Scott Adams (0:00)

Not looking so good. So forget about that. Let's do a show. Don't think about your stocks. No, don't. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And you've never had a better time. But for those of you who would like to take this experience up to levels that no one can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice or stein, a canteen, jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens. Now. Go. Sublime. So good. Well, I need a fact check on this. I saw online somebody was printing what was allegedly Elon Musk's medical report showing that he had no drug use. Is that real? Does anybody know if that's real? Because it wasn't on his account. It was somebody else's account. I don't know, but we'll put a pin in that. I don't know if that's real. Well, according to Live Science, there's now an EV battery, thanks to the Brits, that can recharge in 18 seconds. And apparently it's been approved for mass production. So it's actually coming. It doesn't say what kind of distance you get, but imagine fully recharging your battery in 18 seconds. That's current technology. I'll tell you, this battery stuff is going to change everything. In other power news, obviously, we'll talk about Israel and Iran in a moment. But Trump fired Biden's nuclear regulator. I guess there was a nuclear regulator, according to the Daily Colored News foundation, and Trump got rid of him. So apparently that one person might have been slowing down approvals. That's just my guess. But Trump is very serious about making nuclear power work. So I don't know how many regulations he has to get rid of or how many people he has to fire, but there does seem to be some will and ability to do both. Nuclear. It's coming. Here's a problem we wish we had. All right, if you think of all the problems that the United States has or whatever country you're in, apparently over in Spain, Portugal, and Italy, there are major protests against. Over tourism. Over tourism. Now, I get it because you don't want too much traffic and interferes with your life, but I wouldn't mind living in a country where Your biggest problem is too many people want to visit because it's so nice. That'd be a good problem. So, Italy, Portugal and Spain, I feel your pain, but not very much. You've got a pretty good problem there. All right, let's talk about Trump and Iran. All right, today's goal is I'm going to teach you how hypnotists analyze people's speech. So I'm going to talk about all the things that Trump has said and done and signaled, and then we're going to figure out what comes next, because prediction is the closest you can get to reality if you're good at it. All right, so here are the things we know. We know that Trump left early from the G7. Some people are saying it was an excuse to get out of some awkward meetings at the G7, but I don't think that Trump would do that. So my guess is that the reason he left is exactly what they said it was, which is there's something that's going to go down in Iran and it's big, and he needed to be fully engaged in that. So that's your first hint. Second hint. Trump said the other day to evacuate Tehran. Now, is Tehran where the Fordow nuclear facility is? No. How many of the nuclear facilities are in Tehran? Well, I don't know, but it's not gonna. Whatever happens in Tehran would not directly destroy the nuclear capacity of Iran. So what is it that would be happening in Tehran? All right, that's your second clue. So, one clue. Trump left early, got all of his people together in the Situation Room. Something big is going down. And something about Tehran. And when asked why he was calling for the evacuation of Tehran, he gave his usual Trumpian answer. He wants people to be safe. Well, obviously, Trump is filled in on some plans that Israel has for Tehran. So that much we know. He's not guessing. He didn't randomly pick a city and say you should evacuate. Obviously, Trump has been filled in on some plans for Tehran, according to Macron of France, and Trump says this is not true. Macron said that Trump left the G7 to work on a ceasefire agreement. A ceasefire. But Trump called out Macron and said that he doesn't want a ceasefire. He's going for something much bigger. Now, what would be bigger than a ceasefire? Well, he says over and over again, Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. So here are the things we know. Something big is going to happen fairly soon. It involves Tehran or Tehran. Am I saying it right? Which would only indirectly be about the nuclear program. Because it's not really. It's not like all in Tehran, and not about his ceasefire, which you'd expect if he planned to have negotiations. A reporter asked Trump on the plane, what are you looking for here? And Trump said, an end. A real end, not a ceasefire. An end. An end. An end to what? An end to the regime? An end to the danger? An end to the nuclear program. Well, an end. We know that Trump has now taken a opposite position from Tulsi Gabbard, who had recently said that, according to the CIA, that Iran was not that close to a nuclear weapon, but Trump has adopted the Netanyahu messaging that Iran was very close, very close. So that's a difference. And then Trump said about Iran, who apparently Iran has been trying to contact the United States via their indirect channels and wants to talk, but Trump says they like to talk, but they should have done that before. So is Trump saying very clearly that something's going to happen and it's going to happen with or without talking because the talking is too late? Looks like it. So there's something going to happen. And it looks like Iran's apparent willingness to talk is not going to affect Trump too much. And then Trump said that if there's any injury to our troops, we'll come down so hard if they do anything to our people, I think they know not to touch our troops. Now, as you know, there have been lots of wars that were started with fake provocations. So now that Trump has laid down this red line and said, if you do anything to our troops, then we would get involved in the war. Is that a trick? Because we can always claim that, that they did something that endangered our troops. Doesn't it feel like there's enough fuzziness there that we could say, oh, this one missile came really close to this embassy or something? So we're starting to put it all together. But there's more, according to Axios. That. According to Axios, having a meeting with the Iranians would be a make or break moment for whether the US Will join the war against Iran. So Axios is suggesting there might be some kind of a meeting, but if Iran doesn't give up everything, as in its nuclear program, then that would be the go time for the US to join the war. Now, that's Axios. Do you think Axios knows that Trump has planned to join the war in a way that would pretty much require Iran to attack American interests? I don't know. And what else? Trump sees the bunker buster decision as an inflection point. So Trump is still considering the question of providing bunker busters, according to Axios. We don't know if that's true. And apparently Trump has asked VP Vance and the Middle east envoy to offer to meet with the Iranians next week for the New York Times. So do you think the offers to meet and to talk are real? Because he already said you better evacuate Iran because it sounds like something's going to happen with or without those conversations. And he's not going to wait till next week because remember, Israel wanted to be done in two weeks, so they're not going to say, hey, how about next week we have a meeting? I don't think that will change much action. Well, Bill O'Reilly said that earlier today he had texted with Trump and he says Trump doesn't want to use American air power at this point. And that would be the bunker busters because that would cause some problems with China and Putin, would it? And he'd rather have the Iranians surrender, which he believes they will surrender. Now, surrender is not a word that I've heard before in this context. So here's a reframe. It seems like Trump is reframing it so that Iran gets to decide if the US Enters the war, which might not be a big change to anybody's thinking, but it does kind of put Iran in the decision making seat. So the current decision is the US Is not in the war, or at least in the most aggressive way that it could be. And now the decision kind of comes down to Iran if they don't give up their nuclear program, like right away. It looks like Trump is willing, at least in terms of the messaging. We don't know what he's thinking, but in terms of messaging, he would be willing to enter. All right, so what would make Iran surrender that hasn't happened already? So if you put it all together, here's my prediction. I don't think Trump wants to use the bunker busters because that would look like we enter the war. And you know, that would be bad for his base, he would lose support in the US etc. But it does seem that Trump is willing to, let's say, I don't want to say allow, but not stop Israel from doing what Israel wants to do. So how could Israel dismantle the Iranian nuclear program if they do not have access to the bunker buster bombs? And I could only think of one way, and I think this is the hypnotist technique, that the word that tells you what's happening is surrender. So my guess is that Israel is getting ready to pound Tehran and take out each pillar of the government's power until there's nothing left. And I think that might work because if he wants the administration to surrender, he's going to have to put pressure on him. That's different from just bombing some things and then waiting to see what happens. So my guess, and this is just my speculation at this point, my prediction is that the plan is not to do bunker busters, but it's to get the Iranian regime to surrender. Now, with the current regime surrender, not likely. Not likely at all. So how could Israel get a surrender if the current regime is unwilling to surrender? Well, I would call it the chewing from below decapitation strike. If they go right to decapitation and they take out the leadership with the next set of bombs, that's going to look too aggressive and might set a precedent, et cetera. But what Israel's been doing so far is getting rid of all the lower level people. Well, the top level people in the military, but in terms of the domestic non military leadership, I think they're just going to start chewing them up from the bottom up. So you'll get rid of an institution, you'll get rid of a minor leader, another minor leader, another minor leader, and you just start working your way up to the top because apparently they know where everybody is somehow, and they know how to kill them all because they've assassinated a tremendous number of leaders. So my guess is that Tehran will become sort of a killing field for Iranian leadership, but it will start at the bottom of what they can get to. And they'll just start slowly working their way up until either the top people are overthrown, which might happen, but I wouldn't bet on it, or the top people say, all right, we're out, we surrender, we're going to give up all of our nuclear weapons. Well, nuclear facilities, not weapons. And so I would argue that there's exactly one path. If you rule out the bunker busters, which I think would be bad idea for Trump to use the bunker busters. But you don't rule out that under all conditions, Israel will get rid of the nuclear threat, which I think is the case, what's that? Leave. All it leaves is decapitation. But like I said, starting from the top would be too big of a shock to the system. I think we'll start chewing them up from the bottom up. So you should see strategic hits in Tehran against government sources of power. And it will just keep going and there'll be no end to it. And the Entire time, Trump will say, you know, you should have negotiated. But if at any time the Iranian leadership says, all right, all right, we agree in advance, before we even sit down, that we will dismantle our entire nuclear program. At that point, maybe the bombs will stop. Maybe. But I'm not even sure if Israel would trust them to, you know, it would just look like they're, it's a delay tactic. So that's my, that's my prediction. A chew them up from the bottom, decapitation, sort of a slow decapitation until they get a surrender. What else could it be? That's all that's left. Apparently, according to some news, Iran has been urgently signaling that they want an end to the hostilities. Of course they do. But probably we assume they're just stalling. That's what Israel would say. And I think they're probably right based on the history. So, yeah, so that's what's going to happen. According to a retired colonel, lieutenant colonel on Fox News, the Iranian missiles are overwhelming the US Defense systems, you know, our Iron Dome. And it looks like there's a, the Iranians have a strategy. This seems to be pretty good, which is they launch a whole bunch of missiles at the same time. And some of them are the good kind and some of them are the cheap kind, but the, the defensive systems get kind of overwhelmed and then the good kind can sneak through. So the question would be, will Iran continue going as hard as they can with as many missiles as they can shoot until they run out, which would be pretty devastating, or do they have to save them because they might be running low? Well, we don't know. It's fog of war and it's hard to know what's true. But I would guess that, that the more the Iranians send missiles into Israel, the more damage Israel can do to Tehran and to their leadership with something that looks like justification. So Iran doesn't have too many good options here. All right, so that's enough on that. The Minnesota shooter, as you know, got caught. But if you don't mind, I'm not really going to talk about that Minnesota shooter guy because that looks like Crazy Guy. It does look like he might have been a little bit more right leaning than left, but he had a long list of people he wanted to get to and they weren't all Democrats. And, you know, so to me that's just Crazy Guy. And that's, that's the whole story there. All right, but as you know, the pro Trump, what would you call it, the pro Trump supporters are having a tough time because the, the anti war people on the let's go get them people on different sides. So among the no war no way would be Steve Bannon. He would be the most prominent one. Doesn't want a war with Iran. Tucker Carlson, who's going hard at Mark Levin. He's got a real problem with Mark Levin on Fox News. I guess Mark Levin is more pro war. Matt Gates wants to avoid further war with Iran. Marjorie Taylor Greene and then of course, Thomas Massie. You would not be surprised once a resolution to require Congress to approve the war. And he's already got three Democrats to sign up, Bernie, Ro, Khanna and aoc. So whatever Trump does is either going to make one half of his coalition hate him or the other half hate him because his two choices are get involved in the war and then he loses half of his support or don't get involved in the war and then he loses half of his support. So if you're Trump, how do you play that? Well, that goes back to my prediction. If he simply says all we're doing is maybe helping Israel avoid some missiles, but Israel goes wild in Tehran and just keeps murdering and assassinating leaders, I feel like in the end that might be enough to keep his coalition together because it would not be the United States jumping into the war. But, but also it would not be avoiding the war. It would be allowing. I keep saying allowing as if they work for us, but they don't. It would be, let's say, standing back while Israel does what Israel thinks it needs to do. So I feel like the only way he can wiggle out of this, you know, there's no way to win is by letting Israel carry the entire load and just sort of, you know, being a, let's say, a bad cop. Somebody said, is Israel being the bad cop and Trump is a good cop kind of. Kind of Trump. Trump is still the one who's saying, you know, you just have to negotiate and, and you just have to surrender and then everything's fine. So there's a little bit of a good cop, bad cop thing going on, which might be productive. So here's my question for you. If Trump managed to pull this off and pulling it off would be stepping back while Israel does what it needs to do and there's no bunker buster, but they get Iran to say, look, we'll unlock Fordow and we'll let you watch while we dismantle it, would that be enough to keep Trump's coalition together? I think it would be because it would look like we got away with something we wanted strategically, but we would get away with it on the cheap. So I feel like there's only one path, and it's through the leadership of the Iranian people, and I don't see any other path. All right, I just want to give a compliment to Comic Dave Smith. One of the things that's fascinating about this whole podcasting world is that some people have made a name for themselves and become, you know, they became relevant in these top level conversations simply by force of will, I guess. So why would we listen to Comic Dave Smith's opinion about geopolitical stuff? And the answer is, it doesn't make sense on the surface. But he did such a good job Comic David Smith did of inserting himself in the conversation and debating people who wanted to debate and making his views known that he is actually relevant. And I have to admit, I'm very impressed with that. He's not the only one. I mean, a number of podcasters, and I'm one of them, have, through just hard work and showing up every day and, you know, trying to add something to the process, have made themselves not the most important thing in the conversation, but relevant. Relevant. And I was wondering, are there more humorous that are supporting Trump than there have been supporting Republicans in the past? Because I was thinking, you know, you've got Tim Dillon, you've got Roseanne, you've got me. Comic Dave Smith. I feel like there are a whole bunch of people who are humorous first who have become relevant in the Trump era. And it feels like, yeah, Joe Rogan. Right? Yeah, obviously Joe Rogan and a number of other comedians as well. Adam Carolla. Exactly. Yeah. I'm forgetting a few others. But is that new? That would be so many humorists who are sort of pro Trump. I guess Comic Dave Smith has made a turn. He's not. Oh, yeah. Shane Gillis. I guess he's not pro Trump. He's asking for Trump's impeachment over the Israel stuff, I guess. But anyway, so I would give my compliments to all of the people I mentioned for Greg Gaffeld, because they all made themselves relevant and they didn't do it by having terrible opinions. Theo Vaughan. Yeah, he's more in the gray area, but yes. So Theo Vaughan is not in the category of a person who is trying to make serious geopolitical comments that change the world, but a number of us do. We're literally trying to make sure the country is steering in the right direction as best we can. So I'm very impressed at all the people who just carve down a space for themselves by being useful and having an opinion that people could either debate with or agree with. So very impressed. Let's see what else, according to Axios and some reporting by Barack Ravid Netanyahu has. Well, this is Axios take on. It effectively endorsed the idea of regime change in Iran in a string of media appearances. But Trump, they say, has remained unconvinced. But do we really know what Trump is convinced of or not? We don't, do we? It might be that Trump is going to act unconvinced while at the same time stepping aside and letting Israel do whatever it needs to do. All right. And I guess there was a Israeli airstrike in Iran overnight that took out some Iranian military top base. I can't imagine that there would be any humans in the Iranian military who would be going to work in the office. Wouldn't all of the military structures be empty by now because they're such obvious targets? Now, the other thing I wonder about is I assume that Israel got on top of Iran's communication devices, meaning that. Meaning that the Iranians probably don't have a secure means of communicating even if they wanted to, which would tell me that the Israelis know where everybody is all the time and they know what they're up to all the time. So I would get out of Tehran if I were. If I were in the military, I would run because it looks like it's just sitting ducks at this point. Well, in related news, speaking of immigration, one of the questions people had is why are all the protesters over 65? And I had speculated it's because they're easier to scare and especially if they're watching the mainstream media. So elderly people make up a lot of the protesters in the streets with the Go Kings and the anti ice protests. But part of it is because they have a lot of time on their hands. Part of it is because they're ex hippies, so they're reliving their, you know, their exciting youth being protesters. Some of it is maybe because the elderly are on fixed incomes, so they feel more vulnerable. So they feel like there's more they have to protest about. But I would argue that we should see it as a mental disorder and that the elderly are just more prone to it, just like Alzheimer's and other stuff. And I saw a post by Meg Brock, who is asking the question on X, when is Trump Derangement Syndrome going to be officially added to the DSM 5 to make it an official diagnosis? And I wondered if it was already there? Because I've heard lots of reports of therapists who treat it like it's real, because it is. And they've got a lot of clients who come in and say, I've got some form of tds, or at least they exhibit it. And so I went to Grok to find out, is it already in the literature? Because why wouldn't it be? Wouldn't you expect that by now Trump Derangement syndrome would be a legitimate diagnosis? Because I'm pretty sure there are a lot of individual therapists who consider it a legitimate diagnosis. So I looked and apparently no. And GROK says that the reason it's not an official disorder is that there's a lack of clinical basis. There's no peer reviewed studies or psychological research or professional mental health organizations recognizing it as a diagnosable condition. And then Grok says it lacks defined symptoms, diagnostic criteria, or empirical evidence required for a legitimate disorder. To which I say, oh, wait a minute, isn't it a lot like addiction? If I said to you, you have a drinking problem, knowing that drinking is a legal activity for adults, how would you define it as a problem versus a hobby? And the answer is usually if it interferes with your life. So if you're drinking as an impact on your life, as in, you lose your job, you lose your relationships, you spend all your money, you wake up in a ditch, well, then you've got a drinking problem. If you had two drinks on the weekend with your friends and then took a Uber home, we would mostly say you're just somebody who has a hobby and you don't have a problem. But don't you think TTS is exactly like that? If somebody simply prefers a Democrat over Trump, I would say, oh, well, that's just a political preference. But if somebody is crying and shaking and, and they feel like he's going to become a king and he's going to lock people up in prison camps, isn't that interfering with your actual life and happiness? And wouldn't that be super easy to diagnose if you were a therapist? So in my opinion, we have everything we need, which is it's easy to diagnose. Do you have a worry that Trump is president and that he'll do terrible things? Do you believe things that are real or do you believe things that are imaginary? And you don't even need that part. You can just say, does it affect your life? Do you wake up in the morning shaking and crying? If the answer is yes, then you've got a mental Health disorder? I would think so. I feel like that really needs to be a legitimate mental health disorder. It would help, let's say. So speaking of the Trump coalition, Trump also has trouble with, with the immigration issue because Trump had started out being as hardline as you could possibly be on immigration and that was keeping his coalition together because they were hard line on immigration too. But then when Trump said, well, maybe not the farm workers and the hotel hospitality people because they would be hard to replace, then he lost a bunch of his followers who said, what do you mean there's no exceptions? If they're here illegally, they got to go. So apparently Trump has veered back to yes, there will be raids on farms and hospitality places, including I suppose, Trump hotels. I don't know. But do you remember the food company, was it Valley Foods or somebody where the immigration people basically arrested half of their workforce or some big percentage and apparently they immediately got lots of job applicants for from American born people. So if you were worried that there were no Americans who would apply for jobs if the foreign born people who are not citizens get shipped or deported, we have one data point that says that it might not be a problem. I would argue that probably will depend a lot on where you are. So if you're living out, what state was that? Was it Iowa or something? I can't remember what state it was. But it could be that, you know, if you're in a rural situation, it's easier to fill those jobs, maybe, I don't know. So we'll see about that. But Trump has a big problem. So he's either going to put farming and, and the hotel business out of business, or maybe not out of business, but deeply inconvenienced. But as long as there are people who are American citizens who want to apply for those jobs immediately upon the openings that need to be in pretty good shape. So whether you're in favor of it or not in favor of might be practical. Take that for what it's worth. According to the Post Millennial, there's a poll that says a majority of Hispanic voters support Trump's deportation policies, which we've heard before. But it's good that it's consistent. This is the survey by the League of American Workers and Technometrica Institute of policy and politics. 53% of Hispanic voters say they somewhat or strongly support increasing deportations, especially ones with criminal records. But that part's easy. So overall, 6 in 10 registered voters back the Trump deportation plans. So he's still in good shape there. According to Blaze Media And I guess this comes from the Trump administration. There are 1 million illegal aliens who have reportedly self deported. Now my question would be this, is there anything about the group that is self deporting that would be some kind of a common theme? So my question is, would the worst, let's say the people have done more crimes than just coming into the country illegally? Do you think they would be the ones who would be self deporting because they wouldn't want to go to jail? Or would it be the ones who want to have the highest odds of coming in legally because apparently if you self deport, you maintain your ability to come back through a legal process. So do you think the million people who allegedly self deported are the worst people? The criminal types who are trying to avoid getting arrested or are they the most law abiding types who are using a process that keeps all their options open? I don't know, but I'm sure most of you don't care. It would be great if it was mostly the criminals who left, but that would be a lot to ask. In other news, FBI Director Cash Patel is reporting that the FBI has located documents that detail allegations that China tried to print a bunch of fake mail in ballots for our 2020 US election. Now just the news has a story if you want to read up on it. John Solomon. But they say that newly declassified intelligence reports partially corroborate but, but it was recalled before it was fully investigated, so we don't have confirmation. But there's a strong, strong suggestion that China might, might have been involved in trying to rig our elections and that China allegedly had mass produced fake US Driver's licenses as part of their scheme to get the fake mail in ballots and then vote for Joe Biden. Now do you think China would have cared enough about who was president that they would think about rigging our election? I don't know. It feels like something like this would be too big a risk because imagine if we caught them, that would be pretty big problem for China. I would say that the odds of this being confirmed at some point are less than 50%. So maybe it's true and we kind of want to believe it's true. But I'm going to say that probably the reason it was only partially corroborated and it was dropped is that maybe there wasn't enough, it just wasn't credible enough. But we'll see. We'll see. I could be wrong, but it doesn't feel like the type of thing that China would do because it would be too Easy to detect their presence. Like the risk of getting caught would be beyond whatever the benefit would be. So I don't know. I'm not buying this one entirely. Well, as you know, the Fed has been holding tight on interest rates when a lot of people want them to be cut. The Wall Street Journal says that the reason that the Fed is not cutting rates is that they're still waiting on the combination of inflation numbers and job numbers. And they want to see how the tariffs play out in terms of the public's expectation that the tariffs will increase prices. That would be part of inflation. So according to the Wall Street Journal, the only thing keeping the Fed from lowering interest rates is the uncertainty around jobs and inflation and tariffs. Maybe that could be the entire answer. But if you like the all in pod and you follow Chamath, who I believe should be known only by his first name, you know, like Madonna or Cher. But Chamath said he thinks that the only reason is political, and he could be right about that, too, because there's always a reason. You know, you could always say, well, you know that inflation number. Well, those tariffs. Well, we don't know about the jobs number. So you can always make up a reason for why you're either moving the rates or not moving them. But it does feel political. Doesn't. Does feel like Powell is not the biggest fan of Trump. There's a lot at risk, as Chamath points out. Just the savings in interest that we pay on our debt could be like $300 billion a year with just a interest rate change. So it's really big. It could be the difference between, you know, the United States stays a viable country and it doesn't. So we'll see. Apparently, OpenAI just got a big old contract with the government, a $200 million US defense contract. Now, McDonald points out in a post on X that he goes, and now you know why OpenAI recruited the head of the NSA to its board last year. The biggest money in, quote, private business is always losing the Pentagon's infinite taxpayer money glitch. So the implication is that OpenAI is, let's say, cooperating with the government, and the government is cooperating back. Now, remember how we heard that the CIA has said that they were only going to allow a few big AI companies to succeed and that would be easier to control and manage. And obviously OpenAI would be at the top of the list of ones that our government wants to succeed. So do you think it's a total accident that they get a gigantic government contract? Well, they might be the most capable of fulfilling the contract, because it is OpenAI, after all. So they're sort of a leader in the field. But this is one of those things where you have to. You kind of scratch your head and you say, huh, is this all connected? Or is it just that OpenAI has the best AI and the government looked at all of them and said, oh, this is the best one. We will never know. We'll never know. In other news, Randy Weingarten, who is the head of the biggest teachers union, announced that she's quitting the DNC, the Democratic National Committee. Now, as Corey DeAngelos asks on an X Post, why didn't the media ever mention that Randy Weingarten had a position at the Democratic National Committee? And more to the point, if Cory DeAngelis didn't know that Randy Weingarten was on the Democrat National Committee, who would? I mean, he's about as plugged into the whole school choice teachers union situation as anybody could be. He didn't know. So it makes me wonder, was Randy Weingarten mostly a Democrat who was also the head of the teachers union, or was she on the teachers union and also a Democrat? It does seem to me that the head of the teachers union should probably not be on the Democratic National Committee, but I guess she had a reason to leave, so it doesn't matter now. It's kind of a bother that we didn't know it, though. Doesn't it bother you that we didn't know that? That was pretty important to know, and we didn't. According to the Post Millennial, the OMG group o' Keefe Media Group as determined that some of the protesters for the no Kings protest were being paid by some communist group. They were being paid to protest, but they were paid 20 bucks. $20. So here's the problem with a communist plot. The Communists don't have enough money to buy anything good. They're like, hey, how would you like to spend the entire day out in the sun protesting something that doesn't even exist? Kings, a totally imaginary problem, and we'll give you $20. How many of you would protest all day in the sun for $20? I feel like the Communists have a little bit of a, you know, a little bit of a model problem there. I don't know what it would take, But I'm thinking $200, you know, might get somebody to walk around in the sun for an afternoon. But $20? What would you do for $20? Not much. Anyway, Communists do not pay competitive Fees? Well, the publication Nature, that's a science publication, is going to now require that the peer reviewed papers show not just that they're peer reviewed, but that show the communication back and forth between the peer reviewer and the submitter. So that feels like a good upgrade. So you could see just how close they were, what changes they had to make to get published. I don't know if that's the answer, but at the moment something like 50% of all peer reviewed papers turn out to be not reproducible, as in not really science. So if they can, if they can improve on the coin flip nature of it, which is what it is now, then it's worth a try. So I don't know if this will work, but definitely worth a shot. All right. In other news, Texas is apparently going to invest $50 million in a psychedelic drug research to treat addiction. Medical Express has a story and I guess Greg Abbott, Governor Abbott, is all in on this. And the specific psychedelic is something called ibogaine. I don't know much about that, but apparently it causes powerful hallucinations that can last for hours. And there are some studies that suggest it might help people stop using opioids or other drugs even after just one session. One session. All right. Now, how many times have I told you a story that had to do with psychedelics improving either your mental status of depression or anxiety or addiction? It's very, very consistent. It doesn't seem to matter too much which hallucinogen you're using. There's something about hallucinogens that just improve your brain process. And I would argue that I've said this before, but I haven't said it in a while. Those people who have experienced hallucinogens at least once, I believe they can recognize other people who also have. How many of you would agree with that? Now, you can only agree with that if you've yourself experienced hallucinogens. But I believe you could just tell in about 10 seconds of interaction with another person that you can tell if they've ever had a hallucinogen. And look in the comments, you'll see a lot of people saying, oh yeah, you can tell because I think one experience changes you forever. And I also think, and I have no backing for this whatsoever, that you can tell by the eyes. I think you can look in somebody's eyes and you can tell if they've had that experience and if they're operating at that level of awareness. Now, not every time, of course, but I'll bet you know more than guessing. I'LL bet you could tell. All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's what I had for you today. Thanks for joining. We'll see if my predictions about what's going to happen in Tehran are correct. I remind you that I'm not backing Israel or not backing them. I'm observing and predicting. And, you know, my country is America, so that's the one I care about. I'm going to say a few words privately to the people on locals. And the rest of you, I will see you tomorrow, same time, same place. I hope. Hope you enjoyed it. All right, Locals coming at you in 32nd.