Episode 1084 Scott Adams： Teachers Unions Should Pay Reparations, Churches Finding a Way, Peter Navarro and HCQ
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
152.81534
Summary
The dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including the fake news, and it happens now! Here s what makes it amazing: Two young Black teens who look like the most fun two people you d ever know, listening to a Phil Collins song for the first time.
Transcript
00:00:00.560
Bum-bum-bum-bum. Bum-bum-bum. Bum-bum-bum-bum. Bum-bum-bum-bum-bum. What a day, what a day.
00:00:12.580
Come on in, come on in. There's still time, still space. You can get the best seat if you hurry up.
00:00:19.860
Make sure your coffee is warm or your beverage is cold, depending on your personal preferences.
00:00:25.200
Unlike Joe Biden, I think everybody is different. I don't lump people by ethnicity. No, I don't.
00:00:34.480
I believe we are all special and different and unique. And I think that the only thing that
00:00:40.260
could make this morning better, well, maybe not the only thing, but the thing that could make it the
00:00:46.060
best, is a simultaneous sip. And you are going to enjoy that now. And all it takes is a cup or mug or
00:00:54.720
glass, a tank or gels or stine, a canteen, a drink or a flask of a vessel of any kind. Fill it with
00:01:00.100
your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine
00:01:06.040
hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including the fake news. It's called
00:01:21.940
Well, I would like to share with you something that made me so happy this morning. And I tweeted
00:01:29.020
it so that you could be happy too. There is a genre of entertainment that I had never seen
00:01:37.180
before that I really liked. I mean, it just completely made my day. And I'll call it a
00:01:45.400
genre. I know you're going to say to me, Scott, Scott, Scott, we've known about this forever.
00:01:52.160
Why are you the last to find out? Well, that's probably true. But here's the genre. Young black
00:01:59.340
men listening to, let's call it just for convenience, old white music. That is awesome.
00:02:07.940
The first one is these two black teens who look like the most fun two people you'd ever
00:02:15.380
know, listening to a Phil Collins song for the first time. And it was in the air tonight,
00:02:23.400
Now, here's the thing. If you've never heard Phil Collins, and yeah, yeah, yeah, I know
00:02:28.300
y'all have your opinions. Some people love him. Some people hate him. I personally think
00:02:33.520
that his best songs are amazing. And watching, so the video is the two young black kids. And
00:02:43.140
for some reason, the fact that they're black helps the story, right? You get that, right?
00:02:48.740
Just because they're listening to something that they had not been exposed to before. And
00:02:54.580
here's what makes it amazing. So first of all, just watching them light up and enjoy the music
00:03:00.640
and being maybe a little bit surprised by it is good. So that alone is entertaining. But
00:03:07.280
here's the part that really sort of got to me. Music for me is a sympathetic thing. And
00:03:20.540
what I mean is this. The music that I first heard when I was with my college friends is
00:03:29.400
the music that always reaches me the most and probably always will. And it has to do with
00:03:34.180
the fact that I learned very early that I don't seem to have much in the way of independent
00:03:40.840
musical preferences. You know, I'm not a big music guy. But if you put me in the room with
00:03:47.500
people who really like the music that's playing, what I respond to is the other people. So if
00:03:54.260
somebody else is getting like just a massive pleasure and the music, I don't get it directly
00:04:00.040
from the music, but I get it from the person. And then the music seems to be what's working. But
00:04:06.100
really, it's the combination of the person's influence. Because humans are mimics. You put
00:04:12.080
us in a room with anything, and we will be more likely to mimic it. Music probably more than most
00:04:18.780
things is mimicable. So when I watch this video, and then there's another one of a, let's see,
00:04:26.920
what's his name? He goes by NoLifeShack, S-H-A-Q on YouTube. It's a huge account, a couple million
00:04:34.520
followers. And it's a, I don't know, 20-something, I'm guessing, black man who's listening to various
00:04:42.060
musics for the first time, and Leonard Skinner. Leonard Skinner is the one. Now, there's another
00:04:48.560
thing here that's useful. And by the way, this is persuasion is sort of the context here.
00:04:55.120
So I'm talking about music, but it's not really about the music. It's about how the persuasion
00:05:01.760
works and how we are mimics. But I'm working on this hypothesis about what makes music work.
00:05:11.880
And it's a really deep, kind of complicated, hard to understand thing. There's something in humans
00:05:19.020
where we're wired for some kind of a beat. But what I felt when I was watching, and again,
00:05:25.980
it's important to the story, where I'm going here, that the people in the videos were black.
00:05:31.500
So two black youths, and then a 20-something black guy. And I got to tell you, that as they were
00:05:38.760
enjoying the music, and then I started enjoying them, and then through them remembering how much
00:05:45.840
I like the music, you know, from my youth, it is such a bonding experience. Like, I feel like I'm
00:05:54.680
already friends with the people in the videos. Never met them. Don't think I ever will. But
00:06:01.000
immediately, I was bonded to them. Like, if I met them in the street, I would feel like it would be
00:06:06.380
really easy to get along with them. Like, I would already be connected somehow. And, you know,
00:06:11.180
in our big, you know, world full of conflict and protest and such, watching the power of music
00:06:19.000
pull people together makes me ask some big questions. One of the questions is about the
00:06:25.880
origin of music, and the origin of dancing. And I'm not too proud, I'm not too proud to say
00:06:33.360
that when I watched No Life Shack, literally, he couldn't help himself but move when he was
00:06:41.700
listening to Leonard Skinner. I actually danced. I danced with him alone in my studio office at 4.30
00:06:53.240
in the morning, happier than you could ever imagine. Like, just purely happy. And he did that for me.
00:07:01.400
So, I would recommend his YouTube. It's No Life Shack. S-H-A-Q. Quite amazing. Now, here's the
00:07:11.240
other thing I wanted to say about music. There's something that I'm just sort of working on this
00:07:16.720
as a hypothesis. Curiosity is sort of a base impulse for human beings. And I've said before that
00:07:25.040
whenever you can invoke curiosity, let's say you're an author or any kind of entertainer,
00:07:31.400
curiosity will just bind people. You know, whether you're giving a presentation at work,
00:07:37.360
whatever you're doing, if you can inspire curiosity, people will stay around.
00:07:41.660
And they'll wait, because they kind of need to know how things end. We're just built that way.
00:07:46.580
And music, I think, does that. Because music, imagine if you would, your music was one beat.
00:07:51.840
And you knew where that was going to end. At the end of the song, it would still be
00:07:58.200
It wouldn't matter how good that beat was. Because it bores you. There's no curiosity.
00:08:08.080
But songs, you know that if they start slow, like Lynyrd Skynyrd does, if you're familiar
00:08:13.240
with the song, you know it. It's actually too slow. And watching the No Life Shack, hear it
00:08:25.420
for the first time, what you know as an audience member is, oh, the good stuff's coming. And
00:08:32.360
here's the fun. At the slow part, he got really excited and really liked the Lynyrd Skynyrd.
00:08:38.100
It was Freebird, actually. So it was Freebird, the song. And he's listening to it. He really
00:08:43.340
likes the slow part. It's like, yeah. And you can tell he's really getting into it and
00:08:47.460
genuinely enjoying it. But as a viewer, you're saying to yourself, oh, I know where this is
00:08:52.780
going. I am not leaving. I am not leaving this video until the tempo change, right? And
00:09:01.300
so the tempo changes, and he just goes nuts. But you can feel it in your body. Like, you get
00:09:06.940
goosebumps. And it just goes right through you. Because you're feeling it with him. It's
00:09:12.840
remarkable. And I would go so far as to say that if you are going to invent a new genre
00:09:19.620
of entertainment, damn, you couldn't beat this. Because it really has just all of the
00:09:24.660
elements in it. So there's that. I tweeted both of those so you can enjoy them too. I would
00:09:31.660
definitely recommend that you watch them alone. Watch it alone with headphones when nobody's
00:09:38.600
watching because you're going to find yourself dancing around. All right. Good news on the
00:09:43.380
payroll and on jobs. Jobs are down from 11.1 in June to 10.2. Is 10.2 good or bad? Well, it's
00:09:54.960
bad in normal times. But I have to say, do you know where we think back just a few months?
00:10:02.200
Just a few months ago, what were people talking about in terms of unemployment? They were talking
00:10:08.340
about 20%. They were talking about depression. Now, if you're keeping track of who is your better
00:10:18.160
predictors, I would like to throw into the mix that I did say, no, it's not going to be a
00:10:23.620
depression. Yeah, we are going to get out of this. And this 10% unemployment, as bad as
00:10:29.580
it is, certainly among our biggest challenges right now, it's not nearly as bad as it could
00:10:36.160
have been. It's a lot closer to what the optimists were saying than the pessimists. So keep that
00:10:42.500
in mind. Oh, as long as we're scoring things, to maintain my credibility as well as I
00:10:53.460
can anyway. I like to confess when I get stuff wrong. So when I get stuff wrong, if I don't
00:11:00.120
say it publicly, hey, I got that wrong, then maybe, you know, I'll have less credibility
00:11:04.980
in the future. So early on, when we first were going into shutdown, and people said,
00:11:11.100
hey, you know, this shutdown is bad. And we thought it would only be maybe a month or six
00:11:16.720
weeks. When I thought it would be really short, because nobody really knew. I mean, maybe that
00:11:24.080
was enough, maybe it wasn't. But when we thought it would be short, I actually said, you know,
00:11:29.420
I think the net deaths, if you take out the number of people who won't be dying on the highway,
00:11:34.960
you might come out closer to like 5000 people dead, if it's short. But of course, it wasn't
00:11:42.080
short. So my 5000 dead could not be more wrong. So it's about as wrong as anything can be. But the
00:11:51.620
wrongness had to do with not knowing how long the short that the shutdown would have lasted. Because
00:11:57.780
not not a lot of people are going to, let's say, end their life or become addicts in four weeks,
00:12:04.200
because you can sort of last that out, you know, maybe you can hold, it would be worse,
00:12:09.280
worse, but not that much worse. But if you extend it for months, and people lose their jobs, and,
00:12:14.460
you know, they can't, they can't do any of the social things that they normally do. Yeah, that's,
00:12:19.520
that's expensive. That's dangerous. People don't get their cancer screenings, etc. So
00:12:25.800
so that would be a case of me missing by about 1000 miles. But the part I missed,
00:12:33.840
that maybe we all missed is how long we would be shut down. That was the key key element.
00:12:39.280
All right, though, here's a question that I want to ask with respect, which is about the
00:12:45.500
church attendance during the pandemic. You've seen a number of people have cleverly tried to get around
00:12:52.580
the rules. I guess there was one church that did their service inside a Walmart, because Walmart could
00:12:58.520
be open, but churches cannot. I think it was Ralph Reed's group who used a casino to do a service
00:13:05.800
because casinos are open, but churches are not. And I asked this question, what would Jesus do?
00:13:14.280
Because it feels like I've always appreciated that question, because it does put you, you know,
00:13:21.260
put you into the view of, okay, if you were Jesus, how would you play this? And the reason I asked the
00:13:28.020
question is not a criticism. So don't take this as a criticism of religion. I'm pro-religion. I think
00:13:34.720
it works wonders in many people's lives. I think that's just objectively true. So no matter what you
00:13:41.200
believe about religion, it's just obvious it's good for people. We seem to be wired for it.
00:13:47.620
However, the evidence is overwhelming, I think. So I'm very, very pro-religion while not being a believer
00:13:54.400
personally. So I have a complete respect for it, for all the right reasons. But I have to ask,
00:14:03.940
is your constitutional right to your religion, which I would say is unquestionable? That is to say,
00:14:15.020
those people who say, you government, you can't tell us to not practice our religion. That's,
00:14:21.160
that's baked into the constitution. I'm with you. Same, same as if they had tried to suppress your
00:14:26.900
free speech. Totally with you. If it's in the constitution, sorry, those are the rules. Does it,
00:14:34.820
you know, is it, could somebody get hurt because of it? Yes. Sorry, it's in the constitution. Same with
00:14:41.700
free speech. Free speech isn't free. People do get hurt all the time. But do I think we should
00:14:48.860
not have free speech because somebody might get hurt by it? Nope. It's in the constitution. Those
00:14:54.180
are the rules we're playing by. And until somebody comes up with a better set of rules or changes the
00:14:59.240
rules, we're just better off saying, Hey, this is what we agreed on. Let's stick with it. So those
00:15:05.640
people who say it's my constitutional right to express my religious preferences and worship the
00:15:13.160
way I want, you know, within reason, of course, I say, absolutely. 100% support for your constitutional
00:15:22.200
right to avoid, to just ignore the government, literally just ignore the government. If the
00:15:28.620
government passes a law tomorrow that says, you know, we're going to shoot you if you practice your
00:15:34.280
religion, well, you have to overthrow the government, right? I mean, you have to overthrow
00:15:39.420
the government if they do that. So legally, constitutionally, absolutely. And if you want
00:15:48.140
to make the, if you want to make the cost benefit decision that you've looked at all the data,
00:15:54.780
you've decided that this risk is worth the reward. Okay. You know, as long as you've looked at all the
00:16:02.120
risks and all the reward, that's all anybody would ask. But here's the question. How would Jesus play
00:16:09.000
it? Would Jesus have said, let's say he made the decision and you said to him, look, we got, you know,
00:16:16.640
we've got this problem. We can't worship the way we want to, but we got to work around. We're going to
00:16:20.880
use the casino. The only downside, the only downside is not the risk we're taking on ourselves because
00:16:29.040
we're adults. You know, we can take our own risk. You know, you can't tell me what risk I can take.
00:16:35.380
So yeah. What do you think of that, Jesus? And Jesus, Jesus would probably say, I agree. You are adults
00:16:42.640
and you can take the risk that you want. But then there's this other pesky problem, which is what
00:16:49.560
happens if you transmit the virus outside of your group. What happens if infection spread because of
00:16:57.800
it? And then that went to people who were not making any kind of a religious decision. They were
00:17:03.780
just cutting your hair or whatever they were doing. And now they've got the virus. Somebody dies.
00:17:09.320
Would Jesus say, go ahead and do the ceremony in the casino because you're adults and you're
00:17:18.560
choosing to do it and the benefits, you know, are greater than the cost? Or would Jesus say,
00:17:23.400
you know, the people who are going to suffer here are not you. You know, the question of whether you
00:17:30.440
should do it isn't about you. It's not about you. It's not about religion. It's not about your God.
00:17:35.940
It's about what you, what risk you are willing to put other people. Now, would Jesus say, well,
00:17:43.780
yeah, maybe a few people will die. Or would Jesus say, you know, it's temporary. Let's just hold
00:17:52.000
off. You can worship it up like crazy when the churches are fully reopened. Man, we're going to
00:17:58.240
have a party. It'll be the best day ever. But for now, but for now, can you just think of your other
00:18:05.240
humans for a little bit? Now, I'm not a religious scholar. I will not pretend to speak for Jesus.
00:18:12.500
I simply put that question out there because I was raised in the Christian tradition. And I find it
00:18:20.220
confusing that Jesus may have supported something that was real fun and good for the worshiper,
00:18:27.720
but might kill somebody who was minding their own business later. Maybe. Maybe Jesus would take that
00:18:34.440
view. And if that's your view, that Jesus would back that, I would say you're on strong,
00:18:39.540
you're on strong ground. All right. Rand Paul tweeted a real clear politics article by Stacey Rudin,
00:18:48.260
who you need to know is a litigator active in the grassroots movement to preserve full-time
00:18:53.960
in-classroom education. All right. So there's a lawyer who is actually litigating. So she's,
00:18:59.700
I guess it's she, is active in the effort to get kids back to school. And writes an article that says
00:19:09.440
that social distancing and lockdowns have no scientific support. And I thought to myself,
00:19:18.420
what? So there's no scientific evidence at all that lockdowns work, or that even social distancing,
00:19:31.480
which is kind of the same thing, that they work. Now, the thought is that if, you know, once 1% of
00:19:38.220
your population is infected, that there's just nothing you can do. That you could be the most cautious
00:19:44.060
people in the world. But basically, it's going to get you. It's going to get you sooner or later.
00:19:50.000
However, I would note that although the argument is sound and very, it's provocative in the sense
00:19:56.520
that what is the argument against hydroxychloroquine? The argument against hydroxychloroquine
00:20:02.400
is that there are no studies confirming that it works. Right? There are no studies confirming
00:20:10.660
that it works. So they say don't use it. But there's also no study confirming that the lockdowns
00:20:18.800
work, you know, in this kind of situation. So who's being anti-science? If there's no evidence
00:20:26.140
that something works, but you know for sure it'll destroy your economy, do you do it? There's no
00:20:32.260
scientific evidence that a lockdown works. And which I believe to be true, only because it would be so
00:20:37.760
hard to do a scientific study. And it might be the only reason there's no scientific study, because
00:20:43.060
I don't know, it'd just be hard to study. But everybody thinks it works. And one of the things
00:20:48.320
I loved was this point that Rudin makes in the article, that human beings will imagine that their
00:20:56.560
leaders made the difference. And this is a point I've been talking about a lot. You think you can tell
00:21:02.640
which leaders are doing a good job because you're looking at the outcomes. It's just not a thing.
00:21:09.080
It has never been a thing. It's not even a thing in business most of the time.
00:21:13.400
As the Dilbert creator, I've been writing about this forever. My observation in all my business
00:21:19.920
experience is that managers would wait for something lucky to happen that had nothing to do with them.
00:21:25.480
And then they would claim credit based on that thing they did. That had nothing to do with anything.
00:21:32.240
So most of management is waiting for something good to happen on its own, and then figuring out
00:21:37.640
a way that you can claim credit for it. And that's not even a joke. Anybody who's had experience with
00:21:44.080
big companies knows, yeah, in a big organization, it's really about saying that you were responsible
00:21:50.920
for a coincidental uptick in sales, which might have to do with, you know, nothing. Let me ask you
00:21:58.240
this. So we saw that a number of companies like Amazon made tons of money because of the pandemic.
00:22:05.040
Do you think there are no managers at Amazon who are going to say, look at what a great job I did
00:22:11.180
because my profits and my segment are way up? Yeah, they will. They had nothing to do with it. It was
00:22:18.260
the pandemic. The pandemic made people stay home and order stuff on Amazon. But there will be
00:22:23.800
managers claiming credit, and successfully. They will be compensated for doing such a great job.
00:22:30.920
Because, well, look at all the sales. You made a lot of money. You guys are geniuses. It had nothing
00:22:35.940
to do with talent. Likewise, when all the governors and the leaders of all the countries, at the end of
00:22:41.740
this, they're going to be claiming credit for the ones who coincidentally got a good result.
00:22:46.280
And the ones who coincidentally got a bad result will be blaming it on somebody else because they
00:22:52.640
need to do that. But indeed, there may be no connection between getting back to the social
00:22:59.020
distancing, between any of the leadership decisions and what happens. Now, here's my problem with the
00:23:07.460
Rudin look. While I accept that there may not be any science for social distancing and the lockdowns,
00:23:15.720
that's probably just because it's hard to study. Almost nothing I do during the day has any science
00:23:23.500
to it. After I'm done here, I'm going to go downstairs and I'm going to eat a delicious avocado
00:23:29.740
with soy sauce and pepper, despite the fact that there has not been one single scientific study
00:23:37.580
to say that that's going to be the best thing I can do now. Might be something else is better to do.
00:23:43.620
Maybe I should wait to eat. Maybe I should eat something different. But I'm going to do it anyway,
00:23:50.260
despite no scientific backing whatsoever. Because some things just sort of make sense.
00:23:56.640
Now, the other thing that Rudin admits is that, you know, if obviously indirectly admits that if you
00:24:05.080
have a vaccine and you can stall until you get to the vaccine, actually social distancing might make
00:24:12.960
sense. It might make sense to stall if you knew you were stalling for something. But we don't quite
00:24:20.040
know that the vaccines are going to work. I have a good feeling about them, but I don't know.
00:24:27.380
So I think in the context where you have a real chance of therapeutics, a real chance of keeping
00:24:33.680
the hospitals running, and a real chance of getting to a vaccine, and I think those are all real.
00:24:40.560
That that is the one situation in which you don't need that much science to do a shutdown.
00:24:45.300
So while the case is strong counselor, from a lawyer perspective, it's sort of a good argument,
00:24:55.020
but it's a lawyer argument. Meaning, when I say it's a lawyer argument, I mean it sounds good,
00:25:01.680
but it's missing the biggest part, which is the whole point was to stall to keep the hospitals open
00:25:07.660
and to make sure that we had time to get to some better treatments. So under those conditions,
00:25:16.560
actually, I think you don't need too much science to take your shot.
00:25:24.840
All right, how about this? Why is it that Kanye West can't debate? Is it because he's black?
00:25:34.340
Now, of course, it's not because of that. It's because they have rules and he doesn't have enough
00:25:41.000
voters. There's some threshold that he's not going to be anywhere near. But still,
00:25:47.060
wouldn't you like to see Kanye West debate? Now, even Kanye says he's not running for president,
00:25:53.440
he's walking. So he's signaling quite clearly, plus the number of states that he's actually running in
00:26:00.360
is limited. But he's signaling quite clearly that he's in it for, let's say, the influence or the
00:26:08.560
positioning or maybe for the message, but not so much in it to win. Still, wouldn't you like to see
00:26:16.200
him debate? I mean, come on. Can you imagine the ratings for a debate that Kanye West, President Trump
00:26:26.080
and Joe Biden? It would be the best thing you've ever seen on television. And would the public benefit
00:26:34.780
from having a debate that drew more people in, that drew in more people than normally would watch
00:26:43.160
a political event? Yeah. Yeah. I think it would be actually really, really good for the republic.
00:26:48.800
Now, the fact that there are these rules about when and when they debate, I think that's independent
00:26:56.620
of the fact that I could just hold a debate, couldn't I? Isn't it still a free country? I'm not
00:27:03.160
saying I'll do this, but can't I just say, hey, I invite all three of you to my debate. It's going to be
00:27:10.700
such and such a time. And if all three, they just have to say yes. If they said yes, it's a debate. It
00:27:17.160
doesn't matter if there was some threshold that someone else cares about. If I'm not a party to
00:27:23.500
that decision, I can just have my own debate. So there's nothing that would stop it, except for
00:27:28.420
the three people not wanting to do it. Now, would Kanye want to do it? I don't know. I don't know.
00:27:34.980
It'd be amazing if he did. Would President Trump say yes, if Kanye said yes?
00:27:40.000
I think so. Don't you? Don't you think President Trump would say yes, if Kanye said, you know, he'll do
00:27:49.200
one and there was an event that allowed it? I think he'd say yes. I don't know. Would Joe Biden say yes?
00:27:57.420
Well, if Kanye and Trump said yes, I think his handlers would try to keep him out of it. But it
00:28:04.800
would be fascinating if he said yes. Anyway, I'd like to put that in the mix. What's interesting
00:28:11.500
is that Kanye seems to be doing exactly, exactly the smartest thing. Because you don't need to be
00:28:18.860
president to have power. You just have to find a way that your message and your influence can get
00:28:25.600
leveraged up. So apparently he's going to be on the ballot in Wisconsin, maybe the most important of the
00:28:33.740
swing states. It could be. It could turn out that way. So he's finding this little area where if he
00:28:39.740
can siphon off black votes from Democrats, he pretty much puts President Trump into office. And I think
00:28:46.440
he's largely admitted that if that happens, that's okay with him. At least okay. Maybe better than okay.
00:28:53.800
But here's the thing. He's now putting himself in a position where he could ask for something.
00:29:02.660
Right? Imagine Kanye West saying, look, I'm on the ballot. I'm going to change the election.
00:29:10.500
If you'd like that not to happen, I want one thing. And then who knows what the one thing is? If it were me,
00:29:18.520
I'd ask for something about the school choice. I'd say, look, whoever gives me free competition and can
00:29:26.040
fix education for everybody who's poor, not just black people, because I think Kanye would be the
00:29:32.520
one person who would say, how about helping poor people rather than just black poor people? So I think
00:29:40.560
he would be a good one for that message. I imagined he would think of it that way. And although I can't
00:29:46.460
read his mind, I don't want to put it, I don't want to assume that I can imagine what's in the mind
00:29:51.200
of anybody, much less Kanye. Right? I mean, if you can imagine what was in his mind, then you would
00:29:59.560
be able to do what he could do. But since you and I can't do what he can do, let's assume we can't
00:30:05.440
read his mind. So let's get away from that. It'd be fascinating. I'd just love to see him be part of
00:30:13.480
the process. And I think it could be deeply, deeply important if he wants it to be.
00:30:21.060
Let's talk about Joe Biden. Joe Biden. Now, obviously, he's not a racist. I don't think
00:30:28.160
anybody really could make that case. But you can be insensitive, you can have a blind spot and you
00:30:34.720
could accidentally offend. And I think that's where he's at. So as you all know, he made the
00:30:43.140
statement that he thought that the Latin American was, what was the name he used to work? The Latin
00:30:50.380
American? Yeah, the Latino community, he said, was incredibly diverse. And then he said, quote,
00:30:56.720
unlike the black community. So he's imagining that the Latino community is diverse, but the black
00:31:04.100
community is not. And when he went on to try to clarify that, because of course, that caused a
00:31:09.420
backlash. He clarified that the Latino community, you know, it's not just Mexico, but it's, you know,
00:31:15.300
the South American country is Guatemala, et cetera. And that that's what he meant. To which I say,
00:31:23.520
Joe Biden, you know, Africa is not one country, right? In the same way that South America is,
00:31:32.040
it's not one country, which was your point. Mexico is not Guatemala. There, you know,
00:31:38.020
there's some differences. But you know, Africa wasn't one country. So and of course, the black
00:31:47.400
community, like every community is full of unique voices. So he's getting some pushback for that. I
00:31:53.340
don't think he meant any harm. But it's a great political, political attack. And I think it gets
00:32:00.100
more to his mental competence. I mean, the way I read this story is that he's not verbally capable,
00:32:09.860
which is different than having some kind of racial animus. I don't think he has that.
00:32:14.140
Portland. Portland has gone from, I don't know, scary, tragic, it's always tragic, especially people
00:32:28.160
getting hurt. But it's also kind of funny in a horrible way. I'm not proud of it, because I'm not,
00:32:37.840
I don't want to minimize the pain and suffering and the real, you know, the real hurt economically
00:32:44.220
and physically for the police as well as the protesters. So it's a real tragedy. But Ted Wheeler gets rid
00:32:53.780
of the feds. So the mayor succeeds in getting rid of the feds, which the story was, the mainstream media
00:33:00.180
was trying to tell you that the cause of the protests was that Trump had the feds there, guarding just, you know,
00:33:07.020
the federal buildings. And once they pulled out, didn't make a difference at all. Made no difference.
00:33:13.720
So now you can see that the mainstream story about it was the feds that were the problem,
00:33:18.780
complete fake news. But now the feds are gone. So if you didn't like it, you get to have whatever
00:33:26.000
is the opposite of that. That's what they have. So the mayor, who at one point actually joined in
00:33:30.860
with protesters to show that he felt sympathy or empathy for their cause, that didn't work out
00:33:37.340
well, because the protesters were not kind to him. But now he's saying this. I'm just going to read
00:33:45.480
his quote. So Ted Wheeler, mayor of Portland, he goes, don't think for a moment that you are,
00:33:51.560
if you're participating in this activity, meaning the protests, you are not being a, well, actually,
00:33:57.080
the, not just the protests, but the more violent part of the protests. You are not being a prop for
00:34:03.420
the reelection campaign of Donald Trump, because you absolutely are. You are creating the B-roll film
00:34:09.680
that will be used in ads nationally. Yes. To help Donald Trump during this campaign. Yes. If you don't
00:34:16.520
want to be part of that, then don't show up. Oh, well. Oh, well. And watching the Portland protests
00:34:25.300
turn into a campaign ad for Trump, which is exactly what happened. Not just approximately,
00:34:34.200
exactly what happened. It literally transformed into a campaign ad for the other guy. You can't,
00:34:45.020
that is just too perfect. It's just too perfect. So on one hand, tragic. On the other hand,
00:34:55.860
comedic. I guess that's all I need to say about that. I tweeted today that I asked people if they
00:35:07.620
thought that the teachers unions should pay reparations because they are the primary cause,
00:35:15.420
let's say cause of 80%, that would be my estimate, of systemic racism. Now, they're not the initial
00:35:23.280
cause. The initial cause, you know, you could argue back to slavery and then the ripple into the
00:35:29.320
future. But the ongoing cause, you know, the current day thing you could change, because we
00:35:35.740
can't go back to the past. You know, if we can't rewind history and fix anything in slavery, but we can
00:35:42.100
deal with what's today. Now, what's today is that the primary cause of every disparity, income
00:35:50.060
disparity and everything else opportunity would be the teachers unions. Now at this point, and I have
00:35:56.840
to admit, I'm very late to this argument, because the first time you hear this, doesn't it just sound
00:36:02.400
stupid? If you had never heard this argument before, and the first time you'd been introduced
00:36:08.680
used to it, was me saying, you know, the teachers unions are the cause of systemic racism. You'd say,
00:36:15.120
ah, I'm not connecting those dots. Aren't those like completely different things? Where are you going
00:36:22.400
here? But anybody who's dug into it even a little bit learns that the teachers unions are basically a
00:36:29.600
political organization who do a little bit of stuff for teachers, which gives them their power.
00:36:35.080
So they do do good work for teachers in the sense that teachers get good negotiating and union
00:36:41.360
type strength. That's all good. Don't want to change the fact that teachers have somebody who
00:36:47.920
can negotiate for them. Let's keep that part. But what you may not know is that the teachers unions
00:36:53.760
have a tremendous amount of money, because the teachers pay into that. And I thought that that money
00:37:00.360
went to mostly doing stuff for the teachers, wouldn't you think? But it turns out it's political.
00:37:07.540
They literally spend, depends on the union, because there are different unions, but they could spend
00:37:12.880
30 to 40, 50 percent of their entire budget fixing elections. In other words, putting money into,
00:37:22.640
you know, especially the local elections, where they have so much money, they can change who gets
00:37:28.580
elected. So the teachers unions extort the teachers, get this big pot of money, maybe half of it they spend
00:37:36.720
on union-y stuff that's good for teachers, but maybe the other half, and we're talking all about lots of
00:37:42.360
millions of dollars here, goes directly into political campaigns, political activism, and not even
00:37:48.500
directly related to teaching. Now, if you said to yourself, Scott, Scott, of course they're putting money
00:37:54.180
into political stuff, because every group has an interest in what laws get passed, etc. I'm not
00:38:00.600
talking about any of that. I'm talking about general Democrat policies for just unrelated to school.
00:38:09.860
Now, as long as the teachers unions have money, they can affect the political process. And as long as
00:38:17.560
they're affecting the political process, one of the things that they're also doing is guaranteeing that
00:38:22.120
they stay the way they are. And the way they are is no competition for teachers. So you don't want,
00:38:29.580
the union doesn't want the people that are protecting, the teachers, to have competition from another
00:38:34.900
school that might, you know, lower the bargaining position of the teachers. That part actually makes
00:38:39.580
sense. It makes perfect sense. But it's also just perfect sense for the teachers. It's not perfect
00:38:46.940
sense for the union. It's not perfect sense for the republic. It's not a free market situation.
00:38:54.980
And we know that competition and free markets are really the only solution to anything that doesn't
00:38:59.720
work. If something doesn't work, you've got to be able to offer an alternative. And that's what the
00:39:05.920
teachers unions prevent from happening. Because any politician who pushed for school choice is going
00:39:13.900
to get the full weight of millions of dollars of teachers union money pushed against them in the
00:39:19.440
next election. We'll get primaries and everything else. So I would say that if you fixed education,
00:39:25.820
you would do the most that could be done among the things that are actually practical. It's the most you
00:39:31.520
could do to fix the situation for the black community. Because good education gets you good income,
00:39:38.540
fixes everything. Better health care outcomes, fewer people in jail. And even if the police stop you,
00:39:46.700
they're going to say, oh, you know, I've had only good experiences. So it's basically the alpha
00:39:54.420
problem. And I'm going to modestly say that 80% of ongoing systemic racism comes directly from the
00:40:03.280
school unions. It's very direct. There's no indirect argument here. It's very direct. And maybe 1%
00:40:11.000
of the total problem in the black community is police abuse. Maybe 1%. Now, I'm not saying that,
00:40:19.220
you know, all police are good or that we shouldn't work on that. Seems like a pretty big problem,
00:40:24.080
especially if the problem of policing affects you mentally and emotionally. It's a big problem.
00:40:31.520
Like, I don't want to take away from how big that problem is. But as big as it is,
00:40:37.700
it's about 1% of your total problem in the first systemic racism. About 80% school unions is my
00:40:46.300
estimate. All right. Here's one of those fake news situations where the headline is opposite of the
00:40:54.100
story. And by the way, I'm going to get to the part where Peter Navarro name checked me on CNN
00:40:59.200
yesterday and changed my whole day. That's coming up next. But there's a story. It's one of those
00:41:07.220
Twitter things where they collect the story and then they put the headline on it. So here was the
00:41:12.200
headline that hydroxychloroquine is not effective, according to scientists. So what does not effective
00:41:21.240
mean? Well, that's pretty clear, right? Not effective means don't take it. All right. That's
00:41:28.380
completely clear. If a drug is not effective, do not take it under any conditions because there's only
00:41:36.400
a downside. But then you read the actual details that this headline alleges to summarize. And the
00:41:44.300
headlines are that it is unlikely to be effective. Unlikely to be effective is the opposite. Because
00:41:55.520
what would be unlikely to be effective? 40%? 40% chance? If there was a 40%, which would be less
00:42:04.480
likely than, you know, 60%. So if there was a 40% chance it would work, and it's completely safe, as
00:42:12.880
nothing's 100%, but as safe as a drug can be, and it's really cheap, under those specific conditions,
00:42:20.920
you would take it. So say that it's unlikely says you should take it, as long as the safety and the
00:42:31.480
costs are just, you know, dead simple, well known, not an issue. Right? So you can see the fake news
00:42:41.380
trying as hard as they can to turn, well, it might be worth a shot. Talk to your doctor. Now, obviously,
00:42:47.520
talking to your doctor has always got to be in there. But not effective is opposite of unlikely
00:42:53.200
to be effective in this situation. Journalists, do they know that? Would a journalist know that
00:43:01.280
they had created a headline that was literally opposite of the details of the story? I don't
00:43:06.620
know if they would. I don't know if they would, because they don't seem to work in terms of
00:43:11.440
probability. They seem to work in terms of, it's true or it's not true. All right. So after I got
00:43:19.160
off Periscope yesterday, some of you know this story. If you follow me on Locals, I gave you the
00:43:23.760
sort of behind the scenes. So yesterday, I'm just in my studio, right where you see me, and, you know,
00:43:32.960
I've been working, doing something else. A few hours had passed, and I thought to myself, you know,
00:43:37.680
I'm going to fire up my computer and see what the news is. Because you know me, I like to follow
00:43:42.460
the news. So I think, let's see what the news is. And I turned to my computer. I'm typing away and
00:43:48.680
pull up the news. And I'm the news. And I'm like, oh, I want to watch the news. I don't want to be
00:43:58.140
the news. Don't make me the news. And the news was this. So Aaron Burnett on CNN was in a testy
00:44:05.700
exchange with Peter Navarro, economics advisor to the White House, the president. And Navarro was
00:44:13.300
trying to make his case in the sort of risk management sort of sense. But, you know, TV is
00:44:19.240
very limiting, especially if the person you're with is talking over you. So neither of them could
00:44:24.420
quite say what they wanted to say. They were sort of on top of each other, and time was limited,
00:44:29.360
et cetera. So toward the end, Navarro said, and I will quote, so imagine me, imagine me just looking
00:44:41.660
at the news and seeing this. If you've never had this experience, it's just so trippy, because you
00:44:46.480
feel like the news should be separate from you. But then when you turn on the news, damn it, it's me.
00:44:51.120
I am the news today. And this is what Navarro said. He said, I reach out to all your viewers.
00:44:58.240
Scott Adams, you know Scott Adams, right? He's the guy who wrote the Dilbert cartoon. He did a
00:45:02.560
beautiful 10-minute video on Twitter, and the thesis of the video is that CNN might be killing
00:45:07.260
thousands because of the way they've treated that. So I would just ask, I'll let Scott Adams' video be
00:45:12.300
my defense on this. Now, if you thought that went over well,
00:45:17.720
you haven't been following things closely. So Erin Burnett says, with an angry look on her face,
00:45:28.420
can I just say something? I find that to be offensive, because he's a comic strip writer,
00:45:34.340
said Burnett. I just said that because I want to be clear. I just said that Dr. Fauci,
00:45:40.040
and then she said she wanted to hear from the experts. Now, of course, it took about five minutes
00:45:47.700
for the Daily Beast to create a story that says Navarro, you know, refers to Dilbert cartoonist
00:45:55.280
for hydroxychloroquine. Now, think of that headline, that the White House refers to the Dilbert cartoonist
00:46:04.020
for their argument about hydroxychloroquine. Not so good, right? But it's okay, because obviously,
00:46:12.140
an article about a video would have a link to the video. Well, I saw it's there today, but I don't
00:46:18.340
think it was there yesterday. Maybe I missed it. In The Hill, they treated it a similar way and didn't
00:46:24.140
link to the video. So not only did a story about my video not talk about the video at all, but it
00:46:34.860
didn't link to it in most of the hit pieces that came out immediately after. Now, what does that
00:46:41.500
mean? Can you imagine, can you even imagine that if I had said something in that 10-minute video that
00:46:48.520
was crazy, is there any chance that wouldn't be a headline? No. Because once the White House says,
00:46:55.840
look at this, it sort of ties them to my presentation. You don't think that CNN and
00:47:04.400
the others who came out to mock us, you don't think that they would like to mock what was in
00:47:08.960
that video? Don't you think that they'd like to say, and then he said, the craziest thing,
00:47:15.400
and here it is. Here's the clip of Adams being stupid. No. No. They all treated it as if I was
00:47:23.060
giving medical advice. Do you think I gave medical advice? Well, I would say that I gave risk management
00:47:31.640
advice and that I broke down the arguments for and against hydroxychloroquine with respect to
00:47:37.740
experts on both sides. So I would say that what I did is what Aaron Burnett does. Right? I'm not a
00:47:46.880
doctor. I'm simply letting the public know what doctors are saying. That's what Aaron Burnett was
00:47:53.320
doing. She and I were doing the same job. The only difference is I did it way, way better, if you
00:48:00.020
saw the video. Now, Navarro, his background is economics, and that's his job. My background is
00:48:10.180
also economics. I've got an economics degree and MBA, and I did financial analysis and prediction
00:48:18.280
models and stuff for 16 years. At least I had a 16-year career. Much of that was that stuff.
00:48:24.420
So I'm not only completely educated in the right way to look at this stuff, but I have vast experience
00:48:32.240
in it. I mean, a lot of experience at looking at stuff like this and breaking it down to what the
00:48:37.320
argument is, and then just looking at the risk management. So what I presented, of course, was not
00:48:42.180
medical. It was just framing the argument and showing it as a cost-benefit in which you should
00:48:48.300
look at all the costs and all the benefits and do a risk analysis, a risk management analysis. But
00:48:54.180
was there anybody who covered the story who said the White House economist wanted you to see
00:49:02.660
something written by somebody who has a background in exactly this stuff that breaks down the argument?
00:49:09.420
There's no medical recommendation. It just breaks down the argument in a way that you can see what
00:49:15.000
the point is. Did anybody report that? No. No. But, and I looked at my traffic and impressions,
00:49:25.540
and it really looked like there was something happening there. I'm not going to make that
00:49:32.740
accusation yet, but it did look like there was a lot of suppression. Now, here's what Navarro did
00:49:40.660
completely right. And I've taught you this so many times. One of the keys, well, 50% of persuasion,
00:49:49.300
I like to say, is getting your attention. You can't persuade somebody if they're paying attention to
00:49:54.080
something else. I mean, I suppose you could cleverly, but it's, you know, not much of a thing.
00:49:59.280
Now, and I've taught you that the way President Trump gets attention is what I call a little bit
00:50:07.500
wrong. So if you say something that you want people to focus on, but you insert into it something that
00:50:13.700
is unambiguously going to make people say, oh, that's wrong. I got a question about that part.
00:50:18.900
Then that's a home run. Trump does it over and over and over again, which is why you can't turn away.
00:50:24.480
Everything he says, you say, I know what you're trying to make me think about,
00:50:30.300
but why does that one thing bother me so much? It just feels non-standard. I got to look into this.
00:50:36.200
And you've seen other people who are good at persuading do the same thing. You see me do it.
00:50:41.340
Well, you saw, you just watched it today with the Black Lives Matter question about the teacher's
00:50:48.940
unions. If you take the teacher's unions and just say, oh, they're doing a bad job,
00:50:53.560
people might pay attention or might not. But if I add to that, they should pay reparations.
00:50:59.360
What's that do to your brain? The reparations part is the part you're supposed to say,
00:51:03.880
that doesn't sound right. Right. And that's what binds you to the topic. It's the thing that I added
00:51:10.900
that doesn't fit, that makes it perfect. Now that's intentional. In my case, I designed my
00:51:17.740
message to add the little bit of wrong right into it. And you saw that. That's very intentional,
00:51:22.460
very designed. You see Mike Cernovich do this routinely. People who know how to persuade
00:51:29.520
will put a little bit of provocation into it to just lock your attention onto it.
00:51:34.860
When Navarro pointed to my video, it was not only a good summation of his argument. So that part is
00:51:44.600
just good sense. But because I'm the Dilbert cartoonist, you can't look away. You can't look
00:51:51.600
away because that part's just wrong. Yeah. Excuse me. Why is a comic writer? I guess that's what
00:51:58.960
Aaron Burnett called me. Why is a comic writer talking about U.S. policy and medicine? How does
00:52:07.120
that make sense? So it was that bit of wrongness, which guaranteed it would be stories on multiple
00:52:12.540
fronts. But the fake news thwarted both of us. It was an excellent, excellent play. Because what
00:52:20.540
should have happened is they should have drawn attention to the video. People would go in with
00:52:25.380
all the wrong impressions about maybe I said something medical. They would look at it and
00:52:29.340
they'd say, oh, this is actually just a pretty clean breakdown of risk management. That's all
00:52:34.040
it was. And it should have been this perfect moment where everybody came in mad and found
00:52:40.060
out, oh, I was mad at the wrong thing. This is just an argument. But instead, the fake news
00:52:47.360
suppressed it and gave headlines that are completely misleading. Now, I've talked before about the
00:52:52.600
the Gell-Mann effect. The Gell-Mann effect is, he was a physicist who noticed that when stories
00:53:04.720
about physics were there, he knew they were wrong. But if there was a story on some topic
00:53:09.320
he was not already an expert on, he thought, well, it's probably right. Which, of course,
00:53:13.900
doesn't make sense. Statistically, probably the news in general is wrong, which would make
00:53:19.700
more sense. Now, I experience this daily, right? Because there's always some story or report
00:53:26.580
about me. And I know if it's true or false. But you don't. You don't. So when other people
00:53:34.360
were watching the story, they probably believed the headline. They probably believed that there
00:53:39.220
was a crazy cartoonist who was making medical advice. Probably medical advice. So anyway,
00:53:46.920
if I had the ability to be embarrassed, maybe I would be. But I just don't have it. And then
00:53:53.580
here's the best part. So it's been a full day now, or close to a full day. And not one critic
00:54:01.340
who watched the video had a complaint with it. Do you hear that? Nobody who watched the video,
00:54:10.500
nobody. So it was Peter Navarro pointing to my video. And while his arguments were, you know,
00:54:17.720
they were attacking like crazy. And he says, well, you know, look at this video as like summation
00:54:22.440
of the argument, nobody criticized it. Not a single point, not a sweeping generalization,
00:54:31.300
nothing. Because there's nothing in it to criticize. It doesn't really take a stand,
00:54:37.960
which is much to disagree with. It just clarifies the existing risk management decision.
00:54:43.640
And then in the article in the, the, I think it was the Daily Beast. And they were talking about
00:54:49.700
Navarro when he, and they're, they're quoting him. And this is an actual sentence about a US official
00:54:58.400
in this country. And they're quoting him and they say, quote, this is Peter Navarro. Let me tell you
00:55:06.040
why I got involved with this. He barked. He barked. What kind of writing is that?
00:55:12.700
I'm pretty sure he talked. Let me say what this should have said. Let me tell you why I got
00:55:18.440
involved with this. He said, how about he said, because that's what happened. I watched it. It was,
00:55:26.620
it was, there were words that came out of his mouth. He talked, he said it. Did he bark it?
00:55:35.680
So words like barked and botched and stuff, or how the fake news takes no news at all and turns it
00:55:42.260
into something. So I might, I was thinking about doing a parody fake news article in which you just
00:55:50.840
use insults instead of news. Because if you think about it, the fake news mostly replaces the actual
00:55:58.640
news with personal insults. Think about it. Once you see that filter, that news has been replaced with
00:56:06.240
insults. It's hard to unsee it because that's basically what happened. Insults get clicks.
00:56:12.880
News? Maybe not. All right. Somebody says, Ezra Pound botched civilization. Yeah. Botched and barked.
00:56:24.240
They're kind of similar. They're just such powerful words. All right. Yeah. I need to do a robot
00:56:31.960
read some news again. I got to get back to that. He mansplained it. Yeah. Yeah. Mansplained
00:56:39.600
is another one. You can make something look dumb just by saying instead of he explained
00:56:43.840
it, well, he mansplained it. It's like, oh, that guy. All right. Slaughter beaters at a hundred
00:56:53.800
percent. At the current time, it is hard to imagine any outcome except Trump winning. I mean,
00:57:01.940
I have to admit, in other elections, I could imagine the future with a, you know, a president
00:57:09.900
from other, either party, whichever candidate. But I don't even have a, like a vision of what
00:57:16.660
a president Biden would look like. It's just like this empty space. I literally can't even
00:57:21.600
imagine it. So that might be influencing my opinion. But I saw a teaser from Rasmussen this
00:57:29.740
morning that the president's approval was up. I think the president's approval is going
00:57:34.980
to continue improving. I think the economy will improve. I think people will just sort
00:57:41.040
of get acclimated to whatever the virus situation is. And I think that Biden will continue to
00:57:47.800
decline. I heard there's a rumor that Biden has selected his vice president, but we'll wait
00:57:54.820
to hear about that. Now, if it's Kamala Harris, I'll probably get on Periscope as soon as I
00:58:04.300
see the announcement. If it's not, well, I'll wait until the regular Periscope and I'll say,
00:58:10.300
well, got that one wrong. But if it's Kamala Harris, you're going to have to give it up for
00:58:16.340
me. All right. You're going to have to give it up because I called her as the head of the
00:58:21.480
ticket, as the nominee in 2018 and stuck with it. If she becomes the vice president with the
00:58:29.140
Biden administration, the candidate, she's effectively the top candidate. And that would
00:58:36.940
be my best prediction ever. All right. People are still saying it's Michelle Obama and still
00:58:44.560
saying it's going to be Hillary Clinton. Let me bet everything I have that's not Michelle
00:58:49.720
Obama. I will bet my entire net worth and I will borrow. I will borrow money just to bet
00:58:56.680
it's not going to be Michelle. You know, she's the most popular woman in the world, I understand,
00:59:02.780
but I believe she has zero intentions for that kind of a life. All right. That's all I need.