Episode 250 Scott Adams: Civil Unrest, North Korea and Rehab City
Date: 2018-10-07 | Duration: 49:40
Topics
Gun control for registered Democrats? Would Dems vote for that? Raise postal fees from China, to pay for Fentanyl fighting tech? North Korean progress is looking really good Global warming, strong versus weak arguments
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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7lZNmr4FT8&t=8s)
Jo-ann, you are so quick with the fingers, always one of the first, sometimes the first. Nicholas, you're pretty fast too. Andrew, Arden, Duke, Dave, Karen, Jimmy—come on in here. We have reached the 1,000 mark. You know what that means. It means it's time for the simultaneous sip. Yes, it is. Grab your mug, your coffee, your vessel, your chalice, bring it up to your lips. I hope it has coffee in it, but anything else is fine too. Now it's time for the simultaneous sip. That's a good sip.
Thank you to those of you who are sending prayers and good wishes. For those of you who don't know, I held a funeral—well, I was part of a funeral yesterday—for my stepson who died from an opioid overdose. He was 18 years old. We'll talk about that now.
## [Fentanyl and China](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7lZNmr4FT8&t=68s)
It turns out that most fentanyl comes from China. There are these illegal drug labs in China that are cranking out the fentanyl and sending it to the United States, where the local drug dealers have their own pill presses. They mix up the fentanyl from China, put it in pills, and it kills people like my stepson.
I saw a suggestion on Twitter that I don't know if it's a good suggestion—it's probably not a good suggestion—but I'm going to put it out there anyway. This is just brainstorming, so don't put this in the category of things I think are a good idea. This is just an idea; maybe you can tell me if it's good.
Apparently, part of the new opioid addiction fighting law that has been passed by Congress—I believe Rand Paul was instrumental in that, and it's going to the President's desk—includes funding for technology to sniff out this fentanyl in the Postal Service. In other words, if China is mailing stuff to the United States containing fentanyl, there's some technology that would allow us to detect it. I like that part.
## [Increasing China's Postal Fees](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7lZNmr4FT8&t=192s)
Somebody made the following suggestion, and I want you to tell me what's wrong with it. You have to understand that we're already in a trade dispute with China, so this would be an extension of that. Somebody suggested that we jack up the postal fees for any parcels or letters coming in from China. I don't know how international postal fees are set, but I assume that the receiving country gets to decide what the fee is for the sending country.
If we could jack up our postal fees for any parcels coming in from China, we could use that money to fund this technology for checking their mail. Now, if you're saying to yourself, "Well, money isn't the problem," or "Let’s not throw that into the mix," you're missing the point. Here's the point: I want to see at least one tariff on China that really gets a lot of attention. Jacking up the postal fees would, because the public understands postal fees.
The point would be to draw attention to China as the biggest fentanyl abuser, perhaps killing as many as 30,000 Americans per year. 30,000 people a year killed by stuff that comes in the mail from China—fentanyl in particular. If we were to say we're in this broader trade war anyway, but on top of that, we're going to jack up the postal prices from China just to deal with this one issue, it focuses like a laser on the shame of China.
Right now, we're saying, "China, your trade deals are unfair, and we'd like you to change them." When you say stuff like that, it makes China sound kind of awesome, doesn't it? It sounds like China has better trade deals than we do. It doesn't make them sound like losers; it makes them sound like winners. They'll probably lose in the long run, but at the moment, it's almost a compliment to say their deals are better than our deals.
We need to change that specifically for this topic. Let's jack up their postal rates. I don't know if this is a practical idea, but jacking it up would create a laser-like focus on the shame and the loss of face in China for allowing this situation to continue. We do assume that the government in China has more control over these illegal labs than they're exerting.
I'd like to see us jack up our postal rates for China and make a big deal about it. It’s the publicity that’s the important part, not the extra money. It would be impossible to miss that connection. It would be a huge headline and would focus the brand of China on the thing that is actually the most important thing right now. Even counting North Korea—no, it's more important than North Korea. If you're looking at just the number of dead, the fentanyl thing is probably more important than North Korea right now in terms of a risk-reward thing.
## [The Rehab City Concept](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7lZNmr4FT8&t=436s)
Here's another suggestion. I've been working with Bill Pulte on the Blight Authority. The Blight Authority is Bill's nonprofit that bulldozes and removes blighted inner-city properties and takes them down to bare land. I'm helping Bill try to get some attention on new ideas—things we could do with that blighted land that would make it productive.
I had a suggestion to build a "rehab city"—a city within a city. It's more than just one house or one facility; it's an actual community, almost like Vatican City but within a city. Inner cities have enormous problems with drugs. My experience with fentanyl and opioid addiction is that the best way to think of this is almost like a zombie apocalypse. If you've ever seen anybody who's on Xanax—which is usually fake Xanax—they are essentially zombies. Even though they're walking and talking, even if you know them, you don't see any part of their original personality. They become the drug.
Once you have the "virus"—I'm using that in a literary way—once you're addicted to the opioids, the only thing that matters is whether you can keep them physically away from the supply for a long time. If you had a rehab city—a high-security place that has more than just a few houses, with commerce, training, and schools—it keeps this population away from opioids long enough that they have a chance of reintegrating into society.
Believe it or not, the biggest problem with doing stuff like this is people saying, "Rehab city is a bad idea." Again, these are just ideas. What you'll find is that there are plenty of people who have money and want to help. There's actually an oversupply of billionaires who would literally like to do something useful with their money, but what they lack are serviceable, practical ideas.
One of the things the Gates Foundation does so brilliantly is solve that problem for Bill Gates and other billionaires. The Gates Foundation doesn't just give money to charities; it does the hard work of figuring out the best thing to do with that money. The problem is figuring out what to do. The problem is not money, it's not willingness, and it’s not knowing what the problems are.
## [Protests as Cathartic Theater](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7lZNmr4FT8&t=622s)
Let's talk about the unrest. Regarding the Kavanaugh situation, are any of you worried that this unrest will lead to some kind of a broader meltdown in society? My take is that we're not even close to anything like that. There's no real risk of that.
The protests we've seen so far, I would label as "cathartic theater." People are protesting because the current situation feels bad to them, and protesting feels good. They don't have a productive way to vent their feelings, so the protest allows them to express those feelings in a theatrical way. I don't mean theatrical in a negative way; if it helps people get their feelings out, maybe that's good.
To me, it looks like a safety valve. You've seen the people dressing up; most of the protests have some form of theater, sign, or costume. Even the protesters who are verbally attacking people in restaurants or trapping senators in elevators—when you see the video, it feels like theater because they are acting for the camera. I would not be too worried that what you're seeing turns into some kind of civil war.
## [The Political Warming Analogy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7lZNmr4FT8&t=746s)
I would say this: we have a system that pretty much guarantees that everything of major political interest will turn into this. Let me give you an analogy. The fight over Kavanaugh, and really every political fight these days, is a little like climate change. This might be the worst analogy you've ever heard, and I'm not even done yet.
The idea behind climate change is that global warming is going to create superstorms, huge droughts, and disasters. It's not just that the temperature goes up, but that it causes flooding over here or hurricanes over there.
The current form of politics is like "political warming." The current business model for the media is to get you as worked up as possible. It didn't used to be the case that the job of the news was to make you angry. The job was to tell you what's happening in an objective way. Now, the business model has changed because we can measure the impact of every action. If one network tries something and it works, they measure it, the other networks see it, and suddenly they all have to do that thing.
The news is now competing to see how much they can jack up your emotions. Instead of presenting information, the media model has evolved into something designed just to get you excited. Like global warming, everything that happens in politics from now on will look like this, regardless of who is president. You could replace President Trump with anyone, and it would look the same because the business model remains.
## [The Resilience of the American System](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7lZNmr4FT8&t=989s)
The good news is that our system can take a lot of this because it's mostly "cathartic theater" increase. People are not picking up weapons. The left is not arming itself; they’re trying to use every legal maneuver they can. When I see the left using every scheming legal maneuver, you have to balance that against the fact that the right also uses every scheming legal maneuver they can. I'm not sure that's bad, because it stress tests our system.
One of the things I like about the American flag is that you can destroy it. You can burn it, you can tarnish it, and when you're done, the American flag is stronger. If you destroy it in public, it gets stronger because everybody who watches says, "That's our system. You just confirmed the power of the flag—that you can burn it right in front of the public and you don't go to jail for that."
When I watch the protests, I see stress testing, but the system is really strong. It's partly the Constitution and it's partly the way we've been socialized. I'm pretty optimistic about the system. But you should expect "political warming" forever, until the business model of the media changes. What you think is Trump Derangement Syndrome is just derangement syndrome. If you replaced him with a generic Republican or a generic Democrat, we would still be in a permanent cycle of warming in politics. There will be bigger hurricanes and bigger cyclones.
But guess what? The earth gets stronger. When a hurricane wipes out a town, we build it back stronger. Look at the tragedy in Puerto Rico. We know that many people died and the infrastructure was smashed. But Puerto Rico is part of America, and we deal with these things the same way every time. You can flatten Puerto Rico, but we're going to build it back stronger. I wouldn't worry too much about the fate of the world; we're pretty good at this stuff.
## [Flipping the Temperament Argument](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7lZNmr4FT8&t=1237s)
The President very cleverly tweeted yesterday: "You don't hand matches to an arsonist, and you don't give power to an angry left-wing mob. Democrats have become too extreme and too dangerous to govern. Republicans believe in the rule of law, not the rule of the mob. Vote Republican."
One of my favorite techniques the President uses is that if there's an attack the other side is using that's gaining traction, he'll take the gun out of their hand and turn it around. The traction they were getting was calling Kavanaugh’s temperament into question. The President has taken that and flipped it. He’s saying they are an angry mob, too extreme and dangerous, and they don't like the rule of law. That gets right at temperament.
## [Gun Control for Registered Democrats?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7lZNmr4FT8&t=1423s)
Now, let me show you how to hold the cat, by the way. If you've never tried to hold a cat that doesn't like to be held, this is how you do it. You put your hand here—back hand on the butt, front hand right against the chest bone. This cat, Boo, normally does not like to be held, but she goes completely limp like this. It's her favorite thing in the world.
As I was saying, somebody on Twitter suggested that since Democrats seem to have a temperament problem and they are also anti-gun, we should put those two together. Somebody suggested that we pass a law that Democrats can't own guns.
The first time you hear that, you say, "That's a ridiculous joke idea." But here's what's so funny: if you're a Democrat, don't you believe that some gun control is better than none? If you were to say to a Democrat, "Let's be completely rational. Republicans will never give up their guns, but you believe that more guns is worse. So why don't we start where we can all agree? We all agree that if you're a registered Democrat, you shouldn't have a gun."
Would Democrats disagree with gun control for Democrats? It's an interesting argument because, on one hand, it's ridiculous to make laws that only affect people who voluntarily signed up for a party. But on the other hand, it’s what they want. This is one of those rare situations where a group of the public is advocating to reduce their own rights.
The gun control people are advocating to limit their own rights of gun ownership. They’d like to limit everybody else's rights too, but isn't this a step in the right direction? Logically, I can't make an argument why that's not a good idea. It's ridiculous and a good idea at the same time. Half of gun control is better than none. Most Democrats don't want a gun anyway. Republicans might actually vote for that.
## [North Korean Diplomacy Update](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7lZNmr4FT8&t=1736s)
Let's talk about the North Korea summit. Lost in the Kavanaugh headlines is that Mike Pompeo apparently had a very productive trip to North Korea. They're talking about having another summit, meaning the President would meet with Kim Jong Un again, maybe in this country. They are using the term "as soon as possible."
It feels to me, reading the tea leaves, that North Korea is racing against their own bad economy. It feels like they're so close to the real deal that Kim is mentally on board with denuclearizing. He just needs the right mechanism, the details, and the PR dance to manage it with his people. They want to get it going as quickly as possible because the sooner they get something concrete for inspections and denuclearization, the sooner we can start flooding money into the country in investment. The sooner they can eat.
## [Evaluating the Trump Presidency](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7lZNmr4FT8&t=1859s)
When you look at the week the President's having—unemployment at 3.7%, the judges he's putting on the courts, ISIS being obliterated as a territorial power—it's been a while since we've had a major terrorist attack. Even on the opioid crisis, the government is producing legislation I believe the President will sign. That’s a nonpartisan deal, so credit goes to both sides.
It’s starting to feel like President Trump, in two years, might be the most consequential, most successful president in a hundred years. I don't think that's an exaggeration. I'm always on guard for my bias, but on objective things—ISIS, the economy, North Korea, and maybe even the trade deals coming online—it's going to be hard to make an argument he's not the most successful president in a hundred years.
You could even argue he's the best president ever. What are the things you measure? Social justice? Before Trump, things were already looking good on social justice in terms of the law. But look at the economy, ISIS, North Korea denuclearization, trade deals, and cutting regulations. Those are big things.
Now, the debt increased—that’s a tricky one. His critics could criticize the debt, climate change, and race relations. But race relations are a problem of "political warming." The business model of the media requires them to amp up anything that looks like a problem. I would say the race relations stuff is at least 80% a product of the media.
Health care is another example. But no president before has ever "solved" health care. It’s not like you can look at President Trump and say other presidents did great and he messed up. He hasn't been successful on health care, but nobody else was either. So health care is a push.
Climate change? No president has ever "gotten climate change right." So on that level, how do you grade him? You'd say he's just as bad—or just as good—as any other president. However, President Trump has done a good job of goosing the economy. A strong economy puts you in a better position for either remediating climate change or solving it later with better technology. You could argue he’s done more for climate change to remediate it than any other president, simply because he worked on the economy and created the economic wherewithal to make a difference.
## [Climate Change: Weak vs. Strong Arguments](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7lZNmr4FT8&t=2238s)
On the things that other presidents have dealt with—economies, North Korea, terrorism, trade deals—it feels like he is the most successful. I completely understand that the other side does not agree.
If your argument about climate change is on the science, you're not in a strong position. The science part—that if you add CO2, all other things being equal, there should be some warming—that part seems real. The part that is not science, but gets confused with it, is the models. The prediction stuff is bordering on astrology.
I don't want to insult anyone, but the people who talk about climate change and say "plants need CO2" are not in the conversation in any serious way. Plants do need CO2, but the risk is that there would be too much of it and it would cause warming that would be worse than the "greening." CO2 causes greening, but it also causes warming. The issue is whether there's an amount of warming that makes the greening not worth it.
Likewise, those of you who say CO2 doesn't cause warming are not the "good" arguers. I have empathy toward the argument that climate warming is overblown, but don't say CO2 doesn't cause warming. Don't say humans don't cause it, because even Republicans who don't believe there's a big problem believe the science part of that.
For those of you who think sunspots are the better explanation, that's a terrible argument. Science has largely discounted that. You might have seen a graph on the internet that tracks with sunspots, but there are all kinds of graphs that show random correlations—like the number of bathtubs produced versus the number of murders. The solar flare stuff has been largely debunked.
When the left calls the right "anti-science," these are the things they’re talking about. It’s a mistake to say CO2 doesn’t cause warming. It would be accurate to say it's hard to predict how much of a problem that is, if any. But saying "CO2 is good for plants therefore everyone is stupid" is not smart. If unlimited warming is happening, it doesn't matter that CO2 is good for plants; you're still dead.
The good argument is to go after the projections—the models. The models are not science. They are something scientists do, and they may have value in understanding how variables work, but I don't think they have predictive ability.
The worst, weakest argument is: "I have personally looked into all the science, and even though I'm not a scientist, I did my own research and I've made a decision." That is the weakest argument you'll ever hear. There is no way a citizen who is not a climate scientist could have any hope of understanding the field. The whole field is mostly false information, I think, or at least you and I can’t tell the difference between the data and the phonies.
The 97% of scientists who "agree" are agreeing on the thing that even the skeptics agree on: that if you add CO2 to the system, all other things being equal, it could warm up. That's it. What they don't agree on is the non-science part involving the models.
## [Closing and Final Sip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7lZNmr4FT8&t=2916s)
Somebody said I could teach people how to be boring. I was feeling the same thing as I was talking! The longer I talked, the more I thought to myself, "Is this boring? Feels like it's boring."
My wife is listening, so "finish strong." That’s a challenge. The challenge is to finish strong. I'm going to finish this broadcast with the strongest possible statement. Are you ready for it? Here it is. It's time for the simultaneous sip. That is the most important thing I'm going to say today.
Andrew and Andrew's wife, join me. Grab your mugs, your cups, your chalices for the second simultaneous sip, and then we're going to say, "Have a good Sunday." I hope your coffee is warmer than mine; I guess I talked for a long time there. All right, that’s all for now. I’ll talk to you later.