Episode 1383 Scott Adams: Hamas and Israel Both Claim Victory So I'm Happy For Them, Antisemitism, Gaetz and More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Maskless Texas worked...why?
Tom Cotton on CRT in the military
Peace with Hamas...bad for Israel
Peace with Israel...bad for Hamas
Historically predictable outcome of crime spike
Tulsi Gabbard calls out anti-white racism
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
First live stream died, so you missed the simultaneous sip if you were waiting for that.
But you can do it at home on your own.
And now we're back.
So I'll wait for a few seconds for people to pour in because I know you want to.
I was just saying that I ate out for the first time without a mask yesterday at any part of the process.
And it was delightful. It was delightful.
So I saw a story that says the guards in the Epstein jail, where Epstein died, they have admitted falsifying records.
But I don't recall ever seeing what they falsified.
Did anybody see that? And did it make any difference?
And does it have anything to do with who killed them?
So that's a weird story because it feels like it should be important, but maybe it isn't.
Who cares? So, I guess Fauci has...
Dr. Fauci has said that by July 4th, 70% of Americans should be vaccinated.
That's the target.
And if they are, we're going to be in pretty, pretty good shape.
Now, July 4th, as I told you, probably the day that Americans just say, well, we're going to...
Thank you, Andrew.
We're just going to make up our own decision about masks.
And I'm going to skip ahead.
I was going to talk about this later, but there's a great, great article in The Atlantic.
There's a sentence I've never said before.
Have I ever said there was a great article in The Atlantic?
So The Atlantic is not really a credible publication.
But Derek Thompson, who turns out to be a really good writer, so if you want to just see good writing...
Just somebody who can put together good sentences and make a point.
Derek Thompson is really good.
And he wrote an article talking about the mask mandate changes in Texas in particular, but then extended the point.
So apparently when the governor removed the mask mandate in Texas, People were predicting, oh no, it's going to be doom, because we'll all get infected without masks.
But, in fact, that did not happen, and the infections and deaths continued to go down.
Now, what Derek asks is, why?
Why? What is the reason that when Texas got rid of the mask mandate, keyword mandate, Why was there no increase in infections?
Or, yeah, why did things keep going down?
And the answer is two possibilities, as Derek points out.
Number one, maybe masks never worked.
Maybe they were just always a placebo.
But, as Derek points out by pointing to a number of studies...
The experts are still pretty unanimous, I mean close to unanimous, that masks do make a difference.
They don't make much difference outdoors, they don't make much difference if you're vaccinated or a kid, but in the right situation, masks work.
So the science still strongly suggests that masks work.
So what would be the other possibility that getting rid of mask mandates would cause infections not to go up?
In the comments, you want to take a guess before I give you the answer?
The answer is totally non-intuitive.
Most of you believe masks don't work.
But, let's say the scientists say they do.
Just for argument.
I never know what to do when I'm talking to a wall of skeptics.
Maybe it doesn't make any difference.
Well, somebody just tipped me $5 to take a sip because apparently if you missed the first part of the livestream where I had to restart, you missed your simultaneous sip and I know you need it.
So here you go.
Are you ready? Simultaneous sip coming at you.
That would be the makeup backup sip.
Just as good as the original.
But here's the second reason that maybe the mask mandate changes had no impact on results.
And it goes like this.
Nobody paid attention to the government.
That's right. When you look at states who had mask mandates and then they removed them, the people didn't change.
Nobody did anything differently.
The people who liked masks kept wearing them.
The people who were not wearing masks and were, you know, bending the rules, kept bending them.
The businesses, for the most part, that were going to require them.
Some did, some didn't.
The ones that didn't probably were the ones that were smart.
You know, like, let's say a big box store, people aren't that close.
So basically, What we learned is that the government didn't have much to do with it.
And do you recall the most...
I would say one of my most counterintuitive predictions from last year.
And I knew this one was looking good, but I didn't think anybody would agree with me.
And my prediction was that we would never be able to untangle whether leadership...
In one place, one state, or one country, was good or bad.
That we actually wouldn't be able to tell if the decisions made by the government even made a difference.
And that there are so many variables that government leadership, which you would think would be the biggest one, might not even be discoverable in the data.
You might not even see any effect.
And apparently, that's what we're seeing.
So a year later, after I said that leadership wouldn't even show up in the data, leadership Isn't showing up in the data.
Even with masks, you know, a basic thing.
So I'm still open to the possibility that masks work so little or in such special cases that maybe it didn't make that much difference to the overall pandemic.
You don't really know. But I do think the science is quite unified in saying that they do work if you use them in the right situation.
So Tom Cotton made an interesting remark, Senator Cotton.
He was talking about critical race theory being taught in the military.
And he said this, quote, If I were in a foreign intelligence service, I can think of a few things that would be more destructive to morale and unit cohesion in the United States military than critical race theory.
The idea that we are somehow simply representatives of our race as opposed to American patriots who are wearing the flag of our country in defense of common ideals.
Now that's a lot of words to say what he's saying.
I think I might have paired a few of those words off of there.
But it's a really good point, isn't it?
If you were a foreign adversary and you wanted to destroy the U.S. military cohesiveness, What could you think of that would be better than critical race theory?
It would be hard to think of something if you were intentionally trying to damage the military.
I don't know if you could think of a better idea than that.
Which makes me wonder, did they?
Did they? Is critical race theory actually being promoted by our adversaries and we don't know it?
And if they're not promoting it, Why wouldn't they?
Why wouldn't they? It would be the most obvious thing you could do to promote the idea that you would cause inner turmoil in the United States.
I can't think of anything that would be better for China.
I can't think of anything that would be better for Russia to have the United States fighting with itself about who's the racist.
So, there was a time, maybe five years ago, I would say, in my evolution of understanding of the world.
Five years ago, I would have said, yeah, I get the point.
You know, I get that if a foreign adversary was so clever that they thought they could do this, yeah, maybe they'd do it, but not really.
But in 2021...
When we know how easily a foreign adversary can move the algorithm, can decide what we see, can decide what trends, etc.
I mean, I assume they have that power.
That's an assumption. It would be crazy not to do this.
I don't see any chance that China is not using its behind-the-scenes trolls or whatever else they have.
I can't see that they wouldn't push critical race theory.
It's just obvious that it's bad for the country.
From their perspective, it's probably even more obvious.
So I'm not saying that's happening, but if it's not, I don't know why.
I mean, it would be hard to think for a reason it's not happening.
So I told you that July 4th was going to be Independence Day, no matter whether the government told us we were done or not.
Now, I'll use the The Texas story about the leadership didn't seem to change what anybody did.
It's going to work the other way, too.
When people are done with masks, we'll tell our government.
That's the way it's really going to work.
In the real world, the people are in charge.
We just don't always act like it.
We're happy to have the government take over, especially in an emergency.
But the reality is that people are in charge.
They always have been. And in this country, there's a good chance that they always will be, especially because of the Second Amendment.
So I've got a feeling that July 4th will be Independence Day, and it won't matter what the government says.
Just as the mask mandate being removed...
Didn't make people wear fewer masks.
We're just going to make up our own mind at this point, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
In fact, I think it's an advantage.
I'd like to give a shout-out to Monica Lewinsky for winning the internet yesterday with a tweet.
So an account called Uberfax asked this question, I think it was yesterday, what's the most high-risk, low-reward thing you've ever done?
And Monica Lewinsky retweeted that With the emoji of two eyeballs just looking to the side, like, hmm, hmm.
What is the most high-risk, low-reward I've ever done?
Says Monica Lewinsky.
And it was sort of, rarely do you see a perfect tweet.
That was a perfect tweet.
There's nothing you could have done.
You could think all day.
You could put a team of scientists together and say, make us a better tweet.
You know, to this, at least on a retweet at this point, and you couldn't do it.
You couldn't do it. Monica Lewinsky reached into the void of infinite possibilities and pulled out the one of infinity that was the perfect tweet.
Congratulations. Nicely done.
And I like the humility of it.
I like the sense of humor of it.
I've always liked Monica Lewinsky as a person.
Linda Tripp? Not so much, but that's a different story.
Well, here's the good news.
There's a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, and I don't think it could have worked out any better because Hamas is claiming victory, and Israel is also claiming victory.
Good job, guys. When I saw that there was fighting and people dying and stuff, and missiles and all that, tunnels, I said to myself, well, this is going to be bad.
Maybe both sides will come out worse.
Or because it's a war, maybe one side will win, but then you've got a losing side, and that's not good.
Nobody wants to lose a war.
But it didn't go that way.
As luck would have it, both sides won.
And then they stopped.
But I don't really understand why they stopped.
Because this is such a good thing for both of them.
Hamas got a big victory.
Israel's feeling good about degrading Hamas.
It was a win-win scenario.
I don't think we could have a better situation than a war in which both sides won.
So that's pretty good.
Oh, that's right.
It's really just the leaders who won.
The people just got killed.
Yeah, it was good for the Hamas leadership, because they showed they're tough, maybe consolidated some support.
It was probably good for Netanyahu.
He's got other problems, and this made him look strong and capable, and pretty good.
Now, I've heard some people say that Israel should try to get some peace over there instead of fighting.
Why? Why would they do that?
Have you ever asked yourself, why?
Because you just take it for granted that peace is better than war, right?
I mean, duh! Peace is better than war.
But is it? Hamas and Israel just had a war.
And they both say they won.
So, if you're winning, winning is better than doing nothing.
So I would say that in some cases, war is better than peace.
Now, what would happen if Israel decided, and Hamas decided, it won't happen, but suppose they decided to have peace.
Would that be good for them?
No. No, it wouldn't be.
Peace would be the worst thing for Israel.
How many of you understand that point?
That peace would be the worst thing for Israel?
Because at the moment, Israel is gobbling up land, right?
Here's a settlement. Well, maybe all of Jerusalem is ours.
Sort of like picking apart, oh, these water rights, we'll take these.
This street, we'll control.
If your country is growing, like physically growing, it's expanding, you don't want peace.
Because peace stops the growth.
This is a period in which, for the low amount of deaths that Israel is experiencing, it's a really good deal.
You know, per death, per square mile, it's a good deal.
All deaths are tragedies, of course.
But if you're looking at the bigger picture of long-term Israel security, Having more land is better.
More buffer zones, spread out your populations, bigger population, better economy.
So peace would be a huge strategic mistake for Israel.
And for the Hamas leadership, peace would get them killed.
If you're Hamas leadership and you said, you know, I got an idea.
Why don't we have some peace?
They would be instantly killed by their own people because they've been convinced they need to conquer Israel or whatever.
So is it crazy to say both sides won?
Not at all. Israel got stronger, tested out a bunch of equipment, degraded Hamas, and continues to have a little bit of moral cover as they gobble up land.
They totally won.
There's no hyperbole there whatsoever.
Israel won. But so did Hamas.
Not the people. The citizens lost.
But the leaders won.
They got exactly what they wanted.
So it is a weird case in which they both won.
So your sympathy can be with the victims, of course, but These are two leaderships that wanted to fight and got what they wanted and won.
It's hard to feel bad about that.
Yeah, and somebody on Twitter asked me, you know, what could we do persuasion-wise or shake in the box to get Hamas to want peace?
To which I say, nothing.
There's nothing he can do. There is nothing you can do that would change Israel or Hamas' sort of permanent war stance.
There's nothing. Because they want it.
And it works. And it benefits them.
You'd have to make it not work.
I don't know how you do that.
Because it does work. Alright, there's a survey.
I think this was an Axios article.
That nearly 7 out of 10 black Americans say police treatment has gotten worse in the past year.
About the same percentage believe police shootings of black and brown use have become worse in that time, according to an Axios-Ipsos poll.
So, since a year after George Floyd's death, suggesting that the relationship between black Americans and police has gotten worse.
Where in this article is the self-awareness that would say something like, and the reason that these polls have gotten worse is because of us, meaning the press?
Do you think the data would support that police were worse to black Americans in the past year?
The year of George Floyd.
The year of Black Lives Matter.
And you really believe that the police got extra bad to black citizens?
I mean, it's possible.
But I need to see some data.
Because I feel like it might have gone the opposite direction.
I feel as if maybe there were fewer cases of police abuse because they were more cautious because of the George Floyd thing.
But if it's true that 7 out of 10 say things are getting worse, 7 out of 10 black Americans, then that is their reality.
Their reality is that it feels worse, so at least psychologically it's worse.
Who caused that?
Who's the bad guy in this story?
The ones reporting it.
So the press can create a problem, assign the problem to somebody else, and then report it.
This problem is caused entirely by the press.
Entirely. And they report it without even mentioning that they caused it.
They meaning all the press, not specifically Axios.
But how do you skip that part?
How do you skip the only part that mattered, which is, why do they think that?
It's either because the data suggests it or because they've been bamboozled by the press.
It's one of those two things.
Which is it? How do you leave that out of the article?
Well, I think we know the answer.
It's the press. I've got to say more about this whole Chris Cuomo, Andrew Cuomo thing, Governor Cuomo.
Apparently, Chris Cuomo's brother works at CNN. It was reported he participated in a strategy session phone call about the sexual allegations charges against his brother.
Now, I guess he's apologized, said it was a mistake, got lots of criticism, etc.
And I don't buy into any of it.
Like, just none of it.
Now, first of all, I understand the point of conflict of interest.
So, the people who disagree with what I'm about to say, please don't explain to me what conflict of interest is, because I know what it is, and I know that they had it.
No doubt about it, conflict of interest.
But you know what else they had?
Pretty much full transparency.
Was there anybody who watched CNN who didn't know that Chris Cuomo was the brother of Andrew Cuomo?
No. It was the most transparent thing ever.
Does anybody think that family members don't talk to each other and give advice?
Nobody believes that.
Everybody knows that family members talk to each other and give advice.
Do you care that Chris Cuomo did it in a way that was at least public enough that a story was written about it?
There were lots of witnesses.
I'm happy he did it in front of witnesses.
I'm happy he was transparent.
He never hit it.
He admitted it, said it was a mistake, which I don't agree with.
I don't think it was a mistake.
It was a mistake in terms of how it looked, but I don't want to live in a world where you can't talk to your brother.
Let me say this like three times.
I don't want to live in a world where I can't talk to my brother.
Anytime I want, about any topic I want, period.
I do not care if the government thinks it's a conflict of interest.
That's too far. That's way too far.
Now, I think it would be reasonable for the government to maybe ask for transparency, for everybody to understand that it's a brother situation.
That's fair, because then you can calculate in your mind how much you care about it.
Let me ask you this. Is anybody giving Don Lennon a hard time for his conflict of interest with Governor Cuomo?
What? You say there is no conflict of interest?
Because Don Lennon is just a news reporter.
He's not a brother. He's not a brother.
But his colleague is the brother.
Do you think that Don Lennon doesn't take into account That his close colleague is the brother of the governor?
Of course he does.
Because he's a human, right?
You know, criticize Don Lemon if you like, but he's a human.
You could put anybody in that position, and of course they would be biased by not wanting to throw their co-worker under the bus.
Imagine seeing Chris Cuomo in the break room after you just did a show throwing his brother under the bus.
How's that going to go, right?
So... Yes, I get there's a conflict of interest, but it's the entire CNN. There's no CNN host who doesn't have a conflict of interest because their colleague is his brother.
Chris Cuomo is just one of the people with a conflict of interest.
Why are we ignoring the rest of them?
And again, as long as everybody's transparent, I think that's as good as you can do.
It's as good as you can do.
All right. Apparently, telehealth has exploded, and about half of the people on Medicare who needed a doctor did it by phone in the past year.
And that's real good news.
And I wanted to begin a little series, I may do more of them, I'm not sure, called Heroes of the Pandemic.
I wish I had some kind of like a musical score to introduce this.
Heroes of the pandemic.
So these are people who did really good stuff that maybe you've never heard their name.
So you're going to hear it for the first time.
And I'll tell you a little story.
I've told you some of this, but I'll add a little detail you didn't know.
So when the pandemic first broke out, the government, the U.S. government, and people in it said some version of this.
What do we do now?
Does anybody have any ideas?
And literally, the government sort of put out all of its feelers to, and I'm just going to say this, I know how it sounds, I know how it looks, but it's just accurate.
They put out their feelers to smart people.
And basically, they said, hey, smart people, do you have any ideas?
You know, like, what should we be doing?
Is there a way we could do more executive orders that would be useful?
Is there something we should change?
Is there a rule that should be struck for the pandemic?
And you didn't see this part of the story because it happened all under the hood.
But under the hood, the smartest people in the country were very active.
Very active. Because the government immediately just sent in its feelers and plugged in like this giant machine.
Like the people who were operating sort of like as independent units suddenly just became part of it like a machine.
Any idea that was from any smart person in this network that almost immediately was formed, any idea just went right to the right person immediately and was vetted by the other smart people, etc., So there's a great story here about what happened that nobody was watching, which is the personal connections that formed spontaneously, because everybody said the same thing.
If it's an emergency, what do I do?
Like, how do I help?
What's my contribution?
Now, many of you were with me since then, and you know that I took a responsibility for helping you get through it psychologically.
I said, well, what can I do?
What's something I have a unique ability to do?
And uniquely, I thought that I could help you not worry more than you needed to.
I mean, it was certainly a situation that called for a little worrying, but I didn't want you to think this civilization was going to end, that the economy was going to crumble, that we were all going to be dead.
And so, I did my very best to persuade you that by a year from then, Which is right now.
The things would look the way they look now.
Which is the economy is roaring back.
We did not run out of food.
Zero people starved.
Think about that.
Think about what the heroes in the food services and distribution chain...
I mean, think about what those people did.
Risked their lives. Didn't know what the total risk was.
Risked their lives to keep us fed successfully.
One of the most amazing things.
All right, so here's one of the other small stories.
So one of the people who was reaching out from the government was Jonah Shoemate, chief of staff, I believe, for Rick Crawford and of Arkansas.
And Jonah was familiar with me, follows and may be watching right now, follows the live streams, etc.
And reached out and said, do you have any ideas?
And I did. You've heard this story before.
And my idea was to do an executive order to get rid of the restriction that didn't allow doctors to do telehealth across state lines, which made no sense in the year 2021.
Right? It didn't make any sense.
So... So Jonah reaches out to me.
I say, yeah, you know, we should get rid of that restriction about state lines.
This is exactly the right time to do it, and it's exactly what we need.
It took about ten minutes for Jonah to get that idea to the president's chief of staff and for me to hear that he got it and that he liked it.
It was like 10 minutes. I mean, I may be exaggerating a little bit, but it happened almost instantly.
And within, I don't know, just a few days, it wasn't long, the next thing you know, there's an executive order in which he got rid of that restriction.
And so credit to Jonah Shoemate in Representative Crawford's office.
And that was the kind of self-organizing stuff that was happening massively.
Just all kinds of self-organizing stuff.
And it was just beautiful.
It was just a beautiful thing to watch.
And you didn't get to see it.
It was all happening under the hood.
But one of the most amazing periods in history.
Someday when the real story of the pandemic is written, you're going to find out stuff you just had no idea.
Thank you, Jeff.
So, heroes of the pandemic.
Antisemitism is breaking out everywhere.
Apparently, ADL says there were nearly 200 reports of possible antisemitic incidents up from 131 the week before the Hamas conflict.
So there does seem to be a major uptick.
And of course, I don't know if Joe Biden has spoken out yet about anti-Semitism in this country spiking.
We'd like to hear from him, wouldn't we?
Now, of course, the squad has Biden's nads and a little lock-up tube there.
And I don't know he can do that.
I don't know if Joe Biden can say there's too much anti-Semitism in the United States.
It seems like it should be an easy thing to say, but maybe he can't.
So Ezra Klein had an interesting tweets and article.
I think it was an article, but it was a series of tweets I saw.
That violent crime is spiking in the cities.
So homicides are up 25% to 40% in 2020.
Largest single year increase since 1960.
So it's this gigantic crisis.
And he's warning the world, and I guess the left-leaning world, that whenever you have a massive increase in crime, there's a fairly predictable outcome.
What is the predictable outcome of a big rise in violent crime?
That's right. The big outcome is you get a Republican leader.
Because people elect Republicans when crime gets out of control.
Crime is out of control.
So you're going to see a lot more Republicans.
If history is our guide, and in this case I don't know why it wouldn't be, Because it seems like it would repeat the way it normally does.
So now you've got cities that are hotbeds of anti-Semitism.
I think it's mostly happening in cities.
You've got crime is under control.
You've got no real reason to commute anymore.
You've got traffic.
You've got pollution. And despite all of that, you've got high prices.
It's like being in a city doesn't have much of anything that you need anymore.
So you can get any form of entertainment anywhere, because most of it is digital anyway, so you don't have to go to the opera in person, etc.
And I think cities are obsolete.
And here's a bigger reason why.
Chemical and biological warfare and terrorism...
Imagine, if you will, that the United States evolved over some number of years to not have major cities.
The city has just become something else.
So that you don't have 10 million people in one place.
Because if you have 10 million people in one place, your pandemic is going to be fueled by that closeness.
If there ever had a biological attack, it's going to be devastating because people are too close.
So I'm wondering if we're reaching a point...
Where for homeland security, as well as pandemics, as well as lifestyle, as well as avoiding crime, that the cities just go away.
Can anybody give me a good reason for a city?
Historically, they made perfect sense, because you didn't have much communication.
travel was a little bit harder.
And travel was a little bit harder, so I just don't think we need them anymore.
Yeah.
All right. Tulsi Gabbard called out racism against white people.
That's good to see. Thank you, Tulsi.
Appreciate it. She was calling out specifically Mayor Lightfoot, who said she would only give interviews to black and brown people.
So clearly obvious anti-white racism.
And only one politician in the world called it out.
Seriously? Just one politician.
Nobody else had anything else to say about that.
Just one person.
She should be president just for that.
I mean, if you can't say that out loud, you can't be president.
If you can't say that out loud, that this is a case of anti-white racism, you just shouldn't be a leader in this country.
Apparently the White House is demanding that reporters submit their quotes before they're printed so that the White House can say, yes, we really said that.
That's actually fairly common among low-end publications.
Even when I'm interviewed, it's not unusual for them to run the quote by me to make sure they got it right.
That's just fact checking, right?
So fact checking is fine.
But I guess the publications don't want to make sure that their quotes are accurate.
So the news is complaining that the White House will force their news to be accurate.
And that's a problem, apparently.
Because it also gives them more control over the quotes.
Matt Gaetz, the luckiest accused guy in the world, And I've got, I'll be just a few more minutes than I can run.
But Matt Gaetz, apparently the guy who's accusing him, this Greenberg guy, has a history of once before, it is now reported, falsely accused somebody who was running against him for office once of, was it improper?
Yeah, some kind of improper sexual thing.
So, The guy accusing Matt Gaetz of improper sexual thing is documented to have made up similar accusations in the past.
Come on.
Seriously? Seriously?
One of the biggest stories in the country, and what are the odds that the guy who's accusing him is guilty of falsely accusing people just like this?
That's like the most perfect thing that ever happened for Matt Gaetz.
Let me ask you another question.
Apparently some former girlfriend of Matt Gaetz is going to testify.
So when you hear that, do you say, oh no, it's curtains for Matt Gaetz because his former girlfriend, who may have been, had access to knowledge or whatever, is going to testify?
I wouldn't assume this is going to go wrong for him.
Because I don't know about you, but most of my ex-girlfriends don't hate me.
Do your ex-girlfriends hate you?
Maybe some. But I have no reason to believe that his ex-girlfriend is going to be on the other side.
I feel as though it's at least equally likely, given that we don't know what their relationship was after they were exes, It seems very likely that she likes the guy.
It seems very likely that she will give a friendly testimony that could be good for him.
Now let me ask you this.
Are we seriously saying that this is prostitution if he offered any kind of money for somebody he was wanting to have a relationship with?
Where do you draw the line?
Let me ask you this.
If somebody is a prostitute for a living, It's their job.
And you offer them money, and they give you sex.
Well, that's prostitution, right?
You could argue whether it should be legal or illegal, but I think we'd all say, oh yeah, that's what that is.
That's some prostitution right there.
But what if...
I'll just take an example.
What if a billionaire single guy met a woman and said, hey, how would you like to go on my private plane to France for a night?
And the woman says, yes.
Is that prostitution?
Because you know they're going to sleep together on the other end.
And you know that she was enticed by the financial value and what it could give to her in this experience.
Is she a prostitute?
Because she doesn't do it for a living.
She's just a woman who was at least partially influenced by some money.
So what happens if we find out And I have a feeling it's going to go this way, that the women involved are not full-time, at least full-time, or at least not known to be working prostitutes.
What if they're just young women who are impressed by power and money, and maybe it did make a difference?
Maybe it made a difference that he paid for a hotel or that they had a little extra cash to buy dinner that night or something.
Is that prostitution?
I feel as if, even if he's guilty, I don't care.
Could we at least find a crime that somebody cares about?
Can we find a victim?
Now, obviously, if there's any underage stuff, that becomes its own category.
So at the moment, I'm not talking about anything underage.
And by the way, we've seen no evidence of that, right?
You and I have seen no evidence there's anything with a 17-year-old.
It's been alleged, but no evidence.
If it turns out that all he did was he was generous with women and it influenced their decisions, even if it influenced their decisions a lot, I just don't care.
It was just people doing what they wanted to do, willingly, transparently.
I mean, come on.
Let's grow up and stop acting like we care about that stuff, because we plainly don't care about that stuff.
All right. That is what I wanted to talk about today.
There we go. And, yeah, the Epstein thing, the guards falsified some documents, but we don't know anything about that.
So maybe we'll find out more.
Let's find out more. If you're still talking about it, they win.
Yeah, that's the problem. Anything you talk about, they win.
What about crypto? I don't have a current opinion on that.
And I've got to go run and do something else, and I will talk to you.
Oh, somebody asks, how's my audiobook going?
Well, I couldn't believe this, but a lot of people are buying the audio version of How to Failed Almost Everything and still went big, because I just re-recorded it.
Now, it's in my voice for the first time.
It was a voice actor before.
And I'm kind of amazed and totally surprised that a lot of people who have already read it or already heard it with the other actor are still buying this one just to hear it in my voice.
I did not expect that, but there were so many people who asked me to record it in my own voice, I thought, well, if so many people want it, it must be something they want.
So I gave it to them, and I'm just blown away by the response.
