thing that might spark a war. But my take was if they would brazenly kidnap Americans you just have to turn up the heat to 100. And not 100 but you got to turn it up to laser quality. But it apparently they did not. However there do seem to be lots of actual other American kidnapping cases. They're probably cartel cases too. So I wouldn't make my case for attacking Mexico based on this event as tragic as it was. But it does make everybody's brains think in a more aggressive fashion I think.

So Lindsey Graham's getting serious about this now. Cartels are. The Congress seems to be changing. But I was watching The Five yesterday. They had a graphic about how many cities in the U.S. the cartels have already set up shop. Don't ever look at that graphic if you have a choice. It will mess up your brain. I don't know the real size of the problem because it could be five people in the city count as MS-13 or something. I don't know what it takes to count as having a foothold. But it's a lot of cities. It looked like 100 cities. It's taken like the bottom two-thirds of the country basically. And yeah, but I don't know if they're influencing the police departments yet. Presumably if they grow they would. You know there's some rumor that they're taking over from other gangs. I don't know the extent of that. But I think the country is getting pretty serious about doing something about it for a change.

However I do take counsel from Geraldo Rivera who's anti, sounds like he's anti-using military in Mexico. And here's the argument against it. Wars never work and they never end. So that would be the argument against it. It's just another way for the military-industrial complex to make money. It'll never end and it'll never work. Now that's not terrible. That's not a terrible opinion. I actually found myself persuaded because there's such a long history of wars not working for America anyway. And so I think you have to take that seriously.

However as Greg Gutfeld pointed out on the same show they're killing 100,000 a year now. How much worse could it be? Would it be worse? I don't know. It might be worse in a different way because you'd expect some pushback. But I don't know. My instinct is that if you do nothing the 100,000 gets bigger and it's already completely out of any reasonable range of tolerance. I mean it's so far away from anything you would tolerate.

But let's consider the alternative. Full legalization. Would that just make the cartels own a legal business and that's the only change? They would just figure a way to make it legal and then they'd still be in business. Or would it only work if the government provided the drugs for free or at the same price let's say? Could you drive the cartels out of business by taking away the source? The trouble is we only have ideas that can't work.

So here are the three ideas that can't work. Do nothing. That can't work. Go to war. It might work but the odds are not as good as you'd like. Or legalize it, which would probably in the short run cause way more deaths but it would put the cartels out of business after we've addicted more people. I don't know. Does the supply and demand actually cause more people to be addicted if it's easier and safer to get? Or is that just that the people who want to be addicted already have access? It wouldn't make any difference at all.

So it feels like every path doesn't work, doesn't it? It just feels like all of them don't work. But doing nothing seems like the dumbest. If the war makes it worse I suppose we can stop doing it but we never do. So I don't know. I'd be tempted to annex Mexico. I mean I suppose you could