Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1286 Scott Adams： Science as Propaganda, Democrats Turn on Each Other, How to Apologize to Chris Harrison

00:00:00.000 Hey, everybody. Come on in. Come on in. It's time for coffee with Scott Adams. The best

00:00:09.060 time of the day. Every single time. Come on in. Come on in. We got stuff to talk about.

00:00:14.920 Fun stuff. Good stuff. Really incredible stuff. I hope you have heat. Omar, good to

00:00:22.480 see you. Thanks for inviting people. Let's talk about all the news. But before we do

00:00:30.640 that, let's get ready. Okay. You know how to get ready. All you need is a cup or a mug or

00:00:36.320 a glass, a tank or chalice, a stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it

00:00:40.220 with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure,

00:00:45.520 the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, except maybe your

00:00:50.180 vaccination. It's called the simultaneous sip. It's famous all over the world, and you're

00:00:55.040 about to enjoy it. Go. You know, as good as this is, it's still underrated. Yeah, still

00:01:09.100 is. I don't know if there's any way to express how good that is. Well, let's see if we can

00:01:17.060 do a little bit better on YouTube today. Those of you watching on YouTube today may have said

00:01:22.880 to yourself, hey, Scott, I was watching you yesterday in a live stream, and suddenly your

00:01:29.020 live stream froze up. Was it because of the content? Don't know. So I don't believe I got

00:01:38.620 any kind of a written notice from YouTube. But let me see if I did. I only read my email

00:01:45.720 about once every few days. Maybe I should check my email, see if YouTube was warning me.

00:01:54.880 YouTube. Let's see. Nope, I don't see any messages from YouTube. Looks like it wasn't anything

00:02:04.840 about that. So, was it because I was talking about the Rasmussen poll, in which I used words

00:02:14.300 to describe something that Democrats call the big lie? Now, I believe I can refer to the big

00:02:25.360 lie, because that's approved speech. But I can't refer to what the big lie refers to, because

00:02:34.460 I think if I say that, the algorithm might be not going to be offline. But here's a question

00:02:42.000 for you, and I would like to issue a challenge to those of you who are really good at looking

00:02:49.440 for data. And the challenge goes like this. I want you to find for me the first use by, let's say,

00:02:58.920 somebody who's at least a blue check. A blue check Twitter use, or it could be an article,

00:03:06.820 or it could be something you saw on TV. But let's say a major, something on a major network,

00:03:12.460 or from a blue check person, the first person who used the phrase, the big lie,

00:03:18.560 when referring to the election allegations. All right? So see if you can find the first use of

00:03:27.660 that. Here's why I'm mentioning it. All right, there's a, there's a, what would I call it? I'm not

00:03:37.920 going to call it a conspiracy theory yet, because that would, that would imply that somebody believes

00:03:44.180 it, I suppose. But let's say there's a suggestion that the Democrats have been pulling from a, a source.

00:03:54.340 Let's say that they found a source of power that they used successfully in the past year, and especially

00:04:04.880 successfully in the election. Now, I'm not saying this is true. So this is not me saying, oh, this is a

00:04:14.480 true thing. This is me saying, I've heard people say this is true. Just putting it out there. I'll

00:04:23.720 probably be kicked off of you. There is a really good, well, how did you get ahead of me? How did

00:04:31.700 somebody get ahead of me in the comments? I thought I was going to surprise you all with this, and

00:04:36.740 somebody in the comments is already at the end point. So let me just skip to the end. It has been

00:04:43.260 said, and I can't confirm this, but it has been said that if you read the right Nazi propaganda

00:04:50.740 stuff, if you read how the Nazis brainwashed their own public, you will learn their techniques 0.84

00:05:01.400 and its really strong technique. Now, I don't know how much if any of that would be in Mein Kampf. I

00:05:09.940 haven't read it. I don't plan to. Now, as a hypnotist, as a trained hypnotist who has much

00:05:16.000 interest in all things persuasion, when I heard that there is this secret, powerful source of

00:05:22.640 persuasive technique, I said to myself, I'd sure like to know what that is. And then the smarter part

00:05:29.540 of my brain says, don't go looking for that, Scott. Don't you go looking for that. Because

00:05:35.840 sooner or later, somebody is going to say, have you ever read Mein Kampf? And I don't want to answer

00:05:43.000 yes. And I don't want to lie. So I'm not going to read it. All right. So that's not going to be on my

00:05:50.080 reading list. But it has been said by people that I believe are quite smart and well informed,

00:05:56.280 that if one were to go down that dark path, they would find some persuasion techniques that are

00:06:04.140 solid gold. And of course, obviously work. Now, when I hear this phrase, the big lie,

00:06:13.300 which obviously has its origins from a quote from Nazi Germany, that if you tell a lie that's big enough,

00:06:20.360 a big enough lie, it's easier to sell it than a small lie. And so we see the Democrats referring to

00:06:31.540 any allegations about the election as the big lie. So they've sort of taken this imagery from the Nazis

00:06:39.500 and applied it. But that's not what I'm talking about exactly. I mean, that specific example is not

00:06:45.780 necessarily an example of specific, you know, Nazi propaganda. Then there's also the

00:06:52.940 the suggestion that the Nazis didn't invent it, that they actually got it from America,

00:07:00.720 from our advertising technology, Bernays, famous, famous guy in that field. So I don't know if any of

00:07:10.140 that's true. So I don't know if, you know, if we if our marketing came from the Nazis or the Nazis

00:07:16.380 got their technique from from our marketing. I don't know. So but there are suggestions that that's

00:07:25.380 out there. And the suggestion is that the the Democrats powered up by studying these techniques.

00:07:34.240 Now, I don't know if that's true. And I'm not going to say that I've seen any evidence of it

00:07:40.780 firsthand. But I want you to just research this one question. Who first, who was prominent,

00:07:48.480 you know, prominent person, who first used the phrase the big lie, when talking about the 2020

00:07:55.120 election? Find that out for me. Because you might find out where this stuff is coming from.

00:08:01.380 Now, the person who said it first, isn't going to be the person who necessarily came up with the

00:08:06.920 idea. But you might find out who is talking to the people coming up with the ideas. So it might tell

00:08:14.380 you something. Just let me know if you find out where that came from. Because this big lie thing

00:08:18.940 is suggestive of somebody at a higher level of persuasive talent than the average politician just

00:08:28.020 throwing out insults to the other team. It has a feel. This big lie thing, because it caught on and

00:08:35.900 everybody seemed to be using it. It has a feel of a professional. Not Cialdini. And the reason I say 0.98

00:08:44.280 that is because as far as I know, all, you know, all information that I have access to is that

00:08:51.820 Cialdini is not a bad person. And whoever came up with this, whoever came up with this big lie thing,

00:09:00.900 there's some bad people back there behind the curtain. And I don't think he's one of them.

00:09:06.700 So when I would be surprised, amazed, really, if he had anything to do with this.

00:09:11.820 So let me support him that way. All right. Let me summarize my feeling about the impeachment

00:09:22.940 decision, the acquittal. So first of all, I'm going to say that Trump is somebody who was

00:09:30.960 acquitted twice of impeachment charges. Some will say he was impeached twice, and technically that is

00:09:39.800 correct. But it's also true that he was acquitted both times. So when I talk about it, just to

00:09:45.420 annoy people, I'm going to focus on the acquitted part. She says, come on, man, finish. Well, I did

00:09:54.860 finish. So the theory there is that there might be some Nazi technology that the Democrats are using,

00:10:01.760 but just figuring out where that big lie started might give you a hint as to whether or not

00:10:06.920 they're using any super persuasion.

00:10:12.720 If I had been in the Senate, I would have voted to convict Trump on this latest impeachment.

00:10:20.440 So let me say that as clearly as possible. If I were in the Senate, Republican or Democrat,

00:10:26.600 I would have voted to convict Trump for impeachment. But I would be completely ignoring the charge.

00:10:34.240 And I would be completely ignoring the Constitution to do it. And do you know why I would do that?

00:10:42.060 I would feel he didn't do enough to save me. It would just be personal. So if I were voting,

00:10:48.720 I would just vote personally. I would say, I don't think he did enough to save me.

00:10:53.340 It's personal. I wouldn't even care about the Constitution. I'm being honest. I wouldn't even

00:10:58.620 care about the Constitution. I wouldn't care about the president. I wouldn't care if it looked like

00:11:04.360 a lie. I wouldn't care about fucking anything. If I had been in the Senate and my president didn't do 1.00

00:11:12.000 enough to stop it after it started, forget about whether he incited it. I wouldn't convict him for

00:11:19.000 inciting. Because I don't think that's real. And I just wouldn't have. But if I didn't think he did

00:11:27.580 enough to save my fucking life, oh yeah, I'd vote to convict. I wouldn't even care what the 0.99

00:11:33.400 Constitution said. I'm being honest. I would ignore the Constitution. I would ignore my duty as an elected

00:11:41.640 official. And I would have voted to convict his ass for not doing enough to save me. Period. 0.99

00:11:49.820 Now, I'm not in the Congress, right? I'm not in the Senate. So I don't have to vote that way. And I

00:11:55.560 have the comfort of having some distance. I don't have any PTSD. It's not personal to me. And under

00:12:02.700 those conditions, I actually agree with Mitch McConnell's vote. I agree that it probably is pretty

00:12:08.740 important to at least try to establish maybe a mini precedent that the Senate doesn't have 0.98

00:12:17.180 jurisdiction over people out of office. Now, the Senate voted that they do have jurisdiction.

00:12:24.260 Do you like a situation where the Senate can vote to give themselves constitutional powers? Because it

00:12:30.360 feels like that's what happened, if that's not technically what happened. But doesn't it feel like

00:12:35.100 the Senate just voted itself some new constitutional powers? By voting that it was constitutional to

00:12:43.360 impeach a president who's left office? I think McConnell was the adult in the room, where he said

00:12:50.240 everything that needed to be said about the situation. He expressed his personal disgust, which I would have

00:12:56.660 shared completely had I been in the building and been in the Senate. Agree completely with Mitch McConnell

00:13:03.000 on that topic. But I like the fact that he made his final decision based on a point of systems

00:13:14.140 integrity, really. Systems integrity. You don't want to be, even if it's legal, you don't want to be

00:13:23.940 impeaching people out of office. It's just not good for the future. So good for him. Now, the other,

00:13:30.500 the most interesting thing that's happening as a big trend is that the news business has run out of

00:13:37.000 targets because Trump is not there and he is the best target for them. So they're starting to turn

00:13:43.460 on Democrats because the Democrats have power and they report about power and to do their job,

00:13:50.700 they're going to be, let's say, appropriately aggressive about challenging power. And we're seeing

00:13:58.200 that happen in some interesting ways, but it's, it's still kind of polite. There, there's a level

00:14:05.220 of politeness now, even though they're going after some Democrat targets. So here's some examples.

00:14:11.900 Jake Tapper, to his credit, has this weekend, he went really hard at Governor Cuomo, not only for the

00:14:21.560 nursing, nursing home decision to release infected people to nursing homes, but also for the cover up.

00:14:28.200 of the number of people who were there. And it didn't look like, to me, it didn't look like he

00:14:33.460 was pulling any punches. It looked like, you know, at least Jake Tapper went hard after Governor Cuomo.

00:14:41.560 And I feel it was entirely appropriate. So I'm going to call it out when, when something that makes

00:14:49.300 sense happens. But he also went hard, Jake Tapper did, at the head of the CDC on school openings.

00:14:55.840 If you haven't seen that clip of Jake Tapper interviewing the head of the new director of the

00:15:01.860 CDC, you have to watch that. It's really interesting. Because there are two things. Number one, it's clear

00:15:11.760 that she wasn't answering the question in a coherent way. And that's her biggest job. If you're the

00:15:18.820 director of the CDC, you could be right, or you could be wrong. But you need to be clear. All right?

00:15:27.800 You need to, you need to communicate in a way that people understand what it is you're saying.

00:15:34.960 At least understand what you're telling us. Could be wrong, could be right. We get that, right?

00:15:39.660 People aren't right every time. But man, she was a, she was a shipwreck. And watching Jake Tapper

00:15:49.320 press her, and let me give CNN credit for this. It felt like they could have cut that,

00:15:57.020 they could have cut that short. Because he let her talk for a long time, not answering the question.

00:16:03.780 And it looked like maybe the producers probably were whispering in his ear, just stay on this. Like,

00:16:11.280 like, don't let this go. And he just stayed on it. And watching, watching it live, or, you know,

00:16:17.180 it was live when it happened, but recorded when I saw it. It was really interesting to watch him press

00:16:23.060 her. Now, what the problem was that she was saying that he was pressing her to be true to the statement

00:16:29.220 that they would follow science. Now, you know what the trap is, right? There's a trap. When you

00:16:36.780 become the party that says we're going to follow science, you just painted yourself in the fucking 1.00

00:16:41.720 corner. Because people don't agree what science is. And guaranteed, there will be times when your 0.99

00:16:48.880 politics make you take a decision that doesn't look like science. So the Democrats have painted

00:16:55.040 themselves in a very bad corner. And Jake Tapper just cornered the director of the CDC and just

00:17:02.780 spanked her for like five minutes. And the problem was that she couldn't explain how we could use 0.98

00:17:10.420 science to reopen the schools. So it used to be, yes, Fauci and others were saying reopen the schools.

00:17:17.160 And now that's morphed into reopen the schools after the stimulus thing gets passed. And then maybe they

00:17:24.520 can buy enough mitigating stuff like masks and shields and stuff that maybe someday under the

00:17:30.800 right conditions. And also if the infection rate got down to a low enough level, if all of this

00:17:36.320 happens, then we can reopen schools. And Jake, to his credit, was looking for a little more clarity

00:17:45.340 than that because he's saying, but we probably can't do that stuff effectively. I'm doing a bad job of

00:17:52.360 paraphrasing. But the effective pushback was, yeah, but you said we could open schools, science says,

00:18:00.640 but now you're saying that the way to do it is actually functionally impossible. So are you saying

00:18:06.600 open schools? Or are you saying we can't really do it because we can't get there to there from here?

00:18:12.660 There are too many requirements to be met. It just can't happen, at least within the time that we

00:18:17.000 wanted to. And watching him hammer her was fun. But I have to say, it looked a lot more polite than

00:18:24.220 it would have been in the Trump administration, I think. I think that the CDC director would have

00:18:30.940 been annihilated if she'd been in the Trump administration. As it was, Jake was just treating

00:18:38.600 her like she was being obtuse or intentionally wasn't being useful. And that came across. And I

00:18:47.840 think he was right about that. All right. So here's what I tweeted this morning. And it's probably the

00:18:55.040 most important thing you need to know. Nobody is following the science. And the reason that nobody is

00:19:01.620 following the science, even though some people say they are, is that it's not a thing.

00:19:06.420 Following the science is like saying, well, today I'm going to saddle up my unicorn and go for a ride

00:19:16.240 on my flying unicorn. It's something you can say, but you can't do it. You can't do it because there's

00:19:25.360 no unicorn that flies. Likewise, you have no access to science. You don't. When you talk about science,

00:19:35.860 have you done, did you do the study? Were you there? No. The only thing you have is that somebody

00:19:43.360 wrote up what happened when you weren't there. And then somebody else read what somebody else wrote

00:19:49.280 about something. And then they interpreted it and put their spin on what that means. And then you heard

00:19:58.280 it. And then your brain interpreted it again, probably wrong. You are so many levels away from

00:20:07.140 science. Is that like three entire levels away from science? So to say that you follow the science

00:20:13.440 is a lot like saying you ride a flying unicorn. You can't. All you can do is listen to what people who read

00:20:22.780 something written by scientists said who don't know how to interpret it necessarily, who don't know if those

00:20:29.400 scientists were paid, who don't know if that study was going to be repeatable and something that lives or

00:20:36.480 something that dies. What percentage confidence should you put on a new study that says, let's say, let's say

00:20:45.540 tomorrow a new study comes out and real scientists review it. It's peer reviewed. It's in a publication

00:20:52.480 and it says that eating mashed potatoes will protect you from coronavirus. Now, it doesn't matter what it

00:21:00.440 says. Just say there's a new study. What percentage odds would you put on the new study that it ends up

00:21:08.200 being true? You know, it takes more studies and you have to repeat it. It takes a long time to know if

00:21:13.920 something's true. But if you hear the first study, mashed potatoes helps you cure coronavirus. What

00:21:21.240 percentage confidence should you put on that? Zero. Zero. If you don't know that you should put

00:21:31.300 zero confidence on that and you think you're following science, you're not. Because if you put

00:21:39.040 more than zero confidence on that, you don't understand science. Now, here's the best way to

00:21:46.380 look at a new study that makes a claim. The most productive way to look at it is that that study

00:21:53.360 has entered into the set of possible explanations, a new possibility. So if a study says something's

00:22:02.360 true according to the study, your interpretation as a citizen should be, that's one more thing that

00:22:10.640 could be true. It's now in the set of things you should consider. But the odds of it being true

00:22:18.680 are just small, right? That's the way new studies work. You should put very low confidence in them.

00:22:26.160 Now, unfortunately, if those studies agree with what you want to be true, like every time I see a vitamin D

00:22:31.520 study that suggests it's going to help with coronavirus, I want to believe that because

00:22:36.880 I had said early on that I thought it would be true. So since it agrees with what I want to be true,

00:22:42.620 I'm like, I'm going to believe those studies. But then you look into them a little bit and the

00:22:46.800 vitamin D that they're talking about is not the kind you can buy over the counter. It's not even the

00:22:51.500 kind you can get from being in the sun. It's like some special, you know, activated kind of vitamin D.

00:22:57.280 I don't even understand the details, which is my point. What could be easier than this question?

00:23:05.540 Science says vitamin D helps against coronavirus. You could understand that, right? Did a bunch of

00:23:15.620 studies. We found that the vitamin D is low in people who die from coronavirus on average.

00:23:21.820 Therefore, what? We can't even interpret that correctly. Because most of the people would say,

00:23:29.800 oh, you just proved that taking more vitamin D will help with my coronavirus. And nothing like that

00:23:36.620 happened. Here's what was proven. There's a correlation. But you don't know which way it goes.

00:23:44.000 It could be that people are sickly in general have low vitamin D. So of course they're the ones dying.

00:23:49.660 It could be that the people were saved by vitamin D, you know, in the studies where they gave them

00:23:55.460 vitamin D once they had symptoms. And you can see that, you know, this group didn't progress

00:24:01.420 to get sick. And then you say, great, I'll go to the store, I'll buy some vitamin D, I'll go in the sun

00:24:07.380 and I'll be good. But you have misinterpreted what they meant by vitamin D, because that's not the

00:24:13.700 vitamin D you can buy. It's the activated stuff. Now, is what I'm saying true? When I say that the

00:24:22.880 studies say it's regular, that when they mention vitamin D, they don't mean the kind you can buy

00:24:27.640 over the counter. It's like the special hospital version of activated vitamin D, whatever that is.

00:24:33.540 Is anything I said now true? How the hell would you know?

00:24:37.740 How would you know? Am I a scientist? Did I do a study on vitamin D? What you should believe about

00:24:46.860 what anything I just said about vitamin D is zero, zero credibility. That's what you should put on

00:24:54.840 what I just said. The only thing you should take away from it is, let's put vitamin D into the set of

00:25:01.620 things which might be important. That's about it. That's about all you can say. You can't say it

00:25:08.160 works. You can't say that taking vitamin D will help you. You can't say any of those things. And if you

00:25:14.260 thought that you acquired any sense of certainty by listening to me, I hope you didn't, because you

00:25:20.800 shouldn't. So when we talk about the news, think about the people who, I'm sorry, when we think about

00:25:28.680 science, think about the people who tell you what the science is. So the same organizations and groups

00:25:36.560 of people who tell you what the science says, they interpret for you the science, brought you the

00:25:42.780 Russia collusion hoax. They brought you the president says you should drink bleach for coronavirus hoax.

00:25:49.880 They brought you the fine people hoax, the Covington kid hoax. Do I have to go on? I could just list

00:25:57.000 hoaxes all day long. And then I could list things that they said wrong, that they corrected. For

00:26:03.140 example, the New York Times is correcting the story that one of the capital assault rioter people killed

00:26:12.120 a law enforcement guy by hitting him with a fire extinguisher. So that was the actual news.

00:26:19.480 Yeah, Officer Sicknick, I think. And so that was the news and the paper of record for how long?

00:26:27.940 And now the news is, well, none of that happened. None of that happened. This is the same news that

00:26:35.280 reported that this was a coup attempt on January 6, or an insurrection. Nothing like that happened.

00:26:43.040 But it was in the news. I mean, it was certainly a riot, and it was bad, and it was bad in all the

00:26:49.220 ways that, you know, violence and illegal activities are bad. But it wasn't a coup. They weren't going to

00:26:55.600 haul the United States, because they captured a room, right? So if the science that you have access to is

00:27:04.360 filtered through the least credible organization in the world, well, no, the least credible organization,

00:27:12.860 no, maybe the world. I'll put that out there, because I've got another point about that.

00:27:17.920 You're literally getting it from professional liars. And that's what we're believing. Hey,

00:27:23.740 let's trust the science, as interpreted by professional liars, with a gigantically long track record of serial

00:27:31.800 hoaxing. So I've started to think that anybody who says follow the science is operating at a low level of

00:27:43.020 awareness. Doesn't mean they're dumb. Doesn't mean they're dumb. Doesn't mean that their IQ is low. Doesn't even 0.83

00:27:49.280 mean that they're not well informed. It's just a low level of awareness. If you're not aware that people don't have

00:27:56.960 access to science, that's a pretty low level of awareness. A higher level is that you could have

00:28:03.820 all the access you wanted. It wouldn't make any difference, because you can't understand the

00:28:08.240 papers. And it's being interpreted by other people that will influence you. All right.

00:28:14.640 Now, speaking of science, now the CDC says that more than 38 million Americans have received their

00:28:21.520 first dose of the vaccine. That's what, a little over 10% of the country has the first dose. So

00:28:29.580 somewhere between 5 and 10% of the country probably is vaccinated, which honestly feels pathetic. 0.87

00:28:37.860 Doesn't it? It honestly feels pathetic. Now, I think the Biden administration maybe takes a little 0.98

00:28:45.020 responsibility because they're new. But I'd say that's on the Trump administration, that we don't

00:28:51.700 have enough of it. So when we decided, was it impossible to make more of it that quickly? Maybe

00:28:59.420 this is just the most you could make. So it could be that we shouldn't be blaming any administration.

00:29:06.920 Maybe it's just hard. And everybody was trying as hard as they could. And that's just all you could do.

00:29:11.320 Um, but here's what else the CDC says, at least one person from it, quote, it's what we're doing,

00:29:20.100 right, staying apart, wearing masks. Um, so the, the point was that the infection rate has dropped

00:29:25.760 considerably. So infection rates have dropped a lot recently. Does that make any sense to you?

00:29:33.580 Why would infection rates drop a lot when vaccinations are not really even about infections?

00:29:41.320 Well, a lot of people thought it was maybe the vaccinations were already starting to work.

00:29:47.940 But the rate of infections dropping was way too big for the infection for the few amount of

00:29:53.040 vaccinations relative to the population. It didn't really make sense. So now they're saying that the

00:29:59.580 reason that we're dramatically lowering infections is that people are doing a better job of staying

00:30:06.140 apart and wearing masks and not traveling and not mixing with others indoors, says Dr. Tom Frieden,

00:30:13.020 former director of the, oh, former director of the CDC. So it's not the CDC, it's the former director.

00:30:19.260 Now that's, that's science, right? So did you just learn some science? And now an official person

00:30:27.480 just gave you some science. So do you, do you buy it? This isn't science. This is people talking

00:30:36.740 about science and speculating and guessing, blah, blah, blah. But, uh, here's what's obviously wrong

00:30:45.580 with this. In the comments, in the comments, answer this. Your personal observation, forget about the

00:30:53.880 rest of the world, just talking about your friends and family, your coworkers, people in your immediate

00:30:59.280 vicinity. Are they doing better or worse lately? Let's say the last month, better or worse as social

00:31:08.700 distancing and masking. So in your comments, just say better or worse. Are people doing better or worse

00:31:15.880 lately in social distancing? I'm going to vote worse. That's my experience, that people are, uh, socially

00:31:26.340 distancing less, not more. So I'm looking at your comments now as they're starting to come in. I'm

00:31:32.840 saying, uh, I'll just read them. Same, worse, worse, better. Let's see, lots of them going by. Same, worse,

00:31:41.020 worse, worse, no change, worse, worse, uh, same, same, same, better, uh, exactly the same, worse,

00:31:51.740 same, worse by far, no change, definitely worse, worse, worse, worse. All right. So the, it looks like

00:31:58.840 the impression, uh, on average, people are different, but on average, it looks like our observations and

00:32:06.720 keep in mind, we're people from all over the country and many cases all over the world.

00:32:13.200 I don't see better masking. I don't see better, not at all. So this is our science, right? Here's a guy

00:32:23.580 who is Dr. Tom Frieden. He was a former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

00:32:29.260 So that's science, right? But it doesn't match your observation. So what are you going to believe?

00:32:39.660 Doesn't this sound a little political? Or maybe it's about keeping you masked? Does this sound like

00:32:46.000 science? Or does this sound like propaganda? It's propaganda, isn't it? Because this is somebody who,

00:32:53.640 let's just say, uh, has good intentions. Because I do think everybody involved in the coronavirus

00:32:59.120 stuff. There's nobody who has bad intentions, unless China does. But, you know, there's nobody

00:33:05.480 working on this who has bad intentions. They're trying to help. But is he trying to give you science?

00:33:13.340 Or is he trying to help? Because sometimes they're different. If he had told you the science,

00:33:20.020 maybe you wouldn't behave the way that is best for you. So it looks like he may be trying to get

00:33:25.740 people to behave a certain way. And that's not science. That's politics, persuasion, opinion. Yeah.

00:33:36.260 So, all right. Benjamin Weingarten tweeted this. And this is like such a big point. It's like a small

00:33:47.880 tweet. It will, you'll miss it. But such an important point. He says, the New York Times casually

00:33:55.000 asserts Russian intervention was a factor behind Trump winning in 2016. This, so there was a recent

00:34:02.840 story in which they just threw it in a list of factors of why Trump won, including Hillary Clinton

00:34:08.740 being a bad candidate, etc. But Russian intervention was one of the reasons. And as Benjamin points out,

00:34:15.140 he says, this will be how the history is written. And it's an absolute farce. But when you casually

00:34:22.760 insert the lie over and over, it becomes my truth for the ruling class. This is literally history

00:34:30.460 being incorrectly written right in front of you. Because is it true, is it a true statement that Russian

00:34:39.060 intervention was a factor? Well, what do you call a factor? Would a few bad memes on Facebook

00:34:49.760 be a factor? Well, suppose they changed one vote. How small does the impact have to be before you don't

00:35:00.520 call it a factor? I feel as though it might be technically true that there was Russian intervention,

00:35:10.100 because we've seen that there are some memes that looks like they were behind. But some of them were

00:35:15.000 pro-Hillary Clinton. And some of them were pro-Trump. I think more were pro-Trump. But there weren't many

00:35:22.680 of them. I don't know anybody who saw one. I've never heard of anybody who says they saw one, because

00:35:29.520 there's a list of which ones were the Russian memes. I never saw one until I looked at the list of Russian

00:35:35.200 memes. And when you look at them, it's obvious that they wouldn't have changed any votes. They looked like they

00:35:41.260 were done by high school students as part of the class project. So when the New York Times just throws that

00:35:48.720 in there, like it's just now common knowledge, and one of the reasons was the Russian intervention,

00:35:54.560 blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, it just becomes history. And it's not even close to true. As far as we know,

00:36:03.420 it's not even close to true. And the New York Times just turned it into the truth by repetition,

00:36:09.260 and just throwing it in there like everybody knows this is common knowledge, Russian intervention.

00:36:13.200 It's amazing to watch this happen right in front of you. And then apparently the New York Times did a

00:36:24.660 little correction on their story about the police officer killed by the fire extinguisher. So they

00:36:31.640 had reported that until the impeachment trial was over. So before the impeachment trial, the Democrats had

00:36:41.460 made a big deal about Trump supporters allegedly killing this guy with a fire extinguisher. Now, I'm not

00:36:48.760 for any trolls watching. I'm not, I'm not defending anybody who did anything bad in the Capitol. They all

00:36:56.380 need to answer to the justice system for whatever they did. Nobody's arguing that. But this was a lie.

00:37:05.880 It just wasn't true. And it was reported by the paper of record, as New York Times has been called

00:37:12.960 in the past. I don't think they deserve that title anymore, because they've done enough fake news that

00:37:17.980 you can't really say if it's in the New York Times, it's likely to be true anymore, unfortunately. So

00:37:24.420 there you see it, major propaganda happening right in front of you.

00:37:29.080 Meanwhile, in Minneapolis, Minneapolis decided that they were going to increase their budget to

00:37:38.020 recruit more officers, police officers, because of the sharp rise in crime and the fact that a number

00:37:45.200 of officers quit. So the whole defund the police turned into fund the police more because defunding

00:37:52.860 the police didn't work. Now, is it a coincidence that after Biden is elected and after the trial,

00:38:06.620 that all of this news starts coming out to show that maybe, maybe Trump was a little bit more right

00:38:12.940 than you thought, and maybe the Democrats were a little bit more wrong than you thought?

00:38:17.340 You know, it's just, in little ways, the truth is sort of, if it is the truth, starting to come out

00:38:23.420 that you say to yourself, huh, I wonder if we had known this truth some months ago, if things might have

00:38:31.060 gone a different way. I've told before that one of my favorite news people is Farid Zakaria, even when I

00:38:41.080 don't agree with him. He is wracked with a bad case of Trump derangement syndrome, but he puts on a

00:38:48.960 really good show. There's a lot of good content on there. And he was criticizing Biden for his foreign

00:38:55.840 policy. Now, here's the funny part. He started out with his criticism of Biden's foreign policy by saying

00:39:03.700 that Biden was so far a giant success in domestic policy. And I thought to myself, he is? What giant

00:39:13.100 success are we talking about? Because I haven't seen any. And Farid's example of a giant domestic

00:39:19.980 success is that Biden focused on defeating the coronavirus. To which I said, okay, I like the fact

00:39:31.140 that he's focusing on it as a high priority. But what'd he do? What's different? What did Biden do

00:39:39.200 that would not have happened under Trump? Was Trump going to stop giving vaccinations? And what about

00:39:46.120 opening the schools? Right? Trump wanted to open the schools. And now, now Biden's not so keen on that

00:39:54.780 idea. So I don't see any big domestic success. I don't see any of them at all. Nothing you could

00:40:02.860 call that. But, but then Farid goes on to criticize Biden for having said that they would get back into

00:40:11.340 the Iran nuclear deal, and that they've been saying that for years. But when, then when it was time to do

00:40:17.620 it, because Biden now has the power, what do you think they decided to do? They'd put it under review.

00:40:26.780 That's right. One of the main things that Biden was running on, he's not sure he wants to do.

00:40:33.980 So for years, they've been criticizing Trump. And then when it was their turn to make the decision,

00:40:39.880 they said, not, well, we better do what we've been saying for years we should do.

00:40:44.940 No, they said, we better look into it. What the actual fuck? They can't even make a decision on one 1.00

00:40:55.260 of their main international things. That's pathetic. Now, I'm actually happy that he's not not making 0.97

00:41:05.280 the decision. I'm happy that he's reviewing it. It's always good to review things. I think they're

00:41:10.820 going to end up very close to where Trump was. I think they're going to end up adopting something

00:41:17.260 pretty close to Trump's policy on Iran, which was the opposite of what they said we should do.

00:41:26.600 So give Farid credit for calling this out. This was a good point. But there's more.

00:41:32.900 Of course, Trump was tough on China and he wanted sanctions on trade, which we have. So Biden takes

00:41:43.920 over and he was the gigantic critic of trade wars, big critic of trade wars. It's a huge mistake to

00:41:52.420 have a trade war with China. Now he's in charge. Did he immediately reverse the trade sanctions?

00:41:59.260 Nope. What he did was he said it would be the sanctions would be, quote, under review, under review.

00:42:10.380 Now, he ran for office saying it was a gigantic mistake and it's obvious to everyone. But now when

00:42:18.720 it's his job, he's not so sure. What did we elect? Did you elect somebody with policies?

00:42:27.780 Apparently not. All you elected was somebody who would study, who would look into it. All you got

00:42:35.420 was the guy who said he'd look into it. That's it. That's it. I'd look into it.

00:42:41.480 How about the Cuba policy? He was going to be not as hard on Cuba as Trump was, but nothing's changed.

00:42:49.460 But they've got it under review. It's under review. So remember what I told you as soon as it looked

00:42:59.380 like Biden was going to be the president-elect? I told you this. He's going to have a real problem

00:43:06.840 reversing a lot of Trump's stuff because Trump's stuff, a lot of it, was right. No matter how much

00:43:16.060 you think he did wrong, there was a whole bunch of stuff Trump did right. And they were criticizing

00:43:22.580 everything he did like it was all the same. It didn't matter. It was just Trump did it. It must

00:43:27.400 be wrong. And now they've got a real problem. They've painted themselves into a corner in which

00:43:33.560 they either have to do something that I think at this point they would even admit would be stupid 1.00

00:43:38.020 and bad for the country or admit that they were lying the whole time. Keep in mind that Biden ran 0.99

00:43:47.200 to get rid of the liar. That was just about the most important thing besides the fine people hoax.

00:43:55.700 Those were like his two, his two pillars were get rid of the liar and get rid of this guy who said this

00:44:03.060 fine people thing, which never happened. So Biden ran on honesty. And apparently he's breaking a lot

00:44:15.500 of promises. Now, one of the things that I don't think Trump gets enough credit for is that while I

00:44:22.480 would not defend his fact checking, you know, 20,000, whatever, however many things he said that

00:44:30.120 didn't pass the fact checking, I don't argue against that. I'm sure that that's a big number,

00:44:36.320 whatever it is. But he did keep his campaign promises better than just about anybody ever

00:44:45.540 has in the history of the world. If you had a choice of somebody you think is nice and tells you

00:44:52.300 the truth, but they don't keep their campaign promises, or somebody who tells a bunch of hyperbole 0.93

00:44:58.540 bullshit, but they keep their campaign promises, which one do you pick? I think I'd take the 0.96

00:45:05.460 campaign promise keeper every time. I think I would. And I don't think Trump will ever get enough

00:45:11.720 credit for that. But I would say his attempt to keep his promises, even if you count the border wall

00:45:20.940 as not successful, you could make a case either way. But he certainly tried like hell to keep his

00:45:27.340 promises. He tried like hell to do what he said he was going to do. I feel like that was one of the

00:45:34.600 most, I don't know, probably some of the best leadership of all time. You know, that doesn't

00:45:43.580 take away from anything you want to criticize him about for the capital assault, etc. But he did keep

00:45:50.700 his promises like a mofo. And I'm not going to forget that. All right. So even if you didn't 0.77

00:45:59.780 like what he promised, at least he kept his promise. There's a really funny video that I tweeted

00:46:04.420 about somebody, I think they were on a bicycle going around New York City looking at the outdoor

00:46:10.260 dining. Have you seen it? It is really funny. Because a lot of the restaurants have built outdoor

00:46:19.660 dining enclosures, some of them better than others. Now, in my town, where the weather is

00:46:28.120 relatively, you know, doesn't get super cold, they can put little heaters in there and they can have

00:46:33.540 an open flap. So you're actually a little bit closer down doors, even though you've got some

00:46:39.160 material like, you know, tent material up. But you've got one side that's completely open,

00:46:45.500 it's a lot of airflow. Not bad. But in New York City, apparently a number of restaurants have

00:46:51.960 just built a separate building on the sidewalk. It's got actual walls, like wooden walls, real

00:46:59.180 windows, the kind you kind of you go to the, you know, you go to the store and you buy a window,

00:47:04.260 just put it actually glass window, a physical door. But in some cases, they'll like leave the door

00:47:11.400 off. But it's otherwise just indoors. But it doesn't have air conditioning. It doesn't have

00:47:18.120 air circulation. So the fact that the door is open, how is that really different than just having the

00:47:25.100 restaurant itself open and leaving the door open? Just leave the door open? How is it exactly

00:47:33.000 different? What if we just said, restaurants can have outdoor seating, and outdoors is now defined

00:47:41.620 as anything with the door open? And the windows, maybe windows and or doors or something like that.

00:47:49.080 But I suppose if you were to turn off the heat and the air conditioning indoors, open at least one

00:47:55.940 door. And one window, maybe you need some kind of a cross current. I don't know. I would think that

00:48:04.260 we should just make that change. Somebody says outdoors equals no doors. Yeah. So the fact that New

00:48:11.960 York is doing that is hilarious. But you have to see this video of the guy looking at them. Chris

00:48:18.240 Harrison, TV host of The Bachelor, got in trouble for saying, he said this about one of the contestants

00:48:27.320 who had in 2018 appeared at a plantation themed party or antebellum or something party about the old

00:48:35.580 South. And people said, hey, that's effectively that it makes light of slavery, because that was the

00:48:46.040 era of slavery, etc. So the contestant was getting heat. And then when Chris Harrison was asked about

00:48:51.740 it, he said something about 2018, we looked at things differently than we do in 2021. But it was

00:49:00.400 sort of a weak non comment. You know, he wasn't, he wasn't, he wasn't going hard at her, which I

00:49:08.300 understand. But he also wasn't going too easy on her. He was just saying, well, you know, you have to

00:49:14.000 understand the context. Well, that was enough to get him canceled. And he had to take some time off

00:49:20.300 from the show. We don't know how long. But here's the part that I loved. His apology, his public

00:49:26.800 apology, for for an infraction that I would call on a scale of one to 10, a one, maybe, I'm not going to

00:49:38.320 say it wasn't a mistake. But on a scale of one to 10, a one, 1.5, something like that, right? But what he did

00:49:50.140 was, he gave an apology that was a 10. So he apologized, like he had just slain an entire orphanage.

00:50:00.620 Like he went way above what you would expect for a crime that was a 1.5 out of 10. And to the point

00:50:10.640 where I thought it was hilarious. And this has given me my idea for when I get canceled,

00:50:16.820 because you know, I'm going to get canceled. Right? Sort of a matter of time, wouldn't you say?

00:50:23.100 And I don't know that I'll be canceled for something I said or meant. I'm likely to be

00:50:28.680 canceled for something that somebody misinterpreted that I said or meant. Right? You all see this

00:50:34.780 coming, right? It's like this giant train light coming right at me down the tunnel. I mean, if I

00:50:40.180 don't get canceled, I'd be amazed. But it looks like it's coming sooner or later. I think they just

00:50:45.960 have to wait for the right day, meaning my enemies, many. They have to wait for the right opportunity.

00:50:52.380 You know, they've come after me many, many times, but haven't quite got the kill shot yet. So I know it's

00:50:58.060 coming. It's coming. But when they cancel me, I will be issuing an apology.

00:51:08.600 And I'm going to tell you right now, it's going to be the funniest apology you've ever read. And

00:51:15.140 do you know why it's going to be funny? Because I'm going to play it serious. I am going to apologize

00:51:21.500 apologize so hard that you will be screaming with laughter. I will do an apology like nobody's ever

00:51:29.860 apologized. And I'm going to make the apology so out of whack with the size of the imagined infraction,

00:51:38.280 whatever they come up with for me, that you are just going to laugh your fucking ass off. And you'll 0.99

00:51:44.260 read it over and over. But I got the idea from Chris Harrison. I swear to God, I can't tell if

00:51:51.020 he's kidding. I just don't know if he's joking. I think he's serious. But I don't know, which is

00:51:58.600 beautiful. That's what I want to go for, too. So he says, in his statement, just a few parts I point

00:52:06.040 out, by excusing historical racism, as if he had done that. So the first part of his statement is,

00:52:12.520 by excusing historical racism, he didn't do that. So the very first thing he's doing is confessing

00:52:20.820 to something that clearly didn't happen. He'd never excused historical racism, or even close to it.

00:52:27.600 Nothing even in that universe. But he's going to take credit. He's going to take responsibility for

00:52:34.360 this thing he didn't do. He goes, I defended it. No, he didn't. So that's the first thing I'm going to do.

00:52:41.720 I'm going to agree that I did all the things that obviously I didn't do. And I'm going to agree to

00:52:47.240 even more than that. I'm going to, I will confess to more than I'm even blamed for. So that's the

00:52:53.800 first thing. That's what he did. And I invoked the term woke police, which is unacceptable. Oh, yes.

00:53:02.400 That's unacceptable. The woke police. Because that's another crime by itself. It wasn't bad enough

00:53:09.060 that he excused historical racism, which never happened. But he also used the term woke police.

00:53:17.780 And he's feeling pretty bad about that. And he goes on. He goes, I am ashamed

00:53:23.220 over how uninformed I was. I was so wrong. Is he serious? I was ashamed over how uninformed I was. I

00:53:35.020 was so wrong. He goes on. What I now realize I have done is cause harm by wrongly speaking in a manner

00:53:44.580 that perpetuates racism. And for that, I am so deeply sorry. I also apologize to my friend Rachel

00:53:53.160 Lindsay for not listening to her better on a topic she has a firsthand understanding of. And humbly

00:54:00.380 thank the members of Bachelor Nation who have reached out to me to hold me accountable.

00:54:05.940 horrible. I promise to do better. And then here's the topper.

00:54:14.960 He goes, quote, I am dedicated to getting educated on a more profound and productive level than ever

00:54:23.880 before. I want to ensure our cast and crew members, to my friends, colleagues, and our fans,

00:54:30.400 this is not just a moment, but a commitment to much greater understanding that I will actively make

00:54:39.900 every day. Is he serious? Is he? I actually can't tell. I feel like he took it just a little bit over

00:54:53.900 the line so that people like me could have a benefit of the doubt and know that he's kidding.

00:55:03.200 Or is he? Or is he? It could be that he just got beat up so badly, he just said, just tell me what

00:55:09.280 to write. Actually, why don't you write it for me? And I'll just say I said it. Like, you wonder how

00:55:15.620 that conversation went. But, so I've seen people say he caved. Well, let me say this. When you see me

00:55:24.420 cave, and you will, I'm going to cave a lot funnier than this. And this is pretty good. This is pretty

00:55:33.540 good. All right. Lindsey Graham has said he predicts if the GOP ever get back in power in the Congress,

00:55:43.160 that they will impeach Kamala Harris for bailing out the Black Lives Matter rioters. 0.67

00:55:49.360 Why not? Do you see any problem with that argument? Lindsey Graham, that they would impeach

00:55:56.000 Kamala Harris for bailing out the Black Lives Matter rioters? Because she did that. She organized 1.00

00:56:01.460 funds to bail out rioters. How could that not lead to more violence? How could that not incite more

00:56:10.500 violence? Letting out the very violent people who did the violence? Showing them that you support

00:56:16.260 them from a government level? How could that not create more violence? So, Lindsey Graham is now on 1.00

00:56:24.860 my good list. Because I said I could never support a Republican who doesn't at least talk about impeaching

00:56:32.880 Biden for the fine people hoax. But I think this is in the same realm, right? Whether it's over the

00:56:40.120 fine people hoax, which I'd prefer, or I think he's being practical. If you went after Kamala Harris

00:56:46.740 for the BLM rioter thing, you don't have to wonder if somebody knew the truth, right? With the fine

00:56:53.400 people hoax, Biden could always argue, well, I thought it was true, because the news told me it

00:56:58.960 was true. And that would be a good enough defense, actually. In fact, I would even vote to not

00:57:05.120 impeach. If Biden got an impeachment process against him for the fine people hoax, which clearly incited

00:57:13.880 violence, and his defense was, I heard it on the news, so I believed it was true, I would actually

00:57:22.740 acquit him. Because that's actually a good defense. Right? It's a good defense. But Kamala Harris doesn't 1.00

00:57:33.960 have any, I was confused defense, because she was actively coming up with the idea on her own of

00:57:40.300 bailing out the rioters. So she knew exactly what they did. She knew what she was doing. There's no

00:57:46.040 ambiguity about who did what or who believed what. So I think Lindsey Graham is smart to pick that one 0.99

00:57:53.140 instead of the fine people hoax, because that takes too much explaining. And you have to make some

00:57:58.740 assumptions. The BBC has been banned in China. It looks like it's a retribution for the UK banning a 0.99

00:58:09.560 Chinese state media. So here's a question I asked on Twitter. I'll give it a little meat here.

00:58:20.740 Do you think that the press in the United States is better or worse than the press in China

00:58:27.460 at informing its own citizens of what's happening? Go. In the comments, who do you think does a

00:58:35.660 better job? The press in the United States or the press in communist China that is controlled by the 0.92

00:58:43.240 government? Which one does a better job? I'm seeing in your comments, same, same, same, worse, worse,

00:58:51.880 same, same, same, same, same, same, no idea. BBC is propaganda. Somebody says far worse. No way to

00:59:00.280 tell. Not anymore. All right. Here's the way to look at it. If you are a citizen in China, and this is

00:59:07.300 more of a question than a statement. If you're a citizen in China, do you know that your news is

00:59:14.740 controlled by the government? Does the average Chinese consumer of news know that their news is

00:59:22.860 controlled by the government? I think so, right? Wouldn't they all know that? So when they read a

00:59:30.200 story that says, your government says we did a great job on this or that, how does the average Chinese

00:59:36.940 consumer of news process what is obviously fake news from their government? I'm not there, so I don't

00:59:45.740 know. But I'll make an assumption. My assumption is that they know to discount it in their heads.

00:59:54.140 And so they don't believe it, because they know it comes from a non-credible source, their government,

00:59:59.780 who wants you to believe a certain thing. So in that case, and again, I would take a fact check on

01:00:06.880 this, because I don't know enough about the culture. I've never traveled to China. So if I'm

01:00:12.740 completely wrong on this, let me know. But it seems to me that it would be a healthy situation to know

01:00:19.680 that your news is fake. Like, just to know it's fake. Are you going to be misled if you know it's

01:00:27.460 fake? And then you also have, if you have a VPN, you have at least some way to get news from other

01:00:33.080 sources. And you can check that your government may be telling you a story. So our Chinese news

01:00:40.280 consumers, are they more confused than American consumers? Because remember, Americans got the 0.57

01:00:49.520 Russia collusion hoax. We got the fine, you know, we got the fine people hoax, the drinking bleach

01:00:55.940 hoax, the overfeeding goldfish hoax. And of course, our politics is just a team sport that has no

01:01:04.920 semblance to anything like objective news anymore. I don't think our news is better than China's news. 1.00

01:01:15.180 I don't think so. I think it's similar and might be worse. And the might be worse part is that the

01:01:25.000 problem with our news is that half of the country believes it. No matter what the story is, let's

01:01:30.660 say just political news. So when I'm talking about the news, I'm talking about political news. I'm not

01:01:35.480 talking about, you know, hurricane news. I feel as if a news organization, which legitimately lies to half

01:01:44.980 of the country consistently, might be worse, because they believe it, half of the country, might be worse

01:01:53.040 than a Chinese press, in which nobody in the country, I'm exaggerating, right? But nobody in the country

01:01:58.800 believes it. I feel like that might be better. I don't know. I mean, I don't, there's no real way you

01:02:06.800 could compare those two things, because it depends on the topic, etc, blah, blah, blah. But it doesn't

01:02:12.660 feel like we have better press than communist China. And I'm being serious now. This is not just making a

01:02:20.620 point. I'm not just finding a clever way to insult our press. I just don't see how it's necessarily

01:02:28.300 better. It might be. I'm open to the idea that it's better. Just not sure. It's not obvious to me

01:02:36.600 that it's better. All right. That is what I wanted to talk about today. Somebody says, why do you think

01:02:45.680 it is the way it is? It's team sport and TDS and sometimes for the money. It's all of those things.

01:02:54.600 Yeah, it's not one thing. Somebody says, CNN is owned by AT&T. Cancel your contract. Well, you know,

01:03:07.620 I'm not big on cancel, canceling anything. I'm not big on boycotting things because you don't like

01:03:14.600 the politics of the people involved. But I am big on rewarding people who were canceled unfairly.

01:03:24.360 It's like Gina Carano, the actress who got canceled from The Mandalorian by Disney. I'm happy to give

01:03:33.520 her a little extra attention and suggest that people watch her future work and support her because I think 0.98

01:03:40.160 she got canceled over bullshit. And likewise, yeah, the CEO of Goya Foods, I think we should just 0.90

01:03:47.060 support people who get canceled, not cancel people the same way the other side is. Now, you may say to

01:03:55.140 me, Scott, Scott, Scott, if you don't fight back with maximum force, they will just take over everything.

01:04:00.140 I'm sensitive to that argument. But I do think that there's a path to just make the canceled people

01:04:09.000 rich. And then that takes away the incentive to cancel them. There's no point in canceling somebody

01:04:14.440 if they're going to come out ahead. Right? That ruins the whole cancellation process. So I'd rather ruin

01:04:22.420 it by making those who get canceled rich, even if I hate the people who got canceled. I might even agree

01:04:29.160 with the people who canceled them. I might be offended by what they said. You know, if somebody gets canceled

01:04:34.400 for using an offensive, let's say, ethnic term, I'm not in favor of that. But I might be in favor of commerce

01:04:42.460 not being affected by it. So somebody says, I respect your stance, but I canceled Disney Plus. Well, you know,

01:04:53.300 the problem with all the streaming services is after you watch that one, that one show that you bought

01:04:59.080 the streaming service for, you don't really need it. So I think a lot of people just cancel the service

01:05:06.720 after they watch their one show. I just got Hulu just to watch the Britney Spears special, the documentary.

01:05:16.000 And now once I watched that one show on Hulu, I thought to myself, well, now at least I've subscribed.

01:05:25.300 So I've got all this other content I could watch. I'm looking through it last night.

01:05:31.500 Nothing really else I want to watch. I might watch Schlitz Creek or something. But basically,

01:05:38.160 all of the streaming services have one thing I want to watch. So once you're done with The Mandalorian,

01:05:43.300 maybe you don't need Disney Plus so much.

01:05:50.300 By the way, speaking of the Britney Spears thing, you should watch that documentary. It's really

01:05:56.400 interesting how she lost the rights to her own money and that her father was the executor. That

01:06:03.260 recently was reversed. So now there's a professional organization that has to work with her dad to 0.97

01:06:09.440 manage her money. So at least the professionals are a little bit of an audit on his actions.

01:06:15.540 But the fact that, and the saddest part was that Britney Spears was saying, effectively,

01:06:21.320 there's only one person in the world I don't want to be in charge of my money, and it's my father.

01:06:27.500 And she couldn't get that done right away. She did get that done, finally, at least shared

01:06:32.340 responsibility. But it was amazing that that can happen to a human being in this country. That the

01:06:39.860 court can just take control of your life and give it to somebody else. Now, obviously, there are times

01:06:46.700 when that's necessary. So I don't know that I want to lose that ability if somebody's elderly and they 0.95

01:06:52.320 can't manage their money, etc. But giving it to the one family member that you hate or that you don't

01:06:58.340 trust, that's just a crime. It certainly makes sense that some people need some help temporarily

01:07:06.220 or permanently. That part's cool. But having the person who helps the one person, that person doesn't

01:07:12.540 want to be the one? That's not cool. That's not cool. Somebody says, try going through a divorce.

01:07:20.840 I've gone through a divorce. It's not fun at all. But we didn't fight in our divorce. I just,

01:07:27.320 I just made it easy. All right. You'll manage my money? Sure. You know, there's this weird thing

01:07:38.460 with making a lot of money. And I would label myself as rich, but not mega rich. So I'm on the low

01:07:48.760 end of rich people. I'm nowhere near a billionaire, right? I suppose if I wanted to, I could have a

01:07:56.260 private jet, but I wouldn't spend that much of my total net worth on a jet. So I'm sort of below the

01:08:04.800 private jet level of wealth, although I suppose I could do it if I wanted to. It doesn't mean that

01:08:10.640 much to me. And at my level, and given my background in economics, I've got an MBA, etc., I can manage my

01:08:21.240 own money. But at some level, like say you were a billionaire, you kind of have to have other people

01:08:28.480 managing your money at least a little bit. And I'm not comfortable with that at all. The one time I

01:08:34.800 tried it for a little while, it was just a disaster. So having other people managing money is just a

01:08:40.100 terrible idea. So I actually worry that if somehow something happened to turn me into a billionaire,

01:08:46.840 that it would just be more work. I don't know that I would be happier. It would be more work.

01:08:53.100 All right, that's all for now. And I will...

01:08:56.940 That's a funny comment that I'm not going to read. And I'll talk to you later.

01:09:05.020 Okay, YouTubers, we made it all the way to the end today without getting a glitch. I don't have any

01:09:12.660 reason to believe that the glitch yesterday was intentional or human inspired. But it was a big

01:09:19.060 coincidence if it wasn't. All right. That's all for now. I'll talk to you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - February 15, 2021

Episode 1286 Scott Adams： Science as Propaganda, Democrats Turn on Each Other, How to Apologize to Chris Harrison

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript