Episode 243 Scott Adams: Chinese Fentanyl, Proxy Revenge, Hypnosis and Memory, Abortion

Hello, Joyce. Hello, Susanna. Hey, everybody, come on in here. Got lots of stuff to talk about today. Before I start, I'm gonna have to mention this for a few more days just because to do otherwise would feel dishonest. Most of you know from yesterday that my stepson died of a fentanyl presumed fentanyl overdose. We know he had fentanyl in him. And I appreciate all of the condolences and good thoughts that people sent me by social media and otherwise. Well, let's talk about that. Apparently the government's having a. A hearing today about Chinese companies flooding the US with counterfeit fentanyl. It seems that China might be the big source for this illegal fentanyl that finds itself in other drugs such as counterfeit Xanax, which may have been a factor in my stepson's death. Here's my feeling about this. If we know that China is the source, my understanding, which is still sketchy, so I may be wrong about this, I could use some fact checking. But my understanding is that fentanyl is hard to make in your bathtub and that you need something like a legitimate pharmaceutical company, even if that legitimate company is doing illegitimate things once it makes them. So it seems to me that if we know China is the source, we might already know which pharmaceutical companies specifically are the source. Now, in China, things are not so clean as they might be in other places, because a CEO of a pharmaceutical company is likely to be connected to the government through family connections, through money connections, etc. So it might not be as easy as calling them out and asking for China to do something, because it might be complicated. But we know that there's one thing China doesn't like, which is shame. And so I'll be sending China a whole bunch of shame. And they can do what they like with that. My suggestion is that they identify the perpetrators within their country and execute them. Certainly execution is not too big a. Too big a penalty for somebody who might be responsible for up to 30,000 deaths in the United States every year. 30,000 deaths in the United States every year. What do you do to somebody who does that execution? I think almost anybody would agree. Any country, you know, if somebody kills 30,000 people, even in a country that doesn't have the death penalty, you're still going to kill that guy one way or the other. So if China doesn't want to get his house in order and help solve this problem for us, and I realize there's demand in this country, etcetera, But I don't really care about that Right now, right now, I care that China stops the problem. If they don't, things are going to get worse for China. I personally would not be in favor of giving them any kind of a trade deal until they fix this. You know, there are a couple things that China is doing that they should just be shamed for until it stops. China doesn't like to lose face. And let me tell you, China, you certainly lost a lot of face. I have to say that until this week, I actually respected China, but I've lost all respect now. I have lost all respect for the Chinese leadership because of their inability to control this continuous flow of death to the United States and other places. I assume through this fentanyl. Now, we don't know all the facts, so it's a little premature. It might not be that China's government even knows what to do or who's doing it, but we should find that out. Apparently, the United States government is confident enough to state it as a fact. And if our government is stating it as a fact, you can't be 100% sure that's true. But I'm sure enough that now China needs to answer for it one way or the other. So you're going to hear about this probably every day for me for a while. If China doesn't do something about the fentanyl problem, I favor our government solving it for them. By solving it for them, I mean extralegal execution of Chinese citizens. Let me say that as clearly as possible. I'm favoring if the Chinese government can't handle their own problem. The problem seems to be that pharmaceutical companies are creating this fake fentanyl and shipping it to the United States. Now, that's not 100% confirmed, in my opinion, but assuming that that can be confirmed and that China's government is unwilling to deal with it, I would favor extra legal execution of those of the people that we, if we can confirm that there's a CEO or executives that are behind it. Because keep in mind, we're talking about 30,000 deaths in the United States that is somewhat directly attributable to this flow of fentanyl, illegal fentanyl from China. So execution is absolutely an appropriate solution if China won't do it first so they can determine how much shame they're willing to take. Right now, I have no respect for China. Their government has lost all respect and it's not coming back anytime soon. All right? And if the governments are unwilling to take care of that, I would request that our government, once it's reached a degree of certainty about who the problem is in China. I would like to see the names of those people. I'd like to see a picture and a photograph of the Chinese executives that we're specifically blaming for this, because they need to be on the front page of every newspaper, every website. Consider this. If a mass killer killed a hundred people, what would the media do? They would put them the face and the name of that killer for just a hundred people. If somebody killed a hundred people, their name and their face, you know, Stephen Paddock, for example, would be famous all over the world. There are apparently allegedly not confirmed, but I think we're heading toward confirming it. Some Chinese executives who may be killing 30,000Americans a year and know it and are completely aware of it. I want their names and I want their faces and I want any Google search that involves these people. And if they're executives, they're probably somewhat high visibility. I would like their family name to be the subject of a Google search so that they could be known as mass killers. Now, if that's not enough to take them out, I don't know what will. But to our government, and for those of you who are not aware of this, there are a number of people at high levels in the White House who do sample this periscope. So I know for sure that this message got to where it needed to go. I don't mean the president, but within the White House, within the administration. The suggestion that we have an absolute right to know the names and see the faces of the people accused of killing 30,000Americans a year. Now, the 30,000 is my own estimate, based on the fact that there are 72,000 deaths from overdose. The greatest percentage of those by far is fentanyl, and the greatest source of that comes from China. So I'm interpolating a little bit, connecting some dots, but in a fair way. Whether that number is 20,000 or 50,000, I don't know, but I'm going to say 30,000, just to keep it simple. So government of the United States, as a taxpayer, as a citizen, and as a supporter of this administration, I'm asking you directly because I know this message will get through one way or the other. I'd like to see the name, names and faces of the Chinese executives, if you know them and if you're sure, if you're not sure, then absolutely don't. But if we reach a level of certainty, I deserve to know the name and the face of who killed my stepson, if you can do it. All right, enough on that. Let's go to some stuff that's a little more interesting, maybe not more interesting, but less, less, less of a downer. So there's a story about Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford, that she wrote a paper, she was co author of a paper that involved the topics of hypnosis and memory. And in that paper apparently it says claims correctly, it claims that hypnosis can pollute memories. So now we have entered into fact that Christine Ford, who claims she has 100% accurate memory of an event involving Brett Kavanaugh, who let's call him Judge Kavanaugh, does not remember and believes it did not exist. And we know that she had traumatic experiences and we know that she co authored a paper about the benefits of hypnosis for traumatic experiences. So here's the stuff we know and I'm going to make sure that it's as clear as possible. What we don't know, what we don't know is that Christine Ford has ever been hypnotized. There's no evidence of that. Right. So I want to be as clear as possible. Zero evidence of that that I am aware of anyway. But certainly worth asking if you're the FBI, anybody involved with the FBI is listening. That is a question that you need to ask and I hope that that does. Self hypnosis, by the way, would not be the same kind of memory altering significance as being hypnotized from another person. Self hypnosis is almost entirely about relaxing and visualizing. There are no external suggestions coming in with that process. So self hypnosis, don't think of that as a memory polluter. Although I imagine in some, you know, there might be some way that's true. But it's not a demonstrated effect. The demonstrated effect is somebody else hypnotizing somebody can introduce suggestions even accidentally. So again, summary of what's in evidence. We know that she had a traumatic, she had trauma and she says she was suffering from PTSD and claustrophobia and anxiety and some other things. And we know that she wrote a paper saying that hypnosis could be useful for treating those things. And we know that she understands because she co wrote the paper that hypnosis can pollute memories. So we have no evidence that she was ever hypnotized. So we can't take that and say therefore X. That's sort of stranded knowledge. It doesn't really connect to the case unless she was hypnotized. So the FBI should absolutely ask that question. But without that information, it would not be fair to us to speculate that she did because it's not in the record. All we know is that she had a extraordinarily high. She had an extraordinarily high incentive to be hypnotized. She had access to people who could do it, and she understanded that it would benefit her. That's all we know. We don't know she actually did it. Now, you may be wondering, can people forget things under hypnosis? So somebody asked me online, can you hypnotize somebody to forget something? And my answer is, I've never seen it happen in movies. People forget that they've been hypnotized. I didn't know I was hypnotized. I thought I was just doing my thing. But in reality, although I've heard of it happening, I've never witnessed it in any hypnosis experience that I've either administered or observed or heard of directly. So I can't confirm that. But I also can't deny it either. I just. It would be rare, in my opinion, for somebody to have hypnosis induced amnesia. It would not be rare to have hypnosis induced memory changes. That's actually common. And if you don't understand that it's common, then you don't understand the context of this situation. I think it's time to pause for the simultaneous sip. I've given you all enough time to grab your beverage, your cup, your chalice, your mug, fill it with your favorite beverage, and join me, please. Ah. So this next question I think is interesting, which is what is the standard of suspicion that should apply to this Kavanaugh case? So we're seeing, you know, almost nobody involved in the discussion of Kavanaugh and Ford is even attempting to be unbiased or fair about it because people are too invested. I'm positive that that effect, you know, influences me as well, but I'll at least make an attempt to be as fair as possible. Those people saying that the legal standard for guilt has not been demonstrated for Kavanaugh and therefore he should be fine. That's ridiculous, right? Because it's not a legal. It's not a legal situation. People look at the. The prosecutor, I forget her name, who was asked to work for the Republicans in questioning Christine Ford. She did a write up after the fact. Now, remember, she was just a hired gun, so she did a write up after the fact. And to fill out the context, she said that if this were a legal case, it would not rise to the level that you would pursue it. There's not enough there. And she also Said that you wouldn't even pursue it if it was a civil case, which has a lower standard of evidence. A criminal case has to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. A civil case has to be more likely guilty than not. It's sort of a preponderance of evidence situation. So she said that Rachel Mitchell is her name. So the prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell said that you've not reached the highest level guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but you've also not reached the lowest level under the law, which is that preponderance, you know, more likely true state. But this was never a legal competition. I find it interesting context, because if she had said the opposite, it would be news, right? If she had said, oh, yeah, if this had been a legal case, if it definitely would have been proven with both standards or one of those standards. So the fact she says it's not that high a standard tells you where it is, and that's useful. It doesn't tell you he should be hired because the job applicant standard is entirely different. But the question is, what is the standard for hiring? So, for example, let's say you had just somebody coming to your office, and they apply for a job, and you know that there's a rumor about them, and you assess that there's a 10% chance it's true that this person did some heinous crime. Let's say it was a sex crime. Would you hire an employee who had a 10% chance that they might be a rapist? Probably not. Probably not, right? You would not hire somebody if you could hire other people, you know, you had an option. You wouldn't hire anybody who had a 10% chance of being a rapist. Right. Would you have a. Would you hire somebody who had a 10% chance of having done something bad, but you don't think they'll do it again? Would you hire somebody who was like 10% likely to have been guilty of a sex crime but probably won't do it again? A lot of people saying yes, a lot of people saying no. So the question is, who gets to set the standard personally? Would I hire somebody who is 10% likely to have committed a crime that seems like the sort of crime that would influence them in the present? Because in this case, in Kavanaugh's case, it's easy to imagine he would be asked to judge a question that was in this realm. You know, a question about assault or claims of assault or legal standards for assault, something like that. You can imagine it happening. So if this were. If this were just a job interview, I would be on the side of not hiring Kavanaugh. So I'll say that again because there are so few people who are willing to be or at least attempt to be unbiased, and I'm not sure I'm succeeding at that. But since this opinion goes against the grain, I'll say it again as clearly as possible. If this were a normal job interview, I would say that the odds of Kavanaugh having some issues, you know, maybe 10%. If I thought they were 10%, I'd say, no, let's look at somebody else. 10% is too high. Why would we take a chance? If you have other qualified judges, why would you take a chance on 10%? But this is not normal. This is not a normal job interview. This is a situation in which there are big themes being tested. There are big themes about what kind of civilization we want to be. So it's a job interview, but on top of that are far bigger issues. And the far bigger issues are, can we change politics in this way permanently? Will everybody be judged on what they did as a minor? Will everyone be judged whether they had some drinks in the past, whether they drank too much in the past? Will we be parsing the difference between blackout drunk and drinking and then going to sleep at night? Because people go to sleep at night. Will we. Will we accept as a standard that. Let's say a people are using the word corroborated in two different ways to prove their point? You've noticed this, right? The people who want Kavanaugh to get appointed, they say there's no corroboration because they're using it in more a technical sense, as in another direct witness or physical evidence. The people who are saying it is corroborated are using the word in a whole different standard, which is, is there any other information that would lead you to believe this could be true? That's far from corroboration in a legal sense, but it's not a legal case. It's sort of a job interview with larger themes on top. So let me break this down for you. Given that there are the larger themes about how do we want to judge people in general, how do we want to run politics? How do we want to treat each other? What level of suspicion is good enough to derail somebody? When something is naked politics, how much do we give a weight and how much do we dismiss it because it's so nakedly political? And here's what it comes down to, and I've heard nobody say this, what you're going to hear Me say, I think will be the most objective thing you've heard on this topic, and it should make you mad that you haven't heard it from. Now, the decision on Kavanaugh comes down to this. Would you accept a 10% chance that he did the deed? Would you accept that if you knew it was true? But you also had to accept that you've permanently destroyed a key tenet of civilization which is innocent until proven guilty. Now, as other people have said who are smarter than me, it's not a legal case. So we don't have the technical legal requirement of innocent until proven guilty. That's not a thing for the situation. But it is also generally accepted that we would act that way by analogy. Somebody said for other situations. In other words, when you're hiring somebody, if they're accused of something and there is no proof that it would be good social process to act like you don't know anything, because you don't, your suspicions should not be enough to derail somebody's life. So here's the thing. I don't know what percentage likelihood of Kavanaugh having done the deed you want to put on that, but would you accept a candidate with, I'll just say 10% as a, you know, just for my example, would you accept a candidate who had a 10% chance of having groped somebody while drunken at 17 years old and then lived what seems to be an exemplary life since then? Would you accept that situation, that risk and that problem to retain a key tenet? Probably several key tenets of civilization, you know, the glue that holds us all together, that innocent until we really know you're a guilty thing, whether it's a legal context or just the way you treat people is essentially the underpinning of, let's just say everything we care about. Pretty much everything we care about comes down to that. Why do I. If you're a black man and you come in for a job, let's say I'm hiring, you're a black man, you come in for a job. If I say to myself, well, there's nothing to make me suspect this particular applicant has any problem, but there are other black people who have committed crimes. So if I have some suspicion in this scenario, you imagine that I've got racial biases. If I Suspect there's a 1% chance that because this person is black and I know that the crime rate of black people is higher than other groups, can I say, you know, in a normal situation, there's no evidence about this candidate, this candidate has an Exemplary record. But I still have this suspicion. I still. I still. I'm worried that there's something there. The Kavanaugh case gives you permission to not hire that person if you couldn't get away with it legally. The Kavanaugh situation says you don't need to know somebody's guilty. You just have to be worried about it. Is that enough? The glue of civilization will fall apart if we can destroy a man because there might be a problem. There might be. Don't know. How about the. How about destroying somebody for trivial lies? In the case of Kavanaugh, he's accused of being a liar about the amount he drank in high school, which probably would extend to college. And he's accused of lying about the meaning of some words in his high school yearbook. Let's say he did lie. Let's say he did. About unimportant things that happened when he was a teenager. Should that be disqualifying? Let's say it's a job interview at your company. Guy comes in for a job interview, and you say, you know, I want to really know about your character before I hire you for this job. Have you. Have you ever had alcohol? And the applicant says, yeah, I've had alcohol. I am a social drinker. Ah, you're a social drinker. Did you ever drink enough to be considered drunk? And the candidate says, yeah. Yeah. I mean, I've had. Few too many. A few times. Is that it? You know, it was when I was 17. Is that it? Is the interview done? What if the. What if the. Then you say, okay, but have you ever been so drunk you couldn't remember what you did? What is the job. What does the job applicant say to that? Have you ever been so drunk that you didn't remember what you did? First of all, stupid question, because everybody who's been pretty drunk has memory lapses. It's pretty much a hundred percent certain that somebody who is drinking has some memory lapses. What does that job applicant do? Well, they probably lie, right? It's like, no, I've never been that drunk that I couldn't remember what I did. So if the person says that, do you just say, get out of my office? Because there's a very high chance that you're lying to me right now. I don't know for sure, but if you're telling me that you liked to drink, you drank until you were drunk, you had drinks in high school, and you're telling me now that you don't, that you can be sure you don't remember you can be sure you remember everything when you were 17 and drunk. Get out of my office. You were declined for the job. That is insane. So let's be clear about what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with taking an X percent chance that somebody did something when they were 17. That would be heinous if it was true, maybe a 10% chance. But we also know that none of that has happened as he has become the person that he is now. So if it happened, 17 year old Kavanaugh is very much a different entity than adult Kavanaugh. Do you accept that? In return for unraveling one of the key threads that keeps civilization together. My prediction is no way in hell. My prediction is that however long it takes, civilization will not give up. A primary building block, a foundational piece. If it does, we're all in big trouble. But I don't think that's going to happen. Somebody pointed me to a piece by Victor David Hanson talking about how things like this situation, the Kavanaugh situation, and other situations he mentions are suggesting that civilization is in big trouble. We're in big trouble. Things are falling apart. My God, things have never been this bad. I say baloney. There are definitely things that are bad and you know one of them from the beginning of this, this periscope. But it is also unambiguously true that we're better than we've ever been. And let me tell you, if the thing we're arguing about is what Brett Kavanaugh did when he was 17, if that's the biggest problem in the news, and apparently it is, we are in really good shape. Just take a moment, take a breath, take a deep breath. Just step back for a moment and imagine you're looking at it like an observer. And you're an observer who can go back and forth in time. So you're a time traveling observer and you go back to the mid-1940s and there's like a world war. You look at the 60s, there's marching in the streets, then you've got AIDS out of control and you've got nuclear proliferation and maybe we're all going to die. And then you Fast forward to 2018 and you look at the headlines and we're talking about what a Supreme Court nominee did in high school. Just think about it. It's pretty much the entire headlines for this week are what A Supreme Court nominee who, by the way, everyone assume he seems to be widely considered highly qualified and a good person in his current age and situation. But if that's what we're talking about. We're in good shape. Let's talk about something else. Here's what's missing from the discussion about Kavanaugh that signals that it's an illegitimate debate. Now, I think you all already know it's an illegitimate debate. It's people lining up by political parties and ideologies. That much is obvious. But here's what's missing from the debate. So here's another. The dog that didn't bark. How many of you know what happens if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade? How many of you know what happens? Because I feel like the public believes that that means that abortion would be illegal. My understanding, subject to fact checking, is that if the Supreme Court boots it, all that means is that the federal government gets out of the business of saying what's legal and illegal on abortion, and that that goes to the states. Now, if we were in the past at around the time of Roe v. Wade, having the government get the federal government get out of the abortion business would mean that it would mostly be illegal because the states would want it illegal, too. But now it's 2018. How many of the states would make it illegal? And the answer is some. I assume California wouldn't. So where I live, there would be no change. The biggest Democratic states would experience no change because their states, their states wouldn't have a chance of making it illegal. Not a chance. So you would have a country in which there were states that don't want it to be legal by majority, and they maybe wouldn't have it, and states that want it to be legal by majority, and they would have it, and people can move states. Moreover, people in the states where it's illegal will certainly 100% chance find strategies to go to a neighboring state and get it done. There may be crowdfunding. There may be charities that they help the travel. But probably abortion will be legal and safe and widely available. It probably will get harder for some states and some situations, but I'm reasonably sure that the folks who are pro choice, I guess that those folks will figure out a system to get the people who are in the states where it can't be done temporarily to the states where it can be done. Maybe some extra funding. Maybe it's. Maybe it's just, you can stay at my house. You know, maybe if you're a pro choice advocate, you have an app and you say, look, if you're in a state where you can't get one done, I live next to a clinic and I will Let you stay in my room while you're traveling and then maybe somebody else can help pay for the transportation or something. But. But I believe that the net outcome of any change in Roe v. Wade at the Supreme Court would end up being a far smaller change than the news is reporting. I can't tell you who told me that first. I wish I could. I wish I could tell you where I learned what I just learned. But I will tell you to trust me that very smart people are thinking the same thing. And why don't you see that reported on the news? Ask yourself this. Have you seen any news report that reported which states were likely to keep abortion rights just the way they are and which ones are likely to change? Have you seen that report? Because if you haven't seen that report, you are being manipulated or at least poorly served by the news. Because it's the biggest question. Abortion is really the only thing behind the Kavanaugh thing. I mean, if you come down to it, you know, people will argue it's other things too, but it's kind of abortion, right? It's kind of down to Roe v. Wade. Has your news source informed you what would happen if Roe v. Wade is overturned? They have not, they have not attempted to inform you. Now, if they had tried and done. And they hadn't done a good job, well, then I would say, well, they're trying to inform you of the right stuff. But there is no attempt, there is no attempt to show you what would happen. I would say that Fox News doesn't want to show you that. I would say that CNN doesn't want to show you that. MSNBC doesn't want to show you that. As far as I know, there's nobody who is a news source who is independent enough to show you the fucking news. And the news is what will happen if it gets overturned. Because if you don't know that, you do not have an informed opinion on this topic. Now, I think it would be fair if you said to yourself, anything that you know chews away at the right, I'm going to fight with every know ounce of my body. And I think that would be, that would be a supportable opinion. But it's, it's unforgivable that we don't have the raw information about what the states would do. All right, let's talk about something else, please. If you are, if you are defending Kavanaugh, please, please, dear God, stop saying that. When people say they don't have a memory of something that they're confirming it didn't happen. Please stop saying that because it's just embarrassing. Now I noted, you know, and I'm talking about all of the, pretty much all of the top pundits on major networks and stuff. It is not true that not having a memory of Something that happened 35 years ago is the same as saying something to happen. They're just not the same. And every time we act like they are, it just makes us look like idiots. Let's talk about. Temperament. So you've seen that the news is going after or the Kavanaugh haters are going after him for having the wrong temperament. You know, Saturday Night Live made fun of it, etc. And of course it's a ridiculous to say that because anybody in that situation has certainly has my permission to get as mad as they want to be. That has nothing to do with what he would do if he's ruling on a, you know, as if accusing. So the people on the left have made it seem like accusing somebody in public of being a sex offender exactly the same as same emotional state for the judge as if he's deciding on some, you know, technical legal matter which is the work of the Supreme Court. I don't think there's any chance that Kavanaugh has a temperament that doesn't work as a judge. Why do I say that? Because he's a frickin judge. He's been a judge for a long time. I think we'd figure out if his temperament was a problem in his judgeship. That would certainly be obvious by now. Somebody would have mentioned it. But that's not my point. My point is let us not pretend that the temperament insult is anything but an anti male attack. Just like when, and I said this yesterday, just like when men or even women call women hysterical. That's sort of a female specific word and is considered sexist. And I agree with that characterization. But would you agree with me that women don't get accused of having a bad temperament? It's because men are big and scary and too often rapists and dangerous. That temperament is even on the table because if a hundred pound woman has a bad temperament, nobody even cares. Nobody even cares because they can't hurt you. But if he has a bad temperament, we're not really talking about his judging. That's not the problem here, is it? The problem is he's large, he's male, and he might have a temperament issue that's really just sexism because he in particular has no evidence that his temperament has been an issue. All right, Mike Cernovich has reported on Twitter. And by the way, Mike, if you're watching this, thank you for your. For your thoughts on Twitter. But Mike Sertovich noted that not only did Christine Ford's social media profiles, not only did they get scrubbed before all this came out, but apparently even basic Google searches are turning up empty in ways that they wouldn't. So I don't have the details on this, but I know Mike Cernovich generally does, so I'm going to trust that his information is accurate in the sense that there's something unusual about how deeply she got scrubbed. Now, let's put some facts together. So Christine Ford is engaged in a highly political thing. And this highly political thing would have impact even on the midterms. I think everybody would agree, whichever way it goes, it's going to have a huge impact on how people vote. She has claimed that she put in a second front door to host Google interns because Google is right close to them. So we know that Christine Ford has a Google connection, indeed, Google interns living in her home or interacting in his home. And she has a political. She's in a political situation. And there is credible allegations, credible allegations, credible allegations that her Internet presence was scrubbed in a way that only somebody like Google could do. Now, is that enough information to say that the FBI should extend their. Extend their investigation to find out whether Google scrubbed her history? Because if Google did scrub her history, Google is interfering with the election. And I would say that that would be jail time for some people, probably. So I think we have to at least put on the table that the FBI should be investigating Google because of this situation. There's enough, let's say, suspicion based on the facts, that looking into this Google link with Christine Ford, given that we know Google's political leanings, we know that we have good evidence that her deep history was scrubbed in a way that only a Google could do. I would say there's plenty of evidence there to suggest an FBI probe. And if they probe, the FBI is free to ask any question. Right? Because we know that once the FBI gets in and once you're the subject of the probe, they can ask any question. And I think we should find out if Google is illegally interfering with American elections. Is that not fair, by the way? Does anybody think that isn't fair? To me, that seems completely fair. All right. And I think. Oh, there's. Speaking of fair, there's a professor named Christine Fair. You may have seen she was recently booted off of Twitter, but not before she tweeted that. What did she tweet. Let me read it to you. I think I have that handy. All right. Damn it. I thought I had that. I do not. But anyway, she tweeted something hateful about entitled white men and they should be castrated and blah, blah, blah. And the shocking thing is not that she got kicked off of Twitter. That was perfectly appropriate. The shocking thing is not that one person had an opinion. Here's the shocking thing. The shocking thing is that she thought it was okay to say that. So in order for Christine Fair, who got kicked off of Twitter, in order for her to say the hateful things she did about white men, she had to think that that was a common enough thought that it would be safe for her to say it in public. That's the scary part. Yeah. She said that white men maybe should be castrated and fed to swine. So she suggested that tortured and killed and castrated and fed to swine their testicles. So think about how far things have gone that that thought didn't seem like an inappropriate thought. We've actually gotten to the point where killing and. Yeah, killing and castrating white men feels like something you can say in public. Like, ah. How about that? All right, I think I've got enough. That's enough for today. And I'm going to talk to you tomorrow. And every day for a while now, I'm going to remind China, China, we're coming for you. We're going to come for you hard. So get ready, China.