Episode 2177 Scott Adams: Most Of The Summer News Is Fake & That means Fun Mocking & Sipping Coffee
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Mocking summer news while sipping coffee
Politics, AI South Park, Rand Paul, VP Harris, Vivek Ramaswamy, President Trump, Hunter Biden's Lawyer, Mar-A-Lago Boxes Trial, President Biden, John Lauro, Adm. Lisa Franchetti, Chief Of Naval Operations, RFK Jr., Big Pharma Study Data, Fox News Donation Matching, TheBlaze, DEI Director Firings, Systemic Mental Illness, Crazy Eyes People, Ukraine Flag Account Profiles, Ukraine War, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
And if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that I don't think anybody can even imagine, Well, all you need is a mug or a glass, a tank of Jules Versteyn, 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 dope meat of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Yes, let's go private over here on Lois.
All right, well, there's lots of fun things to talk about.
And let's see, first of all, there's an AI created clip of South Park.
So AI wrote, directed, and animated a little South Park episode.
And I saw a Brian Ramelli tweet saying that this was looking like the beginning of the end of Hughes creating, well he didn't say it that way, but it looked like the beginning of one person being able to create an animated series.
Just tell it what topic and it creates a little show for you.
However, I watched that little show, just to see how good AI was.
And it can't write.
It can't write.
At all.
I consider it ad agency quality writing.
Now, if you're a professional writer, that's like the deepest insult.
Because ad agencies are the worst writers.
Have you seen the commercial?
They don't hire humorists to write the commercial.
If you're an ad agency, you think you use skills.
So people who study some, I don't know, advertising, think they can write jokes.
So that's why all of your insurance commercials are so lame.
I've got a good idea for a joke.
How about, I don't know, let me think.
Come up with something original, original.
I'm working for the ad agency.
Something nobody's seen on a commercial.
I've got it.
We're gonna make a white male look like an idiot.
Has anybody done that yet?
On an insurance commercial?
I feel like that'll be groundbreaking.
Adult white male who's incompetent and everything.
I think that will be shocking and amazing.
People will be talking about it.
It could go viral.
That's what the ad agency... The ad agency think, what has everybody already done before that wasn't good?
And maybe we should do some more of that.
So, the writing was terrible.
Now, AI, of course, can never write South Park for an obvious reason.
Do you know the obvious reason?
Because the only thing that makes South Park funny is that it's inappropriate.
That's the whole joke.
I mean, you're extremely clever and well-written and, you know, it's a national treasure.
So South Park is amazing.
But it wouldn't be funny if they could never be inappropriate.
So AI only can be appropriate, and South Park is only funny if it's inappropriate.
How can it ever solve that?
It has nothing to do with how good AI could be.
It's limited by humans to never be good.
It's designed to be bad.
It's actually designed not to be funny.
Then here's the other thing that I'm going to add that you won't see anywhere else.
As far as I know, this is just my own personal theory, that I've never seen anybody else say.
Part of what makes you enjoy humor writing is imagining that the people who wrote it, or in some cases performed it, are going to get in trouble.
Now, you don't think of it that way, but if you don't feel danger for the writer or the presenter, then it doesn't really trigger you.
It doesn't become viral.
It doesn't become anything.
It's the sense of danger of a human being that makes it interesting to us, right?
Because if you said to me, Scott, there's something dangerous happening to a toaster, A block away.
I'd say, what?
Yeah, there's something to a toaster a block away.
And I'd say, is it my toaster?
No, it's a toaster.
Well, it's somebody's good toaster they're ruining?
No, it's not even really a new toaster.
It's actually a broken toaster that somebody's abusing.
Would you care?
No, because it's a toaster.
You wouldn't care at all.
So when AI writes something, even if it could say something At the moment it can't, but you can easily imagine, you know, they can teach it to do that.
If they taught it to be dangerous, you would say to yourself, so what?
There's a toaster in danger?
So AI is putting itself in danger by just repeating some patterns that we take as provocative, but nobody's in danger.
Yeah.
You'll never want to watch AI art because you'll know it didn't come from a person.
Because the amazing thing about art is that a human made it.
If you've ever been confused and thought that the amazing thing about art is that you enjoy looking at it?
Do you think that?
Do you think the reason that you look at the great masters, the da Vinci's, you think it's because you like how the picture looks?
Literally nobody likes how those pictures look.
You wouldn't buy that photo if it were not made by Da Vinci.
It's the fact that a human made it, that's the entire art.
It's not art without that.
The picture has no value.
Even the greatest artists in the world, the Jackson Pollocks, depending, the Impressionists, it doesn't even matter what genre you're in.
The only thing that makes it art is that a human being made it.
And if you don't think that's going to be true for music as well, then I don't think you understand music either.
Music is interesting because your brain says, wow, people made that.
I would like to mate with those people.
That's it.
If you were the greatest composition and song that took any trick that you could make a hit song and put it all in one song so it had everything, but you knew A.I.
made it, you'd listen to it once.
And you say, oh, that was actually a pretty good song that AI made there.
And you'd never be interested again, because it wasn't from a human.
People are interested in themselves, period.
If you don't understand that, then you don't understand really anything about your generation.
People care about themselves, and that's the end of the analysis.
Now you say, Scott, Scott, Scott, that's crazy.
They care about their family.
That's caring about themselves.
Their family is just an extension of themselves.
If somebody in your family dies, that hurts you!
They're not just separate entities, although they're also that.
They are you.
When you see somebody who looks like you getting hurt, that's you.
That's you.
The reason you care less, it's terrible to say it, you care less if somebody looks the least like you.
I hate to say it, but it's just the way we're all wired.
The more somebody's like you, the more they are you in your mind, and the more you care about them.
And A is the most unlike you that it could be.
It just doesn't pattern stuff that looks like you.
If you had a photograph, a photograph of a person, would you, like, love it and want to fall in love with it?
No.
It's just a photograph.
It's just an image.
I think all of the technologists are missing maybe the biggest part of what AI is trying to master.
The biggest part is that we will never be interested in a machine's work.
We will use AI to do functional stuff that makes things faster, you know, does things faster, basically.
Just, you know, better, faster, more convenient.
That stuff will be great.
But no, it's not going to do art.
It's not going to do art because it can't.
Under any condition, it can't do it.
Because you never wanted to look at the picture, and you never wanted to hear the song.
If you don't understand that, and you never wanted to hear the joke.
You don't care about the joke, the song, or the picture.
You care that a human made them, and you wonder about the human.
Without that understanding, the whole field of AI, at least the art-related part of it, is just absurd.
It's just demonstrations of things that will never be real.
But AI still has lots of useful purposes, but I don't think art right away is going to be part of that.
So Rand Paul's office in Kentucky was destroyed by a fire.
I don't know if they figured out the cause of that yet.
Do we know if that was arson?
Is there climate change?
All right, you got me.
I was not expecting to laugh at that.
Climate change.
That was kind of perfect.
That's like the old joke about timing.
The comment showed up.
I think it was the timing of the comment.
It was just like the moment I said it, climate change.
All right, that was pretty funny.
It wasn't climate change, but I'm seeing in the comments we don't know what it was, right?
So is there some suggestion that it might have been intentional?
Is that still a possibility or not?
Well, I'd like to say that Rand Paul He seems unkillable.
So, so far he survived a mass shooting, right, during the softball game.
He was a survivor of that.
He survived being attacked by his, viciously attacked by his neighbor.
Survived that.
And survived COVID.
Somehow, somehow he survived COVID.
I don't think he ever double masked.
Somehow he lived anyway.
And now his office is destroyed by fire.
You have to ask yourself, you know, and of course there were coincidental things.
He was going to go after Fauci and he doesn't like the war in Ukraine.
So there's always a reason.
There's always a political reason.
That would be true of most of the prominent senators at any time.
I would just like to say he's maybe one of the bravest people who's ever worked in government.
I mean, he's a brave mofo.
I'd just like to take a moment to acknowledge that when people take these jobs, it's not always for the power.
Sometimes they're patriots.
Rand Paul, as far as I can tell, isn't doing it for the money.
As far as I can tell.
I don't see any indications of that.
And he takes difficult stands, which I believe are completely principle-driven, even when I don't agree with him.
When I disagree with him, generally he'll state his principle and I'll go, okay, well, that's consistent.
So even when I don't like his opinions, I like his opinions.
Can you say that about everybody?
You can't.
I would say it about RFK Jr.
When I don't like his opinions or don't agree with him, I still totally respect him.
Because he shows his work.
Right?
He says it's this study, this is why I believe it.
That's all I ask of anybody.
I don't ask you to be right all the time.
That would be unreasonable.
So Rand Paul's in my, you know, sort of highest level of government credibility.
He puts his life on the line, doesn't walk away.
Doesn't appear to be lying about anything.
Can you even think of a time he was accused of lying?
I don't think he's even been ever accused.
It's like he doesn't seem to be part of his deal.
He's just trying to make something better, it looks like to me.
So, just kudos to one politician who, while I don't agree with everything he says, that's not really the point.
...mentioning Thomas Massey, who is somebody I also often call out for extra respect because of the rational approach he's bringing.
Again, not somebody I'll agree with every time, but he always brings the goods, always brings the argument.
Right?
It's never silly.
It's never stupid.
Sometimes you just don't agree.
Priority is different or something.
But smart people.
Good patriots.
I'm glad we have them.
All right.
Let's talk about summer news.
You know what summer news is?
It's the kind that's mostly made up.
Just we have something to talk about in the summer.
Well, along those lines are probably drunk and vice president.
I'll just say probably because she acts like she's drunk in public.
But that's all I know for sure.
I don't know she is.
I just know she acts like a drunk.
And if you're not asking the question, is she actually drunk?
I believe you're not doing your job as a good citizen.
As a citizen who has any interest in the country, I feel like it's a fair question.
Are you drunk right now?
In fact, in 2023, it's the most reasonable question you can ask.
As soon as you get into a disagreement on social media, I've taught you this before, if a troll comes after you in the comments and you're sure they're just, it's like they don't want to understand, they're probably drunk.
Like actually, literally drunk.
If you looked at the population of the planet at any given time from the afternoon to the evening, what percentage of people who drive by you on the highway are drunk?
Probably 10%.
Probably 10%.
What percentage of people on social media are the ones who are the terrible trolls?
No 10%.
It's probably not a coincidence.
You know, that the amount of alcoholics and the amount of trolls seems to be similar.
So it won't bother you as much to see a troll comment if you just say to yourself, probably drunk.
You wouldn't be wrong a lot.
But Drunk Kamala Harris was railing about the state of Florida allegedly having in their new curriculum something that Is insulting to black people and anybody who cares about black people because it said, quote, let's see, how is she?
I want to see how she paraphrased it.
She said, quote, just yesterday in the state of Florida, they decided middle school students will be taught that enslaved people benefited from slavery.
Now, do you do you think that that was true?
Do you need me to do an extended explanation of why that didn't happen?
Why Florida isn't actually teaching people that slavery was sometimes good?
Do I need to get into any of the details or will you stipulate that it's obvious on the surface that nothing like that happened?
You know nothing like that happened, right?
So here's the closest thing that did happen.
So this is summer news.
This is somebody misinterpreting something in a really obvious way, like a real obvious misinterpretation, and then getting really angry about it.
So first comes the misinterpretation, and then there's the mock anger.
Do you think she's really angry?
Do you think she woke up and thought, oh, I'm so angry about this?
No.
No.
She's not angry, and nobody who's talking about it cares.
It's just summer news.
It's just something to talk about.
Here's the actual statement from part of the curriculum, I guess.
It says, quote, instruction, so I guess the teachers are being instructed how to teach the history.
Instruction includes how slaves develop skills in which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.
So slaves developing skills that could be applied for their personal benefit turned into, why is Florida saying that slavery was good for slaves?
Do you know what this personal benefit means in context?
If you keep it in context, do you know what personal benefit means?
It means, I'll give you an example.
This is my understanding anyway.
It means that if you were a slave working in the field, Which you can imagine would be, you know, among the worst of these slave jobs.
If you could figure out a way to, let's say, learn how to repair wagons, right?
Or to shoe a horse, right?
Put horseshoes on a horse.
Probably better work.
So that would be a case where a slave could go from the worst thing you could possibly do to something a little less worse.
Still a slave.
Now, does that sound?
Oh, nobody thinks that.
Literally, nobody thinks that.
And Kamala Harris doesn't think it.
Nobody who agrees with her and claps like... None of them believe it.
They might act like they believe it.
They might argue with you with stern looks, but they don't believe it.
This is just summer news.
How about that Jason Aldean song that people are calling racist?
How many of them do you think actually believe there's someone in the song that's racist?
Probably nobody.
Now, I've said that even I like the vibe, but when you look at it, you're looking for the racist stuff, and it's just clearly not there.
But I can see why it's provocative.
So if somebody said, hey, the media has primed us to have a bad reaction, that's a good take.
That's a good take.
But if you say it was racist, and yet there's not a single image you could point to that would back that, or a song, or... There's nothing in the words or the imagery that would suggest that.
This is just summer news.
If you got even a little bit worked up about the Jason Aldean situation, you were getting worked up by drunken trolls and people who just need something to talk about.
None of this stuff is real.
It just isn't.
All right.
I told you that I agreed to talk to Roseanne on her upcoming podcast.
I was thinking about Roseanne the other day.
So thinking about why she got canceled for.
And I don't need to go into the specifics because you probably remember them anyway.
But do you think that in the real world there's even one person who believed honestly That Roseanne was bigoted.
I think they accused her of being anti-Semitic, and at one point of offending a black woman that she didn't know was black.
Nobody.
I'll bet you couldn't find one person in the entire world, and certainly nobody knows her.
I'll bet you couldn't find one person who would back that, oh yeah, in private.
Oh yeah, you should see what she says in private.
And I said the same thing about myself when I got cancelled.
The first thing that happens when you get canceled, you all know this.
They look through your entire history to find out all the supporting bad things you did that for some reason nobody noticed until now, and when you sum them all up, oh my God, this new thing must really be indicative of your nature.
Did you notice that there was none of that for her?
None of that for me?
None.
You don't think that people poured over everything we did As soon as we got canceled, of course they did.
And what'd they find?
Decades of the opposite.
Decades.
Decades of consistently being the opposite of the accusation.
And still, that fact doesn't make it part of the story.
Don't you think the story should be, well, after 40 years of being this way, there was this one thing that people thought might invalidate that 40 years.
None of this is real.
There's nobody who cares about Roseanne's opinion.
Or mine.
Do you think there's anybody who woke up and was like, you know, I was going to have a good day, but there was this cartoonist who said that thing that I took out of context, and now I can't have a good day.
No, nobody cares about my opinion.
They use the opinions of famous people.
As just a focus point to put their own views into it.
So it's never about the person, they're just a conduit for people's opinions.
That's about it.
Don't take any of it seriously.
Unless you get cancelled, then you would.
Alright.
So as you know, Vivek Ramaswamy is getting a lot of attention for a great campaign.
A lot of people who like Trump Probably are liking him as well.
Maybe not as much, right?
Maybe they still prefer Trump.
But the Venn diagram of people who think they like Trump's vibe or at least what he's offering policy-wise, they're liking Vivek for similar reasons.
But if you want to hear the best reason, this might be the moment when I went from liking Vivek a lot to loving him.
I think I've crossed over to some kind of man love.
Here's what he tweeted after there was yet another embarrassing Kamala Harris video.
So Vivek tweets that Kamala Harris makes the most powerful case I'll see in my lifetime against race and gender quotas in government.
If only she knew it.
Wow.
I don't think Has anybody except Trump ever said something that direct?
That's really direct.
Outstanding ovation.
Now this tweet didn't make much of an impact when he did it.
Was it two days ago?
Can you imagine in any other world that two days ago he could say this?
That Kamala Harris is the best argument in his whole lifetime against race and gender quotas in government.
He said it as directly as you could say it.
You know why there was no controversy or pushback?
Everybody agreed.
Yeah.
Now Trump made the envelope bigger, so now you can play inside his space, right?
So because Trump is so brutally, you know, frank on his opinions, it just made it acceptable that you can play within those realms he's already created.
So I don't think Vivek could have said this, I don't know, six years ago.
I think that would be the end of his career.
But today you can say it, not only because it's obviously true, But, because our conversation has been broadened so you can now say that.
And you can actually just go on with your life.
Now I'd like to endorse that.
So I can say it too.
Kamala Harris is obviously a diversity hire.
Obviously.
Obviously.
Now that doesn't mean that all diversity hires are going to be incapable like she is.
Literally nobody thinks that.
But surely in our weird world where we pretend to have opinions, somebody's going to pretend that I think that if you're a minority hire you could not be qualified.
Literally nobody believes that.
Literally nobody.
Yet that's the way we play it.
We act as if there's somebody who actually has that opinion.
Have you ever met anybody who had the opinion that you couldn't have a qualified black vice president?
It's not even a thing.
Literally, you couldn't find one functioning brain that would have that opinion.
Nobody.
But, can you say that Kamala Harris is somewhat obviously not qualified?
Yeah, you can say that.
It's pretty obvious to everybody.
I'm sure the Democrats see it as well as we do.
I mean, the honest ones see it.
So kudos to Vivek for being so direct.
This fits perfectly in his policy preferences to get rid of all hiring preferences.
So it's right on target.
And again, he's just killing it.
He's killing it.
Now, the most dickish thing you can say in these situations, I'm going to say it anyway.
Because, you know, all the candidates are running for first place.
Nobody's running to be a vice president, right?
But it has to be said, he would be perfect for Trump.
He would be perfect.
My microphone is plugged in.
So if you're hearing it low, there's some problem on your end.
The YouTube sound is actually better.
Better than the other sound.
All right.
So, Trump did a little video about Biden, basically saying that Biden is sleepwalking us into World War III, and it's all because of a country that gave the Bidens millions of dollars.
Now, I gotta say again, that Trump is the best at simple framing.
We've never seen this before.
Like, a lot of people are good and smart and good at framing.
You know, Vivek is great at it.
But this is just, like, otherworldly framing.
It's just, he gets right to, like, that feeling you feel.
Like, he skips all the intellectual stuff, and he goes right at that thing you're feeling in your chest.
This is exactly what I feel in my chest, that we've got a president who's sleepwalking us into World War III, For the benefit of a country that gave him millions of dollars, through Burisma, primarily.
That's exactly what it feels like.
And so Trump is that.
The exact thing you're thinking, as you're thinking it.
Damn!
He's just so good at that.
I don't know, just take a moment to appreciate it.
And again, I'm not going to be slobbering all over Trump's entire package, so to speak.
That was poorly worded.
I'm going to try to call this race as objectively as I can.
So I'm going to say good things about anybody who's doing good things, including Biden, if he does some good things.
But you can't beat Trump for simple framing.
All right, there's a story.
My favorite summer story so far is that Hunter Biden went to visit his lawyer.
And of course, wherever he goes, the paparazzi are there.
And so his lawyer, his lawyer comes out on his balcony and smokes a bong.
And the photographers are getting a picture of the lawyer smoking a bong while a whole Hunter's inside doing God knows what.
Now, do you know what the funniest part of the story was?
This is my favorite part of the story.
The press said they didn't know what was in the bog.
Well, nobody asked me to be an extra witness in this case, but I volunteer.
If you'd like, you can interview me to see what my feelings are about what was in the bong.
In fact, I'll ask Dale to do just that.
Dale, could you interview me and ask me what's in that bong?
Well, we see it's a bong, but we don't have any information whatsoever about the content of what he's smoking.
It was a bong!
And scene.
No, there's not really a second thing you smoke out of a bong.
Not really.
I mean, maybe it's happened once, but I don't think it was lettuce.
You know, I don't think he was looking through through the ingredients in his kitchen.
He was like.
Paprika.
I wonder.
I wonder.
No, I don't think that happened.
He smoked a bong.
Would this be a story if he'd had a glass of wine on the balcony?
Anybody?
If he'd been photographed with a glass of wine with dinner?
Nobody would care.
Is marijuana illegal in California where this alleged bonging happened?
Totally legal.
Totally legal.
It's a non- And just a personal note, if I were Hunter Biden's lawyer, I don't know how I would do it without doing bongs.
I mean, there's a way, but it's not obvious to me.
So yeah, it's just personal.
So the box trial, the Mar-a-Lago Boxes O' Secrets, Now, you remember all the secrets that are in the boxes, right?
Do I have to go over it again?
All the secrets that they've told us are in the boxes?
Oh, wait.
Nobody has told us there's anything in the boxes.
No, nothing at all.
We don't have a single piece of information that there's even one thing in a box that anybody would care about.
I'm not saying there isn't.
But isn't that interesting?
Then nobody can even give us a for instance.
How about just a for instance?
Well, we can't give you secrets, but I will tell you there was a detailed battle plan for Iran.
Okay.
Don't need to tell me the battle plan.
That would be cool.
But just tell me there's something like that in the box.
Anything.
Just anything.
What's your worst one?
You don't even have to tell me everything in the box.
Just pick your worst thing.
Nuclear secrets.
Is it the nuclear secrets?
I don't know.
But the timing is... But generally speaking the Republicans would be... So we'd have a situation where Trump would be the... But also possibly a convicted felon.
Potentially facing jail time if his appeal failed, right?
So you assume if he got convicted there would be an appeal so that he would still become president?
There's nothing that would stop him from being president, right?
Even if he got convicted?
If he if he were out on bail or he's appealing it.
I mean it's not like he's a flight risk, right?
Is Trump a flight risk?
Where can he hide?
He's the least flight risky guy of all time.
You wouldn't even need bail, would you?
I don't think you would.
You just say, all right, everybody's keeping an eye on you.
Well, so this is my first exposure to the details of this story, but can somebody answer this question?
Doesn't this give him perfect timing?
To use the prosecution as part of his campaign to say the government is corrupt and trying to rig the election by taking him out.
So wouldn't it help him in the election?
At the same time he could just pardon himself after it's done.
I would vote for him just to pardon himself.
I would.
I would vote for him just to pardon himself.
I would vote for his policies.
I'd just vote for him to pardon himself.
That would be the end.
Because I don't see the prosecution as being something that would have happened with another person.
I'm not saying he did or did not commit any tactical violations.
There might have been.
In fact, probably.
I just don't think they rise to the level of the response.
So I think so far it looks like it could work in his favor.
Because they're never going to tell you what's in the boxes.
They're just going to wave their hands.
Dangerous boxes.
And eventually, the longer you go without hearing what's in the box, the less likely you think there's anything you care about.
Yeah, there might be some secrets, but do they matter?
Does anybody care?
I doubt it.
All right.
Trump has said That there are a lot of passionate voters out there, more passionate than ever, and that things would be, quote, things, quote, would be very dangerous if you went to prison.
Now, I'd like to show you the faces of the people on CNN when they heard Trump say the most obvious thing in the world, that it could be dangerous if one of the leading candidates is put in jail on charges that don't look credible.
Now, CNN decided that that was a threat, so I'd like to show you CNN face when he said it.
Is that a threat?
that?
I love CNN face.
I don't think MSNBC does it quite the same way, but CNN always does the face.
You know, when I see Joy Reid or any of the people on MSNBC, right?
It seems like, you know, versions of their own face.
But on CNN, it's like they're actors who have to act extra disgusting, disgusted, like the Jake Tapper face.
And then Trump walked to a helicopter.
You know, like shit and fart and cough at the same time.
MSNBC has dumb face.
Maybe.
Anyway, yeah, so trying to turn Trump into a dangerous insurrectionist because he pointed out the most obvious and well-known fact in the world, that if you illegitimately jail a major political character, people might protest.
I don't know, that might surprise you.
Trump's lawyer, his new lawyer, cleverly and smartly is demanding cameras in the courtroom.
Can we give a hand for Trump's new lawyer?
Playing that right, cameras in the courtroom.
Now, should there be cameras in the courtroom?
I don't know.
That's not the point.
The point is, if your new lawyer is And you're going to be presenting your case as it's a ridiculous case and it's political.
Oh yeah.
Whether or not you get cameras is also a second question.
But the first thing you should say is cameras.
Because he just reframed the situation.
His new lawyer just successfully framed the situation as an illegitimate government process, one in which you can't trust it unless you better get some cameras in there so the public can protect itself.
Get some cameras in there.
We want some cameras.
Now, does the person who's accused of a crime usually ask for the cameras?
Yes or no?
The person who's the defendant, when does the defendant ask for cameras?
I've never heard of it.
Have you?
Have you ever heard of it?
It's a baller play.
Imagine being so confident of your case.
Now this is what he would portray.
We don't know if he's confident.
We know he's portraying a confidence.
That's a good lawyer.
So first step, you know the first step we see in the public, bullseye.
The innocent man wants cameras in the courtroom.
Perfect.
Perfect.
Good job.
All right.
Let's see.
By the way, his new attorney is named John Loro.
Normally, I wouldn't even care what his lawyer's name is, but he's a good lawyer, so maybe you should know his name.
So far, anyway, that's a good move.
All right.
So President Biden has overruled the Pentagon for choosing his new member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
So they recommended some gentleman, I don't know his name, but Biden picked Admiral Lisa Franchetti to lead the Navy.
So she'd be the first woman if she's confirmed to be a Pentagon service chief and the first female member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
So the Pentagon wanted somebody else.
Does that sound like a diversity hire to anybody?
Just asking.
Does anybody interpret this as she's clearly not the person for the job?
Yeah.
Now, I feel bad for For would she be, she's admiral.
She's not a rear admiral.
I'm not sure what a rear admiral is, but it's probably lucky she isn't one.
But it could be that she's actually the best person for the job.
I wouldn't rule it out.
It's possible.
You know, maybe Biden is really good at hiring.
Maybe she's the best one for the job.
But nobody's going to believe it.
Should you hire people for your Joint Chiefs of Staff if the public most overwhelmingly assumes that they're unqualified?
Now, pretend that they think she is.
But nobody really believes that, do they?
Privately?
You think somebody privately would say, yeah, I think they focused on picking the right person.
I doubt it.
I doubt anybody would think that.
And again, this is terribly unfair if it turned out that Admiral Franchetti is actually really great.
It's terribly unfair.
Did I create this situation?
I'm just reading the news.
He created the situation where he very overtly and with nothing hidden Chose somebody based on gender primarily.
Let me ask you an even more provocative question.
Do you think women should be heads of any military service?
I want to see if anybody says yes.
Somebody says yes if they're gay.
Okay, that's not fair.
All right.
Almost everybody's saying no.
Now is that just because you're a conservative?
I see one yes.
Is that because you're a conservative group?
Or do you think this would be a general feeling?
I mean, I don't think you would not be among the progressives.
I don't know.
I feel the military is the one place where the mission has to be first.
I guess that's easy to say.
And it doesn't look like they're doing that.
So not only is Biden You know, sleepwalking us into World War III, but he's consciously, intentionally, and publicly making sure that we don't have the best people running the military.
That's what it looks like.
Would anybody disagree with that characterization?
That he's moving us close to war, That part I think you agree.
I mean, I'm not sure war will happen with Russia, but clearly we're creeping that direction.
At the same time, he's degrading the most important part, which would be the decision making, and maybe even the trust.
I don't know how you could be more incompetent, more obviously, and more publicly.
It would be hard to imagine Anybody starting, you know, or looking to crawl toward a war that could destroy all civilization, while simultaneously promoting somebody who is clearly, even according to the Pentagon, not the right person.
Yeah.
So, apparently we care about making women happier, happy more than we care about defending even the country.
Actually, the priority is clear.
So, how in the world could he win re-election?
It's just mind-boggling.
Like, if you just look at the objective facts, it just doesn't look like it's possible.
But, yeah, we also don't trust the election, so anything's possible.
Well, I hesitate to bring up this next story, but it's a big headline lately, so...
With a big sigh, RFK Jr.
says that ivermectin totally works because there are 99 studies that show it doesn't, that the show does, and that only a few studies that say it doesn't work and they were funded by Bill Gates and they have problems with them.
He says further evidence of this is that there are two states in India, one that used hydroxychloroquine, I think it was, did, some people had lots of vaccinations.
And there's a country in Africa, I forget which one, where they have a lot of problems with Cloroquine, and they did well without vaccinations.
Do you like his facts?
Did those sound pretty credible?
Do you think there's 99 studies that show it works, and only a few that show it don't?
It don't.
It doesn't.
And that Bill Gates funded them.
And that there are clear examples in the real world of where either hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin worked, because you can just see it.
You can see the area it worked.
And, you know, there are comparisons.
They didn't use it, they didn't get the good result.
Do you think that's true?
All right.
Yes and no are the wrong answers.
Yes and no are both the wrong answers.
There's no such thing as reliable data about this.
There's no such thing.
Bill Gates doesn't have reliable data.
RFK Jr.
doesn't have reliable data.
I'm pretty sure that these 99 studies were observational and retrospective or very, very small and flawed.
And that when somebody did a meta study where they sort of sum up all the studies, you know, they got some kind of an opinion.
But meta studies are basically astrology.
It's not even science.
I've said that argument too many times to do it again.
But it's basically what assumptions you make when you do the analysis.
So it's not science at all.
You pick some assumptions and you're kind of done.
It's just what assumptions you picked.
So there's nothing about science This should flow from your assumption.
It should flow from tests.
If it flows directly from your assumptions, well I assume this big test over here that's biasing the results, I assume that's worse than some of these little ones.
So I'll take this one out.
It's not science.
is somebody's assumption about things.
So I would say that RFK juniors 's take on this would be the same as anybody's take who believed data or what data was accurate and what data was not.
It's just not a thing.
There's nobody who can look at any data and know anything about it, about ivermectin.
Because the topic itself is too politicized.
You would just assume that it's distorted by money somehow.
One way or another.
So I'm not going to say that it works or it doesn't work.
I'm going to stick with my opinion from the very beginning.
I don't believe the data that says it works or that it doesn't work.
I don't believe either one.
And I don't believe that we have any.
Now actually, let me amend that.
We might actually have good data.
But you might never see it, and you wouldn't know what was the good data versus the bad data.
So anybody who has something like certainty, that's the only wrong opinion.
If you said to yourself, you know, I've looked at these studies and I gotta say I'm leaning in RFK Jr.' 's direction.
I'm leaning in that direction.
Perfectly reasonable.
Do you get that?
And if you said you were leaning the other direction, perfectly reasonable.
Well, leading is as far as you can get, right?
We're so far from actually knowing that it's the knowing that bothers me.
And so I think RFK Jr.
would be more solid if he said that I don't like any of the studies, but there are enough studies that show that it was positive that wouldn't it be good to know for sure?
Something like that.
But the certainty, I think, is a little off-putting to me.
Because I don't think that the data supports certainty.
It might support leaning in one direction or the other.
All right, Blaze Media, which is no good friend to Fox News, I guess.
They broke a story that there's a matched donation.
Fox News.
So if you give them your, I don't know, your church, I guess, they'll match it.
If you give some money to this or that, they'll match it.
But apparently there was no limit on, at least if it was a charitable entity, that you could give to.
So they found out that some people are giving to a satanic temple, something called the Trevor Project that must be bad for conservatives, Planned Parenthood that conservatives don't always like, and what else?
Southern Poverty Law Center, which is amazing.
Now, is this a real story?
Or is this a summer story?
The details are probably right.
I mean, I would guess somebody did, you know, screenshots and, you know, it seems like it's well documented.
So I would say the facts are probably right.
Probably right.
Do you care?
Do you care that there was some troll Or even maybe just one person, at Fox News, who was literally a member of the Satanic Temple, or thought it would be funny, and gave $100 to him just to see if Fox News would match it.
None of it matters.
Fox News can give us money anywhere it wants.
In this case, it said, we'll give it where Fox News want to give it, and then they didn't put restrictions on it.
Is that good or bad?
Is it good or bad that Fox News did not put restrictions On charitable giving.
It's good!
It's good!
It's not bad!
That the outcomes, in this case, would be suboptimal to, you know, most people or some people.
At least the satanic temple people, you know, would be objectionable to most people.
But, does it really matter?
That double donation from Fox News?
You're probably talking about $200.
Do you think you're talking about millions?
It would have been flagged if there was even one donation to any of these entities.
Am I angry that there's somebody at Fox News who's donating to Planned Parenthood?
No.
All that tells me is that Fox News is willing to hire people who have different opinions than some of them do.
How is that even a problem?
Now I get that their customers and most of the hosts would be on one side of that issue.
But the fact that they're willing to hire you if you're on the other side of that issue is not a weakness.
Does that feel like a weakness?
It's totally a strength.
So I'm going to back Fox News on this.
I think Blaze Media is a little over their competitive skis.
It's just the summer.
Again, it's a somerset.
Nobody cares.
Literally nobody cares.
All right, here's another one.
Did you know that DEI, which had been Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, now has an A at the end?
Sort of going the LGBTQ plus direction where you keep having to add a letter.
So they've added an A to the end for Accessibility.
So now it's DEIA.
Anyway, the Wall Street Journal editorial board was talking about a, let's see, there's California community colleges are required to take into consideration, you know, the principles of DEI.
And here are the bullet points from the Wall Street Journal of the specific things that these community colleges should do.
Alright, this is how seriously they take it.
So the bullet points are promotes and incorporates DEI and anti-racist pedagogy.
Pedagogy?
Pedagogy?
Literally have never said that word out loud.
Do you know why I've never said pedagogy?
Pedagogy?
Do you know why I've never said that out loud?
Because it's a fucking douchebag word.
And I'm not a fucking douchebag.
Well, maybe I am, but...
I don't use that word.
I had to correct myself.
Maybe I am.
I'm a bit of a douchebag.
But never use that word.
Who are you writing for?
Do you think that half of the readers of the Wall Street Journal know what that means?
Pedagogy?
Pedagogy?
Probably no more than half.
I'd guess 25%.
So they're gonna, let's see, promote and incorporate it.
So promoting and incorporating, so far so good, right?
Because we knew that was happening, promoting and incorporating.
Let's see if it goes further.
Develops and implements a pedagogy, okay, fuck you, and or curriculum, and or curriculum, that promotes a race-conscious and intersectional lens.
That's bad.
A race-conscious teaching?
That should be exactly what you don't do.
So that should be illegal.
So that would be illegal in Florida, right?
The thing that's being recommended, or actually required, the thing that's being required in California is literally illegal in Florida.
Is that true?
It's required here and illegal there.
Can you think of any other law that's required in one state and illegal in another?
Give me another example.
Required in one state, but illegal in another.
Go.
No, guns are not required.
Looting.
Abortion is not required.
Well, I suppose it'd be required to offer.
You might be right about that.
Income tax.
Well, you know, state tax.
That's reaching.
License to drive.
No, it's required everywhere.
Free-range crapping, photo ID.
It's not illegal to have photo ID.
It's not illegal to put on a seatbelt.
It's not... Pod is not required anywhere.
Yeah, there's no other example, is there?
Right?
There are lots of examples of things that are legal in one and not legal in another.
But you can't come up with an example of something that is required... government required in one state and government illegal in another state.
I want to see if you know voter ID.
If you walk into the voter ID place and show your ID, nobody's going to arrest you if it's not required.
I think this is unique, that it's required in one state and illegal in another.
But that should tell you something.
All right.
Contributes to DEI and anti-racism research and scholarship.
Contributes to it.
You have to contribute to the research and scholarship?
What's that mean?
You have to contribute to it?
Like financially?
Or you have to work toward it?
Big deal.
Advocates for and advances it.
Most of these bullet points are just saying you've got to work on it in different ways.
I assume these bullet points were written by an unqualified person.
Participates in a continuous cycle of self-assessment of one's growth and commitment to DEI and acknowledgement of any internalized personal biases and racial superiority or inferiority.
It's literally just mind control.
Based on this, I would recommend that nobody go to college in California.
You should just skip community college.
This is the most absurdly inappropriate thing you could ever put in a college.
Absurdly inappropriate.
But there we are.
All right.
Lately there have been a bunch of stories about DEI professionals who have been fired or quit or downsized or whatever.
And they usually show their picture.
Have you noticed anything Common or similar about the photos of the people working in that field.
Actually, a lot of them are white.
Yeah, yeah, your first impression was it's gonna be, you know, people of color.
But no, there's actually, you know, a healthy number of them are white.
Women, mostly women.
Have they all been women?
Not all of them.
90%?
It's like 90% women, isn't it?
Yeah, 90% women.
But that's not what I'm going for.
You're talking about body weight.
No, I don't think the body weight... I haven't seen anybody overweight who's doing that job.
In fact, they all look normal weight to me.
No, it's not that.
It's crazy faces.
Crazy eyes.
They are people with crazy eyes.
And crazy smiles.
And the first few times I saw it, I thought, well, that's just my imagination.
Playing tricks with me.
Or maybe it's, I don't know, maybe it's just a coincidence.
But the more stories I see, and the more of those pictures, I'm starting to think it's like some other issues we talk about, where it's mental illness that's just been systemized.
It's systemic mental illness.
So we're fighting systemic racism, Which I believe is a real thing and important.
With systemic craziness.
We're actually hiring the craziest people to work on an important issue.
Now, do you believe that you can tell if somebody is batshit crazy by looking at them?
How many of you think you can tell by looking at them if somebody's crazy?
Yes.
We evolved so that we can tell if somebody is sick or crazy or lying.
Not every time.
But we've evolved to need that skill.
You can spot them right away.
And the DEI photos look like pictures of very unhealthy people.
Mentally unhealthy people.
So I'm just going to say it.
It has nothing to do with race or gender.
They do look like disturbed people who were drawn to a profession, partly because of whatever's bothering them.
That's what it looks like.
Now, I can't read minds, you know, I have no poll information, there's no science behind it, but I'm tired of ignoring it.
I mean, if every time I see pictures of DEI people and they look crazy, How long do I have to ignore that?
When can I point it out?
Are we there?
I mean, I can do it, but you can't probably.
Because I got free speech in a way you do not.
So I asked myself, if you were looking through all your photos, and you're looking for a good profile picture, and as you're scrolling through your selfies, you realize that you can't find one that doesn't have crazy eyes, What's your best play?
I did a poll on this on Twitter.
I gave people two choices.
If all of your selfies have crazy eyes, your two choices are, hide all of your photos, or become a DEI professional.
Because apparently that's the one place where a crazy eye photo is perfectly acceptable.
Oh yeah.
We'll hire this one.
All right, 88% said become a DEI professional and 12% said hide your photos.
All right, here's an Ukraine update.
Fairly early on in the Ukraine situation, a lot of people were pro-Ukraine.
They put their Ukrainian flags in their profiles and stuff.
And, you know, it was still literally fog of war.
Things were just developing.
Ukraine was an ally.
Russia was not.
You know, so it made sense if the US and NATO were going in on a side, that people would kind of take the side of the leaders.
But a lot of time has transpired.
We see now that so far we've not got a good result.
The latest thinking is that nobody's going to do any counter-offensive or offensive.
Walk on landmines until the end of time and basically keep their borders the way they are.
So, under these situations and the times gone by and what we've learned about the Bidens taking money from Burisma, allegedly, etc.
Can we conclude that if you still have a Ukraine flag in your profile and you're not actually Ukrainian, there's probably something wrong with you?
And probably you're deeply brainwashed.
And somebody said today on Twitter, you've heard it before, but, you know, that they don't take seriously anything that's said by anybody with a Ukraine flag in the profile.
Now, when people started saying that, my first reaction was, wow, that's a little, that's a little bigoted or, I don't know, stereotyped or that's a little crazy.
But, Standing from today's perspective, with what we know about the whole situation, and lots of time has transpired, and it doesn't look like we're getting any closer to a result, it's kind of embarrassing to have that.
And if you still have that in your profile, I swear to God, I can't take you seriously.
Because it's almost like a tattoo on your forehead that says, brainwash me.
Brainwash me, please.
Hello.
Could I please be brainwashed a little bit?
Do believe whatever you're telling me, as long as it costs a lot of money to buy a lot of weapons.
The most important thing is we're buying weapons.
Lots and lots of weapons.
So that's what the Ukraine flag to me just looks like you're lost.
And again, I think that you could be a reasonable person and have nuanced and different views on whether we should or should not be helping Ukraine.
I think a reasonable person could be on either side of that.
Even if I strongly disagree, reasonable people are on both sides.
But I wouldn't believe anybody was reasonable if they had a Ukraine flag in their profile.
The first thing I'd think is, oh, I can't talk to you.
But I'm sure there are equal things that people say about other people.
Same kind of thing.
That's just where I am at, that I can't take anybody seriously with that flag.
All right, well, the latest on the Ukraine situation is they're completely bogged down.
The counteroffensive is not working.
Russia is in no risk whatsoever of unfolding or falling apart.
There are more stories about internal dissension and people being rounded up and all that stuff.
I'm sure that's true.
But we haven't seen Prigozhin lately.
And I don't think Russia's in trouble.
Does anybody think Russia actually is falling apart?
As long as they have money, they're not falling apart.
Putin's firmly in control, it looks like.
What's that?
Elijah Wood talking about Zelensky's addiction?
Is that on the news?
He's not on serious drugs?
Then I'd have to question his capability.
If he's not at least on meth, or some version of it, Adderall or something, if he's not on a performance enhancing upper, then he's the wrong person for the job.
I'm just going to say that directly.
I don't care how illegal those drugs are.
If the guy who's in charge of saving your country Isn't getting the energy he needs?
He better go get it.
I just assume anybody in this situation is on some kind of meth or Adderall or some version of it.
Don't you?
You say cocaine, but I don't know, you know, meth would be smarter in his case.
I don't know if he's snorting anything, but I would say for sure a person in that situation, I would, if I were him, I would be on some kind of stimulant.
Because there's no way he's ever going to go to sleep thinking he did enough work.
Remember, it's life and death.
You don't want somebody to say, you know, I'm going to get a good eight hours of sleep tonight.
That's the last thing you want to hear from your war leader.
You know what I want to hear from my war leader?
I've been up for three days, I'm still doing well.
I don't feel like I need any sleep yet.
And then I say to myself, OK, well, you're on meth.
And then the second thing I say to myself is, thank God, I've got a leader who's awake.
Do you want sleepy Joe making your war decisions?
"Well, we'll send you some bombs." Forgeman bat.
So if Zelensky's on drugs, good for him.
Just means he loves his country and he doesn't want to sleep through a war.
But I don't recommend drugs to you.
Because keep in mind that if he's doing drugs, and I just assume he is, I mean, he would be smart enough to be on stimulants.
But I just wouldn't trust him if he's not.
Yeah.
So you could have, there's a downside.
Duh.
There's a downside to drugs.
So he could get addicted.
It could be really bad later in his life.
He could die of an overdose.
You know, he could have, um, you know, if he did too much, he could have some psych thing, all bad.
I get it.
But in terms of the risk reward, I doubt anybody in this situation would not be on stimulants.
