Episode 1656 Scott Adams: All the Fake News About the Real News About Clinton, Science, Pillows

Good morning, everybody, and congratulations because you made it to the best moment of your life so far. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. If you're here by intentional planning or just good luck, doesn't matter. Your day is about to reach a pinnacle and maybe your entire life, and tomorrow even better. So if you'd like to take it up a level, and I know you would, because that's the kind of people you are. And if I may say so, you look like you lost weight. I'm just saying. And your hair. Oh, your hair looks great today. But forget about that for now. All you need is a cup of margarita glass, a tank or Gelsenstein, a canteen jug of flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit. A thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And all you mother sippers out there, join me now. Oh, I'd like to introduce you to my new friend. It looks like a weapon, but it's not. Does something like this. Oh, I'll just be doing this today. No, I'm not taking endorsements, in case you wondered. Speaking of that, we're going to talk about that in a moment. By the way, it's pretty amazing. Usually you can't make yourself feel good. Have you noticed that you can't tickle yourself? With one exception. You usually can't make yourself feel good, but you can actually massage yourself with that thing. It actually feels like somebody else is doing it. Pretty amazing. Just got it. Well, here's the good news. It looks like AIDS may have been cured. Maybe a little too early to say, but a woman who had a form of leukemia received a transplant of stem cells from an adult relative and umbilical cord blood from a newborn. And I guess it's that umbilical cord blood that's the magic part. And not only did it keep the HIV in remission, but they think it eliminated it. Because up till now we've had things that looked cureish, but only a few rare cases. I think people couldn't find the actual virus. Now it looks like they have a method which maybe is reproducible. How about that for your golden age, huh? Golden age. What did you do during the pandemic? I cured aids. That's what somebody did. Yesterday. I made a big show of taking out my scissors and cutting up my face mask because California ended the last. The last day of face masks was yesterday. So the mandate ended yesterday. Do you Know what I thought that meant? I thought that meant I didn't need a mask. What do you think it means when they say the mandate ends yesterday? Here's what they meant. Oh, it's not over yesterday. You still have to wear your mask all day yesterday. That's just the last day. Are you kidding me? I went to the gym and everybody had a mask on. I mean, not everybody, but a lot of people did. You know, I didn't. I didn't wear mine. Nobody's going to say anything the last week before the mandates come off or the last day. So there was no difference in California that I could detect. So California dropped the mask mandate, and there was no difference. Now, apparently the counties have to weigh in. So I think there was a delay for the counties to say what they were going to do. And most of the counties are saying that the adults can take their masks off, I think, starting today. But there are two groups that can't de mask yet. Criminals in prison and children in school. I'm not making that up. That's actually the California policy. If you're a prisoner or a student, you get treated the same. Not making it up. There's no hyperbole there. That's actually the policy now. You know, there are a few other things like health care facilities and, you know, old people, homes and stuff, mass transportation. But is that a little bit too on the nose? You know what I mean? So why do we have this situation? Well, thanks to Rasmussen, we have a little insight. They did a poll and found out that 82% of liberals want masks to continue in public places. What? 82% of liberals want to continue masking in public places. But what about the conservatives who, as you know, are looking at exactly the same science? 11%. 11% of conservatives are in favor of masking in public now and 82% of liberals. So let's go follow the science, shall we? Who believes that people can follow science? Is there anybody still who believes that myth that human beings can follow the science? You can see it as clear as day. It could not be more clear that people can't follow the science because they don't know what it is. If they knew what it was, they might follow it. There's not one person on here who would disagree with the idea that you should follow the science, assuming the science is correct. There's not one person. And yet they go in opposite directions because of politics. So if you ever thought that humans are capable of following the science, can you rule that out now? You can, right? How many years have I been telling you that following the science is a little bit nonsense because we don't know what the science says. Even science isn't quite sure what it says. So how in the world are we supposed to follow science when we're just guessing what science says? Now, until I said that, well, until you saw this stark data that the two political parties were marching fast in opposite directions on the same science, Same science. Until you see it that clearly, you don't really believe that humans in general don't have any capability of following the science. None. We have zero. Zero capability as human beings, and this includes myself. We have no capability of following the science. None. We don't know if it's real. We can't tell. We just guess. So everything that you see that looks like people doing their very best to follow the science in a traditional model of the world. It's just people trying real hard, and the smart people get it right and the dumb people don't. Right. Was that your worldview even say, a year ago? A year ago, would you have said, yeah, people try to follow the science. The smart ones who do research get it right, the dumb ones who don't do research get it wrong. And. And that's all it is. But then you look at the difference in the political parties and you know, it's not that. It was never that. It was never the smart people getting it right and the dumb people getting it wrong. It was always guessing. It was always guessing. We just thought we were right when we got it right. And then when we get one wrong, we would just forget about it. Or we'd say, well, that of course science isn't perfect. I followed the science, but you know, it's not going to be 100%. So we just rationalize it away when we're wrong, and we pat ourselves on the back when we're right. But it's just guessing. It always has been. Same with stock picking. We won't go down that path again. So I asked this question on Twitter, which of these three countries will be destroyed first? Will Ukraine be destroyed by Putin? Will Denmark be destroyed by Covid because they dropped their mandates? Or will the USA be destroyed because of progressives? And my totally fair and valid scientific poll with no bias whatsoever said 93% of you said that USA will be destroyed by progressives. Now, this would be exactly the kind of poll you shouldn't pay attention to, but I thought it was fun. So, so far, Denmark seems to be surviving freedom. I know it's a big Surprise. It turns out that freedom is not fatal to a lot of countries. Oh, it might cause some extra infections, might cause some extra deaths, but freedom itself is not terminal to countries. It's actually kind of healthy. So maybe we should do a little more of that, that freedom stuff. I'm going to remain a. Let's see, what is it? Rogue, I guess when it comes to Putin and Ukraine, I'm still going to say he's not going to do a full attack. He might use the pressure to try to annex something or get some concessions or something. But I'm still going to say no attack. And I base it on the fact that he can't know he'll have a good outcome and it's too risky. Right. So if he can get anything out of the deal, anything, I think he'll take that and go home. And I think maybe the Biden administration may have played it correctly. Mike Surovich had a provocative quote yesterday, as he often does. Actually, that's redundant, isn't it? To say Mike Cernovich had a provocative tweet. That's like saying two things the same. Let's just say Mike Cernovich tweeted and he asked what world leader was the first to offer help after 911 who called the President of the United States first to offer help taking care of the terrorists. And when I say taking care of them, you know what I mean? I think it was Putin. So that I believe that there was a period of time in which we could have turned that into an ally situation. But I don't know when things went bad exactly. Certainly by the time Clinton was Secretary of Defense. But perhaps before that, I don't know the history of it. So whatever is happening between Russia and the United States seems to be fairly history based, don't you think? Is that fair to say that there's some kind of history between Russia and the United States recently? You know, Putin versus various leaders. There's something going on there that is really the base reality that everything else springs from, I think. Scott, don't you realize that Russia wanting to invade Ukraine is a hoax? Well, I'm definitely not calling that a hoax yet. So it looks like negotiating to me. What do you think? Give me your opinions right now. Will, Will there be a full scale invasion of Ukraine? A lot of people say no. All right, here's another secret subtext. What are the odds? Wait for this question. I want you to hear this question really clearly. What are the odds that the Biden administration has to protect the Ukraine administration because of the dirt that they have on Biden, and they don't want that dirt to leave Ukraine and be in the hands of the Russians. There's a really high likelihood of that, isn't there, if anything, that we've been hearing about Hunter, Biden and Ukraine, if any of that's real, and I don't know who knows what's real. I don't know what's legal and what's sketchy and what's not over there. But if any of that's real, maybe the main reason that we can't, let's say, treat the Ukraine situation objectively is we may have a personal problem with our president and Ukraine. And I can't imagine the Ukraine doesn't have the goods on Hunter, can you. Don't you think that Ukraine would. Would keep the secret? If they have any. This is speculation. But if they had any agree, if they had any secrets about Hunter, don't you think they'd keep those secrets and use that as leverage against Biden? Of course. Why is it that the president of Ukraine keeps acting like there's no attack imminent? What does he know? That's the strangest part, isn't it? Because there's no leader who acts like that under the circumstances that we can see. So given the data that the public has, what we can observe, it makes no sense that the President of Ukraine is saying, I don't see any attack. What attack? It makes no sense. The only thing that makes sense is that there's something big we don't know about. Right. Something big. I don't know what that is. That something big might be. Wait for it. That he has so much blackmail on Biden that he knows that the United States will stop a Russian attack one way or another, either through canceling financial deals or threats or cyber something or something. I feel like Zelenskyy's a little too confident, and one of those reasons might be that he has Biden in his pocket. How do you rule that out? I'm not saying that I have evidence of that. I don't. But how would you rule that out, given that it seems at least. I mean, at least it's a strong possibility. Could you deny that that's a strong possibility? Kind of a dangerous place to be for the world. But I don't see Russia and the United States getting into a shooting battle with each other. I do think that Putin's not going to get Ukraine. There might be some kind of independent region thing going on, maybe something like that, but maybe in the long run, he's just going to keep squeezing until he gets what he wants. We'll see. Does it seem to you that the kids these days have no game? I'm sorry. Cautious about just turning into the old man who yells at the clouds. You know, it feels like the kids are not fighting against the mandates as much as we'd expect. Now, there are some schools that are having some, you know, protests and stuff, but they seem to be sporadic. And I was trying to think how I would have handled this in high school. Here's how I think I would have handled it. I think I would have organized protests. Not against the masks, but a protest to require the teachers and the administrators to wear full hazmat outfits to protect the precious cargo. And I would just play it straight. I get the whole school to protest that the teachers and the administrators are not safe enough from the kids and that the kids are a dangerous source of COVID death. And the kids are very concerned about the health of their teachers and their administrators, and they don't feel that masks are enough protection. So I would lead a full protest to demand that our teachers and administrators wear full hazmat outfits all day, during the day. No taking them off for the bathrooms, no taking them off to eat. You better put the food inside the mask before you go to work and drive there. And I would never let go of it, and I would never act like I was joking. I would play it straight, and I would say, we got to follow the science, people. You're not following the science. I would go full Greta Thunberg on this shit. And I would push the absurdity as hard as you can push it, because the absurdity is the soft underbelly. Right? As soon as you act like this is really about science, you've already lost the debate because you're not in charge of saying what the science is. Somebody else is in charge of that. So they say the science is. And then you've got to do what they say. So you got to break that model. You've got to find the most absurd part of what they're doing and make it bigger. Right? Take the most absurd thing they're doing and make it bigger, not smaller, and that'll break the system. That's how I would have done it. And I know there are people saying, you wouldn't have done that if you were in high school, Scott. To which I say, clearly, you did not know me in high school. Oh, I would have done that. Yeah, I would have done that. I would have come to school wearing a Complete mummy outfit if I thought it was funny. Well, here's a question that I've been asking about bitcoin and crypto in general and how secure and private it is. Because when we heard that the government somehow clawed back some billions of dollars in crypto that had been stolen, I said to myself, well, that makes sense to me. But other people seem surprised. And I thought to myself, clearly there's a way to get at any money because you can get at the people. If you can get at the people, you can get at anything because you could just make the people give you passwords or whatever. So I never understood the idea that bitcoin was secure, not at all. I mean, or that it was anonymous in any way that mattered. And sure enough, now we know a little bit about how the Feds got money back from. There was a couple who stole Several billion dollars, 4.5 billion. So a couple managed to hack, I guess, 4.5 billion from, I think, an exchange. Although the money was worth less when they stole it, it just went up in value. But here was the problem. Apparently there's no way to launder crypto into the real spendable world. Now, I wondered how people did it, but I didn't know. There actually is no way. So there's one site, apparently where you can go to allegedly do it, where you can go to launder. So there's a. What is it? What's the site called? You'll remind me in the comments, there's some kind of a pirate site where you can go do that, but apparently that didn't work. So if you go to a site that's designed to launder illegal money, who should you be assuming already has control of the site? I'll say it again. If you knew there was a website whose existence was to launder illegal gains, who would you imagine is running the website after the first month? The Feds, of course, or the CIA or some kind of federal group. Because the Feds are not going to allow an illegal money laundering thing to be there. But if it exists, they're definitely going to control it so they can get all the money launderers and roll them up easily. So it turns out that there was no way. So this couple were so smart that they could do this complicated hack, and they were using all kinds of shell companies and shell accounts and thousands of fake accounts to move things around. And with all of that, with all of their cleverness and fakery and fake accounts and everything, there still was no way to get their money. Did you know that did you know there was no way to cash that out without getting caught? Yeah. Now, I assumed that was the case without knowing anything about this world, really, but I just assumed there's no way you can steal that and not get caught. And sure enough, they got caught. So here's a question I asked, when do we reach the crossover point at which if you've got 3D printing and you've got robots manufacturing things and you do a bunch of logistics improvements? Because we're always improving logistics. How you get the materials to the place you want it, how long before it's just cheaper to make everything locally in United States? Now, some people who are in this business, that is pretty close. So people who have 3D printer startups and whatnot say, yeah, we're actually pretty close. But other people who know a lot about this world say, if you did a plastic injection molding, you can make a part in a few seconds, but if you're trying to print that same part, it would take, you know, all day long or something. So that you never get to the point where printers can do the job of injection molding. To which I say, what? That example doesn't make any sense. Let's say I can use injection molding and it's 50 times faster. Don't I just need 53D printers? I do, right? I just need 53D printers. Somebody says, no, but why wouldn't I be able to print the same amount with just more printers? Now, how about this? Do you think we'll ever have a world in which you can have a 3D printer in your garage and it prints on demand for some nearby company? You just load it up with whatever is the equivalent of ink, I guess, and you just make it available on the Internet. And you say, I have a 3D printer of this type, so I can do certain types of printing, but not others? You say, I have this printer of this type. It's available on these hours, so you can schedule the printer. And then you've got virtual companies in your local area that just use your printer at your house and they just print on demand if it's available. And then it's up to you. Or maybe there's an Uber like service that picks it up, or maybe you put it in the back of your pickup truck and drive it to a central location. I don't know. It seems to me that between logistics robots and 3D printing, and keep in mind that the robot could be doing the injection molding, right? So that still falls under my. Under my category of things that don't require expensive processes. So I think we're really close to the point where 100% of manufacturing could come back to the United States and we could get rid of shipping costs and probably have much more flexibility as well. Now there's Also, there are 3D printers. How many of you knew this? You could buy a 3D printer that prints another 3D printer. Did you know that? Now, I think not every part of the 3D printer. So you probably have to buy, I don't know, like the cartridge head or something. But if you can make a 3D printer that makes other 3D printers, then all you need is to buy the raw materials so the cost of the printer becomes equal to the cost of the material. Now, is it cost effective? But you can see how easily this can go from not cost effective at all to the point where you can make a printer, make a new printer. I think it becomes cost effective really fast, doesn't it? Years ago, maybe 25 years ago, I was at a dinner with some high powered executives and one of them was a futurist. And the futurist said that when robots can make their own robots, that's when everything changes. And we already have 3D printers that can make 3D printers. It's a little bit like a robot making a robot, isn't it? It's a little bit. And so I just wonder where all this could go. But I think the only point I'm going to make here is that you imagine that the crossover point is happening slowly, right? It's like, oh, incremental improvements in 3D printing, but we're nowhere near taking over for injection molding. We're not even close. But the cost of doing business in China is also going up for political and other reasons. So the cost of China is going up. Let's see the crossover point. China is going up and the cost of 3D printing is going down. Here's my only point. For the first 80% of that journey, it's going to look like it can't happen. So for the first 80% of getting close to that crossover, it's going to look like it'll never happen because it's just to be these little incremental changes and then something like printers making printers happens and then that last part goes boop. So the first 80% will be all of the hard slog, and then last 20% is just going to happen instantly. And when it happens, you should see a complete collapse of China, because when the stuff starts, the manufacturing gets pulled out of China, it's going to happen in about 10 years. There'll be a 10 year period where it all just all collapses and goes to whatever the new model is, robots or printers or something. So China has that to look forward to. President Trump announced that his new social media platform, Truth, is in beta form, which means you won't be able to see it yet, but they're looking at March, I guess, to have that out. What do you think? I hear tell that it's going to be a subscription service, which is interesting because if it's a subscription service like the locals platform, then you don't have to worry about advertisers and then you don't have to worry about censorship. It might be a good model for that alone. And can you really not sign up for the ones, the one, the one social media platform that Trump is on now? Obviously the Democrats won't, except for journalists, I guess, but I feel like you almost have to. As soon as I saw it, I thought, oh, crap, I have to sign up for this now just to know what's going on and feel like I'm well informed and stuff. So we'll see how that goes. The one thing that they're doing right is the subscription. Well, they may do more than that. Right. But the subscription model might be the thing that sets them apart. That could be the thing that makes it work. We'll see. But you would need a Trump to have enough pull to make a subscription model work. Maybe, maybe, maybe we got enough pull there. All right, let's talk about Durham. So the Wall Street Journal editorial board is weighing in on this story about the Durham filing in which it is alleged that the Clinton campaign worked with lawyers who worked with a tech guy who had access to some Internet data both at the Trump Tower and at the White House. And now the lawyers for the accused, Mr. Sussman, I guess it is, are saying that the data that was collected was from the Obama era only. What do you think of that? Does that sound even remotely true? So literally the story, the COVID up story that pundits are actually saying out loud, and I'm going to add some hyperbole to this, but this is basically what they're saying. They're saying that Durham, with all of his capability and all of his resources, that there was nobody on the Durham team who could use a calendar. That's actually the news today, in effect. I mean, I'm adding a little to it, but in effect, the news is reporting that the, you know, one of the Most highest powered lawyers with a whole team of people can't read a calendar and they couldn't tell that the data they were collecting was from before Trump's terms. And so the defense is, oh, this is all before Trump. So obviously we weren't spying on Trump because the data is not even from his era. Now, do you believe that? That is the most ridiculously, obviously untrue statement I've ever heard in my life. We are actually being convinced, Democrats probably are convinced that Durham can't read a calendar and he couldn't tell the difference between data that happened before and data that happened during the Trump administration. Seriously. We're actually being told that today with straight faces, people actually look at it and say, no, that data was collected during the Obama administration. Straight faces. They're actually saying that right out loud in public. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. So the Wall Street Journal editorial board is all over this now, and you were wondering, why isn't there more pushback on what is obviously a cover up of the story? I mean, obviously. And it does look like Hillary Clinton and her team are going to completely get away with this at this point. It looks like they're going to make this story, the biggest story of several years, just go away. And it looks like they're actually doing it and it's working. And I'm not even sure I'll be talking about it next week because even I'll forget about is beyond shocking. Beyond shocking. So there was a report that Hillary Clinton was spotted by 400 eyewitnesses and several video streams literally stabbing to death a member of, well, actually a Trump supporter on the steps of The Supreme Court, 400 witnesses, several video streams, lots of DNA at the scene. And the Clinton defenses. It didn't happen. It didn't happen. And if it did happen, it was technically legal. So that's the defense. No, none of that happened. But it could have. Seems like it could have. There's a I saw this from Ian Bremmer tweet. I guess there's a Pew research that says, talk about the percentage of adults who have, quote, a great deal of confidence in medical scientists in 2020, 43% of the public, according to Pew, had a great deal of confidence in medical scientists. 43%. That's lower than I would have thought. I would have thought it would be over half, but okay, 43%. In December of 2021, that dropped to 29%. So the entire medical scientific community has disgraced itself to the point where they've lost credibility with the public. It's pretty hard to lose credibility when you're the medical scientists of the country. Now we get that they could get stuff wrong. We all understand that the scientists of any kind are going to get some stuff wrong. So it's not that there's something else going on. This isn't really about getting stuff wrong, is it? That's not why the trust went down. It's because we think they lied. It's not because we think they made a mistake. It's because we think they lied to our face in ways that are completely obvious to us. So I mean, it makes sense to me. Well, let's continue watching the chess pieces being removed from the the board. So I guess George Clooney is going to make a docu series about some Ohio State wrestling sex abuse scandal that apparently features Representative Jim Jordan, Republican and not in a flattering light. So he's not accused of any crimes. He's accused of knowing about them. Now I don't know anything about the story, so I don't know who's guilty. You're not guilty of anything. So I don't have any opinion on that. But I think this is more of the larger trend where the stronger players are being identified and taken off the field. Likewise, the MyPillow founder Mike Lindell is saying that his bank just discontinued business with him. The bank decided that they wouldn't take his business anymore. So I don't know what kind of financial distress the MyPillow organization is in, but he's being taken off the field. Now I'm not saying he shouldn't be. So don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that anybody said good things and was always right. I'm not saying that some people shouldn't be taken off the field left or right. Sometimes people need to get taken off the field. Right. For good reasons. But doesn't it seem to you that there's a roll up going on on both sides? You're going to see the strongest players on both sides from the the original Trump era. You're going to see all of them targeted and taken out. And yeah, Matt Gates would be another example. The Cuomo is were taken out. Much of CNN's been taken out. Clinton seems, she seems bulletproof. Yeah. Joe Rogan taken out, et cetera, or at least reduced. Alec Baldwin, although that was his own doing. Rachel Maddow is off the field. Right. I'm seeing more names going by. So is it planned? Yeah, I don't know. It does look planned. It does look, well, maybe not centrally planned, but don't you think that everybody knows they need to reduce the voices of the strong, strong voices on the other side? Everybody knows that. All right. Yeah. Elon's still there. Tucker is holding on. I would think that the crown jewel would be getting Tucker. I have to think that Tucker Carlson has led a very clean life. Think about this. Think about the fact that Tucker Carlson is. He's got to be number one target of half of the country and nothing. Nothing. Right. I mean, the things that they attack him for are the things he says in the course of his job. But apparently that's okay with the people who watch him. So he's safe. But apparently he's never done anything that was especially wrong or that anybody knows about. So he's in a good position right now. He's in a very good position. Yeah. So Elon's being attacked. Oh, Berenson is gone. That's true. Naomi Wolf is gone. Did Alex Berenson get anything right? Let me ask you, did Alex Berenson get anything right? Is there an example? The attitude he had. The attitude right. Let me see. Did he get anything wrong? Yeah, I thought. I think he got almost everything wrong, didn't he? At least according to current understanding. Well, I don't know. So I guess we'll never know who got what right and what got wrong, because we won't agree what was right and what was wrong. You're saying you got to write about cannabis? I doubt it. All right. Even Al Sharpton was in trouble, but I don't think he's. Nothing's wrong with that. Okay, well, that. Well, let me just add this one other thing about the story about Clinton, the thing that will be left out of all the stories about Clinton asking for her lawyers to get this dirt on Trump, what will always be left out is that she paid the lawyers to get the stuff. What they will always leave out is that it did include the Trump era. I think that's going to happen. And what they will leave out is that it was. Although it was legal for the people who had access to it to have it. I'm not sure it was legal to pass it on. Although if you were passing it on to law enforcement, maybe that's always legal. So you'll see that the people defending Clinton on this story will simply leave out parts of the story, and they can do it because people don't know enough about the story, and it will just work. All right. Is Justin Trudeau still in office? I've never seen Anybody look more like they know they're gone than when he gave that press conference about the emergency powers. It really sounds like he knew he was gone, didn't it? To me it looked like a person who knew that was the end of his political life. It looked like it. I mean, who knows what he was really thinking. Now here's another observation. Democrats rank children lowest in importance and Republicans rank them highest in importance. True or false? Because if you look down the various issues, all right, abortion, of course the Democrats would say it's not even a human, it's not even a person. So that one's clear. That's Republicans in favor of children or children like entities. If you want to be all word thinking about it, then you've got. They don't want critical race theory taught in schools. Republicans, what is good for kids. That they learn that they're defective or special based on race or that they don't learn that. I mean, it's obvious what's better for kids. Masking of kids. It's obvious that the Republicans are on the right side of that at this point, in my opinion. It's obvious. What about. Yeah, it is the children last party. Now, the exception would be, if you wanted to be devil's advocate, the exception would be climate change. Because Greta has done a good job of Greta Thunberg of framing that as the children against the old people who are destroying the planet. But you have to accept Greta's estimates of catastrophe in order to even buy into what's good or bad for kids. I would think that Trump is actually closer to write about what's good for kids because if you can lower the cost of energy, you're probably going to make everybody a little richer. That's good for kids and probably you'll have more money to remediate and that's good for everybody, including kids. So I think you can make an argument that climate change, it just depends on your assumptions about what is true. That's really not about what is good or bad for kids. That's more about an assumption. All right. And Democrats are not in favor of school choice. Generally speaking. School choice is obviously good for kids. So I think you could really make a case that Democrats are the anti children party. The brainwashing of kids. Well, brainwashing happens necessarily. You can't not brainwash kids. It's not enough. It's not an option really. All right. Greta has no solutions. That's true. If she had solutions, she would stop talking. All right, and there you go. And somebody else is Saying there aren't many kids coming from same sex marriages. Well, there are kids coming from those marriages, but you're right, not as many. All right, that is all I have for today. And today, theoretically, adults in my state should be maskless, but we'll see how that goes. I'll test that out. We'll see. Greta is yelling at the Tonga volcano. All right, how about Van Jones co parenting article? I didn't see it. Is Van Jones writing an article about. Is it about government being a co parent? Is that what it is? Or is it about couples? SF School board recall. Yeah, there's effort by Democrats to recall the more progressive Democrats. Can you give a live stream lessons to Kim Iverson? Sure. I mean, if she asked for it. More micro lessons? Yes, they are coming. I've got one all queued up. I just have to put it on video. Is the lawyer's name Susman assigned to the simulation? That's funny. The lawyer who is suspected, who's a man who is suspected, is actually named Susman. He's a man who's a little bit sus in this case. Yeah. I'm seeing on locals comments that Biden wants to stir up trouble with with Putin so that they can cancel Nord stream too. I think that's part of it. That's not the whole story, but it does feel like that's part of it. It has that feel to it. It's just a feel, though. Scott, how are names being coincidences a sign of the simulation? Well, it could be a sign that our simulation is designed with a sense of humor or code that repeats. But you know, I wouldn't take that one too seriously. As a sign of the simulation, I wouldn't take it seriously at all. Oh, how to follow through on something after you've decided on something. That's a good one. Remind me of that again. I think I will do that one actually, because I do have something to say on that. What do you think of the judges and the Palin case? I'm not really following that case now. That's her case against the New York Times. Right. Have you ever felt anything that you personally felt were glitches in the simulation? Yes. Not that they were, but usually when I'm sure I left something somewhere and I can't find it, I'm sure the simulation deleted it. But you know, then when I find it where I really actually left it, I think, oh, okay, maybe I just forgot where I put it. All right. Banks freezing the protesters funds. Yeah, it's more bad behavior in Canada. All right, that's all I got for now, and I will talk to you tomorrow.