Episode 269 Scott Adams: Saudi Excuses, Blue Checks, Opioids
Date: 2018-10-22 | Duration: 57:31
Topics
Khashoggi cover story weakness and flaws Is Middle East style lying fundamentally different than our style? We have moral cover to take out mass murdering illegal Chinese Fentanyl manufacturers Big proposals should first, be tested small Good ideas have an efficient path directly to President Trump Is Soros a bad guy? Cory Booker accused of aggressive sexual restroom behavior Imagining a network system for safe, efficient self-driving cars
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
## [Introduction](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vb7Hy5khjs&t=4s)
Mm-hmm, baba pong! Hey everybody, it's time for Coffee with Scott Adams. I'm Scott Adams. This is coffee. This is also coffee. Do you have your cup? I just bought some of mine on Amazon. Apparently, some Trump supporters—we’ve made a Trump brand of coffee. I haven't tasted it yet; I'm still at my old coffee, but I thought I'd buy a bag and support this entrepreneur.
It's time for the simultaneous sip. Yes, it is. Do you have your mug, your cup, your vessel, your stein, your glass? Is it full of a beverage—your favorite beverage? I like coffee. Join me now for the simultaneous sip. Oh, that's good.
## [The Migrant Caravan and Persuasion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vb7Hy5khjs&t=65s)
Somebody said talk about the caravan. There's not that much to say about the caravan that hasn't already been said. The caravan creates this horrific visual imagery, and visual imagery is among the strongest persuasion. It's happening at the very worst time for the Democrats because the midterms are approaching.
On top of the visual element, the other strongest kind of persuasion is fear. The look of the crowds—there are so many of them, most of them are men heading toward the border—it just triggers a basic fear response because of the numbers of people and the chaos of it all. I don't think things could be luckier in a weird way for the Republicans coming up to the midterms. I'm pretty sure the president will send down the military to stop them, and I'm sure they'll be successful. There are a lot of people, but they're not going to get past the military.
## [Khashoggi Cover Story and Saudi Alibis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vb7Hy5khjs&t=127s)
Let's talk about some other stuff. It's been discovered that the Saudi story about a fight breaking out being a "big mistake" is somewhat injured by the fact that of the team of Saudis that went to the embassy for Khashoggi, one of them was a body double who left the embassy wearing Khashoggi's clothes. If you're going to make up an alibi or an excuse, I expect you to do a little bit better job than that.
Saudi Arabia is absolutely embarrassing our president by not giving him any cover whatsoever. This is how I see the situation: realistically, other countries—maybe every country—don't really care about one Saudi citizen being killed by Saudi Arabia for whatever reasons they had. On an individual, human level, of course we care. But in terms of politics, I don't see anybody who thinks it would be a good idea to derail an ally in some important stuff in the Middle East over this. I've never talked to anybody in person who thought this one murder was a big deal.
Under that situation, all we really needed to get past it—and the president was signaling this as clearly as you could signal anything—was some kind of story that we can at least say, "Well, maybe it went that way." The only story that would have worked is that there were underlings who planned the entire operation, including killing him, from the start. That's the only explanation that had any chance of being sold—to say that the Crown Prince didn't directly order it and didn't directly know about it, but somebody below him did. I'm not saying that's true; I'm saying it's the only story where you'd have a chance of having any reasonable doubt. It is actually feasible that the Crown Prince didn't know the details.
But now we see this weak excuse of an accident and a fight, and then you see his body double leaving in the victim's clothes. The whole Saudi thing has completely turned into an embarrassment for our president, who was really just trying to help. He was trying to make this not something that affects our country, the alliance, or the larger plans in the Middle East. Man, are they making it hard.
## [Rand Paul and Punishing the Royals](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vb7Hy5khjs&t=372s)
I realized that Rand Paul has taken a strong stand against Saudi Arabia, saying something must be done. It looks like the smart people in this conversation are saying the thing which could be done is directly punishing royals or leadership people who seem to be involved. I don't know how you identify who they are, and I don't know how you'd leave the Crown Prince out of it.
If you're President Trump and you lose Rand Paul, that's the canary in the coal mine. I have a high opinion of Rand Paul for his independent thinking. The fact that he's an independent thinker makes it especially powerful when he agrees with the president, but he’s also especially powerful when he disagrees for the same reason. He's following the evidence and his moral inclinations. Now that Rand Paul has said something has to be done, something has to be done. Once you've lost Rand Paul, you can't just say, "Let's just move on." That’s a lot harder.
I'm wondering what the Saudis will say now that the news has come out that the body double left wearing Khashoggi's clothes. If they follow the pattern, they will modify their story again: "Sure, one of the guys did leave wearing Khashoggi's clothes—we acknowledge that’s on the camera—but it's not what you think. It was a fistfight. One of the guys punched Khashoggi so hard that he ended up wearing his clothes." They’re going to think that’s going to work. No, that won't happen.
## [Cultural Differences in Honesty](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vb7Hy5khjs&t=493s)
This whole thing is making me wonder about the cultural differences in what honesty looks like. Does it seem like there's some kind of a cultural thing happening here? The Saudi explanation sounds ridiculous even to liars—even people who lie for a living. A politician might say, "Dude, I lie for a living; that’s all I do all day, but I don't do whatever the hell you're doing over there. Who taught you to lie? You're terrible liars."
I noticed this decades ago. Whenever you'd see leaders in the Middle East talking, I would say to myself, "Wait a minute." In a political situation, I take it as a given that all sides are lying all the time. I'm not going to say one side is the bigger liar, because in my sense of the world, everybody's lying, exaggerating, or lying by omission. But it seemed as though when the Muslim country leaders were lying, it looked different.
It was lacking at least a coating of credibility. There are some leaders where when they lie, you can't tell if it is a lie or slightly exaggerated—there’s at least a little bit of protective reasonable doubt around their lie. It seems like a Western form of lying is trying not to get caught, whereas the Middle East form of lying—and again, this is just an observation, not a claim that would hold up to scientific scrutiny—looks like not even trying. That’s just an observation.
## [Illegal Fentanyl and Mass Murder](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vb7Hy5khjs&t=682s)
Let's talk about opioids. I'm getting a lot of pushback on my call for China to execute their fentanyl lab owners as they find them. People say, "Hey idiot, don't you know that if you shut down one lab, there will just be another lab?" or "China couldn't possibly know where they all are."
To my critics, I say: you are completely right. There's nothing that China or we could do that will ever change the supply because you can start an illegal lab just about anywhere. But you're missing my point entirely. What I'm saying has nothing to do with supply. When I say China should execute illegal fentanyl lab dealers, it's not to reduce the supply because that can't be done. It's because they are mass murderers.
Collectively, they're killing perhaps 30,000 Americans a year. If one person was dying, I would say that person should have made better choices. If 100 people or 1,000 people per year were dying, I might say they should have made better choices. When 30,000 people a year are dying from Chinese fentanyl, that's a war. That’s not personal choice anymore. The size of it changes what it is, and therefore your approach has to entirely change. It should be attacked with maximum strength on every dimension.
When I say China should be executing their fentanyl dealers—and if they can't, we should do it for them with whatever "wetwork" type people we can arrange—I am talking about literally killing them. I don't care if we get caught. I don't care if China doesn't like it. This is no longer about supply and demand; it's a war. In a war, you don't care if your guys get caught killing the other side.
If we killed a few of their fentanyl lab owners and China's government found out, they'd complain, but the most likely response is they're going to try a lot harder to police their own business. The goal is to send a message about how big the problem is. I'm using their death simply to amplify the message. I want to kill people who have it coming; they are mass murderers. We can morally kill them if it improves our result. Don't argue with me about supply.
## [Smart Opinions vs. Stupid Opinions](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vb7Hy5khjs&t=1052s)
There are two dumb opinions on every big policy decision. If you say "Yes, let's do it" or "No, let's not do it," those are the two stupid opinions. If it's a big government proposal, those opinions are blunt and stupid because nobody knows how it will turn out.
A smart opinion looks like this: "Can we test it small?"
If you're considering a big plan, nobody is smart enough to know the outcome. If you say, "Is there some way to test this small so that we would have better visibility?" that's a smart decision. If you say it's smart or dumb to do this or that about fentanyl, you're not part of the intelligent conversation. If you say, "Is there something we could test on a small scale?" you are.
If someone says, "Scott, why have you ruled out making it legal in some cases so people could get a safe supply while you work on addiction?" I say: can you trial it? Is this something you can do small? If the answer is yes, then you test it. When the size of the problem is this big, you test every freaking thing you can think of.
Most things can be tested small—I would say 80% of everything. Experienced business people are saying, "Duh, of course you would try it as a trial before you went big." But the average American doesn't think in terms of a small trial, and as a result, our government doesn't either. It's rare to see the government say, "We don't know if this is going to work, so we're just doing a small trial." That's how the government needs to evolve.
## [Suboxone and the WinHub App](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vb7Hy5khjs&t=1364s)
I asked for an expert on my app, Interface by WinHub, regarding Suboxone. It's a chemical used to get people off opioids, but apparently, it makes you sick if you take an actual opioid while on it. My question was: can you use Suboxone and then wean yourself off of it, or are you on it forever? That is something that falls into the category of something you could test small.
I'm looking for an expert on the app to answer that. A number of people have started getting on the Interface by WinHub app to volunteer as sponsors. Sponsors can charge zero for their time because the app lets you set your price. I'm looking under "addiction" and "sponsor" right now—it looks like there are three or four people online as sponsors. Can having more sponsors on an app save lives? I don't know, but it can be tested in a small way.
## [The Direct Pipeline to President Trump](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vb7Hy5khjs&t=1546s)
It was not long ago that if you had a great idea for the government, it would just be stranded in your brain. You’re just one of hundreds of millions of voters. How could you get your idea to the government? That has completely changed.
How many times have you seen President Trump retweet an idea that came from a citizen? We know the president regularly receives ideas and framing from the public. There is now a direct pipeline for any good idea to get to the president and get filtered along the way.
If you're a regular citizen and you're sophisticated enough to find me—many of you have figured out I'm on LinkedIn and I accept everyone—the odds I would read your message are almost 100%. On Instagram or Patreon, the odds are also high. If you can get a message to me, I have 278,000 Twitter followers. I’m a "blue check," but on the small side. However, larger blue check accounts follow me and they see my work.
If you've got a good idea, your ability to get to me or people like me is close to 100%. If we like the idea, it gets filtered once. If we retweet it, it’s noticed by the bigger blue check accounts. Once you reach that visibility, someone on the president's social media team is going to see it. They can tell how popular it is by the retweets and likes.
You saw this with the "Jobs Not Mobs" idea. A citizen came up with it. I saw it on the internet and commented that it was a good slogan with no downside. It took six days from the time I saw a citizen with that idea to the time it came out of the president's Twitter account. This president so often takes a good idea from the base and amplifies it that you can feel the connection. You're watching the most connected president you've ever seen, who is essentially A/B testing on a continuous basis.
## [George Soros Skepticism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vb7Hy5khjs&t=2291s)
How about the idea of prosecuting Soros for the caravan? I am a Soros skeptic. I can be convinced that Soros is some kind of enemy to the world, but my current impression is vague. Clearly, his organization is funding things, but you have to connect a lot of dots to say he’s trying to destroy the country.
I’m agnostic on Soros. I lack the facts that would make me anti-Soros. I’m just concerned that so many people have a strong opinion and nobody can explain it to me in a way that sounds convincing. It reads like a conspiracy theory to me. I'm fairly well-informed—I’d say in the top 5% of Americans just because I pay attention—and I have never seen a good explanation of what Soros is up to that makes him the devil.
I know he did currency speculation; that’s well-documented. Someone said his game is to fund social unrest and then place financial bets to win based on that chaos. To me, that sounds so much like a conspiracy theory that I wouldn't even bother looking into it. It’s too ridiculous on its surface. He is funding lefty groups, but Democrats favor lefty groups too. Is there some reason he can't fund them?
## [Cory Booker and Political Karma](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vb7Hy5khjs&t=2542s)
Let's talk about Cory Booker. There are reports in media that I consider very low credibility about a man saying Cory Booker tried to grope him in a restroom. My interpretation is that it’s very unlikely, but the context is that Cory Booker was on the team saying accusers should be believed.
The accuser doesn't sound credible to me, very much like the Kavanaugh "multiple rape party" accuser didn't sound credible. I think Cory Booker is suffering from karma or a political attack, but it probably has more to do with outing him. It may not be that someone is trying to take him down for the accusation itself, but rather a ploy to out him on his sexuality to make him look like a phony.
His "Spartacus" thing already plays into the brand of being a phony hero. If he's been less than forthcoming about his sexual preferences—which I don't think anyone in the country cares about in 2018—the real issue could be the lack of being forthcoming. It would be a devastating blow if people on his own team started asking why he has to hide it. I don't have inside knowledge and I'm not interested in his preferences, but there is a question about why someone would hide it if that's happening.
## [Reimagining Detroit as a Self-Driving Motor City](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vb7Hy5khjs&t=2855s)
Let’s talk about self-driving cars. When you think of self-driving cars, you imagine them integrated on highways with human cars. You assume they are independent entities sharing existing roads. What if you throw away those assumptions?
What if we say to Detroit: "We're going to make you the automotive capital again." We overlay a new highway right on top of Detroit just for self-driving cars. You map out a whole parallel highway. You build a test city where the self-driving cars never share a highway with human-driven cars.
Secondly, all the cars must communicate in real-time. If an Apple car or a Google car has a mechanical failure, the other cars should know to get out of the way. If a car goes offline, the car behind it could sense it, slow down automatically, and push the other car onto the side of the road in a controlled way.
Self-driving cars have 360-degree cameras. If you live near a self-driving road, you’d have a safer neighborhood because the cars create a security video record of everything they drive past. You would almost remove street crime anywhere there are self-driving cars. You could even build a mesh Wi-Fi system where each car acts as a moving node for a cell network.
Detroit is a good place to test because you have infrastructure and four seasons—you want to test in snow, heat, and cold. This would create jobs for high-end engineers and laborers to build roads and repair cars. It would be a massive infrastructure and transportation jobs program.
Someone said self-driving cars are a farce. I would say they are a guarantee. The worst component of your car at the moment is you. Every part of the car works well except the human. Humans cause 95% to 98% of traffic accidents. Self-driving cars will eventually be like smartphones—it’ll seem like a choice early on, but eventually, it’ll be the only way people do things because it’s so much better.
That's all for now. I'll talk to you all later.