But for a while, I think almost everybody I knew thought it was happening. I doubted it from the beginning. Under the theory that if that were happening, these sports teams would not be able to stop talking about it. I mean, they would know, but they weren't. They were acting like nothing was happening. So I thought, hmm, how could all these healthy athletes be dropping dead and yet the people who own the sports teams, they're acting like nothing's happening. So that's when I suspected that that was maybe not true. And so far, no evidence that that was ever true.

What about the stories about the autopsies that showed that people had all this coagulated blood that's totally unnatural? How many of you thought that was true? Probably still do, right? How many think that the morticians, when they're preparing the body, how many of you think they're seeing unnatural blood? That's not true. That's not happening. Yeah. Apparently the reality beyond that is that it's normal and well understood that sometimes dead people have that coagulated blood and there's nothing really that changed. Now that's what I believe to be true. So it's always useful to look at how many things you once thought were true that now there's no evidence they were ever true. Now could I be wrong about one of those things? Absolutely. Could I be wrong about everything in terms of the risks? Absolutely. Because there's no data that I would trust to set me straight or to confirm that I was right. There's no data I trust about the pandemic. But it is fascinating that such obvious questions we don't really know. Don't really know even now.

All right. There was a New Jersey nurse that got suspended for calling out a doctor who had been cheering after Charlie Kirk's death. Fox News was reporting on that. So instead of the doctor being released for bad behavior of cheering the death of a human being, seems very ungodly. Seems like the worst thing a doctor could do in his spare time. They're apparently going to suspend the nurse without pay. Terrific. Terrific there. Great job, guys.

Well, I think somebody besides me has probably mentioned this. Maybe you haven't heard it yet, but do you really believe that only the left cheers about bad things happening to people? Because I don't live in that world. Do you remember Paul Pelosi and the hammer attack? Did anybody on the right make fun of that? What was really a terrible thing. I mean, just terrible. Imagine Paul Pelosi now he's got to live with probably some permanent parts of the injury. I believe he has to think about that. He has to be in a house where that happened. So he'll think about it every day. That was terrible. But did any people on the right laugh about it? Yeah, even Trump did. Trump did a joke about Pelosi. She called that guy the homeless hammer guy. Homeless hammer guy. Yeah, even Trump did.

So I'm going to say two things that sound like they're contradictory, but I'll tell you they're not. One is I don't think either side has the monopoly on cheering for people that they think are monsters having a bad day, even if they're not a monster. I mean, I don't have a particular problem with Paul Pelosi. So I don't think there's any moral superiority going on, but what there is is a lot of payback and a lot of what I call mutually assured destruction. So the right is having a good old time cancelling as many of the Charlie Kirk haters who made the mistake of going public with their cheering. And I'm all for that. I'm all for it. Not because the right is morally superior, but because, you know, once cancelling becomes a thing, you've got to cancel back. I just don't think there's anything else you could do. Could it make things worse? Might it escalate the cancelling? Maybe. But I'll tell you what you can't do is nothing. What you can't do is nothing. And if it changes the balance of power, I'd like to see people getting cancelled for calling the right Nazis or fascists. You know, if we could take it to the next level, that'd really be fun. So I'm 100% in favor of the cancelling as cruel and tough as they are because it needs to work both ways. You can't have the cancelling work in one direction. Absolutely not.

Bad analogy. Well, let me explain analogies since 75% of the public doesn't know how an analogy works. An analogy does not try to make every element of the analogy the same as the subject you're talking about. Because if it were the same in all the ways, it wouldn't be an analogy. It would just be the same thing. And that wouldn't tell you anything. So if you can find the part about the Paul Pelosi that's the same, then you'll know what I'm saying. But if you say, "But Scott, you fool. There was no hammer involved in the Charlie Kirk thing, so your stupid analogy is terrible." No, an analogy is only focusing on one part. In both cases, something had happened to somebody on one side of the political aisle and other people had fun with it. That is a valid point. Don't give me "but he was married to a politician that's different." No, no, you don't understand how analogies work. Stop focusing on the parts that are not the point.

All right, enough of that. So Washington DC the mayor says that the police will no longer cooperate with ICE to get rid of illegal people in the city. Illegal migrants. And I believe I saw the mayor of Memphis acting a little bit like he wasn't so into having help. He seems like he's playing it both ways. It's like he's against it because he's on the left, but he's sort of in favor of it a little b