Loading summary
Transcript9 lines
- [00:00]
Scott Adams
Come on in. Did you think I wouldn't be here? Yeah. We got stuff to talk about. Let's get the comments working, and then we've got a show. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams. The best thing that ever happened to you. If you'd like to try to take this experience up to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, well, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass, a tankard, chalice, or stein, a canteen or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. That dopamine. At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called. That's right. The simultaneous sip. Go. Tremendous. Incredible. Well, after the show today, Owen Gregorian will be hosting these spaces. So anybody who wants to follow up on anything that we talked about today, or, I guess, anything else, go to X and search for Owen Gregorian. Or you can go to my X account, and you'll see the link after the show. Well, you probably heard that last night the USA attacked three Iranian nuclear sites. It is being called a spectacular success, and I have to say, the US Military is very impressive. So congratulations to everybody involved. So it looks like they did exactly what they wanted to do, and that would mean that America is officially in a new war. So here we are. Now, you might say to yourself, well, it's not really a new war. It's a limited strike, unless Iran retaliates, which they say they will, in which case, we'd have to do another limited strike. So we're definitely in the war now. No doubt about that. But the good news is we seem to be winning. Winning solves a lot of problems. Mike Benz is pointing out that the plot of the Real World is suspiciously like the plot of Top Gun Maverick, where, you know, a precision strike had to be made and the world was at risk if we didn't do it Anyway. Looks very, very movie familiar. So if you did not hear the news, there were three nuclear sites that were targeted. For now, the big one, then Natanz and Isfahan, which I didn't even know was a place, but now I do, and I guess all three were the. The major Iranian. Iranian. Do you have the same problem I do if you're not sure how to pronounce Iranian. I know it's not Iranian, but Iranian. Is that correct? I don't know. They have 92 million people. That's all I know. Anyway, so one of the questions that I was having before the attack is I was questioning whether in the real world we could drop two of these mops, these enormous bombs in the same hole. And I was suggesting that that was a little bit optimistic, sounded a little bit like the Star wars, you know, have to hit exactly the, the air vent or something. And I thought, really, really, we're going to take these bombers and they're going to take off from thousands of miles away and they're going to fly for 18 hours and then they're going to drop two bombs in the same hole from, you know, God awful height in the air. And I said to myself, I don't think so. No, no. So indeed they did not drop two bombs in the same hole. Apparently they did it six times in a row. So as far as we know, there were 12 of these mops or these gigantic bombs were dropped into six holes, which if I've done my math right, Bean said not only do they know how to drop two bombs in one hole, they can do it six times in a row. And then I guess two other bombs were dropped presumably in the same hole at one of the other sites, but they, they used 12 of them on just four Dow. Now I was also saying, how do we know that we got everything? And it's hard to know exactly what got destroyed and what didn't. I'll talk about that. But one way to make sure that you didn't miss anything Is to drop 12 of them. How many of you even thought that was possible? As recently as yesterday we were talking about, well, two. Two of them should do the job. And then some people were saying, you know, it might take as many as six. I'm like, whoa, no way. Six of those bombs. And then other people were saying that we only had 12, that the entire US arsenal was only 12 of them. But apparently we dropped 14 if you count the two that were dropped on the other facility. So out of our 12 alleged MOP bombs, we dropped 14 of them. 14 out of 12. So I don't know how many we have left, but obviously we're not good at estimating how many we have. Also, submarines fired 30 cruise missiles, mostly at the non Ford our sites, Natanz and Isfan. Isfahan. Okay. And then two additional mops were dropped on Natanz. Apparently our military pulled off a good decoy move. We where they moved some B1 bombers that were sort of conspicuous and reported in the news and they were decoys. So the real bombers were coming in from another direction. But Trump also misled them by suggesting that they had a maximum of two weeks, which I interpreted as he'd probably wait two weeks. And my thinking was that he would let Israel take the first attempt. But I would conclude at this point that probably Israel did not have the ability to destroy these sites or at least to do it in a time frame that was acceptable. So then we have to ask the question, did Israel drag the United States into a never ending war? Because I don't know how this ends. We'll talk about that in a minute. But I would release on the assumption that Israel was telling the truth when it said they could take care of it themselves. So that was probably another fake out or was it just an ordinary political lie? I don't know. But I would rule out the, the option that Israel ever had a chance of doing it themselves. But they did suggest that they could. So maybe that was for the, the Iran consumption, not us. Well, we'll find out more about that as time goes on.
- [09:45]
Owen Gregorian
Every idea starts with a problem. Warby Parker's was simple. Glasses are too expensive. So they set out to change that. By designing glasses in house and selling directly to customers, they're able to offer prescription eyewear that's expertly crafted and unexpectedly affordable. Warby Parker glasses are made from premium materials like impact resistant polycarbonate and custom acetate. And they start at just $95, including prescription lenses. Get glasses made from the good stuff. Stop by a Warby Parker store near you.
- [10:18]
Scott Adams
Then I saw one report that I don't know, it couldn't possibly be true that two of these bombs were dropped or that some of the bombs were dropped down the ventilation shafts. Did you hear that? Do you think it's possible that not only can they drop two bombs in a hole six times in a row, but they can aim at the ventilation shafts? And my next question is, if they knew where the ventilation shafts were, didn't they already have a way to destroy it? Are you telling me there's nothing you can dumb down a ventilation shaft that would be exploding or poison or something? I don't know. Apparently there's no sign yet of any radiation, so that would be good. Now the satellite pictures that I described with the six holes, one question I have is at least that four. Now the clusters of the holes were there would be three over here, maybe at the entrance, and then there would be three pretty far away, maybe at the main facility, I don't know. So my next question is, did we have such a detailed understanding of what the bunker looked like that we knew exactly where they kept the good stuff in addition to where the entrance was. So I have a question. What about all that stuff between the two bomb sites? Because if you look at the map, it looks like there's a fairly extensive distance between a cluster of three holes and the other cluster of three holes. So again, I'm guessing that one was the entrance, the main entrance, and one was maybe the main facility. But there's also reporting that the day or two before the strikes, there was a lot of truck activity at that site. So did they know the attack was coming? And did they load up all the important stuff on trucks and move it to other protected sites? And is it even the kinds of stuff that you can move? It could be that trying to move it would be, you know, impossible, or maybe not. Maybe they had always planned that they might have to move it someday, so they made sure that they could. So one of the things we don't know is did they move anything out before the bombing? And then we also don't know if they collapsed everything that needed to be collapsed. Or is there still some way that Iran could later dig out something useful? We don't know. We may never know. But as of today, everybody seems to be treating it like a major success. And I will, I will temporarily accept that narrative because there's no evidence that it didn't work. And those are some big ass bombs and dropping 12 of them on one place probably suggests you know what you're doing. So I'm going to give them the benefit of assuming that that much capability is backed by some good thinking as well. So at the moment, I would say it all looks pretty good. Pretty good. Now, I had suggested that, you know, maybe Trump would wait because he would be looking for other, other options. But the surprise attack is pretty smart because it fooled me and it looks like it might have fooled Iran too. Anyway, Iran complained a little bit that they thought the US Was in negotiation mode, but Iran never once acted like negotiations were going to work. So that's a little bit disingenuous for Iran to say, hey, I thought you were negotiating. No, you didn't. Because they knew they weren't negotiating anyway. So Iran now has announced that they have a right to self defense, as they call it, which probably has nothing to do with self defense. So they're going to call it self defense because that's easy to defend. Everybody has a right to self defense. But what is it exactly that Iran plans to do to the United States that would stop us from doing whatever we wanted the next time we want to do it. And as far as they know, the US Is done. So what would they be defending against? They could defend against Israeli attacks because those are ongoing. But we just said we're done and there's good reason to believe we're done. So why would you call it a self defense when there's nothing to defend against except, you know, what's already happened, which makes no sense. So now it would not be self defense. If anything, it would be more like Iran trying to save face and maybe keep their regime in power by acting as though the big Satan, as they like to call us, can't get away with this. You can't get away with this. So I think it has everything to do with hating the United States and needing to hurt Americans so that their regime will look like they're not toothless. The irgc, the Republican Guard, is that what they're called? Anyway, the main military of Iran, the ones that matter anyway, said today's act of aggression by the terrorist American regime terrorists has granted the Islamic Republican brand the legitimate right to act in self defense. Again, is it really self defense if we're not fighting them whatsoever and we're done? Including, they say, through options that go beyond the delusional calculations of the aggressor coalition. All right, so it might be just talk, but Iran does seem pretty violent, so I wouldn't assume it's just talk. However, when they say something that would go beyond our delusional calculations, that would suggest maybe cyber attacks, maybe terrorist attacks on the homeland, here's the problem. There's probably some low level of response that would make it look like, well, at least they did something that would not be so big that America would have to respond to the response. So it's kind of a narrow little window of options. If you imagine, for example, some major terrorist attack happening in the United States as what they would call self defense, do you think that Trump would let that go? Do you think he would say, all right, we're even, we took out your nuclear, you did a terrorist attack, we'll call it even? No, no, we, we would escalate. So is there really much that Iran can do that isn't going to be bad for Iran? And the answer is probably not. Almost everything they do will either be too weak or we will respond again. And they're not going to like that at all. Probably a regime change situation, I would guess.
- [19:11]
Owen Gregorian
Ten years from today, Lisa Schneider will train in her office job to become the leader of a pack of dogs. As the owner of her own dog rescue. That is a second act made possible by the reskilling courses Lisa's taking now with AARP to help make sure her income lives as long as she does. And she can finally run with the big dogs and the small dogs who just think they're big dogs. That's why the younger you are, the more you need AARP. Learn more at aarp.org skills.
- [19:42]
Scott Adams
I heard a CNN pundit say the other day, and this is not authoritarian, but just somebody who was one of their experts said that the reason that they enriched to the threshold of nuclear weapons is not because they wanted to make nuclear weapons. Do you know what the real reason was according to one pundit? And I have no reason to think he's right. But just so you hear this perspective, that the reason that they would get so close to being able to make a weapon without actually having any signs of intention of making the weapon, except that they keep crawling up to the line, is so that they would have a chip to trade for a reduction in US Sanctions on their economy. Does that sound even a little bit like that would be their strategy? Because I was saying, why would they do it? You know, unless they actually plan to make a nuclear weapon, what would. What would be the reason for making everybody want to kill them? Literally kill them to stop them from doing what they're doing, which is looking sort of like they want a nuclear weapon and that they have a specific reason for it, which would be to destroy the big Satan and the little Satan. So maybe. And the only reason I think that maybe that's true is because it's the same mistake that Saddam Hussein made. Do you remember Saddam Hussein, right until the end, pretended that maybe he did have weapons of mass destruction because that would scare his regional neighbors. And we probably destroyed his entire country and killed him because he did a good job of pretending he had nuclear weapons, or at least weapons of mass destruction. So is it possible that Iran made the same mistake of pretending that they wanted nuclear weapons any moment, but really it was just something to trade away? It doesn't feel like it to me because they didn't look like they wanted to trade anything away. They were so adamant that it was not on the table. You know, wouldn't they have at least offered it once? You know, if you drop the sanctions, then we'll drop our enrichment or something. My next question is, apparently they had already enriched a bunch of fuel up to 60%, which is very close to 90. Apparently getting from 60 to 90 is a small deal compared to getting to 60. So did they do all that and then leave the fuel inside those nuclear facilities that we just bombed? How much of a container does it take to store all of that enriched fuel, enriched uranium, and move it somewhere else? Wouldn't you imagine that even if we took out all of their big equipment, that they would have hidden their actual already enriched fuel someplace unexpected, as in not in Florida? So how would we know? And what, you know, what mischief could they get into with what they already have? Because it's not quite refined to where they need it, but it's right up there. I saw one message from some Russian guy who was not that dependable, who said that countries would be willing to give Iran nuclear weapons. Does that sound true? What country would give Iran a nuclear weapon no matter how much of an ally they are? Do you think China is going to say, you know what, you lost your nuclear weapons, but we want to be friends and keep buying your oil, so why don't you take a couple of hours? No, no, no country is going to give up their nuclear weapons. Now, maybe North Korea might sell them something. Maybe, but not right away anyway. So one of the questions that I asked is what would be our method for knowing how well our bombing worked? How would we know, for example, if they moved anything out? Would we know? Well, apparently the Israelis have an impressive network of spies, and those spies apparently are in all the right places because Israel has an incredible understanding of where all their leaders are and everything else. So it must be a pretty, you know, pretty effective spy network. So this. But the spies are only going to know what the Iranian leadership knows at best. Would the Iranian leadership even know if, if there was anything inside for a. That they could salvage? Not for a long time. So even Iran doesn't know what the bomb damage is. They just know they can't access it right away. But at some point, the bombing will stop and Israel will not be controlling their skies and the US Will back off. And what would happen when they start digging up the. The nuclear facility at Fordo? We don't know. There might be something in there, maybe not. But the spies won't know because the Iranians would not know right away. I don't think you can tell by looking at it. So I saw the satellite pictures, and there are some impressive holes in the ground. So let me tell you, those mops, those bombs, they leave quite a crater. So if you imagine that they were in exactly the right place or they somehow were engineered to take down everything, even though they only hit in two locations, then that would assume that things are pretty well destroyed. But I don't think we know that. And I don't know that you can tell by looking at a satellite picture because I imagine, I always imagine the underground facilities would have bomb doors every X number of feet so that no matter what you blew up, you know, it was designed to be contained in some area and not get the whole thing. I don't know. I've never built a underground nuclear facility, but if I did, that's how I do it. But on the other hand, it could be that the U.S. said, you know, if we dropped two of these mops on that place, we probably could get most of it. And then somebody else said, you know, if we dropped four mops we'd really be confident that we got everything. And then somebody else said, who was also at the meeting? Four, you wimp, we should do six. And then somebody else says, Six, you wimp. We should do eight. And then it stopped at 12 because that was all they had. They had to use two for the other one. But once you drop 12 of these mops, it could be that it creates such an earthquake that it guarantees you get everything. Maybe. So it might be that we don't have to do a lot of bomb damage assessment bda that all they have to do is say we dropped 12 mops on you and nothing can survive that. If it's underground, maybe, maybe that's all they need. Anyway, according to cnn, they've got rumors or at least one person believes that Iran has been building some tunnels that we did not target. Now what are the odds that Iran had some obvious targets but they had some extra tunnels maybe in other places in which they made sure they had not everything, but maybe just enough, you know, maybe a centrifuge here or there, maybe a little bit of a process or something. So how long would it take before we know if Iran was smart enough to not hide all of their things in facilities that had names like here's our nuclear enrichment site. Do you think they were smart enough that they, they distributed it across multiple sites, which would be the obvious thing to do? Or do you think they said, you know, we've got three well labeled, well known sites, let's keep everything in there because they were built to house these things. So we'll just keep it right there. I don't know. How long will it take before we know if we got it all? I don't know. I don't know if everybody knows. Anyway, on the plus side, it was A very impressive military exercise. So the military, as far as we can tell, gets an A plus plus because they not only did it demonstrate power, which is always good. You know, we always say about all of our enemies, we say they don't understand anything but strength. We act like we're the only country that can operate on reason and that every other country just operates on strength. No, the only thing they understand is bombs. We say that about everybody. We need to bomb sometimes. It might be true, but it might be true in this case. But the US Demonstrated not only power, but pulled off a highly complicated multi refueling lots of aircraft. There were support planes. It was coordination. There was a need for secrecy. So apparently the success in keeping it a secret not only in the United States but everywhere else, was really impressive. So P exeth, as of this moment, we might learn something we don't know. But as of this moment, wow. Nicely done. So he got, let's say Agseth has been baptized under fire. And so far it looks like he was 100% successful. Now ask yourself, how many ways could this have gone wrong? And the answer is a lot of ways. You remember Jimmy Carter trying to free the hostages in Iran during his reign, and the helicopters took on sand and just. They sort of broke. And the whole thing was considered a debacle. And that could have happened. And it looks like there were a hundred ways that this could have gone wrong. But if you pull off an operation that looks this successful when it had so many moving parts and so many different parts of the military to be involved, from the communication to the flights that were suppressing fire, to all of it, every bit of it looks like, wow, very impressive. So great job, military. Apparently the US Told Iran through some back channels that the strikes would be contained. So again, we're trying to reduce the odds that they need to do this big revenge. Because if they're smart. We don't know if they are, but if they're smart, they will treat the US Involvement like it's over and just, you know, don't do any. What would you call it? The. There's an error there. There's a. I'll think of it. There's a name for that. Anyway, so Hagseth gave his press. His press event today. They did not mention the double holing of the. The mops, you know, the two bombs in each hole. But they did say there were 12 of them. And there's. There are six holes. So it does look like that's what they did. And let's see what else did we learn from that? And we were reminded by Exeth that when Trump says they're not going to have nuclear weapons, that he doesn't bluff. So one of the things that you're hearing a lot of people say is Trump doesn't bluff. And I'm trying to remember, where did that come from? Because Trump definitely bluffs when he's pretending that he's negotiating, but he's really sending bombers over. So he totally bluffed that he was waiting two weeks. That was a bluff. Right. But we still act like he doesn't bluff, and he doesn't bluff when it comes to the big stuff. You know, the main theme. He doesn't bluff about that. He does bluff about maybe some of the details, you know, how we get there, when we're going to move, how we're going to move, how it's going to be done, that stuff. Yeah, yeah, he might bluff on that, but when it comes to the big thing that he's been saying for decades that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon, that's not a bluff. And I think he reinforced that idea. Nope, not a bluff. Let's see, what else do we need to know? Skipping ahead here. So Israel's N. Yahuwah did a video statement commending Trump and thanking him. I want to show you how capable Netanyahu is with his communication. If you were Netanyahu, what would you be trying to accomplish with your video statement after the fact? Well, you would want to thank the United States, you would want to thank Trump, and you would want to compliment him, and you would want to stay on his side, and you would want to make sure that he felt good about what he did, because the entire relationship just kind of hangs on it. So here are some of the things that Netanyahu said which, honestly, are kind of brilliant. So this is a persuasion lesson. Just listen to how Netanyahu paces Trump. Now, I've taught you about pacing and leading. Pacing is when you match the style of the person you're trying to persuade. In this case, he's trying to persuade Trump that Trump did a great thing and that Israel loves him and they're the best partners ever. All right, well, listen to the exact words. So Netanyahu starts out by saying, president Trump and I often say peace through strength. First comes strength, then comes peace. So do you see the pacing he starts out with? We agree on this major idea that peace through strength. Now, he didn't have to say that, but it's a perfect thing to say because it reinforces Trump's philosophy, and it says he agrees with it. And he starts with that. So he's already. He's already brilliant. Right? Then he says he described Trump as, quote, a strong leader of the free world and a great friend of Israel and a friend like no other. A friend like no other. Now, do you think that Trump likes to hear that he's a strong leader? Yeah, yeah. That would be right at the top of the list of things he would want to hear from another leader. So Netanyahu lays down he's a strong leader. And, yeah, first of all, that would be supported by the facts. But secondly, to hear him say it is also important. So that's good. But then you see this phrase that he's a great friend of Israel and a friend like no other. What does Trump do all the time? His most common communication technique. So when Trump is talking about something that worked out, he says stuff like, nobody's ever seen this before. It's the best that's ever happened. Nothing has ever compared to this. Right. That's how he talks. And notice how Netanyahu matched him. He's not just a friend. He's not just a great friend. He's a friend like no other. That's Trumpism. A friend like no other. That is a perfect pace for Trump's own communication style. And then he goes on, and Netanyahu called the US Strikes a, quote, a pivot of history for Middle east prosperity and peace, and saying that Trump's leadership created a transformative moment by acting against it. How much do you think Trump, who was complaining all yesterday, the day before, about how he doesn't get a Nobel Peace Prize for all the things he's done, and he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, but of course he'll never get one because they only give them to liberals. So for Netanyahu to say that this is a pivot in history and it's a pivot toward prosperity and peace and all that is right on message with what Trump himself was saying about himself, which is, hey, I'm doing all these things, which are. He didn't use the phrase, but, you know, they changed history and they changed it for the better. And I'm not getting credit for it. So Netanyahu gives him credit for it, the pivot of history. And then he says, Netanyahu says, we worked as a team, like perhaps no team has ever worked before. Do you see it yet? Have I taught you to spot this yet? It's just. He doesn't say, we worked effectively as a team. That would be the normal thing you say. He says, we worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before in the history of teams, in the entire world history, no team has ever worked as effectively as this. That's pure Trump, pure Trumpism, that there's never been a team that worked as effectively as this one. So no matter what you think of Netanyahu or Israel, you have to, you have to give it up for their communication skills. They're really good at the communication thing anyway. Of course, Iran. Iran did some missile attacks on Israel last night. There were no new deaths confirmed, but there were 16 injuries in Haifa and Tel Aviv, which would suggest that either Iran is holding off and waiting to do maybe one big missile attack and saving all their missiles, or they're running out of missiles or running out of launchers or they don't want to use them up. So we don't know exactly why, but the number of missile related deaths in Israel seems to be down.
- [42:55]
Owen Gregorian
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.
- [43:25]
Scott Adams
But the Iranian Parliament has reportedly just ordered that they're going to try to close the Straits of Hormuz, where allegedly 20% of global oil production goes through it. But I don't know if that's going to happen because that would hurt their own allies more than it would hurt their enemies. So apparently China, and maybe mostly China would be affected by this, but the United States, not so much. You know, we don't have that much depending on the Strait of Hormuz, but some of our allies do and I guess there are some pipelines that work around it, etc, so. So maybe if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, maybe we just. I don't leave it closed. Maybe we don't have to fix that. Maybe China would say, all right, all right, you made your point. You close it for a week, but now you have to open it. Or maybe they'll close it only to certain types of ships, but certainly there would be some, you know, big response if they do that. We'll see. All right, let's talk about the exit strategy. How does the United States and Israel, too. How do they get out of this? If you're Israel, you have said our main goal is to get rid of the nuclear facilities, but now they're gone. So is Israel going to pack up today and stop bombing? Because their main goal of getting rid of the nuclear plants is over? Oh, no. Oh no. That's right. They added another goal. I don't remember when they added it, but it wasn't on day one, was it? But they added they have to get the ballistic missiles as well. So I guess they stay until they think they have all the ballistic missiles or all the missile launchers. So what will Israel say is their objective now that the nuclear threat allegedly has been suppressed? They've got a problem if, as some people say, their real goal is regime change. And they don't say that, by the way, but if their real goal is regime change, they have to stay. And what happens if they just stay and they just keep bombing stuff and maybe they. Maybe now's the time that they take out the regime. Would that make sense if they plan to do it? Wouldn't they have done it before? I don't know. But allegedly the Ayatollah has. Has already picked three people who would be his successors, but he is wisely not naming them in public because they would start exploding right away. I assume that we know, you know what, 10 people are likely to be a successor. So if Israel wanted to kill them, they'd probably be. Half of them would be dead by now. So it looks like neither the US Nor Israel are actively trying to do regime change, but they might kind of wish for it. The least likely outcome is the. Is. Is the public of Iran rising up and replacing their own leaders at the same time that Israel is bombing them. That's not going to happen. So how do they get out? And is there any way that Israel and. Or the United States could effectuate. That's a word I say I've never used before in public. Now that I've heard it, I'm going to use it a lot. How can they cause a friendly regime to take over in Iran? That's not really possible, is it? I don't feel like it would last even if they. If they succeeded. So what do you do? Apparently a lot of major US Cities are now on alert because they think maybe Iran snuck in a bunch of terrorists and they could do some damage in the United States. But again, I would say unless Iran just wants to destroy whatever's left of their country, that they should just treat the United States like we're done. As much as they need revenge, if they go up to the homeland, United States, of course we're going to respond. And it will be bigger than the response on the nuclear sites. I mean, maybe we would go after the leadership, I don't know. So if I had to guess, I would guess that they would not do a terrorist act in the United States. I would worry about a false flag, but I would not imagine they would attack the United States because that would just be national suicide. But they have done some things that look like you would only do it if you were planning a national suicide. So can't rule it out. I've been curious about the trolls that have been coming after me on X, because I wonder if they're professionals or bots. But they all have a similar kind of attack. First of all, they follow me, which is the first signal of the troll. They follow me without liking me. All right, how often do you follow somebody you don't like just so you control them? And then no matter what I say, they come after me personally for either my lack of credentials or they try to mock me. It's like, oh, oh, let's see what the cartoonist says about military action. See what the cartoonist says. And it's all personal attacks. So are those real people? I act like they're. They're not. But are they. Are those actually Americans who disagree, but they don't have reasons, so they just do personal attacks? Oh, let's see what the cartoonist says. And then the recent one is, why would you spend your last days on Earth? Because they're making a reference to me dying. Why would you spend your last days with such bad opinions? And they won't even mention what's wrong with the opinion. They're just pure trolls. So are those. Are they paid? Are they foreign? Or are they actually just Americans who are total? I don't know, but I don't give them too much power. Well, here's some. Some reactions from various places. Msnbc. I sampled their. Their coverage this morning, and it looked like they might lean on the. Trump did this without approval from Congress. So it was an unconstitutional attack. Now, that's pretty weak if that's all they got, because, you know, the commanders in chiefs have been acting without Congress's approval for a while, and not just Republicans. So it's sort of a weak attack, but it's all they have. But you have to watch if you can see a clip of Rachel Maddow interviewing somebody. Oh, my God, her face. She. She's got total drama crap face, like, because she's very unhappy. But what are you going to say about this wildly successful military action that reduced one of the biggest risks that we had in the world? Or at least it looks like this. You have to see her face. It is hilarious that she can wind her face up into that and scrunch it up like that. One of the MSNBC hosts, whose name I don't know, was very impressed by the. The operation. So he was impressed in a very visual way, meaning that he could barely, he couldn't contain how impressed he was, how good the American military was in this operation. So that's not what you expect. And I have a hypothesis that winning fixes just about everything. If Trump wins, and there's a good chance of that, meaning that he accomplishes an objective and, and keeps it limited, that would look like a big win. If he does that, then even his critics are going to have to melt away. They're just, they're going to have to just change the subject, basically. And it looks like that might happen maybe at least a 50 chance.
- [53:44]
Owen Gregorian
Hank's the family fixer, always with his tool belt, but living with prostate cancer, he needed help. He asked his doctor about Xtandi and zalutamide. Xtandi, 40mg tablets, treats men with prostate cancer that has spread to other parts of the body and responds to a medical or surgical treatment to lower testosterone. Xtandi may cause serious side seizure, a brain condition called press, allergic reactions, heart disease. The can lead to death, falls and bone fractures, swallowing problems or choking that can lead to death. Stop Xtandi and get medical help at once. If your face, tongue, lip or throat start swelling, tell your doctor at once. If you faint, have a seizure, quickly worsening headache, decreased alertness, confusion, vision problems, chest pain or discomfort, or shortness of breath. Xtandi can cause harm to an unborn baby or miscarriage. Use birth control during and three months after Xtandi. Common side effects include muscle and joint pain, feeling unusual, tired, hot flashes, constipation, less appetite, diarrhea, high blood pressure, bleeding, falls, fractures and headache. Talk to your doctor and visit xtandi.com.
- [54:44]
Scott Adams
Hakeem Jeffries, as a sort of a leader in the democracy side, has to come up with something that made Trump look like he made a mistake. So he put in a statement that said the risk of war has now dramatically increased. Okay, but the risk of being the victim of a nuclear attack, hasn't that decreased? And then he said that Trump misled the country, meaning America on his intentions. Yes, he did. He did mislead the. He misled the country, at least in acting like he was looking for more negotiations, while in fact, he was planning an attack. But that was part of what made the attack successful, is that he had a fake out. So do we care that he, quote, misled the country because he didn't mislead the country when he said Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. I would say that was really clear. And then Hakeem Jeffries points out the. That Trump did not get congressional approval. That's all he had. So that, that was the worst criticism, is that the risk of war has dramatically increased, while at the same time, the risk of nuclear annihilation has greatly decreased, at least for a while. Misled the country, which was intentional because it helped the attack and did not get congressional approval, which none of our recent presidents have done. That's it. That was the best he had. That's a lot of nothing right there. Then the Wall Street Journal editorial board, they were all pro Trump on this. They said President Trump's decision to strike three most significant nuclear sites helped rid the world of a grave nuclear threat. And it was a large step toward restoring U.S. deterrence creates an opportunity for peace. They loved it. So the Wall Street Journal, they were all in. And then Van Jones was on CNN before the attack. So this is before the attack. And he says, I think progressives underestimate how dangerous Iran is. Iran is not a normal country. Normal countries don't blind women because they showed some hair. They don't empower little gangs and proxies to surround a country and fire rockets and rape people. They cannot have a bomb because they say, death to America, death to Israel, and death to all the Jews. One of those should offend you if you're progressives, or at least one should offend you. And we cannot have a nuclear armed Iran. Now. That's before the attack. So Van Jones, right on cnn, suggesting that being tough in Iran would make perfect sense. And then Konstantin Kissing, who you know, from X and from podcasting, he's a. He's a very smart guy. He says the result of October 7th, you know, the October 7th attack on Israel, the result of October 7th has been the annihilation of Hamas, annihilation of Hezbollah, and the annihilation of Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities and regional ambitions. Boy, that is true. October 7th was the free pass that Israel needed to unleash hell on all the proxies and on Iran. And they did so that I. I do believe I agree with Constantine that that could be traced back to October 7th. So October 7th was probably the biggest miscalculation that any country's ever made. It's, I mean, that's right at the top of boners. So Vladimir Putin had what net News and others are calling a surprising reason for not providing worry to their ally Iran. And it said that Israel has 2 million Russian speaking people and that Israel is almost a Russian speaking country, and that if he were opposed to Israel, he would be opposed to 2 million residents who were Russian speaking and he'd be basically opposed to his own people. Now, do you have the same feeling I do, which is, oh, that's how we got Crimea, isn't it? By claiming that there were a lot of Russian speaking people there. Now, I don't think he's going to try to conquer Israel because they have a lot of Russian speakers there, but that was a variable that I had never seen. And from the perspective of, is that a good answer for the public? It really is. So Putin, as I've often said, I'm not a Putin lover. I know he's a dangerous killer, but boy, is he good at this stuff. He's so good at this. That was a very unexpected response. And it makes you shut up right away. You're like, oh, oh, well, I never thought of it that way, but that's actually a pretty good reason. In other news, that does not have anything to do with the war. Believe it or not, there are things happening. According to Newsmax, Canada is experiencing a big drop in US travelers. So apparently an 11% drop in American tourists going to or driving to Canada in April, and it was an 8% drop in May. Now there is also a big drop in Canadians resident in the United States. How many of you think any of that's going to last? Doesn't seem like we should be done with that by now. It seems to me like we should just loosen up. All right? In the, in the long run, Canada is going to be our friend, right? It's not, it's not going to go the other way. It's not going to be like, things get so bad in Canada that, you know, we put up a, a national defense against them attacking or something. No, we already know that no matter what happens, we're going to be friends with Canada. So why don't we just get over this travel thing and just travel and let the government do what the government does, but on an individual basis, let's just travel. Let's just get over it. There's nothing to be gained by boycotting the other at the retail level. Anyway, according to Reclaim the Net, Obama was recently speaking at some event. And if I feel like every time Obama speaks, it's now just embarrassing for Democrats. He used to be so capable, but I feel like he lost his fastball entirely. So the only news that comes out of this event is that he wants more. He wants more censorship online and wants the government to control what people say. That is so not a good look, but okay. That would be one more reason not to elect Democrats. According to Blaze Media, Andrew Chapados is writing about this. Did you know that Trump supporters have more babies? Apparently there's a fairly big difference. So the people who are anti Trump or voted Democrat have a much lower fertility rate. Now, does that surprise anybody? That's probably the least surprising statistic you've seen because Republicans are family oriented and find meaning in forming families and having kids and doing all that. And the Democrats are much less of that. So Democrats would have to bring in illegal migrants in order to get some political power because their numbers are going to decrease relative to Republicans and Republicans are just outbreeding them. So if you want to know where the future is going, Republicans are outbreeding Democrats. That probably will have a big difference in the long run. We'll see. Meanwhile, over in Japan, according to Wonderful Engineering, Japan found a cheap metal that can produce 1,000% more hydrogen in electrolysis. So electrolysis would be the way you create hydrogen, which would be a green fuel. But you don't want to use a lot of electricity to make your green fuel because you're going to break even or come out behind. But if you've got this cheap new metal that's a thousand times more efficient, then suddenly hydrogen looks like a terrific idea. So that's coming down the pipeline. And the New York Post is reporting that the Pelosi's had another great year of investments. And as you know, Congress can legally do insider trading, so they can make trades based on their secret knowledge of what's going to happen, whereas you and I cannot do that legally. But Congress have carved out an exception for themselves and Pelosi and her husband, who say he's an investor by trade, they raked in millions last year and apparently they had an estimated 54% red return in 2024, which is more than double the S&P 500. And they beat every large hedge fund. So. And some of those trades seem to be suspiciously timed for things that the government knew about. All right, and then lastly, in other good news, according to Interesting Engineering Korea South Korea has come up with some new windows that are just amazingly efficient at cutting temperature. So if you're looking at what's going to happen to electricity in this country or the world, they may have come up with a major, major improvements. They can cut the temperature by 80 degrees and windows are a major source of lost heat. So apparently it's not a static window. It looks like it's sort of an electrified window where they can send a little current in it. It changes the characteristic of the window depending on what you need. And that seems like a boring topic, but it's one of the biggest uses of electricity is overcoming the weakness of your windows because if your windows let in too much heat, you got to run your AC forever to compensate. So some of that might change. Anyway, so that's all I had to talk about. I'm hoping that Owen Gregorian is in place and he will soon be firing up a Spaces event. Spaces is the audio only event on X, so if you're on X, you can find the link by looking at my Twitter feed. As Scott Adam says, you'll see it right at the top. Or you can look for Owen Gregorian and you'll see the link to the Spaces thing at the top of his X feed as well. So that's all I got for today. I'll say a few words privately to my beloved subscribers on Locals and the rest of you. We'll keep an eye on the news and see what else is going to blow up. But I'll see you same time tomorrow. And Locals, I will be.