All Episodes
Previous Next
April 7, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
50:31
Episode 483 Scott Adams: Biden, Gen IV Nuclear, Animals, TDS
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody!
It's good to see you.
It is really good to see you.
You know, I enjoy doing these periscopes probably more than you enjoy watching them.
And it's good to see all of you.
So gather around. Grab a seat.
Make sure you take some seats up front.
Grab your beverage container.
It might be a glass or a cup or a mug.
It could be a tank or just dyeing a chalice.
It might be a thermos.
But whatever it is, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the simultaneous sip.
Oh, delicious.
I hope yours was as good as mine.
Well, we've got some fun things to talk about today.
Have you ever had one of those weeks where it feels like the entire darn planet is starting to shape up your way?
I'm having that kind of a week.
I'll tell you a little bit about it.
But first, some other things in the news.
My favorite part of the news was Joe Biden appearing in public and Trying to navigate the new attention he's getting for his Eskimo kisses and head kisses and other touchy behavior.
So he made two awkward jokes in his recent appearance.
He joked that somebody gave him permission to hug her.
And then when some kids came up, he jokes to the audience about a child He says this about a child who's standing next to him, quote, he gave me permission to touch him.
Do I even need to say more about that?
I'm pretty sure that my first choice to run against President Trump would be Biden.
Now, only on the entertainment level.
So from just an entertainment level, oh my God, do I want Biden to run against Trump.
I don't think he's going to get there.
I still think that Biden and Sanders will not make it to the finish line, nor will Beto.
So I think it's going to be Kamala Harris.
But here's what to watch for.
Early on, it seemed that Kamala was the chosen one.
But have you noticed that she doesn't get any press anymore?
Like, a little bit.
But she's basically disappeared.
Have you noticed that?
And that all of the talk is about the three white guys.
How would you like to be a Democrat, the party of inclusivity, the party of diversity, in your top three, not just your top one, not just your top two, But your top three polling candidates are white guys and two of them are ancient.
Wouldn't you think that your entire philosophy somehow wasn't working?
I'm not sure exactly what's not working, but if you're the party of diversity and your top three candidates are three white guys, you're not doing it right.
You're not doing it right.
So it's funny But I guess that's all I need to say about it.
There was a story about, oh, the White House.
Here's one of the smallest pieces of news today.
So small that I don't think you'll see it on any of your news sites.
And it goes like this.
So the White House has rolled out A financial literacy program.
Financial literacy. So people who don't have money or people who are just getting money for the first time can learn how to manage the money, how to get it, and how to keep it.
That's very important because you could give money to poor people all day long, but if they don't know how to manage it, it's just going to go away.
Now what's interesting about this, aside from the fact that it just sounds like a good idea, And the White House is acting on it and it's like a real policy and real things are going to happen.
Here's what's interesting about it.
The first place that I heard about the need for financial literacy was from Black Lives Matter, specifically Hawke Newsome.
Now, I don't remember how much publicity he got for that particular point of view, But it was one that he talked with me about.
And so I know it to be at least a Hawk Newsome priority.
And it was always in his top three or four things was financial literacy.
So, we're watching this president who's being the subject of a rerun hoax.
You know the rerun? It was a year ago where he was accused of calling the immigrants animals.
And of course it was just out of context.
He was talking about the MS-13 people being the animals.
But it's a rerun.
So now we're watching the same old rerun like it never happened last year and was never a hoax, like it's fresh and new again.
It's just a rerun.
And while we're watching that, as if that's news, it isn't news.
It's just a rerun hoax.
Meanwhile, the White House has accomplished and actually put into law, or at least put into program, one of Black Lives Matter's biggest priorities.
Now, I should hesitate, not hesitate, I should be quick to say that one of the things that Hawke, and by the way, Hawke and I have had our differences, which are well publicized, but when he's right, he's right, right?
There are things he said, promoted for, that are just right.
And so I'm going to agree with him when he's right.
So this financial literacy thing, one of the things that Hawke said, I think he said it on Candace Owens' show, which was a great program by the way, he said that when the country does things that help black people, it helps everybody.
And I may be paraphrasing wrong, but the idea is that anything you do to help that segment is going to help poor people of all types.
And this is a perfect example because the financial literacy is not aimed at black people.
It's aimed for an economic group of which there'll be a good number of black people in it.
So Hawke is right.
When black people get their policy requirements that are specifically the ones that help the people in the worst situation, the only way you can do it in a country like this is to help everybody.
So I kind of buy into that philosophy.
Anyway, that's good news. It's great news, and it's not going to get any press, that the president did something that Black Lives Matter considered a high priority.
You won't see that in the news, but it's real.
Other fun news is that Preet Bharara has a book coming out.
If you know Preet, he's sort of a famous enemy of the president, and he was at the Southern District of New York, and he was fired by the president, and he was one of the biggest anti-Trumpers.
And what's interesting is that he's saying now that their state of mind after the election Was Trump derangement syndrome.
Now, he doesn't use those words, but he says it as clearly as if he used the words.
So he's actually, and I gotta say, my respect for him went up a level.
Now, I still don't like where he is.
You know, I don't like where he is, but my respect for him was absolutely incredible.
Disrespect, because he was not using any form of logic or reason, and he was doing things that, in my opinion, were absolutely bad for the country.
So I had complete disdain for him and complete disrespect for him.
But his latest public statements, and of course he's going to book out, so, you know, everything's a grain of salt here.
But the fact that he recognizes that his state of mind And others' state of minds were really the problem.
I haven't heard anybody say that before who was suffering from the problem.
Now we've seen Chelsea Handler start to say something like that.
I talked about this yesterday where she was realizing that her reaction to the president was out of proportion.
And now we've had a few years of this president and we don't have to guess What does a Trump administration look like?
Wouldn't you say? I mean, there are plenty of surprises ahead, but we don't really have to guess its basic nature.
It's not Hitler.
It's not crazy stuff.
It's not out of control.
It's not any of those things.
In fact, it's working on the big stuff pretty well.
So now people who would like to think of themselves as reasonable...
We have to reinterpret their world from the fear that they had at election day, 2016, to the reality that they observe right in front of them, which is nothing like it.
Very, very different.
And so you see that Preet, and again, I'll give him credit, has powered through it, in a sense.
In other words, his intellect, Has allowed him to get outside of his bubble a little bit.
Very, very rare. The reason I call it out is because you just don't see this.
So even though I, you know, dislike his views and there's a lot to dislike about how he's treated things for the last couple of years, you have to give him credit.
He's, he managed to escape his bubble a little bit and look at it from the outside.
And that's a good sign.
All right. Let's talk about Don Lemon.
You know that I make fun of Don Lemon, as many of you do, for his anti-Trump hysteria.
But the news on Don Lemon is that he just got engaged to his longtime boyfriend, I guess, Tim Malone.
And so I just wanted to add one positive thing today.
Just one positive thing, which is congratulations, Don Lemon.
We can disagree on all the politics and stuff, but we can be happy for each other on a human level.
And so congratulations, Don Lemon.
I hope that works out.
On another topic, Jake Tapper, I just tweeted a Jake Tapper interview.
Or not interview, a segment, a little clip, in which he was doing a piece about, apparently there's a President Trump plaque attached to part of a border wall that just got constructed.
Now, what was interesting about the story is, although it seemed that the point of the story was to mock the president for having his little, the president built this plaque on there.
And I guess the joke is that the border security was joking that they could use the plaque to step on it to get over the wall.
You know, I think that was more of a joke than a reality.
What was interesting about the coverage is how balanced it was.
So, sure, it made fun of the president for his little plaque.
But the context of the report, Jake Tapper, with no prompting, said that the president is supported by the border security, essentially, that they're glad that he's trying to get more border security.
Jake admitted, I shouldn't use the word admit, I'll say he reported, because I'm adding too much bias to the statement.
He reported that the president got the money, for the wall that's being built and even though the wall had been contemplated for a decade at least in that span that the president got it built and then he also credited the president for starting with a a vision of a solid concrete wall and then changing according to what the experts recommended to kind of a a baller situation so he actually credited the president for getting the money He credited him for doing what the border security people would like him to do.
And he credited the president for following the recommendation of the experts to get the better technological solution.
And I thought to myself, doesn't that feel different?
Doesn't that reporting feel a little bit different?
Oh, he did. He did throw in a little dig about, you know, Mexico won't pay for the wall.
But look in total, At just Jake Tapper's report.
On the negative side, he said, you know, they could use the plaque to get over the wall, which was just a joke.
It was a little bit mocking the president for having a plaque on his wall when not much has gotten done.
But that's a small, you know, kind of a small story.
And there was a mention of Mexico not paying for it, but frankly, I'm not sure how many of us ever expected that would happen anyway.
But on the positive side, he got the funding, he's building the wall, he listened to the experts, and the border security is on his side.
That's a pretty good report, right?
I mean, that's throwing every negative thing that you can into the mix, and they don't add up to anything.
There's a sort of interesting flavor on the news, but the real news is all positive.
I don't think you can say enough for the fact.
Somebody's saying Van Jones made a powerful bipartisan statement at the end of his show.
No surprise. Because, as I often say, Van Jones is quickly becoming a national treasure.
I don't think I'm overstating that.
I laughed when I said it, you know, because it sounded funny coming out of my own mouth.
But Van Jones is sort of becoming a national treasure, simply because he's willing to objectively look at the two sides and try to figure out what's real instead of what's spin.
And it looks like he's willing to do that on both sides.
So, I'm seeing the insults for Van Jones streaming by in the comments.
I know you may have your problems.
I know you have your problems with him.
But there are so few people who are even willing to attempt to work with both sides, understand both sides, and really try to make something work.
He's kind of unique.
You've got to give him that.
All right. I listened to...
Is it Senator Kennedy?
Senator, right? Senator Kennedy, talking about the request from Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal.
And apparently Richard Neal, in asking for President Trump's tax returns, and they're using a law that very clearly says, I guess Congress can ask for anybody's tax returns if they have a reason.
So here's the reason.
And you've seen the reporting, but every time you hear this, it makes you shake your head, that the chairman of the Ways and Means is actually trying to sell the American public on this story, that the reason they need the president's tax returns is to, quote, determine how well the IRS is auditing.
Is there anybody who believes that?
Is there anybody in the world who believes that's the reason?
And it's an interesting legal question because apparently Congress has the total power very clearly to ask for any tax returns they want.
They just need a reason.
So he offered a reason.
It's a completely BS reason and it's transparent BS and there's not anybody on either side who would see it as anything but BS. But it still might be legal.
Now, My take on this is that there isn't the slightest chance, not the slightest chance, that the President's lawyers will let him give up the tax returns.
I just don't see it happening.
It might go to the Supreme Court or whatever, but I don't see any chance that you're ever going to see the President's tax returns.
And by the way, if you do, if you do see the President's tax returns, then no matter what happens to the President, I think I would dedicate the rest of my days to making sure that Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal loses his job.
Because the blowback for that would have to be career-ending, right?
This is a case where the Democrats need to be careful what they wish for.
Because if they ever succeeded in getting the President's tax returns, I don't care what's in them.
Good or bad. I don't care what's in them.
Whoever was behind asking for them has to be targeted for political destruction.
Political destruction.
They just have to lose their jobs.
So all the money in the world needs to flow into whatever the opposite candidate is for their parties.
Because those people just need to not be in government.
Anybody who could do that kind of thing Right in front of the American people.
Essentially, not essentially, but anybody who could disrespect the voters to that degree, that he would try to sell us this BS story right in front of us, that's just disrespectful.
And that would have to have a penalty.
The public would have to act on that.
All right.
Let's talk about an update on climate science.
Actually, let me give you an update on Generation 4 nuclear.
So here's a big, big story that doesn't look like a big story.
It's a big, big, big story.
The New York Times just ran a very long opinion piece by three authors, one of which is Steven Pinker.
And it was an article saying that, among other things, it said that we should use the nuclear option, meaning Generation 4 nuclear, to solve climate change.
And that it works, you know, can work, etc.
Now, what's interesting about that?
What is interesting about the fact that Steven Pinker was one of the three people Who is persuading, and this is powerful persuasion because it's in the New York Times, but is persuading toward nuclear.
What's important about the fact that it's Steven Pinker?
Is it his Harvard connection?
I mean, that counts, but no.
I want to see if it's obvious to you.
Is it because he was suffering from TDS? No.
It's because he's a cognitive scientist.
He's a cognitive scientist.
Do you know what cognitive scientists are experts at?
Well, they're experts at a fairly large range of things in that field, but he's an expert at persuasion.
He knows how the brain works.
So the New York Times is running an article by an expert.
I don't think he would call himself this, but in order to understand cognitive stuff the way he does, clearly he would also know how to influence.
It would be part of his skill set.
I think that's a safe assumption.
And so now you're seeing what feels like a turn in the public consciousness.
So you see people like me, I'm just a persuader, and I'm persuading that people at least understand the Generation 4 option.
Steven Pinker, now in the New York Times, a great persuader, is persuading the same way.
Now, you've probably wondered why it is that all the people who seem to be associated with the political right seem to know about nuclear and know that it's a good option and are more likely to know about Generation 4.
But the people on the left, for whatever reason, seem to be just, they haven't gotten the memo.
It's like that knowledge hasn't penetrated the silo.
But the New York Times penetrates the silo.
Now I don't know to what extent the New York Times is still the news maker.
This is a term that we people in the media have used for years, and it means that if something is in the New York Times, Then all the other news outlets see it, and they say, oh, if the New York Times says this is worth talking about, then we should talk about it too.
So things don't become news until at least one big news entity says it's news, and then the others can just piggyback off of that.
But going first is the hard part, and the New York Times apparently has done that.
Now, it wasn't in the news section.
It was in the opinion section, but it was a very large and You know, got a lot of real estate.
It was a pretty large article.
So it should have a similar effect, not as much as news, but it should have a similar effect of penetrating the bubble on the left.
And what is the biggest issue that people talk about with nuclear in Generation 4?
I've not heard anybody complain about Generation 4 nuclear once they learned what it was.
Usually they say, well, what about the nuclear fallout?
If there's a meltdown, and you explain that the Generation 4 is built so that they can't meltdown, even if everything goes wrong, it's not even a possibility given the design.
And then they say, well, what about the nuclear waste?
You say, actually, Generation 4 will eat the nuclear waste from the old plants.
It actually reduces nuclear waste.
And then people say, all right, all right.
Well, all right, if it's not really a significant risk of radiation and it's not creating nuclear waste, well, here's my last complaint.
We don't know how to make them.
You know, the technology isn't ready.
To which I say, you need to explain that to the Department of Defense and to Canada.
And to China, because Canada just put out a bid for generation four nuclear designs, an actual bid, as in you give us the best bid and you're going to start building.
Department of Defense just did the same thing for small, small designs that can fit on a truck.
And if the Department of Defense is putting on a bid, And I think China's already building a Gen 4, and I think there's other work in other places.
So the technology's here, basically.
So the technology's here, and then the last complaint I hear is, okay, well, maybe nuclear could work.
But, you know, wouldn't solar be faster or better?
We could get there quicker.
We could ramp up.
And the answer is, I don't know, nor does anybody else.
There is no way to know if 40 years from now, solar had some breakthroughs and became far more cheaper and became the thing, and we developed battery storage so that we didn't worry about the non-sunny times.
Maybe, 40 years from now, anything could happen.
But the same with Generation 4 nuclear.
40 years? I don't know.
What are you going to do with nuclear in 40 years?
A lot, right? So nobody knows which of those two is the one.
If you had to bet on one, you just wouldn't know.
Nobody is smart enough to know which of those to bet on.
So, bet on both.
It would not make sense to bet on one unless you had limited money.
Now, the world has limited money, and the United States has limited money, but the money that's going into these two fields seems to be mostly private money.
People who want to see if they can make money.
And there doesn't seem to be a funding problem in either area.
And if there were a funding problem, it's not a big enough problem that it couldn't be satisfied.
So, if you have any business sense And you're looking at this problem, you're saying to yourself, well, the scientists say climate change is a problem, skeptics say it isn't.
Let's say I don't know.
I'm worried because so many scientists say it's a problem, but I don't know.
What do you do if you can't be sure?
Well, as luck would have it, you have two options, and both of them you would do whether you're sure or not.
They're still the right thing to do.
So you would still do Solar as hard as you could, just to get it to the best possible state.
You would still do Generation 4 nuclear as fast and as hard as you could, and you would do both of them.
Whether or not climate change was a problem.
Wait until the United States citizens understand that.
Wait until the citizens of the United States, the voters, understand that you don't need to know if climate change is a problem.
You can just say, either way, our solution is the same, because it also solves pollution, it solves the cost of fuel, it solves the, you know, where are we going to get all this energy for the growing world, it solves all the problems.
Whether or not climate change is real, and we have enough money, we have the technology, of course you do both.
So, here's the best news you've ever heard.
Climate change, we have a known solution, maybe two, You know, it could be solar as a solution.
But at the very least, Generation 4 nuclear is definitely a solution.
So do both.
Maybe you're wrong about nuclear, maybe wind takes over in 40 years, who knows.
But we do have a solution to it.
I would say that is a safe fact.
Now, on the question of whether climate change is the real risk that the scientists say, As most of you know, I've been doing a deep dive on this over months, trying to figure out how a non-scientist such as myself, and I'm kind of your proxy doing this.
I'm digging into it so you don't have to.
I'm trying to see what a non-scientist could conclude about how much risk there is from climate change.
And I got down to two challenge questions, which were the two best skeptical points, and I wanted the scientists to see if they had an answer.
The current update is yes.
The scientists do have an answer for what I thought were my two most powerful skeptical claims.
One of them was that we've had this rate of increase in the past, and it was before we had CO2, or a lot of CO2. And it turns out that's true.
We have had this increase in the past, but the scientists say we know why.
In the past, there were volcanoes.
In the past, there was some more industrial pollution.
They say that part I don't find convincing.
I can't believe there was actually more industrial pollution in the past.
It seems like if you add China into the mix, it seems like there's more industrial pollution today.
In the whole world, maybe there's less in Los Angeles, but I can't believe there's less.
Anyway... And then the other thing was some other greenhouse gases were in higher amount.
I think ozone or whatever.
Whatever it was, it was some of the greenhouse gas.
So my challenge was, is there any scientific answer?
Not that it's the right answer, but do they have an answer?
Have they judged this question of why there was a similar rate of increase in the past, and have they explained it?
Well, I would say their explanation I can't judge.
So I'm not a scientist, and so I don't know if their explanation is good enough, scientifically valid, to explain the other high-rise earlier in the last hundred years.
But they do have one.
They do have one.
There are papers about it.
It's something they've worked a lot at, and they're happy.
That they have explained it.
So I'm going to say that that skeptical claim is no longer strong, because there is an answer, and it's a robust answer, even if it turns out to be wrong.
So I can't judge the truth of it.
I can only say, is there a credible response to it?
And the answer is yes. Then the last remaining one was the claim that the Russian climate model is the only one that's different from the other 30 or so, and that the Russian model is the only one that's been accurate, and it doesn't show warming to be a problem.
You've probably heard this argument, right?
And today I got an answer on that.
It's just not true. It's just not true that there's such a thing as a Russian model that has a different result than the other models, and it's the only one that's accurate, and it shows there's no problem.
Simply, never happened.
It's just not true. And that was the answer I was looking for.
And by the way, I got that from a working climate scientist who showed me all the models, and it was a terrible graph, and he did a bad job of explaining it, but All I wanted to do was hear the other side.
I wanted to hear them say, no, there's no such thing as a Russian model that's accurate.
That's just not a thing.
Now, I looked into it a little more, and I'm not sure I know the answer, but I believe the answer is this.
That if you use one dataset that I think is the satellite measurements of the upper or lower troposphere, lower troposphere, one of those tropospheres, that if in that one dataset, the Russian model seems to be an outlier.
But all the other datasets, the Russian model behaves like the other ones, and so the fact that the Russian model is an outlier on one dataset only Doesn't seem to be meaningful.
So I'd say that that argument, which sounded very strong, had it been completely true, and completely true meaning every data set, you would get the same answer, the Russian model's the only one that's accurate.
Turns out that just nothing like that is true.
So, rather than ever conclude that climate science is completely true and a big problem, or to conclude the opposite, that it's all a bunch of BS, I'm not sure I could ever do that because I'm not a scientist.
But I will tell you in the course of my research into it, who's ahead.
At the moment, and this is just today, literally just today, the climate scientists are ahead.
Meaning that the so-called 97% of scientists, which is a complete BS number, but the majority of climate scientists have answered Every question that I could find that looked like a good skeptical argument.
They do have an answer for everyone that I have personally been able to identify.
So, that puts them in the lead.
Tomorrow, somebody might say, well, Scott, you forgot about XYZ. Why don't you factor that in?
I could change it tomorrow.
So, I'm not going to settle on a final answer on any of this.
I would say that the strongest argument against climate science risk is that humans are really good at fixing stuff in the long run.
The ozone hole didn't kill us.
We didn't run out of oil.
Y2K didn't kill us.
We didn't run out of food and starve to death.
We're really good at fixing stuff in the long run.
And when you look at what I was talking about with Gen 4 nuclear.
You look at the solar possibilities.
It looks like we're going to have a good handle on this and that the long-range predictions probably will not kill us all.
That's my feeling. All right.
And I think I... I think I covered it all.
You did not say anything.
Um... I did not say anything.
I don't know what that comment's about.
But if you could clarify that comment, there may be something you need me to clarify, and I'd be happy to do that.
Oh, why is the week going your way?
The week is going my way because it's obvious now that the world is waking up to the fact that Generation 4 nuclear is an obvious way to go, the New York Times article, etc.
And that's something I've been persuading toward for several weeks, along with Mark Schneider, who's been, in my opinion, the most influential person in the conversation, because he's the one who actually understands the area.
He's helped explain it to me and explain it to other people who can take the message forward.
So Mark has weaponized me and I have weaponized a number of people to know how to talk about Generation 4.
So at least people know about it.
That's all we can do.
The scientists still have to do what the scientists do, but at least we can know about it.
We also see that the...
I don't want to say this is going my way because it's a bad news story, but the crisis on the border has completely rendered the strongest argument against President Trump absolutely falsified.
The Trump approach to border is if you don't create good disincentives If you don't have disincentives, you're going to get so many people that even if it's not a problem now, it's going to be a problem.
And sure enough, we did not create the incentives.
In fact, we created incentives to come instead of incentives to not come.
And sure enough, it's a crisis.
So the President's approach to the border has been, in my opinion, completely validated.
But nobody wanted this crisis, and it is a real human crisis, and I don't want to make, you know, political...
I don't want to celebrate the political part of it on the backs of people who are suffering, because there seems to be quite a gigantic problem for the people who are trying to make it here.
So I don't want to do a victory dance on a tragedy.
But the fact is that the way I expected the world to go...
It's starting to go that way, right?
And, you know, pretty much everything else is looking good too.
Yeah, and it looks like the...
Wouldn't it be funny if the Mueller report comes out and there isn't anything new?
There's just nothing in there?
What do you think of the odds that the full details of the Mueller report will be D3? I'm going to call this D3. Disappointment 3.
D1 was the election itself.
Disappointment 1, where everybody went into TTS. Ah!
And then when the Mueller report was summarized by Barr, that was D2. Disappointment 2.
Ah! Isn't it likely that when we see the details of the report, there'll be stuff to talk about, but that it's going to be a big letdown?
I think it's D3. D3 coming up.
And let me put it this way.
If there were surprises in the Mueller report to come, what are the odds that we wouldn't know about those things already?
There could be surprises in the other direction.
And wouldn't it be funny if they did get a hold of his tax returns and there was just nothing interesting there?
What if they got a hold of his tax returns and the worst thing on them is that, let's say, his net worth wasn't as much as he claimed?
What if that was the worst thing?
That would be reason enough for him to want to prevent them.
But what if that was the worst thing?
It would just correspond to what people were expecting.
You know, people would say, oh, well, we figured he probably exaggerated that a little bit.
What if they dig in and they find out that Trump exaggerated the value of his properties when he tried to get loans?
But that he minimized the value of his property when he was trying to pay his property taxes.
What if we found out that he did that?
Well, then we would have found out that he has good tax accountants.
A good tax accountant will entirely legally minimize the value for property tax purposes while telling the bank that, hey, we'd better throw in this goodwill and all these other intangibles and get a bigger value.
I think you would just find out that he was operating his business like every other business.
So it's possible that there are no surprises there, but who knows?
All right. Now, if you want to know how well the world is working or the country is working, let's look at the CNN top left.
So this will tell you if the world is falling apart.
Or if the world is going well.
Here are the top stories on CNN's website in the top left.
Those are the things they consider the most important stories.
Top left, Lori Lightfoot become the city's first gay leader, thanks to black voters.
Have you ever seen a better story than that?
I mean, talk about a healthy story for the country.
What could be healthier Let me just listen to this again.
Just absorb the enormity of this little statement.
The biggest news in CNN. Lori Lightfoot became the city's first gay leader thanks to black voters.
Well, the second part's bad.
It says, whose churches tend to treat women and LGBTQ members as second-class citizens.
But the point of it still...
Is it where we expected a lot of discrimination?
This is CNN saying this.
This is CNN's article saying they expected discrimination from black voters against LGBTQ and against women.
And it didn't happen.
It didn't happen.
They expected black people To vote in a bigoted way.
This is CNN. CNN article says that there was an expectation that black people would vote in a bigoted way against women and against LGBTQ, and it didn't happen.
Can you get better news than that?
Like, what? Literally.
If you were to sit down and say to yourself, all right, let's say I want to make up a story, and it's got to be, like, really good news for the country, it would look exactly like that.
There's somebody here saying it's not news.
I don't know. Yeah, it's not really news news, but it's kind of news.
And more it says, more on this top left, it says black women govern only 4% of the biggest U.S. cities, but their numbers are growing.
So the numbers are growing part is the positive part of the story.
So black women are doing great.
I said that before. And that's it.
Here's some other stories.
These are the top stories.
Obama jokes about Michelle leaving him.
That's a headline.
A headline about a joke.
Literally a joke.
And here's Schiff.
Schiff says, I don't regret calling out this president.
What? That's the least important thing I've ever heard in my life.
An ex-football coach will run for Senate tapper on Trump's plaque.
That was the story I talked about.
That's it. That's it.
Let's go to Fox News, find out what the bad news is on Fox News.
It's something about Trump's tax returns.
We'll never see them.
Something about a crime, but that's, you know, crime.
And then an ex-Democratic staffer admits doxing five GOP senators.
Small story.
Basically, there's no bad news in the news.
Think about this.
Remember, you notice the dog that didn't bark?
Think about this.
Just absorb for a fact that I just checked two competing news sites There's not any bad news.
There's not any bad news.
Our wars are all wrapping up.
The economy is screaming.
It looks like the China trade deal is getting closer to an agreement.
China's agreed to, you know, make fentanyl derivatives the death sentence, which the president asked for.
The president is so right on the border That now it looks like we'll probably get enough resources to do something.
He was so right on that.
And the biggest news lately is that Carpe Duntum got a lot of attention.
Oh, by the way, the New York Times wrote a big piece about About the president's favorite meme maker, which was Carpe Duncombe.
So congratulations, Carpe, for your new high visibility.
Very well deserved.
I don't know if I can leave this point right away, but do you get the enormity That there's no bad news.
It's the most amazing thing you've ever seen in your life.
And you probably didn't notice.
The most amazing day of your life, you probably didn't notice.
That most of our major problems are solved or being solved.
And I think healthcare is still a problem.
But it's also not a headline.
Nobody's talking about it today.
Yeah, and the Julian Assange stuff is a fog of war.
I don't know what's happening with Julian Assange.
Somebody just asked in the comments.
But it's hard to comment on that, because I just don't think we know what's happening there.
The wars haven't stopped.
No, I know the wars haven't stopped, but they're winding down.
They're heading in the good direction, not the bad direction.
Now, Venezuela, my understanding is that there are only 100 probably special forces troops from Russia in Venezuela, and the smart people are saying, eh, just ignore it.
It'll take care of itself.
Just ignore the Russians in Venezuela.
They have to be there to try to protect their investment, but in the long run, with all the leaders of other countries being against Maduro, it's just a matter of time.
Alright, for those of you who bought WEN tokens, the crypto tokens that my startup created as part of the interface by WEN Hub product, you may know that last I checked, they were up to 4 cents on the Hotbit exchange.
When I started talking about them, they were at 1 cent.
Which is not unusual for a new crypto offering.
So it has increased the value 400% in two weeks or one week.
Now, you should not hear that and say, my God, I've got to go buy these things because that means they will keep going up forever.
I'm not saying that.
They are not investments, as investments go, and I don't recommend any investment, this or any other.
I'm simply stating facts that my startup, WenHub, has a product called Interface by WenHub.
Associated with that are crypto tokens.
You can pay cash to use the product to call an expert, or you could use these crypto tokens.
And it is true that we're listed on a second exchange now.
LA token was first.
Hotbit is the second.
We've got some others lined up, so you'll see some others coming online.
And when you have all of these variables in place, Which is, you know, your lawyers have said your token is good, meaning that it didn't violate any laws.
You've got exchanges signing up, you've got an increase in value of the token, and it's associated with a real product that's already built, which is rare.
It's rare in the crypto world for these new cryptocurrencies that are associated with startups.
It's rare that the product is built and actually working.
So when you have all of those characteristics in play, those are the things which typically would cause a cryptocurrency to go up in value.
But there are no guarantees.
I should say as clearly as possible the long-term value of any crypto Except for maybe Bitcoin and Ether and a couple others, but for all the rest of the universe, the long-term value is usually probably zero for all cryptos in general.
This particular one, I feel good about, and all of the requirements that support the value of them are coming into place, but no guarantees.
All right. Have you invested in your tokens?
Yeah, I have a ton of tokens that are created at the time you create the tokens, and I have purchased a bunch more on the open market.
And I'll be taking calls on the app as well.
So you can buy them at wenhub.com.
Just with a credit card.
Or you can buy them on those two exchanges I mentioned.
LA Token and Hotbit.
Alright. That's enough for now.
▲
Export Selection