st proud of, most proud of my own performance in life per se, is that I got my MBA at Berkeley, the Haas School of Business, and that I did it while I was working full-time.

Now, if you've never tried that, let me tell you, it's a little bit challenging to get an MBA at night while you've already worked full-time during the day. It's hard, in case you're wondering. It's hard. And it lasts three years instead of two because the full-time MBA class would be compressed. But wow, was it hard. So hard. I may have told you this story before, but on day one, not literally day one, but the very first test I took in my MBA courses, they wrote the distribution, the professor wrote the distribution of the grades on the board so we could all see where we stood. And then he told us, I have to tell you, I forget the percentage, but it was something like half, maybe half or one-third. He said, "Half or one-third of you, whatever the number was, it was horrifying, will not make it through the course." And I'm sitting there thinking, "Really? Half of us?" Because you don't even get into Berkeley unless you've got something going on. You know what I mean? Like they don't even let you in unless you've already proven you can handle things at a pretty high level. So I thought it can't be true. Can't possibly be true that the bottom, I don't know, let's say it was one-third. That sounds about right. It couldn't possibly be true that one-third drop out in the first semester.

And then we took a test and the test came back and we saw the distribution. Now the distribution did not have names on it, but I could still tell which grade was mine. Do you know how I could tell which grade was mine without a name on it before I'd seen my test? It was the lowest one in the class. It was the lowest grade in the class. It wasn't second. It wasn't third lowest. It was the lowest grade in the class. Right after he told me that one-third of the people aren't going to make it at all. Do you know how mad that made me that I'd put all that work into getting in? First of all, getting into the MBA class wasn't easy. All that work and he's basically saying it's not going to work for you and here is proof.

Well, then another test came up and I managed to be not the worst grade. So on the second test, not the worst. Definitely not the worst, but toward the bottom. By the third test, somewhat respectable, somewhere in the middle. By the fourth test, I had decided. I ever tell you the difference between wanting and deciding? Wanting means that you could allow yourself to quit if you wanted. You could just change what you want. Deciding is different. I had decided that nothing was going to stop me from getting that freaking MBA. Nothing. And so by the end of the course, I was getting reasonable grades and managed to graduate with my degree. It was worth as much as everybody else's. It was the hardest thing I've ever done. I had to give up every weekend, my entire social life. And it hurt for three years. But when I was done and I got that degree, for years that was the greatest pride of my life. And now Berkeley turned into a garbage pit. I take no pride in it whatsoever. I'm still happy I did the work, but I don't care about the degree. I mean, hell with that. Anyway, sorry, Berkeley.

So according to the University of Zurich, Natalie Huber is writing that AI is pretty unbiased relatively speaking. They did a test to see how unbiased it is with its answers. But it turns out that it does become instantly biased if you tell it the source of the data. So if you say, "Hey, this data came from the Washington Post or the New York Times," the AIs, and this is all the AIs, not just one, will say, "Oh, it looks pretty good. Comes from one of those good sources." But if it comes from, let's say, a right-leaning source that might actually be very credible, it will say, "Well, not so sure. We're not so sure about this one." So yes, AI does have bias and apparently even the Chinese AI DeepSeek allegedly has an anti-China bias because it got trained on so much data that had an anti-China bias that even the Chinese AI has an anti-China bias.

Anyway, I'd like to give a call out to Dana Perino, Fox News, who from the beginning of the government shutdown drama would say calmly at the beginning of most of the episodes of The Five, "And we know how it's going to end. The Democrats will cave." And a day goes by, The Five comes back on, and Dana says, "And we know how this will end. The Democrats are going to cave. They always do." Or there was some rule about why you can always predict why it would happen. And what I loved was she was so confident about the outcome. I thought, "Yeah, you're putting yourself out there a little bit." I agreed with her, by the way. I thought that she was probably right, but I thought that's pretty confident to put that out there and 100% right. Nailed it. So good for you. And she wasn't the only one. I think Greg was predicting the same. There were other people who predicted it, but I just liked her confidence. And you know, she has the experience to know what she's talking about.

All right. We still have a few more days, if not weeks, of enjoying the Democrats' bad reaction to the shutdown negotiations being over. If you haven't seen yet John Stewart's Monday Night Show, it really is sort of a masterpiece. He's not happy. He's not happy with Chuck Schumer getting a nothing. So we got this life or death situation. They told us that babies are starving and planes are falling out of the air. And yet they decide after telling us for weeks that babies will die and planes will fall out of the sky if they agree with the Republicans on anything. They just sort of cave in. But here's what John Stewart couldn't believe and he made this hilarious. Now what's funny about it is he really doesn't look like he's taking sides. Well, maybe he does, but he's hitting his own team hard. He's hitting his own team harder than he's hitting the Republicans by far. He's hitting his own side. So that gives him a little credibility because when his own side has a bad day, he goes after his own side. You have to have that or nobody's going to really take you too seriously.

He goes, John Stewart says, "Where in The Art of War does it say never press your advantage?" And this was the funniest line: that Chuck Schumer sold out. He sold out on what he wanted in return for a promise to negotiate later and then later not get what he wanted. He traded what he wanted for a promise to not get what he wanted later. That's exactly what happened. A promise to not get what you want later. That's a funny line. Oh, John Stewart, you're so funny.

So even John Stewart, when, here's how I interpret this, by mocking Schumer by taking out The Art of War, he took out the actual book The Art of War by Sun Tzu. I think what he's trying to tell them is that they're not dealing on a strategic level. How many times have I said that? That the Republicans and Trump in particular, they seem to deal entirely on a strategic level. I mean, there's a moral and ethical frame to it, but they're very strategic. The Democrats just seem to be acting out. It doesn't seem strategic at all, does it? It just feels like they're mad at something. Their whole approach to the shutdown was fight. That's not even the right context for that. Fight, fight, fight. The right context was you just got your ear shot. The wrong context is the way they were using it. Like just being tougher in the way they talk is going to make it all work. They didn't have any strategy. They were just trying to blame Republicans and see if something would work.

Anyway, you really have to see the John Stewart video. Van Jones tries to save as much as he can from this situation, but I don't think he quite nailed it. But only because he doesn't have much to work with in this particular case. Now, I like to be transparent. I like Van Jones. And am I biased for people that I just personally kind of like? Yes, a little bit. I'm a little bit biased for people I like. And I like him. He's a likable guy. I've talked to him and he was very generous to me. So I like him. But he didn't have anything to work with here. He had nothing to work with.

So he comes out, he goes, this was on CNN, of course. He says, "Look, right now, Democrats are going to kick each other and tear each other up and be mad at each other, but when the smoke clears for most Americans, something has been proven here." So this is Van. He says, "Republicans are just not that into Americans right now." Really, the best you have is reading the minds of Republicans and it looks all evil in there. You think the Republicans are just turned into demons or something? What is it that would affect all Republicans? All Republicans just are not into Americans right now. So you think that the America First party that literally is America first are not that into Americans? What?

And then he said, and this looks like this will be the approach they're going to all take: "How much pain were the Republicans willing to let Americans suffer so they didn't have to? They're just not that into you, America." How much pain were the Republicans willing to let you suffer? The Democrats could have voted to open it at any moment. They just lied to their base and act like they didn't have the power to open it because we're not in power. That doesn't change the fact that they have the votes. They can vote anything they want or in this case they could have voted past the 60-vote limit.

And then Van says Donald Trump and Republicans were willing to let planes fall out of the sky. I can't believe he's going this far. And children starve before they came to the table. That's so absurd. Like only one side was starving children or as if any children were starving. I'm pretty sure nobody starved. Have you seen any anecdotal stories of even that the reason you can't do this story? If the press did a story about the family, oh it's terrible that I'm laughing at this. Stop it, Scott. This is not funny. If the press, let's say they found a family where little Billy was starving and they did a story from, let's say, the family's living room and they're like, "There's little Billy. Little Billy over on the couch. He won't be eating today. He didn't eat yesterday. He'll probably be gone by noon." And then it would be the fault of the reporter for not feeding little Billy because you probably have a few extra bucks. Maybe you could spare a little bit for Billy before he falls over on the couch during your live piece.

It's only funny because I just realized you can't do a story about it because the moment you do a story about a starving anything in the United States, people send them food and they stop starving immediately. All right. Well, we do have a good country in the sense that nobody's going to look at somebody starving and let them starve. We just don't live in that country. If you see somebody starving, we're going to feed them. If I have any neighbors within walking distance who are starving, just knock on my door. Just knock on my door. You have to be within walking distance. I can't feed the world. But if any of my walking distance neighbors are literally unable to eat, I'll give you a sandwich. Stop by.

So what I liked about Van Jones's approach is in some ways he's sort of an indicator of testing some of the narratives because he's good at it. So I think they let him go first sometimes just to see how it works. But listen to every Democrat trick he tried. Was there mind reading? How many times have I told you that Democrats, they pretend they can read the minds of Republicans, but what they see in there is not America first and we like the Constitution and we like our God and we like families. They don't see the things that they're actually thinking. What they see is things that are created by the squirrels running around in their skulls and then they imagine that they can read minds. That's here, right? They're imagining that they're looking into Republican minds and that they don't mind if planes fall out of the sky and children starve.

How about a character attack? Have you noticed? Now, obviously Trump does character attacks, but he's a special case. But in terms of Republicans