Episode 1621 Scott Adams： Let's Talk About Our Lying FBI and Everyone Else Too
Episode Stats
Words per minute
142.82787
Harmful content
Misogyny
1
sentences flagged
Hate speech
9
sentences flagged
Summary
Join me for the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, and it happens now! - Scott Adams Scott Adams is a comedian, podcaster, writer, and podcaster. He's also the host of the podcast Coffee with Scott Adams, and he's a regular contributor to NPR's Morning Mashup.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the best thing that ever happened to you in your
00:00:10.780
whole darn life. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. We did have a little difficulty here
00:00:18.220
with some equipment. One of my iPads crapped out this morning. So holy that, we got sound
00:00:26.120
and everything. But it's all coming together today. Now, don't you think this will be the best
00:00:33.540
live stream you've ever seen? Yeah, I know. We're all on the same page on that. But if you'd like to
00:00:38.620
take it up a notch, all you need is a cup of mug or glass, a tanker gel, a canteen jug of glass,
00:00:47.100
a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the
00:00:52.280
unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
00:00:58.660
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now. Go.
00:01:04.920
Ah. Do you know how hard it is to read and engineer and talk at the same time? Because that's what I'm
00:01:14.320
trying to do here. One more thing and we'll be good. So how many of you saw Senator Cruz interview
00:01:25.600
the FBI representative? Shelley was right. That's funny. All right.
00:01:35.340
Let's start with some of my favorite stories. So apparently at least one country is told their
00:01:47.520
athletes when they're going to the Olympics that they can't bring their laptops or their
00:01:51.800
smartphones to China. I forget which country. Was it Netherlands or someplace? Belgium? I forget who.
00:02:00.320
It doesn't matter. The point is, is there anybody here who knows you can't bring your own or doesn't
00:02:07.340
know? Is there anybody here who doesn't know that if you go to China on business, you can't bring your
00:02:13.180
own laptop or your own phone? How many of you know that that's a thing? Or to Russia? Yeah. I imagine
00:02:20.060
there are a number of countries that would be similar. But when I talk to business people who go
00:02:25.160
there, some of them actually will shred the laptop that they brought to China so that nobody can use
00:02:35.120
it. Like not ever even accidentally. You take it back and you never open it again after you leave
00:02:41.780
China because they give you a special one just to travel to China. And you literally put it in a
00:02:46.340
giant mechanical shredder. You don't even erase the data. You shred the whole device. That's how bad
00:02:52.820
it is. Now, how would you like to be a spectator at the Olympics? You're just a spectator. You're just
00:03:01.000
traveling there to, you know, watch the Olympics. And you can't bring your own laptop or your own
00:03:08.140
smartphone. Have you been on vacation anywhere without a laptop or a smartphone that's your own?
00:03:16.340
Have you ever tried that? Do you know what a giant problem that would be to travel? I can't even
00:03:23.880
imagine it. Now, I suppose you could have a burner phone and some kind of internet access,
00:03:28.640
but you wouldn't feel comfortable putting your password in anything, right? Would you sign up for
00:03:33.560
any kind of thing that required a password if you were in China? It doesn't matter what laptop you're
00:03:39.060
using. So I don't think that anybody should ever travel to a place where you have to shred your
00:03:45.340
laptop when you get home. Let me give you a travel tip. I'm not really a big traveler. So I don't
00:03:53.780
know the most about traveling. But I can give you this one travel tip. If you're planning on going to
00:03:59.540
a destination which requires shredding your phone and laptop when you get home, maybe don't. Maybe put
00:04:08.860
that a little bit lower on your bucket list until you can travel there without shredding your phone
00:04:14.640
when you get home. It makes me wonder if the Olympics are really some kind of giant honeypot
00:04:21.880
where the real play here is for China to get all their DNA and their digital access. Imagine how many
0.86
00:04:29.720
countries China will have access to digitally because I imagine a lot of people will actually
00:04:37.640
bring their own smartphone there. But China's going to have access to all of that if they want it. I
00:04:42.580
mean, they can get into everything, I think. So look out for that. I saw an article that in XXL
00:04:52.920
magazine, and I don't know if this is real. Can somebody confirm this? Is Kanye West, who I call
00:05:00.040
Ye, really going to be moving partly to Russia? And he's going to have a house there? Is that real?
00:05:10.280
I'm going to treat it like it's real. Kanye East, somebody says. If he moves to Russia, he'll be Kanye East.
00:05:17.060
It's pretty funny. Well, I'm not positive it's true, but I can't imagine anything that would be more
00:05:24.200
annoying to his ex-wife than moving to Russia to live like an oligarch.
00:05:34.540
It's not my imagination, is it? That everything Ye does is more interesting than everything everyone
00:05:40.900
else does. Because did you ever wake up in the morning and say, oh, what am I going to do today?
00:05:50.700
I don't know. I think I'll, I don't know. I think I'll move to Russia and live like an oligarch.
00:05:58.080
That's one of those things that I've never even said to myself. When I consider all of the things I could
00:06:03.240
possibly do in this world. Never once have I said, huh, I could get a dasha in Russia and live like an
0.99
00:06:11.460
oligarch. That sounds pretty good. So anyway, if it's true, I hope it is. But it also is another,
00:06:18.340
let's say, foreshadowing of the future of Russia and the United States as allies. I'll just keep
00:06:25.940
saying it until it happens. It might take 20 years. But we will be allies with Russia. It's going to
00:06:31.680
happen. It's just inevitable. It's a question of when. I'm wondering, what is your opinion on flying
00:06:37.560
thousands of people into China for the Olympics, then dispersing them back to every corner of the
0.65
00:06:41.960
world with a new virus? I think the Olympics is crazy in the context of the pandemic. It's crazy.
00:06:53.360
Now, as much as I think everybody should have, you know, freedom to do what they want and no mandates
00:06:57.880
and all that. This is a specific kind of an event, which is almost guaranteed to be a bad idea in a
00:07:05.300
pandemic. Seems like it. But maybe China is so good at crushing the virus that nobody will spread
00:07:12.220
anything when they're there. Maybe. Well, Rasmussen has a poll about the filibuster question. If you
00:07:19.060
don't know in Congress, if you want to get something passed and the other side doesn't like it, even if
00:07:28.780
you have a majority, it's not good enough. You've got to have 60 percent or else the team that doesn't
00:07:35.520
want you to win can do a filibuster, which basically is a way to stall until you can't get anything done.
00:07:42.080
Now, what that does is it makes it hard for even the majority to get anything done. So they only
00:07:50.640
get things done that really have a lot of support on both sides. So is it bad to get rid of a, let's
1.00
00:07:58.500
say, a safeguard in Congress that makes you really, really have to get some of the other side on board
00:08:04.280
to get something done? I would say that's a good idea. Conceptually, it's a good idea, wouldn't you say?
00:08:10.160
Forget about the detail of what bill you're talking about, but conceptually, don't you like the fact
00:08:16.160
that it's really hard to get anything passed? Because you have to get both sides on board.
00:08:21.220
I mean, it seems a pretty good idea, or at least some people on the other team.
00:08:25.580
And that's a very credible system, in my opinion. Well, it turns out that because the Democrats have
00:08:31.060
some specific things they want to get passed, and the filibuster would presumably prevent that,
00:08:36.780
they're trying to get that changed. And down to just a 50% majority would get something done.
00:08:43.100
And how many Democrats favor getting rid of one of the most important safeguards in all of our
00:08:48.860
republic? Two-thirds. Two-thirds of Democrats want to get rid of one of the most important safeguards
00:08:56.640
in the republic, because they want to get something done.
00:09:00.120
Have I ever mentioned that Democrats consistently fail to understand human motivation?
00:09:08.360
It's the same problem every time. It's never even a different problem. It's the same damn problem.
00:09:16.540
They act like humans will not respond to incentives and enticements. But of course,
00:09:23.900
the very minute you make this rule go away, the filibuster, will be about the same minute
00:09:31.420
the Republicans take charge of Congress. So do they really, have they not planned ahead
00:09:38.300
to know that they would be giving up all of their power to get a few things in the short
00:09:44.360
run that the Republicans would presumably try to reverse? They'd have to get a president in
00:09:50.380
there too. But I mean, they only have a few years to get done whatever they're doing and
00:09:55.100
it's going to get reversed because the filibuster will be gone. So when you see the incredible
00:10:02.520
consistency of the same mistake, I don't know why more people don't call this out. You always
00:10:10.340
have the same flaw with your system, Democrats. A complete blindness to how human beings act.
00:10:16.120
It's weird. All right, let's talk about the, you all saw, or I'll bet many of you saw,
00:10:24.880
Ted Cruz grilling an FBI, some spokesperson or head of, I don't know who it was, but somebody
00:10:34.560
at a high level in the FBI was talking on a Zoom call, official, I assume they're under
00:10:40.540
oath because we're talking to a member of the Senate in that context. And I want to see
00:10:47.380
if we can go through how to detect lies. You ready? So the question was to the FBI, and
00:10:55.160
Ted Cruz asked it a whole bunch of good lawyerly ways, was the FBI involved or any FBI people
00:11:03.220
in any way associated with the FBI, were any of them involved in January 6th, meaning undercover
00:11:10.620
people in the crowd? And of course, Ted Cruz asked it a number of ways, you know, to get
00:11:16.100
at it in different angles. And the FBI spokesperson, Jill Sanborn, said, let me give you a direct
00:11:27.760
question. Did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participate in the events
00:11:34.480
of January 6th? Yes or no? Ted Cruz asked. FBI's Jill Sanborn answered, I can't answer that.
00:11:43.200
Now, is it fair for the FBI to say we can't answer questions about, you know, sources and methods?
00:11:49.420
Is that fair? Do you agree that generally speaking, you know, you don't want to force your intelligence
00:11:59.040
or your law enforcement people to give up their sources and methods in public? Right? I mean,
00:12:05.220
that seems fairly safe. But didn't you ask yourself why she can't just say no? If the answer was no,
00:12:13.900
would you be giving up any sources and methods? Would you? If you had no involvement,
00:12:24.320
what sources and methods would you be giving up? Now, is there anybody in the United States who
00:12:29.660
doesn't understand that the FBI and law enforcement routinely put their assets in organizations they
00:12:38.920
think they want to watch? We all know that. So what exactly source and method would they be giving up
00:12:45.860
if they said that Ray Epps or anybody else was working for them? What would that be giving up?
00:12:53.260
That's the part everybody knows, that they have informants and assets, right? So
00:12:59.980
how would you take that answer? What would be your interpretation of I can't answer that when
00:13:09.500
the answer is a yes or no question? Somebody said she did answer it. She did answer it. She said,
00:13:16.100
I can't answer that. Later, when he asked a more specific question, let's see, the more specific
00:13:26.240
question was, was anybody associated with the FBI or under their direction involved in any of the
00:13:33.420
no, involved in any illegal activity? Did you see that question? So Cruz asked if anybody at the FBI
00:13:40.260
or anybody that the FBI had, you know, worked with was involved in anything illegal. And what was their
00:13:47.020
answer? Not to my knowledge? Doesn't that sort of indicate they might have been there? And isn't
00:14:01.480
that a very specific answer? Because she could have said, no, we didn't have anybody there. And then when
00:14:08.060
asked about the violence, she could have said, I just told you that we didn't have anybody there.
00:14:11.900
All right. So if she'd answered the other question differently, that would have been easy.
00:14:18.640
But did anybody see Ray Epps do anything illegal on video? Because I'm not sure I did. Did you?
00:14:27.800
I saw him do things that look sketchy as hell. And if he had been working for the FBI,
00:14:33.720
would any of that been illegal? I don't know. I feel like a prosecutor could probably find
00:14:43.140
something. But if the FBI's spokesperson here, Jill Sanborn, if she said something like,
00:14:50.540
not to my knowledge, wouldn't she simply be saying, I don't know if what he did was a crime?
00:14:56.800
That would be different from saying, I don't know what he did. You're just saying,
00:15:01.260
I don't know that what he did is a crime. Because I don't know. I watched the video and
00:15:06.320
did any... But is inciting a riot if he's just telling you to get close to the building or to
00:15:15.100
go inside? Is that exactly illegal? So here's the question. It might be illegal. But was she lying
00:15:22.620
if she said, not to my knowledge, because she's never looked into it? If she had never looked into
00:15:29.060
it, could she say, not to my knowledge? She could. That's a little bit overly specific, isn't it?
00:15:38.760
Because if she knew that no FBI people were there, she could say for sure, no, there was nobody
00:15:46.980
involved in the FBI or in any way with anything illegal. But she said, not to my knowledge.
00:15:52.380
That's overly specific, isn't it? Let me give you a lie detection tip. The overly specific answer.
00:16:01.820
I'm going to give you an example. Let's say you suspected that your girlfriend, boyfriend,
00:16:08.240
husband, wife, let's say somebody said they were spotted at some kind of restaurant or something.
00:16:15.920
And somebody gets back to you and you say to your boyfriend, girlfriend, you say, I heard
00:16:23.760
that you were with X at this restaurant. Is that true? And what if the person you question
00:16:33.320
says this, as if I'd have time to take an Uber to that restaurant? That's an overly specific
00:16:42.460
answer because the question had nothing to do with an Uber. In fact, maybe the restaurant
00:16:49.320
was next to work or walking distance or maybe it was only five minutes away. But the answering
00:16:57.800
with a question, you know, or sarcasm, as if I'd have time to take an Uber there, that wasn't
00:17:04.640
even in the question. So Ted Cruz's question wasn't, do you have knowledge? He asked, did
00:17:13.100
it happen? And she said, I don't have knowledge of it. That's a little too specific, isn't
00:17:19.680
it? So always look for the overly specific answer. Here's some other ways to tell a lie.
00:17:27.480
The angry accusation, if you ask somebody if they did something, did you take that last
00:17:36.120
cookie? You left the seat up on the toilet. What? What? What's that have to do with taking
00:17:45.880
the last cookie? So if somebody angrily accuses you of something unrelated, that's basically,
00:17:53.220
you know, a confession. You should take it that way. So if you see the overly specific
00:17:59.100
denial, that's a lie. And the attacking you when you simply ask a question that could have
00:18:05.500
been a yes or no question. And then there's also the half confession. Do you know what the
00:18:12.860
half confession looks like? Did you murder Bob? I did not murder Bob. Well, here's some
00:18:19.740
evidence of you with Bob with a gun in your hand. Oh, I was definitely with Bob with a
00:18:25.180
gun in my hand. But I didn't murder him. And then you say, but the video, I can see you're
00:18:31.520
actually firing the weapon in the direction of Bob. I mean, I can see it right on the video.
00:18:37.960
And then the person said, yeah, yeah, I had a weapon and I fired it in the direction of
00:18:41.920
Bob. But I wasn't firing at Bob. Like, that's crazy. So that's the admitting half of the thing.
00:18:52.600
That's always a tell. All right, here's my provocative question. Do you know what kind
00:18:58.260
of people the FBI employ? Well, lots of people. But one of the kinds of people named Bob, one of the
00:19:05.960
kinds of people that the FBI employ are people who are good at detecting lies. People who are good
00:19:15.860
at detecting lies, because they do that for a living, right? There are FBI experts who are good
00:19:22.980
at interviewing people just to see if they lied. How much would you like to hear an FBI expert on
00:19:30.080
lying tell you if Jill Sanborn was telling you the truth? Wouldn't you like to hear an FBI agent who is
00:19:40.940
an expert at this tell you if the FBI is lying to you? I would. I would. Let's see. Maybe if there's
00:19:51.200
somebody who's a producer who's watching this, it can't be hard to find that person. I think if you
00:19:55.660
Google, on YouTube, you'll find an FBI, an ex, well, an ex-CIA person, I think. But I think you'd
00:20:03.120
probably find an ex-FBI person who is an expert at this. Just put them on the show. Say, what do you
00:20:09.180
think? If somebody said this who was a, you know, a perpetrator, a suspect, would you believe them?
00:20:17.320
All right, let's make that happen. As I've said many times, the default assumption from your
00:20:23.580
government is if they won't tell you what you want to know, you have to assume that they're lying.
00:20:29.220
Assume they're lying. If they're not transparent, the assumption of guilt has to be given. So
00:20:34.100
we would assume, we don't know, but the assumption is that that's a confession that the FBI was involved
00:20:40.780
in January 6th. So personally, I accept it as a confession, that my worldview now incorporates the
00:20:48.820
FBI response as a confession. Anybody else? Is there anybody else who processed that as a confession?
00:21:00.100
A few of you, right? I think some of you agree with that.
00:21:06.100
All right, let's see what else is going on here.
00:21:08.160
Do you know somebody named Vox Day? So he's become my new mascot, so he's criticizing my
00:21:19.080
record of predictions. And he went through my record of predictions and said, where I said
00:21:25.560
I got it right. And then he analyzed and said, no, you got that totally wrong. And I'm thinking,
00:21:33.180
reasons? No reasons. You just got it totally wrong. What about the next one? I make my claim. And he
00:21:42.000
goes, no, you got that one totally wrong. What? Yeah, and how weird that his name sounds like Vax.
00:21:49.860
But anyway, there's this weird situation I've told you about, which is the people who got everything
00:21:54.840
wrong because they're not good at analyzing things. When it's all said and done, and we actually learn
00:22:01.920
what was true and what wasn't about the pandemic, you know, did the vaccinations help us or hurt us and
00:22:07.460
all that other stuff. Once we know it, the people who were not smart enough to analyze it in the first
00:22:13.960
place will also be not smart enough to know if they were right when it was done, which is really
00:22:22.020
annoying. The people who got everything wrong are going to be positive they got everything right
00:22:28.040
because the same lack of understanding of how anything works would go in their original prediction
00:22:34.120
as well as their analysis of how it turned out.
00:22:38.340
They don't become smarter toward the end of the process.
00:22:42.320
And let me just give you this one example from Vox Day.
00:22:51.080
That I definitely, no doubt about it, made the wrong decision by getting vaccinated.
00:23:01.260
Would you say that was, could you score that as wrong?
00:23:13.960
Well, none of his business, but I say it publicly, so it is his business in a way.
00:23:25.280
Was it, was the vaccination a yes, no question?
00:23:31.640
Because the only way it could be a yes, no, meaning it's definitely a bad decision or it's
00:23:36.720
definitely not, the only way it could be definitely yes or no
00:23:40.060
is if you knew a lot more about the vaccination, right?
00:23:46.180
So if you knew the future, you would know if it was a bad idea.
00:23:52.240
But if you only know the present, do you know that?
00:23:56.680
Because in my worldview, people who got vaccinated are protected from the more,
00:24:08.620
Has anybody seen any news that would disagree with the fact that vaccinated people are dying
0.99
00:24:14.840
less, they're still getting infected just as much, but they're dying less and by a lot.
00:24:23.100
I mean, I believe that's universally considered true.
00:24:26.740
So how could somebody say that I made the wrong decision with our current information?
00:24:35.940
Well, it's possible I chose wrong, but it's probably not possible I made the wrong decision.
00:24:49.960
It's not reasonable to say that I decided wrong.
00:24:57.820
So whichever way I went, vaccinated or not vaccinated, it would have been without information.
00:25:03.620
Because there was no option of having information about the future.
00:25:07.340
I only had information about the past that I didn't totally trust, and the present that
00:25:14.340
But I didn't have any information about the future.
00:25:17.860
You know, is long-haul COVID worse than, you know, long-haul getting vaccinated?
00:25:25.420
And so, if somebody is positive that the decision was right or wrong, that would be somebody
00:25:37.520
If somebody said, I think you made the wrong decision, that's a reasonable opinion.
1.00
00:25:52.520
Given that I didn't have information either way?
00:25:59.880
So, I would say that it was a risk management decision that was really closer to a guess.
00:26:06.140
Now, what kind of background would one have to have to think that in a situation where
00:26:11.400
the information is not available, and you are just guessing, that you made the wrong decision?
00:26:16.820
What kind of background would you have to have?
00:26:21.520
I wonder if Vox Dei is an economist or more of a writer of science fiction.
00:26:33.220
So, when you get criticized by artists, the correct response is, hashtag artist.
00:26:41.300
Because the moment you start dealing with it like you're having a rational conversation,
00:26:54.300
If I have a disagreement with somebody who's a trained economist, here's how the conversation
00:27:07.320
Oh, well, one of those assumptions I don't agree with.
00:27:16.460
And then you know exactly where the difference is.
00:27:22.940
Not a difference in analysis, because two people who are trained economists would probably
00:27:28.640
analyze things similarly, meaning they would do it correctly.
00:27:32.720
They would know what to compare and what not to compare.
00:27:37.300
But an artist, an artist is just going to be like, I'm pretty sure I'm totally right.
00:27:43.680
Can somebody tell me when it's 15 minutes before the hour?
00:28:04.360
There will be approximately 12,000 athletes in the Beijing Olympics, the Omicron Olympics.
00:28:17.440
Now, I don't know how many of them are boosted, but we would assume that they're all double
00:28:26.880
Fair to say all 12,000 athletes will be vaccinated.
00:28:34.320
Based on your belief of how dangerous or not the vaccinations are, how many people do you
00:28:47.260
And of 12,000 vaccinated athletes, 12,000 vaccinated athletes, would you change your mind about the
00:28:55.320
safety of vaccinations if zero people have a heart problem during the Olympics?
00:29:04.700
Would you commit that 12,000 vaccinated people working as hard as they can, you know, during
00:29:11.600
the competition and training for it, would you agree that if zero of them die, you would
00:29:26.180
If the vaccinations were safe enough that fewer than 1 in 12,000 had a problem, would you
00:29:43.020
So I'm saying most people say no, but give me a why not.
00:29:50.260
Are you saying it's because it wouldn't be statistically significant?
00:30:00.220
It is widely reported, although I believe not true.
00:30:04.180
This is my personal opinion, not based on facts.
00:30:06.880
My personal opinion is it's not true that high-end athletes are dying on the field in Europe
00:30:15.040
Because a lot of people who say that the vaccination is dangerous, I think Dr. Malone said this as
00:30:19.920
well, that if you look at the high number of high-end athletes who are dying, just like
00:30:26.500
falling dead on the field, that there can be no other explanation than the vaccinations
00:30:33.500
Now, other people say, well, if you Google this, you'll find out this has been happening
00:30:39.080
So the high number of people inexplicably dying while competing has been happening since
00:30:54.700
Now, how many NBA players have died after getting vaccinated?
00:30:59.740
How many NFL players have died after getting vaccinated?
00:31:03.760
Now, the total number of NBA players isn't that much, right?
00:31:08.280
But also the total number of professional soccer players in Europe isn't that much, wouldn't
00:31:13.800
What would be the total number of professional soccer players in Europe?
00:31:26.280
So if maybe out of 5,000 athletes, you believe, I don't believe this is happening, but if you
00:31:31.340
believe that out of 5,000, you could tell that there's a problem because enough of them
00:31:36.320
are dropping dead, then wouldn't you expect that 12,000 top athletes, all vaccinated, somebody
00:31:52.280
My prediction is that there will be zero confirmed vaccination illnesses that happen during competition.
00:32:11.900
I was putting the pressure on you to make a commitment.
00:32:16.520
If two people who are competing in the Olympics have some kind of a heart or, you know, something
00:32:27.040
that makes them pass out, no, not just passing out.
00:32:30.340
Let's say it's a confirmed, like, real problem.
00:32:36.160
If there are two of them during the Olympics, and we learn that that's unusual, I would need
00:32:43.260
to know what past Olympics have been like, if two people have a heart issue or something
00:32:48.340
that seems coronavirus-related, or no, vaccine-related, if two of them have a vaccine-looking problem,
00:33:02.480
And again, this is not science, of course, right?
00:33:06.640
But in terms of my opinion, two incidents during the Olympics would make me say, holy
00:33:17.940
Now, I'm not saying that two would confirm it, and I'm not saying that zero would confirm
00:33:27.820
But if you're looking for, you know, strong signposts, I'd say two problems would convince
00:33:35.520
There, zero problems should at least nudge you in the other direction.
00:33:40.920
Doesn't have to put you all the way there, but nudge you.
00:33:47.220
I saw a comment from user AstroBotJones on Twitter.
00:33:53.720
He said that in 2010, and of course, this is long before the pandemic, he had a really rough
00:33:59.100
flu, you know, just your ordinary seasonal flu, but sometimes you get really bad ones.
00:34:02.800
He said, although the symptoms went away after a few bad days, he said he looked awful for
00:34:09.340
two weeks, felt it for months with weakness, malaise, and fatigue for months.
00:34:17.300
And he believes that it aged him by a few years.
00:34:23.260
In 2014, there were 8 million professional soccer players in Europe.
00:34:30.640
8 million professional soccer players in Europe?
00:34:32.900
I think that certainly questions what professional means.
00:34:38.540
Whatever the top league is, I doubt, I mean, I guess I'd question that statistic.
00:34:46.140
But if that's true, that is an important statistic to put in the mix.
00:34:55.580
How many of you have had the experience of just having a bad regular flu, like one that
00:35:00.920
just kicked your ass, and you didn't feel good for months?
0.95
00:35:12.440
So when you're looking at long-haul COVID, the thing the economist would tell you to look
00:35:18.300
at is not compare it to how you feel when you feel good.
00:35:23.320
So if you're trying to decide if you have long-haul COVID, don't say, how do I feel today,
00:35:36.760
Compare how you would feel after a regular flu that happened to be just bad, compared to
00:35:43.960
And if both cases, you know, often you feel like you're still getting your ass kicked,
00:35:56.840
I'm still concerned that long-haul COVID could be a thing, but also concerned that long-haul
00:36:08.040
Adam Kinzinger, I guess he's part of this January 6th committee, and when asked if they
00:36:12.780
will have enough to, you know, have some kind of a finding, he answered that question in
00:36:20.360
He said that they will have a, they believe they will soon have a, quote, powerful and
00:36:33.720
And then he went on to say that even though they didn't have everything maybe you could
00:36:41.360
And so he says, I think if everything shut down today, we'd be able to put out a powerful
00:36:48.260
We still have more information, obviously, we want to get, he added.
00:36:52.980
Now, who uses the word narrative in that context?
00:36:56.480
Now, I do understand it's a correct use of the English language.
00:37:02.500
I do understand that if he has no political intentions whatsoever, the word works, right?
00:37:09.240
It is actually a correct word to describe somebody who could put together a story, a story, with
00:37:17.300
all the facts that they know that would give you a good idea of what was happening.
00:37:20.960
I guess you could call that a narrative, right?
00:37:23.040
But don't we almost always use that word to mean bullshit?
00:37:30.740
When was the last time you heard narrative without knowing that the context meant bullshit?
00:37:38.580
I don't think I've ever used, I've never heard narrative used outside of the context of
00:37:46.960
I mean, seriously, have you ever heard the word used in any other context?
00:37:55.560
I feel like Adam Kinzinger just admitted that the entire process is bullshit.
00:38:10.440
What does it mean when somebody says that their own story is a narrative?
00:38:19.560
Well, what is the second possible interpretation of that?
00:38:34.940
Oh, yes, when I ask for an explanation in narrative form, but not in politics, right?
00:38:40.720
If you're doing a writing class, yes, you might ask for a narrative in written form.
00:38:44.860
But if you're talking about politics, it only has one.
00:38:52.260
Well, I've been trying to ignore this Novak Djokovic story, you know, the number one tennis
00:38:57.620
player trying to get in to compete in the Australian Open.
00:39:00.120
But they wouldn't let him in because he's not vaccinated.
00:39:03.940
And then he said that he wanted to get in because he'd been previously infected.
00:39:10.700
But then we find out that after he was infected, he gave an interview with a guy and didn't tell
00:39:18.340
So he had a deep, like a long interview with a reporter after knowing he was positive and
00:39:25.900
So Novak Djokovic managed to go from one of the most popular athletes in the world, people
00:39:32.840
really like him in the tennis world, if you don't follow tennis, he's really popular.
00:39:37.760
And he just turned into just an asshole, basically.
00:39:47.740
It would be good to hear his side of the story.
00:39:49.700
But in terms of what's happening to his reputation, wow, this is a bad week.
00:40:01.460
There was an abstract, meaning nothing like a confirmed trial or anything, in which some
00:40:07.820
folks put some, looks like some marijuana cannabinoid acids from hemp to see if it would
00:40:20.020
Now, I'd like to read exactly how they explained it, because I know a lot of you like to get
00:40:30.320
So I'm going to show you how well written this was, really easy to understand.
00:40:35.840
Usually when you hear science stuff, you might say to yourself, well, I'm not a scientist in
00:40:41.020
But here's some good, clean, scientific writing in this abstract.
00:40:46.400
It says, affinity selection mass spectrometry was used for the discovery of botanical ligands
00:40:59.720
Cannabinoid acids from hemp, cannabis sativa, were found to be allosteric as well as orthosteric,
00:41:13.660
The ligands were both allosteric and orthosteric, because sometimes when your ligands are just
00:41:25.500
They're both allosteric and orthosteric, and that's good.
00:41:31.180
They have a micromolar affinity for the spike protein.
00:41:37.200
Yeah, a lot of your compounds won't have any micromolar affinity for anything, but this
00:41:45.500
And then more, in the follow-up assays, so they were just doing this in test tubes, not
00:41:51.940
in people, essentially, the cannabigerolic acid and cannabidiolic acid prevented infection
00:42:00.480
of human epithelial cells by pseudovirus expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and preventing
00:42:20.060
So this could explain why I've not yet been infected.
00:42:23.820
Do you know how many potentially useful COVID treatments I'm on right now?
00:42:31.180
So I'm already on a prescription PEPCID anti-acid, which is suspected to be one of the things
00:42:42.060
I'm also on Budesonide, which is just a normal asthma inhaler that you use every day just to
00:42:56.620
And now marijuana, the thing I have, I have more marijuana in my system than blood.
00:43:02.400
So if you figure out my good BMI, so my BMI is good, and I'm full of chemicals that automatically
0.79
00:43:11.920
fight COVID, I don't know, I think I'm pretty good.
00:43:19.820
Well, although our FBI can't be trusted and all of our other systems are broken, thank God
00:43:36.860
PK-83, I don't want to have to block you for this, but this is the most objectionable comment
00:43:47.000
He says, I smoke 10 times more weed than you, Scott.
00:43:50.000
I don't know if I can take that kind of insult.
00:44:07.940
Rasmussen did another poll, and they asked, would you be more or less likely to vote for
00:44:12.480
a candidate who would advocate reducing prison time for criminals?
00:44:34.840
Would you be more or less likely to vote for somebody who wants to get rid of jail time?
00:44:38.340
18% said they'd be more likely to vote for somebody who was reducing jail crime for serious crimes.
00:44:46.700
7% said they weren't sure, said they weren't necessarily against letting criminals out of
00:44:54.980
So 18% thought they'd be more likely to vote for the person who was in favor of more crime.
00:45:12.400
So 25% of the people surveyed, surprisingly, surprisingly, were not too unhappy about extra crime.
00:45:25.480
I saw a tweet about how many people in Congress had traded and made a whole bunch of money
00:45:32.580
And the implication is, the implication is that they did something sketchy because it
00:45:38.940
looks like insider trading because their trading success was way too good.
00:45:43.400
And the list had about 30 people who beat the S&P 500, which would be a sign of good investing.
00:45:49.900
So out of Congress, how many people in Congress?
00:46:05.040
Well, so there were about, you know, 30-some that beat the average.
00:46:11.360
But about 10 of them only beat the average by a little bit.
00:46:16.800
Because people are all over the average, some below, some above.
00:46:19.680
So if you throw away the people who beat it by only a little bit, and only look at the
00:46:23.780
people who killed it, like really made a lot of money, there are about 20 of them.
00:46:38.140
I don't know if they were counting Senate, too.
00:46:43.780
So let's say out of 538, they found 20 people who really, really invested well or lucky,
00:46:52.840
Do you think you should be alarmed if 20 people out of 538 had a really good investing year?
00:47:07.600
You would exactly expect something like 20 people would kill the market, and probably
00:47:15.940
It's the most expected thing you could possibly see.
00:47:18.900
Now, apparently the timing of some of the trades was suspect.
00:47:24.720
If the timing of the trades is suspect, you have to look at that, right?
00:47:29.620
But the fact that 20 people out of 538 had a really good year, and like really good,
00:47:37.200
one of them is, well, it doesn't matter who, but one of them had a pretty big return,
00:47:46.580
Like if somebody bought Apple Computer three years ago, they killed the S&P 500, didn't they?
00:47:53.200
But just buying Apple Computer, simply the most ordinary thing you could do.
00:47:59.060
If any of them invested in Tesla, but maybe had three stocks, so you bought three stocks,
00:48:05.580
one of them was Tesla, you would have killed the market.
00:48:11.400
It just meant you bought what a lot of people bought, Tesla.