Episode 219 Scott Adams: Google, Woodward, Jamie Dimon, Norm McDonald
Date: 2018-09-13 | Duration: 32:32
Topics
The casualness of Google’s stated need to change future outcomes Evaluating the handling of Puerto Rico’s disaster recovery The unintended consequence of 90% black votes for Obama Woodward avoids opportunity to say “worse than Watergate” Vague word salad of the anti-Trumpers Dale prepares a delicious word salad
I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com
## Transcript
## [The Simultaneous Sip and Hurricane Florence](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnIbgL-DvWU&t=7s)
Buh-bup-bum-bum-bum-bum. Hey Joanne, hello Melton, hello whatever that name is. Come on in here, gather round. It's time. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams. It's your favorite time of the day. It's the time you look forward to. You probably already have your beverage ready—your mug, your cup, your vessel, your chalice, your glass with your beverage. Could it be coffee? It might be. It's time for the Simultaneous Sip. Join me.
Well, it looks like the hurricane is disappointing the news organizations by being only a mid-sized, major, life-threatening disaster, so that probably took some of the steam out of the storm chasers. But we're glad it's smaller than it needs to be. I'm going to make a note about something you just said there.
## [Norm Macdonald’s New Netflix Show](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnIbgL-DvWU&t=69s)
I've got a few topics. You may know that comedian Norm Macdonald has said a few things that got people buzzing, and then when he tried to clarify it, he said something else that got people buzzing again. Now, I'm not going to repeat any of the things that Norm said, because then people get on me for saying the same things. But I will say this: his new talk show on Netflix debuts on Friday. I'm definitely watching that. So, Friday, Netflix, Norm Macdonald—you should really check that out. I've got a feeling that's going to be really good. I'll definitely be watching.
## [Jamie Dimon vs. Trump’s Persuasion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnIbgL-DvWU&t=133s)
Now you saw that banker Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan said in some kind of a speech that he could beat Trump if he ran for president. Trump, of course, batted him back and said that he's a nervous-looking speaker, which is one of Trump's best getting-in-your-head plays. He tells his opponents that they're nervous, which makes them look nervous, and everybody's looking for their nervousness. It's a hilariously effective thing to say that people don't really say in public.
When he started saying that about Rubio—you remember when he was basically saying those things about Rubio—I thought, "Oh my God, I would hate it if somebody said that about me." Imagine you're running for president and you're concerned or nervous about how you look because you're running for president, and the very first frame that somebody puts on you is "nervous." Yeah, he's just sort of nervous, and I'm confident. It's hilariously effective.
## [The 2020 Democratic Field](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnIbgL-DvWU&t=196s)
Then Jamie Dimon apparently took it back. He said he didn't mean it that way. I think he said he shouldn't have said he should run for president. He clarified by saying that he could never get nominated because the progressives would never nominate him. I thought to myself, well, that's absolutely true. I don't see Democrats nominating a white male for president, do you? This seems—I mean, anything's possible—but in 2018 and beyond, I think that boat has sailed.
The Democratic Party has largely become the female party. Obviously, there are plenty of men in it, but in terms of their priorities, in terms of who they're likely to have as a candidate, and in terms of who they're likely to support for a leader, the top two people on the list of power candidates are Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. Cory Booker probably had a chance until he gave himself his own permanent "Spartacus" moment, so Spartacus probably is not going to make it to the final two.
Between Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, assuming that their skill levels are kind of similar, I don't see how Warren can be the nominee. Here's why: in order for the Democrats to win, they have to have something like 90-plus percentage of the African-American vote. Running a white candidate probably keeps some people home. Kamala has got enough ethnic interest going on there that you might get people to vote. It seems to me that the Left almost has to end up with Kamala Harris. It's too early to say, lots could happen between now and then, there could be surprises, etc. But if you're just straight-lining it and there were no new surprises, I'd say Kamala Harris would be the candidate. They don't have a chance with anybody else, I don't think, and they probably don't have a chance with her either, but she might be the strongest. I'd have to see more of her in public to be sure about that.
## [The Leaked Google Meeting Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnIbgL-DvWU&t=322s)
All right, so that's one. Did everybody see the Google video from 2016 in which the management team was having a full staff, or I guess an open staff meeting, with a big group of people right after the election? If you haven't seen it, it lasts around an hour. It's worth watching the whole thing. It's an exclusive that Breitbart got somehow.
To me, the whole thing was jaw-dropping. If you've lived in one version of the movie, as I call it—I've said that on Election Day the world split into two movies, but they were playing on the same screen at the same time—and if you've only seen the "happy that Trump got elected" movie and you haven't actually spent time looking at the other movie, you really have to see this. It will change your entire impression of what's going on. It did for me.
Now you might say to yourself, "Okay, I already know that the tech people wanted Hillary Clinton. I already know that they're not going to be happy that she lost." You think to yourself you already know what that video is going to be about, right? That's what I thought, because we've all seen the videos of the people crying when Hillary lost, we see the people screaming at the sky, we've seen the protesters. We think we know what that mindset was like. But you don't know until you watch this video.
Here's what was just jaw-dropping about it for me: to watch the leaders of one of the biggest companies in the world, one of the biggest public companies in the world, the entire leadership team in front of an auditorium full of employees, speaking as though there could not possibly be any Trump supporters in that room. Hundreds of employees, maybe, but they spoke as though it's obvious that there would be no Trump supporters in that room, and if there were, they would not be appreciated. Nobody said those words, but it was very clear that if you were a Trump supporter in that room, you kept your freaking head down, because they made it very clear you were not welcome.
I've never seen anything like that in a corporate environment. The big companies that I worked for were a big public bank and a big phone company. If you had said anything like what those executives said in those companies, I'm pretty sure you would have been removed from your job. Could somebody at IBM stand up and say, "Man, it's a tragedy that this president got elected," and make it seem that anybody who supported that candidate was an inferior human being in some way? Because that's pretty much what that meeting was about. That's how it came across to me.
Then the next jaw-dropping part is there was a sort of casualness to the fact that they needed to change things. I don't know how to say this to get all the importance across because it was so casual. Google was talking about changing the result next time because they didn't like this result. Now, the way they talked about it, and the reason it was casual, is because they were talking about it in terms of improving the tools. You say to yourself, "Well, of course you want to improve the search tools, you want to get rid of the fake news." On some level, those things were all things we all agree with, right?
But the way they talked about it was that they were going to make changes to get a different political outcome. That felt like what they assumed was the right thing to do. Oh my God, the casual evil that I don't think anybody in that room would have regarded as evil. In fact, they would have regarded it as the opposite of evil because they would have said, "We want the process to be more fair, to match our values, to get a good outcome for the world." I don't think that they had evil self-intentions. In other words, they would not have labeled their own actions anything like evil; it would have been exactly the opposite of that.
But the result of how casually they talked about their ability to change the outcome of the election, and how they were unhappy—deeply unhappy, like weeping unhappy in one case—that should scare the pants off of you. And if you don't have pants, put some pants on so that they can be scared off of you. It seems to me that this video moves the needle. Most news doesn't really change stuff, but this one really feels like it changed something. If you don't see it, you can't really understand the depth of the feeling that allows them to talk casually about changing the outcome of future elections with their tools. That's scary.
## [Evaluating Puerto Rico’s Disaster Recovery](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnIbgL-DvWU&t=755s)
Somebody asked me to talk about the "hoax" of the three thousand deaths. I think you're talking about Puerto Rico. There's some kind of controversy about whether it's true that three thousand people died or whether that number is accurate. I don't have any information on that. I just wanted to note that I saw it, but I don't think it's productive to argue about whether that number is accurate. I don't think that moves the ball forward in any way. Whether it's a thousand or three thousand, it's kind of the same situation.
Here's the problem with evaluating Puerto Rico. Let me give you a little economics lesson—the most basic economic lesson anybody ever had. If you say to yourself, "Puerto Rico was handled poorly in terms of the hurricane," and that's it, you are not good at analyzing things. If you say that Puerto Rico was handled well, you are not good at analyzing things. There are two things that you can rule out as reasonable opinions. The first thing you can rule out is that the Puerto Rico disaster recovery was handled well. You can rule that out. That's not a reasonable opinion. You can also rule out the opposite. You can rule out that it was handled poorly. You can also rule out that it was handled in between.
Does anybody know why? I'm not saying that those things are not true or false; I'm saying that they're not reasonable opinions. Not because it's both, not because there are too many variables. Oh my goodness, nobody knows the answer to this question? This is shocking. It's one of the reasons I'll have a chapter in my book about this.
Yes, thank you, we have a winner. Somebody had the correct answer. If you have studied economics, or really any field in which you learn to compare things or analyze things, the only way you could judge whether the Puerto Rico disaster program was effective or ineffective, well-managed or poorly-managed, is if you had two Puerto Ricos, and one was managed one way and the other was managed the other way.
Wait, is two enough? No, it's not. You would need lots of Puerto Ricos, and you would need each of them to be managed in a different way at exactly the same time, as if the other ones didn't exist. Then you'd be able to say, "Given all the variables stayed the same, you can see that this management approach worked and this one didn't." Now you have an opinion. Had that happened, and you had an opinion that it was either good or bad, that would be an actual valid opinion. It would be based on facts. It would be based on a comparison that made sense.
Was there a second Puerto Rico? No. If you're saying, "What about the hurricane that just happened in Texas? There were a lot more white people there, right, so they got better service." Texas wasn't Puerto Rico. Texas happened first. What if the order had been reversed? Would Puerto Rico have gotten a better response because it was first, before FEMA got overwhelmed? Did that make a difference? How about the fact that it was on an island? How about the fact that the government and the infrastructure of Puerto Rico were different than Texas? Do all of those things matter? Of course they matter a lot.
So if you have an opinion that Puerto Rico was handled poorly, you're dumb. If you have an opinion that Puerto Rico was handled well, you're dumb. Now, it might be more the case that you're uninformed or you're uneducated on how to compare things, but if you learn how to compare things, you would understand that it is not an adult, well-informed opinion for us—who weren't there, especially—to say that Puerto Rico was handled well or that it was handled poorly. That opinion can't reasonably be formed with what we, the public, know. And even the government probably couldn't give you an opinion. I would even go further: even FEMA, the people who were actually there, they probably can't tell you either, because they also were not involved in any other Puerto Rico that happened at the same time. Nobody can compare it. You can say there were problems, but every disaster is going to have problems. You just can't compare.
## [The Unintended Consequence of Racial Voting](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnIbgL-DvWU&t=1072s)
I'm working on a hypothesis I want to run by you. I don't think I've ever talked about this before. It's a little provocative, so I'm going to try to be careful about how I word it. I'm more interested in your opinion than mine, because it's a hypothesis about how you feel.
It seemed to me that if you looked at the history of the United States, there was an agreed contract—sort of an unwritten contract in civilization, or let's say just society within the United States. That contract went like this, at least in recent decades: our government was elected to represent all of us. It didn't matter what your ethnicity was, didn't matter your gender. So it didn't matter who ran, didn't matter what the ethnicity or the gender of the person who ran was, because that was the deal. They were going to take care of all of us.
And sure enough, when you saw who voted for each candidate, you could find that some ethnic groups would be weighted more for one candidate than the other, but that alone is not a reason for concern, because you could imagine that one candidate had programs that were more logical for one group or the other. Still, the votes would be largely distributed. Maybe 60/40, but there were votes on both sides.
When President Obama ran the first time and he got whatever the number is, north of 90 percent of the African-American vote, it made perfect sense for African-American voters to prefer him because you wanted to make sure that somebody who looked like you could get elected. You wanted to break that glass ceiling, if you will. You wanted to get some racial understanding. There was some pride. There were lots of good reasons to vote for Obama if you were black. He was qualified, he was a Democrat—there are lots of good reasons. Of course, plenty of white people voted for him. I supported him as well at the time. I also was influenced by the fact that I thought it was just time. It was just time to get a black president, check that box off, and maybe the country would be better off from it.
My thought was then it would be a real positive step for race relations. To me, it seemed like the country just needs to get past this and then we can really understand that we can all get elected president. Once you think that everybody can get elected president, that should make us all feel a little better about each other, right?
But what happened—and I would say this is an unintended consequence—was because the 95 percent or so African-American voters voted for him because he was black. Now, if you ask them, they would probably say they like his policies too, but the way it looked to the observers—who might be right or might be wrong—it looked like the special American contract that I talked about was broken. You see where I'm going with this? It looked like the unspoken contract that makes America work—the fact that we're not voting for people because of their race or their gender—the contract got broken.
When the contract was broken, it was broken. I believe that allowed a lot of white supporters of Trump later to say, "I think we can just vote for him because he's white." I believe that it also allowed some Trump supporters to say, "I think we can just vote for him because he's a man." I don't think that was a big factor, actually. I don't think I ever heard even one Trump supporter talk about Hillary's gender, honest to God, except as a joke. I think gender really wasn't part of it.
But here's the hypothesis: all the good intentions that were behind voting for President Obama had an unintended consequence of breaking the social contract. When one ethnicity broke pretty much just for race, it kind of made people of other races say, "Wait a minute, did you just line up with a different framework?" Because the framework we had was "America." America was the team. Are you saying you're on another team? There's a black team, and now there's a white team? I feel like it broke a contract somehow.
I don't know that there's any point to that except to say that it certainly determines what 2020 looks like. In 2020, there will be people voting for President Trump who are voting for the American team, and there will be people voting for Kamala Harris, I'm guessing, and it may be along racial lines. The reason that I think it has to be Kamala Harris is because if the Democrats can't hold the black vote, they don't really have a party. They don't have to lose much of the black vote in order to lose. So if they run another white woman after the last white woman lost, there are going to be a lot of black folks saying, "We just threw our vote away here." But if you give them a racially interesting character, maybe you get more votes.
## [Woodward, Watergate, and the Facts](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnIbgL-DvWU&t=1509s)
Another topic: have you noticed—I was just watching an interview, I tweeted this—Anderson Cooper interviewing Bob Woodward. As you know, Bob Woodward was part of the reporting team years ago with Carl Bernstein who wrote about Watergate and broke that story. I have teased Carl Bernstein for being the one that they trot out to ask, "Is this worse than Watergate?" It's sort of a running joke that whenever CNN needs a story and there's not much happening, they trot Carl Bernstein out to say that whatever Trump is doing this week is worse than Watergate. And then we all laugh because he's the guy they bring out to say it's worse than Watergate.
So, his partner from back in the day, Woodward, has got this new book saying negative things about the president. Anderson Cooper is like, "I know it's apples to oranges, but would you say that what's happening in the White House now is worse than Watergate?" Woodward, unlike Bernstein, who I think has lost a step, does not take the bait. It was the easiest thing to say for Woodward to just say, "Yeah, it's worse than Watergate in its own way." But instead, Woodward, to his credit, stuck with the facts. He said, "Well, Nixon was about an actual criminal act. That was about actual crime." Woodward noted that no crime has so far surfaced in anything about President Trump, so they are apples and oranges. Woodward avoided the invitation to say that it was worse than Watergate, which to me was hilarious.
## [The Word Salad of Anti-Trump Rhetoric](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnIbgL-DvWU&t=1692s)
It also raised this following observation. I've noticed this on social media but also in the news. Have you noticed that the complaints about President Trump have turned into vague word salad mind-reading? "Something might go wrong in the future." "What if something happens?" "What if we were to find out something?" Just vague word salad.
Here are some of the words to give you an example: "Unhinged." Sort of hard to define, isn't it? It's one of those words that you could call anybody at any given moment. "Impulsive." Again, a little hard to define. Impulsive meaning what? And his impulsiveness caused us what problem? The GDP went down how much because of his impulsiveness? Sort of vague, right?
I also hear that he's "alienating our allies." Alienating them to attack us? Alienating them to give us better trade deals? Alienating them to drop out of NATO? Oh no, they're just paying more to be in NATO. Again, a vague thing. How about he's "kowtowing to dictators"? Kowtowing to dictators by getting Kim Jong Un to stop testing nuclear weapons and talk to us about one of the biggest peace events that would ever happen? Is that what you're talking about? Going in the right direction? Or working with Putin because there's no choice—he has a nuclear arsenal and a lot of our interests are overlapping? Was that the problem?
In this latest interview with Woodward and Anderson Cooper, apparently in Woodward's book, he says that there's something like a "nervous breakdown of authority" in the White House. What does that mean? What is a nervous breakdown of authority?
With all of this word salad, I thought that I would show you—I'm going to invite a special guest. Dale? Dale, are you busy? Dale, can you come over here? I want to share with the people how to prepare a word salad. Could you show that for us? All right, I'll leave so you can come in.
"Hello, my name is Dale and I do not like President Trump. I'm here to show you how to make a word salad. Are you ready? You start with two dashes of unhinged and a little impulsiveness for flavor. You add in a little bit of alienating his allies, kowtowing to dictators, and a nervous breakdown of the management in the White House. Now you mix them all together and you eat a delicious word salad. It doesn't taste good, but I have to eat it because I don't like the president. Word salad like a fullback! Well, I hate the president."
Well, that is some nasty word salad right there. The things I do for you. Don't say I don't go the extra mile. Add a dash of Don Lemon. Damn it, Janet, I wish you'd said that before; that would have been exactly the right line. Now, what are the odds that we're not living in a simulation, and yet the biggest critic who is sour on the president is named Lemon? Isn't he kind of sour on the president? His name is Lemon. Just a coincidence.
All right, I think we've covered everything that needs to be covered, and that's all for now. I will talk to you all later.