Episode 1501 Scott Adams: Simultaneous Sipping With Excellent Audio Quality For a Change
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
General Milley deserves a defense
China's TikTok AI is reprogramming our children
2/3 of cyber attacks are China sponsored?
The Hill STILL pushing "Fine People" HOAX
Delta variant's origin?
Rapid Testing versus FDA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And welcome to another episode of the best thing that's ever happened.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and the Simultaneous Sip.
And I was thinking of doing something different this morning.
Because normally when I do this, I do it in what I would call, let's say, presentation mode.
Meaning that I know I'm talking to, you know, a large group of people.
And so I, you know, I modify my presentation to make it a little bigger for people.
And I thought, what would happen if instead of that, I spoke to you like we're just sitting in the same room?
And it's just one of you.
You want to try that today?
I want to see if I can make it feel like it's just me talking to you.
Now, in order to do this experiment...
Sometimes you're going to have to talk back.
But since I can't hear you, I'll just act like I did.
So I'll do my part, and then I'll pause for a moment while I listen to your part.
And you can say anything you want at home, because I can't hear it.
But despite not hearing it, watch how good my communication skills are.
Because without even hearing what you say...
I'm still going to respond to it.
Yeah. That's how good my conversational skills are.
So after the simultaneous sip, which I'm going to do in casual mode, we'll just talk.
All right? So we'll just try this today.
It's the only day we're going to do that.
All right? Hey, how's it going?
You know what would be great?
Have you ever done that simultaneous sip?
You have? What do you mean you don't like it?
You have to try it.
Just try it. All right.
Just pick up your cup. I know you're skeptical.
I know you're skeptical. I was skeptical, too, the first time I heard about it.
But try the simultaneous sip, you know, because all you need is a cup or mug or a glass.
You don't need much.
Tanker, chalice, stein, what are the other things?
Canteen, jug, flask, whatever.
So let's see if it works.
Go. Was that a little too slurpy?
It was. Sorry.
So have you seen the news today?
Did you have any time to look at the news yourself?
Well, luckily I did.
So anything happening with you?
How was your morning? Oh, that's good.
What are you doing today? You got plans?
Yeah, one of those days.
Yeah, I got plans too, later.
So, did you hear about China?
Wow. I don't know if this is working at all.
Probably not. Let's go back to presentation mode.
So, many of you have asked me why it is that I'm the only podcaster in the world...
Who can't solve the audio problem.
Did you ever wonder that?
Because you've all seen me with massive audio and video problems.
And you say to yourself, Scott, Joe Rogan has solved this problem.
Why don't you just do what Joe Rogan does?
Or, how about any of the 10 million podcasters who don't have any of these problems?
Because, let's explain it to you, Scott.
There's you. Here's you.
And then there's 10 million podcasters who seem to have solved the problem that you alone can't seem to solve.
Do you see the problem here?
Do you see the problem?
Well, Carpe, thank you for saying the audio is fine today.
I don't think that was worth $20, but I appreciate it.
I mean, it wasn't worth $20 to you, but I appreciate it.
So here's what's different.
Nobody is solving my problem.
The problem that I have is unsolved by any podcaster anywhere in the world.
It's sort of an illusion.
Do you know why Joe Rogan can have good audio and I can't?
It's because it's not live.
That's why. See what happens if he does it live every day.
It's going to be different, right?
So if you do live, you can't do what all the other podcasters do, which is make sure it works before you go.
Now, one of the things that you don't know, if you've not been a guest on many podcasts, as I have been, is that even the recorded podcasts...
They usually have to tweak the audio and try it again and test and move things around.
Even recorded ones, it's hard.
Then the other thing is, suppose I did it live, but I had an engineer who was working with me to make sure that everything's working as it happens.
So I don't have to worry about that.
There's an engineer sitting there.
I can't do the show with an engineer.
Do you get that? How many of you understand that before I explain it?
That if I had an engineer working with me, I couldn't do this.
None of this would be possible if anybody else is sitting in the room.
Because anybody else in the room is going to be sucking my energy out before I go live.
You can't have other people in the room if you're going to be live.
Now, if you're Joe Rogan, it's a whole operation.
You've got your engineer, your guest.
It's like a party. If it's a party...
That works pretty well, right?
You've got more than one person.
It's a whole thing. But the last thing I would want is to wake up at four in the morning and have my engineer sitting here.
Can you imagine that?
It would just be the worst setup in the world.
The fact that I do this alone is why I like it.
Everything about the thing that I like, I couldn't do with an engineer.
All right, that's enough of that. I have revised my opinion on General Milley since yesterday.
Ready for this?
I believe, and I've said this before, that everyone deserves a defense.
Would you agree with the following statement?
Everyone deserves a defense, even if they're guilty in our country.
Now, in the legal system, of course, they get one.
But what about in the public realm?
Suppose you're being attacked in the public realm.
Do you deserve a defense?
Well, of course, you can make one.
You can just go in public and say, here's my defense.
But what if you can't?
And I'm not sure General Milley can in this situation, because there are a lot of mines in the minefield.
I'm not sure he can defend himself.
And so, as a courtesy...
To the military. Because he is a military person and we respect the military.
And I believe that as a member of the military that it is my responsibility as a citizen to support them as they support me and support you.
So I'm going to support him now.
I don't know if he's innocent or guilty, competent or incompetent.
I'm just going to give him a defense.
Is that fair?
Before you even hear it, I just want to ask you, is that fair to give him a defense?
Wouldn't you want to hear one?
If he's still guilty after you hear the defense, that's fine.
But everybody deserves a defense, especially a military person.
Who here thinks a military professional doesn't deserve a defense?
Right? Nobody. All right, here's the defense.
Shoe on the other foot test, number one.
This is the Alan Dershowitz test.
If Biden had been the president, when Milley talked to China and said, hey, don't worry, you know, I got this, you don't have to worry, would I be as angry at him, or would I say to myself, you know, you know, Biden might be a little mentally degraded.
I kind of feel a little safer knowing that there's an adult who will say, no, I'm not going to push that nuclear button.
I need to ask some questions.
So, that's the first part of the defense, is would you feel exactly the same if Milley was the check against Biden's brain?
Because he was acting as the check against Trump's brain.
Now, I think he was incorrect in estimating his risk.
If, in fact, because we don't know this as a fact, but if he thought it was a real risk, and I'm not sure he did.
I think you have to be skeptical of the reporting.
But if he thought it was true that there was some risk, wouldn't you want him to act?
Now, some people say, oh, that's the wrong way.
It's the wrong mechanism. Should have gone through the 25th Amendment, talked to Congress, talked to the Vice President.
There's a whole different thing.
You don't want to violate the chain of command.
Hold on. Hold on.
Separate question. Did I defend his going around the chain of command?
No. No, I'm not going to defend that.
I'm not going to defend the question of whether he should be fired.
Because he should. I still think he should be fired because he went around the chain of command.
And unfortunately, there's just no way around that.
The moment you allow that you can make an exception to the chain of command, you're done.
You can't make an exception.
He has to be fired, in my opinion, based on what we know.
But if we're being honest and humble about this, we don't know everything.
It could be that the story is not anything like we think.
But here's the defense I'm going to give him.
Are you ready for this? Here's the defense.
Although I believe he needs to be fired for violating the chain of command, if he was acting responsibly, it probably looked like this.
Imagine if you believed that China was worried.
Do you think they were?
Do you think that China's military was getting antsy?
Now the question is, was China simply sitting there not worried at all, and they didn't even think about it until Milley called them?
Do you think that's the case?
Or do you think that Milley already knew China was concerned about some kind of sudden military action because Trump was unstable according to our own media?
I think China's military was concerned.
What do you think? Let's test your assumptions.
Test your assumption. We don't know.
But do you think China's military was at least concerned enough to ask some questions?
Not really worried necessarily there'd be a war, but worried enough just to ask the question.
What do you think? A lot of no's.
A lot of people say no. But you don't think that they would at least ask if there was any risk?
Because you just have to ask, right?
Just ask your counterpart.
Is there any risk here? Is there something we need to be worried about here?
Now, a lot of you are saying no, but would you agree that that's an assumption?
Those of you saying no, that's an assumption, right?
You don't know. I'm going to make the assumption that, and because remember, I'm giving Millie a defense.
It doesn't matter that I believe in it or that it's true.
I'm simply giving him a defense that everybody deserves.
Because for whatever reason, he's not doing it himself.
And maybe he just can't speak of it without getting in more trouble.
If the only thing Millie did was talk to nervous Chinese counterparts and tell them there's no real risk here, What's the problem?
Go. All right, so just take this as an assumption, not a fact.
It's sort of a mental experiment.
If the only thing he did was reassure them that it doesn't look like there's any risk, is that good or bad?
Because was there a risk?
Was there any risk that Trump was going to attack China?
No, right? No, there was no risk.
If China thought there was a risk, was it good or bad, that he told them, don't worry about this, there's no risk here.
And even if he thought there was a risk with Trump, he'd have to get through me first, and it's not going to happen.
Right. Chain of command.
Now, everybody was saying chain of command.
We're all on the same page.
Milley needs to be fired for violating it.
Right? I think he does.
Right? But that doesn't mean he did the wrong thing.
There can be times when you do the right thing and still have to be fired.
Does everybody agree?
There could be times when a military person does the right thing but still has to be fired.
This might be one of those cases.
Milley might have simply been telling a dangerous country that there's nothing to be worried about because there wasn't.
Now, I think the hypothetical that you're holding in your head is that maybe we were going to attack, right?
Because if we were actually thinking of attacking China, then that would be treason.
Does everybody agree with that?
That if it was on the table, if we'd even been thinking about it a little bit, attacking China, if it was even a little bit of a thought, then talking to China about it would certainly be treason.
You'd all agree with that, right?
I mean, that's obvious. But suppose, and he would know for sure, suppose there was no chance.
There was no chance at all.
There was no plan, no chance, no remote chance at all.
Is it treason to tell somebody who could act dangerously if they don't know that there is no uncertainty here?
There's no uncertainty.
There's no danger.
You're definitely not going to get attacked by us.
And believe me, I can assure you that because I can stop it personally.
Somebody says it's treason.
Make the argument for treason.
What is the argument for keeping the United States safer?
How is that treasonous when there was no risk of danger other than people's minds imagining there was a risk?
Why would they believe him?
Well, that doesn't matter. That's not relevant to the question.
If China attacked, what, you think China was going to attack?
Who thinks China was going to attack?
We are so far...
From a shooting war with China?
I mean, we're a million miles away from that.
Because neither side wants it for any reason whatsoever.
There is no scenario in which either the United States or China wants to shoot a bullet.
All right? We don't want to do that.
China has been attacking, yeah, in the cyber way, etc.
And, of course, I'm sure we're responding on that.
All right, so that's my defense of General Milley.
And again, if you're just joining me, it's not that I know he did something right.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there's enough ambiguity in this story that you cannot assume it was treasonous by its nature.
We don't have enough information for that.
If the only thing that was going wrong was that China had some questions and he was just making sure that something that wasn't going to happen was well understood...
And it made us safer, which it would have.
Reassuring China that we're not going to attack any moment does make the United States safer.
So if General Milley made us safer, or even was attempting to make us safer, and it cost him his job, well, maybe that's the way it has to go.
But, you know, they sign up to die, right?
You join the military to give your life, potentially, for the country.
If what Milley did was risk his job and reputation for the country, he's a military man.
And I would respect that if that's what happened, even if he has to be fired for violating the chain of command.
All right. That's my argument.
Apparently there was a research funded by some big tech company or companies that found that 32% of teen girls who felt bad about their bodies said Instagram made the issue worse.
Now, 32% of girls said that, but that's probably also how many girls use Instagram.
Because I don't know any teenage girls who don't feel bad about their bodies, pretty much.
They all feel bad about their bodies because that's what social media has done.
But 32% of them are literally being psychologically harmed by Instagram.
How do we let this happen?
How do you let...
Yeah, and teenage boys too, but I have to think it's way worse for girls.
Because Instagram really is a showcase of female sex appeal.
It's not so much male sex appeal, but I know what you mean.
Here's a question to you.
Do any of you know anybody who's dating age?
So this is not for you who are of a certain age, but rather, do you know somebody who's a teenager or in their 20s and they're dating?
And I have this question for you.
I've been hearing this anecdotally from a number of different sources, that boys aren't as interested in girls as they used to be.
Are you hearing that?
And specifically...
Even physically. Yeah, I'm seeing all yeses in the comments on Locals.
It's a little faster than on YouTube.
Yeah, I'm seeing all yeses.
Oh my God, I didn't think I'd see this much agreement.
You know what I expected?
I expected you to say I hadn't noticed it.
Oh my God, almost every person noticed it.
Holy, holy, holy cow.
Are you seeing this? If you're just listening to this, I'm being blown away right now.
On both YouTube and locals, it looks like 100% of the comments just flowing past are saying, yes, they've noticed that the boys are less interested in girls.
Now, people are saying it's low testosterone.
Might be political correctness.
Well, not political correctness.
That's the wrong word. It might be more sensitivity to Me Too stuff.
Could be the boys are less aggressive because they've been trained to be less aggressive.
In a good way. I mean, it doesn't mean that's a bad way.
If they're obeying the law, I suppose that's a good way.
Yeah. Now, why do you think that is?
I have two hypotheses.
Three. I just came up with a third one.
Number one, low testosterone.
That's the obvious one.
I believe we know that to be true.
Is there anybody who thinks that's not true?
Is that possibly fake news?
It's confirmed, right?
I hope I'm not spreading some fake science, but I think it's confirmed that testosterone is much lower than it used to be in the average public.
Somebody's saying it's because of soy.
I don't know if that's why, but maybe.
The other thing is porn.
Women and girls didn't used to have competition.
If you were a heterosexual, that's all you had.
When I grew up, we didn't even have porn.
I mean, we had it, but we didn't have much access to it.
So if everything I know about economics and competition and humanity is true, then as porn got better...
The extra value of a living human being, the difference was decreasing.
And as I've said before, porn has gotten to the point, thanks to technology, where you can get exactly what you want.
And the difference between seeing general porn that everybody responds to a little bit versus that exact thing that really gets you going, maybe not everybody else, but it gets you going, you can get that exact thing.
And that closes the difference between a living human and the experience you can get from your computer.
And it is continuing to close.
Every day, it's closing more.
What happens when you get full 3D? What happens when you have full 3D? And you can actually just put yourself at the scene.
Well, why would you date?
If you've got an AI girlfriend that you can visit anytime you want, just putting on your goggles, two-thirds of men are just going to give up on women.
Because... I'm just going to say this.
All right. I think my audience can handle this.
Are you ready?
Women and girls are a much worse deal than they used to be, not just because of the competition of porn, but because I think society has caused us to sort of become enemies, but because I think society has caused us to sort of become enemies, you And I'm open to the argument that it used to be better for men and worse for women, and all that's happening is things are rebalancing and things are better for women.
at the expense of whatever badness men were getting away with.
So, I mean, maybe it's a good thing.
But the net effect of it is that women are less valuable to men because they're more of a pain in the ass.
Let me just say it directly.
Women are less valuable to men in 2021 than they used to be Because women are more of a pain in the ass.
Every man knows what I'm talking about.
Right? You all know what I'm talking about.
Now, does that mean that that's a bad change?
I'm not saying that.
I'm not saying it at all. Because sometimes being a pain in the ass is a good thing.
It means you're getting what you want.
It means you're asserting yourself.
It means you're not being walked all over, etc.
So... I'm not sure I would advise a daughter to be any different than that.
Stand up for yourself. Go get what's right for you.
But the net effect of that is that it makes women a pain in the ass and less valuable as a...
That's something you want to associate with.
So there's a lot of bad stuff happening right now in terms of gender relations.
Keep an eye on that.
Meanwhile, over in China, Wall Street Journal did a piece on how TikTok is reprogramming your brain.
And apparently the main part of TikTok's algorithm, and this is no surprise, you assume that this is true of Instagram and everything else, but apparently the main part of the algorithm is how long you watch anything.
So if you spend a lot of time looking at a certain kind of content, TikTok knows it, and they give you more of that content.
Now, what does China need to brainwash our children?
Just this.
Because China owns basically TikTok, meaning that it's a Chinese company, and the Chinese government, of course, has access to any Chinese company's technology or backdoor.
Nobody doubts that. So the Chinese government has a tool that can brainwash every child in America who uses TikTok, which is most of them at this point.
And the way they can do it is simply finding out what they watch naturally, and that tells you what they respond to.
And once you know what somebody responds to, you have everything you need.
Have you ever trained a dog?
It's easy. You just give them a treat when they do something similar to what you want them to do until it gets closer and closer to the behavior you want, and then you lock it in by giving a treat every time you get the behavior.
TikTok can give you treats now.
It can train you like a fucking dog.
Really. That's not hyperbole.
TikTok can train you like a dog because it knows which treats are treats to you.
It knows how to light up that part of your brain for just you.
Remember what I said about porn is turbocharged because they can adapt it just to the specific individual?
Well, so can TikTok.
TikTok can give you a treat in the form of exactly the content you were looking for that makes you happy anytime it wants.
And if it can control when you get a treat and when you don't, it owns you.
Whoever controls the treats is in charge.
Now, will they weaponize it?
Will they take advantage of this opening that they have to change the brains of American children?
Of course. Of course.
Suppose you saw some content that China thought was going to be really bad for America.
Let's say it's something, some meme or some belief that kids were spreading around, and you knew it was going to be destructive to the fiber of American life.
How could you make more of that go around?
Well, all you could do is sandwich it between two treats and You just serve up a treat.
That's exactly what you wanted to see.
Oh, I love that. Then you serve up the little part that's the brainwashing manipulation, and then you serve up another treat, and you just sandwich it.
What will people think of that little nugget that's between the two treats?
We're dogs.
We're going to like that thing better because it was sandwiched between two treats.
And the treats made us happy, and then we were happy when we saw the content, and the happiness rubbed off on us.
That's how it works. You associate things, and you take the goodness or the badness of a thing, and you transfer it to another thing.
That's brainwashing.
That's what TikTok can do natively.
It's built for that.
Okay. So, why is TikTok legal in the United States?
Anybody? Why is TikTok still operating in the United States?
Can anybody answer that question?
Why is TikTok still operating?
Because remember, Trump took a run at it, but for whatever reason, didn't shut it down.
Greed? I don't know. I don't think there's any profit motive because it's a Chinese company.
No, I don't think they're bribing anybody.
I'd be really surprised if it's a bribe.
Somebody says China owns Biden.
Well, I don't know. I doubt it matters on this issue, necessarily.
Here's my opinion.
They don't understand the issue.
I believe that Joe Biden does not understand the risk of TikTok.
Did you? Did you understand the risk until I explained it to you?
Let me ask in the comments.
Until you heard it from me...
Did you understand the risk?
All right, looking at the comments, seeing lots of yeses but lots of noes.
Now, of course, my audience, you know, you've been sort of maybe trained to it.
So see the difference.
Well, you can't see the difference, so I'll just tell you.
On YouTube, where I get more people who are new to me, I think there are a few more noes than there are on locals where people have been following me for a while.
Yeah. So here's my belief.
I don't think Biden knows it's dangerous.
And nobody's probably taken it to him and explained it in the way that I'm explaining it.
So I think it's probably an incompetence problem.
Meaning that there's a level of ignorance about the risk and it hasn't been communicated to the people who can make the decisions.
What the hell is the CIA doing?
Now maybe, maybe the CIA got in it too, and maybe they've got some secret plan to use it to spy on China or something.
I guess. It could be some reason that I don't know about.
But it doesn't look like competence to me.
According to a tweet I saw by Saul of United on Twitter, China is responsible for more than two-thirds of state-sponsored cyberattacks around the world.
Two-thirds of them.
And apparently the new technique is that states like Russia or China will use criminal organizations to do the hacking.
So if anybody gets caught, the government can say, well, it wasn't us.
We're sorry that our criminal organizations did that to you, and we'll arrest them as soon as we can.
We'll get right on that. So suppose that's the situation, and they've got this deniability because they're using these criminal organizations to do their hacking.
What would you do about it?
Well, I don't know what we are doing about it, but I'll tell you what I would do about it.
I would pay Russian hackers to hack China.
Right? If our CIA is not hiring Russian hackers, criminals, to hack China, why not?
Why not? How about North Korean hackers?
Why? I don't know if you can hire them.
That'd be harder. But I hear they're pretty good, too.
Are you telling me we're not hiring any criminal organizations to hack China?
And if China's doing two-thirds of the hacking, we've got some catching up to do.
Because I'm sure we have enough money to hire enough criminal organizations to get up to two-thirds of the hacking ourselves.
We should be hacking the motherfucking shit out of China with illegal hackers.
In fact, their entire network should be crashing right now from illegal criminal gangs hacking their network.
In fact, there should be so many hacks, their lights should go out.
And then we should say, I don't know what you're talking about.
Oh, you mean what the criminal hackers are independently doing?
Well, we don't know about that.
I mean, it's a shame that all those Russian criminal gangs are hacking you, China.
It's a shame. What can we do about it?
Nothing we can do about it.
Oh, and by the way, that trucker full of fentanyl we shipped over to Wuhan?
Good luck with that. We should also be shipping them deadly fentanyl and putting it in their water supply.
Just kidding. Just kidding.
We don't want to do mass murder.
Well, yeah, we don't want to do that.
Well, I think that the funniest story in the world, still two days running, is Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend with his swollen balls, allegedly because he got a vaccination.
Turns out that the government of Trinidad spent the entire day yesterday researching...
Wait for it.
Let me back up again, because I want to make sure that you're all ready for it when I get to the conclusion.
The government of Trinidad...
The government. The government of Trinidad spent all day yesterday researching Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend's swollen balls and found out it didn't happen.
Or at least they can't find it.
So according to them, there was no Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend with swollen balls.
I don't know where that came from.
But... I don't think there's anything better or more entertaining than the government of an entire island nation spending their whole day researching somebody's balls.
Now, I've been accused a little bit of being sometimes narcissistic.
I can't believe that anybody would say that about me.
It seems so cruel and wrong.
But when I heard this story, I thought to myself...
Why not me? Nobody's talking about my balls.
It's like we're all about, oh, Nicki Minaj's cousin's balls.
Like he's so special.
Like his balls are just, they're special because they're what?
Swollen? My balls could be swollen.
That's no big accomplishment.
Why are we talking about my balls?
Why are his balls so special that the entire country of Trinidad cares about it?
Nay, America cares about his balls.
Does anybody care about yours?
Well, those of you who possess them.
No! Nobody cares about our balls.
Let me tell you the funniest act that I ever...
the funniest thing I've ever seen on a stage comedian.
It was George Carlin, live.
So, a number of years ago...
I attended a George Carlin outdoor live stand-up comedy event.
And it was near my home, not too far down the road.
Bicycle distance. In fact, I have bicycled to that location before.
So it's a bicycle distance.
I'm sitting there and I'm listening to George Carlin.
And he gets introduced and he starts talking before you even see him.
So imagine the empty stage.
He's been introduced by the host.
And then as you see this figure walking toward the stage, he's already talking in his microphone.
Now, the background you have to know is that Lance Armstrong was in the news a lot.
And that Lance Armstrong at that time.
And that Lance Armstrong famously has one testicle.
And he had cancer apparently.
And George Collin is walking onto stage, and with no context, this is what makes it funny, there's no lead-in, no trigger for this, no context.
This is the first thing he says.
He goes, fuck Lance Armstrong.
And as he's walking to the stage, he goes, fuck his cancer, and I'm starting to laugh.
And by the time he hits the stage, he goes, fuck his balls.
And I'm dead. I'm just dead.
From that moment on, I was uncontrollably laughing and never stopped.
Now, Why is that funny?
I don't exactly know.
I can't tell you how much time I've spent thinking about it.
But it's not something that sounds so funny if you wrote it down.
It's a live act kind of a joke.
It only works in person.
I guess because it's naughty.
I guess because it's so irreverent.
I guess it's unexpected.
I guess...
I don't know. I guess it's like five different things in there.
It's a whole layer of complicated thing.
But until this week, Lance Armstrong had the most famous balls, or ball.
At least he was halfway there.
And... It's not true that Lance Armstrong was ever asked to do a commercial for uniball pens.
I've heard that, but that's not true.
All right, you know the publication, The Hill?
You've all heard of that, The Hill?
Today, they have an article, today, in which they repeated the fine people hoax like it was real.
Today! Today!
Now, I understand back in, I don't know, was it 2018 or whenever, whenever the Charlottesville thing happened, I understand that a lot of people were taken by the media hoax at the time.
And they believed that Trump had actually called neo-Nazis fine people.
Now, anybody who's seen the transcript knows that didn't happen.
There was a selective edit.
They made it look like that, and the part they cut out is the part where he goes, and I'm paraphrasing, don't be confused, I'm certainly not calling the neo-Nazis fighting people.
I don't mean them.
So they just cut out the part where he says, no, I don't mean the neo-Nazis.
He wasn't even asked about it.
He said that himself.
Because he wanted to make sure That nobody would be confused.
He certainly wasn't talking about neo-Nazis being fine people.
So they just added that part out, and it looks exactly like he's calling them fine people.
So The Hill, somehow in 2021, a news organization doesn't know that.
Today, they reported it like it's true.
It was in a larger article, but reported it like it's true.
What the hell?
What the hell? What the hell?
I mean, and I know from experience that lots of people will see the tweet, which I called them out for that, and lots of people are going to say, well, I saw it myself.
We don't have to reiterate this, but they didn't see it themselves.
It is literally a mass hallucination.
It's the best one I've ever seen, by the way.
I don't know if you could come up with a better one.
I think the fine people hoax is the biggest, I don't know if it's the biggest, but probably the best example of a mass hallucination you'll ever see.
Lots of people believe they saw it.
Like their memory is that it actually happened, but never did.
All right. North Korea is a tested missile that they launched from a train.
I'm not really afraid of...
Train missiles. Because I don't think they're the ones that are going to be aimed at the United States.
I don't think you launch a missile from a train at the United States.
Because it seems like that wouldn't be the right launch pad.
Secondly, what happens to your train after you launch a missile from it?
Is there anything left of your train?
I can't think of a worse way to launch a missile, can you?
I feel as though if I had to pick any way to launch a missile...
Putting it on a train would be the worst way.
I mean, I realize the train stops before they launch the missile, but isn't it going to mess up your train a little bit?
How do you get your train home?
Are the tracks okay?
Are you going to run your passenger train over the...
I mean, how does that work?
So anyway, I would say again that I think Trump solved North Korea in the sense that North Korea doesn't seem to be pointing any missiles at us.
Whatever they're doing, maybe it's for commercial reasons.
They want to sell some missiles. That's bad.
But they're not pointing them directly at us.
And I think... I just don't think Trump gets enough credit for having solved North Korea.
When was the last time you worried about North Korea?
Even when they test missiles, are you worried?
No. No, you're not.
Because they're just not enemies.
Trump... I'm just blown away by this.
What Trump did in North Korea is probably the greatest persuasion we've ever seen in public.
I don't know that there's ever been anything more impressive than that.
Let's see what problems I've got here now.
No? Okay. And what was impressive about it is that the only problem between North Korea and the United States was that we imagined we had a problem.
And if you could stop imagining that you're enemies, then you'd just stop acting that way.
And so what Trump did was simply convince Kim that there wasn't any reason to be enemies.
That's it. And it was brilliant.
And apparently it's lasting, because years later, I mean, several years later, and they don't seem to be any kind of a risk.
We're barely even talking about them.
Question, whatever happened to the COVID-sniffing dogs?
COVID-sniffing dogs.
We were told, maybe a year ago, that dogs could detect COVID. And if we had dogs that were trained to detect COVID... Could they not check everybody going into a sporting event and pull out the infected ones?
Probably. And how many dogs would it take?
I mean, by now, it's a year later.
Have we not really trained enough dogs?
I'd love to have an update on that.
And wouldn't you love Dogs Save America?
Because they could. Apparently, if it's true that they can sniff it out...
Then it should be true that they can save America.
And why don't we have...
What is it? The War Production Act or something?
It's the one where we produce more stuff.
The president makes companies, private companies produce more stuff because it's a war setting.
Could we not use the Production Act, War Production Act, to train more dogs?
And just have a shit ton of trained dogs everywhere.
Just everywhere you go, there's a dog.
Why not? Do we run out of dogs?
Do you have to have a special dog?
Is it that hard to train them?
I don't know. I'd just like an update on that.
It could be that it just takes so long to train them that you can't get there.
I don't know. Here's a perspective from the Panda Tribune.
You'll have to do a fact check on this.
I don't know if this is factually correct, but it's interesting.
So the Panda Tribune says, statistically speaking, schoolchildren are far more likely to be sexually assaulted by their teachers than they are to die from COVID-19.
Number one. Is that true?
Is that true? They're more likely to be sexually assaulted by their teacher than to die of COVID-19?
I think it might be. I think that might be true.
Right? And if it is true, does that tell you that the kids are wearing their masks on the wrong part of their body?
I'll just let that sit there for a minute.
I'm just letting it sit there.
That's all. Just enjoy it.
Okay, now we can move on.
My next question is, how do we know that the Delta variant of the COVID is really a variant and not a separate virus created for the same bad reason?
How do we know that?
What are the odds that we would have a zillion variants and only one bad one, the Delta?
Now, we hear rumors that there might be the mu and some other Greek letters coming that could be bad, but not yet.
What are the odds, just statistically, that you'd have exactly one delta variant, the kind that's super bad?
Just one. Now, I could see zero, and I could see 25.
Like, those would make sense to me, right?
Just how you imagine statistical likelihood.
Zero makes sense, because it's just unlikely.
25 makes sense.
100 makes sense.
1,000 would make sense.
But one? Exactly one.
I'm not buying it.
It's sketchy. Right?
I would love to hear an expert tell me, what are the odds you get exactly one?
Now, I get that some of the other ones are a little bit worse, and, you know, the other variants and stuff.
And we're watching them, and blah, blah, blah.
But just one? Not buying it.
Could be, but I'm not buying it yet.
I could be convinced.
All right, you've been hearing for a year and a half, Michael Mina has been talking about why we should have rapid tests.
Now, we're doing a little more. Biden authorized some money for rapid tests, and that's very good.
But I think some publication needs to do a Pulitzer Prize-winning report on why we don't already have rapid tests.
Let me tell you the situation.
So the FDA gets to approve what tests are in the market.
They have very strict requirements because medical things need to be tested to be safe.
So they have to be medically...
Medically certified, right?
But, as Michael Mina points out, that is probably stopping us from making a big dent in the pandemic because the rapid tests, which would be a little harder to get medically certified because it's a higher standard, are super useful if we had them, but we don't have many of them because apparently something's holding up the approvals.
Now... What is it that would hold up the approvals of the one thing that we could pretty much say for sure would solve the pandemic?
Did you hear what I just said?
That we have something already, a known thing, that we know how to make more of them, we know how to do it, and we know that it would largely solve the pandemic, and it's not happening.
All it would take is an executive order from Biden, and this is Michael Mina's idea, To simply redefine the rapid tests as being a public health product as opposed to a medical product.
I may have the words wrong, but that's the idea.
So all he has to do, that's it.
All Biden has to do, one piece of paper to say, oh, if it's a rapid test, define what that means.
If it's a rapid test, it's not a medical device.
It's a public health device.
That change alone gets the FDA out of it, opens up the market so that the market can do what the market does.
Tons of rapid tests.
Everybody tests. 96% of the time you find that you're a spreader.
A few times you don't, but you weren't going to find that anyway.
So you're 96% better than you would have been if you have the test.
And it's probably enough to squash the virus.
It's probably enough to get us back to normal.
All it would take is one signature on one piece of paper.
And there's... Hold on.
There's no argument against it.
Show me another important topic in the United States where there's no argument against it.
Well, nuclear power.
Nuclear energy became that, right?
Yeah, I mean, at least in public, people are no longer willing to say bad things about it because science has, you know, made that ridiculous.
But think about it.
There's got to be some corruption going on here, or massive incompetence, or something going on.
But one piece of paper, and Biden could eradicate the pandemic.
Yeah, there's something going on here, and we need to know.
Rasmussen asked, how concerned are you about crowds attending football games in terms of getting COVID? And as you might imagine, 34% said they're very concerned, and 25% said somewhat.
So 59% are concerned about COVID and football games.
But if they all took a rapid test before they went in, or they all had a dog sniffing them, would they be so worried?
No. So there are things we can do that we're not doing, and we don't know why.
Incompetence and or corruption.
It's got to be the answer. So this is Michael Mina's letter to Biden.
You put it on... He said, Dear President of the United States, Biden, the U.S. is at a critical point and need greater access to faster tests.
Rapid tests are barely available because they're regulated here as medical tools, which holds them back.
Please write an EO that makes COVID testing in the U.S. a public health good as opposed to a medical good, and then that will free up the market.
One piece of paper, one signature, One of the biggest improvements in the pandemic.
Now, this same idea was pushed and pushed and pushed during the Trump administration and didn't happen.
I heard some reports that maybe some bureaucratic stuff stopped it from being explained in a way that the administration could even know how to deal with it.
But I think Michael Mina has now simplified it to the point where it's just one piece of paper, one signature.
If Biden gets this done, I will say publicly that Biden has done a great thing that the Trump administration failed on.
And I will say that plainly.
If Biden signs the CEO, or even knows about it, I don't even know if he's heard about it, but if he signs it, I'm going to say unambiguously that Biden gets the win, and Trump has to explain why he didn't do it.
I mean, he'd have some explaining to do.
So, that's as open-minded as I can be on politics.
Somebody says, dogs sense illnesses, not viruses.
Yeah, I guess that's true.
But it means that the virus had taken hold enough to give you an illness.
All right, that's all I got for now.
And I'm sure this was the best live stream I've ever done.
