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

Length

41 minutes

Words per Minute

140.34525

Word Count

5,832

Sentence Count

344

Misogynist Sentences

5

Hate Speech Sentences

20


Summary

Scott Adams is back, and he's got lots of stuff to talk about, but not until the important things have been taken care of. First, Scott talks about the YouTube problem, and then he talks about a Gallup poll that shows Americans are happier than ever. And then he asks the question: What if the people who are suffering the most discrimination are the least happy?


Transcript

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.
00:01:19.600 And no matter what I fucking do, somebody's going to tell me that the sound isn't good.
00:01:25.660 So if you wonder why do I ignore you when I don't have my microphone on
00:01:31.260 and I'm ignoring tons and tons of people saying your sound is bad,
00:01:35.360 it's because they say that every fucking time, no matter what the sound is.
00:01:40.420 There's a YouTube problem that makes that happen.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
00:17:19.300 ridiculous person
00:17:20.300 on social media.
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
00:18:48.420 ridiculous
00:18:49.520 and worthless
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
00:19:18.180 ridiculous
00:19:19.640 competitions
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
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
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
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
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
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
00:34:07.260 Democrat because there
00:34:08.740 are so many Democrats
00:34:09.760 who are pedophiles.
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
00:34:21.060 many pedophiles who are
00:34:22.260 also Democrats?
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
00:38:36.960 and ugly people and everything
00:38:39.700 else.
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
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
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'
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...
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.
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
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.
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.