ex. Are you happier? Yeah, probably. Is it more likely that you're going to have some? Oh yeah. Definitely. Definitely.

All right. Now let's reverse it. Wife comes home with a girlfriend and she's not high, but she sees that her spouse, the guy, is high as a kite. What's her first thought? Oh, damn it. He's going to be playing video games with his buddies all night. Yeah. What you don't think is that, oh, he's suddenly ready for sex because he's always ready for sex. So that's not even a variable that you need to check. But if he's really high, he might not want to go out with you and your friends. He might want to stay home and play some video games.

So there's no way in the world that you didn't all know that if the wife is stoned, it might be good news. And if the husband's stoned, it might be bad news. Come on. You all knew that. Even Carl the Fly knew that.

All right. Here's a story I should have followed more closely, but I thought it was about something else. So there's some new legislation about the hemp industry and apparently they made it illegal to have any kind of hemp product that would have any THC in it at all. Basically I thought it was about hemp. I didn't realize that it would include the active ingredient stuff. So of course I'm not in favor of this. I'm not even sure if the people voting for it even understood what they were voting for. I really don't.

But they're going to ban all hemp-derived products containing THC. I didn't realize that in the farm bill of 2018 they had legalized hemp and then a whole bunch of farmers said, "Oh, we can make some money on this hemp stuff." And so they made a bunch of money on the hemp. And then I think it was Rand Paul who was pointing out that if you yank it away, your government is just screwing with you. You know, at the very least your government should not make things worse. Am I right? It just shouldn't make things worse.

But imagine using your legislation to essentially create an entire industry in the ag domain, which is hemp. Then a whole bunch of people say, "Oh, I can finally survive." Because the other farming things weren't working out. So they start a hemp farm and it works and they make money and they get a few good years of hemp and then the government comes back and says, "Oh, by the way, it's illegal now." Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?

I don't even care what the details are of the hemp or why they did it or why they wouldn't want to do it. I don't care. You cannot be a government and yank farmers around. You've got to settle into something. Now obviously if there's a problem you want to fix the problem. But was this a problem people were complaining about? Do you remember anybody coming up to you and saying, "Oh my goodness, the legalized hemp is causing me so much trouble." No. No. You don't yank that away from the farmers.

So if there's one thing I can teach you about economics, there are only a few things about economics that are just absolutely ironclad rules. One of the ironclad rules of at least national economics is you don't mess with stuff unless you have a really good reason. You don't change the taxes even if they're too high unless you have a good reason. You don't change the tariffs. You don't change anything. You don't change anything in the economy unless you've got a really really strong reason. I don't think they have one. To me this looks like just a mistake. So I hope it gets corrected. We'll see.

Congress is also going to have some hearings on congressional stock trading. You know that Congress is the only ones who can do insider trading legally. What do you think Congress will decide about their own ability to do insider trading and make a lot of money without any risk? Well, any legal risk for insider trading? I feel like this is just for a show. Do you think there's any chance in the world they're going to ban insider trading?

But here's what I'd love, and I'll bet you'll never see it. Do you think you're going to see the argument in favor of insider trading? How many of you think that somebody's going to stand up in Congress, somebody elected to be a member of Congress, and give an argument in favor of insider trading, but only for them? Do you think that's going to happen? Because that's what's being called for, right? The entire point of having the hearing is that we hear the argument on both sides.

Well, the argument against it is moronically simple, right? I don't even need to repeat it. Every single person understands the argument against it. What exactly is the argument for it? Now I've actually heard somebody support it. I won't mention who, but the support was we don't make enough money unless we do this from an actual member of the government. We don't make enough money to essentially support living here and having a house in our district plus all the other things that don't get reimbursed. We just don't have a way to survive unless we're doing insider trading legally. Legally.

What do you think of that argument? I don't think they can say that out loud because it just doesn't sound good even if that's what you're thinking. So if you were going to compromise, I would offer the following. You know that there's at least one entity. There might be more by now that are tracking the insider trading of at least Nancy Pelosi when she was doing it and then they would give you an option of buying what they bought. Would you be happy if it was way more easy and everybody understood that they too could get the benefit of insider trading by doing a fast follow, maybe even automated of the insiders?

Oh, Andy, you're too smart. What do you think of that? Because there's no way that they're going to get rid of it because it's just too profitable and there's no way that the issue will go away so we'll keep complaining about it. If you were going to try to find a middle ground, something we could all live with, I would be semi-okay — it's not ideal — but I'd be okay if I could just fast follow and say 12 seconds after your trade goes in, mine just follows. I put some limit on it. So it's not a lot of money, but it would just be some fund of money that roughly matches what you're doing. Well, that's the best idea I have. It's probably not going to happen.

Can you believe that a Soros-backed group called Indivisible — Soros backs a lot of groups, but that's one of his big ones that we hear about — Indivisible is trying to get rid of Chuck Schumer. New York Post is reporting and as you know Republicans are not a big fan of Schumer. So how would you like to be Chuck Schumer and you can't make either Trump or Soros happy about what you're doing? And they both want to get rid of you. Actually I don't even know if Trump wants to get rid of him. Trump might be happy having him because he's such a weak competitor. But nobody loves him.

But finally the good news is that Chuck Schumer has found a way to unite us. Is there even one topic in the entire country where a severe leftist and I would completely agree? Like you could imagine this situation, right? Somebody with green hair and all kinds of tattoos and annoying signs walks up to me and says, "We got to get rid of Chuck Schumer. Are you on board?" And then I look like a CPA go, "Yeah, I'm on board. Let's get this done. We'll get rid of Schumer." Unifying.

Well, Trump has approved some oil and gas drilling in Alaska's wildlife refuge. This is the sort of story I feel I'm underserved on. If I told you that Trump had approved drilling or exploration on this wildlife refuge, what's the first question you'd ask? And is the answer to that question or even the fact that it's a question in the article? What's the number one thing you'd want to know to understand this? The number one thing you want to know is what percentage of the total wildlife refuge would be impacted, especially if something went wrong. Let's say worst case scenario, something breaks, pipeline breaks, what percentage of the total area would be destroyed?

Well, I don't know the answer to that and I don't even have a guess. I don't even have a sense of range. It's not 75%, right? If there were a pipeline leak, would it destroy 75% of the wildlife refuge? I doubt it. I don't know what the real number is, but it's probably not 75%. Would it be 10%? Do you think 10% of our invaluable irreplaceable wildlife could be destroyed if worst case — I'm saying worst case scenario 10%? I don't think so. Do you have any idea how much land would be 10%? I mean that would be a lot.

So I feel like this is a kind of story that if you don't know that it's a postage stamp sized risk — if it is, by the way, if it's not that small a risk, somebody fact check me. I don't want to mislead you. So if you ask me if I'm in favor of it or not in favor of it, how could I decide? They have not given me enough information to decide. Obviously I'm biased toward more energy exploration. You know that. But I don't know, is it 1%, 10%?

Here's a