Episode 1739 Scott Adams: Would Putin Be A Democrat Or Republican If He Lived In The United States?

Good morning, everybody. And are you lucky? Yeah. Because you're here and everybody else isn't. Well, you know, and if you're here, you are already participating on the upside. Right. It's one of the best things that'll ever happen in the history of humanity. It's going to happen right now, and you're part of it. And if you'd like to take it up to heretofore unknown levels, all you need is a copper mug or a glass of tanker jealous. Who's dried the canteen jug of last vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. It's a dopamine hit of the day. You can feel your body start to respond even as I prepare. As soon as you take this hit. This hit. Yeah. A little bit of a dopamine spike. It might last you all day. Go. Oh, yeah. So did everybody see the viral photo of Mark Zuckerberg taking a selfie with his staff? I guess the Internet's having a lot of fun with this. The caption I thought was the funniest was Zuckerberg taking a selfie just like the humans. I don't know if you've seen this. Just like the humans. There's Another tweet from News18 says Mark Zuckerberg's soulless selfie with colleagues fuels alien theory once again. The theory that Zuckerberg is an alien. I don't know. It does look like a soulless selfie. If anybody was ever an alien from the future or actually a time traveler, somebody went back in time, it would have to be Zuckerberg. Right? Scott is overtired. You're right. You're right. I am underslept and overtired, but I'm going to try to take care of that this week. Well, here's a new discovery that might change everything. It turns out that there's a rare material that you need for a fusion, and we didn't think we had much of it because it exists mostly in space and on the moon. And it's hard to get your raw materials from the moon. It's hard to get it from China, much less the moon. But apparently this thing called helium 3 is 10 times more likely or 10 times more abundant on Earth than we thought. So that's really good news for future cheap energy. We're probably a number of years away from that. But as you know, fusion is working now where it has never worked in the past. And by working, I mean, they can create more energy than they use for the first time. So now it's an engineering problem, and we will have fusion and the solution to everything, which is almost true. If you had abundant cheap energy, it would be very close to the solution of everything. Everything. Everything would be cheaper, better, you'd have less climate problems. You'd have just everything. All right. Rasmussen did a poll and asked American likely voters, who do they think is winning the war? The Russia, Ukraine situation. And I was a little bit surprised at this answer. 15% 15 say that Russia is winning the war. Only 15% of people polled think Russia is winning the war. Now, is that because Russia is not winning the war, or is that because that's what the news told us? Because I don't know how you could say they're not winning. It's really just a question of how much, how much expense they're willing to absorb and how much political and other capital they're willing to put in. But I don't think you can necessarily tell anybody's winning or losing at this point, can you? Because like I say, it's going to be a tipping point situation. One of the two sides will reach some kind of a tipping point, but you never really know which one is the closest to the tipping point. Not really. It's too much fog of war. So 25% of respondees said that Ukraine is winning. 25%. 25%. 25% say Ukraine, which has been completely destroyed, is winning the war. 25%, 42% say it's a stalemate. Now, I, of course, fall into the maybe 25% this time because I think I'm like, the only person dumb enough to say in public, what if they win? You know, for me, it's always been, you know, are you so sure Russia is going to win this thing? And let me ask you, do you know anybody who's been talking about this publicly? You know, anybody who does this for a living, so to speak? Did anybody else say that Russia would have as hard a time as they're having? Because I said it from the start. In fact, I was predicting that they wouldn't, they wouldn't even attack because it seems so obvious that we would be in the place where we are now. To me, it looked obvious, but, you know, what do I know? Everything looks smart if you get one right. If you guess right, then you're pretty sure it's because of your genius, not because you guessed right. That's sort of what I'm feeling right now. I think it was my great insight not my luck. But I was completely wrong that they wouldn't attack. But I was completely right that Ukraine would surprise with high tech weaponry and that the attack would not be easy. And here we are. But I'm kind of amazed at the effect of the news. The news has actually convinced people that Russia is losing the war. And maybe they are in some sense, or maybe they will. But then Rasmussen asked likely of US voters, should the US be involved if there's a wider war in Europe? 46% said yes and 31 said no. So apparently the US has been properly primed. Not, not completely. You need to get that over 50%. But the US has been primed for a major world war and that the population is largely on board with World War Three. Do you see the impact of propaganda and fake news in this? It feels like these opinions are completely assigned. Right? How long have I been saying that people don't come up with their own opinions? Opinions are assigned. Democrats have their opinions assigned to them, Republicans have their opinions assigned to them. But then we think that we thought it out after the fact. We say, I think I thought this through and came to this opinion. No, you didn't. It's not likely. If you have the same opinion as your team, it was probably assigned, if not this time, sometime in the past. Let me see this. All right, here's some obvious sounding fake news. I'm going to say this is fake news because it sounds exactly like other fake news. So you know, there's this book by Mark Esper. He had been Trump's, what was he? Defense Secretary. And he says that Trump, when the Black Lives Matter protesters were surrounding the Capitol, I guess Trump asked, can't you shoot protesters in the leg or something? And then Esper interpreted that as the President wanting the military to shoot people in the legs. Now, what do we know about Trump's decision making process? Does this sound like real news or fake news? Because I'm willing to accept that Trump said those words, but is he interpreting this right? Actually, I'm willing to accept he actually said those words. You know why? Because it's the way he treats every topic. Everything we hear about him behind closed doors is he always tosses out a Republican idea just to see what happens. So he tosses out an extreme idea that usually comes from some Republican person just to see what the response is. So you don't think that there were some Republicans somewhere who were saying, why don't you shoot the protesters in the leg? Or maybe he was talking about rubber bullets, right? That Context would be left out, but even the rubber bullets is pretty extreme. That's pretty extreme. And so you heard him say that. Yeah, but it sounds like the sort of thing that he says on every topic, you know, could we use a nuke? Should we shoot him in the leg? Can we lob a missile into the cartels? Do you see the pattern? The pattern is he asked the question about the most extreme response. And then as Espers described that Esper and I guess a few of the other aides walked him back from the idea of using the military at all, all the way to not using the military. And then Trump agreed. What is the problem if Trump throws out an extreme suggestion and then his advisors say, no, the extreme doesn't work. But we'll walk you back to what might work. Isn't that exactly what you want? Like, not even a little bit wrong? Imagine if he had never even floated an idea. That's the extreme version. You have to float the extreme version, don't you? That feels like good management to me. You put out the extreme and then you make people argue for the middle ground. Make him work for it. He made him work for it, did he not? I mean, I don't think. I don't see how people are, like, oblivious to the fact that he made his advisors work to sell their opinion and that he bought it and that he bought it. If you make your advisors work for it and then you accept their recommendation because you saw the work, okay? Because apparently the way they talked him back was through a pretty rational cost benefit analysis. And then once he heard the cost benefit analysis, he said, okay, we'll do that. What the hell is the problem with that? The problem is people telling other people internal conversations. The problem is Esper. This is a story about Esper being a bad person, meaning that he's talking about private deliberations which included brainstorming. If you're talking about a private brainstorming conversation in which the point of it is to throw out, you know, throw out all the ideas and just see what the reaction is. And that's exactly what he was doing. Threw out an idea and asked for a reaction. If that stuff is what you're leaking, you're a fucking asshole. Really? That is just so low, in my opinion, because it's clearly an attempt to make it look like it was more of a serious idea than it was. That's how you sell a book. So he's basically throwing the President of the United States under a bus to sell a frickin book. Is that A patriot. Doesn't sound like it. It doesn't sound like a patriot. And by the way, this has nothing to do with Trump or Republican or Democrat. I would say exactly the same thing if we were talking about a Democrat. Exactly the same thing. If somebody is talking about the brainstorming conversations and trying to sell that out of context, that's just weasel behavior. That's just horrible behavior. Such a jerk. Anyway, apparently now we have fake news, of course, everywhere. But now there's something called fake job acceptance where the, I guess the job market is so hot and it's so hard to get good employees these days that the Wall Street Journal is reporting the incidence of so called ghosting of accepting offers and then saying that you'll start and then not showing up is at a record high. So people are accepting jobs and just not going because they get another job usually or they change their mind or they don't even bother college. Yeah, I might be back on Monday, but then again I might not. So I don't know what to say about this except everything is fake now. Yeah, it's a fake news. Fake. You throw in your own fakes, whatever. But now even fake job acceptance, that's a new high. I keep hearing about people with two jobs. How many people do you know who are working remotely and have two complete jobs and the employers don't know that they're working two jobs in the comments. Do you know anybody personally? Somebody says they know many people? A bunch of yeses going by. Yes, yes, we fired one doing it. They found somebody doing it and fired them. Been thinking about it, giggling. What a great idea. Yes, yes, apparently it's widespread. It's pretty widespread. So it doesn't matter how many no's we hear. The fact that there are lots of people who say yes tells me it's pretty widespread. So I don't even know if that's a bad thing. Is it? Because think about a typical full time employee. Do you ever get more than 50% productivity out of an employee? Not really because it seems like after you do the important stuff, everything else is a meeting or something less important. I feel like you could do the important stuff for two different jobs fairly easily if you skipped all the unimportant stuff like commuting. I mean imagine the people who are commuting 90 minutes a day. If you gave me an extra 90 minutes and said, look, you can bank the 90 minutes so you can use that for your second job. But also we'll take, let's say we'll shave 20% off of this, your main job. Add that there, then you have almost enough to sell it to the new employer, almost enough time. So you might see more of that. Meanwhile, in international relations, Finland is getting close to requesting joining NATO, which would put a NATO, NATO member on Russia's border with an 800 mile border. And apparently Finland has been using US equipment for years, so that's an easy transition to NATO. And they have actually an unusually strong military. Did you know that apparently Finland has a really good military? I guess you have to if you're on the border of Russia. So what has Putin decided will be his attack on Finland? Well, he's decided that the Finns are Nazis. That's right. So Putin basically has one strategy. Well, if you don't like me, you're some kind of a Nazi. And he could always make an argument for it. So in this case, the argument is that Finland, I think, fought with the Nazis, so he's going to call Finland a bunch of Nazis. Sweden is also considering joining Finland at some point and seems like they'd have a good shot at it. Now, this raises the question, if, if the whole reason we're having a war with Ukraine is because Ukraine was flirting with NATO, why would we do more of it? Why would we do more of the thing that caused the war? Is it because we think Putin is so, you know, beaten down by this war, that we can just push him? Because pushing Putin has got what. What got us in the war, Right. It was. Didn't we sort of push him into attacking Ukraine? So are we going to push him into attacking Finland or is he so. So beat up from Ukraine that he wouldn't have the will to attack anybody else? I don't know. You know, I like the idea that was floated about. I think Macron said it and who was it? Somebody else said it, that there should be some other kind of organization that's not called NATO, so you could kind of weasel it. And I think maybe Trump has suggested this. I heard, I haven't heard him say it, but the idea would be you'd have some kind of protection association, but you wouldn't call it NATO. I don't know. Does that buy you anything? What did you say? Google the Finnish prime ministers. I know exactly what you're saying. It turns out that the Finnish prime minister is a woman who is attractive. That's why you told me to Google it. Right. I saw the picture today and I thought that really looks like she got kind of a political boost by her appearance. But yes, they have an attractive prime minister apparently. And that alone is reason enough to put them in NATO. I say, what do you think about this? Let me ask you, wisdom of the crowd time. Do you think it's a good idea or a bad idea for Finland to join NATO? Go. Good idea or bad idea for Finland to join NATO? All right, I'll read your responses. They always go by faster on the locals platform. I'm seeing a mix. More bad than good, but definitely a mix. Looks like 50, 50, 60, 40. All right. A lot of disagreement on this. It's a good idea because of Ukraine, maybe. Yeah. We don't really know, do we? So if you don't know if it's a good idea or a bad idea, what do you do? What do you do? What do you do if you don't know? If you legitimately don't know if it's a good idea or a bad idea, what do you do? Do you do something or nothing? If you don't know, if you don't know, why would you spend money on it? So here's a decision making suggestion. If you think it might make a big difference, but it's sort of a toss up. One of them is very expensive and one of them is not. You would do the one that's less expensive. If you really, really didn't know the difference, if you suspected there was a difference and let's say your own security mattered, then you might make a different decision. All right, well, I don't know. I don't know if it's going to happen. I feel as if delaying it would make a difference because you don't want to give, you don't want to give Putin too much of a loss or else he can't negotiate his way out of it. Right. You don't want it to be too embarrassing for Putin while you also need to negotiate. So that might make sense to just put the Finland decision off. Like just don't, don't put it in the current mix. Just delay it a little bit. Something like that. All right, so I provocatively tweeted the following question is, if Putin were President of America, would he be a Democrat or Republican? As you might not be surprised, it got a lot of attention on Twitter. So here are the things we know about Putin and we're going to try to decide if he sounds more like a Democrat or more like a Republican, if he were an American. So here are some things we know about Putin. He calls his opponents Nazis. Okay, Is that Republican or Democrat? He censors speech. Democrat Or Republican. He favors universal health care. He creates lots of fake news. He favors abortion, apparently because Russia has the highest, one of the highest rates of abortion of any country. Now he is trying to get the abortion rate down, but in terms of making it legal, it's about as legal as you can get. He puts protesters in jail and he favors. In Russia, they have very strict background checks for gun buyers. You can buy a gun just like the United States, but they're very strict on your mental health background and background checks. So you can't buy a gun in Russia unless there's a background check, full background check. So does that sound more Democrat or more Republican? What do you think? All right, obviously I left out some things. I'm just trying to get people riled up because it's fun. So here would be some arguments that he's a Republican. Putin likes a strong military, but he didn't fund one, did he? He wants a strong military, but looks like he underspent. Who, who says they want a strong military but they don't spend money to get one? Sounds like a Democrat, doesn't it? If he wanted a strong military and we saw evidence that he had funded a well maintained strong military, then I would say, oh, that sounds more Republican, but it is a high percentage of gdp, so that sounds, sounds a little more Republican that way. All right, how about Russia just a few years ago passed a anti gay marriage bill. So marriage in Russia is between a, quote, man and a woman. Got to put that in quotes these days. That sounds more neither. Right? That's basically neither. Because these days I was trying to think, when is the last time you heard a Republican complaining about gay marriage? Let me ask you this. I know you've heard it, of course, but when was the last time, the last time I heard any Republican online, on Twitter, personally complaining about gay marriage. I haven't heard it in years. Have you? It's just a total don't care. Now, the concern about gay marriage is that it would have some impact on your life, Yours, let's say, hypothetically, if you were a heterosexual married couple. So somehow you thought it would affect you. Right? I mean, that was the whole reason anybody would be opposed to it. It was that it would have some effect on you. But did it? Did it? Is there any Republican who says, ah, everything was good for me and my family until the gays could get married. You can always understand why anybody would be afraid of anything new, no matter what it is. Right? We're just, we have a reflex to be afraid of Something new. So that makes sense. But once you've done it and there are over half a million gay couples who are married. Does gay cover lesbian? I don't know if that's. Is that true anymore or do you have to throw in gay and lesbian? We have over half a million people in the United States who are married to the same sex. Did it bother anybody? Is there anybody? Who. Did you worsen? Did your life get worse in some way? No. No. So it's very Republican. And this is a compliment. This is a compliment. It's very Republican. To be concerned about change. That's just a normal human reflex. But once the change has happened and you see it's no big deal if it doesn't affect you and you're a Republican, what do you think of it? If it doesn't affect you and somebody's just living their life right. It's just not your problem. So even the LGBTQ thing doesn't really define Republicans in the way it might have before. It's very move. Yeah. And Putin also rigs elections. I don't know. Who's that? Like allegedly? I don't know. It's a tough one. I can't figure it out. All right. That tweet that I just talked about in which I asked if Putin is a Republican or Democrat, I saw some weird things happening with it. So there was a tweet showing a little video of what happens when you try to look at the tweet. And apparently the tweet shows up and then immediately disappears with a message that there's. There's something limiting. Limiting the comments. Did you see that? I don't know what that's about. Do you? Because I saw the video and you can see that the tweet will show up and then disappear. Says because you block the user. But that doesn't explain why it shows up before it disappears. So anyway, it looked like it was. It's because you block those. That qt it. But blocking them shouldn't make. Should not make them show up before they disappear. They would just be gone now. And by the way, I'm not talking about my experience. I'm talking about other people's experience from their own account. Does that make a difference to your answer? People are saying it's because I blocked some users. But I'm talking about somebody who did not block those users looking at my account. And they can't see it. It's a bug. Somebody says, you get that when you. When I retweet Cernovich that you get that? It flashed the tweet and then disappear. Interesting. So I don't know what that is. I tagged Elon Musk on the video. That shows some weird things happening. Just ask if it was normal. Anyway, keep an eye on that. So you know how we all started using the word Karen and you would call somebody a Karen if they, if they asked to speak to the manager. Well, there's no male version of that. Right. But I'm going to suggest a male version of that. And it's based on this tweet. And I noticed a bunch of people just when I, when I tweeted the thing about Putin, a lot of people did the this guy tweet. Do you know what I mean? Instead of dealing with the content of the tweet, a lot of people did the this guy doesn't. This guy showing you he doesn't know anything about Russia or this guy said some things and then they talk about some fake news about what they think I said about something in the past. Everybody who starts with this guy or a comment about the tweeter with no comment about the content. I said in my tweet. When you see people attack the sender of a tweet instead of the content, it tells you two things about the attacker. Number one, they have no counter argument. And number two, they are Keith Olberman. Usually. Usually. And so I would suggest, and I've started doing this already, I did it once, that when somebody attacks the messenger, instead of the message, you just say, okay, Keith, that should be your comment. Okay, Keith. Keith Olbermann. You know Keith Olbermann, right? He's the one who always attacks the messenger. He attacks me all the time. Well, that's an exaggeration. So Keith Olbermann likes to troll my account and attack me personally. He almost never, I think never has attacked anything I've said in terms of content. He only attacks me. So he's a Keith. So every time you see somebody attack the tweeter and not the message, that's a Keith. Okay, Keith, there's. I saw a Ukrainian tweet. So this is obviously war propaganda. This comes from a Ukraine source and the Ukraine source said oil and gas are the only things Moscow exports apart from the war. When Europe switches to another supplier, it will not return to it regardless of whether the war ends. For the world is. Yes, for the world. Russia is an unpredictable country with no possibility to build long term projects. What do you think of that? Is Ukraine right? That once people wean themselves off of Russia oil, that Russia will have nothing to export and therefore they do export some other stuff, steel, etc. But for the most part it's an energy economy. What's going to happen then? Well, remember this is a Ukraine source, so it's propaganda by definition. And then Andres Backhouse commented and he said that China and India will not want dependence on their oil. So if Russia can't sell to Europe and although they could sell to India and China, China and India are not going to want to be too dependent. So they don't want to be big buying. And oh, Peter Zan says there's no way Russia will be able to reproduce the same amount of oil in the future because of Western companies have left. I don't know. I mean maybe that hasn't. There may be a problem getting parts and supplies, but I don't know if it's just because the Western oil companies left because I feel like they could just take over those fields. So I don't know about that, but I feel as if oil is too fungible, meaning it all looks the same and you can sell it anywhere. Actually, I don't know if Russian. Russian oil is good stuff, right? Is Russian oil dirty or. Or good? I can't remember. Is Russian oil as clean as other oil? It's good, right? Mid grade to good. Saudi oil is the best, somebody says, because there is a difference in the quality of the oil. All right. I don't know the answer to that question, but here's my take. I don't think this is true. I think anybody who produces a commodity that the world needs can just find a way to get it there. How hard would it be for North Korea to say, no, that's the wrong one? How hard it would be for some. I don't. African country that has no sanctions against it to buy all the oil and use some of it and sell the excess? I don't know. It feels like they could just find some middleman carve out kind of thing. It does. It doesn't. Yeah, Nigeria or something. It doesn't seem like it would be hard for Russia to find new markets. It would just take a while to work it out. All right. And that, ladies and gentlemen, seems to be the end of the content. Have you noticed this is slow news day? Somebody said on locals earlier that there's a strange energy in the world. Anybody else feel that? Do you feel a strange energy in the world? The news is a little slow, isn't it? It's a little bit slow. So doesn't it feel like something's about to drop. Isn't this what happens when there's something big happening? Now we have some big news. I mean, Ukraine's big news and stock market's big news. Let me talk about the stock market. If you're checking your stocks every day during a downturn like this, don't do that. Right. When, when the market is up. I check my stocks every day because it makes me feel good. When the market is down, I never look at my stocks. So the first thing I do is look at the market. And then if the market is down, I don't look at my stocks, I do not open it. So, you know, my net worth may have gone down 20% or something, I don't know. Because I assume it'll come back. Right. So if you buy stocks, you don't want to be thinking of it in same year terms. You want to be thinking of it in five year, five year kind of thing. So you grit your teeth and buy. I do think it's a good buying opportunity that, I mean, I don't give financial advice, so don't take that as financial advice. But if you had to place a big bet on whether this would be a good time to buy stocks, it'd be a pretty safe bet. I think, relatively speaking, right now the safety is depending on how long you want to wait. If you want to wait 10 years, it's a very safe bet. If you want to wait two years, anything could happen in two years. Tesla's down 32% since January. Yeah, I think the entire market needed to come down. So one of the things that people who don't study economics get wrong, that the market was way more dangerous before. Do you understand that the market was in a more dangerous situation before it went down. Does everybody get that? We went from a dangerous situation to a less dangerous situation, but the news reports at the opposite. Yeah, it's a correction. It's called a correction. Why is it called a correction? It's called a correction because it was in the wrong place and it went from the wrong place to the right place. That's what a correction is. So when you see a correction, that's not bad news. That is not bad news. Unless you were planning to sell your stock that year, then it's really bad news. But if you're buying and holding, a correction means the market is staying strong and it's acting the way a market should act. So the people who have economics backgrounds see a correction and they say, oh, buying opportunity. That's it. That's why you keep Cash. If you're investor, it pays to keep some cash. For this reason, you know, I did a bunch of buying during the bottom of the pandemic. Best investments I ever made. Right. Whoever buys now is likely to be happy. Maybe not in a year, but in 10 years they're probably going to be pretty happy. They bought stocks today. All bad. All right, Pfizer documents, is there any media coverage? No, because that was fake news. Do you all know that the Pfizer documents with the negative information in it, you all know that was fake news, right? The reason it's not being talked about. Now, here's a question. Why have you not seen anything about 2000 Mules, Dinesh D' Souza's film about alleged improprieties in the 2020 election? Why have you now seen it on? I guess it's been banned by News. Newsmax. So Newsmax isn't going to cover it and you haven't seen it on FOX News? Why not? Why do you think it's being suppressed if in fact that's being suppressed? I don't want to lead the witness. Why do you think you're not seeing it? Tucker interviewed them. Is Tucker the only one who talked to them? Because I don't think it really gets covered by most of the opinion people. Well, here would be my best take on that. I think it's just too dangerous because if it turns out that it doesn't hold up, I don't know if it will or not. But if it turns out that the, you know, the premise doesn't hold up, I don't think any major news platform wants to be on that side. And I think that unfortunately, d' Souza has enough of a history that even people who would be inclined to be on his side are. Are saying, well, he, he's a little dangerous, even if you like the topic. So it might be a little bit too much about the maker of the film and a little less about the content, maybe. So I can't read minds, so I do not know. But what is the rule that I told you about identifying fake news that applies to this? What is the news that applies to this? So in my book, lose or think that you see behind me, I give you some techniques for identifying fake news. One of the techniques is this. If both the news on the left and the right say the same thing, it's probably true, right? So if Fox News says something's true and CNN says something's true, it's probably true. Not guaranteed, but probably. And if they both say it's not true. It's probably not true. Not guaranteed, but probably. But in this case, this is sort of a hybrid because Fox News is just silent on it. So nobody's saying it's true or not true. It's just whether it's too, too hot a potato to even deal with. So that, that rule doesn't work in this case because the reason they're not talking about it is not because they say it's not true. Seems like there's not an opinion on it. Vaccine deaths is fake news, as far as I know. I think the problem with the vaccine deaths is not that they happen or don't happen because every vaccine kills people. The question is it's not being compared to the deaths or the myocarditis from people who get Covid. So typically, the reason that people get concerned about the numbers of vaccine deaths is because they think it's compared to zero. Like the choice is deaths or no deaths. So you would choose no deaths, but the choice was deaths one way versus deaths another way. That was the choice. So that's why you could be fooled by the vaccination death scare. It's out of context. And then there are some demographic issues there. Of course those are real. Could Fox and CNN be merging? No. We're waiting for 50 intelligence officials to denounce 2,000 mules so you'll know it's true. All right, what if Fox is controlled opposition? You know, I don't know. I think I've spent enough time interacting with Fox News people that I would know if they thought it was, if they thought they were working for a controlled opposition. Maybe I'm not defining the term right, but there's certainly no intention to be that. If you're saying it's accidentally happening, that's a different argument. Can you, can somebody ask me a question? There's no requirement to get the booster shots for normal citizens, right? Am I right about that? If you're an average citizen, you don't need to get the, the, the third and fourth booster. It's only the military and maybe some medical people or something. I don't know. All right, so we're done with that, right? Except in Canada, Medical workers and somebody pointed out that it seems like all the people who say they've, they're getting Covid are vaccinated and boosted. But I think that's, that would be a, that would be more about what you notice, because when people do a tweet, oh, I got Covid, but I'm, I'm vaccinated. And boosted. So thank goodness. I think you see those, but you don't see the person who got Covid and had no symptoms and didn't say anything about it. So I wouldn't say there's any correlation with the vaccination. Yeah, it's all anecdotal. They're not on a ventilator. Yeah. Age related result, more vax people are also older. That's correct. All right. Yeah. And apparently the experts are now looking at people who never got Covid to see if they have something in common besides not being exposed. So there might be some genetic propensity that. But here's what I suspect. I suspect the genetic propensity related to your vitamin D level. So if you checked your vitamin D, you'd probably know everything you needed. Yeah, I did. I got. Just so you know, I did the original two shots, which were essentially considered one shot. In effect, it was like one shot. And I did not get a third or fourth booster. Have I watched the 2000 Mules movie? No. But I finally have a link to it. So I have a link. I'll be watching that. So I will be doing a little traveling this coming week. So I want to give you a little heads up. There might be one day and it might be tomorrow. I haven't decided in which I might be a half hour early or I might end a little shorter. So gonna do a little traveling. But I do expect. I think I'll be able to do it every day. Maybe not on the way home. I'm not sure. I'm traveling alone. So it's actually a business trip. Business in the sense that I'm just going to go somewhere and write because I've got a book, a book deal, and I need to be serious about it. So I'm just going to take a week of just being completely outside my environment. And it's just a writer's. It's a writer's retreat. Yeah, it's just someplace easy. Don't worry about it. I don't know if I'll tell you where I'm going because it's. That's not the important part. Somebody says, I love traveling alone. Yeah, most of my traveling has been alone because most of it has been for business. So traveling alone is very comfortable for me. But I don't know if I can take. I don't know if I can last a week without human contact. It's going to be kind of hard. But that's why I wanted to be somewhere where there would be other humans in the natural environment because I need to be around people. I just don't necessarily need to talk to them. Yeah. Traveling with kids is not really your vacation, is it? Did. How do you think of it when. When you do a vacation with children? That's the children's vacations. The. The parents are just working, right. Because there's so much work to put on the vacation and they don't get to enjoy themselves in the usual way. Now, I think there could be an exception if you like. If families travel together, then the kids can get busy with each other and the adults can do their thing. But if. If it's just you and your family traveling, that's basically the kids vacation. It's not your vacation. Come to Miami and I'll buy you a Coke. Is that with a capital C? I travel with other parents. Yeah. All right, so that's all for now. And I will. We should have a human zoo. Okay, there's an idea. All right, that's all for today. I'm going to keep it short. Got a lot to do today. You go out and have the greatest day ever. Will you do that? I think you will. And I'll talk to you tomorrow.