My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Woke Yale law students
David Sacks endorses Michael Shellenberger
President Putin's health
Elon Musk tweets how to ditch Twitter's algorithm
Matt Walsh film, What Is a Woman?
Abortion and freedom of religion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Appreciate it. Is everybody here for the Simultaneous Sip, which is one hour delayed, and damn it, that's the best I could do today.
I know you hear the crying babies outside, which are not crying babies.
They're some kind of weird bird.
There they are, screaming birds.
You got it. You got it.
So, should we talk about the news after we have our simultaneous sip?
Sorry to say that this is the vacation version of the simultaneous sip, and that means paper cup.
Paper cup! Can you believe it?
I know. So, how would you like to join me now for the simultaneous sip?
You can put it in any kind of vessel.
That's the vacation version.
Quick version. I'm asked in the comments on YouTube if it would be okay to have a cold cup of coffee.
Well, if that's all you have, yes.
But I would consider it respectful to the rest of us if you would be prepared next time.
Sure, I'm an hour late.
Yeah, that's a thing.
But next week, I'll be right on time.
Expect the same of you. Well, I'm looking at all the important news today, and by far, The most important story.
Have you seen it? Yeah.
There's a ruling in the UK, a judge ruled, that calling a man bald at work is sexual discrimination.
Sexual discrimination.
And I have to agree with this judge.
When people refer to me as bald, the first thing I think is, you sexist bastard.
Why must you mock me for my high testosterone, which causes this baldness, or testosterone sensitivity, which is almost the same thing, but technically different?
Huh? Why?
Well, I believe it's because people are terrible.
And that when they mock me for my follicle, let's say, my follicle shortage, Is that fair?
No, it's sexist.
It's sexist. I feel like...
less of a man.
And the argument, apparently...
Actually, I don't, but the argument, apparently, is that since men are the primary gender that gets bald, primarily, but not exclusively, that this must be some kind of a sex-gender-related insult, and so I accept this new standard.
On behalf of all the bald men out there, who, as you know, are more virile, more efficient, more aerodynamic, and in many ways superior to all those who have good hair.
Wait a minute, that makes me a sexist.
I take it back.
I take it back.
We're all equal, no matter our hair.
That's better, isn't it?
Can I be a little more woke?
I could not be more woke than this.
All people of all kinds of follicle situations.
We are all equal.
I have a dream.
I have a dream.
That one day, you'll go to the barber and the barber will treat you exactly the same as people who have hair.
Someday. I don't know how they do that.
Someday, they'll do that.
Well, speaking of woke people, apparently there's a trend in Yale Law School.
Of angry people who want to get in the face and have unrelenting, quote, unrelenting daily confrontations with their fellow students who identify as conservative.
Do you know why? Do you know why the woke Yale Law School people want to get in the face of those conservative fellow students?
Because of the Supreme Court decision about, or upcoming decision, we expect, about Roe v.
Wade. And the thinking is that these students, although they have done nothing, will someday grow up to be just like these Supreme Court people, and you gotta get them early.
Does that seem like a pretty good idea to you?
To get them early?
See, here's the problem.
If you were going to predict which side of the Roe vs Wade question were most likely to become violent, Which side would it be?
Like, if you didn't know anything about anything and you just heard that there was one political side that was trying to prevent what they believed was murder of babies.
That would be their interpretation.
Versus another side who's saying, no, these are not human lives, so it's a medical decision.
Now, I'm not taking a side.
If you've been watching me long enough, you know I don't have an opinion on abortion that I want to share.
Meaning, let women work it out and I'm gonna accept whatever they come up with.
Which I think is just a better system.
The less my opinion is part of this, the better everybody is, right?
I don't have a womb and therefore I would rather allow my vote to be taken by somebody else.
So, on this issue, just this issue.
So, wouldn't you imagine that the pro-life people would be the ones Who are the most worked up about this situation?
It's kind of weird that it's reversed.
But, to be fair, if I were a woman and I could have a baby and somebody told me that, let me just give you one example.
Somebody told me that if I had been raped, I would have to raise the rapist baby?
Nope. Sorry.
Sorry. This is not my opinion on abortion in general.
I'm going to give you a very narrow little opinion.
The narrow little opinion is if I got raped and I were a woman and I got pregnant, I would want to kill that little fucking thing so badly that I don't know if I would care if it were illegal or illegal.
I'd want that thing dead so fast.
Now, that's the special case.
That's the special case.
That's not my opinion on abortion.
Right? Like, I'm telling you how I'd feel.
It's just how I'd feel.
Like, I can tell you that if I were the victim of that specific crime, there isn't anything I wouldn't kill.
I would kill the abortion.
I would kill the person who did it.
I'd probably want to kill his family.
I'd certainly want to kill any fetus that came out of it.
I mean, I'd want to kill everything.
But that's just me. Right?
I'm not saying you should build any kind of laws around that.
So don't change the Constitution to be compatible with my way of thinking on this.
I'm just saying that if the situation were reversed and somebody was telling me what I had to do in that situation, not cool.
Not cool at all.
But if you were to guess which side was going to be the one to get violent about this, it's kind of, it's not exactly the way you'd expect it.
All right, let's talk about Here's a smallish story that's bigger than you think.
It's potentially world-changing.
It's just a little, tiny little story that you could imagine it, like, becoming gigantic.
And here's how this happens. So the story is that David Sachs has just endorsed on Twitter, endorsed Michael Schellenberger, who's running as an independent, against Gavin Newsom for governor of New York, I'm sorry, governor of California. And here's why this is a big deal.
There are certain people in the, let's say, the tech ecosystem who just have a little more credibility than other people.
And David Sachs is one of them.
So he sort of represents, let's say, you know, this is me talking, this is not him.
So don't blame him for anything I say.
He's positioned, let's say, he's the kind of person who, if he says a full-throated endorsement of an independent candidate, there's a lot of people listening.
And the people listening are, let's say, opinion makers.
So this is not like a regular endorsement.
I don't know if he's endorsed anybody before.
It might be the first time. But the argument for Schellenberger is the same one I'm making, because I endorsed him as well, is that he's got solutions that are very specific, very well researched, based on stuff that's worked in other places.
I mean, it's just the most commonsensical, solution-based, very detailed, here's how we're going to do it, We have to try this somewhere once.
Please. In the interest of saving America, and I think we're at that point where saving isn't too strong a word.
Would you agree with that?
Do you think we're at the point where you have to save the country?
It's not like we're just tweaking it better?
I feel like we're in some serious shit right now.
A little more than usual.
And, but imagine this.
Imagine a world in which somebody ran as an independent in our, you know, one of our biggest states, or the biggest?
I don't know. What's bigger?
Is California bigger than Texas by population?
It is, right? What would happen if he got elected?
Because he doesn't say things that are, let's say, poison to Democrats, and he doesn't say anything that's poison to Republicans.
Do you know how weird that is?
Imagine somebody running for a major office, getting this much attention, and he's not saying anything that's poison to either side.
He's just got solutions that he's detailing in, you know, books, best-selling books.
He's showing you exactly what he's going to do.
Exactly. And is right on point with just science and things that we know work.
So how do the Democrats say no to that?
I mean, unless they're just team people, right?
Now, I know, I know, all the money suggests that Newsom will win.
All of politics suggests he would win, right?
So he's got the machine, he's got the money, he's got the history, the inertia, everything, basically.
But what he doesn't have is a good proposition.
What he's offering you is more of what you had.
And who in California wants more of that?
I don't know anybody. I literally don't know anybody.
Not one person, not of any persuasion, not one resident of California wants more of whatever the fuck we had for the last five years or whatever.
Nobody wants more of that.
Nobody! So how does an independent who is not defending either Democrats or Republicans, and by the way, has that ever happened?
Has anybody ever thread that needle before?
No. And I don't think people are understanding how smart you have to be to do it.
If you want Schellenberger to navigate this space, he's literally stepping on all the rocks in the river that nobody has seen before.
It's like he can see the rock to get across the river without getting his feet wet.
And there are a lot of rocks, and he hasn't missed a rock yet.
It's pretty frickin' amazing.
So, and the one thing that I'm puzzled by is why the national press hasn't been more aggressive about this story.
And obviously it's because the Democrats, you know, would like to keep power.
But, and they're, you know, they're backing Newsom, of course.
But it does seem like the nature of the story is just made for the news.
Because it's a whole different approach.
And it would be nationally transforming.
So here's why it's a small thing that's a big thing.
The David Sachs endorsement makes it safe for other people to do the same.
Makes it safe. Because he's considered so rational and so respected in, you know, the Silicon Valley tech world anyway.
People were aware of who's done things in that world.
I think he's just made it safe to back the independent.
And so if you see more people of his, let's say, stature following on, this could be a big deal.
And it could have influence for national elections in the future.
Because it's a little bit DeSantis-like in some ways.
But DeSantis goes for Republican-only solutions, right?
DeSantis is a real practical guy, but he's nowhere near a Schellenberger.
Schellenberger is really about the solutions, period.
He really is. You can't even determine his politics from his solutions.
You wouldn't be able to find it.
And that's the weird part.
So nobody else has ever pulled this off.
Schellenberger's... He's got the best...
He's got the best chance I've ever seen, based on his campaign.
All right. Have any of you seen the rumor?
I think that Washington...
The New York Post.
I'm getting all my states wrong today.
The New York Post had an article, but it's based on rumors and blah, blah, blah.
And the rumors are that Putin might have some terminal blood cancer.
Have any of you read that in any other media in the last, say, day?
Has anybody seen that story?
I wouldn't have seen the story except it was tweeted at me.
Nope. Yeah. So I'm guessing that this story has not met the test.
Sounds like CIA disinformation, doesn't it?
Yeah. But I'm going to stick with my earlier observation that in my opinion he looks like he's dying.
Right? So I'm going to stick with it just because I like to follow it through.
That way you can see was my prediction good or bad.
It's kind of unfair to change it in the middle.
So I'm going to stick with, I think he's sick.
Maybe terminal? The terminal part, you know, how would I know?
But he looks like he's got a problem.
Like a pretty big one. Yeah.
So we'll see. It does look like disinformation.
But Am I reading things right?
Does it look like we must have somebody on the inside in the Kremlin?
Now, we've said so, right?
The news has reported that there's some kind of insider that's giving the United States and Ukraine some kind of intel.
But that, too, could be CIA disinformation.
Because one of the best things you could do to an enemy is tell the enemy that one of their top lieutenants is giving you secret information.
Even if they're not. Because then, you know, then they'll distrust each other and everything goes to hell.
So you can't trust anything about a rumor of somebody having a spy on the inside.
There's nothing about that that's believable, even if it's true.
It shouldn't be considered credible.
But, I gotta say, independent of what the news is telling us, it sure looks like we have somebody on the inside.
Are you feeling that too?
And the reason is because I don't think we would do the things that we've done so far unless we knew more than the public knows.
We meaning the government.
It seems to me that the Biden administration has some information about Russia that we don't have.
What do you think? Now, it might be wrong.
It might be right. But doesn't it seem like their decisions are hard to explain without a better understanding, well, without them having extra information?
Because otherwise it looks like mistakes.
But why would it be that their mistakes have so far produced something that looks like a stalemate in Ukraine, which very few people predicted, except me.
I predicted it. And if you look at the news coverage, the news coverage has clearly changed to Ukraine is winning.
You've seen that, right?
Now, can you confirm that?
If you're watching the news, in my opinion, the coverage has changed to Ukraine is just winning.
Now that doesn't mean it's true.
I'm only talking about the news coverage.
Am I right? Are you seeing the same thing?
That the news is covering it like Ukraine is winning, And will win.
That's different. Because it went from, wow, they're putting up a surprisingly stiff resistance, and then it went to, you know, this is, I guess we should mention that in a few towns they took back a couple of towns.
But, you know, there is still just a stiff resistance.
And then, You hear about some Russian stuff blowing up.
Today, the UK intel people estimated that Russia had lost one-third of its troops that it committed to Ukraine.
So, one-third of the troops that it put in Ukraine are already dead.
Or wounded, I guess.
Now, do you believe that?
Do you believe that the UK and their intelligence agencies With all of their believability and credibility, and of course they'd have no reason to lie in the context of an act of war, why would anybody lie?
What? Thank you, Baron Von Blair.
Yeah. So, how many people think we should believe an estimate out of the UK intelligence agency during a war?
Hmm. Yeah, that sounds very believable, doesn't it?
No. You know, the thing that we sometimes forget is that an intel agency's job is to lie to you.
It's literally their job to lie to you.
They're professionals, and they do it really well.
Now, their job is to protect you, right?
That would be the larger job.
And one hopes that they're doing it in every way that they can and that they're really on your side.
But we don't know.
I mean, we hope. So, in the context of protecting you, They have every moral, ethical right to lie to you.
Because we kind of hired them to do that, right?
To manage how we think about things.
Oh, by the way, did you see the...
I tweeted it, I think.
There's a video ad, a TV ad, I think.
Probably on the internet, too.
Recruiting people for the psychological operations of the United States.
The PSYOP people. Have you seen that commercial?
Oh, my God.
Go watch that thing.
What happens when the people who are the most qualified brainwashers, because that's what their job is, they would work in psyops, so they'd be brainwashing and influencing the enemy.
That would be their very expertise.
What happens when those guys make a recruiting ad, a video?
Well, I'll tell you, you can't stop watching it, that's for sure.
It's really long, and it's an advertisement to recruit people, so you'd think it'd be short.
But it's unusually long, and I couldn't turn it off.
I couldn't turn it off.
You could feel the skill level from the first second.
Like, as soon as it gets you, it grabs you by the throat, and then you're like, I think I can't turn it off.
Yeah, I've seen enough. I think I get the gist.
Just one more. I want to join the psyops.
I mean, it's really good.
So, anyway, I had to put that out there.
And the UK intel says that under the current conditions, Russia is unlikely to dramatically accelerate its rate of advance over the next 30 days.
So in other words, the thinking is that over the next month, remember this was supposed to be over in two months or something, but they're saying in the next month, Russia is just going to sit there and bleed.
What's that going to look like?
Another month of Russia just losing people, making no gains and just bleeding.
And every day that they sit there, Ukraine is getting more drones, right?
Don't you think the Russian forces are going to have to look up a lot?
Because there's going to be a drone over them pretty much all the time, dropping something on some part of them.
Imagine the mental state of the Russian soldiers.
Imagine their mental state.
Because they don't want to be there.
A third of them have been killed, or wounded, I guess.
And the United States just put a gazillion billion dollars in there.
That's not a good place to be.
You know, so again, I've been predicting that this is a war about tipping points.
That one of the sides is going to run out of something that is necessary.
Probably not fighters.
Probably food or ammo or something like that.
Fuel. So, it looks like Ukraine's supply lines might be better.
Which makes sense, because they have control of most of the country.
Well, maybe it doesn't make sense.
I'm not sure that it makes sense if their supply line is better.
But, we'll keep watching that.
All right. Elon Musk continues to tweet funny.
He tweeted yesterday, whoever thought that owning the libs would be cheap never tried to acquire a social media company.
That's pretty funny. All right.
How and if you saw Elon Musk's tweet, I think it was maybe a week ago, in which he taught you how to change the Twitter interface From the algorithm to just the order that things come in.
How many of you saw the tweet in which he taught you to do that?
I'm going to read the tweet.
This is civilization changing tweet.
That's not hyperbole.
I'm going to tell you a tweet that if enough people saw it, would change civilization.
That is not hyperbole.
Here's the tweet. From Elon Musk.
He's teaching you how to change Twitter's feed so that you see things in order of tweets instead of Twitter deciding what you see.
He says, number one, tap the home button.
So on your app, on your phone, you tap the home button.
Then number two, tap the stars on the upper right of screen.
I never knew what they were because I never was interested to tap it.
I didn't even know that was up there.
So there's little stars in the upper right hand side.
If you tap on those little stars, you can select latest tweets.
And then Elon says, you are being manipulated by the algorithm in ways you don't realize.
Easy to switch back and forth to see the difference.
So, I took his advice and I switched it to order of tweets.
And let me tell you something.
I feel different.
I feel different.
I was not expecting that.
I was not expecting that.
I was expecting that the tweets maybe that I've been missing I would see.
And that's true.
That's true. But I wasn't expecting how different I felt.
In other words, there's something about the seeing things just in order that is not triggering me.
Is that real?
Or is that just a completely subjective confirmation bias situation?
Did anybody else have that experience?
It was like the dopamine button got turned off.
Now it's just interesting stories.
It used to make my head catch on fire every time I looked at Twitter.
And now it's just interesting and informative.
It really feels different.
Now, I'm seeing other people agreeing, but be careful, because this might be just confirmation bias.
We might have expected to see it, and, you know, so therefore we're seeing it.
I don't know if it's real, but it's been days now, and I feel different when I was watching it.
So, when Elon says you are being manipulated by the algorithm in ways you don't realize, oh my god!
It sure feels true.
I saw people saying today that they were seeing the tweets from the Rasmussen poll for the first time.
They hadn't seen them in a long time. So Rasmussen is the one that had one of the most accurate polling histories for the political stuff.
And although it has one of the most accurate records, by the way, after the fact, you can look at the predictions, you can look what happened, who got elected, and you can actually calculate who was the most accurate.
And they do well no matter who calculates it.
They're always in that top echelon.
And apparently they had been, you know, sort of shadow banned out of existence, even for the people who wanted to follow them.
And now people are saying, hey, I keep seeing these Rasmussen tweets now.
So yeah, yeah, things are different.
If the only thing that Elon Musk did is threatened by Twitter, but in the process teach us how to turn the algorithm off, It would be one of the greatest things that anybody ever did in the history of humankind.
Too much? Too far?
No, I'm going to say it again.
I'm so proud of it. If the only thing Elon Musk did is he never bought Twitter, but in the process he taught you how to use that menu choice to turn off their algorithm so it stops brainwashing you, it would be one of the greatest accomplishments in humankind.
Because he would have freed your fucking brain from jail.
That's what just happened. He freed your brain from jail.
Yeah, think about it.
Think about it. Name something that was bigger than that.
What did you care about more, inflation or freeing your brain from jail?
Well, inflation's pretty darn bad, but I'd rather my brain freed from jail, honestly.
So, yeah, that is one of the biggest accomplishments.
Now, not enough of us know to push the button, so it's not happening yet, but hypothetically, if he could free your brain, it would be the most important thing that's happened in a long time.
How many of you are watching this story about the Buffalo mass shooter whose name...
Let me check his name.
Jerky McFuck Asshole.
I think that's his actual name.
Because when they do these things, they like to become famous.
So that's why I like to use his name.
It's Bob Jerky McFuckface, I think, was his name.
So remember that.
He needs to be famous.
So Jerky McFuckface.
Apparently he's a white guy, and he watched the Tucker Carlson show, and he shot a bunch of mostly black people in a grocery store, and he seems to be a bad person, as in clearly racist.
Apparently his social media shows a lot of racist stuff.
Now, I'm watching the left go crazy, and here are the things they're saying.
Number one, He must have been influenced by Tucker Carlson to do this.
Now, I don't watch Tucker Carlson every day, but I've seen his show a lot.
I've seen his show a lot.
And there's one thing I've never seen on Tucker Carlson's show.
I don't believe I can think of one time when Tucker Carlson said, you know, those American citizens, damn them, We sure need fewer law-abiding American citizens.
Is that what Tucker has been telling people on the shows that I don't watch?
Because all the ones I watch, he says he's in favor of law-abiding Americans of all types.
Every type. Law-abiding.
Every type. Totally in favor of all law-abiding Americans.
Black, white, male, female.
All of them. Every one of them.
I'm pretty sure he's in favor of anybody doing anything that's legal.
You know, he might not do it himself.
Maybe he would advise you not to.
Maybe he would advise you to ignore their advice.
But I don't believe there's ever been a time when Tucker Carlson said, you know, those law-abiding Americans of a different type, you know, there's something wrong with them.
Gotta be killed. Nope.
Nope. Now, you could argue with Tucker Carlson's opinion about illegal people, right?
If you don't like his opinion about illegal immigration, well, that would make sense.
But Tucker Carlson is not in favor of shooting Americans.
Am I right?
And yet the left has somehow imagined That the guy who would...
Well, let me put it in starker terms.
If Tucker Carlson had been in the grocery store and armed, one assumes that he's at least in favor of the Second Amendment.
I don't know if he carries a firearm.
But if he were armed, and if he were in that grocery store, you don't think he would have taken out the shooter because he was white?
Do you think he would have said, oh, normally I would jump into action with my legal firearm to stop this mass murder, but oh, I noticed the shooter's white, so I guess we'll let this one ride.
Do you think he would do that?
You know, seriously.
I mean, how stupid do you have to be to think that someone who is 100% consistently in favor of legal, law-abiding Americans Would somehow inspire someone to go kill legal, law-abiding Americans.
That's pretty far away from what his message is.
But the left needs some way to make this all political.
Now, there's definitely something going wrong with how he was activated by right, let's call it right-leaning, extreme right-leaning politics, I guess.
Which is very different than right-leaning politics.
In the same way the, you know, progressive extremists are different than normal Democrats, right?
So, then the other big issue is that he, like many of the white mass shooters, he was captured alive.
And there appears to be some kind of trend of black mass shooters being murdered even when they're surrendering.
How much of that is real?
Now, I am in favor of when you observe what you believe to be a pattern to call it out, especially if it looks like a pattern of discrimination.
But you have to be careful whether your data is accurate.
Jenny Brown says, let me talk to Jenny.
Jenny Brown here on YouTube says, She's sick of Scott defending Tucker Carlson and white supremacy.
Jenny, fuck you, you ignorant bitch.
Did you see me defend white supremacy?
No. Did you see me defend Tucker Carlson?
No, fuckhead. I didn't defend him.
I just told you what I saw.
I watched TV. I saw things.
Images came into my brain.
Can you understand that? Can you understand?
I'm just talking about things that exist.
There's a show. He says things.
Here's what he says. Here's what he doesn't say.
Can you fucking understand that, you stupid piece of racist shit?
Because you're the kind of person that the world needs a lot less of, right?
I'm telling you that he's in favor of all legal Americans.
If you can't buy into that fucking concept, get off this broadcast.
You don't belong here.
You're not capable of being with regular people.
You should go crawl into some fucking hole.
Alright. That's enough of that.
Probably just a troll.
Alright. So, did anybody answer my question?
Do you feel that this trend is, or the pattern is a real one, or is it just another racist attack?
What do you think? Is it a real trend that the black shooters get killed by police and the white ones are like, oh, okay.
Surrender. Yeah, well, but here's the question nobody has answered that I'm aware of.
Have they all acted the same?
Do they all surrender the same way?
Because if they surrender the same way and the black ones are getting shot, yeah, I've got a problem with that.
Don't you? Is there anybody who wouldn't have a problem with that?
Let me ask you. Since Jenny apparently thinks that all of you are racists, she must be too if she's watching.
If she thinks...
Alright, I made my point.
I think I'm swearing more than usual today.
Are you on Prisoner's Island?
I'm not on Prisoner's Island.
I'm very much off of Prisoner's Island.
I'm now on a tropical island.
And it's not bad.
Cloudy, but it's not bad.
All right. Let's see what else is happening.
Is there anything else happening?
I'm going to check CNN and see if I missed any stories because all the important stories are missed.
Oh, come on.
Let's see if I can get my Wi-Fi to come back on and then we're going to be coochie.
All right, Wi-Fi. I tell you, it's hard to live with hotel Wi-Fi sometimes.
Once you get used to the good stuff.
Alright, looks like everybody woke up and started using their wifi and it's not working.
Alright, news.
Yeah, you know, I'm not going to talk about this shooter anymore.
Are you okay with that? Is everybody okay that we're...
Everybody's okay that we're not talking about him, right?
Alright. Here are headlines on CNN, which really tells you a lot.
California's in a water crisis.
Officials are focused on the wrong problem.
So even CNN is criticizing California's water shortage.
The water shortage in California appears to be purely a mismanagement problem.
Purely a mismanagement problem.
We're going to run out of frickin' water and electricity.
Because we're mismanaged.
That's the worst management I've ever seen.
Has anybody ever managed anything worse than that?
So what do you think of Finland and Sweden joining NATO? That's also a headline here.
If you had asked me 30 days ago, and I probably talked about it 30 days ago, if you had said, should Sweden and Finland join NATO under these conditions, I would have said, you're just asking for more trouble, aren't you?
You know, didn't NATO flirting with Ukraine and Ukraine flirting with NATO, isn't that why we're in this situation, or at least partly in it?
And so I would have said, you know, why don't you hold off on that NATO expansion idea?
But what about today? If you made the decision today, would you put Finland and Sweden into NATO? Because it's starting to look like Russia's losing.
I know a lot of you aren't on that page yet, but the way the news is treating it, the news is treating it as if Russia is just losing.
And if Russia is losing, What is the best strategy?
Do you just keep the pressure on until they lose bigger?
Because that looks like not a bad strategy.
So I'm changing my mind, in case you're looking for my inconsistencies.
The situation has changed, or it looks like it.
At least the news and reporting has changed.
Good question here, Sparky says.
Scott, how do you know that you're not being used by Intel as a part of the term useful idiot?
The only way that I pretend to deal with that, and pretending is the best you can do, is that I'll give you both sides.
So, I'm not telling you that Ukraine is winning.
I'm telling you that the news is reporting they're winning.
Because I don't believe anything that comes out of Russia.
I don't believe anything that comes out of UK intel.
I don't believe anything that comes out of American intelligence.
I don't believe anything that comes out of Biden administration on the war.
Everybody on the same page? If you start with the assumption that everybody's lying all the time about everything about the OR, and really that's the only logical thing to do.
If you were any of those entities, you'd be lying.
It's a OR. You have to do whatever it takes, right?
So lying is just part of the, you know, one of the tools of the OR. So they're all lying.
Of course they're all lying. Or they're leaving out, they're omitting, you know, whatever.
They're lying in some way. If I were a useful idiot, I would be telling you that one of those stories was true, and one of them was not.
But I'm not. I'm telling you the opposite of that.
So yes, it's the right question.
There you go. Yeah, keeping a race killer in the news is just a Democrat technique.
Because they want your attention to be all about that.
Somebody's asking, did I see the trailer for Matt Walsh's movie, What is a Woman?
Alright, so as you know, unlike many of my viewers, I'm the most pro-trans public figure you might ever meet.
Totally pro-anybody doing whatever they need to do.
So it's not even about trans.
It's just about freedom.
It doesn't matter that I think somebody might make a different decision or should have.
It's irrelevant. Don't do what you want.
It just doesn't affect me.
I wish the best for them.
And I don't think that they all make the right decisions.
But do you? The fact that you think that other people are making wrong decisions about this very basic identity stuff, that doesn't mean they don't get to make the decision.
They still get to make that decision.
And to me, that's an unassailable position.
It's just not my decision, period.
So, I'm as pro as you can get to the trans community.
I think sports should be adjusted so that there's just a whole better situation for everybody, not just the trans community.
So, that's where I'm starting point.
Having said that, having said that, Watching Matt Walsh go around and ask people to define what a woman is, is really good entertainment.
So I don't align with his provocative views on this 100%.
So it's not about agreeing with them.
I don't have to.
But as a form of entertainment, which is asking a perfectly legitimate question under the current circumstances, and then watching people not be able to deal with a fairly simple question on a topic that they seem to care a lot about but don't understand maybe even the topic?
Really funny. So I don't see it about trans.
If you see it as a film about trans people, then maybe it's going to affect you one way or the other negatively, probably.
But if you see it as a film about how people form opinions and how well they can think through simple questions, it's actually really funny.
And that's just based on the trailer and things I've seen him say and tweet.
So I will definitely watch that thing.
I'm definitely going to watch that thing.
Yeah, it's Matt Walsh from the Daily Wire.
So I'm not sure that I agree with Matt Walsh on more than, I don't know, half of what he says, maybe, something like that.
But he's always good.
Like, even the part I don't agree with sometimes, I'll be like, oh, he said that pretty well.
He's really good at what he does.
Alright.
And one of the most popular public figures, I think.
So, US claims, Russia, yeah, okay.
There's nothing negative about Ukraine.
Ukraine is sending images of dead Russian soldiers to their families.
Even the spin on this seems wrong.
CNN's spin on Ukraine is that they're sending images of dead Russian soldiers to their families, but the way they're spinning it is so that the families can pick them up or so they'll be better informed of what happened.
Is that really why Ukraine is doing that?
I feel like it's a terrorist act.
I feel like if you send a picture of somebody's dead child to the parents, that's a terrorist act.
Isn't it? How would you define terrorism if it's not that?
That just looks like terrorism.
Now, I'm in favor of it.
It just happens to be terrorism.
Now, is anybody in favor of terrorism?
Yes, yes.
That's why there's so much of it.
Everybody's in favor of terrorism if the person doing this is on your side.
If the United States got conquered by, let's say China, And there was some American who got into Beijing and started terrorizing Beijing while we were being oppressed.
I wouldn't be opposed to that.
Yeah, it's a war crime.
But if they're doing it on your side, it doesn't feel like terrorism anymore, does it?
Look at the formation of a popular country.
There was some terrorism.
So we judge terrorism differently depending on whose side it's on.
All right. And everything about that shooter, we don't care about that.
Melania Trump teases a second term as first lady.
Interesting. If Melania is down for a second term, that means Trump is definitely down for a second term, doesn't it?
Because I don't see Melania teasing about that unless she was sort of down to do it.
Hmm. Very interesting.
GOP governor says that rape victims should have to carry a baby to term.
Such a losing argument, I'll tell you.
You know, Separate from what is right or wrong, it's just a bad argument.
If you're trying to get elected, this is really a bad argument.
Let's see. Which governor is that?
GOP governor? Which one is it?
Let's see who would say such a silly thing.
Now, how many of you agree with that, by the way?
Because a lot of you are on the same page with it.
That he will call this person...
So, Republican of Nebraska.
Republican Governor Pete Ricketts.
Total ban. Now, of course I can understand it.
Of course I understand why a pro-life person would just be pro-life permanently.
So, in terms of morality, I would say that would be the most highest moral opinion.
So if you were going to say this Republican governor who says there should be a ban on abortions, including rape, I would say he is taking the highest moral stand by his assumptions that the child is alive and it's a human life.
So you can't argue with that part.
But morality has a little bit of wiggle room if you define it as not being a life, which many people do.
Yeah, the moral standard goes both ways.
Because if you define it as not yet alive, then it would be highly immoral to force someone who is alive, the mother, to do something this radical for something that isn't alive, if that's what your assumption is.
So since the only question is whether it's alive or not, Don't you get down to the...
By the way, I saw a lawyer, there was a woman who was arguing that the First Amendment is how you protect...
The First Amendment would be how you protect, in other words, freedom of religion, is how you protect abortion rights.
Let me try this argument out on you.
This is not my argument.
Everything I say about abortion Is not trying to influence which way the law goes.
I keep myself out of that.
Let the women work it out.
I'll back your majority, whatever you come up with.
So, here's the argument for a religious right to abortion.
You ready for this? If the reason that people want abortion to be illegal is based on their religious faith, that the life starts at conception, is that not one religion trying to force another people who are not of that religion to conform to their religion?
Is that not what's happening?
Now, I'm going to argue the other side, so don't worry that I have a point of view that you've seen yet, right?
But just as an argument, if you said to me, well, my religion says I can do this, your religion says I can't, is your religion not guiding me now?
Here's the problem. We've never had religious freedom in the United States.
This is just telling us what was always true.
You've never had religious freedom in the United States.
Did anybody teach you you had religious freedom?
Because you never did, and you never will.
What you have is the freedom to have a religion that is largely compatible with Christianity.
That's it. That's your only, that's your right.
Your right is to accept Christianity as your religion, but you could use different words for it.
You could call it moderate Islamic belief.
Because you're accepting a god, you're also saying that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, basically totally compatible on the big stuff.
Now let's say you wanted to have a religion that was satanic in nature, and that your religion said that you can kill human people for sacrifice.
Would that be legal? No.
No, that would not be legal.
Because it's not legal for a Christian to kill somebody.
So you wouldn't get to do it.
The only things you can do are the things that Christians say you can do.
That's it. There's nothing else.
So, as soon as you say, hey, you're violating my religious beliefs, my first statement is, you never have any religious freedom.
You have the freedom to be exactly like a Christian, but use different words for it.
You know, wear different clothes.
You know, have a different book.
You can do all that.
But if your religion says you can kill people, whoa!
Oh, hold on. No. Then we're going to go back to the Christian religion as your guardrail there.
So, the trouble with the argument is that it acts as though we've ever had religious freedom.
We never have. And never will.
Yes, honor killings would be an example.
There have been times when that was appropriate under, not appropriate, but allowed under some religion, right?
Were honor killings ever allowed at any time by any subset of people as within their religious rights and that, right?
So, how about beating your wife?
If there were a religion that said, yes, you can beat your wife, but, you know, don't use a stick that's any bigger than your thumb.
But otherwise you can beat your wife.
Perfectly fine. Would that be legal in the United States under the religious freedom First Amendment?
Would that be legal?
No, it wouldn't. Do you know why?
Because Christians don't like it.
That's why. That's it.
You don't have any freedom except to be a Christian.
Or a Christian-ish.
Or like them. Or similar to them.
That's it. Whole freedom.
Now, usually we don't even notice.
Because we pretty much all the major religions believe in one God.
Or at least they believe that murder is wrong.
So mostly we're on the same page by coincidence.
But then this question of whether a fetus is a human life this gets right to the religious belief thing and so if you're going to argue that religious freedom lets you take this let's say take this entity whether you want to call it a life or not then you get a problem because that is a genuine difference in religious belief and the Christians are mixed so in other words even Christians don't agree on whether this is a life or not So then it gets really messy.
But let's not imagine we ever have freedom of religion.
That was never real. That was always just a smokescreen for a Christian country.
And by the way, I'm not a believer, if anybody's new to me.
I'm not defending Christianity beyond the fact that, as a model, it seems to work.
You know, a lot of people are Christian and they have good outcomes, just as many people are Muslim and they have good outcomes as well.
You know, I'm in favor of religion.
When it works. And it usually seems to work.
So it's a pretty good system, in general.
I just don't buy into it, because I don't have the...
For whatever reason, I was born without the ability to be a believer.
Alright, let's see what Fox News is saying today.
See if anything looks different on that side of the world.
Well, wouldn't it be great if my Wi-Fi were?
Wouldn't that be great? Well, it's not.
Alright. Or is it?
No, it's not. Alright, did I miss any big stories?
Everyone knows it's a life?
I don't. I think that's always a mistake to say everyone thinks or everyone knows anything.
I don't believe it's a life.
At least at inception.
I believe it's an organic thing that has a potential for life.
So, in my view, there is potential for life And there's this long, you know, consciousness growth thing that starts at almost nothing, basically, and then goes to almost nothing and then gets bigger.
So I don't have an opinion of when life starts, but it's not the first second.
So that's the only part that I feel.
Now, if you say that your religious belief tells you that the first second is life, I'm okay with that.
I'm okay with that. Like I said, I'm not a believer, but I'm a big proponent of belief.
And so if your belief puts you in that camp, I think that's a perfectly moral, ethical, reasonable place to be.
It just doesn't match with my, let's say my instinct.
Just my instinct tells me that that's less than a conscious life.
But I wouldn't try to sell it to you.
How about that? Can we make an agreement that if I stay under the question, you know, I won't give you my opinion on abortion, that you won't argue with me about where I think life begins?
Because I'm not going to, you know, I'm not going to make that any kind of a point that you should act on.
Yeah. Alright.
What if you're stuck on Prisoner's Island?
How many of you are on Prisoner's Island right now?
If you don't know what that means, it means that you're in a bad situation, but you're going to win.
Alright. The Worldwide Child Hepatitis, I've not heard of it.
It is not on the front page of my news sources.
Now you're talking BS. I don't know which part.
You are not forced to be religion.
Here, that's what it's about.
Well, you're not forced to let the local voters decide when life begins.
Well, that would certainly be a political way to take care of it, but it certainly doesn't change the way people feel.
Scott, gay marriage is recognized even though it is anti-Christian.
No, it isn't. No, it isn't.
Because Christians say it's not anti-Christian.
See, if all the Christians were on the same side, then I'd say, oh yeah, there you go.
There's a case of doing something that's not Christian.
But Christians believe that same-sex marriage is okay.
Not all of them. So that would be not a case of being against Christianity, because Christianity doesn't have a decision on that.
It's a mixed bag.
All right.
And that is all for now.
And...
White House is lying about baby formula?
You know, the whole baby formula story I've been uninterested in because it all looked like bullshit to me.
Do you remember those big pallets of baby formula?
I saw somebody trying to debunk that as fake news.
I don't know what part was fake.
But I feel like the whole baby formula thing is the factual part is so murky.
I don't know what's going on there.
But here's a question.
Can babies only thrive if they have this special kind of baby formula?
Let's say they don't have an option of nursing in the natural way.
Is there only one way to feed a baby?
You can't take ordinary food-related things and grind them up into something that's liquid-ish and has...
Age matters.
Age matters. Not for the first few months.
So you're saying that if the first few months, that if a newborn didn't get human milk or formula...
That there's nothing you could feed them to keep them alive and thrive.
You know, let's say healthy and alive.
Can't do that? I mean, it must be true that you can't do that or it's hard to do it.
Not a newborn. Interesting.
They'll suffer later in life.
Okay, well, learning something here.
Alright, I guess I'd have to be more educated on this topic, but there's not much to say.
There seems to be some combination of Bad management that got us to this point.
But I think we'll fix it.
There were a lot of infant deaths pre-formulas.
Okay. Interesting.
All right. Well, that's all for now.
And I think we're going to turn off the YouTube feed.
We'll talk to the local subscriber here a little bit more.