uld say that the cat is on the roof on this one in the sense that that doesn't look like they think they're going to gain any more territory. So I think that when Putin says I'm going to wait for the end of the election in America before I do anything, I think Zelenskyy realizes that his best bet is to wait for the next election because it's going to happen. So I feel like all the signals are pretty obvious now that it is going to get negotiated. It's going to look like something like where the current lines are. I imagine it'll be right along those lines. And there's no other way this is likely to go.

Yeah I hear the stories about Zelenskyy buying yachts and stuff but I wouldn't necessarily believe those. I don't disbelieve them but in the fog of war and knowing that Russian disinformation is really a thing I wouldn't believe anything about Zelenskyy getting rich. I assume it's true if you ask me what I assume. I assume so. But if you look at any specific report about buying two yachts and stuff like that I think that's unlikely to be true. Even if he's stealing he's probably not buying yachts with it. That's my guess. Like it might be in a secret bank account somewhere but I don't see him buying a yacht that you can't use.

Glenn Greenwald talking about MSNBC who he says talked about Mehdi Hasan. Mehdi Hasan was canceled, his show on MSNBC, along with two other pro-Palestinian hosts after October 7th. But what's interesting is that it's a long time now so it's three weeks later after he got canceled and he hasn't said a word in public. That's kind of weird if you're a host of a major TV show. But apparently no one was watching his show anyway. It was like the lowest rated show on cable news I think. Like it was just invisible. It was so lowly attended. So I think MSNBC made the right business decision because keeping him on there wasn't making any money. But it might have, but it could have lost them money because they would have lost a lot of Jewish support.

But the real question is—and I think Glenn Greenwald is on this page—is why did he have to get canceled just because you hate everything he says and he's maybe some would say he's anti-Israel and pro bad guys. But doesn't he get to say that? Don't we have a country where you get to say that? And isn't that a point of view that there are enough Americans who want to hear that they ought to hear it no matter how nail-like it might sound to your ears? Do you not get to say that in America? You don't get to say something that everybody hates? Well not everybody. Obviously it's a good question. I don't know where the line is because on one hand I don't want to hear what he has to say. On the other hand I know that's not how the standard works. The standard is for me to be able to say what I want to say I have to let him say what he wants to say.

So I've got a little bit of agreement here with Glenn Greenwald that as much as I think he is a malign bad force and his show was a disaster, I hope he didn't get canceled just because people didn't want to hear what he had to say. That would be the wrong reason. If he wasn't making money and it was just too much problem for the company then it's just a business decision. But I hope it wasn't because of what he was saying. And again I'll remind you I'm 100% behind Israel for its Gaza policies. Anything that happened before October 7th I don't care. I'm just not involved in that so I don't care about their history. I don't care who did what to who. October 7th I'm going to judge everything that happens in Gaza by October 7th. That's my stance.

All right. Israel has put out some fighting maps. Some maps. They show Gaza in a grid with numbers on each of the boxes. And I guess they're dropping pamphlets now because the ceasefire didn't work. The ceasefire is over. Well the ceasefire did work because they exchanged prisoners but there's still some to go. And the claim is that Hamas is not doing everything they said they do so Israel is going to go back to the attack. Now that could also be a bluff. So it could be that Israel is doing everything that looks like they're going on an aggressive attack to get Hamas to fold on the last few things about the prisoners. Maybe. Or maybe it's a win either way. Getting ready to fight because they need to. Well you just need to do that. But if it had the effect of causing the hostages to come back, well that's good too. So it makes sense what they're doing and it makes sense that they would have this grid.

But remember I told you visual persuasion is the strongest when you actually see the map and you see that it's lots of boxes and you see that they're going to drop to their people in advance hey we're going into this box. If you're a civilian get out of this box. But the box is not so big that they don't know how to get out of it. In other words it's all walking distance. If you said you have to get out of northern Gaza, well that's too far to go. How do you get out of the north? The north is just too big. Getting out is not an easy thing. But if you make it small enough boxes everybody can walk to the next box until the bombing stops in that box.

Now I don't know how this is going to work because wouldn't Hamas get out of the box too? So we'll see what happens. It could be either the best idea or the worst idea. But here's what's important from a persuasion, public relations standpoint. When I heard Israel saying hey innocents can leave I said to myself okay I back Israel. You know I'm on their side. But can they really leave? Can you really walk from northern Gaza to southern Gaza in a war zone? To me that didn't look like they could really leave. Did you have the same feeling? It's like yeah I get in principle you say they can leave but in a practical sense there's no way. It's just not. There's no way. So now they have a new visual representation of the area so you can just look at it and you could look at it and say oh yeah that would work. Like your brain instantly says well I could walk from that box to that box and wait for a day. I could do that.

Jason you're such a bad troll. Like you're not even making a dent. Are you drunk already Jason? Yeah you act like you're drunk. By the way the number of times you can make somebody go away by asking if they're drunk, you should see how often that works. It's crazy. Drunk. So drunken Jason. We'll see if he comes back. He got real quiet when I asked him if he's drunk because you're probably drunk aren't you? Yeah I know it's the morning but I'll bet you're drunk.

All right. So the fighting maps are good. University of California has got some conflict. 150 professors are condemning the school's president, the University of California's president's viewpoint because he wants to make some changes and he wants the teachers, professors, to have more neutral opinions on things like climate change and Middle East atrocities. And people are saying how could we have a neutral opinion on atrocities? But of course he doesn't mean that. He means that the whole context that includes the atrocities. Now is it a good idea for educators to try to be objective and not insert their opinion into politics in the news? Well like your common sense says yes that's a good idea. You don't want these teachers propagandizing people. But here's the second question. Is it possible? No it's not possible. You can't not inject opinion into world events. That's not a thing because just the word choice and what you leave out and what you emphasize, your opinion will always be in it. So it's impossible. So the suggestion is to do something that's literally impossible and people are complaining. So I don't know. I think it's just more of a sign that the higher levels of education don't know how to educate because they don't know if they should give an opinion or they should not give an opinion. And it would completely change what you were taught if you can't figure that part out.

So I side with the news people who say that all news is opinion. And that includes the 1619 Project author. She said that news people have to be opinionated and biased—not biased but have opinionated—because that's the only reasonable thing. I would argue that that's always been true.

Oh George Santos has been expelled. Breaking news. George Santos has been expelled. Is that a real thing? Well we'll find out about that. Yeah I don't think that it's realistic to expect people to not put their opinion in their teaching because how could you do that? I mean seriously how could you do that? But as a standard it might make sense to get as close to it as you can. So I don't hate that. But the question was how did they teach climate change? How would you treat—imagine you thought that climate change was an existential threat. You're a professor and you really believe it and maybe it's true. I don't know what's true but maybe it is. How could you possibly allow the critics to get equal voice in that conversation if you thought one would kill the world and the other would save the world and you're going to ask your professor to be unbiased about that? How? Because here's the problem. If you're unbiased about it the skeptics win. Sorry the skeptics just have a stronger argument. Doesn't mean they're right. Doesn't mean they're right. I mean that if you had an honest debate with the skeptics and the pro-climate alarm people I believe the skeptics would win 100% of the time if you had the right skeptics. Right, not all of them. Some of them are frauds. And it's not because—and I want to be clear about this—it's not because I know that climate change is or is not real. I don't have magic abilities. What I know is that the argument will sound more persuasive because when you say, when I say for example do you really think the scientists can measure the temperature of the planet and that they're accurate within half a degree or something which you would have to be, people just laugh at that. Go well you know if you've ever worked in a big company and you know how much big companies lie to their public and to the customers, you know that's not a thing. You know that's not a thing. Every part of your common sense tells you no they didn't put thermometers around the world and then track it for 100 years and they were accurate to a half a percent. Right?

If you put me on that debate I would slaughter a scientist who knew a hun