Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1430 Scott Adams： The Golden Age is Here But It's Hiding. I Show You Where.

00:00:00.000 Good morning. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time of the day.

00:00:05.060 Coming to you live on YouTube and on the Locals platform without any commercials if you're a subscriber.

00:00:13.120 And at the moment, even if you're not a subscriber, because I think I opened today's live stream

00:00:18.500 so that you could be a non-subscriber and check it out.

00:00:22.940 I think I did.

00:00:24.840 So that would be out at scottadams.locals.com.

00:00:30.000 All right. But we've got lots of stuff to talk about, but not until the important things have been taken care of.

00:00:36.460 The important things? Yes, the important things.

00:00:40.820 Let me tell you once again that if the volume is not good on YouTube, it's a YouTube problem

00:00:45.920 because the volume is fine for other people.

00:00:52.180 Especially if I put up my microphone.

00:00:53.820 So I've got a checklist now where I make sure that before I go live, I make sure my cables are connected

00:01:07.760 because, unfortunately, I disconnect them between live streams.

00:01:11.820 And I make sure that my microphones are put on, which I just forgot. 0.92

00:01:19.600 And no matter what I fucking do, somebody's going to tell me that the sound isn't good. 0.78

00:01:25.660 So if you wonder why do I ignore you when I don't have my microphone on 0.98

00:01:31.260 and I'm ignoring tons and tons of people saying your sound is bad, 0.98

00:01:35.360 it's because they say that every fucking time, no matter what the sound is. 0.76

00:01:40.420 There's a YouTube problem that makes that happen. 0.98

00:01:42.680 In addition to me forgetting to put my microphone on, of course.

00:01:46.540 All right.

00:01:46.960 Let's do the simultaneous sip instead of talking about the sound problems.

00:01:52.840 Okay?

00:01:53.820 And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, I guess.

00:01:58.440 A tanker, a chalice, a canteen, a drink, a flask, a vessel of any kind.

00:02:02.800 Fill you with your favorite liquid.

00:02:05.740 I like coffee.

00:02:07.820 Not big butts. 1.00

00:02:09.380 Coffee.

00:02:10.840 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure,

00:02:15.020 the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

00:02:17.280 It's called simultaneous sip.

00:02:18.760 It's going to happen now.

00:02:19.520 Go.

00:02:23.540 Ah.

00:02:25.840 So good.

00:02:26.920 I think I might change the name of my live cast every day

00:02:30.600 to the sound is fine, the problem's on your end,

00:02:35.240 even when it's not, because half the time it's on my end.

00:02:38.960 Well, I told you the golden age is coming,

00:02:41.940 and apparently a lot of people will agree with me.

00:02:45.020 It turns out that, according to a Gallup poll,

00:02:48.980 we've reached the highest ever measured percentage of Americans

00:02:54.040 who evaluate their lives well enough to be considered, quote, thriving.

00:03:00.180 So we've got 59% of Americans rate themselves as thriving,

00:03:07.740 the highest it's ever been.

00:03:09.160 Now, it's only been measured for 13 years, I guess,

00:03:12.440 but it's pretty good.

00:03:15.040 And I guess there was only one previous high that was almost that high,

00:03:19.580 and we just topped that, too.

00:03:21.540 So what does it mean,

00:03:24.260 what does it mean when the news is telling us everything's going to hell,

00:03:29.120 but the citizens are happier than ever?

00:03:31.940 How do you interpret that?

00:03:36.460 I feel as if maybe things are going really well.

00:03:41.360 Now, the pandemic was a pretty big hiccup,

00:03:44.040 but even that's going better at the moment.

00:03:47.660 But here's a question that I ask.

00:03:50.100 Wouldn't you love to see a happiness poll by ethnicity

00:03:56.800 and by gender, I suppose,

00:03:59.240 maybe by religion, too,

00:04:00.580 throw in anything that people get discriminated against for?

00:04:06.160 And wouldn't you like to know

00:04:07.760 if the people who are suffering the greatest discrimination

00:04:10.860 also are the least happy?

00:04:16.420 Because what if they're not?

00:04:20.040 What if they're not?

00:04:22.020 Because I think that's what would happen.

00:04:24.480 I believe if you did a poll

00:04:26.200 and just asked people how happy are you

00:04:29.060 without any other context,

00:04:30.960 you would find that all the ethnicities

00:04:33.080 are sort of roughly just as happy as all the others.

00:04:37.320 I think.

00:04:38.600 That's a hypothesis.

00:04:39.560 But try Googling for that information.

00:04:44.500 See what happens.

00:04:45.880 So some of you are better researchers than I am.

00:04:49.340 Do this little test.

00:04:50.560 Take a minute and try to Google

00:04:52.300 whether or not there are some ethnic groups

00:04:56.740 in the United States that are happier, on average,

00:05:00.140 than other groups.

00:05:01.540 Not income, not education level,

00:05:04.520 not employment rates,

00:05:06.540 but just happiness.

00:05:07.500 What would happen?

00:05:11.440 Well, wouldn't it ruin everything

00:05:13.080 if everybody's the same amount of happiness?

00:05:15.960 Right?

00:05:17.280 But if the groups that we know

00:05:19.540 suffer the most discrimination

00:05:21.380 are also the least happy,

00:05:24.820 well, that gives you more fuel for fixing it, right?

00:05:27.140 So if you've got a bunch of, you know,

00:05:29.660 systemic racism, et cetera,

00:05:32.300 and everybody's unhappy about it,

00:05:34.540 the people who are suffering from it,

00:05:36.320 that's a pretty good argument for fixing it.

00:05:39.160 But what if they're not unhappy?

00:05:41.600 What if it's something that people complain about,

00:05:44.520 but overall they're just as happy?

00:05:46.600 What would you do with that?

00:05:49.460 Then do you have a problem to fix?

00:05:51.760 Because if the goal is to be happy,

00:05:55.240 and everybody is about roughly happy,

00:05:57.980 at least, let's say, by ethnicity,

00:05:59.960 just to pick one dimension,

00:06:02.560 what is there to fix?

00:06:05.120 Right?

00:06:05.680 So I think there's a reason

00:06:07.060 that you don't see that information.

00:06:09.300 It's hard to believe

00:06:10.580 that nobody ever polled

00:06:11.980 different racial groups

00:06:14.300 to find out who's happiest.

00:06:16.300 I feel like it had to happen.

00:06:19.140 All right, I'm seeing over on Locals,

00:06:21.440 somebody has sent me,

00:06:22.960 oh, there it is.

00:06:25.960 Happiness by ethnicity.

00:06:29.220 In 2016, the Temkin group,

00:06:32.880 and so here are the numbers.

00:06:34.200 According to this one graph

00:06:35.620 that I don't have the information about

00:06:38.940 to know how credible it is.

00:06:41.280 But according to this,

00:06:42.260 73% of African Americans are happy,

00:06:45.260 I guess.

00:06:45.780 That's what it's telling me.

00:06:47.280 75% of Asians,

00:06:48.960 75% of Hispanic,

00:06:50.980 and 76% of Caucasians.

00:06:55.020 So the difference between Caucasian

00:06:57.100 and African American

00:06:58.380 in terms of happiness,

00:06:59.780 according to this one poll,

00:07:01.720 don't know how much credibility

00:07:03.020 to put in it,

00:07:03.820 would be three basis points.

00:07:08.600 Now, suppose you adjusted

00:07:11.900 for how many people

00:07:12.780 are literally in prison

00:07:14.200 because you know that

00:07:16.340 there's like a tragedy

00:07:19.080 within the black community

00:07:21.500 of just a number of people

00:07:22.760 who are literally in jail.

00:07:25.260 Right?

00:07:25.680 So it's an alarmingly big number.

00:07:28.160 And suppose you took them

00:07:30.720 out of the poll.

00:07:32.520 You know, you took all the people

00:07:33.700 who were in jail

00:07:34.380 out of the poll.

00:07:37.180 Although, did they get polled

00:07:38.440 in the first place?

00:07:39.320 That's a good question.

00:07:40.920 If they never got polled

00:07:41.940 in the first place,

00:07:43.660 yeah, so probably

00:07:44.440 they didn't poll anybody in jail,

00:07:45.940 so maybe you don't have

00:07:46.720 to take them out.

00:07:47.940 But you would assume

00:07:49.120 that if one group

00:07:52.180 had a higher incarcerated group,

00:07:54.160 that that would come out

00:07:56.800 in the happiness numbers,

00:07:57.980 but probably didn't come out

00:07:59.120 in this poll.

00:08:00.520 Anyway, so

00:08:01.160 is the

00:08:03.200 Caucasian and African-American

00:08:05.580 happiness levels,

00:08:06.720 are they within

00:08:07.580 within statistical,

00:08:11.260 let's say,

00:08:12.960 statistical margin of error?

00:08:15.080 Yes, it looks like...

00:08:19.080 It looks like...

00:08:22.080 All right.

00:08:27.360 Here's a little thing

00:08:28.880 for you to do

00:08:29.460 as a little experiment

00:08:30.560 if you've never done this.

00:08:32.940 Now, you might have to

00:08:34.220 like watching soccer

00:08:35.360 for this to work for you.

00:08:38.120 But here's the experiment.

00:08:41.060 Go to YouTube

00:08:41.900 and do a search

00:08:43.520 for Lionel Messi.

00:08:46.040 His last name,

00:08:47.180 M-E-S-S-I. 0.98

00:08:48.980 Now, if you don't

00:08:49.760 follow soccer,

00:08:50.740 you would not know

00:08:51.520 that Lionel Messi

00:08:52.680 is maybe the best

00:08:54.680 soccer player

00:08:55.320 who ever lived.

00:08:56.800 His ability to run around

00:08:58.240 other players

00:08:58.880 and score goals

00:08:59.800 that can't be scored,

00:09:00.880 et cetera.

00:09:02.900 Now, do this experiment.

00:09:04.960 Just watch a compilation clip

00:09:06.760 of Lionel Messi

00:09:07.960 scoring a bunch of goals

00:09:09.420 and then try to watch

00:09:11.600 a professional soccer game

00:09:13.400 that he's not in.

00:09:15.860 Just a whole bunch

00:09:16.660 of high-level

00:09:17.380 professional soccer players,

00:09:19.140 the best in the world.

00:09:21.640 They look like children.

00:09:24.760 You really have to do

00:09:26.020 this experiment.

00:09:27.420 Watch Lionel Messi play

00:09:29.040 and then just watch

00:09:30.180 a normal game

00:09:31.120 that doesn't have him in it

00:09:32.720 and it'll look like

00:09:33.940 they don't know

00:09:34.340 how to play soccer.

00:09:35.380 You'll see nobody

00:09:36.300 can get around anybody.

00:09:38.400 All their passes

00:09:39.340 are to nothing

00:09:40.540 or to nobody

00:09:41.380 who can do much

00:09:42.080 with the ball.

00:09:43.180 It is so hard

00:09:44.780 to watch

00:09:45.500 the best soccer players

00:09:47.640 in the world

00:09:48.320 unless you've got

00:09:49.760 one of the greatest

00:09:50.460 of all times

00:09:51.200 on the field.

00:09:51.880 There's just not much

00:09:52.660 to watch there.

00:09:53.960 And I've said

00:09:55.120 for a long time

00:09:55.760 that all of the sports

00:09:56.660 are broken.

00:09:57.180 We should take

00:09:58.500 every sport

00:09:59.280 and start from scratch

00:10:01.560 and say,

00:10:02.520 okay,

00:10:02.920 it's 2021,

00:10:04.220 what's different

00:10:04.940 that we need

00:10:06.120 to change this sport

00:10:07.080 to make it more interesting?

00:10:08.020 Imagine, if you will,

00:10:10.180 making the size

00:10:11.920 of the goal,

00:10:13.460 let's say,

00:10:14.280 five feet wider.

00:10:16.820 Why?

00:10:17.860 Because our attention span

00:10:19.620 in 2021

00:10:20.320 is much shorter

00:10:21.440 and you need a sport

00:10:23.100 that scores

00:10:23.940 a few more goals.

00:10:25.520 So just make the goal

00:10:26.520 a little bit wider.

00:10:28.040 Right?

00:10:28.520 Fix it.

00:10:29.840 Tennis is a complete nightmare

00:10:31.620 to watch.

00:10:33.180 Used to be fun,

00:10:34.360 but now it's mostly

00:10:35.260 serve and miss,

00:10:36.660 serve and miss,

00:10:37.460 serve and miss.

00:10:39.280 So get rid of the serve. 1.00

00:10:41.420 Somehow put the ball

00:10:42.580 in play without serving

00:10:43.740 and you'd suddenly

00:10:44.980 have an interesting

00:10:46.020 sport again.

00:10:49.280 You could do the same thing

00:10:50.500 with a bunch

00:10:50.880 of other sports.

00:10:53.520 So we have new information

00:10:54.860 about Tucker Carlson's claim

00:10:57.260 that the NSA

00:10:58.160 was spying on him.

00:11:00.040 So Axios did some reporting,

00:11:02.160 Jonathan Swan, I think.

00:11:04.040 And so this is how

00:11:06.260 they described it.

00:11:09.180 An NSA spokesman

00:11:10.660 declined to comment

00:11:11.900 about whether or not

00:11:14.860 Tucker had been picked up

00:11:16.520 when talking to some Russians.

00:11:19.520 So I guess Tucker

00:11:20.680 was trying to get an interview

00:11:21.680 with Putin,

00:11:23.400 and he'd been trying

00:11:24.120 for a while,

00:11:25.240 and had talked to some

00:11:26.320 American-based

00:11:27.220 Russian folks.

00:11:29.480 I don't know if they were

00:11:30.360 American citizens or not.

00:11:31.940 That's not clear.

00:11:33.820 And Axios, not Axioms.

00:11:37.340 Yeah.

00:11:37.820 And apparently Tucker

00:11:39.800 allegedly,

00:11:42.300 probably,

00:11:43.500 we don't know for sure,

00:11:44.660 but it seems likely,

00:11:45.900 was picked up

00:11:46.920 in those conversations.

00:11:49.120 So,

00:11:50.340 here's what the NSA said

00:11:52.080 when asked about it.

00:11:53.000 They referred to

00:11:53.840 their prior comment

00:11:55.080 to say that

00:11:56.340 he was not targeted.

00:11:57.320 So,

00:11:59.800 you know how lying works,

00:12:01.360 right?

00:12:02.260 Hey,

00:12:02.760 did you pick up

00:12:03.940 any of Tucker Carlson's

00:12:05.560 communication?

00:12:07.100 He was never targeted.

00:12:09.580 Okay, okay.

00:12:10.120 We didn't ask you

00:12:11.040 if he was targeted.

00:12:12.880 We asked you,

00:12:14.060 have you monitored

00:12:15.360 any of Tucker Carlson's

00:12:17.100 communications?

00:12:19.500 How many times

00:12:20.660 do we have to tell you

00:12:21.600 we did not target

00:12:23.280 Tucker Carlson?

00:12:25.040 Okay, okay,

00:12:25.820 but you're not really

00:12:27.880 answering the question,

00:12:29.820 which is,

00:12:30.500 are you monitoring

00:12:31.420 his communication?

00:12:33.100 How many times

00:12:34.140 do we need to tell you?

00:12:35.500 We didn't target him.

00:12:37.840 So, it's basically,

00:12:39.240 not basically,

00:12:40.160 it's a confirmation.

00:12:41.980 So, now we know

00:12:42.800 the NSA

00:12:43.340 has, in fact,

00:12:46.220 been monitoring

00:12:47.060 the communication

00:12:48.280 of Tucker Carlson.

00:12:50.060 Now, he makes

00:12:50.960 a further claim,

00:12:52.320 apparently this comes

00:12:53.340 from a whistleblower,

00:12:54.280 that the purpose of it

00:12:56.020 is to get his show

00:12:57.340 off the air.

00:12:58.700 Now, I doubt

00:12:59.840 that the NSA's

00:13:02.040 leadership

00:13:02.640 has that as a purpose.

00:13:04.880 I mean,

00:13:05.120 they might want it.

00:13:06.760 They might be happy

00:13:07.680 if it happens.

00:13:08.720 But I doubt

00:13:09.400 there's any kind of

00:13:10.060 policy from the top.

00:13:11.960 But,

00:13:12.440 are there plenty

00:13:13.460 of people

00:13:14.120 who work at the NSA

00:13:15.140 who would be pretty happy

00:13:17.340 if that happened

00:13:18.040 and maybe would be

00:13:19.140 on the lookout

00:13:19.980 for a way

00:13:20.700 to make that happen?

00:13:22.300 Probably.

00:13:23.700 You know,

00:13:24.160 if you just assume

00:13:25.560 a normal distribution

00:13:26.640 of Democrats

00:13:28.040 and Republicans

00:13:28.780 everywhere,

00:13:29.920 yeah,

00:13:30.600 there are going

00:13:30.920 to be some people

00:13:31.480 at the NSA

00:13:32.060 who would like

00:13:32.620 to do him in.

00:13:37.960 All right.

00:13:39.160 So,

00:13:40.380 it's sort of

00:13:42.100 shocking,

00:13:43.540 but we also

00:13:44.920 don't know

00:13:45.400 quite what to do

00:13:46.280 with it, right?

00:13:46.840 Because I doubt

00:13:47.840 Tucker said anything

00:13:48.960 during these conversations

00:13:50.120 that was

00:13:50.660 too,

00:13:51.440 you know,

00:13:52.540 too secretive.

00:13:53.980 But,

00:13:54.700 the fact that

00:13:56.160 they could watch him

00:13:56.880 at all

00:13:57.340 is crazy.

00:13:59.500 Now,

00:14:00.220 here's a question.

00:14:02.020 Does the NSA

00:14:02.680 only have

00:14:03.600 the authorization

00:14:04.640 to monitor

00:14:06.640 communications

00:14:07.440 when he's talking

00:14:08.560 to somebody

00:14:09.120 who's a foreign 0.99

00:14:09.900 national?

00:14:11.900 Or,

00:14:13.420 can they say

00:14:14.100 you've ever

00:14:14.700 talked to somebody

00:14:15.700 on our list

00:14:17.340 and therefore

00:14:17.900 we can watch you

00:14:18.920 as long as we want

00:14:19.840 because you had

00:14:20.680 one conversation

00:14:21.600 with somebody

00:14:22.260 on our list?

00:14:23.740 How does that work?

00:14:25.520 How much authorization

00:14:26.720 does the NSA have

00:14:28.540 if somebody had

00:14:29.800 one communication?

00:14:32.360 Yeah,

00:14:32.660 and then

00:14:33.040 unmasking

00:14:33.900 is the crime,

00:14:34.780 we're told,

00:14:35.420 that he was unmasked.

00:14:37.000 Now,

00:14:37.160 I don't know

00:14:37.500 the details of that

00:14:38.400 or if that's confirmed,

00:14:39.800 but that would be

00:14:40.340 a big,

00:14:41.600 yeah,

00:14:42.460 the unmasking

00:14:43.140 and the leaking

00:14:43.720 would be

00:14:44.300 pretty big issues.

00:14:46.400 You are correct.

00:14:49.860 Well,

00:14:50.520 Keith Olbermann

00:14:51.520 created some

00:14:52.220 fake news today,

00:14:53.200 so he took

00:14:53.680 that story,

00:14:54.480 the NSA story

00:14:55.940 that Axios reported,

00:14:57.940 and then he tweets it

00:14:58.980 and he says,

00:15:00.440 as we told you

00:15:02.220 at the time,

00:15:03.400 Tucker Carlson

00:15:04.140 was communicating

00:15:05.240 with a foreign-based

00:15:06.460 individual

00:15:07.220 intent on harming

00:15:08.380 the U.S.

00:15:10.260 That's Keith Olbermann.

00:15:11.540 Now,

00:15:13.400 is that statement

00:15:14.280 true?

00:15:15.840 Would you say

00:15:16.700 that Tucker Carlson

00:15:17.800 was communicating

00:15:20.020 with a foreign-based

00:15:21.140 individual?

00:15:22.020 Okay,

00:15:22.280 that part seems

00:15:22.960 to be true.

00:15:24.680 Or,

00:15:25.340 I'm not sure

00:15:26.420 if he was

00:15:26.820 foreign-based.

00:15:29.060 Yeah,

00:15:29.280 I guess you'd say

00:15:29.800 foreign-based

00:15:30.440 even if he was

00:15:31.160 in the United States

00:15:32.020 at the time.

00:15:32.980 All right?

00:15:34.320 Intent on harming

00:15:35.240 the U.S.,

00:15:35.820 is that true?

00:15:36.360 Do you think

00:15:37.680 that a Russian

00:15:39.600 person who's

00:15:40.680 maybe associated

00:15:41.620 with Putin

00:15:42.400 would be intent

00:15:44.060 on harming

00:15:44.620 the U.S.?

00:15:46.200 Maybe.

00:15:47.260 Maybe.

00:15:48.260 If harming

00:15:49.540 includes just

00:15:52.080 suppressing

00:15:52.780 the United States

00:15:53.640 power so it

00:15:54.560 doesn't get

00:15:55.020 too powerful,

00:15:56.100 you know,

00:15:56.540 relative to Russia,

00:15:58.120 that's probably

00:15:58.860 true.

00:16:00.100 But,

00:16:00.780 is the entire

00:16:02.060 message here

00:16:03.040 from Keith Olbermann

00:16:04.240 true or misleading?

00:16:07.620 Well,

00:16:08.120 Jonathan Swan,

00:16:08.860 who I guess

00:16:10.440 wrote the article,

00:16:11.860 believed it was

00:16:12.500 misleading.

00:16:13.060 He says,

00:16:13.900 in response,

00:16:15.240 not what the

00:16:16.300 story says.

00:16:17.780 I've tried to

00:16:18.440 get foreign 0.99

00:16:18.800 interviews with

00:16:19.460 adversaries

00:16:21.040 and use

00:16:21.760 back channels.

00:16:22.580 So,

00:16:22.800 basically,

00:16:23.260 Jonathan Swan

00:16:23.860 said it's

00:16:24.800 normal,

00:16:25.440 normal

00:16:26.620 journalistic

00:16:27.480 procedure

00:16:28.160 to talk to

00:16:29.020 bad people

00:16:29.740 as part of

00:16:31.180 your job.

00:16:33.060 So,

00:16:33.860 how do you

00:16:34.720 get an interview

00:16:35.360 with Putin?

00:16:36.680 How could

00:16:37.120 anybody ever

00:16:37.820 get an interview

00:16:38.480 with Putin

00:16:39.000 without talking

00:16:40.480 to,

00:16:40.980 and I quote,

00:16:42.720 foreign-based

00:16:43.540 individuals intent

00:16:44.620 on harming the

00:16:45.380 U.S.?

00:16:46.660 You couldn't do

00:16:47.460 it.

00:16:48.760 How could

00:16:49.360 anybody do

00:16:49.920 that?

00:16:50.980 How did

00:16:51.640 Biden set up

00:16:53.740 a phone call

00:16:54.500 with Putin?

00:16:56.440 There's only one

00:16:57.400 way to do it.

00:16:58.460 The only way

00:16:59.220 Biden's

00:16:59.920 administration

00:17:01.280 and staff

00:17:02.100 could set up

00:17:02.840 a phone call

00:17:03.420 with Putin

00:17:03.920 is by,

00:17:06.140 quote,

00:17:06.480 communicating

00:17:07.160 with foreign-based

00:17:08.060 individuals intent

00:17:09.140 on harming

00:17:09.640 the U.S.

00:17:10.900 It's exactly

00:17:11.820 what Biden

00:17:12.360 does,

00:17:12.860 and any

00:17:14.740 president

00:17:15.080 would do.

00:17:16.240 So,

00:17:17.020 Keith Holberman

00:17:17.680 continues to be

00:17:18.740 the most 1.00

00:17:19.300 ridiculous person 1.00

00:17:20.300 on social media. 1.00

00:17:22.380 Meanwhile,

00:17:23.340 over in Japan,

00:17:25.080 it looks like

00:17:25.900 the Olympics

00:17:26.400 will not have

00:17:27.320 live spectators.

00:17:28.400 So,

00:17:30.200 I guess it's

00:17:30.780 going to be

00:17:31.100 indoor Olympic

00:17:31.760 type stuff.

00:17:33.180 And the

00:17:33.600 Tokyo Olympic

00:17:34.220 Games,

00:17:34.980 it looks like

00:17:35.740 at this point,

00:17:37.060 pretty sure

00:17:37.940 that it will

00:17:38.640 happen in

00:17:39.500 empty arenas.

00:17:41.620 Now,

00:17:42.600 let me ask

00:17:44.600 you this

00:17:44.860 question.

00:17:46.280 Is there

00:17:47.080 any way

00:17:47.980 that you

00:17:49.220 could make

00:17:49.740 the Olympic

00:17:50.520 Games

00:17:51.360 less relevant

00:17:53.560 to any of

00:17:54.520 us?

00:17:55.680 Well,

00:17:56.600 one way

00:17:57.240 would be

00:17:57.740 to have

00:17:58.580 athletic

00:17:59.420 events

00:17:59.880 that you

00:18:00.280 and I

00:18:00.680 can never

00:18:01.220 participate

00:18:01.760 in

00:18:02.060 ourselves,

00:18:04.200 you know,

00:18:04.520 such as,

00:18:05.560 let's say,

00:18:06.500 skiing and

00:18:07.360 shooting,

00:18:08.260 although I

00:18:08.740 don't think

00:18:09.080 that's part

00:18:09.480 of this

00:18:09.740 Olympics,

00:18:11.300 and weird

00:18:12.440 things like

00:18:13.120 throwing a

00:18:13.720 hammer really

00:18:14.440 far,

00:18:15.860 or how

00:18:16.680 fast you

00:18:17.160 can run

00:18:17.680 in a

00:18:18.040 specific

00:18:18.460 distance,

00:18:20.140 or how

00:18:20.480 high you

00:18:22.540 can jump

00:18:23.040 over an

00:18:23.500 object.

00:18:24.800 Does anybody

00:18:25.400 care about

00:18:26.020 any of that?

00:18:27.740 If I

00:18:28.340 told you

00:18:28.900 you will

00:18:29.960 forever

00:18:30.300 never know

00:18:31.300 who in

00:18:32.860 the world

00:18:33.200 can jump

00:18:33.780 the highest,

00:18:35.000 what would

00:18:35.720 you say

00:18:36.000 to that?

00:18:36.720 Oh,

00:18:37.000 no,

00:18:37.700 how can I

00:18:38.420 go through

00:18:38.800 my life

00:18:39.400 without knowing

00:18:40.540 who could

00:18:40.960 jump the

00:18:41.380 highest

00:18:41.760 every four

00:18:42.440 years?

00:18:43.700 I'm pretty

00:18:44.520 sure you

00:18:44.960 would do

00:18:45.320 okay,

00:18:46.400 but if you

00:18:47.460 wanted to

00:18:47.880 take that 0.97

00:18:48.420 ridiculous 1.00

00:18:49.520 and worthless 1.00

00:18:50.800 activity

00:18:51.880 and make it

00:18:53.080 even less

00:18:54.600 relevant,

00:18:55.860 how about

00:18:56.360 if nobody

00:18:57.000 watches it?

00:18:58.680 That would

00:18:59.300 be one way,

00:19:00.040 so we

00:19:00.660 won't have

00:19:01.100 anybody

00:19:01.420 watching it

00:19:02.100 in person,

00:19:03.560 but at

00:19:04.400 least they

00:19:04.660 can watch

00:19:05.000 it on

00:19:05.220 television,

00:19:05.760 right?

00:19:07.660 Unless,

00:19:09.280 unless it's

00:19:09.940 boring,

00:19:11.120 and it's

00:19:11.600 2021,

00:19:12.580 and people

00:19:12.980 don't watch

00:19:13.480 boring things

00:19:14.240 for long

00:19:15.000 periods of

00:19:15.520 time on

00:19:15.920 television

00:19:16.280 anymore,

00:19:16.660 so now

00:19:17.700 we have 0.98

00:19:18.180 ridiculous 0.92

00:19:19.640 competitions 1.00

00:19:20.880 that are

00:19:21.700 somewhat

00:19:22.460 randomly

00:19:23.080 invented.

00:19:23.900 How about

00:19:24.260 throwing a

00:19:24.900 heavy object?

00:19:25.880 How about

00:19:26.180 that?

00:19:27.280 How about

00:19:28.020 using a

00:19:30.240 broom in

00:19:30.840 front of

00:19:31.240 a slippery

00:19:32.380 thing on

00:19:33.000 ice to

00:19:34.420 make sure

00:19:35.060 that it

00:19:35.380 goes in

00:19:35.740 the right

00:19:35.960 direction?

00:19:37.080 How about

00:19:37.440 that sport?

00:19:38.880 So you've

00:19:39.220 got all

00:19:39.480 these people

00:19:39.880 around the

00:19:40.340 world who

00:19:40.740 are wasting

00:19:41.280 their youth

00:19:41.960 preparing for

00:19:42.900 these random

00:19:43.720 competitions of

00:19:44.880 no value

00:19:45.420 whatsoever,

00:19:45.940 meanwhile people

00:19:47.580 aren't going

00:19:47.960 to watch

00:19:48.260 them in

00:19:48.600 person this

00:19:49.180 year,

00:19:49.880 and probably

00:19:50.960 won't watch

00:19:51.720 it too much

00:19:52.180 on television

00:19:52.760 at all,

00:19:53.540 because television

00:19:54.160 is sort of

00:19:54.600 a legacy

00:19:56.060 media at

00:19:56.640 this point.

00:19:58.720 Why do I

00:19:59.600 hate sports?

00:20:01.500 I love

00:20:02.360 sports.

00:20:04.160 So when I

00:20:05.320 criticize sports,

00:20:06.520 it's from a

00:20:07.400 perspective of

00:20:08.120 somebody who

00:20:08.680 loves sports,

00:20:10.620 playing them.

00:20:11.940 Now,

00:20:12.440 spectating is a

00:20:14.100 little different.

00:20:14.640 I love

00:20:15.260 watching

00:20:15.760 Lionel

00:20:16.580 Messi.

00:20:17.600 I loved

00:20:18.300 watching

00:20:18.860 basketball

00:20:20.660 whenever one

00:20:21.540 of the

00:20:21.800 greats was

00:20:22.320 playing,

00:20:22.820 Michael Jordan,

00:20:24.060 Larry Bird,

00:20:24.900 any of those.

00:20:25.900 So I do

00:20:26.280 like watching

00:20:27.380 sports,

00:20:28.260 if it's the

00:20:30.360 right sport

00:20:30.880 with the right

00:20:31.360 stars.

00:20:32.100 And I love

00:20:32.900 playing sports,

00:20:34.000 and always

00:20:34.420 have.

00:20:35.180 But sports

00:20:36.360 are a mess.

00:20:38.220 They haven't

00:20:38.940 really been

00:20:39.480 fixed for

00:20:40.420 decades, so

00:20:41.560 that's all I'm

00:20:41.960 saying.

00:20:42.160 in funnier

00:20:44.640 news, the

00:20:46.880 squad member

00:20:47.700 Tlaib is

00:20:49.240 calling for

00:20:49.780 defunding of

00:20:50.580 ICE, the

00:20:52.320 Border Patrol,

00:20:53.340 DHS, and

00:20:54.920 claims they

00:20:55.500 terrorize

00:20:56.120 migrants.

00:20:58.460 And here's the

00:20:59.480 question I have

00:21:00.140 to ask.

00:21:00.620 At what

00:21:01.000 point is it

00:21:03.060 safe to

00:21:03.580 assume that

00:21:05.240 Tlaib,

00:21:06.100 Representative

00:21:06.900 Tlaib, is

00:21:07.600 being paid by a

00:21:08.900 foreign adversary?

00:21:09.700 Is that a

00:21:11.580 fair question?

00:21:14.080 And that's a

00:21:15.620 serious question,

00:21:16.500 but is it

00:21:16.920 fair?

00:21:18.080 At what

00:21:18.740 point is

00:21:19.520 somebody so

00:21:20.180 obviously working

00:21:21.300 against the

00:21:21.920 interests of

00:21:22.540 the country she's

00:21:24.100 supposed to

00:21:24.500 represent that

00:21:26.060 you would just

00:21:26.540 have to assume

00:21:27.220 she's being

00:21:27.720 paid by an

00:21:28.320 enemy?

00:21:29.520 Wouldn't you?

00:21:31.340 Because it's

00:21:32.540 one thing to

00:21:33.200 say, hey, the

00:21:34.080 police are too

00:21:35.040 brutal.

00:21:36.540 Fair enough.

00:21:37.760 You could agree

00:21:38.480 or disagree, but

00:21:39.340 it's within the

00:21:40.080 realm of

00:21:40.620 ordinary opinion.

00:21:42.720 But to say you

00:21:43.580 should just get

00:21:44.160 rid of the

00:21:45.260 organizations that

00:21:46.280 protect the

00:21:46.840 border, that's

00:21:48.820 more like trying

00:21:50.080 to destroy the

00:21:50.860 country.

00:21:51.640 That doesn't

00:21:52.280 really sound like

00:21:53.160 you're trying to

00:21:53.600 make something

00:21:54.040 better, does it?

00:21:56.600 So is it fair to

00:21:58.640 start asking who

00:22:00.240 is funding her?

00:22:01.960 Is this the

00:22:03.660 sort of thing

00:22:04.140 that could open

00:22:05.020 up an

00:22:05.340 investigation?

00:22:05.900 If you were

00:22:07.620 law enforcement

00:22:08.420 or let's say

00:22:10.060 FBI or

00:22:11.140 something, would

00:22:13.760 you look at

00:22:14.220 this and say,

00:22:14.900 we better start

00:22:16.000 monitoring her

00:22:16.840 communication?

00:22:18.060 Because the

00:22:18.860 odds of her

00:22:19.960 receiving some

00:22:20.760 kind of payment

00:22:21.420 from an

00:22:22.080 outside source,

00:22:23.640 it looks at

00:22:25.740 least feasible.

00:22:28.440 Right?

00:22:28.620 I'm not making

00:22:29.220 the claim, so

00:22:29.920 this is not an

00:22:31.740 allegation.

00:22:32.320 I'm just saying

00:22:33.420 that if you

00:22:33.940 act exactly like

00:22:35.360 somebody who's

00:22:36.020 being paid by

00:22:36.780 a foreign 0.60

00:22:37.120 adversary, at

00:22:40.260 what point do

00:22:41.180 you get

00:22:41.460 investigated?

00:22:42.500 Just by doing

00:22:43.440 legal things,

00:22:44.780 because she has

00:22:45.360 freedom of speech

00:22:46.340 and it's her job

00:22:47.340 to say stuff

00:22:47.960 about politics.

00:22:49.280 But at what

00:22:49.900 point is the

00:22:50.680 stuff she's

00:22:51.260 saying so

00:22:52.620 obviously not

00:22:53.660 in the interest

00:22:54.160 of the United

00:22:54.720 States that you

00:22:55.380 can just start

00:22:55.820 investigating her

00:22:56.760 to see where

00:22:57.200 the money's

00:22:57.620 coming from?

00:22:59.580 I don't know.

00:23:00.520 Is there any

00:23:01.240 way that could

00:23:01.700 ever happen?

00:23:02.820 And would you

00:23:03.440 even want to

00:23:04.000 live in a

00:23:04.340 country that

00:23:04.820 did that sort

00:23:05.760 of thing?

00:23:06.500 Because I

00:23:06.940 suppose if you

00:23:07.520 had a rule

00:23:07.960 that said you

00:23:08.460 could do that,

00:23:10.180 look into people

00:23:11.040 just based on

00:23:11.840 their opinion,

00:23:13.400 that that would

00:23:15.140 get misapplied.

00:23:16.400 Right?

00:23:16.840 So you probably

00:23:17.340 don't want a

00:23:17.940 role like that.

00:23:20.480 But in

00:23:21.680 related news,

00:23:23.840 Biden and the

00:23:24.780 Democrats are

00:23:25.900 going to have

00:23:26.320 to be worried

00:23:26.880 about all this

00:23:27.540 defund the

00:23:28.320 police stuff.

00:23:29.480 Because if

00:23:30.340 there's one way

00:23:30.980 that Republicans

00:23:32.000 can take back

00:23:33.060 Congress and

00:23:33.820 the presidency

00:23:34.620 and basically

00:23:35.780 everything else,

00:23:37.320 it's by being

00:23:38.280 tough on crime

00:23:39.580 when crime is

00:23:41.600 rising.

00:23:42.720 So crime is

00:23:43.780 rising like

00:23:44.480 crazy, and I

00:23:45.820 think everybody's 0.94

00:23:46.440 aware of that,

00:23:47.520 at the same time

00:23:48.560 that the Democrats

00:23:49.240 are saying,

00:23:50.020 let's do less

00:23:50.900 about it.

00:23:52.580 How can you

00:23:53.500 possibly win an

00:23:54.500 election with that?

00:23:55.780 The worst problem

00:23:56.860 in the country is

00:23:57.580 crime, and we'd

00:23:59.540 like to do less

00:24:00.440 about it.

00:24:02.020 I feel as if

00:24:03.220 the Republicans

00:24:03.800 are just going

00:24:04.420 to walk into

00:24:05.160 every office

00:24:05.980 that's available.

00:24:07.960 It just doesn't

00:24:09.000 even seem like

00:24:09.740 the Democrats

00:24:10.980 have a chance.

00:24:12.800 And of course

00:24:13.840 the Democrats

00:24:14.560 will try to run

00:24:15.280 away from this.

00:24:16.220 You know, a lot

00:24:16.560 of them will say,

00:24:17.280 well, that's not

00:24:17.900 my message.

00:24:18.900 But the Republicans

00:24:20.020 are going to paint

00:24:20.760 them with the

00:24:21.280 same brush.

00:24:22.500 So if there's

00:24:23.320 a Republican who

00:24:24.180 is opposed to

00:24:25.900 funding, or

00:24:28.500 defunding the

00:24:29.120 police, all the

00:24:30.340 Republicans have

00:24:31.040 to say is, yeah,

00:24:32.240 yeah, maybe this

00:24:32.920 Democrat is not

00:24:35.180 in favor of

00:24:35.740 defunding police,

00:24:37.180 but here's my

00:24:38.100 argument.

00:24:39.280 Every additional

00:24:40.320 Democrat who's in

00:24:41.380 power makes it

00:24:42.900 more likely that

00:24:44.220 the police will be

00:24:44.960 defunded.

00:24:46.240 Because that is

00:24:48.260 harder to argue

00:24:49.040 with.

00:24:50.200 Certainly a

00:24:50.980 candidate can say,

00:24:51.880 I'm a Democrat,

00:24:52.480 and I don't

00:24:53.540 want to defund

00:24:54.400 the police.

00:24:55.580 But all the

00:24:56.080 Republican has to

00:24:56.900 do is say,

00:24:57.940 being a Democrat

00:24:58.620 is all it takes.

00:24:59.800 Because that's

00:25:00.180 going to give

00:25:00.520 your side enough

00:25:01.220 power, and you're

00:25:03.280 probably not going

00:25:03.900 to oppose it

00:25:04.500 full-throatedly.

00:25:06.580 So that's how you

00:25:07.680 get to defund

00:25:08.400 the police.

00:25:09.400 You get more

00:25:09.960 people like this

00:25:10.640 Democrat than I'm

00:25:11.520 pointing to, even

00:25:13.140 though that one

00:25:14.100 says to not

00:25:15.380 defund the police.

00:25:16.400 So I feel like

00:25:17.120 this is just such

00:25:18.340 a slam dunk that

00:25:20.240 you could just

00:25:21.100 easily predict what's

00:25:22.300 going to happen

00:25:22.760 in the midterms.

00:25:24.800 Is there anybody

00:25:25.640 who doesn't think

00:25:26.400 the Republicans are

00:25:27.300 going to do well

00:25:28.540 in the midterms?

00:25:32.540 Because I'd be

00:25:33.200 interested if anybody

00:25:34.320 has a counter-idea.

00:25:35.300 It just seems

00:25:35.740 obvious to me at

00:25:36.520 this point that's

00:25:37.120 the way it's going

00:25:37.560 to go.

00:25:39.420 All right, but I

00:25:40.300 could be wrong.

00:25:41.520 I could be wrong.

00:25:42.500 You never know.

00:25:45.140 So the New York

00:25:45.940 Times has some

00:25:47.240 excellent fake news,

00:25:49.480 or fake news

00:25:50.640 alerts.

00:25:52.300 So apparently

00:25:53.780 there's a group

00:25:54.660 that does what's

00:25:55.660 called a, quote,

00:25:56.980 rapid analysis

00:25:58.060 of any major

00:26:00.060 climate events.

00:26:01.860 Let's say there's

00:26:02.680 forest fires or

00:26:05.080 heat waves or

00:26:06.260 wind-related storms

00:26:08.340 or stuff.

00:26:09.580 So, and they do

00:26:11.620 this attribution

00:26:13.020 analysis, this rapid

00:26:14.680 analysis, to get a

00:26:17.100 news headline out

00:26:19.280 as quickly as

00:26:20.000 possible, that's

00:26:20.680 paired with the

00:26:21.320 news, that says

00:26:22.940 it's related to

00:26:23.880 climate change.

00:26:25.740 Right?

00:26:26.060 So they start

00:26:26.980 with the assumption

00:26:27.720 that these big

00:26:29.360 events are likely

00:26:30.520 caused by climate

00:26:31.420 change, then they

00:26:32.700 jump in and do a

00:26:33.700 rapid evaluation, and

00:26:35.260 then produce a

00:26:36.160 headline to say,

00:26:37.480 yes, indeed, it was

00:26:38.660 related to climate

00:26:39.860 change.

00:26:40.580 Now, they did this

00:26:41.320 recently with the

00:26:42.100 heat waves.

00:26:42.940 and this was not

00:26:46.660 the same information

00:26:47.540 that I'd heard from

00:26:48.700 all sources, and so

00:26:49.760 I was wondering if

00:26:50.380 anybody would push

00:26:51.100 back, and sure

00:26:52.460 enough, Joel Pollack

00:26:53.720 in Breitbart does

00:26:55.360 an article in which

00:26:56.180 he references a new

00:26:57.860 book out by Stephen

00:26:59.020 Koonin called 0.91

00:27:01.400 Unsettled, What

00:27:02.400 Climate Science

00:27:03.060 Tells Us, What

00:27:03.980 It Doesn't, and

00:27:04.680 Why It Matters.

00:27:06.160 Now, this

00:27:08.400 attribution

00:27:09.260 analysis is

00:27:10.660 specifically criticized

00:27:11.880 in this book, and

00:27:13.880 this fellow is a

00:27:14.940 former Obama

00:27:16.160 administration

00:27:16.820 climate scientist.

00:27:18.640 All right?

00:27:19.300 That's important.

00:27:20.640 He's a climate

00:27:21.320 scientist, and he

00:27:23.260 was in the Obama

00:27:23.960 administration.

00:27:26.160 So he, and he's

00:27:27.540 saying that the

00:27:29.160 analyses are basically

00:27:30.620 not to be trusted

00:27:31.440 in a lot of stuff,

00:27:32.240 especially the rapid

00:27:33.080 response stuff.

00:27:34.360 Do you know how

00:27:35.220 the rapid response

00:27:36.280 stuff is peer

00:27:37.800 reviewed?

00:27:39.620 It's not.

00:27:40.800 It's not.

00:27:41.880 Because they don't

00:27:42.340 have time for that.

00:27:43.340 The thing that

00:27:43.920 makes it rapid is

00:27:45.560 that it's not

00:27:46.020 peer reviewed.

00:27:47.560 So how much

00:27:48.420 trust should you

00:27:49.600 put in a

00:27:50.440 complicated subject?

00:27:52.640 You know, climate

00:27:53.080 change is really

00:27:54.400 complicated.

00:27:55.760 And somebody

00:27:56.660 does a rapid

00:27:57.940 analysis with

00:27:59.560 the stated

00:28:00.400 purpose of

00:28:01.440 making a headline

00:28:02.380 for political

00:28:03.840 purposes.

00:28:05.040 So it's

00:28:06.180 explicitly for

00:28:08.040 propaganda.

00:28:08.620 propaganda.

00:28:09.080 Now, they

00:28:09.660 don't say

00:28:10.160 explicitly we're

00:28:11.260 going to lie,

00:28:12.760 right?

00:28:13.080 That's not

00:28:13.720 what they're

00:28:14.240 doing.

00:28:14.680 But explicitly,

00:28:16.440 the purpose is

00:28:17.240 propaganda.

00:28:18.780 So would you

00:28:19.540 choose a, would

00:28:20.620 you trust a

00:28:21.360 non-peer

00:28:22.180 reviewed analysis

00:28:23.900 that was rapid

00:28:25.580 on a really

00:28:27.260 complicated area

00:28:28.340 where you know

00:28:28.840 people are going

00:28:29.400 to disagree and

00:28:30.340 lots of

00:28:30.700 assumptions were

00:28:31.420 made?

00:28:31.780 and there's

00:28:34.720 no randomized

00:28:35.420 controlled trial?

00:28:37.500 How much

00:28:38.120 trust should you

00:28:39.240 put in that

00:28:39.740 analysis?

00:28:40.620 The answer is

00:28:41.200 none.

00:28:42.160 Yeah, exactly

00:28:43.140 zero.

00:28:44.040 Which doesn't

00:28:44.940 mean they're

00:28:45.320 wrong, right?

00:28:46.700 They can be

00:28:47.200 right, but you

00:28:48.580 wouldn't have any

00:28:49.220 way of knowing

00:28:49.860 or any way of

00:28:50.880 trusting it,

00:28:51.460 really.

00:28:52.340 So the New

00:28:52.880 York Times runs

00:28:53.920 this review or

00:28:56.540 this rapid

00:28:57.380 analysis thing

00:28:58.120 that even the

00:28:59.400 authors of it

00:29:00.420 said was an

00:29:02.180 untested

00:29:02.820 hypothesis.

00:29:04.940 The people who

00:29:06.100 did the

00:29:06.860 analysis won't

00:29:08.680 even tell you

00:29:09.400 it's credible.

00:29:11.280 They call their

00:29:12.120 own analysis

00:29:12.940 basically operating

00:29:14.320 on a hypothesis.

00:29:16.520 Right?

00:29:17.580 So if the

00:29:18.980 people who do

00:29:19.660 the analysis

00:29:20.600 cannot give you

00:29:22.060 confidence in

00:29:22.900 their own

00:29:23.220 analysis, it's

00:29:24.040 still just a

00:29:24.620 hypothesis, how

00:29:26.140 should the New

00:29:26.660 York Times report

00:29:27.460 that?

00:29:27.800 Well, I would

00:29:28.420 say they should

00:29:28.980 report it as

00:29:29.680 there's a

00:29:30.520 hypothesis that

00:29:32.960 is not strongly

00:29:34.080 supported by

00:29:34.740 science, but

00:29:35.480 there's a hint

00:29:36.320 that some

00:29:37.580 reasonable people

00:29:38.640 looked at it and

00:29:39.300 they have some

00:29:39.760 concerns.

00:29:40.820 Something like

00:29:41.640 that.

00:29:43.200 But here's what

00:29:45.140 the New York

00:29:45.760 Times said

00:29:46.240 instead.

00:29:47.360 There was a

00:29:47.980 that these heat

00:29:49.180 waves were

00:29:49.760 virtually impossible

00:29:50.840 without climate

00:29:51.640 change.

00:29:53.600 Virtually

00:29:54.240 impossible without

00:29:55.280 climate change.

00:29:56.160 and then the

00:29:58.260 story doesn't

00:29:59.880 support that

00:30:00.580 headline at

00:30:01.300 all.

00:30:03.000 Again, it's

00:30:03.820 possible that

00:30:04.960 climate change

00:30:05.600 caused everything

00:30:06.420 just the way it's

00:30:07.240 reported.

00:30:08.440 But we don't

00:30:09.340 have science to

00:30:10.360 indicate that.

00:30:12.080 I mean, not

00:30:12.600 credible science.

00:30:13.940 We've got a

00:30:14.880 propaganda group

00:30:16.180 that did something

00:30:17.100 without peer review

00:30:18.120 that was exactly

00:30:19.180 the answer you

00:30:19.820 expected them to

00:30:20.700 come up with in

00:30:22.080 a complicated area

00:30:23.040 where people can

00:30:23.740 disagree.

00:30:24.060 So, that's

00:30:27.720 your fake news

00:30:28.380 for the day.

00:30:29.900 Meanwhile, Trump

00:30:30.780 is suing Google,

00:30:31.620 Facebook, and

00:30:32.120 Twitter for

00:30:33.020 censorship.

00:30:34.200 How do you

00:30:34.600 think that's

00:30:35.100 going to turn

00:30:35.560 out?

00:30:36.920 Well, the

00:30:37.620 smart people,

00:30:39.220 who are often

00:30:41.160 wrong, by the

00:30:41.960 way, but the

00:30:42.940 smart people, all

00:30:43.940 the lawyers are

00:30:44.660 weighing in and

00:30:45.240 saying, ha, ha,

00:30:46.460 ha, ha, he

00:30:48.020 has no chance

00:30:48.820 because it's not

00:30:50.500 really a First

00:30:51.080 Amendment situation

00:30:52.120 because it doesn't

00:30:52.960 involve the

00:30:53.660 government.

00:30:54.620 And therefore,

00:30:55.180 that's the end

00:30:55.600 of the story.

00:30:56.660 They're private

00:30:57.080 companies.

00:30:57.780 They can do

00:30:58.200 whatever they

00:30:58.560 want.

00:31:00.040 But interestingly,

00:31:02.660 Alan Dershowitz is

00:31:03.600 getting a lot of

00:31:04.200 pushback today

00:31:05.080 because he's

00:31:06.440 saying that it

00:31:09.320 is a First

00:31:09.840 Amendment kind

00:31:10.560 of a case and

00:31:11.920 the most

00:31:12.500 important First

00:31:13.180 Amendment case

00:31:13.780 of the 21st

00:31:14.600 century.

00:31:16.100 Now, he is

00:31:18.020 saying it's the

00:31:18.860 most important

00:31:19.600 First Amendment

00:31:20.320 case of the

00:31:20.940 21st century.

00:31:21.720 Is that the

00:31:22.080 same as saying

00:31:22.720 Trump could

00:31:23.820 win?

00:31:25.100 No.

00:31:26.100 No.

00:31:26.640 So even

00:31:27.140 Dershowitz is not

00:31:28.040 saying it's likely

00:31:29.240 Trump would win.

00:31:30.840 He's just pointing

00:31:31.740 out how important

00:31:32.740 it is.

00:31:33.320 And I would agree

00:31:33.920 with the importance

00:31:34.600 of it because in a

00:31:36.400 very real way,

00:31:38.280 freedom of speech

00:31:39.120 depends on private

00:31:40.140 companies now in a

00:31:41.400 way that it didn't

00:31:42.680 depend so much in

00:31:44.040 the past.

00:31:44.520 So it's certainly

00:31:47.460 important, but the

00:31:49.560 thought is that

00:31:50.260 maybe Trump is

00:31:50.880 just using it for

00:31:51.920 fundraising to make

00:31:54.940 it look like he's

00:31:55.560 doing something

00:31:56.040 useful.

00:31:56.780 It helps him with

00:31:57.360 the fundraising,

00:31:58.260 keeps him in the

00:31:58.800 news, keeps him

00:32:00.520 with an enemy

00:32:01.160 because he likes

00:32:02.220 to have an enemy.

00:32:03.860 So I've got a

00:32:06.260 feeling that this

00:32:07.280 won't go anywhere.

00:32:08.340 just feels like

00:32:12.180 it's not going to

00:32:13.080 go anywhere.

00:32:15.900 Somebody's saying

00:32:16.560 the audio on

00:32:17.320 Locals is much

00:32:18.240 better.

00:32:18.720 Just so you know,

00:32:19.520 I'm running that

00:32:20.100 audio through a

00:32:21.320 Rodecaster Pro,

00:32:23.740 so it's taking the

00:32:24.940 S's out, and I'm

00:32:26.600 running the YouTube

00:32:27.460 just through this

00:32:28.920 little booster thing

00:32:30.020 by Shure, and

00:32:32.800 that doesn't have a

00:32:33.840 de-esser on it, so

00:32:35.160 there should be a

00:32:35.780 little bit of

00:32:36.200 difference.

00:32:36.560 All right.

00:32:41.560 So the flag, the

00:32:44.920 American flag, is

00:32:46.660 now being considered

00:32:47.440 by at least Utah's

00:32:48.660 Black Lives Matter

00:32:49.440 chapter as a symbol

00:32:52.260 of hatred.

00:32:53.580 It's a symbol of

00:32:54.280 hatred, the American 0.59

00:32:55.180 flag.

00:32:56.340 And she says,

00:32:57.720 when we black

00:32:58.460 Americans see this

00:32:59.460 flag, we know the

00:33:00.540 person flying it is

00:33:01.660 not safe to be

00:33:02.560 around.

00:33:04.480 What?

00:33:06.560 Do you think that

00:33:07.920 assumption would

00:33:09.320 hold?

00:33:11.080 Do you think that

00:33:12.080 if you saw somebody

00:33:12.980 holding an American

00:33:13.820 flag, which

00:33:15.640 literally symbolizes

00:33:17.300 the melting pot and

00:33:20.300 the American ethic of

00:33:22.620 treating everybody the

00:33:23.740 same, et cetera, or

00:33:25.640 at least treating

00:33:26.180 everybody with the

00:33:27.100 same rights, I feel

00:33:30.540 feel as if this Black 0.98

00:33:33.500 Lives Matter chapter

00:33:34.500 may have gone a

00:33:36.160 little too far?

00:33:37.900 Because I certainly

00:33:40.200 don't see people who

00:33:41.760 respect the American

00:33:43.840 flag as being the

00:33:46.000 special racists in the

00:33:47.320 group.

00:33:48.100 I don't really see

00:33:49.180 that.

00:33:49.540 Now, I get the point

00:33:50.700 that there are a lot of

00:33:52.080 right-wing groups that

00:33:53.520 use the flag also.

00:33:55.020 But that doesn't really

00:33:56.420 ruin the flag, does it?

00:33:58.480 Because every group

00:34:00.520 has some bad people

00:34:01.800 who agree with

00:34:02.480 them.

00:34:03.360 That's universal.

00:34:05.160 You know, if I said

00:34:05.920 you don't want to be a 0.94

00:34:07.260 Democrat because there

00:34:08.740 are so many Democrats 1.00

00:34:09.760 who are pedophiles. 0.98

00:34:11.880 Well, there are,

00:34:13.360 right?

00:34:14.440 There are probably, you

00:34:15.140 could pick any group

00:34:15.980 and you could find some

00:34:16.840 bad people among them.

00:34:18.180 But does that mean you

00:34:19.360 shouldn't be a Democrat

00:34:20.220 because there are so 0.99

00:34:21.060 many pedophiles who are

00:34:22.260 also Democrats? 0.56

00:34:24.060 Yeah, we don't manage

00:34:25.380 life that way.

00:34:26.160 So the fact that there

00:34:28.160 might be some bad

00:34:29.180 people using the flag

00:34:30.500 as their symbol

00:34:31.360 doesn't ruin the flag.

00:34:34.880 And I've said this

00:34:35.640 before, but I'll say

00:34:36.740 it again.

00:34:39.060 Bad people using the

00:34:40.600 flag for their own

00:34:41.540 purposes is what makes

00:34:43.540 the flag powerful.

00:34:45.460 Because it's all of our

00:34:47.180 flag and it stands for

00:34:49.700 unpopular opinions as

00:34:52.720 much as it stands for

00:34:53.700 popular opinions.

00:34:54.520 So the fact that

00:34:55.920 anybody can use it,

00:34:57.820 but also anybody can

00:34:59.280 burn it, that's what

00:35:01.700 makes it magic.

00:35:03.320 If you couldn't burn

00:35:04.860 it without destroying

00:35:05.840 it, it wouldn't be

00:35:07.660 magic.

00:35:09.300 You know, the flag is

00:35:10.300 one of the few things

00:35:11.120 you can literally burn

00:35:12.300 and it gets stronger.

00:35:14.840 Right?

00:35:15.140 Because, hey, you can

00:35:16.260 burn that flag. 0.95

00:35:17.260 That's like a feature.

00:35:18.280 That's not a flaw.

00:35:19.520 You can burn it all day

00:35:20.620 long and it still stands

00:35:22.340 for your right to do

00:35:23.660 whatever you want.

00:35:25.180 In fact, you're burning

00:35:26.340 the flag that gives you

00:35:28.040 the right to burn the

00:35:28.860 flag.

00:35:29.720 I mean, or symbolizes

00:35:30.880 that, right?

00:35:32.120 So there's almost

00:35:33.160 nothing you can do to a

00:35:34.220 flag that doesn't make

00:35:35.500 it stronger.

00:35:36.700 That's very anti-fragile

00:35:38.640 that way, if I can use

00:35:39.580 that term.

00:35:42.460 Somebody says, Coco says,

00:35:45.040 burn a rainbow flag and 0.92

00:35:46.360 see what happens to you.

00:35:47.360 Well, I would not compare

00:35:48.880 the two because one is a

00:35:51.320 symbol of a certain group

00:35:52.740 and one is a symbol

00:35:54.720 specifically to include us

00:35:56.640 all.

00:35:57.300 So I reject your analogy.

00:36:01.260 All right.

00:36:02.940 Then apparently there are

00:36:04.180 40 progressive groups

00:36:05.820 sent a letter to Biden

00:36:07.160 urging that the Biden

00:36:10.540 administration plays nice

00:36:12.400 with China so that we can

00:36:14.500 fix climate change,

00:36:16.160 which would imply

00:36:17.640 ignoring whatever's

00:36:19.560 happening in Hong Kong,

00:36:20.820 which I'm sure is too late

00:36:22.260 to do anything about,

00:36:23.840 but also ignoring the

00:36:25.120 forced detention of the

00:36:26.400 Uyghurs. 1.00

00:36:26.860 Now, are we supposed to

00:36:29.480 just ignore concentration

00:36:32.320 camps in China?

00:36:34.840 Because if we don't, it'll

00:36:36.740 be hard to deal with them

00:36:37.760 on climate?

00:36:39.220 Because I've got a feeling

00:36:40.320 that China is going to be 0.99

00:36:41.360 exactly as hard to deal

00:36:42.760 with no matter what the

00:36:45.220 topic is.

00:36:46.640 It's hard for me to imagine

00:36:48.000 that if we were really nice

00:36:49.400 to China on the Uyghurs,

00:36:51.960 that therefore they would get

00:36:53.180 rid of their coal-burning

00:36:54.220 plants faster.

00:36:56.860 Like, what exactly is the

00:36:59.420 connection?

00:37:00.360 I just don't see that China 1.00

00:37:01.740 is going to do more on

00:37:02.880 climate because they like

00:37:04.680 us more, because we were

00:37:06.760 more respectful to them by

00:37:08.560 not calling them out for

00:37:10.480 concentration camps.

00:37:13.640 I don't know.

00:37:14.180 This makes no sense to me.

00:37:15.720 And once again, it's another

00:37:16.800 example of the left ignores

00:37:21.240 human motivation.

00:37:23.080 Just consistently.

00:37:24.340 They always get human

00:37:25.600 motivation wrong.

00:37:26.580 It's as if they don't know

00:37:27.880 why people do what they

00:37:29.600 do.

00:37:33.920 All right.

00:37:39.300 Well, as somebody said,

00:37:42.760 somebody needs to make a

00:37:44.100 Schindler's List movie about

00:37:45.660 the Uyghurs, because if you 1.00

00:37:47.980 don't turn it into a movie,

00:37:49.140 nobody's going to care.

00:37:50.500 And I think Steven Spielberg

00:37:51.800 was a genius, because he

00:37:53.540 realized that making a movie

00:37:55.080 about the Holocaust

00:37:56.000 Schindler's List was a 0.74

00:37:58.940 powerful thing to do.

00:38:00.040 It would just keep it in the

00:38:01.180 public's consciousness forever,

00:38:03.420 and it was very successful

00:38:04.620 that way.

00:38:05.980 What about Tibet?

00:38:07.380 You know, yeah, Tibet, of

00:38:09.380 course, is oppressed by China,

00:38:11.020 but I don't know the details of

00:38:12.300 that.

00:38:15.740 If I did, I'd be talking about

00:38:17.320 it.

00:38:17.460 Now, I heard a bunch of

00:38:18.680 comments yesterday that

00:38:19.580 people enjoyed my comments

00:38:22.140 about intersectionality, and

00:38:24.480 my suggestion specifically was

00:38:27.600 that we add more categories to

00:38:30.180 it, and it would just collapse

00:38:31.820 under its own weight, and

00:38:34.120 adding, you know, short people

00:38:35.580 and old people and Republicans 0.99

00:38:36.960 and ugly people and everything 1.00

00:38:39.700 else. 0.71

00:38:40.000 But I don't know what else to do

00:38:43.020 with that.

00:38:43.820 So if nobody's going to actually

00:38:45.340 try to do that, then it's a

00:38:47.580 suggestion that just goes out 0.73

00:38:48.880 there and dies.

00:38:50.040 But somebody somewhere probably

00:38:52.460 needs to try to get those things

00:38:54.000 included in a curriculum, because

00:38:56.040 it would just make the whole thing

00:38:57.000 fall apart.

00:38:59.220 Yeah, diabetics, heart patients,

00:39:01.940 everybody who's got a health

00:39:03.040 problem, throw them in there in 0.98

00:39:05.020 the intersectional situation.

00:39:12.760 So Ronnie says, I'm still

00:39:14.280 waiting for someone to show me a

00:39:17.020 critical race theory book that's in

00:39:18.860 schools now.

00:39:19.620 Well, I think that conversation

00:39:22.680 has been settled.

00:39:24.300 So you saw a bunch of people

00:39:25.580 saying it's fake news that

00:39:28.660 critical race theory is being

00:39:30.120 taught in schools.

00:39:31.680 But the two biggest teachers' 0.97

00:39:34.420 unions just came out strongly in

00:39:37.380 favor of it and are talking

00:39:39.080 about it being in schools as a

00:39:41.440 fact, meaning that it's already

00:39:43.520 there and it's being taught, and

00:39:44.900 the teachers' unions call it by

00:39:46.780 that name, critical race theory.

00:39:48.980 So those of you who thought that

00:39:52.820 it was fake news that critical race

00:39:54.580 theory was being taught in

00:39:56.060 schools, if it isn't, it's going

00:39:58.640 to be, because there's way too

00:40:02.020 much pressure to make it happen.

00:40:08.480 Tim Poole had a guest who was

00:40:10.180 showing the materials.

00:40:11.240 Was that Christopher Ruffalo?

00:40:15.120 I don't know who that was, but it

00:40:16.580 probably was.

00:40:18.460 And we've seen some of the

00:40:20.320 documents, especially in corporate

00:40:22.300 America.

00:40:24.360 They just call it something different.

00:40:26.040 Yes.

00:40:29.500 All right.

00:40:30.360 Oh, it wasn't Christopher

00:40:32.780 Ruffalo, but somebody else saw it.

00:40:35.000 All right.

00:40:39.700 Wokies or... 0.99

00:40:40.660 Oh, somebody's asked me how to

00:40:41.840 spell Wokey.

00:40:43.040 So I was suggesting that the people

00:40:44.820 who are woke be called Wokies.

00:40:47.940 I spelled it W-O-K-I-E-S. 1.00

00:40:50.920 But I suppose you could do it a

00:40:53.440 different way.

00:40:55.660 Yeah, it's possible that critical race 1.00

00:40:58.300 theory will be the downfall of the

00:41:00.500 teachers' unions.

00:41:02.080 Or at the very least, it will be the

00:41:03.760 rising of school choice.

00:41:06.660 So we're seeing that everywhere.

00:41:08.800 Between critical race theory and

00:41:10.340 defunding the police, I think the

00:41:12.640 Democrats found a way to remove

00:41:17.100 themselves from power.

00:41:19.520 It looks like that's what's going

00:41:20.900 to happen.

00:41:22.780 All right.

00:41:23.600 I'm going to need to go get ready

00:41:25.200 and do something else.

00:41:26.680 And I will be back here tomorrow,

00:41:28.960 YouTubers. 0.92

00:41:29.500 I'm going to say a little bit more

00:41:30.520 to the locals people.

00:41:31.820 And I'll see you later, YouTubers. 0.92

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - July 08, 2021

Episode 1430 Scott Adams： The Golden Age is Here But It's Hiding. I Show You Where.

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript