Episode 220 Scott Adams: Puerto Rico, Creepy Porn Lawyer and Other Disasters
Date: 2018-09-14 | Duration: 42:53
Topics
Puerto Rico death toll, 18 or 3,000? Political analysis versus business analysis Puerto Rico was a disaster by design NASA says CO2 rise has caused significant greening of the earth Experts available on the Interface app by WhenHub
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 "Creepy Porn Lawyer" Chyron Incident](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8605urbw9jw&t=8s)
Hey everybody. Hey Chris, Joanne, Janet, Greg, come on in here. All of you gather around. Those of you who are moving slowly this morning, hurry up, hurry up. It’s time to get ready for the simultaneous sip. When we reach a thousand, you know what that means. Yes, you do. Grab your mug, your vessel, your glass, your cup, your chalice, and get ready for the simultaneous sip. Oh, that was a good one.
I hope you saw the funniest story of last night. Attorney Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels’ lawyer who’s also toying with a run in 2020 for president, unwisely agreed to appear on Tucker Carlson’s show. It sounded to me like part of the negotiation for appearing in what would be an unfriendly setting was that Tucker agreed not to use his insulting nickname for Avenatti. The insulting nickname, I believe, is "creepy porn lawyer."
Tucker noted that and he did not use the name. He talked to Avenatti and said, "I agreed not to use the insulting name, so I’m not going to use it." Then, whoever is in charge of the chyron—the little label that runs here—runs a chyron almost the entire time that Avenatti is on screen that says, "creepy porn lawyer toying with 2020 run."
So they bring this poor bastard on, who agrees to go into unfriendly territory under the condition that Tucker not call him by his nickname, and he spends the entire time on there underneath the label with his nickname. Now, I don't condone that, but I can't say it wasn't funny.
## [Norm Macdonald's 48-Hour Test](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8605urbw9jw&t=160s)
Norm Macdonald said something that bothered people, and then he needed to clarify and apologize. In his apology, he said something else that offended people, so he had to go on *The View* and apologize for the apology. But all of it was within 48 hours. I say, Norm Macdonald, you have passed the 48-hour test to clarify and/or apologize for what you said.
Today’s Friday, so his show should be on Netflix tonight. Everybody watch Norm Macdonald on Netflix tonight, his new show. Somebody’s asking if I’m sick—no, I just have some allergies that always bother me in the morning. They don’t bother me in the afternoon usually.
## [Citizen Reporting via the Interface App](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8605urbw9jw&t=225s)
I asked those of you who are using my startup’s app, Interface by WhenHub—it’s a free download—that if they wanted to be a citizen reporter, they could turn it on and they could be paid any amount that they decide they want to be paid. They just list it in the app. If somebody calls them, they can turn the app around if they’re near Hurricane Florence to show us some things that we wouldn’t see on the news, to give us some extra views.
I think only two people have done it so far. One I couldn’t reach today; I reached one, but we got disconnected and I decided to do the Periscope because it was time. I’ll probably try that again. But if you look for the keyword "reporter" or "Florence," you may find the same individual on the Interface by WhenHub app. If anybody else wants to go on there and they’ve got a good view of some flooding or something that would be newsworthy, just go in the app and we’ll see if we can find you. I can commit that I’ll try to call you. If you are near Florence and you can give us a view out your window from a safe place, I will call you and see what you’ve got going there.
## [Political Analysis vs. Business Analysis: Puerto Rico](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8605urbw9jw&t=325s)
The big scandal of the week is that President Trump has complained that the real death toll from the hurricane in Puerto Rico was some smallish number, or closer to 18 than the new estimate, which is 3,000. My understanding of the new estimate is that it goes beyond the people who died the day of the hurricane and uses statistics to say that in a normal period, this is how many people die in Puerto Rico, but during this period, an X larger number of people died. A lot of that is being attributed to the aftermath of the hurricane—no electricity, no services, maybe people couldn’t get medical care, maybe there were more accidents. The idea is that the hurricane caused a number of deaths because it took so long to recover from it.
Here’s my take on it. The big controversy is that the President is denying the 3,000 number, saying it’s closer to 18. We know the President likes to exaggerate a little bit and use a little hyperbole. Let’s say that when the President says "less than 18," if you translate that to non-Trump language, it means "fewer than 100." So, the President in essence is claiming fewer than a hundred people were killed directly by the hurricane, while the official government toll and what you're seeing on CNN is that it’s closer to 3,000.
How do we explain that? It’s the difference between a businessperson and a political person. The political number is 3,000. I’m going to assume that they counted it correctly as an estimate. It sounds like a reasonably good way to estimate something, so I’m going to say that 3,000 is somewhere in the ballpark as a responsible estimate. But it’s a political estimate.
Trump’s frame on the world is business. In the business frame, how many people died in Puerto Rico from the hurricane? Fewer than 100. How can both of those things be true?
In a political sense, you're looking for who to blame. Whose fault is it? You saw the same thing with why Hillary lost the election. How many times did you see somebody say Hillary lost the election because of X? No, it was because of Y, or Z, or A, B, C, and D. There were a hundred things that were the reason Hillary lost. The real answer is there was no one reason. There were hundreds of them, and if all of those hundreds of reasons had not happened just the way they did, she probably would have won. If you were to take away just the "deplorables" comment, or take away just the comment about women, or take away just what she said about some other topic—there were hundreds of things that had to happen just the way they happened for Hillary to lose.
The business analysis of why Hillary lost is that a hundred things happened, and they all had to happen just the way they happened. The political analysis picks one reason and blames it on that. They say, "Oh, it’s because there are a lot of racists in the Republican side." But that’s just one of the variables. A political analysis picks one out of the hundred that will sound the best when you say it.
## [Puerto Rico: A Disaster by Design](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8605urbw9jw&t=705s)
Was there one reason, meaning the hurricane, that 3,000 people died who might not have otherwise died? The President’s critics would say it’s two things: the hurricane plus the inadequate response. Those are political reasons.
Here’s a business reason. A businessperson would say there were many variables which caused these people to die, and they include terrible management by the locals and bad government by the locals. Had they had good government, a robust infrastructure, more preparation, better emergency response, and more coordination with FEMA—had they been more prepared earlier—there would have been a different result.
It wasn’t just a hurricane. If the hurricane had come through and Puerto Rico was nailed down—they were ready, their economy was screaming, they had agreed to become part of the United States, their tourism was hopping, they were knocking down the old sheds and building new ones hardened according to local codes—the result would be different. Everybody on the island knows they live in a hurricane zone. If they had excellent government and high economic output to withstand it, they would communicate with the people, people would go to designated shelters, they would hunker down, and the loss of life would be zero.
Is the problem that 3,000 people died because of the wind and the water? Well, that was a necessary condition of the specific way they died, but it’s not the reason. The political reason is you reach into all these things and you pick out the one thing that makes your opponent look like a jerk. 3,000 people probably did die, but not because the wind was heavy—because they weren't ready.
Let's say I rent a helicopter, go out over the ocean, and jump out with no parachute. I hit the water, I'm unconscious from the impact, and I drown. What caused my death? Was it the gravity? Was it my depression? Was it the impact? Was it the drowning? Was it the lack of rescue? Was it the height that I jumped from? All of those things had to happen for that specific result. It wasn’t one of those things; it was all of those things.
It is quite reasonable from a business framework to say it wasn't one thing that killed those 3,000 people. It was the bad preparation, the bad government, the level of response—no matter who you blame that on. Was it FEMA? Was it the locals who couldn't use the stuff FEMA had? Was it their lack of preparation? Was it that their power infrastructure was bad because they had a bad economy? All of those things had to happen.
90 percent of the cause was in place before the wind even started blowing. It was a disaster by its design, and that design came from the leaders. The leadership of Puerto Rico designed a disaster situation that was guaranteed to be destroyed in a hurricane. Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz and other political leaders collectively have to take 85% of the blame in a general sense.
When I put it in this framework of the business analysis versus the political analysis, did that ring true? Does it make sense?
## [The Alternate Universe of Political News](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8605urbw9jw&t=1260s)
A hurricane hit in Wilmington, and I believe the death toll will be low. Why? Because there was a different level of preparation, a different situation, and different management.
Apparently, Kirsten Powers of CNN said that Trump supporters live in an alternate universe where the Puerto Rican disaster never happened. Of course, that’s hyperbole; she doesn't mean it literally. But what she's saying is that they’re experiencing an alternate universe. That’s half right.
When somebody says that the people in the other news silo are in an alternate universe, it would be more accurate to use my analogy of "two movies on one screen." When you say there are two movies on one screen, you are not indicating that one of them is the right one. But when you say the other side is in an alternate universe, you’re saying, "Well, we’re in reality and they’re in non-reality." That is a low level of awareness. The higher level of awareness is to realize that you’re both in an artificial reality.
Both sides are experiencing different universes, and I don’t think either one of them is "real" in the sense that they correspond perfectly to physical reality. They both seem artificial to me.
Which side is crazier? There is one side that’s usually crazier, but it seems to me that the side that’s in power—in this case, Republicans—is less crazy because they’re in power. Reality works out well if you’re getting the stuff you want: your judges, your economy, etc. You don’t need to imagine a different world. The group that’s in power is experiencing something a little bit closer to the facts. The side that is out of power is crazy for the entire time they are out of power. I think the situation is reversed from when Obama was in power and the birthers and other crazy stuff was happening on the right. Right now, Trump Derangement Syndrome is really just the same thing as Obama Derangement Syndrome. It’s not the side that’s crazy; it’s whether or not you’re in power at the moment.
## [NASA, CO2, and Global Greening](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8605urbw9jw&t=1575s)
I retweeted Jordan Peterson’s tweet on that NASA story about how the earth is becoming greener. There’s way more greenery over the last 35 years, and it’s very substantial. They estimate 70 percent of it was based on higher CO2. CO2 is good for fertilizing plants.
Here’s the thing I’m having trouble understanding: which one of the climate models predicted that? I’m not willing to say none of them did because I don’t know the answer, but if they did predict it, why didn't NASA mention it in the story? Always look for the negative space. NASA is talking about CO2 and climate change. If there’s been a major change in greening caused by CO2, how do you do that story and not mention that the models said it would happen?
Could it be because the models don’t predict that? And if they don't, aren't they missing an enormous variable? I'm not saying the greening would be enough to compensate for any warming, but I don't understand how you go through such a period of things being better on the way to things being worse. Is it possible the Sahara starts greening? What would happen if things just got greener? Would the world be worse off? At what point does it become dangerous for humans at the same time it’s great for plants? Who is more sensitive—humans, who can adapt and wear jackets and use air conditioning, or plants? I actually don’t know the answer, but I have questions.
## [Experts and Cryptocurrency on the Interface App](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8605urbw9jw&t=1874s)
If anybody wants to be on my app, Interface by WhenHub, please do that. I looked at a number of people who are using it. We’ve got a senior elderly advisor, a professional skier who can coach you, a life coaching conversation, and parenting of special needs. You can learn to play drums or guitar. There's a citizen video journalist who will turn on their phone if you call them. You can learn about cryptocurrencies.
There's somebody who promises to explain why people voted for Trump—which is actually a really good idea because if you watched that Google video, there was a whole room full of people at Google who just didn't understand how Trump won. There's somebody teaching music, green buildings, Photoshop, business in Asia, Microsoft Excel, DJing, and appliance repair. There’s an Arabic-English interpreter. There's Jewish studies, startup funding, landscape, and traveling in Israel. There's even someone with experience in opiate addiction and treatment. Donovan Loomis, who I talked to on Periscope, is an expat living in Korea, so he’s a Korea expert.
Please explain the money exchange on Interface? I’ll give you the quick version. You’ll be able to trade the WHEN, which is the token that works within the app, on an exchange. If you don’t know anything about cryptocurrency, you can ignore all of it and just use your credit card to pay in regular fiat money.
You can trade our own tokens within the app and then exchange them on LAToken.com for other currencies like Ethereum or Bitcoin. Then you could take it to something like Coinbase to change it to cash. The more people who use the app, the more liquid everything gets. There’s a correlation between how many people use the app and how valuable the WHEN tokens are.
Does the app allow PayPal? Not yet. As long as people buy tokens, that will provide financing for the team to continue upgrading the product. Is this similar to Google Hangouts? Google Hangouts doesn't have a way to make money. Interface allows you to set your own price for the connection. If you have any reason to charge for your time during a video call, you just set your price.
We do take cash now. The last upgrade added a credit card option. However, we take a cut and the bank takes a cut, so it ends up being about 20% out of the expert's cut. If they take crypto, they keep the whole thing, but they accept the risk that the crypto value is variable.
How do you make money on this? When people make calls using their credit card, the startup takes a cut. We don't take a cut if you use the WHEN tokens, but because we own those tokens as founders, if other people use them and it establishes a value, the tokens we hold go up in value.
Who owns the content? The content is not recorded. It is live video, like a phone call. We don't hold your content nor do we see it. Talk about Kavanaugh? Well, there's some magical accusation against Kavanaugh, but we don't know what that is yet, so I’m going to wait and see.
How does law enforcement monitor WhenHub? No comment, but it’s a private transaction. If they wanted to monitor it, I suppose law enforcement can do anything they want, but it’s intended to be a private conversation. It’s as private as any digital communication could be, meaning nobody has a reason or the capability to look at it, but nobody can say that can't change in the future if the government demands it. It is not recorded or stored. It’s just like a phone call—exactly like FaceTime or Skype.
That’s enough for now. I’ve gotta go do something else, and you should too. I’ll talk to you later.