Real Coffee with Scott Adams - July 03, 2021


Episode 1425 Scott Adams： Coffee and Headlines to Start Your Day Right


Episode Stats


Length

42 minutes

Words per minute

143.27185

Word count

6,087

Sentence count

454

Harmful content

Misogyny

24

sentences flagged

Hate speech

12

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

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

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
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 0.96
00:01:47.940 a hole in her uniform to, as they say, facilitate her intimate encounters with an inmate. That's 0.99
00:01:57.540 right. There was an attractive young female guard in a male prison. And she had figured out how to cut 1.00
00:02:05.160 a hole in her uniform to facilitate intimate encounters with the inmate. But yes, she's attractive. 0.87
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 0.86
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, 1.00
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 1.00
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 0.98
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 0.80
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. 1.00
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. 1.00
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 1.00
00:20:39.540 good pageant. And now it's getting ruined, ruined, I say, by this transgender competitor. 1.00
00:20:48.420 I've got a different opinion. I feel that what happened was that the transgender athletes have 1.00
00:20:54.100 shown us what's wrong with sports and what's wrong with pageants. I don't think the transgenders are 1.00
00:21:01.520 what's broken here. I think the transgender athletes and the transgender Miss USA contestants are 1.00
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 0.97
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 1.00
00:22:23.200 people. Some are transgender. How about if you can't create a system that handles people? Maybe 0.71
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 1.00
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, 0.99
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 0.99
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? 0.97
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 0.83
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 1.00
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 1.00
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 1.00
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 1.00
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 0.97
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 1.00
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.
00:41:59.160 Unknown Speaker 2