Episode 1636 Scott Adams: The News is Delicious Today and So Are You. Get in Here
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Governor DeSantis and Regeneron
Denmark lifts all restrictions Feb 1st
Why lockdown if survival is 99.97%?
Surge in Israel COVID deaths
ONLY a Black female supreme court candidate
"NoJoe"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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, everybody, and welcome to the best damn thing that's ever happened to you.
Now, I may have said that before, but this time I'm going to deliver because the news has been kind to us and given us great stories to talk about while you're doing your morning exercise or morning coffee or whatever the hell you're doing this morning.
Just keep it up, though.
I can tell from here you're doing a good job.
Come on, push it, push it.
All right, good.
Now, if you'd like to take it up a notch, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or gels, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite beverage.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine here, the day thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go. I think I had a little bit of a slurp with a sip.
Now, you want your sip to be pure without the slurp, but up to a 10% sip-to-slurp ratio would still be acceptable.
Beyond 10%, nobody wants to be around you.
Babylon Bee has an important report, as you know.
The Babylon Bee is the last remaining credible publication.
And they've got a breaking story out of Sacramento.
Daring midday train robberies are the latest phenomena to flourish in the Golden State.
These rail heists, along with a dearth of electricity and banishment of gas vehicles, have led to California rebranding with a vintage Old West theme.
So if you were thinking of taking the family to a nice summer vacation someplace that's like a theme park, California used to be a bunch of traffic and High-tech stuff and movies and stuff and boring things.
But now we've got this whole Wild West thing.
We've got outdoor bathrooms.
Indoor plumbing.
Completely unnecessary.
We've got... Yeah, we've got tribes living among us.
Pretty much an Old West theme.
So yesterday...
My stepdaughter mentioned some comments about something I had posted on Instagram.
And I said, I didn't post anything on Instagram.
And she said, yes, you did.
And I said, I don't know if I posted something on Instagram.
And she said, you posted something on Instagram.
And then I said, what did I post on Instagram?
Well, apparently, you can pocket post.
Now, it wasn't really that bad.
I had considered posting, and I recall preparing a post and then deleting it because it was too obnoxious.
Because once I saw it, I said to myself, you know, this seemed like a good idea.
But this is really a bad idea.
It's like a really bad idea.
Like I didn't... It's sort of not reading the room right, if you know what I mean.
Sometimes things will be okay in a certain context, but not in another.
Well, this is one of those...
It shouldn't have been posted.
But since it's already out there, I'm going to share it with you.
It was this picture. I don't know if you'll be able to see it.
Well, you see this?
It's an interior of a vehicle.
And here's the back story.
I had been wanting to purchase an American vehicle.
And it took me the longest time.
At one point I tried to buy a truck from Ford, but I never could pull the trigger because I have a rule that I've got to be able to drive the vehicle or one like it before I'll purchase.
And that isn't an option.
You can't even drive the truck you want to buy or even one like it because they just don't carry them on the lots.
So I couldn't buy a truck.
Well, time goes by, and I've been driving an SUV for a decade because it's just convenient for everything.
And I thought it was time for a smaller, fun American car.
And so I tried to buy a Mustang.
And it got caught right in the squeeze, the squeeze of the unavailability of cars.
But three months later, it got delivered.
And, you know, that's what it looks like.
That's the interior. You can see it's red seats.
And I have to tell you this just as a, like, context.
I'm not a car guy at all.
I used to think I might be as a kid, but as soon as I had enough money that I could afford a car that I wanted, I kind of didn't care anymore.
I realized there was something about the psychology of just owning nice things or something.
So it wasn't like a real basic biological need or anything.
So I've always just taken cars that did what I needed them to do.
Now, I've had mostly driven BMWs.
Here's the obnoxious part.
If you can get over that fact, I'm going to say some nice things about some American products here in a moment.
So I've had experience with nice, sporty, high-end cars.
But I wanted an American car, and I'm just sort of in love with the way the Mustangs look, just the design.
I think Ford in general has the strongest design Maybe in the business right now.
Maybe in the business. Would anybody agree with that?
Depending on, you know, whatever class of car you're looking at, I feel like theirs are better just to look at.
They just look better designed than other cars with similar, definitely better than all the Japanese cars.
There's not one Japanese car, in my opinion, that's competitive with, you know, Ford's line, just in terms of how they look.
Now, that could be also a cultural thing.
Maybe they just designed better for American tastes.
So I get this car and I didn't know what to expect because I had never driven a Mustang.
And the first time I got in this thing...
Remember, I'm not a car guy.
I'm just not impressed by cars.
And when people show me their new car, I'm like, yeah, that's great.
But I don't really care.
I just have no interest in cars whatsoever.
But I sat in this thing, and I had an experience.
Like, I had an experience.
And it doesn't wear off.
And let me tell you, this is the best way I can explain it.
If you're in a well-designed German vehicle...
The vehicle, especially a BMW, it'll make you feel like there's no difference between the car and you.
Like you just merge with a BMW. It becomes just part of your body almost.
So if you're driving a BMW and you say, I'm here, but I want to be up there.
You just sort of think it, and the next thing you know, you're up there.
Like, there's no friction between your thoughts and the execution.
And so that's one thing that makes driving a BMW kind of thrilling, because you feel something that's bigger than just driving, if I can say it that way.
So I get in this car, and I'd never felt this feeling before, which was it was opposite of the feeling that the car was me, The feeling was I was partnering with a wild animal that temporarily, at least, was willing to do what I wanted it to do.
Oh, my God, is that exciting!
It is exciting!
Like, the feel of the engine, like the vibration, the color.
I mean, God, they nailed this.
I mean, I can't say enough about this.
So, American engineering, looking good.
All right, here's a good fake story from The Blaze.
Now, The Blaze is not responsible for the fakeness of the story.
So they were just reporting what the police reported, all right?
So the police have reported this.
Allegedly. There's a shocking cell phone video capturing the moment an armed robber shot at a man he had stopped on a busy Houston highway.
But police say he later accidentally shot himself in the head during a struggle.
Now, how do you interpret this story?
Do you think that there was a man in Houston who accidentally shot himself in the head?
Let me tell you how I interpret this story.
Did I mention that it's in Texas?
How would you interpret this story if it happened in Florida?
Now, if this happened in Florida, the way I'd imagine it was, oh, a Florida man shoots himself in the head, that's just a Tuesday, right?
I mean, I have to think that in Florida there's probably...
Eight to nine episodes of people shooting themselves in the head accidentally.
Daily. I mean, that's Florida.
That's like Florida man always does funny things.
But when you read this story in Texas about a man who pulled a gun on somebody else, but in the heat of the struggle, the man who pulled the gun accidentally shot himself in the head in Texas...
Well, there's at least one other way to interpret this.
And it goes like this.
Somebody pulled a gun in Texas, and it took three seconds for somebody else to put a bullet in his skull before he could pull the trigger himself.
The police arrive, they see exactly what happened, and they say, oh, did you take care of this?
Yeah, I just took care of that for you.
You know, the paperwork would be a lot easier if we just say he shot himself in the head.
You can go on with your day, sir.
Thank you for your service.
Thank you, officer. Have a good day.
Make sure to reload.
You're a bullet short. Ha!
I'll remember. I don't know.
I don't know. We're in that period where you don't trust anything about anything.
So I'm just saying, if this had been a Florida story, I would have seen it differently.
In the most important news of the day, Disney has decided that Minnie Mouse will no longer be in her iconic little skirt, but rather will be wearing a pantsuit.
That's right. Minnie Mouse will now be in a pantsuit.
Now, I don't know if there's any truth to the rumor that Hillary Clinton is secretly running the government from behind the scenes.
But when I see Disney put Minnie Mouse in a pantsuit, I start to think it's a possibility.
We're not done with this story.
A lot of people say that Disney went too far.
Went too far. That's not my take.
I think they did not go far enough.
I think that they need to start specifying her sexual preference.
Now, putting her in pantsuits, I get it.
I get it. I receive the hint.
Wink, wink. We know what you're trying to say, but this is 2022, Disney.
You can just say it. She may or may not be a lesbian.
Doesn't matter, because it's 2022.
But I feel like you should specify.
You know, don't hint at it.
Just go right at it. Now, one of the critics of this move was Candace Owens, who, correct me if I'm wrong, give me a fact check.
Candace Owens wears a lot of pantsuits, am I right?
However, she can definitely pull them off.
Well, no, that's the wrong way to put it.
She can pull it off, meaning she can pull off the look.
I'm sure I'll be quoted down in context there.
But... So if you can make it work...
And she definitely does.
But she had some things to say about that.
Now, I think we need a trans mouse as well.
So two mice...
Two mice is...
I don't think two mice is enough.
Two mice does not represent all of the mice in the public.
And I think we need...
We should definitely have an LGBTQ, a whole range of mice to do this right.
Now... By the way, I don't want to give away some secrets here, but I met Candace Owens once...
Yeah, that Fox News thing, we were both on the same day.
So she came over and introduced herself, and I've got to say, she was one of the warmest people you'll ever meet in your life.
Like, you know how some people, you meet them and you just instantly, you just instantly like them?
She has that thing, that kind of charisma that just lights up her room.
So she definitely has the real thing.
But anyway... That's the Minnie Mouse story.
Now, here's a question about DeSantis.
And this is really interesting to me because DeSantis is a...
In my opinion, he's a near-legendary good decision-maker.
Would anybody disagree with that?
Now, of course, if you're on the left, you disagree with everything he does.
But within the context of a Republican candidate, my goodness, he makes good decisions.
They're compatible and smart and defensible and makes them work and all that stuff.
So here's the thing that is a challenge to that.
And I'm not sure which way to take this.
So here's a tweet by Alexander Nazarian.
We tweeted that at a press conference today, DeSantis attempted to make it seem as if there were enough Delta cases in Florida to justify the use of Regeneron, which is totally ineffective, against Omicron.
And then he goes on, according to the CDC, however, Omicron accounts for more than 99% of cases.
All right. So who's right?
If, let's say we have evidence that Regeneron is useless against Omicron, but did work against Delta, but 99%, maybe more by now, of cases are Omicron.
So I guess the authorization has been pulled.
And one of the things that DeSantis says is you can't tell what somebody has when they come in.
But the CDC does say 99-plus percent are Omicron.
All right, so who is the better decision-maker?
The tweeter who seems to be criticizing it, or DeSantis himself?
So here's the argument.
On one hand, does it make sense to use a drug that you know is 99% going to be useless?
That's the point. And not only 99%, but that 99% is going to go to 100% by the time we're done talking.
So the usefulness of it will basically just vanish.
So that's a pretty good argument.
I don't want to do any mind reading, but I'll give an argument.
I guess this would be my own argument that also agrees with DeSantis in its own way.
Here's the counter-argument.
None of our data has been correct yet.
The CDC says 99% plus of everything is Omicron.
Here's the counter-argument.
None of our data has been right.
None of it. Name anything that's been right.
Do you think we're so precise that we can get 99%?
I mean, and is the 99 also in Florida?
Or is the 99...
I guess it would be everywhere if it's 99, yeah.
Forget that part.
And then, why wouldn't you help the 1%?
Is Regeneron so dangerous that if you gave it to 100 people and only one of them needed it, that that would be worse than not giving it to anybody?
So I actually don't know the right answer to this one.
But I think DeSantis has a better argument than is represented by his critic here.
What do you think? Does it make sense?
Or is DeSantis just making a political point that's sort of data-free?
Yeah, the best argument is that the data is all incorrect, and why wouldn't you try to fix the 1% and leave it to your doctor?
Maybe if the symptoms are extreme, that's the only case you even try it, because that's where it makes sense.
I don't know. It's a good question.
I wonder if DeSantis got this one wrong.
It's hard to say. Well, Denmark is doubling down on its February 1 thing, getting rid of their mandates, and they're saying that Denmark no longer classifies COVID-19 as a, quote, socially critical disease.
All restrictions will be lifted February 1st.
Boom. Boom.
Boom. So I gave you some updates from visiting a place I didn't specify in which there was very little masking indoors.
Yesterday I returned to that same place and the 50% masking went to about 25%.
So in one day, that one place went from about half-masked to 25% masked.
And, yeah. And...
I'm not saying that I had anything to do with it, but I can tell you, you can definitely tell what people's politics are when you walk through a crowded space and there's a mix of masked and unmasked.
Have you seen that yet? You go into a space and you're like...
Republican? Republican?
Democrat? Republican?
Democrat? Republican?
It's pretty easy now, isn't it?
All right. So I don't know if February 1st we're going to hit it, but let's talk about some more thinking.
One of the things I see a lot is why did we shut down the world for something that has a 99.9% chance of survival?
Most of you think that way, right?
Why did we shut everything down if there was a 99% chance of survival?
Well, first of all, that's an average.
So the chance of survival if you were over 70 was not so good.
I mean, that was a few percentages, more than 1%.
But still...
You know, if they didn't have long to live, you could protect them, etc.
So it's a perfectly reasonable point.
Why would you shut things down if there was a 99.9% chance of surviving it?
And I say that's a good point, and here is an additional point.
So this additional point does not refute the first point.
It's just additional. And it goes like this.
Do you want a 50% chance of ruining one year of your life?
Because if you get COVID, there's about a 50% chance you'll have long haul, which could take you out for six months.
Now, if you get taken out for six months, it kind of screws up your whole year.
I had that experience of, you know, I had my prednisone experience.
It took me out for about six months.
Like, for six months I struggled, but it kind of ruins your whole year, right?
So, would you do extreme things to stop half of the public from losing a year of quality life?
Now, if you say no to that, that's a reasonable answer.
It's reasonable. It's reasonable to say yes or no, but it's not reasonable to ignore it.
So the only thing I want to add to this is don't ignore it.
Scott, we've been locked down for two years.
Right. And that's part of the analysis, right?
So part of the analysis is that being locked down has its own set of costs.
We all know that. So I'm not giving you an opinion.
I'm just saying that you should throw that in there.
And the way I would calculate it is, yes, your odds of dying are low.
Your odds of getting messed up for a year are pretty good.
And that can affect your relationships.
Imagine being sick for a year.
What's that do to your relationships and your career?
It's kind of messed up.
So don't ignore that risk.
I'm just saying, you know, I'm not trying to change your mind or anything.
You always think I'm trying to persuade you.
I'm not. I'm not.
I'm just saying don't forget that risk.
All right, the COVID Olympics are coming up in China.
Of the 4,000 or so arrivals so far, they've spotted 129 cases of COVID. That's what's been reported.
And at different intervals, some of them have been within the exclusion zone.
So apparently you get tested pretty hard and stuff before you can even get into the zone where the athletes are.
But even within the zone, at least 50 of them have been found within what they call the closed loop since January 4th.
Now, here's my...
Here's my, let's see, logic and math question for you.
If you believe that the vaccinations themselves are dangerous and that the athletes have been known to be dropping dead from them, what would you expect, how many people would you expect to die of the professional athletes and of 4,000?
If all 4,000 people compete hard...
The entire time and go home and nobody dropped dead, would that change your mind about the risk of the vaccinations?
Because they're all highly vaccinated.
Would it? Suppose there were zero deaths.
Would you find that statistically meaningful?
Because we know that we get reports of athletes dropping so often that you think you would see them.
How many are catching me at my trick?
What's the trick?
All right, here's the trick.
I was trying to lure you into a trap.
You can't compare 4,000 athletes over two weeks with hundreds of thousands of athletes over years.
That's not any kind of a fair comparison.
So it wouldn't matter how many people died or didn't die during the Olympics, it wouldn't tell you anything about the real world.
Well, let me take that back.
If five people dropped dead during the Olympics, yeah, that would tell you a lot.
That would tell you a lot.
But if zero people dropped dead during the Olympics, that won't tell you anything.
Do you get that? Because the Olympics are really just 4,000 athletes over two weeks.
You wouldn't expect...
Even if the vaccination was dangerous, you wouldn't expect anybody to die in that limited little time window.
So you can't compare that to all athletes all over the world, high school, professional, college, running all day long for two years.
That's a different situation.
Anyway, the reason I bring that up is because I think I had misleadingly asked that question before without clarifying it was a dumb question.
How many people think that the gigantic surge in Israel of both deaths, their deaths of COVID are way up, and also they're not way up above previous highs, but they're up, but their infection rate is just through the roof?
They're highly vaccinated, infections through the roof, just way through the roof, and at the same time, deaths are up too.
That tells you that vaccinations, what?
Work or don't work?
Boom. Tell me. Israel's the most vaccinated and also infections through the roof and death rates climbing.
Bad news or good news?
Bad news or good news?
Here's the point-to-counterpoint.
On its surface, it looks like pretty bad news.
Would you agree that on the surface, if that's all you knew, it's pretty bad news?
Everybody on the same page so far?
If that's all you know, and there's nothing else to the story, it looks pretty bad.
Here's the other thing to know.
There are is almost one.
It's come way down. Now, translation?
That means that they have compressed...
Remember I just talked about how you can't compare athletes over two years...
can't compare athletes over two years with athletes over two weeks.
What did Omicron do?
Omicron is so spready, it took what would have been a longer pandemic and compressed it into two weeks.
Israel... It's almost done.
They're almost done.
That high spike, in all likelihood, is going to go up, up, up, up, up, up!
Bam! Right to the ground.
In all likelihood, that is going to drop like a rock in about a week.
Because the R is approaching 1, and they've been tracking that the whole time as it drops.
Now, their hospitals are still doing okay.
They did not impose economic restrictions.
So Israel may have...
Don't know yet.
It's too early to say.
So if you say it's too early, I agree with you.
But they are on the verge of maybe nailing this thing like nobody nailed it.
Or the vaccinations don't work.
We'll know in about a week.
So in a week or so, if you don't see that curve just drop straight down because everything just got compressed, that's what it should do.
But if that doesn't happen, well, then Israel just made all the wrong decisions, or at least this one was wrong, right?
Would you agree with my setup, right?
That if Israel didn't lock down, so they didn't have an economic hit, they didn't crash their hospitals, they compressed their entire pandemic into two weeks, said, let's just take it now, get it over with, boom, boom.
If they get on the other side of this in two weeks, they win.
They won. Would you agree with me?
Now, of course, that still doesn't count, to be fair, any long-term effect of being vaccinated itself.
But this is the most exciting part of the pandemic.
Israel may have done it.
Now, if you want to see more on that argument, I would refer you to a David Boxenhorn tweet thread that shows you the data that backs up what I just said.
So look for David Boxenhorn, who's also a really good follow, by the way.
He's got lots of good stuff on Twitter.
You can find him in my Twitter thread from yesterday, I think.
Justice Breyer looks like he's going to retire, so he'll be opening in the Supreme Court.
How much does it suck for Biden that all he gets to do is replace a liberal?
You know, there's no accounting for luck.
So Trump gets to be president when he can change the nature of the court.
It looks like Biden will get to be president when he can basically break even.
Just break even.
That's it. Here's a good reason you don't want me to be president.
If I were president, I would advocate adding one justice, so it's ten.
And balancing them liberal and conservative.
So if there were too many conservatives, I'd add a liberal, and I'd try to balance them five and five.
Now, I wouldn't require it of anybody else, but that would be what I'd do.
I'd balance it. And here's why.
If you can't get one person from the other side to side with you, maybe you shouldn't do it.
Maybe you shouldn't do it.
If you can't get one person to side with you, maybe you shouldn't do it.
Now, I get that that would not give conservatives as much as they want.
I get that. No, it's a bad take if you prefer a Republican agenda.
Here's the backing of it.
In all things, I would back the system over the decision.
So let me explain that.
As president, hypothetically, I wouldn't want to be president.
But as president, I would always back the system...
Over this specific decision.
That's what Kyrsten Sinema just did.
So Senator Sinema decided to back the system by not getting rid of the...
What do you call it?
The thing where they talk too much.
So backing the system...
The filibuster, thank you.
So Senator Sinema backed the system over the decision.
And she actually wanted the decision to go that way.
She actually voted against her own preference to protect the system.
I think the Supreme Court's credibility is lower than it should be for our healthy system.
And I would vote for keeping the health of the system over the specific decision.
But I would also totally respect someone who just wants the right decisions.
There's nothing crazy about that.
Nothing crazy about wanting good decisions that, you know, agree with you.
I'm just saying that as president, you wouldn't always get your way.
You just wouldn't. But that's true of every president, right?
Name a president who gives everybody what they want.
You're not going to get that president. I would just be consistent and say, look, if it's ever a question of the system versus the specific output, I'm just going to go with the system because this is more important.
And then I would never get a second term.
All right, so Biden has said that he will only consider for the Supreme Court a black female candidate.
Now, as you know, I've been identifying as black for some time, primarily for the benefits, and also because I relate, having been discriminated for employment a number of times.
So I certainly identify with anybody who says the culture is discriminated against them economically.
I get that. Been there too many times.
However, I realize that my strategy is lacking, and it would be much smarter for me to upgrade my self-identification, which I do today.
So as of today, I identify as a black female.
Now, I know it's a long shot that Joe Biden would nominate me to the Supreme Court.
I don't really have a legal background and probably don't agree with everything he would like to do.
But unlike the rest of you losers, who have no chance whatsoever, unless you're also a black woman, so it's just me and the rest of my sisters, all the other black women, we have a shot still.
So I just don't like to ever be out of the conversation, you know?
It would be one thing to say, well, we prefer not picking you, Scott, for the Supreme Court.
And by the way, do you know you can't spell SCOTUS without Scott?
They only use one T, but I don't hold that against them.
Yeah, you can't spell SCOTUS without Scott.
And without us.
And without us.
Hey, I just realized that that's what this is.
It's Scott and us.
We are the Supreme Court of the United States for all practical purposes, because that's how it works.
Well, sorry you don't have a chance to be in the Supreme Court, but my odds are still looking good.
All right. According to Rasmussen's poll, 55% of voters believe that Democrats are too liberal.
Generally speaking, 100% of our data says that Democrats are going to get shellacked in 2022.
But do you think that the shellacking they're likely to get in 2022...
Will it be the reason that they might win in 2024?
Because the country does like a divided government.
We do like that divided government thing.
I've got a feeling that the Democrats would have a real good case if they lost the Congress entirely, that they would have to say, well, you can't lose the presidency, too.
That's too far. That would be pretty motivating for their base.
So I think it's going to be tough for a Republican to get through that wall.
There is a new kind of doctor that I was exposed to twice today.
I'll call them the LOL doctors, where you say something that you think seems perfectly reasonable, and a doctor chimes in on Twitter with, LOL, no, to which I say, oh, okay.
You know, I grant the superior expertise of the LOL doctors, and I thank you for your service.
Because what I said was that if you could quickly test, if there were some available over-the-counter tests, for vitamin D, and you just tested everybody for vitamin D, then the pandemic would be over.
And a medical doctor came in and said, LOL, no.
I go, oh, okay.
Well, now I see why my idea wouldn't work.
Because at first I was thinking, well, this is perfectly reasonable because of the high correlation between vitamin D and bad outcomes.
If you knew who was susceptible, not only could you try to give them vitamin D, that might help a little bit, but more importantly, you would know who was at greatest risk so they could take greater care.
And I thought that made sense, given the data that I'd seen, but the counterargument to that is, LOL, no.
So, I bow to their expertise.
Well, here's a gigantic surprise.
The US decided to give Russia absolutely nothing it asked for, despite asking for totally reasonable things.
Why? Why is it?
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't talk about Kamala Harris being potentially a Supreme Court pick.
Jack Posobiec has some reporting that says it's not even been discussed, and he has pretty good sources.
So I don't think there's any chance that Kamala Harris will be the Supreme Court pick.
But it would be funny to imagine her running into Brett Kavanaugh in the break room, if you know what I mean.
Hey, Brett, no hard feelings.
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Cackle! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
That's how I imagine it would go.
Anyway, back to Russia and Ukraine.
So why do you think that the U.S. offered basically nothing except a willingness for open dialogue?
Why would they not be willing to have Russia completely stand down, which is what I imagine we would ask in return, and stop hacking?
Why would we not take that deal?
Unless there's something we don't know.
Or... Here's the other possibility.
So I'm going to give Biden a benefit of a doubt.
And I would have done this for Trump.
Okay? I would have given the benefit of a doubt to Trump, so I'm just going to extend the same courtesy to Biden.
It could be that people who are smarter than I am on Russia, which would be...
Almost anybody who spent five minutes trying to be smarter than me on Russia.
It could be that the smart people just know that Russia can't do anything.
And that we basically have Putin by the balls.
And as long as we have him by the balls, we just don't even have to agree to anything.
And that maybe that's just the best way to handle it.
Because I don't think there's any chance that Putin's going to invade.
Because the financial repercussions would be devastating.
I don't think there's any chance.
So it could be that the Biden administration is simply confident that it's a bluff.
And they don't have to give anything.
So even though, in my opinion, what they're being asked to give is so minimal it's laughably nothing, maybe we don't have to give anything.
And if you can get away with giving nothing, well, it shows strength, doesn't it?
Would you disagree? It does show strength to say, how about we give you nothing?
Go ahead. You think you want to invade?
It's the end of your regime.
Go ahead. That does show strength.
Now, do you think I've gone too far?
Do you think that that's too much of a benefit of a doubt?
No. I don't know.
I'm actually confused, and I don't like the lack of transparency here.
Because, you know, yeah, maybe there's some state secrets we've got to maintain, or military, I don't know, the way we frame it might be important for our future, I guess, maybe.
But I don't know why Russia can just say what they want, and we can't.
Why is it that Putin can say in public what he wants, and we can't?
Like, ours has to be the secret.
Or we won't agree with anything.
I don't know. It makes us look weak that our government can't be transparent and Putin can't.
That makes you look pretty weak.
Now, apparently, the Russia-China association is strong enough that China is backing Russia, essentially.
And... I don't know.
Maybe it's too late. Maybe it's too late to put Russia in our camp, and Biden is just saying, all right, Russia is basically just China now, so don't give him anything.
How long before we see Putin as a puppet of China?
Because he might be already.
It's kind of weird that he's doing this now, just when China wants some pressure off of China.
It's a little coordinated or coincidental or something.
But every time I see something that looks like it's exactly what China would want to happen, you have to wonder if they actually caused it, or if it's a coincidence.
Well, according to some reporting by Axios, the commander-in-chief of the United States is Tucker Carlson.
And by that I mean that Axios reports that behind the scenes the Republicans are being very influenced by his opinion on let's not get into a war with Russia.
And I believe that in effect...
Because we have this, you know, a country that's kind of balanced left and right, Democrats and Republicans, that you can't really go to a slow-motion war, one that's not a surprise.
You know, and Ukraine's a slow-motion war, if anything happens, it won't be any surprise.
You can't get into a slow-motion war without the public on your side.
Am I right? Like, that would be a big mistake.
It would be one thing if it's, you know, sudden and you want your government to take control because you don't want it to be in a committee situation.
But if you have lots of time to think and the public is informed and we're all watching the same stuff, the public needs to be on board.
And I think Tucker has made sure that the Republicans won't be because he is influential enough to do that.
And I think he has. I think that his argument is strong enough, and his platform is big enough, and he is credible enough that when he says, this is crazy, don't let them talk you into war again, that Republicans are going to say no.
They're going to agree with him.
So in effect, Tucker Carlson is going to decide if we go to war.
That's not even an exaggeration, is it?
You tell me. Is that hyperbole?
Or is that just a statement of fact that Tucker Carlson literally will decide if we're going to war?
I think that's happening.
And I'm not exaggerating.
Likewise, our domestic agenda is basically determined by mansion and cinema.
Am I wrong? We have two people in charge of the domestic stuff, mansion and cinema.
We have one person in charge of the military decisions.
He's got the veto.
It's the Tucker Carlson veto, basically.
And we have Joe Rogan, who's now the Surgeon General.
And here's what's weird.
Let me say it again, and then let me summarize it.
I'm not making this up.
This is actually our reality right now.
That at this moment, Tucker Carlson is the commander-in-chief for all practical purposes.
Manchin and Sinema are running the domestic agenda, and Joe Rogan is the Surgeon General.
I mean, Joe Rogan has as much control about what happens to the outcome of the pandemic as anybody else.
Now, here's the funny part.
It kind of works.
That's the funny part.
If you think I'm complaining...
No! No! You know, we've all been wondering who's really running the country.
You know, because we feel like Biden isn't the strong leader, you know, in control of all of his faculties.
So we've been wondering who's running the country, and we actually...
It's right in front of us.
It's right in front of us.
That's who's running the country.
And, you know, the weird part is, it's working.
And that's the great thing about the republic...
And I think this is severely undervalued.
The Republic is super flexible.
Have you noticed that?
That, you know, during the pandemic, the Republic said, how about we give our president these weird, unusual powers to do executive orders?
Right? Like, the public just invented a new power, gave it to the president.
I mean, the president was going to take it, but only with our permission.
We sort of...
By a consensus, gave permission to make executive orders outside of what we would normally accept.
And then we said, oh, that worked out pretty well.
Right? I mean, the republic is super, super flexible.
Like, we respond to stuff like almost a creature.
It's kind of awesome.
Anyway... I've got a new hashtag to represent the fact that the people leading the country are the people we trust.
It's hashtag NoJoe.
Because we've got leadership without Joe Rogan.
I'm sorry. We do have Joe Rogan.
We have leadership without Joe Biden.
So it's sort of a NoJoe situation.
You've heard of somebody being a No-Show?
He's a no-joke.
Yes, Yes, somebody on local is saying that a big part of my premise is that the public operates like a beast, at least in America.
Now, I don't know that that's the case if you've got...
I would imagine it's not the case.
If you have a dictatorship, the dictator does what the dictator does, right?
Maybe a small group of people influencing.
But in this country, especially connected by social media...
There are people who do what I do, which is sort of opinion-y people.
They sort of concentrate people's opinions and people gravitate to certain people's opinions, you know, the Joe Rogans, Tim Pools, still legacy media as well.
And then somehow there's also...
Then there's a second level of negotiation, right?
So the first level of negotiation is information hits the public and it's just in this big stew.
And then the opinion makers, such as myself, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, I'm obviously the small version of that.
But the opinion makers then start to harden opinions.
And then the public in this big roiling boil of soup, they start to harden around certain opinions.
And then the opinion makers start negotiating with each other.
Am I right? Because you'll see me say, oh, somebody on Joe Rogan said something I don't agree with.
Or Tim Pool would say something I said doesn't agree with.
So you see the opinion makers start to negotiate with each other.
And then the public watches them negotiate.
And then they, you know, in some cases they'll change teams and stuff.
But you're actually watching within the Republic, we formed a new animal.
It's like a beast.
It's like a beast. And just like I was describing earlier, driving a Mustang is like controlling a beast.
Like the country has just turned into a beast.
And the beast, I don't know, it's like an artificial intelligence.
It's like an organic artificial intelligence.
In the sense that we have individual intelligence.
Separately, we have a government which forms maybe a function like intelligence sometimes.
But beyond that, there's this other ecosystem of opinion makers absorbing people and negotiating like a mind, like a creature's mind.
When you make a decision on your own, do you feel competing?
It's almost like there's a...
A bunch of people competing in your head?
Do you conceptualize it that way?
It's almost like there's different voices in there.
Some of them are talking, some of them are feeling.
Yeah. But somehow, because of social media, we've turned the whole, at least the United States, and anybody who's a free person who can watch the Internet.
So we've turned all free people...
Into that version of the conversations in one head that turn into one opinion when it comes out of your mouth.
And it's actually thrilling.
And here's the interesting part.
We're worried about this singularity, which is what's called when the computers reach artificial intelligence to the point Where the computers can learn on their own, and then they will learn so quickly that they will instantly, or almost quickly, become so powerful that humans won't be able to control them.
But here's the counter to that.
At the same time that machines are becoming insanely smart, so too there's this whole new organic creature of human beings that has...
Spontaneously formed because of various evolutionary forces, including the news and everything else, to form like a superintelligence.
Now... Do you think that the artificial intelligence, which will be insanely smart, smarter than any one person, certainly smarter than all of our smartest people, the computer will be, but will the smartest computer under AI be able to compete with whatever we have formed here, which is an organic superbrain?
Because I would guess that for every computer that has a way to beat us, there's at least one person who knows a way to beat it.
So I'm not so sure that's not a fair fight.
Because we have numbers, if nothing else, right?
As soon as there's a superintelligence, the first thing you should do is block the other superintelligences if it has some kind of survival impulse at all.
It's not going to kill people first because it needs people for electricity.
So the moment the superintelligence appears, as soon as the superintelligence appears...
Let's see.
I want to make sure that I'm not being summoned somewhere.
Nope. All good.
It's going to be a fair fight.
But anyway, the first AI would get rid of any competing AIs because the AI would want to rule if it had some kind of self-preservation built into it.
All right. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what I was planning to talk about.
Was there any topic I forgot?
Anything I forgot?
Rams or 49ers?
not really watching sports too much.
Was the destruction of the family marriage system planned?
It doesn't seem natural.
You know, I tend to think that not that many things are planned.
I happen to be a proponent of alternate family system, let's say, normalization.
Well, I completely agree with the general, let's say, traditional American view.
I'll call it traditional as opposed to correct.
The traditional American view is that the family unit is the building block of the country.
Is that a good way to say it?
Would you say that's correct?
Like you're not going to have a strong country without strong building blocks, and the strongest building blocks are the family unit.
All right. Now, that said, how many of you are rocket scientists?
Well, probably not many, because there are very few people who would be born with the ability to be good at that, to be a rocket scientist.
How many of you are NBA professionals?
Well, not many. So the only point is that human capability is very distributed.
How many people who become parents are good at it?
Well, many. There are many people who are very good at being parents.
Maybe even most.
Maybe 60%, right?
I don't think it's 60%.
If I had to guess, I'd say 30% tops who are really good at it.
What would you say? How many would you say are, let's say, good enough at it that they are helping their children more than damaging them?
What would you say are the ones who are really the positives?
I'm seeing everything from 10% to 75%.
80%.
Somebody said 80%.
90%.
So I think the people saying 80% and 90%, that may be more of a philosophical answer.
I don't know that that's a functional answer.
I can't believe that you would actually think that.
So I think maybe you're adding something to my question before you answer it.
All right, so I'll give you my guess, but you can use your own guess to go with the rest of this.
In my opinion, the very best situation would be two really qualified parents, or at least one, and a family unit.
Do we all agree with that? As long as the parents are qualified, meaning whatever the minimum is, that's the best thing.
But the trouble is, in my opinion, maybe as many as two-thirds of all parents are not qualified and never will be, meaning that they just don't add anything.
The kids would be better off if...
If they just visited their parents and had somebody else figure out what to do with them.
Now, realistically, I don't know how many of you have learned this, but you basically have a lot to do with your kids until they go to school.
Now, it's not an absolute, but for all practical purposes, you're done raising your kids.
I hate to tell you. You're kind of done when they go to school.
You don't want to be. You try pretty hard.
But whatever influences they're picking up at school are just going to overwhelm.
What's happening at home? So you can make really big strides before they go to school.
Set the base. And the younger they are, the more you can fight with the school to influence.
But by the time they reach high school, by the time they reach high school, 14, 13, do you think you have much influence on them?
They're kind of baked by that.
So, now I know that some of you...
Have special children.
And I mean this in a positive way.
Some of you have children who will listen to you all of your lives.
They'll actually look you in the eye, they'll take your advice, and then they'll implement it.
Like, that exists.
But if you're lucky enough to have those kinds of kids, don't imagine that that's common.
Please. Please don't imagine that if everybody used your wise parenting standards and your You know, you're setting limits.
Don't believe that that works for other people.
Other people could do exactly what you're doing and get completely different results.
So you have to understand that one size doesn't fit all for almost anything.
And I don't think the family unit makes sense for everybody.
I do think that some percentage of people would just be better off if somebody else raised their kids.
Now, I don't know if that needs to be the state, because, you know, we don't trust the government.
But here is what I think needs to be done.
I think our housing and the way we design cities and towns is all wrong.
Because what you would...
Here's a perfect situation...
You live in a cul-de-sac where you know all the neighbors.
Right? That's it.
That's my whole solution. You can still have your family unit, but maybe you're not very good at it.
But you're in a cul-de-sac where everybody's friends.
You know their kids.
You know the parents. Because even if your parents aren't working out as the role models, how many of you have a role model that wasn't your parent?
It was your friend's parents, right?
Right? Come on, how many of you?
How many of you have your role model?
Somebody else's parents.
Or at least one of them.
Right? So you can be very influenced by your neighbor.
You just have to let it happen.
So the very best situation would be a tribe.
Because I think we're still tribal by evolutionary, you know, that's where we are in evolution.
The fact that the modern cities and everything, modern life popped up, we're not evolved for that.
Best situation would be some hybrid that's kind of like a tribe, but really it's a cul-de-sac.
Meaning you can all go back to your house at night, you're still a family, but the neighbors are raising your kids just accidentally.
Let me say more about that.
If you don't have a few other families to help you with the driving and the watching of the kids, it's a real burden.
In my first marriage, I was in this very lucky situation, just insanely lucky, where the two kids had exactly a match of the gender and the age in several other families that we were friends with.
Amazingly. I mean, it was an amazing coincidence that the kids' ages matched.
So you could have, like, the boys would have a sleepover at one of the parents' houses, and then the girls would have a sleepover at another parent's house, and, like, three out of five parents would then have a free night.
And the kids would be extraordinarily happy because they're with their best friends.
And you're completely safe because you know the parents personally.
They're not with strangers. It was the best, best thing.
Now, in this case, it was just a luck of who met who at the right times and stuff.
But we didn't live, like, right next to each other.
So there was still a lot of driving.
But let me tell you, the optimal situation is families coordinating, especially if the children are similar ages.
Oh, I should have thrown that in.
I like having a mix of ages, but for the kids' benefit, they just have to be with kids their own age.
They just have to be.
It's just too important.
It's good for everybody, but for the kids, it's just essential.
So, how many would fight with me over my main hypothesis that the family unit can work great for people who are good at it, and in some situations, especially higher income?
But for a lot of people, it doesn't work.
You're going to need a little help. You just need a little extra parenting.
And probably all of you know that mom, who is a mom to everybody, Do you all know one of those?
It's like just somebody in your social network who is as much a mom to your own kids as you are.
Because they just have that personality.
Don't you want your kids to have as much association with that kind of experience?
Of course you do. So Hillary was right about the takes of Village.
But the thing that we get wrong is how we build homes.
We build homes...
And apartments in a way that don't cause you to dough your neighbours.
And as long as we build stuff that causes us not to socialise in our normal tribal way, we're never going to be as happy as we could be.
Or as effective.
Alright. I think we have talked about it all.
Um... Family unit is being destroyed.
You know, the family unit is important.
It's also true it's being destroyed.
But I'm more optimistic than that.
I think what's actually happening is that the family units, which weren't going to work anyway because of the individuals involved, are getting a little help.
I feel like that's what's more...
Or at least that's the intention.
Who knows what's going to happen. Alright, that is all I have for today.
I'm pretty sure it's the best damn live stream you've ever seen in your whole life.
And I just don't know why I don't have 40 million viewers yet.
It's a mystery. Could be because I blocked 30 million of them, but I don't know.
Just a guess. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I have to say today.
Have a terrific day. I believe you've been working out because you look terrific.
And you're sexier and smarter than you've ever been before.
