All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 27, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
44:39
Episode 276 Scott Adams: The Nutty Bomber, Megyn Kelly, and Midterms
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ba-da-bum-bum. Ba-bum-bum. Ba-bum-bum-bum.
Joanne, you're always here so quickly.
Susie, hello.
Come on in. Everybody.
Everybody else. Joanne and Susie are up.
What's wrong with the rest of you?
Ronald. Stefan.
Virus Joe. Yay!
Come on in here.
Mike, Stephen, good to see all of you.
It's time, I think you would agree, for the simultaneous sip.
It's going to happen now, but only if you have your mug, your chalice, your stein, your cup, your glass, and it's filled with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Now, let's enjoy the simultaneous sip.
That's good stuff.
Thank you.
Let's talk about Megyn Kelly.
So, Megyn Kelly gets fired from her lucrative job at NBC because she used a term which is widely considered racially insensitive.
And it doesn't matter what the term was.
I'm not even going to talk about it because apparently the words themselves are so offensive that even just using them in any context.
And here's the key.
Using those words in any context apparently is enough to lose your job.
Now here's the question.
I will accept as givens, as facts, the following things.
The words that Megyn Kelly used are considered offensive by a large swath of the public, African-American public primarily, but other people as well.
And the question I have is, if you don't know that the words you're using are racially insensitive, is that the same thing as being a racist?
When you're talking about a crime, we have a standard that says ignorance is not an excuse for a crime.
But that's really just a practical standard, meaning that you can't let people get off on a crime by saying, what?
I didn't know murder was illegal.
So you can't have somebody say that they just didn't know it was a crime and therefore they're innocent.
So in the legal system, it makes sense The saying you didn't know was, you can't use that excuse.
But in the real world, if you offend somebody by using some words that you didn't know was offensive, should you lose your job for that?
I would say, here's the best standard, and this is why I have suggested what I call the 48-hour rule.
The 48-hour rule says that if you say something that's provocative or offensive or even just unclear, and people go, what?
What did you say?
That you have 48 hours from the moment it's pointed out that there's some problem with what you said, 48 hours to correct or apologize.
And if you do correct and apologize within 48 hours, I believe the standard should be, for the benefit of society, that you're good with it.
That you got the clarification you wanted or you got the apology that you wanted.
This seems especially important when somebody had no idea that the thing they were saying would be offensive to other people.
And I'm pretty sure that the real problem is that the people who are offended Believe that she knows what she was doing, or that they think, my God, you would have to know that even using those words, anybody would know that these are offensive words.
But I submit to you, there are many words that people use that they don't know are offensive.
I don't know if that's as obvious if you're a member of the black community, but if you're a member of Any non-black community, you probably know that people don't really have the same appreciation for what words are offensive and what words are not.
If it's not part of your world, you just think they're words.
You don't know. So I would propose the following standard.
And let me say that I like to talk about things in terms of people's brands.
Megyn Kelly had a brand, and her brand is quite affected by this.
But I would say that the way the black community has treated her is terrible for the black brand.
If what the black community wants is better relationships, I would think everybody would want that, right?
Wouldn't the black community want the same thing everybody else wants, which is just everybody to get along?
If that's what they want, Now, it's not the one thing they want.
Of course, they would also like to not be offended.
They would like to not have racism.
They would like to have equal opportunity, equal everything.
I think most of us want all of that stuff, too.
But if you're a member of the African-American community and you're trying to make your brand be better, this worked in the wrong direction.
I think this made the brand, African-American brand, worse.
Because if somebody was intentionally racist and you went hard at them, I think other people would say, well, they're going hard at somebody who's intentionally racist?
That's fair. Looks fair to me.
It's not my problem.
But if you go hard at somebody who literally didn't know, and I think it's pretty obvious that she didn't know, that these words, in the context she used them, she didn't use them, you know, in every context.
She used them in a very specific context.
There's no way, there isn't the slightest chance that she would have done that if she thought there was any chance it could be offensive.
No way! So when she is punished for something that no, I won't say nobody could have known, lots of people would have known, I would say that personally I would not have used those words.
Because I think I would have, you know, a little alarm would have gone off in my head.
It's like, oh, you don't even talk about that stuff.
But the alarm didn't go off in her head.
And she was in a context in which, even if she thought bad thoughts, she certainly wouldn't have said them on television if she could imagine what would happen to her, if she could imagine how offended people would be.
So I think, I don't like to be a mind reader, but I think this one's pretty clear that she didn't know it was offensive.
If you don't know something's offensive and you lose your job for it, We live in the wrong world.
I mean, there's just something wrong with the way we're organized.
So talk about the system, not the specific case.
Do you want to live in a world in which you can accidentally offend people, have no idea that your words were offensive, and then lose your frickin' job over it?
Black people, to the extent that you support Megyn Kelly losing her job for something she clearly didn't know was racist, I think that's a terrible decision.
Terrible for your brand.
That's all I'm going to say about that.
People can do whatever they want to do, but it's bad for the brand.
Let's talk about the bomber.
And let's talk about some of the things we're hearing about the bomber.
So, of course, the trolls have come out for me.
And you can tell when the trolls come out because they have, I think they have like three or four things that they say to me, but it's always the same.
They use their own words, but it's always the same thing.
So the big one is they make fun of my comic strip in very similar ways.
So you can tell these are the trolls, meaning that they're organized.
And So that's one, or they just come at me personally, or they, whatever.
So, I've been getting a lot of heat for my Joke that I said early on in this bombing situation when I found out the bomb, or at least one bomb, wasn't made by a master bomb maker.
When I saw the first bomb picture, the one that went to CNN, to me, and then it didn't work, to me it was obvious these were not going to be real bombs, but I didn't really know that.
To be fair, I didn't know with 100% certainty that the rest of the bombs were not real bombs.
But I was pretty sure.
Pretty sure. And since none had gone off and there was no loss of life and the bombs were just so poorly made they were silly, I had to say I made a joke.
And the joke was that my first impression was that a Republican was behind the bombing until I found out the bombs didn't work.
Now, if you have a sense of humor, you would recognize that this was just a joke.
It's a joke in the political context.
Obviously, I was playing to the audience.
It didn't mean anything.
It just didn't mean anything.
But all of the offense shock troops came in.
So you get all the trolls who come in and say, I'm so offended.
How can you make fun of a bomber?
To which I say, I didn't make fun of a bomber.
I made fun of somebody who can't be a bomber.
I made somebody who's not smart enough to be a bomber.
I made fun of them. So that's really very different than making fun of a bomber.
I would not make fun of an actual terror attack.
In fact, if you've watched my periscopes for any length of time, you would probably know...
I have a pattern, which is when there's a natural disaster, I don't talk about it for the first 24 hours usually.
I'm sure there's some exception to that, but I usually just give it some time.
I don't even talk about it.
But this did not look to me like...
The real kind of terrorism.
We're still going to call it terrorism because the people who received it were genuinely affected by it, and that counts for something.
But, you know, there's big terrorism, 9-11, and then there's, you know, my security crew saw something suspicious terrorism, which is, you know, it's a smaller level, yet still worth putting somebody in jail for.
So, was that worthy of joking?
Was it too soon?
People were saying, too soon.
To which I say, nah, it wasn't too soon.
Other people said, my God, how do you know this isn't funny?
How could I not know that this is not funny?
To which I say, did you see there are 7,000 retweets on this?
And there were 23,000 likes?
There seem to be some large number of people in the world who believe that humor is objective, meaning that if somebody says that's not funny, that that's just an objective observation, like something is yellow, something is green.
It's not funny.
Funny doesn't really work that way.
Funny is subjective.
And the people who come in to tell me I'm not funny Need to explain why I get so many retweets and why I've sold so many books.
So, they have to deal with that.
Alright, let's talk about the conspiracy theories with the bomber.
Here's some of the funniest things I've heard about the bomber.
And it usually follows this form.
And it goes, if he was, if this bomber was really a Trump supporter, how can you explain That he did this thing before the midterms.
Because any reasonable person would know that doing this bombing thing before the midterms would be bad for the president that he supports.
How can you explain that?
Well, let me explain that.
He lived in a van.
So, every time that somebody says to you, how do you explain why he would do X? Just answer it the same way.
He lived in a van.
I'll try that again.
But this time, I'll bring in Dale.
Dale? Oh yeah?
If he's a Trump supporter...
Well, how do you explain why the stickers on the van look sort of new?
The sun from Florida would have ruined the stickers.
It looks like they were put on there recently.
Well, is there anything else we know about this bomber that happened recently?
Yes. He tried to send bombs to people.
He made 10 fake bombs.
Fake or at least poorly made bombs that he sent to people this week.
I think we could make an assumption that whatever level of crazy he was two weeks ago, he's crazier now.
So if he did two crazy things this week, we should not be surprised.
One, send 10 bombs to people.
Or fake bombs or badly made bombs, we don't know.
So if the same week that he sent 10 bombs to people, he also put some extra stickers on his van, I'm not going to call that surprising.
Because whatever his mental state was, was obviously cresting that week.
So you should not expect to see one crazy thing that week.
If you only saw one crazy thing and everything else was normal, I would say you'd have some questions about that.
But if he added a whole bunch of extra stickers to his van the same week that he sent bombs out, I would say that's perfectly explainable by the fact that he went crazy in the last few weeks.
But if you're wondering why he would make such a bad choice as to do it before the midterms and hurt the guy he says he supports, let me reiterate.
He lives in a van.
He doesn't make good life choices.
If there's one thing we can say with complete certainty about Caesar the bomber, he doesn't make good choices.
So if your reason that you think it's a conspiracy, not a conspiracy, but yeah, I guess he called it a conspiracy.
If you think it's a false flag because some of the things this guy did don't seem logical to you the way they've been explained so far, let me say it again.
He lives in a van.
He doesn't make good choices.
Don't expect to see good choices.
Alright. That's enough of that here.
I will do a small victory lap because I did say it was going to be an older, crazy older Republican.
What was it that gave me the clues for this?
Well, I'm not even sure I know all of the things that I was picking up on, because sometimes you're just recognizing patterns and you don't know why.
The other possibility is that I just got lucky, I guessed, and it was a 50-50, you know, it was either going to be a lefty or a righty, so I guessed right.
So that's a possibility.
And the reason that I make...
More than one prediction, the reason I've been predicting for three years, is that it's sort of a public experiment.
I talked about it in my book, Win Bigley, which is coming out in paperback.
On the 30th, you should get it.
What was I talking about?
I just saw a funny comment there, and then I lost my train of thought.
I literally just forgot what I was talking about.
Speaking of Oswald, somebody mentioned Oswald.
Patton Oswald mocked my joke, too.
Now, if you're a professional comedian, Patton Oswald, and you go to Twitter to make fun of another professional humorous joke, what the hell is that?
Even I don't make fun of other people's jokes if they're professional comedians.
I would never go on somebody's Twitter feed and tell a professional humorist that one of their jokes is not funny and they should delete it or something.
What kind of professional commuting does that?
There is some kind of professional ethic that I thought was somewhat understood that humorists don't make fun of somebody else's joke.
You know, you could do it.
There's no law against it.
But it always seemed in bad form to me.
He lived in a van down by the river.
That should really, that should explain everything.
Oh, I was saying the, what is it that I saw that made me think it's not a conspiracy and that it was really a Republican.
One was the choice of De Niro.
De Niro is not the guy you choose.
If you're trying to do a false flag.
If you were a smart person trying to make it look like a Republican had done it, the first thing you'd do is you'd keep it simple.
Because the rule number one of a false flag is don't get caught.
And this guy was not doing a good job of not getting caught, which argues against the false flag.
So the first thing is, You probably want something to actually burn or actually blow up.
Now, you might not want to kill people, so perhaps if you were doing a false flag, you would blow up an unoccupied church, something like that.
Because you'd want to make it look sort of violent and you'd want it to be very visual and everything, but you wouldn't want to kill anybody because it's a false flag.
So if you were doing a false flag attack, you'd probably want to not risk killing anybody and sending them fake bombs or bombs that don't work Isn't the right way to not kill somebody.
Because you're scaring the very people who are on your side.
And if you are such a partisan, such a partisan, that you love your side and you're all good people, and the other side, let's say the Republicans are all bad people, you're not going to do a false flag attack that harms your side.
Almost nobody in the world is that partisan.
Evil, right?
So even sending them fake bombs, even making their own side afraid of bombs, is not the sort of thing you do even with a false flag attack.
Because you like your side.
And someday your side might find out you were involved.
You want at least your side to like you when you're done with your false flag attack.
So that part didn't make sense.
De Niro was sort of...
He was outside of politics.
And if you're going to send 10 bombs, the odds of getting caught are 10 times the odds of getting caught sending one.
Even a fake false flag attack would know that.
Because if you had sent one bomb, or let's say you planted one bomb, and it blew up, that one bomb that actually blows up is going to be a way better false flag attack than 10 bombs poorly made that don't blow up.
And you've got 10 opportunities for getting caught on camera, 10 opportunities for a fingerprint on your bomb.
A false flag person who's actually smart does one thing and makes sure that nobody gets hurt.
This guy did 10 things and he did hurt the Democrats because it's an actual terror attack because the threat of it is the terror part.
So that part didn't make sense as a false flag.
And then when I heard that there was a clock on the bombs, I don't think enough has been made at this point.
The moment you heard there was an LED clock on the bombs, you should have known they were fake.
Some bomb expert said, oh yeah, that's the tell for a fake bomb.
They'll put a little fake LED clock on it because that's what you see on TV. So the first thing you should have known, and for some reason I knew that, you should have said, oh, LED clock, that's...
That's a sign of a fake bomb.
And it's a sign of more mental problems than anything else.
And here's why you should know that that was a fake bomb.
Nobody makes a mail bomb with a timer.
Because nobody knows the timing of the mail.
You don't know if your mail is going to get delivered today or tomorrow.
You don't know if it's going to kill the mailman.
You don't know. And by the time it gets opened, for each of these people who got one, it's not going to be opened by...
You know, Bill Clinton. Obama isn't going to the mailbox and opening his mail.
I think pretty much everybody knows that.
So, if you can't control when the bomb goes off, and the timing is any time within like a day or two, you don't send the mail bomb.
Nobody sends a mail bomb with a timer on it.
I don't think that's ever happened.
So that should have been your clue that there was something just crazy going on, not clever.
Anyway, it seems to me that the people who were quite mentally committed to the idea of it being a false flag attack are still mentally committed.
And here's one of those situations where you can see what I've been talking about for lo these years since 2015.
And that is that facts don't matter.
Where's my book? Hold on.
Don't go anywhere. I'll be right back.
Damn it. I don't have a copy of my own book.
I need to keep a copy of my book in my office.
Anyway, my book, Win Bigly, Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter.
This is one of those cases.
Did the facts...
Kaiser Sosa...
That is funny.
Okay. So, clearly this is a case where people are not being affected by the facts.
The people who believe that it's a false flag are being affected by the lack of proof that it isn't that.
Which is not really anything.
Just because there's no proof it wasn't a false flag, just because you can imagine how it would be, that's not very good information.
So somebody's laughing because Caesar's Cezac sounds like Kaiser Sosa.
And it does, which is a funny coincidence.
Let's talk about the midterms.
So, everybody's talking about the midterms, and what will be the impact of Kavanaugh?
What will be the impact of the caravan?
What will be the impact of this bomber on the midterms?
I will give you my definitive answer about how these big headlines will affect the midterm vote.
Are you ready? Drum roll.
And the answer is, it won't.
It won't. So by now, everybody has made up their mind.
Now, if you ask people and you said to them, hey, have you made up your mind who you're voting for?
You might be able to find people who said, oh, you know, not yet.
I don't know if I'm going to vote.
But they have made up their mind.
At this point, this close to the election, Pretty much everybody's made up their mind.
So anything that happens in the headlines, or has happened in the headlines in the last few months, anything like that is gonna make no difference.
There will be what I call the fake because.
There will be people Who say that X changed their mind.
But they will just be using those as excuses for things they were gonna do anyway.
So at this point, you can stop asking, will the headlines change the result in the midterms?
The how people vote is locked in at this point.
They don't change their minds at this late stage.
But there might be a slight difference In how much energy each team has and how many people get off the couch and go vote.
I would say that people are going to be somewhat exhausted by the actual election day.
And by exhausted I mean they're going to be exhausted by the news.
That the news is just coming so fast and furiously that none of these stories are gonna really be the motivating thing.
You think it's Kavanaugh, but honestly it's been a few weeks and I think we're almost over it in terms of energy.
So in a world in which we thought we were all energized, it looked like both sides were highly energized, and probably they will remain highly energized more than prior elections.
So I think this might be, you know, the most energized election we'll ever have.
But within that context, if there's nothing that's the brand new energizer, we're all going to be dealing with the energy that we have right now and sort of riding this until Election Day.
And it seems to me Republicans are just going to be a little bit more likely to do what needs to be done.
So my prediction, I will keep with the Republican turnout will be jaw-dropping.
The Democrats will have also very high turnout, which also might be some kind of record.
But I think the Republican turnout is just going to be insane.
That's what I think, compared to other years.
So, we'll see. Now, the actual where it falls out, my guess is it's going to be someplace closer to close.
In other words, I don't think it's going to be a blowout in either direction.
I think there will be no waves.
I don't know which way it'll go, but I think it's going to be kind of tight.
The experts are saying the Senate will stay Republican.
I have no reason to disagree.
I don't follow specific races.
All right. Well, So, what else is going on?
That's about it. Is that about it?
Alright, so there has been kind of a split in the Republican Party over this bomber.
Apparently there have been a number of well-known conservative voices who have said, at least early on, they said that they thought it might be a false flag.
I believe Rush may have said something about that.
There was a story on NBC about how, on NBC.com, about how people like me were saying it wasn't a false flag and other people were saying it was.
So I tweeted that out.
Yeah, I was wondering if the bomber guy who's training in Saudi Arabia, because it looked like sort of that kind of a caper, if you know what I mean.
Didn't work out so well.
Stock exchange, somebody's asking.
What are you asking about?
Caravan making it to the border, will it change things?
I suspect it won't change things.
I think the caravan story...
is a strange one because it means a different thing to everybody.
And if it means a different thing to everybody, I don't know that it'll have that much of an impact.
My guess is that it will not turn especially violent.
I sure hope so.
I hope it doesn't turn violent.
But I'm pretty sure the President's going to stop it.
I don't think he has any choice, really.
And one of the questions that interests me, because I just don't know enough about the topics around this question, but if the U.S. Army...
Isn't allowed to do its thing on American soil, and I guess that's the law.
So our regular military can't use arms and weapons in the United States.
I don't know if there's some exceptions there.
I guess if we get attacked, it would be an exception.
But we can use the military in other countries.
And we don't have to ask the permission of the other countries if it's an emergency, right?
Like if we get attacked, we didn't have to ask Afghanistan for approval or Iraq for approval.
We did what we needed to do.
Is there anything that would stop us from invading Mexico?
And by invading, I mean, you know, just go one mile in or something to meet the...
To meet the caravan.
So that our military meets them, but we're meeting them safely, you know, with maybe some, you know, water and food.
You know, we're not trying to kill them, but just stopping them.
And couldn't we do that on Mexican soil?
The only problem would be, it would be invading Mexico.
What the hell would Mexico do about it?
I don't think anything.
They're not going to attack the United States because we went one mile into their territory to stop a caravan.
Now here's where the diplomacy and the politics of it all I don't have any appreciation for.
So I'm assuming there's some stupid reason, not stupid reason, but I'm assuming there's a good reason why we shouldn't do that.
I'll bet there's a very good reason that we should not send our military one mile into Mexico so that they could operate freely outside of our border.
I don't know what that reason is.
But if somebody has one, let me know.
Now part of the explanation would be that it's not even controlled by Mexico.
The Mexican government doesn't control their border.
I don't know if you knew this, but we learned this recently.
And it's the cartels.
So the government of Mexico doesn't even operate on their own border, at least not functionally.
It's the cartel who operates the governments on the border, the government entities on the border.
So even though we would be attacking Mexico, Invading Mexico, technically, if we were, let's say, one mile into their territory, we'd really just be in cartel territory.
It's not even territory that's owned or controlled by the Mexican government.
So what do you call territory that's not owned by Mexico?
Is it Mexico?
Then the other question I wondered is, if the cartels are functionally running big parts of Mexico, Maybe not Mexico City, maybe not some parts of the federal government, but functionally the cartels are the management.
The management of Mexico, for practical purposes, looks to be, at least for a big part of Mexico, the cartels.
So if cartel is the government of Mexico, and the United States could find some way to tax the cartels, We could pay for a wall.
And I don't think the cartel would care because, about the wall anyway, because it doesn't stop them from doing anything.
I hate to tell you, but the wall isn't going to stop any drugs from coming in.
Apparently, virtually all of the drugs come in through the legal crossings.
They're just, you know, they're hidden in tailpipes and stuff like that.
So we have at least a non-zero chance that the U.S. Army could confront the cartels directly on the Mexican side of the border.
And I don't know what the cartels would do.
If they're smart, they would just pull back for a while.
So I wonder if we could just permanently occupy The Mexican side of the border.
Wouldn't that solve a lot of problems if we just permanently occupied the Mexican side of the border?
I don't know what the problem is really.
Obviously the Mexican government would complain, but in complaining they would have to admit that they don't control the border.
How would the Mexican government explain that the U.S. had to invade because Mexico doesn't actually manage their own border territory, the cartels do?
What would that conversation look like?
It's kind of awkward.
So anyway, this is not a recommendation, so I don't know enough about any of this topic for me to say that this is a good idea, but I'll put it out there.
I'd like to know why it's not a good idea.
There may be a perfectly good reason.
And maybe I'll be embarrassed when I hear it.
And somebody will say, Oh, Scott, you forgot about X or Y. That's why we can't do that.
To which I would say, Oh, yeah, good point.
I changed my opinion.
But I haven't heard any reason that we can't just walk on the other side of the wall and do whatever we want that's legal and ethical and safe.
We already have assets in the caravan.
Maybe. Somebody's suggesting here that the US government already has spies, if you will, within the caravan.
I wonder if that's true.
If it's not true, we probably should have tried to put a few informants in there.
It does seem likely we would have thought of that, right?
So I wonder if we do know more about them than we say.
Better to legalize the drugs.
Is there any reason we don't do a local drug legalization trial?
People say to me, Scott, I'm going to tell the story the way President Trump tells the story.
I saw somebody on the internet whose name is Dale, which is funny, talk about the president having Sir stories.
You know, where he tells the story and he'll say that somebody came to him, came to President Trump as he's telling the story and he'll say, so they came to me and they said, sir, can we do this?
And then I said this.
So I'll tell the same, I'm going to tell sir's story.
Anyway, so here's my question.
I don't even know why I brought that up.
Is there any reason...
Oh, here's why.
Because people come to me and they say, Sir?
They don't say that, but it sounds funny when you talk about it that way.
So people come to me on the internet and they say, Sir?
Why do you support the President no matter what he does?
No matter what he does.
To which I say, I don't do that.
Here's a link to the page I wrote about it, all the things I disagree with.
Here's my long list of things I don't like.
I can like some stuff and dislike others.
But one of the things that I would consider a weakness of the Trump administration, so this is a pure criticism, what follows, is that if you can test something small, you should do it.
If somebody has a good idea and a good reason that it would work, But you don't want to roll it out for the whole country.
There's no reason in the world to not try as small.
Try it in one city, one town, one county.
So why don't we try drug legalization in one place and just let it run for a year?
Let us know how it went.
Because it's either going to work or not work.
And not working isn't going to look a lot different than working.
I'm sorry. Not working is not going to look a lot different than if we had done nothing.
So if we do a small trial where we allow addicts to have legal, safe doses, maybe supervised, while they're working on getting off their addiction, If we were to do that and it didn't work, you know, we just did it in one city,
we gave them free drugs, we made sure they were not the bad doses that get you killed, the worst that could happen is the addicts have a safer supply of drugs and then they say don't get off of drugs or something.
But that's the worst case.
The worst case scenario is that they're a little bit safer than they would have been.
That's the worst. Now, in that situation where the worst case scenario has, first of all, already been tried, Portugal, for example, and has been successful, and you can absolutely try it small, there's nothing stopping you from doing this.
Nothing! You've got resources, you've got people willing to do it, you've got lots of experts who say it's a good idea.
In that situation, if you're not trying it, small, you're failing.
You're failing.
So to say this as clearly as possible.
The Trump administration on this question is failing because these tests should be running right now so that we can at least know whether it works.
We don't have to decide to do it.
We don't have to decide to make it national.
But you absolutely should be doing it, and we should be focusing on it, etc.
So that's a criticism, and I think that's a big one, and it's one I care about.
So if you come after me saying that I never disagree with the President, well, here's the case.
I absolutely disagree with not having small trials.
All right. The One City Trial won't stop the cartels though.
The One City Trial would not be an attempt to stop the cartels.
It would simply be testing the idea that you could reduce Overdoses by giving people a legal supervised supply of the drug during the time they're also trying to figure out how to get off it, perhaps.
Maybe you're putting them on Suboxone, which helps them get off, but the biggest problem with Suboxone is supervision.
Making sure they take it on time and the right doses and stuff.
So you could test all that stuff.
Ron Paul suggested this a while ago, and he's right.
I don't know if he suggested testing is small, but that's specifically what I'm talking about.
Thoughts on Obama's speech?
Totally uninterested.
Is it just me, or is Obama just no longer interesting?
He used to be interesting.
And that's not a criticism.
I'm not criticizing Obama.
It's just that our new age, the age of Trump, he is so interesting, like him or hate him, he's really interesting, that Obama, who used to be one of the most interesting people in the world, just sort of went down a level in being interesting.
It's not a good solution, one drug to another.
I don't know what you're talking about.
The drug addiction folks use Suboxone to get you off the other opioids because it's easier to taper off the Suboxone than it is to taper off opioids.
That's the simple explanation.
I'm leaving in a lot of detail.
All right. I don't have much else to say, so I'm going to sign off for now.
I would say we should expect a lot of new news this week.
There's going to be new stuff, new news coming up.
▲
Export Selection