here could be exceptions. I just haven't seen one.

CNN says, actually not even CNN but Twitter's fact check says no, there's no connection. So I could be wrong but I'd say that's probably 95% chance that this story is fake news. So that's your first fake news of the day. Watch the pattern that emerges here. There's a pattern emerging and let's see if you can see it. But don't blame me the messenger, okay? Because in a story or two you're gonna get pretty mad at me if my prediction is correct. You're going to get a little bit mad at me in a few stories because you're going to notice the pattern and you're not going to like it at all. I don't think I'll have to tell you the pattern. You're going to see it yourself.

All right, here's the next one. Well, I'm going to skip around a little bit but I'll tell you the pattern later. So the Alec Baldwin story. Every time we get a new detail it, you just shake your head. Here's the latest one. Apparently this same armorer, the person who handles the real and fake weapons on the movie set, apparently was almost fired on a Nicolas Cage movie. And this is what somebody said and I quote, she didn't carry the firearm safely. And I'm thinking to myself, huh, what would be a way to carry firearms unsafely? Because it seems like that'd be fairly easy to carry them safely. So how do you do it unsafely?

Well, here's the description. She had pistols tucked under her armpits and was carrying rifles in each hand. Okay, that would do it. Yeah, that would do it. Yeah, pistols under each armpit while you're carrying rifles with, yeah that would do it. Yep, that would be what I would call unsafe carrying of weapons. You would have to, yeah. And apparently she even like turned around a few times so the weapons were aimed at people. So not only were they tucked under her arm but she was like turning around so that at any given time she was, yeah exactly.

I'm looking at the comments. The only one that captures all this is "good lord." You know, sometimes there's an exasperated phrase that's the only one that works. I think this one is "good lord." That just covers it. How did she ever get this job? Well apparently she is the daughter of a famous or a well-established Hollywood person who was an armorer. So she's a legacy. That probably had something to do with it. Probably just people knew the parents.

So Joe Biden's got, looks like he's negotiated with the Democrats and getting down that so-called infrastructure bill to what, 1.75 trillion. Started down at 3.5 trillion with a grab bag of all these things they wanted but they were unreasonable, terribly unreasonable. So now they're being negotiated back to 1.75 and there's some optimism that will get passed. I'm still gonna bet against it. What do you think? I'm gonna bet against the 1.75 passing. Only, and the only reason is it has nothing to do with what's in it. Has nothing to do with what's in the bill because we don't know. Who knows what's in the freaking bill?

I'm just going to say that I don't think Congress can do anything. I think Congress is just permanently useless. You're hearing my cat is wanting to get out because I've got the door closed. Boo, come up here and say hi. Boo, Brow, come up here. Yeah, come up here. We'll see if I can call a cat. That'll be a good test.

All right. So nobody knows what's in this bill but if Biden gets this through, I'm going to try to be consistent. If he asked for 3.5 trillion so that he could get 1.75 and he succeeds, that is going to be a very Trump-like negotiating process. Starting high, you know, the most basic thing you should do in negotiating. Starting so high that we got used to 3.5 trillion, didn't we? Now we were always horrified by it but we got a little bit used to it, didn't we? And by the time he says 1.75 trillion, does it sound like a lot anymore? Biden made a trillion dollars sound like it wasn't much money. And now he'll get to maybe go to a vote on this.

So if so, let me be clear about this. If Trump had done this, let's say this bill was something I approved of, if Trump had started at 3.5 trillion and managed to get us used to it and then get 1.75, I would think that was a damn good job, depending what was in the bill of course. Now separate from what's in the bill, I'm gonna give Biden, I'm gonna give him an A plus. I hate to tell you but if he pulls this off it's an A plus for just negotiating because he actually convinced us this 3.5 was a lot and 1.75, well that's in the range. That would be pretty amazing persuasion.

I'm not saying I approve of the bill because none of us know what's in it. Apparently we're going to approve this bill or not but if we do approve it maybe then we'll find out what's in it. You know it's garbage, don't you? I think we know it's garbage.

All right. You can see my cat's little feeding tube there. I have to keep that in for a little while.

All right. So I'm bored about this spending bill, the human infrastructure versus the physical infrastructure. And I don't know if it'll ever get passed.

Here's a weird thing that's happening. So and you have to wonder if this is a Chinese plot. There are things happening in this country that are so hard to explain in any way except is this a Chinese plot? Did China, is China behind this? No, I'm not saying they are. I'm just saying that I'm just saying it looks like it because you can't explain why else things like this would happen. Here's a good example.

So this is I think this was from, I forget where, CNN maybe. So these executives of the major fossil fuel companies, so mostly oil executives etc., were coming to Congress today and they're going to talk about disinformation on the climate change crisis. Now when I read this I said to myself, oh this is what we need. This will be great. All the oil executives are going to talk to Congress about all the climate change misinformation. So I thought to myself this is great. This is basically the same thing that Michael Shellenberger testified to Congress about. I assumed because as he testified, if we kill our, and I think he said this, he says it on Twitter and in his books etc., that if we kill our existing fossil fuel stuff too quickly we'll snuff out all our growth and our prosperity. And the growth and prosperity are the single biggest things that cause you to clean up the planet.

So in other words the more oil you use the cleaner you'll get because once you have an industrial base and things are working well then you have the luxury of buying a Tesla, right? So on a per person basis, getting rich first with carbon fuels and building up your manufacturing allows you to get to a clean world. Whereas if you're a developing country for example you can't develop with solar and wind power. There's not enough power, not reliable, and you would be there stuck in poverty forever or what, right?

So I thought that these fossil executives were going to come in and say that they were right all along, that doing a lot of fossil fuels as much as we can would actually be better for climate change in the long run. They're going to do the opposite. They're going to come in and apparently some members of Congress are going to try to get them to admit that they've been lying on various claims about their role in the crisis. So I think that the oil executives probably have some explaining to do. I'm sure they did some BS propaganda for their side as well.

But I think we framed this wrong, didn't we? This looks like Chinese framing, doesn't it? Because this is exactly what Trump warned us about with climate change being a hoax. Now remember when he said it was a hoax he wasn't really directly addressing the science of it so much as the strategy, the political strategy. And China was going to get a big gift if we did what we were going to do which is slow our own development while they didn't slow theirs. So that was the hoax part I think. I mean I don't want to read Trump's mind but that would be