Loading summary
Transcript15 lines
- [00:01]
A
It's time. Happy Labor Day. Unlike all those lazy podcasters, I'm still working. Yep, every day. Because you deserve it, my beloved audience. Not as beloved as my local subscribers, but still fairly beloved. All right, how are we looking? Let me get my comments working, and then we got a show. Don't you love the fact that depending on which platform you're using that you get an hour of entertainment without commercials? I mean, you'd have to be paying on YouTube to get that deal, but we're on locals or an X. Lots of ways to do it. All right, good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And I guarantee you've never had a better time. But if you'd like to take a chance of elevating your experience to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a copper mugger and glass of tanker shells of style and canteen sugar flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine. At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens. Ah. Unbelievably good. So, so good. Well, I've decided, as of this morning, I was watching, you know, the news, news bits, and I've decided to start judging people by their hairstyle. Are you with me? I was looking at Greta Thunberg. I'll talk about her. And I thought to myself, you know what? Her haircut tells me everything I need to know about her. Then I saw another story about some liberal person doing something terrible. And I said, you know what? I could have guessed by your haircut, there's something deeply wrong with you. And so if you don't mind, from now on, even if it's people I like, even if they're sort of on my side, I'm still going to judge them by their haircuts. You know that Alex Karp, the head of Palantir, and he's got this gigantic hair situation that looks like it looks like he lost a bet. And I say to myself, I can't get past that. You're gonna have to do something with your damn hair, or I just can't take you seriously. And if you don't believe that you can judge people by their haircuts, well, let me. Let me prove to you that it's. It's something you can do. See, now, if this were my natural hair, would you take me seriously at all? No. No, you would not. Let me read this news story and we'll, we'll see if my hairstyle is distracting. I'll bet it is. I'll bet it is. Well, according to ZME Science, the world's largest solar plant is being put up in Tibet. How big is it? Well, it's going to be the size of Chicago. So it's a solar plant in Tibet the size of Chicago. I feel like there would be less murder. It would only be the size of Chicago, but much safer. It makes me wonder if it's cost effective and maybe even essential for China to have a solar plant that's the size of Chicago. Are we going to do that? I feel like we're going to go hard at nuclear, but maybe, maybe solar is faster. You could probably put up a solar outdoor facility in say, five years with all the permitting and whatnot. But how long would it take you to build a nuclear power plant? Longer than five years is my best. Well, as you know, there's a mayoral race coming up in New York City. Hey, look who's visiting. It's Gary the cat trying to steal the show. I was hoping Gary wouldn't recognize me with my new hairstyle, but apparently he does. All right, Gary, I'm talking about cats. The story is about cats. So Curtis Sliwa has recommended feral cat colonies to deal with all the rats in New York City. So I have a special guest that I would like to interview about this idea of cats and its featuring Gary the cat. Gary the cat. Gary, what do you think of the idea of introducing feral cats to deal with the rat problem in New York City? Uh huh huh. Now if you don't understand purr talk, that's how cats communicate. I'll translate it for you. Say more. Okay. All right. Turns out Gary is a big fan of Curtis Sliwa and absolutely supports the idea of cats solving all of our problems. Now you might ask Scott, how many problems can cats solve? I don't know, but I feel like it could be all of them. I mean, they could end wars, they could make you less lonely. Yeah. They could keep. Keep marriages together. I think cats can do all of that. Meanwhile, in California, California Highway Patrol is going to team up with local law enforcement to sort of surge against crime. Now that seems like a reasonably. Gary, it seems like a reasonably good idea, but do you think that California would do that if Trump had not put the pressure on, you know, in D.C. and talking about Chicago and talking about going into California? I don't think so. So while this looks like a win for Newsom because it makes it look like he's dealing with a crime problem, I feel like that's not the message I'm getting. The message I'm getting is that he wasn't going to deal with a crime problem until Trump embarrassed him publicly. Is that what you see? Or do you see this go getter governor who's all over this problem and he recognizes what the regular people are feeling about crime, and so he's activated his resources? I don't feel that at all. I feel like the only way this would have happened, and it's probably a good thing, is because Trump embarrassed him. I'm going to give the win to Trump if this works, right? I don't think that's unreasonable to say that this would be Trump success if Newsom is successful, because he wouldn't have done it. I mean, I'm not a mind reader, but really, did you see any movement in this direction? No, not until Trump made it a very big thing. Well, here's a story from Ars Technica. Samuel Axon is writing about this. Apparently Microsoft, which, as you know, is in this deep partnership with OpenAI and uses OpenAI as its own AI, as well as what it's producing. Weirdly, Microsoft, separate from OpenAI, is developing AI. So does that signal that there's something wrong with the partnership? Did somebody not foresee some problem happening? Now they're trying to pass it off as these are more specifically trained AIs that would be a little bit more powerful than OpenAI would be, because that's more of a general AI. To which I say, really, you couldn't. You couldn't just train the general model, which you have some degree of control over. You couldn't just make OpenAI know how to do the specific AI things as well? I don't know. Do you need your own AI for other stuff that OpenAI can't do? I don't know. I don't know. So I guess what I'm suggesting is there might be. This might be telling us something, but I don't know what. So it might be telling us that OpenAI doesn't have a future. I don't see evidence of that specifically. But why would they be building alternative models when they have the dominant AI model in the world and it doesn't, you know, does that make sense? So I'm not buying the story of why they have multiple AIs, but it does make me think that they have some, let's say, insecurity that OpenAI will do what they want it to do in the future and meet all their needs as well as other people's, I guess. So I'd say keep an eye on that.
- [10:37]
B
Mike and Alyssa are always trying to outdo each other. When Alyssa got a small water bottle, Mike showed up with a four litre jug. When Mike started gardening, Alyssa started beekeeping.
- [10:48]
A
Oh, come on.
- [10:49]
B
They called a truce for their holiday and used Expedia trip planner to collaborate on all the details of their trip. Once there, Mike still did more laps around the pool.
- [10:59]
A
Whatever.
- [11:00]
B
You were made to outdo your holidays. We were made to help organize the competition. Expedia made to travel.
- [11:09]
A
I just saw a chart. I don't know if it's right, but let's say it is because it's Labor Day. It'll be fun to say is right. Where are the large language models? The AIs get their facts. So apparently the most the. The single biggest source, I guess, of training is Reddit posts. Are you comfortable knowing that the advanced intelligence learned to be that way by Reddit posts? Do you see, do you see any problem that that might cause? Number two is Wikipedia. Do you see any problem that that might cause? And then there's YouTube, where people like me are literally, as far as I can tell, capped in influence. Do you think the fact that I'm somehow throttled or, I don't know, semi canceled by YouTube, do you think that that affects how the large language models, let's say, get trained on my material? Maybe. I don't know. And then there's Google and Yelp. I used to own a small business and I can tell you that Yelp is something that I deeply hate because people would give me a bad Yelp review for my restaurant if they didn't like my opinion on some political thing or some social thing. If there was anything that I disagreed with them, they would go to Yelp and give my restaurant, which had nothing to do with anything. I didn't even manage it directly give it. They would give it a bad review. So that's Yelp. You know, as soon as Yelp started to become a thing, I said to myself, I hope all the businesses are smart enough to starve it so that it goes out of business, because otherwise it would have the power to destroy your business. And sure enough, it has the power to destroy your business. And then the next biggest source would be Facebook. So Reddit, Wikipedia, YouTube, Google, Yelp and Facebook would be most of the training. You okay with that? That just seems like asking for trouble, doesn't it? I don't trust any of those sources, but I guess I don't know if it's the facts. Well, I don't know. They may have some way to compensate for the low credibility of some of these sources, but I'll keep an open mind. Well, as you know, for the last several days, the Internet has been abuzz with what's going on with Trump. Apparently, he's not dead because he was shown going golfing with his granddaughter Kai. And he's been posting, but some people think that that could be other people posting for him. But I guess yesterday he posted in all caps, never felt better in my life. So he wants you to know he's never felt better in his life. Now, of all the things that could be going on, it could be something medical. I mean, suppose, let's say he was just getting ready for a colonoscopy. He might not want to tell you that. And it would take, you know, the preparation day and then the day it happens and, you know, so it could be some, you know, routine medical thing he just doesn't want to get into. Yeah. So I know he's got those problems on his hands, so I don't know if that's anything to worry about or not. So I saw some photos today of the actor, the Rock. Do you remember the last movie you saw with the Rock? And he probably was just gigantic, like, just so muscular. It's like, crazy. Well, it turns out he's lost his muscles, so the story is that he's getting ready for a role as a MMA fighter, but it's the MMA fighter that he's going to portray is not nearly as big as a big muscular guy. So he's got to get down to a sort of a fighting weight that would be more similar to MMA guy. But I'll tell you, he doesn't look healthy, and he. He lost the thing that made him special. I'm a big fan of the Rock, by the way. I think he's incredibly talented and hardworking, and, you know, I just sort of like everything about him. But one of the things that works so well about him is that his personality and his physical situation were sort of an interesting combination. I don't know what's going to happen because it looks like he's looking for a permanent downsizing of his muscles because he's 52 years old. And I guess it's hard on the body to maintain that when you're 52. Duh. And carrying away, carrying around all that extra weight because his muscles were so big. It was like carrying a barrel of oil with you wherever he went. So probably it makes sense from a long term health perspective. Some people are saying he must have been on steroids and now he's off. Maybe, I don't know. Maybe. But I'm certainly hopeful that he's found some healthy path. But he doesn't look healthy. So unfortunately, I don't know if it's because of what I'm used to, because I imagine him as that more robust version. But I hope there's nothing else to the story but that he's preparing for a role and trying to be a more healthy person into his older age. Well, here's a story I don't fully believe, but maybe so. Apparently the European Commission president, that Ursula von der Leyen, a name I have to say more than once because it's so fun to say. Say it with me. Ursula Vonderlayen, that was kind of fun. All right. But apparently she was on a plane and she was wanting to land in Bulgaria and there was some kind of GPS interference attack that made the airplane blind to gps. Now they, they were still able to land safely after circling for an hour. The pilot used analog maps to which I say I wonder how old the pilot was because I hope the pilot was, you know, trained at a time when they just didn't use gps. Well, how long, how old is G. I don't know how long GPS has been around. So maybe that's not possible to have a pilot that old. But it was somebody who obviously knew how to do it without. So she was, she safely landed. But they're blaming the attack on Russia. Do you think that Russia tried to murder the European Commission president in a way that people would probably guess was Russia? Does that story track with you or does it feel more likely that the GPS equipment on the plane just malfunctioned? Which one sounds more likely? I don't know. I'm not automatically going to buy the Russia try to assassinate the European Union leader because it's a little bit too on the nose, especially if somebody like Zelensky just say to pick a name randomly, was planning to try to assassinate Putin. Right. If you could be sold on the story that Putin may have tried to kill the president of the European Union, wouldn't you be far more accepting if somebody like Zelensky murdered Putin, you'd say to yourself, well, I mean, he tried to take out a leader in Europe. Zelensky took him out. It's not like we started it. So I'm just totally skeptical that this is the kind of story where we know all the details correctly. I mean, it could be anything. I'm not saying it's necessarily a plot, but I don't believe the COVID the surface story. Well, according to PJ Media, Catherine Salgado is writing that the Doge people, I guess they regularly do reports on what money they've saved or what programs they cut. And they're cutting a lot of them that have silly sounding missions, or at least missions where you say to yourself, why is my tax money being used for that? For example? And apparently they're finding billions that they're canceling. So over the last five days, they terminated 50 what they called wasteful contracts that were worth up to about $3 billion, and they saved maybe 762 million. How many contracts does our government have? Oh, my God. These are just that, one week of canceled, unnecessary contracts. $3 billion. That's one week, five days. It's not even a week. It's work week. So here are some of the things that got canceled. Transgender health, medical evaluation unit services. I don't know. That was in the Department of Defense. Now, we don't know what that was all about, but it does make me ask this question. Well, I'll give you the next one. Was there's also a Department of Defense contract that got canceled for LGBTQ magazine advertising campaign. Do you think we really needed to spend that money on? It was $129 million on an LGBTQ magazine advertising campaign. I don't even know that magazines are still a thing. When was the last time a LGBTQ member read a magazine? I can't tell you the last time I read one, I don't even remember. I guess they still exist. Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal.
- [22:47]
B
So there goes my big idea for the commercial.
- [22:49]
A
Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.
- [22:53]
C
Of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy. Taxes and fees extra.
- [23:00]
A
See mintmobile.com and then there was a 49 million for a US aid contract for, quote, the Belarus regional initiative to provide transition activities in Belarus and other countries in Europe. Okay, I have no idea what that's about. It sounds like it might have been, you know, maybe some spook or CIA or defense related thing disguised as some other thing. Maybe. I don't know. But I don't think I can live in a world where I pay my taxes into a black box. And then a bunch of people say, you know, you shouldn't know what we're spending this on because it'll ruin the whole thing. It's a big old secret. So we're going to spend a lot of your money on big old secret stuff. But trust us, we looked into it really carefully and it's a really good use of money because we say so. I don't know. So definitely, I think Doge will end up canceling some things that are tragic. On the other hand, I oppose the idea that some people have special problems. Don't you all have problems if your problem is that you're trans or LGBTQ or that you're descended from slaves? Those are real problems. But why are they special problems? Why is somebody else's problem because they're a member of some group? Why is that more important than whatever problem you and I have? I'll bet I could randomly pick any one of you and say, do you have any problems? And you say, oh, my God, yes, there'd be some health problem. Or, you know, you're. You're short, which is a big problem in the US or you have some body problem, or you're disabled, or you're in a. You're in a dangerously abusive relationship. Don't we all have gigantic problems and that. That's life, that we're all navigating our own little problems? But why do some people have special problems that my money needs to go away, away from me, where I would be using it for my own problems and my family's problems and that sort of thing. So who gets to say that any class of people have special problems that have to be funded with my money? Certainly I do agree that there are some things that the government should take care of because nobody else could, that sort of thing. But I don't know how many things fall into that category. Let's see, what else? So apparently Florida is going to get into the redistricting. Oh, I didn't even notice. This is my other cat, Roman. I thought it was Gary again. Hey, Roman, say hi to everybody. Roman does not have nearly the personality of his sibling, Gary. Roman's more of a. I'm just passing through, I don't need to interact with you. I mean, I appreciate a pet now and then, but I'm not obsessed by it. I'm not addicted to it. So you can keep your pets if you want to. I mean, I'm not going to tell you they're great or anything. That would be Gary. Gary. I'm sorry. That would be Roman. Gary believes that all human contact is incredible. Okay. We'll be knocking things on the floor anyway. BJ Media, Matt Margolis is writing about how Florida. I've got a two cat wrestling situation going on here, so it's going to get intense in a moment. Let me just give you a preview of what's about to develop here. Yeah, you don't like it when I pay attention to you. They're going to fight. All right. You watch that while I tell you the news. So Florida is going to get into redistricting, which would be part of a larger move where the Republicans are going to make a big gain on redistricting. That's enough of that. So I'll tell you, the Democrats, it looks like they're going to lose the redistricting game and they're going to lose it big. Oh, well. Well, speaking of Greta Tunberg, she's now boarded a boat to go break the siege, as she says in Gaza, and she's saying that Israel can't stop her this time. Israel can't stop Greta. How many, how many journalists have been slain in Gaza so far? Because I would say that Israel stopped them, stopped 200 journalists. Some of them might have been actually closer to Hamas operatives than journalists, but they managed to stop 200 of them. Do you think they can stop one more? I think they can. Now, I don't think that Israel would intentionally target Greta. But you know, it's a war zone. Things happen. Things happen. No, I don't think that they care. I don't think Greta has enough pull that would even, it'll even be worth targeting her. She seems like a sort of a ridiculous character now because one of the things that happened is she got a lot older except the way she looks. So she looks like one of those troll dolls. What were they called? Were they called troll dolls that the little, you know what I'm talking about. So she's no longer the, the cute young person who's so young that that's what makes it special now. She's exactly the same as she was except she's older and it kind of doesn't work anymore. Kind of doesn't work. So we'll see if she can solve that whole Gaza thing. But it turns out that the, according to the New York Post, there's some big plan. I don't know to what extent Trump is behind this, but it's being announced that there would be a Gaza rebuilding plan. It'd be a 10 year plan to move out all the residents to all of them, just move everybody out so that it can be rebuilt. And the plan is that they would be given $5,000 apiece to relocate. They'd have to relocate for 10 years, they couldn't come back. And during that time, the Gaza Strip would be transformed into the Riviera of the Middle East. So at least the coastal part, they're imagining hotels and recreation and they're imagining that there would be businesses around the perimeter, I guess, and they'd build it all up. And the people who would be asked to leave for the $5,000 cash would also get four years of free rent somewhere else and a year's supply of food again somewhere else. Now, the part that's unspecified is who's going to pay for all of this. The idea is that somehow the United States would be, I don't know, some kind of owning or governing the area, but maybe not officially, but then when it was all built up and ready to go, there would be presumably, you know, some temporary entity of, you know, Arab leaders getting behind it. So I don't know who would pay for all this, but we'll see. I, I would have to say, I, if, if the United States is paying for it, I'm opposed to it. And I would also say that if the way it's received is that it makes the United States more actively involved in depopulating Gaza, I'm not sure we want that on our permanent record because that would make you more of a target for terrorism, wouldn't it? Whereas if we say, hey, you know, we just want everybody to be alive, Israel's doing what Israel does, we're not trying to stop it, but, you know, we recognize their right to do what they need to do. So I would be concerned that although this is an impressive offer, it's probably good from the perspective of showing that there's some path potentially that the people won't lose hope, although that might feel like losing hope, I don't know. So it's probably good. I would say it's a good idea that there's something out there that people can talk about because it shows that there's some thought about keeping people safe, but they're not going to like it. They're not going to like anything. That comes out of this war, of course. So I don't know if it'll solve anything. Could make things worse for the United States. And I would not be in favor of make it anything worse for the United States. And let's see what else looks like it might be. Well, they. And then the thinking is that whoever invests in this project, we get a fourfold return over 10 years. I don't think anybody can really predict that kind of thing, but at least it makes sense that they can present it as a money making opportunity for the people who put money into. Might be. But it also would suggest that the prior owners, the Palestinian, well, the Gaza residents, presumably they would be losing everything to these investors or almost everything.
- [33:42]
B
Gatorade is the number one proven electrolyte blend designed to hydrate better than water so you can lose more sweat and raise your game. Gatorade, is it in you?
- [33:58]
A
I saw saw an article by Red State saying that the Democrats are losing credibility because they cried wolf too often. In other words, they denied the obvious too often. Like Biden especially. Oh, Biden's fine. And now the Democrats have to look at their own party and say, did my own party lie to the whole country, including me, about how safe we were with Biden as president? And would that influence how much trust they have in their leadership going forward? Well, common sense tells you that Democrats would notice that they've been lied to by their own team. And not, not a small lie, not a little one, a really, really big one. Like a historically big lie that mattered. Well, I guess Charlemagne, the God, as we call him, is making that case that they're not to be trusted at this point. He said, quote. But here's the thing. If you shout apocalypse every day and the Constitution is still standing. Oh, wa. No, I think this is from the author of the article. If you shout apocalypse every day and the Constitution is still standing nine years later, people tune out. That's what I think is happening with all the Hitler stuff. We had years of people calling Trump Hitler and he hasn't done any Hitler stuff. The only thing they've done is the part that they're also lying about, which is that January 6th was an insurrection, when obviously it was not. And you would have to be deeply hypnotized to imagine that the most armed population in the world held a insurrection and left their guns home. That's the first thing. But also there's not a single person who's ever been interviewed from the thousands and thousands of people on January 6th. Not a single person. Not one has ever said, you know, I really thought we could overthrow the country. Because nobody had that plan. They were literally protesting. They were overthrowing anything. They didn't have any mechanism to overthrow anything. No plan, no secret meetings. Not a single single person said, yeah, you know, I thought we could trespass our way to taking over the country. There's nothing you can even say that wouldn't sound ridiculous. You know, I really thought it'd work. Not once. How hard would it be to get one of the attendees who protested on January 6th? How hard would it be to get them on camera and say, all right, we just have to understand, did you think you were overthrowing the country? And they wouldn't even understand the question. It's like, what? How in the world could I overthrow the country? Wandering around, taking selfies? Like, what? What was the mechanism that connects those two things? All right, so, yeah, Charlemagne, you're right. I saw a article in Science by Kai Kupfer Schmidt. There's a new study that looked at US and Brazil, and they were looking at ways to counter what they call election misinformation. Red flag. Boop, boop, boop, boop. Red flag. When anyone writes an article about countering election misinformation, what should your brain immediately lead you to believe? That's an intelligence operation by somebody. Yeah. The article treats it as a objective fact that we know that the US And Brazil do not have rigged elections and that the real problem is that people believe they might be. You can't get past, like, the first sentence without knowing, oh, this isn't real science. This is more like people want you to believe that the system is secure. So here we are. Apparently, in January 2023, thousands of people stormed Brazil's National Congress. And this is from the article in Science, convinced that the country's presidential election had been stolen. Now, why didn't they call it an insurrection? What's the difference between a whole bunch of Brazilians, thousands of them, storming the National Congress because they thought the election was rigged? That's exactly January 6th. But why is one an insurrection and the other is a protest? This is all just made up facts. These are all narratives. But they did a study, and they found that in both countries, people's trust of the election increased after receiving both a warning that they might see some misinformation. Now do you see that this is propaganda? They say that when they warn people that they might see misinformation, that those people are better equipped to. You know. Know what? To trust. Well, why is it that there's one entity that knows what's true and what isn't, that doesn't exist. How in the world can they pre bunk stuff? So they call it pre bunking where they tell people in advance that people will make claims and they won't be true. And they also call it inoculation. If you see pre bunking and inoculation in the same story, that's propaganda. They're, they're, they're trying to tell you that there's somebody, the people in charge, who know what's true. And here's the important part. Not only do they know what's true, unlike you, but they really want to tell you the truth. Do you live in that world where your government knows what's true and they want you to know the truth? We don't live in any kind of a world like that. The government wants you to believe whatever is best for the government. It might also be best for the country. But no, that's all propaganda. It's all brainwashing. So then you also have to watch out for the documentary effect. If you could have just asked me, Scott, if you can make people sit down and pay attention to an argument that says that the election mechanisms are all trustworthy and there's no counter argument. It's just you have to listen for half an hour while we tell you why cheating would be almost impossible with this election. Of course it would work. It's a documentary effect. If anybody gets to give you one side of an argument and you'll listen to it for half an hour, you will go away thinking there was something to it, even if there isn't. It's just how we were wired. So yeah, of course pre bucking and inoculation work, but the only people who talk that way are the people who are trying to hide the truth, not reveal it. That's what I say. According to Eric Dolan writing in Psy Post, people who believe in conspiracy theories process information differently at a neural level. So they're not saying that people's brains have, you know, different big areas and active areas, well, maybe activities, but that they can actually, you know, look at what your brain is doing when you're processing conspiracy theories. And they can find that some people use a structure of the brain that other people don't use. So didn't you all know, didn't you all know that conspiracy theorists, their brains are wired differently? I feel like we all knew that. Because you know what, your brain is very involved with what your choices and your beliefs are yeah, that's right. So people have different choices and different beliefs are obviously using a different set of neural, you know, pathways. And it's not a matter of being more gullible. It's a matter of which parts of the brain are part of the processing. They say, I don't know, I think everything's. So it doesn't matter what part of your brain you use, you're not going to get the right answer. That is not available to us usually. Well, speaking of crazy people, Illinois Governor Pritzker, he's now floating the conspiracy theory that Trump has other reasons for wanting to flow the National Guard into our cities and that he wants to do it so he can come up with some excuse for why the 2026 or 2028 elections should be canceled. And then he would stay in power because the election is canceled and he would have his private army. That's why he would say the National Guard and all the major metropolitan areas. So Pritzker says about Trump he has other aims other than fighting crime. He said, to face the nation. So here's my question about Pritzker. Does he believe that? Does he really, does he really believe that? Or does he know exactly what he's doing? And he's part of. The Democrat, obviously, is coordinated, where they get to say, all right, we don't have any policies and we don't have any good candidates, so the best we can do is make up another Russia hoax about Trump. So it's not Russia related, but it's still just a made up bunch of shit. It's just made up stuff. So the, the Democrats only have one mode, which is, oh, we don't have a policy that people would like and we don't have candidates that people would like. But I bet we've got a story that would light up the neural networks of the conspiracy theorists. So let's try that. So it's disgusting and ridiculous and obscene. One of the White House communications people refer to Pritzken as a slob. And obviously that's Trump's first framing, but it's funnier when the staff starts picking it up and just calling a governor a slob. Yeah, it works because people don't want to listen to or follow a slob. It's just one of those words that gets right to our, you know, our core icky feeling. You just don't really want to spend any time around somebody that you think is a slobber. So Trump just has to say it a number of times until it's the first thing you think of when you see him, which is what it's the first thing I think of when I see him now. And it will chip away at his credibility. Slob is a really powerful word.
- [46:01]
C
I'm Ashley Graham, and as a parent, I know the back to school transition can be a lot when it comes to wellness. Ollie supports me and my family, family through it all. Kids, multi is big in my house. It supports their immune system and they love to take it. A win, win for everyone. Shop these products@ollie.com or retailers nationwide. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
- [46:31]
A
And let's say Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago says that Trump has declared a war on poor people. A war on poor people. Okay. Brandon Johnson finds new levels of incompetence every week. Yeah, he declared a war on poor people. Okay. And I guess he's saying that because he's taking Medicaid and snap away from the residents now. Now, of course, he's not taking that away. He's just making sure that people who shouldn't be on those programs don't have access to it or they have to do something to get it, which is reasonable. But I'm trying to connect the dots. So if support of the phrase that Trump is declaring war on poor people, the evidence for that is that some people who probably shouldn't be getting it would be losing Medicaid and snap. So connect the dots for me. See, because. Because the. The context is reducing violent crime. So is Mayor Brandon Johnson saying that people are doing more murdering because they're trying to make money to pay for their health care that they lost? Are they doing more murdering so that they can buy soda with their SNAP payments? How in the world does. Does violence come out of the idea that there's a war on poor people? None of it fits together. It's just like nonsense words stuck together. So Mayor Brandon Johnson is stuck in some kind of a conspiracy theory, delusional thinking to war on poor people. But Trump did target affordable housing programs, or one in particular. Apparently, according to the ap, there was some very large government program called the Home Investment Partnership Program, I guess it was through HUD and funded over 1.3 million affordable homes. Now, what that means it was some combination of subsidies to fix up existing homes and helping people get into their first home. And it was a variety of things, but a lot of those homes that were being helped by that were in rural districts. So the story is that Trump is hurting his own voter base by taking a government program away from them to help them get a home. But I say wouldn't the free market solve that faster? And is the reason that the free market isn't making homes available is that the federal government had done all the wrong things so that you couldn't build homes easily. Wouldn't it make more sense that instead of the government getting in to subsidize these use of inefficient real estate in a non free market, Wouldn't it make more sense for the government to get out of the way if the government just said how about we don't do anything, we won't have any regulations or rules you have to follow. I mean, I'm exaggerating just to make the point you'd want some. It just got out of the way. Don't you think the free market would provide more housing at a lower cost over time? I don't know. And what about those freedom cities that Trump promised us? I don't see any of that happen. So I would be happy if Trump said we're going to do something in the US that's at least as good as what we plan for Gaza. We're going to take some government land and we're going to say the government is not going to build the cities or even design them. We want private people to do it. The only thing we're going to do is make some government land of which we have lots of available. So I'd like to see that. So there was a guest on Tucker Carlson's show. I didn't have his name when I talked about him before. Psychiatrist Joseph Whit Doring. So that psychiatrist Whit Doring says millions Americans are taking these antidepressant SSRIs long term. He says there is no safety data. Well, I don't know if there's no safety data but maybe there's not anything that's sufficient. And apparently it's 7 to 10% of Americans are on these long term drugs. So I don't have an opinion of how safe or unsafe those are. But it does seem to be yet another example where you thought there was lots of science, but maybe there isn't. Maybe, maybe this, maybe the science is, maybe the only science was funded by the people who want to sell you these pills for life. Well, I saw related to this tangentially is I saw a post by the real IRYC saying that the, that new fat miracle drug, the GLP1 receptor agonist. Apparently there's a claim that they have other massive health benefits. Now, I'm going to read what the claims are, but then I'm going to tell you that Grok says that those claims are. Okay, so before you say, wait a minute, that's not true, just remember that that's what I'm going to say when I'm done telling you that it's not true. Suicide 58 reduction. So the claim is that people on the GLP1 that drug also get these other benefits that we weren't expecting. Depression down 37%, substance use down 42%. By the way, that one might be real, et cetera. So I asked Grok, I said, is it true that these GLP1s are having all these other related health benefits? And he says, grok says that is not fully substantiated. There is some evidence that would give you the suggestion that maybe it's true, but it's not proven at a scientific level. The thing I think that's closest to being true is the substance abuse, because I believe that whatever it is that makes you eat less has a close cousin mechanism to make you do fewer drugs or alcohol. So I'm not 100% sure that's true, but at least it's more believable than the other stuff anyway. It could be that it is a miracle drug, but I would suspect that the people looking to sell it to you are behind most of those studies. And once again, the topic of birth control pills ruining your brain. There's an article in Medical Express and I saw Elon Musk had boosted that on X. So new research suggests that the pill isn't just stopping pregnancy, but it might be rewiring how your brain feels and remember stuff. And not in a good way, according to Medical Express. So there's a new study, Rice University, that found that girls on hormonal birth control had way stronger emotional reactions and remembered fewer details from bad moments. Now, you might say it's good that you remembered fewer bad moments, but if your brain is not designed for that, you know, it might give you an unintended bad part anyway. So do you believe that's true? So allegedly the pill would give some people mood swings, emotional numbness, weird memory glitches, etc. Well, I don't know that is true. But what would you look for in the world as you know, let's say circumstantial evidence that it might be true that people on the pill are having more emotional problems? Well, if you're looking at politics, you would say to yourself, why is it that there are so many single young women, white women, who are Democrats. And why is it that when we see them talking, they seem like they're emotionally out of control? Now we see lots of people, male and female, being assertive, you know, like Randy Weingarten. She. She dances around and yells and stuff, but to me that just looks like theater. She looks like she knows exactly what she's doing. She doesn't look emotional and crazy. So it's not like it's, you know, something that affects all democrat females. But I'm wondering, is it possible that the reason that the democrats seem to own the market for young, white, highly educated women, is it because they're more likely to be on the pill? And then they can be manipulated by emotions? So are the people who want to take care of all the immigrants and leave the border open, are they operating on logic or emotion? Emotion. Right. Because in the long run, it would be bad for everybody. The whole country would fail if you just let everybody in. So I went to Grok and I said, what demographic is on the pill the most? And it's white women. It's white women. And I said, is it more for educated women? Yep. If you're more educated and you're white, your odds of being the pill are much higher. And it makes me wonder if the things you think are political conversations are nothing but medical malpractice. I'll just let that one sit there. All right, what else? So here's a little sort of a mystery, but maybe not. How many of you believe that it is now proven by science and certainly sufficient studies that there was nobody who was better off getting the COVID vaccination? How many of you believe that to be true, that we now have evidence, like strong scientific evidence that literally no one was better off on a risk reward basis for getting the shot? How many of you believe that? So while I'm waiting for your messages to appear, because I'm wondering who believes that? How. If you did believe that, how would you explain that RFK Jr. Who is probably the most famous anti vaccination person? But that's really not fair. I wouldn't call him anti vax, but you know what I mean, right? He would be the strongest skeptic. It's not anti because he's in favor of some kinds of vaccinations. He just wants more science. So if RFK Jr. Is now in charge of deciding whether the COVID vaccination is going to kill you or not, I mean, whether it's safe enough to be available. He seems to, at the moment, not see enough science to tell to say that people over 60 or over 65, I guess, who have a comorbidity. He doesn't have evidence to say that they would be worse off getting vaccinated. Now, does that surprise you? Because remember, he would be the one guy who, if that evidence existed, that everybody over 65 with a comorbidity probably would have been, you know, on average, would have been better off if they hadn't been vaccinated. If that existed, don't you think we'd know about it by now? Because Kennedy would say, all right, I looked at the science. It's very clear that there is no group, there's no group that can be benefited by it more than they might be hurt. Wouldn't you know that by now? And so I'm wondering, because I'm coming from a point of ignorance, not from a point of if it sounds like I'm trying to win an argument here, that's not what's happening. I'm trying to understand how the things I'm observing fit together. How could it be that the number one strongest skeptic, I'll use that word of vaccinations, who has now access to the most reliable complete evidence on the topic, he's not yet, having been there for months and months, he's not there yet to say that the COVID is more bad than good. And my understanding, which could be wrong, is that the reason some people left the CDC is that Kennedy is leaning toward, but doesn't have science to back it yet, leaning toward that the COVID vaccine maybe wasn't good for anybody. When I say anybody, there still could be some specific exceptions, but. But generally speaking, it wouldn't be. Wouldn't be good. So I don't know if that's true. But the one thing that we can say with some confidence is that there is not really strong evidence that is always bad all the time. Right. Or we're all on the same page, because Kennedy would be all over that. I think he would fight that to the death. If the science said nobody benefited under any condition, he would tell us that. Right. So it has to be true that you. Even though there might be some studies that suggest that, that maybe they're not meeting the scientific standard that he's comfortable with, which is, to me, this is a tremendous credibility booster because the easiest thing for him to do would be to sort of agree with the public. All right, we're going to get rid of these. Well, actually, I don't know what percentage of the public agrees with that, but certainly the Republicans would be more likely to say, all right, we like that. And he still doesn't have the data to do it anyway. He might. So I'm not going to predict that it will never exist. It might, but it doesn't exist yet, apparently. Apparently it doesn't exist. Well, Putin's doing that four day visit in China and they're trying to make it look like their best buds now, China and Russia. And it's signaling that the tariffs won't work because they'll just do more business with China. To which I say, why is it that we can't tell as consumers of news, we really can't tell if the Russian economy is on the brink of collapse, which some people say, or is it invulnerable? Because they can always just do more business with China if they need to. So which is it? Is Russia on the verge of economic collapse or is it nowhere near it? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm going to say that my gut is that they're not that close to any kind of collapse. I'd be, I'd be surprised, actually, because they, they just have too much energy. There's going to, they're going to find some way to sell the energy no matter what. All right, that, ladies and gentlemen, is my Labor Day show. I, I feel it was a lot better with the wig on, but I'll take it off for the end. Foreign I'm going to say a few words privately to the beloved subscribers at Locals. The rest of you have a good day off. I hope, I hope most of you have the day off. And we'll, we'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place. Locals. I'll be private with you in 30 seconds, which gives us just enough time SA.