th software projects.

And the question is are there applications within DOGE where that also makes sense? Certainly there are applications where the scalpel makes sense, but do you think the DOGE people can't tell the difference between when to use the scalpel and when to use the chainsaw? If the bureaucracy is fighting you, which tool do you use? I'll put this to you, those of you who are experienced in management. If the bureaucracy is trying to slow you down and slow walk you and avoid you and you want to make cuts, do you use the scalpel? You can't. Because the only way you could use the scalpel is if the bureaucracy was actively helping you. Oh yeah, you don't know our operations, but let me tell you, you could scalpel this and you could scalpel that and we're here to help. But that's not going to happen. Do you think that's what the DOGE people are running into? A bunch of helpful bureaucrats or like, "Wow, we can't wait. We can't wait to tell you where to scalpel this." Nope. In that case, what would be the right tool? Chainsaw.

And then as you're chainsawing, the bureaucracy starts screaming, "Ah! Ah! Ah! You don't realize you're cutting this or you cut this and the babies are going to die." And you say, "Wait, what? The babies are going to die?" Okay. Can you give me some evidence that babies are going to die? Yes. Yes. See, it's feeding these babies. And then you say, "Oh, okay. Now you're being helpful." So you weren't helpful with a scalpel, were you? But as soon as I put the chainsaw to it, you're like, "Save the babies, and now I have some useful information, and now I'll back off on the chainsaw." Exactly.

So when I see Mark Cuban saying sort of generic things like, yeah, they're disorganized and they're just chainsawing things without wisely deciding what to do, I say to myself, I'm not sure he's fully incorporated what the bureaucracy would be doing to stymie them. If the bureaucracy is working against DOGE, and I think you could just say with certainty that would be the case, then that's just chainsaw. The scalpel couldn't possibly work in that domain. But it might kick up a situation where you say, "All right, we've chainsawed enough, but we hit a little sensitive area here. Let's slow down and scalpel that a little bit." So to say that scalpel always beats chainsaw is just purely dumb or inexperienced. To say that sometimes chainsaw is the right answer and sometimes scalpel is the right answer, that will always be correct. But to imagine that you can look from the outside and determine where they went wrong, you can't do that. We don't have any inside information about that. To imagine that the complaints of the bureaucracy are telling you that you should do something differently. That's not how anything works because the bureaucracy would be complaining no matter what you were doing. If it were a reorg, they'd be complaining. If it were cuts with a scalpel, they'd be complaining. If it were anything, they would be complaining. So if they're all reporting that they have low morale, oh, we have low morale, that's just because there's change. All change makes bureaucracies have low morale, or at least they'll tell you they have low morale. So you can't tell by listening to the people bitching about it. And you definitely can't tell what's happening and when the scalpel and when the chainsaw is being used or if there's even a sensitivity to know when to move from one to the other. I assume they are because it's the smart people doing it.

So now let's look at the best that the Democrats have. We've got the James Carville approach, which is basically give up and just roll over and hope that the other side makes a mistake. You've got the generic complaints. Well, I don't think that they measure twice and cut once