Episode 1758 Scott Adams: Today We Will Sip A Beverage And Look On Brighter Side Of Life. Join Me
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Pending Supreme Court abortion decision
Top Gun Maverick
24 hours to get COVID pill you need right away?
Is food chain getting worse, or better?
Klaus Schwab's world vision?
HOAX updates
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
And welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams, the highlight of civilization.
And today we're going to put the positive spin on all the terrible things.
Does that mean we're bad people?
Well, some of us are, frankly.
But no, not necessarily.
Not necessarily.
You could take a day off from the tragedies.
You can, unless you're personally involved.
But if you'd like to just take a little mental, oh, let's say, floss, this would be the place to go.
And all you need to kick it off right is a cupper, a mug, or a glass, a tank, or a chalice, or a stein, a canteen jug, or a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
And join me now.
For the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine of the day, the thing that's already getting you a little bit of a tingle.
Admit it. A little bit of a tingle.
Go. All right, I have a provocative thought.
What if the Supreme Court never rules on Roe v.
Wade, after all? You know, we saw the...
We saw the leak, but we also know that the leak could be in the form of a document that was passed around to see if people would support it or what the best argument would look like.
But what if?
What if? Instead of just waiting for the right time to release it, because apparently these big decisions, they wait for a certain time of the year, which is not now, So somebody can fact-check me on this.
Is it at the end of the session or something?
Sometime in the summer?
Is it August? I forget.
August, October? Whatever it is.
So there's a time when they do the releasing of the big decisions and this is not yet the time.
So it could be that we haven't seen it because it's just not the right time.
On the other hand, what if they floated this thing just to see what the public reaction would be?
What if... Oh, somebody says June?
No, I think...
Really?
June? Oh, about June 30th, the end of June, somebody's saying.
Okay, well, I'm sure you're smarter than I am about Supreme Court stuff.
So let's say end of June.
Let's say that that's right, just because I read it in the comment, and how could that be wrong?
So... Maybe...
They floated it and they thought, no, it will tear the country apart, so let's back off.
Do you think there's any chance that that's going to happen?
Or that the decision is substantially rewritten?
I don't think that's going to happen, but...
Do you think there's any chance?
Any chance that you just won't see it and there'll never be an explanation why?
Very, very low chance...
Very, very low. But not zero.
Not zero.
It could actually happen.
And it could be that the public opinion is something they factor in.
Now here's why I think the Supreme Court should factor in public opinion.
Because they're the last credible institution.
And they're under assault.
They're credibility. If you lose the Supreme Court, your whole system is in a lot of trouble, right?
So it could have a cascading effect.
So I do think that the Supreme Court would take the health of the Republic and the credibility of the court itself as a higher priority than the technical rightness of a decision.
What do you think?
Forget about this question.
Just forget about Roe v.
Wade for a moment. Do you think, in general, this statement holds that the Supreme Court justices would favor the integrity and credibility of the court and the system over any specific ruling?
I'd say yes. And can you think of anything that would be more of a shock to the system than the Roe v.
Wade ruling.
Let's say that the majority court are Republican-leaning or conservative.
Do you think that the justices who would be presumably the ones overruling it, do you think those justices would be happy to have a Democrat elected president again?
Or do you think that they would prefer getting a Republican president?
Because think about the human beings who have to sign that thing.
On one hand, it would be, you know, a feather in their cap, I guess, forever.
Something maybe they've always wanted to do.
They'd be at the center of history.
There'd be lots of reasons to do it from their perspective.
But there'd also be a good reason not to do it if they thought it was going to rip the system apart.
Because as the justices have pointed out, the states will just make their own rules anyway.
So whatever happens is going to be at least more localized.
It's not like the biggest deal in the world in some sense.
It'll take a while for state laws to become whatever they're going to become.
But they don't really have to rule on this, do they?
They can just punt. They can just kick that can down the road forever.
So... If I were to predict, I will predict that it will be exactly what it looks like.
I'll predict that there will be a ruling and it looks just like the draft.
But today is, let's say, Good News Day.
I know some of you want it to be overturned.
But the good news would be that it protects the system.
That's what I think. It protects the system.
So... You might argue that you'd rather put the system at risk to save that many of what you think are babies.
That wouldn't be a ridiculous opinion.
The one thing about the whole abortion debate is that, am I the only one, I'm sure I'm not, right?
I would imagine this is closer to universal, that you have some respect for the other side.
Would you say? Maybe far more than other topics.
I would say that's true. No matter which side you come down on, you have to respect the other side.
I think in this topic, you have to respect it.
Especially if they show their work.
I'll tell you who I don't respect.
Someone who won't show their work.
This is why I believe it.
I know it has some costs.
Here are the benefits. I prefer these benefits to these costs.
If you can say it outright, then I'm going to respect that opinion, even if I disagree with it.
But as I've often said, I have a penis, for those of you who are not aware of that.
And I don't think that my opinion on abortion should be in any way persuasive.
So it's better if I don't give it to you.
Just stay out of it. Whatever women want to decide, or the public in general who wants to get involved, I will back it.
Whatever gets decided.
I'm okay with it. All right.
Because that means the majority.
I'm going to go with the majority on this one.
Because when you have a question that just can't be settled...
Do I think the outrage was enough to pressure a change?
That's a good question. I don't believe that the risk of violence in the streets would prompt the change.
Because I don't think there's that much risk of that.
I mean, there would be some, but it wouldn't be.
And I control. I think that the Supreme Court would know that making this ruling would be interfering in a presidential election.
Because it could change the result of the presidential election.
Do you think they might wait until after the presidential election?
Think about it. Now, somebody who's smart, give me a historical ruling on this.
Can the Supreme Court, or do they, as a precedent, do they take into consideration that what they're doing might affect how people vote, especially in a presidential election?
Do they take that into account?
Because I would think that the Supreme Court would time any decisions to have the smallest impact on politics, which would suggest that they would make this kind of a decision right after an election cycle, not right before a two-year cycle with both a congressional race and a presidential race.
Right? So, events always change elections, but not something this big and not directly coming from the Supreme Court.
I think that might matter.
We'll see. So I went to watch Top Gun last night.
How many of you have seen the movie Top Gun?
It's the first time I've been excited to see a movie in, I don't know, years.
And so here's my review.
Totally delivered.
It totally delivered.
If you say to me, Scott, there were many clichés in that movie, I will say to you, yes, there were.
But they did all the good ones.
Those are the ones you go to movies for.
It's not that there are clichés.
They all have clichés.
It's just that some are good ones.
Like the noble person who sacrifices.
Well, that's a good cliché.
I'll watch that all day long.
The person who was afraid, but then they became brave.
I'll watch that all day long.
Yeah, it makes me happy. I don't like it when somebody is tied to a chair to be tortured.
That's just bad writing.
Really? You can't get through an entire movie script without somebody tied to a chair, like every other movie.
Top Gun? Nobody's tied to a chair in Top Gun.
Now, I think that Tom Cruise is the one who gets the credit for the quality of his movies.
He's obviously working with the best producers and writers and everything.
So his staff is super talented.
But I feel like he must be looking at the script and saying, you know, take out this tied to a chair part, unless he has those in Mission Impossible.
Maybe he has some of those, I don't know.
But I feel like, because he has so much control over his movies, he's the one who's getting rid of the bad clichés and keeping the good ones that are the reason you pay for the movie in the first place.
It was a good thing. I would have said half an hour shorter.
It was a little too long.
Now, I have to tell you this, since I've been uninterested in movies and I don't really go to music festivals and stuff like that, that I think this is the first time that I can remember, since the beginning of the pandemic and even longer, that I was in a crowd, an unmasked crowd.
And I didn't realize how long it had been.
And I have to admit, there was some part of me that thought, uh-oh, am I going to get COVID? From being in an unmasked crowd for the first time in two and a half years or whatever.
It turns out I did not have to worry about that.
Now, the other people had to worry about it because it turns out I have COVID, but I didn't know that at the time.
And so as I was watching the movie and toward the end of the movie I was thinking, why does my body hurt so much?
Why does every muscle in my body hurt while I'm just sitting here watching a movie?
And then it started to grow, and I was like, I think my fingernails hurt.
I don't have much hair, but what I have is hurting.
Why does everything hurt?
And I had a little bit of a dry cough starting to form.
So I immediately went home and tested, and yep, I got the COVID. So, the irony is, I did not have to worry about catching COVID at the movie theatre, but the people next to me, they should be worried.
So, if you happen to be next to me...
If you happen to be watching the 3.45 showing in Dublin on the IMAX theatre, and you're sort of toward the right in the middle...
Now, I feel really bad about this, but the people that sat directly to the left were masked.
Oh, maybe you saved them.
Who knows? So let me tell you what last night was like.
Because you're going to ask.
I did have the initial two vaccinations.
So I'm not boosted.
Because I thought, well, I'll just get that Pfizer pill or whatever it is, if anything comes up.
So I go home last night, and I'm thinking, man, I've got to get me that Pfizer pill, or whatever it is, the one you get.
And, you know, so first of all, you're on the phone for an hour to get your health care provider, and then they say they'll book something, so I've got to have a Zoom call with a doctor after I'm done with this.
And then I'll get a prescription, and then I don't know how I'm going to get it.
Because I'm basically quarantined.
Not basically, I'm quarantined.
So it's this giant pain in the ass.
Now, wouldn't you think that at this point I should make a phone call and say, I just tested positive, and some of that Pfizer pill shit would just show up on my doorstep?
Is there a reason there isn't somebody literally driving that to my house?
Because I've got to wait 24 hours to get the pill that you need to take right away.
What? What?
Really? I have to wait all that time to get a pill that they're definitely going to give me.
You know, it's not like they're going to say, what, you have this certain condition?
You can't have this pill? There's nothing like that.
I mean, I don't have any weird conditions that would fit into that.
So I would say the system's kind of broken if it takes you a day to get the thing that you need to get right away.
Now, last night, I would say that I was...
The best phrase would be writhing in pain.
So if you're wondering what it's like to get Omicron after you've had a couple of vaccinations, writhing in pain for, I don't know, 10 hours or so.
My temperature was dysregulated, so I had the chills so hard that it hurts your muscles, like you're chattering, and then you immediately sweat, and then you immediately go to chills.
So I couldn't have a blanket on because it'd be too hot, and I couldn't take it off because it was too cold.
And there are only two conditions, blanket on, blanket off.
So all night long, I would take it on, take it off, take it off.
And I don't think I... I slept more than a couple hours last night.
So it was a horrible, horrible night.
However, it turns out that four bongs and two cups of coffee, largely cured.
Largely. You know, I'm still quarantined, so I'm going to take it easy.
But I feel fine.
So, you know, I'm not...
I'm not exaggerating when I said, I was really sick last night.
Like, I was really sick.
You know, stomach, head, throbbing, everything.
Eh, next day, I'm fine.
So, that happened.
Gavin Newsom has COVID. He's more vaccinated than I am, so maybe he'll do better.
Or maybe not.
Maybe not. Alright, here's some economic optimism.
Does anybody want some economic optimism?
Anybody? Economic optimism number one.
Employment rates are still very good.
And this will be the ultimate test of the Adams economic theory that I'm naming at the moment.
That as long as your employment rate is good, you can kind of figure out everything else.
You know, it won't be comfortable, but you're not going to be, you know, in desperate starvation straits as long as everybody is working for the most part.
And that's our current condition.
But we have unprecedented kinds of, you know, inflation and supply chain problems and maybe nuclear war and energy shocks and you name it.
But there is reason to be optimistic today.
Number one, the Shanghai-China lockdowns, they're starting to ease them, which is good news.
If they ease them more, then China gets back online.
So that puts the supply chain, at least that part of the supply chain, on a little bit stronger basis.
There seems to be a slowdown in the housing market.
For the purchase of new homes, which apparently is what the Fed wanted.
So they raised interest rates to slow down that market.
It doesn't get too far ahead of itself, too bubbly.
It's pretty bubbly. So that's good news.
I mean, it sounds on paper, if you don't study economics on paper, that sounds like bad news.
It's like, wait, the value of my house will be less or something.
But in the current situation, you don't want any big bubbles.
You want things to be predictable.
So it's better that the housing market cools off.
That's all positive. Very positive.
So now we've got the supply chains, which haven't starved us yet, seem to be kicking into place.
Now there is, we get warning noises about beef, might have less beef, etc.
But don't you think that the alternative protein markets are going nuts right now?
If you're in the business of making any kind of alternative protein, I'll bet you're doing okay.
So I think there's going to be a whole resurgence in how we eat and the whole thing.
Has it ever bugged you how many times food has to change hands before it goes into your mouth?
Like, you get that the farmer has to grow it, right?
But then it, you know, gets washed and puts in containers and it's shipped and it puts on a shelf and then you take it off the shelf and you put it in a cart, you take it out of your cart, you put it on a Conveyor, you take it out of the conveyor, you put it in a bag, you put it in the bag, you put it in your thing, you take your thing, you put it in the car, you take the car, you put it down, you put it on the counter, take it out of the bag, put it in the...
And then you've got to take it out of the container when you eat it.
That is all...
That is all so inefficient.
Something tells me that we're going to figure out how to make food local.
Maybe 3D printers?
Maybe. Maybe everybody will just get a big pile of protein and carbs and put it in their printer and have a perfect meal every time.
Maybe. Who knows? Now, you might say to yourself, Scott, Scott, Scott, I will never eat a food that comes out of a printer to which I say, how's that different than soup?
It's no different than soup.
It's just a bunch of stuff put in a bowl that tastes good.
So just put it in a printer.
It just spits out the food a different way.
So yes, you can make 3D printed food extraordinarily tasty.
So that's the good news.
Are you... Are you thinking what I'm thinking, that the supply chain is getting solved and we just don't know about it?
Or is it getting worse and worse and there's going to be some gigantic catastrophe?
Because I feel like the news likes to report impending disasters.
So I've got a feeling that reporters are looking into the impending disasters and not finding them.
Or... Or...
Do they have some kind of orders from the government to not report on it?
Because it would cause a run on certain things, and it's better if you didn't know.
Don't you wonder why there's no reporting on the cataclysmic supply chain effects that are right ahead of us?
Because these alleged cataclysmic things should be happening over the summer, maybe?
By the winter? It's pretty soon.
So doesn't it make you think that we've already figured out workarounds?
Or am I wrong? Maybe we're just getting by with fewer choices and it didn't really make much difference at all.
Just some companies can't deliver their product, but others deliver more, and so you're fine.
I don't know. So I've got a feeling that the supply chain thing maybe isn't that big a problem.
You know, in the end. We'll see.
And not that it isn't a big problem, but that we're so good at making adjustments in a trillion different ways and everywhere in the system, I think we'll just get past it.
All right. Does everybody like the optimism yet?
So I've been talking about these small homes that you can put up for $30,000, $40,000.
You know, a little home that's got a bathroom and a kitchen and a bedroom.
And you can just ship it to the site and assemble it.
Well, one of them is called Boxable.
And Dave Rubin was informing me by tweet today that Elon Musk has an investment in Boxable.
So he's one of the investors.
So even Elon Musk is in this...
This growing field of the homes that you can just slap together from kits, basically.
So, I've been telling you that this is going to be the big thing.
They won't look exactly like these version 1.0s, in the same way that your automobile today does not look like a Model T. But when you see how popular these are, Poorly made.
Now when I say poorly made, I only mean compared to what they will evolve to.
They're not poorly made for today's technology and stuff.
But what they will evolve to will be amazing.
They'll be way better than what you're living in there.
If I haven't mentioned this before, there's a planned community, a neighborhood that's built to be free from cars.
So you can walk everywhere.
So if they design it so that all the stuff you need is in walking distance, and they have, like, I guess electric scooters and electric bikes and stuff you can just grab and go.
Free public transportation.
So it's Cul-de-sac Tempe, Tempe, Arizona.
And the organization is called cul-de-sac.com.
So they're actually designing communities to make them more livable, car-free.
But is that enough?
I love the fact that it's a car-free community.
It's sort of like college. That was kind of a car-free community.
But I feel like that's just one variable.
Like, what about making us less lonely?
What about making us safer?
I mean, it might do those, too.
But they don't talk about that stuff.
Because those are all the things that make...
What about being cheaper?
What about being affordable?
What about being more green?
It sounds like it's pretty green.
So we'll give them that. Anyway, I think these are the big trends.
On Axios, writer Erica Pandy tells us that one in three Americans, adults, don't get enough sleep.
And enough sleep is defined as seven or more hours a night.
Is there anybody who gets more than seven hours a night of sleep?
In the comments, how many of you get seven or more hours per night?
Wow! Wow! A lot of you do.
I'll be darned. I didn't even know it was possible.
I mean, by the time you wake up at 7am, you know, I've already worked on two careers.
So I don't know what you guys are...
You're missing a lot.
But, on the other hand, apparently you will live longer than I will, and you'll be happier and healthier.
So... Good for you.
So keep up that sleep.
But apparently Americans are getting less and less.
And here was a tip that I've seen before, but this is so useful, I thought I'd share it with you.
Here's a simple tip to improve your sleeping that has one interesting characteristic.
Well, two. It's super easy to do.
And number two, you're not going to do it.
You're not going to do it.
Neither am I. Here's that good advice.
Stop looking at your screens 30 minutes before you try to go to sleep.
Really? You think I'm going to not look at my phone 30 minutes before I hit the bed?
What kind of little house on the prairie world do you live in that you can go more than 30 minutes without looking at a screen?
A book. Ah!
Tss! Get away from me with your paper books.
Yeah. I guess listening to music's okay, but the way I do it, I usually have to look at a screen to select the music.
So, there's your tip of the day.
Turn off your screens. No, you won't do it.
Let me ask you this.
Are mass shootings a big problem or a small problem?
Here's why I ask. The news business needs to put faces and names on stories.
Because you would not read a story about a concept.
You would only read a story about, oh, this farmer lost their farm because of this.
Or this person was the victim of this or that.
So the news needs to put names and faces on stories.
And what is the predictable effect...
Of having to put names and faces on all your stories.
Well, the predictable fact is that the more easily you can put a sympathetic name on it, the more attention it will get.
What would excite our senses in the worst possible way more than murder of children?
Nothing, right?
That's it.
That's the highest one. So given that they will have names and faces, which is already happening, it's inevitable that we would look at things with names and faces as the important things.
But are they? Now, let me be clear.
If you or somebody new were a victim of some tragedy, this one or any other, that's the most important thing in your world, for sure.
But the world is full of tragedies.
Do we not get to rank them so that we know which ones we should focus on?
Because right now the news is ranking them by how easily you can put a face on it.
That's it. The stories you see are based on how easily you can put a face on it.
Do you know how many times, given that I'm in this business, do you know how many times I've been asked to put a face on something or a name?
It's just the most common thing that people in this business ask for.
Okay, but I need a face and a name to make this story.
So if there are a whole bunch of victims in the story, there's going to be lots of faces and names.
But if you were to measure the size of this problem...
Gun murders versus the size of our other problems.
Where would it be? Now, remember, 20 kids, if you were to multiply it by the number of years each of them has left on average, that's robbing the most human spark, I guess. So that would be worse than 20 senior citizens in terms of number of living years that were lost.
So, it makes sense that anything with kids is a tragedy, and nothing affects us more emotionally.
But I'm trying to put it in context, and I'm not sure I can.
Because as much as I value, you know, I like to think I can rationalize things and try to take my emotion out of it, I don't know if I can.
Because how do you rank, like, death of children...
Compared to anything. I mean, it's just always going to be worse, even if it's just one.
It just will feel that way.
So be aware that you are being, let's say, unknowingly manipulated to care most about topics that have the most faces.
And once you realize that, you can say to yourself, okay, is this something that really...
we need to get on this and change it?
Or is it not that big of a deal?
I don't know. It'll help you figure that out.
And I don't really know. So if you look at even the stories on gun control, they've got to put Ted Cruz's name on it, his name and face.
You've got to put Trump's name and face on it.
So everything's got to be a name and a face.
I was challenged yesterday, well, actually a number of times, for not knowing enough about Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum in Davos.
And so I said to myself, well, I've got some idea what he's about, but I'll go to Wikipedia and see if there's anything, like, big that I'm not aware of.
And I have to think that when somebody else is being described, That the third party doesn't always do a good job.
But if the way he's being described in Wikipedia is accurate in terms of his ideas, that would be interesting.
We'll tell you what it is in a minute.
So... He argues that governments are no longer the overwhelmingly dominant actors on the world stage and that, quote, the time has come for a new stakeholder paradigm of international governance.
Okay. So he's for some new way that the governments will operate.
And it's something beyond governments.
So there'd be governments plus something else.
I guess he'll describe it here.
And he says, the time has come for a new stakeholder paradigm of international governance.
So international, meaning across borders.
So there'd be some kind of governing entity that wouldn't be limited to your country.
Red alert, red alert.
All right. And then the vision includes a public-private UN... In which certain specialized units would operate under joint state and non-state governance systems.
So in other words, the private enterprise would be part of government.
So you say to yourself, wait a minute, what part of private enterprise, like a company, should be making government decisions?
Like, how do you decide what company you trust enough to make decisions like a government?
And he has an answer to that.
Here's how you choose them. They would be self-selected.
What? What?
A self-selected coalition of multinational corporations and governments through the UN system.
And they would select a civil society organization.
So basically he's saying that big companies, they would self-select.
They would have to volunteer to be this.
Would work with the governments, such as they are, which would be weakened, across country lines to create some kind of separate organizations that run everything.
And according to this Wikipedia article, which I can't believe is true.
I can't believe this is true, honestly.
It looks like something is left out, doesn't it?
Yeah, I think there's something like majorly left out of the story.
Because I can't believe anybody would say with a straight face that we want to get rid of the democratic systems and replace them with private corporations, multinational corporations.
So not just corporations in one country, but multinational corporations that would self-select So they'd decide they wanted to be in charge, and then they'd put themselves in charge.
How in the world could that be serious?
How in the world could that be serious?
What am I missing? Is there a whole part of the story that they just don't mention here on Wikipedia?
Because this doesn't even look a little bit like it's going to happen.
Why would you even worry about this?
Is it because a lot of people go to Davos, so therefore it looks like it might actually happen?
I don't see any scenario in which the United States gives up control to corporations that self-select they want to be in control.
You're saying it's serious?
I've got a real question about it.
I feel as if there's something more to the explanation that, if you heard it, would not sound so batshit crazy.
Because remember, Klaus Schwab is, he's not only an engineer, he's an economist.
So do you think somebody who's an engineer and an economist would come up with an idea that's so obviously bad?
I feel like there's something left out.
Unless it really is just totally crazy talk.
Maybe. AOC is not an economist.
I wouldn't say that. She just studied economics.
Well, maybe. Okay. If you want to say somebody who studied economics is an economist.
All right. His father was a full-blown Nazi, somebody says.
Yeah. You know, I'm not going to judge any Germans by what their parents did in World War II. Is that fair?
Can we let go of that?
If somebody's parents did something in World War II... I'm gonna let go of that.
It's time. Time to let go.
All right.
What else is going on?
And there's some hoax updates.
So this one, I think even the hoax update might be a hoax.
I don't know. But there's some lesser publication, lesser-known publication.
I don't know if they're lesser quality, but they're a lesser-known publication saying that FBI documents reveal the U.S. may have funded Charlottesville rioters through Ukrainian neo-Nazi group.
Documents show the ties between the Azov Battalion and the U.S. rioters.
Now, I don't doubt that there's some connection...
Between peoples. But I've got a feeling that nobody...
I don't think the FBI or anybody was knowingly funding that.
But I ask you this provocative question.
Where are they now?
Where are all those people who marched without masks?
In the age of facial recognition, all those people marched without masks, and we never really hear from them, do we?
I feel like...
You would expect that the news would have found a few years later and say, you participated in that march, how do you feel about it?
But I don't think you can find them.
I don't think you can find them.
I'm not so sure...
They were all totally organic.
I mean, I'm not denying the existence of people just like that in the United States, but the event specifically might have had a little bit of theatre involved that we don't know about.
Not to say there were not real racists there.
Clearly there were, which we disavow.
Um... A few more hoax updates.
There was a Rupar edit of Biden snubbing Modi.
You know, India's Prime Minister Modi.
But apparently that's just a misleading edit.
So if you see a video that looks like Biden is snubbing Modi, that didn't happen.
Here's another one. Let's see.
Oh, there's two fake stories.
So CNN is debunking fake stories about Ted Cruz and Governor Abbott of Texas.
That feels like something.
Because I feel like they would have just ignored it before.
But fairly prominently, They debunked two claims against Cruz and Abbott.
So it doesn't matter what they are, I think.
They're just...
Well, it matters.
One alleges to show that Ted Cruz always says the same thing after every mass shooting.
But that's fake.
So simply just fake some tweets.
And the other one showing Abbott did something bad that didn't really happen.
Now... Here's some more good news.
It turns out that if the Russians have to compete with the Iranians to sell illegal oil because there are sanctions on Iran and Russia, this is really bad news for Iran.
So Iran at least had an ability to sell to sketchy markets.
You know, they could sell to China, but they could sell to, you know, sketchier countries.
But as soon as Russia can only also sell to those same sketchy countries, including China, it makes the price of Iranian oil go way down.
Because apparently the Iranian oil is just crap compared to the Russian oil.
If you had a choice, you want the Russian oil.
It's easier to refine. So apparently the Iranian oil Revenue from oil is down like 25% already since the sanctions on Russia.
And Iran was not doing that well, so there's actually a thought that, weirdly, the war in Ukraine might lead to a tightening of the economic woes in Iran, which would lead them to be flexible to negotiate something with a nuclear deal that made sense.
So maybe, maybe, the war in Ukraine is going to cause Iran to make a peace deal in the Middle East.
Maybe. Could happen.
So that is the good news for the day.
Of course, China wins because they're getting cheap oil.
You know, strangely enough, I'm not sure I did choose.
At least Pleasanton chose me.
Long story there.
All right. Voting for Schellenberger.
Holy... $8.75 a gallon in Vancouver?
That's Canadian money.
Which is pretty close, right?
Canadian dollar or US dollar are kind of close at the moment?
4.14, where do you live?
Buy crypto, not gas, you say?
Electric bikes are going to be everywhere.
there.
All right, well, I'm going to go get ready to talk to my doctor and get some COVID pills, and I will be back in the real world in nine and a half days.
So I might do some extra live streams.
Because I'll be locked in.
So I might need some social outlet.
So that's on you.
You're going to have to put up with me a little bit extra, I think.
All right. But the good news is, if that's the worst that Omicron has to throw at me, it was a really, really bad night.
