All Episodes
Previous Next
April 17, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
52:32
Episode 495 Scott Adams: Mueller, Sleepy Joe, Crazy Bernie, 3D Printed People
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum Hey everybody!
Sing with me now!
Bum bum bum bum It really doesn't matter what tune you play with that, as long as you get the words right.
Well, come on in here.
We got stuff to talk about.
The news is fun again.
We got some fun stuff. Thanks to our president and tweeter-in-chief, keeping things interesting.
Always appreciated.
But before we talk about that, you know it's coming.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Yes, it's famous worldwide, and you're about to experience it.
It happens when you fill your favorite container.
Be it a glass or a cup or a mug.
It could be a stein or a tankard.
It could be a flask or a thermos.
But you will fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the simultaneous sip.
Oh, so good.
I hope yours was good too.
Alright, so we've got some new nicknames, or at least some confirmed nicknames from the Nicknamer-in-Chief, President Trump.
Apparently he has named Joe Biden Sleepy Joe Biden.
I think we can shorten that to Sleepy Joe.
Now Sleepy Joe is hilarious because it sounds like Sloppy Joe.
And I think maybe he thought about sloppy Joe.
It probably was in the top 20 things he considered.
But Joe Biden does not seem sloppy.
If you think about it, he seems well put together.
So sloppy doesn't really fit.
I'm not entirely sure this sleepy fits.
Because he seems...
I would have to say that one thing...
That is a plus for Joe Biden is he does seem to have high energy.
And for a man of his advanced age, he seems like he's in really good shape, I gotta say.
I don't think he would be in my top 10 picks for president.
In part because of his age.
But you've got to give him the fitness and the energy thing.
He's got that down.
So I'm not sure Sleepy is the winning nickname here.
We might see that get...
It could be that calling him creepy was...
But Sleepy does rhyme with creepy.
I don't know if that's an accident.
So Sleepy Creepy Joe...
I've got a feeling that Sleepy Creepy Joe is going to catch on faster than Sleepy Joe.
And then we've got Crazy Bernie.
Now, Crazy Bernie fits pretty well because one of the things that the president likes to do, and I don't think he did it true to form with Sleepy Joe, Is that he likes to pick nicknames that you're reminded of whenever you see the person or you hear something about what they've done.
So in the same way that Low Energy Jeb, you would be reminded of it whenever you saw him compared to the President's energy.
And Crooked Hillary, you would be reminded of that every time there's some story of an allegation of Clinton Foundation or whatever.
Even if it's not true, it's going to remind you of something crooked.
Um... With Bernie, he has enough policies that don't have good math behind them, according to his critics, that crazy is going to make sense.
So you're going to be reminded of crazy quite often.
But you may not be reminded of sleepy with sleepy Joe, except for maybe the fact that it's taking him so long to make a decision and get into the race, I guess.
Although I would argue it makes sense for him to wait.
Um... So that's the nickname update.
But the funny part about his tweet is that the president mockingly said he felt sorry for whoever runs against him.
And he said, quote, May God rest their souls.
May God rest his soul, I guess.
And I tweeted, half-kiddingly, but also seriously...
That by tomorrow, the fake news was going to be that the president is suggesting...
is talking about murdering his opposition.
And sure enough, within an hour of that tweet, Democrats were on Twitter saying, Sue...
Well, let me give you the right treatment.
Dale? Dale, can you come in here?
We need to do...
Okay. Dale is coming.
Dale? Dale?
What was the response to the president's tweet about God rest their souls?
Well, I think there's only one thing we can say about that, which is this question.
What did he mean about that?
I mean, in what world do you say God rest their souls?
Unless you're planning to murder them.
I mean, frankly, I can't think of another explanation.
I have scoured my memory, I have searched the internet, and I have sat in a chair thinking.
When I combine all that research, which I did myself, it turns out there is no other explanation for a tweet using the phrase, God bless our souls, except planning to murder and talking about it in public.
Which makes sense, right?
You do plan your murders in public on Twitter?
I think. I think that makes sense.
Yeah, I'm gonna go with that.
There is no other explanation other than he's planning murder.
And scene.
So, I got that prediction right.
But, in all fairness, that was an easy one.
I think you all got that prediction right, too.
Let's talk about Some of the trouble I caused yesterday.
So some of the trouble is that I agreed with Fox News shutting down the people who wanted to talk about the context of the Notre Dame fire.
And the context is that there have been a number of Christian church fires and vandalisms lately.
Now, I agreed...
With shutting down that line of thinking.
And people said to me, Scott, Scott, Scott, why do you object to actual facts?
Scott, do you hate free speech?
Why can't people talk about something that's true and relevant?
What is wrong with that, Scott?
If something is true and it's totally relevant to the question, why can't you talk about that?
To which I say, the truth is overrated.
In fact, I wrote a book about it.
It's called Winn-Bigley.
A persuasion in a world where facts don't matter.
So in this case, it's not that the facts don't matter exactly.
It's that the truth is not a useful standard.
I'm going to dig myself into the deepest hole I've ever been in.
We'll see if I can get out.
Probably not. You end up sounding like Rachel Maddow.
Nutty. Would you allow that I have not given my reasoning yet?
Or at least not reasoning that you find compelling?
So, if you're disagreeing with my opinion, can we also start at the starting point that I have not I've not explained my reasoning.
So if you haven't heard it yet, don't say you disagree with it yet.
Now remember, I'm starting out by agreeing with you on the main points.
Free speech is good.
The facts that people wanted to talk about, the context of the other fires, are true, as far as I know.
The reporting seems to be consistent.
And it's completely relevant.
It is relevant.
Okay? So those are the things we agree on.
It's true. It's relevant.
Free speech is good. So here's what I haven't said.
I have not said it should be illegal to talk about it.
I haven't said that. It shouldn't be illegal.
I have not said you should be punished or boycotted for talking about it.
I haven't said that. So can we agree?
That I have not made any claims about freedom of speech.
I like freedom of speech.
If somebody does talk about this thing, even though I think it's a bad idea, do I think they should be punished?
Absolutely not. Not even a little.
Not socially, not boycotted, not legally, not in any way.
Free speech. Period.
So can we agree to take free speech off the table?
Because we're all on the same side, right?
If somebody does talk about it, no penalty, free speech.
So free speech is off the table.
Now, what's left is newsworthiness.
So the need for the public to know facts which are relevant.
I say that the public should know those facts.
So if you're saying to me, but Scott, Scott, the public needs to know these facts, hear me clearly, I agree.
The public needs to know the context, which would include the other churches that have been on fire.
So can we agree to take that off the table?
Because we agree. The context is true, it's relevant, and the public should know about it.
So you don't need to argue about that anymore.
Let's take that off the table.
So free speech is off the table, the truth is off the table because we agree on the truth, and the importance of the public knowing is also off the table because we're all in agreement.
So now let's get to the part where we might have some disagreement.
The truth can be dangerous depending on the situation.
And here's the reasoning errors that I'm seeing with the people who are disagreeing with me.
The biggest error is to imagine that there's a general rule That we should apply to this situation of Notre Dame burning in the context of immigration and concern about the Muslim immigration and whatever problems that may or may not cause.
So here's my first point, and I'm hoping you can agree with me.
There are some situations which are so That as soon as you say, well, would you apply this same thinking to any other situation?
I say, no.
No. You just have to treat this as its own thing.
The burning down of Notre Dame is just not like any other thing.
It's not. It's completely unique.
And so whatever you decide on that could be something you only decide for this one situation.
While the general rules about how you handle things could be completely intact as good general rules.
There are other things I would put in this category.
Anytime anybody compares anything to the Holocaust, that's inappropriate.
Because there's nothing like the Holocaust, except...
Other genocides.
So if you're comparing another genocide that also involves millions of people, I'd say that's fair to compare that to the Holocaust.
Another is slavery.
There's nothing really that compares Exactly to slavery.
So if you use any analogies like, well, the way we treat this other situation is this way.
Let's treat slavery and the history of slavery the same way.
No, it doesn't work that way.
There's nothing like it.
Any analogy like thinking fails for the Holocaust.
It fails for anything about slavery.
And I'm arguing that That this Notre Dame fire is not like other things.
Here's why. Here's what makes the Notre Dame fire not like other things.
You saw the emotional connection that much of the world, I can't speak for Asia, maybe it's getting processed a little differently over there, but for the Western world, for Europe, the United States, the feeling that we had When watching Notre Dame burn was not like other feelings.
It would not be like watching an individual church burn, which you would feel bad about, but you don't feel bad about it the same way.
There's a whole other level.
People have compared it to 9-11.
Again, 9-11 is something you probably don't want to compare things to, because it was its own thing.
But in terms of just this one dimension of how people felt about it, it was up there.
So from an emotional perspective, it was unparalleled for a fire.
So as fires go, it was unparalleled.
That's my first point. The next thing you need to know is that the situation in Europe is not like any other situation has ever been in Europe.
The volatility of the situation trying to merge the different cultures is pretty ticklish.
And it's pretty ticklish in our country as well.
And so how you handle it needs to be recognizing that you have a really big emotional situation.
And it's in a context of a really brittle situation.
Volatile social situation, both in the United States and in Europe.
Those are unique situations.
So if you don't treat the unique situation with a unique approach, and just slap on the generic way that you treat everything, you may have some problems.
And here's the problem specifically.
Compare these two approaches.
All right? Approach number one that I suggest.
Wait a few days.
Because keep in mind that everybody is wondering if it's a terrorist act.
There's nobody who hasn't at least wondered about that, right?
There's enough talk about it that everybody's wondered.
But until the police and the investigators come up with a little more information, talking about it pairs with The emotional feeling you get about the Notre Dame burning, which is not like other emotional things, it's bigger. It's bigger.
It goes to the heart, right?
It goes to the soul.
It's bigger. Pairing that with the idea that it might have been a Muslim terrorist act changes people's feeling about the people they live with In a way that may be disconnected from the facts.
So, let me put a little more meat on that.
Persuasion-wise, and brainwashing-wise, and influence-wise, pairing things is very important.
Pairing the thought of how you think about the Muslim population in Europe with one of the worst emotional violations of the Christians in that area is the most dangerous thing you could ever connect, if they're not connected.
Now, if it turns out, you know, five days from now, if it turns out that the investigators say, you know what, we can't tell, then I think it starts becoming fair for people to speculate.
If they find out in five days that it was nothing but an accident, Then you would feel very bad that the world spent five days basically suspecting one class of people for what would have been, if it were true, one of the worst violations of the emotional soul of an enormous billion person population.
If in five days you get your information, you know everything that can be known, whether it's conclusive or inconclusive, but you know everything that can be known.
At that point, if people start speculating, I would say, that's fair.
Because you do want to inform the public, you do.
You do want to have free speech, you do.
You do want to let people speculate, you do.
You want all of those things.
But in this one special case, because the burning of Notre Dame is just not like anything else emotionally, wait a few days.
It's just smarter.
It's a more responsible thing to do.
Now, if you're Fox News, and here I'm going to defend them again, if you're Fox News, you have two responsibilities, not one.
You've got two responsibilities.
One, give people the news as accurately as you can.
Two, the greater good.
Don't break the world.
Don't break the world just to report the facts as soon as possible.
Don't create a world war when none had to be created.
Don't create in people's mind this gigantic violation, blame it on an entire class of people who may or may not have anything to do with it, and then let that sit.
You've all seen, and you've all complained about, I think, when fake news comes out, it gets forwarded everywhere and everybody talks about the fake news.
When the correction comes out, how much attention does the correction get?
This much, right? So the fake news will dominate the correction because the fake news gets a lot of attention, but the correction doesn't.
The same kind of effect would be here.
If we spent the next five days doing nothing but speculating about all the churches that are burned and trying to connect that with Notre Dame, By the time the investigators said, let's imagine they say this, if they said it was an accident and were positive about it, it wouldn't frickin' matter.
It would be too late.
It would be too late.
Because one third of the people who watched the speculation for a week would say, I don't believe it.
They'd say, it feels like It was a Muslim attack.
I hear what the investigators say, but they're probably lying.
Because I've lived with this as my truth, speculative truth, for a week.
I can't get it out of my head.
Now, Shepard Smith and I think Neil Cavuto, and I assume that they're, I don't know how much is their own decision versus there's a corporate guideline.
I hope there's a corporate guideline, and I hope that they were just doing a credible, responsible thing within that guideline, which is you don't speculate on something that could cause somebody to get killed.
If you can just wait a few days and then we have the information that we need, then it's a little more fair to start speculating if we're reduced to that.
Somebody says, I beg of you, move on.
You just got blocked.
All right. So that's my point.
I think you got the point.
I want to give some other examples in which the truth is harmful.
One of the dumbest things that I see online is when people say, but what about the truth?
You know, let's get the facts right.
We can't think that way because of the truth.
And I often see that strategy is separate from truth.
Let me give you a perfect example.
My old buddy, Hawk Newsome, who's associated with Black Lives Matter, was tweeting yesterday that white people don't understand the degree to which white privilege has benefited them and how the black community is at a disadvantage.
Now, here's a perfect example of something that's true and harmful.
So, compare these two strategies.
Let's say you're an African-American man or woman, and you want to get a job.
And there are two things you can say on social media.
One of the things you can say on social media is, I believe the white man is keeping the black man down.
Let's say you've got some tweets that make that point.
Well, I think you could make a good case that it's true.
It's true that the legacy of slavery has a ripple effect that is certainly in evidence in current day.
So you could be totally accurate.
You could be telling the truth.
It could even be important.
Are you going to get a job offer with that attitude?
The answer is no.
Anybody who would hire somebody who could say that sort of thing in public is making a mistake.
It might be true.
It might be important.
But if you say it, if you say that truth, don't expect to get a job offer, because an employer would be crazy to pull somebody into their organization who already has a chip on their shoulder.
They're going to be looking for trouble.
It just shows that their filter is set for looking for discrimination.
Now compare that to the opposite.
Let's say you believe that there is such a thing as white privilege.
Let's say you believe that's true. And a good argument can be made.
Let's say you believe that the legacy of slavery is really affecting people in the current.
But when you talk about it, when you go into a job interview, when you say things on social media, you say the opposite of true.
You say, it's really up to the individual.
In this country, anybody can get ahead.
Now, how does that person do in their life?
A lot better, right?
Because if you show...
The thing that I always wish existed would be strategy for dealing with white people.
You know, I think it's a general truth that there's no demographic group that really understands how another demographic group thinks.
You know, the young don't understand the old and vice versa.
The white people don't understand black people.
Black people don't understand white.
It's just universally true.
You're lucky if you understand your own group.
You certainly don't understand other groups.
So wouldn't it be useful to have a guidebook, like a strategy or a playbook, For how to get the most out of white people.
Now white people already know the technique.
I'll tell you the technique.
I use it. Because even though I'm a white guy, I have to deal with white people.
All the time. So one of the things I do is I act like a white guy.
I just figure out, alright, how are they acting?
Okay, I'll, you know, as much as possible, I'll dress like that, I'll talk like that, I'll sort of be like that.
Is any of that natural?
Not a bit. None of my acting like a white guy is natural.
I mean, there might be some of it.
But mostly, I'm just looking at other white people and saying, all right, I need to fit in.
I need them to like me for all kinds of social and economic reasons.
What would I need to do?
Oh, God, I need to wear glasses like this, right?
Basically, you know, my choice of what glasses I could buy is constrained by what community I want to influence, right?
So I would say that the way to influence white people is to say the thing that they want to hear.
Even if you don't believe it.
Even if you don't believe it.
And the thing that all white people want to hear is that you can make your own way in this world by your own effort.
That your effort determines your outcome.
I would say a brilliant voice for this is Ed Latimer.
So if you don't follow him on Twitter, you should.
He's probably got one of the smartest Twitter feeds you'll ever see.
And you look at his strategy slash philosophy about success, and it's just right on.
It's perfectly compatible with success and it plays well across demographic groups.
So he talks about self-determination and, you know, fitness and how all those things can control your success.
That is the mindset that when you hear it, the first thing you say is, damn, how can I support this guy?
I like the guy.
You know, I like the person because the way he talks is compatible with the way I think.
And I would like to help him.
So what did I do after seeing several tweets by Ed?
I said, I'm going to follow this guy.
And then I recommended him.
And then I had him on my Periscope.
All of that is because his worldview was so compatible with what I think is a positive thing for the world.
And was he born Thinking all these things and thinking the way he does.
No, he wasn't born that way.
It's something he figured out.
He looked at the world.
He lived in the world.
He had experiences and he figured out this works.
This doesn't work.
I think I'll do more of the stuff that works.
And sure enough, he's getting a good result.
So I would say that the truth, we should always hold as a standard that, you know, you need a good reason not to use the truth.
But I'm giving you a good reason.
Sometimes the truth is your worst strategy.
You know, if your spouse comes up and says, do you like my haircut?
And you don't?
Maybe the truth isn't your best strategy.
You know, if you think it's a temporary situation.
Speaking of haircuts, Donna Brazile, It's apparently been hired by Fox News, and I'm seeing a lot of reactions to that.
Now, the people who say, how could you hire Donna Brazile?
I don't think people realize that Fox News does hire people who are Democrats.
It's part of the entertainment, is that they have the Democrat who will say the things that they can react to.
But I wanted to say something that's completely off-brand for me.
I met Donna Brazile years ago in business context.
We had some overlapping interests.
That's not exactly accurate, but you don't need to know the backstory.
It's not important. I met her once.
That's all you need to know. And I was watching her on The Five, on Fox News, and I just have to call out, she got the best frickin' haircut.
Whoever either advised her or does her hair, oh my god, what an upgrade.
I've never seen such a haircut upgrade in my life.
I think she looks 10 to 15 years younger than Than she did 10 years ago.
I don't know, maybe she's doing some other stuff with her fitness or whatever.
But her haircut is really exceptional.
I can't stop looking at it.
Some other people are saying the same thing.
I know it's a personal decision, but it makes me wonder if that's a Fox News effect.
Because Fox News is very smart...
About their programming.
And if you haven't noticed it, check for this.
I've said this before. But if you look at CNN, it's all talented, smart people who just happen to disagree with a lot of you.
But you would agree, they're generally good-looking, talented, multi-talented.
They have talents across fields.
They're very good. But everybody on CNN is sort of a version of the same person.
They show their personalities, but in showing them, they sort of look the same.
Even the men, the women, they all are sort of the same person over there on CNN. But Fox News is, I think, a little more clever in their programming and hiring.
They get people who have personalities.
Like real, genuine, unique personalities.
You know, there's only one Greg Goffeld, right?
There's nobody who's just like him.
And Donna Brazile fits perfectly into that.
There isn't really anybody like her.
And she has a great sense of humor, which is another characteristic that it's obvious that Fox News also hires for sense of humor.
I don't know if they think of it that way, but it can't be a coincidence that literally everybody they hire seems to have a good sense of humor.
And they're all unique.
Geraldo is not like anybody else.
Right. Jesse Waters.
He's just not like anybody else.
And, you know, you could go down the line.
There's only one Dana Perino.
Etc. If I left anybody out, it's not intentional.
All right. There's a story about Kim Fox over in Chicago.
Some text messages of hers have been uncovered.
And I thought it was fascinating because what people have been saying about Kim Fox, now this is related to the Jussie Smollett case, or Smollett case, however you say it.
And the thought was that she gave him an easy ride and that maybe the fix was in and she was trying to help him out and maybe she interfered even though she said she recused herself.
And then you see the text messages.
And I think people are treating the text messages like it's a smoking gun.
But that's not the way I read them, as usual.
One of the things her text message said was that it seemed like they were overcharging him.
There were 16 counts.
And she said, my God, people already are accusing us of overcharging people, and we're charging him for more than you would charge for worse crimes.
So she was questioning the reputation of her department.
For overcharging people.
So now that you hear that and you say, oh, that's sort of the thing you'd say if you were trying to help Jussie.
But it wasn't really that context.
it really just seemed like she was talking about the brand and about how do you manage the fact that people are already accusing you of overcharging.
And then you're going to go overcharge the most famous person that's been charged.
Well, it'd be the dumbest thing you could ever do if people are already accusing you of overcharging.
So I didn't see any bias in that comment.
That comment just seemed perfectly fitting for that situation.
It'd But then the other thing was that she referred to him in a private text message.
She referred to Smollett as a washed up celebrity.
Now, if you're trying to help somebody, I don't know that you would just casually toss out A pretty demeaning insult to the person for no particular reason.
It would have been completely anti-character for what people imagined she was trying to do, which was to help him.
So I would say that those text messages actually are good for her.
My personal opinion is that seeing those messages makes me think that she was not putting the fix in for them.
She was just trying to make sure the department doesn't overcharge.
Now, the actual specific resolution, I don't know that she was directly involved in that.
That's evidence.
Evidence is missing. All right.
A couple of things. Let's talk about nuclear weapons.
I believe there are two Democrats running for president who are pro-nuclear, but I need a fact check on that.
One I know for sure is Andrew Yang, but his website, disappointingly, does not talk about Generation 4.
And it should.
He's a smart guy, and he seems to be solution-oriented as opposed to dogmatic.
So it would be a big plus for him to mention Generation 4.
And I think Cory Booker, that's the part you need to fact check me on, is pro-nuclear as part of the solution.
And it's going to be really interesting watching the Democrats debate each other, especially if some of them are pro-nuclear.
So I'm waiting to see how that sorts out.
The other thing is, well, I don't want to talk about that.
So anyway, Afghanistan is having some peace talks.
And there's some reason for optimism and plenty of reason to not have optimism.
But the reasons for optimism that I just heard on Fox News with General Keene, he was talking about, it's the first time that Pakistan has been pushing the Taliban to make peace.
And I thought to myself, that's probably the whole story right there, isn't it?
If Pakistan is pushing the Taliban hard to make peace for the first time, then I would say that's a big deal.
And apparently the Taliban is promising to tree women properly, but within an Islamic context.
I don't know how properly that is, but at least they're talking about it, right?
They're talking about women going to school, etc.
Girls going to school.
All right. But here's what I want to add to the conversation.
What does it do to the Taliban to watch ISIS lose all their territory?
What is the mental effect of President Trump just eradicating ISIS? I think the mental effect is that it just doesn't feel like a winning path.
to fight the United States for eternity.
It just doesn't feel like that's the fastest path to get to a better place.
So I have this feeling that the fact that the president simply exists and had successes in other places probably affects the Taliban to the extent that they're paying attention to the world and I don't know how much they are.
We're seeing reports Reports that I would not consider reliable, that North Korea has, quote, signs of nuclear processing.
So probably satellite pictures or some other kind of intel is telling us that there's signs that North Korea's starting to get restless.
Here's the first thing you should say about that.
Anonymous source?
Who is it who says that...
Tell me exactly who's telling us that North Korea has signs of processing nuclear stuff.
Who exactly?
So, first of all, it's not believable, even if it's true.
It's not credible because, you know, the reporting about this topic and anonymous sources...
Yeah, I mean, it's just not believable.
But let's say it's true.
Just hypothetically.
Let's say it's true that satellites have actually determined that there's something that looks exactly like North Korea processing nuclear stuff.
Would that be surprising?
No, I would expect that.
Wouldn't you? Wouldn't you expect that North Korea, in order to shake the box a little bit, get things moving a little, that they might show a little bit of a tell for continuing to process?
So, I would think that that would be negotiating 101.
Why should they just discontinue their threat when they're getting nothing in return?
So probably it makes sense for them to show a little threat.
Now, it might also be possible that the people who have worked at these facilities don't know what else to do.
So if it was your job to work at one of these nuclear facilities, what do you do?
Do you go to work?
And if you go to work, do you work?
Do you drive around in your truck?
Do you make it look like you're doing something?
Do you get ready to prepare?
Do you prepare to do something that you're not actually going to do?
Do you do any tests or trials?
Do you rebuild a building just in case you need it later?
So the question I ask myself is, does it matter?
Does it matter at all that it looks like there's some activity that might be stuff we wish they weren't doing?
Probably not.
Probably is completely irrelevant.
Because the thing that Trump did is more important than taking their nukes away.
The thing he did was he took away the reason to point them at us.
They just sort of don't have a reason.
Now, I did worry.
I did worry that North Korea was going to wait until after 2020 to get serious.
And I still think they might.
I feel as if the only security that Kim Jong-un feels is his personal relationship with Trump.
And he should be quite worried that if Trump were to lose re-election, that he'd be dealing with a new leader who needed to show that he or she was tough and would cause him to go right back to square one of, oh my God, I don't know, are they going to attack me or what?
So if you're Kim Jong-un, your best play is to pretend you're doing some nuclear stuff without crossing the line where we have to get tough again.
Just sort of a suggestion of it.
And to wait two years.
So, you should be amazed and surprised if Kim Jong-un makes any kind of a deal before the 2020 election.
He just shouldn't.
It wouldn't be smart, unfortunately.
He should wait. He should stall.
As long as we're not threatening to attack tomorrow when we're not, he should stall.
Find out what the next president is going to have in store for him.
Now, Once that election is over, then he's got to decide, do I stall another four years?
Because again, Trump is unique.
You don't know if the president after Trump is going to be a badass who just wants you to get rid of all your nukes and all of your security, etc.
So I would not expect North Korea to make a formal deal in the next two years for sure.
I would expect them to stall, but not...
Test missiles and not do something that would guarantee a military tip for that.
All right. The Mueller report is coming.
The one thing that everybody is sure of about the Mueller report, what's the one thing we're all sure of?
The one thing we can know for sure with the details of the Mueller report is that it won't change anybody's mind.
That the Democrats will find all kinds of bad things there.
The Republicans will say, some are true, some are not true, some are out of context, but there's nothing there.
So I'm pretty sure you're not going to find any collusion, obstruction that is legally actionable.
But, have you ever seen a clearer example in which information doesn't change opinions?
Absolutely nobody is going to, well, there might be a few, but for the most part, people are not going to change their opinions even as all the data changes, or at least they have data where they used to not have data.
So, what does it mean To realize that information is not driving anybody's opinions.
It just isn't.
It should be this big awakening, which I warned you about in 2015.
I told you that in the age of Trump, we would come to learn that facts don't matter to our decisions.
They do matter to the outcomes, of course.
And if you had a choice, you'd want to be closer to the facts than not.
But for persuasion purposes and the way we make decisions, we just don't use data and we just don't use logic.
It's just not something we do.
And you'll see that in the Mueller report.
So, by now, is it true that the president knows what's in the Mueller report?
Would it be true to say that the president has already been briefed exactly what's going on there?
Likely. And apparently they're putting together some kind of response.
So there'll be the Mueller report, and then there'll be the Trump's lawyers' responses.
But that doesn't tell us much, because the lawyers would probably want to respond about anything that seemed out of context.
So they'd probably want to soften anything that looked like it could be turned into something that maybe wasn't anything.
So the fact that they're preparing a response...
Probably doesn't tell you necessarily that there's anything bad in there.
But I think the smart money says there will be at least a few things that are at least embarrassing in some way.
Alright, there's news that the scientists have 3D printed a human heart.
That's right. Scientists have used a 3D printer to make a working, biologically human heart.
That's already happened.
Now, apparently it was a small one.
It was a little heart about the size of a rabbit heart, but it was human biological tissue and human design.
And they say there's no reason they couldn't make a bigger one.
But they didn't need to for the test.
So... Think about...
Think about climate change.
Think about the fact that we're worrying about what will happen to us in 100 years.
Can we really predict what 100 years looks like?
Because in 100 years, we're going to be able to 3D print people We'll be able to manipulate DNA. Let's say that we think the world is going to be much hotter.
Do you think we could just change people's DNA so that they don't get sunburns and they don't mind the heat?
Probably. We'll probably be able to change people's DNA and just reprint them.
Not reprint them, but probably be able to alter people so that the environment doesn't affect them as much.
It does seem possible that you could change somebody's genes to the point where they were less susceptible to sunburns.
That seems like it'd be easy.
All right, I'm just looking at your comments here.
Yeah, I don't know that we'll ever be able to 3D print brains.
But if you go out a hundred years, well, maybe we can 3D print brains.
Because who was the futurist?
It was Kurzweil.
And years and years ago, he made this prediction.
He said that the technology for scanners is getting better and better.
So our ability to do an MRI and to scan people's body parts, if it just continues improving, You'll be able to scan the living brain at the level that you could reproduce it.
Because you could scan it perfectly.
You would know all the parts.
Now, if you could scan a living brain and you could scan it at a detail where you could see all of it.
I mean, you could just see everything in there.
The exact architecture.
And you have a 3D printer that could reprint that same architecture in detail with human tissue.
I don't know. Can you reproduce a brain?
Because it seems like it's almost transporter technology, isn't it?
You know, one of the things about Star Trek with the transporters is when the first person disappears in the transporter and then allegedly that same person appears somewhere else, is it really the same person?
Is it? Because it seems to me that the first person just disappeared.
The second person is sort of a new person, just happens to be identical to the first one.
So will we care if we ever got that technology where you could scan me where I am, and then when the 3D printer, let's say it's faster, just a faster 3D printer, could I have a 3D printer reprint me on another planet?
And then kill the Earth copy.
You wouldn't have to kill it.
You could keep it alive. But couldn't I be transported to another planet in a distant galaxy as long as I could send bits?
I'd have to have a 3D printer there.
But I could scan me on this planet, send the signal to the far galaxy, and reprint myself living in another planet.
All right. You lose quality with every copy.
That's probably true. That's all I got for today.
Anybody have any questions? What time is it?
It's time for questions.
I will look at your comments for a moment here.
That was the plot in The Prestige, was it?
Oh, let's talk about Star Trek Discovery.
If you're a fan of the Star Treks, as I am, I've watched every Star Trek series.
I've liked most of them, except Deep Space Nine, which was a disaster.
But there's a new Star Trek on CBS All Access Pass or something.
You have to pay for it.
But I like it the best.
The current Star Trek is really, really good.
The first season of it...
Showed great potential, but seemed a little confused.
By the second season, it's really good.
And I'm seeing people say no.
If you didn't like the first season, I could understand why.
It seemed a little confused, but I still loved it.
The second season is tight.
It's the best of all the Star Treks, as far as I can tell.
Best actors. And here's the reason why.
I would say that the...
Top three or so actors on Star Trek Discovery are three of the best just actors that you've seen in the Star Trek universe.
All right. Anybody else have a question?
▲
Export Selection