jects I was doing and it's a nightmare if you're not Google and Apple and you want to get somebody who can do a good job. So you find somebody in India who says oh yeah just tell us what you want, we'll give you a price, we'll assign some programmers and we'll write that code for you. Absolutely none of that worked because I talked to somebody smart who would make the sale but then they would assign it to somebody who was completely incompetent. So nobody could perform anything. I paid money and got nothing twice. So hiring employees to work from the other country, if you were thinking about it, I wouldn't do it. Everything I saw says it doesn't work. If they're not in the same room with you, don't do a tech project. Not at all. So certainly that's part of something that needs to be fixed.

So I was listening to Theo Wold who was the former deputy assistant to Trump in the first administration and he was in charge of drafting the legislation to create a new legal immigration framework. So he's the one who said that when he looked at all the various, and there are quite a few of them, the various pathways that foreign workers can get into the United States, that they're all corrupt. So yesterday I was seeing some people saying well you're talking about this H1B visa thing. Yeah that's bad but there's this other thing to get the geniuses that's not so bad. Well in the real world according to Theo Wold, the guy who was in charge of making it all work, he said no they're all corrupt. So you should assume 100% of our foreign worker acquisition is totally broken and has to be fixed. That was the best context I've seen.

So when I talk about this topic I talk about what we want to achieve. Usually I talk about systems. You know I always say systems are better than goals. But there sometimes it's obvious what you want to achieve. We want American workers to have jobs that are good jobs and blah blah blah. But this brought up a really troubling thing. So Vivek Ramaswamy weighed into the debate. He said one of the reasons that maybe foreign workers are being favored by tech companies is that there's a cultural difference. And he described the cultural difference as some of the Asian and Indian companies or countries, but their families he described would put a focus on educational attainment and professional success whereas in America you might have far less of it. Now that caused all the dumb people to assume that his generality was referring to every family in both countries. So if you fell into that trap and you said wait a minute that's not true. I know this one American family that does everything right. Or if you said wait a minute I've seen pictures of India and it's people living in garbage piles. Why do I want the people living in garbage piles to teach me how to have a better culture? I don't want to live in a garbage pile. Now those are ridiculous comments because he's using a generality. Is it a useful generality that the Indian and Asian employees that are at least the topic of conversation, the ones who have technical skills, is it true that they probably had a lot of family support? Probably. Are they the majority of Indians? I don't know but probably not. But they're the only ones we care about because they're the ones who are getting technical skills and they may or may not come to the United States. That's the population we're talking about. They definitely have the tiger moms, most of them. But again we're not talking about the exceptions.

So here's how people took it. They said Vivek, first of all a number of people didn't think Vivek was an American citizen. May I give myself another facepalm? This is to the people who argued with me that he's not an American citizen. Okay I just had to do that. Born in this country, risking his life to fix the DOGE thing. He's risking his life. Elon Musk risking his life. Not hyperbole. Not hyperbole. Death threats, death threats, death threats. They're risking their lives for your benefit. Do you think that they're doing it to make extra money? Well they might. I mean they might make extra money but clearly that's not the main incentive. Vivek is more American. I said this to somebody. I said he's more American than you are. He's more supportive of the American experience, the American you know whatever makes us good people. He probably knows more about American history than just about any one of you. You can't get more American than that. That's like peak American. And people got on me for defending because I got pretty aggressive yesterday on social media for defending Vivek's take about our cultures and also Elon's take about needing engineers. And people said to me you know are you just making money? Is it because Elon pays you? Pays me? I mean obviously you know I'm monetized on X but you think that's why I'm doing it? You think I'm supporting the idea of bringing the top 1% engineers because I get paid on X? That was literally the last thing I was even in my mind. Never once did that even occur to me.

Here's what occurred to me. When I watch Elon and Vivek take on the hard, most thankless job that America has ever produced short of war, which is to take on trimming the government, that's patriotism at a level that I can't even conceive. I mean it's beyond me. Given that and given my current age, I've kind of done what I need to do. I would take a bullet for either one of them. Actually I'll take a bullet because the two of them are doing the only thing that can save our country. If we can't get the debt under control we're all dead. We're all dead. And there are only two people who happen to be extraordinarily brilliant, incredibly brave, capable beyond anything that you and I can really understand, and are taking on the hardest job in the world for you if you're American, for you and also for me. I would take a bullet to keep them in that job. Like actually I'd take a bullet. Like if you said to me you're going to have to die but you'll save one of those two people, I would take the bullet. Like actually literally. That's not a joke. So if you see me defending them aggressively on social media, I would take a bullet for them because they would take a bullet for me. Right? They're doing it right in front of you. I don't have to guess if they would take a bullet because they put themselves in a position where the odds of danger and death threats is through the roof. So if they would do that for me I would do it for them. And same with Trump. How did you feel when Trump took a bullet for you? Right? That's different. If somebody takes a bullet for you and Trump did that, you get bonded to them and you should.

So a lot of people were on that. So let me say this. So some people interpreted Vivek as this Indian guy who was criticizing white American culture in the United States. And a lot of people thought it was kind of a put down, kind of an insult to American culture. To which I said what are you talking about an insult to American culture? What American culture are you talking about? The American culture that I live in has free speech and we have a superpower. Our culture, American culture has a superpower and it looks like this. When we fail and we get ashamed we learn, things get stronger. We eat that shame. We eat that failure and then we go and win. In other countries and in other cultures they do not criticize their culture. And if they fail, well they don't want to fail so they don't do a startup. They just take a job where they're less likely to fail. So when you say that Vivek is somehow insulting America by saying that the culture needs a tweak, needs an upgrade, that's the most American thing you can do. Criticizing how an American system and culture is basically a system, criticizing an American system even down to the family level if it's necessary, that's what we do. You can't get more American than that. We criticize ourselves in public because we have the gift of free speech. And if something needs to be fixed and you're going to get a big blowback for saying it, we'll still say it. I said what I needed to say at the risk of getting canceled. Very American, right? You could disagree with everything I said or did. That's fine. But would you agree that me saying what I thought I needed to say at the moment and I had good intentions, that's a longer story, but and then getting canceled for it, failing basically, that would be a failure. My career wiped out. You watched me. You watched what happened when I got canceled, right? I just recovered, got stronger. I got a million followers on X. It basically supercharged me. So that was a failure. It was a shame. I didn't feel any shame but you could imagine that it would be accompanied usually. And so I just took that failure. I ate it for breakfast. I used it for energy and I went on and in some ways accomplished more than I would have accomplished if I had not been canceled because it creates a lot of attention. So yes, you can criticize any American system from culture to finance to government. That's what I want. I want our smartest people telling us where we should focus even if he's wrong sometimes. We're not looking for perfection.

So yes I'm defending Vivek aggressively. Now this brought up a number of comments because people were, the other the hidden topic within this foreign employee stuff is a number of people kept saying but Scott don't you understand I'm a trained engineer and I can't get a job. What do I say to somebody who says that on social media? Don't know them. They say I'm a trained engineer, experienced, and I can't get a job. I say what color are you? You're white, right? So mixed in with this whole foreign worker thing is the fact that there's been massive systemic racism against white men for what Sequoia partner Sean Maguire thinks may have been going on for the past 10 years. Here's what he said. He said I was told I can't be promoted for being a white man explicitly at Google. And then he suggested that that's been going on for at least 10 years. Do you know when I got that talk, the first time I got the talk I can't promote you because you're a white male? The 80s. 37 years ago. For 37 years this has been the way everything in corporate America worked. No we're not going to promote you. You're a white man.

Prudent Thinker on X says I've had the same experience elsewhere in big tech. Also been told we want less people who look like you because it messes up our DEI commitment. Also been told whatever you do do not hire a white man. This is a white man. Also been told everyone is invited except you. We want to put out the image of diversity. And I've even been plagiarized by the DEI hire later to learn I was hired for that very purpose. Oh no. And then Deplorable Garbage, that's the name of his account, was told the same thing by a big law firm and notes if an entity like that, a big law firm, isn't afraid to openly discriminate against race he says it's everywhere. Russell says at an Intel Corporation we restricted hiring white males unless approved at senior VP level and that was more than 10 years ago. Imagine what it's like now. No this has been 37 years at least. That's when it hit me. It may have been earlier in California where I was. So why didn't people know this? It's because white guys just suck it up and get to work. That's it. White guys will complain privately, will complain to our family, complain to our spouse, but we're not necessarily organizing a protest. We just say all right I'm not going to work there. I'll go work somewhere else. So that's why you don't know.

Also I found out 30 years ago that if I mentioned in public that I was being discriminated against for being white, what did people call me? A white racist liar. So they already decided I'm a white racist just cuz I'm white. And then I say I was unable to be promoted in two corporations in a row because they told me I'm white and male and I can't promote you. And I say that and they say oh well you're lying. Oh great. So if I tell you the truth I'm a white racist and now also a liar. 30 years, over three decades, almost four decades white men had to keep this secret because if you said it out loud you were a liar. And that's a real thing that happened in the United States for decades. Still happening.

All right. Then somebody weighed in thinking they would add some nuance and said no it's cuz somebody else labeled it as an anti-white bias which it is. And then a commenter said well you know technically is it an anti-white bias? It might have also been anti-Asian American because I'm sure they discriminated against Asians. I need one more facepalm. Can I give it to you? In colleges they definitely discriminated against Asians. True. In corporations they hired the Asians not the white guy. If you had lots of diversity of Asian Americans it was considered like the what's the good analogy like the methadone for the heroin or something. They wanted heroin which would be black women, lesbian employees. You know that would be like oh home run. But if they couldn't get that they definitely wanted as many Asian-looking people to put on the company picture. So no I've never once, I've never even heard of it. Have you? Is there anybody in the comments who's ever even heard of an Asian American being turned down at big corporation because that wasn't diverse enough? I've never heard of it. Now if it turned out the Asian Americans have been keeping this secret for 40 years like white Americans you know I guess I'd have to say I shouldn't be surprised. So it could be true but I've never seen it or heard of it. Never once.

Well then Wired publication, this was the, they say it's the year of the influencer political takeover. So of course a lot of people are writing about how the podcasters and the online influencers are now the important thing and the mainstream news and the New York Times are unimportant etc. But here's what I think about that conversation. I think this is sort of putting the Dilbert filter on it. When all these smart people, the Democrats, say that they finally understand that what they needed to do better was take advantage of the influencer podcasting ecosystem and that the Republicans really had that nailed down. You know they really had a good ecosystem for that. So that maybe is why they lost. So do you think that's why they lost? Watching Democrats not understand anything. It never gets less entertaining. It is true that Trump did a much better job with the podcaster influencer situation. That's true. But the reason they lost is that they did everything wrong. They had the worst candidate running against the best candidate of all time. They had no policies that were in the top three of the American public. They wasted $1.5 billion on God knows what. Probably half of it was stolen. You could just make a list of all the things you should do right and the only things they did well were the ones that don't matter to the election. The ground game. They always tease Trump for not having a ground game but never ask themselves the Elon Musk question which is do we need a ground game? And the answer is probably not in the current age. There was a time when the ground game was everything but probably not now. You know people learn online. They don't need the ground game.

But here's my Dilbert filter take on it. The fact that the Democrats think the podcaster world is just where they need to go. I think that the Democrat, let's say the people who would be helping with campaigns in the future, if you are going to work on a campaign which thing would you rather do? Organize a door-knocking thing or do another boring interview, print interview with the New York Times, or interact with some of the coolest hottest podcasters and influencers in the world? Which way do you want to spend your day? Do you want to spend your day talking to famous sexy young people killing it so that you can take a picture and show it to your kid? It's the easiest job in the world because you get to sit in the studio and maybe watch the podcast and that's your job for that day. I've got a feeling that the Democrats are moving toward this whole we've got to have more podcasting and influencers because that's fun. And then they justify it as like oh this is the big problem. Got to fix this podcasting situation. There's no way we can be competitive until we have a Joe Rogan of our own. I don't know. So there's something true about it which is they probably need to be better in that domain. But there's also something that screams we would rather do things that are pleasurable than things that are hard. And I don't think that's a winner's attitude. We'd rather do things that are pleasurable than hard. That might be their entire problem anyway.

And I also think it's funny harking back to the prior conversation that they canceled me at exactly the time when I was the most dangerous because the podcasting world was starting to dominate. Again dumbest mistake they could have made. They should have said Scott we'd like you to spend all of your time on cartooning so why don't we give you a big contract to write twice as many cartoons. If they had done that they could have bought me out of the race. Well I don't know but it would have been worth the shot if they offered enough.

Anyway according to Study Finds scientists figured out how to transform red blood cells into precision cancer fighting drones. And I guess they can tweak it as your cancer morphs into a different form. They can tweak it again so it gets at it again. So this is actually pretty exciting. They've got some kind of molecule that'll stick to parts of the RNA and then regular activities. So the reason that this is important is if it feels less destructive. Meaning if you do something that's just put some destruction on your body but you hope the cancer cells die faster than your healthy cells, you know like chemo. Yeah you're just hoping that your healthy cells survive but they're going to get whacked. And so this is the second anti-cancer possibility which doesn't seem to have that mechanism which it attacks your healthy stuff. Don't know if it'll work yet but I love all the new news about it.

Now there's an article in The Hill, an opinion piece by Evan Davis and David Schultz, and they say Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office but lawmakers must act now. So the idea is according to them the Constitution provides that any oath-breaking insurrectionist can't run for office. And then they gave their evidence for how Trump is an oath-breaking insurrectionist. Of course all their evidence was completely debunked and laughed at by people like Jeff Clark, also an attorney who got in trouble for that January 6 stuff for doing basically nothing, nothing that anybody should have ever gotten in trouble for. That's another story. But so apparently I didn't know this but apparently if they try to make this move to not allow Trump to take office it would take a two-thirds vote. Did I have that right? Two-thirds vote in each house. So in both Senate and the House, two-thirds vote. Now I don't think there's, would you agree there's not a chance in the world that two-thirds of the people are going to vote to not put Trump in office, right? So there's not any practical way this is going to happen as far as I can tell. But I kind of want them to try. Don't you? Don't you want them to try? Because the Democrat Party is on life support. If they try to keep Trump out of office with some weird lawfare somebody's going to yank the life support out of whatever's left of the Democratic Party. That would be the end. That would just be the end.

Now I know you want me to say oh if that happened there would be an armed revolution. No there won't. Against who? What are you going to do shoot your neighbor because some politicians did something? You're not going to shoot you