couldn't solve. So he monetized the Ukraine war by saying, "We won't put any money into it, but we will sell Europe as many weapons as they want to buy." He monetized it. He monetized the fentanyl problem by using it as an excuse to raise tariffs on China and also Canada and Mexico I believe. So he couldn't solve it but he monetized it. And now apparently Columbia University is settling with the government for the government's claims that they were being too discriminatory against white people and not doing enough for antisemitism. But do you think that's a solvable problem? Do you think you can just fix these colleges? Maybe not. But he monetized it. So now Columbia is settling and they've agreed to pay $200 million to the federal government over three years and they're also going to settle for some Equal Opportunity Commission for 21 million now. So this will in theory Columbia will stop discriminating and maybe do more to squash antisemitism. So that was what was asked of them. But they're also going to pay $200 million plus $21 million. And we don't believe that they will completely get rid of all their DEI and all their bad practices. They'll probably just hide it a little bit. So here again, you have a problem that I don't think you could completely solve. I mean, you could shrink it a little bit. And that looks like what's happening. But he's monetized it. He monetized it again.

Harmeet Dhillon, she's on the job of chasing all the DEI criminals. I say criminal because DEI is illegal at the federal level anyway. And she's going after companies and entities that are not following the law on DEI. So she's the assistant attorney general and I'm watching her with great interest because she appears to be very capable and she's in the right job.

I saw a post by the rabbit hole on X who asks this question. He says legacy media will publish endless articles about men but rarely if ever cover the radicalization of women. Now the article about men I think he means that men are more Republican. They're moving Republican in a big way. But who is talking about the fact that women have been radicalized? It's a good point. If men had been radicalized the way women have been radicalized, it would be a huge topic and everybody would say, "We have to unradicalize these men." What happened to these men? They're believing all this ridiculous stuff. But when it's women who are the radicalized ones on the left, I don't know that there's a lot of talk about reprogramming them and their mental illness or their radicalization. Now, is he right? I mean, this is anecdotal. It's just observational, but I do wonder about that. It does seem like if we're going to talk about TDS being an actual mental problem, which it is, we should talk about the radicalization of women, especially the crazy ones because there are so many of them.

According to Gizmodo, Matt Novak is writing that CNN says the FDA's new drug approval involves AI. So AI is helping the FDA decide what to approve. So that sounds good, right? Probably a big improvement in their speed and the accuracy because they're using AI. Well, there's a problem. Apparently the AI is hallucinating in this realm as well. So it's actually making up studies that never existed. Oh yeah. This drug should be fine. Here's a study that says it works great. But if the human didn't know to check to see if that study existed, they would be approving something for the wrong reason or disapproving it. So that's scary. AI