Episode 1571 Scott Adams： Lawyers, Criminals, Politicians, and Other Weasels Are In My Target Zone Today
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
152.82152
Summary
The Rittenhouse case is like the Rosetta Stone that opens up the eyes of the American public to a completely new understanding of reality. And it's a good thing it's not just Fox News we're talking about.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Bum-ba-dum-bum-bum. Wow. Hello, everybody, and good morning, and welcome to the best thing that
00:00:07.120
ever happened in the history of the cosmos. Every single universe, metaverse, and simulation,
00:00:13.800
the best thing ever. And you made it here on time, if you're watching this live.
00:00:20.200
For those of you who are watching this not live, well, you've lost 20% of the sparkle.
00:00:26.940
Next time, get up earlier, arrange your schedule, and get here live. And also hit the subscribe
00:00:33.120
button if you're on YouTube, because that would be a way that you can repay me without paying me
00:00:39.100
anything, in case you feel like you need to repay me for anything. I guess that was a little
00:00:44.860
presumptuous, so forget I even said that. Let's instead do the simultaneous sip, but all you need
00:00:51.200
is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any
00:00:56.640
kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid I like. That's right, coffee. And join me now
00:01:02.680
for the unparalleled pleasure. It's the dopamine here of the day, the thing that makes everything
00:01:08.200
better. Yeah, except lawyers. It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's happening now. Go.
00:01:14.680
Mmm. This is the only situation in which slurping is accepted. Don't do it with your bowl of rice.
00:01:27.120
Don't do it with your soup. Don't do it with your beverages in general. But when you're doing the
00:01:33.080
simultaneous sip, yeah, show some passion. Put a slurp on that thing. All right, Rasmussen had a
00:01:42.160
fascinating little poll here that shows us something about our world. It asked how many people thought
00:01:48.880
the media coverage on the Rittenhouse trial was prejudiced for Rittenhouse versus prejudiced against
00:01:58.400
Rittenhouse? What do you think people said? Most of you saw the clips and coverage from the Rittenhouse
00:02:03.720
trial. How many of you think that it was prejudiced against Rittenhouse? I'm talking about the news in
00:02:10.220
general. How many say prejudiced against? Okay, lots of people think prejudiced against. Okay.
00:02:19.320
Um, here's how the poll came out. Uh, 47% of the, uh, of the polled public said that it was prejudiced
00:02:30.140
against Rittenhouse, but, uh, only 15% said it was prejudiced for him. That is a huge difference. 47% said it was
00:02:40.520
against him, with only 15% said it was for him. But it gets even worse when you look at the, uh, political breakdown.
00:02:48.000
Uh, the GOP, Republicans, 69% of those watching, 69% said it was prejudiced against him.
00:02:59.840
But what about the Dems? They were watching exactly the same stuff, right? Weren't the Democrats watching
00:03:05.440
the same footage, same trial? So what did the Democrats see? 69% of Republicans saw prejudiced
00:03:13.140
against, the coverage would be against him. Only 22% of Democrats saw that. Three times as many
00:03:21.540
Republicans saw reality clearly than Democrats. Now, on some things, I would say, hey, you know,
00:03:30.180
reality is subjective. Uh, you know, everybody's opinion is about equally weighted. Your religion,
00:03:36.520
my religion, you know, there's no favored one. Usually I tell you stuff like that, right?
00:03:41.240
But not this time. This was actually, uh, adjudicated in a court of law, and we know the facts.
00:03:51.960
We know that the video shows no crime. All right? That, uh, a jury decided that unanimously.
00:03:57.880
And still, and I've said before that this case, the Rittenhouse case, is like the Rosetta Stone
00:04:05.520
that opens up the awareness of Democrats. Like, Democrats were walking around in this fog,
00:04:12.060
not understanding the world, not understanding why Republicans had different opinions exactly.
00:04:18.820
You know, maybe the Republicans are just all dumb. Maybe the Republicans are all just evil.
00:04:24.660
Maybe they're all just racist. Like, none of their theories of reality made any sense, right?
00:04:30.680
And they were trying to figure out why their observations of reality isn't matching their
00:04:35.240
understanding of reality. And I think the Rittenhouse trial finally explained it to them.
00:04:42.200
It's because your understanding of reality, the ones you see, you know, what you observe with your own
00:04:47.840
eyes, is completely different from what the news is telling you, because the news is fake.
00:04:52.760
So, I think the Rittenhouse trial is where a huge number of Democrats finally learned,
00:05:00.620
wait a minute, are you telling me it's not just Fox News? You know, from their point of view.
00:05:07.600
I would still argue that Fox News has the most accurate news.
00:05:12.440
Now, I've also called out Fox News for having stories that I don't think are true,
00:05:17.840
or at least opinion pieces. Usually the news people are right on. I can't think of an example
00:05:23.660
offhand. Can anybody else? Can you think of an example where the news people, not the opinion
00:05:29.640
people, but the news people had something seriously wrong on Fox News? I'm sure that's happened, right?
00:05:36.620
Can you give me an example? Calling Arizona earlier? Well, I don't know, but they were right
00:05:47.380
on the Arizona call. They went with the Russia hoax. I don't think they did. I don't think they did.
00:05:55.540
I think they reported it. Chris Wallace was all in on Trump collusion. Is Chris Wallace a news or
00:06:06.920
opinion guy? I don't know what he is, actually. Hannity was into weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
00:06:15.340
Okay, that's a good example. Chris Wallace is news. I guess you could say that. The interview ones
00:06:28.160
seem a little different than regular news. I'm not sure I would call him news. I think he's a hybrid.
00:06:36.780
Yeah, it's Mike Wallace. Sorry. Or Chris Wallace, right? All right. So anyway, here's the point.
00:06:53.660
Do you think that the problem is that the media is different or the Democrats are wired differently?
00:06:58.700
What do you think is happening? Do you think the Democrats just have different brains? So when
00:07:04.160
they're looking at the same material, it just looks different? Or do you think they're not looking
00:07:09.320
at the same material because they're looking through the media's lens and the media is just lying like
00:07:14.080
crazy? I think it's both. Yeah. But I think in this case, it's the media lens. The media tells them
00:07:21.320
what to think and then they just do. Here's an experiment for you. Find a Democrat who has an opinion
00:07:27.840
that's different from the media's narrative. Find a Republican. Find a Democrat or a Republican, somebody
00:07:37.580
who's actually registered that way, who has an explanation of the world that differs from the media's
00:07:44.100
narrative. It's really rare. Yeah, Tulsi, Manchin, those would be good examples. All right.
00:07:52.580
But I'm not talking about the politicians. I'm talking about voters. Well, I'm not a registered
00:07:59.040
anything. So I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. In fact, I did the ground news test, I tweeted,
00:08:07.380
where you can see if you're consuming more left news or right news. And mine's almost perfectly
00:08:13.300
balanced. If you look at the news sources that I consume, it's about equal left and right.
00:08:18.120
And I would argue that that keeps me, it protects me from cognitive dissonance, but not completely.
00:08:28.480
Because nobody's, nobody can be completely clear of it. But I think if you look at both sides, you have
00:08:34.160
at least a chance of knowing what's happening. All right. There was a study on intermittent fasting,
00:08:40.280
which I must tell you, I have never tried. How many of you have tried intermittent fasting?
00:08:46.560
The reason I've never tried it is because it looked like bullshit to me.
00:08:54.780
And now a study says it doesn't make much difference. So a study of a bunch of obese people,
00:09:02.120
there was a difference, actually. The fasters lost, 18% of them lost weight versus 15% of the
00:09:10.000
non-fasters. So not a gigantic difference, but a difference, a difference. So here's how I
00:09:16.540
would put it. This is what we learned in hypnosis class. Did you know that hypnosis doesn't work
00:09:23.740
for quitting smoking or for overeating? And yet it's one of the main things that people go to a
00:09:30.400
hypnotist for. It doesn't work at all. And when I say it doesn't work at all, what I mean is it works
00:09:36.940
sometimes? Just like everything else. No matter what you try to lose weight, and no matter what you try
00:09:44.900
to quit smoking, something like 20% of people succeed. You know, give or take. Do you know why 20% of people
00:09:55.140
succeed at losing weight or quitting smoking? No matter what technique they use, hypnosis,
00:10:00.540
willpower, go to a program. Do you know why? Because that's exactly the number who decided
00:10:07.500
to lose weight. And that's exactly the number who decided to quit. And I've told you a million times
00:10:14.840
this difference between wanting something and deciding. But the more you see the examples of it,
00:10:20.960
the more you see it as a valid filter on what's really happening in the world.
00:10:24.020
The people who decided to lose weight, it didn't matter what method they used,
00:10:29.780
because they decided. So whatever technique they used worked for them, because it gave them a fake
00:10:35.300
because. Oh, I'm losing weight because I got hypnotized. Or I'm losing weight because I'm fasting.
00:10:42.720
I'm losing weight because I'm watching my carbs. You need a because, because that keeps you motivated
00:10:49.200
that you're doing something right. But the because is random. It could be any because.
00:10:54.980
Oh, I changed my favorite color. That's why I'm losing weight. That would work with about 20% of
00:11:00.860
people. Now, that's a ridiculous example, but you get the point. 20%, it's going to work no matter
00:11:06.760
what you do. All right. So I'm not a believer in intermittent fasting, but I can be convinced if
00:11:13.020
there's, you know, someday if there's some better science or something. To me, it looks like a lot of pain
00:11:18.380
for not enough gain. So the Merck COVID pill is being analyzed and we could have it soon. I don't
00:11:26.660
know, maybe by the end of the year or something. So how good is the Merck COVID pill? Well, let's put
00:11:34.600
it this way. Out of 762 participants in a trial, you know, half were given the placebo, half were given
00:11:42.300
the real pill. And after a month went by, 45% of people who received the placebo were hospitalized.
00:11:50.940
Doesn't that seem like a lot out of 762 participants? Where do you find 762 people
00:11:58.260
in which 45 of them would end up in the hospital? How do you even do that? In a month?
00:12:06.080
Is there something wrong with that? Now, again, yeah, maybe they took, oh, nurses? I don't
00:12:14.360
know. Yeah, they must have found some kind of group that they knew was likely to get infected
00:12:18.820
a lot. I don't know where they find these. So here's my first impulse is you couldn't possibly
00:12:27.240
study this. I'm not saying that they studied it wrong. I'm saying, I don't know this could
00:12:34.080
ever work. Could it? How do you get 762 participants and end up with 45 people hospitalized
00:12:41.500
in a month? In a month? Something's going on here. We're not talking about infections.
00:12:49.280
I would understand that. You know, if you're in a high infection area, a lot of people get
00:12:54.080
infected. But how do 45 people end up hospitalized out of 762 in one month? So here's my first
00:13:01.840
comment. The study looks like bullshit to me, without knowing what the explanation for
00:13:09.720
that is. It looks like not enough people, and it looks like bullshit. Now, I'm an optimist,
00:13:17.460
so I'm going to say that it does work. So the optimist in me is working against the observation.
00:13:23.200
Here's one of the things I've told you to look for as a red flag to what's not true.
00:13:30.620
When science says something's true, and then you see it in the real world as acting exactly the way
00:13:36.440
science says it should act, probably true. Cigarettes, for example. Science at the moment says
00:13:42.880
cigarettes will give you lung cancer. And sure enough, when you hear somebody you know who has
00:13:48.440
lung cancer, nine out of ten times, there are cigarette smokers. So the world and the science
00:13:54.260
are together. But I don't know. There's 762 people. This whole trial just looks like,
00:14:04.700
doesn't make sense to me, in any world which I observe. I observe no world that looks like this
00:14:10.800
study. So there's a red flag there for me, or a yellow flag at least. But here's the shocking
00:14:17.940
news. Let's be optimistic and say this pill works. Because there's lots of background that
00:14:22.040
suggests it actually does. So I do think it probably works. I don't know if this study is
00:14:25.960
valid exactly. But among the group that received the drug, half as many were hospitalized. Still
00:14:32.940
an alarming number. 28 out of 762 in one month were hospitalized. And that's the people who are on
00:14:41.560
the drug. So I don't get these numbers. That doesn't make any sense to me. But there were nine
00:14:47.640
people who died who didn't take the drug. Nine of them died in a 762, which seems like a lot,
00:14:53.840
again, for one month. Right? If you took 762 people randomly from the population, you wouldn't expect
00:15:03.460
nine of them to die that month, would you? Somebody says it's a nursing home study? Maybe, but I would
00:15:10.800
think a nursing home study would be the wrong kind of study. Because it would only tell you if it works
00:15:15.980
in a nursing home. Right? Am I wrong about that? I mean, a nursing home study would be excellent to
00:15:21.920
have. But I don't know if it would tell you enough about the rest of the population in terms of the
00:15:26.620
risk reward. But anyway, I was taking the long road here to get to the shocking number that the number
00:15:34.400
of people who took the pill and died was zero. Zero. None. Nobody who took the pill died. And nine
00:15:45.660
people died in the control group out of just 762. If these numbers are valid, and I got a big question
00:15:54.180
about it, this would be the end of the pandemic. Because when it talks about hospitalizations,
00:16:02.480
it doesn't specify ICU, or how critical it became. Because even the hospitalizations might have been,
00:16:09.400
you know, the milder hospitalization types is a little unclear. But if you took the number of people
00:16:15.260
who died down to zero, or anything close to it, we're done. Get your rapid test. If you have a symptom,
00:16:24.600
you take the pill, whether you're sure it's COVID or not. And nobody dies. We're done. So we might be
00:16:32.120
that close. I don't give investment advice. But I'm going to be looking at investments in which the end of
00:16:43.520
the pandemic would really make a difference. Like if you really knew it was ended. Now, I don't know
00:16:48.680
that this pill will be the end. There could be another, you know, variant that makes everything
00:16:52.380
different. Who knows? But on a risk reward basis, I'll probably make a, I'm going to place a bet. I'm
00:17:00.060
not going to tell you ahead of time what it is. I'll tell you after the fact. But I'm probably going to
00:17:05.220
place a bet on at least one industry that would make a big difference if this pill works. Yeah,
00:17:12.000
the travel industry. But I won't tell you specifically how well I'll play that. Now,
00:17:16.780
again, this is very much not, not, not advice. It's not an investment advice. The only reason you
00:17:24.360
should make an investment of this type is if you're already rich. And it's, you know, your play money.
00:17:30.940
But don't, don't invest in this if you don't have money to burn, basically. All right.
00:17:37.200
One of the reasons I make investments like that is to see if I can predict because I can afford it.
00:17:46.700
So if I, you know, throw some small number of dollars at a bet, part of it is to make sure I
00:17:55.360
remember I predicted it. Because you know how you forget things you predicted wrong? I'm not immune
00:18:00.800
from that. I'll remember all the ones I got right. Don't remember the ones I got wrong. But man,
00:18:06.200
you put money on your bet. You'll remember that. You'll remember that. All right. Michael Cohen thinks
00:18:13.000
Trump won't run in 2024. And his reasons were that his fragile ego won't let him risk losing twice.
00:18:21.200
What do you think of that reasoning? That Trump's fragile ego won't allow him to lose twice.
00:18:28.440
You know, he's leading in the polls, right? This is the worst analysis I've ever seen.
00:18:35.960
I'm starting to think that all lawyers are dumb or criminal. Now, I know it's really because the
00:18:43.240
sample we're seeing in the news is all the worst lawyers in the world. We're going to talk about
00:18:47.980
some lawyers who are even worse than this. But how is it that you become a fixer, as Michael Cohen was
00:18:54.220
called for Trump? How is it you get the job of being a fixer? What's the way? What's the path to
00:19:01.000
becoming somebody's fixer? I think the path is through being a bad lawyer, isn't it? Do you get
00:19:08.160
the job of the fixer if you're a good lawyer? Because I think if you're a good lawyer, you go work for
00:19:14.300
yourself and make a lot of money. I think you have to be a terrible lawyer to find yourself as some
00:19:20.240
billionaire's fixer. Anyway, if I had to analyze Trump's fragile ego, as it's called, I would say,
00:19:29.700
number one, he has the strongest ego I've ever seen. All right? So my first statement is, it's the
00:19:38.140
opposite of a fragile ego. It's the strongest ego I've ever seen. Trump has taken more criticism
00:19:44.600
than anybody I've ever seen. And he knows it. He puts himself in situations where the
00:19:50.580
criticism will be brutal. You don't think he would change his hairstyle if he was concerned
00:19:57.080
about criticism? How hard would it be for him to, you know, just change his hairstyle?
00:20:01.940
Right? I've got a feeling that Trump, and if you look at the way he ran for office, he said the
00:20:09.580
most provocative things that would guarantee people would call him terrible names, and then he kept
00:20:13.460
saying it. Well after you knew that if you keep saying these things, people are going to be calling
00:20:19.500
you the worst things in the world, he kept saying it. Trump, every action that Trump takes is the
00:20:25.800
opposite of somebody who has a fragile ego. But, suppose you put a different frame on it.
00:20:33.540
Instead of saying he has a fragile ego, what if you just framed it differently and said he's
00:20:38.240
competitive? Would it look different? Would it look different if you simply said he's super
00:20:44.740
competitive? It would look exactly the same. Right? He would say it was unfair when he lost,
00:20:52.040
because he would believe it true. He would act exactly the same. So this is a media narrative.
00:20:59.640
Don't fall for the fragile ego thing. All evidence suggests the opposite. All evidence suggests that
00:21:05.820
his ego is incredibly strong. In fact, maybe stronger than I've ever seen. Imagine thinking you could be
00:21:13.840
president without practice. He had no practice being a politician. And he thought, you know, maybe I can be
00:21:21.820
the president of the country. That's the biggest ego you've ever seen in your life. They can't call
00:21:28.680
him a narcissist and then also say he has a fragile ego. Well, I guess you can. Technically, you could do
00:21:34.180
that. But I think that would be a definitional issue. All right. Ridley Scott was complaining because his
00:21:41.300
bad movie didn't do well. And he's saying that, I'm just guessing it's a bad movie. I haven't seen it.
00:21:47.100
But it looks like it would be bad. You know, you look at the stills. You go, oh, that looks bad.
00:21:55.800
Don't you make your decision about a movie in the first, is it just the first second? You know,
00:22:01.880
the first picture you see, you go, oh, that looks pretty bad. Anyway, I guess he did a movie called
00:22:09.720
The Last Duel and didn't do well in the box office. And he says the problem is that the young
00:22:15.840
people basically are using their cell phones for their entertainment and they've trained themselves
00:22:20.720
not to watch movies. Is that what happened? Do you agree? Do you think that the young have trained
00:22:28.140
themselves to watch the movies on their phones and stuff and therefore movies in general are not
00:22:34.360
so good? Well, that's part of it. It's part of the story. It's definitely part of the story.
00:22:42.660
Here's the rest of the story. Movies are terrible. How about that? How about movies used to be good
00:22:52.100
and now they're terrible? That's the whole story. The reason people don't go to movies is because
00:23:00.100
they're terrible. Let me give you my impression of me watching a modern movie. Okay. A man loves his
00:23:10.080
wife. So something bad is going to happen to the wife, probably the kids. Okay. So you're kissing
00:23:15.720
your wife. I get it. You love your wife. Now you're talking in this movie, sweet talk stuff that makes
00:23:21.740
me want to vomit to prove that you really, really love your wife. I get it. Something bad is going to
00:23:27.000
happen to happen to the wife. Okay. You have established that you and the wife have a close
00:23:32.240
relationship. You're really in love. I get it. Okay. Now they're talking some more to show us that
00:23:38.360
they're still very much in love. We get it. You're in love. Get, you know, shoe somebody. Can you do
00:23:46.200
something? Okay. They're still in love. Now they're kissing because they really need to show that they're,
00:23:52.980
now they're making love. Now they're having sex to show us that they really, really, really,
00:23:58.720
really, really care about us. And only the slow class doesn't get it yet.
00:24:06.260
Now compare that to a YouTube clip. Five minute clip. Boom. Jumps right into the topic,
00:24:13.820
gives you something good, and then gets the hell out of your life. 10 minutes.
00:24:18.480
The reason movies don't work is that they suck. They are no longer tuned to the modern mindset.
00:24:27.800
Now when there was no entertainment in the world, which wasn't that long ago, going to a movie was
00:24:33.320
a big deal. And also seeing things on the big screen was really exciting. Is anybody old enough to
00:24:40.800
remember the first Star Wars movie? You wouldn't want to watch Star Wars on a little screen, right?
00:24:46.760
But if the new Star Wars movie comes out, let's imagine that they still made good ones. If you
00:24:54.860
imagined a good Star Wars movie came out, I would still be tempted to watch that on my phone.
00:25:01.160
And the reason is, they all look the same. Have you seen a car chase lately? Do you remember that
00:25:10.060
car chase with the really innovative? No, I don't either. I mean, they do do a really good job of trying
00:25:16.500
to add variety into car chases. And I'm impressed at how much variety they can add into something
00:25:21.920
that's basically the same scene. But here's me watching a car chase scene.
00:25:26.320
Okay, now they're chasing in the car. I'll see what's on Twitter until the car chase is over.
00:25:34.860
Car chase, car chase, still chasing the car. Let's see. Still chasing the car. Chasing the car.
00:25:44.260
Okay, the car chase is done. I'll watch some dialogue. All right, all right, all right. Oh,
00:25:48.640
God, now they tied a guy to a chair. They tied a guy to a chair. He's going to be tortured.
00:25:52.860
Back to Twitter. Guy tied to a chair. He's going to be tortured, but he's a good guy,
00:25:58.880
so he doesn't fold. Somehow escapes from the chair with the help of a confederate or possibly
00:26:04.160
smuggles something in his hand. Cutting the ropes now, killing his captors. Guy tied in the chair.
00:26:12.320
All right, done with that scene. What else is next? Tell me I'm wrong, right? Isn't that how you watch
00:26:19.640
movies? You see what they want to tell you, and then you say, can you get past it? Can we get past
00:26:26.060
this scene, please? All right, that's what you're feeling about this live stream right now.
00:26:31.160
Well, apparently there's a spacecraft set to launch from NASA to knock an asteroid off course.
00:26:37.960
It's not heading for the Earth. So let me say that up front. The asteroid they're testing on to see if
00:26:46.560
they can knock an asteroid off course is not heading toward the Earth. They're seeing if they
00:26:52.500
have the technology to change an asteroid early on if it's first detected. So if we think there's
00:26:58.700
one that might come to the Earth, maybe we could nudge it. So the one that they're testing on is
00:27:04.000
absolutely not heading toward the Earth. I need you to know that. At least until they nudge it.
00:27:13.420
Because I'm not sure they have the nudging technology nailed yet. Now, obviously, it would
00:27:20.040
be a tremendous coincidence if the way they nudged it incorrectly made it hit Earth. But we do live in
00:27:27.800
a simulation where the least likely thing seems to happen all the time. So I'd be a little careful
00:27:33.820
about which side you nudge that asteroid on. That's all I'm saying. But I love the fact
00:27:37.920
that we're thinking so far ahead that we're nudging asteroids. All right. I'm going to give
00:27:44.440
the biggest compliment I've ever given to the Biden administration. And I'm not going to listen
00:27:49.280
to any criticism of it. Of course I will. But I'm trying to set you up here. All right. I'm going
00:27:55.900
to tell you something that the Biden administration did right. That's really, really good.
00:28:00.880
And I think Trump might have done it too. So I'm not going to say, you know, nobody else
00:28:06.440
could have done it or anything. But this is one of the best pieces of management I've ever
00:28:12.080
seen. Are you ready for this? The supply chain problem. The Biden administration formed a
00:28:21.720
task force. They decided to impose these $100 per container fines, which after nine days,
00:28:28.760
you know, $100 per container, you say, well, that's not that much. And then they increased
00:28:33.580
it by $100 every day. And as soon as they announced the fines, things cleared out very
00:28:41.360
quickly. In other words, when I guess the container problem has fallen by 33%, which is why it's
00:28:48.240
not been in the news. And it's not because of the penalties. It's because of the threat of
00:28:53.280
the penalties. And because the threat of the penalties works so well, they're holding back
00:28:57.280
on the penalties. Now, here is why this is the best piece of management I've seen from
00:29:04.340
our government. Maybe ever. Honestly, this is one of the best pieces of management you'll
00:29:09.180
ever see. Here's what they did. And I'll take a fact check on this. Because if I'm over analyzing
00:29:17.280
or over interpreting this, it's possible. So give me a fact check on this if you think
00:29:21.360
I went too far. When everybody, all the experts looked at the ports, what did people come away
00:29:27.760
with as the problem? Now, you know about Ryan Peterson having a good take on the fact that
00:29:34.620
there wasn't enough room for all the containers. So there was just a physical convention problem.
00:29:40.360
But on top of that, there were a number of, I guess, regulations that were keeping them
00:29:47.340
from doing some common sense stuff. And some of those got changed pretty quickly. So that
00:29:51.300
was good. That was local government. But it was good. But here's what happened. It didn't
00:30:00.120
look like anybody was making the changes they needed to, because it didn't look like they
00:30:04.300
had the economic incentive to solve a problem that wasn't one big problem. It was 1,000 little
00:30:12.520
things that needed to be tweaked. But nobody had an economic incentive to do it. So they gave them
00:30:19.320
an economic incentive. And they didn't solve the problem for them. This is the brilliant part.
00:30:25.540
If the Biden administration had gone and said, here's what you need to do, pile these up in this
00:30:30.120
place. Or get a train and take them all to this field. If they had been that specific, it would
00:30:36.820
have been a disaster. Because it would be people who don't know about containers and shipping telling
00:30:42.360
the people who do know about it how to do their job. How well would that work, right? Unlikely that's
00:30:48.600
going to work. But instead, they said, I'll tell you what we're going to do. We think all you motherfuckers
00:30:55.780
are lying. This is my interpretation. Can't read minds, remember? But here's how I'm interpreting
00:31:00.900
it. I think the Biden administration looked into it and said, I think all you fuckers are just lying
00:31:06.400
to us. I think you're all just fucking lying. Here's what we're going to do. We're going to put a boot
00:31:11.780
on your head. And we're going to squeeze your fucking head until you solve the problem that you're lying
00:31:17.360
to us about. And then they put the fines on, which was like the boot on the head. And they said,
00:31:23.280
all right, we're going to start to squeeze. And then watch you solve the problem that you said
00:31:27.300
can't be solved. And then they solved the problem that they said couldn't be solved.
00:31:33.820
This was good management. I can't tell you how many times in corporate America I've seen
00:31:40.060
this scene unfold. It's sort of like the Star Trek captain scene, where Scotty says,
00:31:47.060
I cannot give you warp four, captain. The ship was not meant to do warp four for 10 more minutes.
00:31:53.280
And the captain says, make it happen, Scotty. And he's like, we can't do it. And then he does it.
00:31:59.140
Now, that's the ridiculous cartoon version of management. But in the real world, I used to do
00:32:06.000
budgets. And I would collect the budgets of each of the departments and take it to the head. And
00:32:13.100
then it would be way over the total budget that he could get approved. So I'd say, well,
00:32:19.580
we should go back and cut the projects that don't look so good. We'll keep all the good stuff. But
00:32:26.280
we'll go back and cut the projects that aren't good. And the vice president, or AVP, I think it was,
00:32:32.800
said, no, just tell everybody to cut 10%. And I said, you can't do that. Because some of these groups
00:32:40.640
really need all the money. Some of them probably asked for too much. You really need to go in there
00:32:45.440
with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. You can't go in there and just say everybody 10%. Now, keep in
00:32:52.120
mind, I was very young. And this executive was very experienced. So this experienced person was
00:32:59.100
telling me something that sounded batshit crazy to me. Just tell everybody to cut 10%. I didn't see how
00:33:05.120
that was a good idea. But it was my job. So I went back and told everybody to cut 10%. How do you think
00:33:12.380
it worked out? Fine. What problems did it cause? Zero. None. Not a single problem. Because what the
00:33:23.040
executive knew with his experience, that I didn't know, as a young 20-something, is that they were all
00:33:30.520
lying. He knew everybody was lying. He knew that if he put the screws on them and said, well, you'll be
00:33:37.600
fired if you don't cut 10%, that everybody could do it. They just had to figure out their own way to do
00:33:42.900
it. He couldn't specify how to do it. But he could tell them it had to be done. And you're fired if you
00:33:48.400
don't do it. And then it gets done. So it's very much like the Adams law of slow-moving disasters.
00:33:53.820
Once it's obvious that you have to fix this problem, we're pretty good at fixing stuff. You just can't
00:33:59.740
guess in advance exactly how it'll happen. Because you've got to A, B, test your way to it. So standing
00:34:06.940
ovation to the Biden-Harris supply chain disruptions task force. And you have to give Biden the credit.
00:34:16.000
Now, I don't think he should be your president, just to be clear. Not a big Biden supporter. But when he does
00:34:22.820
something right, or his administration does, this was very right. So Buttigieg is good now. Somebody
00:34:29.760
says, I don't know if Buttigieg was involved with the task force. But if it was, it would show some
00:34:34.460
experience and some good judgment. It took too long, maybe. Maybe. You know, do you know what else
00:34:42.420
takes too long? Everything. Do you know what you should have started sooner? Everything good.
00:34:52.000
Everything good. So do you know what is the worst criticism in the world? Should have done it
00:34:57.640
sooner. That's what your spouse says to you. Oh, you cleaned up the garage? Should have done it
00:35:05.960
sooner. All right. Congratulations on that solution. Let's talk about the race filter. You know,
00:35:14.500
the Democrats can only see race in everything. But they will also try to hide it when it doesn't
00:35:21.600
work in their favor. So you're watching the story about the gentleman who ran over a bunch of people
00:35:29.180
in Wisconsin, was it? Waukesha? Apparently, he ran over the woman that allegedly is the mother of his
00:35:38.140
child with the same red SUV before he ran over the people in the crowd. So in a whole separate
00:35:44.980
incident, he already ran over a woman with the same vehicle. And then he ran over some more people.
00:35:51.220
And the mainstream press told us that he was probably escaping from some other thing,
00:35:56.560
for which there's no evidence. Now, he happens to be black. And in our highly racial-charged world,
00:36:05.700
people say that matters. Now, it doesn't matter to the story in any way that I can tell,
00:36:11.400
because there doesn't seem to be a racial component to anything he did.
00:36:17.280
Well, even if he's a black nationalist, it doesn't mean there's a racial component to what he did.
00:36:21.680
So we don't know why he did what he did. Is that true? He hasn't said why he did what he did, right?
00:36:30.220
So I wouldn't make an assumption one way or the other. I would just say that the mainstream media
00:36:38.040
seem to be, let's say, downplaying his race because they didn't want it to be part of the story.
00:36:43.300
But we're very racially conscious, so it looks like it will be.
00:36:52.440
But the initial interpretation that he was fleeing the scene of another crime seems to be BS, BS.
00:36:58.900
Now, let's talk about the Amoud Arbery case, which I had not been following closely.
00:37:04.580
I try to ignore individual crime stories, because I just feel like we make too much of them.
00:37:11.660
But some of them you can't ignore, like Rittenhouse, of course, couldn't ignore that.
00:37:18.880
But Amoud Arbery, this is a really interesting case, because the situation was there was a neighborhood
00:37:25.060
that there had been some burglaries, and somebody described as apparently a black male
00:37:33.920
And then a man who was jogging through the neighborhood, Amoud Arbery, was seen looking
00:37:43.540
So on video, it looked like he was trespassing.
00:37:46.220
But he was just looking around, didn't take anything, went back to his jogging.
00:37:50.740
And some white citizens, you need to know they're white, you need to know he's black,
00:38:03.120
And in the course of that citizen's arrest, apparently Amoud tried to grab the gun,
00:38:09.200
and then it turned into potentially a self-defense case.
00:38:17.120
The person with the gun pulled the trigger, killed Amoud Arbery.
00:38:21.320
And now the question is, the defense rests on two things.
00:38:27.460
Number one, that a citizen's arrest was legal at the time.
00:38:35.820
But at the time, it was totally legal to do a citizen's arrest.
00:38:41.420
And it's also totally legal to do self-defense, if it can be proven that's what it was.
00:38:54.980
It was really just, they really thought he was a suspect.
00:39:03.040
And so they thought they would detain him long enough to determine whether he was that person
00:39:21.660
Now, apparently, he had a criminal record from before that.
00:39:25.260
But it is legal to do a citizen's arrest, or it was.
00:39:33.120
But do you think that the defendants will be charged
00:39:37.420
because the thing that they did was legal was so bad that it was made illegal after they did it?
00:39:45.240
I think they might go to jail for doing something completely legal
00:39:49.720
because people thought, you know, now that we see it in action, we should make that illegal.
00:40:00.340
There is no way to convict these men, that I can see, unless you believe you can read their minds.
00:40:07.220
Because you would have to read their mind to know that racial motive was not in there.
00:40:13.880
Because there's no objective evidence of racial motive.
00:40:22.720
Is there, like, somebody testifying that somebody thought this way or said something?
00:40:36.560
But you would have to see in their mind to know if that's the reason they stopped Ahmoud Arbery.
00:40:42.840
So, how do you convict somebody if the only way you could convict them, Scott's ignorant.
00:40:54.660
Nicholas Fleming writes in all caps, Scott's ignorant.
00:40:59.120
Well, Nicholas, let me pause for a moment to talk to Nicholas.
00:41:06.380
When you call somebody, let's say you accuse somebody of not being a genius.
00:41:12.840
If you spell genius, G-N-U-S, as in Scott's no genus, well, you didn't do well.
00:41:25.820
When you type in all caps, Scott's ignorant, and you forget to put the apostrophe before the S on Scott's,
00:41:37.480
that does not make me look as ignorant as the person who made the comment.
00:41:42.020
Now, if you wanted to tell me what I got wrong, given that I'm literally fucking asking people to fact check me as I go,
00:41:54.600
But if you would like to misspell things in the service of calling me ignorant,
00:42:00.340
let me suggest that that might be the most useful thing you've ever done,
00:42:04.160
because you look like a fucking idiot who probably can't do anything right.
00:42:08.320
So you might not want to jump right into the public displays of your ignorance.
00:42:16.660
Now I'm seeing people on YouTube misspelling ignorant intentionally.
00:42:26.000
I don't see any way that these two people can be convicted unless you believe you could read their minds,
00:42:37.380
Is it completely legal to be a racist in your mind while you're doing things that are completely legal?
00:42:45.780
Well, there's something wrong with having a racist brain, I suppose.
00:42:52.660
It's not illegal to think terrible thoughts, as long as you don't break the actual law.
00:42:58.200
So it could be that these three people were horrible racists.
00:43:18.240
How could it be a hate crime if you don't know the intention of the people?
00:43:22.760
You would have to know the intention to make it a hate crime.
00:43:25.740
And I don't think there's any objective evidence of intention, is there?
00:43:42.340
You want to hear the most disturbing story I've heard this year?
00:43:46.680
And there have been a lot of disturbing stories this year.
00:43:52.020
Kyle Rittenhouse told Tucker Carlson that his first set of lawyers that were later fired,
00:43:59.860
kept him in jail from September until November to raise money for themselves.
00:44:23.820
He was a 17-year-old at the time, literally a minor.
00:44:27.500
And these two lawyers, allegedly, according to Kyle, kept him in jail for two months, a 17-year-old,
00:44:36.700
for a crime he didn't commit when he didn't need to,
00:44:40.920
because they could make more money if he stayed in jail.
00:44:59.500
But if you were to come up with a proper penalty for this crime,
00:45:07.340
because they just talked him into agreeing to it, I guess,
00:45:16.640
without maybe any crime actually being committed.
00:45:22.320
Now, what good is the Bar Association if these guys are still practicing?
00:45:33.280
I mean, it doesn't mean anything if he's still practicing,
00:45:51.740
The January 6th committee that's looking into that,
00:45:58.280
Because the new news is that Roger Stone and Alex Jones have been subpoenaed.
00:46:07.480
Because I think both of them would be way more entertaining
00:46:14.880
if this doesn't get televised just for the entertainment value.
00:46:18.880
Say what you will about your Roger Stones and your Alex Joneses,
00:46:26.200
I don't think either of them have been accused of being accurate all the time,
00:46:36.320
remind me who said this, independent journalist,
00:47:06.400
It just gives them some kind of work permit status, etc.
00:47:09.420
And only 21% of likely Arizona voters approve of it.
00:47:29.080
it's rare that you see this many people against something.
00:47:44.240
I mean, obviously, you care about all those things.
00:47:51.000
and not about the economics of any specific individual,
00:48:04.520
Because I don't know how that would work exactly.
00:48:08.080
And I'm not sure we'd believe any economics on that anyway.
00:48:22.660
to just keep assassinating their nuclear scientists,
00:48:25.480
which apparently they're doing with great efficiency.
00:48:38.580
for a potential strike against Iranian nuclear sites.
00:48:47.260
that the Iranians are going to get a nuclear weapon.
00:48:50.980
Doesn't it look like they're preparing to attack?
00:48:58.220
And apparently American bunker busters are part of that.
00:49:11.480
So it looks like Biden could stop this from happening.
00:49:20.220
if they didn't have our bunker buster aircraft,
00:49:26.220
I mean, it makes sense that they'd have their own.
00:49:34.360
So this isn't one of my 99% confidence predictions.
00:49:47.880
All right, there's a controversial conspiracy chart
00:50:04.100
had their favorite conspiracy theories challenged in this.
00:50:09.400
is the authority on what's a real conspiracy theory
00:50:16.040
So I love visual representations that really clarify stuff.
00:50:21.880
But there were two things that people disagreed with
00:50:30.600
So Abby put them both in the total conspiracy category,
00:50:59.520
I think both of them depend on how you define it.
00:51:11.580
So here's how you would define the Soros thing as true.
00:51:19.440
that apparently will destroy the United States?
00:51:30.840
if they got their way it would destroy the United States.
00:51:38.540
That part I don't think anybody even questions.
00:51:43.040
kind of thoughts that if they became the standard,
00:51:49.040
So I would say that's true as far as those things go.
00:52:07.760
But I feel like there's a level to this that's not true,
00:52:11.560
even though there's a base to it that we can all observe.
00:52:57.240
And they're doing it to support one political party?
00:53:01.980
So I would say the deep state is unambiguously true.
00:54:40.420
So I'm going to put a question mark on this one.
00:55:07.520
Every time you talk about something I know about
00:55:24.980
because I'm going to be looking away for a moment.