Episode 1420 Scott Adams: Today's Misleading Title is Cats Loving Dogs and Losing Weight by Breathing
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Space Force militarizing the moon
Gun laws sufficient if enforced?
CRISPR Gene editing for medical benefits
Trust government medical experts?
Bipartisan infrastructure deal that isn't
CNN primes viewers...Arizona audit "sloppy"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time of the entire year, not to mention the month, the week, and the day.
Today I am streaming to you from two platforms, the Locals platform, subscribers only, who have been talking to me for about five minutes so far.
Probably in the future I'm going to be looking to the Locals people to give me ideas for the live stream.
I don't have a plan yet about where I'm going to be streaming in the future, but I'll continue on YouTube and may add some options, including Locals.
All right. If you're watching it on the Locals platform and you're a subscriber, you would not see any commercials, but you also have the YouTube option if you prefer it.
So, how would you like to enjoy the Simultaneous Sip?
Yeah, I know you would. All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen, a jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I know you like coffee.
Some of you do. 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.
It's going to happen now.
Kevin asks, how have I not spilled coffee on a live stream yet?
Well, it's time, isn't it?
It's about time. Alright, let's talk about all the stories.
There's a recent report that Space Force is looking to militarize the moon.
Now, of course it's Space Force, so it's a military entity, so of course they're militarizing space.
But when you hear those words, It's pretty scary, isn't it?
It's pretty scary.
And apparently we've now made claim to space around the lunar situation, the moon.
It looks like it's inevitable that we'll try to put military assets on the moon.
Because I think whoever controls the moon controls everything, right?
So I would think that there's going to be a massive space race between the major powers...
To get control of the moon.
And pretty much guaranteed we're going to have a war on the moon.
So that's something to look forward to.
War on the moon.
Pretty much guaranteed. And so we've got that going on.
Rasmussen reports in their polling...
That 69% of conservatives say stricter enforcement of existing gun laws would do more than creating new laws.
So conservatives, almost 70%, say all we need is the current laws, but just enforce them better.
31% of liberals think the current laws are sufficient, and they would prefer new laws.
Now let me ask you this.
How many of the people who answered the poll, conservative and liberal, how many of them even know what the gun laws are?
How many liberals could tell you what the gun laws are?
I think the conservatives probably could come closer because they have to navigate the gun laws to own a gun.
But if the liberals don't own guns, you probably don't even know what the laws are.
So how can they think that the laws are sufficient or insufficient if they don't know what they are?
So any kind of poll on gun ownership runs into this wall of people don't know what the laws are or what they could be or what difference it would make.
So these are kind of silly opinions.
Speaking of silly opinions, Rasmussen also finds...
In a telephone and online survey, that just 29% of likely voters say laws that require photo identification at the polls discriminate.
62% say voter ideas laws don't discriminate.
What was that all about?
Oh, it looks like some people are having problems with the stream, but that'll work itself out.
All right. So what do you think of that?
29% of likely voters say requiring photo ID discriminates against voters.
Remember I told you that you can get a quarter of the public, roughly, give or take a few percentages, you can get a quarter of the public to agree to any bad idea.
Any bad idea? A quarter of the public is going to say, yeah.
If you did a poll that says, how many of you would like us to hit you in the head with a pipe?
Well, you'd get 75% of the people saying, hit me in the head with a pipe for no reason.
I don't like that at all.
25% of the public would say, give it a chance.
Might work. Might work out.
So here we are. 29% don't think...
Don't think that you need photo ID and it won't help.
And the only reason is to make it hard for people to vote.
Here's another one. 27% of Oregonians support abolishing the police.
You see this 25% thing, you know, give or take?
You can get a quarter of the country, up to almost a third, to agree to anything.
Just anything.
You know, I feel as if there used to be a time when you could get 80% of people to agree on something, but maybe those things don't get polled.
I suppose if 80% of the country agrees on something, you don't even bother doing the poll, because you would know it.
Alright, so look for this recurring pattern that a quarter of the public, roughly, will have any whacked opinion.
Just crazy opinions.
Alright, David Boxenhorn on Twitter alerts us to a NPR article about gene editing therapy.
So apparently there's a new success.
There's a gentleman who had a rare disorder, and they did some genes editing, and apparently they edit the genes and they insert the genes into the body, or the edited parts, and the edited parts swim around in your body and take hold in exactly the right places.
Yeah, it's CRISPR technology, and it's a big story that an incurable disease was just cured.
It's a somewhat rare disease, but incurable and now cured.
But that's not the whole story.
The whole story is that this is now doable.
And it's doable on a whole other level than what we've seen before.
So probably in the next, I don't know, five years?
It's not very far away.
I'd say in the next five years we will be editing genes like crazy.
Because we can do it now.
Yeah, we should be taking on various kinds of cancers and all kinds of blood problems.
What else can you do with this?
Can you fix eyesight?
What do you think? Apparently there is some kind of specific kind of blindness that can be fixed with this technology, or potentially.
But what about just being nearsighted?
I don't know. Is that genetic?
Or is that just age so there's nothing you can do about it?
Or can you reverse aging?
Can you do some gene splicing and make somebody live longer?
So I told you that people like me probably, according to the science, have a special gene situation that allows me to sleep far less than other people and still function.
Yeah, baldness. Baldness will probably get fixed.
If you have the option...
Let's say you're a normal sleeper.
If you had the option to do some gene therapy so that five hours of sleep would just be great for you, as it is for me.
I was just born that way.
Would you do it? Would you enhance your body with that superpower just because you could?
If you knew it was safe enough and you could just get a little gene therapy and it would take three hours of sleep off your day, would you do it?
I'm looking at your comments.
Mostly no's, because people say they like sleep.
I think that makes sense.
But a number of you would do it, because you would...
I don't know how to tell you this, but I have two lifetimes for year one because those morning hours that I'm awake that most of you are asleep, I do the equivalent of a full day's work, play, entertainment.
I mean, I stuff 24 hours into like three or four hours because they're such good hours.
You know, brain is maximum.
I'm not tired. I'm happy to be alive.
So I literally lead the equivalent of two lifetimes.
And I like being alive.
It's kind of cool.
So having two lifetimes during year one is really good stuff.
If you could get gene therapy and have two lifetimes instead of one, and trust me, that second lifetime, the one when you're sleeping, is great.
It's way better than the other one.
The other life where everybody's awake and I'm just interacting with the world is good.
It's a perfectly fine life.
But the one when you guys are asleep, most of you, is really good.
That part of the day is really good.
That's why I enjoy it so much.
All right. So that's part of the golden age.
That's coming. I am still fascinated by the following question that I know many of you feel that you have a solid answer to.
I'm not going to talk about the question of whether masks work.
I know, I know, I know. You don't want to hear that anymore.
But I'm still fascinated by the solidarity of the experts and why that is.
Now, the speculation that people have given me is that the reason that the top experts for every country and every state in the Union, the United States, every one of them, say that masks work while the science, according to many of you, is less clear...
Why is it that there would be so much agreement at the top political level of the medical world?
Now, many of you have said, quite reasonably, you've said, Scott, it's not about medicine.
It's not about the data.
It's about people who don't want to lose their jobs.
So as soon as they're told what the answer is that will be allowed by the CDC and the Fauci's and the WHO, then all the medical experts who are sort of the political medical experts, the ones who are helping the government make decisions, that all of them don't want to get fired.
They don't want to be embarrassed.
They don't want to take a risk.
So they just conform to whatever the consensus is And then stick to it like they really believe it.
Does that explain it?
Do you feel that that would explain a complete...
I'm really... I think it's 100% of industrialized countries' main experts say that masks do work in specific situations.
Let's say in retirement homes and stuff like that.
Not necessarily outside.
I don't think anybody thinks they work outdoors.
Um... But do you think that that explains it all?
That you can explain the entire situation by the fact that the experts are lying to you and that they're just agreeing with dogma and that they're literally just lying to you that it's their own opinion?
Do you buy that? Do you buy that they would so quickly form around that opinion?
Well, here's the wrinkle.
Didn't the medical community completely form around the opinion that masks don't work before they completely surrounded the opinion that they do?
Do a fact check on me.
When Fauci and the WHO and the Surgeon General, etc., in the United States, were saying masks definitely won't help, because that's what they said at first, what was the consensus of the entire medical community?
Didn't they agree?
Do a fact check on me, because I don't remember exactly.
But I feel as if I didn't see any major medical expert, let's say the head of an organization or something, disagree with that, right?
And did any data change?
Was there any change in data from the time that Fauci said, no mess, don't work, don't do it, to the time he said they totally work and you should do it all the time?
Did any data change?
I don't think so, because there wasn't enough time, right?
Nobody did a study or anything like that.
So, if it's true that the experts went from completely saying X is true to completely saying X is untrue, or the reverse, with no change in the data, then I believe that your opinions would be fair, right? To say that there's nothing the experts are saying which should be taken as credible.
Is that amazing?
How amazing is it that we can say that statement and you're probably all saying, you get a point.
There's probably nobody here who's listening to this, or almost nobody, who says, yeah, Scott, that's crazy that you're not listening to the experts.
Because the experts are completely divorced from the data.
If they can have two separate opinions completely reversed with no change in data, we just watched it.
So I would have said not long ago that it's a crazy opinion that the entire medical community could be just following the leader.
That's it? You can't find an honest broker among the entire senior echelon of medical experts working for the governments?
Nobody? But maybe we just saw a public demonstration of exactly that.
We may have just watched it right in front of our eyes.
And that's really amazing.
Independent of whether masks work or not, the psychology of this just is amazing.
All right. But I would add this little caveat, which is in the rare situation where experts were told masks don't work and then told that they do, that would seem to me, my common sense would tell me, which of course is a real problem.
We don't really have common sense.
We have the illusion of common sense.
But my illusion of common sense is that when you have a situation where it rapidly goes from don't use them to yeah, you better use them everywhere, That you would have plenty of doctors in that situation who would not feel at risk for a while.
Right? So the moment when the opinion changed from definitely don't do it to definitely do it, that was the time everybody was free.
If you were a medical expert during the transition of don't do it to do it, how could you be fired for your opinion?
Because for a while both opinions were out there.
You know, with equal strength.
So that was a point where you should have seen a lot of disagreement.
Do you remember any?
I don't remember any.
I feel as if it was just a switch.
And what does that tell you?
You can't even get disagreement during a time when you're switching from yes to no.
Even if it's just briefly, like a few weeks maybe, we should have seen all kinds of experts saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, we think yes, and other experts saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, we say no.
Something's very wrong here.
Yeah, and I see you mentioning ivermectin every few minutes.
And so the question is, could the medical community be as wrong about a therapeutic?
Yes. Yes.
Yes. The old thinking that the medical community could not be so group-thinky and so afraid and so disreputable that they could just go with a lie because it's easier for their career.
There was a time I wouldn't have believed that could happen.
I believe it now.
I do believe now.
That the medical community is divorced from the data on a lot of big questions.
Not all of them.
But any question that has a political dimension, the data doesn't matter at all.
It just seems to make no difference.
We get opposite decisions with the same data.
So there you go on that.
There's a little fake news, I think, coming about Nike.
So Nike's president recently said this.
Nike is a brand that is of China and for China.
How do you interpret that?
That the president of Nike said Nike is a brand that is of China and for China.
Well, I think the way it's being interpreted is that therefore Nike has to do whatever China wants them to do.
Which is fair. I think that's a fair statement.
But what do they mean by it?
Are they throwing their allegiance behind China versus some other country?
Here's what I think it means.
I think the context was probably, when they say Nike is a brand that is of China, I think they mean that their stuff is made in China.
Now that would just be a fact, right?
To say that Nike is of China, meaning that China makes their products, that would just be a fact.
And then they say for China.
Does that just mean they sell their products into China?
So there's nothing really being said here, which is China makes our products, we already knew that, and China buys our products, which we already knew.
So I don't think there's anything new here, but the way it's stated, especially out of context, makes it look a little extra bad.
And it is bad.
It's bad because there's a major company, about as major as you can get, that really just has to do what our adversary wants them to do.
So that's not cool.
Adam on Twitter, Adam Dopamine is his handle.
He tweeted this.
He said, Scott Adams predicted the country would believe we had elected two presidents after the 2020 vote.
True. I predicted that we would elect two presidents, not one.
Or at least in our minds, legally there would be one, but in our minds there would be two presidents.
That was my actual prediction.
And Adam points out, when presented with a coin toss, who else called side?
How many people predicted that when you flip the coin, it would land on its side and stay there?
Just me. I didn't hear anybody else do it, did you?
I believe I'm the only person who said that we won't have a result in the election.
We'll have two presidents.
Sure enough, the loudest cheer of the night in Trump's rally was Trump won, and I guess the crowd went wild.
And I think half of the people in this country or more Are concerned about the integrity of the election, the last election.
So, what do you say?
Was my prediction correct that we got two presidents?
Kind of. It was.
So that's one of my weirder predictions.
Here's another prediction that we don't know if it's right yet, but it's weird.
So remember when Biden said he would sign the infrastructure bill that a bipartisan commission came up with?
And I said, not so soon.
Just because the news is reporting that we have a deal, Democrat participants said yes, Republican participants in the little working group said yes, and Biden said yes. So the news said, we got a deal.
And I told you, now we don't.
We don't have a deal.
They're just completely wrong about that.
Well, it only took a few hours for Biden to say, when I said I was going to sign it, I didn't mean I'd sign it.
What I meant was, if an entirely different bill, full of stuff that I wanted that I didn't get, if that is given to me at the same time, I'll sign the bill, but not unless I get this other bill, which is unlikely to be happening.
So basically, he said he wasn't going to sign it after he said he signed it.
But then there was some pushback.
And the Democrats got embarrassed because Biden was confused again.
Am I signing it?
Am I not signing it?
Kind of pathetic. Kind of makes him even more obviously not capable.
So they tried to clean it up by saying, no, no, no, we didn't mean that.
What we meant was he totally signed that one bill.
Now, You still need Congress, right?
Congress still has to sign the thing.
Do you think they will?
Why would they? Why would Congress agree just because a committee came up with a bipartisan agreement and Biden said he'd sign it?
Why would that make the rest of the Congress agree?
It wouldn't. In all likelihood, it will just be defeated.
So my prediction is that everybody who says, yeah, this looks like a done deal, everybody's agreed.
I don't think so.
I think we live in a world where everything gets stopped just because they can.
So one side will stop it.
Now, hold that prediction.
Because it is possible that it'll get signed.
I'm not going to say it's impossible.
But I'm going to say the odds are that we're not that close to getting this signed.
So I'm going to put a...
I'll put a, let's say, a limiter on it.
I'll say before the end of the year, they won't get anything signed.
Eventually, someday, maybe something gets signed.
But I'm going to say before the end of the year, no infrastructure deal.
That'll be my prediction.
Going against the grain...
Apparently Biden's popularity is doing pretty well in some categories.
For example, he's getting good marks for handling the coronavirus pandemic.
And by the way, would you agree?
Would most of you agree that Biden does get high marks for handling the pandemic?
I feel like that would be a fair statement.
I also feel that That he inherited a really good situation.
I'm seeing a bunch of no's because it's a political question.
But I think Biden is doing well on vaccinations because Trump set him up to do well.
Whoever was president was going to do well because of what Trump did to prepare, right?
If Trump had not done what he did, Project Warp Speed, get the vaccinations up, you know, kick some ass, knock down some walls, the things that Trump is the best at, if he had not done that, would Biden be so popular for doing a good job?
I don't think so. Look at Australia.
Australia has about 4% of vaccination rate, and they're just closed down Sydney again.
Think about it. The United States is opening up, I think, for good.
Australia has 4% vaccination rate, and they just locked down Sydney.
Imagine if a major city in the United States got locked down this week.
We'd be going nuts about that.
Remember I told you that you can't judge how well any country does in the pandemic until it's over.
Because I predicted that some countries would start well, maybe for reasons that we don't even understand.
Other countries would not do so well, also for reasons we don't understand.
But that by the time you got to the end, we'd be smarter about what works, and that the United States, because of its capability, you know, its wealth, its capability, there are a lot of things we do well compared to other countries.
And I predicted that we would come out toward the top end of Of good outcomes.
But it would take until the end, right?
Here we are.
Australia was a model of good behavior and keeping the virus out in the beginning, right?
If you looked in the first months of the pandemic, Australia, A +, United States, D-.
How about now?
How would you score it now?
Right now you would give Australia an F. You would give Australia a failing grade as of today.
And you would give the United States maybe an A, right?
Because we're going to get to the end of this in a really solid situation.
On top of that, there's news today that at least the mRNA vaccinations, the ones where you need two of them, appear to have...
Permanent benefit.
So the indication from a new study is that their benefit is lasting and permanent.
Maybe not the J&J shot, but the mRNA ones.
It might be permanent. Permanent protection.
And at the same time, they protect against the variants.
That's Trump. Now, maybe he got lucky, right?
Because I don't know that anybody knew the vaccinations would be this powerful.
And I know you're worried about them, and I know that there's concern about side effects, and I'm not minimizing that.
But I'm just saying at this point, it looks like the United States, thanks mostly to Trump, It's going to kick the ass of almost every country when it comes to the coronavirus.
It looks like that's going to happen.
So that was one of my predictions as well, that we would come from behind.
All right, so I was talking about Biden's popularity.
So Biden's popularity because of handling the coronavirus, but mostly that was Trump.
Trump gave him a situation that pretty much guaranteed that whoever took over was going to succeed.
Because it's not like Biden was sitting in on the meetings on the rollout.
It's like, okay, you're going to get three trucks.
You're going to drive that vaccine down to Florida.
It's not like any of the presidents are going to be involved in the logistics.
That was going to happen the way it was going to happen, no matter who was in charge, right?
Because it was going to be top priority, there would be money, plenty of people to work on, and plenty of assets.
It was going to work. We had everything we needed to make the rollout work.
You would have had to try hard to screw it up, and apparently we didn't.
So he's got that going for him.
The other thing that Biden is doing well on is the economy.
Biden is doing well on the economy.
Why? Why is Biden getting high marks on the economy?
Is it because of how he's changed the tax plan?
Well, he hasn't changed it, right?
He's proposed things, but nothing's changed.
The economy that we have now is Trump's economy.
Now, you could say, you know, give or take the stimulus packages and stuff, that maybe that was important.
But It looks like the two things that make Biden popular, the economy and the coronavirus handling, were both Trump.
Trump put the economy in the strongest position it ever was so that after the pandemic was over it would just explode again.
Exactly what we saw.
But if the economy had been weak before the pandemic, why would you expect it to be strong now?
Obviously you wouldn't. So...
The things that Biden is not doing well on are immigration, which Trump did better.
Trump did that better.
I think you could just say that objectively, that in terms of at least restricting it, he did better.
You could argue about the humanity of it.
That's a different argument.
And Biden is doing poorly in his relationship with Russia and China.
Some of our biggest challenges, how to handle Russia, how to handle China, Biden's doing better.
And what about North Korea?
Well, North Korea isn't terribly important at the moment because Trump fixed it.
Trump fixed it.
The wars in the Middle East, I guess Biden is bombing some Iranian assets in Syria because they had some drone attacks come out of there.
But basically even the Middle East is kind of in the best shape it's been in a long time because of Trump.
Right? So everything about Biden can be seen through a filter of what Trump did.
So far it's not even about Biden.
If Biden does anything to the economy, is it going to make it better?
Probably not, because it doesn't seem to need anything right now, except maybe some debt relief.
We'll see if you can do anything about that.
All right, I've got a question for you.
The people on the political right are quite obsessed About the source of the coronavirus.
Did it come out of the Wuhan lab?
And importantly, are obsessed by whether Anthony Fauci was part of any recommending or funding that went into the Wuhan lab, and specifically that coronavirus part, and then ended up with a worldwide pandemic.
And the question I ask you is, why do you care about that?
You assume you care, and I also care.
But why? Why?
Suppose you found out that Anthony Fauci was behind the recommending or the funding of the Wuhan lab.
What difference would that make?
Because he's clearly not...
He wasn't funding military gain-of-function.
Does anybody think that?
If what he was doing was funding things that scientists working in that field believed should have been funded, which sounds like that's what it was, then all he did was fund a thing that people thought should get funded.
Because we need to be able to protect against the gain of function, we need to understand it, etc.
Now, if that funding went somewhere that produced something bad, is that Fauci's problem?
Even if he did. And I think he's denying that he necessarily did anything that would fund it.
So I think there's some question about the fact pattern here, too.
But what if it is true?
Why is that a problem?
Because that sounds like his job.
Wouldn't his job be to make sure that money got to the places that were researching the things that we thought should be researched?
I don't even understand the issue.
Now, I see the issue of he may have lied about his involvement, but in the political world, that's sort of a political lie, isn't it?
Suppose what he did was he was involved in some way with some funding that did, in fact, make its way over to the lab, but if you ask him, he says, no, I funded this entity, but then this entity funded them, so it wasn't me, it was the other entity.
Those are just sort of political differences, right?
It's not a lie and it's not true.
It's just a way of looking at it.
Well, in one point of view, I didn't fund them.
But from another point of view, you could say I did.
It's just like every science, not every science, but every political question.
You look at the same facts and just interpret them differently.
So my question is this.
I'm not doubting whether you funded them.
I don't know. But I don't know what difference it makes.
Other than the fact that he may have lied about it, but probably not a science lie, probably a political lie, as in, well, I funded people who funded it, but that doesn't mean I funded it.
Or something like that, you know, where it's a little gray area.
I think that's where that's going to end up.
I don't buy into the fact or the allegation that Fauci is...
Attempting to do something bad or did attempt to do something bad for the country, why would he?
If he was doing something that had personal financial interest, I'd want to know more about that.
So Don is saying he is evil.
I would say that if that's your interpretation, that Fauci is evil, then you are brainwashed.
Because that's the brainwashing take.
He could be somebody who did something that was good for his financial interests.
That's possible.
Also thinking it was good for the country, perhaps.
But evil?
Really? If your opinion of him is that he's evil, you mean that he intentionally set out to do something bad to the world?
I don't think there's evidence of that.
So, if you say to yourself, he may have misled Congress by shading the truth about how things got funded or his involvement, I'd say, yeah, probably.
That would be just a typical political thing to shade your involvement and frame it the way that makes you sound good.
But that's not evil.
That's just a Tuesday.
Now, I don't want to be the one to defend him.
So don't get me wrong.
If there's something he did that's bad, let's know about it.
But I'm not aware of anything.
And I've been watching the news pretty carefully.
And everything I see might be true in terms of his funding influence.
But I don't know how it makes any difference.
So Rachel says, the argument is that there is no good game of function function.
I've not seen that argument.
I don't believe that that's true.
That there's no such thing as good gain-of-function research.
Because at the very least, you would want to know how the bad guys were doing it.
So you'd have to do it to see if it works.
And then you'd have something to make a vaccine against.
Or at least find out what's possible and what's not.
I feel like you'd have to do the gate of function stuff just to know how to defend against it, I think.
All right.
So we're still hearing from CNN about the big lie.
And they've done a good job of branding this, by the way.
So their branding is very consistent, talking about Trump's claim that the election was not valid in terms of the vote counting.
And according to CNN... It looks like that argument is getting smaller and smaller, meaning that all of the possible ways that any fraud could be discovered seem to be not happening.
So it looks like the last thing that might produce some kind of surprise would be the Arizona Maricopa audit, which is apparently done.
They've completed it, but we don't know the outcome.
And It's already being criticized for being sloppy, meaning that they've sort of vaccinated the public into thinking, oh, yeah, there's an audit happening, but let us tell you all the ways they're doing it wrong so that if something comes out of it, we can just say, well, we told you it wasn't done right, so there's your result.
It wasn't done right.
It doesn't mean anything.
So we're being set up brainwashed, really.
We're being......into believing that even if something comes out of that audit, it won't mean anything.
How does it make sense to have the research done in China and banned in the US? The reason it makes sense is that they're willing to do it there.
That's it. They were willing to do it there.
That's all you need. So, what do you believe at this point?
It's been a while, right?
If there were irregularities, wouldn't you know about them by now?
I mean, proven irregularities.
Wouldn't that be in the news by now?
Do you really believe that all of the people involved in the Arizona-Maricopa audit, that if they had the goods, you wouldn't know about that by now?
Do you think? Do you think that they would be able to sit on that for days, if not weeks, if they had the goods in Maricopa?
Not a chance.
Not a chance. So here's another lesson in prediction.
Nobody can keep that secret.
There are definitely kinds of secrets you could keep.
Here's a secret you could keep.
We didn't find anything.
Right? Remember how impressed we were that the Russia collusion project with Mueller?
Weren't you impressed that we didn't hear leaks?
Well, maybe there's a reason.
Maybe when the leak is we didn't find anything, people can keep that secret.
Because the people who are keeping that secret wanted you to think maybe they did find something.
Because the longer you thought maybe there is something...
The better it was for the individuals doing it.
In other words, if they were anti-Trump, they didn't want to give you the result too fast.
They showed there wasn't anything there.
So I think maybe people can keep a secret when there's nothing there.
Do you know when people can't ever keep a secret?
Ever? When there's lots of people involved.
Right? The Maricopa audit would have lots of people involved.
Family members would be hearing it, etc.
People don't keep secrets that well.
If they found a big old smoking gun, you would know it by now.
You wouldn't know the details, necessarily.
But people would be saying, wait till Tuesday.
Wink, wink, wink.
We've got it. We've got you now.
Hold on to the details.
But we got you. You know you would have heard that by now, right?
So if you have optimism that the Maricopa audit is going to be the one that brings it home, you should probably release on that.
Now, it might be that they have some allegations that are interesting, and then they'll be doubted, of course, because of the alleged sloppiness of it all.
So whatever they come up with will be doubted.
But I'll tell you what's not going to happen.
A big, shocking, provable error, deliberate or otherwise, that would change the results.
You would know that by now.
Guaranteed. So that's how to predict the future.
If they found nothing, they might be able to keep the secret, and that looks like what they're doing.
But if they found something, nobody's going to keep that secret.
They don't have any reason to keep it.
They would at least tell you a bombshell is coming.
Right? Can you imagine that they did this whole audit and nobody involved has told you, might be a bombshell coming?
Of course they would tell you that.
Of course they would, if they had one.
We have a continuing...
Oh, and here's my question about the audits.
Can these audits, let's say the Maricopa audit...
Could it tell us if there was any, let's say, any bad behavior involving software or databases or hardware?
Would their audit pick that up?
In other words, are they counting and looking at the right things that they could eliminate the possibility that the machines had any issues with them?
I think not, but I need a fact check on that.
Because it would seem that the most likely place that somebody would hide a major fraud would be in the software.
I'm not making any allegations that that happened.
I'm just asking the question, how easily could it be discovered if it did?
And would this particular audit even have the tools to look into it if they could?
So I don't know that we'll know anything conclusive.
That's the way the world we live in.
Oh, Sparky says, the main problem with atheists is not that they don't believe in the supernatural, but that they don't believe that evil exists.
Well, I don't call myself an atheist, but I do not believe that evil exists, except as a frame for people.
There are definitely people who like to hurt other people and enjoy it and go out of their way to do it.
That's real. If you want to call that evil, that's just a labeling thing.
So more and more small businesses are finding they can't hire people because people will take a very small amount of free money and prefer it over a larger amount of money they have to work for.
Not too surprising.
Now, it seems to me that most of these unemployed people are living with somebody who is feeding them.
Meaning parents or spouse or something.
And it is kind of shocking how many people are not willing to go back to work.
It's really quite shocking.
But it certainly says that our economy is healthy.
It also says that unemployment might not matter that much.
Because the people who are unemployed...
Seem to be doing okay.
They're not trying too hard to get back to work.
At least in this environment where they're getting free checks.
And that is almost what I wanted to talk about.
The Daily Mail, which I enjoy watching, because it's fun to see how Great Britain is handling...
Let's say the wokeness stuff.
So if you're not familiar with the Daily Mail, they handle the news of the day, but they also, in a very British way, I guess, have lots of tabloidy things along the side of the page.
Yeah, I can give a shout out to Meet Comic on Locals.
Yeah.
So Meet Comic came to Locals, huh?
Good to have you. So if you want to subscribe to Meet Comics, that would be on the local subscription platform.
Anyway, the Daily Mail is trying to deal with the fact that one of the biggest parts of their business model is showing attractive women, sometimes men, but it's usually women, and then making comments about their appearance.
And I've been amused at the trouble that they're having because they're trying to keep this business model of sort of making a big deal about women's bodies.
But they're in an era where it's more acceptable to say that anybody looks beautiful no matter, let's say, their weight or what they were born with.
Right? So the old standard, the old sexist standard that we're releasing on, is that You could open a publication and it would say, look at this hot 25-year-old in a bikini.
And everybody was good with that.
Or at least everybody in Great Britain was good enough with it that they allowed that to go on.
But now they can't do that.
So they have to come up with new ways to complement the appearance of people who are, let's say, less than perfect looking.
Because that's the new standard.
You're beautiful at any weight.
You're beautiful at any age.
You're just beautiful the way you are.
So here are some of the words that they're using.
This is just from today.
I won't even tell you who they're talking about.
But somebody had a very eye-popping display.
So if somebody says to you that you're putting on an eye-popping display, are they saying that you're beautiful or sexy?
No, not exactly.
But she put it on an eye-popping display.
Here's another one. This quote would leave little to the imagination in billowing gowns while some other person I won't mention works a bedazzled jumpsuit.
So the best they can say about the beauty of this particular celebrity is that she's working a bedazzled jumpsuit.
Let me tell you.
If the news ever says about you the best thing they can say about you is that you're working a bedazzled jumpsuit, maybe you should go to the gym.
That's all I'm saying. And if the best you can do is leave a little to the imagination in a billowing gown, well, maybe you could work on your diet a little bit.
Here's another one. Somebody sizzles in a tiny metallic bikini.
They sizzled. Were they attractive?
Were they great looking?
Were they sexy? I don't know, but they sizzled.
They were sizzling. Here's another one.
Somebody flashed major side boob in a plunging halter top.
But did it look good?
Was it attractive?
Was it hot? Does it make you excited?
Well, we don't know.
But we know that that side boob got flashed in a plunging halter top.
And then there's somebody else who has a jaw-dropping figure.
A jaw-dropping figure.
Is a jaw-dropping figure a good one?
One that looks like a fitness model?
Or is it somebody who's...
More subjectively beautiful, but not according to the classic model, shall we say.
So watching the Daily Mail struggle with how to compliment people who do not look like the classic, you know, perfect sculpture kind of people that got complimented in the 70s through 90s is kind of funny.
Kind of funny. And what's Robot Reads the News going to say?
Well, I will tell you this, for those of you who are not on my Locals channel, that the most recent Robots Read News, my alternative comic that I run mostly on Locals, used the naughtiest word I've ever used in a comic.
That's right. The worst word you could ever use in public is now the subject of a comic, but you won't be able to see it here because I would get cancelled for it.
Yes, it's naughty. It's terribly naughty.
All right. I see there's somebody here who reads me on Locals.
All right, I'm going to go for now.
I'm going to turn off YouTube.
I'll see you YouTubers tomorrow.
I'm going to say a little bit more to the Locals people who will stay signed on.
