Episode 2164 Scott Adams: Our Data Is Wrong, Our Leaders Are Lying But We Can Compensate By Guessing
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Our data is wrong and our leaders are lying,
Politics, Biden Administration Censorship, Ukraine War Drones, Ukraine Cluster Munitions, President Trump Master Negotiator, Justice Jackson, Jonah Hill, Election Integrity, Fentanyl Laced Cocaine, Cocaine Whitehouse, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
I've been talking to the Locals platform, but literally everything has gone wrong this morning.
In the last 10 minutes, I've had five major device failures.
You know, I had to grab my device from another room and I'm firing up different iPads.
And I thought, finally, finally, I've got everything working.
You know, on the Locals platform, we have now another problem, just as I was talking, so two since I signed on.
I don't know how to go private on Locals, because the interface has changed.
So if you would do me a favor during the broadcast, don't ask me to go private.
Please don't ask, because there's no place on this interface that has that option.
At least I can see.
So I've got a new interface right now.
So don't ask.
However, you know how the first part of the show I always open a drawer and take out the little thing that reads my toast?
The drawer wouldn't open.
Because there's something stuck in the drawer.
Of all the things.
Alright, Matt, you get to go away.
First asshole down.
Goodbye.
Anybody else want to go away?
Let's start this first.
Let's start by just blocking people.
It's going to be that kind of a day.
All right.
Let's reset.
Reset.
I'm going to open this drawer and I'm going to take out that piece of paper.
You ready?
All right.
Why was there a roll of toilet paper in the drawer?
There's a story behind it.
Now, what I normally do, normally I read the Simultaneous Sip.
But today, today the Simultaneous Sip will be done by AI.
So AI, this is courtesy of the Twitter account Prince of Fakes.
...has made a little extra simultaneous sip by an A.I.
Now the A.I.
does not stop where I stop with just a few items that you can sip out of.
It has added many items that you can sip out of.
So, now, thanks to the HayGen app and Prince of Fakes... ...or a mug, or a glass, a tankard, a chalice, or a stein, a cantina...
All you need is a cup, or a mug, or a glass, a tankard, a chalice, or stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind, a thermos, a goblet, a grail, or a pint, a beaker, a flask, or a jar, a pitcher, a tumbler, a pail, or a bowl, a canister filled from afar, a coffee pot, I like coffee, that's my brew.
an urn from your grandmother's place, a bottle, a sippy cup, a drinking horn, a boot from the beer drinking race, a wine skin, an oil drum, a soup pot, a coconut hollowed and dried, a milk carton, a new or a ladle, a hip flask for when you're outside.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
That's my brew.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit.
That's true.
The thing that makes everything better, it's a practice both old and new.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now on cue.
Go.
All you need is a cup, or a mug, or a glass, a tankard, a chalice, or a stein, I can't... Shut up, AI me.
Ah.
All right, well, that was a little different.
A little bit different.
But if you didn't notice, I mean, it's hard to tell, so you could probably tell it was AI.
But, oh my god, is it close now.
It's really close.
Anyway.
So there's one other thing I was going to show you.
Did you see the dust-up about Jonah Hill?
Anybody see that?
Jonah Hill.
And I'll bet, yes, I have a technical problem.
So we'll be skipping this part of the presentation to the seventh technical problem this morning.
Seven technical problems, ten minutes.
It's a new record.
All right, so we won't be talking about that story.
But we will be talking about U.S.
oil productions up, according to the Wall Street Journal.
So, sort of quietly, without noticing, oil production is zooming.
That's a little story.
I mean, it's good for everything.
So, oil production way up in the United States, specifically the United States.
So, that's all good.
Remember I told you yesterday that we can't tell if it's getting warmer or cooler, but we also can't tell if Russia is running out of weapons before Ukraine is.
Just the most basic things.
Was the election rigged or not rigged?
Did the vaccination hurt us more than it helped us?
Is Ukraine winning or losing?
Is the earth warming or cooling?
Pretty basic questions.
Is inflation coming down or is it going to be with us forever?
Are we in a recession or not?
These are the most basic questions about our reality and we don't agree.
We're not even close.
Not even close to agreeing.
So what happens to us when we don't agree on the biggest facts?
I'm not sure if it makes any difference.
I'm not sure if we've ever known anything.
Do you ever wonder if we've ever known anything?
My current view is that we were always, we were dumber before, but we didn't know it.
I think we're way smarter now, but the problem is we're smart enough to know what we don't know, which is everything that we're told by anybody who's a professional.
It's just the weirdest world that we finally know we don't know anything.
It's sort of an uncomfortable place to be.
But there we are.
So Steve Malloy has a article in the Wall Street Journal.
And as you know, the news has been reporting it's the hottest two days in July or something like that.
You knew there would be summer stories about it's too hot because of climate change.
And Steve Malloy goes through all the problems with how do you measure such a thing?
Do you think anybody can measure the actual temperature of the Earth?
Like, even once.
Even once.
Do you think that's a thing?
We've been told by our experts that they can measure the temperature of the Earth.
Sure.
Sure.
How exactly?
Is it because the few places that they have thermometers represents the rest of the world?
Do you think that the places where the thermometers are, that gets you a good average?
Or does it just tell you that those thermometers have changed?
And do you know that a whole bunch of the thermometers are not considered to be accurate?
And did you know that we didn't actually have satellites measuring the air 125,000 years ago?
Almost everything about the way we measure temperature is ridiculous.
So to imagine that we even know if it's going up or down, we don't know.
We don't know that.
But we're pretty sure that somebody says they know.
Yeah, the most basic question.
We really don't know.
Well, the Biden administration is pushing back on the court that said that the government can't coerce or, you know, push the social media companies to censor.
But the Biden administration thinks that's very, very important that they still have that ability.
Now, we call it censoring.
I'm sure they would call it giving good information to the public and making sure we don't have any bad information.
But how does that work out?
It's never really worked out, has it?
Now let me ask you this philosophical question.
If you had a friend, that's not the hypothetical part.
I'm going to guess you have a friend.
If you had a friend and you had some knowledge that would definitely make that friend less happy and maybe even less safe, But it's the truth.
Would you tell him?
You're pretty sure it will hurt your friend.
There's no upside.
Would you tell him?
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
Why would you do it?
What would be the point?
Why would you hurt your friend so that you can feel good about your truth?
How is that ethical or moral?
That you would hurt a friend for no benefit to the friend.
The only benefit would be to you, because you feel like you need to talk.
That's not the most selfish, fucked-up thing you've ever done in your life.
That's actually something you think you're proud of, and you'd be good with that.
You told them the truth, you hurt them permanently, and they can't recover.
I mean, they'll always have that awfulness.
And nobody got anything, except you felt a little bit better.
So you felt a little bit better about yourself.
So for your selfish short-term benefit, you would destroy your good friend.
And most people think that that's better than not telling them the truth.
So I'm not sure there's a right answer here.
Because I like the truth.
Truth is kind of cool.
But I don't like hurting friends.
That's not cool.
So it's sort of a you can't have both things situation.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Even though some would say the point of having a cake is eating it too.
Yeah.
There's no right answer.
There just isn't.
It's just one of those things you just gotta suck it up.
You have to either be okay with the fact that you would hurt your friend for no benefit to your friend.
If you're okay with that, I'm not going to complain.
Or you care more about your friend than you do about your own need to get the truth out.
I know, I think I'd want my friend to lie to me.
Now, hypotheticals are always hard.
But if it's truly a situation where it'll never make any difference, it'll just hurt me if I hear the truth, I really don't want to know that truth.
How is that going to help me?
Anyway, just thought I'd ask.
So the Biden administration thinks it wants to be responsible for protecting you by telling you what's true and preventing you from seeing other things that they might think are untrue, but other people think are true.
So I guess when it comes to government, that's a lot different than you and your friend.
When it comes to government, the government has to tell us.
Would you agree with that?
If we take it out of the domain of two friends, and you take it into the domain of a government and a public, in that situation the government has to tell you the truth.
They just have to.
They don't get the lie for your benefit.
Now we did see the government do exactly that.
Dr. Fauci told us that those masks, even the N95s, would make no difference, but he was lying.
Now that's complicated by the fact that his lie was actually true.
So he tried to lie.
But he's so bad at... I don't know.
I won't say it that way.
He tried to lie, but he accidentally was accurate that the masks wouldn't help you.
I mean, overall, they wouldn't help you.
You know, I've argued that there has to be some small, you know, some small change, but it doesn't show up in any of the big numbers.
So obviously the masks were a waste of time for the public.
So we've seen our government try to lie to us for our benefit.
It didn't work out.
But It's a real thing.
So no, I don't think I want our government to lie to us.
And let me make sure I'm getting your temperature correct.
If your government knew that telling you the truth would cause a panic, you'd still be in favor of it, right?
If you knew it would cause a panic, you'd still be in favor?
Most people say yes.
Oh, I see some no's.
Okay, some no's.
Yeah.
You know, here's something I often say.
If you took 100 people randomly from the public, including from this group, and you said to them, hey, I got a deal for you.
You can be one of the elite now.
You go, what?
Really?
I go, yeah, yeah.
We're going to pick you from the public, and you get to be one of the elite.
You get to make all the big decisions.
So you'll no longer be the recipient of the decisions from above.
You get to make them.
Your responsibility for the big decisions.
Go!
How many people would be happy with that situation?
Even though you told them they'd be rich and famous.
Well you'd be rich and famous, you're one of the elites.
But you have to make all the hard decisions.
Because that's what the elites do.
Most people would say no.
The vast majority of people would say, ah, I like the money part, but can I have the money without the responsibility?
No.
No, you can't.
You do have to make the decisions.
Somebody does, it's going to be somebody in charge.
Most people don't want to.
Do not want to.
So be happy that you'll never have to decide whether to cause a panic and kill people for sure, just so you can be honest.
Just be really glad you don't have to make that decision, because we're not equipped for it.
We just don't have the capability.
All right.
Eric Schmidt, who had been CEO of Google, is talking about the drone aspect of the Ukraine war.
And he's saying now what I said at the beginning of the war, that the drones seem to be making the difference.
Because there's a 10 to 1.
Difference in artillery.
Apparently the Russians have a 10 to 1 artillery advantage.
But the Ukrainians are being pretty good with their drones.
And so it looks like one of the things I was wondering is about the anti-drone defense.
According to Eric Schmidt, the Ukrainians are losing as many as 10,000 drones a month.
The Ukrainians are losing 10,000 drones per month.
That's a lot of drones.
Mostly the smallest ones.
But I don't know how many they're making.
How many are being delivered to them?
Probably more than 10,000.
But apparently the Russian army is good at knocking out the GPS guidance.
So they do have Electronics will knock out the drones.
So that's partly why they're getting so many.
But apparently now they're introducing drones that don't need GPS and can't be jammed.
The latest models prevent jamming and operate without GPS guidance.
What do they do if they don't have GPS guidance?
I'm right again.
Yes, I'm right again.
So Biden apparently said we're running out of ammunition when asked about why we would give these cluster munitions, which have been called a war crime.
Yeah, I think even Biden called these weapons a war crime.
But we're going to give these to the Ukrainians, which will be devastating to their own public later.
And won't make any difference to the war probably.
But the reason that Biden gave just flippantly as he was walking by is that we're running out of ammunition.
Do you think we're running out of ammunition?
I think what they meant is artillery shells.
So they were looking for something that would be, you know, a rough substitute for artillery shells and we just didn't have enough.
Now that doesn't mean that the U.S.
doesn't have any.
It means that we don't have any extra.
But I feel like having extra would be a good thing sometimes.
So there you go.
It's a drone war.
I don't see any chance the Ukrainians will break through.
Not really.
Do you?
Does anybody think the Ukrainian counter-offensive is going to break through and make a big difference?
At the moment, it doesn't look like it.
It looks like there's status quo.
So we'll wait for somebody who can actually negotiate a deal.
I just read a story about Donald Trump in the 80s negotiating deals with the mafia.
And when I saw the article, I thought, uh-oh.
The story is going to be that he did some awful thing with the mafia, right?
That's what you expect.
And instead, it turns out it's just a mafia guy that says Trump is a good negotiator.
Apparently, Trump negotiated with the mafia, just like he negotiated with everybody else.
And not only that, but they kind of respected him for being a tough negotiator.
So there was one story that they told where he was going to buy some property that was adjacent to one of his casinos, when he had casinos.
And the price was $8 million.
He shows up to the deal and says he only has $7.
And they're like, well, what are we going to do now?
He says, I only have $7.
So it's $7 or there's no deal.
So they wanted $8.
He only said he'd give them $7.
And they decided to solve it with a coin flip.
So they flipped a coin, and Trump won, and he saved a million dollars.
And the mafia guy confirms that that actually happened.
He actually saved a million dollars on the coin flip.
Now, when Trump says he's a good negotiator, it doesn't always mean he tells the truth during his negotiations, right?
Because I'm sure he had eight million dollars.
He does do some innovative things.
He causes people so much consternation that they just want it to be over with.
And they're like, all right, I'll just want this to be over with.
Seven million's fine.
He just bothers them until they settle.
It works.
Apparently it works.
But it was interesting that that article did not That's interesting.
any sketchy activities by Trump himself.
It was actually a story about Trump dealing with the mafia, and there was nothing that Trump did wrong in the story, anyway.
That's interesting.
Did you see the video of Trump attending the UFC fight with Dana White?
And the crowd just went crazy for him.
He's shaking hands with Joe Rogan.
One of the fighters gets out of the ring to shake hands with him.
I mean, he was just walking it like a superstar.
Don't ask me to go private again.
You may have joined recently.
Don't ask.
Today's not the day to ask.
I'll tell you why later.
Yeah, Rogan shaked his hand.
Rogan does seem... Really?
You're serious?
You're not really going to keep going and saying that, are you?
I'm just going to turn it off if you do.
Because it's just too disruptive.
Honestly, I'm just going to turn off the feed if you do that again.
All right.
Yeah, that's it.
Exactly.
You get to go away too.
Goodbye.
All right, what else is going on?
I feel like the news is not as fun today.
It's all news like running out of ammunition.
That's like the least fun news you could have.
Well, we're running out of ammunition.
So I saw Jonathan Turley.
Talking about Katonji Jackson, the new Supreme Court Justice.
And she was one of the dissenters on the Supreme Court's decision on affirmative action.
And in her dissent, she said that for high-risk black newborns, having a black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live and not die.
Do you believe that?
Now the context was, you want more black doctors because black doctors will do a better job of keeping black babies alive.
Now that was based on a study.
She didn't make it up.
It's not something she made up.
It was based on a study.
But here's something I learned from Jonathan Turley.
This will make your head explode.
In the Supreme Court, If somebody introduces a study as part of their argument, the study is entered into the record, but the Supreme Court doesn't have any facility for checking if the study is accurate or if it's valid.
So the Supreme Court is a record of a lot of studies that have been entered into the arguments without pushback.
No pushback.
Now keep in mind that we know that at least 50% of all studies are not reproducible, meaning they're not true.
They don't actually tell you something about the real world.
50%.
Yet 100% of everything that's offered to the Supreme Court just becomes part of the record.
Because the Supreme Court doesn't have the facility to say, hey, we're going to check out that data, right?
So they're not judging the quality of your study.
They're just saying, well, you said it.
Here's the record of you saying it.
We'll put it in the record.
That's it.
There's actually, our system has no way to know that some study introduced to the process is real or not.
So when Justice Katonji Jackson was saying that there was some study that apparently said that black physicians do better with black babies.
Even the people who did this study have since retracted it.
So there actually is no study.
Or let's say that the people who put forth that argument have decided that the data was garbage.
So here's a Supreme Court Justice who in her dissenting decision, hugely important case, cites a piece of science that just wasn't even real.
Was it real?
And even the people who presented it originally say it's not real.
And that was part of the now American record that our Supreme Court used a study that wasn't even real to make an argument.
So that's a problem.
Anyway, the larger point is not about Justice Jackson, because apparently this has happened before.
It's not the first time somebody referred to a study that had been presented to the Supreme Court that wasn't based on anything real.
So that's a big problem.
They're relying on things that aren't real, and they don't have a way to check.
What good is the Supreme Court if you can just give them a fake study and they don't know if it's real?
Doesn't that?
Because if in fact, let's say it was true.
Let's say there was a study that said that all the black babies will die if you don't have a black doctor.
Or it's just something crazy.
If the justices saw that that was a real study and they had scientists listed on it and all that stuff, wouldn't it influence their decision?
Can you just make up stuff and show it to the Supreme Court and they don't have a way to check so they just sort of incorporate it as well?
Maybe.
Maybe true.
That's a bad situation.
All right.
Well, it seems to me that there wasn't much else going on except this Joni Hill thing.
Which I swear to God I'm going to read to you, because if you're not following it, Jonah Hill sent a text message to his girlfriend in which he, I guess he put down some, what would you call it, requirements or Some red lines.
You know, he said what he would not be willing to put up with.
So let's see if we can find Jonah Hill's thing here so I can read it to you.
Because I want to see if you think he's being reasonable.
There were differences of opinion.
Jonah Hill texts.
All right, this should pop right up.
Here we go.
So here's something Jonah Hill sent to his girlfriend.
And you get to judge.
Whether he was being unreasonable or was she being unreasonable, right?
So here's what Jonah Hill, actor, said to his girlfriend.
Plain and simple.
And I think you should know she's a professional surfer.
And maybe a model or something.
But anyway, so he says, if you need, these are the things he says if you need, that he's not the right partner for you, right?
If you need surfing with men, Boundary lists inappropriate friendships with men.
If you need to model, if you need to post pictures of yourself in the bathing suit, if you need to post sexual pictures, if you need friendships with women who are in unstable places and from your wild recent past beyond getting a lunch or coffee or something respectful, then I'm not the right partner for you.
Now, this next part is important to the message.
Because he's being very respectful in this last part.
He says, I'm not the right partner for you, if you wanted to do those things.
If these things bring you to a place of happiness, I support it, and there will be no hard feelings.
These are my boundaries for romantic partnership.
My boundaries with you based on the way these actions have hurt our trust.
So it's based on a little bit of their past, but he's also saying, well, here's my minimum.
If you can't reach the minimum, we should not be in a relationship.
Let's take a vote.
How many say that Jonah Hill is being reasonable?
Let's say reasonable.
Is it being reasonable?
I'm seeing almost...
Is everybody saying yes?
I feel like everybody's saying yes.
I see a no.
Okay, I do see some no's.
Now I did see online one pundit saying that Jonah Hill is obviously a narcissist.
He's a controlling narcissist.
And that he doesn't have confidence in his ability to keep a hot woman.
Because he has low self-esteem or something.
Do you think that's the problem?
That he has low self-esteem?
I mean, I don't know if he does or not, but does he look like a narcissist to you?
I don't know if he's a, you know, who knows who is and who is not, but I don't see it.
I don't see that at all.
I do see that the person who called him a narcissist was projecting.
Where somebody called him, I'm not going to name names, but somebody called him a narcissist online and gave reasons.
And I thought, my God, that looks like a classic projection.
You know, that's what a narcissist does.
But Jonah Hill wasn't projected.
Where was he projected?
He was just saying what his minimum was.
If she doesn't like it, they go their own ways.
I didn't see a threat.
I didn't see him belittling her.
Was he belittling her?
He wasn't bragging.
I don't know.
I didn't see anything narcissistic about it at all.
Now, you say it's controlling.
Is it controlling to say what your minimum standard is?
Is that controlling?
I mean, it could be.
You can see that it could be.
But is it a control that's inappropriate?
I would say it's controlling, because he wants to control his own life and his own happiness.
Is that a problem?
I can be pretty controlling.
If you put me in the right context, I'm controlling as hell, because I need to control my own safety and well-being.
But if you put me in a situation where there's no risk to me, I'm not controlling at all.
Do what you want to do.
Yeah, so I guess my bottom line on him is two people can make any personal agreement they want.
It's kind of none of our business.
But since it was a big headline and it was trending, I thought I'd weigh in.
But I think I'm going to take Jonah Hill's side.
Not that I would agree necessarily with his standards, but I agree 100% that he can have them.
He can certainly have standards.
And I would consider him one of the best communicators I've seen for somebody who's in a relationship.
That was pretty good communicating, I thought.
Yeah.
She's his ex?
What do you mean?
It's not his ex.
How did the text leak?
Well, I assume from her, but I don't know.
Is it still gossip?
Well, I don't know.
It's a text message.
So here's the other thing that I should warn you about.
All news about public figures is fake.
All of it.
You know that, right?
So whatever it is we come to believe about Jonah Hill, you couldn't possibly know what's really going on in that situation.
It is not knowable by us.
You don't know who did what to whom, how much is unsaid, you don't know any of that.
I think it would be ridiculous to judge those two people based on what little we know about them.
So I would just say, rather than saying it's about Jonah Hill, I'd rather say, is it appropriate, just a general question, to state your specifications and say this is my opinion, you've got to have this.
I think it's appropriate.
So I won't make it about those two because I think we don't really know what their situation is.
But as a general rule, it makes sense.
He needs to procreate.
Alright, is there any news going on today that I don't know about?
Let me tell you this.
I don't know if this is the zeitgeist or it's just me.
And maybe it's just you too.
But does it seem to you that nearly all of Trump's negatives have been vanished?
Is that my imagination?
Because the legal process has wrung everything that can wring out of him.
There's nothing that would happen with, let's say, a woman making an accusation that would make any difference at this point.
So I think he's free of all woman accusations that only play that wrong.
I think people are starting to think the election wasn't fair or they don't know if they can tell one way or the other.
Oh, I wonder if the page didn't print out.
So there's an argument that I made on Twitter That, in my opinion, stops the discussion about the election denial.
And I saw somebody else tweeting it around today, and it goes like this.
If the election is not 100% auditable, how can anybody know if it was fair?
You didn't check the code.
We don't know if anybody threw away any ballots before they were counted.
How would you know?
How would you know if anybody threw away a box of ballots because they were from a zip code that was going to vote one way or another?
How would you know?
Is there any way to know?
I don't think so.
But whether those are good examples or not, I think you'd agree that there are a number of places you can't audit.
So if you can't audit it, nobody can know.
But the one thing you can know is if you have a situation where there's lots of people involved and there are high stakes, and it might be possible, that over time it will happen.
So the one thing you can guarantee is that if it hasn't happened, it will happen for sure because the system is designed to invite it by its inauditable nature.
It's an invitation.
So the only thing you can know is that it has to happen.
You can't know when or if it did.
Now, here's what's different about this argument.
In my experience, it makes people simply shut up and walk away.
Almost any other argument you make on any other point, people will stay there and argue.
For example, on abortion, the best argument you could make, if you're a Republican, is we push the decision closer to the individual.
That's the only thing that happened.
You don't want your federal government to make decisions, if you can push them down, to get as close to the individual as possible, because it's life and death.
You know, you want to be as close as possible to the decision maker.
Now, that takes a while for each of the states to, you know, work through any changes they need to make.
But it gives every state their own little individual best case scenario.
Now, if I were to say that, that's a pretty good argument.
From a Republican perspective, it'd be a good argument.
But it won't make anybody stop arguing.
Right?
Have you ever made anybody stop arguing about abortion?
It just doesn't happen.
Because it's a life and death, and people have different opinions about where life begins, and that's it.
So you can't solve that one.
But trust me, if you say the election can't be fully audited, therefore no one can know if it was true or not, but on top of that, you can know for sure that it invites rigging, so if it hasn't happened, it will happen for sure, because that's what the design guarantees.
Design is prediction.
Design is prediction.
If you designed a road, Let's say you designed a road with tight turns and a speed limit of 100 miles an hour and no guardrails, what would happen?
You could predict that that design would create people driving off the road to their death.
It's not a guess.
Design is prediction.
If you design an election that can't be fully audited, I will tell you what will happen.
And I will be right every time.
I just don't know when, right?
The same way I don't know which specific car will go off the road, I know the design guarantees cars go off the road.
If the baby's heart is beating, it's murder.
It's murder.
No, if the baby's heart is beating, it's killing.
Murder would make it, would mean it's illegal.
By definition.
It's just what the words mean.
If you want to make that argument, you could say it's killing, but you could not say it's murder unless it's actually illegal.
Not that that changes anything.
All right.
you You think murder predates the legal?
Yeah, maybe.
We've got it covered, yeah.
You should start a God's debris religion.
The last thing I want to do is start a new religion.
Did a little word thinking.
Yeah, that was.
It's not word thinking if it's the difference between what's legal and what's illegal.
That would be a good use of word thinking.
There's a difference between killing somebody illegally and killing them legally.
That's not exactly just the words you use.
One goes to jail and one doesn't.
Alright.
Let's get rid of you, Rich.
Goodbye, Rich.
You are gone.
Sound of Freedom movie.
So I haven't seen the Sound of Freedom movie.
But I understand it's based on a real person.
Real person.
So having understood that, I think I would rather maybe read about the summary of it.
I can't even imagine watching a movie.
I'll probably watch Mission Impossible movie this summer.
But movies?
Why would I watch a movie about something horrible for two and a half hours?
Who wants to put themselves in that situation for two and a half hours?
So I don't recommend watching it, but I do recommend maybe finding out about the story in some other way.
Yeah.
So...
Do not watch depressing stuff.
Hill's new girl?
What?
You can find out about the story by watching it.
I feel like you're not listening.
It's interesting to see people defend the trafficking of children.
You haven't seen that.
You haven't seen anybody defend the trafficking of children.
That's not a real thing.
All right.
We talked about Trump at the UFC.
I don't know about that adrenochrome harvesting stuff.
I don't believe that.
All right, here's a question for you.
On the cocaine found in the White House.
Now, as I've told you, pretty much all powder drugs in 2023 are cut with fentanyl.
Now, this was reported as cocaine, some kind of cocaine stuff, not fentanyl.
But here's the question that the press hasn't asked.
Was there fentanyl in it?
The press needs to ask that question directly.
Ask it directly so you can put them on record.
Because I think the odds of it not having fentanyl in it are 5%?
Probably 5%.
It's one thing for them to say, oh, they said this is in it.
It's very different if you say, I want you to tell me there's no fentanyl in it.
Tell me there's no fentanyl in it.
Because I don't think they can.
And I think they're keeping the fentanyl out of the press because that would make the story worse.
Now, let me say, I don't think I've said this before, so that's on me.
I don't really care whose it was.
Do you?
I think it's probably not Hunter's.
Probably not.
And I don't think it matters in any way to anything.
Doesn't matter to me, doesn't matter to the country, doesn't matter to Hunter, doesn't matter to anything.
It's suspicious the way the White House is handling it.
But it's political football, so they're trying to do what they can in the summer.
And probably it's a summer story.
It's just something you talk about in the summer that you wouldn't care about in January.
But I don't care about Trump's boxes.
I don't care what's in them at all.
It doesn't make any difference to whether I'd want him to be president.
And I don't care about the cocaine in the White House.
Makes no difference to me.
It doesn't affect the next election.
Probably 80% of the people going to the White House have used illegal drugs.
That's my guess.
Probably 80% of the residents have used illegal drugs.
So finding some, oh, OK, it was a mistake.
Blah, blah.
Don't care.
Well, if it's pure cocaine, then the second question should be, could you give us a source?
you Because I think you could sell that.
You could sell the name of somebody who's selling pure cocaine.
Because as far as I know, nobody knows how to find that person.
The people who actually do drugs, they can't find that.
You think you could go on to the, you know, just work your dealers and you'd find some pure cocaine in 2023?
I don't think it's a thing.
I think that's just done.
I think it just all is cut with fentanyl now.
Now that's what I'm told.
I don't have personal experience, but that's what I'm told.
It does look like an op, but I wouldn't even care about that.
Right?
Because it's an op that's doing a thing we shouldn't care about.
We do because it's a political season, but we shouldn't.
So if it was an op, it was a smart one because it made us talk about it.
I don't think it matters.
Do we have apathy or do we have so many things to be outraged about that we can't, we just don't have enough outrage to go around?
It's in every drug, right?
You're right.
Six years now.
Thank you, Cloud Man.
Is your camera set to...
Why is the camera doing poorly?
Oh, you notice?
It's my eighth tactical problem.
I don't have my lights on.
I had eight tactical problems in the last ten minutes of my getting ready for this.
Eight separate problems.
Look at this.
See how it looks if I turn the lights on.
I don't know how you can have minutes that many things go wrong.
How's that?
A little better?
Yeah.
That's a whole better thing.
I just assume people don't like looking at me anyway.
So I don't really think about it.
I just assume people listen to it and they don't look at it.
I don't know why you'd look at it.
I mean, I look the same every time you look.
Here I am.
I'm not even dressed differently usually.
There's not much to look at.
It's too bright now.
All right.
That's all I got for you today.
I'm going to go do some other things.
Have a good Sunday.
If you were looking for today's Dilbert Reborn, you may have been looking for it.
Another problem.
It's another problem I just discovered in the last 10 minutes.
It exists, but you haven't seen it.
So I'll just... Now, I would publish it as soon as I get off, except my computer's not working.
So my main computer's not working, my iPad, my sound, my lights, my drawer, my printer was out of paper.