Episode 1563 Scott Adams: Which Public Figures Are Lying to You Today? Spoiler: Most of Them

Good morning, everybody. By the way, do you know why I always open a drawer and take out my. My notes before I do this simultaneously? It's not because. Just because I don't remember it. That's part of it. But it's also. I'm seeing funny memes go by on the Locals platform. By the way, Locals has in their comments, you can embed memes and pictures. So the Locals comment stream is freaking hilarious compared to the YouTube stream, which is just text. But when you look at the Locals feed, it's hard not to laugh. All right, so the reason that I always do this, sometimes YouTube clips off this part. But let me tell you why I do it. So listen to it again, see if you can hear it. It's basically an introduction. So it's also a trigger or a key, as we say in hypnosis. If you hear it every time, it should. If you like the content from prior shows, it should put you immediately in the headspace. So it's sort of a trick to put you in the right frame of mind by repetition. Same as really any theme music for any show. It's the same idea. So all kinds of stuff going on today. I'm going to be cursing a little bit. There will be some cursing coming up. So this would not be the one that you want to share with your sensitive friends and. Or children. Okay, well, let's say children who are not familiar with swear words. I'm pretty sure any kid under 14 or older is going to be fine. And you probably shouldn't show this to anybody who's under 14, but anybody over 14 has heard all the words. Right? By the way, have you ever heard 14 year olds talk to each other? It's a lot worse than what I say, so they're not going to be damaged by it. But anyway, that's just your warning. But first topic is, I'll be swearing on the very next topic, in case you're wondering. The very next topic will have some anger and cursing and then we'll get back into the fun stuff. But first, there might be an Alzheimer vaccination. According to the Telegraph, there's a vaccine against Alzheimer's disease that could be on the horizon because it's worked in mice. They actually. Yeah, I see your comment. Carpe. I'll get back to that. And it actually reversed memory loss in mice. What? How do you reverse memory loss? How do you even do that? Apparently that's the thing. Oh, oh, there's something wrong. I have done something very bad. You know what it is? Right? Yes, you do. Let's fix this. All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tanker Jells or style in a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better except your memory, apparently. It's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens. Now go. I don't know how I went so long without that. But now all systems are operating 100%. 100%. So, yes, there's this vaccination allegedly that works on animals, that gives them their memory, their memory back now. And the story goes on to describe exactly how they do it. And it actually sounds like something that works. They found the exact problem with the memory and they reproduced a. Well, they created a vaccine that operates directly against that memory loss element. Well, here are a few thoughts on this. Number one, why are we calling this a vaccination? Anybody? Did you notice I slipped that in? Did you uncritically accept that this was a vaccination? Did any of you say vaccination? That doesn't sound like a vaccination, does it? Well, I guess it could be used as a preventive, so. So it could be a prophylactic if you get the shot. They're thinking that maybe it might actually be a vaccination, might actually be an actual vaccination that prevents you from getting Alzheimer's, But I don't think so. I think what they're looking at is something that makes it a lot better. Right? Because I don't think they're saying that. We think if you take this vaccination, you'll never get Alzheimer's. I think they're saying if you get the vaccination, it might not affect you as much. So you've noticed that the definition of a vaccination has just completely changed. Now. Vaccination and therapeutic are basically the same thing at this point. What makes it a vaccination is that they give it to you in a shot. Am I wrong? I think at this point we're going to call anything in a shot a vaccination, if it helps at all. So I don't know if that's meaningful or not. But words, words have just started to drift in, meaning maybe more than usual. Here's the funniest comment on this Alzheimer vaccination article from James Feffery on or puffery. I don't know how to. His last name starts with PF, which One is silent. The F or the P, P, F, E, F, F, E, R, L, E, P. Well, anyway, James Pefferly says that about the Alzheimer vaccination. Biden gets his mind back. Hilarity soon follows. I did what? This is a pretty funny comment. You can imagine Biden getting the shot, you know, two years from now or something. He gets the shot and you see Biden sitting there. He gets the shot. He goes, wait, I did what? Now, if I've. If I've taught you, and I think I've taught many of you how to write jokes, right? How many of you have seen any of my tutorials about writing humor? I guess most of them have been on locals platform, so I don't think the YouTubers have seen them. But one of the tricks of writing humor is that you create a situation where people can fill out the punchline in their mind so you give them the boost. You know, the little. You know, the imagining Biden saying, quote, I did what? But the beauty of that punchline is that it makes you imagine the full scene, right? So the scene that you put in there is in your own mind. It's not in the joke. The joke is just as one line. I did what? And then you just imagine the fullness of the scene. Then that is a good joke. You can't beat that form of humor where somebody has to recreate the details in their head from your punchline. So there's your humor writing trick for the day. I'd like to get into a little bit of swearing next. Have you heard of a book called White Fragility? White Fragility. And you've heard the term, right? White fragility. I think it has to do with white people feeling bad. If anybody else gets some good stuff, something like that, you know, that's racist, right? White fragility. You couldn't say that about anybody else. That's purely racist. It's not even a little bit racist. This is like the old school, you know, no systemic anything here, just direct racism. Well, apparently, since we haven't, we meaning anybody who doesn't like that has not pushed back on that. I got a comment today on Twitter from. It doesn't even matter what the topic was, but the comment to me was that white eggs have the softest shells. It was a comment about my ethnicity and a suggestion that I'm extra sensitive because I'm white. So I responded back, you racist piece of shit. You know, I don't know what too far looks like, you know, that I identify as black because I've been discriminated against so severely my life. That's not a joke. If anybody, if anybody's new to me, none of that's a joke. I literally identify as black because I can. Those are the rules. The rules are I can identify anyone I want, and that's who I identify with the most. And also I like to be in the winning team. If I have a choice of being on the winning team or the losing team, why would you. Why would you pick the losing team? So I pick the winning team. I think. Black Americans are ascending, white Americans are descending. And I'd like to get some of those benefits. I'm allowed. The rules allow me to do that. So I'd like to get some of those benefits. And you should, too, because it's available to everybody. Nobody is excluded from defining their own situation. But I would like to say this to all the people who would like to get away with calling white people who I don't identify with, but I still support their. I still support their struggle. When you say white eggs are the softest shells, fuck you, fuck you, fuck your family, fuck you. Every article, every particle in your fucking racist, piece of shit body. Fuck you. Completely drop dead. If you can go in public and say racist bullshit directly, not even hinting at it. You. If you want to see how fragile my shell is, don't push me, because you're going to find out. So anytime you see this, you know, the white fragility and, you know white people are sensitive and even the Karen stuff, by the way, I think white people should be able to call white women Karens. Nobody else. Nobody else who's with me. And again, I'm not. I don't identify as a white person. So I'm just supporting the struggle of the people who are. I'm going to start using the N word. I'm going to start using the N word because first of all, I identify as black. But secondly, if white women can be called Karens, and that's okay with everybody, everybody's okay with that. Don't push it. Now, I've been very much in favor of the N word being excluded from civilized society. It's a horrible word, should be banned forever. Now, of course, free speech, of course, can't ban it. But in terms of what feels right as a human being, I don't ever want to hear that word. So I'm okay with that as an exception. It's like a minor exception, but I feel like there's a little bit of taking advantage going on here. Don't you think? So for those of you who'd like to call white people Karens and fragile, fuck you, you pieces of racist shit. Moving on. Biden's slogan, build back better. There was an observation by Spike Cohen on Twitter who makes this observation. So build back better. Build. What would be another word for build? To build something. Make, right? You make something or you build it. Kind of similar. What would be another word for back as it's used in this. We're not talking about the back on your body, but back in this context means historically back. To take us back to something. Sort of like again. Yeah, it's sort of like again. We'll do back. It's like again and then better. What would be another word for better? Sort of a synonym for better. Oh, great. If he did something better than it was, it's probably great. So literally, build back better is just make America great again. I mean, it leaves out the America part because the Dems don't like America as much. But all it is is just a copy of. Is literally just a copy of make America great again. They just changed the words and somehow I didn't notice. How did I go this long without noticing that? It's just maga? How did we do that? Did any of you notice before this? How in the world did we not notice this? Isn't that freaky. It's freaky. Like, it's my job to notice this stuff, right? Because I'm a word guy. It's literally my job to notice. I didn't see it. So good. Good observation, Spike Cohen. All right, Because I'm fair and balanced, I will tell you the fake news on cnn, but I will also tell you the fake news on Fox News. Do you think that Fox News ever has any fake news? Well, you be the judge. So here's a Fox News headline. So first of all, some background. So Kamala Harris appeared at an event with Biden, and some other person was introduced as Kamala Harris goes to the lectern. So Kamala walks up to the lectern, and then the voice of God, you know, the. The announcer says introducing. And then it was just some other person that they were going to introduce after her. Now, I saw Camillaris getting mocked by the conservatives for, you know, being dissed and being, you know, in this awkward situation. But I had a completely different take on it, and I'm not sure why. I mean, it's obviously subjective, but my take on it is that she handled it perfectly. Actually, one of the best things I've seen her do in public. Do you disagree? Here's what I saw. So she didn't create the situation. Right? She was cast into the situation. She gets up there, she's ready to talk, and then the voice introduces a different person. Instead of looking shook up, she smiled. And here's a little public speaking tip for you. The pause. The pause. There is nothing harder than pausing for two seconds when something like that happens because the pause gives you time to think. But you don't give yourself that pause when you're in front of a crowd. Usually you just start talking and something silly comes out. But she paused. Now, that's the first time I've seen poise of the professional kind that you'd expect from a top level politician. She paused. And then what was her. Then her quote was, she goes. She smiles and she goes in a moment. And then she goes on with her thing. It was kind of perfect. Kind of perfect. Right now, if you're not familiar with my commentary, I've been just brutal about Kamala Harris's public Persona in just so cringy, just horrible most of the time. Worst I've ever seen, honestly. It's honestly the worst I've ever seen. But in this moment, I thought she handled it as well as that could be handled. I don't think that could have been better. Anyway, here's how Fox News writes about it. Now, you should also know that CNN had a really critical report of Kamala Harris yesterday. All right, so that's your background. Here's Fox News headline. White House announcer appears to skip Kamala Harris at infrastructure bill signing after disastrous CNN report. So the White House announcer appears to skip her after the disastrous CNN report. Do you think that these things are connected? Do you think there's a connection between the CNN report and. And the White House announcer is skipping her. No. No, there's no connection. And you get to the bottom of the article and it even says, well, there's probably no connection. It's probably just a mistake in the announcer and there's nothing else there. So they write this whole fake news headline to make you think that maybe the White House has turned against Kamala Harris so much that. That they're not even going to introduce a right, that didn't happen. Nothing like that happened. The headline is pure fake news. And if they covered this accurately, they'd say the announcer made a mistake and Harris adeptly handled it. That should have been the news. The news should have been, the announcer made a mistake and the vice president adeptly, adeptly handled It. Now, I saw a tweet from Ed Latimer the other day about steel man arguments. And a steel man argument is when you argue the other side as convincingly as possible before you give your counterpoint. So if you can't describe the other side's argument perfectly, your debate against it really is weak because you're not even debating the right thing. You're debating a strawman. So if you can't say something good legitimately about the other team, nobody should take you seriously. I won't. If I see you say nothing good about the other side ever, I don't take you seriously. Just know that. Just know that I will never take you seriously if you can't say something good about the other side. Something. Because there's always something, right? If you can't say anything good, you're probably an npc. All right, so that was my saying something good about Harris. So the next time I criticize her, you should put that in context. And I will. Here's a question for you. Name a Biden's success. And, you know, success is subjective. Right? But name a Biden's success as president. That wouldn't have happened anyway, just on his own, no matter who was president. Name something he did that wouldn't have happened just. Anyway. Would the stock market have gone up? Probably. Probably. Now, I gave. I gave Trump credit for the stock market because he cut taxes or was planning to cut taxes and then did. And he also directly talked it up, which is actually good technique because stock markets and the economy itself work on persuasion and psychology. So there was a reason that you could see the connection. Trump did X, the stock market responded. So in that case, I think you could say Trump gets some of the credit, but maybe not all of it. Right. Because the economy tends to go up over time. But I don't see anything that Biden did that would be good for the stock market. Did you. What would be the argument that Biden did something to help the stock market? Anything. The infrastructure bill, does that help the stock market? I don't know. Does it? You're saying infrastructure, but isn't there just as much argument that it hurts the economy because of the spending? I don't know. And that you're spending on the wrong things in some cases. So, okay, I'll give you that. I'll give you infrastructure. But here's the second point. Don't you think the infrastructure deal would have happened anyway? I do. See, I think Congress kicked that can down the road as long as they could kick it and then something was going to happen. Now, of course, they needed the Democratic majority, but they also needed some Republicans to. To cross the line. I feel like that would just would have happened anyway, because you can't. You can't go forever without doing a bill on the most important things in the country. Right. Congress just can't go forever. They got to do it someday. So it just happened. Now, how about the employment numbers? I don't think Biden had anything to do with that, so that probably would have been fine. How about vaccinations? I don't know. Are they better or worse? Has Biden handled the pandemic better or worse than Trump? Who knows? How about Afghan pullout? It was literally scheduled under Trump's administration. We imagine Trump would have done better, but we don't know. As far as I can tell, there's nothing really here except you could make an argument for the infrastructure bill, but I think it would have happened anyway. Anyway. Now do the same thing with Trump. Did Trump accomplish anything that you say, well, that was going to happen anyway, no matter who was in charge. So Trump was tough on the border. Was that going to happen anyway? No. No, it wasn't going to happen anyway. That was something he did that nobody else was going to do. How about Trump basically calming down the problems with North Korea? Was Biden going to do that? No. There was no chance Biden was going to have a personal relationship with Kim Jong Un, which would effectively change the entire security situation. No. And I feel like I could go through example after example of something that Trump accomplished that you couldn't really imagine somebody else doing. That, my friends, is why I supported him, not because everything he does is better than everything anybody else does. I've never believed that. What I believe is that sometimes you need a disruptor and it's just good for the system. Could have been a Democrat, you know, depending on the type of disruption. But sometimes you need somebody to just go and break shit. Just go. Just go break everything and then put it back together, build it back better. So I got what I wanted out of Trump. Of course, I did not anticipate the degree of animosity that would be generated. I'm not sure anybody did, which is certainly a negative. All right, let's talk about the Rittenhouse prosecution. Is there any update on that since I started? I thought they were done with the closing arguments. Are they not done with them? I saw. I had. I saw head headline that says maybe they were continuing with them. Have we gone to jury yet? Can somebody Give me an update. Have they gone to the jury yet? Oh, yes, they have gone. Oh, it's with the jury. Okay, let's talk about this. So the Rittenhouse defense, or I'm sorry, the prosecution, has put on a good defense. Now, everybody's saying that that's not my clever idea, but it's certainly true if you look at it. It looks like the prosecution argued the defense's case, but here are some of the crazy things they said in closing. That you don't have a right to self defense if you're the one with the gun. What? That's just not true, you know, as legal scholars and basically anybody with a brain has told you. Now, if the other person is going to kill you one way or the other, yeah, you can shoot him. Shoot away. Then one of the prosecutors in the closing statement said, you know, sometimes we all have to take a beating. What? Sometimes we all have to take a beating. Sometimes we have to punch things. That's true. But it may be true that sometimes people get beatings, but you don't have to take one. If I could give you some advice, if you have a gun and somebody is beating you viciously, shoot him. That would be my advice. And then there was the judge instructions. So here the judge was. Here's my take on the judge's instructions. I don't think you're going to see this take anywhere else. So I want to see if I can convince you that my take is right. Are you ready? All right. So I don't think you've seen this, but I haven't heard every pundit, so maybe somebody's on the same point. So the judge was giving the instructions to the jury and started out by saying that if you find the defendant guilty of the top charge, the most aggressive one, then you don't need to continue, because the lesser charges are lesser. So if you find the top charge is valid, you're done. Then he said, but if you find that the top charge is not valid, and you find. Here's the key. Here's the key phrase, and you find that he acted in self defense, then the judge stopped himself and he couldn't go on, and he realized he talked himself into a trap, which he admitted. He said, I think I talked myself into a trap. He said it differently, but he admitted he talked himself into a trap. What was the trap? What was the trap? What was the judge realizing he had just done? I think what he had just done is basically told them that if it looked like self defense, there was nothing else to think about. Now, he didn't say that, but it was pretty close to sounding like that. If you thought it was self defense, you're sort of done here. Now, I don't think he meant to say that. Right. But it's true. It's true. Meaning that if it looked like self defense, there's really not much else to talk about because the gun charge was thrown out. Right. So I feel as if he biased the jury toward an acquittal in a way that he realized he had done as he was doing it and then he tried to back it out. Now, here's the problem. There's no evidence of a crime. So the judge, in giving his instructions, being completely aware that there's no evidence of a crime at all, was simply being honest. And I think he realized he couldn't be completely honest because they just sat through and presided over a thoroughly corrupt process, which I think is going to give us the right answer. But at least the prosecution part of it was thoroughly corrupt. I mean, I don't know how the prosecutors don't go to jail. Honestly, I don't know. I don't understand the process that the prosecutor doesn't go to jail for this. How do you not go to fuck that prosecutor? He belongs in jail. Quality of persuasion of the closing arguments. I didn't watch them enough, but what I did watch looked like neither. None of them were good. So my take on both the defense and the prosecution is that none of them were especially good at their job. Did you have the same impression? In fact, I would go further. It looked like neither the defense nor the prosecution were even trained in persuasion. Did you see anything that looked like they were trained in persuasion? They're trained in the law and there's a little persuasion Y stuff in there, but it doesn't look like they know persuasion. They were just terrible at it. I mean, really terrible. In fact, both the defense and the prosecution kept repeating the other one's case. Now, I know you have to do that for context and stuff, but the way they were doing just seemed like it was reinforcing the other side. I felt like it was terrible in both cases. That was my. That was my take. Yeah. And they made it too boring. That's right. So both the. Both sides made their presentations too boring. So there won't be any sticky parts. The secret to having a good persuasion is that the parts you have to remember that people are only going to remember 10% of what you say. So you got to make sure that the 10% they remember is really, really important. So I don't think either side did that. I think they treated it all like it was just one big soup of stuff, and you'd be lucky if you remembered anything in it. Yeah, Johnnie Cochran would be the standard for persuasion. I saw a clip of Toobin on CNN saying that the judge's instructions to the jury were all terrible. Which sort of sets us up for a riot, doesn't it? Because now we have a reason for thinking it was an illegal trial or illegitimate. And he provided the reason. Well, the jury instructions were so bad that the jury didn't know how to come to a good verdict. It feels like CNN is trying to set us up now. Again, when I say that, I don't mean that they planned that like they had a meeting and they said, hey, let's try to create a riot. I don't think that. I think that everybody just follows the money, even if they're convincing themselves they're not. So in a situation like this, the hypnotist would say, all the people are telling the truth when they think they're just talking about the news. And if you put them on a lie detector, you'd say, are you trying to create a riot? They would all say no, and they would all pass. The lie detector, would find no sign of lying. But as I often tell you, you can always predict where things are going by following the money. So is it a coincidence that the CNN people say exactly what will make them the most money? I don't think so. It's not a coincidence because it happens always. It's 100% of the time. It never goes the other way. If it sometimes went the other way, you'd say, oh, that could be a coincidence. But if it never goes the other way, it just means that fall of the money works even when the people don't know they're doing it. What was Carpe Dunktum's msnbc? Oh, MSNBC apparently showed the prosecutor's closing statements, but not the defense. Now, again, if you were to put a lie detector on the MSNBC producers and you said, why did you do that? Do you think they'd say, you know, we just thought we'd like to get us a good riot here. We'll just show the prosecution. No, no, I'll bet nobody had that thought. I'll bet everybody at MSNBC simply thought they were making programming decisions, probably said to themselves, well, when the defense is speaking, that's our highest rated show, so we don't want to, you know, put that off. So we'll wait for a lower rated show. Oh, that's just when the prosecution is talking. I'll betcha they could pass a lie detector test saying that they did it for just regular programming interest and had nothing to do with trying to make anything happen. Now, I see some people disagreeing, some saying that they absolutely know what they're doing. Could be, you know, I'm not going to dis. Actually, I don't think I'll press that point further because I certainly don't have absolute certainty that nobody knows what they're doing here. So this might be a case where they knew exactly what they're doing. I'll give you that. I'll give you that. It might be a case where they know exactly what they're doing, but I'll only say that that's not necessary. It's not necessary that they know they're doing it because it's going to happen either way. They're going to follow the money either way. Sometimes they know it, sometimes they don't. If you think they know it, in this case, I wouldn't say you're wrong necessarily. All right. I got this comment from Josh Jordan. He's a Blue check guy on Twitter. And when I said that CNN was trying to maybe start a riot, he said sarcastically, yes, the tiny CNN audience is going to star riots because Toobin said the instructions were botched sarcasm. Now, here's my first response. It's not the tiny CNN audience that matters. It's their online presence and the fact that they give. Give all the Democrats their talking points. It matters who watches and it matters who sees the clips and stuff online. So if you think that CNN's reach is based on their live audience, it's not. It's not based on that at all. In fact, I think they use the live program just to create clips for their online content. It's mostly a website at this point. It's basically a website. Does anybody have any data? Maybe you can find it while I'm on here. Find me the number of viewers for the CNN website or their content, any way you can find it, versus the number of live viewers. Should be a gigantic difference, right? I think there's a gigantic difference. Anyway, so that's my first complaint. Then Josh Jordan went on. He said, just imagine what could happen if someone with a real audience like the President of the United States told everyone a national election was rigged. Oh, so what about that? So Trump did tell the nation that the election was rigged. So I asked this question back to Josh I said, what was he supposed to say if he believed it was true? And I'll ask you the same question. So many of us, and I would include myself, were not impressed with the way Trump handled the loss. Is that fair to say? You could be a supporter and still say you don't like the way he handled the loss. You might not like what he talked about, you know, the January 6th stuff. You might not like that he complained as much as he did about the election being fraudulent, in his opinion. But let me ask you this. What if he believed it was true? Well, let me, Let me back up. Do you think he believed it's true? Do you think that Trump honestly believes the election was stolen? I do. I think he honestly believes that. Now, if he honestly believes it, and at the time, he was still President of the United States, do you want a president who doesn't tell you that? What is the better situation? Is the better situation that he lies to us or that he rolls over? Did the Republicans elect a lion or a kitten? If Republicans had elected a kitten, then, yes, they'd be quite happy if he rolled over, even if he thought he shouldn't. That's what kittens do. We elected a kitten. You don't expect a kitten to put up much of a fight. But Republicans elected a lion, and they got one. They got exactly what they elected. Right. And what's the lion supposed to do? A lion is supposed to be a lion. So Trump, if I had to guess, we can't read his mind. But I'm sure he thinks, I mean, I think the odds are really high that he thinks he won. Now, my opinion is it probably had more to do with the actual legal stuff behind the scenes before the election, probably less to do with how the election was counted. But still, a stolen election, it's just stolen legally. So you can steal an election legally. And I think that's exactly what happened. But. But I will also add this thought, that the election system is in a category, it's in a category of big, complex things that are somewhat opaque. In other words, you and I have never seen the code for the electronic parts of the system that's invisible to us. And if you asked for the code, they wouldn't give it to you. So our election system is not transparent by design. It's not even intended to be transparent. And there's big money involved. You know, big, big stakes. So in that situation, if it's complicated, it's big and there's lots of money, and it's trans. It's not transparent. Fraud will happen every time. Fraud will happen every time. The only thing you don't know is how much and whether there was enough this time. So I don't have any. I have no proof that there was fraud that changed the election outcome. And I see a troll over on YouTube saying that T rump lost in capital letters lost. Now, I've said that from the start. I said that the system, which we respect, even with its flaws, we respect the system. The system elected Biden. I accepted it on day one, which is different from whether it should have or whether it was fair or anything. But the system, unfortunately, we have to support the system over the result. If you want the Republic to stay together. Sometimes the system is going to give us the wrong result, actually, lots of times. But if you tear down the system, you have more trouble than if you, if you argue with the result. So in my opinion, it is unknowable. But. And then of course, Josh came back with the courts didn't find anything. And then I responded with the courts are not designed to find fraud in elections. And in fact, they mostly ruled that they didn't have standing or that it was too late to ask. So courts didn't make any rulings about fraud in the election. Politics Insider, which I guess is part of Business Insider, is saying that Buttigieg is the most powerful transportation secretary because he's got this 1 point trillion infrastructure bill that he can dole out, to which I say, did I, did I imagine that Biden appointed a infrastructure czar? Did I just imagine that? And is the infrastructure czar not the one who would make all these decisions that were just attributed to Buttigieg? What am I missing? I'm just confused by the story. Did I miss a story that somebody else was put in charge of this? And who does that person report to? Maybe they report to Buttigieg, but it's still going to be somebody else doing the hard work. Right? Thank you, Goose. Anyway, I'm just confused of that because it's two stories that are opposites and they're both in the news at the same time. Have I told you before that you should not reject your opponent's arguments? Because that never works. You should get inside them. So here's a persuasion tip again, and I'll give you another example of it. You should get inside your opponent's persuasion. Don't say it's all wrong. Wear it like a suit and then change it from the inside. Now, when Trump was first running for president, he was accused of not being a Republican enough. Right. But instead of just being anti Republican, which wouldn't have worked, he became more Republican than the Republicans. He basically got inside their argument. Does that make sense? Instead of saying, no, I am, I am one, he'd be outside the argument arguing with people, no, I am Republican, I'm Republican enough. He became more Republican than Republicans. Right. So as soon as he became more Republican than Republicans, it was hard to say anything about him because he was more Republican than they were, he was harder on the border than they were, all that stuff. Harder on, you know, police, wanting police, etc. So that's one example of it. Let me give you another one and I'll use it. About critical race theory. Suppose you don't like critical race theory in school and you're arguing, get that out of my school. What's the other side say? There's no critical race theory in school. What are you talking about? And you say, yes there is. Yes there is, get it out of there. And then the other side says, no, not there isn't, you white supremacist. No, there's nothing here. So you notice how being outside the argument gets you no traction right? Now here's the alternative. Get inside the argument. Critical race theory, totally, totally, totally is not happening. But do you know what is happening? Because the schools are not teaching critical race theory. So I'm going to model my argument here. I agree with you Democrats when you say that there's no critical race theory being taught in school. You are 100% correct. Now watch what I'm doing before you react. Watch what I'm doing. I'm entering the argument. I'm not debating it. I'm entering it. Yeah, critical race theory. No way that's being taught in schools. There are no examples of it. You can't give me one example of critical race theory being taught in schools because critical race theory is above school level. It's sort of a college level concept and it is not in schools, but you know it is. Do you not use in schools systemic critical race theory? There isn't any direct critical race theory. I totally agree. I'm with you Democrats. There's no critical race theory, but there is systemic. Meaning that if you were to look at how the lessons are being taught, you can see it's embedded in the lessons without the name. So I started the hashtag. It turns out somebody on the other side was using it already. But that's funny. Systemic crt. Now, likewise, when. Likewise, when the Democrats say, hey, there's lots of systemic racism in the world. Do you say, no, there isn't. We're not a racist country. Because if you do, you're losing the argument. That's a terrible argument. The worst argument is, no, there isn't. No, there isn't. There's no critical race theory. Terrible argument. You'll never get an inch with that argument. Instead, get inside it. Get inside it. If you get inside it, you say, yeah, there's systemic racism. It's the biggest freaking problem in the country. And that's honest, because I think that. I think systemic racism is the biggest problem in the country as it is expressed by the teachers unions. See what I did there? First you get inside the argument by agreeing with it. Totally. You could call it pacing, but I'm going further. It's not just pacing. You have to get inside the argument. You have to wear it like clothes, and then you can do something with it. Like, you have to put it on, like a jacket, and then you can move the arms and stuff, Right? But until you put the jacket on, you got nothing. You're shooting blanks. You're just, like, spitting into the ocean doing nothing. But as soon as you say, yeah, can I help you get rid of this systemic racism? And if you will agree, we'll work on the biggest problems first. Who says no to that? Who says no to working on the biggest problem first? Nobody. So now you're inside the argument. You're agreeing the systemic racism exists, and you can say, are you happy with how black kids and other people of color are being taught? Nobody says yes. Nobody. Nobody will say, yeah, it's doing pretty good. Those black students are getting just as good at education as everybody else. Nope, nope. Nobody's gonna say that. So now you're totally inside the argument. You've identified the biggest form of systemic racism. You got them to agree. Now what can we do about it? It's the teachers unions, because they're the ones preventing. Preventing competition in schools. And without competition, nothing works. Nothing works without competition. No exceptions. All right, so that's how you get inside an argument. Here's a provocative, sexist, disgusting opinion that might nonetheless be accurate. Here's where I might get canceled. I might. Let's see. So this is a tweet by a Twitter user named Stefan Nobody I know. And on this topic, he said, teachers unions are predominantly female. The problem here is female do gooderism, which is properly channeled through religion and charity, but in this case is being transformed into a political offensive. He said it, not me. Now, somebody else pointed out that this was Hitler's technique as well, that the Hitler Youth was more about the girls? Have you ever heard that? I've never heard that before, so I can't do a fact check on it. But the idea was that when you convinced the boys to be like a Hitler Youth, that worked. But convincing the girls was more important because they would be raising the kids. Convincing the girls was the important point because that gets you forever because they're the ones raising the kids. Right. And when we see that women predominate or are dominating the teachers unions, and we see that the teachers unions are used to perpetuate. Perpetuate systemic racism and keep black people down especially, it looks like a woman problem, doesn't it? Now, let me stop here and say I'm not buying into the argument. Totally. So I'm not buying into this argument. I'm telling you what the argument is because I think it's provocative enough that it's worthy to be in the mix. But every time you say it's all about women or all about men, you're automatically into biased, bigoted territory. So I don't want to be in bigoted territory by saying it's a woman problem. But it is true that women mostly are responsible for raising kids. That's still true. It doesn't need to be. And blah, blah, blah. Plenty of men are doing that job and plenty of gays are doing it, blah, blah, blah. But it's still true in general, mostly female raising the kids. All right, let's talk about Bannon. So Bannon refused to talk to Congress. They fought, find him in contempt, and he turned himself in. And then he. He said he, he vowed to topple the Biden regime, as he calls it, and to make the charges against him a, quote, misdemeanor from hell for the Democrats. Now, he believes that Biden ordered Merrick. Yeah. To go after Bannon. So he says it's basically a political. Political witch hunt. Now, here's the fun part. Here's the fun part. When the Democrats go after, you know, the founder of Barstool Sports, they can take a pretty big bite on him, although he's doing a great job of fighting back. So I don't think he's going to get canceled. But he's mostly in a defensive stance, wouldn't you say? I mean, he's going offense against specific media groups that went against him, but mostly he's just trying to survive. Alex Jones is. I guess he lost a lawsuit. That could be really bad for Alex Jones. And he might. It might be that the, the left has taken Alex Jones off the field. I don't know that that's true, but this lawsuit that he lost looks pretty, pretty bad. It might just take him off the field, but I don't know. But do you know what? Bannon isn't, he isn't one of those people. Bannon, Let's say Ban is game is at a different level. And I think that it's possibly a gigantic mistake to give him this much attention, you know what I mean? Because his power is going up, it's not going down. If they put Bannon in jail for this, he will be the leader of the Democrats, he'll be the leader of the Republicans. And he's not even asking to be Right. Right. He's not even trying. That's sort of not his deal. He wants to be influential, but he doesn't need to be like the top guy. But you put him in jail and he turns into Nelson Mandela. Do you know who knows that? Bannon. Bannon knows that. Now, you can't do that. Right. He's an energy monster. That is correct. He learned that from Trump, if he didn't already know it. But he is anti fragile now. There aren't too many people like that, but if they don't take Bannon out, he's going to take them out. So unlike, you know, going after some lesser pundits, if you take a run at Alex Jones and you don't take him out. Well, it was worth a shot, right? Yeah, it didn't take him out, but it was worth a shot. There's no real downside to that because he's going to say bad things about Democrats no matter what. Right. But if you don't take Bannon out, you're just making him stronger. And I don't think anybody has quite a good sense of how strong Bannon's game is at this level. You're going to be surprised is what I think. So Bannon has some surprises. All right. Biden had a zoom call or something like it with China's head Xi, and I don't think he went strong, Adam. Let's just say that. But it turns out that China has now surpassed the United States in wealth. China is the wealthiest country now. Now, how do you win a war in 2021? Is it with bombs? Well, if a big power is fighting a tiny power, yes. But what if a superpower is an adversary to another superpower? What is the weapon of choice? It's money. It's money. Whoever has the most money is going to dominate. That's China now. So as long as China has the most money, they are the most powerful influence in the world because that money can bribe stuff. It can create industries, it can destroy industries. It could do anything. Money is power. So as long as China is richer, Biden is their bitch and certainly acted that way. He told Xi, Biden did that he has concerns over human rights abuses. Really? He has concerns? Wow. I'll bet President Xi was shaken. Oh, no. I didn't know you had concerns about my ethnic cleansing. Do you know what concerns about human rights abuses. Somebody needs to tell a Xi to his face. We believe you're involved in ethnic cleansing of the Uyghurs. And the fact that you don't let international people come and take a look, we consider proof. Nobody can say that to Xi, can they? Do you know that if Hitler had been in control of more of the supply chain, he would have gotten away with the Holocaust? Sorry. It's true. If Germany had the same control of the supply chain as China does right now, they could have done the Holocaust and just gone on. You know that's fucking true. You do. That's what China's doing. They're doing the little Holocaust and they're just going ahead. Nobody cares. Do you know that saying, never again? Well, perhaps, you know, as people use it, they're referring to the Jewish situation specifically, never again. But clearly it's going to happen again because it's happening now and we're letting it happen and we're okay with it. So that's. That's your government right there. Now, I don't know that Trump would have handled it differently. I'd like to think he would, but I don't know that. And of course, then there was the Taiwan question, and she warned against, or I guess Biden warned China against doing anything unilaterally or blah, blah, blah. No, he warned. I guess she. She warned Biden against doing anything unilaterally about the status of Taiwan. A Danish newspaper reported that Biden assured China that US recognizes Taiwan to be a part of China. A Danish newspaper reported this as fact, that Biden said, yeah, China, we recognize Taiwan as part of China. Now, I didn't believe that until I asked somebody on Twitter to send me the headline. Sure enough, I mean, he had Translate on Google and there it is. Yep, the. The Danes believe that. That Biden just gave Taiwan to China. I mean, obviously I'm framing it wrong, but you know what I mean, I like a word with the interpreters because I wonder if there was an interpretation problem. You wonder how they could get to that level of fake news. All right, Rasmussen has a new poll. Did I tell you there was going to be something shocking coming out today? Here's something shocking. In a, in a poll, people were asked if they would favor the GOP or the Democrat candidate for the House and the Senate in the midterm elections. And the GOP is favored by 13 points, 13 point difference in what voters say they would vote for in 2022. 13 points. And that doesn't count the retirements, because there could be a lot of Democrat retirements, apparently, that have been announced or assumed. 2022 is just going to be a tsunami, it looks like now. I mean, you could say you can't trust polls and there's plenty of time to go. And that's all true. But then I also saw that in the same poll, the 30% of black citizens would vote Republican. 30%. Does that seem high to you? Apparently it's been as high as 40% in the past, but 30% seems high, doesn't it? Yeah. So there's that. All right. I told you that quantum computing might be a problem because it can break encryption, but the smart people in that world told me that we now have encryption that can't be broken by the quantum computers. And even the quantum we have now, it's 100 cubits. It'd have to be 2,000 qubits to break our current, current stuff. And that's not going to happen right away. So basically there's a, you know, there's a continuous war of the encryptors versus the, you know, the people who can break encryption. And so far the encryptors are had. So we don't have to worry that much about quantum computing breaking encryption. That is my show for the day. I've got to go do other things. I hope you enjoyed this. The hope you enjoyed the swearing. Overconfidence can be fatal. True. Oh, actually, 50 million qubits, you say? I guess it depends which encryption you're going to try to break. That's all for now. Talk to you later.