Episode 1903 Scott Adams: I'm Grumpy This Morning. This Will Not Go Well
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Lara Logan kicked off Newsmax
Biden releases more strategic reserve oil
The Blaze vs Bill Gates
Dr. Aseem Malhotra vs Pfizer COVID vaccinations
Vaccinated vs unvaccinated, death rates
Kari Lake's presence and persuasiveness
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 the grumpy version of Coffee with Scott Adams.
Normally, my cheery optimism is impossible to turn off.
But today, I warn you, I'm grumpy.
And I don't know where the fuck this is going to go this morning, because I don't have any filters today.
Do you ever wake up and have no filter?
I would fucking kill somebody today.
Like, today's the kind of day, no joke, I wish for a home invasion.
Because a fight to the death would be exactly what I'm up for right now.
Like, actually, you know, somebody comes into your home to do violence to you, and somehow you get the upper hand.
Today's the day I would finish them off.
Like, if I got them on the ground, there's no way I'd let them leave the house alive.
So that's the kind of day I'm having.
So if you'd like to join me, all you need is a cupper mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee and I wish I had some in my cup, but my fucking coffee machine doesn't work this morning.
So I'm going to fake drink from a cup that doesn't have any fucking coffee in it.
Did I mention... I'm grumpy this morning?
Go. Yeah, if that had been coffee, that would have been amazing.
I'm sure all of you are enjoying your morning.
Yeah, I got two coffee makers and they're both fucked up right now.
Let's talk about...
How did this happen?
Somehow I printed out yesterday's notes, which is weird, because they don't exist.
So I don't know how that happened.
I deleted all of my notes from yesterday, and then printed out the...
because I use the same documents, the same document.
How is it possible that I spent all morning writing in a blank document...
And then when I printed that document, it was yesterday's notes.
Not entirely sure, but while you're there, I'm going to check and see if I put those in the wrong hole.
That is the weirdest thing.
So, to say that everything's not working this morning would be an understatement.
Well, I'll be damned.
Oh, I see what I did.
Yep. I did the one thing.
I tell myself, whatever you do...
I've got two files that I use in the morning.
One of them, I have a rule, which is, whatever you do, do not edit this file.
This file can never change, because it's the one I need right before I go live.
It's the one that has the link for the YouTube.
So there's one that I can never, ever change, and then there's one I change every day.
I did it the other way around this morning.
So it's like the one thing you're not supposed to do.
But I got my new notes. All right.
I'd be surprised if anybody's still watching this disaster of a livestream.
Rename the file, no edits, that wouldn't help.
Did I mention I didn't have coffee this morning?
Nothing would have helped me this morning.
David Sachs, as you know, he's made his suggestion for how to settle the Ukraine situation and got a lot of criticism.
And so, based on that criticism, David Sachs tweets today, I'm willing to listen to experts, just not the experts who got us into Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya.
Left out Ukraine.
The other people you shouldn't listen to are the people who got you into Ukraine.
Yeah, those are the other people you shouldn't listen to.
Let me ask you something.
Is there anybody who watches this live stream who still thinks that you should listen to the experts?
Like, does that even sound like a criticism that works in 2022?
If somebody tells you, hey, why don't you listen to the experts?
You know what the best response to that is?
This is 2022.
Where have you been for the last two years?
Listening to the experts has caused every fucking problem we have.
All of them. All the problems are the experts.
Laura Logan got kicked off on Newsmax, I guess.
Anybody follow that story?
So Laura Logan went, I guess, full replacement theory, and she believed...
This is the part that just blows my mind.
So she said on Newsmax, and by the way, I'm just reporting what she said before she was kicked off on Newsmax.
So I'm not telling you my opinion on these topics.
But apparently she said that she talked to somebody who had infiltrated, I don't know, the UN or something, and he held in his hand a document that proved that there was a big plan to replace the democracies by bringing in lots of immigrants and then they would...
Help change the world in some way.
And that's, I guess it's racist and blood libel and there's all kinds of stuff wrapped into that stuff.
But here's the part.
What she said was she talked to a guy who claimed he held in his hand the document that proved what he said was true.
Isn't there something missing in that story?
All right, all right. So you talked to a guy who held in his hand, it was right in his hand, the proof he needed it.
Right there, there's the guy, there's his hand.
Was there any point, Lara, where you said, could you maybe hand that thing in your hand over to one of my hands, and then I would have that in my hand, and then I would open it, and then look at it with my eyes, and then I would see if that looked real or not.
But no, her story is that she talked to a guy who says he had it in his hand.
And if that's not proof, I don't know what is.
So I don't care what else she said that got her bumped off of Newsmax.
I think I would have fired her just for saying that a guy had proof in his hands.
He's got proof in his hands.
Well, that's good. That's good.
Do you know that there's now proof that UFOs are real?
Yeah, there's proof.
A lot of people are speculating that UFR is not real, but I've got the proof in my hand.
It's right here. Right here.
Oh, you'd like to see it?
Sorry. It doesn't work that way.
Proof's in my hand. Right there.
So I feel like there's something left at the end of that story.
I am quite amused as I watch the Democrats try to explain why things are really going well or why Biden should remain president for longer than four years.
And the best job of this I've seen was actually hilarious because the argument for the Democrat side is kind of disappearing.
So this is what Chris Hayes said as the reason...
So he's explaining why it made sense for Biden to release the gas, not the gas, to release the oil from the National Reserve.
And he explains that the reason why that's okay, and that even though it's purely political, is purely political in a good way, because it prevents fascists from taking over.
So using up our emergency reserve system At the same time, we're giving up our weapons.
I guess we're giving away our weapons.
And we're giving away our National Reserve.
But that's okay. Because if this lowers gas prices and it allows Biden to win, I'll just read you Chris Hayes' argument.
He goes, quote, We find ourselves in a situation where keeping gas prices low is key to preserving and strengthening the future of our democracy.
And so, here we are.
Hence, Biden releasing oil from the reserves today.
Releasing our oil so that Biden gets re-elected Is justified because the main thing is that Biden gets re-elected and we keep these risks to our democracy and to the White House.
I've got to say, one of the things I always say about lawyers is you always have to listen for the other side's argument because lawyers are really good at making an argument out of nothing.
And This is pretty good.
I mean, it's completely unpersuasive, of course.
But he had nothing to work with.
Imagine being on the Democrat side in your pundit.
He had nothing to work with.
But he still built a little structure that makes sense in its own way.
Yes, it does make sense that the only way to preserve democracy is releasing that oil.
And it actually tracks.
Like, one does connect to the other point.
It's kind of...
I was impressed.
It's not a good point, but given what he had to work with, it was quite an effort.
I don't know. I have to applaud that.
The Blaze has...
They're setting new records here.
They got two fake newses and one tweet.
So here's what they say.
They say, Bill Gates says a Russian invasion of Ukraine will be, quote, good for the long run because it will force countries to transition to green energy.
Praises ESG investment.
Both of those are fake news.
Fake news. Here's why.
Bill Gates, let's do the first part.
Bill Gates says a Russian invasion of Ukraine will be, quote, good for the long run.
Take it out of context.
I say exactly the same thing.
Has anybody criticized me for saying it?
How often do I say nobody wants a war, but it's nonetheless true that wars spur innovation?
Does that sound like I love me some war?
Mmm, love war, because of all the good points, the innovation that comes out of it.
So does it look like I'm in favor of war?
Because the innovations are worth having?
No. So when Bill Gates says that the Russian invasion of Ukraine will be good for the long run, what he's specifically talking about is energy sources that don't bind us to other countries and they're good for the environment and everything else.
Now remember, Bill Gates is heavily invested in nuclear energy.
So when Bill Gates says it's good for the long run, he is including it's good for the nuclear energy business, which most of you would agree is a good thing.
Now, do you think it's a bad thing that Germany is turning its nuclear power plants back on?
Don't we all think that's a good thing?
So here's the blaze acting like he's some kind of fucking vampire who's happy about the Ukraine war because it's good for his green investments.
Nothing the fuck like that happened.
This was Bill Gates saying exactly what I say all the time which is nobody wants this bad thing to happen but it is nonetheless the case that bad things cause you to innovate and sometimes the innovations are good.
Where is the problem with that, really?
Does anybody have a problem with the fact that wars spur innovation?
It's just a statement of fact.
How about the second part?
He praises ESG investments.
Completely false.
He's on record for saying that the reporting requirements of ESG are crazy, because we don't have a second way to make steel.
Steel is just going to be, you know, energy intensive and bad for the environment, or you don't make steel.
Nobody has another way to do it.
So when Bill Gates praises ESG investment, he's not saying the reporting part, which is really the ESG, he's saying the concept.
The concept of ESG is fine.
Who's against a healthier environment?
The concept is fine.
And again, he's for nuclear energy.
And nuclear energy would be great for the environment.
So this is just two fake news from the blaze.
I hate that I have to be in a position of it looks like I'm defending Bill Gates, but I'm not, because he can defend himself.
I'm simply saying that the news is fake.
That's not defending him.
Do you know Seth Abramson?
So he's a notable Democrat activist, operative, bandit, I don't know.
He's an active voice in the Democrat Party.
And he says that the news media, at least the TV news media, has gone right-wing.
Is that what you see? You see the media has gone right-wing?
And here's his argument.
Isn't it amazing that you live in the same world with Seth Abramson?
And that his view of what is happening in the real world is just completely opposite of what I think most of you or all of you see.
So his argument that the TV news is drifting right is that Newsmax and, what is it, One Network, whatever it is, so there have been some new media that have come into being that lean right.
So, OAN, yes, OAN. So he's using Newsmax and OAN as being more recent networks as evidence of the move to the right.
And then he also lists CNN. He goes, CNN's moving to the right.
Is CNN moving to the right?
Apparently the middle is the right now.
Has anybody seen CNN do anything that looked like a move to the right?
I mean, it's right from where they were, for sure.
But I think that they were targeted directly at the middle, and they're pretty close to the middle, actually.
If you've watched CNN lately, they're much closer to the middle, wouldn't you say?
I don't know if they're, you know, you could quibble about specifics, but I'd say they're closer to the middle.
So, and I think they're a little bit more watchable, too.
So I think it's working.
You know, I don't know if it works for me.
I don't know if it works for their numbers.
But it's kind of amazing to live in a world and know that there's somebody who would say that perspective in public like we can all see it.
Isn't that weird? When you say something like this in public, what you're saying is, well, you can all see this too.
I'm just, you know, describing what you see.
I'll say that. All right.
The best Halloween costume I've seen, just so I go by on Twitter, I'll describe it so that you can do it too.
So I think you can buy Joe Biden masks.
You can usually buy a mask of the president, right?
So you get a Joe Biden mask, and then you get a little fake skull or something, and you put the mask on whatever it is that's like a head.
And then you... You have your young daughter stick it in the side of her shirt so it looks like Joe Biden is sniffing her hair.
That's the whole costume.
It's pretty good. All right.
So how many of you are watching on right-leaning media?
Dr. Rasim Malhotra, Who's a cardiologist and consultant, consulting cardiologist, I think.
And he believes he's looked at the data, the Pfizer data in particular, and thinks that there's enough bad indications in the known data, you know, in the known data, that the vaccination should be pulled.
Now, I watch this and I say to myself, wow, he's looking at information that is available to the public.
My understanding is right.
So he's looking at information we can all look at so all cardiologists can look at the same stuff.
Look, Holling, I'm just going to fuck off.
Just fuck off. You're already starting.
Like, what is your point?
Are you just trying to be an asshole?
Let me even remove, put user in timeout.
Let me even finish the fucking point, okay?
I warned you I'm grumpy today, so don't get on me.
So here's my question.
It's a doctor with credentials who is pointing to public information, And he's looking right at it and saying, look at this public information.
Hey, everybody, look at this.
This would tell you that the medical advice you're getting is all wrong.
Where are the other people who say, yeah, I looked at exactly what he looked at.
Yeah, he's right. Where are those people?
Is it really true that we can't get more of these people?
Is he the... Like the one brave one?
Because he's pointing to something very specific.
He's not saying look at everything, right?
He's looking at either a study or specific information.
Can't we all look at that?
Now, if I looked at it, it wouldn't help, because I'm not an expert, not a doctor.
But can't the other doctors look at exactly what he's looking at and at least tell you, yes, he's interpreting this correctly, but Or, no, he's incorrectly interpreting it.
They don't even need to have an opinion, do they?
I feel as if...
Here's what is missing.
So, as useful as it is to see rogue opinions or ones that disagree with the mainstream, it doesn't help me unless it's paired with a counterargument.
You tell me you can't get anybody from Pfizer to be on a show with that guy?
At all? There's nobody from Pfizer, there's no top doctor who's also looked at the same information and is on the other side.
You can't get him on to say, no, that guy looked at the wrong thing or he interpreted it wrong?
We are being so fucked over by the news that Both left and right.
So I'm going to include Fox News in the bad category here.
So I watched Laura Ingraham's show, and she had this doctor on.
But if she doesn't ever have a doctor on who disagrees with this doctor, has she done a good service?
Let me ask that. I hate to make this personal, because I like Laura Ingraham.
But... But is that a good service to us to put one doctor on when most of the medical community is on the other side?
We think. We haven't heard from them, so maybe not.
I don't know. I don't feel like that moved the ball forward.
I think it was provocative and maybe, you know, there's value for the first red flag, right?
There's value to raise alarms when somebody qualified is raising an alarm.
But if it just ends there, what service has been done to the viewing public?
I think Laura Ingram absolutely needs to get somebody on there to say that guy's wrong, and why?
Now, it'd be nice to have them on at the same time.
But if you can't get somebody on there to give the counter-argument, should you trust it?
Should you trust anything he says until you've seen the counterargument?
There might not be one.
It could be that the reason you don't see a counterargument is nobody has one.
That's entirely possible.
But somebody needs to tell us that.
Tell us. Tell us.
Is there no argument? There's nobody on the other side?
Because it's possible there isn't.
Maybe. Anyway, you are so underserved by your news.
And I don't have an opinion of whether...
Let me give you my most updated...
We don't call them vaccinations anymore, right?
My updated shot opinion.
What is more dangerous, the vaccination or the mRNA shot?
Here's my current opinion.
You ready? Don't know.
Don't know. I can't tell.
Let's see if...
Now, many of you think that you have a pretty strong opinion one way or the other.
Do you think...
Let me ask it this way.
Do you think anybody should have a strong opinion given the information that's available?
Should you have a strong opinion?
Well, let me put it this way.
A strong opinion about whether it works.
You could have a strong opinion about whether you should take it.
That's different. I'm not saying whether you should take it.
That decision can be easier.
But do you have a strong opinion about whether, you know, the claims are relatively accurate, that it protects you?
You know, what's weird is I don't even see something developing in the world that would help us.
Usually you see a solution starts to emerge whenever there's a problem.
Somebody's usually working on the solution right away because you can make money from it.
I don't see anybody working on a solution to the question of why we, the public, can't even determine if the experts are lying to us or if they're on the same side or even if they will talk to each other and have a conversation.
We don't get any of that.
So here's my take. Until you see debates between pro-vax and anti-vax people on the same platform, until you see that, you can't know anything.
And I don't recommend that you assume anything that any of them that they say is true.
How's that opinion? Would you agree that until you see both the experts that are pro and con arguing together, side by side, until you see that, everything you know about the vaccination is fuck nothing.
Right? It's fuck nothing.
It's fuck nothing.
Because we don't live in a world where we're listening to one side as any use at all.
No use. There's no utility to what Laura Ingraham's show gave you in terms of deciding.
It's always good to raise flags.
So let me acknowledge that raising a flag, that's always a useful thing to do.
But it doesn't give you an answer.
We're nowhere near an answer.
And nobody's working on it.
Let me say this again.
It's the biggest question in the whole fucking country.
Right? Nobody is working on the solution which is putting the two experts together, or more, and having them talk at the same time to each other and show their work.
Now, am I wrong that that would be the answer?
We've got a government who's saying, huh, I wonder why we can't convince people to take the vaccination.
I wonder why.
Well, let me tell you why.
Because the way you explain it to us is like a liar.
Okay? If you explain it to us exactly the way a liar talks, we're not going to fucking believe you.
Doesn't matter if you're right or you're wrong.
I don't care what your science is.
If the way you talk to me is exactly like liars talk, well, I'm not going to fucking believe you.
So you need to fix that.
Do you know how liars don't talk?
They show you both of your arguments.
And they give you plenty of time, and maybe they even, you know, come back and say, well, you know, we were wrong about this, but we looked into it.
Probably takes at least two or three iterations of the same two experts talking before you have anything.
We are so far from anybody even attempting, attempting to solve the problem.
And I want to say this as clearly as possible.
I'm not complaining that the problem isn't fucking solved, the problem of having the two experts talk at the same time.
I'm saying nobody's working on it.
And we all know what the fucking answer is.
Put the experts on at the same fucking time.
Somebody. Put them on at the same fucking time.
If you don't do that, you're not working for the American people.
You're working for your fucking cliques and your paycheck.
Which is fine. It's a free market.
You can work for your cliques and your paycheck.
But don't fucking pretend you're helping us, because you're not.
You're making it worse. Every fucking time you put one expert on without the other side, you're making it fucking worse.
Fucking worse. Here's what we need.
We need a platform where we can make bets on whether the vaccinated or the unvaccinated die the most over the next year or two.
Now, I don't know if we can collect the data on that, but let's make it a betting market, right?
You want to be so sure that you're right?
Put your money on it.
Put your money on it. How many of you would bet $1,000 that vaccinations are more bad than good for people over 60?
Go. Who would bet $1,000 that the vaccinated people over 60 are going to die at a higher rate than the unvaccinated once you've corrected for all the other variables?
Anybody? Okay, a few people.
A few people. Okay.
Well, actually, I'm totally surprised at the answers.
So most of you actually believe that the vaccinations protect people over 60.
Hold on. Stop your answers for a moment.
Let's clear out the cache.
Clear out your... Because I want to get a sense of what you believe my audience.
All right. My audience...
Do you believe that vaccinations are more good than bad if you're over 60?
Go. Over 60, vaccinations good or bad?
All right, I'm looking at the answers streaming by.
Mostly saying good, but I'm getting some people saying bad.
Yeah, it's mixed.
It's mixed. By how confident are you?
This is interesting.
When I asked if people would bet $1,000, very few people said they would.
But when I said, are they helping or hurting, then suddenly people were willing to give their opinion.
Am I wrong that there are a lot of people who have opinions that they would not back with their own money?
That's what it looked like.
Do a lot of you have opinions you would not bet on?
Let me ask you directly.
Well, I think, you know, I'm not going to get anything useful out of the streaming answers.
Interesting. All right.
Well, I was just interested in which way you'd go.
But why don't we have the betting?
We should have the betting market for that.
All right, let me give you a persuasion analysis of Cary Lake, which you all want, don't you?
Don't you want me to analyze Cary Lake?
You know you do. You know you do.
Alright, here it comes. Number one, I note that the people on the right often refer to her as a network news veteran.
Right? So she's like a network news person.
But she was a weather person, am I right?
Didn't she work on weather?
Can you fact check that?
I don't think she did regular news, she did weather.
Is that true or not?
Because I thought she was an anchor, but then I thought her referred to as a meteorologist or something.
Well, you actually don't know, do you?
Interesting. So most of you believe she was an anchor.
Yeah, it does make a difference.
It does make a difference. Yeah.
Because you wouldn't expect the same, the level of, let's say, gravity, gravitas, you wouldn't expect the same level of seriousness from the weather person or the sports person as you would from the news anchor.
Well, can somebody Google that?
Wikipedia says anchor.
Interesting. So was that fake news?
Because I did see somewhere that she was referred to as the weather person.
Did she start with weather and then move to anchor?
She was an anchor until 2021.
All right, so we're getting the long-time anchor.
Started as weather and moved to Arizona as an anchor.
Okay. I think that's the answer.
Started as weather and moved to anchor.
Alright, so, that would explain, you know, why she has such a good television presence, right?
Now, here are the things we can agree on.
Very few people are better on camera.
Can we agree on that?
You'd have to look a long ways to find somebody better on camera.
Now, I'm going to talk about Things that are like sexist, but it's all part of the persuasion conversation, right?
Number one, do you think she looks attractive?
I'll ask my audience before I give you my opinion.
Yes, yes, universally yes.
Do you feel that she's attractive in a feminine way or something else?
Does she strike you as feminine?
A little bit of opinions there.
It's interesting. She is for sure very attractive, but she cuts masculine and feminine, doesn't she?
She kind of hits a mix.
I don't want to say androgynous, because that's like a different sense.
I would say that, sort of like Mick Jagger or David Bowie, where there's sort of an ambiguity that you register, but it's an attractive ambiguity.
Meaning that I think probably both men and women find her attractive, I would imagine.
Yeah, and it makes her look stronger because she's got a little bit of the masculine edge with the feminine pluses as well.
And she's married to a man, of course.
So here's my first persuasion point.
She has a type of attractiveness that is ideal.
It's ideal for politics.
Would you agree? It's not just attractive.
Because Kristi Noem has an attractiveness that is super attractive as a woman.
Super feminine.
Well, not super feminine, but feminine, right?
But I think that that would turn off some voters.
I think the Kristi Noem type of attractiveness would cause some people, and maybe even women more than men, to grade her more harshly because she looks a little less, to some people, might look less substantial because she looked more feminine, I guess.
Now, I'm talking about people's biases here.
I'm not talking about my opinion.
I'm talking about people's biases.
But Carrie Lake doesn't have that problem, does she?
She registers as attractive as a woman without giving up anything in strength to the over-femininity, you know, maybe bias, right?
So I would say I've never seen anybody who has a better look for politics.
And what is her ethnicity?
I've never seen that mentioned.
Her ethnicity is...
Her ethnicity is hot, somebody said.
But she's brownish, right?
Again, we're just talking about the persuasion here, so don't assume I'm being bigoted or anything else.
We're just talking about what people perceive.
So it's just an Arizona tan.
She's just well tanned. So that works really well for her, doesn't it?
I don't know what she is, but she's ambiguous, and she's pretty brown.
For maybe a white girl, I don't know, whatever she is.
So I don't care. But I think that works too.
So I think she works on color, look, haircut, femininity, just the right amount of, you know, not too feminine, a little bit of masculinity put in there.
Yeah, she's got the perfect look.
But let's talk about her voice.
Have you ever heard a voice like hers?
It's really unique. Yeah.
It's fun to listen to.
But let me tell you the trick that she uses that I've talked about before, but when you see it in practice, it's awesome.
She's a down talker.
Do you know what an up talker is, right?
So up talkers sound unconfident.
An up talker would sound like this.
I think we need to lower taxes.
We need to close the border.
And then the other thing that bad politicians do is they bleat like sheep.
When they don't believe their own argument, they adopt a pleading kind of a tone that signals they don't believe their own argument.
So I was watching her on Tucker's show.
There was some video of her. And watching her talk, there's a time when she downtalks perfectly.
And let me give you an example of downtalk.
Downtalk is the opposite of ending on a high point.
If you end on a down point, you sound like an executive, right?
Because you're saying everything is matter-of-fact.
So here's... I'll try to do an impression of a proper, confident executive downtalk.
Alright, so first I'll give you the contrast.
An up talk would be, and we need nuclear energy plants.
We've got to have nuclear energy plants or we'll never be able to reach our goals.
We'll never have enough energy. We have to have nuclear energy plants.
That's a pleading voice.
Doesn't sound powerful.
Now here's the executive.
And the only way we're going to be able to give power in the future is through nuclear power.
Nuclear power will allow us to have enough energy in the future, and at the moment there's no alternative.
Now, forget about whether that's true, but you see what I'm talking about, right?
The way I said it tells you it's not up for debate.
It's not up for debate.
I'm telling you what the facts are, and then you have to decide what to do with that.
And I was watching Carrie Lake when she was talking about the media, an area in which she has complete expertise.
And when she talked about the media, she used down talk.
And wow, is it so effective.
But for a moment, she transitioned into what I'll call the talking points, The generic stuff about, you know, Democrats are trying to ruin everything, blah, blah, blah.
And she slipped into pleading.
And you could tell the transition between the things she was completely confident about, and had a right to be confident, and the things that were clearly propaganda politics kind of stuff that is really salesmanship, right?
And you could see her shift from this is just fact, You know, get out of my way.
This is just a fact.
That part is so strong.
But as soon as she gets into the politics, she gets a little pleady, and then she loses some of that strength.
I think she could change her talking points to maintain the strength all the way through, and then it would just be devastating.
Yeah, the uptalk makes you sound insecure.
That's true. Correct.
So I usually don't make a big deal about the quality of voice for persuasion.
The exception is when the quality of the voice is amazing.
And I think Obama had that.
Obama had the voice.
You know, he stammered too much, but he had the voice.
It just sounded...
He just liked the timber of it, right?
So if you have an extremely good voice, as she does, then it's an asset.
But for most people, it doesn't make much difference.
Yeah. All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my grumpy opinion for today.
I've got to go fix my coffee maker.
might set me on a better trajectory for today.
So my doctor asked me to test my blood pressure at home.
So it's just a normal thing.
If you're on blood pressure meds, the new remote medical practices are that they ask you to get a blood pressure monitor and just do it yourself.
So I was testing it, and I noticed in the instructions on the email that asked me to test my blood pressure, it said, don't do it within 30 minutes of having coffee.
And I didn't read that part or I'd forgotten it.
And so I randomly sat down after I came back from Starbucks and I tested my blood pressure.
Have you ever done that?
Test your blood pressure directly after you come back from Starbucks.
It was hospitalization level.
It was like 9-1-1.
So, I wait three hours and I test it again.
120 over 80.
No problem. But half an hour after I had Starbucks, it was actually, literally, I would probably drive to the hospital.
It was like 160 over 120 or some fucking thing.
Yeah, it was like 160 over something.
Can you lower your BP with meditation?
I doubt it. I mean, I don't know that you can get it all the way down.
Now, I am also wondering if my...
Pain and energy is related to the blood pressure meds.
It's possible. Yeah, you can survive 160, you just don't want to do it for a long time.
That's a little bit of hyperbole from me.
Hypnosis. Yeah, all the lifestyle stuff does work, but if you have a genetic propensity, I'm about as close as you can get to lifestyle acceptable behavior.
I do pretty well.
I don't sleep as much as I should.
Do you think Biden's doing well?
I can't see that.
Is China stuff? Well...
I don't know what's going on with China.
I feel like all of our news is so inaccurate.
No, I'm not taking any NSAIDs.
You once snorted a caterpillar?
Okay. Why am I avoiding Daryl Brooks as a topic?
Apparently I'm avoiding Daryl Brooks as a topic.
Because I never heard that name before.
Let's see. Let's see who exactly I am ignoring.
Daryl Brooks.
He's a defendant.
He cries during his opening statement.
What did he do?
Oh, is he the guy who ran over the Waukesha Christmas Parade trial?
Why would I want to talk about him?
Why in the world would that be interesting?
Yeah. No, I remember what the story was.
They reported his car killed people, etc.
But there's no reason to...
Oh, by the way, speaking of VA, I told you I can't watch anything on the Daily Wire, because every time I try to sign up, it's too hard.
And I got some help from one of you, I won't mention you, who sent lengthy instructions of how to do it, and I was like, oh, thank you.
And then, like, I got busy, and then I lost those instructions.
So if I can't sign up quickly, it's just not going to happen because I get too interrupted.
So if I can sign up for a service in 60 seconds, which is how long it should take, because all you're doing is putting in your credentials, then I'll sign up.
But as soon as it takes me to another site or wants me to do something, anything out of the ordinary, I'm like, I'll get back to that later.
It never happens. No, I don't believe I am on the spectrum.
Don't believe I am. Have you tried a sauna to relieve pain?
No. But I don't like heat, so I don't know if I can handle that.
Yeah, the SUV guy representing himself would be fun.
I do have an infrared sauna.
I've never used it.
I hear good things about them, but I just don't like heat.
So did you see that Ye used the R word on a video?
And he stopped himself before he used it, but then he used it anyway, because he's just done censoring himself.
So he called somebody a tard.
And I thought to myself, well, he's gone so far that he can say that now, right?
because I think at this point I think at this point Kanye can say anything I just saw a comment go by that made me laugh.
When you say that you have generalized pain, it turns out that the possible causes of it are everything you do.
So I've had people suggest that it's everything from my diet to you name it.
So I have a list of probably 20 different things that are entirely possible.
I wouldn't rule out diet at all.
But there are at least 20 things Then I'm going to have to isolate one at a time to see if they make a difference.
I don't think it's aging, because it happened all at once.
Aging would have been more gradual.
I mean, I could certainly see what aging does, but I just fell off a table.
Yeah, it could be the BP meds.
Somebody mentioned that they had the same problem and they got off their meds and they felt fine.
I suppose I could probably just stop taking them for a day and see if it matters.
Blue balls. Is that it?
Do I need to get laid? Maybe that's all it is.
I don't know.
I think I'm going to give up on humans.
Oh, yeah, the Steve Bannon sentencing is happening right now.
Now, he could get up to two years for refusing to testify.
Was that what it was?
Yeah, it's definitely not shingles.
All right. Contempt of Congress.
You'd think contempt of Congress would be more like an award.
Shouldn't you get like a medal?
And now, I'd like to give the prestigious Citizen of the Year Award to Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress.
We would all like to be like Steve and show our contempt for Congress, but only Steve was brave enough to do it.
So, Steve...
For contempt of Congress, we give you the Citizen of the Year Award.
But apparently they actually punish you for having the same opinion as everybody and acting the same way ordinary people would act.
I know.
The trouble is you don't want a Nelson Mandela Steve Bannon He'll come back as the president.
You put Steve Bannon in jail for two years, and he's going to come back as Christ.
Even I might vote for him.
That's saying a lot. I might even register to vote.
It's not because I agree with him or anything.
It's just that if you're putting Steve Bannon in jail because of your kangaroo court, he might come out as Jesus.
That's all I'm saying. He might get elected president the day he gets out.
