rible, terrible look after he got lawfared and lawfared and lawfared to just return the lawfare especially to a stale case because Hillary is not exactly on the top of the urgent things these days anyway.

You want to hear about the most Biden thing that Biden ever did? I know it's a long list but the following is something that Joe Biden just did that you just, when I tell you, see if you cannot say the freaking A-word. He just did clemency and pardons. So he pardoned 39 Americans and he commuted the sentences of nearly 1,500 others. 1,500. What's that remind you of? 1,500 people he commuted their sentences and let them out of jail. 1,500. That's exactly the number of J6ers in jail now. Maybe this is a coincidence but there are a lot of numbers in the world. You had to pick 1,500? Those people need to be released immediately and January 21st can't come fast enough because I'm pretty sure Trump's going to let most or all of them out. But this—did was there no time that anybody said 1,500 is a bad number? You make it 1,600, make it 1,499 but don't make it 1,500. That's just rubbing it in our faces. It honestly doesn't feel like politics. It doesn't feel like stupid. It feels like you're just being a dick. Free the J6ers.

So Kari Lake has been selected by Trump for the head of the Voice of America. Now Voice of America is a media outlet that the government runs in 40 different languages. Yeah, 40 languages, and broadcasts all over the world in various forms from radio to television to social media. Now I asked AI if Voice of America is America's propaganda network and AI didn't want to say that. It says the editorial, it's independent editorial stuff. Is it really? Is it really independent? My understanding—give me a fact check on this—but isn't the only reason the Voice of America exists is for American propaganda to reach other markets? I didn't know there was any other reason for it.

Now I think when they say you know that they don't step on the editorial probably means they also don't hire anybody who doesn't understand the mission of the Voice of America. I mean I suppose if they made a mistake and accidentally hired somebody who didn't know what the whole purpose of the organization was they might say something anti-American but I don't think they would last very long on the job. The government of America is not going to pay to broadcast bad American stuff to other countries and make them hate us. So I don't think you have to edit it. It doesn't require a lot of editing because everybody knows what the job is.

Now if it sounded like I'm criticizing Voice of America I'm not. We probably need it. To me it sounds like something that's probably really useful. So here's the question that's on my mind. So Kari Lake of course a national figure, well recognized, came close to being governor, close to being senator. And you think to yourself is this a big enough job? Like my first thought was hmm feels like not high enough leverage for a Republican with that much skill. And then I thought to myself hmm I wonder if the plan is to tweak the Voice of America for good purposes. And then I thought to myself what if they used Voice of America as one way to correct the fake news? And I wonder if they had that conversation because that would be interesting.

Could you imagine for example that Voice of America continues to say positive things about America so it doesn't change its basic mission but what if on top of that it became so credible that it was a source for telling you what hoaxes are being told by the other networks? Because the other networks are like the opposite propaganda. You know if you've got a Republican president the fake news is going to be saying the president of the United States is garbage and making all the wrong decisions. Well you don't really want your enemies to hear that because they will not fear us and respect us.

So suppose the Voice of America was the reference that Trump could always use and say look CNN says this but here's what's really happening and then forward a Voice of America article. Because if you put Kari Lake in charge of the Voice of America there's zero chance that they're going to be reporting hoaxes as if they're real. There's no chance of that. I mean not intentionally of course. But it's one more place that Trump can maybe guarantee that there's a place that you can look at that has credibility that can debunk the other hoaxes that are surely coming. So if that's what the plan is, you know a little bit, little extra on the mission, then it's definitely the right person for it because she's got great experience in that domain specifically meaning TV news etc. So I think the fit is great. I just hope that Trump is looking at it and Kari Lake is looking at it as maybe Voice of America could be a little extra something we need.

So I would like to get into this gamified murder thing. Have you noticed that because of the internet we've managed to turn every tragedy into sort of a game? So I'd like to explain the game. So the game here with this CEO murder is that you have to pretend that the people you don't like are not showing enough empathy to the victim but that you, unlike whoever you're talking about, you have the proper and exact right amount of empathy. And you want to misrepresent the other person so it seems like they have less empathy. So I'm going to give you an example of that.

I'm going to misinterpret Elizabeth Warren and show you with my theatrics that I'm much better than her as a human being. Now remember this is just gamified. I'm not actually better than her as a human being. Maybe I am but that's not the point. The point is that we've gamified this. All right let me get into character because I have to act as if I'm actually offended by this. All right. Well there's a story about Elizabeth Warren. Oh my God she said that the visceral response to the insurance CEO's killing should be a warning to everyone else in the health care system. Oh my God how can Elizabeth Warren show so little sympathy to the family and the victim? I'm so much better than her. I'm so so much better. Watch this. Elizabeth Warren, don't you understand that this was a senseless killing of someone who didn't deserve it and the family has to deal with this and you're acting as though the murder was justified? Really? Really? You're acting like it's justified? I spit on you for your lack of empathy, not like my empathy which is excellent.

So the bottom line here is I think I won this round by showing that my empathy for the victim is way better than hers. Way better. I love winning.

Meanwhile Woody Allen's chef is going to sue him for firing. And apparently the problem was that was somebody who was in the US military reserves and he said he was in the military reserves when he got hired. Now that means that he would miss some days every month because he has a military obligation. But so he went off to a two-day military thing which would have been completely understood and approved. But I guess he came back a day longer because the training lasted a day longer and then got fired. Now they also complained about his cooking. So if you're a chef and they don't like your cooking that'd be a good reason to fire you.

But imagine if you will that let's say—I don't know if this is the case—but let's say he was a chef for five days a week. So Woody and Soon-Yi are thinking yay five days a week we don't have to cook. But then he says well I'm going to be gone two of those five but also I have the weekend off so that's four of the seven days I won't be around. And they're like all right well that's what we agreed to okay. And then he says oh I'm also not going to come in the day after because the training went long. So there'll be two days I'm off and three days that I'm away. And my job was to cook for you five days a week. So they fired him because it was obvious that this might happen again. This cooking wasn't that good anyway they say.

Now I have some insight into this because I got sued for the same reason. There is a law that says if you hire somebody who's in the reserves and you know that they have an obligation to say you know work on some periods that you have to let them do it and you have to pay them. So they have to be paid and you have to allow them to have their time. And if you fire them for that, if you fire them for being away from work for their military reserve, that's the end of the court case. The court just gives that automatically to the military reserve person. If there's any question that you got fired for even partially because you had a military commitment you lose the case. There's nothing you can say. You can't say but my company would suffer. Nope that counts for nothing. You can't say I can't function if I'd have to close my business if I'm paying this person to do the job but then I have to pay a second person to fill in for them because they can't be there to do the job. If I have to do that I have to close my company. I can't make enough money. You have to close the company. There's nothing you can do. There is no defense. If you tell a military person that you're going to fire them for doing what the military required them to do that's the end of the case.

So the lawsuit is almost certainly Woody writes a check for $100,000, the lawyer keeps 30% and the chef gets another job. That's the way these are settled because the lawyer for Woody would know that you can't take this to court. It's 100% chance of losing. 100%. He has no chance of winning. And I'm not even sure that's a bad idea. So in his case probably the chef was a weekday chef but if you hire somebody who's in the reserves you have to know that if you thought they were going to work on weekends you're not getting what you thought you were going to get.

So in my restaurant days my restaurant partner hired somebody in reserves for the job of the weekend manager and then later he informed us that he couldn't work weekends quite often because of his military service. So my partner said oh well the only reason you were promoted is to work weekends because those are the days I don't work. So given that it was the only reason you were promoted and now you say you can't do it we'll put you back in your old job which was a server. The server made as much money by the way and he was a server before that. And he sued. And our defense was wait a minute we hired him to do a thing and he says because of the military service he can't do the thing. We only hired him for the one specific thing and he says that one specific thing he can't do. So we would have to pay two people, one to do the job he's not doing and then him as well. And it's a small business. And the lawyer said give it up, forget it, pay him, make an offer. You can't win this. And so we did. We paid him. So it's probably the same situation.

See what else is going on. So the leader of Syria, you know the rebels took over Syria and here's his resume. He was the commander of ISIS in Syria then he was the founder and leader of Jabhat al-Nusra in al-Qaeda in Syria. He was the leader of Jabhat al-Sham later the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham I guess they're fundamentalist groups and now he's the leader of free Syria. I saw him doing some kind of public thing the other day and I swear that he was sounding like he was a Democrat and he was saying that he wanted to be the leader of all the people and you know he made it sound like he wasn't going to be discriminating and being a terrorist and killing people. But correct me if I'm wrong is it not the strategy that when you first get power and before you've consolidated it you tell the world that you're not going to be any trouble at all and then you consolidate power maybe takes five years and then you do anything you want to do no matter how bad it is? So I suspect things might be not terrible for the Christians in Syria. You know still a little bit terrible but probably if they hang around it's going to get worse. That would be my guess. So I hope they get out.

And I think the leaders of Syria are probably trying to form a caliphate so I'd watch out for the caliphate. Now here's the thing. I wonder if the Middle East—let's say some charismatic leader and maybe this is the charismatic leader—rises. What's his name? I didn't get his name. But given that we know that war is going to be drone warfare in the future the Middle East isn't going to be able to make a lot of drones. They're not exactly a manufacturing power so they'd have to depend on somebody like China to give them all their war drones if they wanted to conquer enough territory to have a caliphate. I don't know how to say that. So I know the nature of war is changing so that the Middle East countries are going to have a big disadvantage I think. So the countries that can design and crank out drones are going to own everything. So that's China, us, maybe Russia.

Fetterman just gave a double thumbs up to Republican Elise Stefanik who was picked as UN ambassador. So Breitbart's reporting this. So Fetterman continues to do smart things. He's finding very small ways—and this is a very small way—to act like a common sense person who agrees with the Republicans when it makes sense to agree with them and disagrees with them when in his opinion it makes sense to disagree.

Now I saw some people being confused that when I say good things about Fetterman that it's like I don't understand that he votes for the most progressive things and you know he's a dangerous voter. I get it. I understand that. I'm not saying he should be running the country. I'm only talking about his technique. So the same way that I talked about AOC having good persuasion technique which she doesn't anymore—I think she had an adviser that she may have lost—but Fetterman, every time he does something where in the smallest way he can say you know Republicans you're good people and I agree with you on