Episode 1364 Scott Adams: Biden Becomes a Republican, Iranian Deal, Climate Mental Health, and Lots More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Long-term COVID immunity from vaccines
Biden destroys the Democrat philosophy
Young people don't know "the news" isn't legitimate
Fear of climate change creating mental health issues
Fake news stories in todays news
Liberal brain damage, 3 examples
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Well, let's see if I've printed out my notes properly.
Oh, yes, I have.
What a day, what a day.
Well, I'm hidden by YouTube more than normal today, you say.
Hmm. Is it my imagination, or have you noticed that all the people that you talked with on Twitter, let's say two years ago, It has decreased by about 90%.
There's something weird happening on Twitter lately, and I don't know what it is.
Is it just that the weather got better?
People are outdoors?
Because this weekend, Twitter was just quiet politically.
Is it because Biden is so boring?
Is that why? I don't know.
But let's enjoy the simultaneous sip, and all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gels, a stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. Somebody says in the comments, I'm out.
Well, that didn't take you long.
Thanks for staying for all the good content.
Well, let's talk about all the things.
Apparently there's a poll that says 30% of the public thinks Biden didn't win.
So CNN's Harry Enten thinks it's a crazy number and that it's just insane that 30% of the country Thinks that Biden didn't win.
And CNN is quite puzzled as to why it is that so much of the public doesn't believe what they saw on the news.
Do you see any problem here?
So the news, once you start seeing this pattern, you can't unsee it.
The news creates the problem.
And then they report on it, the problem that they totally caused, and they report on it like they didn't cause it, and then they assign blame to whoever they want to assign blame to.
It's obvious to me that if the news were a credible entity, people would believe what they were told.
And if the news said, this election is perfectly fine, and the news were a credible source of information...
Maybe a lot of people would believe.
But you can't make up the news for years in a row.
Just make up the news.
Just make up stuff.
Find people hoax, bleach hoax, overfeeding the fish hoax, Russia collusion hoax.
And then CNN is like, what is causing people to distrust the official news?
I wonder what causes that.
It's always the news.
The news is the cause of the problem.
They're not the people reporting on it.
They're the cause.
And when you see it, you can't unsee it.
Interestingly, the Dilber NFT, that's a digital collectible that's connected to the blockchain so you know you can get an original, sold for $13,300 yesterday.
The naughty version did. Clean version sold for $5,000.
But the naughty version is immediately relisted by whoever bought it For $21 million.
So if you have $21 million, you could own a piece of digital art.
Feels a little overpriced, but you never know.
You never know. I was told today that the buyer who would like to remain anonymous is a fan of my books that teach you how to How to put an anchor down so people expect the price to be high.
So he's got it there at 21 million.
If he lowers it someday to a million, is it going to look cheap?
If this works, I tell you, if this works, it'll be the funniest thing that ever happened.
And I don't think it'll work.
So here's my tip on anchoring.
It's always a good technique.
To put out a big number when you're negotiating.
Because once people have heard the big number, they're biased toward it just because it's the first number they heard.
But if you make your first number so high that it doesn't seem real, I'm not sure the anchoring works.
But it might. I can't rule it out.
It actually might.
So it's entirely possible that listing this for $21 million will someday cause somebody to spend a million dollars on it.
I mean, it's not impossible.
It's just unlikely.
So here's a thing which I didn't quite expect, but maybe I should have.
In where I live, and I guess everywhere...
It's legal to not wear a mask when you're outdoors.
In fact, it's not even recommended.
If you're outdoors by yourself, you're going on a run, you're riding your bike, you're walking the dog, no mask required.
That is the best medical advice.
What do you think they're doing in my town?
Wearing masks.
If you see somebody walking a dog by themselves, just one person and a dog, with no other human outside of a car that you can even see, like literally there's no other human beings within your visual plane in any distance, just one person walking a dog, in my town that person will wear a mask.
Today. Today.
Yesterday I rode my e-bike into town just to To see that the town had been closed off for outdoor dining.
So the main street in my town is closed.
All the restaurants move their chairs out to the center of the streets.
And it's just a restaurant town now, which is kind of cool.
It's actually an upgrade. I like it a lot.
Eating outdoors is just better in California.
And so I'm looking around, and I'm not wearing my mask because I'm on a bicycle.
But the number of people who were also on bicycles and jogging by themselves, wearing masks, is crazy.
And I'm trying to figure out what's going on.
And I have two hypotheses.
Both of them might be true.
One is that people are just still frightened.
Well, maybe more than one hypothesis.
One is that people are signaling their political affiliation.
I guarantee you that the people I see walking with no mask are Republicans or conservatives.
And I guarantee you that the people walking all by themselves with just a dog or just by themselves, I guarantee you they're Democrats.
Now, I'm not going to the next level where I'm saying, oh, Democrats are dumb, they don't believe the science.
I'm not saying that. I feel as if we've reached a point where Where people need to signal their allegiance because they don't want to be misidentified.
Imagine if you were...
Let's say you lived in my neighborhood, which is overwhelmingly, you know, blue Democrat.
You live in my neighborhood and you walk outside without a mask.
You're just walking your dog.
How many people would think you're a Republican?
Think about it. In my town, if you just took a walk, completely legal, recommended, with no mask...
Everybody who drove by would think their neighbor was a Republican.
Right? I feel as if people won't take the mask off yet because they don't want to be ID'd by their neighbors as Republicans.
Because they're not. Right?
The people who are Republicans just take their masks off, I think.
At least that's what it looks like.
And then the other thing is I think people are addicted to having masks on.
Right? You know, except for the itchiness, for some reason my mask itches like crazy.
That's my biggest problem.
But I've actually come to appreciate wearing the mask in public.
Has anybody had this experience yet?
If I get my own choice, I'm not going to wear masks, of course.
But that is not to say that they are completely without benefit on top of whatever they may or may not do medically.
There is something comforting about wearing a mask in public.
Has anybody felt it?
That you're in a crowd and you just get to hide a little bit better?
I've often thought that one of the main reasons that men grow beards is it lets them hide.
One of the reasons that women wear makeup is it hides their natural appearance, makes you look better.
So if you could take away the fact that it's extremely uncomfortable, I kind of like it socially, weirdly.
Not enough that I'd want to keep it.
But I feel like a lot of people are just preferring it.
They actually developed a preference for it.
All right. I've been telling you that we're right on the cusp of entering the Golden Age.
The pandemic has to get a little bit more under control before that's real.
But one of the ways you could tell you're in the Golden Age...
Is if your biggest problems aren't real.
Right? If you've got big problems that are real, well, that's not the golden age.
But if your biggest problems, like number one and number two, are not even especially real, you're in pretty good shape.
So what's the case today?
What would, let's say, Democrats say are the biggest risks, or the biggest problems in the country?
Well, they'd say climate change, And there's a big chunk of the country that doesn't even know if it's a problem or not.
How would you like your biggest problem to be one that people aren't even sure they can even tell it's a problem?
You just look at it?
I don't know. I feel about the same as I did yesterday, even with climate change.
And... Now, of course, just for clarity, because whenever you talk about this, you have to tell people your own bias.
My bias at the moment is that climate change is a real thing which we need to worry about, but that economically and technologically, we'll take care of it.
I'd call it a challenge that is well within the ability of humans to work out.
And probably the economic destruction is overstated.
So I'm not terribly worried about climate change, even if everything that is said about it is real.
So if nothing that's said about it is real, I'm not worried.
But also, if everything that's said by the experts about climate change is real...
I'm also not worried.
Because by their own estimates, they've shown that the economic impact is kind of trivial.
You won't even notice. Now, the way it's reported is that there's a giant disaster and we can predict it in the future.
But the actual thing they did predict is an amount of economic damage that you wouldn't even notice 50 years from now.
It'd be so small. So that's our big problem, and I'm not even sure I have to worry about it.
The other one is that our big problem is that white supremacist terrorism in this country.
Is that real?
Is there real white supremacist terrorism?
Probably. I mean, everybody gets to define their own way.
But let's say yes. How big is it?
How big is that problem?
Feels like it's really, really small.
Doesn't it? You could have a number of individual tragedies, which I wouldn't take away from the horrificness of them, but if you added them all up at the end of the year, it's still going to be our smallest problem.
As horrible as it is mentally, as horrible as the idea of it is, if you add it all together, it's kind of nothing.
How about war?
Are we going to go to war with Iran anytime soon?
Doesn't look like it. North Korea?
Nope. Russia?
Nope. China? Crazy.
Nope. We don't even have a war.
Apparently we're going to leave Afghanistan and give it back to the terrorists or whatever.
But I'm not sure we care.
Do we? Do we care if Afghanistan goes back to the hellhole it was from the hellhole it is?
It's just a different kind of hellhole, and I'm not sure it matters.
Then somebody's saying, what about all the shootings and murders and the uprise and crime in the inner cities?
Well, let me ask you this.
Is it a problem if you wanted it to happen?
Because the cities...
Seem to have made a choice.
The people who have stayed in the cities have made a choice that they're living in a world that's closer to the way they want it to be.
Fewer police activities, maybe fewer police accidental killings, but the price is a lot more murder.
That's sort of what people wanted.
If you say you want to defund the police, and you're a Democrat, You're kind of getting what you want.
So for me to say that's a big problem, that you're getting what you wanted, I don't know how you define that as a problem, getting what you wanted.
You know, of course, it's a problem if you're the one who gets killed.
Here's a question for you.
You know, this Arizona audit is happening, and there have been lots of criticisms that the people auditing it are not experienced, and it's going to be sloppy, and Haphazard and all other criticisms.
But if it's true that it's a sloppy, scrappy, inexperienced, amateurish operation, what is one thing that would have happened by now if they had found irregularities in the early stage?
And they would have, right?
If they're going to find enough irregularities in the whole audit, and we don't know that to be true, But if that's going to happen, don't you think that already you would know that it's heading in that direction?
As in, we've already found enough that if this ratio holds for the rest of them, you've got big problems.
Right? Do you think that this haphazard, according to the critics, I don't know how haphazard it is, this amateurish job, Do you think all the people involved with that, you don't think that they know if they've found something yet?
Of course they know.
Of course the people working on it know if they've found anything.
And they know if they've found enough that if this ratio held, it would look bad at the end.
How come you haven't heard anything?
Every day that goes by, when you don't hear that the Arizona audit found problems, the odds that there are problems shrinks.
I would say on day one, you could say to yourself, before anybody's looked at anything in the audit, you'd say to yourself, okay, what are the odds that they're going to find something?
And let's say you didn't know, so you just said, ah, 50-50.
Let's say that was your starting point.
I don't know, but I'm going to say the world we live in, there's a 50% chance.
That's day one. Every day that they continue auditing toward the end, and you don't hear about any big problems that they've already found, now I get that they would try to save it all for the end.
I get that it would be their intention to To not leak anything until the end.
But there's no way that happens in the real world, right?
If the organizers had already found things, knowing that the criticism is coming in, what would the organizers say in public if they knew that they had the goods?
Now, they might not want to tell you what the outcome is, but the organizers would say something like this.
We've found some things that are surprising, And we think you'll be shocked when you see the outcome.
Right? They wouldn't have to give you the final answer, but they would definitely be hinting that they're finding stuff.
This dog is really loudly not barking.
Which, if you had to make a bet right now, you should bet against them finding anything that would reverse the election result.
Somebody says there are NDA agreements.
Would anybody like to explain to whoever said there are NDA agreements, non-disclosure agreements, would anybody like to explain how the real world works?
And NDAs don't have any real power.
And certainly people will still tell their spouse, they're still going to tell their friends, friends are going to talk.
Even the leader would want to tell the story if they're seeing something early.
So now I think that the odds of Arizona doing anything, coming up with anything credible that reverses the outcome probably started around 50% chance, in people's minds anyway, if not reality.
And It's probably down to closer to 10% now.
Not impossible. But I would say the odds that Arizona will be this big shocking thing that changes our mind about the world, 10%.
That's my guess.
But maybe. And by the way, somebody says, will you eat your hat?
Well, keep in mind that my prediction about elections in general, not about this election in particular, but about any system which can be corrupted, Is that there's a 100% chance that it will be, if there's a big payoff for doing it, and there is.
The only thing you don't know is if it's happened yet.
There's no question that it does happen sometime over the life cycle of this opportunity for mischief.
It'll happen definitely.
You just don't know if it's happened yet.
That's the only thing that's in question.
So, no, I don't have an assumption about whether Arizona will turn up any kind of irregularities, but I think maybe it's like 10% chance at this point.
Ian Martizas, I hope I always...
Ian, I don't know if I ever pronounce your name correctly, but let's say that's close.
Ian Martizis did a study in which he checked the neutralizing antibodies for people who had the following conditions.
They either got one of the major vaccines, Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson& Johnson, or instead they had actually been infected and now they have antibodies from that.
And what did you think it came out?
Now, of course, any study like this would have to be repeated and, you know, peer-reviewed to get, you know, and ideally you'd want it randomized and controlled and everything.
So we're not kidding ourselves that this kind of a trial would be a final answer to anything, but it's real provocative.
You know, if this were If this were duplicated and these results did hold, it would find that, and again, this is the big if, it would find that the two-shot vaccines, Moderna and Pfizer, give you really high protection and it stays a long time.
It's like the best you can do.
Way below that is natural immunity.
Way below it.
Let me say that again.
Natural immunity doesn't come close To the immunity you get from the two-shot regimen.
But natural immunity does come kind of close to the one-shot Johnson& Johnson.
Now, the problem, of course, is that it might be that every one of these conditions lowers your risk of dying to effectively zero.
Right? I haven't heard of people getting the coronavirus for a second time and then dying after the second infection.
Do we have even one example of that?
Because I think even the Johnson& Johnson reduces the risk of dying to effectively zero, right?
Am I right on that? Do me a fact check on that.
So if you're talking about dying, they're probably all just about equally good in terms of they reduce your risk of dying to something closer to zero.
Yeah, I know the cytokines...
But it seems to me that if you've recovered from one infection, your odds of dying from a second one, unless something happened in the meantime to give you another comorbidity, feels like it's vanishingly small.
Because first of all, you've proven that you can recover from this exact virus.
So why would you not recover the second time?
Unless something had happened. All right, so I think this is not only really, really useful information, but Ian is an incredible data visualizer guy in addition to his other talents and his talent stack.
So you're going to see one of the best graphs you've ever seen.
And I hate to get excited about a graph.
You know, it's the wonkiest thing you could ever do.
But when you see a data visualization, That's this good.
You know, just the way it's presented visually.
It's freaking thrilling.
It really is. To see something done so well.
So just look at the graph, if nothing else, to see how well you can explain something visually if you really know how to do this stuff.
The difference between the people who are the best in the world at it, and Ian would be one of those, And people who are just kind of good at it.
It's like Michael Jordan versus a high school basketball player.
They both play basketball, but not really.
You know what I mean?
So I guess Joe Biden is saying that he's not yet committed to K-12 schools reopening full-time because the coronavirus remains unpredictable, say his staff.
But as Mark Hemingway just pointed out on Twitter, we have lots of data from private schools.
So there have been enough private schools open the whole time that we should know exactly what the risk is by now.
And the risk doesn't look very high.
So the assumption is that maybe teachers' unions are influencing Biden.
And just think about how bad that is, that teachers' unions are influencing Biden.
And this point is going to come back on another topic when I get to it.
But just think about that.
That Biden is keeping people out of schools.
Probably the data doesn't support it, but it's because of the teachers' unions, who, as you know, are the source of all, well, most of, systemic racism in this country.
There's another... I've been predicting this forever, and I know you think it's the worst prediction I've ever made, and I know you're going to say, well, okay, you got lucky on a few things, but there's no way you're right about this one.
But I swear to God, I think I'm right about this.
I think black Americans are going to turn Republican.
And the reason is just, it's obvious.
Look at, for example, the trust of vaccines.
Do you know that the black Americans are almost the same as Republicans when it comes to whether or not they're going to get the vaccination?
Very similar thinking.
How about religion?
Very similar, right?
Very religious, Republicans.
And although you don't see enough of this in the news, pro-law and order.
The black population and the Republican population, fairly pro-law and order.
And I haven't seen data on this, but probably pro-Second Amendment.
There's just a lot they have in common, you know?
And they just have to figure it out.
Because certainly...
Let me ask you this.
If you could imagine a random group of black Americans sorted into Democrats and Republicans.
So one group is just black American Republicans.
And the other is black American Democrats.
Which ones are making more money?
Which ones have found ways to overcome what is inevitably racism that always exists?
But which ones have just completely overcome it?
You know, in terms of a practical sense.
It's still always there, but overcome it.
Yeah, the Republicans every time.
It's because the Republican way of approaching things doesn't just work...
But it works for the people around you, which is the big deal, right?
It doesn't just work for the person doing it.
Stay in school, stay off drugs, have a religion.
It's helpful in a lot of ways.
I'm not religious, but it helps in a lot of ways.
There's like a little Republican formula that if you're black and you follow that formula, your odds of success are really close to 100%.
And I don't think that would be true for anybody else, any other group.
So I think the logic of it, if the media were not brainwashing people so effectively, I think this would just happen on its own, because there's a commonality there that is pretty strong.
All right. The best, coolest news today, and finally something I can sink my teeth into and get a little interested in, Joel Pollack reported on this in Breitbart, and I had missed it, but it's kind of a big deal.
So when Tim Scott said in his response to the State of the Union, he said that America is not a racist country.
Well, you can imagine how that went over, right?
Because on social media and all the pundits said, what are you talking about?
Of course it's a racist country.
We got racists here.
We're not talking about every person being racist, of course.
Nobody said that. But there are lots of racists, lots of racism, and there's lots of systemic racism.
And it's all over the place.
And how could Tim Scott say we're not a racist country when all the evidence says yes?
But here's the fun part.
How many times have I told you how clever it was that Black Lives Matter came up with that slogan, Black Lives Matter?
Because if you try to Expand it to All Lives Matter, you became branded a racist.
And so it became this really powerful linguistic little package that punched much higher than its weight class.
So persuasion-wise, the phrase Black Lives Matter, A +, genius, did what it was supposed to do, maybe better than even the people who came up with it thought it would do.
But when Tim Scott said, America is not racist...
He created, and I don't know how much was intentional, but he created the same kind of trap.
Because what happened next?
Kamala Harris and Joe Biden will be asked the question, is America a racist country?
Do you see the beauty of this yet?
What can they say?
So you put the president...
Let's just take Biden as my example.
You put the president of the United States in this awkward little box...
Where he has to either insult his own country for being racist, which you can't say in front of China, can you?
Can Joe Biden say United States is a racist country while China is listening?
He can't.
He can believe it.
He can say it privately.
But if you're the President of the United States, you can't brand your own country racist when China's putting Uyghurs in In, you know, these training facilities, right?
Because our statements about other countries only carry weight if we're not like them.
The moment he admitted, oh yeah, we're a racist country, and then he says, hey China, stop putting Uyghurs in these camps, what does China say?
China obviously is going to say, no one wonders...
Why my front door would be ringing here.
If you don't mind, I'm going to look at my security camera for a second.
It's like somebody is delivering something.
So Don't know what. Okay.
Sorry about that.
It's too far away.
I can't do that now. So...
So Joe Biden had to say, in response to, is America a racist country?
He had to give an answer. And here's the answer he gave on the NBC Today show.
He said, quote, no, I don't think American people are racist.
What? I thought there was a big problem with white supremacy.
But he says the American people, he doesn't believe they're racist.
But he says, but I think after 400 years, African Americans have been left in the position...
Where they're so far behind the eight ball in terms of education, health, in terms of opportunity.
I don't think America is racist.
Now he's changed a little bit.
So he started with the American people are not racist.
And then he went further and said, I don't think America as a country is racist.
But he said, but I think the overhang from all the Jim Crow and before that slavery had a cost and we have to deal with it.
Well... That kind of just destroys the entire Democrat philosophy, doesn't it?
Did Joe Biden not just become a Republican?
Because isn't the Republican opinion that we're not a racist country, as Tim Scott said, but that, yes, everybody understands that black Americans have not made the same progress as other people, And it would be good if they did.
It's starting to look really Republican.
Isn't it? And I'm thinking to myself, is this going to become like the new thing?
You know, you always wonder what's going to be the thing that the news latches onto.
But making Joe Biden answer this question over and over again about are we really racist, it's going to be hard for him to explain why Why he ran for office because he believed the fine people hoax.
If you believed the fine people hoax that the president had called the racist fine people, then maybe you do think it's a racist country and there's a much bigger problem here.
But he's got some explaining to do.
I think he just threw the entire democratic idea that everything is victimhood and we've got to fix it under the bus.
But I also wonder...
What obligation does the country have to fix a problem where there's a group of people who are starting from behind?
What is the philosophical...
What is the backing for helping people because they started from behind?
Now, I guess in this theory that the starting from behind was caused by the white people who were the slavers.
But again, you have the comparison problem, don't you?
Because even the slavers, it's not like they took wealth away from the slaves, because the slaves didn't have any wealth, even before they were slaves.
And it's not like they denied them the education that they were getting before.
So the proper comparison would be...
The descendants of black people in this country, and how are they doing on average economically, compared to the descendants of the people who were left behind in Africa, and how are they doing economically?
That's the comparison.
So if the people who are left behind in Africa are doing far worse, and I actually don't know how that would come out, but if they are, then you could say that the descendants of slavery came out ahead.
They just didn't come out nearly as ahead as other people.
But is that a cause for fixing it?
Because you could argue that no matter how bad the actions were, and of course slavery is sort of the ultimate sin, right?
No matter how bad that is, let's call it the ultimate sin, it's just sort of a truth that even bad things can produce some good outcomes.
Even horrible things can accidentally produce some good outcomes.
And one of those good outcomes is, I'm guessing, That the average black American is way better off than if their ancestors had never been an American in the first place under any situation.
I'm guessing. But if we don't know the answer to that, it's hard to figure out how to fix it.
All right. You heard on Project Veritas when they had the undercover video that...
That climate was going to be the next topic that CNN was going to start pushing because they need something big and scary.
So again, of course, just like Project Veritas told us was coming, CNN's got a story today about the glaciers are melting faster than predicted.
So on one hand, you've got CNN pushing climate fear.
At the same time...
We've learned that climate change and the fear of it is causing a lot of mental health problems, especially for young people.
Like a lot of them.
Like, seriously, a lot of really bad mental health problems.
And it's because young people don't know that the media is illegitimate.
If you're my age, you know that them saying that there's a bad thing coming means there might be, but probably not, because the news is just not legitimate.
And if you're young, imagine how scary it would be being told that you're going to burn up and the planet will be uninhabitable sometime in your Middle Ages.
Now, when I was a kid, we believed that the odds of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was...
Closer to probable than improbable.
So I grew up sort of with PTSD that a nuclear weapon was going to detonate any moment and I would be killed or maimed by it.
And I don't know if that had a toll on me, but I feel like it did.
I feel like worrying about blowing up in a nuclear blast...
Probably affected my childhood, somehow, don't you think?
And I would definitely believe that climate change panic is causing a lot of mental illness.
So, remember I told you that CNN creates the problem and then reports on it?
Here's another one.
The more of these you see, the more obvious it becomes, because it's invisible until you see examples.
CNN scared the crap out of the public, and people in their business, scared the crap out of the public, probably scared them beyond what is reasonable.
Now, they may have had good intentions to get something going, but the effect of it is that the news business caused this massive mental illness, and then they turned it into a story about how climate change is causing the mental illness.
But is that what happened?
No. Climate change didn't cause anybody's mental illness.
The news is reporting on it, and the way they frame it caused the mental illness.
Not the warming, because you walk outside and it's kind of the same as yesterday.
There's literally nobody who is actually mentally affected by actual climate change.
None. Because we don't feel it, right?
Even today's scary story about the glaciers melting faster says they've added a quarter inch to the sea level.
Could you tell the difference?
No, right?
So this is a fake story in the sense that I'm not saying that climate change is fake.
I'm saying that the fear of it is caused by the media, and then the media blames it on climate change.
It was never climate change.
It was the media. They're the ones who caused the mental health problem.
That's it. That's the whole story.
Now, climate change itself might be bad, but that's separate.
There's a story here about a new way to weed your crops with lasers.
How much do you love that?
How much do you love that now there's a big truck that drives over your crops...
And it uses some kind of plant recognition to know the difference between a plant and a weed.
And as it's driving off over the weeds and plants, it fires lasers into the weeds.
Only the weeds.
How cool is that?
Because apparently it removes the need for a lot of chemicals and pesticides and stuff.
That's pretty cool, isn't it?
Now, you may have known this technology was coming because you can go to your local pharmacy and you can buy a little device that does exactly the same thing for the hair on your body.
Have you seen those? So it's a little device.
Let's say you've got a little back hair.
You're a guy. You want to get rid of some back hair.
You just run this over your back And it senses the difference between a hair and just back.
It actually shoots a little laser into the hair.
Now, I have used this product.
And it's like a little...
It feels like a little maybe snap of a rubber band or something.
Yeah. So you can remove your hair with one of these cheap devices.
So putting the same technology into...
Into farming just made sense.
If you knew about that other device, you would have seen that coming.
There's news today that I think is fake news about an Iranian prison swap in which allegedly the U.S. and Iran would swap some prisoners, and then allegedly, and I think this is the fake part, there would be some large amount of money that we would give to Iran as part of this deal.
Now, the administration is denying it.
But not denying that they're having conversations about prisoners, which apparently is not that big a deal.
Colin says, counterpoint, here in Alaska we get far less snow in our ski resorts as a result of an increase of temperature of a couple of degrees.
Well, I'm just saying that you probably don't have a mental health problem Because your ski slope doesn't have enough snow.
I mean, unless you work there, I suppose.
But I'm not saying that climate change isn't happening.
I'm just saying that for most of us, we wake up, we go through our day, and it's not really affecting us.
And I don't think you can know for sure that climate change is changing what's happening at your ski slope.
But maybe. I don't rule it down either.
All right. So I don't think this Iranian prison swap story is real.
In terms of the money part.
And the reason is, I don't believe Biden would be so dumb as to do the same thing that caused conservatives to talk about the pallets of cash forever.
You know, everybody knows the story, Obama giving Iran pallets of cash to make a nuclear deal, and then things didn't go well.
So, I'm going to call fake news on that.
I don't think there will be a dollar amount considered.
Here's some more fake news and my opinions, but this is sort of marginal fake news.
You've all heard the story that Warren Buffett, who's worth over $100 billion, has lived in his same house in Omaha since 1958.
And if you Google it, you'll find all kinds of stories confirming it.
And when I mentioned some skepticism about it, people who live in Omaha said, oh yeah, he's sited in Omaha on a regular basis, going to just local eateries.
And so, yes, Warren Buffett does in fact live in the same little house he bought in 1958.
Well, does he?
Does he? Let me add this.
Skepticism. Number one, you always see the picture of the house and it looks kind of modest.
You know, it's a sizable house, but it looks modest for a billionaire.
But then you see it from the air.
It turns out that modest part is just what you can see from the street.
It turns out it's not nearly as modest as it used to be because there are extra construction that you can't see.
So it's bigger than it looks.
And we don't know what was added.
So it's certainly not the same house he bought in 1958.
So let's remove the idea that it's the same house.
It might be the same land, and it might look the same from the street, but there's a lot of extra stuff going on back there that we don't have any details about.
But beyond that, do you think he lives in that house in Omaha?
Really? Here's what I think, and I'm just going to guess.
If he really lived in that house, we probably would have heard something like this.
He spends at least 200 nights a year in his house, but he travels a lot too.
Or something along those lines.
And... So I think he probably travels and stays at luxury places as he travels.
But when he does his Omaha thing, where he does his annual meeting, he probably does stay at the house.
It probably is his official residence.
He probably does visit there often.
But I don't think he lives there.
If I had to guess...
Do you think he spends more time sleeping not in that house than he spends in the house?
What do you think? I'm going to guess that while he probably does use it as a home base, that where he actually spends his time probably in more of a luxurious setting that's, you know, temporary or rented or his private plane or whatever.
Alright. Yeah, I see a lot of you disagreeing because you want to believe that he really just has a modest little house.
But I'm going to say, without knowing any of the facts, I think that he does not sleep there most of the time.
But if I'm wrong about that, I'd be amazed.
But I could be wrong.
There's a weird thing happening in fashion and celebrity news.
Which is, and I'm trying to figure out how to say this without getting cancelled, because I'm going to talk about it like it's interesting.
I'm trying not to insult anybody, right?
So the concept which I'm going to talk about is not intended as anybody's insult.
But it wasn't that long ago...
When the celebrity news would show impossibly beautiful people, usually female, and we, the normal unwashed masses, would look at them and we'd say, my God, like, how can anybody be that fit and beautiful?
And it looks like you can't even, the dimensions, it looks like a Barbie, you know, is it just some kind of, is it all plastic surgery?
Like, how is it even possible?
But I don't know if it's culture or the pandemic that changed it, but that reporting has changed to the same, literally in some cases, the same people who were photographed by the paparazzis looking beautiful, and here's somebody caught in a bikini, and don't they look incredible?
It's kind of turned into frumpy people, dressed casually, who definitely have a few extra pounds, But are still celebrities.
And here's the funny part.
The text that talks about the celebrities hasn't changed.
But the celebrities definitely changed.
They don't look the same as they did a year ago.
So it used to be there'd be an impossibly attractive-looking person, and then the text would be, blah, blah, blah, is showing off their fit and toned body, making everybody jealous at the beach, or something like that.
So the text and the picture totally match.
Now the picture will be somebody who's 40 pounds overweight, and the text will say, so-and-so is showing off their toned abs.
And I'm thinking, no.
Again, I'm not fat-shaming.
That's not the point of this.
The point is that now the text...
Is completely out of touch with the picture.
They just don't match anymore.
And they've started to do lots of sexy pictures of senior citizens.
Have you seen that? So Sharon Stone, who was in her 60s, whatever, has been appearing in all these semi-sexy pictures of, here's Sharon Stone in her 60s, showing off her bikini body, or not bikini, but showing off her legs and stuff.
So the celebrity photography business has just took a really weird turn.
And then the ultimate was, do you all know Billie Eilish?
So Billie Eilish, a woman who, a very successful singer, and most famous for dressing the least like a beautiful person that you possibly could.
Like, she went as far as you could in the looking like she wasn't trying, you know, to just wearing, you know, frumpy stuff and whatever.
And apparently she got talked into or decided to or whatever to show a more revealing look of herself on the cover of British Vogue.
And I don't want to be unkind, but she didn't quite pull it off, if you know what I mean.
And again, I'm not trying to be unkind, and that's not the point.
The point is not about the person.
So this is nothing about the person.
You know, if she wants to get more healthy and whatever, I'm all for it.
It has nothing to do with the person.
But the way the media is treating this is just weird.
They're just showing people not attractive and talking about them as if they're just the way they used to look.
When you see it, it's crazy.
The British publication, Daily Mail, is the one that's the most hilarious.
The whole right side is all these pictures of celebrities, and most of them are like somebody looking great.
Somebody showed off their body, and you click on them, you're like...
They look kind of normal to me.
They don't look superhuman like they used to.
So that's different.
And... I think that is all I wanted to say.
So, are any of you feeling anxious or depressed about climate change?
Go. How many of you feel that you lose sleep or that you're super worried about the future because of climate change?
And I'll bet you almost nobody, because knowing my audience, most of you lean conservative, even though I don't.
And I'm sort of all over the map.
But, yeah, conservatives just aren't worried.
Now, don't you think that's an advantage of not being susceptible to fake news?
I think that's an advantage.
Being conservative makes you more mentally fit.
So now we have two points.
Three, really.
I would say we have at least three data points that show that being a liberal gives you brain damage.
So the first one was that we learned that Looking at only one kind of the news, either only CNN or only Fox News, if you only looked at one, you would get brain damage because you'd start to believe that one narrative was true, and it would distort your ability to sort out reality.
So, since we know that conservatives are always exposed to the news on the left, but then they also watch their own conservative news, they don't have this problem, presumably.
Because they're seeing the whole picture.
They're just preferring some news.
The other people are only seeing selected news.
So they're actually technically brain damaged, according to science.
Now we see this climate change is causing massive mental illness that, as you can see in the comments, doesn't affect conservatives because they're just not that worried.
So now you have two fairly well-confirmed, I would say, credible statements that being liberal causes brain damage.
Then I would add to that the fear of the police, for example, the fear of being killed by the police.
Let's say if you're African American, how afraid should you be of actually being killed by the police?
Well, if you looked at the news, you'd be plenty scared, and probably your own experience would be negative as well.
But if you looked at it statistically, statistically, what are your odds?
What are the odds of being killed by the police if you're not resisting arrest or you're unarmed?
That's pretty small. But I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people who literally have some form of PTSD because they're afraid of the police, afraid of getting killed by the police.
So I think we have at least three fairly obvious situations in which the predicted outcome is that people on the left would have something like, literally, brain damage.
Again, not an insult, just a description of, you know, these forces cause these things to happen, and they're Those forces are not operating on Republicans.
But the forces are definitely operating on other people.
Suppose you're a woman, and you believe that women got paid 72 cents on the dollar, which is what Democrats largely believe.
How would you feel about going to work?
How would you feel about living in the world where you believe you get paid 72 cents on the dollar for the same work?
Probably pretty bad.
I would think that would have an effect on your mental health.
But conservatives know that the statistic isn't real.
So they don't worry about it because it's fake.
Conservatives weren't worried so much about the Charlottesville fine people thing because they didn't think it was real.
We weren't worried about Russiagate and Russia collusion.
Didn't think it was real.
Wasn't. So I've got a feeling that conservatives are where all the good mental health is happening.
