All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 8, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
49:18
Episode 718 Scott Adams: China, Bloomberg, Bad Communicators, My #Loserthink Book Tour
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, come on in!
It's another early, early coffee with Scott Adams.
I'm in a different time zone.
Jordy, you're awake all the time.
Brian, how's it going?
Kevin? It's good to see all the regulars.
Well, come on in here, because you know it's coming.
I think you do. You know it's coming.
It's a little thing called the simultaneous sip, the best part of your day, and you don't need much to participate.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, stein, chalice, canteen, shot glass, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure Of the simultaneous sip.
The thing that makes everything better.
Ready?
Go.
Oh, so good.
Somebody says on here, I'm too drunk to sleep.
Well, you came to the right place, my friend.
Too drunk to sleep is exactly where you want to be.
Is there anybody on here named Bill?
Anybody named it Bill?
Because if you are, you can just screenshot this and you'll have an autograph for your book.
I just did that for somebody on Twitter.
And maybe I'll do some more.
So, I'm still on my book tour.
Guess how many interviews I did yesterday.
Just yesterday. Take a guess.
What? What?
I can't hear you. Okay, Periscope doesn't work that way.
25. I did 25 interviews yesterday.
And... Do you think I'm tired?
A little bit. I got more today.
Today I will be, if all goes well, these things change sometimes, but I should be on Dana Perino's show on Fox News today.
Depending on your time zone, you can find it.
And I'll be getting ready to tape the Greg Galtfeld show.
So I'll be on that. That appears on Saturday.
And then someday, I'll be able to get home.
Oh, some of your guesses are good.
I'm seeing your delayed guesses here.
Somebody guessed 26, 25, 20.
Those are really good guesses.
That's pretty good.
Pretty good. Pretty good.
Pretty, pretty good.
That's Larry David saying, but I stole it.
Pretty, pretty good.
Alright, let's talk about some stuff.
You ready? So apparently Bernie has released his comprehensive immigration platform.
So Bernie apparently does not want to be the President of the United States.
Every once in a while, one of the Democrats will do something where you say to yourself, huh, it looks like they're running to not be presidents.
So mere days after the cartels who own the border between Mexico and the United States, they gunned down women and children in a convoy, Americans.
And right after that, while still fresh in the news, it's still being reported on, Bernie releases his comprehensive immigration platform.
And here are some of the highlights.
He wants to dismantle ICE and CBP. Which means if you can get in, I guess you get to stay.
He wants to decriminalize illegal immigration.
Might as well give it a shot.
If you thought maybe you couldn't get in before, well, might as well give it a shot.
There's no penalty. Stop all deportations.
So, even if you came in yesterday and murdered somebody, you're good to stay.
Except 50,000, quote, climate migrants in the first year, and much, much more.
So, are there really climate migrants that we can identify?
Does science really say that?
It might. So I don't want to be a science denier here.
So I know science says climate change is already changing things.
So in that much, Bernie would be compatible with science.
But is science so sure that any particular area of the Earth got worse recently because of it?
They might be.
It's possible that science is sure.
But that feels like something science couldn't be sure about.
It seems, you know, it's a lot more believable if they say, well, we think the average of the planet is changing over time, and we think we know why.
That feels like something I can believe they would understand.
But do they know that Iowa is getting hit especially hard, but Nebraska is fine?
I just don't know that that's a real thing, or at least I don't know that science would go as far as Bernie is in identifying specific places that the climate is definitely the culprit, as opposed to any other thing.
Keep in mind, here's one thing I love to remind people of, especially if they're new to the climate topic.
When we talk about rising sea levels, one of the big surprises, if you haven't already heard this, is that sea level does not rise everywhere in the same way.
You think, well, how's that possible?
If you drop something in the water, shouldn't it affect all the water?
If you add water to...
A gallon jug?
Is there anywhere on the surface of the water as you're adding it where the level is not going up?
So you say to yourself, that makes no sense.
How in the world could the sea level go up in one place and not go up in another?
Well, the answer is that the temperature of the ocean in that local area makes a big difference.
So if it's extra warm, let's say it's extra warm on the Atlantic side, the volume of the water would increase because it's warm.
So you can have a situation where the sea level goes up on one coast and your other coast...
Go down as if there's something happening with the land ocean situation.
so the land itself can go up and down.
Somebody says, could it be that the world is tilted?
Yeah.
Well, the world is tilted, but I don't think science is going to back you on the tilted world hypothesis.
Anyway, so mere days after the cartel is shown to be a lawless A lawless, essentially a terrorist force on our border, Bernie decides to run for president by saying, just let everybody in.
Let everybody in.
Essentially. Because if you decriminalize and you don't deport and you don't build any more barrier stuff, you're basically saying everybody can come in.
I'll drink to that.
I'll drink to that being Bernie's plan.
I'm not drinking to doing that.
All right. Somebody says, can I ask you something?
I'm not going to stop you. You've got a comment.
Go ahead and ask me something.
I might not see it. So you see Elizabeth Warren with these plans for her health care and taxing that even the Democrats say, that looks like you're not even trying.
Because there's no way you can become president with those policies.
And now Bernie has joined the crowd of an explicit policy that isn't even slightly, not even slightly likely to get him elected.
There's just no chance.
Now, Kamala Harris did a new little campaign ad Which I believe the total cost of her ad was zero.
She put zero dollars into it.
It looks like somebody just filmed her with a camera on a tripod.
Looking at a computer and laughing and mocking clips of President Trump.
Wow, was it a bad look.
Now, I'm not saying anything about what her commentary was or what the president said or whether it was worthy of...
Of criticism or not, it doesn't even matter.
Just the mere fact that she ran a campaign ad with her little headphones on sitting in front of a laptop and just making faces.
And that was her campaign ad.
Yeah, and she said ridiculously general things like, He's sold down our values.
He's sold down our values.
Let me do a little poll here.
Kamala Harris says that President Trump's sold down our values.
Did you feel any change?
Because I feel as though my values are pretty much the same.
Pete Tripod Westfeld.
But it feels like my values are the same.
Has anybody changed their values?
Who bought them?
Who bought our values?
So he says, yes.
Come on, Art. You have to be the contrarian.
So exactly what does that mean?
When Trump is no longer the president, Won't the new president have a set of values?
It doesn't even mean anything.
If the best you can do is somebody sold out our values, and you can't explain how that hurt anything, does that mean we can't negotiate with China anymore?
What does that mean?
Does it mean we can't travel overseas?
Did my taxes go up?
What exactly happened with my values?
Now, I certainly understand that people can disagree on specific policies.
But he sold out on our values?
That just doesn't mean anything.
All right. The rumor is that Mike Bloomberg has not decided whether or not he will get in the race.
So Mike Bloomberg, billionaire, 77 years old.
Doesn't like soda, which might not be popular with most of the country.
They like their soda. So, I was on the Kennedy show on Fox Business last night, and I made a prediction to Kennedy.
She asked me about Bloomberg, and I said, there's no chance at all that Bloomberg would enter the race.
He's 77, and And if he's not sure by now, it means he's not going to be much more sure in a week from now or a month from now, right?
In order to jump in the race late, spend a billion dollars, you'd have to really know that's what you wanted to do.
If you've been ambivalent up to now, Does he really want to be president?
So the entrance of Bloomberg into the race would have the effect of, first of all, adding another ancient white guy to the mix.
Is that what they need?
Are the Democrats saying, you know...
I'm trying to imagine the meeting of Democrats, you know, the Democratic Party, let's say.
At the meeting of the Democratic Party, are they saying, you know, what we need...
We need a really old white billionaire.
Because that, if we put a really old white billionaire on our ticket, that's going to excite the base.
That gets the base out.
What is anybody thinking?
So here's the thing. You've heard the old joke from Groucho Marx.
I think somebody said it came from somebody else before Groucho, but I'm not sure about that.
But the saying is that I wouldn't want to join a club that would have somebody like me as a member.
It's a famous saying.
And there's something like that with Bloomberg.
Let me give it to you this way.
If Bloomberg did get into this race now, that would be proof he's not qualified to be president.
Am I right?
Because what could be better evidence of bad judgment...
Mike Bloomberg getting in the race now.
Now, I think if he'd been in the race from the beginning, or he'd been in the race when he was younger, I thought he was actually a pretty strong, reasonable, middle ground kind of candidate with a lot of talents.
But if he were to jump into the race now, that would prove he's not competent, because it would be such an obviously dumb decision And couldn't possibly lead to something good.
Couldn't help the Democrats in any way, because he doesn't have a chance of winning.
And he would be just urinating all over the people who were already there, who put in the work.
I don't know what it would do to funding.
I guess he would fund it himself, so maybe that wouldn't matter.
Oh, did somebody on CNBC make the same point that if he gets in the race, it proves he's not capable to be president because it would be such a bad mistake?
I don't know if anybody else said it the way I said it.
All right. You may remember that in the past I have been skeptical Of the so-called Chinese killing of prisoners just for their organs to sell them.
And the part that I was doubting in particular, I was not doubting that they execute people and I was not doubting that they use the organs of the executed prisoners.
So that part, I figured, well, that's probably true.
I mean, that doesn't even sound that controversial, because if you're going to execute them anyway, you know, it's China, why not use the spare parts?
So that part was completely believable.
Because I was a little skeptical, this has attracted much new information to me.
And one of the things I say in my book, Loser Thinks, I say that if you want to know how to do something right, one of the fast ways to do it is to do it wrong in public.
If you do something wrong in public, it attracts all this good advice.
My God, you did it wrong.
You should have done it this way. Why didn't you look at this link?
I would have done it this way. Can I help you?
So this is a perfect example.
So I gave my opinion that it seemed ridiculous to imagine that the Chinese were systematically using the Falun Gong or the Uyghurs for spare parts and killing them just for parts.
In other words, they weren't going to die anyway.
They were killing them just for the parts.
And apparently you have to keep the body alive After the brain is dead in order to get a good transplant.
So the thought is that they were, you know, shooting them in the brain or killing them in some way that keeps the heart beating so that they can get the organs.
And I said, well, that's crazy.
There's no way they're doing that in some large systematic way.
Well, saying that in public attracted many sources of information.
And I would like to officially revise my opinion.
It looks pretty clear that there is a widespread Chinese program to eliminate at least the Falun Gong.
We don't know about the Uyghurs yet.
But apparently they are using them for parts.
And they are telling them, apparently there are lots of reports where the guards are actually telling the Falun Gong that they're going to use them for parts.
And they even x-ray them and test their blood.
And when they beat them, which they do, they torture them, they make sure that they don't hurt their organs.
And they actually say that.
And there are a number of reports from people who are actually in the Chinese jails.
Now, if we had a few reports, I would say, oh, I don't believe a few reports.
Because there's always someone who's willing to say, that country did some atrocity.
You can always get somebody to say that any country did an atrocity.
So a few people, I'm not going to buy that.
But apparently, statistically, it's impossible to have organs on demand unless you're killing people on demand.
There's just no physical, mathematical, practical way to have that many organs, and apparently you can go to China and just get yourself a kidney fresh off the corpse.
Well, I guess it's not a corpse.
So, I am now a convert.
I revised my opinion.
It does seem that China has gone full Nazi, full Hitler.
So China is now, I would say, equivalent.
You know, this is something that's really...
It's difficult to say this.
In fact, I just said the other day, you should never say this.
I'm going to say something now...
That I just said the other day, in public, one should never say this, and now I'm going to say it.
It's as bad as the Holocaust.
Now what I said the other day was, one should never compare anything to either the Holocaust, Or to American slavery.
Because there's really...
They just stand alone.
They're just... They're kind of a special kind of evil.
And comparing anything to them tends to diminish them because the thing you compare to them tends to be smaller.
Is this smaller?
Do you know how many Falun Gong there are in China?
The Holocaust was what?
Six million? Six million?
They're going to beat that number.
They are going to beat that number.
Because they're way more Falun Gong, right?
If I'm saying it right. Somebody give me a number in there.
Well, hold on a second.
I will Google this.
How many Falun Gong?
How many...
How do you spell that?
Falun Gong in China.
Somebody will probably say it in the comments.
Let's see.
Other sources have estimated the Falun Gong population in China to have peaked between 10 and 70 million practitioners.
It's between 10 and 70 million practitioners.
And China is using them for parts.
I think that's just a fact.
I don't know.
So, you know, the thing I said the other day is like, well, there's never going to be anything like the Holocaust, so stop comparing things to it.
If you just go by the numbers, China's going to go for the record.
And that seems pretty clear right now.
Now, the thing that blows my mind about this Is that the Falun Gong thing, which I don't fully understand, is more like a practice than a religion.
There's some kind of a spiritual component to it, but it's more like a lifestyle, self-improvement sort of thing I don't quite understand.
It has something to do with exercises that improve your energy or something like that.
I'm going to have to look into it.
But, apparently, if you get picked up for being a practitioner, all you really need to do is sign a document that says you renounce it.
And then you're good. And the people who are jailed and beaten don't want to sign the document that says, oh, I renounce this.
Now, if you were going to be beaten and then used for parts, and all you had to do was sign a document that says, oh, I renounce my yoga, Wouldn't you do it?
So there's some part of this I don't quite understand.
I don't see why people are so insistent on dying for a self-help process.
So clearly there's something I don't understand about what the Falun Gong people are getting out of the whole thing.
All right. I have to give you an update on Yeah, I know they're treated as a cult, so maybe the idea is that there's so many of them that they could be organized or something, I suppose.
But they can still organize after they sign the piece of paper.
You can still sign the piece of paper and then just go off and do it in your home while nobody's looking.
So I'm going to give you an update on a weird little story that I'm not even sure I understand.
So, some time ago, I often thought that Nassim Taleb, who most of you have heard the name, was one of the smartest guys around.
He wrote The Black Swan, which is sort of a brain-breaking idea, and totally accurate and good.
It was a huge bestseller.
And he says lots of other smart stuff.
But he and I had a little disagreement online, along with some other people on Twitter, and I ended up just blocking him for being a dick, right?
So I didn't block him for being wrong.
I just blocked him for being a gigantic dickhead.
Now, I'm pretty sure even his friends would agree.
He has that kind of personality.
And I think you could ask his family, you know, I blocked Nassim for being a dickhead.
What do you think of that? I don't know if he has siblings, but I think they'd say, oh, I did that too.
He is kind of a dickhead.
I'm not even sure he would...
I don't even know if he would deny it.
He's pretty out there in his jerkiness.
So it's just a preference.
Let's call it a lifestyle preference to be sort of aggressive online and unpleasant.
Yeah, I'm sure he knows it because he's smart.
So here's the disagreement that he and I got into.
And I want to just run this by you to see if I'm nuts.
I think the question was climate change, and the setup was this, that some data was collected, some projection models were created, and then the people who did the models went back, And they said, oh, we've got some errors in our data, we believe, and we think we can correct it this way.
And when they corrected it, they got a curve that was more in line with what they expected and more in line with other people's models.
Now, several people, including Taleb, said, oh, you can't do that.
You can't go back after you've done your prediction and after you've done your model...
You can't go back and change the data.
So I said, there's no situation in which it's a bad idea to turn your bad data into good data.
And for that, Talib, I think it was after I'd blocked him, but somebody showed it to me.
Talib told this little story about the shoemaker.
Apparently there's some story of a shoemaker who saw a famous master of paintings painting And track down the master painter.
And the shoemaker said, you know, that the part where you have the shoe in your painting is wrong.
You know, that a shoe doesn't quite look like that.
And the master painter listened to the shoemaker and looked at the shoe he'd painted and said, oh, good point.
He changes the shoe.
And then the shoemaker goes on and starts noting some other things that could be improved.
It's like, well, this part of the painting, you know, this tree or whatever.
And then the master painter quipped, and this is the point of the story, shoemaker, stick with shoemaking.
So in other words, the master painter was saying, I'll listen to you when you're talking about shoes, but that's sort of where your expertise ends.
Don't tell me how to paint.
But I don't mind if you tell me what a shoe looks like.
The point of the story was that people like me who are unqualified in statistical scientific fields, and of course I am, I'm completely unqualified, should not have an opinion that is respected.
When talking to people who are experts.
If we disagree, we should just understand that we're talking to experts and our disagreement is unworthy.
That's not really the problem.
The problem here was I asked for an explanation of why it makes sense to not correct data if you know it's wrong.
Now, he couldn't explain it.
He just sort of went ad hominem and said, basically, in essence, he said, idiots like me can't understand this field, and so I should stay out of it.
Now, some other folks who I know to be very smart and rational, maybe even some watching this Periscope right now, people I've been following for a while who, when they weigh in on the issue, almost always they weigh in with good data and good reasoning.
And they were backing Taleb.
And I would say to them the same thing.
How can it ever be a mistake in science To fix bad data.
Like, explain it to me.
And when they try to explain, it just comes out as weird word salad that I read and I go, that doesn't even seem like an explanation.
It's not even something I can agree with or disagree with.
It just doesn't make any sense.
But here's the best I can come up with.
Is that when I was saying, if you know your data is bad and you know what it should be, It can never be wrong to turn bad data into good data.
Here's what I think they were trying to say, but were so bad at communicating that they could never actually say it.
I was trying to prompt them to say it right, because I thought I knew maybe what they were getting at, but they weren't saying it.
Here's what I think.
So it's my best guess.
Of what the people who are smarter than me were saying.
And it goes like this. You have some data, you do your model, and the model doesn't give you what you want.
If you go back and adjust the data so that you can get the model you want, well, that's not science.
I agree with that.
I completely agree with that.
That's not my question.
The question was, if you knew it was wrong, and you knew what was right, can it ever be a mistake to fix it?
And so I, just an hour ago, I gave this example.
Let's say you had the document from the original measurements.
So you've got the actual, let's say you took a picture of the thermometer.
This is just a hypothetical. You took a picture of it.
And it said the temperature is 92 degrees.
Then you check the database that you use for your model, and you see that somebody put a typo in there, and they changed it to 29.
They just reversed it.
Now you've got the original, so you know what the original data was, and you can see that it was just transcribed wrong.
It's obvious. Under that situation, would it be incorrect...
To change your database to what you know is right, it's obviously just a typo.
I say there's no situation in which that's a mistake in science.
The people who were arguing with me were changing the situation to you've got some data that's maybe wrong or maybe right, and you've replaced it with other data that might be wrong and it might be right, but you don't really know.
Well, of course that would be a mistake.
You don't have to be a scientist to understand that if you don't know you're fixing the data, it's a mistake.
But the example was that you know.
That you know it's wrong, right?
Now, you could argue any given situation, whether you knew in that case or not.
I think the situations were things such as there were some measuring stations that had been in secluded areas, but then somebody built an airport next to it, which warms up everything because of the concrete.
So now you know that these thermometers are running hot compared to the other ones in the area.
Is it a mistake that Once you know for sure why they're running hot, I mean, there's not much doubt about it, is it a mistake to take them out of the mix or to adjust them so that they're compatible with the thermometers that have not been affected?
It doesn't look like a mistake to me, but hey, shoemaker, stick to shoes.
Somebody mentioned some other topics here.
Did you all see the Don Jr.
mix-up on The View? That was just sort of fun.
I don't have much to say about it.
But the fact that Joy Behar, I think Don Jr.
mentioned this, that Joy Behar actually has a photograph, which he's invented.
She even showed it on The View.
Or somebody showed her an interview of her when she was, I don't know, 30 years old or something, wearing a costume that she called a beautiful African woman.
And, you know, it's just hard to criticize anybody when you've got that in your portfolio.
Yeah.
So, uh, they didn't ask about his book.
Oh, on the view.
Well, I just like the fact that putting Don Jr.
on The View is sort of like a cage fight where you can't look away.
Actually, I like putting Don Jr.
in any situation because he's got the same gift that his father does, which is he doesn't know how to be uninteresting.
I don't think Don Jr.
could be boring. You know, if you gave him a script and said, oh, read this and try to be boring, I don't know if he could pull it off.
Like his dad, he's just interesting all the time, whether you like him or not.
not.
He's just always interesting.
So there was another issue So there's some issue about, what is it, the Ukrainian diplomat who...
Might have perjured herself because there's some document that showed she knew something, blah, blah, blah.
How many people in the United States are actually following this whole Ukraine letter situation?
Not many. I try to.
Because I do these periscopes and I'm going to be on news programs because of the book, I try to follow this topic.
But it's so complicated in a way that's not worth, you know, it's complicated, but it's not worth understanding.
You know, if it were worth understanding, I'd say, all right, put a little effort into this.
Okay, who's this player?
When did they do this? Who lied?
But it's not worth it.
Because in the end, it's still going to be the president was asking some questions that the public wanted to know too.
Do you get impeached for that?
If there's no crime?
And no crime is really even alleged by anybody who knows what they're talking about.
Let's see.
I'm just looking at your comments.
And Yes, I will be on Dana Perino's show today, but I can never guarantee that because the way things work is, just FYI, that the TV business doesn't register time the way regular people do.
In TV time, five seconds is a long time.
And the fact that I'm scheduled for any show, it doesn't matter if it's Dana's show or any other show, the fact that I'm scheduled for a show that same day actually doesn't mean much.
If it's the new show, just anything can change.
So I think I've had several hits already rescheduled.
Yes, Art, I will be on Michael Smirconish's show Saturday morning.
Or at least I'm going in to record it.
I think it's running live Saturday.
I think it's live.
So Smirconish on CNN, I think he puts the most effort, I think, Into making sure that different sides are represented in a fairly, you know, even way.
So I always respect Smurkanish for having someone like me on his show, because, you know, he has to know his fans don't love it.
You know, the people watching CNN, they cannot be delighted to see me as a guest.
So that's why I always appreciate the fact that he invited me on.
This is the second time I've been on, and I think I do something with radio with him once.
I always appreciate it because I know he does it for educating his audience and not because they're going to like it.
It's, you know, and that's sort of rare.
Matt Taibbi's followers say he's turned to the dark side.
Well, Matt is one of those people who can see the whole field.
There aren't many of them.
There's a Viva Frey interview with Mike Cernovich.
Somebody send me a link to that.
I would definitely watch that.
Yeah, we talked about the Kamala Harris video.
Literally the worst campaigner in the history of the earth.
Let me say, I don't think there's any chance at this point that Kamala Harris can get the nomination.
If I had to bet today, if I had to bet today, probably Buttigieg.
But the thing I can't tell...
The thing I can't tell is if the Democrats are serious about winning.
Can you? Because they don't act like a side that wants to win, do they?
They literally don't act like they want to win.
Because they're not doing things that obviously would be good to win.
Now, I assume that people said the same thing about Trump, right?
Because I didn't understand his method, I guess.
But But it looks like they're not trying to win this time.
It looks like they're floating ideas, maybe moving the public's opinion, maybe getting ready for next time in some cases.
It doesn't look like they're trying to win as a party.
So I would say that Buttigieg is the, I think he's polling fourth in some polls.
And the three that are above him just don't have any chance.
I think Buttigieg could put up the best fight.
He's the closest to somebody who an independent could like.
And let's be honest, he might peel off some gay Republicans.
There may be gay Republicans who say, you know, I wouldn't normally, but wouldn't it be great To, you know, have a gay president for a while.
So, and by the way, I don't begrudge anybody who thinks like that.
I don't begrudge the black population of the United States who said, it's time for a black president.
Because it was kind of time for a black president.
Maybe it's time for an LGBTQ president.
And I'd be happy if we had one, because it's the sort of thing you only have to do once.
The fact that Obama existed doesn't make it some kind of necessity that the next president is also black or also anything else.
We've shown that that's a perfectly practical thing that the country can be okay with, and not just okay.
I mean, he won pretty comfortably.
Yeah. Likewise, it would be good to get a few other categories done.
Yeah, it would be great to finally have a woman president, great to have a gay president, great to have a Hispanic president, etc., etc.
Didn't mean to leave anybody else.
All right. Somebody says the Democrats could win if they promised to do everything that Trump promised but be nicer about it.
True. It's true.
If you had a Democrat who said, yeah, I'm going to be tough on China too, and I'll talk to Kim Jong-un, and I won't change your taxes, and we want health care, but we'll do it by lowering costs or something.
Yeah, that'd be pretty strong.
Somebody says, Now, making sure that you've had presidents who represent the people in the country without leaving anybody out, I think it's closer to our national identity than it is to affirmative action. I think it's closer to our national identity than it I wouldn't label it affirmative action.
I would say it would be more a direct expression of Of what the United States is, not just demographically.
But who we are is a country that can do that.
It's almost like showing off.
We're a country who can do that.
You can come to this country, and as long as you obey the laws, and you think the Constitution is a pretty good deal, you could be president.
Everything else doesn't matter.
That's what makes the United States the United States and not something else.
Did you hear about Rogan's interview with the guy who posed as a drug dealer and went to China?
Oh, thank you for reminding me.
So I haven't watched the interview, but I can already...
There are some things you don't have to watch to know what it's going to say.
You also have the news that some fentanyl dealers were sentenced to death or life imprisonment.
There were nine of them in China.
Now, smart people are saying it doesn't mean anything.
It's just window dressing.
China will still send us just as much fentanyl, if not more, but they'll pretend they jailed some people so they can get a trade deal.
What do you think?
Do you think China decided, oh yeah, we're going to stop that fentanyl?
Or do you think China said, let's act like we did something and just check that box so we can get a trade deal, and then we'll just go back to doing what we were doing?
Which one do you think it is?
Duh! So I forget the name of the guy who's the top fentanyl dealer, but the United States has identified him, officially identified him in documents as the guy who's the biggest fentanyl dealer.
And I don't think it was that guy that got taken down.
Now, it could be that the ones who were taken down was based on the United States putting together a case against these people, and then China followed up and, I guess, maybe worked with the United States and got the conviction.
So it could be that the top fentanyl guy just didn't leave enough fingerprints.
So maybe we're building a case or can't build a case or something.
But here's the thing.
China knows who this guy is, and it's China.
If they want to stop fentanyl, they stop that guy.
They know where he lives.
They know his name.
They know he's the top fentanyl dealer in their country.
If he's still walking around, China's not doing anything about fentanyl.
So my current opinion is too little too late, and I say no trade deal.
I do not support a trade deal.
I don't care how close we get.
The fentanyl stuff, it's not real.
Am I booked on Bill Maher?
I am not. First interview today is with the Babylon Bee.
Oh, I bet I'm doing an AMA on Reddit.
So that's coming up today.
I've got to get ready for those things.
What time is it? Oh yeah, I've got to go get ready for the first interview.
So do you follow the Babylon Bee?
It's sort of a satire, sort of like the onion except political stuff.
It's really the funniest thing on the internet.
So I follow them and retweet them quite often.
So I got their attention and they want to talk to me for their podcast.
But anyway, I'm doing an AMA today.
And let's see.
This is the...
They make you hold up a little sign to make sure that you're a real person when you do an AMA on Reddit.
So this is the little sign I held up.
These times are Eastern Time.
So adjust accordingly.
Eastern Standard Time today.
So if you're on Reddit, you can come ask me some questions.
And I'll be sitting right here where I am right now typing my answers.
All right. Let's see.
Looking at your comments.
I don't know if I'm booked for Adam Carolla.
I might be. I know that we were trying to do that.
I've got an L.A. trip this coming week, so I'll do L.A. Periscope, the AMAs.
Maybe. I don't know.
That would be boring to watch.
So the only CNN... Oh, speaking of Jake Tapper.
So somebody asked me about Jake Tapper.
I'm not appearing on his program, but the auction for the art that I wrote and Jake Tapper drew as a guest cartoonist is going on auction now at Homes for Art Troops.
So if you just Google Homes for Art Troops, you'll see somewhere on the page information on how to be part of the Part of that.
So they're framed.
I framed them myself, meaning I carried them to the store and had somebody frame them, carried them back, mailed them.
So they're signed by me, they're signed by Jake, and they're nice framed that shows the original art, that's part of it, and then the art that actually ended up in the newspaper, so you can see the difference.
It's called Homes for Our Troops.
If you just Google the whole phrase, their website will pop right up.
Homes for Our Troops.
So it's for the veterans, of course.
And what they do is they build...
They find housing...
For the most badly disabled veterans.
So a very worthy group.
It's one that Jake always supports, and we've done this before.
Christina and I will not be appearing on The View.
▲
Export Selection