oes he stand to make on this? Well, let's see. It's a blind trust and it's a managed portfolio, so he doesn't directly own the stock. It's in a managed basket of stocks by some other company that's investing for him. And how much more, percentage? Well, if you do the math, it looks like the president, if everything went well, instead if their stock went up, I think the president could stand to, and this is just an estimate, I mean I could be off a little bit, but I think the president stands to make hundreds of dollars. Hundreds. Yeah, hundreds of dollars. Now not hundreds of millions of dollars based on the amount of stock he owns indirectly through a fund that owns lots of stocks including this one. According to Mike Serta, who bothered to do the math and it basically tweet-shamed the rest of the media for not even bothering to do the math.

Yeah, apparently the gain could be all of maybe a few hundred dollars if everything went right. You know, best case scenario, President Trump could make hundreds of dollars off of this. That was world news. World news. They could make hundreds of dollars if everything went right. So your press has not been covering themselves with glory.

Let's talk about Pope Francis. You know it's good that we have these religious and moral leaders because when you have a big crisis, an emergency, they can be very helpful. You know, in normal times they're helpful, but you really need a moral and spiritual leader like the Pope to really get on board and be useful during this time of emergency. So here's what he said. Pope Francis has said that the coronavirus pandemic is one of, quote, "nature's responses to humans ignoring the current ecological crisis."

Okay, I take back everything I said. It turns out that our moral and religious leaders are no use whatsoever in an emergency. May be making it worse, possibly. But nice try, Pope Francis. Thanks for playing. That didn't work out.

Let's see what else is going on. I got to check that number of deaths to see if it really got lowered. Now I tweeted provocatively. I tweeted this and I have to read you my tweet in the exact wording because if you don't do the exact wording it doesn't work. I said, I would never compare President Trump to Jesus, but it is worth noting that they are somewhat comparable in terms of curing illnesses. I mean, you know, talking about the Democratic representative who credits President Trump with saving her life by recommending the hydroxychloroquine. And then I go on, it said, and to be fair, I don't think Jesus could have come back after the Access Hollywood tape. If you think about it, it was pretty miraculous. But overall Jesus is way, way better than Trump.

So I want to be very clear. I'm not comparing Trump to Jesus. It's just sort of objectively true that Trump is going to have some cures. Jesus had some cures. But we're not keeping score. We're not keeping score. I'm not saying he's better than Jesus. Come on, don't even think that. I'm just saying that they both have some cures and they're coming back from the Access Hollywood tape. I don't think anybody expected that comeback. So just pointing it out. But overall, overall, just so we're on the same page here, overall Jesus is way, way better than Trump. We all agree on that, right? Okay, glad we're on the same page.

So the New York City Health Department, they've been asked whether it was safe to have sex during the coronavirus thing and so they issued some guidelines. So this is the New York City Health Department and they said that you should, they recommend that you only get intimate with someone in your household along with... oh well, I can't say this word because your kids are home. But this is coming from an official government source, the New York City Health Department. So let's put it this way. The other thing that they recommend, the last part of the word is "bation," the first part of the word is "master." So that's what they recommend. Either only get intimate with someone who's already in your household or you could do the masturbation thing.

And I thought to myself, well I'm kind of limited to people in my household. My fiancée is in a different house. So Snickers and Boo, my dog and my cat. So I held a little house meeting and I talked to my dog and my cat and I said, this isn't me talking, this is an official government source. And I said they're recommending you can only get intimate with somebody who's already in your house. So I was sort of feeling them out on this and I got a no from both of them. Turns out they were both like, no, forget about it. And then they both recommended, and this is weird, I didn't see it coming, but the dog, the dog recommended that I do that masturbation thing. First word "master."

And when the dog said that to me I thought, are you kidding? Are you kidding? Are you telling me that I've just spent the last month completely alone in this big house of mine and I could have been doing that with all my free time, my Wi-Fi and my access to the internet? Are you telling me I could have been doing that the whole time? I was waiting for some kind of a guideline. And man, was I getting frustrated. But thank you to the New York City Health Department for the... and my dog Snickers for giving me the big okay there. I'm just saying I feel a lot better today. I'm just feeling a lot better today.

All right. I looked at my odds according to one list. So my odds of dying from the coronavirus because I live in California and apparently California is really nailing it on this coronavirus stuff, really nailing it. And so my odds of dying as a Californian are one in a hundred thousand. One in a hundred thousand. Now of course I'm in the high-risk group so mine is actually higher. But it's kind of good to know that for the average Californian it's one in a hundred thousand.

Now if somebody said your odds of dying or somebody in your family, the odds are one in a hundred thousand if you go back to work, you'd go back to work, wouldn't you? I think you would, right? One in a hundred thousand. You'd say yeah, that's good enough. If it was one in a hundred you might say I'm not going to kill one in a hundred people by going back to work because that's going to be somebody I know, right? You know, if 100 people died of coronavirus, yeah that would include people you know. But one in a hundred thousand, maybe not.

All right. Now I've decided that the other thing is that males have a way higher chance of dying from coronavirus than females. And they don't know exactly what the difference is. You know, something genetic. But men are dying in a much higher rate than women. And that wasn't a risk I was willing to take. So from now until the coronavirus crisis has passed, I'm going to identify as female. It's not that I feel that way on the inside, but I'm just trying to manage my coronavirus risk because I understand the coronavirus is much more aggressive against men. So just for a few months I'm going to identify female. It's just, it's only for statistical reasons, only for health reasons. Then you know, depending how I like it. If I like it I might keep it. But you know, probably at the end of the summer I might go back.

All right. There is still this weird fake ridiculous debate in the news about whether President Trump was ignoring the advice of his aides and not acting more aggressively on the coronavirus more early. And the evidence they gave is this January 29th memo from Navarro, who's getting a lot of credit by the way. He's a PhD social scientist. He knows how to read studies. So even though he's not a healthcare guy, he can read the news, he can read the statistics, he can look at the studies. So he wrote a memo saying, oh, we got big trouble with this coronavirus. We should act aggressively. Two days later President Trump closed the airports.

And the news is trying to find some distance between January 29th and an aide writing a persuasive memo that we should close the airports. And two days later, why the aide said it was a big problem but two days later the president acting aggressively exactly as the aide would have wanted. And the president says he doesn't remember the memo. But I imagine lots of people were reading the memo and you know maybe there was lots of conversation around it. So I think the memo probably had some impact, if only on other aides who took the message to him. But I believe him when he says he doesn't remember seeing the memo.

Now is there really any distance there? Are those two days between January 29th and January 31st, is that where you're going to find out that the president wasn't listening to his aides for two days? One of the biggest decisions in all of the global problems in the world, one of the biggest questions. And within two days he took the recommendation from a top aide who is being credited with getting it right. Two days? Really? Really? That's where we're going to find that if the president waited two days to take the recommendation that was right and that's a criticism? Are you kidding me?

So here's something else I'm going to tell you that I probably shouldn't but I will because I've been talking more about politics. I've gotten to meet a lot of people and to see behind the curtain on a number of big stories. So it's quite common that there will be a headline story and the news will report it one way. And of course CNN reports it one way and Fox reports another. But it's fairly common at this point that I already knew the story before it was in the news and I know the real story behind it. It's not the story that anybody's reporting. It happens fairly often.

And by the way, if you know anybody who works let's say in a government or even for a big company and you say, hey, tell me the real story about this big decision, something that everybody knows about, you almost always find out that the real story, it's just never the one that's reported in the news. Because there's always some context that's deeply important that just doesn't get reported. So the news you're getting from the left and the right are typically so out of context and wrong that neither of them are really telling you what's happening. Especially if it's reports about something that happened behind closed doors.

Now if it's a hurricane or something, everybody gets that right. But if it's a report about what somebody said or did or felt or thought behind closed doors when not many people are watching and there's various anonymous reports and stuff like that, I wouldn't trust either the reporting on the left or the right. So my experience is that every time, every time you can get the real story from the real people, it's not the one that was reported in the news. Every time. Every time it's not the one that was reported by the news, left or right.

So this is by way of saying that the story about how the president made his decision, there's way more to the