Episode 1484 Scott Adams: Let's See if We Can Find something Good to Say About Today
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Alyssa Milano is proud of President Biden
Chase Bank and General Flynn
CNN's anecdotal vaxx persuasion
North Korea fires up nuclear reactor
32% say Biden's evacuation was good or excellent
Kabul drone killed who?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Because, you know, sometimes the news is not so good.
But luckily, I'm here to cheer you up about all those things.
A little dose of better attitude.
Get that day going.
If I lecture you about vaccines, you're going to go.
Don't worry. There will be no lecturing you about vaccines.
Indeed. Indeed.
Albury arguing that you do have a constitutional right to avoid them.
So you're going to like that part.
But wait for it. All right.
Before we get going, it's time for this simultaneous sip.
The best thing that's ever happened in the history of the universe.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass or a tank or a chals or a stein or a canteen jug or a flask.
A vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now. For the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine here of the day, the thing that makes, oh man, everything better.
Just everything. It's called The Simultaneous Sip, and it's going to happen now.
Watch it. Go. Well, I don't know if you know this, but there have been randomized, controlled trials.
And it's proven that people who participated in the simultaneous sip have a better day than the people who didn't.
Even the people who took horse dewormer instead.
No, it didn't help them. But coffee did.
Coffee did. Well, Alyssa Milano, you know her.
Famous actress and supporter of Joe Biden.
Well, I'm going to give her the gutsiest tweet of the century award.
And she tweeted this yesterday.
And I'm not making this up.
This really happened.
So Alyssa Milano tweeted yesterday.
I'm proud of POTUS and the incredible job he's doing.
He's the right person for the job in this moment in history.
Hashtag, I stand with Biden.
Now... I got questions.
I got questions.
Is Alyssa Milano the only person in the universe who hasn't noticed that there's kind of a big mistake Joe Biden made recently and maybe is still making?
We don't know. She's proud of him.
She's proud of the job he's done.
And says he's the right person for the job in this moment in history.
And this raises an interesting question.
What would it look like if the worst person for the job had been in it?
Hmm. Hmm.
What would the worst person for the job do?
I don't know. The worst person?
Hmm. Probably, I don't know, give names of people that are trying to escape from the Taliban to the Taliban.
Maybe that would be bad.
I think the worst person would do that.
Maybe when the Taliban offered America all of Taliban to control until the evacuations were over, maybe the worst person in the world would say, we don't need all of Kabul.
All we need is a little airport.
We just need the airport.
That's something that the worst person in the world might have said.
Anybody else would have said, yeah, you know, a better perimeter would be smarter.
We'll control Kabul until we're done.
That's what the Taliban offered them.
They turned it down.
What? So thank goodness we don't have the worst person for the job.
Here's news that I consider fake news until somebody proves it's not.
And by the way, the giving the names to the Taliban, these were special cases.
It involved a bus here or there, but it's still a real problem.
It wasn't all the names of all the people, but still pretty bad.
Although, to be fair, they don't have many options right now.
So the fake news is that Chase Bank closed General Flynn's account there because they didn't want to associate with his reputational risk.
Do you believe that's true?
I saw this on social media, but I did not see it in the news.
That doesn't seem true.
I would say this is a little bit too on the nose.
Right? I'm seeing Richard says it's true.
I'm seeing other people saying it's true.
Here's what I would look for.
I would only think this is true if it came from General Flynn's Twitter account.
If General Flynn tweeted this, well, it's true.
If he's the only person who didn't tweet it, or let's say he didn't tweet it at all, or he just didn't mention it, it's not true.
Somebody says it's his own telegram.
Oh, Twitter banned him?
Let's say it comes from his account, though, some other account.
All right. So I would say that I'm going to call this fake news unless I heard it from him and from Flynn.
If somebody has something on social media that came from Flynn...
That you actually did a screenshot yourself.
Not a screenshot you saw, but a screenshot you took yourself on social media of Flynn confirming it.
Then I'll believe it. His brother tweeted, I don't trust his brother.
I wouldn't trust his brother.
I would trust only Flynn.
Any other source doesn't count.
But by the way, Richard Thomas.
More proof. Scott's a right-wing shill.
I'm going to put you in timeout because I'm going to hide you, Dick.
Literally, his name is Dick.
So, Dick, you're in timeout now.
So, what else we got here?
I love the daily CNN anecdotal persuasion.
So as you know, CNN is trying to give you one story per day of somebody who wishes they got the vaccine.
They sure wish they got vaccinated.
And they're going to be one a day forever until you all get vaccinated, I guess.
So this one was a woman hospitalized with COVID comes home to find her husband has died from it.
So she was in the hospital and didn't know that her husband was literally home watching the pets, and he died of it while she was in the hospital.
Now, there's no direct mention of whether they were vaccinated, but they weren't vaccinated.
I don't think so.
So this is sort of a story you're going to hear a lot of.
Now, I'm not saying you should be persuaded by this.
In fact... I'm saying the opposite.
You should not be persuaded by anecdotes, individual stories of something that happened to a person.
If that's what's persuading you, you're doing it wrong.
But the truth is, it is persuasive.
We do get persuaded by these little stories.
Here's another one.
Florida radio host Mark Bernier, 65, who disturbingly called himself Mr.
Anti-Vaxx. So there's a conservative, Florida, and Florida makes the story even more interesting, right?
Florida radio host, conservative, called himself Mr.
Anti-Vax. Can you finish the rest of the story without even knowing what it is?
So there was an old guy, 65, called himself Mr.
Anti-Vax, and he was quite proud of it.
How do you think the story ends?
That's right. He died.
Didn't get vaccinated, and he died of COVID. Now, you knew that was going to be the end of the story, right?
Because it's anecdotal persuasion.
And if the story has that little twist, oh, he was anti-vax, and he died.
Yes, you're right, Anne-Marie, 65 is not old.
I correct myself.
But, certainly in terms of COVID, it's within the risk category-ish.
The beginning of the risk category, I'd say.
And he's the third broadcaster to die from COVID. I think they mean the third conservative one, right?
He's the third one who said, don't get a vaccination, and then he died because he didn't get a vaccination.
Is that it? Yeah, the closer you get to 65, the less old it seems.
I tell you, if I thought that...
So I'm 64. If I knew that being 64 felt the way it feels now, I never would have been afraid of it, because it feels pretty good.
I've got to say, I'm probably as healthy as I've ever been in my whole life.
But this story about the Marc Bernier who tragically died after branding himself Mr.
Anti-Vax, this is the type of story that tells you a lot about yourself.
Doesn't it? What was your reaction to the story about somebody who was anti-vax and then died because he didn't get a vaccine?
You kind of were amused.
Some of you were. Some of you maybe had a more human reaction and just thought it was tragic and that's the end of it.
But I hate to tell you, I was a little bit entertained.
And that says something really bad about me, doesn't it?
How many of you had the same reaction and found out that you suck, just like I did?
I found out I'm a bad person.
Because it kind of entertained me.
And that's really bad, isn't it?
I'm being honest. Now, I'm not saying that I'm proud of it, because it's not really a reaction you should be proud of.
But I suck.
I suck. Yeah, and it's a tragedy, and I feel bad for the family.
But the reason it was in the news is that somebody thought I would be entertained by it.
And they were right. Sorry.
By the way, I don't care if you get a vaccination, so it's not about that.
It's more about whether you suck as a human being, and I guess I do.
So... I'd like to say again that there are two positions on ivermectin which would reveal you to be not part of reason.
I've said this before, but I have to say it again.
If you're positive that it has been proven that ivermectin works, that hasn't happened.
So you're not really part of reason if you think that happened.
But if you're positive it doesn't work and that it's just horse dewormer and it couldn't possibly work...
Well, you're not part of the reason there either.
Because there's plenty of evidence.
There just isn't proof.
And we get those two confused, right?
I would agree that there's no proof that ivermectin works, but there's a ton of suspicious-looking evidence, right?
So if you're not uncertain about ivermectin, you're in the wrong place.
I saw a graph today.
I think it was A.J. Cortez sent this graph on Twitter.
And it's a graph that's showing that the African countries that used ivermectin have very low death rate from COVID, whereas the African countries that do not use it so much have much, much higher death rates.
So that's all you need to know, right?
If the countries in Africa that used it are doing relatively great, and the ones that didn't use it are doing relatively sucky, that's all you need to know.
Now, it's not about vitamin D. It's not about sunlight, because it's Africa.
We're only looking at Africa, right?
They've got lots of vitamin D. They've got lots of sunlight.
So if it's only African countries...
And the ones using ivermectin did great, and the ones who don't use it did the same as everybody else not using it.
Doesn't that tell you something?
Are you convinced? Are you all convinced now?
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
What would be maybe wrong?
What would be maybe wrong with the data, just off the top of your head?
What do you think could be wrong with the data?
How about... Everything?
About everything.
What would the countries that use ivermectin in Africa have in common with each other?
And that would be different, perhaps, than the countries who are not using ivermectin.
What would the users of ivermectin in Africa have in common?
Well, somebody says malaria, maybe.
I don't know. More developed, right, and less developed.
The more developed the country is, the less likely they're using ivermectin.
What else would be a correlation the more developed you are and the better your health care is?
What would be another correlation?
Another correlation would be you count your dead correctly.
Do you think that a country that has to use ivermectin, because they don't have good enough health care to do anything else, do you think that country is counting their deaths correctly?
No. There's probably a perfect correlation, or a really strong one, I would guess.
Not perfect. There's probably a perfect correlation-ish.
Between countries that can't count their dead, they're not testing them, they don't know who died at home and who didn't, and ones that don't have enough health care to do anything but use ivermectin.
So, now, I'm not saying that's the explanation.
I'm saying it's a more obvious explanation than ivermectin really works and all the experts in the other countries didn't notice.
So compare the two possibilities.
I think my bird has visited me.
No, it's an actual human this time.
That's my security camera beeping at me.
So take these two possibilities.
What is the greater possibility?
That the African study has good data and it shows that ivermectin works, but all of the industrial countries around the world haven't noticed or don't believe it.
Is that likely?
Could be. It could be.
I don't think you can rule that out.
It's perfectly possible that there is data showing it works in Africa that's not convincing to people who are experts.
Maybe. And maybe it's even accurate.
But what's the other possibility?
The other possibility is that it's exactly the countries who are not good at counting their dead.
And that's the whole thing.
Could be the whole thing. So I wouldn't believe any graph about ivermectin or about one country compared to another.
Every time you do that kind of comparison, it's misleading, I think.
All right. Alex Berenson, who, as you know, was skeptical of many things the government was doing about this pandemic, got banned by Twitter.
And I was reading an article.
Israel's not too happy with him.
So Haaretz, a big Israeli publication, was mocking him for his takes on Israel.
And apparently he was claiming that the vaccinations weren't working too well in Israel.
So this is an article in Haaretz.
So this is their claim. I'm just passing it along.
And the claim is that Alex Berenson was saying that the vaccinations weren't working in Israel.
So his initial claim is that they just weren't working.
It wasn't keeping anybody from dying.
But once the data was overwhelmingly showing that that was true, apparently he changed his attack to, well, they might be preventing some COVID, but what about these side effects?
And they start to talk about the side effects instead of the effectiveness.
Now that should be your first flag, right?
That somebody's moving from their one criticism and immediately goes to another criticism.
So that's what I talk about when I talk about the people who brand themselves as the rogues, the people who are on the other side of everything.
Once you're always on the other side of everything, you don't have any credibility, right?
Now, that doesn't mean you're wrong.
I'll say this a million times.
If anybody comes back to me later and says, Alex Berenson was right and you were wrong, I'm going to say, so?
I always allow that that's possible.
It is 100% possible that when this is all said and done, Alex Berenson will be right about everything.
Completely possible. I don't think so.
I'd bet against it.
I'd bet heavily against it.
We can't rule it out, based on what we know at the moment.
Because any data you think does has disproved him.
I don't know. All our data is crap.
I'm not sure anybody can disprove anybody these days.
All right. Let's talk about your constitutional right.
I saw CNN said that you do not have a constitutional right to avoid a vaccination.
What do you think?
Do you think you have a constitutional right to avoid a mandatory vaccination?
So the argument is there are other vaccines that are mandatory, and those have passed constitutional muster.
So, for example, we all have to get a polio vaccination, right?
I think that's one of the examples.
And it's mandatory.
It's mandatory. So doesn't that prove that there's no constitutional right for it?
Well, here's the thing.
If you don't get the polio vaccination, or there could be other vaccinations in this example, but I'll just use polio, you would be putting your fellow citizens at risk.
We all agree on that, right?
That if you don't get vaccinated, at least that's what medical science is telling you, that you would be putting other people at risk.
Do you have a constitutional right...
This would be CNN's argument, which I'll argue against in a moment.
Do you have a constitutional right...
To put other people at risk.
Well, apparently you don't.
Because if your freedom puts somebody else at risk, that's where your freedom ends, right?
So do you have the freedom to go take a crap in somebody's living room?
You do not. Because that would have an impact on somebody else.
So your freedom generally is limited when it starts having a big enough impact on other people.
We all have to deal with our smaller impacts on other people because there's no way to prevent them.
But when it's the big stuff, such as life and death...
Yeah, then your freedom is probably going to be limited by what you're doing to other people.
Yeah, drunk driving would be an example.
So I agree with the argument that the government can force you to do things you didn't want to do if it's good for other people.
Yeah, I see your comment, Justin.
All right. But here's my take on it.
What if you genuinely believe it would be dangerous to you?
Now, I can't remember ever thinking to myself, hey, if I get these polio vaccinations or other...
I don't remember ever thinking that it would kill me.
Like, I was never afraid of it because it felt like it was tested enough, even if it wasn't.
So at least I didn't feel like it was dangerous.
But what if you feel like...
Whether you're right or wrong, what if you feel like the vaccination would be dangerous to you?
That's different, isn't it?
These vaccinations are not analogous to other vaccinations.
Because with the other vaccinations, you did have a fairly good feeling that they'd been tested well enough, they weren't that unique, and that they were working against something where a vaccination works.
Here we have a case where the vaccination works-ish...
But it still doesn't stop at cold.
And because it's newer and a little less tested and newer technology, there is some extra concern.
So here's my constitutional argument, and it goes like this.
Yes, the government can force you to do something with your body that you didn't want to do if there's not much danger to you in it, And it would save other people's lives.
I take that as constitutionally solid.
I think the government can force you to protect other citizens if there's not really much of a risk to you.
But what if the government and you have a very different opinion about the level of risk?
What if you think the risk is unacceptably high, even if it isn't?
And what if the government says, no, it's low enough?
Well, here's the problem.
The government doesn't have the right to make you harm yourself in your opinion.
Does it? Can the government make you harm yourself in your opinion?
So I'm not saying it would harm you.
I'm saying that if it's your opinion that it would harm you, can they make you do that?
Because it doesn't really apply to the other vaccinations too much.
Most people aren't too afraid of those.
I know the anti-vaxxers are, but it isn't as big a deal as this is.
Anyway, I think the constitutional argument that the government can make you do it doesn't apply to this.
So, that's my take on the constitutionality.
Well, apparently North Korea is firing up another nuclear reactor that they already had.
They're firing it back up, and it's capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium, we think.
And here's the question.
Would this have happened under Trump?
Now, I probably would, because I imagine that they need electricity as much as they need to make bombs.
But, you know, it's being noted that it might be a negotiating tactic.
And that's really just to get us back to the negotiating table.
But what exactly are we negotiating about?
Does North Korea need anything?
I mean, are we negotiating with them?
My best guess is that they probably just need electricity, and this is how they can get it.
So I feel as though we would be safer under Trump, because even if Trump didn't like this, he'd probably at least have a friendlier interaction with them, which would make us all safer.
I don't know what Biden's going to do, threaten him.
What good's that going to do?
Here's another dog that's not barking.
Where's my anonymous reports about all the generals privately disagreeing with Biden about the Afghanistan withdrawal?
Where's that?
Are you telling me you can't produce one anonymous story, anonymously sourced story, about the conversation in the room when the decisions were being made?
I don't know.
It feels like there's something missing here, right?
Because don't you think that if Trump were president, we'd have anonymous stories that the general said clearly, do not do this, Mr.
President. And then the president, in his orange badness, decided to do it anyway for political or financial gain, right?
That's the story, right?
If Trump had been president, you'd have all these anonymous reports where he was just being dumb and he said all the right things and he was racist.
And none of it would be true.
It wouldn't be true.
But it would definitely exist.
Those stories would be there.
And you can see now that apparently that kind of story gets invented by the left more than the right.
Because if the news on the right invented bullshit stories as much as the left, at least in this category of stories, you'd already see it.
You know, somebody would be reporting, anonymous source tried to tell Biden not to do it, but he just wouldn't listen.
I don't know. I'd like to hear what happened behind closed doors.
And the news is suspiciously not telling us.
Well, Rasmussen...
Did a poll and asked people about what they thought about Biden's performance on the withdrawal of Afghanistan.
You would not be surprised that 52% of respondents said it was poor.
Poor job.
Here's the surprising part.
32% of likely voters in this Rasmussen poll think that Biden's job in withdrawing from Afghanistan was either good or excellent.
One-third of the public, the voting public, not even the people who aren't paying attention, the voting public, the people who pay attention more than other people.
A third of the voting public thinks Biden did an okay job on the withdrawal.
What? There's not even a single news source with that story.
There is not one news outlet saying he did this right.
Not the left.
Not the right.
Not the middle if the middle exists anywhere.
I don't know. What the hell is going on?
Are the Democrats so dug in?
Are they going Alyssa Milano?
Is this cognitive dissonance?
Is it confirmation bias?
What is this?
I mean, seriously. You expect some kind of a split like this when the sides disagree.
If the news is reporting differently on the right and the left about who did well or who didn't, well, then you'd have a split population.
But what happens when the news on the left and the right both know that Biden blew it and they're completely consistent?
I don't believe there's anybody going on the news on any outlet saying, well, this looked pretty good to me.
I don't think so. How in the world do 32% say, well, that's pretty good.
That's a good job. Well, yes, okay, blaming it on Trump, yes.
Some might be blaming it on Trump.
That could be. Some might be saying, you know, it doesn't matter how we get out, just get out.
Maybe. Some might be saying, well, it's going to be messy no matter what you do.
It would have been messy if Trump did it too.
Maybe. Maybe.
But I don't know how you can argue that it's not going poorly.
You could argue that maybe it would have gone poorly no matter who did it.
But you can't argue it's not going poorly.
Now, let me throw a compliment to Biden, okay?
When Biden said, we are going to get out by this date that the Taliban set, most of the reporting on the left and the right said, oh, that's a big mistake, because I'm not sure we could make that happen.
And the people who are below Biden in the administration are saying it's not going to happen.
So it looks like a big old mistake, right?
No. No.
If Trump were doing the same thing, I would be supporting him the same way.
It goes like this.
Biden is talking to the Taliban.
And he's trying to treat them as respected partners at least long enough to get our people out.
What he says after we get our people out might be different.
But at the moment, Biden is saying he will respect the deadline because he's respecting their right to put a deadline.
And here's the second part.
I've seen this in management a million times.
You know, the CEO will say, I need this in two weeks.
And all the underlings say, you can't do this in two weeks.
This will take a month, no matter what.
And then the CEO says, yeah, but you're going to do it in two weeks.
And then the underlings say, I don't think you heard us.
Cannot be done in two weeks.
And then the CEO says, do it in two weeks.
And then they go do it in two weeks.
So it looks like Biden did that.
It looks like everybody said it's impossible.
It looks like Biden said, do it anyway.
And I think he's going to get pretty close.
At least in terms of the people we can get out.
Now the problem is, there are people who can't get to the airport, right?
And there will be stragglers forever.
But I'm not convinced we won't have some kind of a system to get them out.
I think it'll be a bunch of different efforts.
I think we'll have to peck away at it for a long time.
Maybe privately people will do some things as well as government stuff.
Other governments will help us, etc.
But, I don't know, at least in that narrow sense of Biden sticking to the deadline, I think he probably made the right choice on that.
Even though it looks stupid, persuasion-wise and negotiation-wise and managing the Taliban's attitude, which matters.
Because we can't go hard at them while we still need them.
So I think the deadline thing might have been the right move or the only move he could make.
I'm seeing some Mike Cernovich tweets.
About the missile attack, so there was a second response, I guess.
The U.S. did a missile attack or a drone strike, whatever it was, on a Kabul neighborhood that allegedly killed something like six to nine people, maybe 20.
It's a fog of war, we don't know.
There were children among the dead, allegedly.
We don't know that for sure either, although they're photographs.
We assume that they're accurate photographs.
And I guess the U.S. has not confirmed who was or was not killed, but there were secondary explosions, so I guess they targeted a car or a vehicle that allegedly had some suicide attackers in it, but the explosion caused secondary explosions, and I guess a building blew up.
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that there were explosives in the building, but it's indicated there might have been.
So... Did you notice there's not much news on it?
So I saw the Cernovich tweets, and I thought to myself, my God, that's a big story.
And then I went to the news to check on the story.
And it's almost being ignored in American media.
CNN has one minor headline on it.
And the headline doesn't even refer to it directly.
Like, you have to get into the story to find out it even happened.
So they're definitely underplaying it.
CNN is underplaying the hell out of this.
And I had to read about it in foreign press.
I had to read about it in The Guardian.
I had to read about it in Al Jazeera.
And I had to read about it in Spectator.
What country is The Spectator?
I don't know what country that is.
Is that America? Newsmax is covering it, somebody says.
UK. Spectator is UK. Well, there's something disturbing about how well this is being hidden from American public.
And in fact, if I hadn't seen Cernovich's tweets, I don't even think I would have noticed it.
Because it was so silent in the headlines that I actually wouldn't have noticed.
So somebody says it's on CNN. So is it on the network?
Because the news page on the web is just one little mention of it.
It is mentioned, but it looks underplayed.
And maybe it should be.
Because I have mixed feelings about civilian casualties in war if you're targeting terrorists.
I mean, you have to make horrible choices, and I tend to be fairly forgiving for the people who have to make horrible choices.
It's war. People die.
It's tragic. And there's just nothing that's going to change that.
Well, here's something interesting.
There has been one death from the Pfizer vaccine itself, maybe...
So it's confirmed that the vaccination caused this one death.
But it's in New Zealand, which I find interesting.
Because I don't have the numbers yet, but New Zealand is obviously doing vaccinations.
But what makes them unique is that they're closed up tight from the virus itself.
So they had one case and they closed the country down again, right, for one case.
So what makes New Zealand interesting is that if there are vaccination complications...
We should be able to see them more cleanly in New Zealand than anywhere else, right?
Because you won't be seeing any coronavirus deaths.
So they should have zero deaths.
And then, in theory, they would have a pretty good visibility on how many people the vaccinations kill.
Now, they have one case...
It looks like it's highly likely because there was some myocarditis involved.
I guess that's the tell for the vaccinations being the problem.
But there were comorbidities involved and it's not so clear.
Maybe the vaccine was part of it.
Maybe it wasn't. But I keep an eye on New Zealand vaccination-related deaths.
We do believe that there aren't many of them, but whatever there are, it will be highlighted there.
Now, again, if you're going to turn it off because I mentioned vaccines, I'm not promoting it.
I'm just telling you where we might have some good data.
That's all. And then lastly...
Lastly...
That was lastly...
I'd like to get to all the notes on my last page, but there aren't any.
It prints an empty page.
Yeah, one death can never be clear.
That is correct. You probably would need some number of deaths to give some kind of statistical confidence.
But yeah, one death can never really tell you anything.
But it would tell you something if there were so few of them that you couldn't tell anything, right?
If we get to the end of this and we have one possible death in New Zealand for vaccinations, because remember, this is a national story.
It means it's the first one, I think.
Maybe we just don't know about any others.
But if you only had one, how many people in New Zealand have gotten a vaccination?
Millions? Would you say that millions have been vaccinated in New Zealand so far?
Probably. What's it say?
Scott pretends Alex doesn't exist.
Sad. You talk about Alex Jones.
I don't pretend he doesn't exist.
I've been on his show. I like Alex Jones.
That doesn't mean he's right about everything.
But I say that about everybody.
I've said this before.
If you can't compliment somebody you disagree on, then you should check yourself for bias.
So I don't agree, of course, with everything that Alex Jones says, but he's a nice guy.
I like him. Very kind to me.
Very generous when I interacted with him.
And very likable.
And obviously very successful.
So, you know, reportedly he's been right about a number of things.
So I have some good things to say about that.
Yes, the head of the UN Climate Summit, I'm seeing in the comments reminding me, blocked the nuclear energy from attending.
That's right. There's a UN Summit about the climate...
The climate. And they decided that it wouldn't be appropriate to have the nuclear industry there.
I remind you, the nuclear industry is probably the only hope we have of changing anything about climate change, as well as controlling space someday.
It's the only hope we have.
Now, maybe somebody will invent something that's a new hope.
But at the moment... It's the only hope we have for water desalinization, which will be required, and electricity that's dependable.
It's our only hope. And the UN is going to exclude those people.
On Up says, Scott, take a vacation for everyone.
Well, maybe I'll do that, but it won't stop me from live streaming on vacation.
When you put the money filter on it, everything looks different, right?
So follow the money. That probably has something to do with the nuclear industry being frozen out.
