Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:01]
Scott Adams
Hey, everybody, come on in here. We have room up front. Grab a chair. We're about to enter the Coffee with Scott Adam Zone. And it will be glorious as soon as I've got your comments working so that we have an interactive experience. You know, the best. Kind of forgot my notes. Hold on. I knew I was forgetting something, but we're all good now. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adam, and you've never had a better time. But if you'd like to elevate your experience up to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tanker, Chelsea canteen, jug or flask, vessel of any kind, Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine. At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip. It happens. Now go. Oh, so good. Well, I wonder if there's any science that they didn't need to do, because maybe they could have just asked me instead. Oh, here we go. Eric Dolan writing for a psy post. I always do the Eric Dolan psy post stuff. According to a new study, higher income may boost the odds of finding a romantic partner. Having a higher income improves your chance of getting laid. Hmm. Yeah, you could have asked me. Next time, skip the study and just say, scott, do you think money would help you in dating? I think it would. Yes, I do. I wonder if there's any other studies that they could have skipped. Oh, here's one. Also in Psypost by Vladimir Hedreg, they found out that social anxiety. So if you have social anxiety, it predicts future loneliness. Huh. So you're telling me that people who are super uncomfortable being around other people might have a little extra problem with loneliness? Huh? Well, you could have saved some money on that study. Just ask me next time. And I wonder if science has determined that exercise is good for you. I wonder if exercise is good for me. Oh, yeah. Here's a study in ZMA Science that now they think that exercise and muscles reduce the odds of getting cancer and make your tumors grow more slowly. So, yeah, exercise is good for you in a variety of ways. That's just one of them. And there's a new dating app. Have you heard of this one? The dating app is called T. Dating advice. T is spelled T, E, A, like the tea you drink. Dating advice. Apparently it's a. I guess it's the number one app or something. And instead of setting you up with people that you have things in common with, like a normal dating app, the dating app is entirely based on women reporting what's wrong with men. So real, real, actual men, individuals would be rated on the app by other women so that you knew all the problems that you would have if you got with them. That is truly the end of civilization right there, as a number of people said. Could you imagine if men had an app that was dedicated to men saying bad things about women so you could check to make sure you didn't get one of those bad women? How long would that stay in the app Store? About a minute. About a minute before somebody says, you can't do that. But when the subject is men and how bad men are, no problem. Very popular app. So I've always thought that dating requires you to dupe somebody long enough that they begin to like you before they find out who you really are. Let me say that again, because it sounds like a joke, but I don't mean it as a joke at all. So we all know that our feelings and our urges can overrule our good common sense, right? Everybody's had that experience that if your emotions get too high, it'll just cancel your common sense. So now they've got an app that will allow your common sense to go first. So your common sense looks at this app and says, ooh, this guy or this woman have been reported to be bad. So my common sense says, I'm not even going to talk to him. But in order to get anybody to like you, you have to make sure that they only see your good stuff for a while, and then they can start to like you. And then slowly, you can start feathering in all of your bad habits. Oh, so it turns out you snore. That would be me. Oh, it turns out you work on the weekends when I want to be doing something else. So, yeah, there would be no reproduction and no marriage and no romance if we didn't have our emotions overruling our common sense. Now that's been reversed. Well, Sunny Hosten of the View, she was talking about the Colbert cancellation and says, if comedians are being attacked, then that means our Constitution is being dismantled. So when Democrats complained that Trump was going to steal your democracy, what they meant is that CBS was going to cancel Colbert for losing $40 million a year to them. So how do you feel? How do you feel now? Now that you supported Trump, but you found out that he took your democracy because a company that's not Trump fired somebody who was losing a tremendous amount of money for them. Well, I didn't see that coming. And it could be. I'm not ruling out the possibility that there was a political element to it, but I do think they might have been happy if they had a political element to it. So they could cancel something that costs $40 million a year. Maybe they wouldn't have done it except for Trump. Maybe they wouldn't have done it, but I'm pretty sure they're happy they did it. Well, Carrie Lake is telling us about discovering that the Voice of America, and she's the president senior Advisor for the U.S. agency for Global Media. So that would be her domain, apparently the Voice of America, which by its design is intended to be America's propaganda element for other countries. So Voice of America by its nature is supposed to tell other countries stuff that we want them to hear, basically. So it's not meant to be unbiased. It's meant to be biased in favor of America. And apparently now we know that some of the Voice of American managers met multiple times with Chinese officials because China wanted them to say nicer things about China and give them more favorable coverage. Wait a minute. Voice of America is our propaganda machine. You're not supposed to be meeting with our adversaries to find out how they would like you to talk about them. Now, I don't know, maybe they were just learning what they could learn and it had no impact on their coverage. But it doesn't feel right. So. So we just learned that those meetings were happening. So it's not ideal. Just the news is talking about that. Apparently the Biden administration set up a hotline so that unaccompanied minors coming across the border could call that hotline if they had trouble with whatever strangers they came with. So in other words, if you came across the border with someone who was not your family member or parent and you wanted to complain about them, so, you know, let's say you were being trafficked or abused or something, you had a phone number to call. Isn't that great? That's pretty great, isn't it? Gave him a phone number to call in case they had problems. Well, today we found out that 65,000 of those calls from children who were having a problem with the non relative who brought them across the border. 65,000 of those calls went unanswered. They just sent it to voicemail. That's not funny. That's not funny. It's kind of funny because it's so incompetent and evil and bad. But it's not funny because there are 65,000 children who didn't get a response when they complained about the non family member who was in charge of them. So there's that. And now according to Fox News, you know, the Democrat fundraising, fundraising organization called ActBlue, and they're getting some heat because instead of doing what they said they were doing, which is collecting small contributions from lots of different citizens, they are accused and now they've been subpoenaed by three powerful committees in Congress with maybe taking foreign sources of money and finding a clever way to make it appear as though it was being donated by individuals in small amounts from Americans. So they've got some answering to do. Now, what would happen if ActBlue got in enough trouble that they could no longer do what they were doing? Would it make a big difference to a Republican fundraising? And enough of a difference that it would influence either the next presidential election or the midterms coming up? And I feel as if ActBlue might be a large enough entity that if its fundraising got shut down, it would actually influence votes, wouldn't it? I don't know. I'd have to see it in context. This is the, it's the type of story that I usually use grok to get the context because without knowing how much, maybe you could put this in the comments. If I had, if I had more time this morning, I would looked it up. But how much money did Act Blue donate to Republicans or handle the donations for? Was it a lot? Like, does anybody have a dollar amount for that? Because a news story about like this is only meaningful if you know how much money they were providing. And if that really made a difference, I suspect it did well. In other news, the Trump administration is going to slash 25% of the IRS workforce, mostly with buyouts as opposed to just regular firings. Washington Times is reporting on this. So they're going to get rid of nearly 26,000 people reversing Biden's build up in that same area. Now, do you believe that the IRS will not be able to do their job because they would lose 25% of the workforce? Well, that's what they'll tell you. If you cut anybody's budget by 25%, they're definitely going to tell you that that's the end of the world. But will it be? Probably not. Probably not. We'll find out. In good news for the president, Japan has agreed to a trade deal and the stock market seems to like it so far. And let's see, the US will levy a 15% tariff on Japanese goods and said at the same level, with tariffs on the same level. At the same level on the country's critical auto industry. And on top of that, Japan committed to invest $550 billion in America. Now, remember I told you that the Democrats didn't see this coming, that if this whole trade negotiation thing starts working out for Trump, which it is, that it would give him this almost unlimited stream of victories and that once a week there would be some important country that said, yeah, we just made a deal. Hold on, my light went out. There we go. So here's another one. Japan has fallen in line. We'll see if that makes a difference. And then the 60 Minutes lawsuit that Trump was pressing against CBS, and you heard that CBS agreed to pay $16 million. But on top of that, we're learning now that there will be an extra $20 million from the new owners. So whoever buys CBS will pitch in another $20 million in services, basically. So it would be stuff like for advertising or PSAs or similar program. So it would be $36 million in total, but 20 million of that would be in services. And here's how Trump announced it on True Social. This is another long line of victories over the fake news media who were holding to account, we are holding to account for their widespread fraud and deceit. The Wall Street Journal, the failing New York Times, the Washington Post, msdnc, cnn, and all other mainstream media liars are on notice that the days of them being allowed to deceive the American people are over. Make America great again. Now, how many of you are impressed as I am that Trump has effectively destroyed the entire fake news media structure in the United States? I mean, they still limp along, they're still doing their thing. But between the podcasters eating their lunch and Trump hammering on them nonstop, tough times in the mainstream media world. Well, according to the Washington Times, an appeals court has sided with ICE in blocking New Jersey's sanctuary law banning migrant detentions. So apparently, without getting into details, New Jersey was trying to do something that would thwart ice. And the appeals court said, you can't do that because the federal government has authority over this domain, the immigration, and you, New Jersey are not allowed to stop them from doing what they are legally allowed to do. So that's another win for the Trump administration. Well, AstraZeneca, which, you know, you've heard of that company, big company out of the UK they have agreed to build the largest US plant in Virginia as part of a $50 billion investment in the US so Trump gets another multi billion dollar win. Is it working? Well, in similar news, General Motors says it's going to invest billions in the US to build more cars here and fewer of them in Mexico, according to the National Pulse. So do you believe that Trump's approach is working in the sense that it's causing big companies to permanently move their facilities to the United States? Well, again, context matters. If you were to add up all of the billions of dollars, and of course these billions will be over 10 years or whatever, and you compare it to the gross domestic product of the country, it might not be that big. But if every day or two you see another national story about another big company that's bringing billions to the United States, that should cause almost every other big company to say, oh, damn it, we're going to have to match that. If we don't say we're bringing stuff to the United States, that's going to bite us in the ass later. So every time there's another story of somebody bringing their investments to the US we get close to the point where they just will all have to do it. We're not there yet. But don't you think that two of the things that the Trump administration has accomplished was one is that people are bragging about saving money for the first time, well, at least maybe since the Clinton era. But now the government entities, when they want to brag and get attention, they say, we're cutting some expenses, we're getting rid of this. That is really good for the country that people are bragging about money, savings as opposed to all the other stuff that they could brag about. And then companies bragging about bringing investment into the US what they brag about is what you're going to get more of. So trend is looking good. All right, well, you probably see behind me in the corner there, the whiteboard. Yes, there will be a whiteboard. I've been trying to understand the whole Russia collusion hoax story and what we know about Brennan and Clapper and Obama and what they did or did not do and was there a crime there? And it's all really complicated, or any of you having the same problem that you want to understand that story, but you don't want to, you know, make it your full time job. It's just, it's just a lot of details. A lot of these stories have that, that element to them. So apparently today, Tulsa Gabbard released some additional Trump Russia collusion documents. And the President Trump is characterizing it this Way in quotes. He said, quote, tulsi is the hottest one in the room right now. Now, when I finish the context, you'll realize he's talking about her work. Her work product. So when he says she's the hottest one in the room, you immediately go to, wait, is he me too, ing her in front of the entire world? Well, sounds like it. But no, he's referring to her work product that. That he's impressed with. And he says she found out Barack Hussein Obama led a group of people and they cheated in the election. And he says that Tulsi told me, quote, you've seen nothing yet. And he says that the bombshell claims that the Obama administration manufactured the Russian collusion hoax, which he calls the biggest scandal in the history of our country. And he says that Obama is guilty of treason for being the head of that conspiracy. He said he's guilty. It's not a question. This was treason. So that's where he stands. Now, Obama has responded to the complaints saying he was part of this major Russia collusion hoax play that was really an attempt to change the government of the United States. And he said, talking about the documents that came out recently, Obama said there's nothing in the document that undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that. Now, let's see if what follows is actually a widely accepted conclusion. Right. So he says there's nothing new that undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that, quote, Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes. Now, that's usually the part where if you don't follow the news too closely, you start getting confused because you're saying, wait a minute, why is Trump saying that we have all this fresh evidence that Obama should go to jail when Obama is saying nothing that happened has changed what we already knew and none of that would be illegal. So how could it be true that the biggest bombshell of all time, at the same time, nothing new happened, Just nothing. Well, then, NBC News, who you should know, how many of you are aware that NBC News is accused by people who know more than I do of being the mouthpiece for the CIA? How many of you knew the NBC, especially, you know, it's not the only one. But very much, especially NBC News is identified with being a mechanism that the CIA uses when it needs to get a story out there. Did most of you know that? If you didn't know that, you would be a little bit confused by watching the news. But NBC News says that President Trump's intelligence chiefs. So that would be people including Tulsi Gabbard, are conducting a systematic campaign to rewrite the history of the 2016 election, seeking to reverse an eight year old assessment that Russia waged an information war to boost Trump's candidacy. Waged an information war. So Russia waged an information war to boost Trump's candidacy. Is that in evidence? And is, is Trump trying to reverse something that we all knew is true? Let's go to the whiteboard. All right, here's where it's, it's all going to come together for you for the first time. This will be the first time some of you, not all of you, but it'll be the first time for some of you to understand what's going on here. So I'll have to move the board around so that you can see it more clearly, but I'll do the best I can. All right, so we go back to 2016 and there was something called the presidential daily briefing that is put together daily for the president. And the presidential's daily briefing for Obama during this critical period said that Russia did not hack the election systems. So in other words, it was going to be part of the daily briefing that would say that our intelligence people looked into it and found no evidence whatsoever that Russia directly hacked our voting systems. Now, the first thing you need to know is that this is a narrow claim. They're not saying that Russia did nothing bad about the elections. They're just saying that they did not, as far as I could tell, hack into the election systems themselves and make a change. Now, the story is that we now know that Obama said, take that back before it gets published. And the worry was that Trump's team, Trump's team would see it, because apparently, if you're the President elect, you get to see the presidential daily briefings. And if they had put down something that said that our intelligence people say that Russia had not hacked our election systems, being very specific, just the election systems, that that might be a bad look. So instead, allegedly, Obama ordered his people to go back and instead of saying what did not happen, they should rewrite it to say what did happen. Now, if Russia had changed actual vote outcomes directly, that would be the biggest problem in the world. But this other stuff, although it looks like it might have been real, was trivial and wouldn't have affected anything. And it would be hard to say that necessarily they did it, Russia did it for the benefit of Trump. It might have been consistent with Russia's past that they were just trying to reduce our credibility in our system so they wouldn't care who won, they would be more concerned with it reducing the credibility of our own system. That would be sort of normal Russia activity. So some of the things that Russia did do is allegedly. I don't know this for sure, but allegedly they hacked into the DNC's email. The worst thing that they would have found there is that the Hillary Clinton and DNC people screwed Bernie Sanders. So you could argue, well, if we found that out, would that cause somebody to switch their vote to Trump? Probably not too many. I mean, the average person isn't following the news that closely that they would have even known any of this happened. Then there were two states where apparently the Russian hackers got into the voter database of each state. Now, the voter database apparently was not changed, and it wasn't used in any way that would have affected the race. So that's trivial. And then, as you know, Russia bought some Facebook ads, but only $100,000 worth, which is so small that it wouldn't affect anything. And then they made some memes or advertisements that were so poorly done that even if you saw them, you wouldn't even. You definitely wouldn't say it was going to help Trump. But here's the clever part. Brennan was asked to find out if Russia was doing these things to help Trump or were they just doing these things because they chip away at our credibility in any way that they can. And John Brennan went away and came back and said, oh, yeah, definitely, Putin wants Trump, and Putin is doing these things specifically to help Trump. Now, because Brennan put that narrative on it that allowed the Democrats to say, wait a minute, are you saying that Russia was involved in meddling, interfering, hacking, and maybe some information warfare, and that according to our own intelligence people, the reason is that Putin wanted to help Trump? Well, that's basically Russia collusion. I mean, there's no actual collusion, but Democrats don't really need much to make a claim like that. So the politicians could look at this mess, this. This messy situation, and they'd say, yeah, there you go. There's your Russia collusion. And then they would throw in the story about Paul Manafort, who was apparently running a scam on some Russian oligarch and saying that he would give him insider information about the campaign, but never gave him any more than some stale internal polling, and then he went to jail for it. But there was no evidence anybody in the Trump campaign was aware that he was scamming the Russian guy. So there was no collusion there, just bad behavior by Manafort. So here's the bottom line. The. The claim is that Obama manipulated the intelligence with Brennan to build a picture of Russia helping Trump. And the reason that they did that is to essentially get Trump out of office and degrade him. Now, you might say, but, Scott, if all this is true, is this really, as Trump says, one of the worst things that's happened in the country? And I would say yes, yes, if this is all true, this is one of the worst things we've ever seen in the country. And Brennan has some questions to answer because he's never really told us, nor would we expect them to. How do you know that what Putin wanted. How do you know Putin ordered this for the purpose of helping Trump? Because it turns out that at least two senior people who were part of that decision told Brennan that there's no evidence that Putin wanted to help Trump. And it looks like the allegation is that Brennan just made that up. So he put together some stuff to make it look like there was some backing for it, but it looks like it was just made up. So, you know, like the Steele dossier just totally made up. So when you see the news, talking about it, you'll see stuff like NBC News, which is not a credible source of news, in my opinion. They'll put together the things that Russia did, which you could definitely call meddling, interfering, hacking, or information warfare, but so trivial that there's no way it affected the election. And then on top of that, on top of the fact it didn't affect the election, as far as we know, they added that it was Putin's intention to get Trump into office, and there's no evidence for that that we've seen. So when you're watching this story, you'll see them conflate the first thing that Obama did with the revised story, and it gets really confusing. Now, do you believe, even if you believe this is all true, does this look like a crime to you? Well, maybe there's some crime here, but how easy would it be for Obama? I'll be Obama's defense attorney. Now, you've been accused of changing, telling the intel people to change the report for political reasons. And then I'm Obama's lawyer and I say, what do you mean it doesn't make sense to do a daily briefing to the president to tell him what didn't happen. Why would you need to tell him what didn't happen? It would make more sense to tell him what did happen. So Obama wanted it to be rewritten to say what did happen instead of what did not happen. Where's the crime in that? Because there are lots of things that didn't happen. Are all the things in the world that could have happened but didn't happen, are they in the presidential daily briefing? No, the presidential daily briefing is not to tell you what didn't happen. It's the opposite. It's to tell you what did happen. So that's all he did. That's all Obama did. He said, instead of saying what didn't happen, which, by the way, I don't recall that even being in the news. Does anybody recall back then, was there any credible news that Trump, that Russia had literally changed the votes by hacking? I don't even remember that being in the news. So why would it make sense to put that in the daily briefing when instead you could say all the things that they did do? So I think he's got an out there. But then you say, but what about Brennan making up the fact that Putin wanted to do it to help Trump? Isn't that a problem? Well, it might be if you could prove it, but instead I think it will turn into, well, yeah, there were people who said there was no evidence or insufficient, but there were other people who said some things which I interpreted to be important. And my opinion, and this is always opinion, and I was hired to give my opinion. My opinion was that when you looked at the totality of the evidence, the people who said there was nothing there, plus the people who said there was something there, and I made a call, a decision, and my decision was there was enough there to conclude. Based on everything we know about Russia, based on all of our experience with Russia in the past, it was a reasonable assessment. Might have been wrong, I might have been wrong, but there's no law broken. It was just a reasonable assessment that it looked like Putin was behind it. Now, where is the crime? And then the Democrats, the politicians and the news, they get to say stuff like, well, we've proven that Russia was helping Trump, and we're going to call that collusion. Well, when politicians lie, it's not really a crime. It's just a Tuesday. The politicians lying is not a crime. So when I look at this, I see everybody conflating the things that would have mattered with the things that didn't matter and leaving out the fact that it didn't matter. And I don't see the crime. Now, again, I'm not a lawyer, so a lawyer might look at this and say, scott, you fool, there are 10 crimes right in front of you. Why don't you see them? And I would say, well, I'm not a lawyer. So, as you know, I absolutely fucking hate Brennan and Clapper and Obama and Susan Rice and John Kerry and all the people who were alleged to be behind this biggest hoax in American history. I hate them. I would love to see them go to jail. I just don't think there's evidence that would put them in jail. So if I had to predict, my prediction was that there would be no convictions over anything we've seen so far. Even if we knew, even if we were positive that the reason they did what they did is because they're weasels, you would never be able to convince a jury that the reason you changed the Presidential Daily Briefing was because you were trying to change the politics. It would just look too much like, why are you doing a briefing saying what didn't happen when you should do the briefing that says what did happen? That would completely convince me if I were on a jury. If you put me on that jury, I would say, I don't see the crime. So don't get too excited that we've seen the smoking gun, and the weight of the law will be coming down on them any minute. I just don't think that's necessarily going to happen. I like it to happen. I would be very happy if it happened. I don't see it yet. Maybe. Maybe something else will happen. Anyway, that's my take on that. Apparently, according to the Daily Wire, immigrants to the United states are sending $200 billion a year out of the United States, sending it back to their families, most of it. The biggest part of that is going back to Mexico. Now, I have two feelings about this, because Trump administration has put a 1% tax on that, and they're resisting it. At least in Mexico, they're trying to resist it. But on one hand, I think people should be able to spend their money on whatever they want to spend it on, as long as that's legal. And it's completely legal to send money to your family in another country. So I don't like it being limited because I don't like limiting people's freedom. On the other hand, if you come into this country and work illegally and you're shipping money that would have gone to an American worker, and then that American worker would have spent it in the United States. There's a pretty big difference between the money just leaving our system and benefiting the other country versus staying in the country where it multiplies. You know, the person who earns it buys something in the store. Now the store owner has some money and they buy something and et cetera. So there is a really big difference between the money leaving the country and staying in the country and multiplying. So overall, since I'm America First, I would like to see that taxed. It makes sense to me. I saw a post on X from PhD Kevin Bass. I don't know who he is, but he says a 2020 paper showed that of 500 randomized controlled trials. Now, if you're a nerd and you follow science, you know that a so called RCT or randomized controlled trial is the gold standard of science. If you see that somebody did a randomized controlled trial, you would trust that result, wouldn't you? Because that's the best the science could do. They've randomized, they've controlled, they've got a comparison going on, right? But it turns out that half of the ones analyzed had fake data and a quarter were purely fabricated. Purely fabricated, meaning that there wasn't any data at all. They literally just made it up. Sometimes they faked some data on top of the real data and other times they just made it up. And so how many of you have made the mistake that I have? And I would like to flog myself and throw myself at the mercy of the court because I too am a person who has said in public, well, this one's a randomized controlled trial. So I guess you can trust that one, huh? I apologize for ever misleading you. A randomized controlled trial is only as good as the data you put into it. And they don't check the data. I mean, typically nobody's checking the data. Even if it's a peer reviewed study, they're only going to check the reasoning. They're not going to reproduce the data and see if they use the wrong data. That's not part of the peer review. So if you believed that science was a little bit sketchy, if it's just anecdotal, you know, just people looking at stuff, it's a little bit sketchy. If they do a meta analysis where you take all these bad studies and you see if there's any kind of weird average that you could conclude that's not the best way to know what's true. And so you're thinking, but if only we could have more randomized controlled trials, well then we'd know what's going on, right? Nope. It turns out that science is so corrupt that you can't even trust a randomized controlled trial. And the fact that only I would say this year is when I first started to suspect this Because I saw an example of it. I think it involved the vaccinations. There was a, there was a case where there was a randomized controlled trial, but they decided to throw away the data from the first two weeks or something. Now if you're the peer reviewer, you just say, all right, this matches the data, it's an analysis, good enough. But if you knew that they had to throw away the first part of the data to get the result that they wanted, you would say, wait a minute, there's a way to game these randomized controlled trials just by where you start the data and what data you put in there. And you get to use your assumptions. Oh, well, I should take this data out because there's a reason that only I understand why it should not be included. And then you can reverse the outcome of the study. So don't trust your randomized controlled trials. Well, according to interesting engineering, the world's first laser armed tank has been produced out of Turkey. And it's a tank that can jam drones and then use its laser to zap them. So I think the jamming and is only after the job. They also want to laser them out of the sky. So I told you that we're heading toward a robot only war in Ukraine and Russia on the front lines, at least just the front lines would be the robots only. And this might be part of that. So there's going to be this never ending race between the drone superiority and the anti drone defenses. So that's getting interesting. I saw a stat that cannabis use. Marijuana is being increasingly common in older adults. So apparently the percentage of people over 65 in the US who report using cannabis in the past year has nearly tripled since 2015. So that's about the time that Trump announced his candidacy. And the demographic group that does the highest percentage of voting, the over 65s started smoking three times more marijuana than before or three times more people are smoking. And I'm surprised, honestly, because if you're not operating heavy equipment and you retired, I would think that number would be a lot bigger, frankly. How many of you have ever said to yourself, well, I kind of like that marijuana when I was in my 20s, but once I had children in the house and I had to take drug tests for my job and all that, I just let all that go. But then you turn 65 and let's say you retired and you don't have that much to do and you don't have many hobbies, well, you've led a good life so far. The odds of the marijuana being the thing that kills you after you retire. Pretty low. Pretty low. Now, I'm not recommending it. I'm just making a prediction that if you think that a tripling of marijuana use among the retired is a lot, I feel like that tripling is going to maybe triple again. So we'll see. That's just a prediction. Leftist pods are killing the country, says Jennifer. Maybe. I don't know if it's because the pot or because they're the type of people who want to kill the country, but on top of that they smoke pot. So I don't know if it's a cause, but yeah, there's a whole different situation if you're in your. If you're in your productive years. Well, let me give you the best advice I can give you on marijuana use. I've said this before. I don't recommend it because it's a drug and I'm not a doctor. Those of you who paid attention know I didn't recommend that you get any shots for the pandemic, although the Internet believes the opposite of that. But I've always said I'm not a doctor. So, you know, don't put anything in your body that I tell you to, except maybe vitamin D. That's about it. So don't listen to me. However, you should know the following. In my experience, the biggest change that marijuana has on a person is to make them more of what they already were. So I'm a creative person and I've always been unusually creative. It makes me more creative. I've also been an ambitious person, so I'm always up for starting a new project, starting a new product, inventing something, you know, doing a podcast. So I'm always looking to try stuff. For me, marijuana makes me do more of that, and both of those are good things. So more creative and more energy to do a new thing. But that's only because I'm smart enough to know there are two kinds of marijuana. One of them makes you want to do stuff, and that would be Sativa. And the other kind is called Indica. It just makes you lazy and want to take a nap. Now, despite me being a go getter kind of personality, if I do the wrong kind, well, then I just want a nap too. So it'd be just like anybody else. But if you knew which kind to do and you knew that accentuating whatever it is you got going for you might be useful, it might work for you. I like to exercise and work out. When I smoke marijuana, I like it even more so for me, it accentuated a bunch of good habits I had. And if it accentuated any bad ones, I know I can't think of one. However, if your biggest problem in life was that you didn't have a direction and you were too lazy or too timid to do what you needed to do, then the marijuana would make you lazier and more timid and less likely to succeed. So you should know yourself. If you're the kind of person that weed would definitely bring you down and end your possibility of success, don't do it. If you're a retired person who might enjoy painting in your free time and hanging out with your cats, well, then that's a different equation. I don't recommend it, but it would be a different situation. All right, that is what I have for you today, ladies and gentlemen. I'm going to talk to the good subscribers on Locals, who are my beloved, and the rest of you, thanks for joining. I hope the whiteboard was useful. And we'll be back tomorrow, same time, same place, for more fun. All right, Locals will be private in 30 seconds.