Episode 2156 Scott Adams: The News Is Weird And I'm Here For It. Grab Some Coffee And Get In Here
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, President Trump, Chris Christie, Misery Index, Randi Weingarten, Student Loan Forgiveness, President Biden, Michelle Obama, Yacht Hypocrite, RFK Jr. Voice, Politician Voices, Commanding Voice, Pleading Voice, Traffic Stop Cultural Differences, France Race Riots, Addiction Healing Centers, Prigozhin Helicopter Finger
---
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 Colin Coffey with Scott Adamson.
Boy, you're lucky that you chanced upon it today.
Your day is looking good, your weekend, your whole month, I think, is looking really good.
And if you'd like to take it up to levels that no one's ever imagined could be possible, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of chalicestine, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
now.
Go.
Well, you're going to be hot inside and out today if you're in most of the United States.
It's going to be over 100 where I am.
And I'm looking forward to it.
It's time to get wet.
All right, let's talk about all the fun things in the news.
Here's a little observation I made.
I'm sure I remember when I was younger that when people talked about things, they would often talk about things they liked.
Right?
They'd say, I went on vacation.
I liked it.
There's a new TV show.
I love it.
There's a thing that happened.
I went to the circus.
It was great.
Do you remember those days?
And now what we talk about is things we don't do.
Oh, let me tell you.
I don't watch television.
No, no.
You do?
Oh, you watch television.
Oh, that's funny.
No reason, no reason, no reason.
No, but you watch television, right?
I gave up television a long time ago.
I'm superior to you in so many ways.
The television is just one.
It's just one of the many ways I'm superior to you because you don't watch television.
And we also do Don't Drink Bud Light, I Don't Shop at Target, I Don't Watch CNN, I Don't Watch Fox News.
We're defining ourselves by what we don't do.
Am I wrong that that's new?
It's kind of different.
You used to define yourself by what you did.
For example, I used to say I was a tennis player.
Now I say I don't watch MSNBC.
I've just defined myself by what I'm unwilling to do.
All right.
That's not a good sign, probably.
Now, here's a story that you knew was coming.
Talk about the most predictable thing you could possibly predict.
Gyms and fitness centers are now embracing fatness.
So instead of getting you to look, you know, trim and muscular and etc.
That's out the door.
Now we're going to make you fat and happy.
So you can be as fat as you want.
But you need to be healthy.
So they're going to work on your mental health and your strength.
And your weight will be de-emphasized.
So it's not about the shedding pounds anymore.
So the fatness will replace the fitness.
And you all saw it coming.
Is there anybody here who's on a dating site?
Is there anybody in the audience who's using a dating app of any kind?
I just want to ask you.
Dating app of any kind?
Okay, my audience is too old.
There's not a single person saying yes.
Or one.
Alright.
I just want to leave you with this question.
Do the photos of the people on the dating app look about the same as they did before the pandemic?
Have you noticed anything different?
In the old days, you'd see a lot of pictures of people from, you know, you'd see their whole body.
And now the most common thing when people show their photo, in any sense, whether it's a profile picture or any place else, the photo's like this much.
People are only showing this much of their body now.
Hey!
Hey!
Don't ask about what's below this hand or above this hand.
It's just this part.
I'm trying to sell you on this part.
If I can get you sold on this part, maybe you won't ask as many questions about what's above the hand and below the hand.
So that's new.
I heard that Rome said that the Colosseum would be available if Zuckerberg and Musk want to fight in there.
In the Colosseum.
To which I said, okay, there's no way you can make this story better, right?
When I first heard that Zuckerberg and Musk might actually fight, I said to myself, well, it can't get better.
This is the ultimate entertaining story.
There's no way you can make this better.
And then I imagined them doing it in the Coliseum.
Okay, that's better.
That is better.
I didn't think you could do it.
You know, honestly, I didn't think it was possible, but that's better.
And then I thought, if you're gonna do it in the Coliseum, that's really only a little driving distance from the Vatican.
Guess who would be the best referee?
No, not Joe Rogan.
The Pope.
Could we get the Pope to referee the fight between Zuckerberg and Musk?
And no, I'm not kidding.
I'm not kidding.
We got all the way to... Look, we started with no story, and we got all the way to Zuckerberg and Musk fighting in the Coliseum.
You didn't see that coming.
Which one of you predicted that?
None of you, right?
Can you admit you're not good at predicting the future?
All right, well I say the Pope will be the referee for a fight that may or may not be naked between Musk and Zuckerberg in the Coliseum.
That's what I want and I'm not willing to settle for anything less than that.
I don't want anything less than that.
That's my minimum bid.
All right.
I gotta show you this.
Did you happen to see the Trump Chris Christie tweet?
Well, it was a truth, not a tweet.
I gotta show you the picture because without the picture it doesn't work as well.
Give you one moment.
So there's a photograph of Chris Christie sleeping on a flight and He wasn't looking too elegant.
Here's a little picture.
So Christie's just sort of, you know, slovenly spread out across the seat and a half on the flight.
But the funny part is that Trump does a truth on it.
He's so funny.
He goes, Trump just titles it, he says, "Resting after a good 25 minutes of work." Now, here's why Trump is so funny.
He's completely, Trump is completely underrated as a humorist.
He's one of the funniest people in the world, but because he has this other job, you know, you don't think about it.
But here's why this is funny.
It's resting after a good 25 minutes of work.
The thing that sells this is the word good.
If he said resting after 25 minutes of work, That's not really funny, is it?
Resting after 25 minutes of work.
It would just sort of lay there, wouldn't it?
But he puts the word good in there.
Resting after a good 25 minutes of work.
It was the addition of the word good that turned it from a sentence into a joke.
How many people would have known that?
How many people would have known that if you put that word good in there, it turns it funny?
He does have a skill.
It's a very special skill.
He's completely underrated for his writing ability.
As a writer.
I would say as a writer of tweets and twos, he's just one of the best.
So then Chris Christie thought he would dunk on Trump.
So after Trump does this Perfect Trump tweet.
I mean, it's perfectly in character.
It's also visual.
Remember, I always teach you that Trump is the master of visual persuasion.
When he talks about the wall, you can picture it in your mind.
Right?
It's a visual thing even if there's no picture.
Well, this is a total visual persuasion.
He doesn't need to tell you that Chris Christie has policies you won't like.
He can just show a picture of him looking like a slob on a plane.
You get the same benefit without all the thinking.
So Trump's excellent at that.
So Trump basically gives them a total kill shot.
But Chris Christie, he's not down and out yet.
He tweets Trump's truth.
So he's doing that thing where instead of minimizing it, you're embracing it.
Right?
So he's embracing it sort of like Dark Brandon, you know, Biden tried to embrace Dark Brandon.
So he tries to embrace it and he says, Chris Christie says of Trump, living rent free in Donald's head.
Make me a permanent resident, you know, donate money, blah, blah, blah.
Living rent free in Donald's head.
So I had to tweet about his tweet.
So I tweeted Chris Christie's tweet, and I said, pro tip, never hire an NPC to do your tweeting.
You can test for NPCs by asking them if anyone is above the law.
Now, that's sort of an ongoing joke here, so if that doesn't sound funny to you, it's because you don't know the background to it.
But can I give you this advice?
If you ever are tempted to say to somebody in 2023 that you're living rent-free in their head, you have either fallen into some kind of a time dilation situation where you've traveled back in time to where that made sense to say and it sounded kind of new and edgy to, you know, well, let me just say that in 2023, this is really worn out and only an NBC should say
You're living rent free in somebody's head.
For a while, it was a good thing to say.
It was pretty kind of clever.
It's not clever anymore.
It's not clever.
And if somebody zings you as good as Trump zinged him, you're going to need something better than living rent free in Donald's head.
All right.
So that round goes to Trump.
I'd like to remind you again, and this is something I have to remind myself of all the time, A lot of the people on Twitter that you imagine are trolls, you know, that they have some bad opinion and are just coming in and saying bad things, you should know that a lot of them are just drunk.
Like, actually, they're just drunk.
And as soon as you tell yourself that they might be drunk, the experience changes completely.
Have you had the experience where a drunk comes up to you and acts drunk, and you don't like it?
But you're processing it as you're dealing with a drunk.
You don't process it as you're dealing with that person and their actual personality in a real situation.
You just say, oh, that's a drunk.
I get it.
They're not hurting me.
They're just drunk.
They're just annoying.
So trolls can really get under your skin.
You know, they can say something that, you know, makes you look stupid.
So you're like, ah, I'm not going to look stupid.
And I found that, by far, the best reply to troll people who just come on to insult you is, I like to say, morning drinking or drunk already.
And what's interesting is the number of people who don't push back on that accusation.
You'd expect people to say stuff like, I haven't had a drink since the 90s.
What do you mean?
But they don't.
They're usually drunk.
I think they're actually drunk.
And if they're not drunk, they're inebriated on something.
So there's a ton of stuff that you shouldn't think about at all.
Just reply to them and ask them if they're drinking.
And don't say anything else.
Don't follow up, because they're going to say something like, you think I'm drinking?
Look at your tweet.
I think you're the one.
You know, they're going to say something.
It doesn't matter what they say.
Just drop your comment that it appears they've been drinking, and don't do anything else.
Do not engage.
You'll be much happier.
Well, there's something called the Misery Index.
Have you heard of that?
It's the combination of unemployment and inflation.
So if you've got lots of unemployment, at the same time you've got lots of inflation, that would be high on the misery index.
Well, it turns out that the misery index is down to where it was when Biden took office.
It did, of course, as you know, it zoomed.
We had high unemployment and high inflation, and both of them come down quite a bit.
So the misery index is down.
Now the misery index does not measure everything.
Huh.
That's interesting.
What does it mean when Twitter says there's a rate limit that's reached?
Does anybody know what that means?
I just saw a tweet as a rate limit.
Yeah, I don't know what that means.
Anyway, we'll get to that story that had the rate limit on it.
I just saw that go by on the locals platform.
Wall Street Journal has an editorial in which they're quite pointedly blaming Randy Weingarten for the fact that, well I'm exaggerating a little bit, but in effect They're blaming Randy Weingarten, the head of the teachers unions, the biggest teachers union, for the fact that you ever needed affirmative action, at least in the modern times.
And the argument goes like this, and it's the argument I make, which is if our K-6 schools were good, and they gave everybody, including people of color, a good education, you wouldn't have much of a question By the time colleges were looking at applicants.
Because they'd just be looking at a whole bunch of qualified applicants, they'd just pick the good ones.
Just like you think they should.
But if you completely fail the, let's say the black community in particular, which is the current case, the black community in America is totally underserved in terms of education.
And what are you going to do in college?
We can't ask the colleges to fix the problem That Randy Weingarten's union caused.
Now the reason the union causes it is because they prevent competition and they prevent the easy firing of bad teachers.
You put those two things together and you ruin the entire education process in America, which is what happened.
It's exactly the predictable outcome you'd expect.
I don't know how it could be more obvious.
They're removing competition and not firing bad teachers is going to get you to exactly where we are now.
I mean, who could see that coming?
So anyway, I just want to point out that the Wall Street Journal editorial is on the same page that I am.
That systemic racism is really all about the teachers unions.
Could you give me a fact check on something?
I read, I don't know if this is true, and I'm not saying this is relevant to the story, I'm just curious.
So it's just curious.
I read that Randy Weingarten is a lesbian married to a rabbi?
She's a lesbian married to a rabbi?
Can you confirm that that's true?
So she's a... Yes, Paul, I do mean a Jew, because that is what a rabbi is.
That is correct.
Thanks for your penetrating insight.
Good addition to the conversation.
I like it when the little anti-Semitism gets thrown onto every fucking thing.
Could we go like a minute without something anti-Semitic happening in the comments on YouTube?
Like just one fucking minute.
Like, you don't have to say it on every fucking story.
Right?
We get it.
We get it.
I'm completely aware of your opinion.
It's just boring now.
Alright?
You're not adding anything to the story.
Except badness.
Alright.
Here's what I think would be a hilarious conclusion to the student loan forgiveness situation.
As you know, the Supreme Court blocked the student loan forgiveness that Biden wanted.
And we also assume that the reason, we also assume that the reason that Biden even offered to do the loan forgiveness is to get votes in the last midterm.
So it looked like a political play that he couldn't really Deliver.
So now he's pretending that he can do it some other clever way that probably won't work either.
Even Nancy Pelosi said it was illegal.
She said it directly.
Totally illegal.
Can't do it.
It's not the president's responsibility.
So, since we think that Biden did this as purely a political move and never really expected to get any debt relief, shouldn't Trump match his bullshit With a matching amount of bullshit, don't you think?
Because the most hilarious thing that Trump could do is to make a different plan that also is completely impractical, and promise those same people that they're going to get money, you know, whether they vote Republican or Democrat.
Well, okay, yeah, it's a long shot, but if you're 25 years old and you've got crushing debt from student loans, wouldn't you take a chance on Biden?
I would.
I think Biden's the worst president ever.
And if I were 25 and I had, let's say, $40,000 of student debt, and he said there's a 10% chance I might be able to clear that debt, do you know how to calculate the value of that?
That's a straight expected value calculation.
You say to yourself, well, it's a $40,000 loan, but there's only a 10% chance that Biden will make it go away.
So you multiply the 10% times the $40,000, gets you $4,000.
$4,000 is the value of Biden to you, the conceptual value.
So if you were a rational voter, you'd probably vote for Biden because it's free money, or it looks like there's a chance of it.
But Trump is offering nothing.
Trump is not saying, I have another way to handle this.
He's offering nothing.
And same with the other candidates.
Imagine, if you will, that totally tongue-in-cheek, although he plays it straight, Trump says he's going to tax the liberal colleges to pay off all the student loans.
Now, the first thing you should ask yourself is, would that work?
No, of course not.
No, that wouldn't work.
It wouldn't work even a little bit.
You know what else wouldn't work?
The thing that Biden's doing.
Biden's plan isn't going to work.
But it works for votes, doesn't it?
It totally works for votes.
It's just not going to work in the real world like people getting money and stuff.
So if Trump came up with a total bullshit plan that everyone knew was bullshit, that's the funny part.
Like, you know it's bullshit.
It's just Trump being Trump and just promising more than maybe he could deliver.
Although Trump doesn't actually intentionally promise more than he can deliver.
I think he does actually try to build a wall.
It just didn't happen.
Whereas, I think Biden is, he knows he's lying.
Like, I can't read his mind, but it's hard to imagine that he thought it would work when nobody else in the world thought it would work.
So, I don't know, maybe he was the one person who believed it.
Maybe.
So, what, yeah, right.
So what do you think about the idea of saying that the colleges that caused the problem, Should be responsible for paying it off over time.
Not all at once, but maybe pay it off over time.
Now some people say, but they would just raise their prices.
To which I say, it's a free market.
They can do whatever they want.
And then other people could say, I'll just use AI instead.
Elon Musk tweeted today that the value of college is diminishing.
So if you've got the smartest, richest person in the world who's saying in public the value of college is pretty questionable, I think we may reach a big turning point here.
Because it's not until people like Elon Musk say college is not essential that it becomes true.
It's not true until people like him say it, right?
It's got to be your employer who says it.
If your employer says it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter.
And he's a gigantic employer with also influence on other employers.
So that's real.
When Musk says it, that gets real.
And he means it.
He's not joking.
And Harvard has their big endowment, etc.
There's a report, I don't know if it's true, Benny Johnson had a breaking news on this.
He says that photos have leaked of Michelle Obama currently vacationing on a massive private yacht on a private island in Greece.
At the same time, the Obamas were tweeting about the unfairness of the Supreme Court decision to disallow affirmative action.
So she was on a yacht when she was complaining about how bad things are for black people in America.
She was on a yacht.
Literally on an actual, literal, literal actual yacht.
Like a real yacht.
Not conceptually.
Not theoretically.
She was actually on a yacht!
A real yacht!
Now, this gave me the idea to suggest a new feature for Twitter that I'd like to see.
I don't know how you could do it technologically, but what I'd like to see is some kind of feature on Twitter that says that the tweeter was on a yacht when they sent the tweet.
Because I'd like to know when the tweeter is drunk.
You know, I'd love to see a breathalyzer before you can tweet.
But I'd also like to know if the person is on a yacht.
And I saw somebody suggest that there could be an icon for a little hypocrite on a yacht.
I've been laughing all morning.
What would that look like?
What would the icon of a hypocrite on a yacht even look like?
Would it be Michelle Obama?
It would just be a little icon of a yacht and Michelle Obama.
And that would be hypocrite on a yacht.
I don't know why that's so funny.
Scott on a Yacht.
Scott on a Yacht.
At least it rhymes better.
Hypocrite on a Yacht would be a hilarious icon.
Hypocrite on a Yacht.
Alright.
You can use that in so many ways.
Fox News has a couple of summer stories where they misinterpret somebody and make a big story out of it.
Who are they misinterpreting today?
Something about the New York Times.
Oh, New York Times had a story that listed the various ways you could get out of student debt.
And one of the ways was dying.
So I think Fox News is trying to act like New York Times thinks that dying is a way to get out of your debt.
Or something like that.
Somehow they turned that into a story of outrage.
It's definitely your summer stories.
And then there was some state politician who said, fuck the suburbs.
So now Fox News is going to be outraged about, fuck the suburbs.
Now, of course, when you hear it in context, it's more about they need to do something in the cities.
She's not saying she doesn't care about the suburbs, but that's the way it'll be taken.
So Fox News in the summers, there's not enough hard news.
So there's this whole industry of misinterpreting people's comments.
Yeah, I might be a little bit sensitive to that.
I wonder why.
All right, I hear a lot of stuff about RFK Jr.' 's voice and people saying, well, that's going to hold him back.
Now, I think what will hold him back is his policy preferences.
But let's talk about his voice.
In my opinion, politicians have two kinds of voices.
Commanding and pleading.
And I believe that you can tell them when you hear them.
And I'll give you some examples.
Trump is a commanding voice.
He's never pleading.
He's commanding.
Would you agree?
Adam Schiff.
What is Adam Schiff?
Is he a commanding voice or a pleading voice?
Pleading, right?
How about Swalwell?
Is Swalwell a commanding voice or a pleading voice?
He's a pleading voice.
How about Nancy Pelosi?
Now Nancy Pelosi has, you know, with age, she has her own shaky voice problems.
Does she have a commanding voice or a pleading voice?
She has a commanding voice.
Nancy Pelosi has a commanding voice.
Even though her voice is, you know, weak with age, the words that she chooses And the command which he puts into it is very evident.
She has a commanding voice.
Now, I'll give you a few more, see if you can get them right.
Chris Christie.
Tell me, is Chris Christie a commanding voice or a pleading voice?
Commanding or pleading?
Chris Christie.
The answer is pleading.
A lot of you are trying to substitute whining, but I'm going to use pleading for all of that category of whining and complaining.
All right, here's another one.
Let's see.
Vivek Ramaswamy.
Commanding or pleading?
Commanding or pleading?
Vivek Ramaswamy.
Commanding.
Absolutely commanding.
Somebody said Josh Hawley.
Josh Hawley has a commanding voice, but don't be confused with the tone of his voice.
What Josh Hawley has is a tonality that suggests command.
That's actually not what I'm talking about.
Because when I say Nancy Pelosi has a commanding voice, it's not about her deep resonance.
It's that the thing she says and the sort of attitude she puts into it is commanding.
So Vivek is commanding.
How about DeSantis?
Ron DeSantis, commanding or pleading?
Commanding or pleading?
Ron DeSantis.
Pleading.
He has a pleading style.
Now I'm not saying he's not a good executive or a good leader.
He seems to be very good.
Very good.
All right.
How about Mike Pence?
Mike Pence.
Commanding or pleading?
Mike Pence.
Pleading.
Yeah, he's a pleader.
All right.
So now that I... Okay, Kamala Harris.
Commanding or pleading?
That was easy.
That's pleading.
All right.
Now that you have the Now that you can see, the pleaders versus the commanders.
RFK Jr., commanding or pleading?
Commanding or pleading?
RFK Jr., go.
It's commanding.
Yeah, his voice is commanding.
So here's where everybody's getting wrong.
Number one, nobody ever talks over RFK Jr.
You haven't noticed that, have you?
When do you notice it?
He's the only person in politics who will never get talked over.
People stop, they lean in, and they listen to every word.
And they wait until he's done.
They wait until he's done.
And then they ask another polite question.
That is as commanding as a voice can be.
I would argue that he might have, with Trump, you know, Trump's a singular character, but RFK Jr.
has as commanding a voice as Trump.
It's not the same, you know, good sound, it's not a Josh Hawley, you know, booming baritone, but it's commanding as hell.
It's completely commanding.
So if you've missed that, you've missed the story of his voice.
The story of his voice is not that it sounds like Katharine Hepburn.
Because so does Nancy Pelosi.
And she's commanding as hell.
You wish you could be as commanding as she is.
So it's definitely not gender.
I'm trying to make sure you can see it's not gender.
And it's not quality of voice.
It's not voice quality.
It is absolutely word choice and attitude.
And he's got all of that.
Now, RFK Jr.' 's policies don't appeal to me at the moment, as he's expressed them, especially his support for affirmative action in colleges, but he's got the tools.
He's got the tools.
All right, let's talk about How many of you are having a moment right now where you're thinking, holy shit, did you just reframe RFK Jr.' 's voice into a positive?
And you just watched me do it and I did it successfully?
Is that messing with you at all?
You're not buying it?
Alright, you're not buying it.
Okay.
So I just decided to pay attention to France, which I usually don't pay attention to.
But the riots are getting pretty bad.
I thought I'd give you some statistics.
So it's being caused by the death of a 17-year-old named Nahil.
He was shot dead during a traffic stop.
And the video of the traffic stop doesn't look like it was a good shooting.
So that's the claim.
It doesn't look like he deserved to be shot.
Nobody deserves to be shot, but you know what I mean.
But worse than that, apparently there have been, what, 13 police shootings of people who are mostly black or Muslim.
So it's about the police.
It's basically a George Floyd situation playing out in France.
So George Floyd plus Muslims.
So you've got your Muslims and your blacks who both have something to complain about.
Now, apparently there's a, and the statistics show that if you're Muslim or black and you were stopped by police, your odds of being shot are very high.
Now, there's an obvious question here.
I think you know the obvious question, which is, does France have Asians?
Can anybody answer that?
Are there Asian French?
Or is that almost non-existent?
I would imagine they do.
Somebody says Vietnamese, a lot of Vietnamese.
Yeah, so they've got a lot of Asians.
I was looking for the statistic on the number of Asians who have been slain by police in police stops in France.
If anybody can find that number, we should report it.
Because I assume, I assume the police are shooting all the minorities.
And we should make sure we have some data on the Asians in France, because you know they're being shot at a pretty high lit, right?
Don't you assume they're all being shot at the same rate as the black and Muslims?
I mean, why wouldn't they be?
Bunch of racists.
Huh.
All right.
It's 2023.
Can we be honest with each other?
Do you think it makes sense that we talk about culture?
We're always talking culture.
Oh, this culture is different from this culture.
You have to understand our lived experience, our culture, our culture.
But isn't culture, doesn't that mean you act differently in the same situation?
Wouldn't that be exactly what that is?
A difference in culture is that if I go to celebrate versus you go to celebrate, we might celebrate differently.
If you get dressed and I get dressed, maybe differently.
Because your culture is different from mine.
The whole point of a culture is you act differently.
Isn't it?
It's not really a culture if everybody acted the same.
But as soon as you get stopped by the police, that goes all out the door and nobody has a culture anymore.
It's 2023, people.
People don't act the same when they're stopped by the police.
There isn't a person in the whole planet, eight billion people, eight billion people, if you gave them a test and said, on average, you know, we know individuals could be all over the board, but on average, do you believe that an Asian American or an Asian French person, whatever, do you think that when they're stopped by the police, they act exactly the same as the black and Muslim people stopped by the police?
Nobody believes that.
There's not a single person in the world who believes that.
There's not an Asian person who believes that.
There's not a Muslim person who believes that.
There's not a liberal person who believes that.
There's not a conservative person who believes that.
There's not a black person who believes it.
There's not a white person.
There's not anybody.
There's not a single person.
Eight billion of us, it's the one thing we agree on.
Cultures are different.
And it definitely, definitely plays out in a traffic stop.
There's no fucking way that the Asians are acting the same as the blacks and the Muslims and everybody else.
I mean, you can throw the Irish in there if you want, right?
Just throw the Irish in there.
I have no idea if the Irish get in more fights than anybody else, but if they have any identifiable cultural differences, Which I don't know is the case, but if they did, you'd expect it to carry out in lots of forms of life.
Why in the world can't we say that?
Why in the world can't you say the problem with all of this is that there's a clear cultural difference in how people react when they're stopped by police?
There's no doubt about it.
Literally nobody believes that they act the same.
Nobody.
Why would they get the same outcome?
Doesn't make any sense at all.
So France, of course, is going through their craziness, and we all get to wrap our own politics around it to make our own points, like I just did.
All right, here are some of the numbers over there.
Over 1,300 people have been detained.
234 incidents of damage or fire in buildings.
I don't know what damage.
It could be minor damage, I suppose.
But listen to this.
79 police and gendarmes were injured.
79 police and gendarmes.
I don't know what's the difference between a police and a gendarme.
Does anybody know?
What's the difference between a French police officer and a gendarme?
Or is it gendarmes?
Gendarmes.
Sorry.
Gendarme.
What is a gendarme?
Could anybody tell me what is a gendarme?
It's the military police.
Thank you.
I knew somebody would know it.
That's a lot of injuries.
That's a crazy amount of injuries.
58 attacks on police and gendarmes and gendarmes stations.
58 attacks.
Can you hold that in your mind?
Imagine if in the United States, 58 police stations got attacked and gendarmes.
That's a pretty big deal.
That's a shocking number.
Let's see what else.
Blacks and Arabs in France, according to a French human rights and watchdog organization.
I'm looking at a Mario Nafal tweet.
He says that the blacks and Arabs in France are 20 times more likely to be stopped by police.
What is the likelihood that they broke the law more than other people?
I'm not saying they did.
I'm just saying if that's not in the story, it's kind of conspicuously missing.
There's a... I've told you this before.
There's a highway that goes through Oakland.
Sometimes I find myself on it.
Multi-lane highway.
The left lane, of course, is for the fast people who are in a hurry.
But the left lane is almost entirely young, black men going over 100 miles an hour.
And of course, there's no police presence there whatsoever.
But the other X lanes, three lanes, whatever it is, you know, they're also speeding, right?
You know, the speed limit is 65, everybody's doing 80.
But the left lane, you know, is like over 100.
Just all the time.
And it's almost entirely young black men in cars.
Usually multiple young black men in cars.
And you can tell that the police have just decided to let that go.
It's like they have their own, like an express lane for young black men.
If you were a police officer, and your job was to do stops, you were just gonna stop people and give them tickets, who would you rather stop?
A 25 year old woman in a, let's say, in a Volkswagen, Because you might get a date out of that.
You might get a date.
You never know.
You might get a date.
Or would you rather stop one of the cars that's going 100 miles an hour with some gangbangers in it who are looking for trouble?
If you're a cop, you're going to stop the pretty girl because your numbers look exactly the same.
How many tickets did you give?
Well, that's a good number.
Back to work.
So no, to imagine that everybody's acting the same on the highway, but then when they leave the highway and they get out of their cars, they go back to their different cultures, and then everything's different.
Like, as soon as they get within their culture, they're all acting differently than the other cultures, which is what a culture is.
No problem with that.
But then as soon as they get in a car, they all act the same, right?
Everybody acts the same once they get in a car.
That's what we're asking ourselves to believe, is stupid.
So maybe 2023 is when you can say things that are true, and you don't have to say things that are stupid to sound like you're a good person.
Maybe.
All right.
Kennedy said some more, RFK, about Junior, about his drug healing centers.
I like the fact, so he's talking about, you know, having some places that are away from the city, where people can He says, eat organic food, heal spiritually, physically, and emotionally, and find themselves again.
So he calls it healing camps.
So it'd be like, you know, not a five-star resort, but more of a camp in a nice place.
I like everything about that.
I like everything about that.
He didn't say, but I think he's in favor of it, that some of these treatment centers maybe should consider using mushrooms.
Maybe ketamine or something?
I'm no doctor.
But we need to start using the tools that we know work.
And we know that these psychedelic treatments do work.
100% of the evidence shows that they do.
It's like all really clear.
Kratom?
Yeah, I don't know.
I don't know about Kratom.
I have not used it myself so I can't speak to it.
But I love everything about that.
Now you may remember that Trump had a idea for the homeless.
So RFK Jr.
is talking about the addicted.
Trump was talking about the homeless.
But as you know, the overlap is probably 80% or more.
So actually RFK Jr.
and Trump are very much Very close on this idea.
I would bet that RFK Jr.
would be more likely to say yes to treatments that use hallucinogens, and Trump would be less likely to be in favor of that, because he's consistently anti-drug.
And the thing is, he came by honestly, so I don't hold it against him like I would other people.
You know, he's a lifelong non-drinker.
He had a brother who died from alcohol.
I get it.
I get it.
Right?
He's got a personal opinion that doesn't kind of match the public in that area, but we understand.
Completely understand.
So I don't think he's the best president for treating addiction.
I think RFK Jr.
would be the best president for dealing with addiction.
But I think Vivek might be the best president for eradicating the cartels.
So you've got a problem on the treatment side.
RFK Jr.
has the best plan I've heard.
You've got a problem on the supply side.
Vivek and Trump both want to go hard at the cartels, but I'll take the younger president if I have a choice.
Given the actual ages of the candidates.
All right, so that's enough on that.
That's potentially good news.
Because when you see that Trump and RFK Jr.
are not too far apart on the whole idea of building a separate area for the people who don't mix well with the rest of us, I feel like that's something that everybody could get behind.
Is there anybody here who thinks those are bad ideas?
To have a separate place for the people who need special treatment.
What do you think?
I like every part of it.
We don't have a choice.
What?
All right.
Deborah says, in all caps, I think it is not a good idea.
Well, since you used all caps, you're going to have to disappear.
Goodbye.
All right.
Well, I think they're good ideas.
And at the very least, what do I always say about good ideas?
You never know if they're a good idea.
It could be some hidden problem.
But could you test it?
How hard would it be to test a camp where you treat people?
It seems like the most testable thing you could ever do.
So absolutely.
All right.
So the news is starting to ask this question.
See if you've heard anybody mention this before.
Does this sound familiar?
Because the news is starting to say this now.
Hey, we've noticed we haven't seen a photograph of Purgosian lately.
Huh.
I wonder if things aren't going as well for him as maybe we first thought.
Huh.
So CNN and other outlets are starting to say, his plane went to Belarus.
His plane went there.
And I guess his media empire got shut down.
And some other general who may or may not have been working with him is missing at the same time.
Now, there's a photograph that was on the Internet that purported to show Purgosian getting into a helicopter.
But he was holding the door with one hand and his hand was intact.
But the real Purgosian is missing part of a finger on one hand.
And this is how clever the internet is.
I was actually pretty impressed with this.
So you see Purgosian's getting into the helicopter and it's obviously he must be a body double because he's got a he's got like a COVID mask on.
I don't know why.
And his bodyguard is real.
But obviously the guy getting into the helicopter has an intact hand and Pugosian doesn't.
So the internet was saying, oh, it's not the real guy, he's got a body double.
Now, it does seem to me like he should have a body double.
If anyone were going to have a body double, I'd say him, he and Putin would be high on the list.
But then somebody said, wait a minute, somebody may have just reversed the image.
So it looks like it's his left hand, but it would be his right hand.
And the evidence they gave is that he was opening the, let's say, the pilot's side door.
And there's no evidence he's a helicopter pilot.
So if he were opening the pilot's side, and he's not a pilot, they may have reversed the image.
So his right hand, it was his left hand.
Now, further to that theory that that was a fake reverse picture, CNN says the last time he was seen was in Rostov.
Now the helicopter thing was allegedly after he left Rostov.
So CNN is just saying the last time he was seen was Rostov, that means they're discounting the helicopter.
So the helicopter, I think we can write that off as a fake.
But at first I thought it was something, but it looked like a fake.
Don't know exactly, but is there anybody who thinks Putin was going to let him run around free?
So I think CNN is also reporting that Ukraine is saying, so you can't trust them, but Ukraine is saying that the FSB, the Russian whatever force that is, the HID is already put out and they're already trying to Take him out.
But you know why I think that's bullshit?
Because it came from Ukraine.
And everything Ukraine says is a lie.
Same with Russia.
During the war, everything they say is a lie.
But why would you kill him?
If you're Putin, the last thing in the world you want to do is kill him.
Because he's the one who knows all of the information you need.
There's only one person who knows everything you need to know.
It's him.
Everybody else knows part of what they know.
They might know what they did.
But they don't know the scope of the coup plot.
Only one person.
And there's no way that Putin is going to let that one person, who knows everything that Putin needs to know, which is where are my traitors, there's no way that they let him go.
He's being tortured beyond any recognition.
He's definitely going to talk.
One way or another, he's definitely going to talk.
And you're never going to see him again because he's not going to survive this process.
So that's my prediction.
That he's under Putin's control and you'll never see him again.
So watching the news slowly wake up to the obvious.
The obvious being there's no way in hell they let him just go to live his life in Belarus.
Are we serious?
That's going to look so stupid in retrospect, won't it?
Like, in the moment, people were willing to accept it because that's what people were reporting.
But don't you think we're only, you know, maybe a month away from laughing about how stupid that was?
Right.
He's just going to let him get on a plane and leave the country.
Of course, that's exactly what you do when somebody plans to kill you and take over your country.
And slay your family, probably.
Yeah, that's what you do.
You let them fly to Belarus, have a nice life.
It's just going to seem so silly in retrospect.
And the entire news business reported it like it happened.
Were you shocked by that?
I think both the left and the right media all reported he went to Belarus like that was actually possible.
I mean, I guess it's physically possible, but it's not possible in the real world that we know and understand.
That was never possible.
Why did they believe that?
Now, can I say this as clearly as you need it to be said?
If Pugosian shows up alive tomorrow in Belarus, well, aren't I the asshole?
We can all agree on that, right?
If he shows up alive and, you know, it's confirmed he's really alive, Can we all agree I'm a total asshole?
Everybody?
Will everybody take that?
Yeah.
I will not even block you.
If that happens, I won't even block you.
You should just get out of here.
You asshole.
You asshole.
The news was right.
You were wrong.
Bah, bah, bah.
Well, he's definitely alive.
Well, I won't say definitely.
He's most likely alive because Putin needs him alive at the moment.
So if I'm wrong on this, you'll let me know.
You have my blessing to do that.
That is the conclusion of the greatest live stream in the history of Fourth of July live streams.
All right, everybody, tell me the predicted high temperature where you are today.
Just give me the high temperature wherever you are today.
102, 70s, 100, 90s, 100, 105, 108.
Wow, that's the winner.
108 is the winner.
108, is that Arizona?
Who's got the 108, Arizona?
100, 92.
Well, where I live, we're coming out of the best month of weather I've ever seen in my life.
Never ever had a month like the last month in California.
Every day was room temperature with not much wind.
It was unsettling.
It felt like I died and weather didn't work anymore.
It was just the same inside and outside.
There was no difference.
It was the weirdest month.
Yeah, last year was fires, this year not so much.
So apparently California is doing a better job of managing the forest fires.
I'm going to say that with a question at the end.
The forest farms?
Because there's no smoke.
And last year I think it was a little better as well.
So maybe, maybe they've got a little handle on things.
Maybe.
Maybe it's just luck.
I don't know.
Everything burned already?
Well, there's that.
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, it's a cool 87 in Florida.
How about that?
There's Sarah.
That's too many capitals, Sarah.
I'm going to hide you on this channel.
There's one thing you can be sure of.
If somebody sends a long message in all caps, what's the one thing you can be sure of?
They're going to send exactly the same message multiple times.
The one thing you can know for sure is if you see lots of caps, oh, that one's coming back.
There it is again.
And there it is again.
And there it is again.
Because if you're going to write in all caps, you're not going to give up.
You're not a quitter.
I like it.
You're not a quitter, Sarah.
No quitter.
All right.
Does anybody have a question?
I'm just vamping until we're at the top of the hour.
There's a reason for that.
I'll tell you later.
All right.
RFK can reframe affirmative action by saying, "Well, no, that would work for Republicans." So the idea was RFK can say, the courts have decided on affirmative action, so let's not look backwards.
Let's fix K through 12.
Actually, that's pretty good.
That's pretty good.
Because that would be, that's the same, That's the same advice I give Trump and the other Republicans on abortion.
If you're running for president, the best answer on abortion is it's no longer a president's question.
It's been sent to the states.
We've driven the decision down closer to the individual.
You do have a fight in the states, but I'm the president and We've now allocated the decision-making to where it belongs, and I'd like the states to do a good job on that.
So I think you could weasel your way out of the abortion thing.
But maybe you could do the same by saying that K-12 is a problem.
The trouble is, RFK Jr.
is pro-union, right?
I don't know if that's true.
But is he pro-teacher's union?
If he's pro-teachers union, there's no place to go with that.
A Republican could say, all right, now that the Supreme Court has ruled, let's fix K through 12.
It's stronger from a Republican who wants to get rid of a union.
That would be a stronger message.
Because then you have an actual plan.
If you say, let's fix schools, Cheryl, you seem like a dumb piece of shit, so you're going to go away.
Because I know that comment's coming back.
Those old comments.
All right.
Cheryl Jackson, go away.
Will Joe leave for health reasons?
That's my guess.
Yeah, if Biden drops out, It will be because there's a, quote, new health reason.
And he'll act like, you know, I was perfectly good until I got this bunion.
But this bunion is going to take me out.
I cannot be a president with a bunion like this.
And it's going to be some bullshit health problem that you say, no, I think the bigger problem was your brain stopped working a while ago.
That looks like the bigger problem.
Yeah, bone spurs.
He's got a bone spur.
I can't be president with this bone spur.
Do you think the sleep apnea is the cats on the roof?
It might be.
It could be that the sleep apnea is that they're trying to ease you into.
But no, that story started because he still had the indentation on his chin.
So I don't think that got started intentionally.
It just might be coincidentally advantageous.
How did I choose?
What?
Hairstyle for Dilbert's boss?
It evolved over time.
It started out with Larry Fink's hairstyle.
You know Larry Fink, CEO of Blackrock?
So he's got the pointy hair boss hair, but without the pointy part.
He's got the two sides.
So that's how the boss in Dilbert was originally.
But one day I gave it a little height, I think accidentally.
I was just penciling and it got a little higher on one side and I said, oh, I'll make the other side a little higher.
And then when it started to remind me of horns, I went full horn.
I was like, oh, I'm going to just make them full horns.
Yeah.
How long before you have to copyright Dilbert?
Let me tell you about copyrights.
Can somebody answer the question, how long did it take me to copyright the first Dilbert that I drew?
What's the answer?
Somebody says one minute?
Oh, damn it, you know the answer.
The answer is zero seconds.
It took me zero seconds to copyright it.
Do you know why?
Because copyright is immediate.
It's on creation.
So watch me create it.
I'm going to create another copyrighted image.
There we go.
Copyrighted.
Copyrighted, right there.
Okay, technically you couldn't copyright that because it's a stick figure.
But if I'd drawn something that wasn't a universal piece of art, it would be copyrighted the moment I drew it.
People confuse registering the copyright with having the copyright.
Registering the copyright is what you do as a legal precaution in case somebody claims they made it first and you can't prove it.
Because if you've, let's say you've got a piece of paper you drew on and somebody else has a piece of paper they drew on five years later, well how do you know?
I suppose there's some science, but you know generally it's hard to know who did something first.
But if one of those draws it and then submits it to the copyright, the government's copyright office, then they have the superior claim.
Which doesn't mean that they'll win.
Because the other person might have, let's say a videotape, that showed them in real time making the original drawing.
In which case they could go to court and they could take that copyright away from the lying person who said they did it first but copyrighted it first.
So now the other thing that people are getting terribly terribly wrong is the story about Ivanka Trump getting some trademarks in China.
You know that story?
And the people on the left who are artists, they don't know the difference between a trademark and a patent.
So they're like, oh, China's given them these trademarks.
Oh, you know, favorable attention.
They got these trademarks.
I have trademarks in China.
Do you know how hard it is to get a trademark in China?
You just ask for it.
There's just an office that gives them to you.
And they don't tell you you can't have them.
You just pay your little fee and you get it.
The only thing that you have to make sure you've done, and maybe the trademark office does this for you, is to make sure somebody didn't already use it.
If it's not already used, it's yours.
So Ivanka Submitted some trademark requests for something that nobody else was using, and some bureaucrat in a Chinese bureaucracy somewhere, you know, some nameless bureaucrat, looked at it and said, yep.
That was it.
That's the whole story.
There's nothing left out.
But on social media, you'll see all the drunken trolls.
Wow, Ivanka got copyrights from China, so it must be Chinese collusion.
Learn what a trademark is, then go back at it.
I mean, yeah, Marcella can tell you.
Trademark is just paperwork.
Everybody can do it.
Do you want a trademark in China?
You could have one in a week.
You just hire a lawyer who does that, and they submit some paperwork.
It might take more than a week to approve it, but it will get approved.
China doesn't want to not approve it.
They have no incentive to not approve it.
They want people to do business and they don't want their trademarks to overlap.
That's the whole story.
All right.
I think we're we've done what we need to do.
All right.
I'm going to say bye to YouTube and I will see you tomorrow for another exciting live stream.
