're not talking about people who don't know how to do this business. We're talking about retired SEALs, retired top operators who might want to bring together their own private little army just for plundering the cartels.

Now, I saw a comment by Elon Musk that I haven't figured out how to interpret. I don't have the exact quote, but in response to Mike Lee's post about it, Musk said something like, "That should work out super well." Does that sound like sarcasm or does it sound like he's agreeing that should work out super well? So I don't know what Elon thinks. It could be either way. But in my opinion, if you just look at it from a persuasion perspective, every time you make it harder for the cartel to operate or you suggest that it will very soon become harder because we don't know if this will pass, it might not pass. It should change the behavior of the target group because if nobody had ever brought up the idea of letters of marque, you could assume that your only risk was the US military and that at some point maybe the public would get tired of it or whatever.

But by even suggesting, which Mike Lee's legislation does, it suggests that there's a way to make it zero expense for the government while being completely legal and constitutional and almost certainly having some big impact on smugglers. The mere risk that things could go to that level should already make them change their behavior because they don't want to be easy targets. And the free market would create these little battle groups that would certainly take down some of them. You know, it wouldn't have to take down all of the drug dealers and all of their assets. It would just have to introduce this new level of risk.

And imagine if you will that the first letter of marque private battle group, let's say they take over a cartel shipment and they capture $300 million in cash. How many of those new battle groups would form the next day? A lot. It would only take one success where somebody essentially pirated the cartel assets and made it work and it was all legal. Only have to do it once and the free market would flood it with other participants.

So I don't know what Elon meant. He may have easily meant that this is exactly the kind of thing that could go wrong or he might have meant what I just said. I don't know. But it wouldn't change my opinion that even if it doesn't get approved from a persuasion perspective, it's one more good kick in the ass for the cartels.

Well, according to SciPost, Karina Pachova, there's a non-intoxicating cannabis compound that might reverse opioid-induced brain changes. So it's possible that there's something in cannabis, not smoking it, but some kind of chemical in it that would make a big deal in your brain if you had opioid-induced problems. Now, obviously, I don't believe all the science about weed or anything else, but it's kind of interesting.

So apparently today there's going to be another Epstein file dump. I already told you don't expect you'll ever see the bottom of the barrel that it might be just a nickel and dime drip drip drip until you give up. So I would imagine that even if the CIA or somebody else is blocking the good stuff, I would imagine that they would still have to do a little trickle. So it feels like they are doing something. But you'll never know. You'll never know what they held back. And indeed, now there are claims that 16 files so far among the many thousands that were taken down from the website that had the Epstein files on it. Why? Don't know. Will we ever know? No.

Do you think that was because Pam Bondi wanted to do it or because the DOJ wanted to do it or do you think that rich and powerful people wanted to do it? We'll never know. You'll never know.

All right. So in other news, Scientific American says that AI video streaming is coming. So apparently Disney did the smartest thing they can do in the age of AI. They inked a deal with OpenAI so that instead of OpenAI essentially stealing their IP, they have an agreement where OpenAI can make videos. They have some Disney assets if they pay for it and they reach some kind of standards. But we're still at a point where you could only get a few minutes. So even if you had all the IP rights from Disney and you had the best technology that OpenAI can give you today, you wouldn't be able to make a movie, but you can make little clips.

And some say that we might only be a year away if you added some other technologies to it from making a feature-length movie just with AI and some existing assets for IP.

Now, here's what I think. What's missing in this analysis is that nobody wants to watch a three-hour movie. That the days of watching long-form movies are really kind of coming to an end. And if you have not experienced that yet, let me recommend the best video entertainment platform that exists today. If you're on X, if you haven't tried the video button, so there's a button that just produces an endless string of video that apparently the AI that's built into X knows you would be interested in. What's magic about it is they're all short. Almost none of them are AI produced. The AI is simply finding things that exist. They scroll automatically. And that's the magic sauce.

If you go to Instagram and you play a short video, you might love that video, but your finger still has to scroll to the next one. So you have to be physically involved like every 30 seconds. If you go to X, you just hit that video button once, put your phone down, and you can listen to videos that it correctly knows you would be interested in all day long. It will just give you endless dopamine hits in short form. Once you get addicted to that endless dopamine in short form, you're not really going to want to watch a three-hour movie. To me, it's intolerable to watch anything over an hour. Well, it's almost intolerable to watch anything over five minutes at this point.

So I do not believe that the Disney OpenAI collaboration is going to invent something like, oh, we have all new long-form movies that are fully approved and people like watching. I don't think you can get there from here. And it's not because you can't do it technologically. Probably that will happen eventually. It's that you'll never want to watch it because the alternative which is infinite small hits way better just way better.

So again if you haven't tried it try it for five minutes and you're going to see that Musk has again done the impossible which is he leapfrogged every video platform. It's now by far the best one. It's not even close.

Well, let's talk about Venezuela. According to Axios, now you know that Trump has put a blockade on them shipping their oil, but the blockade for whatever reason does not include every tanker all the time. So the news said that Venezuela was sending a military escort with its blockaded tankers so that the US would maybe leave them alone. Now, that never made sense because if the US wanted to take down a Venezuelan tanker, it wouldn't take too long. But it turns out that they're not even escorting the banned tankers. There were some that just were not included. But he wanted to make it look like he was being tough. Maduro did. So to make it look like Venezuela was acting tough, they put a military escort on some tankers that didn't need it because nobody could have blockaded them anyway.

So what did the US do? The US boarded them anyway. So they weren't even included in the blockade. But because Venezuela was trying to make this move that would make it look like they were somehow had some control of their own fate, which they don't. Trump matched that by boarding them anyway. So I thought that was funny. It's not important, but it shows you that in the chess game of who's got the power and who's got the risk, the US I think they won that round.

And by the way, who would Venezuela complain to about the fact that the US blockaded them and boarded them? There's nobody to complain to. You know, if you're in our hemisphere and we've got gigantic naval assets and Trump says why don't you board that thing and see what's in there or even seize it. Who's going to stop it? So again, Venezuela is just flailing around. They don't have any real response.

Well, according to the Spanish National Research Council, there's some research that says there's a compound that could revolutionize traumatic brain injury treatment. So apparently they found a compound that if you give it to a brain-damaged mouse somewhat immediately after the mouse is damaged, you know, at least close, it will just reverse the brain damage. So finally we will not have so many brain-damaged mice. I was worried about all the mice with the brain damage, but apparently they've got a handle on that now.

So on CNN there was one of the talking heads is Aisha Mills who describes herself as a black lesbian and she was mad about Trump and she said the following sentence on the air. I'm not going to be lectured by some white man who has no idea what he's talking about. Now, she was talking about another guest. I forget his name, but he was a right-leaning guest. It wasn't Scott Jennings. It was somebody else. And she said although he's never said that Trump has never said he has better genes than her or black lesbians or what he has said he has good genes and that some of the people coming in the immigrants don't have good genes.

Now is the problem that he said it or is the problem that it's not true because it does seem to me that regardless of gender or sexual orientation, regardless of ethnicity. Are there not some people in the world who got lucky? You know, I'm 5'8". Do I have good genes? Well, I would say if I were 6'4", even same ethnicity, etc., I would say I have better genes. If I were like Bo Jackson, you know, one of the greatest athletes of all time, would I say I have good genes? Privately, I would. Of course.

So nobody disagrees with Trump that the people who were coming in as immigrants would include some people with good genes, some people with bad genes. If you imagine that that makes a difference in your performance and you could control for the good genes and let's say the thing you controlled for was intelligence and competency. Wouldn't you prefer allowing in only people who had genetic potential for success? Again, that could be within an ethnic group. So you don't have to say we don't admit any Albanians. You just say we do admit Albanians, but they have to have demonstrated some level of success, which would indirectly be an indication that at least your genes were not holding you back.

So just to be clear, I think I have good genes for some intellectual capacities. I think I have bad genes for surviving to old age. Apparently my medical genes are not so good. So if you can imagine the burden I put in the healthcare system this past month, oh my god, am I getting my money's worth? So would you want, if I were not already an American, would you want to let me in the country knowing that I'm spending, I don't know, a million dollars a month of the country's money in the form of health insurance. And I'm not adding that much back in. Well, you know, saying that I have a genetic problem seems a little cruel, but is it wrong? And it's not racist because again, I'd be a typical white guy. I just have flawed genes in an area that would become very expensive for the country. And even I wouldn't let me in. If I had a choice, I'd be like, "Oh, are you British? Well, why don't you let the British take care of your expensive health problems and stay where you are, Scott."

So the thing about this story is that you can't imagine anybody but a black lesbian, again, that would be her own description of herself, would be able to get away with that and then someday also be back on the air on CNN. So we don't expect that kind of behavior, but we'll see if she gets away with it. We'll see if she's ever back in there.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries was asked about Representative James Comer and Comer is putting together some investigation into Somali taxpayer fraud in Minnesota. So when asked about that, Hakeem Jeffries' answer was that Representative Comer is quote a joke, an embarrassment, an unserious individual, and a malignant clown.

Now, is that the right answer to a question about him investigating massive, well understood, and known fraud in Minnesota? Not really. But what it highlights is that the Democrats are spring-loaded to go for personal attacks because they don't have arguments and they don't have policies. So if you don't have popular policies or arguments, you make it about the person.

So with Trump, no matter what he's doing, the ca