Episode 2018 Scott Adams: America Repels Alien Armada Or Sends A Message Or Downs Weather Balloons
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
VP Harris needs to be drug tested
US Air Force cost to take out the cartels?
Ohio giant toxic cloud of poisonous gas
Sara Huckabee Sanders, super capable
TikTok's "heat" button is an interface to American brains
Gina Raimondo, incompetent or China agent?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
As long as it lasts.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's never been a finer moment in your entire life.
And if you'd like to take it up to, I don't know, 20,000 feet?
40,000 feet?
Can I get you 65,000 feet?
Higher than a Chinese spy balloon.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stand, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine to the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Happens now.
Go.
Well, there was something called the Super Bowl yesterday.
How many of you watched it?
It was quite impressive.
Now, I always liked the Super Bowl.
And I think the reason I like it is that I know much of the country is sort of doing the same thing at the same time.
I just love that.
I just love that the country is doing the same thing at the same time.
Or a lot of them.
Not everybody.
So I didn't really, you know, care for the game so much.
But it was a spectacle.
Had it on.
Ate some snacks.
Had a good time.
But my prediction mechanism for determining who will win worked once again.
There was some doubt.
I was doubted in my prediction.
But my prediction works like this.
I look at the name of the team and I decide who would win if, for example, a Native American chieftain were to fight an eagle, because it was Kansas City Chiefs versus Eagles, who would win?
A Native American chieftain or a bird?
Well, I think the chieftain would win.
Now, an eagle's pretty big.
They could be pretty mean.
But I'm going to allow that the chieftain has maybe a weapon, like a club or a spear.
And sure enough, the chief beat the eagle exactly as I predicted.
And the spectacular thing about this, the really, I don't know, inspirational thing?
Because the Super Bowl can be very inspirational.
These are athletes who have worked Since they were young kids, their parents took them to practices, they worked hard, they rose above all the rest to become NFL players, and then rose above all of the NFL players to become the two teams in the Super Bowl, who after all that work, all that concentration, that sacrifice, that focus, that discipline, it was decided by a bad call by the refs.
So it was a little bit anticlimactic there.
But if you like that sort of thing, it was awesome.
I don't know why you would, but if you liked it, it'd be awesome.
The halftime entertainment was Rihanna, who looked pregnant and admitted that she was pregnant.
Apparently that's the announcement.
So here are three things I love.
Three things I really, I like more than I should probably.
I was almost guilty that I liked them so much.
I love Rihanna as an artist.
She's awesome.
Great artist.
I love motherhood.
Motherhood?
It's like apple pie.
Who doesn't love that?
I love motherhood.
Another thing I like is to watch women dance suggestively.
I know.
It's kind of shallow.
I'm not proud of it.
I'm not proud of it.
I just like watching women dance sexy.
I don't know.
I was just born that way.
I can't explain it.
But what I don't like is when you combine Rihanna, pregnancy, and sexy dancing.
When you put those three together, I would rather have a snake driven through my forehead than to be subjected to watching it.
But that's just me.
That's just me.
I love Rihanna.
I love motherhood.
I love sexy, dancing women.
Not at the same time.
No, not at the same time.
Well, I have a question about Kamala Harris.
I saw Donna Brazile say that She was a big supporter.
So Donna Brazile, if you don't know, is about the most inside insider of all insiders.
So if you want to know what Democrats who are actually in charge are thinking, Donna Brazile has the answer.
So there's only one person you need to look to to know what the secret opinion within the Democrat upper echelons is.
Just ask Donna Brazile, because she definitely knows the answer.
And she says that she wanted to support Kamala Harris with her words.
And so the words that Donna Brazile chose was that she is standing in her own power.
She said it twice.
She is standing in her own power.
Which means nothing, nothing.
What was the best thing that Donna Brazile, with all of her exceptional communication skills, which actually are exceptional, her exceptional communication skills, and the best she could come up with for the vice president is, she is standing in her own power twice.
Twice.
Yeah.
And Donna Brazile says that Harris will either be the VP choice for Biden, or she will run for the presidency.
So she'll either be vice president or president, and you know that because she's standing in her own power.
Standing in her own power.
Well, good.
How embarrassing.
Now, I'm going to put out a theory which you could call a conspiracy theory, and it is that the vice president has a substance problem.
Now, I don't know that, so I'm not going to say, oh, she has a substance problem.
That would be creating a rumor that is unsubstantiated.
But I'm going to play you from her recent speech about electric buses.
And I just want you to listen to it.
And you tell me that she doesn't sound drunk.
Now, I don't know if it would be alcohol or anything.
Maybe it's natural.
But it doesn't sound natural to me.
It doesn't sound natural.
It sounds inebriated.
And it sounds so inebriated that I think she should be drug tested.
Not a joke.
I'll use Joe Biden's statement.
Not a joke.
I believe she needs to be drug tested.
Now you listen to this and you tell me that you don't think she's inebriated.
No exhaust.
No diesel smell.
The bus has Wi-Fi.
And even USB outlets next to every seat.
I mean, come on, imagine!
You can charge your phone on your way home from work!
That's good stuff!
That's good stuff!
Alright, she's a little bit too happy.
A little bit too happy about USB ports on a bus.
Now, there are lots of things to be happy about in this world.
USB ports on a bus, which is not exactly bleeding-edge technology.
She was so happy about it, it looked like she might cry.
USB connections on a bus.
Why am I getting a text message?
FedEx package.
So, but let me ask you.
Let me ask you.
Did she seem inebriated to you?
Tell me your honest opinion.
Saw some no's.
So you think that's natural?
Okay.
Alright, well I'm going to call rank on you.
I've probably seen more inebriated people than you have.
Let me ask you this.
All right.
Most of you stop commenting for just a moment.
All right.
Let's just pause commenting before I ask my next question.
So my next question is only for people who have experienced drug addiction.
Somebody who's experienced it themselves.
Does she look inebriated to you?
If you've experienced your own addiction, does she seem inebriated?
A lot more yeses.
A lot more yeses now.
Now, remember when I, you know, I've said things about Hillary Clinton being unhealthy and seemingly inebriated.
And people on, you know, the pro-Trump side were demonized for even bringing up such a suggestion.
I think you can bring it up if somebody acts high.
Don't you?
If somebody acts inebriated in public and they're an elected official, I feel like we can ask the question.
And if you don't think that looked high to you, just look at all the people who said yes.
Right?
It's not a science.
You can't just look at somebody and know what's in them.
But I've looked at a lot of high people, and that looked stone to me.
Or drunk or something.
I don't know.
But she does have an interesting, laughy kind of a personality, and she does love buses, so it's not impossible that that's natural.
But if that's natural, I don't want any of that.
I don't want that in my government, if that's natural or drunk.
All right.
Rasmussen did a poll on Biden's job performance on Sentinel.
Now, I don't know how many times I have to show you how smart my audience is, but without even knowing the answer, because this hasn't even been released, I got an early preview of it.
Nobody knows the answer to this, but watch this.
Watch this.
What percentage of voters say Biden is doing a good or excellent job on the fentanyl?
I'm seeing 25, 27, 25.
Wow.
It's 26%.
How do you do that?
How do you do that?
It's like every time I ask you a poll question, you know the answer before the... Like, we don't even need polling anymore.
You guys are so smart.
Very good.
Yes, 26%.
Yes, 26%.
So, all right, here's a question I asked on Twitter.
What would be the budget, hypothetically, for the special forces and the US Air Force to take out the cartel bases of operation?
What do you think that would cost?
You know, we're going to put $100 billion into Ukraine, but what do you think taking out the cartels would cost?
I'm going to put it under $20 billion.
I think it's somewhere between, you know, 1 in 20 billion.
But everything costs way more than you think.
So, like, my intuition says 5 billion.
So I just, you know, up it to 20.
Because my experience says, when you think it's 5, it's going to be 20.
So, I think 20 billion.
20 billion.
Do you think it'd be worth it?
If we could take out the cartels or, let's say, degrade them seriously for 20 billion, would it be worth it?
I think so.
I think that would be money well spent.
And I think we'd actually make money on that.
Because we'd lose fewer people and all the other problems.
Probably.
Now, do you know why I asked about the budget?
How many of you know what I'm doing?
What's that called?
What's it called when I make you think about the budget for attacking them?
Come on.
Yes, I'm making you think past the sale.
Thank you.
Think past the sale.
The sale is, would we do anything military with the cartels?
So that's the question we're dealing with.
I'm asking you to think past the question to how much it would cost.
The reason I'm doing that is that when you're thinking about what it costs, you sort of unconsciously accept that this is a serious thing that could happen.
So we're going through this slow process of getting Congress to understand what's at stake, and what it would cost, and what it would take to fix it.
If you hear anybody in Congress or the news pick up the question of what it would cost, then you're probably on your way to it happening.
If nobody ever talks about the budget, nothing's happening.
You get that, right?
The only thing that matters in this world is, is there a budget for any big operation?
All that matters is, is there a budget?
If there's a budget, it's going to happen.
If there's no budget, it won't.
And if you're not even talking about the budget, it's not going to happen.
So we have to move the conversation at least to the budget question.
I don't care what the answer is.
5, 20.
We have to be talking about the budget to have any chance that something real will happen.
If you let them just talk about yes or no, that's nothing.
That's nothing.
You have to have a conversation about what it costs.
Because you know what would happen then?
The moment that budget is introduced as a conversation piece, then everybody in the military-industrial complex says, I'll bet I could get some of that.
And then it passes.
Because that's who, you know, we presume controls the government.
So you've got to get the money talk out there so that the people who can make money from it can start moving the government in the direction of what will make them money.
I don't mind if our... I don't mind at all.
I don't mind at all if the military industry makes some money at the same time we solve the fentanyl problem.
That'd be fine.
Yes, we'll talk about balloons.
So, Ohio exploded.
Next topic.
Balloons.
Balloons.
How about those balloons?
Did we need Ohio?
Ohio is a state, right?
It's a state?
Apparently it's been destroyed in a toxic vinyl chloride cloud of deadly gas.
The whole state's gone.
No, no, no, no.
It's not.
Most of the state is still intact.
There is part of it that you wouldn't want to live in for a long time.
But most of it's intact.
I'm just kidding.
Ohio's still here.
But here's everything we know about it.
Big explosion.
Something deadly.
So, I don't know.
Everything about that story is suspicious, but that's all we know about it.
All right, let's talk about giant balloons and stuff.
So here's what we know.
Oh no, before we talk about that, I got to talk about TikTok.
I predicted that the Chinese spy balloon drama would make it more likely that Congress would ban TikTok.
More likely.
I was totally wrong.
Yeah, I thought I saw something encouraging in the news, but I'm totally wrong.
So what was encouraging was that Fox News was putting pressure on Governor Whitney, Whitmer, I mean, because she was still using TikTok, but she claims that she only uses it on a device that has nothing on it but TikTok.
I mean, nothing important but TikTok.
Does that suggest that she should be in government?
That sort of suggests that you're not qualified to be the governor.
If you believe TikTok is so dangerous that you won't even use it unless it's a dedicated device, and yet you're not in favor of banning it everywhere, you can't be in government.
That's just stupid.
That's just stupid.
And if you're going to be stupid right in front of us, you can't be our leaders.
Come on.
Don't be that stupid.
You can be biased.
You can be uninformed.
But don't be stupid right in front of us.
There's no extra data that has to be collected for you to have a full opinion about this situation.
If it's too dangerous for the government, that's all you need.
There's no other analysis needed?
It's just too dangerous.
Oh my God.
So I hope she gets embarrassed by that.
But apparently Senator Schumer has said it's worth looking into banning it, banning TikTok.
He says it's worth looking into.
And I guess the Commerce Department is looking into it.
And of course, you know, he being a major Democrat, but also Sarah Huckabee Sanders?
Is that her last name?
She's also in favor of banning TikTok as well.
Because she's basically... Sarah Huckabee, is her last... Does she have a married name on the end of that?
Sanders, right?
Which is a weird coincidence.
Yeah.
So Sarah Huckabee Sanders continues to say basically every right thing.
Isn't it funny that if you take somebody who's a very capable spokesperson for a president, and then you put them in the job where they have to say the right things and not the wrong things?
She says all the right things.
Have you noticed?
Like, she is so capable.
And youngest governor or youngest female governor?
I can't remember.
But at that age, At that age, she's operating really at a pretty high level.
Not just a governor level, but she's operating above governor level.
She's operating at a federal level of effectiveness, but she's a governor at the moment.
And she's doing great.
Which is different from saying I would necessarily agree with every policy, but as a Republican who's trying to make a dent in the system, she's certainly doing it.
All right, but neither Sarah Huckabee Sanders nor Schumer seem to understand the TikTok threat.
So while I thought this Chinese spy plane would get us closer, especially since both sides seem to be at least open to the question, neither of them can voice the actual risk.
The risk is not data security.
They keep saying it's data security.
Now, it's also data security.
That's not a nothing.
It's important.
We should definitely be considering it.
But the real risk is they have a button literally labeled heat, in whatever language, and they can make anything trend by pushing that button.
They literally, literally, this is a proper use of literally, have a user interface for American brains.
Literally.
That's not an analogy.
It's actually a user interface to control a human brain in the United States.
And nobody seems to think that's a big deal.
They're worried about the data security.
The data security is way down the list of risks.
Way down.
It's still a big risk.
But it's way down the list.
It's not even close to that stupid little heat button where they can make anything important to Americans.
Or anything unimportant by not touching the heat button.
All right, let's go private on locals.
All right, locals, you're private.
So then I thought it was useful that Schumer said, oh, yes, it's worth looking into banning it.
I thought, OK, well, that's something it's worth looking into.
And then he says that the Commerce Department is looking into it.
Oh, they're not doing anything.
How long does it take the Commerce Department to say, do they have a heat button?
Yes.
That's the end of the meeting.
Would you like me to model that again?
Here's the Commerce Department trying to decide whether TikTok should be banned.
Do they have a button, one button that they can push?
To make something trend, and therefore, are they the human interface?
Are they the interface for the American minds?
Yes.
Unambiguously.
This is not a question of maybe or maybe not.
TikTok says this directly.
We have a button, and when we push it, it makes things go viral.
That's not... There's no gray area here.
It's designed to do exactly what we don't want it to do, control human minds in America.
If the Commerce Department can't figure that out, who's in charge of the Commerce Department?
Give me a name.
Get me a name of who's in charge of the Commerce Department.
Okay?
Let's find out who that is.
Because whoever's in charge of the Commerce Department is either dragging, or is a communist agent, or is a Chinese agent.
I mean, it's one or the other.
There's either massive incompetence or somebody has gotten to him.
Because there's no way, there is no way in the world that the head of the Commerce Department understands TikTok and it takes him more than 10 minutes to make a decision.
It can't be possible that that person even understands the issue.
Because here's what I'll bet is happening.
I will bet any amount of money That all of the delay is in conversations about how to keep the data in the United States and not let the CCP see it.
That's probably complicated and it depends.
You have to negotiate with who's doing what and who would hold it and there might be some lawyers involved.
I can see why that would take a long time.
But that also suggests they don't understand the threat.
You don't need to know about any of that.
All of that data security stuff you should ignore because you're gonna ban the whole thing.
You don't need to ban just the data and spend all your time trying to keep the data safe when the entire platform should be banned for obvious reasons.
It's got a heat button, it's the user interface for brains, and it's pointed at American brains by an adversary.
Is there anything else to say?
I mean, I'm preaching to the choir at this point.
So Gina Raimondi is the one who's either incompetent or bought off already, right?
So we don't know which it is.
She's either completely incompetent.
So let's get her in the news.
I'll have to confirm that.
But let's get her in the news.
I want to find out if she even knows what the risk is.
I will bet you, I'll bet you she doesn't even know the risk.
You want to take that bet?
I'll bet you also that there's nobody at Fox News who's going to get her on the TV and ask her the question.
You want to take that bet?
The most obvious thing that Fox News should do, or anybody who's right-leaning news, they should get the head of the Commerce Department on and say, do you understand the risk?
And then when they say data, data, data, the Fox News host says, you know they have a heat button and they can program our minds directly and you didn't even mention that.
How are you the one who's looking into it and you don't even know what the risk is?
How many fucking months did it take you to figure out what the risk is and you couldn't get it?
That one was justified.
That was justified.
Every app can do that?
That's right.
And every app is not controlled by the CCP.
That's not a point.
It doesn't matter if other apps can do it.
I'm not really, you know, nearly as concerned if Instagram does it.
I mean, well, that's a separate battle.
But it's different.
No cursing.
Goodbye.
Put user in timeout.
All right.
I guess we're talking about these balloons.
Yeah, let's talk about the balloons.
So there were three more suspicious balloons.
Did you know that the U.S.
has been launching its own surveillance balloons for the United States?
Our own balloons to look for criminals and stuff since 2019.
So here's the first fact you need to know.
The U.S.
has been creating surveillance balloons for the U.S.
for years.
Here's what else you need to know.
The Pentagon does not know what is keeping these objects aloft.
They've seen them and they don't know what's keeping them aloft.
So they don't want to rush to say balloon.
Because they can't see a propulsion system or they don't know what's kept aloft.
Now, I'm going to call bullshit on this.
I'm going to call it total bullshit.
They're either space garbage or space balloons.
Yeah, they're space balloons or space garbage.
And the military is just lying to you when they say they don't know what's keeping it aloft.
Apparently they've not ruled out UFOs or something.
Okay, this is ridiculous.
This is clearly space garbage.
They also told us that they changed the sensitivity of their radar, I guess.
And once they changed the sensitivity, which they had intentionally kept less sensitive, because all of this little garbage stuff that they would detect, they would have to spend all their time finding out if it's important.
But little things that don't move very fast tend not to be that important.
They tend to be weather balloons.
So apparently we had a system in which we just didn't look at anything that was too small, but they've changed the sensitivity.
Now they're seeing these smaller things and they can't identify exactly what they are.
So they're blowing them up.
Because we probably want to look tough and decisive.
Now here's my best hypothesis of what's happening.
I think we're blowing up defective weather balloons.
Or surveillance balloons.
Or our own surveillance balloons.
I think we're blowing up our own assets.
Maybe some foreign assets that were irrelevant.
Maybe they were weather balloons.
But I think we're just blowing up stuff to show that we can blow up stuff.
Remember at one point people said, oh that Chinese balloon is proving that we can't defend our airspace.
What would be the best thing you could do to prove that you really could defend your airspace?
Well, you would pretend to be blowing up tiny little things that you saw far away.
Because if we can spot these tiny little things from far away, and so far, are you impressed that we're four for four?
Are you impressed?
Every one of our missiles hit its target.
Exactly the message you want to send to China.
Huh.
Interesting.
Now, do you think you would know it if the first five missiles missed?
You think the military would say, you know, it took us six missiles to hit a practically stationary object?
Nope.
Nope.
This looks to be entirely a military propaganda operation.
Meaning that I think we're just showing that we can blow up and detect small things, so don't try it.
That's what it looks like.
So it looks like it's all theater.
I don't think they're threats.
I don't think they're UFOs.
I don't think they're even necessarily from China, although they could be.
Now, I was on a Spaces conversation, Twitter Spaces, where you have audio conversations.
And I was listening to Tom Fenton being quite convinced that these were Chinese assets, the additional ones that were shot down.
Based on the fact that we took them so seriously, we shot them down.
At least one of them didn't look like it had a payload, but that doesn't mean the other ones didn't.
And it doesn't mean that the one also doesn't.
You should not trust any information.
So Tom Fitton's take, and some other expert types on that call, were saying that the most likely thing is that they're Chinese balloons, and that they're preparing for an attack, and it's targeting information.
Now, that doesn't mean imminent attack, but it would mean figuring out where all our targets are, because there's no point in having nuclear weapons unless you know where to shoot them.
But do you think China didn't know where to put their nuclear weapons?
Really?
And they know they can't take out all of our missile silos because we've got submarines and airplanes.
So I don't buy the story that China is doing targeting runs.
Thank you.
They might be.
I mean, the big spy plane might have been.
But I don't believe that whatever the smaller ones are doing the same thing.
Now, China says that the US has sent 10 spy balloons over them since last year.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that the US has sent 10 spy balloons over China because our other assets can't see what we want to see?
It's plausible.
But, I don't know.
Who knows?
I would say 100% of what we find out about this story is likely to be untrue.
One of the structures that was blown up was reportedly octagonal.
It was shaped like an octagon.
Now, they said it was uncrewed, but I suspect Conor McGregor was in there.
I just think he was in there.
Just speculating.
Maybe.
He likes to be inside octagons, is what I'm saying.
All right, so we got one shot down by an F-16 over Lake Huron.
An F-22 took one around at 40,000 feet over Canada.
An F-22, got another one around, where was it?
Somewhere else.
How many weather balloons do you think are launched per year?
What do you think?
How many weather balloons are launched per year?
A lot. - What?
Thousands!
Yeah.
It's like, Multiple per day.
It's like every day weather balloons will go down.
So some of it, now some of the weather balloons will reach a certain height and then they pop because of the, so, but I don't know if they all happen.
There we go.
Remember those things that seem to defy, do you remember the UFOs that defied physics?
They'd be going in one direction and then they'd like immediately go the other direction.
Does it seem like a balloon in the wind?
If you saw a balloon in the wind, and it was where it could run into, let's say, big gusts and just, like, change directions, if you believed it was a solid metal ship, and you saw it go, shoop, shoop, and suddenly the other direction, wouldn't you think it defied physics?
But if it were a plastic bag or a balloon, and it just hit a real You know, violent wind pattern?
Wouldn't it look like it defied physics because it just went in the opposite direction really quickly?
It would, right?
Defies physics.
Yeah, it doesn't defy the physics of a balloon.
All right, so I will not rule out Tom Fitton's argument that China is sending stuff over here to target us for a potential attack.
Could be.
I wouldn't rule it out.
Would you?
I just think that the far more likely explanation is that we're all worked up over space garbage.
That's what I think.
I think it's just space garbage.
Probably.
And I think the pilots are probably having a great time.
Wouldn't you love to be a pilot and you get to shoot down a plastic bag?
That'd just be fun.
Wouldn't it?
I mean, I don't know what it's like to be a fighter pilot, but I feel like going on a little flight to shoot down something that isn't shooting at me, just to see if I could get it, that'd be kind of fun.
Target practice, yeah.
So, my bottom line is I think that they are nothings, they're not UFOs, or they're not aliens.
They're not necessarily Chinese, but they could be.
And that we're just shooting them down to show that we can shoot things down.
And we even use two different types of jets.
We can shoot it down with this jet.
We can shoot it down with that jet.
Oh, we got jets all over the place.
All we have to do is tune our radar and you'll never get through our net.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, I was watching CNN to see if they're still unbiased.
And here was Abby Phillips' take, who apparently never got the memo from CNN's new management, that you're not supposed to act like this.
So there's still some leftovers in the CNN who didn't get the memo, that they should be objective.
And she was saying that the moment that the GOP hearing on the weaponization of the FBI and social media and stuff.
She's saying that the GOP hearing on that backfired and totally fell apart based on the news that Trump had once asked, or somebody for Trump, had once asked for an insulting Christy Teigen tweet to be taken down and they said no.
And that was why she used As for evidence that the entire hearing about the weaponization of the FBI had fallen apart.
Because at one time Trump asked for one, and keep in mind, the thing that Trump asked to be taken down had no informational value.
It was just an insult.
Was everybody worried about the FBI talking to Twitter to remove personal insults?
I don't remember that story.
Do you?
I remember a story about them trying to influence elections.
I remember that story.
But I don't remember the one about them fighting social media to take the insults down.
You know, the one.
The one insult.
The one tweet.
The one time.
That's it.
And according to Abby Phillips, that makes the entire investigation null, because Trump did it too.
Even though what he did was completely unrelated to the issue.
He just didn't like that insult there.
Now, I don't think you should have asked for it to be taken down.
And neither did Twitter.
So they didn't.
And that was the end of the story.
There was no follow-up.
Now, am I wrong that that's CNN being bad CNN, right?
Am I wrong?
Yeah.
That's just them being bad.
This is not even close to being a balanced approach.
When we go private, I'm going to tell you, remind me on Locals, after I'm done with YouTube, I'm going to tell you a private story that relates to this, that's non-public.
You get the good stuff.
You get the good stuff.
Alright.
Here's a prediction.
I think rich people are all going to go to private school and school choice, and that public school will be all that's left for poor people.
And it will just get worse and worse because it's just school for poor people.
Is there any way to avoid that?
I don't think so.
I don't think that can be avoided.
And basically it's going to become public school will be school for black kids, basically.
That's what's going to happen.
Because at some point, It's just gonna happen.
So we don't have a mechanism to avoid that future, but maybe we should.
Maybe we should.
Here's a provocative question I asked.
We'll see if you know the answer.
Would it be legal, in the United States, would it be legal to start a college that was a men-only college?
No.
Would that be legal?
Now, if you say yes, You're probably saying yes because there are four of them that already exist, right?
But do you think that's the same?
Do you think that if you were to start a new one in 2023, it would just fly right through?
Hey, we got four of them already.
They seem to be fine.
Let's have another one.
I don't think so.
I have a feeling that it would not be fine.
I have a feeling that it would only be fine Well, the ones that already exist, maybe they're letting them remain.
So there are now women-only colleges and men-only colleges, but just a few.
And the only reason I ask is I would hate to go to a male-only college.
I can't think of anything worse than that.
A male-only college?
Oh my God.
But it does occur to me that all of the, let's say the woke stuff, it's coming from women.
I feel like if you had an all-male college, all that stuff would go away.
Because it's all women-driven.
That's not to say that plenty of men don't say it, but men only say it because there are women watching.
That's an exaggeration, of course.
That's a little hyperbole for you.
Men only agree with the wokeness thing when women are watching.
They're just looking for their approval.
That's all.
That's all.
If you leave men to themselves, they just fight until somebody wins.
We're very simple.
We will just fight for dominance until somebody wins, and then somebody's in charge until somebody else beats them.
But when you put women around us, we'll try to signal to the women in whatever way they think they want to see the signal.
So it does seem to me that women have ruined higher education through the wokeness stuff.
I don't think male-only college fixes that.
Just an observation.
All right.
So here's a little update on the Russia-Ukraine war.
Either Russia has made some gains lately, or they have not made gains lately, or they've stayed exactly the same.
Are you happy?
Is everybody happy that I understand that all of the information out of the area is unreliable?
Because I can't even talk about the topic without the NPCs... Why do you trust that story?
Why do you trust that story?
No, I don't trust anything coming out of Ukraine, but I'll report it and comment on it.
So the Wagner Group seems to be making all the whatever gains there are, and they seem to be doing it by Using sledgehammers to kill anybody they think is not fighting hard enough on their own team.
So basically, they're using the prisoners and conscripts as human fodder, and they're just throwing them into the machine guns of the Ukrainians.
Does that sound real?
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that waves of Russians are running into the machine gun fire of Ukrainians everywhere they go?
Hasn't just happened a few times, but everywhere they go, Ukrainians are mowing them down by the thousands.
Probably not.
Probably not.
Has it ever happened?
Probably yes.
Probably yes.
So the Russians do have a history of wave after wave of human sacrifice to take an inch of soil.
But we don't know it's happening.
It's just reported by all sources which are undependable out of that area.
But here's my interesting takes.
I do imagine that you could perpetually send people to die if their alternative was dying right away.
So I do believe you could perpetually have enough humans who are Russian soldiers as long as it takes.
Would you all agree with that?
Russia will not run out of humans before the war is over.
Would you say?
Now Ukraine's got maybe a different problem with human power.
But I don't think Russia's going to run out of people because they don't care.
All right.
But I heard an interesting hypothesis today that the artillery that the Russians are using, which is a big part of their military, that the artillery The gun barrels go bad after you've used them for a certain amount of time.
Were you aware of that?
Did you know that the gun barrel itself wears out?
So basically they're huge artillery junk piles already.
So apparently we can spot from the air, you know, just huge junk piles.
And I think the ratio is that three of them will break for every one that you destroy with a missile.
Does that sound right?
The three of them will break or melt or whatever they do.
Three of them will go down for their own reasons, for every one that you could take out militarily.
Now, balanced against that is that Russia is a huge arms manufacturing company.
Wouldn't you love to know how much artillery they could make per day with their factories?
Seems like that would be interesting to know.
Because we have some reporting about how many pieces of artillery are being taken out.
It seems to be significant.
But how many are they adding?
So there's one possibility that they run out of artillery before they run out of people.
And I think that's a worthy hypothesis.
I don't know how to rank that.
But it feels like that's possible.
Feels like.
Just replace the barrel?
Yeah, but that's probably not easy in the field during war.
All right.
And then the next thing that is interesting is that the head of the Wagner Group, he may be creating a military that's stronger than whatever is protecting Putin.
Do you think the head of the Wagner Group would like to run Russia?
I feel like yes.
I feel like yes, he might like that.
So very soon, No matter what happens in Ukraine, Putin and the head of the Wagner Group are going to, there's going to be one remaining.
In five years, there's very little chance that the head of the Wagner Group and Putin will still be alive at the same time.
Would you agree?
I feel like as soon as the head of the Wagner Group is not necessary, he's necessary at the moment, as soon as he's not necessary, Putin's going to kill him.
Why wouldn't he?
He has to.
Because the head of the Wagner group would definitely kill Putin.
And he might have the means to do it.
And I don't think we want that guy replacing Putin.
So we might be in the weird situation of trying to protect Putin from his own military.
Because Putin is still better than the head of the Wagner group.
Maybe.
I don't know.
They're both pretty bad.
Anyway, I think the head of the Wagner Group is going to be killed by Putin before long.
Is there any topic I missed?
Do you think that all the UFO balloon stuff is just a diversion?
Just a diversion?
Here's why I don't think that, necessarily.
Because I guess you could say that every day.
Because every day there's a story that's negative about somebody.
Usually the government.
And every day there's some other story.
And we don't always just spend all our time looking at that negative government story.
So it seems to me that chance alone would fill us with alternative stories every day.
So to imagine that some of those alternative stories that happen to be interesting are intentionally diversions We don't even need diversions, because the news itself comes up with interesting alternatives to, your government is evil, because you can't listen to that all day.
You gotta have something else.
Political disarray in the Zelensky cabinet?
Yeah.
I could see the Ukrainian government falling apart.
That wouldn't be a stretch.
And I don't know what happens if Zelensky dies.
That would be unpredictable.
Are they being vague?
I don't know.
Yeah, I covered Ohio.
Ohio blew up and nobody cared.
But there's something sketchy going on in Ohio.
We just don't know what it is yet.
Oh, the one thing I heard about the Ohio derailment, can somebody give me a fact check on this?
I retweeted it because I think it's true.
Was there just recently a new movie featuring that exact town with that exact problem?
A train derailment followed by a chemical spill?
That's a real thing that happened, right?
Yeah, on Netflix?
Oh, it was in Pennsylvania, not Ohio.
Okay, so it wasn't there, it was just a similar scenario where a train derailed and there was a suspicious gas leak.
Yeah.
Pennsylvania and Ohio are the same state, somebody says.
Well, yeah.
All right.
The movie is called White Noise and made in 2022.
All right.
Country of the Villains of Low Boat.
Who remembers actor Robert Wagner?
Do you remember actor Robert Wagner?
Somebody mentioned Robert Wagner, the actor, because of the Wagner group.
All right.
Here's my story about Robert Wagner.
Once his head was right by my feet for an uncomfortable long time.
True story.
Robert Wagner, the actor, his head was near my feet, like, you know, just this far away, for an uncomfortably long time.
Can you figure out what that was?
Anybody want to guess?
It wasn't an airplane, it was not any form of transportation.
No transportation.
Was not yoga, was not baseball game.
All right, I'll tell you the answer.
I got invited to a filming of... Which show was it?
Because there were two different filmings.
It was either Two and a Half Men... I think it was Two and a Half Men.
He was an extra on Two and a Half Men, right?
Can you confirm that?
Wasn't he like somebody's father or somebody?
Anyway, he had a friend who was attending the taping.
I got invited because they mentioned Dilbert in that episode.
So the writers invited me.
And because I was like a special guest, I got to sit up front.
Now, if you're in the audience, the audience is raised above the stage floor so that when you're looking down, you can see everything better.
So the stage is maybe chest high.
Right?
So the first row is maybe four feet above the stage.
I happened, by coincidence, to be sitting next to a personal guest of actor Robert Wagner.
And between takes and breaks, he would come over and talk to his friend.
So he'd walk over to the stage, and he'd walk up to it, and he'd be like right by my left foot, and his big old Robert Wagner head would be there talking to the person next to me.
And it's so awkward because if a famous person is right by your foot, you just want to look at him.
Don't you?
You just sort of, you're right there.
Just want to look at him.
But I couldn't look at him because he was just by my feet.
There's no Robert Wagner giant head right next to my feet.
I'm just looking around.
Look at those lights up there.
No Robert Wagner head.
That was just awkward.
True story.
All right.
I'm going to go tell a private story to the locals, people.
