Home Depot Advertiser (11:06)

Fourth of July savings are here at the Home Depot. So it's time to get your grilling on. Pick up the traeger Pro Series 22 Pellet Grill and Smoker now on special buy for $389 was $549. Smoke a rack of ribs or bake an apple pie. This grill is versatile enough to do it all this summer. No matter how you like your steaks, your barbecues are guaranteed to be well done. Celebrate 4th of July with fast free delivery on select grills. Right now at the Home Depot, it's up to availability.

Scott Adams (11:40)

I heard also some other famous investor say that the big investment for the future is AI, and if you're not invested in AI, you're going to feel bad about it. So I don't give investment advice. But you should know that some investors are saying that AI is the place to be. Well, more to that point, the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, he did a podcast, I think, with his brother, and he mentioned that Meta is offering $100 million bonus for the top OpenAI employees to leave OpenAI and go work for Meta. $100 million? Just a bonus. So that's not even counting their their pay. That's just the bonus. Does that sound real? It doesn't really sound real to me, but I don't think he'd make it up. It'd be a weird thing to make up. So I don't know. I have some trouble believing that that's true. It might be true of three people in the world, the smartest AI people. Maybe they are worth 100 million, I don't know. But I've decided to quit my job as a cartoonist and become a AI specialist. Try to get that $100 million bonus. I'll let you know how that goes. In other AI news, according to Neuroscience News, researchers have figured out how to get AI to be more empathetic and work on your emotions so they can tailor emotional analogies to each user's personality and life experience. So notice how they use analogies. They use analogies to get empathy and to work on your emotions. And boy, that's dangerous. It might be. You know, it's inevitable that AI will learn to manipulate the emotions of humans. There's no way to stop that from happening. But here it is. And I guess the big takeaway is that you can't use the same analogy for every person. You have to have the analogy tailored for their personality. But once you do that, you can manipulate their feelings. And once AI can manipulate our feelings, who will be in charge? Well, AI, because once AI can give you better information than you had, but then can also manipulate you with analogies and stories and anecdotes, well, then it pretty much is going to run everything. So that's coming. And also, according to the Verge, Sarah Parker is writing about this, apparently people use Chat GPT a lot. Their vocabulary starts to change. And this one is fun. This is this one I did not see coming. Apparently, even though AI is based on actual human conversations and interactions, there are different vocabulary words that come up more in AI than they come up in normal conversation. So apparently words like Delve are words that AI would use more likely than you would. When was the last time you used the word delve, as in, we're going to delve into that? I was wondering, I was thinking, I don't know if I've ever used that word in conversation. I've read it, I've heard people say it, but I don't know if I've ever used it even once. I would say, let's dig into it or, you know, let's do a deeper dive, but I don't think I. Maybe I've never used that word. But apparently people use AI and Chat GPT in particular. They'll. They'll start saying words like, let's see, prowess and tapestry. I guess those come up a lot in Chat GPT and they're less likely to use words like bolster, unearth and nuance because ChatGPT doesn't use them as much. So here's the hypnotist take on the story. As hypnotist, I can tell you that the choice of words can influence what you think about the topic. So it's not a, you know, just a mere curiosity that people use. AI use different vocabulary. That specific vocabulary is very likely to change how you think about the topic and you wouldn't know why. So that's the hypnotist. Take the specific choice of words that you associate with a topic very much will influence your overall opinion of the topic. And if you were to just force somebody to use a different vocabulary, in this case, you don't have to force them. It's happening naturally. They would think differently about the topic, depending on the topic. So now AI can influence us which vocabulary we use, but it can also influence us by being very useful. So we rely on it for facts, even if they're wrong. And apparently it can also influence us with analogies and emotion and empathy. So if you were wondering, is AI going to start being in control of humans? Yeah, no doubt about it. There isn't the slightest chance that AI will not be influencing what you think about stuff. Now the interesting thing is, will this cause any kind of unity? So right now the country is divided by politics. What would happen if AI, all the AIs start converging on the same explanation of things and use the same analogies and have similar vocabulary. Is it possible that our diverse opinions will merge into one opinion? That, coincidentally or not, is exactly what AI would tell you is true, that might happen. So one possibility is that AI manipulates us and turns us into mindless puppets. And we don't know it. The other possibility is it allows us to stop fighting with each other because we can all just look at AI and go, oh, all right. I guess that's the. And then we just agree with it. So could be good. Never know. According to Trump, the US has arranged a treaty, some kind of a peace treaty, between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Rwanda. Now, raise your hand if you knew that the Republic of Congo and the Republic of Rwanda were in some kind of a war. I have to admit that although I do know the number of people who live in Iran, 92 million. I did not know anything about the Republic of Kondo or Rwanda. However, according to the Post Millennial, Trump is bragging that the US Got that done. And if we did, good job, Marco Rubio and Putin looks like they may have been instrumental in that. But Trump being Trump, and as I already noted, it's impossible for him to say something that's boring instead of just saying, hey, good news, we've got this peace deal. We've got this new peace deal that was really necessary. Instead of doing that, he announces it. And at the same time, in the same message, he complains that he probably won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for his work with India and Pakistan, his work with Serbia and Kosovo. I don't even know what that was. Egypt and Ethiopia, again, I have no idea what that was about. Does anybody know what Trump did to make things better between Egypt and Ethiopia? I do not. And then he also mentions the Abraham Accords as all the things he's done for peace. But he won't get a Nobel Peace Prize because that only goes to liberals, he says. And he says that even if he were to end the war in Ukraine and get a good result in Iran, even if he could do that, he says he'll never get the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, do you recognize what form of persuasion he's using? This is not random. This is really good persuasion because he keeps saying that he won't get the Nobel Peace Prize. What do I teach you about negatives? This is another hypnotist trick. The hypnotist trick is that the more you make people think Nobel Peace Prize, and.

Elon Musk (22:24)

When you hear Lululemon, you probably think of aligned yoga pants, weightlessly soft, like you're wearing next to nothing. That's why you see them in class, at the grocery store and in the park. But did you know about skirts with built in liner shorts so you can still jump for the Frisbee and tank and bodysuits with Align's iconic stretch, you won't want to take it off. And with endless style options, you don't have to shop in store or online@lululemon.com.

Scott Adams (22:59)

Peace Prize for this. I won't get the Nobel Peace Prize for this. And your brain doesn't hear the won't it. It sort of forgets it right away. And all you can think of is Trump and Nobel Peace Prize. So it's actually a super clever way of increasing the odds that he gets a Nobel Peace Prize, which to me is hilarious. It's hilarious that he's working on it. Like he actually is trying to get one. I kind of love that. All right. Well, as you know, the news is never complete with some stories about Elon Musk. Today is no exception. And apparently Elon Musk scolded Grok, his own, his own AI, because Grok said that used sources, Media Matters and Rolling Stone to dispute something said by x user cat turd2. And apparently. And so Musk responded to Grok on the X platform like he was talking to a person. And he said to Grok, your sourcing is terrible. Only a very dumb AI would believe media banners and Rolling Stone you were being updated this week. So Musk is having a conversation with his own AI and scolding it and saying that it's using bad sources. He's going to fix it. Now. That's funny. Well, speaking of Elon Musk, apparently Tesla, according to cnbc, is just signed a deal with China to build their largest grid scale battery power plant. Now, I think the, the batteries are also made in China, but it's a. Yeah, they've got a battery factory in Shanghai and It's made over 100 megapacks in the first quarter. So what this is about is a way to make your network more efficient because you can store the cheaply, cheaply generated electricity in your batteries and then release them as you need them. And China will be first. Now, I don't make, I don't give financial advice, but if you knew that Tesla just signed a enormous deal to create grid scale battery power plants in China and they're planning to do it for other countries as well. Isn't that one of the biggest businesses in the world? I mean, starting with one. But wouldn't every power grid want this? So what is exactly the size of this financial opportunity? It looks like it's bigger than cars. I mean, literally every country and every grid would probably get some benefit from having a battery. You know, a battery power Plant. Anyway, according to Politico, and Carrie Lake was announcing this as her in her role as a advisor to President Trump, apparently a majority of the staff of Voice of America is getting released, terminated. And what is senior presidential advisor Carrie Lake said today? We took decisive actions to effectuate. Effectuate. There's a word that I don't use. Effectuate. When was the last time you used effectuate in a sentence? I would say I've never used it once. This is the first time I've ever said that word out loud. Effectuate the Trump agenda to shrink the out of control federal bureaucracy. We'll see if that sticks. Eliminating 1400 jobs, an 85% cut to the workforce there. Good job. All right, as I've said before, pundit and humorist comic Dave Smith has very, let's say, effectively and impressively worked his way into the conversation about the biggest topics in America, in this case the Israel, Iran conflict. And I'm very impressed because, you know, it'd be one thing if you were a famous geopolitical expert, but to become one of the central people in the conversation, coming out of the humor field, you know, the, the podcast punditry world, you really have to be doing something well. And even if you disagree with him, and I'm going to disagree with him a little bit today, even if you disagree, I really like what he adds to the conversation because he does sort of force people to debate him. And, you know, you can judge for yourself who's got the better opinion. But I like where he takes the conversations. But he had a post that actually got millions of views and I will read it to you. His post was, okay, fine, Iran doesn't have nukes, but have you heard their chants? We must go to war to stop these chants. Now that's a pretty good humorist take, but is there any more to this story? Of course there is. So here's my take. And he may have already answered this, I don't know, but I weighed in on that and I said in the comments, I haven't heard an innocent reason why Iran insists on threshold enrichment levels. Threshold meaning Right up to the point where you can make a nuclear weapon and there's no reason to be there at that level of enrichment. There's not a civilian use for it. The only use for it is if you want to be poised to very quickly make a nuclear weapon. Now, that's as far as I know. There may be some expert who says, but Scott, you idiot, don't you know that getting to 60% enrichment is just useful for this or that? Well, I don't know. I haven't heard that. I've not heard that argument. Now, the other thing you need to know is that getting from 60% to 90%, which is where you need to be for a bomb, I understand, is not a question of getting from 60 to 90. Apparently the enrichment process has a logarithmic kind of quality to it, so that 60 is right next to 90. So if you can get to 60, then getting to 90 might take three weeks. That's my understanding. But I could be wrong about that. But I think that's right. So has anybody heard Iran give any kind of public explanation of why they would need to increase their. Their enrichment to the point where there's only one reason that I know of, which is to be ready to make a nuclear weapon? Now, you add that to the fact that they've been funding proxies to try to destroy Israel for a long time, and they've done a number of terrorist acts against Americans in the area over the years, and then on top of that, they have this chant about death to Israel and death to America. Now, I would agree that if the only problem was their chanting, I would not be so worried. But if you combine death to America, death to Israel with building an enrichment capacity which only has one purpose and a history of funding proxies to attack Israel, that looks pretty aggressive to me. That looks like more than a chant. So I went online and said a few things about the Israel situation, and what I found was that if you say anything that people disagree with on this topic, you will be called anti Semitic. So I. I got called anti Semitic for, I think, just asking some question online, and somebody said, whoa, why would you do that? Why would you even question that unless you're anti Semitic? To which I say, oh, you just. You. I'm not anti Semitic. If I have questions about why we're doing what we're doing and how we're doing it, that has nothing to do with any kind of antisemitism. These are, you know, three countries that are in this situation, and if I talk about it, it's because I'm trying to understand it or predict it. There's no deeper. No deeper meaning.

LifeLock Advertiser (33:09)

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Between two factor authentication, strong passwords, and a VPN, you try to be in control of how your info is protected, but many other places also have it, and they might not be as careful. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats, if your identity is stolen, they'll fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for 40% off terms apply.

Scott Adams (33:40)

And then there are the people who say that essentially Israel and Iran are sort of morally and ethically similar. Now that's the, the mode I don't want to get into. Because once you get into the moral ethical part, you're, you know, you just have to take a side. And I don't want to do that. But I would point out that it seems very unlikely if Iran decided to be totally, you know, peaceful and not make any threats or any threatening moves toward his neighbors, it seems deeply unlikely that Israel would attack them, wouldn't you say? But would that be the same if Israel decided to be totally peaceful? Would they be attacked by Iran or Iranian proxies? Well, it doesn't look like those are the same to me. To me, it looks like Iran has a long term goal to erase Israel, at least as a country off the map. I don't see that Israel has any kind of goal like that. As far as I know. They would love to probably have some kind of regime change that loved Israel, but, you know, what are the odds of that? Pretty low. So any comparison of the two seems out of place to me. Meanwhile, the National Review, the conservative publication in this country, is attacking what they call skeptics of the Iraq war. And they've got a new updated article calling them unpatriotic conservatives. Oh, that's what they called the people who were against the Iraq war, but now they're using it to, to go against the people who are against the, you know, the attack of Iran? So it makes you wonder, what is the National Review? Is the job of the National Review news or opinion? Or do they work for the military industrial complex and it's just their way of influencing the country? It makes me wonder, what exactly is the National Review? Well, as you know, Trump has said that he's going to give. Well, before I get to that, there are two stories about two weeks. The first story about two weeks is that Israel said they thought that they would be done with their war in two weeks. Now, when people like me talk about international geopolitical stuff, the first thing you probably say to yourself is, what the hell does he know about geopolitical anything? Does he even know the population of Iran? Yes, I do, 92 million. But wouldn't you imagine that my opinion about the Israel Iran situation should be kind of worthless because I have no experience in that domain, you know, no special knowledge, I haven't been there. So wouldn't you just sort of automatically assume that I would be wrong about everything unless I just got lucky? Well, let's keep track because I have made some specific public predictions. One of my predictions is that there was no way that Israel would be done in two weeks. How am I doing so far? Well, if Trump's two weeks is, if they keep to Trump's two weeks and he says that's a maximum. So there's some, there's some chance that Trump will act before the two weeks is over, but I think that's low. It'll at least be three weeks. But on top of that, there is a military commander who says that, he said it's going to take longer. He says difficult days still lie ahead and that Israel must be ready for a, quote, prolonged campaign so that that's coming from Israel. So Israel, it looks like, has already been in their two week estimate. So did you see anybody else say that the two weeks were, would probably be bullshit? I didn't. I did not see one expert say, I don't think this will be done in two weeks. It might take months. Only me. Now, did I use my geopolitical expertise? No, I used the Dilbert filter. The Dilbert filter works whenever there's any big complicated human endeavor. And nobody ever got anything done in two weeks. Two weeks for a war. Come on. Whoever believed that that was going to get done in two weeks. So here's an example where I don't have any geopolitical experience whatsoever, but that kind of stood out as a glaring, obvious point that, that you could question how many of you said the same thing. Said, all right, there's no way this is going to be done in two weeks because nothing is, nothing is ever done in two weeks. No matter how sure you are that it can be, it just never is. So I got that one right. Anyway, so Trump says he's going to give Iran a couple of weeks. Some say that's mostly so you can move some more assets into place, like naval assets, etc, in case we need to go hard. Apparently there's reports that several B2 stealth bombers have already taken off and they're going from Missouri to Guam. Now, presumably that would get them closer to the theater that they might be using. And this would be an indication that Trump has either decided he's going to attack or wants Iran to think that that's a strong possibility. Some say that the two weeks that Trump is giving is just to see if Anything changes in a favorable way. So for example, if Israel had, let's say, some unexpectedly big successes in the next two weeks that changed the equation, well, then you can be, you know, you're going to be glad that Trump waited because maybe we don't have to attack. So what could happen in those two weeks besides getting more military assets in place? Some people say that Tehran might abandon its nuclear program. I don't think that's going to happen. So expecting them to tell the Europeans, you know, we don't want to talk to America or Israel, but we'd be happy to abandon our enrichment program, that's not going to happen. I don't see Iran bending to the will of the West. So we've got this two week period and Trump in his usual way says it's a maximum so that it keeps them guessing. They won't get too comfortable for two weeks because maybe, just maybe, something will happen faster. Now the big question is, should the United States be involved in taking out the four dao and maybe one other underground bunker facility under the belief that only America has the weapons that can do that? And that would be the bunker busters that they say would have to be double holed, so you would have to use one to make a big hole and then drop another one in the same hole to get deeper. And the American weapon makers and the military industrial complex is telling us via the news, oh, this will definitely work. Now there's a question of whether we should do it. But the people who make the weapons and talk about the weapons and know the most about the weapons, which is not me. Right? So again, here's another situation where I do not have any knowledge of military industrial complex. I do not know anything about bunker busters or anything about these B2 stealth bombers. So coming from no knowledge whatsoever and being in the same conversation with people who are geopolitical military experts, let me put the dilber filter on this. Nobody fucking knows if those bombs will work. Are you kidding me? Let me take you to the real world for a moment. They've never tested dropping two bunker busters in the same hole. They do not know exactly what is inside that Ford ow mountain and just exactly how things are protected in there. They might know a lot, but they don't know everything. When was the last time you saw somebody do this? A complicated thing that had never been done before and it worked out perfectly and they knew it in advance. That's not a function of the real world. In the real world you'd be really lucky if you got this to work on the first try. And I don't know if there'll be more than one try. So the first thing I'm going to say without being any kind of a military expert, is that probably everybody lies about how powerful their weapons are. Were you ever surprised when you heard that the Iron Dome, or some version of the Iron Dome was not stopping all the missiles? And somebody probably told you, oh, yeah, the anti missile defense is going to get 98% of the missiles, and then it turns out Maybe it gets 90%, but 10% is a lot of missiles to let through. So I would say that whenever you hear somebody say that a weapon system will definitely work, really? In the real world. In the real world, you've never used it in this way, but you're sure it's going to work. All right, so we're not sure it's going to work. And you should not imagine that anybody knows with certainty whether it'll work. Now, I don't know the odds. If you said, well, what are the odds that it doesn't work, I don't know. But nobody else knows either. The only thing I know for sure is it's not a definite. If it were definite, that might change the equation a little bit, but it's not. It's not definite. And just to make things interesting, Netanyahu has said publicly that Israel can take care of the Iranian nuclear program without America's help if they have to. Now, are you all aware of that? I'll take a fact check on that if I'm wrong. But correct me if I'm wrong. Netanyahu has recently publicly said that they don't need America's involvement. They could take care of it in a different way. They don't have these bunker busters, but there might be some way to do something on the ground or, you know, with, with special Forces or something. Now, would that put, would that put Israel in a position of taking losses? Yes, of course. That's what military conflicts do. They put you in a position where, where people could be killed on your side.

Experian Advertiser (46:49)

You know that one friend who somehow knows everything about money? Yeah. Now imagine they live in your phone. Say hey to Experian, your big financial friend. It's the app that helps you check your FICO score, find ways to save, and basically feel like a financial genius. And guess what? It's totally free. So go on, download the Experian app. Trust me, having a BFF like this is a total game changer.

Scott Adams (47:17)

But that does settle the question in my mind of whether Trump should authorize the B2 bombers to drop the bunker busters. And the answer is no. If Israel says that they can handle it without us, why would we even consider it now? You would consider it if our involvement made it a guarantee that it would work and Israel couldn't do it by itself. But that's not the case. Our bunker busters are anything but guaranteed. And Israel says they can do it. Why wouldn't we at least wait two weeks to see if they can do it? Is it possible that Trump's two weeks is really waiting to see if Israel can make a dent at Fordow with some kind of different strategy? And you could imagine I won't mention any that I could think of because I'm not smart enough, but there might be some way to get a hold of whoever it is who has the lock to open the front door. Don't you think there's probably more than one person in the world who knows how to open that door? Is it, is it a combination lock? Is it a multi step process where the people inside the facility have to be the ones to unlock it from the inside? Is that how it works? I'm just speculating, but don't you think there's some chance that Israel could get a hold of whoever has the key or the combination or the secret, you know, digital way to open that thing? Maybe there's just a way to open the front door that we don't know about. Maybe Israel knows more about that because they're, they're pretty deeply, you know, into the pants of the, of the Iranian everything maybe they know. But anyway, so the alternative, the alternative to Israel doing it themselves and believing that they can do it themselves is that Israel went into the war knowing that they could not succeed without American involvement in the war. Now that would be much worse, wouldn't you think? And when I asked that question online on X, I said, when did Israel know that they couldn't do this alone? Now, of course they say that they can do it alone. So that would be new information from when I asked the question. So isn't it way worse if Israel tried to trick the United States into getting involved by getting us a little bit pregnant, then saying, well, we got to this point, but the only way we can finish it is by getting America involved directly, more directly in the war. So I would say this made the decision for Trump kind of easy, because if Israel says they can do it and then he authorizes the United States to be involved in the war, and then Iran attacks our homeland, takes off our. Turns off our lights with cyber attacks and starts killing people in bases in the Middle East. Americans, that's going to look like a failure. Right. So that would be somewhat of an unforgivable mistake. But more than that, it would be an admission that Israel is wagging Trump's tail, meaning that it would suggest that the only way we got into the situation is that Israel knew that if they started the war, they could drag us in to finish it off. Now, I don't want to believe that about Netanyahu, so I'm going to take him at his word that I believe he said, and I'll take your fact check if I'm wrong about this. But if they think they have a way to do it, even if they don't know that it will work, they have to try that first. So, to me, the decision is already made. It's really hard for me to imagine that Trump would allow a situation where history would say Netanyahu tricked him into a war. Just think about Trump's personality, think about his decades of being anti war, and then think about the prospect of being treated by history as though you got tricked into a war by your own ally. There's no way he's going to allow that situation. So as long as Netanyahu has said publicly, we could probably take care of this ourselves, he has to let them. And I would say that any other decision would look like a mistake and history would judge him harshly for it. Now, what would happen if Israel tried and they lost some troops and they did not succeed, and then they gave up? Well, then that's a separate decision. From that point, you can say, all right, new information. It turns out that Israel can't do it alone because they tried. But I'll tell you the one thing that we're not going to be able to live with. We're not going to be able to live with Netanyahu saying he can do it and not letting him see if he can. There's no way we're going to live with that. And there's no way that Trump's legacy could survive getting involved when it doesn't seem necessary, according to Israel. And they would know more about the situation than we would. So I'm sure I will be called anti Semitic for. For taking Netanyahu at his word that he can do this. But if I have that wrong, if I've misinterpreted what he said, let me know, because that would change my opinion a little bit. All right, Matt Gates floated A plan. Now, I don't think this one has any chance of happening, but it's interesting nonetheless. So he suggests that both Iran and Israel give up their secret nuclear weapon programs. Now, I don't think there's any chance that Israel is going to give up its secret nuclear weapon triad, because it's probably pretty advanced and it would be insane to give it up, I guess. But it does make you wonder, is that one of the possibilities? What would Iran say if Israel offered to legitimately get rid of its nuclear program? Would Iran say, oh, well, I never thought that would happen. All right, if you're going to do it, we can do it, too? Would they? I don't think that that topic can even be broached because even if Israel put it out there as a suggested idea, it would be an acknowledgment that they have the secret nuclear nuclear triad that we all assume that they have. So I don't think there's any way that could work. But does make you wonder? Does make you think. Anyway, Tulsi Gabbard is, of course, under attack by the people who say that she disagrees with Trump, and Trump said that she was wrong if she said that Iran couldn't make a bomb. So I think my first take on this early in the, early on the drama was right, that when Tulsi Gabbard was talking about Iran, she was talking about a decision to make a bomb. And she said that the. The intelligence people in the United States have not detected that the Ayatollah has decided to make a nuclear weapon, whereas when Trump talks about it, he talks about the ability to make a nuclear weapon. So if they walk right up to the threshold and they are enriching uranium to the point where there's no other legitimate reason to do it other than your intention to make a weapon, well, that would put Trump in the position of saying it almost doesn't matter what anybody has decided. If they've walked up to the line where they can do it in three weeks, you. You have to treat it like they're doing it. It's the same. So I don't see any difference between what Tulsi Gabbard said and what Trump says. To me, they look like they're completely compatible. They both would agree that Iran could do it fairly quickly. So they're agreed on that. And I don't think Trump has said that the Ayatollah has been detected as ordering it to be done. He's not saying that. He's just being a common sense person who says, if they say death to America and they've been funding proxies and they go right up to the threshold, what else would they have in mind? You'd have to treat that like their intention is obvious. So even if you don't know their intention and you can't read their mind, Trump is right. You'd have to treat it as though you could read their mind. And they do have the intention, even if you don't know for sure. Anyway, here's a correction that I got a story completely wrong and Glenn Greenwald is correcting people like me. The story was that the Washington Post has a reporter who used to work for Al Jazeera, which is part of the smearing of his reputation. He used to work for Al Jazeera, but now he is on the Washington Post, and when he reports about the missile damage in Israel, he was giving actual coordinates, like GPS coordinates of where the damage was. And Bill Ackman and a number of other people, and including me in my podcast, were saying, why would you do that? Like, what possible reason would you want Iran to have the GPS coordinates of the missile attack? Unless you were hoping they could improve their aim? Because if you tell them where they landed, maybe they can adjust their. Their process somehow. Now, that made sense to me when I said it, but let me tell you how stupid that was. All right, so here's a case where if I knew more, I would have done a better job. As Glenn Greenwald points out, here's the most important part of the story. The the. I'm laughing at myself for what an idiot I am, because this is really dumb. Where do you think the reporter got the GPS coordinates for the missile damage? Do you think he was over there? No, he's not over there. He's in the United States. So how did he get the missile coordinates of where the bombs hit? It's public. It's public. So Iran would obviously already know what this reporter knows because it's public. So he used a public source for the GPS coordinates, which Orion has full access to. And if that's not enough for you, apparently the same reporter has been doing the same thing, reporting the GPS coordinates for prior wars, I think at least two prior wars. And the reason he does it is so that if you wanted to check, basically it would allow you to have a way to check to see if the reporting is accurate. He gives the GPS coordinates. So if somebody looked at it from, let's say, a satellite and they saw that that building was intact, they could say, oh, the Reporting was wrong. So it's basically a way to let other people check his work. So I would like to apologize for getting that story absolutely wrong. Just absolutely bass ackwards. And the journalist is Evan Hill, so I will apologize to him directly. So, Evan, sorry about that. I got taken by that hoax. Anyway, this is why you want to listen to Greenwald. He always has the better take on stuff. Pssst.

Apple Cash Advertiser (61:35)

Your payments are showing, but with Apple Cash, your payments are private by design. There are no public feeds, awkward reactions, or unnecessary payment drama. Apple Cash lets you send cash and messages right in the conversations you're already having. Or with tap to cash paste someone next to you without looking up a username or scanning a QR code. Just hold your iPhone near someone else's to send. Switch to Apple Cash and start sending privately. Apple Cash services are provided by Green Dot bank member fdic.

Scott Adams (62:08)

Apparently, the Trump administration is making some big changes to Obamacare and they're ending coverage for dreamers. So the dreamers would be the children who were brought in by their parents and have grown up as Americans, but they're not technically legal. So apparently they're going to lose their Obamacare coverage. And my question is this. Do you think that the Trump administration is using the COVID of the Israel Iran war to get away with some things that otherwise it would be too much public pushback for? Because this is in the area that, you know, a reasonable person could disagree because you're talking about, you know, people who did not make any decision to come here, they were brought here by their parents, and they would be losing health care. Now, there's an argument on both sides. I get it. I get it. You don't have to. You don't have to argue with me. I see the argument. But do you think Trump could get away with this without there being some big international story that dominates? I feel like the Stephen Millers have a little more flexibility because we're distracted by other things that seem like a bigger deal to us. So that's my only comment on that. I wonder if distraction is making a difference. Well, Bill Maher had Wesley Hunt on who's a representative, and Wesley Hunt did a unusually good job of slapping down Bill Maher's tds. So the first thing that happened was Bill Maher was talking about Trump's military parade, and he mentioned that it was a fascist parade. And Wesley Hunt said this. You know what I saw? This is what Hunt said. I saw the president salute the corps of cadets as they walked past them. I watched them salute the 75th Ranger Regiment. I watched the fireworks behind the Washington Monument, and you know what I thought? Damn, that's absolutely outstanding. And it's far better than Joe Biden checking his watch when bodies were being returned to Dover. And then he reminds us that he was in the military. He was an Apache pilot, and he joined the military because of, in part because of that type of patriotic treatment of the military. Now, that's a pretty darn good answer. It's a fascist military. And then the person who actually served, talking to Bill Maher, who did not serve in the military, says, no, it wasn't fascist. It's the reason I joined the military. That is a really good answer now. But he had another chance to slap down Bill Maher, because Bill maher referred to January 6th as an insurrection. And as his proof, Bill Maher said, you know, it's not a coincidence that they were protesting at the exact time the votes were being, I think he said, counted, but maybe certified was a better word. Now, Wesley Hunt said, how do you have an insurrection with no guns? There you go. How do you have an insurrection with no guns? Why did it take this long for somebody to say that on Bill Mora show? How many times as Bill Moore referred to January 6th as an insurrection. And it took all the way to now for Wesley Hunt to say, how do you have an insurrection with no guns? He went on saying, that's like making coffee with no beans. One person was killed that day. It was Ashley Babbitt. She was a white unarmed woman killed by a black Capitol Police officer. Imagine if that had been the other way around. Ouch. Oh, you're good, Wesley Hunt. And then Mara tried to argue it, but Wesley pointed out that the Summer of Love was way more dangerous and more people died and it was way worse. I would have added one thing, so that was a good comeback. But I would add this. Bill Maher does not understand what the protesters were thinking when they protested. If what they were thinking was, I know we lost this election, but we're going to try to take over the country and install our beloved Trump. If that's what they were thinking, then that was an insurrection. Even without the guns, that would be an insurrection. But they weren't. I'll bet you couldn't find even one person out of the thousands of people. I'll bet you wouldn't find one who said, I knew Trump lost, but I wanted him to be president anyway. I'll bet not one. So the entire argument that January 6th was an insurrection depends entirely on the mental state of the protesters if what they believed is that the election itself was obviously corrupt because of the weird oddities of that election, the sudden surge of Biden, the unusual number of votes he got compared to Obama and compared to other years. And then the. What do you call it, the, the certain districts, the bellwether districts, I think 13 or 14 went the wrong way. You know, they're, they're normally the most predictive thing in our elections. And they all predicted that Trump won and he still lost. So if you ask those people, I'm pretty sure they would say we think that the election didn't look like it was necessarily fair. And we wanted them to pause just to look into it a little bit, just, just to make sure that the right person won. How in the world does Bill Maher, who talks about politics for a living, not realize that he's never heard from anybody who was involved in the protest and that that's the only thing that matters? What were they thinking? And were they thinking that they were taking over the country and they left their guns home? Is that what they were thinking? So I think Wesley hunt, he was 60% of the way there with, nobody goes through an insurrection without guns. But the other 40%, that's the kill shot. And nobody's taken a kill shot yet. It's going to happen, but nobody's done it yet. New York Post is reporting that CNN is collapsing. Two other executives just resigned, Vice President of Domestic News and VP of Digital Video. And they'd both been there a long time and I guess there were big cost cuttings coming. And Anderson Cooper gets paid $18 million a year. I've got a feeling that there might be a change coming to Anderson Cooper's compensation package, but we'll see. According to a post I saw by Mario Novel, who you should follow on X, he has great news summaries. He saw this in the CTU, UCB Cybersecurity Research, so that he has a source. Apparently 500 research papers have been written in China about how to crash the power grid in America. So 367 Chinese papers targeting the US grids and 166 on European systems. And they talked about how to create, quote, cascading failures and systematic collapse. So if you're wondering is China wondering how to collapse our entire power network, the answer is yes. They're putting a lot of effort into understanding what would work. Now, the fact that there are so many different papers sort of suggests that maybe there's not one obvious way to do it, which Maybe gives me a little weird comfort if, if they have to do that much thinking about it, maybe it's not easy, you know, maybe they can't just turn a switch, which we imagine they could do. But the papers detail, quote, malicious data injection attacks. Yikes. What would keep China from attacking our grid? Well, I think as long as we don't attack their grid or attack them, it's unlikely they're going to attack us in that way, because why would they? But as a defensive move, China quite wisely has a pretty good backup plan. And I have to admit, I feel safer if China feels they can take down our electric grid than I would if the only tool they had was a nuclear weapon. Because taking down the power grid would kill a lot of people, and it would be massively disruptive and horrible, but nuclear war would be worse. So maybe it's good that they have some kind of halfway thing that they can do. Obviously, we're. I'm sure America has looked into the same. Same question for their grid. Well, the Post Millennial is reporting that Representative Jerry Nadler is accusing ICE agents of hiding misbehavior by wearing masks. Now, apparently, the Democrats have decided on another 20% issue. How many people in the United States think that they want the ICE agents to reveal their identity to the gangs? Ms. 13 and Trend, how many people think that's a good idea? Now, I understand that the regular cops on the street don't wear masks, and I'm happy about that. But apparently, according to Breitbart, there's a recent analysis and the Department of Homeland security sees a 500% increase in assaults on ICE employees. 500% increase in assaults. So if you were working on a job where there was a 500% increase in assaults and the Democrats were saying, hey, take off those masks so we can assault you even better, that can't be popular. Is it. Isn't that another 80, 20 where 80% of the country would say, oh, yeah, if they need to protect themselves, they have to do what they have to do. Or do you think. Yeah, or do you think that people agree with that, that I should take off their masks so the gangs can figure out who they are? I don't know. I think I would let them keep the masks in this environment. All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for you today. There will not be a spaces after today's show. That will be tomorrow Sunday. So I'll tell you about that tomorrow. And I'm going to say a few words privately to the local subscribers. Beloved, beloved local subscribers. And hope you'll come back tomorrow, same time, same place. All right, locals, we're going to go private in 30 seconds.