Episode 1425 Scott Adams： Coffee and Headlines to Start Your Day Right
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
143.27185
Summary
A female prison guard in a male prison cut a hole in her uniform to facilitate intimate encounters with an inmate. How did she do it? And why did she find a way to do it in the first place?
Transcript
00:00:00.000
or the best part of the day. It's called the simultaneous sip. It's part of Coffee with Scott
00:00:05.860
Adams, which I think you know is the best part of the day every single time. Every single time you
00:00:12.780
say, is there even one time when it's not the best part of the day? Well, maybe if you have the birth
00:00:19.300
of a child, maybe if it's your wedding day, sure. But otherwise, it's the best part of your day
00:00:28.040
every single time. And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or
00:00:31.760
a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like
00:00:39.960
coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing
00:00:45.260
that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. I think you know that. It's
00:00:49.900
happening right now. Go. Ah. Well, YouTubers who are watching this, tell me if I've solved
00:01:01.240
that problem of an annoying click on my audio. I think I have because I've got a blanket down
00:01:08.200
now so it's blocking my cables from hitting the table. So it's better on Periscope, you
00:01:15.200
say, well, it's too bad Periscope doesn't exist. But I am simultaneously streaming this now
00:01:21.140
on the Locals platform in beta. Not everybody can do this yet. I'm just testing the beta version.
00:01:31.540
Somebody's sending me something I need to check out later. All right. So have you heard the story
00:01:37.920
about the woman who is a guard in a men's prison? Her name is Gonzalez. And she was accused of cutting
00:01:47.940
a hole in her uniform to, as they say, facilitate her intimate encounters with an inmate. That's
00:01:57.540
right. There was an attractive young female guard in a male prison. And she had figured out how to cut
00:02:05.160
a hole in her uniform to facilitate intimate encounters with the inmate. But yes, she's attractive.
00:02:14.760
That's an important part of the story. It's actually not that important to the story. But I think it
00:02:21.360
adds a little. I think you'd agree. Now, my reaction to this is very much like my reaction to when I hear
00:02:30.780
that a serial killer has built an impressive underground lair. I say to myself, well, that's a horrible crime.
00:02:38.160
I feel bad for the victims. But that's one industrious serial killer. And you have to give him some props
00:02:44.780
for working hard at his craft and putting passion into it. Now, this prison guard, again, I have to say,
00:02:55.440
while it's a crime, while it's a crime, and we cannot condone such activity, we must compliment her for
00:03:01.680
her creativity. Now, wouldn't you like to see a little bit more detail on this story? Because I would.
00:03:10.000
I'd like to know, what is the nature of the hole she put in her uniform to, quote, facilitate her
00:03:18.660
intimate encounters? Because I'm no fashion expert. But if you had a prison guard uniform,
00:03:27.540
and let's say there was a hole, let's say about this size. We don't know. But you know,
00:03:34.720
let's say it's a hole about this size. And let's say this hole was in her, let's say,
00:03:40.340
lower region of her body. Is that the sort of thing nobody would notice? I'd like you to do a test.
00:03:48.660
Test at home. Take your favorite pants and cut a hole through the pant part and also any
00:03:56.880
undergarments. So you've got a full access there for your facilitating your intimate encounters
00:04:04.540
with your spouse. And try wearing your pants with the hole cut out in the lower region. Try wearing
00:04:13.900
that all day. And see if anybody notices. Because the first question I have is, was there some kind
00:04:22.080
of a Velcro fastener over the hole so that she could just sort of quickly open it up? Or was it
00:04:31.340
just always open? Because you got the advantage of the airflow is better, but also quick access for
00:04:37.660
your intimate encounters. I just have lots of questions. The other question I have is, how much
00:04:44.240
game did this inmate have? You know, I tend to put myself in every story, because, you know, we're all
00:04:51.060
narcissists at some level. So I always imagine myself in the story in order to, you know, consume it.
00:04:58.080
And I put myself in the story and I say to myself, if I were not famous and rich, do I think I could
00:05:08.600
attract a hot female guard in a jail full of men? Would I be the one who got her to cut a hole in her
00:05:18.460
uniform for facilitating my intimate encounters? Because I feel I couldn't pull that off. I mean, I
00:05:28.680
have a pretty good opinion of myself. But I look at all this, and I say to myself, if I were literally
00:05:37.540
in jail for a horrible crime, and I'm behind bars, could I, with all of this, talk a attractive female
00:05:48.280
guard into cutting a hole in her uniform to facilitate my intimate encounters? And as much
00:05:55.360
as I have a pretty high opinion of my persuasive abilities, I don't think I could pull that off.
00:06:01.740
Could you? Do you think any of you could pull that off? The important part of the story is,
00:06:08.460
show us a picture of the inmate. Who the hell is this inmate who got this to happen? Because I'm
00:06:16.680
thinking, this is some impressive work by the inmate. All right. All right. Matt Taibbi has an
00:06:27.080
interesting article over on Substack. And by the way, you should follow Matt Taibbi in all things,
00:06:34.840
because he's an insanely good writer. He was talking about the Dark Horse podcast. You've heard the story.
00:06:41.740
Brett Weinstein has had some guests who have said some things that are counter to the official story on
00:06:47.940
coronavirus medical treatment. One of the stories about ivermectin, which is not an improved
00:06:56.420
treatment, but there are some doctors who think maybe it should be. And I think at least one episode
00:07:02.860
about some risks of vaccines, which again, goes counter to the official policy, shall we say.
00:07:11.360
And so he's been demonetized. And so this story, the story continues about him being demonetized for
00:07:18.760
this. And as Matt Taibbi points out, there's an interesting wrinkle here. Because as specifically,
00:07:26.980
about Weinstein's demonetization, so YouTube was asked, if they get their guidance for who to
00:07:36.720
demonetize, just specifically in the medical information report, where do they get their
00:07:42.140
guidance? So how does YouTube decide whether to demonetize somebody? And apparently, the answer is
00:07:49.780
that they do talk to authorities, government authorities, and they say they consult other
00:07:58.000
authorities, and added that when we develop our policies, we consult outside experts and YouTube
00:08:04.900
creators. In the case of COVID-19 misinformation policies, it would be guidance from local and
00:08:12.440
global health authorities. So this is what YouTube says. So YouTube says they get their guidance from
00:08:18.740
local and local and global health authorities. Now those authorities would be government, would they
00:08:24.100
not? The authorities would be the CDC, etc. And certainly, we don't want to be censored in the United
00:08:36.400
States, because there's some other government who would like us to be censored. Wouldn't you agree?
00:08:42.040
That if the only people who wanted our creators to be demonetized on a particular topic, if the only
00:08:50.500
ones who wanted that were outside of the United States, but nobody in the United States cared, we
00:08:57.080
probably wouldn't pay attention to it, right? If the speech were okay in the United States, YouTube
00:09:03.280
would probably allow it, I imagine. So it's not really the otherworldly governments that matter,
00:09:10.880
but rather, it's our own local and local authorities. One assumes they're the ones that matter in this
00:09:17.640
case. So here's the gray area. So if the government tried to censor a citizen, is that okay? Of course not,
00:09:29.060
right? The Constitution says that the government should not be censoring the citizens. Now, what if
00:09:36.280
a private individual tries to censor you? Is that okay? And the answer is, yeah. Yes, it is. So a private
00:09:47.640
person can censor you, but the government can't. But what happens if the private company, in this case,
00:09:53.800
YouTube, what happens if they consult with the government, and they've agreed to take the
00:10:00.160
government's advice? Now it gets a little dicey, doesn't it? So if the government is the one who
00:10:07.960
advises YouTube, and then YouTube simply follows their guidance, and here's the key, every time.
00:10:15.600
Every time. Every time. If YouTube follows the medical guidance of the United States government
00:10:22.740
entities, let's say the CDC in this case, and they do it every time, they never vary from that,
00:10:28.760
and why would they, really? How could they? Could you imagine that YouTube would say, well,
00:10:34.500
the CDC said this, but we've decided we're going to go a different direction? No. I think it's safe to
00:10:41.940
assume that if YouTube has this policy at all, which is to listen to the government on these medical
00:10:47.720
questions, that they're going to use their advice. They're not going to ignore it. So what do you call it
00:10:54.120
when the government's, let's say the government's viewpoint can effectively be the thing that shuts down
00:11:03.640
a citizen? Does it matter that YouTube technically has a choice of whether they follow that guidance or not?
00:11:13.060
Or do they have a choice? What would happen to YouTube if they started promoting wildly bad medical advice?
00:11:23.480
Don't you think the government would shut them down? I mean, they would do something to them,
00:11:27.860
maybe not shut them down. But if YouTube can't disobey the government, it's the government
00:11:36.180
that's censoring Brett Weinstein, isn't it? Would you buy that argument? That if YouTube technically
00:11:46.220
they have the right to, you know, ignore the government, I guess, do they? I suppose they do,
00:11:52.960
right? Freedom of speech. So they could do it. But in the real world, they can't. I mean, not really
00:12:00.760
they can. So what happens? So what do you do? I'll tell you where I come down on this. If I were the
00:12:09.540
Supreme Court, I would say this is government censorship. Because the government's hand on this
00:12:15.200
is so heavy that it's effectively government censorship. But here's the other part that's hard.
00:12:22.960
The government isn't always wrong. All right? The government isn't always wrong. So it could be
00:12:30.340
that in this very specific case of a pandemic, that the government is just trying to save lives.
00:12:37.560
And maybe it would. Maybe a reasonable person would look at this and say, yeah, we get all the
00:12:43.140
arguments about free speech. Nobody disagrees that you've got to maintain free speech and that this
00:12:49.740
is definitely infringing it. But what if it also saved millions of lives? What do you do when free
00:12:58.660
speech might kill millions of people in an honest opinion? Because let's say you thought that free
00:13:04.080
speech would cause people to get fewer vaccinations and you legitimately believe that would cost lives.
00:13:10.620
What do you do? Do you say freedom of speech is so important, we're going to let a million people
00:13:15.400
die? Would you make that decision? Let's see in the comments. Now, I know you don't think a million
00:13:21.740
people will die. So I understand that the hypothetical is stretched too far. But I want to see in your
00:13:28.580
comments how many of you would let a million people die to protect freedom of speech on one topic.
00:13:35.120
So it's one temporary topic. Because even speech about the pandemic will be fine after the pandemic's
00:13:43.900
over. So it's temporary, it's on one topic, and it's for the benefit of the country, save a million
00:13:51.040
people. And I'm looking at your comments, and most of you would let a million people die for freedom
00:13:55.720
of speech. I choose death, people say. You know, I'm not going to criticize that opinion.
00:14:05.600
I don't know where I would come down on this, because it's hypothetical, so I don't have to decide.
00:14:11.500
But I could respect your opinion on that. I could respect that you would lose a million people to
00:14:16.120
maintain freedom of speech as an absolute. I could see that. I'm not sure I would come down in the same
00:14:21.980
place. But I could see it. I think where I would decide is whether it was creating a permanent
00:14:27.460
situation. So if we thought that making an exception in this one specific case was likely to cause more
00:14:36.280
exceptions, then that'd be a problem. So I think that's where I'd come down on it. Slippery slope,
00:14:42.420
right. If you think it's a slippery slope, you have to treat it that way. Now there's an interesting
00:14:46.280
sub-story here on this situation. So Claire Lehman, I hope I'm pronouncing that right,
00:14:56.160
founder of Quillette and well-known on Twitter, has a big Twitter account. She and Brett Weinstein
00:15:02.540
are having a little Twitter battle back and forth. And she points out that in one of her exchanges with
00:15:11.480
Brett on Twitter, she says, Claire says, don't patronize me. Your rhetoric is fueling vaccine
00:15:17.440
hesitancy. And you know it. You need to fix what you are creating. And I'm not so sure. Does he? Because
00:15:29.400
let's say that the claim is correct. Let's say that Brett's content, which Claire calls rhetoric,
00:15:36.900
right. So right away, she's using a loaded word. I would say that he's creating content
00:15:43.720
that is not in the mainstream, if you want to take all the emotion out of it, right. But if you want
00:15:49.060
to put some opinion into your statement, you say it's rhetoric. His rhetoric, because that just makes
00:15:55.360
it look like it's bullshit, right. So your rhetoric is fueling vaccine hesitancy. Let's say that's true.
00:16:02.100
Don't call it rhetoric. Let's say content. Let's say Brett's content is fueling vaccine hesitancy.
00:16:11.180
Is that a reason not to do it? Is that a good enough reason not to do it? Because I don't know
00:16:18.160
that it is. I think I'm hearing Christina practicing the piano if you hear that. So anyway, I'm just
00:16:27.840
watching this because I think it's kind of fascinating, the free speech element to this.
00:16:33.080
All right, here's another unexpected, unintended consequences of something. So as you know,
00:16:40.840
Bill Cosby was freed because there had been allegedly a prior agreement, must have been an oral agreement
00:16:47.620
with a prosecutor that he wouldn't be prosecuted for the specific crime he was. And so he got out of
00:16:53.740
jail. And now not only did Harvey Weinstein's lawyer say, hey, we're next. I kind of doubt Harvey
00:17:02.260
Weinstein is next. But Ghislaine Maxwell, whose name we cannot pronounce. But before I go on,
00:17:14.080
let me thank the simulation and the authors of the simulation for making Ghislaine Maxwell,
00:17:21.420
Maxwell's name, have something that looks like Ghislaine, and Max in the name. Because if you
00:17:31.880
were going to name a, let's say, a fictional character who did all of the things that Ghislaine
00:17:39.560
Maxwell is accused of doing, I would want her name to have Ghislaine and Max. Maximum Ghislaine.
00:17:47.700
I feel like the simulation is just giving this to us. So let's take it. But anyway, her appellate
00:17:55.260
lawyer is arguing that she too was subject to an agreement not to prosecute. And apparently there
00:18:04.380
was, and I think, correct me if I'm wrong, I think even Alan Dershowitz either negotiated this or was
00:18:10.280
even covered by it, or both. There was some kind of agreement that when Epstein was prosecuted,
00:18:17.340
whatever that deal was back in 2010 or something, that there was some deal not to prosecute co-conspirators.
00:18:27.140
Someone tells Scott about Wayne Sexton. Don't know about Wayne Sexton.
00:18:31.500
So anyway, but the point is, we don't know the details of this claim, but I think she might actually
00:18:42.000
have a claim. She might actually have a get out of jail card here. Because if it's true that she was
00:18:50.400
covered under this agreement, she walks, right? So it's entirely possible that Ghislaine will get out of
00:19:01.480
jail just like Cosby. So I don't know how likely that is, but I would say this is, it's not impossible,
00:19:09.360
which is scary as hell. Well, here's a case of the slippery slope taking care of itself, or a self-correcting
00:19:19.860
problem. Did you see that a transgender woman has earned the title of Miss Nevada? So in the, I guess it's the
00:19:29.220
Miss USA contest. And a Filipino-American, Catalina Enriquez, was crowned the winner for Nevada. So we
00:19:38.340
have a transgender woman who's Miss Nevada now. And she bested 21 other candidates to win.
00:19:48.380
So there are two ways to look at this. One way to look at this, and probably many of you are looking
00:19:58.300
at it this way. Yeah, Miss America and Miss USA are two different competitions. I think that's correct.
00:20:06.000
Somebody's telling me here. So here's the thing. On one hand, you could say to yourself that the drama
00:20:14.540
with transgender athletes is ruining sports. Some people say that, right? Or ruining women's sports.
00:20:24.400
That's what the critics would say. And now I imagine that there will be critics who say that a
00:20:30.200
transgender winning Miss Nevada is ruining the Miss USA pageant. Would you say that? They had a perfectly
00:20:39.540
good pageant. And now it's getting ruined, ruined, I say, by this transgender competitor.
00:20:48.420
I've got a different opinion. I feel that what happened was that the transgender athletes have
00:20:54.100
shown us what's wrong with sports and what's wrong with pageants. I don't think the transgenders are
00:21:01.520
what's broken here. I think the transgender athletes and the transgender Miss USA contestants are
00:21:09.900
just people, but they're in a system that had some flaws. One of the flaws is, why the hell is there
00:21:18.460
a Miss USA contest in 2021? Isn't everything about that just feels wrong in 2021? Really? We're going to
00:21:28.800
make a bunch of women walk around in bathing suits and judge them and their minor talents. And it's all
00:21:36.020
about how you look. There's nothing wrong with this transgender competitor. The competitor is fine.
00:21:44.700
It's the competition that's just ridiculous. So if the person who's fine breaks a competition,
00:21:51.140
don't necessarily blame the competitor. Maybe the competition didn't make any sense in 2021.
00:21:58.560
Likewise, I think sports should be among people who are similarly skilled, regardless of gender. So in
00:22:05.380
my opinion, it's the sports that are broken, not the athlete, because everybody should have access to
00:22:10.960
sports one way or the other. So I'm not going to make a bigger argument there, except to say there are
00:22:16.340
two ways to look at it. One is that the transgenders are ruining everything. And the other is people are
00:22:23.200
people. Some are transgender. How about if you can't create a system that handles people? Maybe
00:22:32.040
the system needs some adjustment. So I'll just put that out there because I know it catches your hair
00:22:37.600
on fire. You hate it. But I had a philosophy teacher who once told me this analogy that has
00:22:46.100
stuck with me forever. It was just one little moment in time I'll never forget. And the philosophy
00:22:52.140
teacher said, if you ever had a loose tooth, especially when you're a kid, you've got a tooth
00:22:58.620
that's loose. What do you do with it? You keep pushing around with your tongue, right? And when you push
00:23:04.180
it with your tongue, it kind of hurts. But you can't stop doing it. It hurts. It doesn't really
00:23:10.140
do anything useful. But you can't stop. You just keep hurting yourself with it. And I had some point
00:23:19.180
about that. But I don't know what the point was. But I guess that won't change your life the way it
00:23:24.980
did mine. All right. Yes, there are some pains that we run toward. So let's talk about the
00:23:33.680
Olympic athlete, Sha-Kari Richardson. You know, I kind of love the name Sha-Kari or Kari. I don't
00:23:48.120
know exactly how to pronounce it. But when you have a boring name like Scott or Mike or, you know,
00:23:58.560
Bob, you go through life with just your boring name. But then here's Sha-Kari, who has to stop
00:24:07.600
and spell her name for everybody. It's like, no, there's a hyphen. Well, no, you're not done. You're
00:24:12.300
not done with the hyphen. The hyphen's in the middle. And they just keep going. It's like two names,
00:24:18.520
but with a hyphen. No, but it's real. It's one name. So it's very inconvenient, but very exotic. I like
00:24:25.840
it. So she got accused of having some marijuana in her system. And she's a sprinter, and she'll
00:24:32.620
maybe ban from competing in the Olympics, which is tragic. Now, here's the first thing I'd like to
00:24:40.540
say about this. She needs a nickname. I don't think she should be called Sha-Kari Richardson,
00:24:49.220
although it's an awesome name, as I said. I'd like to give her a nickname. I'd call her the
00:24:53.600
weed runner. Yeah, the weed runner. So the weed runner is being supported by AOC, who says,
00:25:03.520
the criminalization and banning of cannabis is an instrument of racist and colonial policy.
00:25:09.420
The IOC should reconsider its suspension of Ms. Richardson and any athletes penalized for
00:25:15.220
cannabis use. This ruling, blah, blah, blah. Oh, and then she throws in this. There's something
00:25:20.380
about the IOC denied some kind of swimming caps for natural hair, meaning curlier kind of hair,
00:25:30.020
meaning essentially the kind of hair that black people typically have, which I'm assuming that
00:25:37.160
the topic here is that if your hair has a certain quality, it's harder to wear a standard bathing
00:25:43.520
cap. So the ones that are more conveniently made if you have a certain kind of hair, especially if
00:25:50.660
you're black, I assume that's what this is about. They got banned. Now, what do I tell you about AOC?
00:25:59.380
I tell you that she has more game. Yeah, exactly. Somebody's saying in the comments, she has more game than
00:26:05.560
other people. And this was something that Republicans should have done first. Republicans always being
00:26:14.860
accused of being the racist, right? Oh, you're a Republican, you're a racist. This was free money
00:26:20.620
sitting on the table. The country is solidly against this. No matter what anybody thinks about
00:26:28.460
marijuana, the country does not want this competitor who, you know, who struggled and is trying to
00:26:35.300
represent our country and worked hard and everything, had this one little mistake. The country wants her
00:26:42.060
to compete. The country wants to back her. Where are the politicians? Where the hell are the Republicans?
00:26:50.400
The Republicans should have seen this, let's say, Ron DeSantis. Where's Ron DeSantis? It's sort of a
00:26:58.360
national issue, so maybe he's not weighing in on it. But the Republicans should have been all the
00:27:05.660
fuck over this. Because it's an easy one. It's so easy. Somebody says Matt Gaetz spoke up. There you go.
00:27:14.300
So Matt Gaetz is consistently smart enough to talk about the things that are free money. It's just
00:27:21.600
laying on the table. Just pick it up. Just pick it up, that free money. Just take it and be a little
00:27:27.620
less racist looking. But no. The Republicans fail totally. And honestly, if you don't try a little
00:27:37.240
bit to look non-racist, even the people who think you're not racist are going to wonder what's going
00:27:44.040
on. All right? Right? I mean, I back a lot of Republican-y things, even though I don't identify as
00:27:50.920
Republican. But if something makes sense, such as having strong border security, I've never seen
00:27:57.580
that as a political question. That's just what works, what doesn't work, etc. So, I mean, I would
00:28:06.540
love to be more supportive of Republicans. But when you let something this easy slip away, I mean,
00:28:14.040
this was just a fucking layup. All you had to do, all you had to do is say, this looks a little
00:28:20.820
extreme. The IOC should look into this. That's it. Not a big deal. Just a little bit of support for an
00:28:27.780
American athlete who happens to be black. Right? It's just easy money. But AOC just comes in and she
00:28:35.680
just hammers this thing. She hammers it like she owns it. Free money. She got it. Republicans left it on the
00:28:43.640
table. And when they do that, you've got to ask yourself why. Are they so dumb they couldn't see
00:28:50.060
the play? Or did they actually not want to be anti-racist? Even I have a question about that.
00:28:59.100
And I'm not the person who's accusing Republicans of being racist every day. But even I have to look
00:29:05.180
at this and say, this was so easy. So easy. And you couldn't do even this? Crazy. All right.
00:29:16.240
Jesse Waters has an interesting attack on Kamala Harris. So I guess Jesse has a new book whose
00:29:24.100
name I don't remember right now. But just look for the new Jesse Waters book if you'd like to read that.
00:29:29.480
He was on Tucker Carlson. He was talking about how Kamala Harris has a, quote, cackle. And I thought
00:29:38.260
to myself, that's a pretty good kill shot. If you wanted to guarantee that Kamala Harris was never
00:29:48.640
president, this talk about her cackle, that might get you there. You know, I called this out really
00:29:57.080
early on and saying that she would probably get professional help to get rid of the cackle. This
00:30:02.780
was even before the election. Now, I don't know if she got professional help, but she did not get
00:30:09.180
rid of the cackle. So it didn't work if she got any. And it's a real problem. Because it just makes
00:30:16.120
you look like a loser, frankly. It just makes you look like a total loser when you go into mode.
00:30:21.760
You just don't look like a leader. And I just can't imagine that she could get elected with
00:30:27.000
that cackle. So if Fox News and or that side of the world has identified the cackle as an attack
00:30:36.260
of a vector, it's a good one. It's totally good. The more they talk about the cackle, the more that's
00:30:43.020
all you'll be able to see and all you'll be able to think about, all you'll be able to imagine.
00:30:46.860
So it's really strong. It shouldn't be important at all. If you were to rank it about how actually
00:30:53.960
important it is, it's not actually important at all. But why does it feel like it? It's just really
00:31:00.100
strong as an emotional response. Because a lot of us have a real visceral reaction to it, don't you?
00:31:07.660
Don't you have like a visceral reaction to it? It's like, ugh, what is that? And I don't get that
00:31:16.000
from politicians that I don't even agree with. Right? Take your most disliked politician on whatever
00:31:24.140
is the other side from you. Do you have that kind of feeling for them? Or you just don't like their
00:31:30.160
politics? It's very rare that you'd have like a visceral, ugh, reaction to anybody. All right.
00:31:37.260
So that's a pretty productive attack there. Now, speaking of Kamala Harris, so one of the big
00:31:43.100
stories is that there's, Axios is reported from anonymous sources that her office is dysfunctional
00:31:51.660
and her chief of staff is mean and things are a mess inside. Now, how would I treat this story
00:31:59.960
if this story were about the Trump administration? Right? So I'm going to demonstrate something
00:32:06.680
called fairness, if you've never seen it. You don't see much of it. I'm going to treat this
00:32:13.540
story exactly the way I would have if this had been a Trump story. It's bullshit. It's bullshit.
00:32:20.800
Now, am I saying that the office is not dysfunctional? No. I'm saying every office is dysfunctional.
00:32:29.900
I'm the Dilbert guy. I created the Dilbert comic strip. Every office is dysfunctional. It's only
00:32:37.700
whether people are talking about it or not. Now, maybe not every unimportant department of every
00:32:43.580
company. But any sizable department, any department that's big enough to have lots of people in
00:32:51.300
it, doing important things, the pressure is high, they're all dysfunctional.
00:32:56.260
You get an anonymous person to say that your company is dysfunctional? Of course you could.
00:33:05.540
There's always an anonymous, disgruntled person. And it's usually a person who made suggestions
00:33:11.640
that sucked. Right? Every office has that person who says, you should do X because I'm the smartest
00:33:19.480
person in the office. And therefore, you should do X. And then everybody says, no, X is a dumb idea.
00:33:25.040
That's like totally stupid. We've tried X. X doesn't work. We've got data. X will never
00:33:29.180
work. You're a complete loser. Get away from us with this. We must do X. What does that person
00:33:34.820
do? Does that person say, oh, well, now that you've explained it to me, I'm actually really
00:33:40.400
dumb. And my idea was worthless. I apologize for wasting your time. No. No. That person who
00:33:49.120
thought their suggestion was brilliant will go to anybody who will listen, including the press,
00:33:55.040
and say, these people don't even listen to a good idea. Because I had a brilliant idea.
00:34:01.420
Brilliant idea. And it just got shot down. Because it's dysfunctional there. They don't
00:34:07.660
even know a good idea when they see it. Because I keep coming up with these great ideas and people
00:34:12.220
keep shooting me down. All right. This is exactly what I would tell you if this anonymous source
00:34:18.560
story had come out about Trump. It's just a way to, you know, it's just a criticism that
00:34:24.720
works. So I would give it zero credibility. Even if it's true. Meaning that everything's
00:34:33.120
a little bit dysfunctional. So calling out this one office probably is overkill. All right.
00:34:39.280
And it's probably a whisper campaign. Because the other thing that we're hearing, I think Axios
00:34:44.160
reported this, was that Democrat strategists believe that a presidential candidate, Harris,
00:34:53.700
couldn't beat any Republican. That's a pretty strong statement. That if it's true, right? It's
00:35:02.140
not sourced, et cetera. So don't put too much belief in it. But I think it might be true. It rings true to
00:35:09.860
me. If you said to me, name a Republican who might get nominated, so they'd have to be at least strong
00:35:15.780
enough to get nominated. Name any Republican who couldn't beat Kamala Harris and her cackle. And
00:35:23.880
the answer is, I can't think of one. I actually can't think of any Republican who couldn't beat
00:35:29.120
Kamala Harris at this point, right? Somebody says Mitt Romney. Okay, maybe. But I'm saying they'd have to
00:35:37.920
be able to get nominated. So anybody who could get nominated is automatically, you know, going to be
00:35:44.840
a strong candidate. Yeah, I don't think there's anybody who couldn't beat her at this point. So it
00:35:49.800
could be that the Democrats are looking to take her out, right? Because if Democrats want to maintain
00:35:55.620
power, she's not the source of that in the future. So they might need to take her out and make room for
00:36:01.820
somebody else to, you know, be the Biden successor. All right. Let's talk about these Trump indictments.
00:36:12.000
So CNN, of course, and all the anti-Trump news needs to make these look as big as possible. And I don't
00:36:20.760
think they wanted an immediate, any kind of immediate result. Because the longer they can drag this out,
00:36:27.540
the longer it's a topic that makes Trump have a problem running for office if he does again.
00:36:36.660
And so they're saying that this morning CNN's reporting the commission of other crimes in
00:36:43.940
addition to the scheme to defraud in the first degree, I will call that an alleged, an alleged
00:36:50.860
scheme. Because it's not a scheme until it's sort of proven in court, right? At this point, it's an
00:36:58.540
allegation. I wouldn't call it a scheme at this point. So I guess there's a grand larceny in the
00:37:06.540
second degree. I don't even know what that's about. Some kind of grand larceny charge. And that's the
00:37:12.720
second most serious white-collar crime in the state. And various charges of falsifying records.
00:37:21.280
Falsifying records seems like a bigger deal, doesn't it? The other stuff looks like it could
00:37:25.680
be just some kind of a tax-related fine. I don't know if anybody goes to jail for that. But
00:37:30.600
falsifying records looks like something you could go to jail for.
00:37:33.840
Now, I think the way you should see this story is, is it big enough to keep Trump out of office
00:37:42.600
for a second term? And I'm thinking it might be. Yeah, this story is big enough that it will slime
00:37:51.260
the Trump family sufficiently, that it's not really going to matter who's innocent and who's guilty and
00:37:57.100
what the details are. It just feels like Russian collusion, doesn't it? It's just sort of the new
00:38:02.740
Russia collusion. If you can just say it enough times and treat it like it's a headline every day,
00:38:09.380
it's all you need to keep Trump out of office, probably. So here's a story that is not too terribly
00:38:19.140
important to most of us, but a sign of the times. So there's a super yacht being built. A yacht so big
00:38:28.420
that it will have 39 apartments that you could buy. And these apartments would be so impressive
00:38:36.380
that even though it's on a boat, each one of the 39 apartments might have its own gym
00:38:42.060
and might have a library. It might have inside and outside dining spaces, etc.
00:38:49.180
And the boat is the Sumneo and it's going to be built and launched in 2024, I guess. But here's why
00:38:57.860
this is important. Most of you cannot spend, I think it's $11 million for an apartment on this boat.
00:39:06.260
So most of us will not be buying any space on the boat, including me. But I've said for a long time
00:39:12.700
that the future might be floating cities. And there would have to be cities that could move
00:39:17.960
because there might be a weather event, you know, it might be hurricane season or something.
00:39:22.660
They just need to sort of float away to a safer place. And I've got a feeling that this,
00:39:29.060
although it's, you know, just for rich people, I feel like it's going to be a model for the future.
00:39:33.820
I feel as though, yeah, I feel as though water world is coming. Because it's basically free land, right?
00:39:43.020
If you can put your seafaring, whatever, platform in the ocean, you don't have any laws, right?
00:39:52.460
You can just live there. And I think that our technology for creating energy is better than storing it.
00:40:00.300
So you probably can get enough from the sun and storing it in batteries. We're close to the point
00:40:04.480
where you can do all that. Desalinization, important. Waste processing, I don't know where we are on that,
00:40:11.200
whether you could do that well enough to stay at sea. I imagine you could, but I don't know.
00:40:19.400
An artificial island was taken down recently, yeah. So there have been a lot of, you know,
00:40:23.620
seasteading kinds of plans. But I feel as if it's just the economics and maybe a little bit of technology
00:40:33.500
that needs to advance just a little bit before it becomes a major thing. It seems to me that living
00:40:40.520
on the ocean is just pretty much guaranteed at this point. We're going to see it. All right.
00:40:46.200
What time is it? And it looks like, yeah. So what I did, I'm going to be talking to the people on
00:41:01.360
Locals after I get off of YouTube. I've got a story that I can't tell in public, but I'm going to tell
00:41:09.060
to the Locals people. If you're wondering to yourself, why do people pay a subscription to hear
00:41:15.240
my extra content? Part of it is that I do share with them things that I won't say in regular
00:41:21.060
public. Believe it or not, nothing I've ever said privately on the Locals community has gotten
00:41:28.260
into the general public yet. Now, I don't think that can last, but I'm very impressed. So I'm not
00:41:35.700
going to say anything that would, you know, get me canceled or anything. But there are definitely
00:41:41.520
topics that just don't work in the general public, but they work fine within Locals. So I'll be
00:41:47.980
sharing with them a little story when I get off of here. And I will talk to you on YouTube.
00:41:54.180
Yeah, NSA has it. I'll be talking to you on YouTube tomorrow.