Episode 1102 Scott Adams: Come for the Sip, Stay for the Whatever
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Top racist endorses Joe Biden for President
Kellyanne Conway, George Conway both stepping down
Yale's Dr. Harvey Risch and HCQ
"Luxury belief" class
Kenosha Wisconsin, Jacob Blake, riots
Kim Jong-Un rumored to be in coma
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
This will be one of the most unique and novel, dare I say novel, Coffee with Scott Adams you'll ever see.
Yeah, it's a new look.
And if you'd like to engage in the simultaneous sip, and I know you do, all you need is, and watch me do this from memory, a cup or mug or glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better except possibly this hotel room.
And it's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
So, I'm out of town, although I may be returning to town soon, sooner than I hoped.
The fire that's near where I live in California, in the East Bay, has now, the evacuation zone is extended to right next to my neighborhood.
So the next time they extend it, I will be taking an early flight back and Clearing out my house and grabbing the animals and making a run for it.
I'm hoping that doesn't happen.
I think it's a 50-50 at this point.
But it looks like they're going to make a stand.
The fire department is calling in lots of out of an estate and other help.
And it looks like they're going to make a stand on a certain road that if they succeed would be a really big deal.
So they'd save a lot of houses.
But enough about me.
Do you want to hear about the news?
Yes, my house is in danger, not at the moment, but I'd say the odds of losing it are maybe 25%.
Do you know how hard it is to enjoy your time away from home if you think that there's a 25% chance you'll come back to a charred ember?
Very hard. Very hard to enjoy my time off.
Let's just say, if you're going to plan some time away, Don't do it when your house might burn up.
That's my vacation advice for you.
Now, you're probably asking, Scott, why are you laying on the floor?
Well, I'm in a very high-end hotel situation here.
It's actually sort of a kind of a home.
And somehow they designed this so there are no outlets in any place you would want to use an outlet.
So the only place in this whole place that I could figure out how to set up my situation here was lying on the floor in the corner next to the wastebasket.
So that's about as good as I can do because my computer was low on power.
Let's talk about all the fun things.
So the funniest story of the day is that Richard Spencer, you all know Richard Spencer, most famous, well maybe second most famous racist in the United States, And one of the organizers of, and here's the fun part, the Charlottesville Tiki Torch guys.
Alright, so get this.
One of the organizers of the Charlottesville racist event, Richard Spencer, just endorsed Biden.
Could that be any better?
That's right. Spencer is endorsing Biden.
Now, his spokesperson for the Biden campaign has denounced him and said, we don't accept that.
But where is Biden himself?
Is that good enough for you?
You know, is it good enough that a spokesperson denies the endorsement?
I have to ask myself, if a racist likes Biden, Doesn't that make him a racist, Joe Biden?
Doesn't it? Well, I think it does.
I learned this from Democrats.
I learned that you become whoever endorses you, which is weird because all the people who endorse you are different, but you become all of them simultaneously.
That's what they told us with Trump, that if anybody bad ever endorsed him, then Trump must be bad because those are the people who are endorsing him.
Right? It's logical.
So if Richard Spencer endorses Biden, I don't make the rules.
That's their own rule.
Excuse me while I roll on my stomach here, trying to find a way to be comfortable.
So that's going on.
I can't think of anything that's funnier than that.
Now, the beauty of it, of course, is it's all ridiculous and nobody cares what this one person thinks.
He may be trolling.
We don't know. But it puts him in the news.
Do I hate the fact that the organizer of the Charlottesville event, which later the media turned into the Charlottesville Fine People hoax, do I mind that he's in the news again?
No, I do not.
Somebody says, did I get a chance to see the Vice special on Charlottesville?
I did not, but I wouldn't trust Vice for anything, so...
I would expect that whatever they came up with might not be that credible.
So anyway, the rules that the Democrats have taught us, and I think we should play by their rules, because they're very clear and they make so much sense.
One is that Biden is a racist because a racist endorsed him.
I mean, I think that's just obvious.
You know, QED. And then the other is that he confirms that he's a racist by not denouncing him.
Now you're saying to me, Scott, but his spokesperson denounced him right away.
Oh no, that doesn't count.
No spokesperson denouncing.
I want to see Joe Biden.
Denouncing him, personally.
And when he does, do you know what I'm going to say?
Because he will. Do you know what I'm going to say?
I'm going to look at my watch that I don't have on my hand, and I'm going to say, um, that took a long time.
How long does it take to denounce Richard Spencer?
I mean, Should that take a day?
I mean, you've got Twitter.
You know what Twitter is.
You have a phone. Just tweet it out.
Joe Biden, I denounce him.
So those are the rules.
Somebody says, so you're confirming David Duke and Trump are racist.
I'm just saying that the rules need to be the same.
So it looks like the only people running are racists this time.
So if you want a non-racist, I'd recommend Kanye.
Really. You know, if that's your thing.
So, alright, enough about that.
So, speaking of Biden, who I like to call asshole Joe Biden, because, as I've described it too often, By Joe Biden making the Charlottesville Fine People hoax the centerpiece of his campaign, that's maybe stupid.
Maybe he doesn't know it's a hoax.
But by now somebody's told him.
By now somebody's told him it's a hoax.
By now he's certainly read the transcript.
Okay, probably not. But anyway, he's either really stupid or Or he's really evil.
Those are the only options if you're making that the centerpiece of your campaign.
But ABC interviewed him, David Muir.
David Muir has been in my home.
It's one small world sort of thing.
David Muir interviewed me years ago when I had my voice problems.
Nice guy. But he interviewed Biden and He asked him about the allegations of his cognitive decline.
And this was, if I can do my best impression of Joe Biden when asked on camera about his cognitive decline.
Here was Joe Biden's answer.
No. I don't have any cognitive decline.
I think that my impression was right on.
Pretty, pretty close.
In fact, if somebody tuned this in and they just saw that impression of Joe Biden, they would probably say, oh, look, it's Joe Biden doing another speech.
They probably wouldn't even know it wasn't Joe Biden until this part where I say I'm not Joe Biden.
I'm not Joe Biden.
I'm just doing such a dead-on impression of him over laughing.
Now, here's the thing.
The over laugh is really a tell.
Alright? Let me give you another example of where the over laugh can tell you something.
Hey, Scott, did you murder that puppy?
Murder the puppy! Who would ever think of murder a puppy?
Not me. So always look for the overlap as your confirmation of the thing being true.
Now, the other thing that Biden said, which might get him poisoned by Kamala Harris by the end of today, is he said during that interview that he would consider running us for a second term if he wins a first term.
Yeah, he said, come on, man.
Come on, man. So Biden is saying that he would run for a second term Maybe.
He's now ruling it out if he wins the first term.
What do you think Kamala Harris thought about that?
She was probably, you know, watching the interview for the first time like everybody else.
It's like, oh, let's see how the top of the ticket did.
Joe Biden said he might run for a second term.
And then she called Putin and asked him who his poison guy is.
Who's your poison guy, Putin?
Send him over here. Kellyanne Conway has announced she's leaving the White House.
You all know the story. Her husband, George Conway, from the Lincoln Project, anti-Trumper.
And then her 15-year-old daughter got involved in social media and was calling on her mother for being a Trump supporter.
And Kellyanne decided to step away from her job, one of the highest-profile jobs in America.
And at the same time, her husband George decided to step away from the anti-Trump stuff, the Lincoln Project, and concentrate on the family.
And I have to say, I gotta say, I respect that.
I also have this weird respect for the whole family.
I know I'm probably all alone in this, but there's something awesome about not only how brave they all are, because they'll all do everything in public.
So they're really brave.
They're all smart.
You assume the kids are probably smart, too.
And they've all got incredible guts, and they'll just put anything out there.
It's like they Just operate on some different level where there's no filter.
It seems all three of them have that, at least the ones we know of, including the daughter.
They all have that no filter thing, which I don't hate.
I don't hate that.
You know, they've got some stuff to work out, it sounds like, but I just kind of like their spunkiness, the whole family.
If they ever did a reality TV show...
Wouldn't you watch that? Can you imagine a better reality TV show than the Conways?
I'd be all over that.
All right. So, the president gave his little press conference yesterday and announced that...
I forget. I don't know the details on this convalescent blood plasma thing.
I was traveling when all that happened.
I didn't catch up. But apparently he's...
He and the FDA have said that that's now on the table.
So I don't know what it means yet in terms of the blood plasma, because it took about one minute for Jake Tapper to tweet that it was an unproven, possibly ineffective treatment.
Have you ever heard that?
Somebody says, you mocked the child a few days ago.
I did not. I did not.
And you get blocked for that.
So, mischaracterizing my opinion in public always gets you blocked.
So, I did not mock the 15-year-old.
Not at all. So, what was I saying?
Oh, yeah. So...
Fuck me.
Excuse me. I've got to plug in my laptop before it dies on me.
So... The complex and plasma stuff, so everybody knows that you take the antibodies in the blood of somebody who's recovered, give it to somebody who needs it, and about half of them will do better or something.
But there's some Dispute about whether it works or whether it's lasting or whatever.
But don't you think that all you need is a commercial market for that and it would be huge?
Because right now, it's sort of a volunteer sort of a situation, isn't it?
Fact check me on that.
But I think that we don't quite have a structure set up that there's one way to get blood plasma.
It's just sort of on the table now.
Here's what I'd like to say.
I'd like to see a bounty that rich people would pay to find somebody who's got the right kind of antibodies and to donate them so that that rich person can actually get those antibodies.
If you make this a free market situation, and I don't know if you can because of maybe some medical ethical reason you can't do that, but if you could, That would be enough to make it widespread, because the rich people would overpay, and that would subsidize the people who couldn't afford to pay.
So you'd have to have some kind of a situation where it doesn't go only to the rich.
But a typical situation is that the people who can pay, overpay, that subsidizes some people who couldn't afford to pay at all.
Might be a free market way to make that work.
It could be big. Trump also stirred the water by tweeting...
I was tweeting an interview that Levin did with Dr.
Harvey Risch of Yale and Dr.
Risch, R-A-S-C-H, is it Risch?
Risch? He's a highly qualified Yale kind of guy and expert and he thinks that hydroxychloroquine is In his words, the most obviously proven effective thing of all time.
I'm exaggerating a little bit.
But in his view, the evidence is unambiguous.
I don't know if that's true.
I'm still putting hydroxychloroquine at 30% chance of being a big deal and that there's some conspiracy to cover it up, which is pretty big.
30% chance that it's a conspiracy does not give you much Confidence in the system.
But I like the fact that Trump hasn't given up on that, and that there is evidence that he's right.
So I tweeted a very smart-looking article from Rob Henderson, who's on Twitter.
And he wrote an article about luxury beliefs, which is totally worth reading.
It's like a really good read.
So you'll see it in my Twitter feed this morning.
And the idea is that there are some beliefs that are purely impractical for other people, but you look good if you adopt that belief.
So an example would be rich people in favor of lots of immigration.
Because if you're rich, that sounds very big of you.
Yeah, all people, let them in.
But it's not you who will pay.
You just get, you know, maybe a gardener and a chef because you have cheap labor.
So it's really easy to be a rich person and be in favor of immigration because the people who get, you know, get the chef from that are the people who are competing for the jobs at the lower end.
So he talks about it as luxury beliefs.
And he does a good job of tying it into other crazy things we do.
For example, the reason that luxury brands exist at all is so that rich people can overpay for them.
It's the overpaying for something that's not really that much better that makes it a luxury brand.
And it's the overpaying that other people can notice.
They'll be like, oh, wait a minute.
You've got one of those $25,000 handbags, if people can recognize it.
Hey, you've got this expensive watch or this big car.
And people know that The person who has those things is maybe not getting that much extra utility out of them, except for the signaling that they have so much money that they can buy dumbass stuff.
And if you look at the Black Lives Matter protests, you've got a full range of people at the street level, if you will, the people protesting, probably lower income for the most part.
But the people who are higher income Also, in many cases, are in favor of the protests, but they're not the ones who have to pay for any of this.
They don't have to worry about the schools being bad.
They can send their kid to a prep school or whatever.
And they have the freedom to be in favor of something that's just nothing but bad for black lives.
But act like they're being virtuous, even though their belief system is just terrible for the people that they think they're supporting.
So anyway, he does a better job in this article.
I'll just point you to that.
One of the funniest things that's happening right now is, you all know Brian Stelter on CNN, and he wrote a book that many have said, I'll use Trump's phrase, When Trump wants to distance himself from an idea but still get it across, he'll say, many people have said that Brian Stelter's new book is a rip-off of Mike Cernovich's film Hoaxed.
Now, Hoaxed is one of the best things I've ever seen.
It's actually really, really good for any kind of a film, documentary or other.
It was one of the most enjoyable pieces of content I've seen in years, actually.
And, of course, I'm biased because I'm in it, but it's not the part that I'm in that's the good part.
It's just the whole way it's organized and the way it finishes is just amazing.
But anyway, so Brian Stelter has a book with a similar title, without the ED on the end, just a hoax.
And he has somebody on, I guess yesterday, this Peter Parmorence of...
And he likened President Trump's frequent use of the word hoax to an information war game.
And this guest said, he says it's a tactic used for undermining people's faith in anything.
And in the long term, what this does is it makes people feel helpless and passive, because if they can't rely on anything out there, that means you can't change anything, which means you need a strong leader like Trump or Putin.
Like Trump or Putin.
Really, those are the only two strong leaders he can think of.
The first two that came to mind were Trump and Putin.
This ridiculous, ridiculous propaganda network.
Anyway, for Brian Stelter to be on the hoax network, the network that does almost nothing but push hoaxes all day long, it's primarily, it's like their main business model is hoaxing, and he has the guts to bring people on And talk about how it's bad for President Trump to call out the hoaxes.
Now, here's my view.
If there were no hoaxes, and the President was calling things that were real hoaxes, that'd be pretty bad, wouldn't it?
Wouldn't you agree that if the President were looking at things that were actually true, and he was saying in public that these totally true things were hoaxes, That could be destabilizing for a country, couldn't it?
Or, it could look like politics as usual, unless you were born yesterday.
But, I like to think that calling out a hoax is actually better than not calling it out.
It seems to me that calling out falsehoods in the news actually is a public service.
So, that was hilarious.
So Trump's use of the word of hoax is poisonous, was the title of the piece, at least online.
And I'm thinking to myself, it is poisonous for CNN. It's only poisonous for CNN, because they're the target of it.
Alright, Portland is...
Getting a little worse because the action in the cities, the protests, spilled into the suburbs.
Now there was no violence, but there will be, because apparently now that the right-wingers know that they can go there to punch people and they can get away with it.
I told you the story of the gigantic right-wing guy who punched the 85-pound, I don't know what he was, he was smaller, Antifa person, but the Antifa person punched first.
So I think the right wing have realized that because Antifa is so bad at punching, that they can go down there and they can take the first punch as long as somebody's filming it.
Because if somebody films you taking the first punch, you can kind of just take them out.
That's the law.
Literally, it's the law.
If somebody punches you in the face, it doesn't really matter if they're smaller than you.
I think.
I think if somebody who's, let's say, for my example, 125 pounds, punches directly in the face, or attempts to, somebody who's, say, 200 pounds, it's completely legal for that 200-pounder to take that person out.
Right? That's not illegal.
It's not like they're a professional boxer or something.
They're just bigger. So, I would not be surprised if right-wingers start to see this as a sport.
Somebody says it was a girl.
It might have been. It looked like it could have been.
When I looked at the video, I was like, I can't tell the gender, but I don't want to be that misgendering kind of a guy.
Um... Alright.
So there's going to be more of that.
And then when Ken...
What's his name?
Oh, Cuccinelli.
When Cuccinelli was asked about this, whether Trump intends to send federal officers back into the city, Cuccinelli said, this president hasn't taken any actions off the table.
I always tell you that.
The thing that makes Trump...
In many ways better than other presidents in this particular way is that he never takes an option off the table.
Even when you're sure he should, he doesn't.
He just never takes an option off the table.
And that makes it very unpredictable, which is what he wants.
He tells us that specifically.
It totally works. So there's that.
At the same time, there's another Wisconsin shooting.
Of police shooting a black man in the back.
And now when you hear that, you say, police shot a black man in the back.
What's your first thought?
Oh my God, there it is again.
The police are out of control.
They shot somebody in the back.
There's no way to justify that, right?
Right? There's no way to justify somebody being shot in the back.
Unless you watch the video, in which case I think I would have shot that guy in the back as well.
Because here's what happened.
If you watch the video, you'll see that the police stopped a guy.
He's outside of his car.
I didn't see what happened before that.
But the person they stopped...
He ignores police telling him to stop, turns his back to them, and walks toward his car.
Now, they follow him.
They're not shooting him in the back just for walking toward his car.
But he opens the car, and he reaches inside, and he refuses to do anything the police are telling him to do.
Now, if somebody is Refusing to comply to police and then they go and they reach into their car and you can't see what they're reaching for and you know that it's nothing good because he's obviously resisting arrest.
Do you have the right to shoot him at that moment because he's created a situation in which he may or may not come up with a gun?
I feel like It's a gray area.
I feel like a lot of people would have shot him in that situation.
Now, the police were not in imminent danger, but let me give you this hypothetical.
Let's say there was somebody that just stopped in the street, and he's facing them, and the police say, put your hands up.
And he puts them up at first, and then he starts to reach down, and he reaches in his pocket really quickly.
And the police officer has a gun on him, and he says, get your hand out of your pocket.
Get your hand out of your pocket.
And then he doesn't.
Is the police officer allowed to shoot the person who has not shown them a weapon?
All he did is reach in his pocket.
Maybe he was reaching for his wallet.
How do you know? I mean, maybe there was something you wanted to show the police officer that was relevant, and he just thought it would be okay.
Could the police officer shoot somebody who reaches in their pocket during a stop?
I don't know, but I think so.
Somebody said he shot seven times.
Yeah, because I think they weren't shooting him in the head.
They were shooting him in the body because they weren't trying to kill him.
Well... I don't know if they were trying to kill him, but they were certainly trying to stop him.
If they'd wanted him dead, his head was right there.
It's not like they would have missed, because it was literally point blank.
But once the shooting started, I think maybe he wasn't the only one shooting, so it gets to seven bullets pretty quickly.
I don't think they remembered every shot.
They get pretty worked up in those situations, I would think.
All right, here's the most interesting story.
I would say the odds of this being true are not very high.
So put your skeptical hat on because this is the most skeptical topic you could ever have.
Kim Jong-un is rumored by a South Korean diplomat.
Have you ever heard of this before?
A South Korean diplomat who said something about North Korea and then later it turned out not to be true.
Don't think this is necessarily true, but it's interesting.
He says that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has fallen into a coma and his sister is poised to take over.
Now, is it true that Kim Jong-un is in a coma?
Because if it is, I want you to hark back Harken back?
Think back to the time when it was rumored by a South Korean diplomat, I think, that Kim Jong-un was dead or in a coma.
Do you remember that? It wasn't too long ago.
And what did I say?
I said, huh, they showed video later to show that Kim Jong-un was not only alive, but he was doing great.
He was walking around touring some facility.
And what did I say when they showed that video to prove that he was up and fine and he was healthy?
I said, I don't think that's a current video.
I think that might be from some time ago.
And so I challenged the world to show me a living Kim Jong-un from that day forward that wasn't on video.
Something we could confirm was definitely really him alive.
And maybe there has been.
I may have missed it.
But the bigger picture is I don't think this South Korean diplomat is necessarily credible.
So I wouldn't assume that we know anything that's happening there.
All right. I believe that's what I wanted to talk about.
Yeah, there's a Kim Jong-un rumor every 30 days, is somebody saying there?
Kim Jong-un is on the roof.
of So I do wonder what would be different if his sister took over.
Because partly you think to yourself, hey, maybe the sister will be less of a Maybe she'll be more willing to work with other countries and stuff.
Maybe. Totally possible.
It could be the sister is the big break that makes everything possible.
That's totally possible. The other possibility is that she has to be even more of a hard ass So I would worry that at least on day one,
if she were to take over, hypothetically, if she were to take over on day one, I think she would probably come out hard against the United States and probably try to rattle a saber or two.
All right, so we'll wait on that.
They're doing the same thing with Joe Biden.
So Biden's answer on the video where he laughed too hard that I talked about, his answer was, watch me, just watch me, and therefore you'll know that he doesn't have any cognitive decline.
And I'm thinking, that's where we got it from.
Watching you is why we're asking the question.
So it's sort of like...
I won't do a bad analogy, but it's sort of like something that's a bad analogy.
So I'm being called...
My attention is being called to Hawk Newsome on Martha McCallum and Black Lives Matter.
I haven't seen that, but apparently he made some news.
Was he being extra radical?
Because that seems to be where he sort of ended up.
I assume that he was being extra radical.
Wondering what my weight training program is?
Any pointers? Well, I'm certainly not a role model for weight training, but I just do it regularly.
If you read my book, How to Failed Almost Everything and Still Win Big, you will see my...
My description of using a system instead of a goal.
And if you use a system, whatever one you develop for yourself, that's your best situation.
What's the next hoax coming before the election?
Well, if you could predict them, they wouldn't be good.
So they sort of have to be unpredictable.
But if you wanted to say, alright, what would be the Category that would be most damaging to the president.
So if you were going to invent a hoax, you would find something that people are already primed to believe is true, and you just want to give them some red meat that it is true.
So it'll either be fake racism, fake sexism, at least the allegation will be fake.
I think it'll be one of those.
Alright. What do you think of Kamala Harris' surgery?
It looks like she had cosmetic surgery of some type.
Have you noticed it?
Because I guess when she appeared on camera before it was fully healed and she looked a little not herself.
And my expert told me that that's going to look really good pretty soon.
And I would say that She did take some years off of her appearance.
So I would say it did make her look younger, so I think that's good.
But it also made her look different, which is the whole point, to look different.
I'm not entirely sure that it was an upgrade, but what do you think?
Probably was.
Took a few years off her.
Alright, yes, 800,000 to each black person now.
so So, Hawke Newsome says that every white person owes every black person $800,000.
Well, with all due respect, I don't know if Hawke Newsome is as good with accounting as he is with activism.
He's good with his activism stuff.
But this is an interesting question.
If you were going to calculate how much reparation should be, how would you calculate that?
Because what would you compare it to?
Because that's the key, right?
The accurate comparison would be if slavery happened versus whether it had not happened.
So you'd have to say, for those people who were put into slavery, And then therefore their descendants who were in the United States, what would happen if that had not happened?
Would they have been better off?
So you would compare it to what their life would have been had there been no slavery.
And what their life would have been would have been life in the African continent.
Because if there had been no slavery, that's where the descendants would be.
So the proper analysis, which is not very popular, the proper but not but not popular analysis would be how much money would you have made if you if you'd still been there now there's the second thing which is the pain and suffering of slavery itself but typically we don't compensate people who have long passed so if you look at the Japanese internment situation I believe the reparations for that Only went to living people who had been in the camps in World War II when the Japanese-American citizens were rounded up and tragically put in camps.
By the way, an old girlfriend of mine from years ago, her brother had been in one of those camps.
So the issue of the Japanese internment stuff is really close to me because I personally knew, I don't know, I probably personally knew 10 people who were in those camps.
Think about that. I personally knew, personally, spent lots of time with them, 10 people Who were put in prison camps by the government of the United States for exactly zero.
Nothing. They were just Japanese.
Japanese-Americans. They weren't even Japanese.
They were Americans. That's a hell of a thing.
Now, in that case, I think reparations were completely understandable, but they were far less than they should have been.
Because when the Japanese citizens were put in the internment camps, they often left There was no property behind with nobody to take care of it because it was their family home or family property.
And when they were in the internment camps, white people just stole it.
They just stole it.
So there were people who owned property who, when they got out of the camps, no longer owned it.
And they had no recourse.
It just wasn't theirs anymore.
So when they got their little checks of, I don't know, $15,000 or whatever it turned out to be, it wasn't really It was not really close to compensating what a lot of them lost.
Now, if you go back to slavery and reparations, if you take the standard that you don't compensate people who are already dead, like the Japanese internment camp situation, and you only compensate the living, then the calculation is, how are those people doing in the United States in terms of standard of living, income, wealth, etc., compared to what would have happened If their family from long ago had been in Africa.
So that would be the proper analysis.
In which case...
And then the second thing you'd have to do is you'd have to calculate any social benefits that were, let's say, beyond the average.
You'd have to figure out what was beyond some normal amount.
But you'd probably have to figure out that, and then you'd have to take the cost of I don't know, would you have to calculate the cost of the prison system?
The cost of any welfare payments or any property crimes?
Would you calculate the cost of the riots?
Would those all be in the calculation?
They should be. So if you did it right, and by right I mean not socially right, this would be socially completely wrong, but economically, It would be accurate to say that there's probably no money owed if you did an actual thing.
Now, in terms of the evil of it, the evil of slavery is uncontested.
Well, I mean, nobody's arguing that it's evil.
It isn't evil. So that part is true.
It's just that we don't compensate people who have passed.
It just doesn't work that way.
You couldn't really have a civilization where everybody who is already dead gets compensated for something that happened while they were alive.
Because how far back would you go?
We have a civilization where people are living on lands that were conquered three, four, or five times.
Somebody says, a friend got $21,000 but wished his parents had lived to see it.
Yeah, not just lived to see it.
Well, you know, actually, it wasn't even about the money exactly.
It was more about the acknowledgement.
And I think that meant a lot to the Japanese-American community.
By the way, Hawk Newsome should not be underestimated.
Because the fact that you were begging me to say something about him is what makes him effective.
Meaning that he triggered you so that you just needed me to say something about him.
And that triggering is what makes him good.
So, in the same way that I can consistently praise Trump and even Kaepernick and AOC, I give the same props to Hoag Newsom.
He does know how to get your attention, and that's a really big part of what he's trying to do.
So if he got your attention, he did his job, and that was obviously what he was trying to do.
And he's also making a big first offer.
If you hear that number, 800,000 per person, and then someday it got negotiated down to 15,000, Wouldn't you say to yourself, $15,000 doesn't sound so bad.
I was worried it was going to be $800,000.
So making a big first offer and also being provocative, that's all good.
He knows how to do this.
None of this is an accident.
Don't confuse a hawk.
With maybe some protester on the street who is less sophisticated and just spewing crazy stuff.
When Hawke says something that sounds crazy, he knows it.
That's different. If it's a person on the street who's spewing crazy stuff, they may not know it.
They may not be sophisticated enough to know that what they're asking for is unreasonable.
But Hawke knows. I mean, he's a trained attorney.
He's lived in the real world.
He knows what he's doing. So in terms of capability, don't underestimate him.
That would be a mistake. Alright, that's all I've got for now.
I'm going to go enjoy my day and keep an eye on the fires and see if I've got to go home.
