Episode 1403 Scott Adams: Bunnies and Chocolate Ice Cream Are the Decoy Topics For Today
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
CRT's flaw ensures its failure
Why are there no effective Black leaders?
800% jump in Texas Fentanyl seizures
88,000 Fentanyl deaths, up from 19,000
Jeffrey Toobin is back!
Woke American Generals and climate change
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
A lot of people are saying it's the best thing that's ever happened to them.
I can't give you their names because they'd like to remain anonymous.
But I'm telling you, anonymous people everywhere are saying that this is the best thing that's ever happened.
And we'll do the simultaneous sip in a moment.
But first, I'd like to talk about Word thinking.
Because I want to get you all mad before we start.
You ready for this? Here's a typical conversation between a potential transgender person and a typical conservative.
I told you, you're going to get mad.
It goes like this.
Transgender says, you know, I know I was born with male body parts, but on the inside, in my mind, I feel that I'm really female, and I'd like the freedom to be able to live my internal life, you know, my mental truth, and that will take some changes on my external parts.
Conservative says, you're a man.
The transgender says, no, I get that.
I get what you're saying, that I was born with male body parts.
But the part you can't see, the part that's in my head, Thinks I'm female, and always has.
You know, it's been many years.
I'm in my 30s now.
So I get your point, but I'd like to alter the exterior part to make it consistent with my interior thoughts.
The conservative says, you're not a woman.
And the transgender says, yeah, we've been over this.
I get what you're saying.
On the outside, biologically, the stuff you can see...
I'm definitely a man.
But on the inside, the part you can't see, that's personal to me, I'd like to live consistent with my interior truth.
A conservative says, you're not a woman.
Are they having the same conversation?
They're not. The entire topic is just bullshit.
It's just two people having a different conversation...
While imagining it's the same conversation.
Somebody says, LOL, they never concede physical biology.
Yes, they do.
That's why you do the operation.
The operation, its only point, is because they concede the physical reality.
There's no disagreement here.
Now, the question of who plays in what sports leagues is a completely separate question.
And I think there's room for disagreement in that.
But there's no disagreement about the fact that somebody has male parts or female parts when they're born, and we act as if somehow that's a disagreement.
All right. Now that we've settled that, and you know that that's a fake debate, How about the Simultaneous Sip, if there's anybody left, because I know you don't like that topic.
And if you'd like to enjoy this to the maximum extent, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen drug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Everything. It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and you're going to savor it.
Go. Savor it.
Savor it. Good.
Good. Well, apparently there's a bipartisan group of senators.
Ten senators, five Dems, five GOP. And these awesome people in the middle of the political spectrum agreed on an infrastructure package.
Now, of course, they would have to sell their agreement to the wider body of Congress.
But amazingly, five Dems and five Republicans...
Came up with an agreement for an infrastructure package.
Would you like to hear the details of what they came up with?
Why? What's the difference?
It doesn't make any difference.
It's not like anybody's going to implement this agreement.
The whole reason that people disagree is for political reasons.
If ten people got together and said, hey, If we were to ignore the politics of this for a moment, what kind of agreement would we come up with that was just sort of good work for the public?
Nobody cares about that.
Are you kidding me?
Do you think AOC cares what these ten people came up with?
I don't think so. You think Bernie cares?
No. Now, Biden might care, because he is centrist by nature, I think.
That's my opinion of him.
But I don't think this is going anywhere.
So that's my prediction, is that the bipartisan agreement means absolutely nothing in today's day and age.
But I'm glad they tried it.
Now, if I'm wrong, suppose I'm wrong.
Suppose That Congress actually agreed on some version of this bipartisan package.
What would that tell you?
If that happened, wildly unlikely, but if it happened, this is the only way we should do government.
We should do it like this every time.
If it works, do you know why we've never done it this way before?
Oh, actually, maybe we have.
Maybe you can think of some historical situation.
But in the current times, I don't think this is really a thing you can do.
Because the people involved are not trying to do what's right.
They're just not. They're trying to do what gets them elected.
They're trying to do what their side agrees with, etc.
So, I predict this will go nowhere.
But I'd love to be wrong.
If there's anything I would like to be wrong about, it would be that.
There's some news out of Iran...
That I don't know if this is real.
It feels exactly like fake news because it's just a little bit too on the nose.
But the way it's coming to us looks real.
So I guess I'm a little on the fence on this one.
Because there is a video and people are not saying it's fake.
But here's the story.
There's a candidate for president in Iran.
And the candidate, Mohsen Rezaeh, says that he'd take a thousand more American hostages and use the hostage ransom money to boost the Iranian economy.
Now, I'm thinking he probably won't get elected.
That doesn't really seem like a campaign promise that would catapult you into the presidency.
Given that that would cause us to attack Iran and destroy it completely.
But, is this real?
Do you think that a candidate for president in Iran actually said that?
Because it really doesn't sound like something that somebody would have really said in public.
So I'm going to put a little asterisk next to this one and say, maybe.
But if I got caught on this as fake news, I would feel pretty bad.
Because it looks like fake news.
Doesn't mean it is. It just smells like it and looks like it.
I don't know how it could be fake news, but it sure looks like it.
So here's the good news that could come out of bad news.
Critical race theory being taught in our schools is very divisive.
Turns out there are plenty of black Americans who think it's a really bad idea to divide people by race and make race your primary filter on life.
And I wonder if there's a positive thing that could come out of this, which is if critical race theory is what finally breaks the teachers' unions by taking their credibility completely out of the universe, maybe we get more school competition.
It wasn't the way anybody would have wanted to do it, but maybe this is such an overreach and so outrageous that it is the reason The school competition leaps into being, that plus the coronavirus, where maybe it wouldn't have.
So it's possible that this is what breaks the system and breaks the control of the teachers' unions, which, as you know, are the primary source of systemic racism.
Because if the teachers' unions didn't block competition in schools, which they do effectively, By controlling politics.
They have a lot of money so they can control politics locally.
If they weren't doing that, maybe we'd have better school competition.
Maybe black kids and white kids and brown kids of all types who are low income could have good educations.
I'm going to make a statement that I feel is fair, which is that in the United States, if you get educated, you'll be fine.
Now, that education could include a trade skill.
It doesn't have to be a traditional college.
But if you get an education or develop a useful skill, you'll be fine in this country.
It is basically all you need if you stay out of jail and don't get addicted.
And so, I would like to make this following statement.
In general, you know that I like systems over goals, right?
I like a system, something you're doing every day to get you into a good situation, as opposed to a goal, which is, I'm going to do this specific thing, but I don't know how.
It's kind of useless. So the goal is to have everything equal and no racism, right?
If we could just snap our fingers and say, all right, all the racism is gone, and now everything's equal.
Well, maybe. Maybe we'd snap our fingers and get that done.
But you need a system to make that happen, and I would propose the following.
Focusing primarily on your problems gives you more problems.
Focusing primarily on solutions gives you more solutions.
Critical race theory is primarily about focusing on your problem.
And if you do, you'll have more problems.
Now, remember, your reality that you live in is subjective.
If you wake up in the morning and think of only your problems, then you live in a world of problems.
If you wake up in the morning and think of only solutions and positive things, not ignoring your problems, you still have to solve problems, but it's not your main focus.
Your focus is on solutions.
What do you get more of?
More solutions, right?
The thing you're focusing on is the thing you get more of.
So if your system is critical race theory, you're going to get more racism.
And sure enough, you're getting more of exactly what you're focusing on.
If you can't learn this basic thing, that you always get more of what you focus on, again, you can't ignore problems.
But if you make it your main filter of life, you just get more of them.
Or it will feel like you have more of them, which ends up having the same impact.
At least in terms of your subjective reality.
So here, instead of focusing on the problems, I would suggest, as I have many times, that you teach strategy in schools.
Life strategy.
Now, I, of course, have written books on it.
Not that one. But How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big would be one example of Of life strategy systems you could teach to young people.
There are other ones, so it doesn't have to be mine.
But here's the thing. If you go to a young black kid and say, here's the deal, there's all kinds of racism in America, and the black kid says, yeah, I've seen it, I know what you mean.
And then you say, okay, we're done talking about that.
There's nothing else to say.
Plenty of racism. It's going to be a problem.
Never is going to go away completely.
Do you get that? Black kid says, yeah, I get that.
That's like the most obvious thing in the world.
All right, we're done talking about it.
Now let's talk about what you do about it.
Here's your strategy.
Did you know that if you do well in school, the Fortune 500 companies are begging to hire you and mentor you to the highest level you can achieve?
Did you know that? Black kid says, what?
Yeah, did you know that That if you get an education and go in for a job interview at any Fortune 500 company, that you will be picked ahead of all the white candidates.
Did you know that? And the black kid will say, I did not know that.
Well, now you do. So what are you going to do about it?
Are you going to maybe focus on school?
Because now you know that focusing on school 100% works.
Maybe it's not school.
Maybe you're more suited for a trade.
But focusing on a trade 100% works.
It doesn't work sometimes.
It works every freaking time.
So teach the kids how to succeed in a world where not everybody has equal options, but everybody has equal access to at least one option that's going to work every time.
Get a good job, go to a big company that's dying to get more diversity.
That is every big company.
All of them. You could pick your industry.
You could pick your career.
Anything. You have all of that available to you.
How about just teaching people that?
Which one do you think gets you a better result?
Teaching people to focus on their problems and complain?
Or teaching people how to minimize their problems somewhat in an obvious way?
Not even a big risk involved.
Alright. Why are there no effective black leaders?
Now you might say to yourself, Scott, you racist or you're out of it.
There are plenty of effective black leaders.
Are you kidding me? All over the place.
For example, I don't know, I can't think of any.
But there used to be, I mean, Martin Luther King was effective and a black leader and everybody understood that.
Less so in his time, but certainly we understand it in modern times.
I hear somebody in the comments saying Candace Owens, but she doesn't really extend over to the other side of the political aisle.
So there's a little bit of a limit there.
Obama didn't really take that mantle.
He tried to be everybody's president, to his credit, by the way.
I give him credit for that.
Ben Carson, not so much.
Thomas Sowell, only the right likes him.
Nelson Mandela doesn't work in the United States.
I'm just looking at your comments.
Kanye, Could be that person.
He hasn't quite made that his mission.
He could be that person, but he isn't.
Here's my hypothesis.
The reason there are no effective black leaders is because the mainstream media doesn't want any.
The mainstream media could make anyone they wanted a black leader, couldn't they?
Yeah, when you're hearing this, you just thought to yourself, holy shit, that's true.
CNN, MSNBC, the left-leaning media, could make anyone they wanted a black leader.
You just put them on television a lot.
That's it. That's the whole thing.
There's no big trick to it.
You just give somebody a lot of attention, and then people say, oh, this person's getting a lot of attention.
They must be a leader.
And they get more followers on Twitter, and suddenly they're a leader.
But why has the mainstream media...
Not effectively, you know, nominated somebody on their own to be the black leader.
And I'm not saying that, you know, it has to be black people choosing the leader because the media can just do that for you.
They can just decide who your leader is.
But they haven't done it.
Why not? Feels a little racist, maybe.
It feels like the mainstream media always promotes leaders on other topics.
I mean, you can think of any topic and think, oh, that's the person they always have on.
But where's your effective black leaders who are teaching strategy and working on school choice and are popular on both the left and the right?
There's this gigantic, gaping hole, and I feel like the mainstream media is largely to blame.
Largely to blame. Sexist Joe Biden keeps getting away with saying things that are so amazingly sexist, I can barely believe it.
So he was meeting with Boris Johnson recently, and he joked in the public that he had something in common with Boris Johnson and that they had both married above their station.
Now, that's really sexist, isn't it?
Am I the only one who thinks that?
Because this always reminds me of back in my corporate days, now, you know, decades ago.
But in my corporate days, the super sexist, usually white, male executive would often say the following about their secretary, back when secretaries were a popular thing.
They would always say, well, My secretary is really the one who's in charge here, because she's the one who tells me what my schedule is, so ha ha ha ha, yeah, it's really the secretary who's in charge.
And you think to yourself, you condescending prick.
Don't even talk that way, right?
It's just so cringy and icky.
Yeah, I'm seeing in the comments, you remember that was like the most common thing that your old white executive would say.
My secretary is really in charge.
And when I hear Joe Biden say this, oh, we both married above our station.
Because Joe Biden is president of the frickin' United States.
Jill Biden...
Is the woman who married him.
Those aren't equal.
Jill Biden is accomplished, right?
She's got a doctorate, a successful person.
But these two things are not equal.
Joe Biden is the President of the United States.
She's a successful human being, with all credit to her.
But why does he have to promote her as being better than him?
It's just sexist, cringy stuff.
How about, you know, he's doing great in his job, she's doing great in her chosen field, and you just don't need to say anything about it, maybe.
Well, we've got a fentanyl crisis at the border that's worse than ever.
59 pounds of it has come through, which is a ginormous amount.
In a year, fentanyl seizures have jumped 800% in taxes.
One year, fentanyl, the most dangerous chemical coming into the country, has jumped 800%.
That's China, and that's the cartels.
China sends the chemicals to the cartels for processing, and China promised they would clamp down on it and did the opposite.
Instead of clamping down, they've increased it, apparently.
So, why do we have still relations with China?
Why are our embassies still open?
We're at war.
And we're fucking idiots for having diplomatic relations with China while this is happening.
We should not have diplomatic relations with China while this is happening.
Now, you can't punish every country for all the bad things they're doing, right?
A lot of countries are doing bad things to their own citizens.
You still want a diplomatic presence.
But when somebody is killing tens of thousands of your people right in front of you, and not even hiding it, you don't have diplomatic relations with those motherfuckers, do you?
This is completely unacceptable.
And by the way, fuck Trump for not doing enough about it.
Fuck him. Trump promised to do a lot about this, did nothing.
I mean, he asked them to do something, they did nothing.
He didn't respond.
Fuck Trump. Fuck him for not doing enough about this.
And fuck Biden for fucking doing nothing about it, even less.
Fuck both of them.
This isn't political at all.
We're at war, and we've had two commanders in chief who don't even fucking know we're in a war.
Total, total failure, both of them.
You can't give anybody a partial credit on this.
Complete, complete failure, both presidents.
I'm not giving them anything for this.
There have been more than 88,000 Americans who died from overdoses in the last 12 months, ending in October 2020.
Up 19,000 from the same period before.
Fuck you.
Fuck every one of you politicians who ignore this.
How about pushing some critical race theory While 88,000 Americans fucking died for the war that you don't know is happening.
There's a quote in this article I was reading about this problem in which a father was talking about the moment that he was screaming at his dead son to try to get him to breathe while his wife watched on.
Now, as you know, I lost my stepson, 19 years old, to fentanyl.
There were other drugs in the system, but it was probably the fentanyl that did them.
And I got to watch him...
I got to...
I got to watch his dead body being carried out of the house, and you don't really forget that.
It's been two years.
I'm not a biological parent.
It's been two years, and it's not any fucking better.
It's not any fucking better.
You don't recover.
Thank you.
Thank you.
You hope you do, but you don't.
So, this 88,000 Americans who died from overdoses, doesn't count the families, doesn't count the siblings, doesn't count the mates, doesn't count the families.
Who are permanently disabled by this.
Permanently. You don't get better.
So, fuck Biden.
Fuck Trump. Fuck China.
We're not taking this seriously.
We're just not taking it seriously.
At all. Not even a little.
Texas is apparently building a border wall, and thank you for that.
I don't know that it'll stop fentanyl, but it's a step in the right direction.
On other news, the CDC says it is unknown how long natural immunity lasts after having COVID-19.
And in the Twitter summary of the news...
Twitter summarized it this way.
U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky falsely stated that because he recovered from COVID-19, he does not need to get vaccinated, CBS News reports.
So here's my problem.
I get that what they're saying is that if you have natural immunity...
You might benefit, we don't know this 100%, but you might benefit from a little extra boost of immunity from the vaccination, and it might give you a little protection from variants.
Now, I think that both of those are questionable assumptions.
Meaning that although it's probably true that getting the vaccination, even if you've recovered and have antibodies, probably the vaccination would give you a longer immunity.
We know the natural immunity is likely to decrease over time, as does the vaccination, but probably it gives you longer immunity.
We don't know if that matters, though, right?
Does longer immunity matter?
Don't know. Because maybe the amount of immunity you get is all you need and the crisis will pass and you'll be fine.
What about the protection against the variants?
Do you believe that the vaccination protects against variants but natural immunity does not?
Do you believe that?
I don't think that's demonstrated, is it?
So there might be a scientific consensus on what's likely to be true, but I don't think that's been demonstrated, has it?
And so if you're Rand Paul and you're looking at your own personal situation and you're saying, well, my risk reward is I don't want to put a new chemical inside me, even though the risks are small, because the risk of having a problem once I've had the coronavirus is also very small.
And so he might say, I don't need it.
But here's my problem.
Don't use the word need on this topic.
Do you know what Rand Paul needs?
He needs you to shut the fuck up about what he needs.
How about, that's none of your business, what he fucking needs.
How about we let Rand Paul decide what he fucking needs.
Giving him options is great.
Explaining what the potential benefits of those options is?
Even better. Having full information about your options?
Excellent. Telling him what he fucking needs is too far.
He will decide what he fucking needs.
Alright? Nobody else.
Nobody else. Don't use that word.
Don't use it on me.
Don't use it on him. We'll decide what we fucking need.
Okay? Favorite story of the day?
Jeffrey Toobin is back on CNN. God, do I want to make lots of jokes about this, but they're all too easy, and so I'll maybe hold back on a few of them.
I can't say that I will avoid all Jeffrey Toobin jokes.
I'm not that big of a person.
But I'll reduce them a little bit.
Number one, I watched a clip of his first appearance back on CNN after being on leave, I guess.
And I noted that in the wide shot, he showed both of his hands on the table.
Good move, Jeffrey Toobin.
Keep both of your hands on the table for the wide shots.
That's all I'm saying. Just keep both hands on the table for a while until we get past this, right?
Now, the host...
I forget her name, who was interviewing him, had her hands below the table, but that's okay for her.
For Jeffrey, keep your hands on the table.
Good form so far.
He says that he's been going to therapy over this.
He's trying to become a better person.
He's even working on a food bank.
And he's trying to become the kind of person that people can trust again.
What? What?
Was there a problem that people weren't trusting Jeffrey Toobin because he didn't realize his camera was on and he masturbated?
Was there a trust problem?
Was there something that you were worried that Jeffrey Toobin would do to you?
Or was he going to do it again?
Do you think, I don't think this was an accident.
I think he liked it.
I think he's going to do it again.
I don't trust him. Was there anybody in the world who thought that you couldn't trust Jeffrey Toobin because he made a dumb mistake and didn't know his camera was on?
I don't believe this was ever his problem.
Was it? I will go further.
Is there anybody on Earth who watched this situation and said, well, Jeffrey Toobin's got a character problem he needs to work on?
Anybody? Anybody?
Did anybody think he had a character problem?
No, he had a problem of a camera being on that he didn't realize.
That's not really a character problem, is it?
People are saying, yes, that he has a character problem.
From what, exactly?
He's a fool, somebody says.
Well, he says he made a mistake, we say he made a mistake, we completely agree, but it was a very, very human mistake, right?
This is not the kind of mistake where you say to yourself, oh, I would never make that mistake.
I would totally make that mistake.
Totally. If you say to me, Scott, I would never make that mistake.
Well, maybe only if you've never masturbated.
But otherwise, this is a human mistake.
Everybody can make this mistake.
Everybody can do this, right?
So, I found his apologies and explanations way more cringe-worthy than the actual mistake itself, which I just thought was funny and human.
That's it. It was funny.
And it was just human. And he apologized to his family, and I think that's the only ones that matter.
Eh, co-workers, maybe.
Co-workers even, that's a marginal case, but it's nice that he added that too.
But you know who he doesn't need to apologize to?
Me! The public!
You! Does he owe you an apology?
No! But the problem with being on CNN is it's the apology network.
They demand apologies.
I mean, they really like their apologies.
So I think he went a little overboard on the apologies.
He said he's sincerely sorry, and he apologized to the people who, quote, thought I was a better person.
Who thought he was a better person than masturbating and getting caught?
Was there somebody who said, I thought...
Jeffrey Toobin was the kind of person who didn't masturbate.
I mean, I really thought he was the kind of guy whose biology was unique, and among all human males, I thought he was better than the rest of us, who, you know, sort of need it.
But not him. I thought he was above us.
Who thought that? Really?
Did anybody think that?
So my summary of Jeffrey Toobin is this incident made him more interesting, more human.
I'm far more likely to watch him now, just it's got a little more interest in it.
But we should not be apologizing for being human beings.
That's a little too far.
You all know that Democrats complain about filibusters when they're in power and they use them when they're out of power.
So everybody knows that there's tons of hypocrisy when it comes to that stuff.
But I didn't realize how bad it was.
There's an article here by David Harsanyi who is talking about hypocrisy is nothing new, but it takes preternatural shamelessness, which I just love that turn of a phrase, Preternatural shamelessness.
To have participated in over 300 filibusters, as Dems did in the past few years, and turn around and treat the procedure as odious, racist relic that threatens democracy.
You know, there's hypocrisy, and then there's, oh my God, hypocrisy.
Now, how can they get away with that?
How do the Democrats get away With using the filibuster 300 times, and then the moment that the other team is using it, it's an odious, racist relic that threatens democracy?
It's because the media lets them.
How many times did you hear this estimate, that they had used it 300 times in the past?
Did you have any idea?
I would have said, God, I'll bet they've used it a dozen times.
That would have been my guess.
I always said, probably, I don't know, 10, 12 times they've used this in the last few years.
Probably made a big difference those 10 or 12 times they used it.
No, it's 300.
300 times.
But now it's a big old racist, odious thing.
So I usually don't do hypocrisy stories, because they're just too easy and obvious, and you're already thinking it, so it adds nothing.
But I don't know if I've seen a bigger one.
I guess the only reason I mention it is that it's extraordinary in its scope.
So that's the only reason it's worth mentioning.
Otherwise, hypocrisy is just the operating code of government.
Biden gave a speech in which he said that his military leaders told him climate change was the number one military slash security threat to the homeland.
Does that sound like something that happened?
Do you believe that?
Do you believe Joe Biden, when he says that his military experts said climate change was our biggest military security threat to the homeland, and the thinking was that it would cause massive migration of people to get away from bad zones, and that massive migration would necessarily have a bigger impact on the countries with wealth, because that's where people would be going too, violating borders possibly of our allies, causing all kinds of trouble.
Now, I do buy the concept that there might be massive migration and it might be related to droughts and that sort of thing.
So I think that part might be true and certainly something to take seriously.
But doesn't that sound like a gigantic pussy thing to say if you're a general?
It sounds to me like the generals were a little bit too woke, don't you think?
Because if the general who said that, that climate change was our biggest challenge, do you think that that general, if you had that general privately and said, look, you think that's bigger than getting nuked by China?
Really? Because China with nuclear weapons and maybe chemical warfare and terrorism and drones and The ability for one person with the right bioweapon to destroy entire civilizations, you don't think that's a little bit bigger?
Just a little bit bigger than the fact that climate change will take 80 years to catch up to us?
I don't believe that privately they think that.
That sounds like something you say because your boss wants to hear it, right?
So, General, what do you think is their biggest risk?
Not enough critical race theory training in school?
Okay, that's number one risk.
What else? Trump said some offensive things?
Yes, yes, now you're on to it.
Now you're really talking about high priorities.
That was a risk to the country.
How about another one? What are your top risks?
Could it be the people who occupied a room in the Capitol because occupying an empty room, at least until they occupied it, is a risk to the entire United States?
Bingo! You got it.
You got the biggest risk in the whole country.
And climate change?
Yes! Yes!
You got them all. Those are the biggest military risks Climate change, anything that Trump tweeted when he was on Twitter, and yeah, critical race theory, not enough of it.
Not enough of it being taught in schools.
So those are big risks on the country, not China.
I'd probably fire anybody who told me that if I were the commander-in-chief.
But it does tell us that we're not taking nuclear energy seriously if Biden doesn't...
By the way, the Biden administration does take nuclear seriously.
But he doesn't talk about it much, does he?
I feel like he could talk about it a little bit more.
Maybe give it a little more of a boost.
But he doesn't.
Here's my question to you, climate change people.
What would be a bigger environmental problem?
Nuclear waste.
Let's say we have more robust nuclear energy Would the subsequent nuclear waste storage be a bigger problem than all of the batteries that we would need if we did just solar and wind and other things?
You would need massive batteries either at your house or battery farms, I suppose, for the times when you don't have enough wind or sun.
So, somebody said you could recycle batteries fairly easily.
That doesn't sound right to me, does it?
Do we recycle batteries?
Do you think that your Tesla home battery would be recyclable?
And how long would it last?
Now, I would like to think that Elon Musk thought about that and has some kind of a solution for recycling.
But even if it's just Tesla, maybe Tesla will come up with a solution for that.
But they're not going to be the only battery company.
There's going to be a lot of batteries out there.
What do you do with them once they're done?
Yeah, I think it's actually hard to recycle those.
And I don't know if we're thinking in terms of the scale that we need to.
Because the number of batteries in the world that are associated with solar power and wind, probably not that many, right?
But if we were to massively change the entire energy structure of the world, that's a lot of batteries.
Am I wrong? Now, there are other ways to store energy.
You can build a dam, but there aren't that many places you can do that.
So I just feel like maybe we haven't looked at this as objectively as we could.
Hey, how about that Arizona audit?
Kind of quiet, isn't it?
Don't you think by now, if the Arizona audit had come up with the smoking gun of massive fraud, we would know about that by now, wouldn't we?
Because we did hear about Almost immediately when they thought some data had been deleted, but it turns out they found it.
We heard about that right away, right?
There is apparently a chain of command or chain of custody.
Chain of custody.
Problem with some of the votes, but that's not going to change any election outcomes.
The courts will just say, yeah, but it's already certified.
Can't go back. Catch it next time.
So I feel as though every day that goes by, you should put a little less hope In this Arizona audit coming up with any kind of problem.
I could be surprised.
Maybe I'll be wrong. I understand from Andres Beckhouse that there are a few ivermectin trials in progress, the good kind, the randomized controlled trial.
So we might actually have a real credible, believable answer on whether ivermectin makes a big difference.
I don't know when, so there's a little uncertainty about when we'll know, but someday we'll know.
It looks like we'll actually know If there was a big ivermectin scandal and we should have been using it or not, we'll actually know the answer.
Now, I suppose even, you know, high-quality, multiple, randomized controlled trials could still have problems.
But it's as good as we get.
So I feel like we're going to know, maybe after the pandemic's totally a non-problem, but I think we'll know.
And hydroxychloroquine, I would warn you that the more recent news showing there's a study that says it works is not the high-quality kind of study that you should bank on.
It does make you think we should study it some more.
It does make you think that maybe there was something there with both of these drugs, but we're far from that being a scientifically certified certainty.
We'd have to deal with this as a risk management issue.
And if you were a certain kind of person in a certain situation, I could imagine you would say to yourself, well, I know that science is not telling me for certain that it works, but I'd like to take that chance.
So that's where we're at.
Rasmussen did a poll and asked people, should the Republican Party, I think they only polled Republicans and conservatives, should the Republican Party be more like Trump or more like Pence?
What do you think people said?
Because we just went through several years of Republicans complaining that Trump should maybe act more like a regular politician, more like a Mike Pence.
So how many people in the end said, yeah, you know, now that you asked the question, we do want the Republican Party and we do want conservatives to be more like Mike Pence because he doesn't cause problems.
How many people said that?
Well, it turns out 64% of Republicans and about the same number of conservatives said they would prefer a Donald Trump-like Republican Party.
So, remember I told you that winning solves everything?
I've said that a few times.
Being successful just solves all kinds of unrelated problems.
And I think that's what Trump did.
He came in and he was simply successful.
And then suddenly people go, well, can't argue with success.
Stuff worked. At least stuff they liked.
Not everything, of course.
So that's where we're heading.
Looks like the Republican Party and conservatives prefer the more pugnacious, provocative style of the dealmaker who does get some stuff done.
He did. And that...
It's what we call the simultaneous sip and coffee with Scott Adams.
I don't think it's ever been better.
Really, probably the best one of all time.
Sorry I lost it a little bit there.
I wasn't expecting that.
Sometimes you wonder, hey, do people do these, you know, emotional expressions in front of people intentionally?
Nope, that wasn't intentional.
I wasn't planning on doing that.
But thank you for all of your support.
I'll give you a little advance warning.
I'm going to do some traveling.
Yes, I'm going to do some traveling starting tomorrow.
I'll tell you where I am as things progress.
Tomorrow, I believe, I will be able to do my regular sip.
The day after tomorrow, not so sure.
Depends if I'm awake in the right time zone.
Well, I'll be in the wrong time zone, but it depends if I'm awake at the right time.
And I'm going to try.
So, for the next 10 days, things will be normal tomorrow.
But after that, I'm going to do the best I can to hit this time zone.
But I don't know for sure whether I will.
And I'm going to promise you something else.
There will be a simulation surprise.
Right. There will be a coincidence that I will reveal.
I think I can reveal this.
I have to ask somebody else first.
But I think I can reveal a coincidence about this vacation that will impress you.
Like a really big one.
You know, the kind that makes you wonder about the nature of reality.
None of your guesses are correct about where I'm going, but I'll tell you and it's going to be someplace fun.
