Episode 1286 Scott Adams： Science as Propaganda, Democrats Turn on Each Other, How to Apologize to Chris Harrison
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 9 minutes
Words per Minute
146.95822
Summary
On this episode of Coffee with Scott Adams, we talk about a conspiracy theory that has been floating around the internet for a long time, and that involves the Democratic Party and their use of the term The Big Lie .
Transcript
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
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
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
00:10:12.720
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
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
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.
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
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
00:16:41.720
corner. Because people don't agree what science is. And guaranteed, there will be times when your
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
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
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.
00:28:37.860
Doesn't it? It honestly feels pathetic. Now, I think the Biden administration maybe takes a little
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
00:40:55.260
of their main international things. That's pathetic. Now, I'm actually happy that he's not not making
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
00:43:38.020
and bad for the country or admit that they were lying the whole time. Keep in mind that Biden ran
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
00:44:58.540
bullshit, but they keep their campaign promises, which one do you pick? I think I'd take the
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
01:03:40.160
she got canceled over bullshit. And likewise, yeah, the CEO of Goya Foods, I think we should just
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,
01:05:50.300
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
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
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.
01:08:56.940
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.