Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 30, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:16:28

Episode 1075 Scott Adams: So Much News to Talk About! This Will be the Best Periscope EVER!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Pum pum pum pum pum pum Pum pum pum pum pum Pum pum pum pum pum Pum pum pum pum pum Pum pum pum pum Pum pum pum pum pum Clap Good morning everybody!
	Come on in. Come on in.
	This will be the best coffee with Scott Adams ever.
	And I'm talking about, since the beginning of time, 15 billion years since the start of the universe, and this will be the best one.
	That's right. Well, some of you know that I had surgery yesterday, and while I would not normally talk about my health conditions on Periscope, I feel I need to because I've been sharing this with you and you all had to suffer through my sniffling and my complaining.
	And I thank you for it.
	So number one, thank you.
	Thank you for putting up with my blowing my nose on camera pretty much every time.
	Thank you for the nasal sounds that you put up with.
	I really appreciate it.
	I mean that. Secondly, yesterday was one of the best frickin' days of my whole life, I gotta say.
	Which sounds weird, right?
	Because I was literally in surgery.
	So yesterday, around noon or so, got pulled into surgery for these polyps I have in my sinus, which if you imagine your sinuses are like caves, the polyps would be like the stalactites, except more bulbous.
	And if you have enough of them, and I guess they're just genetic, some people get them, some people don't, it blocks up your sinuses, you lose your Your taste, you can lose your hearing temporarily, and you become stuffed up and you can't breathe and all that.
	So anyway, I had them taken care of.
	I got in my head and snipped them out, bandaged it up.
	I thought that when I woke up, because I was under general anesthesia, I thought when I woke up I wouldn't be able to breathe through my nose, because it would be all packed with gauze and stuff up in my sinuses.
	But the doctor was very impressed with how bad I was, meaning that there were so many polyps in my sinuses, it was some kind of a world record, I guess, according to me, That when he removed them, even adding in the bandages and even accounting for the swelling, I can breathe better than I can ever breathe in my life.
	Breathing through my nose the day after surgery.
	So, that was exciting.
	But I gotta tell you what was great about the whole day.
	Number one, I've been socially isolating for forever, right?
	And I had to do two serious weeks of really bad social isolation, meaning as a newlywed, I did not even touch my bride for two weeks.
	So I was a little bit starved For human contact of any kind.
	And I'm being completely serious.
	So being fussed over by doctors and nurses, and it's a whole team coming in and out, and they're adjusting things, and they're poking you with things.
	And even though every single thing they did hurt, like even when they put the tape on, they tape it so it hurts, and they put the needle in and it hurts a little bit.
	Well, almost everything they did hurt a little bit.
	But I was so excited to be around human beings within...
	Within touching distance.
	And of course, they were all dressed like beekeepers, right?
	I mean, they had the full protective gear on.
	There's not one of those people I would recognize if I saw them today.
	If I saw them today, I only saw their eyes the whole time.
	But they were very nice, very professional.
	So anyway, then they fill you up with fentanyl, and they wheel you in.
	I, of course, don't remember any of that.
	I woke up, not knowing who I was or where I was.
	But I can breathe. And if this works, meaning that if I recover and it's still as good as it is now, this is such a life-changing event for me because I've actually never been able to breathe through my nose.
	Not as a child, not at any time.
	I had a deviated septum.
	I fixed that. It didn't help.
	I had allergies. I thought that was a problem.
	Couldn't get those under control.
	But this This actually just bulldozed the highway, so we should work.
	Now, it's not permanent, so I might have to do it again someday in 10 years or something.
	But at the moment, I could not be happier.
	I got home, and Christina had waited for me the entire time, and she was taking care of me when I got home, because you can't You can't do too much.
	You don't want to drive or do anything that would include lifting or thinking.
	So then Christina fusses over me in a good way, you know, taking care of me.
	And I just had a really good day.
	And the whole time that I was in the hospital, it was such a newsy day.
	There was so much news, and surgery was delayed a while.
	So I was just on my phone, you know, tweeting and looking at the news and doing exactly what I would have done, except when it was in a really comfortable bed with this warm blanket on and people being nice to me.
	And I was like, this is way better than being home.
	This is way better than social isolation.
	And so I just had a terrific day.
	It was so good that...
	Last night, Christina was making sure that I was still cognizant enough to take the right meds at the right time.
	And she was suggesting that I take the Tylenol, whatever it is, the one with codeine, that knocks you out.
	She said, well, take that one around bedtime.
	That'll just knock you right out.
	20 minutes, you'll be gone.
	So I'm like, perfect.
	20 minutes. I'm going to be sound asleep.
	Well, I'm still waiting.
	So I've been up for 24 hours straight.
	I haven't even been close to sleep because I'm just not even a little bit tired.
	Now I think part of it is because I slept all afternoon during surgery.
	And I've never heard of this.
	I don't know, do you actually get a good rest when you're in surgery?
	I don't know. But anyway, I don't have any pain today.
	I can breathe for the first time in my life.
	I don't have my sense of smell back.
	I understand that might come around slowly.
	But I could not be happier today.
	I just wanted to share it with you and also thank you for putting up with it.
	I think my voice will change.
	I don't know how.
	Maybe you can hear it already.
	Alright, let's talk about some other things.
	Enough about me. There's so much news.
	Look at this. Look at that.
	So much news. Let me read you some Tweets that I thought were extra clever.
	This one from Twitter user Cambree at at K-A-M-V-T-V. This is one of the most clever tweets I've seen in a long time.
	I don't know if she got it from somebody.
	I think she made it up, but it's great.
	And it goes like this. I remember when the news used to tell us what happened, and we had to decide what to think about it.
	Now the news tells us how to think about something, and then we have to decide if it happened.
	That's true, isn't it?
	It used to be they tell you the facts, and then you decide what you thought about it.
	Now they tell you what to think, and you're not sure if those facts actually happened.
	This is a really clever tweet, so kudos to Cambry.
	I tweeted yesterday that Trump had one of the best tweets Tweets of his entire tweeting life, and I was going to tell you what I liked about it.
	So here's the tweet from Trump, and then I'll break it down for you.
	He said, Germany pays Russia billions of dollars a year for energy, and we are supposed to protect Germany from Russia?
	What's that all about?
	Also, Germany is very delinquent, and they're 2% feet of NATO. We are therefore moving some troops out of Germany.
	So the point of the tweet is to announce that he's moving some but not all troops out of Germany.
	But the first part of the tweet is really good.
	Just in terms of engineering, you know, a tweet.
	And let me tell you why. If you were to try to describe to somebody in a long form what the situation is, it would take you a number of sentences.
	Maybe a paragraph or so.
	You know, like why is it That we care that Germany is buying any of its energy from Russia.
	Because you'd have to understand that that would give them a security susceptibility, because Russia could just turn off the energy.
	At the same time that Germany is part of NATO, which is supposed to be protecting all of our countries in NATO against Russia, Germany is making themselves especially vulnerable to Russia.
	Now, it takes a little while to explain it because there are several moving parts.
	So the way Trump does it, and you've seen this technique, I think, from me, from Mike Cernovich, from other people who tend to get a lot of retweets, and he does it with a question.
	So by putting a question in a tweet, it turbocharges it.
	You'll see a lot of us do that who know how to do this sort of thing.
	So let me read it again so you can see how cleverly he takes a complicated thing, compacts it into just the first part of a tweet, because he needed the rest of the tweet to explain what he was up to.
	So he compacts it into two sentences that are just about as perfect as you could write, these two sentences.
	First of all, it's direct sentences.
	Very direct. Look how quickly This sentence tells you what's happening.
	Did I forget the simultaneous sip?
	It's coming up after this. Look how directly he gets to it.
	Germany pays Russia billions.
	Boom! That is a simple, direct statement.
	Now you know what you're talking about.
	Germany pays Russia billions of dollars a year for energy.
	Perfect. And he says, and we are supposed to protect Germany from Russia?
	What's that all about?
	Now the what's that all about part is the magic of it.
	So the first part's perfect, because it's clean, it's direct, it's simple, which is hard to do.
	If you try to write a sentence that clean and that simple, it's a little harder than you think.
	I'll get to the sip in a moment.
	But the what's it all about is the magic part, because that's the part that invites you to figure it out.
	Like it's a little bit of a puzzle, but it's not enough of a puzzle that you're not going to be able to figure it out.
	So you have to spend some time on it.
	If you want somebody to really remember what you did, you have to make them spend time on it.
	You can't let them go zoop and on to the next thing.
	It won't be retained. So by putting it in the form of a question, what's that all about, you actually answer the question.
	Well, what is that all about?
	Oh, okay, I'm putting all the pieces together.
	All right, so that was his tweet.
	It was quite excellent.
	But I know you're here for the simultaneous sip, and it's coming up.
	It's coming up now. And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
	Fill it with your favorite liquid.
	I like coffee. And join me now for the dopamine hit of the day.
	The thing that makes everything better, including the coronavirus, the economy, racism, everything.
	Go. I feel my nasal polyps healing even as we sit here.
	Amazing, really. If you watched Tucker Carlson last night, and if you also follow Mike Cernovich on Twitter, you know that Tucker used Mike Cernovich's scoop about a memo that he got a hold of, a Republican memo, that has been characterized as Republicans deciding to go easy on the tech companies.
	Now, I think there's room for interpretation, but that was the essence of the story.
	And here's the part that bugs the hell out of me.
	As Mike Cernovich pointed out on Twitter, Tucker uses his scoop, which I didn't see anywhere else.
	I didn't see anybody else have that scoop, except from Mike.
	And he doesn't mention Mike Cernovich's name on the show as the person who came up with the scoop.
	Now, that is not standard.
	That's not standard behavior, I don't think.
	Or at least it shouldn't be.
	And I've got a real problem with that.
	Because the entire context of yesterday was the big media companies essentially censoring or, you know, what's the word, suppressing certain voices.
	And then Talker did it.
	That's literally what Talker did.
	He suppressed Mike Cernovich's voice by not giving him attention when it was clearly appropriate to do so, which would have been, you know, presumably good for Mike in whatever ways that attention is good for people who operate in the public and sell books and stuff.
	So that bothered me.
	I just wanted to point that out and give Mike a shout-out for that.
	And we'll talk more about that.
	In no particular order, If you're not following Undercover Huber on Twitter, you probably should.
	It's at John W. Huber, H-U-B-E-R. And he tweets this.
	And the reason that this got my attention is because the whole Russia collusion story was so complicated, and it already feels like it was 10 years ago, that as new information dribbles out, it's hard for your brain to Take these new dribbles and connect them with this complicated story that already feels 10 years old even though it isn't.
	And so you can sort of miss the big picture just in the details.
	And here's one that I missed.
	So ask yourself if you knew this.
	So Undercover Huber tweets, I'm not sure everyone had fully internalized yet, which is an understatement.
	I'm not sure everyone had fully internalized yet.
	The Steele's, meaning the Steele dossier, the Steele's primary sub-source was directly on his payroll.
	What? What?
	Payments were laundered through a front company, and the source was dependent on that income from Steele to maintain his work permit to live in the United States.
	What? Are you kidding me?
	How did I not know that?
	So... Oh, somebody's saying, if Cernovich got it, why couldn't Tucker have gotten it?
	Well, he could have. And then he might have mentioned where it came from.
	So he didn't mention where it came from in any event.
	And we're left assuming that.
	But if your criticism is that I can't know that for sure, that he didn't have some other source, that's true.
	I can't know that with 100% certainty.
	But, 90%?
	Alright. So, the fact that the Steele dossier and the whole Russia collusion thing was based on Steele getting information from his own employee, or basically a guy that he gives income to, it's just the worst situation.
	And I saw something about...
	Who was the head of the CIA there?
	What's his name? I can't remember his name.
	But he was writing the book, and then he didn't have access to his notes because he lost his security clearance.
	What was the ex-head of the CIA's name?
	Why am I blanking on that?
	Doesn't matter. So, I don't know how people don't go to jail for all this stuff.
	How do people not go to jail?
	No, it wasn't Clapper Brennan.
	So Brennan, I guess, is writing a book, but he doesn't have access to his own notes from the period when he was head of the CIA, because I guess Trump said he couldn't have them.
	Which is probably just spite, but it's funny.
	He had that coming.
	So, ESPN had a story about the NBA academies in China.
	Did you see that? So the NBA apparently started these academies where they would work with young Chinese basketball players to try to develop them, to try to get some superstars in China.
	Because if they could get some local Chinese superstars and import them to the NBA, then China would watch the NBA. So it was a good business move.
	But it turns out that...
	And this isn't funny, except that it's funny.
	I feel terrible laughing at this.
	I might have to wait until I'm not laughing anymore so I can say it.
	Apparently the local Chinese coaches who were part of the academy, so there would be some, I guess, American who would be the head, but then there would be the subsidiary coaches.
	And I guess the local Chinese coaches, if you don't do a good job, they hit you.
	They hit you. They'll punch them.
	They'll kick them and punch them.
	These Chinese basketball players are trying to play basketball and if they fumble the ball, the coach will come over and punch them.
	Here's the NBA. First of all, they get They get sort of a bad reputation just for being subservient to China in general.
	So they're already behind the ball, so to speak, being subservient to China, because that's obviously not a popular thing in America.
	But then to find out that they're running academies of child abuse in China just couldn't be more perfect.
	Anyway, by the way, if I start bleeding...
	Don't worry, because I'm supposed to be bleeding for another day or so.
	Anyway, so ESPN basically threw the NBA under a bus with a story about their NBA academies and the players getting abused.
	And there's nothing funny about anybody getting hit, but what's funny is just how awful this is.
	Imagine being the commissioner of the NBA. And you wake up one day and you're like, ah, let's see what's in the news.
	Check ESPN. ESPN. Uh-oh.
	Apparently, I'm the head of a child abuse ring.
	So that was probably a bad day for the commissioner.
	All right. You, of course, also have the tech CEOs being interviewed by Congress.
	Oh, my God. That was quite a thing.
	Now, I didn't see all of it, but I saw the important points.
	And here's the thing that's a real...
	There's something happening now.
	Let me just say this as a general comment.
	There's something happening with reality in the world now that people can know something is true, and that thing can be extraordinarily important, and we will act like it's not there.
	Have you seen that?
	It feels like there are all these stories of things we just act like are not there.
	For example, the Russia collusion thing was obviously a coup to overthrow the legally elected president of the United States.
	Why isn't that in the news every day?
	That feels like a big thing, right?
	So, here's the other thing that's a big thing.
	So yesterday, Matt Gaetz is interviewing or questioning the tech CEOs And he's talking to Google's CEO, Pinchai, if I'm saying it right.
	I hope I am. And he says to him that he had testified earlier in some prior hearing that they did not manually What would be the word?
	They did not manually mess with the search results.
	In other words, the algorithm was the algorithm, and Google said they didn't do anything to promote or suppress any political point of view, that sort of thing.
	So then Matt Gaetz challenges him on that and gets him to admit, the Google CEO, gets him to admit in direct language That they do, in fact, create these black lists, if you will, or lists, of people to suppress.
	And that they're doing it manually.
	So now he admits exactly that.
	Yes, it's a manual process, which we create a list of people that we're suppressing.
	And then Matt Gaetz says, so you admit you're manually creating a list Of people you're suppressing.
	And then he says, no.
	No. I'm like, okay.
	Let me put this in analogy form so you can see it better.
	Let's say it's not about technology at all.
	Let's say it's a Google CEO, did you murder a cat?
	And Pinchai says, no, I did not, did not murder a cat.
	Did you pick up a cat, strangle it, put it in a little wooden box, and bury it?
	Oh yeah, I did that.
	But you're saying you didn't murder a cat.
	No, I didn't murder a cat.
	Okay, okay, you didn't murder a cat But you took a live cat, you twisted his neck until it wasn't alive, you put it in a box and you buried it.
	That you did, right?
	Yeah, that's what I did.
	But you accused me of murdering a cat.
	No, that's murdering a cat.
	That's a cat. You murdered it.
	Just say it. You murder cats.
	I don't murder any cats.
	I don't know what you're talking about. I'll sometimes twist their necks, put them in a box, put them in the ground.
	I'm not murdered. Now, I think the way Pinchai was trying to lawyer his way in of the answer was by saying that, no, no, it's not manual.
	It goes through the algorithm.
	In other words, they manually create a list, and then the algorithm uses it.
	It wasn't him using it.
	It was the algorithm using it.
	Oh yeah, they created a manual list for the algorithm to use, But once the algorithm is using it, I mean, it's out of their hands, right?
	It was the most ridiculous lie I've ever seen in public.
	I mean, just completely ridiculous.
	And here's the example.
	So we just saw...
	Let me finish this.
	It gets better. So now we know that at least Google admits they are manually influencing search results, and therefore, obviously, Controlling elections.
	At least to the extent that they can suppress things and promote things.
	You know, for example, that Breitbart basically just got disappeared.
	And a number of other sites, pro-Trump sites, just got disappeared.
	Would that affect your election?
	Of course. Absolutely.
	So we have established yesterday, without any question, That the big tech companies, at least Google, that one, because he admitted it, is, and it's obvious, is influencing elections, and they don't plan to do anything about it, apparently.
	There was no sense of, oh yeah, we're going to change that, or nothing like that.
	Basically, he just acted like he was just going to keep doing it, simply by not saying he wasn't going to do it.
	So here's the punchline.
	So then, The CEOs were all asked if they thought that China was stealing intellectual property.
	And here's the fun part.
	Mark Zuckerberg said, absolutely, yes.
	Facebook does not operate in China.
	That's important, because they have a Chinese competitor.
	Is it WeChat or something? So Facebook doesn't make money from China.
	So Zuckerberg says, Yeah, totally.
	They're stealing IP. So then they go to the other three CEOs who make a lot of money in China.
	A lot of money.
	Tim Cook says, no.
	No, they haven't stolen anything from us.
	It took about five minutes for somebody on Twitter to tweet the story of an entire artificial Apple store in China that was a fake Apple store.
	Not only did they steal...
	You know, the IP, but they recreated it in a store, a whole store that looked just like an Apple store, but had a few differences, you could tell.
	It was the most ridiculous lie.
	Now, do you think there's any chance that China isn't trying to get into the Apple technology?
	The factories are in their country.
	The Apple factories are in China.
	Yes, China's getting into Apple stuff.
	Of course!
	And Tim Cook looks right at Congress and is like, I don't know anything about that.
	Nope. Then Jeff Bezos gives the weaseliest, but smart, let me say this, all four CEOs, geniuses, just brilliant people, right?
	So nothing I'm going to say would detract from the fact that these are really smart people.
	These are operating at the highest level, as opposed to the members of Congress like Simpson Brenner or whoever it was who looks like a monkey, basically, talking to these guys.
	So then Jeff Bezos gives his answers like, well, I've read reports, which is not answering the question about Amazon.
	It's simply saying, I read reports, because we've all read reports.
	And he got away with that. He got away with that answer.
	Well, I read some things. So that's why he's the richest guy in the world, because that was a pretty good answer.
	If you're trying to avoid answering, pretty good.
	So that was good.
	And then the more interesting one was Pinche, the CEO of Google, and he said no.
	He said no. But soon after, he corrected.
	I don't know how much time elapsed.
	It wasn't that much time. But later on, he made sure that he updated them and said, no, in 2009, Google was hacked by China and they stole some of our code.
	That's exactly what IP theft is.
	But he wasn't going to say it Apparently, until there was a published report, because apparently that had been in the news when it happened.
	So it would be hard to deny something that could be so easily Googled, right?
	I mean, you just have to use his own product.
	Well, is that true? Let's Google China hackers.
	Well, there it is, 2009.
	I guess you lied.
	So Google kind of had to correct that, because the report was out there in conflict.
	But if you see that the three CEOs who have the most financial interest in China all bowed to China, the one who didn't have a financial interest didn't.
	What can you conclude about that?
	Well, here's what I conclude.
	I conclude that the tech companies can't do anything that China would object to.
	Because if they did, it would be a pretty big problem.
	So, doesn't that mean If the tech companies are controlling our elections, and China has direct control of the tech companies, doesn't that make China in charge of our elections?
	Because it does. Now, you say to yourself, yeah, it's not that direct.
	Sure, China's pushing a little influence here and there, other people are pushing a little influence, but it probably all gets lost in the rounding, right?
	I don't know. Because, riddle me this, if Joe Biden were not running against Trump, could the tech companies be so pro-Biden and anti-Trump?
	Could they get away with it?
	Because is it a coincidence that the tech companies are universally supporting the most pro-China candidate running for president?
	It could be a coincidence.
	It could be a coincidence.
	But if it were not true, I think they would have to change something.
	In other words, if it were not conveniently, luckily true that Biden is pro-China and also a Democrat, so of course the tech companies are going to favor the Democrat, what if that were not the case?
	Would they have to make it the case?
	Would they have to get another candidate?
	I don't know. At this point, it's looking a lot like China runs the country.
	Now, what's the solution to that?
	Turnout. The only solution to that, because I think the foreign influences and every other influence, all the malign influences, even the cheating on whatever cheating there is with ballots, etc., voter suppression, all that, if you count all of that, some of it's going to wash out the other.
	But voter turnout is sort of the only thing that's going to protect the country.
	If you don't have massive, like, sort of historically high turnout, China gets to decide who the president is.
	That's it. If you don't have historically, like, super turnout, China's your daddy.
	Because that's the way it's going to go.
	So, there's that.
	You all know Seth MacFarlane from Family Guy and other great things.
	I wrote about him in my book, LoserThink, because he's a perfect example of LoserThink.
	And what I mean by that is not that he's unintelligent, because he's actually quite intelligent.
	He's very talented in a number of different areas.
	He can sing, he writes, he acts.
	Produces, directs, I don't know, does all kinds of stuff.
	So starting with Seth MacFarlane, very talented and has a really impressive talent stack.
	But what he doesn't have is experience in the fields where people make decisions.
	The fields such as economics, etc.
	And it comes through in his tweets, and I'll give you an example.
	He tweeted this today, or yesterday.
	God only knows what the Trump administration has to gain by completely blowing off all responsibility to formulate a strategy to contain the pandemic.
	One would think a responsible effort would help his chances in November.
	Instead, this, utterly deranged.
	So let me break it down for you.
	God only knows what the Trump administration has to gain by completely blowing off.
	So, this is a mind-reading thing, where he's trying to read their minds.
	That's not a thing. So as soon as you're into mind-reading mode, you've lost the scent of your argument.
	And he's acting like they haven't formulated a strategy.
	Now, I'm going to give you a lesson from LoserThink on my whiteboard about how to evaluate Trump's performance on the coronavirus.
	Because I think most of us would agree That if Trump is seen as doing a good job on the coronavirus by November, he'll get re-elected.
	If he is seen as doing a poor job, it's going to be harder.
	So did Trump do a good job?
	Or a bad job on coronavirus?
	And how would you decide that?
	Let me teach you. From my book, Loser Think.
	These are some of the things you would learn there.
	So I would say there are five things you should look at.
	You could compare them to the other president who was doing the same job at the same time.
	Oh wait, there wasn't one.
	Oh. So I guess you can't compare them to the other president who was president of the United States at the same time Who was making different decisions and got a different outcome.
	Because that person doesn't exist.
	But we imagine it does.
	And that's sort of the Seth MacFarlane method.
	He imagines a competent president and what that would look like.
	And then he looks at Trump and he says, man, you're not nearly as good as the imaginary one in my mind.
	That is loser think.
	Because the imaginary one doesn't exist.
	And you don't know what that person would do if they did exist.
	It is completely irrational to look at one person doing one thing in one case and saying, well, that's not as good as the other imaginary person would do.
	Now, there'll be some modifications to that we'll all get to.
	But in general, that's the starting point.
	Number two, you could compare the United States' performance to other countries.
	And if we were, say, in the top 20%, You'd say, pretty good.
	Probably something to do with leadership?
	Not necessarily, but probably, if you're in the top 20%.
	But here's the problem.
	All of our data is bad.
	Is Sweden doing really well or really bad?
	Get onto Twitter, spend five minutes looking at Sweden-related coronavirus arguments and data, and you will learn, we don't know what's going on there.
	We don't know what's going on in Sweden.
	We don't know what's going on anywhere, really.
	All of our data is bad.
	And, here's the bigger part.
	It's not over yet.
	Because it would be easier to wait to the end, wouldn't it?
	If you waited to the end, you could see, alright, we don't have to judge the outcome of the game at halftime, which wouldn't make sense, right?
	Because we're at halftime now.
	So, comparing to other countries at halftime, hmm...
	That's kind of dicey.
	But it would be really good if you could compare them at the end when everybody's buried who's going to be buried and you can count up the deaths, which ultimately would be the best scorecard.
	But here's the thing.
	We're not there yet.
	We're not there. And what happens to all the countries who are doing really well right now?
	How about the countries that got their infections and deaths down to like single digits?
	What's going to happen to them in November?
	It's coming back.
	The thing that everybody misses in this is that there's nothing that's going to stop this virus from infecting herd immunity everywhere.
	Unless something gets invented that hasn't yet been invented.
	If you think there's going to be a vaccine, well that's terrific.
	I don't. I don't believe that a vaccine is going to save us.
	I think that all of the other countries are going to end up being kind of comparable because the virus can't be stopped.
	And even if you're Taiwan and you drive it to zero, which I think they did at one point, as soon as you open your airports, it's coming back because we didn't drive it to zero.
	So as long as the United States is not at zero and other big countries are not at zero and there's global travel, And everybody opens up their economy, because why wouldn't you if your infections are so low?
	It's just going to come back.
	So if you're looking at it today, you're looking at the game at halftime, and you're acting like you know how it ends.
	You don't. It would be completely irrational today to compare any country to any other country.
	Number one, all the data is bad.
	All the data is bad and not comparable.
	And what's up with the vitamin D? What's up with the...
	The vaccinations for tuberculosis that have some kind of connection.
	What's up with hydroxychloroquine use?
	What's up with the age?
	What's up with, you know, do they count right?
	Do they test right? Do they measure the deaths accurately?
	We don't have any of that.
	As soon as you think that we have good data on this, you are so far into imaginary wonderland that I don't know how to get you back, right?
	So we can't compare him to the president that doesn't exist.
	We can't compare him to other countries because the date is bad and that would be halftime anyway.
	We can't compare the final outcome because that's months away.
	But we could look at his strategy and see what he's actually doing.
	Now the only way you could judge his strategy to be bad is if it was just so obviously bad.
	For example, if his strategy to fight the coronavirus was to sacrifice a chicken and sing to the moon, we wouldn't have to do any kind of a study to find out that that was a bad strategy.
	It was just sort of obvious.
	So is there anything that the president has done or is doing that's just obviously wrong?
	And could you say that he doesn't have a strategy, as Seth MacFarlane says?
	Well, I don't like to use the word strategy because...
	In some sense, there's no such thing.
	That's another conversation.
	But we do have a system, and let me explain it.
	My understanding of the federal government's response to coronavirus is, number one, let the states take the lead in deciding on a city-by-city basis what to do.
	That's our federal system.
	Does anybody think that that's crazy?
	Is it crazy to let the states take the lead on the details within the state?
	No. That's our system.
	That's exactly what you'd expect the president to do.
	Now the other thing you'd want them to do is to backstop them.
	So if they don't have enough PPE, don't have enough ventilators, well that's something the federal government could really do.
	They can step in with their emergency funding and powers and get that done.
	Did the president do that?
	Yeah, yeah, it did that.
	So we got the ventilators, we got the PPE, didn't run out.
	Hospitals didn't crash.
	So that worked out.
	The other part of the plan was that we would stay flexible and we would probably experiment with reopening and then pull back if we needed to, experiment, pull back, and then we would also be trying, you know, try masks, try this, try that, and that we would be picking away at it because nobody knew the right answer.
	In a situation where nobody knows the right answer, somebody guesses door A, another leader guesses door B, and let's say B turns out to be the right one.
	But they both guessed.
	There was no information to be had.
	They just guessed. Is leader B the good one?
	Because they guessed right?
	Well, history will record it that way.
	But no, it's just a guess.
	So, The system we used was to stay flexible, try stuff, pull back, try stuff, pull back, give the states as much authority as possible, share as much information as possible, do the press conferences.
	It looked pretty good to me.
	I mean, there's nothing about that that I just described that is like sacrificing a chicken and singing to the moon.
	So you could argue that it could have been done better, right?
	But you wouldn't have any information.
	You could say, I think, hypothetically, if something was done differently, you'd get a better result.
	But you can't know that.
	And there's no evidence of that.
	Here's the last category.
	The president's tweets, his communication, his pressers, and basically just the way he talks about it.
	I would say that's not been an A+. And I don't think anybody would say that.
	I think, you know, he could have been stronger on masks, perhaps.
	But did it matter?
	Is there anybody not wearing a mask because of the President?
	Maybe. I don't know.
	But I feel like Republicans would have ended up there anyway.
	I don't think that if Trump wore a mask every day, do you think that that would cause the voters to wear more masks?
	I don't know. It might just cause the Democrats to not wear masks, right?
	Because we see that whatever Trump does, half the country is going to do the other thing or say it's wrong.
	So there's no evidence to suggest that if Trump had been stronger on his messaging on masks, more people would wear masks.
	It's just that is not an evidence because of his special case that people would rather do the opposite if they're Democrats.
	What about his speculating of hydroxychloroquine?
	Well, that's halftime too, isn't it?
	Is hydroxychloroquine the real thing?
	If it turns out that by November we find out that hydroxychloroquine works, Trump is your president.
	I don't know if we'll do that.
	So I'm still at 50% chance that the hydroxychloroquine, when administered early, and with the azithromycin and zinc, that's the important part, I'd say 50% chance that there's something real there.
	And 50% chance that confirmation bias has overcome us and that there isn't anything there.
	But will we know that by November?
	Don't know. So I would say that communication-wise, he probably should have stayed away from the medical stuff a little bit, but he did listen to the experts.
	He did listen to the experts.
	I just described a perfectly rational approach.
	We don't know if in the end that's going to be better or worse than other countries because it's only half time.
	And the infection rates and curves in different countries were not aligned.
	So it's not like everybody started at the same time and did the same things.
	So you should have some timing differences.
	It should be expected that countries doing well will eventually do less well, and the ones that are doing less well will eventually do well, and that you can see the curves crossing a lot between now and the end of the year.
	All right. Let us talk about hydroxychloroquine, because we must.
	Yes, we must. And I issued this challenge on Twitter.
	I hope some of you saw it. It goes like this.
	And I feel like I should just run right through this.
	Have you ever seen a story about a guy who got COVID, actually was infected, got early treatment with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin, all three, and then he died?
	Have you ever seen that?
	Have you heard of one case anywhere in the world in which a person, any person, anybody in the world, Got the coronavirus, and within a few days of getting it, also got the three drugs, and then later died?
	Because if you can show me one of those, ideally five, five would be good, then I would say to myself, well, that's not a cure, is it?
	It's still worth studying.
	But since five people who took it in exactly the right way Five of them died, and we can confirm it, let's say.
	I would say, well, that moves to the skeptical side.
	Because remember, the claims are that it's nearly a miracle.
	The claim is that the word cure, in quotes, because it's not technically a cure, but it's so close to a cure that you could kind of say nobody's going to die.
	Now let me ask you this.
	I know some of you are afraid that it would be too easy to find such cases.
	But let me ask you this.
	If Democrats could find any of those stories, wouldn't they be in the news already?
	Don't you think that the Democrats would run one profile a day in one of their pet media vehicles?
	Don't you think that CNN would have a story every other day about the person who took exactly the right amount at exactly the right time and died anyway?
	Because that would be the kill shot.
	There isn't a single chance that Trump could get elected if five stories ran about five real human beings who took exactly the hydroxychloroquine thing with the three-drug combo and died.
	It would only take five real stories to end the Trump presidency.
	How many have you seen?
	Zero. So now I've tweeted it to half a million people.
	Now most of them are conservatives, so they're not going to try to accomplish the challenge I would imagine.
	But there will be enough Democrats, there will be enough operatives, because a lot of people watch my Twitter.
	A lot of Congress apparently watches my periscopes, I've learned.
	So there will be enough people on the left to see this challenge, and they will say to themselves, my God, that's true.
	That is true, right?
	Does anybody disagree with this statement?
	That if the media ran just five profiles of somebody who died on the drug that Trump seems to like, that would be sort of the end of him.
	Because the coronavirus is the big story.
	It's going to determine the election.
	So if you don't see any of those in the next month, that might tell you something.
	Doesn't tell you it works.
	Because the lack of evidence is not proof of something.
	But it would certainly push me a lot further into the there might be something here category.
	I would raise my 50% estimate.
	So this will just be fun to see if anybody can rise to the challenge.
	And by the way, I wouldn't say I would be just as happy, but I would feel like I had done a service for the country if those five people do appear.
	Because don't you want to know?
	I mean, it's kind of important.
	You kind of want to know if the hydroxychloroquine works.
	I kind of want to know the answer.
	So even if the answer is not the one I want, I kind of want to know the answer, even if it changes the election, because it's that important.
	All right. Andy Ngo tweeted this little fact.
	If you're not following him to...
	Watch all the protest, action, and video.
	You're missing a lot.
	So it's Andy Ngo. And he tweeted that, according to a law enforcement source, there have been 22 homicides in Portland since June 1st.
	So that's seven weeks.
	22 murders.
	In all of last year, there were only 36.
	So we've got 22 murders in seven weeks, compared to a full year, which would typically be 36.
	And then he said that the mayor, Ted Wheeler, dismantled the gun violence reduction team because he and others said it was unfair to blacks.
	Now, are you seeing a pattern here?
	I'm seeing in your comments people saying that Herman Cain died.
	So I don't know about that story, but we'll look into it later.
	But people are saying it in the comments.
	So you don't have to say it again. I just said that so you don't have to.
	So here's the pattern. It looks like if this rate continued of this number of homicides, you'd have some, you know, if you assume that there's some breakdown of how many black people are getting killed by murder and white people, etc.
	If it's typical of a big city, hundreds of black people will be murdered because the mayor dismantled the gun violence reduction team because it was unfair to the black people Hundreds of which would be murdered by this change.
	Now, I'm pro-gun.
	I'm pro-Second Amendment.
	So I don't have...
	I guess I don't have a philosophical problem with not taking guns away from people.
	But I'm just not sure that the black citizens in this country are getting...
	Are really getting any favors from the white people in this country who are literally trying to help them and doing all the wrong things.
	Now, this story reminded me...
	So Ted Wheeler's a white guy trying to help the black community.
	Probably means it. Probably means well.
	I have no reason to think he means anything bad.
	So he thinks he's doing a good thing, and it probably ended up in the murder of hundreds.
	Murder. Murder of hundreds of his citizens that didn't need to get murdered.
	But he protected the feelings of some people, and I guess that's good too.
	But this reminds me of, is it my imagination, or have white women completely ruined the Black Lives Matter movement?
	Is that just my imagination?
	Because I keep seeing more videos of actual, real black people, Yelling at white people who are trying to help them, but they're not helping them at all.
	You know, like the white girls who are graffitiing Black Lives Matter on a business, and the black citizens are back there saying, don't do that!
	That's just going to look bad for us!
	You're not even black!
	Why are you writing Black Lives Matter on a building?
	They're going to assume it's us!
	And they're right! So, just over and over again, and if you're watching the arrests, Correct me if I'm wrong, it's all white people getting arrested, right?
	Whenever you see these arrest things, I guess there have been some black people arrested, but it feels like it's mostly white people.
	And it's just making the whole Black Lives movement, it's just ruining it.
	It's completely ruining it.
	And when you see black people complain that anything that they do that's good gets ruined by white people, The first time you hear that, you say, well, that's not true.
	It's not true that everything good that black people do, some white person's going to come steal it or ruin it.
	That's not true. And then you look at all the examples and you go, eh, eh, it's a little bit true.
	It's not maybe 100% true, but it's true-ish.
	It's got some truth to it.
	Trump had a couple of interesting executive orders, which is one of his advantages he has because he's in office, so he can actually do stuff, whereas Biden can talk about stuff.
	But Trump can do stuff, and he did two interesting things.
	One of them, he said he was happy to inform all the people living in their suburban lifestyle dream, which is just a great phrase, coming from the president, that you will no longer be bothered or financially hurt by having low-income housing built in your neighborhood.
	So he signed an executive order Overturning some Obama rule that required low-income housing in the suburbs.
	Now, here's the important part of that.
	Would this have been possible before the protests?
	Do you think that Trump could have gotten away?
	I don't know if he'll get away with it yet, but he's trying.
	Do you think he'll get away with an executive order banning low-income housing in the suburbs today?
	And the answer is yes.
	The answer is yes.
	You could get away with it.
	But could he have gotten away with it a year ago?
	Here's why. I don't think he could.
	A year ago, if you had seen that the president wanted to strike down low-income housing requirements, what would you think of that?
	A year ago, you would have said, well, no.
	Why can't we help the low-income people?
	Everybody's got to live in the town.
	I mean, the town isn't going to be all prosperous people, right?
	If the town has restaurants, you need restaurant workers.
	They have to live somewhere.
	You've got senior citizens.
	So, of course, you want some low-income housing around your suburban area.
	It's just fair. It kind of makes sense, right?
	So that's what you would have thought a year ago.
	And you would have said, that sounds a little racist.
	Sounds a little bit racist because you're saying low-income housing, but maybe you're thinking people of color.
	Is that what you're thinking?
	Right? So that's what it would look like a year ago.
	What's it look like today?
	Today it looks like the best idea you've ever heard.
	Because the protests are making it seem, and again, it's how you feel, it's what you think is true.
	It's not what's true that matters.
	It's just what you think is true.
	And when you watch the protests, what you think is, I need to get as far away from that group of people as I can.
	Young people without much money.
	Let's just call it that.
	Youngish people without much money.
	Because they look dangerous.
	They're protesting. They're lighting stuff on fire.
	They got purple hair.
	My God, purple hair.
	I like purple hair, but somebody's going to say something like that.
	So Trump is so good at picking up free money.
	I always say that about him.
	And because of the protests, this low-income housing executive order became free money.
	It was like a pile of money just sitting on the table, and all he had to do was walk by and say, Is this money?
	Does this belong to anybody?
	No? Alright, alright, it's my money.
	And just pick it up. And he did.
	I think this was, in terms of timing, this was the best timing you've ever seen for an executive order.
	I mean, I just laughed when I saw it.
	I was like, oh my god, that's just perfect.
	Independent of what you think about the idea, the politics of it is perfect.
	Then, after this, the CEOs of the tech companies did their hearing, he does another executive order directed to the FCC to implement preventing online censorship to limit Section 230.
	So I don't know the details of that yet.
	I'm not sure there are details.
	But the president just said, how about I use my executive order and just tell them they have to stop discriminating.
	Who exactly can argue against that?
	Is there anybody on the other side of that?
	Is he going to force the Democrats to say, no, we don't want freedom of speech.
	There's nothing you can do about it.
	Now, I don't know if this executive order will have any impact.
	But it does put pressure on the tech companies.
	And a lot of Trump's base had been screaming for months that he wasn't doing enough to protect the base.
	You know, their voices and keep them on the platforms, etc.
	And I don't know if this is enough, but it's a lot.
	An executive order from the president to prevent online censorship, that's a lot.
	I don't know how it'll play out, but it's not nothing.
	It's a lot. Alright.
	When you're trying to figure out who the liars are in this world, it seems like it's getting easier and easier.
	Now, NBC News used to be something like a news business, but now I think everybody agrees it's something else.
	I don't know what it is.
	It's either a CIA front or...
	I don't know, but whatever it is, they don't seem to try too hard to get the news right.
	They're more like the National Enquirer of news at this point.
	So NBC's Andrea Mitchell was interviewing Dr.
	Fauci, and of course asked about hydroxychloroquine.
	And Fauci gave this answer, which is that all of the gold standard clinical trials, the only ones that really can tell you if something works or not, have shown it has no effect.
	And that it might even be harmful.
	Now, is that a lie?
	No, no, that's completely 100% true.
	The only high-end with controls and placebo and all that, the only high-end studies did show that it didn't work.
	But what did Andrea Mitchell and NBC and Dr.
	Fauci leave out?
	Because there's a lie by omission here.
	Here's what's left out.
	The trials that didn't work We're when they tested the wrong thing.
	They tested hospitalized patients who were near death, who already had the psychotone storm or whatever it is, their immune system had gone wild, which is not what the hydroxychloroquine is supposed to work on.
	Because the infection has two phases.
	When the infection grows, and then the dangerous part is if it causes your immune system to go crazy.
	Nobody thinks that the hydroxychloroquine is for that second part.
	But that's what they studied.
	So, if the only thing you studied was the wrong thing, should you go on TV and say, the studies show it doesn't work?
	For the thing that didn't get studied.
	Because when they study the other stuff, these are not as high-quality studies.
	So even though there are a lot of them, you don't have to tweet me yet another study about hydroxychloroquine working if you get it early.
	I've seen them. There are a lot of them.
	But they all have the same quality.
	They're not a gold standard, you know, Double-blind sort of test.
	So, doesn't matter how many there are, they don't add up to credibility.
	There could be hundreds of them.
	They still wouldn't mean anything.
	That's why you have the gold standard study.
	The whole point of the gold standard kind of study, clinical trial, is that all of the other things don't work.
	If they did, then that's all you'd need to do.
	You'd never have to do the other kind.
	Now, is it true that the more studies you have that look at it from different angles, even if they're not 100% quality studies, if you have lots and lots of them, does that eventually tell you that you should use it?
	Here's my take. Then it becomes a risk management decision.
	Then you say to yourself, well, there's a good chance it could work, and there's almost no chance it'll hurt you.
	So it doesn't cost much, won't hurt you, might work, let's try it.
	So you'd end up in the same place of trying it without that certainty.
	So here's my point.
	I don't believe there's any way that Dr.
	Fauci doesn't know what I just said, right?
	You'd agree that he knows everything I know and lots more.
	So there should be nothing I know that's this basic that he doesn't already know.
	And he knows that when he says it's been tested and didn't work, he knows he's talking about the wrong thing.
	In the beginning, you could say, well, he chose to focus on this, or he likes to talk about the high-quality trials.
	But he uses those as an example of how the completely other thing Won't work.
	And that has not been tested in those same kind of trials.
	And when they do test, it looks like it works in the lesser trials.
	So I would say that yesterday when I saw this was my departure point for Dr.
	Fauci. So I like to give everybody maximum benefit of a doubt.
	I don't like to do the mind reading where you say, well, I think you're lying, or I think you have a...
	You know, some interest or something.
	I'd rather give everybody the benefit of the doubt, because usually that's right.
	But I can't anymore.
	I can't anymore. This is just so obviously a lie, and it's a really important one.
	This isn't some small thing.
	This is important. And he lied about it.
	And NBC did too, so don't trust them.
	Here's an interesting thing.
	I tweeted just before I got on, I want to see how many retweets I got in that, that the root of all of our problems, and I'm going to say this as many times in as many days as it takes until it becomes a thing, that the root of all of our current national problems are the teachers' unions.
	Now, if that isn't immediately obvious to you, let me give you some examples.
	1,500 retweets, so people are agreeing.
	So this was my tweet. I said, most of our national problems, and then I list them.
	Unemployment, poverty, systemic racism, the schools closed, the uptick in suicide, the crime, drugs, and even Trump derangement syndrome are all caused by the teachers' unions.
	Because the teachers' unions restrict competition for schools.
	So they're the force that stops you from having more charter schools and more private schools and all that.
	And because they restrict school choice, that means less competition, and it means that people get bad educations.
	And if you live in a poorer part of town, you're definitely going to get a bad education.
	So, does giving poor people a bad education, does that increase unemployment?
	Yes. Yes, it does.
	Does giving poor people a bad education increase poverty?
	Yes. Yes, it does.
	Does giving poor people a bad education increase systemic racism?
	In a sense, here's the way I like to say it.
	Systemic racism exists, but it's not going away.
	It gets sort of just baked into everything and everybody.
	It's just sort of, it's like the air.
	But if you have a good education and a good job, does racism bother you as much?
	It's still there. It still bothers you.
	But it's not stopping your life from succeeding, right?
	So if the teachers' unions could allow poor kids, and black kids in this context, the black kids, Well, actually, any person of color, I suppose.
	To get a better education, there would still be systemic racism, but you wouldn't notice it as much.
	There just wouldn't be a reason to complain about it.
	It's like, yeah, people are jerks.
	That's it. People are jerks.
	I got a good job. That's it.
	How about closed schools?
	That's totally the teachers' unions and all the problems that the closed schools cause, including an uptick in suicide, teen suicide going through the roof, teachers' union.
	Crime, drugs, all of those are caused by poverty, bad education.
	So basically, we have essentially one problem in this country.
	The teachers' units. If you could thwart them, fix them, get them out of the picture or whatever, and fix education for kids, all of those other problems start to get solved within a generation.
	If you focus on the exact wrong thing, such as the death of George Floyd, as tragic as it was, if you focus on the entirely wrong thing, literally the smallest problem in the black community, It feels like the biggest one, maybe, but it's definitely the smallest one.
	Because if you fix the George Floyd problem, let's say the police officers get found guilty and go to jail.
	I guess you fixed your structural racism, right?
	No! It wouldn't fix anything.
	It would be the smallest thing, if you're talking about the entire community of the country, the black community in particular, it would be the smallest thing.
	But what if you fixed education?
	What if every black kid was just guaranteed, if they wanted one, to have a good education?
	Even if they didn't have two parents, even if they weren't rich, no matter where they lived, they definitely get a good education.
	What's that fix?
	That fixes everything!
	Basically. So, teachers unions are the devil.
	I might be saying that a little more.
	The AP reports that there's a Russian disinformation Campaign going on, and that they're spreading stories on their websites that are conspiracy-type theories to mess things up in the United States.
	But here's the thing. I read some of the examples.
	I'd never heard them before.
	So apparently there are these Russian-made conspiracy theories on these obscure websites.
	None of these got into the name-brand website.
	They're like no-traffic websites.
	With these ridiculous conspiracy theories that I'd never even heard of, and they look ridiculous on the surface.
	I didn't even remember them, they're so nothing.
	And I realized that the Russian disinformation can't pierce all of our domestic disinformation.
	There is so much disinformation from our own media, That you'd need a lot of Russian disinformation even to get noticed.
	Because, you know, when you think about disinformation from a foreign adversary, your imagination goes to, all right, there's all our good information.
	There's this big body of clean, credible, good information.
	And then, damn, those Russians, they're putting this little bit of wrong information into our good, clean information.
	It's ruining everything.
	Except nothing like that's happening.
	What's happening is you've got a giant turd and Russia is flying over and pooping on it like a bird.
	So you've added a little bit of bird turd to an eight-foot pile of manure.
	I guess that's foreign interference.
	But that bird turd is not going to penetrate eight feet of disinformation from our own media.
	I mean, good luck Russia.
	Russia, if you could come up with better disinformation than CNN and MSNBC, go ahead.
	Knock yourself out. Alright.
	Here's an interesting factoid to throw in the mix.
	So, Dr. James Todaro, he's one of the frontline doctors who was pro-hydroxychloroquine, But I find him to be the most credible of the bunch.
	And especially, he's the most credible on the topic of hydroxychloroquine being suppressed.
	So there's two questions.
	One is, does it work?
	Which he thinks it does.
	And then the other question is, is somebody trying to suppress it?
	I would say his argument that it's being suppressed is really strong.
	His argument that it works...
	I could be convinced, but I'm not quite there yet.
	So here's what he tweeted today.
	He said, after four months of appeals since it was taken down, Google finally uncensored our initial paper on hydroxychloroquine in treatment of COVID-19.
	And then he said, it's strange Google reversed this decision immediately before appearing in front of Congress today to discuss censorship.
	So Google uncensored their paper that they've been trying to get uncensored forever the day that they were called in front of Congress to answer for their censorship.
	Maybe a coincidence.
	Maybe not. Alright, here's the worst story of the day.
	I'll end on this. So, you remember Mike Schellenberger, who wrote Apocalypse Never.
	I had him on here, and he's an expert on environmental stuff.
	So Congress asked him to come in for a hearing, so that they could learn what he had to say, compare it to everything else they knew, and make better decisions.
	Sounds pretty good, right? Congress invites an expert in.
	The expert gives him some information.
	Maybe they agree with it, maybe they don't.
	Talk to some other experts.
	That's all good stuff, right?
	Well, what happens is they gave him the Bill Barr treatment.
	The Democrats basically just used their time to malign his character and just leave it there.
	All they did was just trash him, the Democrats anyway.
	So imagine being invited to Congress, and here's the key part of this.
	He's not an elected representative.
	He's not the CEO of a tech company that's effectively running the world.
	He's not the CEO of a tobacco company.
	He's a guy who's trying to help the Earth.
	He's trying to help the Earth.
	That's his job.
	He lives and breathes and has been doing it for, I guess, most of his or all of his adult life.
	Learning everything he can about green technology, every bit of conservation, everything.
	And he's just going in to tell them what he knows.
	And they trashed him, the Democrats.
	That is so wrong, I don't even know how to express it.
	Because it's one thing to trash a politician or somebody who's in the ring and you've got a rivalry.
	But when you ask a citizen, a private citizen, Who just happens to be an expert on something.
	You ask him in, and then you use the power of Congress to ruin his reputation, or try to, and squash him like a bug?
	Fuck you! Sorry, didn't mean to swear.
	Slipped in. But that was the most grotesque thing I think I've seen from any government.
	Because that just crosses the line, right?
	You know, you can do anything to the professionals.
	And, you know, obviously, Michael Schellenberg's a professional, but he's a private citizen.
	Like, we didn't elect him.
	Yet. We might elect him someday.
	But haven't elected him yet.
	That was just inappropriate.
	All right. We'll go check on Herman Cain.
	I guess there's some story there.
	Did you enjoy today's Periscope?
	I told you it would be the best one ever.
	I think it was.
	What do you say? The left is being surprised by the right's tenacity, somebody says.
	Are they? Thoughts on Election Day.
	Do you mean the day itself or the result?
	On the day itself, I don't know, that's all up in the air.
	It's hard to know.
	Now, did you see there was some local...
	Local news program, I think it was, they did a test of mail-in ballots, and I think the test was just to mail a bunch of ballots and just see if they arrived.
	And something like 3 out of 100 didn't arrive.
	And I thought to myself, 3 out of 100 is too much.
	If 3 out of 100 just got lost in the mail, that's a problem.
	That's a pretty big problem, because our elections are decided by less than 3%.
	Oh, you agree. It was the best ever.
	And happy birthday to Mouseman?
	or Mossman?
	Thank you, thank you.
	Thank you.
	Yeah, I don't take days off.
	I don't like sleep.
	So I've been up 24 hours, and I'm not even a little bit tired.

▲