Episode 1462 Scott Adams: Things in the Headlines That Make me Laugh and Cry
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Megan Rappinow & the Olympics
Jim Acosta tries to brand Governor DeSantis
Under-appreciated therapeutics?
COVID: No strategy & not tracking the right stuff
Stats for the different vaccines?
Mask data from the field vs data from a lab
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning. It's time for coffee with Scott Adams.
Once again, the best part of your day.
It never fails. And is everybody ready?
Are you prepared? Because you don't want to go into this without preparation.
That would be insanity.
Because all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or tails, just dine a canteen, drink a flask vessel, and get any kind.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now.
For the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes, well, everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now. Go. Ah.
Who says I have the worst theme song ever?
So cruel. You're so cruel.
Well, here's my favorite story of the day.
A Saudi prince...
He had 80 falcons that he wanted to relocate or possibly take on vacation.
The story's a little unclear.
But he bought airplane seats for all 80 of his falcons.
Now, of course, they were tied to little stands, so the falcons couldn't fly around inside the plane.
But here's a question I ask.
Suppose the plane lost its engines...
But the Falcons, feeling that the plane was going down, all started flapping in unison.
Could they lift the plane?
No, of course not.
Not only because they're not strong enough, but they're inside the plane, and so all of their actions would be confined to inside, so it wouldn't really work.
But do you know how jokes work?
Yeah. This isn't about the joke.
It's about the mechanism for a joke.
Here's what makes a joke funny.
Something that your brain feels makes sense but also knows it doesn't.
That's a joke. A joke when there's something about the situation that sort of kind of makes sense but the rest of your brain says, no, it doesn't.
No, it doesn't. But you can't get it out of your head.
The two of them live there at the same time and that causes a little reflex called a laugh.
Here's a better joke about that.
Rocky Manichetti, who was...
That little beep you hear whenever I'm doing this, there's literally one bird that walks in front of my same security camera every day when I'm here.
It's the same damn bird.
I don't know what he's doing there every day.
But Rocky Manichetti tweeted about my story about the 80 falcons in the plane, and he said...
Imagine being a bird that died in a plane crash.
That would be the worst way to go if you were a bird.
You know, if I were not inside this plane, things would be going pretty, pretty well for me.
That's what Larry David sang.
Pretty, pretty well.
So I'll just start with that.
Meanwhile, in the Law of Unintended Consequences...
Roly-poly, I need a sting for that, too.
The Law of Unintended Consequences!
So, Megan Rapinoe wanted to show her concern for...
People in this country who are less fortunate or in worse circumstance.
And so she has become sort of the face of the professional kneelers.
The people who are kneeling when the anthem is played or the flag is shown.
And of course her intention, I can't read her mind, but it seems that her intention was to make the world a better place.
To make it a more fair...
I'm seeing a funny picture of Megan Rapinoe conflated with Joe Biden's face.
That's pretty funny. And she intended to make the world a little bit kinder, a little bit nicer.
Here's what she actually did.
NBC's primetime coverage of the Tokyo Olympics was down 49% compared to the Equivalent night in 2016.
And 53% less than the 2012 London Olympics.
And the opening ceremonies were the lowest viewership since 1988.
Now, it's not just a story that there were fewer advertisers.
But at some point, the advertising is not enough to support the event.
And I think we're pretty close, if not already there.
So, there's a really, a very real chance that Megan Rapinoe legitimately intended just to make the world a kinder, nicer place that's more welcoming and fair for everyone.
And what she did was destroy the Olympics.
Destroy the Olympics.
So, Megan, we call that an own goal.
That's the official name for that.
That's an own goal.
Speaking of own goals, of all the news today, the thing that bothered me the most was Lionel Messi.
Now, if you don't follow soccer, especially international soccer, you may not know who Lionel Messi is.
But consider that soccer is the most, I guess, the most important sport in the whole world.
Is that true still? And he's the best player in the biggest sport.
Now, I'm not really a big fan of watching soccer on TV because I think it's kind of boring too.
I love playing it.
It was my favorite sport as a player.
But watching it, now here's the thing.
If you watch even the best players in the world, like the best teams, play each other, it's still kind of boring.
But if Lionel Messi is on one of those two teams, oh my God.
Oh my God, is it entertaining.
In the same way that Michael Jordan was entertaining, even if he didn't watch...
You didn't even have to be a basketball fan.
But to watch Michael Jordan do something that humans can't do...
That was really entertaining.
Same with Stephen Curry, watching him hit a three-pointer from midcourt.
Like, that's fun to watch, because he's not like the other players.
So when you watch somebody, you know, you're Tiger Woods, putting, etc., who are just sort of not like other people.
You know, you're Larry Bird. It's a whole different thing.
So I'm a giant fan of Lionel Messi, even though watching soccer is no big deal for me.
But I like to watch his clips.
Just go to YouTube and watch just a compilation clip of Lionel Messi's goals.
You don't have to like soccer to love the hell out of this.
Because you're watching a person operate on a level that you just didn't even know a person could operate at.
And of course the back story, if you don't know, is that Lionel Messi was always told he was too small, literally too short, to play professional soccer.
And he went from too short to play to...
The best player in the world and the biggest sport.
Here's the tragic part.
Where he's lived for 21 years, I think he was playing for Barcelona, he has to leave the team because they have financial problems.
They can't afford it.
He has to take his family...
Which has lived in this one place for 21 years, basically entire adult life, I think.
His kids raised there and everything else, and he has to leave because they have debt and they can't afford to pay him.
He offered to play for half his pay so he didn't have to move his family.
Do you know how much that gives up?
It was like a difference between $1.5 million per game And $700,000.
I mean, still a ridiculous amount of money.
But he offered to play for half.
They couldn't afford him. He's got to leave.
I've got to tell you, of all the stories I read today, you know, the news is full of tragedies and death and stuff.
I don't know why, but that bothered me the most.
Here's a story that I made a little note to myself, that this almost made me cry.
But that's not true.
It actually made me cry. I saw a couple of people on Twitter today giving me some at least partial credit, in one case, for helping somebody quit drinking.
Ed Latimer was mentioned, as famously a non-drinker, as am I. I have to tell you, most of you know my story.
I've told it too many times. My stepson died of an overdose in 2018.
Fentanyl was in the system.
And, you know, that sort of radicalizes you.
It has that effect.
And when I see that somebody quit an addiction because of anything I did or said, even if I was just a little bit of that, because people make their own choices.
I don't think other people...
It causes you to do things. I think you make your own choices.
But if I could help even a little bit, that's really meaningful to me.
It's really meaningful.
Because it gives meaning to my stepson's life.
If there's something that his tragic ending caused, and it caused other people to have maybe more success in quitting their addictions, and then somebody else was saying that He had drank...
I won't give their names because of privacy reasons, even though they tweeted it.
It's not my business to tell you their names.
And another one said that as of today, he was going to stop drinking 10 beers a day, which he'd been drinking forever.
And today's the day that he's going to stop drinking 10 beers a day.
Now, that's pretty tough.
Pretty tough. But I tweeted him so that you can cheer him on.
Lauren Boebert.
You all know Lauren.
She's a gun-toting new member of Congress.
Republican. And quite interesting.
Quite interesting person.
I did tweet it, so you'll see it.
She tweeted, the same people that thought Lollapalooza was just fine, meaning in terms of the COVID, are now saying that Sturgis will be a super-streator disaster.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think the same people that thought Lollapalooza was just fine are now saying that Sturgis will be a super spreader disaster?
Those people don't exist.
Find me somebody who said one of them was a problem and one wasn't.
Find me that one person in the world who says that one group is a problem and one is not.
That person doesn't exist.
So much of our politics is about this imaginary person.
The imaginary person who's a hypocrite doesn't exist.
It's a whole political opinion about imaginary people.
Why are we spending our time on imaginary people?
Could it be because we don't have that many real problems?
Are we so far out of real problems that you literally have to make up an imaginary person, describe them, You're saying Obama.
Yes, yes, I hear what you're saying about Obama and his birthday hypocrisy.
I usually don't do the hypocrisy topics.
Have you ever noticed that? Have you noticed that even if the news is just buzzing with the hypocrisy topics, I usually don't talk about them?
Because there's nothing to say. Yeah, you used to say this, now you say this, now you're a liar.
What else is there? Is there any depth to that?
Would you learn anything? Nope.
So Jim Acosta went on what they call an epic rant.
It's not a regular rant.
It's epic. It's an epic rant.
So Jim Acosta on CNN, he went on his epic rant and mocked DeSantis for DeSantis' stand on the coronavirus and said that maybe we should call the next variant...
The DeSantis variant.
Wow!
Zing! Zing!
You know, who taught Jim Acosta this technique?
Who taught Jim Acosta...
To cleverly brand people to make their political careers less successful.
Who was it?
I'm getting an image.
Somebody orange.
Somebody that Jim Acosta doesn't like that much.
That's right. Jim Acosta just became Trump.
You knew it was going to happen.
Let me ask you this.
In the time that you've known both President Trump and Jim Acosta, has Trump, in any way, become more like Jim Acosta?
I'll wait. I'll wait for your answer.
No? No?
But, in the time that you've been watching them, has Jim Acosta become more like Trump?
Yes, he has. Talk about the ultimate revenge is making your worst enemy turn into you.
That's a complete defeat.
That's like killing somebody and skinning them and wearing their skin as clothing.
That's as hard as you can beat somebody.
Turning them into you.
You can't win any harder than that.
But there's more to this story.
Why not call it the DeSantis variant?
That's not very good, is it?
So you know when Trump does his linguistic kill shots, like you repeat them, and they're kind of funny on the surface, and they sort of like...
They hit you where it hurts, you know, like a low-energy jab.
I mean, that was just...
That was just like Edward Scissorhands giving you a haircut kind of situation.
And then Jim's best play here is, how about the DeSantis variant?
That's my Dr.
Evil. How about that?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, the DeSantis variant.
Here's a little linguistic trick for you.
Things have to sound right.
So this is one of the things that Trump gets right that you don't know he's getting right, because you don't even know it's a thing.
One of the things that Trump gets right is he uses words that sound good together.
Now, you'll never notice it because he doesn't do it wrong.
If he ever did it wrong, you'd notice it.
But because he never makes that mistake, he uses words that sound good when he put them together...
You just don't notice how well he does it.
But here's Acosta not doing it well.
The DeSantis variant.
Oh, that's going to be viral.
It actually was viral, but only because Jim Acosta said it.
But there's nothing clever about that.
The words DeSantis and variant, they don't really fit together, do they?
It's just one of these little things that Trump does perfectly all the time, and then you don't even notice it's a thing.
You don't know it's a skill, because he never does it wrong.
But this is obviously a skill, because you can't imagine in any world that Trump himself, let's say he was on the other side from DeSantis, you can't imagine that he would come up with this, let's go with the DeSantis variant.
It's just too lame.
Because the words sound a little too, I don't know, technical or something.
They just don't have that That populist punch.
But CNN's playbook looks like this.
Here's a thing they like to do.
They like to identify a top GOP contender for the president so they find out who's the most dangerous Republican.
At the moment, that's either Trump or DeSantis.
Would you all agree? Ted Cruz has been sort of in that conversation, and they attack him.
But at the moment, DeSantis is, I'd say, the top contender who's not Trump.
So they identify a top contender, and then they attack the contender as either being anti-science or racist.
They have two arguments.
And they'll make those arguments no matter the facts.
It doesn't matter how many facts you have.
They're just going to call you a racist and anti-science, no matter what.
And then... The third part is to produce an epic takedown.
Get one of your hosts to do something that's quote-worthy, in this case Acosta.
So CNN becomes the news instead of the reporter of the news.
That's right. CNN makes themselves the news, and then they report on it.
So basically they're manufacturing news.
So it's not really fake news.
It's more like manufactured news.
But... Here's rolypoly, user rolypoly.
Sent me some audio files.
Let's see if I can play one of them now.
I was trying to get an introduction to my sections on fake news, so here's one.
If I can play it.
Fake news tweet of the day. - Alright, let's try another one here.
Fake news tweet of the day.
I don't think it was quite there.
Needs a little work. Needs a little work.
Alright, how about this one? This is for the DeSantis News.
From DeSantis News.
Pretty good. Pretty good.
Good start. Thank you, roly-poly.
User. He's tweeting at me right now.
Isn't it freaky seeing yourself mentioned on the live stream?
When you're watching it and then your name comes out.
So I've had this happen to me a number of times.
I'll turn on the television.
I'll just be watching television and then they start talking about me.
It's so freaky.
It's like, no, I'm watching you.
Don't talk about me, television.
So that just happened to roly-poly.
So how many of you have heard the theory that the therapeutics are being under, let's say, underappreciated, officially, because if therapeutics existed for the COVID, legally, we wouldn't be able to do an emergency use for some other drug if we already had a drug that was, you know, really helpful.
How many of you heard that and believe that that's true?
How many of you are of the belief that the reason we don't talk about ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, or now there's a new one, a cholesterol drug, cuts coronavirus infection in a laboratory by 70%?
And I guess it's an existing, fairly safe drug that's off the shelf.
So it would be a big deal if it worked, just like it would be a big deal if any of the others worked.
Right. So, yeah, Regeneron.
Isn't it Regeneron approved?
I thought it was.
I mean, as opposed to an emergency approval.
So I'm going to call fake news on that.
I'm going to call that a conspiracy theory that is not backed up.
Now, I don't know, and I'm going to put odds on this, right?
So this doesn't mean I'm 100% sure...
Sometimes I act like I'm completely sure when I'm not, so I'm trying to moderate that a little bit so that I don't do that so much.
Here's my take on it.
Let's say there was a law or a rule that said you can't get your emergency authorization for the vaccines if therapeutics exist.
Now let's say in this scenario that therapeutics did exist.
Let's say they did. Does that mean that in the context of a global pandemic, there's nothing you could do?
Because the rule says you can't authorize something for emergency use, so you're done, right?
You just can't do it. Is that right?
So you just can't do vaccines?
No. Nothing works that way.
Nothing works that way.
Now, there might be, there's a variant of this in which the Pharmaceutical companies are, you know, bribing the government.
But do you think that in the Trump administration, do you think Trump took a bribe from the pharma companies?
Nobody's even suggested it, right?
And it would have to be Trump because he was the one beating up on the FDA to get the vaccinations through, etc.
Let me tell you this.
Let's say there was a rule or a law or whatever it is.
I don't know what the... The situation is.
It's either a rule or a law that you can't do the emergency use thing as long as therapeutics exist.
If you went to Trump or any president, it could be Biden too, you go to the president, whoever it is, during a pandemic and you say, we've got this rule that prevents us from doing this thing that would be really, really important to do.
How long does the rule stop you?
It's over. In a pandemic, that kind of rule doesn't mean anything.
How many rules did Trump change just by signing an executive order?
Did anybody question him?
No, it's a pandemic.
I mean, it's a different situation at the moment, right?
But during the worst of the pandemic, we kind of stand aside and say, okay, leaders, we understand this is not the time to debate.
This is the time to do something.
And we know you're not going to be right every time.
Like, that would be unreasonable.
But do something, because it's an emergency.
You've got to do something. Under those rules, there's no way that a law or some guideline or rule would have stopped us from doing what made sense.
So, I'm going to call bullshit on the idea that the reason therapeutics are being undervalued by the government is because they just had to get this rule for the vaccinations.
And maybe the big pharma was pushing him or bribing somebody.
I'm not buying it.
I'm not buying it.
Because I don't think Trump could have been bribed by pharma.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Does anybody think that Trump, specifically Trump, because he was the one there during the time this was all happening, do you think he could have been bribed by pharma?
I just don't see it.
I just don't see it.
And was there ever a rule that Trump didn't like breaking?
I mean, most of his act was, tell me the rule that's in the way, and then I'll break it.
Remember, you couldn't do telehealth, having a doctor call you across state lines, and I was a little involved with that.
What did Trump do?
He said, oh, here's a law that's in the way.
It's goodbye. It's gone.
I don't believe for a second that Trump was affected by big pharma wanting not to have therapeutics look good.
I just don't think for a minute that affected him.
If he had been a different president, maybe.
Maybe. But I just don't see it affecting Trump.
He's the guy who just blows through rules.
He doesn't care. I mean, Trump screwed the pharma companies during his presidency in a variety of ways, and he did it right in their face.
So I don't think he was going to do it because they wanted it, that's for sure.
Here's one of those rules that I'll say a million times because it's so important.
You only manage the things you track.
This is one of the biggest deals in all of management.
In fact, there's no such thing as management if you're not tracking.
Because otherwise you're just flailing around.
You don't know if the things you do are working or not working.
It's not management.
Unless you can track, oh, we did this and I got this result.
So we should do more of it or less of it based on the result.
So at this point, the way we track the COVID stuff will determine what we do about it.
Let me say that again.
You don't decide what to do about it and then figure out how to track it.
Ideally, I suppose you'd do it that way.
You end up tracking whatever you can track, and then whatever it was that you could track...
Works backwards and then that's what you manage to, which is a bad way to do business.
You don't want to manage to what you can measure because it's the only thing you can measure.
Now, in our case, we're reporting, I saw this again, California had 13 deaths yesterday from COVID, allegedly.
They did not report in the same time how many of the 13 were vaccinated.
I just had a technical glitch on the locals' platform, but it's going to come back in a second.
So, sorry, YouTube. Just a moment, and I'll get back to this story.
I believe I can go right back to it.
All right, I'm back.
A little technical difficulty.
That's the second time that's happened.
So California reported 13 people died yesterday of COVID, but how many of them were vaccinated?
Don't you want to know that?
If the public is part of this process, and should be, I mean, I don't think the government should be making decisions alone.
The public opinion and the public feedback is part of the whole process, right?
That's the way we run this stuff.
And if the public doesn't get good information, or let's say information that they can act on productively...
Then you're not managing.
It's not that you're doing it right or wrong.
You're not doing it. Let me say that again.
I'm not saying that the government is managing COVID right or wrong.
I'm saying they're not managing it.
There's no stated strategy.
And we're not even tracking the right stuff.
Because if you tracked how many people died who were vaccinated versus unvaccinated, that would tell you something.
If most of the people dying are unvaccinated, why do I care?
Right? In terms of living in a free society, of course I care about people.
It would be individual tragedies, of course.
But why would I care from a policy perspective if these people had access to the vaccinations, chose not to take them, got the result that you get if things go wrong under that consideration?
Why do I care? I'm vaccinated.
I had access to it. They had access to it.
As long as I have access to vaccinations, I need to know how many died vaccinated.
Now, Mark Cuban, you all know Mark, tweeted at me.
He said, Scott, period, you do realize that if, say, we got to 90% of people vaccinated, that it's likely that around 90% of the hospitalizations and deaths would be vaccinated.
But the total number of hospitalizations deaths would be about 90% lower than had people not been vaxxed.
So he said, do you realize this?
Yes. Yes.
Yes, I realize that.
I say it all the time. And that doesn't change the request to have accurate numbers, right?
So you all understand that if 100% of people were vaccinated...
Then every person who died from COVID after that point would be a vaccinated person.
And you would not conclude from that that vaccinations don't work.
You would say, thank goodness, it was only five people.
Could have been thousands. Right?
So, Mark, your point is good, but, of course, I say this all the time.
However, if you had all of these numbers, you'd be in good shape.
If you knew how many were vaccinated of the deaths and how many were unvaccinated...
And then you also knew, you know, a percentage of the country or the state was vaccinated.
You'd have everything you needed, right?
So, yes, Mark's point is good, and you should all be aware of it.
That's why I say it all the time.
If everybody's vaccinated, then those are the only people dying.
It doesn't mean the vaccination doesn't work.
So... Tell me how many are unvaccinated, or don't let me...
Or don't imagine that I care.
Um... Kyra Romega on or Kira?
How do you pronounce K-I-R-A? Kira or Kyra?
Sorry I'm mispronouncing your name, Kira.
But she tweeted, I'd frankly also like to see stats for the different vaccines administered.
Hmm. Wouldn't you?
Wouldn't you like to see that?
Hmm. And why haven't you?
Because it does seem like a reasonable question.
I would think that every person who gets hospitalized with COVID should be asked, are you vaccinated?
Which one? And how recently?
Those are the things we should be asking.
I'm guessing we asked that.
But is it a federal regulation?
It should be. There should be some federal regulation that says you have to ask that and report it.
Okay. Now, I would say that maybe there was a reason we didn't report that before.
Because, remember, you only get, in terms of managing, you only get what you measure.
Suppose we had measured that from the start, the differences in vaccination results.
What would that have done?
Because that's what you're measuring, and what you measure causes you to act differently.
I think it would have caused fewer vaccinations in the beginning because there was an availability problem, so if you could get any one of the vaccinations, you'd get it.
You didn't want people shopping, which is sort of what I was doing.
I was kind of shopping.
That's why I waited so long.
I was waiting to see if any of the vaccinations were duds or if there was any surprises.
So I waited as long as I could to get as much information, you know, a few months.
But at this point, now that anybody can get a vaccination, you could probably shop, couldn't you?
Don't you think that maybe you'd get a few more people vaccinated, if that was your goal, by telling them, okay, we've got different vaccinations, we did find this one's 5% better?
Maybe. Some people would say, okay, I feel like you'd know more about the vaccinations, I'll give it a shot.
I'll give it a shot. Romp, romp, romp.
Dr. Eli David, not a medical doctor, but another kind of smart doctor, was tweeting, there's a new peer-reviewed paper showing that aerosols play a major role in COVID transmission, and fine aerosols constitute 85% of the viral load detected.
And he says that masks can block droplets, not aerosols, so it's time to abolish all non-scientific mask mandates.
To which I say the same things I always said.
If you have data from a laboratory experiment, which is what this is, I believe, and you also have laboratory from the field, or you have data from the field, which one do you look at?
You get two sets of data.
In the laboratory, they say, huh, we're not sure these masks are working.
But in the real world, they're working.
In other words, where there are masks that can measure that there's more of a benefit.
Now... Is any of that data accurate?
Who knows? We're in a world where you can't trust anything.
You can't trust that the masks work.
You can't trust that they don't work.
You definitely can't trust the laboratory study.
So here's what I would tell you.
I would never look at a peer-reviewed, which is different than a randomized controlled trial, I would never look at just a peer-reviewed paper that said that we tested something in a laboratory and found out that there's a lot of aerosols that matter.
We kind of already knew that, that the aerosols matter.
And we also knew that the masks were never intended to stop 100% of anything.
They were supposed to stop some amount of it during the worst of the pandemic.
Now, I'm anti-mask mandate, just to be clear, because it sounds like I'm being pro-mask here.
But I think you can have the nuanced opinion that masks make some difference.
But overall, they're not worth it.
Because your lifestyle would be so affected by it.
So that's my point of view.
I believe that masks almost certainly make some difference.
Let me put it this way.
If you knew you were in a room with people who had COVID, let's say you knew there was one person in the room and you were going to talk to all of them one by one, would you want the person who was talking to you from three feet away and facing you to be wearing a mask or not?
Yeah. How often before the masks were a big thing were you talking to somebody and you could feel their spittle in your face?
You know what I'm talking about.
You can feel the spittle hitting you in the face.
I feel like if somebody has COVID I don't want their spittle hitting my face and the mask would make some difference.
So I think you can be scientific enough to say masks make a difference at the same time you can say maybe we've reached the point where if Unvaccinated people want to take the chance.
Let them do it. And vaccinated people too.
So remember, vaccinated people are getting the virus now.
So don't forget that.
Let's see. Barnes posted a link on a randomized controlled trial that should statistically signal that ivermectin was effective at treating COVID. Interesting.
So somebody's saying that...
Barnes has posted a...
And you can see Viva and Barnes, their podcast is great, by the way.
It's one of the best ones. You should watch it on YouTube and or Locals.
I think you can see it on both platforms.
Twitch, too, maybe? But this is news I haven't heard before, so I'm just seeing it in a comment on Locals that there might be some new news on ivermectin.
All right. All right.
Is there anything I missed?
I said Viva and Barnes.
I'm going to look at your comments here for a moment.
and Cori Bush? Yeah, I don't have much to say about her.
I know what you're talking about, but...
Yes, there's a story about a police officer who almost OD'd on fentanyl without taking any.
Was just around it and just sniffed it.
That happens to drug dogs, too.
If a drug dog sniffs fentanyl, the dog's dead.
How did a guy like you get a girl like Christina?
You know, you're not the first person to ask.
But why isn't anybody asking how a girl like Christina got a great guy like me?
Could it be my looks?
Could be. Alright, that's about all I've got for today.
