Episode 2438 CWSA 04/08/24

Well, without any luck at all, there'll be something like a show. I'm going to print my. My notes for today while everybody streams in. Just kiss. Can't seem to remember to turn off the sound there, but now it's good. All right, ladies and gentlemen, to the printer. All right, Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. Have a little problem with our comments here, which I will fix in one moment. Boom. You know, if you'd like your experience today to go up to levels that even the Eclipse can't understand, it's going to be easy. Tell you how to do it in a moment. As soon as this is fixed. There we go. Nope. Interesting. All right, so the app's not working, but I can see your comments on the mobile or on the. Whatever the hell this is, you know, when I. All right, nothing's working. Let's try again. Let's try one more time. We'll actually. Maybe actually do a show today, but let's see. I don't see any comments on the chat. I don't see the. So there's no locals comments. Looks like locals just isn't working. So everything but locals. Great. I'll try it one more time. It's probably just a reboot problem. Nope. Man, it literally worked 60 seconds ago. Oh, I know what the problem is. I know what the problem is. Or do I? Well, see, if I have two things open that might be a problem. Might be. I might have two things open here. Yep, there it is. That's problem. I had two streams open. I was crossing streams, but now should be perfect. Oh, I want to throw all of my equipment into the ocean because I don't have comments on anything. I'm going to try on a second machine because it really does change the experience. Pretty sure my second machine will work. All right, watch this. Working perfectly. Come on. Oh, Nope. All right, well, I guess I don't have a comment option this morning. Oh, there we go. Look at that. Just. It just came back to life. We got comments. We got everything. We're gonna do the simultaneous sip, just like the morning hadn't been a total disaster so far. Are you with me? Let's pretend none of this happened. Can we just rewind that like a few minutes? All right, here's a simultaneous sip. All you need for that is a cup of mugger glass of. Thank you, Charles Stein. A canteen jug of class of us of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the. Dopamine End of the day, the thing makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous S. It happens now go. There we go. We got comments. Everybody's in the house. We are 100% cooking. Couldn't be any better. Well, are you going to watch the Eclipse today? I hear it's going to be amazing. Yeah. The only thing I have to say about it is if I ever start a robot barbershop where robots cut your hair, I will name it Eclipse if it's not already taken. Here's my entertainment suggestion for today. If you like Star Trek, the first season of Discovery is on now. I think they spelled Discovery wrong. They spell it D I S, C O V E R Y Discovery. But I think they're leaving out the E. Should be D E I S C O V Discovery, DEI Discovery. So it's basically the, the wokest version of Star Trek and but I must say they did a great job of picking the lead, the lead actor and actress. So although it's a super woke and so the captain's got to be a black woman, they picked a really good character. So you know, sometimes, sometimes the DEI works. This is one of those cases. I think the writing is still too female. Way too many relationships, like everybody's in love and talking nice to each other. So the whole show seems like a some kind of female fantasy where men are nice to people. But I gotta say the, the lead actors, actor and actress are great if you like that kind of thing. I'm gonna give you a lesson on how to know you are irrational. You ready for this? Do you ever think hey, those other people are irrational? But man, I got some good arguments in me. Here are some things that if you hear these things come out of your mouth, you are an irrational person and the other person should walk away from you. Word number one, this is a red flag. Should. If you're ever having a debate with somebody and so and they say what should happen or what we should do. Sometimes it's just the way people talk, right? So if you can get them to say it a different way then maybe they have a point. But if the only thing they have is should, they're trying to win the argument with a word instead of an argument. Should says you should do it, but where's the argument? So it's B. Should. Could be, could be substituted with it's the correct decision. Here's the actual definition of should. It's used to indicate obligation, duty or correctness. Obligation, duty or correctness. That's not an argument. An argument Is not. Obligation is arguable. Duty is always arguable. Correctness is always arguable. So it's basically trying to win the argument by telling somebody that the word can substitute for thinking so should is a huge red flag. I do it all the time, by the way. I make the same mistake. Here's another one. Fairness. It would only be fair if we do this. Fairness was invented as a word so that idiots and children would have something to talk about. Oh, that's not fair. Oh, it's not fair. Fairness is not an argument. There's nothing in the world that's fair. Sometimes the best systems are the unfair ones, such as capitalism. Have you heard of it? Free markets, not exactly fair. But we can't do anything better usually. And then there's the analogy argument. Analogies are good for explaining what you're talking about, but they're not arguments. You can't say Hitler like cats, therefore you're Hitler. That's not an argument. That's crazy. So look for these keywords in my, my presentation today. By the way, if all goes well, I think I'm scheduled for a Spaces audio event on X today at what would be 3:30 Eastern Time, 12:30 my time in California. So look for that on Spaces on all topics, I think. All right, here's my theme for today. We can't measure anything complicated. And it's the biggest problem in, in governing. We think we, we have this imaginary total magical thinking that humans can measure complicated things. Not only can we not do that, we've never done it on anything. You could measure it and try to convince people you measured it right, but you can't really know. Let me tell you where I learned that used to be my job when I worked in big corporations, first big bank and then later at the phone company. It was usually my job to go find some information about a complicated thing. For example, if we were to make this complicated decision versus this complicated decision, which one turns out better? So it'd be for me to figure that out. I'd be measuring all manner of complicated things. One day I was measuring the. Trying to measure the performance of each of the branch banks. I've told this story before, but it fits really well with the point. I was working directly for a senior vice president and I asked for a meeting with him. I said, I know you asked me to measure the performance of all the branches that you manage so you can know which managers below you are doing a good job. But in collecting the information I've determined that they compile their own information in different ways, and therefore it's not possible to measure who's doing better. You would only be randomly looking at data that you knew was not good. So I said, well, maybe we shouldn't do this because the data is definitely just random. And the senior vice president looked at me and he said, that's okay. I'm only going to use it when it agrees with what I was thinking anyway. In other words, if he thought a manager needed to go and by coincidence, my number said he wasn't doing a good job totally randomly, well, then he'd use it and he'd bring it and say, look, you're doing a bad job. You're fired. But if the numbers didn't agree with what he wanted to do, he would just ignore the numbers and say, well, for reasons, you're fired. Now. I said to myself, well, this is one unique situation here. Imagine a situation where the people who are paid to compile data and tell you what's true. What if they were all bought off in some way, you know, didn't want to get fired, so they were willing to say something that wasn't true. Well, that was me. That was me as a young corporate employee. My senior, senior boss, Harvard mba, told me that using random data was fine because it's all fake anyway. And I just went through with the charade. The charade, the charade, the charade. Whichever you prefer. And I just pretended like it was actually some meaningful work. And I'd come to work and I do my ridiculous job of measuring things that I couldn't actually measure. And I knew it. And that nobody should use these numbers. And we used them just like they were real. So I remind you of anything? Climate change, our elections, measuring inflation. How's the job growth? Hard to say. Literally everything that we make decisions about. Well, there's a few, few exceptions. Yeah. But most things are that we make big government decisions on are based on the illusion that we can measure big, complicated things. We've never been able to do that, not anywhere, ever in the history of humankind. Yeah, we don't even know. We can't even be sure if the vaccinations were good for us or bad for us. Just hold that in your mind. We can't agree if the vaccinations were good for us or bad for us. Now, I know you have your opinions, but I'm saying we don't agree on how to measure it. We don't agree on anything. There's no such thing as a complicated situation in which we have any idea what's going on and we never will. It's not doable beyond some level of complication. Can't measure anything. But we believe we can. So there's a. So Rasmussen did a poll. 83% of voters expect the issue of inflation to be important. All right, so inflation, according to Rasmussen, one of the top concerns. So you think it'd be pretty important if we can measure the inflation and really understand where it's coming from. Right. One of the biggest things. Well, here's a related story. A recent study, and there's a scientific journal called Nature, they did a study and they found out that one of the causes of inflation is climate change. Really? Seriously? There's a scientific journal that used to be considered authoritative and people used to think was something they could trust called Nature. And yeah, now did I need to read the article? Do you think that was an article I should pour into and see what their argument is? No, I don't need to read that article. It's so obviously not true. How in the world do they not know that energy costs are our biggest problem, influencing all the other sub costs and that the energy costs are high because of fighting climate change? Inflation isn't caused by climate change, it's caused by fighting climate change. Very much caused by it. Now, I don't have to measure that because I know that if you pass a trillion dollar budget to fight climate change, you added little inflation. I know that if you restrict drilling. Well, supply and demand, I don't have to measure it. Supply and demand doesn't sum sometimes work a different way. It's like I don't have to measure whether if I let something go from my hand, it'll drop to the ground. Because I've heard of gravity, right? You don't have to measure it, you know it's going down. So the fact that there would be a major publication that could even entertain that as a story tells you that either scientists don't know anything about inflation or people who know about inflation don't know anything about science. But it's very unlikely there's somebody who knows enough about both and they could accurately measure any of that stuff. All right, how about this? Here's your mind bender for today. Climate scientists tell us that we know what the temperature is lately because we have very, very advanced measuring devices and that they're all over. Not all over, but they're in thousands of places. And so the way we measure the temperature is by going to the thermometers and looking at Them writing it down. So that's pretty good right now, why, why is it that we have thermometers instead of, like just, you know, licking your finger and holding it up? Well, I assume I wasn't there when the decision was made, but I assume you need thermometers because it's hard to tell the temperature without them. But yet we compare the readings on our thermometers to the temperature from hundreds and sometimes thousands of years ago, but we didn't have thermometers then. So let me see if I can understand this. We, as the public, have been told that we know exactly what the temperature was and what it is now. And the way we know it in the past is from tree rings and ice core samples and a number of other environmental things, and that we can do that accurately enough and also measure what the CO2 was, you know, back in those same times. We can do that accurately enough that we could compare it to our modern instruments and have something like a logical, rational, straight line of what the temperature's been over time. That's right. The scientists convinced you that the reason we need modern thermometers is because we can't measure the temperature easily without them. And then they measured the temperature of what it was hundreds of years without them, and then compared that to what we get with our modern thermometers. And then I don't know if you knew this, but most of you know that the thermometers suffer from being near heat islands. In other words, they might have been somewhere that was a good place to measure things before, but then maybe, you know, the city grows out or whatever. I thought that was a problem. I saw a claim today with, with some examples that almost all of the. All of the measurements are on airports. Is that true that almost all of the thermometers are on airports? Meaning that the, the heat from the jets and the concrete and everything are basically determining everything. And then we put thermometers on concrete and compared it to our tree rings. That really happened. There are people in your government who are selling you on the idea that they put thermometers on concrete in the modern day and then compared those accurate readings to their tree rings and their ice core samples, and they're like, well, we nailed it this time. Nothing complicated can be measured. There's no exception. Nothing complicated can be measured. People don't have that ability. Humans don't have anything like that ability. Not for anything. Not ever. Not once. Not ever. Nope. We can do pretty well when the math does. Does the job, you know, like putting a spaceship into orbit. You know, the math and the physics are pretty good, so we can do that stuff, but that's not like measuring something that's a little different. All right, how about our elections? We can totally, totally measure who won an election, right? And then we would know if it's fair and if we should do it differently. These are all absurdities. We couldn't possibly know who won the election. The only way you can know is if it was just a blowout. But if it's close. No, we don't have the ability to know who won. Not even close. You don't believe me? Let's see what. What's going on in Maricopa as we speak. Carrie Lake and Mark Fincham. So they've got this new brief they filed with the Supreme Court, and among their claims are the Maricopa, which is a place there's a lot of controversy about the outcome. The Maricopa did not do the required LNA testing for their machines and used altered and hence uncertified software. The claim is that the county used. They used the certified software which was approved for use in Arizona, but it was altered in some way. And then the county only tested. They only tested the software on five spares. They didn't test it on the actual tabulators. So the things they tested, they tested the software they didn't use. Really? They tested the software they didn't use, and then when they got the software that they did use, they only tested on some test machines. You're not the actual ones that were going to be used in the field. So we don't know for sure, according to this claim, whether those machines work. We don't know if mail carriers are throwing away ballots. How do we know that? How would you know if the mailman don't just get together and say. Or the male women and get together and just say, you know what, if you're picking up a Bella from this neighborhood, maybe just throw it away because it's a lot, a lot of Trump voters there. How do we know? We wouldn't know. So if you think you can know who won an election, I'm pretty sure that the whole point of elect of. Of voting machines is so you can't know. Our, our elections are completely designed. So you don't know. What is the impact of Google rigging search results? Well, According to researcher Dr. Epstein, it completely changes how you vote. What is the impact of Mark Zuckerberg and law changes and Mark Elias and what's the effect of changing things to mail in ballots and all that. The effect is we have no idea if the will of the people had anything to do with the outcome. Right now, I'm not saying something illegal happened necessarily. I don't have, you know, proof of some illegal things specifically, but you can see from the design that is designed to keep you from knowing who won. You can't know. That's completely unknowable. And you won't know the next time, and you won't know the time after. The only time you'll know is if it's a blowout. And that doesn't happen because they can prevent the blowout from happening. So things that Democrats believe to be true. It's kind of funny. They think elections are designed to be secure. They're not even designed for that. They're very much designed to be, you know, so you can't tell. And that Republicans stage insurrections without guns and you can measure the temperature of the Earth now and hundreds of years ago. Those are all absurdities. They're total absurdities. And we, Our entire system is based on us arguing over absurdities, as if we could measure any of this stuff. Anyway, speaking of things that aren't true, there's something called the Brennan center of Justice. Anyway, so according to them, the CIA wants to expand their ability to spy on Americans who. No, not Americans. Spy on people in other countries, which, of course will be used against America directly or indirectly. So the CIA says it doesn't have enough authority to spy on people. And what they want to do is they want to have this authority specifically so they can go after the fentanyl business. Yeah, so the CIA wants more authority for spying so they can crack down on the fentanyl business people. The CIA doesn't want the fentanyl business to end. That couldn't possibly be true. It's like they threw a dart at a board and said, we need extra powers to surveil people because climate change. Climate change requires us to have extra powers to surveil. Well, that's ridiculous. Oh, well, fentanyl. How about fentanyl? Yeah, yeah, that's it. The fentanyl. No, no, that doesn't make any sense because you haven't done anything up to this point. Here's my take on the CIA and fentanyl, observationally, can't prove it, but the observation is that nothing useful is being done to stop fentanyl, so it must be intentional. The design of the system tells you its purpose. Now, if the purpose isn't being met in the short run, then you'd expect people to change the system pretty quickly. But if a system has been in place for years and the people who could change it, let's say the CIA still let it stay. And it gets worse, you have to assume they want it to get worse or as part of some larger play. I assume that the fentanyl business is enriching the cartel and the cartel works with the CIA to pacify the Central American countries and countries we want to control through dirty means. So I think, my guess is that the fentanyl and the CIA are all part of the same process. I don't think they're going to use their new surveillance to stop the fentanyl business. That just feels like the throw a dart at the list of reasons that sound good. Oh, you know what, there's too much discrimination in the world, too much, you know, systemic racism. So we need some more powers of surveillance. I swear to God, they just picked this randomly. Fentol. That'll sound good. Throw that in the mix. I don't believe anything about that. There's more evidence that exercise is better than counseling or quote the leading medications. So yet another study that says physical activity is 1 1/2 times better than counseling or what they call the leading medications. Why did they have to use that word, leading? Now, one reason would be that they only bothered to study, you know, the biggest, most prescribed drugs. That could be one reason. Well, it'd be another reason they would say the leading medications, exercise is better than the leading medications. Could it be that they're fully aware that mushrooms, maybe Kratom and maybe some other things, dmt perhaps. Could it be that they're aware that those are way more useful than either the big pharma stuff or exercise? Because I think that might be the case. I don't know. But anecdotally, when people talk about it, they say, one dose, fix me forever, that sort of thing. So I think they were careful in their language here. Now, do we believe this is true? Remember I told you you can't measure anything complicated? Can we measure that exercise gives you a better outcome than medications? Is that complicated? Not super complicated. You just ask people, did you exercise? Did you take a drug? Which one? So I think in theory this isn't super complicated, but it doesn't mean it's true because we've seen even simple polling situations where you think it would be easy to gather the data. And they gather it backwards. You know, they get the cause and effect backwards. So even if it's simple. Sometimes they don't get it right, but it's at least within the. It's within the realm of something we might be able to measure as human beings. Well, Google apparently has not fixed its Gemini AI image generator. They got it in trouble because it was making everybody look black because it was so woke that it wanted George Washington to look black and everybody else. And now there's some noise that it's an indication that maybe the CEO Sundar Piche should be out of a job because it's taking so long to fix the product. That's probably the future of Google itself, the AI. And I've got a different take on this. I don't think that the delay in fixing it is because the CEO is incapable or even unwilling. Here's what I think. I think it's logically impossible. I don't think they can fix it, don't know what they're going to do. But they can't make their product less woke because they've hired a company full of wokers. So the moment that it does anything that's not, let's say, proper to their philosophies, there's no way it's going to be allowed. So I think what you saw was not a mistake which they'll go back and fix. I think you saw a permanent situation that can't be fixed with their current company. I mean, I think the only way to fix it would be to outsource it to some company that did their own hiring and Google did not. In other words, Google might have to design a system that takes into account that they hired people who can't make decisions like this, literally have to use outside people because all their inside people are so infected with wokeness that you couldn't trust them to make a decision the market could live with. I think that's what's going on. Logically impossible. It might be logically impossible because the training data is based on the real world and the real world is completely distorted by people pretending to be woke. So if you're only training your AI on what people have said, how does the AI know that the people were all lying or they're weasels? I mean, if you look at the whole DEI network, it's people who know they're lying, it's people who are saying what they know has to be said. Then you have weird Mark Cuban situations where it's hard to believe he never knew what DEI was in the real world and yet he's arguing in public and then he creates a big body of conversation which is purely absurd. And then what AI trains on it. H. How does AI know that if it's looking at everything that Mark Cuban said on the topic that it doesn't even make sense to humans when we're look at it like I don't even know what's going on here. What. What are you doing that anyway? So I don't think it could be fixed. Maybe. Good news. The big Taiwan semiconductor company, tsmc, world's biggest chip maker, looks like they're going to do a deal to make some chips in Arizona in 2028, which seems like not very long from now. I feel like that's not going to happen. You know, I feel like nothing ever happens that quickly. Four years, it seems like just too short because we have all kinds of environmental problems, etc. I read something somewhere but I don't know if it's true that the founder of Taiwan's biggest chip maker, tsmc, tried to build it in Texas, but I think it was the regulations were too extreme and there was something that the United States was preventing him from doing so. He had to go to Taiwan. So it was one of like the biggest mistakes our country's ever made letting this chip company go to Taiwan. But maybe we'll get some of it back. A survey conducted by Change Research last year found that nearly 2/3 of women in the 18 to 34 category identified as progressive or liberal. So 2/3 of young women are progressive or liberal, while just more than 1/3 of young men identify the same way. Can most of you confirm that from your own experience? I. I'm told that locally where I live, the. The girls are woke and the boys think it's stupid. What do you think? In fact, the. The boys just don't have a. They don't have a twinge of wokeness in them at all. Now add to that. So what is 18 to 34 year old women? What do they have in common? 18 to 34 year old women? Well, they are in their peak of fertility and ability to healthily have a child and they've managed to talk themselves into a situation. Thank you TikTok for making this possible. In which 2/3 of them, 2/3 of women could never have a relationship with 2/3 of the men. So 2/3 of all women would find it impossible to get in a relationship with any one of two thirds of all the men. Now add on top of that, after you take the first 2/3 out, he's got to be, you know, sexy and have a high income. He's got to be 6ft tall and have a penis that drags on the ground when he walks. You know, normal stuff. We don't have a chance of reproducing. You all see it, right? You don't have to. You don't have to be measuring a complicated thing. We've created a situation that can't possibly reproduce ourselves, and that's Tick Tock. There's no way this happened organically. Would you all know that? Right? There's no way it happened organically. It's happening from social media, period. It's social media. And what ones do, what social media do young girls use the most? Well, tick tock. Now you might say to yourself, but Scott, what about the other American companies that are turning kids trans? To which I say, I don't think they have nearly as much influence. I don't even know anybody who watches Facebook. Do you know any young people who use Facebook? I don't. And anyway, so we basically have ourselves in a situation where TikTok has canceled reproductive possibilities in America. So. So Tick Tock will be banned, right? Because it's really, like, really obvious this destroyed the United States probably permanently, just by removing our ability to reproduce. So we'll ban it, right? No, no, because probably somebody's making money from it, and that's all you need to know. All right, we'll talk about Trump. He's got some interesting things going on. This is funny. So apparently the NBC News was reporting on this. What makes it even funnier? So remember in 2016, the Democrats were yelling, get Trump off the air. Why do you give him so much airtime? Don't show his rally. Kick him off of the old Twitter, cancel him from social media. And they thought the only way they could win was to silence him. Well, so now he. They successfully got him off of social media. You know, so he's a little siloed into truth. We still see it, but it's, you know, reported as something that was untruth. And we see that he's so busy with his lawfare that he's not, you know, doing his normal Trump thing. So he's getting a lot less attention. Do you know what they're saying now? The only way we can beat him is if we give him more attention. Yeah, I'm not making that up. They went from the only thing that can kill us is giving him too much attention to the only thing that can kill us is if we don't give him enough attention, because otherwise people won't know how bad he is. So we've got to show him, in his own words, doing stuff, because then you'll know how bad he is. Do you think the Democrats are completely lost? That their best strategy is to give him too much attention followed by too little, and that either way loses and they haven't figured out what's wrong yet? Yeah, I do think that Trump is benefiting by not getting as much attention. Would you agree that his campaign is operating? Probably. I don't know if this is true, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna put that out there. He might be running Trump. The best political campaign of my lifetime. I'm not positive about that. I'm no political historian, but it's really close to flawless. It's really close. And we'll talk more about what he's getting. Right. But he's really, really running a strong, strong campaign. The worst news he gets, he does reframe successfully. The worst news is the, you know, the lawfare. And he made it work. Totally made it work. You know, that he gets banned communication wise. And he makes that work too. He's just making it all work. So that's fun. So Trump has finally come out with his statement on abortion, which we all been waiting for. Now, the trouble here is if he went strong on banning abortions, he'd have no chance of winning and the Republicans would be routed. But if he didn't come out strong against abortion, then he might lose support among conservatives and lose that way. So it looked like he had two ways to lose. He could either lose Republican votes and he's dead, or he can definitely not get any independence. He said. So two ways to lose. So what did Trump do? Split that baby right in half? So he says it should be left up to the states. Abortion should, he says, left the states to do the right thing on abortion. And he said Democrats are radical on the issue for not wanting any restrictions. And he says that he strongly supports ivf. So in vitro fertilization to create babies. And that definitely opposes a number of people in his own party. But the way he sold it was the Republicans are always in favor of life and might be the only way to make these beautiful babies, as he says, and we need more beautiful babies. And IVF is one of the key technologies for helping people make babies. And he's pro life, pro baby. He wants big, beautiful families, and IVF helps create big, beautiful families. And we're done. Now, will he lose some people who think IVF is a form of abortion because there's some fertilized eggs or something that get destroyed or frozen forever. And it seems unkind. So what do you think of that answer? And he does go on to say that he supports the Reagan like, ability to get an abortion if you're, if there's rape or incest or the health of the mother. So he tried to split the baby. Now, here's a strategy. You make the Democrats a little mad, but not so mad that they're animated about abortion. You just want to take some energy out. If he had said no abortions, no ivf, there would be so much energy behind abortion. But if you say, how about you states decide and I stay out of it, and how about if you want ivf, ivf, you can have it, split the baby. So the idea here is that the Democrats aren't getting what they want, but they can very clearly see that he opposed his own party, or part of it, part of his own party, to compromise. You don't really see that a president try to be everybody's president. And that's what he did. This is probably, I don't know, I can't even think of another example. Think of another example where a president said, look, we're going to have to find a middle ground. So I'm going to make my own, my own people a little bit unhappy. Going to make you guys maybe even a little bit more than unhappy. But this is where it works. It's the closest you can get to something that works. So people will argue about it. But I think he did as well as you can do in finding a workable solution where it won't eliminate him from getting elected. I don't think it's an automatic elimination. I don't think it's an automatic, you know, good news. I don't think you'll gain votes. I think he may have just successfully found the narrow pathway where it doesn't change things one way or another too much. Now, a number of people asked if, you know, I added any influence on this because it looks like something I said before, but when I read, when I read the language, it looks a little bit more like Vivek. Meaning. Meaning the. The way he split the baby was clever enough and had enough nuance that it kind of looked like he's just getting great advice and not for me and this case. You probably heard me say that. Here's what I tweeted yesterday. I said that when men are involved in abortion lawmaking, it automatically becomes telling women what they can do with their bodies, which I totally understand. Have any of you men ever Done the exercise where you say, well, how would I feel if I were a woman in this situation? I would feel if men were involved in the abortion decision in any capacity, you know, of the lawmaking, not, not just opinion, but the lawmaking and the voting stuff, I would feel like men were telling me what to do with my body and I wouldn't like it. Now, before you say, but, Scott, that's not logical and we have a reason. I'm not talking about logic or reason. That's a whole different domain. I'm talking about how you'd feel. And I would feel that the decision making was illegitimate because I would think, let the women work this out. We'll tell you once we've figured it out. That's what I would think if I were a woman. So I wouldn't begrudge anybody for thinking it if they are a woman. So it's, it's sort of baked into men being evolved. Makes it look like telling women what to do with their bodies. And you know that's true because the women say it exactly that way. They're trying to tell us what to do with our bodies. They say it exactly that way. You don't have to wonder what they're thinking. It's right on the top of the messaging. But suppose that Republicans or anybody else said, you know what? Everybody gets a vote because that's the system. Everybody gets an opinion because that's the system. Free speech. But if we want, if we want a situation that we can live with, given how divisive this is, maybe let the women take the lead. Now, I got all kinds of pushback on this from people who don't know how to think. And I'm going to be maybe a little brutal on you because maybe this will be the first time you figure out your analytical abilities. A whole lot of people told me what should happen. Should. There's that word. If your argument is men should have a say, that's not a reason. For example, men should have a say because they get on the hook for the finances. Does that make sense? No. You tried to make that make sense by putting the word should there. It doesn't make sense by itself. You're trying to sell it as making sense. It's a true fact that men are put on the line. It's not a true fact that therefore they should have an opinion about the abortion. Here's what is logical. Let the women decide what they do with their bodies, but let men be part of the decision about who pays for what. Right. Because if Your decision is who pays for it. That's not exactly the same as telling you what to do with your body. That's telling you, don't do this with my wallet. Stay out of my wallet. How about, how about the, the way that would be most stable is that men feel they're not being abused because they get some control over decisions about their wallets. And women don't feel like somebody, a bunch of men decided what to do with their bodies. So you just let the women take the lead. Everybody still has their vote. Everybody can still say their opinion, but just let the women take the lead. And here is the point. If you have a situation which cannot and will not be resolved, and abortion cannot and will not be resolved, like where we all agree as life and death, I mean, really big stakes in those cases, the best thing you can do is make sure that the way the decision is made is credible. It's the best you can do. The only thing that will hold society together is if you say, oh, I hate that. But I have to admit, the system they used to come up with that idea, that was a valid system. I just didn't go the way I like it. You can live with that, right? So if it's not a valid system, people won't live with it. And I don't think that women would see the abortion question as completely valid if men have too much of a, you know, a thumb on the decision. Now, how many people understood that point? I, if you look online and look at the comments summarizing my point, will never agree. So the best you can do is agree on how to, how to make the decision. You know, what's the most valid, credible way to do it? And nobody could understand that. They just told me their opinion. And, and just telling me your opinion has never worked before. Like, it never made anybody agree. You never change anybody's mind because you made your good opinion. Although people do change their mind on abortion. That's the thing. All right, so the persuasion tip is this. If society can't agree on an issue and never will, if we can't agree and we never will, then you don't just keep arguing about it. And that's what we've been doing up to this point. We'll never agree. We don't agree, and it's never going to get fixed. The agreeing part will never get fixed. So you have to leave that domain because it's a losing domain. All you do is just get angry and nothing happens. So you have to go to the domain of, well, at least we can figure some credible way to make a decision. And for me, if women were by some solid majority in favor of some set of laws, I would say even if I didn't like those laws, I could live with that. I could live with that. All right, so Trump is not where I'm at. I've gone further than he went. But in terms of what is practical and useful and realistic in today's world, probably nailed it. I think if he went all the way to women should take the lead, he would have the trouble that I got into, which is people don't quite understand the argument. They just yell about the money, which is really just a separate argument. It's a good one, but it's a separate argument. Then what do you do with your body? All right, so Trump has violated the gag order from the judge Merchant. And so now we have. I guess they could put Trump in jail for 30 days and. Or fine him $1,000. You put him in jail for 30 days and. Or find him $1,000. What kind of choices are those? The guy's worth $9 billion or whatever it is today. $1,000 is literally zero. But 30 days in jail is like changing the republic, if there's any. This is just so absurd. Everything about this is absurd. But I do love the fact that Trump has thrown down the gauntlet and he said this is too far and just not going to do it. Put me in jail. What would happen if he. If he actually got put in jail, besides winning in a landslide, what would happen? What would you do? Would anybody act differently? Would you go there and surround the jail? Well, I don't think he'll go to jail. I think he's properly assessing the risks. And there's just no way, because the country would just fly apart at that. At that point, we would just fly apart. So I don't think it's going to happen. Maybe you'll get fined a thousand dollars, which would be funny. Well, let's talk about Brazil, that hellhole of Brazil. So the current leader of Brazil won in a tight election, which the people who know more than I do, the Mike Benz of the world, seem to think that America meddled in their elections and that we have our fingerprints all over Brazil and that Americans might be using Brazil to get at and using Europe as well, to get at the social media companies that they can't censor directly. So it's basically a whole play where our CIA uses other countries and talks them into banning the platforms. Then it would be too expensive for the platforms to keep stay in business and make what they used to make for their stakeholders and that they would be forced to bend to the European company countries will, which is really our will, meaning the CIA trying to get rid of free speech. And as you know, Musk has decided to, he's decided to avoid that and just ignore the ban and not what Brazil asked was for them to censor and ban certain individuals they didn't like, didn't like the messages from them. And Musk's not going to do that. In fact, Musk recommended on X that if you're in Brazil and you want to use X, get a vpn. Does that really work? Is there a downside to having a vpn? I mean, I know it works, but is there a downside that I don't know about or is it really that simple? Because here's what I'd do if I were, if I were Musk. I would pick a VPN to partner with and then I would spam every Brazilian users with VPN commercial for free. Free commercial. And I might even maybe help fund it. How about a free VPN for anybody who. Here we go. A free VPN for anybody who gets a blue ch. Imagine that. Because the VPN can't cost that much, right? It's a piece of software. Am I wrong that it's not super expensive to create and market a vpn? It doesn't sound like the highest level of difficulty. So couldn't, couldn't X have its own VPN and simply make it available to anybody? Maybe anybody wants to use it? Maybe, maybe not just check marks, but make it available to everybody. Would that be good enough? You probably need to make it free or else Brazil wouldn't have enough subscribers. I think probably have to make it free. Well, let me tell you, that would be a hell of an interesting experiment to see if Musk could engineer their concern. Because if he engineers it away, but giving VPN so Brazil can't tell who's doing what, what would they do? What would be the response? I don't know exactly, but it would be a strong play. I don't know if it's a good one, but it'd be a strong play. Well, so everything in Brazil appears to be rigged, not just by Americans, but I, I mean I wouldn't trust anything that goes out of the Brazilian government at this point. And meanwhile in the United States, Biden commissioned a study to study the court structure that would include packing the court with 13 members so that they could get their majority. Now what Did I tell you when people were not crazy? Tell you. Tell the people who are crazy that they're going to study it. This sounds like reparations, doesn't it? You know, because Gavin Newsom is not crazy. You might not like him, and he might be, you know, kind of slick. He's not crazy. So he knows that, that reparations would be a losing, a losing strategy, but he can't say no to it. And saying no would be bad, but saying yes would be worse. So Newsom creates a reparations committee, and then they finish while he's still in office, and he's like, damn it, they finished. I'm gonna have to listen to the recommendation. So he listens to the recommendation. It's like, you know, I need to know more. Go back and study that some more. It's basically how bureaucracies make people go away. Why don't you form a committee and get back to me? Because Biden, to his credit, has said directly in the past and not that distant past, that if you mess with the Supreme Court, it's a giant. It's a giant error, basically. A huge error, the biggest in the Republic. Basically, if you're going to pack the courts, you might as well just say that the Republic's done and just tell us who our new bosses is. Tell us which way we have to bow. Just tell us who. Who took over. Like, give us a name, we'll play along. We don't have any choice, apparently, anyway. I do think that Biden is just playing with his own progressives. I think he has no intention of packing the court because it would be a third rail political suicide. And he would know that. Even with dementia, he would know that. All right, here's some more bad behavior. So Democrats, the Biden administration, Kamala, announced that they're giving $20 billion to a bunch of different climate change entities. For example, you got your Climate United Fund, your Coalition for Green Capital, your Power Forward Communities, your Opportunity Finance Network, your inclusive, your Justice Climate Fund, your Appalachian Community Capital, and the Native CDFI Network, just to name a few. What do you think this is really $20 billion to solve a problem that we can't even measure well enough to know if it exists. $20 billion. Well, let me tell you what it looks like. It looks like a gigantic money laundering, scam, grifty thing. Do you think that any of the heads of these organizations you've never heard of, do you think any of them are Republicans? No, not even a little chance of that. They're all Democrats. And do you think that these organizations might, oh, I don't know, find a way to kick back a little bit? Do you think this is just a way for a bunch of people to get rich on your money? Yes, yes. I believe that this is completely fraudulent. I don't think there's even a hint of anything honest about this. This is the most clearly, obviously engineered fraud that you'll ever see. Now, if they were giving, if they were giving like a bunch of money to, say, one entity, or maybe they were guaranteeing some loans or something, you could kind of keep an eye on it and, you know, maybe you'd know something about that one entity. But what, what, what can you conclude when there's lots of different complexity, you know, oh, you can't even trace where this money's going. It's basically they're just spraying it into the environment in a way it's most likely to come back to them. I don't even think this has anything to do with climate change. I don't even know if they even thought of climate change when they did this. To me, this looks exactly like an organized RICO scam. Now, it might all be legal because people just don't say the words that would make it illegal, but in action, it just looks like a crime. Is it criminal? Probably not, because everybody just has to use other words literally. They can turn a crime into not a crime with words, if they use the words, hey, we don't know if any of this is going to help climate change, but if you give us a billion dollars and we'll all give ourselves paychecks, and you know what, we might donate to your campaign too, about that. Yeah, so that's what it looks like to me. Looks like a big old scam. Who was it who is in charge of allocating the gigantic amounts of money for climate change? Does anybody remember the person that Joe Biden put in charge of deciding where all the billions and billions will go for fighting climate change? Wasn't it Podesta? I'm operating by memory, but was it John Podesta or do I have that wrong? Give me a fact check on that. I think it was John Podesta. Right? All right, I'm not seeing a fact check on that. Well, it used to be John Kerry, but didn't he get out? I thought John Kerry got out of that business. I thought he retired from that. Really? But what does Podesta do? I thought Podesta got the job of deciding. Yeah, it is Podesta, right? Now, if it's Podesta, the fix is clearly in. Like he's a giant red flag that this is not real. Why would this lawyer loyalist to Hillary Clinton be in charge of allocating money to climate change? What exactly is his expertise for doing that? None. He's just the most loyal political guy. That's it. So obviously this is a big, grifty, scammy RICO situation, but he'll be smart enough to say the right words. We're battling climate change. Well, here's a giant surprise for you. Can you believe that the Russians have determined that the terrorists who attacked Moscow, it turns out they all say under heavy torture, that it was Ukraine. Yeah. Who would have known that if you torture them, they would say Ukraine, the exact thing you wanted them to say. Now, is it possible it's also completely true? Yes, it is. Which. Which is if they. If it's not true, that's why it would be a good lie, because it certainly looks true. So the idea is that the terrorists admitted that it was Ukraine or somebody in Ukraine who was going to pay them a bunch of money and they had to escape back to Ukraine and then they would get a million rubles if they pulled it off and got back. And allegedly the Ukrainian armed forces was in on it and blah, blah, blah. But they were tortured. In Russia, they call it interrogating, but they were tortured. And can you believe anything that a tortured person says? No. No, we can't believe anything a tortured person says. Does that mean it's not true? H. It feels true. If I had to guess, you know, if I had to bet and my life depended on it, I'd best. I'd bet it was Ukrainians, but. 6040. I'll give it a 6040. Oh, I'm sorry, let me correct here. Pedest is in charge of rebuilding Ukraine. I got my scams mixed up. I'm sorry. Totally wrong. Correct everything I said. Yeah. The. The Ukraine rebuilding is the. Is the equally bigger scam is equal or bigger scam. Yeah. So somebody's in charge of giving away all the freebies for climate change, and somebody's in charge of rebuilding Ukraine with all that money. Those are the ones that are the scammiest RICO looking possibilities. So. Yeah, so I stand corrected. Podesta is doing the other thing that looks exactly like a scam. Well, Iran allegedly, according to the Jerusalem Post. And of course, nothing is believable in a fog of war situation, but the report is that Iran has told the United States that they won't retaliate for the Us killing one of their senior generals or commanders in Damascus. And they said they won't retaliate if there's a ceasefire in Gaza. Now, if you didn't know anything about anything and you read that, would you think that was real? Like, if you just didn't know how the world works or anything, would you read that and think, huh, that looks productive. I'm glad Iran is finally on the side of, you know, making things better. They want to cease fire. They're thinking about their little buddies in Gaza. Wow, nice people. Good, good people. Well, I think it might be closer to say. It's just a fun thing for them to say in public. Just a fun thing, because I think that they know there won't be any kind of a Gaza, you know, ceasefire and exchange of prisoners. I don't think there's any chance of that. But it puts pressure on Israel, so it's just more pressure on Israel. So it's a clever persuasion thing to say. But no, that's not why they're holding back on their attack. If they're holding back on an attack, it's only because they know that making the attack would make things worse. That's it. That's the only reason they would hold back. They're not holding back to help negotiate Gaza. That's not happening. It's just something they can say to maybe stave off an attack a little longer. Something just persuasion. Meanwhile, Pete Buttigieg gaslighting the nation, he said in a recent show that people don't talk enough about how, quote, I can safely walk my dog to the Capitol today in a way that you couldn't do when we all got here. So According to Buttigieg, D.C. has gone from an unsafe place to a safe place. And he can walk his dog with his full contingent of Secret Service, I guess. I don't know. Can he really walk his dog alone? Does anybody believe that Pete Buttigieg can walk his dog just by himself and his dog in Washington D.C. like, that wouldn't be safe even without crime. Depending on the dog, too. They might try to steal his dog anyway and then. But last year, I guess D.C. had a. Not exactly its safest year. So does anybody believe that DC got safer and then. And there was a news article today that I couldn't even read. It was so stupid. The said that San Francisco is one of the safest cities or the highest quality of life or something. Like all of the news is fake now. Like every. Every news about lifestyle or what city is doing well. Here's what you can see, you can see a whole bunch of fake blue cities are doing great stories, especially California, because Newsom might be the relief pitcher. Oh, yeah. And let me tell you how. Oh, I actually. I actually saw a post today from somebody who said that Los Angeles is the best place to live. He's. He's lived everywhere. But he wrote a very long thread to tell you that of all the places he's lived, Los Angeles is actually the best place to raise a family. And it's best for environmental reasons and just a whole bunch of reasons. They got the culture, the restaurants, the. The beaches, the mountains. Now, it could be that was just one person's honest opinion. But reality is what predicts. I predict that you will see a whole bunch of stories about blue cities looking great and climate change is worse than ever, and about the. The poor woman who tried to get an abortion but couldn't because her state didn't allow it and she died trying to get across state lines. And you're going to hear all those stories. None of them are going to be real. They're all going to be Democrats controlling the media. Just positioning. Yep. All right, so, ladies and gentlemen, this comes to the conclusion of my prepared remarks. I'm going to talk to the locals people privately. If you're not subscribing to the Dilbert comic, then you don't know that today's Dilbert Reborn, available only to subscribers here on the X platform, but also on Locals, is the naughtiest Dilbert comic of all time. Would you like to know what it is? I'll give you a hint. Dilbert invents some VR glasses and an app. So it's an app that uses you with your VR glasses to make people look naked so it removes their clothes. Now, that's based on a real thing. There really is, I think there was and will be apps that remove people's clothes. So he hands it to Alice and says, hey, my app can remove people's clothes. And before Alice puts it on, she says, well, that's ridiculous. How could the app know what you look like without pants? How could it know? And then she puts it on, and you see from the building some dialogue in which Dilber says it's based on shoe size. Now, I don't know if you know this. This is a little inside cartooning. Cartoon characters always have extra large feet. Yeah. Like, Dilbert has unusually large feet. So you'd have to sort of know that, you know, it's funnier if you know that cartoon characters have big feet. Basically. And then Alice puts on the glasses and she shrieks and she goes, watch out, there's an anaconda in. Ooh. And that's a joke you'll never see in a newspaper, the anaconda in your pants because your feet are so large, because of VR. Pulling it all together. That's called pulling it all together, so to speak. All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to go talk to the locals people. I'll see you back here tomorrow. Thanks for joining and we'll bring the fun again tomorrow. Bye for now. Local supporters only.