Episode 2141 Scott Adams: Trump Sock Drawer Argument, Fox News Chyron Hero, Canadian Arsonists, More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Sock drawer argument is invalid
Canada arsons
Water solved
Fox Chyron Hero
Wuhan lab leak
Cell phones in Starbucks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and I don't know why the ancients didn't think of it, but here it is now.
Lucky, think of it.
Millions of years of human evolution and you happen to be alive.
At the same time as a simultaneous sip.
And if you'd like to participate, all you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tank, or a chalice of 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.
And in the day, the thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah.
For those of you in a different time zone, just wait.
59 minutes and you'll be ready.
All right, here's some stories.
This one's sort of a repeat, but I like it so much I'm going to tell you.
Researchers at MIT have developed this absorbent hydrogel.
Have you heard this story?
An absorbent Hydrogel.
And what it does is it sucks moisture out of the air.
So you could put this hydrogel in the desert, and it would create drinking water.
It just sits there.
Now here's the great part.
I believe it's infinitely reusable.
It doesn't wear out, it doesn't get waterlogged.
It just continues sucking water out of the air, and then you have clean water.
What would happen to the world?
Oh, and also, apparently it's easy to mass produce it.
Did we just solve the entire water problem of the world?
Except maybe for agriculture.
But would this allow, would this allow people to live on the ocean?
Because isn't the biggest problem of living in the ocean getting water, right?
You'd use a lot of energy to desalinate.
So if you didn't need to use any of your energy to desalinate, could you not live on the ocean?
On the big old barge?
It really could change everything.
The entire nature of how human beings live in the world could be changed by this little hydrogel.
Because now you're not bound by water supplies.
Humans have been bound by water, access to water forever.
What if we're free to that?
Interesting, interesting thought.
Imagine that at the same time as fusion.
Because it always takes 10 years for anything to get big.
But suppose we had fusion energy, effectively almost free and infinite, at the same time we had free and infinite water.
The two things that a civilization needs the most to thrive.
There are some really good things coming.
Until AI kills us all, of course.
I mean, that's coming.
By the way, in the Dilbert Reborn comic that you can only see if you're a subscriber on Twitter, to my Twitter feed, or if you're on the Locals platform, scottadams.locals.com, you would see that Dilbert's CEO is now testifying to Congress about the dangers of their AI product.
So if you want to see Dilbert's CEO testifying to Congress about the dangers of AI, That's how you do it.
All right.
Apparently these Canadian wildfires seem to have been set by arsonists.
And it appears they have an ongoing Canadian arson problem.
And of course the question is, is somebody paying these people?
Are they environmentalists who are kind of warped and they think this will make people do something about climate change?
Because the news is covering it as a climate change story.
It doesn't even seem a little bit like a climate change story.
It seems like a giant arson story.
But do you think that individuals just sort of wake up one day and a bunch of completely different people say, you know, it'll be fun.
Has anybody ever thought of burning down a forest and then they go and do it?
Well, there's something going on and it might be just a psychological effect.
I don't necessarily see a grand Chinese plot behind any of it, but maybe.
I mean, if I were China and I were trying to destroy North America, I would do it with matches.
So I don't know if they've figured that out yet, but they will.
Well, Joe Rogan's importance in our society continues.
And I feel like he's calling a top.
I've done this before, but nobody's believing me yet, so I'll just keep saying it until it's true.
That wokeness, like everything else, has a limit.
And I think we reached our wokeness limit.
And the way that you can tell is that people can say aloud things you couldn't say even a year ago.
You can just say it.
Here's what Joe Rogan said.
He said he would vote for Trump over Biden because Biden's mentally gone, basically.
And Biden's cabinet is a, quote, fucking sideshow of diversity.
It's people you wouldn't hire to run a Ben & Jerry's.
Now, How long ago was it, was it one year ago, that you wouldn't see somebody like Joe Rogan say they would vote for Trump, first of all?
Is that news?
That feels like news, that he would say right out loud, no ambiguity, if it's those two I'm gonna vote for Trump, because one of them doesn't have a brain.
I don't think you could say that a year ago.
He says it without anything held back.
But then he goes after the diversity hires in the cabinet.
Is it only because he's Joe Rogan that he can say that?
Could the rest of us say the diversity hires are destroying the country?
By the way, I have no reason to believe they are.
I don't have any special knowledge that these cabinet members are worse than other cabinet members.
I mean, I always think cabinet members are just clowns anyway.
Does anybody take cabinet members seriously?
You know, maybe Secretary of State, then you're done, right?
But haven't we, don't we have a long history of putting political cronies in cabinet positions?
I mean, is Pete Buttigieg the cabinet head of transportation because of all of his transportation experience, or is it just like it always is?
Everybody's just getting their little rewards and stuff.
Yeah, so I would challenge Joe Rogan on the basic question of whether we've ever had competent cabinet members, beyond Secretary of State.
We probably do pretty good with state and maybe energy, but after that, I think it's just political stuff.
But anyway, the point is not so much about the cabinet, the point is more that Joe Rogan can say that out loud, and I believe there will be no penalty.
I believe there will be no penalty for anything he said about that.
What do you think?
Do you think a corner has been turned?
And I think the individual stealing the dresses from the airport probably had a lot to do with how people feel about the cabinet.
And Buttigieg has had some issues.
I don't know that Buttigieg is doing a bad job, by the way.
I wouldn't know.
How would anybody know?
You know, there were a few high profile things where people said, he went to Palestine and he wore his good shoes.
Everybody should know not to wear your good shoes to the disaster zone.
All right.
Okay.
He's a gay guy with good footwear.
Are we really holding that against him?
A gay guy with good footwear.
Okay.
I mean, if that's the worst you have, I'm not going to worry too much about his performance.
Anyway, I'm not saying he's doing a good job.
I'm saying we can't tell.
Is that clear?
I'm not supporting him.
I'm just saying, how would you know if he's doing a good or bad job?
The stuff that's in the news is also propagandized.
You can't really tell if he's doing a good or bad job.
You really can't.
All right.
Joe Rogan also had, well, I have one more question.
When Joe Rogan said that Ben and Jerry's, that the cabinet members couldn't run a Ben and Jerry's, Somebody tweeted that Ben & Jerry's is so woke their Burlington, Vermont flagship scoop shop has a We Must Dismantle White Supremacy sign in the window.
So you get your ice cream and your politics in the same place.
We Must Dismantle White Supremacy!
Now I have a question for Ben & Jerry's.
Do they still sell vanilla?
Anybody?
That's actually a real question.
Do they sell vanilla?
They do?
I'm going to have to see it.
Because I don't believe you.
I don't believe they sell vanilla ice cream.
Alright, well I'm going to have to see proof.
I don't believe it.
I think they've got to dismantle that stuff.
Well, Joe Rogan also had RFK Jr.
on, and he asked him directly, and this is why we love Joe Rogan, right?
Has anybody asked this question directly of RFK Jr., which is, are you afraid you'll get assassinated?
Somebody must have asked the question, but I feel like most people would be too afraid to ask it.
Even though it's the main question on our minds, it's the one everybody's thinking about.
And so Joe Rogan just asked the question.
Are you afraid, basically?
You know, you've said the Intel people killed JFK.
Are you afraid they'll do it to you?
And he said he's not afraid, but he does take precaution.
What kind of precaution could you take?
Does he have a food taster already?
I mean, how much could you actually do if the CIA wanted to kill you?
Do you think you could block them?
You know, the CIA is trying to kill me, but I got me a ring doorbell.
So, I feel like I'm in pretty good shape here.
What exactly could you do?
Yeah, I guess Castro did it.
Did you have to have body doubles?
I think you need about 35 body doubles just to get your odds down to normal.
Alright, we know more about my new hero.
I call him the Fox News Chiron Guy, because we don't know his name.
And you know the story that the Fox News Chiron Guy put up a A little label at the bottom of the Fox News report.
When Trump was being reigned they said, wannabe dictator arrests political rival.
Now I speculated and hoped, it was more hoping than speculating, that it was done as a parody of CNN and MSNBC.
Because that's sort of like a parody of their coverage.
And it turns out, I don't think it was a parody.
Although it could have also been a parody, right?
But that wasn't the main purpose.
Apparently, so this is what I heard from, you know, somebody who has access to knowledge, right?
And I don't know if it's true, I'm just telling you what I was told.
So you could put whatever level of credibility on that you want.
And by the way, this was not from any employee of Fox News, so what I'm going to tell you comes from a non-Fox News person.
But the story is that when Tucker quit, allegedly, management asked people to take sides, and they said, if you're on Tucker's side, tell us and we'll walk you out now.
And I think some people did, and they got walked out.
Or potentially they did, I don't know the details.
But this one Fox News Chiron hero is allegedly one of Tucker's ex-producers.
Does it get more interesting now?
I'm telling you, my source is not a Fox News employee.
I know you're going to guess it's not him.
So apparently this senior Fox News producer stayed long enough to figure out what was going on and maybe collect some information.
Apparently this was his final act before he left.
So while technically he was fired, apparently that was the plan.
So it looks like he was trying to get fired and he was done with the network and he went out in style.
Now I happen to be a really big fan of resigning in a spectacular fashion.
Very big fan of that.
And so the fact that he did this play on his way out, he will always be my hero.
I so want to know his name or her name.
I'm assuming a gender.
I shouldn't be doing that.
So he or her.
I would like to know who this is because that's my new hero.
I absolutely want to be this person's friend.
I want to be their friend.
That's it.
Anybody who could do this is my friend.
I don't care what else is going on.
So, that's fun.
Did you see Matt Walsh's Twitter thread about what Fox News is teaching its employees about Pride Month?
I don't even know how to describe it.
But apparently the required Fox News propaganda for their own employees about Pride Month is just jaw-dropping.
I don't even know how to describe it.
It's hard not to call it insane, right?
It looks so far beyond, you know, what any reasonable person would think is appropriate in any situation.
And I'm not being a prude, right?
I'm not saying, you know, straight sex is good and gay sex is bad.
Nothing like that.
Nothing like that.
You know, among adults, whatever, whatever.
How did such a small group of people end up with so much control over our lives?
It's such a small group of people.
Why are their problems greater than every other category on earth?
Like, you don't think fat people and sick people and, you know, people with different abilities and... You don't think there's like a million categories of people with fucking issues?
Or special, let's say, not issues, let's say special situations.
It's like you could slice, you know, the population up into a million different aggrieved groups and they would all have a point.
Every one of them would have a point.
And if you listen to it, you say, well, that's a pretty good point.
But why is one group the only one that we have to look at and care about and have a month?
How many months are there?
So we know we got Black History Month, but I think we got that one honestly, wouldn't you say?
Black History Month, I mean, there was slavery.
I feel like the country came on that one honestly.
Meaning, yeah, we should note that.
You don't want to forget that.
But, Pride Month?
And again, this is nothing against the LGBTQ community, which I am a big supporter of.
I love my LGBTQs.
But, why does anybody need a month?
Again, like I said, slavery is the special case.
Well, it's an interesting situation and no doubt we're reaching the peak of it.
Alright, here's a story that I swear to God is like Groundhog Day.
Every time I think this story has already been reported, I learn that it wasn't exactly.
Can anybody give me a Groundhog Day kind of a clarification here?
How many times have we been told that we found out that the virus really did come from the Wuhan lab?
Am I wrong that every few months I wake up to the same story, as if we didn't know, but now we just learned it?
I thought we didn't know and then just learned it at least six different times.
How many times do we have to pretend we didn't know and then just found out?
And now there's another one.
Now this is the worst of all, right?
And I think Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger are on this case, doing the research, and another person whose name I tragically forget.
So there's somebody else who needs credit that I just forgot their name.
But apparently the first three people infected with the virus were employees of the lab.
Wait.
What?
What?
The first three people infected were employees of the, we're going to infect you with a virus lab?
How long have we known this?
How long have we known that?
And then part of the reporting is that, you know, FBI Director Christopher Wray said that they've known for a long time it was the lab, that the FBI has known for a long time.
Did we know that?
I mean, but just give me a just give me a fact check.
Have we not gone through the cycle of not knowing and then knowing like six times?
How many times do we have to find out once again?
It really was the Wuhan lab.
I don't know what's going on here.
I'm actually confused about why we ever thought it wasn't them.
Who ever thought it wasn't?
You know, I've told you the story that Before you ever heard there was a lab, I already knew it was a lab.
Have I told you that story?
Before you ever knew there was a lab there, I had privately, in a private conversation, seen where the lab was and where the wet market was.
It's like right across the street.
And the name of it, like, I think Gutfeld has said this, and I think Jon Stewart has said this, the name is like right on the door, you know, the Infectious Disease Lab or whatever.
And the day that somebody showed that to me, I look at the lab and I thought, well that's not a fucking coincidence.
Of course it came from there.
So I knew that before, and trust me, Everybody in the government probably knew from day one.
Because all they had to do is know where the lab was, and that was the end of the story.
All you needed to know is where the lab was.
That's it.
And then you would know the whole story.
And it turns out it was exactly what it looked like.
All right, let me talk about the Mar-a-Lago documents and the SOCJOR defense.
I've been trying to figure out the two movies on one screen.
You're aware of one movie that says Trump will definitely be cleared of all charges because the Clinton sock drawer case basically sets a precedent that he can take what he wants.
You've heard that, right?
And then I see tweets from the left that say those people who believe that are hallucinating and stupid and they're silly.
But I never saw a reason.
Like, everybody would just say you're stupid and you're silly.
And I'm like, and?
And?
Why does the sock drawer defense not work?
Because?
Can you give me any reasons?
So I had to do a deep dive today in the fake fact-checking world of PolitiFact and all those places.
And of course, all of the top search results, if you Google it, all of the top search results say the sock drawer defense is bullshit.
Did you know that?
Do you know if you Google it, all the top results say it's bullshit?
But do you know why?
This will be a test to your bubble.
And by the way, I'm very guilty of this, so I'm doing my mea culpa here.
So I actually believed some of the things I heard about that sock drawer defense.
None of it's true.
Did you know that?
The whole sock drawer thing is complete bullshit.
How many of you do that?
I'm going to tell you why in a moment.
First of all, that the sock drawer was not about the government versus Bill Clinton.
Did you know that?
I thought the government Had an issue with Bill Clinton and then the courts worked it out and then Bill Clinton was shown to be right because simply by taking the stuff that was good enough to say it was personal.
So there you go.
So he can just take anything he wants and it applies to Trump too.
Alright, so the first thing you need to know is it was never the government against Clinton.
It was Judicial Watch.
Private organization.
They were suing to try to get access to the private tapes under the theory that they weren't private.
But then the court said there's nobody whose job it is to decide what's private or not, and therefore the court cannot decide that they are or are not private.
I just ruined that explanation totally.
But let's see, the summary of that Is a private organization wanted access to the tapes and the court says we don't really have any control over that.
So no.
But that has nothing to do with the Trump situation.
So here's where I was getting confused by all the defenses and the claims, all right?
And I think, I'll bet most of you are confused about the same thing.
And this clarification might be the first time you understand what's going on.
Maybe, that's my... So my goal is that this will be the first time you understand what's going on.
Because the two bubbles are not talking.
There is no, there's almost no contact whatsoever.
And I also saw the Wall Street Journal article where the lawyer who lost the Clinton sock drawer case said, oh yeah, I'm the expert on this situation.
I lost the case trying to get access to him.
And so I can tell you for sure that Trump is not in trouble because I'm an expert in this very thing.
However, That expert is a partisan.
And so when the expert says, I know everything about this, and here's my opinion, you're getting a very partisan opinion.
This is not somebody who's trying to tell you the full situation.
Now, that's not fair of me.
I'm just making that assumption based on association with an entity that has a definite political place in the world.
They're not trying to be objective, in my opinion.
You know, they have more of a political agenda.
So, here's the big clarification.
There are two issues, not one.
One issue is how does a president declare that something is personal?
Personal is different than confidential.
So there are two paths, and this is why we're confused.
One path is about what is classified, and how do you make it unclassified?
That is a separate question from what is personal.
Does that make sense?
So the standard for the sock drawer case was about what was personal.
It was about what was personal.
The Clinton situation is about what was classified.
Those are not the same.
So a sock drawer case gives you, not only does it give you no precedent, but apparently from a legal standpoint, it's not a binding precedent, if binding is the right word.
It's not a precedent that any court needs to look at.
Nobody needs to look at that as a precedent.
So there is no precedent that has any legal weight.
There is just something that happened, which is different.
So here's what I think is the fact of it.
All right, so here's my best understanding.
A president can make any document unclassified, but not personal.
So Trump does have the right, I believe, to declassify anything, because he's the president.
And that his argument might be, and I think this would be the better part of the argument, that the act of removing it is a clear indication of declassification.
Now he might win that and he might not, but I think that's a strong argument.
That the mere removing of them is a clear intention to declassify.
I don't know, maybe a jury buys that, maybe not, but I can't see 12 people not agreeing.
I mean, it might be a mixed jury, but I can't see 12 people saying, no, he doesn't have that capability or right.
However, here's my understanding that I need a fact check on.
Even if something's personal, it's not necessarily owned by the president.
This is where it gets weird.
So apparently on day one, when a material is presented or created, you're supposed to designate it personal or government on day one.
So, if you do that, everything goes well, and there's no problem later.
On day one, we said this was personal.
We filled out the form.
It's been personal from day one.
So then, that's fine.
You can keep that.
But what if there's something that didn't get classified that way as personal, and then later on, the president wants to claim it as personal, because, hey, just look at it.
Just look at it.
These are obviously personal.
So, then who gets to decide?
Well, I think Judicial Watch wanted the courts to decide and the courts basically said that's not their job.
And there's no standard for that.
So, I think I'm butchering the legal descriptions here, so you should all know that that's the case.
But the basic idea here is don't confuse a president's ability to make something a personal document, which I don't think they have the right, I don't think the president can just say after the fact it's personal, but there is also nobody else who can do it.
Isn't that weird?
It's just a black hole.
If you don't do it on day one, there's nobody's job it is later to say, oh this was wrong, this was actually personal.
So I think what we have here, which makes me think that Trump will not have any prison time for this, I think what we have here is a situation sufficiently complicated that a jury is going to have a tough time with it.
And if the jury has a tough time with it, I don't know how they find guilty.
Because it would just be too hard to hold it in their heads.
There's just too many variables here.
So I don't know what's going to happen, but to me it looks like it's a big old confusing case, as opposed to something where Trump was doing something illegal.
It looks like just confusion over who had rights, and if that's all it is, I don't think people go to prison for that.
So my overall feeling is that the legal system will not put him in jail, but I could be surprised.
All right, Peggy Noonan is writing about Trump, making sure that we buy into the summer hoax.
Now, the summer hoax is that somehow we magically know that the documents in those boxes are not just classified, which is the one part we do know, but dangerous, dangerous to the country.
Now, nobody's claiming that any of that information got out in any way that was dangerous.
So there's no victim.
They still have to make it look like it's terrible, after the fact, when there's no victim.
Now, if you're talking about it before these documents had been secured, and you said, oh, we've got all these maybe sensitive documents that are unsecured, I would say, act right away.
Let's do something to secure those documents.
Who did that?
Who is to blame?
But it's already over.
The documents are secured.
There's no risk now, and apparently there was no exposure then.
So there's no alleged victim whatsoever, but they've got to make this the biggest story of the summer because it's all they got.
So Peggy Noonan writes this piece in the Wall Street Journal to try to make that case, and in her own writing she referenced something she'd said in the past about Trump and entering the Weimar Republic phase.
That's right.
A Hitler reference.
So here's a person who is writing an article which you are supposed to gain some wisdom and insight by reading her opinion.
And you know that before you even hear the opinion about the documents that she is at one time gone full Hitler in her understanding of Trump.
Now is there anything else you need to listen to from this individual?
I think that's completely disqualifying.
If you've ever referred To Trump in a serious way as, oh, Weimar Republic, next Hitler, dictator, authoritarian.
It's just disqualifying because you know at that point that they're not even trying.
They're not even trying to be useful or helpful.
So she goes on with a bunch of twaddle about how dangerous these documents might be that we've never seen.
Here's a sentence for her.
You can't get more serious, more breathtaking on a charge against a former president.
The documents have to do with the most essential of our security interests.
They're about how we keep our country safe from military attack.
Are they?
Are they, Peggy?
Which ones did you get to read?
Yeah?
Which ones did you get to read?
Because I didn't get to read any of them.
And I don't believe that they're important or sensitive or that they matter at all.
Do I believe that one of them might reference an attack plan on another country?
Sure.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Do I think that that attack plan would actually make a difference to anybody if they saw it?
What do you think an executive level attack plan looks like?
Let's say it's Iran.
We don't know that, but let's say it is.
Let's say it was an attack plan for Iran.
Do you think Iran would learn anything from that?
The executive summary of the attack plan?
Well, the first wave would be an air attack and we'd use all our good weapons and missiles.
Because they didn't know that?
They didn't know that we first would do an air attack with missiles and try to do it from a distance.
They didn't see that coming.
They didn't see that our intelligence in the country to arm them.
They never saw that coming.
What could possibly be in an Iran attack document that Iran would not consider completely obvious?
That.
The whole point of having a gigando army, military, Is that you can attack anybody of that size and you pretty much know you're going to win because you've got the big military that can do all the things that you put on that memo.
But everybody else knows it too.
Everybody knows how the attacks look.
You know, suppose they say stuff like, oh, we're going to do a lightning attack to try to take Tehran.
What happens when the actual war starts?
Because the other thing that we know is that war plans only last until the first shot.
And then you have to alter.
So basically, what we imagine we're doing on day one is going to be whatever they teach in the war colleges.
It's going to be like all the obvious attack stuff.
And then that would be infinitely tweaked if any real war happened.
So what is it that a Red would learn from that?
Probably nothing.
Probably nothing.
Because like I said, it would be an executive summary.
What would the president be seeing?
Is he going to see a list of our assets?
Is he going to see we'll put X number of tanks into the theater or whatever?
I don't think we'd use tanks.
But, I don't know.
I just can't imagine what it would be that wouldn't make any difference.
So, is it serious and breathtaking?
Does it talk about U.S.
nuclear programs?
Oh no!
Oh no!
All right, here's one.
When it talks about the U.S.
nuclear program, did they say weapons?
Have you ever once asked yourself this question?
All the reporting I see is about our quote nuclear program.
How do you know that means weapons?
Couldn't it be that we plan to build a bunch of nuclear reactors if we can?
Why doesn't it mean energy?
I don't know.
I mean, it could.
Are you telling me that there's no chance that it could just be about nuclear energy?
It might be.
Now, I think it's more likely that it's about nuclear weapons, of course.
But we don't know anything.
About potential vulnerabilities of the U.S.
Really?
Do you think somebody gave the President a document about our potential vulnerabilities and he took it with him?
I don't believe that.
Not intentionally.
A document that if our enemies saw it, they could destroy our country?
You think he just threw that in the box with the other stuff?
I don't think so.
I mean, I get that it's potentially true, but it doesn't seem likely.
Plans for possible retaliation, again, which would be totally generic in my opinion.
All right.
So we've seen this movie before.
So here's how the movie plays.
We're going to spend all summer long, because it's a slow news summer.
It's always slow news.
And all summer long, the news will try to make us guess what's in those boxes.
And they'll use so many words like serious and breathtaking that you'll start to think there's something bad in those boxes.
Which, by the way, there might be.
But we've seen the movie too many times.
And the movie goes like this.
Oh, those boxes have so many secrets in them.
Secrets of the worst possible kind.
All right, maybe there are not a lot of secrets, but there's at least two or three really bad, okay, not two or three secrets, but one of those things in there was really, okay, it wasn't what you thought it was.
And that happens approximately two years after the event.
It's a two-year lag.
Two years from hoax to unveiling hoax.
It's the same pattern every time.
So all that matters is they can spend the entire summer talking about the things you can't see.
And you know, if you can see the things you can't see, boy, would you feel bad.
Whoa, whoa, would you hate Trump if you could see the things that nobody can see.
Now, if you can see the things that you can see, Trump looks pretty good.
You know, compared to Biden.
But if you could see the things you can't see, can we agree that if you could see the things we can't see, you'd be seeing some stuff.
Oh, what you would be seeing if you couldn't see the things you can see.
But the things you can see look fine.
But oh, those things you can't see.
All right, Ukraine is turning into a joke.
You know, all the news is bullshit.
I think one of the generals said that all those pictures of destroyed Ukrainian tanks, he thinks it might be the same group of five tanks that they photographed from different angles.
Now, I don't think that's quite true, but obviously some of that is going on, right?
Some exaggeration of losses on both sides.
But have you seen the map?
Of how much land has changed hands since the offensive started, the counter-offensive?
None.
Basically none.
So the entire counter-offensive, which is definitely, oh yeah, it's losing a lot of men, but they're making sure but slow progress.
And then today I learned it might take several months of probing the defenses before they find the place they break through.
Sure, that's convenient.
It's going to take you several months probing those defenses until you find the place you can break through.
Oh, Nancy Dill.
Let me take care of Nancy.
Nancy, you fell for the 4chan hoax.
You poor, poor, stupid cunt.
You fell for the 4chan hoax about me and my pandemic opinions.
You poor girl.
Poor girl.
Can we all say, poor Nancy Dill.
She believes anything.
So gullible.
You're so gullible.
You're adorable.
So Nancy's my new mascot.
We're going to call her Clot Dill.
Mrs. Clot.
And continue on.
All right.
That probably got me demonetized.
Totally worth it.
You know my opinion.
about the Ukraine war, that it's really just a big negotiation at this point, because there's not much land that's going to change hands, and they just need to beat each other up until somebody's willing to talk peace.
So I looked on CNN today looking for news, and I read all over the top and everything, and there wasn't any news.
I mean, there were headlines, but none of it looked like News of any importance to anybody, because it's summer, right?
It's not really their fault, it's just summer, and there's not much news.
But there was one headline that looked like it was news, and the headline was something along the lines of, Putin was looking for any way out of the Ukraine situation.
Now, that would be an interesting story, wouldn't it?
Because that would sort of suggest he's ready to negotiate, which would be the biggest story there is.
So I clicked on that link that said that Putin might be open to anything to end the war.
And after I clicked on the link, it went to a different story.
The only thing on the CNN page that I thought was interesting, that was worth clicking on, was a bad link.
True story.
It was the only thing that looked interesting, and it was a bad link.
It went to the wrong story.
So that's all you need to know about CNN's news gathering ability.
Well, we almost had a story, but we couldn't get the link.
All right, I had a little incident in Starbucks yesterday.
Some of you watched my live stream yesterday.
You know that I had been up the night before with food poisoning and hadn't slept all night.
And sometimes my temper is not as easily controllable if I haven't slept.
It's a thing.
So I was in food, I was in Starbucks and I thought I might have just enough energy to do, you know, a good solid hour of work today, you know, creative work.
And I have like five deadlines at the moment because I'm trying to put together two books, you know, a new one and a reissue.
Looking, trying to get audio books done.
I've got, you know, the local stuff.
I've got this.
I get twice a day.
So I have something like five deadlines a day, roughly speaking.
And I go into Starbucks, tired and cranky.
I sit down and there's only three people in the Starbucks.
Customers.
All three of us have laptops.
Clearly, we all came there to work.
Guy behind me pulls out his cell phone and starts making a call.
No problem.
People make phone calls from Starbucks all the time.
And it's usually something like, you know, oh, I'll be home in 15 minutes, or did you get my email?
Right.
This guy decides to make a very long and what was obviously going to be a lengthy, loud phone call right behind me.
In a place with only three people.
And it's me on my laptop, obviously trying to work, and he's doing the phone call.
So the first thing I say to myself is, well, there's no law that says he can't do that, right?
There's no sign, there's no guideline.
So, it's just my problem, right?
It's just something bothering me.
This is not about, it's not about him, I'm telling myself.
And I try to work and I couldn't, I couldn't even see the laptop because my vision started turning red because I was getting more and more angry.
And I was saying this on the, I did a live stream from the man cave last night, so I said some of this.
I, you know, I first did the three look around technique.
Which I'm going to model for you.
Some of you have seen it.
So he was behind me, but facing my direction.
So the first look around, you just keep a neutral expression.
You know, like maybe you were just looking for something else.
And then the point of that is that he would think, oh, is this guy looking at me because I'm on my phone?
But there would be some ambiguity there, because maybe I was just looking at something else.
But maybe on his own, he would think, oh shoot, he might have been looking at me because I'm on my phone.
I'll better make this short.
But that didn't make any difference.
He was clearly engaged in a long phone call.
So then I had to do the second look around.
And you know the second look around, you add a little attitude.
So that one looks like this.
Got that one?
Yeah, it's the stink eye.
It's the stink eye.
But the stink eye didn't make any difference either.
I went for the full turnaround.
So next I had to go.
Full turnaround, no difference.
Just continued with this phone call.
So now I said to myself, well, I'm not going to make a thing about this.
I'm just going to pack up my laptop and call it a day, and I'm just going to write the day off, and literally I'm going to go back to bed.
Because this is not a fight I need.
It's not like I'm some kind of Karen, you know?
It's not like I'm going to cause a scene in a public place.
So as I was packing up my laptop, I was feeling my willpower and self-control, if you imagine it starting at 100%.
It already was down to about 75%.
But that's plenty, and that's a lot of willpower, 75%, no problem.
But as I was getting ready to gather up my garbage to throw it away, I feel it crossed the 50% threshold, and I still wasn't gone.
And I thought, uh-oh.
And then it kept dropping.
In about 25%, 10%, I thought, oh, shit.
I'm about five seconds away from Hulk smash, and I don't have anywhere to stop it.
So a conversation ensued.
He didn't enjoy it.
I went full Karen.
I think I don't remember everything I said because sometimes you get angry you don't remember what you said.
But I do remember this part.
And it went like this.
Of this entire neighborhood, there is only one place you shouldn't be making that phone call.
Right there.
Right where you are.
This is the only place you should not be doing that.
But he told me that was my opinion.
Now, I tweeted about it because I wanted to see other people's opinions.
I was wondering if other people would say, hey, live and let live.
There's no rule against making a phone call.
But here's my take on this.
And of course, I've owned a couple of restaurants.
I'm triggered by cell phones in restaurants.
There is no situation where using your phone where other people are in a social situation is OK.
It's not okay in the movie theater.
It's not okay in the restaurant.
I understand that people do make phone calls more often as Starbucks.
I get that.
But like I said, short ones.
Short ones.
No problem at all.
Right?
But if you get on there and you stay on there, I think you don't understand how much annoying that is.
Somebody tried to tell me that the problem was on my end, because it really was just an opinion of who was right and wrong and who was wrong.
To which I say, really?
Would fingernails on a chalkboard be my opinion that it bothers me?
Is that an opinion?
If I were to piss on your fucking salad, is it your opinion that it doesn't taste good?
Is that an opinion?
No, some things are not a fucking opinion.
Some things are just cause and effect.
And we know, from science, that listening to one side of a phone call will make you insane.
If it's blocking you from doing what you want to do, especially.
So there's no doubt about the cause and effect.
And if you pretend you don't know that, you're an asshole.
I'm sorry.
If you pretend you're not aware of how much of a fingers on the chalkboard it is to have a phone call in front of somebody, you are a fucking asshole.
And if this is the first time you're hearing about it, you know, fine.
Now, I'm going to save one story.
Remind me on Locals.
I'm going to save you one phone call story just for Locals.
There's one I can't tell in public.
All right.
But let's just say this phone call in public situation, I've been dealing with this a little bit, so I've got some experience here.
Anyway, that ladies and gentlemen is all I wanted to say.
Is there anything you'd like to hear about?
Was he brown?
No, he was a white frat boy looking guy.
With slick back hair, maybe a real estate guy?
I don't know.
Not sure.
I hope I'm still welcome back in Starbucks.
Alright, anything else I forgot?
Did I miss any topics?
I'll give you the rest of the story on locals.
Did you take on the shift, censure, might change your mind?
I don't think so.
There's no way I'd be in favor of a large fine.
I just don't want the members of Congress voting fines for each other.
I'm just not cool with that.
So there's nothing you could tell me that would change my mind on that.
I don't think so, anyway.
All right, we talked about Tucker.
MTG was snubbed by Trump on the runway.
I don't know anything about that.
You know, I don't mind people who talk too loud in a restaurant.
That doesn't bother me too much.
I understand why it bothers other people, but personally, it doesn't bother me too much.
All right.
Did he know it was me?
Oh, that's a good question.
I'm going to say not, because when people know my job, they treat me differently.
So he definitely treated me like a Starbucks patron.
All right, that's all I got now, and I will talk to you, YouTube, tomorrow.
