Episode 1418 Scott Adams: Expect the Unexpected on Today's Amazing Livestream
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
President Trump teases next week action
Stoned ape hypothesis
CNN...vulnerable narcissist behavior!
General Milley's hallucination
Chauvin sentencing
BLM, not a legitimate movement
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Before we get going, can somebody tell me if you can hear my audio?
Anybody? Anybody?
Trying something new today, so if nobody hears me, I'll need to unplug this and do something different.
Give me a sign of life in the comments.
All right. Well, we'll wait for that.
Literally, can anybody hear me?
Seriously? Oh, okay.
One person. Good enough. Good enough.
We're testing out a new device on here.
And if you'd like to enjoy this very special episode of Coffee with Scott Adams, well, there's a way to do it.
And all it takes is a copper mug or glass, a tanker, a chalice, a stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
And you should fill it with your favorite liquid, unpartial to coffee, And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it's going to happen right now.
Go. So let me tell you what I'm doing.
I'm methodically A-B testing my way to better sound.
At the moment, I'm still using a lavalier clip-on.
Because I like my range of motion.
I don't like being locked onto a stationary device.
But I'm using the Shure X2-0 to connect my lavalier to my iPad.
And apparently this is giving it a little bit of a boost.
Maybe. Maybe.
Oh, we have good news. Not good news.
We have interesting news today.
So it won't all be about my sound system.
Actually, interesting things happening.
Number one, President Trump, ex-President Trump, is warning that he says, quote, watch next week because you'll see me do something about big tech and people have wanted me to do it for a long time.
It won't be too surprising.
They don't love me to talk about it early.
But watch what I do next week on Big Tech.
I think you'll find it very interesting.
And once again, President Trump, ex-President Trump, becomes the most interesting person in the news, as he does every time he opens his mouth.
So what do you think it will be?
Lawsuit? It's got to be a lawsuit, right?
So it's either going to be a lawsuit or starting his own platform.
Because he's saying he's doing something about it.
It's one of those two things.
But it feels like more likely a lawsuit, wouldn't you say?
If you had to guess, just based on the wording of it.
Because doing something about it, I suppose that could be a new platform.
It could be either one, couldn't it?
I guess I can't predict this one.
But my first instinct was a lawsuit.
So we'll see. In related news, there's news coming out that maybe the Trump Organization could be hit with charges for tax evasion, specifically for giving executives benefits that are as good as cash but were not accounted for for tax purposes.
Now... Does that make sense?
So I'm trying to figure this out.
If you're a company and you decide to give your executive a, let's say, a free apartment, the company would be paying for it and then writing it off on their taxes, but the person who received it would not be counting it as a taxable income, and therefore the government would not be getting their due.
But here's the interesting thing.
What if this is the biggest problem anybody found in the Trump Organization?
Because it's the one we're hearing about, and we're not hearing a rumor about, oh, and I think they're digging into some foreign Russian something-something, right?
Now, I don't know if you follow tax law very carefully.
I hope you don't.
This is a really small legal problem, meaning that the legal problem would be limited to the corporation.
The Trump family members, and Trump himself, would not be under legal risk specifically.
Only the entity would be under legal risk.
And probably the sum of all of these alleged infractions, if there were a penalty on top of it, which would be a typical outcome, they could just pay it.
And this is one of the most, I would imagine, one of the most common corporate, you know, what would you call it, bad behavior?
And even the anti-Trumpers on CNN are saying, nobody goes to jail for this.
And not only does nobody go to jail for it, but typically charges aren't even brought.
Right? Because I assume the IRS can just demand a payment.
They don't have to take you to court.
If you didn't pay, then it would be a different issue.
But I think the way these are normally handled is they just give you a bill, and it's a really big bill, and you have to pay it.
Right? So what if, after all of the warnings about everything that's going to come crashing down on the Trump organization, what if it all came down to just this little thing?
That won't affect the individuals.
Might be just write a check.
Now, of course, part of this might be that they're putting pressure on Alan Weisselberg.
Am I pronouncing his name right?
I was writing it down quickly.
I feel like I've made up a whole new name for him.
Weisselberg? Wait, did I just realize that his name, if you pronounced it incorrectly, would be Weissel?
Weisselberg? How do you actually pronounce it?
Weisselberg? But anyway, if they're putting pressure on the top financial guy in the organization, the reason would be to get him to give up some goods that obviously they don't have without him.
So it's really starting to look like the Trump family members are going to be fine at the moment.
No anti-Semitism, please.
Not called for. We can make fun of his name without being anti-Semitic.
Let's draw that line pretty starkly, okay?
Yeah, we don't want any of that.
I don't want to block you. Just don't be a jerk, okay?
All right, so that's coming.
New York Times is breaking news.
Apparently they found a massive fossilized body part From a new species of ancient human.
So this could turn out to be a whole new ancient species we didn't know about.
And they found a really large body part fossilized.
They've named this new entity Homo longi.
Homo longi.
And they found a massive body part that was fossilized.
It was a skull.
It was a skull. Yeah, it was a massive skull.
And they're not calling him Homo longi because...
Why? Because there are such things as 7th grade boys.
You don't want to have a science class.
Trust me on this.
You don't want to have a science class where your science teacher stands in front of a bunch of 7th grade boys and says, they found this new fossil...
From homo longi.
Now, that lesson will just go right off the track.
Because, I don't know if you know this, but all men are 7th grade boys.
On the inside.
We never really get past that.
This might be the first time you've heard it.
But if you're in the male category, you hit about seventh grade, and your sense of humor locks in, and after that you just pretend it didn't.
But they're calling this Finding Dragon Man instead of Homo Longi.
Now again, we're not making anti-LGBTQ jokes here.
I'm just pointing out that if you say homo longi in front of a bunch of 7th grade boys, that lesson plan is going to go off the track pretty quickly.
All right. Here's Twitter handling the question of what experts say about masks.
Don't turn it off.
You'll like this part.
You know, even the people who hate me on masks.
Now, it's my belief that masks are effective if used in the right situations.
And obviously the right situation is important.
So if you're out going for a jog, probably that's not the right situation to wear a mask.
So Twitter will often summarize a topic.
And then point you to a bunch of articles on that topic.
And so they did that today. And it was titled, Experts Say Masks Are Safe and Effective in Preventing the Spread of COVID-19.
Now, if you saw a summary title that was going to refer to a number of tweets, and it told you that masks are safe and effective, according to experts and fact-checkers, what would you expect to find?
Would you expect to find links to those experts?
Would you expect to find data from those experts?
Would you expect to see fact checking links where you could go to the fact checking and maybe there would be more links where they would point to studies and experts and stuff like that?
No, you don't have that.
What you have is just a statement.
The experts say masks are safe and effective with no link to any experts except a reference to the CDC, but no link to a specific expert and no link to data.
So here's the problem.
Here's the problem.
Why would you present the truth exactly the way people present lies?
Now, I'm not saying that masks are ineffective.
I've been saying since the beginning, even when the WHO and CDC were saying that you shouldn't use a mask, I was still saying you should use a mask.
So I'm the most pro-mask, if used right, don't leave that part out, right?
I've never been pro-mask outdoors.
I've never been pro-mask for somebody vaccinated.
But... I've been pro-mask for, you know, the specific situations.
And even I think this looks like bullshit, right?
I'm already persuaded, pre-persuaded, already totally primed to accept that masks work in the right situations, and they can't give me a frickin' link to it?
Because people challenge me all the time on this, and I would love to have, oh, here's the source.
I'll just write down that link, you know, copy it.
Then every time somebody asks me, I'll say, oh, here's all the experts and their studies and their data, and you can see for yourself.
But no. This is presented the way you present a lie.
Why? Is this just massive incompetence?
I mean, this is...
To present the truth, especially in an important medical question, as a lie, in other words, the format that only liars use, which is you leave out your data because the data doesn't support your point, why do it this way?
I got a problem with this.
It's probably more of a media problem than a science problem because the media has to interpret science and they just can't.
Here's what I think is happening.
I think that the experts are sure that these things work, meaning most of the experts in most industrialized countries are pretty sure that it works, but they don't have data.
Is that what's going on?
That the experts, just using the sum of everything they know about the topic, are pretty sure it works, the mass, in the right situations, but they don't have the right data.
They don't have anything to point to, do they?
That's the only thing I can figure out is that they're sure but they're sure without data.
The very entity which tells us you should never be sure without data because you could be so easily misled.
This is very uncomfortable because I want them to give me cover for having said that in the right situations and only in the right situations that masks could be effective.
I would love to have some support for that But apparently that doesn't exist.
So let me say as clearly as possible, as far as I can tell, there's no support for that opinion, scientific.
Or it would be here, right?
Why would you leave that out?
So I still think they work, but I don't think it's supported in the way that you'd want it to be supported by science.
All right. Here's an interesting idea that I saw in a tweet by Jeff Pilkington, who you should follow.
He has a lot of great tweets that sometimes they cut left and sometimes they cut right, and there aren't many people who can straddle that line, so you should follow him.
It's Jeff with a G, G-E-O-F-F, Pilkington, P-I-L-K-I-K-T-O-N. And he's pointing to an article that says, in the near term, classic psychedelics is what we're going to have.
Basically, there's an idea that psychedelics, you could separate the part that makes you happy with the psychedelics, the euphoric part, and turn that into a drug to make people less depressed and happy without the trip.
So there are people figuring out how to take a psychedelic and remove the psychedelic part, but keep the euphoria part.
Is that a good idea?
How many of you who have experienced psychedelics of one kind or another, if you have experienced psychedelics, would it be a good idea to remove the psychedelic experience and just keep the feel-good part?
What do you think? It's a bad idea.
It might be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard in my life.
So here's what's missing in the story.
You can see in the comments.
Anybody who's had experience with the psychedelics, they will tell you the trip is the medicine.
The psychedelic part The part that you remember, the part that you experience, that's the medicine.
Because it changes how you see the world permanently, and that change then affects your body chemistry, your mental health, etc.
But if you take out the psychological, mental part of the experience, all you have is a deeply addictive drug.
Right? Let's say it worked.
Let's say they could come up with a drug that would just make you happy.
Could you not take it for the rest of your life?
No. You would have to take that drug for the rest of your life.
You would be addicted to some pharmaceutical drug that you would have to pay for, and you could never go off it for the rest of your life, because it would just feel too good.
And the alternative would be to feel your old, depressed, shitty way.
It's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, on the surface, right?
I mean, I'm open to learning that maybe there's something I don't know.
But on the surface, it's really missing the point by as much as you can miss it.
It's the experience that is the medicine, not the chemistry at all, in my opinion.
My non-medical opinion there, so take that with skepticism.
But I learned in the process of looking into this that there was a hypothesis by Terence McKenna, who died in the year 2000.
He was an ethnobotanist.
And he proposed that maybe the way the apes evolved into humans, or at least the way early humans evolved into the smart kind of humans that we know, is that they had a lot of mushrooms.
So there's actually a hypothesis.
I don't know how much weight to put on this, that the very reason that early apes or ape humans or whatever the early prototypes were, exactly, it's called the stoned ape hypothesis, that what evolved us to our higher level of consciousness, I guess, was taking a lot of mushrooms.
And I guess there's a little bit of evidence about that.
So I'm not sure I would buy into that hypothesis, but it's really provocative, and I also wouldn't rule it out.
So on its surface, I would say, wow, that's provocative.
Maybe. I wouldn't bet anything on it, but it's at least within the realm of maybe possible.
Have I told you before that one of the ways you can identify a vulnerable narcissist is that they have very consistent behavior patterns, which I only learned recently.
That the people who are in this category will respond in a very predictable way.
And I've told you before that CNN responds like a vulnerable narcissist.
And you can actually predict it fairly easily.
Here's a perfect example.
What happens when a vulnerable narcissist has been telling a lie?
Let's say they've been gaslighting you, presenting you with a set of complete falsehoods, and then you call them out and you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, maybe you've got documentation, you've got written proof, but you prove that the narcissist was lying.
What happens? Does anybody know?
What happens when you prove, no doubt about it, that a narcissist has lied about something big?
What do they do? They will, predictably, go after the messenger.
They will say things like, how did you find that out?
As opposed to it's true or false.
And they'll say, you have no credentials.
To say that, they'll say, you once lied in the past.
You have a bad character.
So what happened when CNN discovered that all that reporting they'd done about Trump allegedly clearing the square with tear gas so that he could do a photo op with an upside-down Bible, which is what CNN had reported for many months, and then the Inspector General finds out that none of that's true.
That it wasn't the Trump administration that cleared the park.
It was the local people, and they did it for a good reason.
And even the Bible wasn't upside down, and basically everything about the story was false.
So what did CNN do when it's proven beyond any reasonable doubt that their reporting was all gaslighting and bullshit for months and months?
What did they do? Well, Jim Acosta attacked the inspector general...
Of being somebody who was trying to apply for a job at Mar-a-Lago.
He basically went after the messenger.
An inspector general who has worked for both administrations, Democrat and Republican.
A totally trusted public servant who, up until this point, had been doing nothing but bipartisan work for both sides.
And suddenly, CNN has decided that this guy is the biggest asshole in the world.
And I guess you shouldn't listen to him.
That, my friends, is a classic tell for vulnerable narcissism.
Now, of course, I'm extending the theory here farther than I should, and I'm making it about an organization as opposed to a person.
But I feel like CNN acts like a person.
Which is my hypothesis.
That you could predict what CNN will do next by narcissist theory.
So let's make a prediction.
The next time CNN is found to be completely presenting fake news, look for one of their main characters to attack the personality or the credibility of whoever caught them.
Look for that to happen again, and you'll start seeing that the pattern is repeatable.
All right. You know, I've been out and about, as many of you have, especially if you've been vaccinated, and I don't know if you're having this experience, but I go into Safeway, the local supermarket, yesterday, and I note that maybe half of the people are unmasked, presumably the people with vaccinations, including me.
And I see about half of the people still have masks on, Presumably they are not vaccinated.
Might be some that are. And I said to myself, we basically have created two classes of people.
One class is free, like me.
I don't have to wear a mask.
I'm free. And the other class are still sort of a slave class.
They have to wear a mask to go into a place of business.
I don't. And I said to myself, well, I completely respect...
Anybody's medical decision that's different from mine.
I'm not a doctor, so I'm not going to tell you what you should or should not do with a mask or a vaccination.
I can talk about whether they work, but that's different from what you should do.
Your decisions are your decisions, especially the medical ones, so don't let me be influencing that.
That said, it really feels bad for me.
I have... I have this deep empathy for the people who did not get the vaccination.
I get you had a reason, or maybe it wasn't available yet, or you just haven't gotten around to it.
But boy, does it feel different.
When I walk into a store without a mask now, I feel like the freest person in the world.
And I look around and see that my masked citizens, they look like they're not happy.
And I feel bad for them.
Now again, I'm not telling you you should get a vaccination.
That's a medical decision.
It's not one for me to influence you.
But if you want freedom, they've kind of made it hard to get it one way and easy to get it the other way.
And if I had not been already inclined to get the vaccinations, I think I would have gotten them just for the freedom.
Which isn't the right medical incentive, in my opinion.
I would like to make my medical decisions entirely based on a medical analysis.
But I wouldn't if I didn't have the vaccination and I had to wear a mask in the grocery store and everybody else didn't, or at least everybody vaccinated didn't, I'd probably just go get the vaccination, right?
Just to buy my freedom back at the risk of whatever complications the vaccination could present.
Small, but complications.
So what do you feel about the ethics of using freedom as an incentive to get vaccinated?
That's really wrong, isn't it?
Do you have the same feeling about it?
It might work.
And it might turn out to be, you know, the most useful thing that ever happened.
But it feels really unethical that the reason people are being pressured to get a vaccination is so they can travel.
Right? So they can travel.
It would be one thing if you're still in the middle of the pandemic and, you know, you're just doing whatever you can to save lives.
But we're sort of past that part.
And we're into the part where if you're not vaccinated, you know exactly what the risks are.
All right, we're all informed at this point.
Huh.
Interesting.
Very bizarre message.
I don't know what it means, but if one of you sent it to me, you're going to need to be more clear than that.
All right. We continue to have public arguments about critical race theory, some for it, some against it.
But we're not really even talking about the same thing, right?
Whatever your opinion of it is, is different than the people on the other side.
And so when you say you shouldn't do it, you're not even in the same conversation.
Because they're saying, shouldn't do what?
You're not even talking about the right thing.
Why wouldn't we teach history?
You're saying, I'm not talking about teaching history.
I'm talking about the bad things you say.
What bad things do we say?
Well, here are some examples.
Well, we don't say those things, but somebody says those things.
Yeah, but they only spend two minutes talking about it, and they talk mostly about history.
Yeah, but that's a bad two minutes.
The whole argument over critical race theory It's not even anywhere near the realm of a rational, logical argument where people are presenting their facts, and then you're arguing on the same set of facts.
Nothing like that's happening.
Here's what I would like to see.
I'd like to see a checklist of critical race theory, let's say, claims or framing.
Could be the one. Facts, claims, or the way they frame something.
Just want to see a list, and then when somebody says, I don't like critical race theory in this context, then the other person can say, all right, here's the full list.
The only thing from the list that we want to teach in our school or our business or our military, whatever, is this one, this one, and this one.
So we're not teaching the whole list, but we're taking some important things from the list, We don't call that critical race theory.
We just call it some good things that people need to know.
Tell me what those are.
Stop making me argue critical race theory, yes or no, because it's never quite that.
It's something on the checklist from a bigger checklist that might be called critical race theory and adjacent ideas.
But just give us the detail.
What is the exact claim that you object to?
What is the frame stated in one sentence or two that you like or you object to?
If you can't break it down to a list of bullet points that you like and don't like, what are we talking about?
We're not even on the same frickin' conversation.
So if you don't see that, you're not going to see any journalists who are even serious about this topic.
Maybe it's not the government who does it, but maybe there should be a journalist who just says, look, here are all the claims that are within critical race theory, plus a few that are sort of floating around the domain, want to be complete, and just put them out there.
Now, I suppose somebody would argue that that would lose its context.
But probably that's going to happen anyway.
If you're just taking three or five things out of a list, you've lost the context right there.
Yes. All right.
So, are you following this general Millie situation?
Glenn Greenwald has a great sub-stack on it.
I tweeted it. Again, you should follow Glenn Greenwald.
You really should.
It's just one of the best, consistently best journalists and tweeters in the world.
I would add to him Joel Pollack.
People you should definitely follow.
Joel Pollack with Breitbart.
You can find him pretty easily.
You should follow him.
Matt Taibbi, I'd say.
Follow him. And probably a few others I'll add to the list as we go.
And the reason that I add these specific people is that it's people who are at least capable of seeing the whole field, right?
If you're following people who are only seeing half the field, you're going to be misled all the time.
All right, so here's the problem with General Milley, head of the Joint Chiefs.
So he's the top U.S. military guy, right?
Who actually is in the military.
He's the top. And here's something he said.
This is actually a quote from him at whatever recent congressional conversation was happening.
He said, what is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America?
What caused that?
I want to find that out.
I want to maintain an open mind here, and I do want to analyze it.
So Milley has stated as a fact that the building was assaulted with the intention of overturning the Constitution of the United States.
That's what the top military commander of the United States, the military commander, believes that there was an assault to overturn the Constitution of the United States.
My friends, that never happened.
There definitely was a protest and assault.
There were definitely crimes that happened.
But nobody there was trying to overturn the Constitution.
Indeed, every person there was trying to affirm the Constitution.
Now, obviously, there are different opinions about how to, you know, interpret the Constitution.
Were the protesters believing that they were within the Constitution by asking, let's say, Pence to pause things or asking for a fair election in their opinion, asking for audits maybe?
What part of that is overthrowing a Constitution?
If your top military general believes there was an imaginary assault on the Constitution, effectively an insurrection, if he believes that happened, he needs to be out of that job.
You can't have your top military guy hallucinating an attack on the United States.
Let me ask you, is there anything that would be more disqualifying than having your top military commander Hallucinate an attack on the United States and believe it happened, when in fact the evidence clearly shows it did not.
Nothing could be more dangerous than your top military commander clearly hallucinating, clearly.
In his own words, he described in his own words a hallucination that he's having now.
He didn't say, I used to have a hallucination.
He says, this is my current opinion.
That somebody attacked the United States to overturn the Constitution.
And that is so clearly something that didn't happen.
You've got to get rid of that guy.
He should be gone by the end of the day.
Biden should fire his fucking ass immediately.
Now, of course, we don't think Biden's really in charge, so nothing like that's going to happen.
But this is shocking. I don't know if I can think of a more disqualifying thing for a military officer.
And I'm very pro-military, right?
If I've never said it out loud, I'm very pro-military.
It's one of the best things about this country, is that the military is free of politics.
Usually, usually, But this is not free of politics.
It's either mental health or it's politics.
And either way, it's completely disqualifying, and you need to replace them immediately.
This is a firing offense, like immediately.
But for political reasons, none of that's going to happen.
All right, here's some maybe fake news on fake news.
This is fake news squared.
So this is somebody calling out fake news...
That actually is real news, so it's the calling out of the fake news that's real news that's fake news.
Got it? It goes like this.
You're all aware that there's a surge in shoplifting in San Francisco.
In fact, many of you saw a viral video of some young man stuffing a big bag full of stuff from a store on his bicycle and then riding his bicycle out of the store with his big bag of goodies and nobody stops him because they're not really going after shoplifters anymore.
But this fact-checking article It's in the San Francisco Chronicle.
It suggests that maybe that's not really what's happening.
Maybe the shoplifting rate has been falling for decades and that it's at one of the lowest levels right now.
But there's one little sentence in there that...
Sort of raises a hypothesis.
Then maybe the stores are not reporting all of the shoplifting lately because why would stores stop reporting shoplifting?
Why would that happen?
Could it be that nothing can come from it?
Could it be that if they report the shoplifting, they lose an hour of their time and gain back nothing?
Because they're not going to file an insurance report for somebody who stole some condoms, right?
I'd like to file this insurance.
We got robbed.
A teenager took a pack of condoms.
There's nothing you can do about it.
If you can't arrest the perpetrator, what the hell is the point?
So here's somebody who writes...
An article suggesting that the rate of shoplifting is not really that much worse.
It's a little bit worse than the chains, they admit, but not that much worse.
Why would anybody keep reporting the shoplifting when there's nothing that will happen from it?
Nothing. So, do I always tell you that the thing Democrats get wrong, or let's say left-leaning people get wrong, is they forget human motivation.
They forget human motivation in all of their analyses.
What would be the human motivation of the store manager once you tell the store manager, well, you can report it all you like, but it won't make any difference?
The store manager has no incentive.
No incentive. Now, they might record the theft sort of internally because they've got to report to their superiors where did all the money go, but I don't think they have any reason to tell the police.
The police took that reason away, and here's somebody writing a whole article in which that should have been the main point.
The main point should be, well, we're not tracking it anymore because there wouldn't be any point to it.
Derek Chauvin got sentenced to 22.5 years, of which he will serve only 15 if he has good behavior.
And CNN analysts say that's very light.
How do you measure that?
So is that light?
There are other people who get longer sentences, right?
And I guess he'd be out at age 60 if he only served the 15th.
But here's the question. Do we punish people more than that if you can't tell if the act was deliberate?
Now, there is evidence that Chauvin should have acted differently, and therefore he has some responsibility.
And so, even if you accept that he's responsible for it, nobody has demonstrated that it was a deliberate act of murder.
Whoever got more than 15 years for a crime they didn't know they were committing?
Can you give me any example of that?
Can anybody give me an example of somebody who got more than 15 years in prison for a crime that they weren't sure they were committing at the time?
Even one example of that.
Because, you know, if that's the argument, let's say a black defendant would have gotten more years, are people saying that?
Now here's my most provocative question for you.
You ready for this?
We're all adults here, right?
So I could ask you a provocative question, and you can keep it in context.
If all of the ethnicities in the George Floyd-Derek Chauvin situation, if all of the ethnicities had been reversed, would it be the same outcome?
If Derek Chauvin had been black, and if...
Well, let's even reverse the people.
Let's just say it's the people were reversed.
Let's say that George Floyd was the police officer and was just a regular police officer, and Derek Chauvin was the person who was on the ground.
And Derek Chauvin dies in exactly the same way that...
That George Floyd died.
Would you have the same result?
Yeah, I'm seeing an LOL there.
Nobody believes it would be the same outcome.
I don't think so.
Because the jury didn't really have a choice, did they?
I think the jury pretty much had to do what they did.
Legal system, you know, notwithstanding.
They just sort of had to come up with the thing they came up with.
But if you reversed all of the ethnicities...
I doubt it would be the same outcome.
And I wonder if there's any way to test that.
Could you someday...
Let's say that this trial fades in memory a little bit so you can find people who weren't aware of it.
Let's say it's a few years later and you take college kids.
And you give them individually one group of college kids who didn't know much about the original trial.
You say, all right, here's the situation.
How much jail time should the person get?
Then you give a second set, who also were unfamiliar with the original news, and you just reverse the ethnicities, and then say, all right, what's the penalty for this?
Would you get the same number?
I'll bet not.
I'll bet not, and it seems like something you could test.
Maybe someday we'll know about that.
So Arizona was very close.
The Arizona House...
They came really close to passing an amendment to a budget bill that would have funded students instead of the school system, meaning that it would have given kids more freedom of choice because they could take their funding to a different private school, etc., an alternative school. But that failed, even though the vote was 28-28, because three Republicans, Udall, John, and Osborne, joined the Democrats in voting against it.
Now, here's my take on this.
Given that Black Lives Matter also likes school choice, for the most part, let's say members of it, I don't know what the leadership says, but certainly plenty and plenty of black Americans want school choice.
So here was a topic that Republicans overwhelmingly wanted, and I believe if you do a survey of black Americans, they want it by a majority too.
And even members of Black Lives Matter, or just supporters.
I think if you did a poll of them, you would find that even they want more school choice.
Right? So here was an issue that if Black Lives Matter had put their weight behind it, it would have gone through.
Because do you think that these three Republicans could have said no to it if you had all the other Republicans and Black Lives Matter supporting it?
Really? Do you think this wouldn't have passed if Black Lives Matter had thrown in with the Republicans and said, yeah, we've got plenty to fight about, but not this.
This is the one thing we completely agree on.
And by the way, the bad school system is the number one source of systemic racism.
So let's deal with the biggest problem.
Well, the fact that Black Lives Matter did not support this, or I think any other push like it, shows that they're not a legitimate movement.
If they were legitimate, they would be doing the top priority thing, which is fixing education.
Definitely the top priority for black Americans.
And they would join with the side that's on the same side, the Republicans.
But the fact that they don't do this easy thing that is clearly in their self-interest, even by their own opinions, not just my opinion...
Their own opinion would be that this would be in their best interest.
They don't even do that.
But that tells you that whatever Black Lives Matter, the organization, is about, it's not Black Lives Matter.
It's about something.
It's about continuing their power, or it's a grievance, or it's revenge, or it's some of all those things.
But whatever it is, it's not a legitimate...
Movement to help black Americans.
A legitimate movement would have joined the Republicans, pushed this through, and had one of the biggest wins you could even imagine.
This would be a huge win to take some of the power away from the teachers' unions.
Well, big tech has lost Bill Maher, who knows that Facebook was blocking posts about the Wuhan lab as a source of the virus for a long time.
They're not now, I guess. And then he also noted how YouTube was removing Brett Weinstein's podcast about ivermectin.
And when you see the people who are capable of seeing both sides of an argument, and Bill Maher would be one of them, I often disagree with him, but you can't question the fact that he's capable of seeing both sides of an argument.
He demonstrates it all the time.
And if you're losing the people who are capable of seeing both sides, you're in real trouble.
And I think the tech...
Tech companies are going to come under some scrutiny like never before.
Because now there's so many examples of things that went wrong.
This is tough.
Now, you have to ask yourself, if it's a pandemic and it's an emergency, etc., So I don't know exactly who's sending me these messages, but apparently you're watching the broadcast at the moment.
I'll say, who are you?
Before I block it.
All right. That is all I have for today.
Is my sound better than normal?
Is the sound volume and quality better than my normal sound quality?
Can you give me an opinion on that before I go?
Yes, it's great. Okay, it's a little better.
So I've got a few more things I'm going to try, so it won't always sound like this.
I've got at least two more devices to try, and maybe another...
Another microphone. I'll compare this to my prior broadcast, and maybe if anybody feels like doing that, please do.
All right, the volume's better.
Yeah, I think the sound volume is the main thing we were trying to fix, because that was the biggest complaint.
