Episode 1298 Scott Adams： LeBron Does His Homework, Congress Stays Worthless, Fake News Stays Ridiculous, Biden Decomposes
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
146.83737
Summary
Dana Perino's new book, Everything Will Be Okay, The Life Lessons for Young Women, is out now, and it's a must-read book for women in their 20s. In this episode, Dana talks about how to deal with a boss who doesn't want to hire a new employee, and how to get rid of a bad one.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hey, everybody. Come on in. Come on in. Come on in. Gather around. It's time. Time for
00:00:07.900
Coffee with Scott Adams. And how good is this going to be? Well, I don't want to get your
00:00:14.720
hopes up or anything, but probably the best one I've ever done. Probably. We'll see. But
00:00:21.880
how to make it better? Well, let me tell you. What you need is a cup or a mug or a glass
00:00:27.560
of tanker, chalice, and stein, a canteen jug of flowers, confessal of any kind. Fill it
00:00:32.980
with your favorite liquid. I think you know I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled
00:00:39.240
pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes really everything better.
00:00:44.820
It's called the Simultaneous Sip. And watch this. People all around the world syncing up. Go.
00:00:50.900
So, could you feel that? Could you feel it? Yeah. That was people all over the world doing
00:00:59.920
the same thing at the same time. You are now connected. Oh, yeah. Well, I promised you that
00:01:07.060
I would, in addition to informing you, that I would make you smarter every time you watch
00:01:13.940
my live stream. In other words, I'll tell you something that maybe you hadn't heard before
00:01:18.520
that would be useful. Or maybe reinforce something that you already knew, but it helps to have
00:01:24.820
it reinforced. And let me start with this. Dana Prino has a new book called Everything
00:01:34.720
Will Be Okay, The Life Lessons for Young Women. I got an advanced copy. And I guess it goes on
00:01:40.740
sale in early March. So you can pre-order it now. And here's what I want to give you for
00:01:47.140
your lesson for the day. Have I told you that writing is, it's really important to start out
00:01:56.620
right. And this book, Dana's book, I haven't read the whole book, but I wanted to call out
00:02:03.920
one of the best openings of a book I've ever seen. So I've told you many times, if you followed
00:02:12.220
my writing advice, that you should write and rewrite the opening of your book, the first
00:02:17.380
few sentences, you should just rewrite that a hundred times. No matter how many times you
00:02:25.960
rewrite it, you could probably make it a little better. And you want to get people hooked and
00:02:31.240
interested and curious and also get the whole idea of the book in the first paragraph. That's
00:02:38.520
a lot of work to put into a paragraph, right? If you can get all of that done in one paragraph,
00:02:45.740
you probably have a good book. Let me read the opening from Dana's book to see how to do this
00:02:53.940
right. Introduction. So I got a call from a young woman in Washington, D.C. seeking some
00:03:00.180
advice. She had a problem at work and was quite upset. Her office supervisor wanted her to do
00:03:06.880
something that she was very uncomfortable with. Make a public statement under her own name using
00:03:13.560
language and a tone that she thought was disrespectful and unproductive. And then I guess
00:03:20.760
she said on the phone, oh, then Dana advised her, then don't say it. Absolutely do not do it.
00:03:28.060
I said, quote, I don't think I can refuse, she said. She was afraid. She'd be fired if she didn't
00:03:35.540
comply, that she didn't have the gravitas to decline. Quote, I'm not Dana Perino, she said.
00:03:43.860
Then Dana Perino responded, quote, well, how do you think I became Dana Perino?
00:03:49.620
How do you think I became Dana Perino? That's one of the best openings of a book that you'll ever
00:03:59.920
see. That, by the way, that advice is worth the price of the book. Just that advice. And you got
00:04:09.020
it in the first paragraph. And let me add to that. One of the pieces of advice I give more than just
00:04:16.880
about any other piece of advice is that when people get in some kind of a negotiation, usually
00:04:22.940
somebody wants a job or they're trying to get a deal, or in this case, somebody is negotiating with
00:04:29.560
their boss, potentially. In all of those cases, people who are low ranking, imagine that they don't
00:04:37.020
have any leverage. And that's an illusion. It's a complete illusion. You have lots of leverage.
00:04:43.960
leverage if you're an employee, even if you have a boss. Because your boss doesn't want to hire a new
00:04:49.660
employee. Your boss really, really, really doesn't want to have to get rid of you and find a new
00:04:57.580
employee. That's like one of the worst things a boss has to do. It's just hard. I mean, just everything
00:05:03.420
gets wrecked if you have to go find a new employee. So if you're good at your job,
00:05:10.260
you have all kinds of leverage with your boss. All kinds of leverage. But nobody, let's say in their
00:05:18.940
20s, just to pick a time range, nobody in their 20s knows that. They don't know that yet. You don't
00:05:26.460
really know that until you become the boss. Once you become a boss, then you realize how much leverage
00:05:33.300
your employees have. Because you really need them, right? You don't have an option where the
00:05:39.320
employees don't exist or don't do good work and you're still a star. So you always have more leverage
00:05:47.000
than you think. That is some of the best advice you'll ever hear. All right. Now, this assumes that
00:05:52.580
you do good work, right? If you're bad at your job, you don't have any leverage, right? It's only if
00:06:00.000
you're good at your job. Best news of the day, Lady Gaga got her dogs back. I got to admit, I didn't
00:06:08.000
see that coming. I kind of thought those dogs were not going to have a happy ending. Because I thought
00:06:16.040
that once it became obvious they were Lady Gaga's dogs, somebody would have to get rid of them. But
00:06:22.180
maybe they were dog lovers, you know, oddly enough. Obviously, they're not human lovers since they shot
00:06:27.060
one. But they may have just said, oh, crap, we can't kill these dogs. We can't keep them.
00:06:34.220
There's no way you can really sell them. You know, not get away with it. So maybe we have a good
00:06:41.700
outcome. And let me tell you, if there were some kind of Academy Award or let's say a National Medal of
00:06:50.240
Honor or Nobel Peace Prize for the best dog walker. Lady Gaga, she got a good dog walker.
00:07:01.140
I tell you, if you're looking for a dog walker, best one I've ever heard of. This guy gave his life,
00:07:09.980
or he risked his life. He got shot. Protecting dogs. Can you do better than that? Can you do better
00:07:17.680
than that? No. No, I probably would have given him the dogs right away. Okay, not my dog. If it had
00:07:25.560
been my dog, I would have probably risked my life. But if you're a dog walker, it's pretty good
00:07:31.860
performance. Let's talk about LeBron. He's my favorite big dumb guy. And somebody will turn that
00:07:42.600
into something racial, right? You can be dumb of any ethnicity, can't you? I'm pretty sure. I'm
00:07:50.060
pretty sure I've seen big dumb guys of every ethnic group. So keep it in context. Another athlete,
00:07:59.200
a major soccer star is Latin Ibramovich, criticized LeBron for being political. LeBron responded by saying
00:08:09.900
that he does his homework. So he's not just a big dumb athlete. He does his homework. He digs in.
00:08:19.980
And after doing his homework, he had concluded, at least in the past, that he believes the fine
00:08:25.660
people hoax really happened. Glad he did his homework. He couldn't even tell that the biggest
00:08:33.600
hoax in the country never happened. So that's what he got when he did his homework. I also wonder,
00:08:41.960
what exactly is LeBron's take on Generation 4 nuclear power? Does he see that as a key variable
00:08:51.260
in the climate change topic? He probably doesn't know what it is. And if you don't know what Generation
00:09:00.240
4 nuclear is, do you know much about climate change and what to do about it and what the
00:09:06.080
options are and what energy is really green and what is really dangerous? Probably not. So how much
00:09:13.540
research is LeBron doing? Now, before you say, Scott, you're just dunking on an athlete and you're
00:09:22.800
telling him to basically stay in his lane. And don't you, Scott, tell us all the time that that's the
00:09:31.600
worst advice ever? Telling people to stay in their lane? Because that's what the soccer star told LeBron,
00:09:38.140
you know, stick to sports. You've seen me criticize that, right? A lot of times. Well, let me tell you
00:09:46.760
when people should leave their lane and when they should not. It's just a general rule. You know,
00:09:55.180
there could be some exceptions. But as a general rule, if you're in the top 1% of people who are
00:10:03.360
brilliant and effective, leave your lane. Leave your lane. Because Elon Musk had never sent a rocket to
00:10:13.720
Mars, but I feel like he can figure it out because he's in the top 1%. Elon Musk had never built an
00:10:22.560
electric car, but he figured it out because he's in the top 1%. Bill Gates had never started a major
00:10:32.040
company, but he's in the top 1% of intelligence and capability, so he figured it out. If you're not in
00:10:40.640
the top 1%, well, then it gets a little bit more of a gray area, doesn't it? I don't think everybody
00:10:49.100
should change their lane, right? Not everybody should change the lane. But I'll give you another
00:10:55.960
example. I think it was Mark Dice was tweeting about how Bill Gates is making medical, I wouldn't
00:11:05.120
say recommendations, but he's making a lot of statements in the medical field that you'd sort
00:11:10.100
of expect a virologist or a doctor to be making, right? And so the criticism is, hey, Bill Gates,
00:11:18.180
you know, you're good with software and running companies, but why don't you leave the medical
00:11:23.440
stuff to the medical people? Is that good advice? Nope, it's not. Now, I see people believe the
00:11:32.940
conspiracy theories about Bill Gates being evil and he's going to put a chip in you and all that.
00:11:38.100
That's all ridiculous, by the way. It's all ridiculous. But it's a different topic. The question
00:11:44.900
is, if you saw Bill Gates disagreeing with some doctors on the question of the pandemic, who should
00:11:54.200
you trust? Would you trust Bill Gates, his opinion on the pandemic, or a doctor? Now, let's say that
00:12:02.840
the doctor is a GP, general practitioner, very skilled at doctoring. Maybe not a virologist, but a doctor.
00:12:14.560
Bill Gates is not a doctor. Let's say they had different opinions. Who would you trust? The doctor
00:12:22.580
to have a medical opinion, or Bill Gates, not a doctor, who would you trust? If you trust the doctor,
00:12:31.280
it's a sucker's play. I would trust Bill Gates every fucking time. All right? If you're making this
00:12:40.060
mistake, then you don't understand what it means to be in the top 1%. All right? I say this not as an
00:12:49.780
insult to anybody watching this, right? Not as an insult. Your dog doesn't understand how you turn on
00:12:57.960
the lights. Would you agree? Your dog knows the lights often come on when you enter in the room,
00:13:03.740
but doesn't quite understand that it's something you do with the light switch, or maybe you talk to
00:13:08.720
your digital assistant or something. The dog just knows the lights come on. A dog cannot understand
00:13:15.160
a human with an IQ of, let's say, a hundred. Average. A dog has no idea why that person makes those
00:13:24.520
decisions, but would you say that a person with average intelligence, a human, would make better
00:13:31.260
decisions than, say, a dog? Not about dog things, but about human things. And the answer is yes. Not only
00:13:38.520
would you guarantee that a person with an IQ of 100 would nail it better than a dog at making
00:13:45.420
decisions for humans, but you know the dog doesn't get it. The dog wouldn't know that the human is that
00:13:52.500
much smarter, but the human knows for sure that the dog is that much dumber. It's not a two-way
00:13:58.460
awareness. It's a one-way awareness. The smart person knows, the dog doesn't. Now take that to humans.
00:14:05.840
Let's say you're pretty smart. You got an IQ of 120, 130. Pretty good IQ. You are not in the same range
00:14:15.680
as Bill Gates. You're not even close. You're not even close. You're as close to Bill Gates
00:14:22.920
in intelligence if you have like a 120, 130. You're not that far off from the dog to a person who have
00:14:31.840
normal intelligence. You have no idea how his brain works, how effective it is, the things he can do
00:14:39.780
with his brain, that you just can't. And by the way, I put myself in that category of somebody who's
00:14:46.140
substantially less intelligent than Bill Gates. When Bill Gates looks into a topic,
00:14:53.820
I would go with him. Now what you don't see is Bill Gates necessarily saying something different
00:15:03.560
than the top virologists. That's different, right? The top virologists, like in the world,
00:15:10.740
are probably also in the top 1%, and they also know their topic. But on top of that,
00:15:16.660
so I would listen to those, and I think Bill Gates does as well. But if you were comparing Bill Gates
00:15:23.840
to your family doctor, and they had different opinions, I would take Bill Gates every time
00:15:32.680
over your family general practitioner, if they were different. Now, I don't know if there's any case
00:15:39.860
that they ever would be different. I'm just saying that you can't judge LeBron leaving his lane
00:15:46.440
with Bill Gates leaving his lane. They are not even a little bit similar.
00:15:54.660
So that's the next thing that you learned today. Leaving your lane is good for the people who can do it,
00:16:02.880
and most people can't. Let me give you another example.
00:16:06.360
Now, some years ago, the CEO of Intel, who was Andy Grove, I think he's passed, but Andy Grove wrote a very long article.
00:16:18.700
I think it was for Forbes or Fortune or something. It was one of those magazines.
00:16:24.900
And what he did was he had prostate cancer. Now, Andy Grove was an engineer.
00:16:29.480
Would you trust an engineer to give you advice on prostate cancer? Well, your first impression should
00:16:38.240
be no, right? Why would you trust an engineer to give you medical advice? But the reason it was a
00:16:45.820
major article that really made an impact, I think, in the country is that Andy Grove did what the
00:16:52.780
doctors couldn't do. He looked at all the research, and then he put it in context, and then he explained
00:16:59.600
it to the public, so anybody who was in the same situation, had prostate cancer, could see all of
00:17:05.920
their surgical and other options in the clearest possible way for the first time. For the first time.
00:17:15.000
Why did Andy Grove have to write an article about prostate cancer? Because there wasn't anybody
00:17:21.140
could tell him. There were no doctors who knew what Andy Grove knew when he was done doing the
00:17:29.880
research. None of them. They probably knew what they knew more than he did, but they didn't see the
00:17:36.140
whole field. He did. And when he wrote it, doctors said, all right, that's a real service.
00:17:42.600
That's a real service. Because even we're not seeing it, you know, in that detail. So would you trust
00:17:49.800
Andy Grove to make a medical recommendation? In that case? In that specific case? Yes. Yes. I would
00:18:00.180
trust him over the doctors. I would listen to both, of course. But don't count out the top one
00:18:09.220
percenters. They're just not like other people. All right. Amazon's announcing it will no longer sell
00:18:14.540
books that are, quote, that have a material we deem inappropriate or offensive. So how long before
00:18:24.180
one of my books is deemed inappropriate or offensive? Take my book that's behind my head here,
00:18:31.120
Winn Bigley. Winn Bigley paints a positive picture of ex-president Trump's performance,
00:18:41.700
his skills. What happens if history decides that Trump is such a bad character that you can't have
00:18:49.420
a book saying he did anything good? Because imagine if somebody wrote a book that said,
00:18:54.840
you know, Hitler certainly had his bad qualities, but what about his good qualities? Nobody could
00:19:01.540
write that book. And if they did, would Amazon carry it? Would Amazon carry a book that said Hitler
00:19:08.120
had some good points? Probably not, right? It would be easily categorized as offensive or inappropriate.
00:19:16.600
But is it possible that my book, which is perfectly acceptable in the time it was published,
00:19:24.680
could Trump's reputation reach a point where they say, you know, I don't even think we can have a book
00:19:30.900
on the shelf that said he had any good qualities? Could it? I don't know. Let me tell you what I
00:19:39.880
think is happening to me. And again, you can only speculate about these things because it's sort of
00:19:45.920
opaque. It does appear to me that at just about the time of the election and after it, that the social
00:19:54.480
media companies put the clamp down on me pretty hard. Now, I can't distinguish how much is maybe
00:20:01.540
people, you know, leaving my universe because they came for the Trump stuff and there's not as much of
00:20:08.240
it anymore. And how much of it is some kind of weird algorithm or shadow banning? I can't sort it out.
00:20:15.320
But I will tell you that on, let's say, YouTube, which had been pretty much allowing all of my content
00:20:24.940
to be monetized, they'd gotten to the point where pretty much all of it was monetized,
00:20:30.220
which is different than earlier in the year. But right after the election or so, they reversed it
00:20:36.500
and I watched the monetization just plunge. It plunged enough that I'm not sure it's worth doing.
00:20:45.320
Right. So, I mean, at the moment it is, but if it keeps, if they keep the, the clamps on and the
00:20:52.300
way that looks is that my live streams, this in particular, in fact, this is probably demonetized
00:20:58.180
right now. Oh, that's my brother. Well, nevermind. We'll get to that later. But chances are that this
00:21:07.700
is demonetized right now, at least the YouTube feed, not the Periscope feed. And they, they
00:21:15.100
demonetized automatically. Is that something that you do to somebody who after review gets approved
00:21:24.160
almost every time? And even the ones that are not approved don't violate any rule. I have violated
00:21:31.520
zero rules of YouTube. As far as I know, I'm not, I'm not aware of anything. Now I do use some
00:21:38.380
language, but I also note that this is not for children. So YouTube has a box you check. So do
00:21:46.460
you think that I get demonetized because my language is bad? I don't think so. There's plenty of bad
00:21:51.740
language on podcasts. Do you think I get demonetized because I say things like I'm going to say right
00:21:58.380
now? This is, I'm guessing this might be why. Uh, CNN's, here's, here's a report on CNN's fake news
00:22:07.280
today. This is a direct quote from CNN's webpage. Facts first, colon, the election was not rigged.
00:22:16.480
Joe Biden was the legitimate winner. There is no evidence of widespread fraud or malfeasance.
00:22:22.260
And CNN is reporting this as a fact. Well, there are actually, uh, two separate claims
00:22:31.500
in this fact. One is that there is no evidence of widespread fraud or malfeasance. Well, I don't
00:22:39.720
know that's true, but I know that no court has ruled that there is widespread, um, fraud or
00:22:46.260
malfeasance. So you could argue that this, uh, this one is, um, true ish, meaning that they left
00:22:54.120
out the fact that the court has not found any evidence as opposed to people alleging there's
00:23:00.000
evidence. So I would say this is misleading, but what about the first sentence? The election
00:23:06.180
was not rigged. That's reported as a fact. That's fake news. That's not a fact. That's an
00:23:15.900
assumption. They reported a fact that's really just an assumption. Now, do I have any evidence
00:23:24.420
personally, either, you know, court sanctioned or even just something that I've seen that I would
00:23:32.220
say is proof that there's some kind of widespread fraud in that election? The answer is no. No, I have
00:23:38.360
not. Now, should I be demonetized for saying what is obviously objectively true? That there is no, I don't
00:23:48.060
have any evidence that is direct evidence of widespread fraud. Lots of allegations, lots of
00:23:55.400
statistical things that make my eyebrow go up. I'd certainly like to know more about it. And I have a
00:24:00.460
general feeling that any system will be corrupted eventually. So, you know, I have suspicions, but I
00:24:07.980
have no evidence of fraud. None. Zero. Should I be demonetized for saying what I just said? That I
00:24:15.420
personally am aware of no fraud in the election? I will be, probably, probably already demonetized while
00:24:22.600
I'm talking. Is anything I'm saying dangerous or offensive or inappropriate? Not even close. So here's
00:24:30.960
my main point about CNN. When they say the election was not rigged, that is simply not a fact. Nor is it
00:24:39.320
a fact that we know it was rigged. Neither of those are facts. Anybody pretending that those are facts
00:24:46.820
can't tell the difference between a reasonable assumption and something you know? Is it a
00:24:53.740
reasonable assumption that the election was not rigged? It's reasonable. It's reasonable. I think
00:25:01.380
reasonable people might disagree, but it's not crazy, but it's an assumption. You can't prove
00:25:09.700
something didn't happen when you didn't look for it. All right. So if I say something that is
00:25:18.840
objectively and obviously true, that you can't know something doesn't exist in the context of you
00:25:25.820
didn't look for it. Is there anybody who disagrees with either of those two statements? That we didn't
00:25:31.980
look for it, except in those few cases that courts, you know, around the edges, there's some things that
00:25:38.520
got looked at. But we didn't look at the whole system, for sure. And if you didn't look, can you
00:25:43.920
be sure? Now, if that's true that not looking allows you to reach certainty, I'd like to hear that
00:25:51.100
argument. That'd be a good argument. It could be that we have, in fact, checked enough places that
00:25:57.900
statistically you could be pretty darn sure nothing happened. That's possible. But I haven't heard that
00:26:04.140
argument. I'd like to. Because if it's true, I'd certainly like to know it. All right. So I believe
00:26:11.360
I'm being squeezed. And I'm getting lots of reports of people having to re-follow me on Twitter. By the
00:26:19.280
way, in the comments, if you've ever had to re-follow me on Twitter, or you can't find my tweets, say so in
00:26:27.380
the comments. And for those of you who believe I might be exaggerating, watch what happens. It'll
00:26:33.700
take about a minute for the comments to catch up. Here they come. Look at all the people who had to
00:26:40.280
re-follow me that know they never unfollowed me in the first place. When you see the number of them,
00:26:47.520
you kind of can't think it's a coincidence. And it doesn't look like a bug.
00:26:51.980
Somebody says you are not exaggerating. Just look at the comments. These are people who follow me
00:27:00.240
enough to watch my live streams regularly. So they're not casual followers. Just look at all
00:27:08.480
the people who are saying this. Do you believe it's a coincidence that this many people who just
00:27:13.920
happen to be on this live stream, look at all the yeses. Now, I'm seeing more of them on Periscope
00:27:20.620
than I am on YouTube. For the YouTube people, I could just read the comments from Periscope. It's
00:27:26.760
like, yes, yes, re-follow. There are no's, of course, but a lot of yeses. Do you think that's a bug?
00:27:34.640
I don't. Do you think they're all wrong? And they just had some perceptual problem where somebody did
00:27:42.580
it twice in one week. Do you think they accidentally unfollowed me twice that week?
00:27:48.600
No. No, that didn't happen. For a while, I used to think it was a coincidence. But it is now
00:27:55.680
somewhat obvious that both YouTube and Twitter are squeezing me.
00:28:01.000
probably politically. My guess is that it's politically motivated, but how would I know?
00:28:09.540
So, uh, the odds of this getting monetized by YouTube are probably zero. I don't think they
00:28:17.420
could handle this. All right. Uh, so Biden, uh, has a new gaffe. He went to Texas and in the middle
00:28:25.040
of his, uh, opening remarks, he said, and I quote, what am I doing here? I'm going to lose track here
00:28:31.540
because he literally forgot what he was doing while he was talking.
00:28:36.520
Now we add to that the following clues. We know that, uh, his vice president is talking to foreign
00:28:42.560
leaders, something that even Biden didn't do, you know, at this level. So there's something going on
00:28:48.840
in which Harris is clearly being, uh, you know, groomed for the top job because the talking to
00:28:55.200
foreign leaders would be the main thing you'd want to do to get ready. And then we also heard the
00:29:00.040
reports that the nuclear football, the Democrats don't necessarily want that in one decision.
00:29:05.560
They might want to get more, more control on that. So you say to yourself, wait a minute,
00:29:10.260
don't these all have that same quality, uh, of it's obvious now that Biden is being, you know,
00:29:17.940
managed out of the job for obvious cognitive problems. But I will give you this one caution.
00:29:26.920
Remember I introduced a word, apophenia, A-P-O-P-H-E-N-I-A, apophenia. It's the, uh, phenomenon
00:29:36.860
where people see patterns where there are no patterns, similar to confirmation bias, uh, but a little
00:29:45.900
bit different. And is that a real pattern or a fake one? All right. So here are the three things.
00:29:54.200
Tell me if it's a real pattern or a fake one. Number one, Biden makes lots of verbal gaffes.
00:29:59.760
You think he has a cognitive problem. Number two, Harris is talking to foreign leaders as if she's
00:30:05.240
getting ready for the job, the top job. And there's some concern even from Democrats about who has control
00:30:11.060
of the nuclear football. Put those three things together. Proof that Biden is being managed out of
00:30:19.520
the top job. No. Yeah. We want to believe that. And if I had to bet on it, I would bet yes, but not
00:30:31.040
necessarily because of these three pieces of evidence. The nuclear football thing could be just a general
00:30:38.640
concern. Could be. Uh, Harris talking to foreign leaders seems a little bit more on the nose
00:30:45.220
in, in the right way. Not, I use, I sometimes use that as a, uh, indication of something that's not
00:30:51.760
true. But in this case, that's exactly what you'd be doing. And I don't see another reason for it. Do you?
00:30:58.460
What would be the other reason Harris would be talking to foreign leaders? So I would subtract out
00:31:05.400
the nuclear football question because it might be part of the pattern, but it might not be. Um,
00:31:12.840
and the Biden gaffe, what am I doing here? You could argue that he's just always been that way.
00:31:18.000
It's no different. Um, but the part about Harris talking to the foreign leaders,
00:31:28.100
You know, I mean, you could argue she's getting ready to run after four years, but it feels a little
00:31:34.140
early. So anyway, be, be mindful that it could be a fake pattern, but I would also bet on it being
00:31:43.680
real. So I would join you in betting it's real, but you can't be a hundred percent sure. Um,
00:31:49.700
the funniest thing about the news today is how much of it is about Bill Maher.
00:31:54.220
You know, you're used to, uh, seeing the news talk about whatever Bill Maher said on his show on
00:32:01.360
Friday night each week. And, you know, I'm not surprised that, you know, something he said made
00:32:08.840
the news. It's very, very normal, but I felt like he made a lot of news. Like he made a lot of news.
00:32:15.600
Like we don't have anything else to talk about, but it's part of this trend of, uh, people who maybe
00:32:21.540
leaned left. I'm not sure what you would, uh, how you would classify, uh, Bill Maher progressive,
00:32:27.580
I guess. And they're, you know, eating each other. So he, he came out strongly against cancel
00:32:33.800
culture, which, um, is why Bill Maher is a voice you should listen to because there aren't that many
00:32:40.880
people who can come out against their own team as it were. And he does regularly when it makes sense.
00:32:47.460
So, uh, even when you don't agree with Bill Maher, and I don't agree with him on a number of
00:32:53.000
topics, but I got it. You have to admit he is capable intellectually of seeing an issue on either
00:33:00.980
side, uh, without being blinded by it. I do think TDS had him a little bit blinded, but that was a
00:33:07.040
special case. So, um, he also is saying that Trump is the presumptive nominee for 2024 that, you know,
00:33:20.360
and he's warning people don't imagine this won't happen because it's almost positive. It's going to
00:33:27.060
happen. Remember if there are a number of other candidates who are running, let's say Trump,
00:33:32.740
you know, has a primary challenger, which of course he would, um, it depends how many there are.
00:33:38.980
If, if it's 10 challengers again, he's, he's definitely going to get nominated because it
00:33:44.500
will, you know, distribute the popularity. He'll still have, you know, 30% to whatever. So he'd easily
00:33:50.580
get it. Uh, but what if he only ran against one person who was a pretty good candidate? Well,
00:33:58.000
then it may be a little close call, but who would be that one candidate name, name one, uh, candidate
00:34:07.800
who, if they, if it were one-on-one against Trump for the primary, all right, not for the, not for
00:34:13.940
the job, but for the primary, what Republican would stand a chance? There's, there's no one-on-one
00:34:23.240
matchup that would even be close. Would it, would there? Somebody's saying Pompeo, but he's, he would
00:34:29.080
be identified as, you know, sort of Trump's guy. Yeah. I mean, I'm seeing all the usual names,
00:34:35.600
Matt Gaetz, Haley, et cetera. I don't think Matt Gaetz is going to primary Trump. Do you? I don't
00:34:43.380
think so. Andrew Yang would not run as a Republican. Ted Cruz, Ted Cruz, I'm not sure he had his best
00:34:51.980
week. He's still, still fighting off the, uh, the Cancun stuff. He made a joke about it at CPAC.
00:34:58.700
I'm not sure that joke landed, but, uh, I liked that he's treating it as, uh, as a joke, taking
00:35:07.100
full responsibility, but then also minimizing it because it isn't that important. So those are the
00:35:14.660
two things that you would look for, for somebody handling it correctly, right? So the mistake is the
00:35:20.900
mistake, but he handled it correctly by coming back completely saying this was a mistake. No
00:35:27.160
ambiguity. It was just a mistake. I like that. He didn't shade it. Just a mistake. Uh, and, and then
00:35:36.840
he, then he minimized it, which I think in this case you should minimize it. All right. Here's my
00:35:42.280
question. What does Bill Maher think about Biden's mental capacity? So now we've watched Bill, we've
00:35:51.140
watched, uh, Biden, you know, operate for a while. What does Bill Maher think of that? Because remember
00:35:57.940
the, the, the, the ordinary team player Democrats are just not going to mention that. But Bill Maher
00:36:05.460
can, because he's not, you know, he's not a hypnotized team player. If he sees it, he's going
00:36:14.380
to call it out. I don't know how much longer he can go without sort of making this a featured point
00:36:22.200
that Biden's capacity is, is, uh, diminished. The other thing that seems, uh, and I, I've been predicting
00:36:30.140
this, but it's funny to watch it come, come true. How many times Biden will be forced to follow some
00:36:37.100
kind of a Trump policy that he had already been criticizing? So we're seeing it with kids in
00:36:42.560
cages, right? Technically Biden is not doing as much as, uh, as Trump did in terms of putting kids
00:36:51.260
in cages and that they're not cages per se. They're, they're, uh, what are they? They have some other
00:36:57.360
name that makes them sound not like cages, but they're walled units, et cetera, but they will soon
00:37:02.900
be overwhelmed. And Biden will end up probably doing something pretty close to what Trump had to do
00:37:09.500
because you sort of have to. What about, uh, Biden bombing Syria? Sounded very Trump-like, didn't it?
00:37:17.500
A lot of Democrats said, Hey, we, we didn't vote for you so you could be bombing Syria.
00:37:23.540
Um, how about, uh, Biden's, uh, response to the Khashoggi killing? So now the official report comes
00:37:31.160
out in which the United States is blaming, uh, uh, MBS, the head of Saudi Arabia for directly
00:37:38.460
ordering the Khashoggi killing. Now, what would Trump have done if Trump had been in charge and this
00:37:46.540
report came out? What Biden did was he issued the report. I think Trump would have done that too.
00:37:53.540
Because it would be an official report. Yeah, it would, somebody would issue it. So that would
00:37:59.040
happen the same. Um, and then Biden decided not to punish the person that they called responsible.
00:38:08.600
So MBS is, will not be sanctioned, won't be disallowed in the country, nothing. And Biden says,
00:38:17.500
the reason is that we need him. We need him, you know, as just as a practical, as a practical matter,
00:38:25.460
we, we need his support. What would have, what would Trump have done? Exactly the same fricking thing.
00:38:35.400
Trump was playing it exactly the same way. He was letting people, you know, sort of know it was MBS,
00:38:42.340
but he was treading lightly so he could get other things done, such as the Abraham Accords and
00:38:47.660
basically anything else. You need their help. So Biden basically took a Trump policy on the
00:38:54.580
Khashoggi thing, Trump policy on bombing Syria. Um, yeah, I mean, he's, and, and he will be forced
00:39:04.540
into a Trump policy on the border, at least in terms of the kids in cages part. So watching this
00:39:10.160
come together is interesting and watching the Democrats watch it with horror when they thought
00:39:15.560
something different could happen. Now I think Biden's also pro-nuclear, right? So when are the
00:39:23.460
progressives going to have to deal with the fact that they elected a pro-nuclear guy? Now he should be
00:39:28.440
pro-nuclear as was Trump, right? Biden and Trump, not that different except for tone.
00:39:38.940
All right. Um, Rand Paul's being accused. So here's some more fake news reports.
00:39:44.520
Some fake news from CNN. So they're, uh, they're reporting that critics are blaming Rand Paul for
00:39:52.780
being quote bigoted and deeply offensive and a transphobic attack. Uh, when he questioned Dr.
00:39:59.360
Rachel Levine, she, cause she would be, uh, the first, uh, transgender cabinet, uh, person if she
00:40:06.000
gets through the nominee nomination. And he was asking about puberty, puberty suppression drugs for
00:40:14.200
minors. Now, if you watched it, did you see anybody say anything bigoted or deeply offensive? Did you see
00:40:26.320
Rand Paul say anything that was anti-transgender? No, nothing, not a single thing. And yet it's reported
00:40:38.140
by CNN. And instead of saying they say it, they say critics are saying it's bigoted and deeply
00:40:44.380
offensive. Is that fair? Is it fair to look at something that didn't happen and then say the critics say it
00:40:52.800
happened and just report what the critics say without putting in the part where none of it happened? Right?
00:41:00.200
None of it happened, but they still report that the critics say it happened. I think you need to add the part
00:41:07.400
about none of it happened if you're a real news organization. Here's what he did do. He questioned
00:41:14.300
who makes the decision. That's it. He questioned whether children, uh, should make the decision
00:41:22.180
and or their parents, like who should make the decision. The most basic question we ask about
00:41:28.200
everything in society, who gets to decide? Who gets to decide has nothing to do with the base
00:41:37.180
question of what you do? He didn't even deal with that. It wasn't even the topic. It was a how to
00:41:43.040
decide topic, given that there are long-term consequences. Now this is as fake as fake news
00:41:48.640
can get to CNN. So that's two cases of fake news there. Um, and of course in conservative media
00:41:58.080
to be just as fake, you, did you see the hashtag about the, uh, I guess the house passed the, uh,
00:42:06.400
what do you call it? The stimulus bill that's 1.9 trillion dollars and it's being reported. Uh,
00:42:14.040
the Republicans are saying that only 9% of that is actually going to the primary purpose of fighting
00:42:19.900
the pandemic. Have you seen that yet? Only 9% of this money goes to fighting the pandemic.
00:42:26.880
It's just bullshit. Fake news. None of us, that's not even close to being real.
00:42:33.100
That 9% thing. Anybody who says that it's 9%, you should just write them off as being an honest
00:42:39.900
broker. It's just a lie. Now what they're doing to make this lie sound like a little bit technically
00:42:47.460
true is they add the part like medical, but most of the bill is about paying people directly,
00:42:54.920
you know, backstopping businesses and all that stuff. So most of it is economic and the,
00:43:01.160
the pandemic requires an economic response. The whole 9% thing is just, is just a lie.
00:43:11.080
Now at the same time, the same time, is it true that it's filled with pork and progressive wishlist?
00:43:17.180
Yes. Yes, that could be true. So it can be true that it has too much pork while it's not true that
00:43:25.600
only 9% of it is what you wanted, right? They can both be true. Um, so, uh, I don't have an opinion
00:43:35.580
about whether the bill is good or bad because I don't know if anybody can tell, but, uh, I don't know
00:43:42.180
if it'll get past either. I don't know if Kamala Harris will approve the, you know, the minimum wage
00:43:49.320
part or that gets stripped out. So there's a lot of unknowns. We don't know how this will go.
00:43:52.740
Uh, all right. But don't believe the fake news about the 9% part. That's just political talking
00:43:59.520
points. Apparently 83 million people, um, in the United States had COVID by the end of 2020.
00:44:08.740
Does that sound right to you? If somebody had asked you how many people in the United States out of our
00:44:15.400
country, uh, 370 million, how many people do we have in the country now? I don't know the exact
00:44:21.600
number, but it's well over 300 million and 83 million have already had the virus by the end of
00:44:29.460
2020. Does that sound right? I don't feel like 83 million people got infected, but that would be
00:44:39.080
about 25% of the public. Do you think 25% of the public already had COVID? It doesn't sound right,
00:44:48.620
does it? I'm not saying it's not right, but it doesn't. This is one of those cases where the
00:44:54.980
statistics and the observation aren't matching. And I, and I always teach you that that's the
00:44:59.960
first thing you should look for. I'm not saying that the statistic is wrong, but you at least have
00:45:05.660
to figure out why the observation doesn't match, right? Cause if it were one in four, I feel like
00:45:13.340
things would look real different. Don't you? Right? So if it were 83 million and 1% of them
00:45:22.260
died, it would be what? 800,000. I don't know. Maybe we have 500,000 dead. So maybe that's not too far
00:45:31.500
off. Um, but the good news is the, we've got 8% of the population vaccinated. So add 25 to eight
00:45:41.740
and we're maybe a third of the way to some kind of herd immunity with the two causes put together,
00:45:49.240
the vaccinations plus the already infected. And we've got a new vaccination vaccine coming.
00:45:56.120
Here's an interesting, uh, uh, hypothesis. I love conspiracy theories. That doesn't mean I think
00:46:04.400
they're true, but they're always fun, which is how they become popular, right? It's a fun conspiracy
00:46:11.660
theory. But you know, the story about, uh, China used, uh, anal swabs to test for COVID in our,
00:46:19.260
uh, in U S, um, diplomats. Now, of course, this is a big controversy because it was considered
00:46:25.020
humiliating that China basically shoved something up the ass of our diplomats. But, uh, as Twitter user
00:46:33.780
whose name is Hillary for prison, HRC number four prison made this, uh, interesting observation.
00:46:45.380
And I don't know if I want to believe this or not, but I love a good conspiracy theory. You ready?
00:46:51.380
And, uh, Hillary for prison says the gut is the foundation of health. China just data mined
00:46:57.560
these diplomats. They now know any health conditions and medications they're taking.
00:47:04.040
This is a security breach and all these diplomats should be called home.
00:47:10.440
That's not bad. Now, I don't know if that's true, but it feels true, doesn't it? If, if China could
00:47:21.480
get a hold of the, the, you know, the waste of our diplomats, couldn't they tell what, what their
00:47:29.440
medical conditions are and what, uh, drugs they're taking? And if they knew what drugs they were taking
00:47:35.740
and what their medical conditions were, would that give them some leverage in some way over those
00:47:41.500
diplomats? I feel like it might. This is an interesting hypothesis that you should just out of,
00:47:49.820
and of caution, they should call all the diplomats home. But then does China win? Because we want
00:47:57.360
those diplomats. They're there for a reason, right? They're not randomly picked. They're good for that
00:48:01.860
job. So I don't know what kind of credibility to put on this speculation, but I'm not ruling it out.
00:48:10.500
It feels like the sort of thing that can happen. All right. Let's see what else we've talked about here.
00:48:19.820
Here's another dog that's not barking. As CPAC, apparently there are a number of breakouts or
00:48:27.280
events centered around the allegation, which no courts have proven that there was election fraud.
00:48:35.640
So, um, now that's not the interesting part. The interesting part is, as far as you know,
00:48:44.100
as far as you know, is, is our government working on fixing the election process, at least the
00:48:51.100
credibility of it, so that we'll feel confident in it for next time? I don't feel like that's
00:48:57.340
happening, is it? So why are you even talking about... I don't know that, but you have my questions
00:49:03.180
enabled. Do you want to open it? My digital assistant started talking to me. That's spooky.
00:49:10.900
Um, all I know is if your government doesn't have a plan floating around for fixing it, and maybe
00:49:17.100
there's an argument between the Democrats and the Republicans, but they all want to fix it,
00:49:21.580
nothing like that's happening. I don't think, I don't think I want to listen to anybody in the
00:49:28.520
political sphere talking about any election allegations for 2020, unless they're personally
00:49:35.860
working on the fix. If you're not working on fixing it, I don't care about what happened in the past.
00:49:42.360
I don't care. I don't care if you think there was fraud in the past. If you're not fixing it,
00:49:48.240
and again, when I say fix it, I mean the transparency of it. That's not an allegation of fraud.
00:49:54.240
It's an allegation of insufficient transparency. I feel like we should just stop listening to everybody
00:50:01.520
who is a politician who is not working on fixing it for next time. I just don't care about what
00:50:08.800
happened last time. That's over, right? Biden's the president. You don't have to like it. It's just
00:50:13.520
done. It's time to move on. Here's another question. All this talk about the capital assault,
00:50:20.640
and was it a resurrection? Was it a coup? And how QAnon was a big part of this, and Q, Q, Q.
00:50:27.660
So the biggest national story, right? Biggest story. Where's the part where we talk about who Q really was,
00:50:36.500
especially toward the end? There's some suggestion that Q started with some group of people,
00:50:43.000
but may have evolved into a different group of people. How do we have a capital assault
00:50:47.920
in which everybody thinks Q had some role in it, and we don't know who Q is, and it's not even a
00:50:57.160
question in the news? Where's the headline that says, still looking for Q? Where's the headline that
00:51:04.580
says, we found Q, and he's a Republican, or he's a Democrat, or he's American, or not American,
00:51:12.400
or there's several of them? Yeah. Well, some of you are getting ahead of me.
00:51:18.600
What would be any explanation you could think of in which the biggest story isn't even in the news?
00:51:27.060
What would be a bigger story than who is the actual identity of Q? Seriously,
00:51:31.920
what would be a bigger story than that? I mean, coronavirus, yes. But the Q thing was our biggest
00:51:40.280
story for months, and nobody even asked, who is Q? Now let me ask you a second question. Do you believe
00:51:48.440
that in our world of universal digital surveillance, do you think that our intelligence agencies in the
00:51:57.480
United States do not know who Q was? Do you think the CIA doesn't know who Q was? Is that even
00:52:07.240
possible? Because of course they were interested. Of course they're interested. Nobody doubts that,
00:52:14.660
right? Nobody doubts that the CIA, or maybe it's the FBI, I don't know, whichever entities get involved
00:52:21.040
with this sort of stuff. Nobody would doubt that they'd be interested, right? Or that they would
00:52:27.040
look into it. Do you think they couldn't find out? Do you think that somebody could hide and just say,
00:52:35.000
I'm Q, they'll never find me, I'll use my clever, you know, work around so they can't even track me?
00:52:43.000
Really? Because that alone would be a story. If there were somebody who was regularly publishing,
00:52:48.500
and our intelligence agencies couldn't figure out who it was, that would be a story. So here are the
00:52:55.860
things that we know. It's not a story anywhere. It would be highly important to know the answer to it.
00:53:06.380
Our intelligence agencies clearly know who it is. Clearly. They have not told us who it is.
00:53:14.020
Why? Why? Would our intelligence agencies not want us to know who is behind this, you know, at least
00:53:27.960
part of the variable behind this capital assault that we're all so concerned about? You don't think
00:53:34.260
they'd want us to know who it was? Of course they would. And we should know, for example, that there
00:53:42.180
might be an error, you know, they're talking to him, or maybe some law was broken, and there's a
00:53:47.180
possible arrest. I don't know. Suppose it's, yeah, the only reasonable assumption is that it is our
00:53:56.120
intelligence agencies who are behind Q. Now, I probably get kicked off of all social media for
00:54:02.300
even saying that, right? This would be a good edge test, isn't it? I think I just went too far.
00:54:08.020
So I probably am cancelable now. So let me state it in a way that there's no inaccuracy.
00:54:16.560
I'm not saying that that's the case. I have no information to directly suggest that intelligence
00:54:23.600
agencies were behind Q at the end. I don't know about the beginning. But it does explain everything
00:54:33.180
we're seeing. And I don't have a second explanation for why it's not even in the news. Do you?
00:54:43.480
Right? It's just speculation. But ask yourself that question. If you don't know the answer to that
00:54:51.940
question, how much do you understand about what's going on? And when I say what's going on,
00:54:57.120
you know, I mean, behind the curtain? I mean, that's, that is really, really obviously missing
00:55:05.020
in the conversation, isn't it? And until I brought it up, did you notice? Until you heard me say it
00:55:11.640
today, were you ever thinking to yourself, hey, who is that Q person? Why don't we know that yet?
00:55:18.040
Probably not. Because the media tells you what to think about. And they didn't tell you to think
00:55:23.620
about that. The media tells you what to think about. And that's their job, right? And they simply
00:55:31.600
didn't tell you to think about it, so you didn't. That's how well they can hide stuff. They meaning
00:55:37.700
whoever's behind the curtain. And what entity would be able to get to both conservative news
00:55:45.980
and left-leaning news? What entity could force both left and right-leaning news to be silent on
00:55:57.240
the biggest, one of the biggest topics in the country? Well, I can't think of anybody except an
00:56:03.140
intelligence agency. Can you imagine anybody else going to Fox News? Let's just take Fox News, or you
00:56:10.320
can do CNN. It doesn't matter. Can you imagine any other entity going to them and saying, hey, you know,
00:56:15.760
why don't you just don't cover this Q stuff? If CNN wanted to figure out who Q was, or even make a story
00:56:27.140
about how we can't figure it out, don't you think CNN wants to report who Q is? Now, you could make an
00:56:33.900
argument, oh, maybe Fox News doesn't want to report it because it'd make, I don't know, make
00:56:38.500
conservatives angry or something. Maybe not be good for their customers. So you could make an argument
00:56:43.440
that maybe the right-leaning entities just sort of want to ignore it because it would make things
00:56:49.120
worse for their supporters. Maybe. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying you could imagine that.
00:56:54.380
But what would CNN's reason be? Why would CNN not report it? Because obviously this would be somebody
00:57:00.760
associated with the right, and they would like the right to be deeply embarrassed.
00:57:04.820
It's just so obviously missing. It has to be. Well, I won't say it has to be. I can see no other
00:57:13.980
explanation, which doesn't mean there isn't one. It just means that my imagination, you know, taps out
00:57:19.940
at a certain point. Everybody's imagination taps out at a certain point. You just can't imagine
00:57:25.400
anything beyond that point. Thank you, TJ. You were way too nice, and I appreciate that.
00:57:35.680
All right. Somebody says, welcome to the party, pal. You've been there for a while, huh? All right.
00:57:43.800
That's what I had to say today. Now, I'm going to try to keep my promise that each of these live
00:57:50.460
streams will tell you something you didn't know or reinforce something that maybe is better to be
00:57:56.840
reinforced. So I hope I did that today, and I will talk to you. Oh, before I go, I just tweeted,
00:58:05.580
and it's pinned to my profile. It's an updated list of all the micro lessons on a whole bunch of things.
00:58:12.540
It's getting pretty long right now that you can learn within the local subscription world where
00:58:19.800
you can follow me and be part of my community. It's a subscription site, but the intention of that
00:58:25.640
is that you will learn a whole bunch of skills to add to your skill stack, and I will teach you each
00:58:31.560
of these skills really briefly. So it'll be the shortest, most useful lessons that you can immediately add to
00:58:39.660
your talent stack. And that is what I'm trying to do over in Locals, and I will talk to you later.
00:58:51.000
Somebody said, I agreed, but the speculation is built from an overblown narrative. I don't know
00:58:55.600
which one you're talking about. Oops, your comments are fast.
00:59:08.880
How will the cancel culture end? I think it's like everything else. It'll look like it's too much
00:59:15.280
for a while, and then it will normalize. You know, the reason that cancel culture exists is that we do
00:59:21.820
not have a leader who has the right skill to make it go away. Bill Maher is doing a good job
00:59:29.600
arguing against it, but I don't know that he has the weight to make it go away.
00:59:36.520
Yes, the Q thing was used to claim that Trump supporters were Nazis, which makes me suspect
00:59:47.740
All right. That's all I got for now, and I'll talk to you later.