Episode 640 Scott Adams: The Hockey Stick Graph, RBG, Biden Gaffes, The End of Reality

Date: 2019-08-25 | Duration: 54:05

Topics

Brain scanning will SOON be able to pre-determine your decisions At 100% accuracy…what will happen to belief in “free will”? Steve Cortes, CNN contributor…seen him on CNN lately? He dismantled their “Fine People” HOAX, a little TOO good SCOTUS RBG statement about her diagnosis and current condition Interesting choice of words, did the treatment work or not? Joe Biden continues adding gaffe to gaffe Michael Mann’s climate change “Hockey Stick Graph” LOSES in court Tim Ball wins the case because… …Mann REFUSED to release his data for court confirmation Bill Maher says strong focus on environment and he’ll vote for Trump Bill IS a rare individual, capable of changing his opinion Gen 3 and Gen 4 nuclear power plants can accomplish that Fentanyl MAJOR BUST at Mexico port, it was headed for America CAN we just abandon the China market? Prediction: There will NOT be a China trade deal during Trump Admin Mocking the Outrage Theatre actors People pretending to be outraged on behalf of other people PragerU court case discovery would make Google algorithm’s public Will Google release the algorithm or settle the case? Sending a child to public school is close to CHILD ABUSE Influence from other kids of really bad stuff in public schools In 30 years…public schools will no longer be a thing

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: https://interface.my/ScottAdamsSays

> [!note] Rough Transcript
> 
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

## Transcript

[0:06]

[Music] um hey everybody come on in here it's a wonderful day one of the best one of the best days and all of history why because it's the most recent one it's the one you're in it's going pretty well I'm checking the news and I don't see a lot of problems there that we cantle so why not make it a little better how about that how about that all you need to make this day a better day than the Doherty is going to be there's a cup or a mug or glasses Stein the gel is a tank or a thermos of Laska can't even tell if any control it with your favorite liquid I like coffee join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine hit of the day the thing that makes everything better the simultaneous sip go mmm yeah delicious do you notice that I've started shuffling papers and doing this

[1:10]

started shuffling papers and doing this and a little this that's for the benefit of those of you who listen to it before you go to sleep it's ASMR it's entertainment well it's everything it's all here so here's some things happening in the news well this is not in the news but it's a question I have do we have religious freedom in the United States do we because I would think that that's one of the great illusions one of the great brainwashing accomplishments of this country and when I talk about brainwashing in terms of patriotism and the United States and the Pledge of Allegiance and all that I mean brainwashing in a positive way meaning that it's very productive and a good thing to brainwash your country into thinking it's a good country and it belongs together and it should defend itself and all that stuff

[2:11]

itself and all that stuff so brainwashing in the context of patriotism nationalism if you don't go too far with it is all good stuff but here's the question is the United States a country in which we have freedom of religion I would say not even close here's what we have you have the freedom to have a religion which is largely compatible with Christianity if your religion is kind of sort of close to Christianity or at least it doesn't conflict with it too much you're free to practice it Judaism close enough a modern version of Islam where people are sort of keeping to themselves and you know following the Constitution fine it's all perfectly compatible Hinduism no problem

[3:13]

Hinduism no problem doesn't seem to be incompatible with Christianity but how about if somebody let's say let's say for example there there were a religion in elbonia elbonia is a country you probably haven't heard of let's say the Albanians had a religion in which they they they approved of something that we would consider heinous I don't know what it would be torturing animals or having having sexual relations with underage people just something we can't tolerate in the West would that religion be tolerated could you say hey freedom or religion I'm a member of the elbonian religion and we believe in virgin sacrifices can I take my religious belief to the United States and will the Constitution protect me no no of course

[4:16]

Constitution protect me no no of course that of course it won't and so the question I always ask myself is why is religious discrimination like other discrimination now this is something I can say because I'm not a believer so I'm Pro Christianity as a organizing set of beliefs that that work it works for a lot of people it's something you could observe it's something studies back up it clearly seems to be a system that produces benefits compared to a lot of other systems maybe all other systems as far as I know so I'm very Pro Christianity if anybody wants to you know engage in that believe in it I say that's a good filter on life I can't tell you what's real because I'm not sure that our brains have revolved to the point where we even know what's real but you can certainly tell if something's working you can tell if it hurts you you can tell if using this

[5:18]

hurts you you can tell if using this process gives you good results consistently and Christianity seems to be one of those systems that consistently works so I have no problem with the United States having a system that is biased toward a particular religion and allows religions that are largely compatible with it but don't confuse that with freedom of religion the last thing you would want is freedom of religion you wouldn't want that because that would allow somebody to come in with some horrible set of beliefs and spread them and we probably wouldn't let people like that in the country let's take take for an example let's say the elbow nians were a racist country let's say all elbow nians believe that anybody who wasn't an elbonian was inferior and needed to be treated as such would we allow as much immigration from elbonia as we allow from any other country i don't think so i actually

[6:22]

country i don't think so i actually don't know how that works would we would we take into consideration that the people we would bring in from the country of elbonia would bring in you know in their minds a set of ideas that are so diametrically a - what works in this country there wouldn't you have to reduce the number of those you brought in the country to keep things stable so I guess the question here is does the government of the United States have the ability to discriminate by belief system when doing immigration I don't know the answer is that by the way I have no idea maybe somebody can tell me can the United States discriminate by belief suppose the belief system is not religious based suppose the belief system is just racism suppose the belief system is that there should be no age of consent that's not a

[7:22]

should be no age of consent that's not a religion but if you knew that a community had a set of beliefs that were not compatible with US laws would your immigration criteria be exactly the same for elbonia bringing in people who have problematic ideas I don't know these are questions don't have answers all right here's a question for you what will happen to humanity and reality when we can predict your decisions before you make them because that's common and and in my lifetime I'm sure and what I mean is we have better and better brain sensors and scanners we're probably very close to the point where we can scan your brain maybe ask you a few questions just to test the hardware and we can tell you based on the physical construction of your brain

[8:24]

the physical construction of your brain what you're going to choose when presented with two choices now you know in the first place you would probably constrain the choices to let's say showing you a house and asking you if you had a choice all things being equal here are two houses they both have the same cost and they're in the same location hypothetically which one do you prefer do you like this house already like this house we're very close to the point where we can scan the person's brain maybe watch it operate for a while and then say oh ok given these two choices we already know which way this person's going to choose what happens when a machine can tell you what you're gonna choose before you choose it and can get it right every time because it would just be looking at your wiring you know saying okay with that wiring you can only go one way well that's gonna happen if if there's

[9:25]

well that's gonna happen if if there's one thing that I could be sure of that's gonna happen now it won't be able to make every decision right away but it will be able to freak you out by making decisions you know or by predicting your decisions before you make them and when it can reach a hundred percent reliability what will that do to our sense of reality what will happen when you realize that you don't have free will because if you can predict somebody's choices a hundred percent of the time they don't have free well they're just a machine you give this input you get this output and we'll be able to predict that in my lifetime just by scanning the brain and watching it in action so I've got a feeling that we're coming to a time in civilization where our sense of who we are as independent creatures who make independent decisions with free will and souls and all that is

[10:29]

with free will and souls and all that is really gonna get shook up that's coming all right here's some other topics in the news what was the last time you saw Steve Cortes on CNN so Steve Cortes most of you know a pro-trump voice may I don't know pundit would be that the right word journalist writer and CNN has employed him to be sort of the voice of the pro-trump side of the world have you noticed that he hasn't been on in a while I'll bet you're not gonna see him on again do you know why he was too good that's actually the truth and so they hired Steve Court has to present Trump but what they didn't count on is that he would be good at it didn't see that coming I guess I don't know why they underestimated him but after he thoroughly dismantled their most

[11:31]

thoroughly dismantled their most fundamental fraudulent news you know the fine people hoaxes and did it over and over again and then by the time he drove a stake through his heart with the Praeger you think that I think is four or five million views by now how could they have him back on the air they can't you just dismantled their entire reputation single-handedly and that wasn't his job his job was to do a bad job so that that they would always have this bad representative for Trump and then they could have their normal programming where they make fun of Trump and there's no defense but sorry he was too good and and by the way there's no exaggeration here that is literally exactly what happened he was too good at making his case so they they're gonna have to find somebody weaker so watch for somebody becoming the new you know

[12:33]

for somebody becoming the new you know voice of trumpet defenders on CNN and you're gonna find somebody weaker a lot weaker because it turns out that Cortes is a superstar and they did not see that coming which is hilarious to me alright let's talk about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and we're trying to do this with as much respect and sensitivity as I can all right so I mean no disrespect to Ruth Bader Ginsburg who's been a dedicated public servant for many years and in like Joe Biden she she earns our respect so even if he does with all of her decisions she should earn II respect for being a valuable part of a system which you buy into the Supreme Court the Constitution etc so there was a statement about her cancer treatment recently so I'm gonna talk about the communication of it I'm gonna

[13:35]

about the communication of it I'm gonna talk about this statement I mean no disrespect to Ruth Bader Ginsburg who I hope does well so I have good thoughts and I hope that she recovers and I hope that everything's good and she can you know enjoy her time on this earth but here's the actual statement which I could not help but notice so this these are quotes from the Supreme Court's own statement about Ruth Bader Ginsburg they say quote the tumor was treated definitively and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body the court said and then they went on said the justice tolerated treatment well the core said no further treatment is needed at this time how do you interpret that statement do you interpret that as well she's been treated and I guess you can go home looks pretty good maybe I mean you can't rule out that they got it and

[14:35]

you can't rule out that they got it and maybe she's you know in a good place but let's read the actual words because remember this came from the Supreme Court so you're talking about people who are the best I mean you could argue that they're the best people in the world at interpreting words right I mean that's what the Supreme Court does it interprets it it interprets and meaning so probably whoever writes the statement for the Supreme Court and whoever approved it are among the best people in the world that putting words together and putting them together in exactly the way that they mean them would no ambiguity and these are the words they tribute they chose the tumor was treated definitively what's that mean that the tumor was treated definitively now I had they said had they said that the tumor was removed or the cancer was cured definitively you

[15:39]

or the cancer was cured definitively you would know what that meant right if they said we we took care of it we got that out of there the problem is gone definitively well that would mean it's totally gone but that's not what they said they said the tumor was treated definitively meaning that the definitively refers to the treatment not to the outcome and not to the disease it was the treatment itself the process of treating her was definitive meaning that they perfectly did the treatment that is not a statement about whether the treatment worked it's a statement that they did the treatment definitely they did a definitive treatment no statement whatsoever about whether it worked and then they said and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body that's a very specific statement there is no evidence of the disease elsewhere meaning that they can't say

[16:41]

elsewhere meaning that they can't say that there's no disease left where it was treated the pancreas if there were no disease anywhere in the body when they were done with these treatments I feel like the sentence would have been clear and it was said there is no evidence of disease anywhere in her body but they don't say there's no evidence of disease anywhere they say there's no evidence of disease elsewhere which leaves open the possibility that there's still evidence of disease at the spot I was treated then they say the justice tolerated treatment well I think that's a clear statement we know what that means and then here's the kicker the core said and I quote no further treatment is needed at this time what's that mean there are at least two reasons that no further treatment is needed one is that you cured it and you know

[17:44]

one is that you cured it and you know you cure and you're done and I feel like they're allowing us to make that interpretation it seems intentional that they're allowing us to make that interpretation here's the other interpretation no no further treatment is needed at this time because it wouldn't make any difference it's not needed because we don't have anything else there's nothing else left now other people have said that the anando doctor so I can't put a credibility rating on this but some people on Twitter are saying that the stent apparently that she got is is usually the signal that times up in other words the stent is something again this is not me talking this is other people who act like they know what they're talking about I don't know if they do they act as though pancreatic cancer and stent is sort of telling you that your odds of a much longer life are

[18:47]

that your odds of a much longer life are not that good so we don't know what that means so again no disrespect to Ruth Bader Ginsburg a longtime and loyal public servant but the statement from the Supreme Court certainly certainly would suggest that there's a political event that's not coming sometime in the next certainly I would say within this administration or the next for whoever's in charge it looks like there's going to be decision and needs to be made all right Joe Biden continues showing us why he will never be President he tweeted a picture of himself doing a little humorous staredown of a baby with the mother and he said this election is not a joke that was his tweet so he wrote this election is not a joke man if

[19:53]

this election is not a joke man if there's anything I could teach you don't don't say not say this joke is this election is serious if that's what you mean or say this election is important if that's what you mean but if that's what you mean don't ever word it this way this election is not a joke because what are you here yeah this is the the hypnotist trick what you hear is this election is a joke and then there's a picture of Joe Biden he put joke next to a picture of himself and then tweeted it he should not be allowed to tweet and whoever's tweeting for him might be the mole you know I used to talk about the mole a hypothetical person who worked for Hillary Clinton who was so bad at tweeting that that the hypothetical mole must be working for the Trump campaign because it was doing such a bad job for Hillary but looks like the mole may have

[20:53]

Hillary but looks like the mole may have going to work for Joe Biden then also yesterday this is just yesterday he was in New Hampshire and he said Vermont was lovely no that's not a big deal right people get their town and their place mixed up if if I were campaigning for president I would totally make that mistake a bunch of times yeah I forget what state I'm in now I've done some public speaking where you fly in every every Hotel looks the same you do your thing you fly home and you forget even what city you went to so I totally get not knowing what state you're in you don't have to be you know alzheimerís to have that problem but it's starting to add up and then to make it worse biden tells voters that you should quote don't vote for me if you're concerned about my age oh my god he told voters in his own words that if they're concerned about his age don't

[21:55]

they're concerned about his age don't fall for him is he still trying I just don't I mean I'm just feeling sorry for him now I I want to laugh but it's hard alright
yesterday in my periscope I made the grievous mistake of saying that donkeys are sterile and they are a combination of mules and horses I got that wrong I mixed apparently I don't know my my ass from the horse because I got that wrong it's the the mules that are sterile not the donkeys so the donkeys and the horses if they have a baby it's a mule and that mule is sterile I'm told so I had that wrong yesterday so ignore everything I said yesterday all right so there's an interesting story about maybe you've heard of it's been going on for a few years of court case in which Michael

[22:58]

years of court case in which Michael Mann and dr. Tim ball were were going to court and I guess dr. Tim ball had questioned Michael Mann who was a climate scientist type the most probably the most famous one and is the author of the hockey stick graph the graph that says that the heat is going to get warmer and warmer but there's a point when it's going to get really warm really fast that's the hockey tip hockey stick shape of the graph and that became sort of the the most well known graph in climate science for years dr. Tim ball had his doubts that that hockey stick graph was based on good data and good analysis and so he publicly questioned Michael Mann and I guess that was taken as slanderous and then there was a court case in which Michael Mann if I have this right I think he was suing Tim ball for her defamation or whatever the

[24:00]

for her defamation or whatever the Canadian version of that is and dr. Tim ball his defense was that he told the truth meaning that his accusations against man were true and therefore it can't be defamation because it's just the truth now in order to make his case that it was true dr. Tim ball and his lawyers banded from michael mann the data and the analysis so that the court could look at it and public could look at it or at least the court and decide if the data and the analysis supported michael mann's hockey stick because if it did even i suppose even if there were a mistake in there then then he would still be honest even if there was a mistake in the math but the accusation was that it would be obvious from the data and the analysis should it be released that there was a intentional

[25:01]

released that there was a intentional fraud i don't know that data could ever prove that but here's the interesting wrinkle michael mann refused to release something called the r2 regression analysis some combination of data and calculations and because he refused to release the very information that would prove or disprove the credibility of the hockey stick the the way the court system works is that the person who won't release information that's necessary loses and so dr. Tim ball wins the case and actually he wins the right to have his pork costs paid by Michael Mann so Michael Mann had to pay his own court costs plus those of the people he accused but does that therefore mean then Michael Mann and his hockey stick graph are wrong it doesn't

[26:02]

hockey stick graph are wrong it doesn't it doesn't all we know is we didn't see him we are left to speculate why it is that we didn't see them and I can think of a few different reasons so and we don't know the reasons I'm just saying that don't assume you know the reason because there are multiple explanations one of them might be that it has some kind of economic value seems unlikely but maybe has some economic value and if it goes public you would lose this value I'll just throw that in there I think that's unlikely one is that another one is that Michael Mann might expect that there are some errors in there honest errors and certainly nothing that would prove any kind of intentional fraud but he might suspect there are some errors in there and he wouldn't want people to see him that's possibility again I'm not saying that's the case I'm saying considering all the possibilities why somebody wouldn't release their information

[27:03]

wouldn't release their information another one might be that he lost it you know scientists or regular people right they might have just lost it it's totally possible just lost him and if he lost it then you know he would not be able to support his graph so we'd have to sort of you know redo it or get rid of it no I don't know if that's likely but if you tell me it's not possible they can lose his data I would say look for any data that I have I lose all of my data I've lost more data than people most people have ever had losing data is pretty normal even with backups another possibility is that he doesn't think there's anything wrong with his data but he knows that releasing it would open him up to all kinds of criticisms and we wouldn't know the difference if those criticisms were valid or not that would be a good reason

[28:06]

valid or not that would be a good reason and it might be a good enough reason that he'd be willing to eat the court costs to avoid it somebody says you're not a scientist right I don't know what kind of a point that is I'll tell you if there's one thing that bothers me more than anything about the whole climate change debate it's watching idiots explain to other idiots was Sciences or watching people explain it to B which I suppose is the same thing can we all stop explaining to each other what science is and how it works I don't know that there are too many people in the debate who actually don't know you know the basics of science that you know there's there's peer review and you know sometimes it can be wrong and it improves over time you've got to compare things and you've got to have a control I don't think there's anybody who needs that science explain to them but yet that's what we do it's

[29:07]

to them but yet that's what we do it's like well Bob let me explain to you how science works how about you don't how about we assume that most of us know the basics all right so anyway here's my take on the Michael Mann Jim ball thing it's interesting and it's curious why Michael Mann would not release his hour to regression analysis but we cannot or should not leap to the assumption that that's because it's fraudulent that that evidence or that that's not an evidence what we know is that there several reasons he might not want to release it and he didn't release it that's all we know all right Bill Maher has said that he said again in the show he said her first in tweet and then he reiterated on this show that he would be willing to vote for Trump if Trump became very focused on fixing the environment which I assume includes climate change in cetera and I asked in

[30:11]

climate change in cetera and I asked in my tweet does that include a nuclear energy because think about it remember I've been telling you that Bill Maher is not like most anti Trump errs if I can even call him that he's not like the regular ones he's one of these strange creatures who can change his mind based on Dana that's very unusual with her very few people who can change their mind like it's almost like a magical kind of a thing Marv is one of them you know I could name a few other people but it would be such a small number of people who can do that in public anyway so I'm talking about public personalities we can change their mind and I believe that Bill Maher could change his mind in five seconds if somebody some good evidence you know that was backed up and had an argument I think it would be that fast it would just take a good argument so Bill Maher's put down

[31:13]

good argument so Bill Maher's put down the challenge he said he'll support he'd vote for Trump if Trump becomes the big you know like a maniac about protecting the climate no I don't know that Trump could ever achieve whatever Bill Maher standard is for that so because Trump sort of a regulation cutter and that's that's going to work against at least the public's opinion of what what it looks like to support the environment but what if Trump became more vocal about or really just vocal in the first place about nuclear energy because the his administration's Department of Energy is doing a lot of stuff to support testing of new nuclear fuels so if Trump did nothing but talk about what he's already doing and it's and it could be the case could be made for anybody's willing to listen the case could be made that generation three and four four is

[32:16]

that generation three and four four is upcoming that's what they're testing but we already have safe practical affordable alternatives to the dirty fuels all we have to do is build them and what would it take to be able to build more nuclear energy well it would take people like Bill Maher to say oh we've got this giant climate change problem according to you know many experts and we have this technology that totally works and it is in fact the only solution that anybody knows that could handle the size of the problem even if you go as hard as you can at solar even if you go hard at all the other things there's still going to be the gigantic energy gap that only nuclear can fill as far as we know in other words until something magic gets invented there's better it's the only thing we know so could bill Mahr hypothetically become

[33:19]

so could bill Mahr hypothetically become a trump supporter if Trump made the case for nuclear energy as the best solution for protecting the environment and how hard would it be to make that case easy it turns out it's easy it's really easy to make the case what you can't do easily is change people's emotional state around nuclear energy but remember we're not talking about changing everybody's mind that where we started was talking about one particular mind which is Bill Maher so Bill Maher being an open-minded sort of evidence-based personality and again completely unique in our public conversations as somebody who could change his mind if the data supported it somebody just needs to make the data available because I've never seen I don't think I've seen Maher

[34:19]

seen I don't think I've seen Maher commented specifically about nuclear energy I would imagine that like most people he's not that technically informed on it but it wouldn't be hard to do it you know to give somebody the basics that it wouldn't be hard so think about it Bill Maher is this close to supporting Trump because he doesn't know that the requirement he's asking of Trump that Trump be the biggest that Trump would be the biggest supporter of the environment he doesn't know that Trump already is it's just not that support is simply not packaged in a way that we could recognize it because it's it comes in the form of his Department of Energy is moving aggressively to support nuclear we just don't hear about it much yeah you know their press releases and stuff but we don't hear better much meanwhile 23,000 kilograms of Chinese

[35:22]

meanwhile 23,000 kilograms of Chinese fentanyl was seized at Mexico's biggest Seaport apparently they know it came from in China 23 thousand kilograms do you know I'm that's a lot do you know how many people you could kill with 23 thousand kilograms of fentanyl amazing so here's something that's going to happen so when the president pushed on China and said you know basically to work in a tariff um and we're going to be clamping down on their packages and looking for fentanyl and that they've essentially lied to us on fentanyl-laced

[36:25]

we have too many connections it would be too more too big of a blow to the to the economy and the world would go into a depression or thing that's that was everybody's first impression right doesn't remind you of everyone's first impression at least the anti-trump errs the first impression of when Trump got elected remember what everybody said who was on the other side they said well it's obvious now Trump got elected there's gonna be a recession and then not even close not even close now everybody who's smart says my god you know messing with China like this and pushing back that's gonna cost us a fortune economies will crumble here's what Scott says economies can get used to anything economies can get used to anything might take a while but they also are forward-looking markets look at the future they don't look at today if

[37:25]

the future they don't look at today if you said what would be the effect for the next six months or the next year I'd say you might be negative it could easily be negative if you say what is the effect over five or ten years I'd say huh probably a lot of companies moving to this hemisphere which and long-run could be positive so what I would expect on Monday is for the stock market to improve you know the stock markets could be choppy so it's going to be up and down but I would not expect the stock market to start some you know daily dive toward doom I would expect that people are going to absorb the China news though they got a little panicked and people sold on the news now they're gonna think about it they're gonna think about you know we could do without China we could figure it out it's a big world

[38:26]

we could figure it out it's a big world China's part of it but it's a big world we could be closer to India for example
you know we can we've got a lot going on we don't need their market if we don't have to have it so and then there's stories in the news about the u.s. is gearing up to look for rare earth minerals because we depend on China for some of our rare a lot of our rare earth minerals so we'll have to scramble to find them elsewhere so we can find some rare earth minerals and other places you know think our allies have any rare earth minerals of course they do we'll just find them somewhere else yeah maybe in Greenland you never know so I think we'll get closer to India and I think that the economy will start to adjust and my prediction by the way is no no Chinese

[39:28]

prediction by the way is no no Chinese trade deal ever
so is there is there anybody else is making that prediction actually I don't know so my prediction might be standing alone so my prediction is we won't reach a trade deal with China ever by ever meaning within a trump administration and I'm assuming that that will be six more years so under the assumption of a trump administration second term I see no Chinese trade deal but I do see us moving production out of there to the extent that that's possible and adjusting that's what I see and maybe beyond tariffs forever we'll just tariffs until there's no reason to tariffs anymore all right
I asked a question on Twitter yesterday so Christina my significant other and I are going to do some videos we're just

[40:28]

are going to do some videos we're just planning what we're going to do where we'll do some videos not a replacement of coffee miss Scott Adams all I'll keep doing these by myself or well or if I have my gases will be pundits or political people but we're going to do separately some videos where Christine and I will answer some questions so I tweeted that you can find that if you have questions you want to put in the list we will take them just for fun joe walsh running for president yeah I can't carry yet I just you know Joe all he's not gonna get nominated no I just don't care yeah just 30 billion to farmers ken Dershowitz whose image ever recover so you're asking that because the Epstein

[41:30]

you're asking that because the Epstein stuff right well you know it's it's the nature of smears that you never really get rid of them you know smears just live with us forever now so when somebody smears you it doesn't matter if it's true or false you're sort of stuck with it now given that Dershowitz is what 80 he doesn't have that many years to sort of you know get past past smears because the older the smear the the smaller it gets so he doesn't have that many years left to extinguish a smear but it does look like there will be no new evidence about it that's believable because the the people who have talked so far he did a good job of of describing their lack of credibility so that's gonna work for him so I was going to do another episode of

[42:34]

so I was going to do another episode of outrage theater today in which I pick things that are people people are pretending to be outraged about and then I mock it but there wasn't one today and you know maybe it's because I wasn't paying attention maybe there have been other days when there's no outrage but it seemed weird there was no outrage and there really wasn't much about the racism thing all right are you feeling that the because the New York Times got busted on the creating this framework that they were going to make everything about racism and therefore about President Trump do you think that took the took the power Internet the fact that we all know that we all know that it's a made-up thing now because I've kind of feeling that mocking the people who are outraged actors the people acting outraged on behalf of other people I think we can mock that at the end of existence and

[43:36]

mock that at the end of existence and you know it's always going to come and go but it's very mockable and things which remarkable are hard to maintain and they're really hard to maintain if you're a Democrat because Democrats don't like to be mocked well nobody likes it but I think I think the Republicans can handle it better for some reason maybe because they get mocked more they've had more practice but mocking outrage theater and specifically here's the thing to mock you don't want to mock the topic because if you mock the topic then they just have more outrage about you oh you're mocking the topic you're a bad person but you could mock people pretending to be outraged on behalf of other people because that's just ridiculous people are not outraged on behalf of other people it's not even a thing it's pure theater how many times have you been actually outraged by something you

[44:38]

been actually outraged by something you saw in the news it happens there are things that make you angry but nobody's really outraged about the words I'm going to use the image somebody use nobody is really outraged
so mocking the fake outrage I think is pretty effective talk about the Praeger you lawsuit yeah I've mentioned this I mentioned it and tweeted it so Praeger you is going after a Google / YouTube for suppressing their videos about 200 of them now I guess it made it to the 9th Circuit Court which is a famous liberal Court so we don't necessarily expect that Prager you will get what they wanted it is because they may have an unfriendly court but we'll see because their their claim probably is going to require some kind of discovery if it goes forward and

[45:41]

kind of discovery if it goes forward and I would love to see what that produces because I think Google would have to either produce their algorithm or Prager you wins the lawsuit right it's the same problem that Tim ball and Michael Mann had Tim ball required you know insisted in this court case give me the data Michael Mann said I'm not going to and that's the end of it Michael Mayer loses because you won't give them the data it might be the same thing I would not be surprised if the way the Prager you think goes is should it reach an actual court case so that's I think that's the the real question whether it can actually become an evidence based court case or not but if it does the first thing Prager you so attorneys are gonna ask for is the algorithms they're gonna ask to show me the show me the emails of people talking about it show me the algorithm give me an expert to explain how it's done I

[46:41]

an expert to explain how it's done I don't believe Google can do that meaning that you know they won't want to and they might actually end up paying Praeger you off to not have to give them their data but won't that just encourage me to sue sue the next because Prager you situation is identical to mine and identical to David Pakman identical to you know Bill Mitchell identical to lots of people right so left hand right there are people who could sue Google and asked for their algorithm so if Google doesn't produce their algorithm for Prager you they won't produce it for anybody else which means that they would lose every case yeah I heard that Laura Loomer also has a case going forward for similar types of things and it does seem to me that something really interesting

[47:43]

to me that something really interesting is going to happen because of the discovery phase I don't know how that's gonna go all right did Bill Mitchell mislead his followers asking for donations well I would say that's between Bill Mitchell and his followers so that the basic story there is I guess Bill Mitchell had a GoFundMe for relocating his studio and then he relocated his studio and he spent the money but in between he had talked separately about going to DC because that would be a good place for a studio but in the meantime he decided that Florida was gonna work out better for whatever reasons so use that money in Florida I don't know how to score that one you know I think I think you're all gonna have to make your own decision on that one because the GoFundMe did not mention location and used the money for what the GoFundMe said but separately he said some things that

[48:45]

but separately he said some things that people took to be part of the GoFundMe and you could see why they would be concerned not that not the biggest issue in the world not the biggest issue yeah
what do you think of Mike Tsarevich saying a big trend is homeschooling he is right I would go so far as to say this sending a kid to public school it is pretty close to child abuse at this point pretty close I mean it will never be called that but I I've been close enough to watching you know my own stepkids etc and so I've seen firsthand knowledge of a lot of kids going through the school system my local school system is one of the highest-rated ones in the state and probably one of the better ones in the country so you know my

[49:47]

ones in the country so you know my community has just one of the best school systems public school systems and I wouldn't even think about sending a kid to that in the future because because it's getting so hard the the influences from other kids is devastatingly bad and they they have access to every drug sex alcohol I mean it's really bad stereotype generalization yes that's what we're doing we're doing generalizations you can't criticize me for a generalization when the topic is a generalization about home school versus public school it is a generalization that's not a valid complaint that I made a generalization when I'm making a generalization yeah you know there must be bad homeschool

[50:48]

you know there must be bad homeschool situations surely there are situations where people should not homeschool but when do you ever hear bad from home schools I don't really hear it do you now I don't know exactly how homeschooling works but I don't hear bad outcomes and I do have I do have a sense that the whole public school thing is going to fall apart I don't think it can last into the future I would say if you fast-forward 30 years into the future there will be no 30 years yeah I'll say 30 years in the future I don't think that public school will be a thing anymore because it's just too destructive I that you sound outraged over being accused of generalizing well yeah social awkwardness is the only negative of home schooling but that too

[51:52]

negative of home schooling but that too depends on if you do it right because homeschooling doesn't mean that the kid has no access to other kids I mean you can still have sleepovers and everything else let me ask you this question for those of you who have kids do your high school kids spend every weekend staying up all night is that a thing everywhere is that that's sort of a thing in my town I would say pretty much not even high school but all of the school kids who are old enough to have sleepovers they pretty much all stay up all night every weekend if they're with other kids and they they often are is that a thing where you live because to me that feels bad for your health yes some I'm seeing some yeses come in yeah people are

[52:55]

some yeses come in yeah people are saying yes yes yes somebody says no yes yeah you know one of the things that we the weird thing is that we say that children are the future and you know every should revolve around children but how many of our children are eating fast food and staying up all night on weekends I know those are pretty unhealthy things but I don't know if there's any way to prevent it because you you would either have to prevent them from being with their friends or if they have sleepovers which are probably really good for bonding and social skills etc if you have sleepovers and all that are gonna stay up all night so that's just a question I'm not sure where I would ban sleepovers or ban fast food but there's a big disconnect between what we say about children and the food and sleep that we require they again all right I

[53:56]

that we require they again all right I will talk to you later bye for now