My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Calculating reparations
AI is too hard for most of us
BB&B files for bankruptcy
Checkmark frenzy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time in the world.
Yes, your virtual friend is here.
You don't need to pay attention every minute.
You could just turn it on and exercise.
You could have your breakfast or clean your house.
Yes, you could do all of those things.
And if you'd like to take your experience up to the maximum possible potential, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tinkered Chelsea Stein, 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 hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Now, go.
I've got a random observation that will only apply to people of a certain age.
I don't think Dick Cavett was ever clever.
That's it.
That's the whole comment.
I saw that Bill Maher had a guest on, Glenn Lowry, and his other guests.
And one of the things that Bill Maher was talking about on Friday was all the black-on-black violence in Chicago.
And he asked, why is nobody talking about that?
Why isn't that the thing all the black leaders are talking about?
It's the black-on-black crime.
And Glenn Lowry, who is black, has a podcast, a popular podcast, Was talking about how the crime is going to chase out the middle class taxpayers and then everything's going to be bad.
And so I feel as if Bill Maher was tiptoeing into a topic that I may have opened up, but wasn't quite ready to quite get into it.
A little bit timid there.
But it does feel like the conversation's at least being broached.
Now here's the weird thing.
How do you have that conversation, and you're Bill Maher, and you're the guy who was the most famous cancelled guy in the world, and for two weeks I was the major headline in the country for getting cancelled, and he never mentioned it.
It was never one of the stories that he mentioned.
And nor have I been invited to be on the show.
Not that I need to be, I'm just saying.
It's obvious by its omission, isn't it?
Doesn't it feel obvious by omission?
I feel like there's a number of people who want to weigh in on this but don't know how.
And I feel like Bill Maher might be in a fairly large group of people who want to be more engaged on the topic because they think it's important and they think it's useful, but they don't know how without getting super cancelled.
So we'll see if there's any more movement there.
Well, there's a story that I don't understand at all, but maybe some of you can help me.
So, Elon Musk took everybody's blue check away, if they got it for free, but everybody had the same option of paying their $8 and getting verified.
So they can get their check back, they just have to pay $8.
Now, there were a number of celebrities who just could not imagine Being treated the way other people are.
It was unfathomable.
I think Jason Alexander was going to quit Twitter entirely if he had to pay for his special blue check, because he got that special blue check for being special, and damn it, you take that away, and why would he even use Twitter at all?
Or something like that.
He didn't say that, but sounds like something he might have been thinking.
I don't know.
I'm reading his mind now.
But I thought some of the reactions were just plain silly.
And then a number of people just magically got their blue check back without paying.
What happened?
Did Elon Musk just sort of pick some people to give checks to because they were complaining and he thought it'd be funny just to see what they'd do if they got a check?
Because it was funny.
It was hilarious just to see how they would react.
Like, first they complained for losing their check, And then they complained more for getting a free check that they didn't.
I think Stephen King was trying to say, instead of giving me a free check, why don't you give $8 to some charity for Ukraine?
Do you know what Musk said when Stephen King suggested that he give $8 to Ukraine?
Musk goes, "I gave $100 million to Ukraine.
How much did you give?" And by the way, I just need to explain to Stephen King how economics works.
If Elon Musk gives you a free check, that did not create $8 of free money.
Everything about his tweet was just stupid.
I'm pretty sure that Stephen King's got some cognitive problems at this point.
Am I wrong about that?
I'm only based on his Twitter account, but Stephen King looks like he has some cognitive problems.
That's what it looks like.
I mean, I don't know.
It just presents that way.
But I'm no doctor.
I saw that Musk also tweeted, responding to somebody else's tweet about Fauci should be in jail, but Musk softened that by saying he should be on trial.
Now what would be the crime?
What would be the crime that Fauci should be on trial for?
Name the crime.
Fraud?
Well, specifically what?
Specifically what?
Lying to Congress?
But did he lie?
Or was he clever enough to be technically true?
In other words, if he said, I did not fund it, is that true or false?
If he funded somebody that went ahead and funded it.
Is it true or false?
I don't know.
Gain of function research?
Was that illegal?
See, there's a lot of things he did that we don't like, but I don't know which ones are illegal.
Suborning perjury, somebody says.
But did he?
I don't know.
He certainly said things which the current reporting would suggest were misleading.
Is it illegal to be misleading?
I don't know where that line is.
Where is lying versus misleading?
Where is lying versus being technically true while being misleading?
I have no idea.
Anyway, I thought I'd see if you do, you know, some specific crime that he's clearly guilty of, according to you.
I don't know what it would be.
But, just to be clear, I share all of your suspicions.
So you can't get on the other side of me of suspecting there's something corrupt there.
I do suspect there's something terrible there.
I just don't know exactly what or exactly what the law would treat as a crime.
There's definitely something bad there.
That's all I know.
All right.
Here's my current prediction on AI.
It looks like it will be way too hard for people to use.
Meaning, people will use AI for searching for simple information, but it won't be that different than searching for information now.
Here's what I keep seeing all these tweet threads about.
Here I used AI to build an app just from describing what I wanted.
It built the entire website and then it launched it.
So, do you think you can do that?
Do you think you could do what the person who did that tweet did?
Try it.
Try it.
Go get your AI.
So the first thing you have to do is you have to figure out which of the 10,000 new apps that were launched in the last month.
So first you have to sort which one of the 10,000 apps.
But let's say you could do that using a Google search.
Then you figure out the app.
Do you think when you used it, it would create a working app And it would open up a website, and it would just sign you up, and then suddenly you'd have a website, and... No.
There's not the slightest chance that's gonna happen.
I'm pretty sure that you would run into real-world problems, such as, oh, the AI is trying to sign up to, I don't know, GoDaddy or some website to register my domain.
Because it would need to do that.
And then when it tries to register the domain, it finds out that it's taken.
So now there are several choices.
So now you have to get involved, because you've got to pick among the several choices.
Or, it tells you your credit card that it used has been stolen, so your bank won't process the transaction.
Or, or, or, or.
In the real world, nothing works the first try.
If you knew exactly how to build a website and launch it yourself, without any AI, it still wouldn't be easy, because shit would go wrong every minute.
You'd plug in a new plug-in for your website, and it just wouldn't work.
Why?
Well, probably because some software version changed and somebody didn't test it or it wasn't tested for your specific thing.
Yeah, you might have a website, but it will be illegal and it will You know, and nobody will be able to figure out where the buttons are.
Something tells me that this whole AI situation is going to look like you have to hire a lawyer because it's too complicated to figure out the law yourself.
You know what would be really easy to figure out?
The law.
In theory.
Imagine if every law were taken out of legalese and just written in English.
Just think about it.
All the laws are just written in English.
You wouldn't even need lawyers.
It would be so obvious.
You probably wouldn't even have to hire any.
But, because the law is complicated, for no good reason except paying lawyers, I guess, ordinary people can't do the law.
Can I go to a website and just download a form that a lawyer would have done in the past?
Yes, I can.
Do you know why I don't do that?
Because I wouldn't know how to fill in the form.
Except for the simplest stuff.
Let's say a lease agreement, if you've got one person renting a room or something.
Yeah, I could do that.
But once you get into any complication whatsoever, you're going to want the advice of a lawyer.
And it's going to be the same with AI.
You're going to say to yourself, all right, I'm going to do this thing with AI.
First, you have to sort through 10,000 different apps.
You have to figure out why they're different, which one's better.
Then you've got to sign up and pay for it, right?
So you're only going to pay for one.
So you've got to really, really do your research to make sure you're not paying for the wrong one.
And then when it's up, do you think you'll be able to manage all of its questions and stuff?
Probably not.
You probably need somebody who knows how to do that stuff.
Do you think you could even ask it a question?
Nope.
Because it turns out that you need to use super prompts, like a paragraph or a page-long set of words that somebody's tested to get you the best answer to your simple question.
Do you think you're going to know how to write a page of super prompts?
Or do you think you'll be able to go to GitHub or wherever they're stored and you'll know that, oh, that's where they store the super prompts.
And then you'll be able to shop from a million super prompts, there'll be a million of them, and you'll know how to find the one that works for your specific question, right?
So now you've looked for one of 10,000 apps that launched this month, and now you've got to look for one of a million, a million super chat and suggestions to get the right super prompts.
There's no way this is going to be some, you know, some kind of technology that ordinary people use.
There's no way.
Now, you can imagine the future where there's an AI that helps you with the other AIs, right?
Yeah, I know what you're thinking.
You're like, oh no, I just use the AI that tells me which AI to use and that helps me when there's any hard questions.
Good luck waiting for that.
If such a thing were invented, the A.I.
that can help you sort out the other A.I.s, what would happen on day two?
On day one, somebody invents the A.I.
that solves all of those problems I just mentioned.
What happens on day two?
On day two, there are a million of them, because you couldn't copyright it.
There's no way you're going to copyright an A.I.
that helps you with other A.I.s.
So there'll be a million of them.
Which one do you use?
900,000 of them will be frauds.
I'm pretty sure the humans are going to find a way to totally F up AI so that the human part that didn't need to be there will just make everything too difficult to use.
That's what I think.
In the same way that the fact that Photoshop is really, really good for artists, I bet Photoshop isn't helping you, I bet, is it?
How many of you use Photoshop?
It's really handy.
Fix up your... You fix up... Okay, a lot of you do.
Because I get a lot of engineers on this live stream.
But just think about the number of people you know who would never even think of opening Photoshop.
It's exactly the same people you think are going to use AI.
They're not.
They're absolutely not going to use AI.
Not the way you imagine it based on today's model of things.
All right.
Here's something that makes me happy.
I like it when some of the smartest billionaires are on the same side.
So here are the billionaires who are investing big on fusion.
So you got your Bill Gates, Peter Thiel, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Benioff, founder of Salesforce.
I'll tell you what all of those people have in common, and also Sam Altman, who's the chat GPT guy, and I'm pretty sure Musk, too.
Musk isn't mentioned, but I feel like a positive Musk was in Fusion as well.
So how does that make you feel?
Just think about this for a minute.
Just think about the fact that they're absolutely our smartest billionaires, right?
I mean, there are other smart ones.
But if you put this group of half a dozen people in a room... Let me stop something here.
Every one of you who say the AI stuff is boring, it's not going to stop.
AI is pretty much the future.
So you can tell me in the comments all day long, AI stuff is boring.
You should just go somewhere else.
That's not going to change.
You're not going to change me to stop talking about it.
It is the biggest thing that's happening in the world.
It's the primary source of news.
I'm not going to stop talking about it.
There'll be more.
There'll be a lot more.
So stop complaining about it.
Your only option is to leave.
And you're welcome to leave.
Okay?
So don't bore us with your boring-AI-is-boring comments.
We don't want to see them.
You're boring us.
Just go somewhere else.
So I love this because fusion, in theory, could be our free energy of the future.
It could solve every problem in the world, it seems like.
It could even solve inflation.
Can it?
Is that stupid or is that smart?
Suppose our energy costs drop to approaching zero.
Energy is the major cost behind making or doing anything, right?
It's one of the major costs.
So if you made energy costs drop substantially, even though monetary inflation still existed, the amount you paid for your stuff would go down, right?
So even though there's too much money supply, you can make up for that with productivity.
So, it's huge.
I mean, the race to fusion is sort of a race to get there before the economy crumbles from inflation, or climate change kills us all, according to some.
But that's the good news, is that the smartest among us are betting the same way.
I like that.
I don't believe there's any billionaire who's betting against it.
At this point, it looks like it's an engineering problem.
Do you remember I told you maybe five years ago, let's see if anybody remembers this, that Sam Altman had said something like five years ago that fusion was already an engineering problem.
In other words, it wasn't a theoretical problem.
They know the theory works.
They just had to figure out how to build, you know, how do you make a magnet that's super strong?
Well, you just try and try until you make one that's super strong.
How do you make it, you know, something that contains the reaction?
Well, you just try and try until you get something that works, just like we invent everything else.
So five years ago, we were already in the engineering phase, which meant that there was nothing that would stop it.
Once you're at the engineering phase, it's going to happen.
You just don't know if it's one year or ten.
So here we are.
I think Sam Altman's prediction that it had reached the engineering stage feels exactly right.
And these other billionaires are seeing the same thing, I think.
All right, Bed Bath & Beyond is filed for bankruptcy.
And I have a theory for why that happened.
And it's those 20% coupons that they send out all the time.
So every few weeks you get the mail these big 20% coupons.
What was the first reaction when I got a 20% coupon?
Do you know what I'd say?
A string of invectives.
I would hate the store as soon as I got it.
Like, oh, you mother!
I would just start swearing at it.
I'd say, you're going to make me keep track of this piece of paper that came in the mail, because otherwise I'm going to pay too much, 20% too much, which is substantial, for the next thing I buy at this store that I like to use.
Because I liked the store.
It was a great store.
And so I'd say to myself, all right, all right, I'll put it in my car.
Right?
That's what you're thinking.
Just put it in your car.
Then you'll have it.
So I put it in my car.
I go to the store and I'm like, ah, I beat the system this time.
Because I did do this.
I did put it in my car.
I hated having it in my glove compartment every time I opened it.
I'd be like, damn it, they're manipulating me.
They're making me keep this in my car.
I don't want to keep their paper in my car just because that's their process.
But at least I beat the system because I'd keep it in my car.
And so then I go to the Bed, Bath & Beyond and whip out my coupon, which had expired a month ago.
They expire.
They expire.
So now I've got to build a system just to shop at one store.
I have to design a system in my house where the mail comes in, then I take the new one.
I go out to the garage.
I go into the glove compartment.
I switch out the expired one, but first I check.
Maybe I build a tickler.
Well, this would be better.
I'll build a tickler on my calendar so that I'll enter the expiration date of the one that's in the glove compartment.
So then when I drive to the store, oh, let me shorten this story to fuck you, Bed Bath & Beyond.
You deserve to be bankrupt more than any store I have ever experienced.
I hate, hate, hate your fucking store.
I hate it.
There's no other store I hate.
And think about this.
I love their products.
Their products are excellent.
Shopping there was a good experience.
I hate them.
Hate them.
Because of what they would try to make me do to buy their products.
Do you know what I usually did?
I usually did not have a... I usually am driving by and I want to get something.
And I'll say, oh, I'll do one of two things.
I'll say, oh, I don't have my 20% coupon, so I go home and I buy it on the Amazon.
Right?
Because you still need the thing, and you're going to forget about it, you know, if you don't do something.
So you go, oh, I forgot.
I need, like, those little pump soap things for the bathrooms.
I'll just Amazon it.
Or, this is worse.
I'll go to Bed Bath & Beyond knowing I don't have the 20% coupon, and everything I see in the store looks overpriced.
Because I'm going to pay more than the person who's buying the same fucking thing In their basket right behind me.
I hate that store.
Hate them.
Now, again, it's not the store.
It's the management and what they're doing to the customers.
Absolutely abusive.
Psychologically abusive.
That store.
They need to be out of business so badly.
Which is terrible, because I love their store.
Except for the coupons.
All right, so a good example of embrace and amplify.
By the way, I do that screen that I just did to educate other management to not do that.
Really don't do that.
Just super don't do that.
Anyway, embrace and amplify.
There's an Ohio GOP Senate candidate.
So Bernie Marino.
And in public, he is proposing reparations for white people.
He said, quote, you know, they talk about reparations.
Where are the reparations for the people in the North who died to save the lives of black people?
So he said that to a group of people who all look white to me.
What do you think of that?
Now this is what I call Embrace and Amplify.
Embrace and Amplify says you accept if there's an idea that is absurd, just absurd, but you can't make it go away because somebody's going to argue that it does make sense.
If you can't make somebody understand that their idea is absurd, instead what you do is you embrace it.
And then you ask them to give you details, or to actually calculate the number, or to make sure all the variables are included.
Because that's what you do if you embrace it.
Yeah, I like your idea.
Yeah, this reparations is good.
Let's make sure that everybody who was hurt by slavery, let's make sure that they all get reparations.
Which would include everybody in the North, of course.
Oh, what?
It's difficult to figure out who was in the North?
Well, I mean, it's difficult to figure out who descended from slaves, but we can figure it out.
I mean, we'll figure that out.
Let's just table that for now, but we'll figure it out.
Alright, and then what happens next?
Well then somebody else wanders in and says, hey, are you calculating reparations?
All right, so the way to do that, it looks like you're doing it wrong.
The way to do it is to compare what you're doing, or what happened, to the alternative.
That's the only logical thing.
I've said this before.
So you would have to compare descendants of slaves in the United States To descendants of black people who did not become slaves in the area of Africa that was where the slaves came from.
So if you found out that American descendants of slaves were actually doing better than the Africans who were never slaves in the first place, then they'd come out ahead.
There'd be no reparations.
In fact, they would owe money.
So if you did the calculation that way, black people would owe money.
To pay for this better situation that they came.
Now you'd also have to calculate crime, wouldn't you?
Crime is part of it.
Because the legacy of slavery created a economic situation which led to a lot of crime, high rate of crime in the black community.
Now that crime was You know, often imposed on lots of different people.
So shouldn't you figure out how much the prison systems cost and also the, you know, how much the cost of crime is?
You probably have to put, you know, maybe a dollar amount on the murder victims.
Murder victims, you'd have to put a dollar amount on that.
Say, okay, if you killed a parent, that's five million dollars, something like that.
So I think you'd have to figure out social services payments.
You know, if you'd have to calculate how much welfare had been paid, how much prison services, police services, you basically have to figure everything that's different because slavery happened.
And one of the things that's different is a higher crime rate than would have happened otherwise.
But who's responsible for that?
Is that the plantation owners?
Or the people who are freed.
Well, it gets complicated now, doesn't it?
Because we can't agree on that.
So if you wanted reparations to go away, all you'd have to do is embrace it.
Just embrace it and say, all right, let's get serious about calculating this thing.
And as soon as you got serious about calculating it, you would realize you couldn't.
It would just be absurd.
And if you did, it would make everything worse.
It would just make everything worse.
Well, you could.
All right.
So, is there anything I haven't talked about yet?
Yeah, let me tell you what you're missing on the Scott Adams Local Subscription site.
Here's the Robots Read News comic that I did yesterday.
Some people said they liked it.
I wasn't going to make it public, but I'll read it to you.
So did you know that Biden has a new Department of Environmental Justice?
Have you heard of that?
The government is going to have an Environmental Justice Department.
Do you know what happens when you add the word justice to anything that's not actually the justice system?
You know, the legal system?
If you add justice to anything, what's that mean?
It's a grift.
Right.
If you add the word justice, that's like a big flag.
Oh, this is a grift and it's just a political thing.
So it looks like the Democrats would like to use environmental justice as one more way to punish people for being racists if they allow too much CO2 into the air, I think.
Right?
The idea is that climate change is racist because it affects people of color more than other people, and therefore if you're a person who doesn't do enough for climate change, would you not be a racist?
Right?
Because the Democrats only have one play.
Everything has to be attached to racism or they don't have any leverage.
Because it's the only thing that they can make work because they can still scare people that they'll call them racist.
I need for climate change or I'll call you a racist.
Now I can't think of any other reason they would call it the Environmental Justice Department, do you?
It would just be called the Environmental Benefit Department or something.
They wouldn't call it a Justice Department unless they planned to use it as a weapon against white men, basically.
Of course.
Yeah, it's racist.
So here's the Robots Read News comic, which is always just one robot who always looks the same, reading the news.
And the robot says, the new Department of Environmental Justice convicted a Utah man for being a racist for mocking climate scientists every time it snows.
The man was sentenced to be tattooed with swastikas and dropped off naked in Oakland.
In his absence, a backup priest will handle Sunday's mass.
No one is above the law.
This, by the way, is my first comic I've ever written that had only four sentences and all four were punchlines.
There are four punchlines in one comic.
I've never done that before.
First time.
All right.
So, weirdly...
Believe it or not, that was a weird coincidence.
A weird coincidence, I'm not going to tell you about.
Too boring.
All right.
I feel like there's some other story.
Oh, I saw this tweet by The Ethical Skeptic.
If you follow The Ethical Skeptic on Twitter, he has tons of data arguments and graphs and stuff that I usually don't understand.
So I don't know what to make of him.
He also had a piece he wrote, scientific, sort of a skeptical piece, in which he pointed out that, what do you do?
I'm going to simplify a much more elegant argument, so don't blame him if I mischaracterize it.
But one of the questions was, why did CO2 keep going up during the pandemic?
Have you ever asked yourself that?
It's a little bit unexplained.
Why did CO2 not change when human activity completely changed?
Now, so the hypothesis, the hypothesis is, for that and lots of other reasons that you point out, that there's some third source of heat that is, let's say, unexplored.
Now you're thinking, it's the sun, it's the sun, right?
No, I'm not talking about the sun.
Yes, there are a lot of people who say, it's the sun, it's sunspots.
You should know that the scientists have looked into the sunspots.
And whether they're right or wrong, they've looked into it and decided that's not where the action is.
But, yeah, the other hypothesis is coming from the Earth itself.
And that there are normal, natural processes in the Earth that are warming the oceans.
In other words, deep in the Earth, there's something going on.
Yeah, maybe an underwater volcano or something like that.
But there's something going on that's just warming the oceans, and that's mostly what you're seeing.
It has nothing to do with humans.
What do you think of that?
I'm not going to claim that's true.
I won't claim it's true.
I'm just going to claim it's not bad.
You know, if you were going to say, name another hypothesis that could explain our observations.
Name one.
I can't think of another one.
Can you?
I can't think of anything else that would fit the observation.
Unless it's all made up.
I mean, that would fit the observation, too.
But it's very unlikely.
It's unlikely that the entire field is just made up.
But, you know, it's possible.
It's actually possible.
It's just unlikely.
I don't know.
I kind of like the hypothesis.
Now, I'm sure there are other scientists who are going to tell you that there's a reason that you should not look at that hypothesis.
But on the surface, it would seem to explain a lot.
All right.
So.
Well, it's cooler lately, but that doesn't mean anything necessarily.
Your failure of imagination is funny.
You mean?
I'm not sure if you're talking about me.
Well, I think the problem is that the The advanced aliens from Atlantis, when their island was destroyed, their island of Atlantis, I think they took their advanced technology and they bore into the center of the earth and they've got a big construction project going on in there and it's warming our oceans.
Or not.
Or not.
Or lizard people.
Possibly lizard people.
All right.
One other little minor potential announcement.
So there's a topic I'm considering never talking about again.
I want to get your thoughts on it.
And I'm going to spell it because I'll get demonetized on YouTube if I say it or I put it in the title.
T-R-A-M-S.
Apparently that word makes you get demonetized because YouTube, and for good reasons, for good reasons actually.
Since YouTube can't tell in advance if you're going to be anti or pro.
Or neutral.
They just put a hold on it until a human has a chance to review it.
Which is not crazy.
That's not crazy.
You know, because it's a heated topic.
There's just as much anti as pro.
Or at least there's a lot of both.
So YouTube maybe wants to just make sure it's not some kind of a hate speech.
I don't mind that.
But, I'm not going to talk about it if they're going to punish me.
Now, it's not their intention to punish me.
It's their intention to do a good job for their advertisers and their public.
And I'm okay with that.
But I'm done with the topic.
Is anybody okay with me just never talking about it again?
Or do you think it's still too relevant and too important?
Yeah.
Well, if I do talk about it, I probably will break that.
But if I do talk about it, it's not going to be in the title.
And I might have to use code words to talk about it.
But I'm not contributing to anybody's hate.
I'm pro-trans, adults, living out their best life.
And I'm also confused about the data.
I don't really know what's true and what's not with the data, frankly.
All right.
So I probably will break that vow, but I think I will keep the vow of not putting it in the title.
So it's probably picking up the title more than anything.
All right.
Yeah.
I think that topic is super boring at this point.
Can we just be bored about it?
The only thing that I thought was interesting is if the trend for men transitioning to women continues, because I think there's more of it in that direction, right?
I'm not sure if that's true.
I think there is.
It should close the gender pay gap, though.
So the gender pay gap should be shrinking quite a bit if you get enough men turning into women.
So that's good.
All right.
I can't buy hot dogs anymore.
I just said that yesterday.
I know, but it was fun, so I said it again.
All right, well, here I was mentioning that I'm not going to mention it, and it sparked this whole deep conversation in the comments about the topic. - Look.
Like, there's nothing you can do.
It's just people want to talk about it.
Because there's nothing more basic to your personal situation than something like that.
It's just so personal.
Alright.
Now, did I hear that the Vice President of Bud Light got fired?
But maybe it's a leave of absence.
Did you hear that?
Do you think that that's...
See, I think that could be a little bit fake news.
Like half true, half fake.
Here's what I think is true.
It's probably true that she's not doing the job.
It's not necessarily true that she was fired.
It could be true that she couldn't take the heat.
It might have been just too much heat and she just needed to get away.
So that doesn't mean she's fired.
And I haven't seen any data on Budweiser sales.
I think their stock went down 5% for about a minute.
But nobody thinks that means anything.
It's just a fluctuation.
Well, you know, You know, I think the way the people on the right are interpreting it is they're interpreting it as Budweiser knows they made a mistake and they are punishing the person who made it.
But I don't know if that's true.
And apparently a man has been put in the job.
They put a man in the job.
I don't know what to believe about that story, but unless you hear from her, the actual vice president who's not in that job anymore, unless you hear from her, I think there's a gap in that story.
I wouldn't assume it's what it looks like on the surface, that somebody made a mistake and the corporation punished her for it.
Because I don't think the corporation could get away with punishing her for doing something positive for the trans community.
I don't think they could do that.
It feels more like maybe a decision that she made.
But we don't know.
So don't make any assumptions, because we don't know.
Yeah, I mean, you could obviously say why it looks like a mistake, but do you really think it affected their sales?
I mean, they're coming into the summer month.
I'm going to guess this summer is their big sales period, right?
You think so?
We haven't seen any reporting on it yet, right?
Yeah.
I assume there's some impact, but if it were your favorite beer, and it's not Bud Light, and let's say you just liked Budweiser, regular Budweiser, and that was your favorite beer, Do you think you would change brands because of this?
Or would you just say, ah, that's Bud Light.
That's not my brand.
They never mess with my brand.
They only mess with Bud Light.
I won't buy that Bud Light anyway.
Probably.
There will probably be some people who do make the decision.
But I guess we'll wait and see if their sales have been affected.
Yeah, there are a lot of sub-brands, you're right.
A lot of people don't know what Budweiser owns, though.
So it's going to be hard to boycott the other products they own.
Uh, yeah.
I don't know.
I just don't like boycotts, but I see why you do it.
I get it.
I get it.
It's down 11% now?
Somebody said.
I don't know if that's true.
11% would be something I'd worry about.
5%?
5% is a fluctuation.
11% sounds pretty serious, if that's true.
Somebody says the stock is fine, which is what I thought.
I thought the stock was fine.
All right.
AdAge reported 11%.
Down 3% since the campaign started.
All right, so probably it depends when the article got written.
If AdAge wrote the article at one point in time, it might have been just a fluke.
Oh, sales down 11%.
No, we don't know what is 11%.
We don't know what that is.
All right, we don't know if that's a stock or the sales or the sales of Bud Light or what.
Why do I care?
Well, I only care in a business sense, not a product sense.
11 is decimated, that's true.
Oh, he said the champagne and beers, so the Europeans didn't like it.
All right.
Ad age article was from Friday.
Okay, so it was current-ish.
All right, you may have noticed that today was a slow news day, and so let me ask you a few questions.
How many of you saw RFK Jr.' 's announcement speech or announcement video announcing his And what did you think about his speech?
Just the content of his speech.
Let's say the words he spoke about unity and getting stuff done.
I feel like he's picking up free money all over the place.
Don't you?
Don't you feel that America had this gigantic table full of free money in the middle, but nobody had the balls to run in the middle?
You know, everybody had to bow to their extremes in their party.
So it looks like he's doing the bold move of running as the president that everybody wanted, which is somebody who would actually try to bring us together.
And not be crazy.
Just don't be crazy.
You know, it's not hard to support the other team if they're not being assholes.
Am I right?
It's not that hard.
Like, I think that it would be easy for Democrats to go along with some Republican stuff, not all of it, but some of it, except for, you know, the attitude and, you know, the team play and all that.
So if you could get somebody who could take the energy out of the fight and just say, alright, there's some stuff in the middle we just have to be reasonable about and just get this middle stuff done, maybe he's got the message that we get that done.
Now do you think that the Democrats are panicking because RFK Jr.
is not part of the deep state, we assume, I mean it doesn't look like it, and that they have a deep state play that they're readying but we haven't seen it yet?
Don't you feel that the Democrats have a backup plan to Biden they haven't rolled out yet?
And they're just waiting for Biden himself to say he's not running.
Because here's what it feels like, right?
This is just what it feels like.
It feels like the Democrats know that Biden's a liability, but they can't tell him he's a liability because he's still president.
And he still has supporters, and he just can't go on record.
You just can't push too hard.
He's got too much power, even though he's demented.
So I feel like they're waiting because they think he will make the decision on his own, or maybe they're whispering to Jill.
You know, Jill, he's looking a little tired lately.
I'm not saying he shouldn't run, but you're the one who's closest to us.
It seems like, Jill, you're the only one who can tell us if he's not ready.
I mean, I feel like he wouldn't tell us because he wants to serve the country.
But you could tell us, Jill.
And Jill, do you think you could talk him out of it if it seemed like a bad idea?
So don't you think that There are forces that are trying to reach all of his inner circle to see if the inner circle will talk him out of running and that they've got somebody ready to go and it won't be Kamala.
Does it feel like that?
It just feels like that.
Like that they're waiting as long as they can to see if his inner circle will talk him out of running.
Now, before RFK Jr.
announced Almost anybody that they had substituted for Biden would probably have a real good chance of being president.
But now what happens if they bring in a new name, a name that has not been at the top level of politics yet, and that person has to run against a Kennedy for the primaries.
RFK Jr.
is really throwing a gigantic variable into this deal.
Yeah, so Newsom, everybody says Newsom's the heir apparent.
And Newsom's playing the, oh, I'm all for Joe Biden, which does suggest he's the heir apparent.
The vigor with which he says he's not running because Joe Biden's going to run suggests he's supporting Biden, which suggests That he probably has some kind of a deal worked out, that he's the heir apparent, if the insiders can convince Biden not to run.
Or maybe it's just some legal jeopardy that causes him not to run.
So it could be that the Democrats think that the Bidens are in such legal jeopardy, but they don't want to mention it.
So they're just holding on, waiting, see what happens.
To the last minute.
All right.
Yeah, they've got to get rid of Kamala, obviously.
Yeah, Kamala can never be a candidate for president.
That would be crazy.
Close your eyes and you hear Katharine Hepburn.
Yeah.
Well, I was just listening to RFK Jr.' 's video in which he's announcing his presidency, and I would say his voice on the video is way, way better than it was last year.
Way better.
It's not where he needs it to be, but the thing we don't know is if it's continuing to improve.
Because so far it's continued to improve since he had whatever procedure he had.
And I don't know where the end of that is.
What it looks like to me is that as he learns to control his voice production, you know, just his natural voice production, he needs to get that compatible with whatever the procedure was.
Like those two need to come in compatibility.
And it looks like he's zeroing in on it.
He could be speaking almost normally, well into the primary.
So that's a big, big variable, right?
Because there are a lot of people who just have trouble listening to him.
And I get that, because I had a similar voice problem.
So if that goes away, and it's well on the way to going away, or at least minimizing its importance, that's a really big variable.
Very big.
You think the Dem operatives are going to take out Biden?
Somebody says.
He could use some Scott Adams support.
You know what's fun about this election cycle is how many people would be pretty good.
There are a number of people who we're considering that I would say both left and right.
I would say well I might not agree with all those policies but at least that's a serious president.
I think RFK Jr.
would be a serious president.
That you could be proud of, even if you hated some of his policies.
I think Vivek is super strong.
I think that DeSantis is super strong.
I think Trump is Trump.
You know?
You like what you get, you hate what you get.
It's always going to be a mixed bag.
In fact, there's only I would say there are only two people considered for the presidency who are unambiguously unqualified.
Kamala Harris.
Well, three if you count Buttigieg.
Kamala Harris and Joe Biden.
They're by far the least qualified people in all of government.
Would you agree?
In fact, I doubt there's anybody in Congress, of the entire Congress, I doubt there's anybody as weak as either one of them.
Probably the weakest politicians we've ever seen at the same time.
That's my bet.
All right.
The Peter Principle.
Yeah, I think Buttigieg is not, he's not winning too many friends there as Transportation Secretary.
All right.
Vlad is asking me, Scott, persuade my wife Monica, who is watching you right now, to actually like your show and stop complaining.
Excuse me, I've got to take a moment.
Monica?
Come over here.
I know you're distracted, but listen to me.
Monica, this show is a virtual bonding experience.
The only way you're gonna get your husband to not love this show, and maybe ignore you a little bit, is lots of oral sex.
So Monica, you better up your game.
Because right now, this is competitive with you.
That's not good.
That's not good.
Look at this.
Watch this, Monica.
Hey everybody, let's have a sip of a beverage.
That's competitive with you right now, Monica.
You have to up your game.
You have to say to your husband, dear, I know you love this show.
I know you love it.
But if I got something for you that you're going to love even more.
So Monica, up your game.
And I know what you're thinking right now.
Scott, up yours.
But here's to everybody.
Up everybody.
We'll drink to Monica and her happy marriage.
Ah, that's good.
That's good.
Yeah, I up to my game.
Up yours.
All right.
All right, so, I hope I didn't break up your marriage.
Are there any other marriages you need me to dissemble?
Before we go, is there anybody else who needs to break up with their spouse?
All right.
I think we've... RFK is anti-vax, but is he?
Is he?
Yeah, the whole vaccination question Would have been a complete, it would be a non-starter five years ago.
But I think people so distrust experts that RFK Jr.
can make his case, and people may agree or disagree, but they're going to at least agree with the following, that there's risk.
And they're going to at least agree that the experts And Big Pharma have lied to us.
So I feel like he can sell that.
I think he can sell it.
We'll see.
Yeah, I don't think that's his appeal.
I don't think it's about vaccinations.
You do have to join locals for the man cave.
That's correct.
Do we know why the Starship disassembled yet?
Well, I don't know, but I heard there were some engines that didn't fire.
So whatever causes some engines to not fire, I guess that was the problem.
Is it persuasive to say that Fauci incited a virus?
Yes.
He incited a virus.
It's funny.
I don't know if it's persuasive.
All right.
So, ladies and gentlemen, that is all we have for today.
I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube.
We will see you tomorrow when there'll be lots of news, because it's Monday tomorrow.
