A (11:04)
All right, here's one. Did you know? According to Fox News, it's interesting that this is on Fox News, heavy drinkers cut alcohol use by nearly 30% after adopting one new habit. Do you know what the habit is? If you saw this story, don't cheat. But if you had not seen the story, what one habit will reliably cause heavy drinkers to drink less? The answer is smoking marijuana. And again, it's funny that Fox News would carry that story, but apparently there's a pretty big difference. So the heavy drinkers who replaced it with marijuana drank less. Now, do you know how they could have determined that without doing a scientific study? You could have asked me because there's a shelf space issue. You only have so many hours in the day. If you add smoking marijuana to your heavy drinking, well, I suppose some people will just spend more hours a day inebriated. But more likely, if you've decided that this will be the time you're going to be inebriated. If you use one kind of drug, it probably takes your desire away from the other drug. So. And they don't mix very well. If you've ever tried, do not mix. If you're already drinking and somebody offers you some marijuana at a party, totally legal. If you're, if you're above a certain age and you're in the right state, it would be totally legal. But don't do it. Do not, do not, do not mix marijuana and alcohol. You're gonna have a really bad night. Now some people can do it, but I think they're unusual people. So yes, of course marijuana reduces alcohol consumption. Well, open AIs Sam Altman apparently has put out a memo to his staff, sort of a red alert. It's being called Code Red. Code Red is. And it was a company wide memo among the OpenAI staff telling them that they're kind of falling behind the competition. The Wall Street Journal is reporting this. The competition in this case would be Google. So if you're not paying attention to the AI race, and I didn't know this actually, and I do pay attention, but I didn't know this, the latest Gemini AI, that's Google's version of AI. Apparently it just trashed OpenAI and benchmark tests. So imagine being OpenAI and you've sucked up all the training material in the known universe and you're behind your competition. What do you do then? Panic. You send out a company wide memo and you say, we better figure out how to do something better because you don't want to get behind Google. I just have a presumption. I don't, I don't have any data for this, but my presumption is that whenever Google gets ahead of a competitor, it stays that way. Don't you think? How would you like to be a competitor to Google and find that Google just pulled ahead of your product? How many people are going to make up that gap and then go back into a leadership position to Google? I mean, Google probably will always have the most access to new training material, I'm guessing, but they're not going to run out of money. So that's pretty interesting. Well, the competition is heating up. Did you know? Yeah, if you're following the story about Minnesota. And Minnesota apparently lost, I don't know, billion dollars and money they thought was going to go to charity and good use, but it got stolen by Somali refugees mostly. And the accusation is that the governor, Tim Walsh, had been informed about all these potential corrupt things but decided to punish the whistleblowers allegedly instead of going after the corrupt people. And now we have a very direct, a direct accusation from the Minnesota state government employees that, that some of them had been trying to warn the DNC and warn Kamala Harris when she was picking Waltz for vice president running mate. Now, first of all, do you believe that's true? Do you believe that the Kamala Harris campaign and the DNC had received multiple, not one, not one, but multiple letters saying don't do it, don't do it. Tim Walsh is a big old corrupt, incompetent, untrustworthy guy. You know, the state is full of corruption. We've told him he's not doing anything about it. In fact, he's punishing us for bringing it up. Now, do you think that happened, that the, the Kamala Harris campaign was in fact warned multiple times? Well, just because it's in the news doesn't mean it happened. So that's the first, the first thing we should all understand, and I think most of my audience understands that doesn't mean it really happened, but it is, it is a claim made by not one person, but a bunch of people. So the fact that a bunch of people are saying it happened, I would say that increases the odds that it might have actually happened. So how would you explain the complete non response and non, non action from the Kamala Harris campaign and from the dnc? How do you explain it? Well, I don't know, but there are several possibilities. One is that they got so many emails and so many letters that it was. Nobody could really look at at all. So it could be that they were in fact contacted many times, but it was within an avalanche of other communications. They didn't know how to know which ones were the important ones. Maybe it was just, you know, too much data and got lost in the mix. That's possible. Possible. The other possibility is that there's some corrupt reason that we don't know about, that Tim Walsh was going to be the choice no matter what. And then no matter what might have included he's a big old crook. There might have been some compelling reason that had nothing to do with his talent as a, as a politician because he didn't have a lot of talent as a politician. And it makes you wonder if the, if the, the big reason why they picked him is that he was knowingly corrupt. Is it possible that corruption was a feature and not a flaw? Because, you know, I can't prove it. That's just sort of a conspiracy theory, you know, kind of thinking. But there seems to be a pattern developing. You know, the pattern is that wherever there's any big organization, be it the DNC or be it Minnesota or be it anything big, all the NGOs, that wherever you find Democrats and a big pile of money, somebody's stealing it. And it's hard to pretend we don't see the pattern because the pattern is everywhere. Everywhere. You find a whole bunch of Democrats and a whole bunch of money. One of those Democrats, maybe more, has their beak in it and they're just sucking it like, like it's, you know, the last ham sandwich in the world. You don't really suck on the ham sandwich, but it was all I could do. It was the best I could do. So I'm gonna, I'm just gonna say the, you know how people always say it's not just avoiding corruption, but you should avoid the appearance of corruption. This is one of those times where they need to avoid the appearance of corruption too. And I'm not so sure they did it in this case because this is sketchy as hell. Well, let's change topic to Kirsten Cinema, who, as you know, had retired from her government service and I guess she's working for some law firm now. But on top of her work for a law firm, she's apparently looking to be an advocate for psychedelics. Specifically, she likes something called ibogaine. It's an African shrub, and I wonder if that's legal. Do you think you could grow an African shrub in your backyard and not get arrested? Could you grow your own ibogaine? I know it's just a shrub. If it's a shrub, I imagine it's pretty easy to raise. Anyway, apparently she went down to Mexico and tried it herself. So she knows what she's talking about. And she and other advocates want to get it state funded for clinical trials and eventually hope to get the FDA approval to make a drug. And she thinks that she's got a chance of getting that done with the Trump administration, which means RFK Jr. Right. So if RFK Jr. And by the way, I've, I, I'm not familiar with RFK Jr's opinion on psychedelics, but I feel like I know what it is without knowing what it is. Do you think that would be fair to say? I'll tell you what I think it is. Without any real data or information or story or anything, if RFK Jr is consistent, and he does seem to be consistent, then he would say, we don't know if it's good or bad, but if we tried it and it worked, we could maybe get it approved. So I think he would be pro. Let's test it. And you wouldn't be pro. Let's make it legal without. Without knowing the downside. So probably as long as there's some data to back it, she might be able to get this through. And that would be a good bipartisan thing to do. One of the better things that could come out of current government. There's a GOP's senator, I think he's a state senator, Senator Marino, and he want. He's introducing some legislation to end dual citizenship for Americans. In other words, there are people who are citizens of America and at least one other, one other place, often Israel, but it could include other places as well. And he would like to make it such that if you're a dual citizen and after a certain warning and a little time to get it done, if you do not renounce your other nation's citizenship, you would automatically lose your American citizenship. What do you think of that? I'm going to say that's too far. I feel like that's too far. But I would. Here's what I would prefer instead. I would prefer that if you're a dual citizen, you cannot run for office. And there might be, you know, maybe you can imagine some other public service kind of job that's not an elected job, but maybe something you wouldn't want a dual citizen in. But wouldn't it be. Wouldn't it be cleaner and easier if you just said you can be a dual citizen, but if you run for office, you just can't do it? You've got to be an American citizen, not just for the presidency, but for every elected office. I'd be fine with that. And then people can choose. If you really need to be a senator, you better be our senator. Right? If you need to be a House of Representatives, you just got to be our House of Representatives. But for an ordinary person, I don't know how many dual citizenship people there are in the whole country. It's not a lot, is it? It's not like the immigrants are coming over with dual citizenship. I think it's kind of a rare situation, like, you know, 1% or something. So I wouldn't worry too much about just ordinary citizens, but definitely don't want my elected people to be dual citizens. Here's a story that you could all. You almost could have guessed that this was going to happen. So you know Senator Mark Kelly, he's one of the six people we call these seditious six who did the video Telling the people in this, in the armed forces to be careful about any illegal orders. Now, now we find out that he, of course we already knew he had a twin brother, but his twin brother is allegedly, according to the amuse account on acts. That's where I first saw it. Apparently he had been hired to help Zelensky propagandize America and maybe more than America. So he was part of some ngo, kind of funded sketchy thing. So they, they used a USAID funded infrastructure. So it wasn't usaid, but it was a. Oh yeah, it was, it was a USAID funded infrastructure. Okay, but it looks like maybe this was based on donations, not based on tax dollars dollars. But that's not the important point here. The important point is they raised $2.72 billion for the purposes of helping Zelensky and Ukraine. Now the fact that his brother is a senator, does that bother you? Especially his twin brother? Well, you know, if it's, if it's all disclosed and it's legal, there's no crime involved. But didn't you know, without actually knowing, didn't you know that the Mark Kelly and, or his brother probably were up to their neck and something that you wouldn't love, didn't it feel like that was just gonna happen? If you waited long enough, there would be a story about either he or his brother or spouse or you know, some damn thing that had been maybe not doing anything illegal but you know, had their, their nose and stuff. That makes you a little uncomfortable. Sure enough, there it is. And apparently they tried the organization he was in running, I guess tried to sell themselves as fact checkers and anti corruption efforts, but really it was just a propaganda engine to support Ukraine. So I'm going to call that not ideal, probably legal, probably. I don't see an allegation that it's illegal. But not ideal. Yeah, apparently the Treasury Department and a House panel are going to look into Tim Walsh's handling of that billion dollars of stolen food aid in his state. And it might, it might, might end up in criminal referrals. So Tim Wallace may go from almost vice president to, well, jail. I doubt that, I doubt that he'll be indicted or sent to jail or anything because I think it's just going to look like incompetence. There'll just be a bunch of questions like didn't you know this was happening? And why are you punishing the whistleblowers? But there will be reasons. And if there are reasons, they don't have to be good ones. But probably that would be enough to get them off. He just has to. He has to use the typical democrat defense in these situations. Do you know what it is? What is the most typical democrat defense? When accused of being, let's say, complicit by incompetence for letting a billion dollars get stolen. The defense is always the same. Well, I'm not a criminal. I'm just really bad at my job. You know, that's where it's going. Right? You know, it's going toward. I didn't break any laws. I'm just super bad at doing my job. So no crime. No crime. Just incompetence. The usual baseline. All right. Meanwhile, Russia has claimed, and there's no pushback on this, they claim to have taken another city, the key city of Pokrovsk. Pokrovsk. Well, I know that makes you sad that the city of Pokrovs has been taken over, because I remember. I remember it seems like it was only yesterday that Pokrovs was a free Ukrainian city. Not anymore. Pokrovs is now totally owned by the Russians. Now, let me give you a persuasion negotiation tip. If you were woff and the other negotiators and you were trying to get a peace deal done and then you found out that right in the middle of the peace deal, Russia had captured another important. They called a key city. It's not that populated. There's 60,000 people there. But it seems to be strategically important. So if one side conquered a city and occupied it while you were doing the negotiations, what would you do? Well, you might. You might reflexively say, I'm walking away. I'm not going to negotiate with you darned stealers of land. You know, you're not taking it seriously. You could do that. But that would also be the end of the peace process. If you wanted to get a peace deal done but this happened, how would you handle it? I'm going to give you a persuasion trick that somebody like Trump and probably somebody like Wyckoff, but not many people could pull off. You ready for this? It's a little bit of a fake because. But not exactly. Here's what I would say in the negotiations. Well, I understand that you took a new city today. We're adding to the negotiation a 29th point. Point, which is that anything captured after we started negotiating has to be given back. And then the Russians would say, yeah, yeah, no, we lost a bunch of people. We've been fighting for months to capture the city. We're not going to give back the city. And then you look at them and say, that's a requirement. You cannot take any land after we started negotiating. Now, is there a reason for that? Not really. No. There's no reason for it. It's a purely emotional request, but you just stick to it and you never change. And at the end, if. If Russia and Ukraine, let's say they agreed on every other thing, and then you say, just one more thing. Just one more thing. Got to give back everything you took from the time we started negotiating seriously till now, every bit of it. That. That stuff just doesn't count. Could you get them to back down on that? Well, it would depend how much they wanted the peace deal, and I don't think they want it badly enough yet. But if they ever got to the point where they. It looked like Russia really seriously, for the first time wanted an actual peace, you could use this irrational reason. No, we're not going to give you anything that started after we started talking peace, because that's not even a fair fight. We were barely trying. Yeah. So as illogical as it is, you could probably get away with it, but you would need just the right negotiator saying it just the right way, inserting it at just the right time, but you get away with it. It's doable. All right, well, so Venezuela's leader, Maduro, apparently is not dead and he has not escaped the country. So he's been spotted doing some public thing like chanting he was somewhere in the country giving away prizes and singing with the locals. What do you think's gonna happen there with Maduro? I feel like something happens, has to happen pretty quickly. But they've kind of given him two choices. You can stay and get killed or maybe jailed because we're coming in hard. And probably he believes that land forces are, you know, ready to strike, and they probably are. Or he can leave the country. Apparently. Trump has said, you know, we won't stop you from leaving the country, but we're also not going to pardon you and we're not going to protect you. So you're sort of on your own. You just have to get out of here. And then, then Venezuela can you have a new start. Don't you think you. The odds of him being killed or captured is pretty high. If he leaves Venezuela, like, how in the world could he be protected unless he went, I don't know, directly to China and lived there forever, or went directly to Russia and lived there forever. But short of those two countries, is there anywhere he could go that he wouldn't be captured and Killed, no matter what. So if, you know, I've said this a million times, but we, we need the retired dictator island, an island where all the dictators that know they have to leave because otherwise they'll get killed. They want to go somewhere where they won't be killed. We should have one island with nothing but dictators and their servants. No military, just dictators and servants. They can even take their stolen money to support themselves and nobody will bother them. They just could never leave. They can never leave. And maybe, maybe you prevent them from communicating so they don't start a coup. Yeah, like Elba Island. Exactly. Cuba. Oh, you know, that's a possibility, right? Venezuela has been a big sport of Cuba. So I guess there's a possibility that Maduro could go to Cuba and be protected. But I wouldn't feel very safe if I were in Cuba so close to the United States. I feel like we could get to him if we wanted to. So we'll see where that goes. Let's see. According to the Brussels signal, which I know you all read the Brussels signal, the head of France Macron has proposed labeling news outlets for their reliability. What do you think of that idea? It's almost funny that it's even, he's even floating the idea. So McCrone wants an official media label that would tell people if the, if the news site was trustworthy. Doesn't that sound like. That can't be real? That can't be real in 2025. Are there people who don't know that if the government tells you a site is trustworthy, that's the last thing you should trust. I mean, even in a democratic type of civilization, if the government tells you this is the one to believe, that's the one to not believe. But that's, that's his idea and he wants to do that to teach young people how to spot fake news. No, that's not what you're teaching them. You're teaching them to be fooled by fake news so long as it's the government approved fake news. That's what this is. And it makes you wonder, does Macron not know what he's doing? Does he not know that, that these, you know, official sites are going to be obviously propaganda? Does he not know that? I feel like he does know it. Like, because everybody in that position would know that. So he's, I don't know. This is, this is terrible idea. Terrible idea. What if he really wanted young people to be able to spot fake news? They should watch my, they should watch my podcast. They'd have to learn English or get it translated. But let me teach the young people in France how to spot fake news. You ready? This will be a little lesson so they won't have to. They won't have to look for what news sites are labeled trustworthy. I will teach them how to spot it. And all I have to do is tell you about the very next story that I was going to talk about anyway. Did you know that. Did you know that the Washington Post is reporting that there are two anonymous whistleblowers that say that Pete Hegseth gave the order to kill the two survivors from a narco boat that the, that our military blew up coming from Venezuela did? Did you learn your lesson? It's in the Washington Post and there are two anonymous sources. And I could add that it's bad for Republicans. It's bad for Republicans. So young people in France, if you're watching this, that's what fake news looks like. Now, I don't know what's true and what's not. So I like to put things in the, the frame of credible versus not credible. Maybe sometimes the Washington Post gets the story right and maybe sometimes they have anonymous sources who are completely legitimate. But if you ever see a story that's bad for Republicans, and weirdly, not just bad for Republicans, but bad for Republicans in a way that perfectly fits the narrative coming from the Democrats. You know, the narrative is that the military might be asked to do illegal things by the Trump administration. And then, well, lo and behold, by amazing coincidence, at the exact time the narrative is being formed that maybe these illegal acts will be ordered. Well, we've got a story in the Washington Post with two anonymous sources saying that something that looked sort of illegal ish may have happened. That's some fake news looking stuff. So again, I don't know what's true and what's not, but I can say that this is not a credible story. It's not credible. We don't know what's true. But we can certainly say that you should treat it like it's not true because it's just so not credible. Not even a little bit. So let's see France do that. And the latest update on that story is that Hegseth was not directly involved in any orders at all. So he was not watching the, the action and saying, hey, you know, there's two guys that got away. Blast those two guys. So apparently that never happened. That or, or at least that's the counter to the allegation is that he wasn't involved at all he did give, you know, orders for the attacks, but there were general orders. They were not about kill those survivors or anything like that. The. There was an admiral who was more directly involved or he was the direct leader of this, and I don't know what his name is, but apparently there was an admiral who, if anybody, gave any orders, and there's no indication that he gave the orders to kill, kill those people. No indication of that. But if anybody did, it would have been him, not Hegseth. Do you believe that? Yeah. Well, that entire story seems to have taken over the news. So if you notice that the Democrat narrative has successfully conquered all the news, there's basically not a lot else happening. But we're going to talk about the seditious sex, we're going to talk about Hegseth and the, you know, and Maduro and what legal or illegal things we're going to do so that that play has completely taken over the news. And you don't do that unless it's a coordinated effort. In my opinion, that doesn't happen by itself. So. So Elon Musk continues to make news. He did this one podcast who's. And I still don't know who the host of it was. Oh, recent interview with investor Nikhil Kamath. Anyway, so one of the things that Elon said is that he's looking at creating what he's calling a galaxy mind, which would be shooting AI into space on satellites. So you'd have AI in space, but the, the tough part about AI is having enough energy. But apparently if you get your assets outside of Earth's cover and, and atmosphere, the amount of energy that you have access to directly from the sun is practically unlimited. So the idea is they put some solar panels in space that would be super effective because they would be beyond our atmosphere and they would be toward the sun all day long instead of half the day. So you would have just enormous, enormous parts of energy if you did it in space. So you essentially link together your satellites with their AI components and link it with the, the power that they're getting from the sun and, and you can build this enormous space faring data center that would be way smarter than anything you could ever do on Earth, because on Earth you're always going to be bound by energy. But as soon as you take it out of the atmosphere, the sky is the limit, so to speak. So Elon is basically saying that's where it's going because that's where the economics will drive it. And coincidentally, the companies that he owns would, would have rockets for sending things to space. They would have the satellites, you know, the, he's got the satellite business, he's got the Tesla engineering, he's got the, the AI that's also under his control and all of those components and the solar stuff, he even has the solar panels that's under Tesla. So every part of this so called galaxy mind he already has. So you don't have to wonder if this is going to happen. Elon says it's going to happen. The economics would be overwhelming. I mean, it's not even close. You're definitely 100% going to be having data centers in space, there's no doubt about it. And he has every, every asset to make that happen. Now in a related story, which I find super interesting, is that the CEO of Google has also started talking about data centers in space for exactly the same reason. So Google is already starting their own little test of putting data centers in space. They're just going to do it at a very small scale. You know, literally. It might be some racks on a, on a satellite, but they're going to put it up there and see if it works on a small scale, which would be getting the energy from space, getting it inside your satellite, into your AI circuitry and then seeing if it works or doesn't. If it doesn't, it's infinitely, if it does work, it seems like it's infinitely scalable. You need, need some more energy. Put up another rocket with solar panels on it. You need some more AI, Put up another rocket. You need to upgrade the AI software, Just send it a message. So you're going to have Elon Musk and Google fighting it out for domination of AI in space. And I will go further. Whoever wins the AI in space race, and one assumes that, you know, China is going to be all over this as well. Whoever wins that is going to kind of own Earth. Because if you own everything outside of Earth, I don't know how Earth can survive that. Like if, if they decided to attack the Earth with infinite energy. Imagine having your AI in space and you have this, you know, this intelligence that you can never build on Earth and it comes up with a way to build an efficient, let's say space laser. And then you build it on Earth, but AI told you how to, and then you ship it up there and then you've got this galaxy mind with, you know, AI built laser weapons pointed at Earth. Well, I don't think Tesla would do that, but somebody will. China certainly. Well, and certainly our defense people are probably looking at it. So, yeah, whoever owns a space seems like they're going to own Earth eventually. Well, according to. I don't know what source this is, but there's an allegation that 36% of new voter registrations last year in Michigan did not have valid Social Security numbers. 36% of all the new voter registrations did not have valid Social Security. Which kind of means they were not citizens. Right? I don't think those were typos. They're not citizens. And then on top of that, Michigan has allegedly half a million more voters registered than they have voting age adults. So there's a whole bunch of sketchy non voters or people maybe shouldn't have voted in Michigan. So State Senator Johnson is the one sounding the alarm about this, and he's pointing to the Help America vote verification system. So I guess there's something that would solve this. The 36% applied to 100,000 people. So 100,000 people registered to vote in Michigan, and 36% of them, 36,000 people, did not have a valid Social Security number and they were allowed to register anyway. Now how in the world do you imagine that's a credible voting system when you're asked to give your Social Security number, but when your Social Security number is invalid, it doesn't change whether you can vote? Does that look like they're even trying to have a credible system or does it look like no matter what the situation is, if you're going to vote Democrat, you're definitely going to be able to vote? Kind of looks like the latter. Pretty sketchy looking, but you know, I feel like there's a. There's a version of Gel man amnesia that applies here to our election systems. Now, I'll remind you what Gel man amnesia is. Most of you have heard it 100 times, but that's the idea that there was this physicist, his name was Gel Mann, and he noticed that when he saw stories about physics and he knew what was true and what wasn't, he could tell that the story was fake or full of errors. But then he would turn the page on what was the newspaper at the time, and he'd see the next story and he would just assume that the next story is probably accurate. And then finally, after seeing that pattern for years. Wait a minute. Could it be true that every time I see a story that I know the truth, I can tell the reporting's wrong, but every time I see a story where I don't have any expertise, I assume it's true? Isn't it more likely that they're all fake or nearly all fake. And so that's the, the Gillman amnesia. But there's a version of that that we do, and it's not that, but I'm sort of reminded of it and it needs its own name. We'll call it the, the, the Scott Adams. The Scott Adams amnesia. Yeah, that's it. We'll call it, let's call it Scott Adams Amnesia because you get to name it after who comes up with it, right? So Scott Adams amnesia is that you read a story in the newspaper about, let's say the, the charities in Minnesota stealing a billion dollars. And then you turn the page and it's a story about some other criminal behavior in the government. And you turn the page and you find out that some other big money entity was also stealing your money. And then you turn the page to the story about the. Our elections. And it says, our elections are pristine. Even though they're run by different people with different processes and different states and precincts, every one of them has got a pristine, perfect record. And even if there was some little problem, it wouldn't be anything important. And so we live in a world in which everything is corrupt except for our election systems. Now, Scott Adams amnesia says you could not possibly believe that our election systems are pristine if you've noted that every other thing is not right. You don't have to have specific information about what's wrong with their elections. You don't need that. You don't need specific proof. You don't need a court case if everything else is corrupt. Come on. Everything else is corrupt. This is the one thing that's not you. You would have to have some form of amnesia about everything else you'd seen in the world to imagine that this one thing is the non corrupt thing. Sorry, not buying it. There. There was a man, according to a new scientist, there was a man who was, quote, unexpectedly cured of HIV after a stem cell transplant. Now, unknown to me, and I don't know why I didn't know this, but did you know that several people have been cured of HIV with stem cell transplants that were specifically modified for, you know, that particular patient. But what's different is this patient got a stem cell for that. I, I guess wasn't even intended to fix his hiv, so it wasn't tuned for that purpose. But just getting the stem cells seemed to have cleared him of hiv. That's the claim I'd have to see. I'd have to see a few more people get cured before I believe that's true. But were you aware of that? Five people had their HIV completely cleared by getting a specific kind of stem cell. I guess the stem cells came from people who had some natural defense against hiv, but you could take a stem cell from someone who does not have a natural defense and apparently it still worked. So I don't know how often that works, but that'd be amazing according to new scientists. Also, we now have an understanding of how exercise fights cancer. So now they know the mechanism. So if you have cancer or you want to avoid it, exercise turns out to be super effective. And they've got a pretty good idea why it works. So the problem is, as someone who has cancer, I can tell you that the last thing you want to do is exercise. I get it. Exercise would be good for me. But it's sort of the last thing you want to do, and especially if your particular form started with testosterone blockers. Yeah, try that. My last story is about. You may have seen the story about the high rise buildings in Hong Kong that caught on fire. Yeah, I guess there were several of them that were near each other. They all caught on fire. Well, guess what is the name of that Hong Kong center? It's called the Wang Fook W A N G space F U K and I'm being charitable by calling it Fook the Wang Fire. And that is all I have for you people. I'm in quite a bit of discomfort at the moment, so I'm gonna call it. That will be my show for the day and I will see you tomorrow. Locals. I can't join you after the show so I need to meditate some pain away. But thanks for joining. We'll see you tomorrow.
