- Michael Caputo says witch hunt and will refuse to cooperate
- All 81 should say “screw it”, ignore congress perjury traps
- Jared and Ivanka security clearances, Dems running out of crap
- Lawyers on both sides agree on the facts of what occurred
- The argument is whether or not the actions are even a crime
- Whitehouse tweet about the horrors of abuse suffered by migrants
- Brandon Darby: Humanitarian crisis is correct assessment
- Democrats stalled their own anti-semitism resolution
- Why aren’t they willing to condemn anti-semitism?
- Are Representative Omar’s comments “secret dog whistles”?
- Is she signaling her fellow anti-semites?
- Are claims about “secret dog whistles” just political BS?
- CNN refuses to address or acknowledge “fine people” thing was BS
- “Fine people” hoax puts me and Trump supporters at risk
- Is CNN intentionally promoting violence via propaganda?
- Candace interview with Hawk Newsome Sunday…MUST WATCH
- Food equality vs. two parents helping to raise their children
- Is it still true, that two parents are better?
- Fix nutrition and it will make a HUGE for communities
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.
Find my WhenHub Interface app here.
The post Episode 441 Scott Adams: Omar, Fine People, Vaccinations, Fathers, Food Equality, Border, Ivanka, Laws appeared first on Dilbert Blog.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
I'm bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, sump pump,
Bob Bob Bob Bomb, hey David, come on in here and the rest of you too. It's time Tyler. I see you come on in here Jose a
Donna, Merriam Semper, Arlene and Brad it's time for all of you to grab your beverage. Can
either. I know it might be a mugger cup, a glass. It could be a stein, a jealous some kind of container I like to fill mine with coffee. Your mileage may vary, but what might not very is your love for the simultaneous sip, and here it comes
Oh, I hope you're ready for that cuz. That was a good one. Oh yeah, there is so much to talk about. I almost don't know where to start a norm
you Dorothy. So let's start with the let's start, with the vaccinations vaccinations,
My only the only thing I'm going to weigh in on on vaccinations is that it's like so many other topics, we're seeing in the news where there's sort of a pretend debate where people are actually talking about different things, but we treat it
it's debating the same thing. My understanding is that the anti Vax Yrs so called anti Vax Yrs, probably not a not a proper term, but they say things such as. Yes, we've tested all the vaccinations individually, but we give them as a big group and nobody has tested what happens if he gives them as it big group. That might be a good point.
might be a good point. I don't know, but it's different from saying you shouldn't vaccinate all right. Those are not the same thing.
maybe the way we're doing it should be spread out- is a different statement.
Then you should not vaccinate, then
there's the ramp all objection, which is apparently uh uh.
Apparently you see, may be the only medical procedure where you don't need the parents approval to treat the child and
It's a tough one because I think the medical case for vaccines is pretty strong and therefore you know you can't really let some people say no, because if some people say no, then everybody is is more at risk.
So I'm not sure people are always talking about the same thing. Somebody says false fall.
Now? I know some of you anti Vax Yrs in there probably are some of you here. I think that the science doesn't make sense. I would tell you that, probably what's going on, if I put the what I would call the persuasion, filter
the vaccination question. If you're a parent- and you have a kid who has some kind of medical issue- and you have two choices- you can even
you can blame yourself? Maybe your choice of a partner or your genetic makeup that created this kid.
Or you can blame science for giving your kid a bad vaccination in theory, if he took millions of people and put them in this position, say ok, something something bad happened with the health of your child. You've got two ways to go. You can blame science and say science is bad and it damaged my child or you can blame yourself. You should predict that some, I don't know twenty percent of that population. Just to pick a number uh. I would say.
It's gotta be science, because the way humans are wired, it's not easy to blame yourself for something horrible that happens to your own child. So my guess is that at least I don't know eighty percent of what drives the anti Vax Yrs is that psychological phenomenon that you can't. You can't blame yourself.
For something so bad happening to a child. Even if really you shouldn't blame yourself either I mean it's not like you intentionally passed
learn some gene that might have had an issue or it's not like you intentionally raised
get in the way that the damage on so that's my guess of war, that the vaccination stuff is all about all right. Let's talk about our Kelly. Did you all see the r Kelly Clip of talking to Gail Gail, Gail, hi FI,
Your last name is, and R Kelly is put on quite an act of being innocent. Now '
the interesting thing so we're watching R Kelly and we're we're watching, there's a special about Michael Jackson, accusing him of pedophilia Gayle king. Thank you. Gayle king interviewed r, Kelly and here's the thing in any other time if you'd gone back, say five years um. If you going back five years, you probably would have seen the Michael Jackson,
and I'm thinking you are so that's that evidence is solid, he's definitely guilty. Five years ago you were looked at the r Kelly thing and said. Well, I saw the special I watched the documents
there is no way they
anything but guilty
no way there anything but guilty, but here's the thing it's not five years ago,
now, you have a better understanding that both the Michael Jackson thing
and the r Kelly thing could be. Complete, bulshit
now. My personal belief is that they're, not my personally
visit. The evidence is overwhelming and that I would just be,
I would be blown away if either of those documentaries about R Kelly or about Michael Jackson are fundamentally wrong. They might have some details wrong, but I would be amazed, but here's the here's the lesson of the day. My certainty.
Is not an indication of reality and that's what that's a little less that you should take with you all the time. The fact that I'm positive they're both guilty is in no way evidence of their guilt and, in fact, since I can look at even a very
the recent case, the Covington boys situation, where I was completely fooled by my own eyes, I thought I thought I saw something with my own eyes and I was fooled
So here's the cautionary lesson. If you are positive, that r Kelly is guilty and you're positive, that Michael Jackson is guilty. 'cause you saw those documentaries, you haven't
Turn everything you haven't learned anything the odds of,
being guilty pretty darn high. But if you're one hundred percent positive, you haven't learned anything because you could be fooled by either one of those situations, I think that's very unlikely, but you have to at least keep that open. Keep that possibility open. It keeps
safe for the next situation, where you can at least ask yourself what is the other case now
that, with the Michael Jackson case, there's a there's, a pretty
this waste of evidence on the other. On the other side, it's pretty persuasive I'll bet you that when R Kelly is done presenting his defense, it will be persuasive to at least some people. It might not persuade you it might not persuade Maine, but I'll bet you the fat.
He is pleading innocent suggests that his lawyer has an angle on this thing.
and the angle might be, that you know there are so many witnesses. They say it didn't happen,
So don't be surprised if you're feeling about how definitely these people are guilty starts to shift overtime when, when the persuaders weigh in on the other side, don't be surprised,
Let's talk about of Annika injured security clearance, so apparently the president has the authority to order somebody to get security clearance, even if they have
and cleared. He did something like that with both Geraten Wonka and everybody's upset about it. Why
why does anybody care about that? Does anybody think that the President of the United States doesn't have a pretty good sense about his daughter and his son in law? Who he's been close to for a long time? I would think that he has a pretty good idea what those two are up to.
now and- and I guess, there's some- you know understanding that they both had international. You know dealings so that story is such a non story, there's so little to well that it's it's telling you something that that's a story. The fact that
Even the story tells you that the Democrats are running out of ammunition, and that's
sort of a theme of what I'm going to talk to talk about next
here's a rule. I want you to test going forward, so I think this is a predictive rule. In fact, I'm quite certain this is a predictive rules.
I'm going to make a prediction about the future based on a rule, and then I want you to track it and see. If rule rule comes from so there's a question about the presidents,
Kim on whether he violated campaign finance laws by making a payment through Cohen, to Stormy Daniels, and so the people who are critics of the President say he
violated campaign law. Now there are lawyers who would agree,
lawyers. There are lawyers who say yes, that is if, if these facts check out that's a violation of campaign law- but here
The thing there are other lawyers who
to law school who passed the bar.
Who have practiced law for many years? We look at the same set of facts and they say, even if all the facts are true
it's not clear that there's any law violated now hold that thought right right. So with it with the Stormy Daniels Payment, their lawyers on both sides, not of whether he's guilty.
here's the key point: they're, not arguing whether he's guilty there are
and whether it's even a crime? Now, let's, let's go to the obstruction of justice, claim.
there's a claim that the president may have acted in a way that it obstructed the molar investigation, and so some lawyers say if that happened, and those facts can be demonstrated. He's he's committed, a crime obstructed obstruction of justice. Other lawyers who also passed the bar, who also are practicing
professional, capable lawyers, look at the same situation and they say the Muller investigation is not a criminal investigation. It's an intelligence,
investigation and there's no such thing as a law against the boss, having influence over an intelligence investigation and therefore
we're not talking about whether he's getting he's guilty or innocent we're talking about whether it's even a crime. So here's, my predictive um predicted variable if smart, intelligent working experience, lawyers are on both sides of the following question: is that even illegal nobody's going to jail? You can take that to the bank. I think now track this and see if I write in my opinion and I'd like some lawyers to weigh in on this, given that these sort of things always end up in the Supreme Court, if they have that capable
You know if that track is available because as a president and because the stakes are high and there's a member you any you know you end up in the Supreme Court in what world does somebody get
convicted of a crime in which there's a
universe of lawyers who went to law school, looked at the facts, every
grease on the facts and they say: there's no crime.
this is not even illegal, we don't even have to. We don't have to ask ourselves if he committed a crime, cuz, there's no
Time described, it's not there's no illegality to be had no matter what he did. 'cause, there's no crime here. In my opinion, you can make a prediction that there is,
actually, no chance that the that the president has legal any kind of significant legal risk for either the storm you payments or for obstructing an investigation.
Because there are smart lawyers who say we don't even know if this is a crime. So I'm going to say that that's predictive and you could you could banking,
you know you don't have to worry about those two things and more. There might be other things. You know the might be related other things, but those two things I am zero worry about, and that's why all right I saw that there was at least one advise. Rick
remember his name advisor to the Trump campaign. At one point, who's who got this. You got the document request. He was one of the eighty one people and entities that Congress
for documents and I believe he said he wasn't going to do it and he said it because it would just be a a
rushing financial burden for all the lawyers, and that is a witch hunt, and this is not going to do it Caputo in the I think that was his name yeah, Michael Caputo, to which I
say Michael Caputo is now my hero. He's my hero, I assume that this is a risky play. I assume it's risky to
I know you're asking for these. I know you have a legal right and I'm still not going to give it to you. I really respect that and I would respect in
even more if the other eighty entities said the same. Damn thing, because I think this was worth fighting over. I thought you know, there's everybody talks about the slippery slope and I always say: there's
such thing as a slippery slope, because at some point resistance appears, maybe this is it maybe this is it.
you know maybe Caputo stand is what gives other people a little backbone.
Because if all the one of them say alright, I wanted to swear there, but I pulled myself back. I hope you
initiate that say what if say screw it. Let's, let's take it all
The way I'm not even going to hire a lawyer, you know what, if all you want and said, I'm not even going to spend a penny, I'm just going to this, put it in a drawer. Well, what happened? I don't know. I mean 'cause, this Congress
does have oversight, but they don't have the right to ruin the country for political reasons and
if it becomes obvious that they're trying to destroy the government for political reasons, a perjury trap and somebody saying in the comments, if it's sort of obvious that that's what's going on, does anybody have a responsibility
to comply. Let me put it this way: you're, a citizen of the United States, Europe, patriots and you're, a patriot first, let's say just a mental experiment.
You're a patriot. First, that's who you are: that's your identity and you get this subpoena.
the complying with it will make a country worse off.
Resisting will put you at risk, but if everybody else resisted, maybe the country is better off because it stops the witch hunt. At least this part of the witch hunt. I would go with the patriots. I would say that Michael Caputo is a patriot and I support his choice. If he decides to not give them any documents, I very much support it. I supported for his benefit. I supported for the benefit of his family 'cause, there's a financial implication and I supported for the country. So there's that let's talk about
The humanitarian crisis at the border, so Brandon Darby, who I had on my periscopes, who is an expert on all things border on the
on the southern border. I looked look to him for the reasonable opinions on all things.
who's border, so whenever, whenever everybody gets a little crazy,
Everyone every now and then you need to reorient yourself Tord somebody who actually knows what they're talking about you know has lived and breathed that atmosphere for a long time as an expert on it and there's reasonable. That's Brandon Darby writes for Breitbart and he tweeted something that I retweeted, and this is really important. So this is from the White House, so it's not from the president but his from the White House so same family and the way
post we did- human cargo, alright just catch the drift here right: human cargo, sexual assault, filthy stash houses, debt bondage all horrors that would have no place to hide in a modern, safe and secure immigration system. The truth is that the crisis at our border hurts you as citizens.
and migrants alike, and then there's a graphic that one out of three women are sexually abused on the journey to the border.
So, in other words, the White House has started to frame this as a humanitarian crisis, a reader
again so, instead of saying criminals coming across the border and there
America, your murder, americans- that was the old thing or that's. Maybe the president still says that we don't know, but the White House, the official thing concentrated on the human humanitarian element of it, that the migrants themselves are suffering greatly because of the situation of Brandon retweets at me says. Imagine if you folks talk about the White House. Imagine if you folks are presented this humanitarian argument for border security
from the get go yeah. I imagine that how much better that would've been we'd have the needed berry are built by now. I hope you continue with this focus and I would like to amplify that thought same one that I've been saying largely innocence, taking his lead. So what I've been saying for awhile and some of you I always morning, allergies. I always like to remind you that I,
to criticize the president's choices, sometimes because people say yeah, you're you're, so in the bag? For him, all you say is good things. We can't trust you, but here's one. The is a situation which I criticize the president's approach I think he is talking about. Crime was a great thing to get elected, but once he's got a gun,
In the whole country, I think talking about the humanitarian crisis is a stronger way to go because it's less susceptible to there the racism charge. So at this point, I think that I do have a neti pot, for my allergies is great, but I use it after I do these things. That's the next thing I'm going to do so, who so my point being that if the president takes the lead that
maybe it's just being tested down by the White House Twitter account. I think. Sometimes you know the president does a little ab testing coming from other accounts.
If you see something from the White House in the White House says: let's focus let you know, let's look at this humanitarian element. If that gets a good response, you should expect that the president might want to adopt that. You know based on how it our example, so I hope it does, because that would be the most
healing thing that could happen is if the president just focused on the humanitarian element and probably would get us the same place. I saw there some some.
contractor for building the wall, who offered to do it for a much cheaper price than what the budget looks like right now. So that's an element, that's kind of interesting to now. Let's talk about a little more racism. Somebody says cannabis,
is good for your allergies. Yes, it is. If anybody doesn't know that if you have bad allergies by the way, if you
smoke a little weed. In my case. I can't speak rather
People- and I certainly would not give you medical advice, don't take any medical advice from cartoonists, but I'll tell you my experience is that will stop suddenly stops and allergy cold or his stops? It immediately.
And that's just over just no more and no more allergies just gone soon as you as soon as you smoke uh. So, but that's not what I wanted to talk about. I want to talk about Representative Omar now this
this is interesting. So, as you know, representative Omar has said a number of comma:
it's about Israel and about the benjamins.
Speak meaning money in about the
real lobby running Congress and buying them off in such and of course the critics are saying you antisemite. These are anti semitic secret dog whistles, so it seems the secret dog whistle is in the other mouth now. Doesn't it.
Does this sound familiar? Yes, it does sound familiar so the president that we did, let's see, do I have a sweet? Yes, so then, there's a bill, that's being considered in the house to condemn Anti Semitism and Nancy Pelosi sort of got cornered by this, and now she has to condemn Anti Semitism, but the bill got shot down now from a political perspective. Is there anything more entertaining
then watching the the the Charlottesville fighting people hoax being put on the other foot, because the Democrats now have to either condemn their up and coming stars, because, if you can,
Omar, you're, sort of condemning anybody who supported or such as they are safe? They either have to do that and have this big split to where they're fighting with each other, but if they don't condemn on, they have to explain why they're not willing to condemn Anti Semitism. It's just like this perfect political set up yeah. I feel
The Democrats have been herded into this. You know this small ravine and then the other shootings going to start. I
I I shouldn't say anything with shooting in it when I'm talking about politics, so
Remove the shooting that was about an allergy, so the President ways into this, and he says it is tweet he goes. It is shameful. The house Democrats won't take a stronger stand
and against Anti Semitism in their conference. Anti Semitism has fueled atrocities from history and it's inconceivable. They will not act to condemn it. Exclamation mark
so the president sees is opening and then he walks in and it's perfect alright. So I just criticized the president for his handling of the border, the border stuff. Now he frames the border problem, but this he nailed.
And I usually don't I usually don't into the gotcha sports. You know, I don't like it when somebody says I I you hypocrite, you did this and now we're doing this, but this is so clever and so perfectly symmetrical, meaning that it's it's a it's a it's a perfect. You know structure just like the attacks against the president for the past three years. That is too delicious not to talk to so the Democrats have have formed the circular fire
The squad and the president is sort of like the narrator yeah. The just just imagine us that the so they've got the circular firing squad. The Democrats do, and- and the president's like and they've lined up in the circular firing squad is like the narrator
and it looks like they are lowering their weapons. Why shouldn't use weapons again? Let me take
Turns out analogies all my.
out a gun analogy problem this morning. But imagine I didn't say anything about any of that
so the president's having a little bit of fun with this you have to assume and the people who bought into the the fine people hoax from Charlottesville
you know the hoax were CNN and MSNBC, the anti trumpers reported the fake news. That
president had called the marching anti semitic white nationalists. The the the fake news was a. He called them find people when, in fact he was talking about people who are on both sides of the statute, confederacy tuition. He wasn't talking about the racist in particular, so so that a hoax is still out there and, if you
believes that hoax, as probably eighty percent of the country did, if you fell for the fine people, hopes the CNN and the others were serving up. How do you explain that he's now tweeting against Anti Semitism
Like it, how do you explain that Israel loves them had explained? That is
His grandchildren are jewish. You know how to explain anything. So the president is continuing to add
you know add another. I don't know, let's see what we're saying smiley Jenga, it's more like he's taking another block out of there of their fake news, hallucination that he ever called the race is fine people, just one by one he's like did. I can
All the anti Semites in Charlottesville find people. Did you know my dog,
Where is jewish, takes in a jenga block
Did you know who my son in law? Did you know my grandkids are jewish? Did you hear that Israel loves me and I moved the our embassy to Jerusalem still not good enough, not good enough? How about I condemn
Anti Semites in Congress and force them to to change their ways about that, take that one out still there get a little wobbly little wobbly, and then you may have seen her trawl pollock. We do today, it's day nine, since he called out in bright Barton. His article called out the fake news about the school to find people that hoax yeah
and he's waiting for CNN to run a correction, but of course they won't. Not only will they not correct, they will not address it's the
this long cricket, fest, chirp chirp,
it's like it didn't even happen so so he and I and others are calling the fine people think a hoax and there's no push back.
'cause, they can't be as soon as they push back, it'll fall apart, because pushing back will draw attention to it and if it, if you put any attention to it at all, it just falls apart all right. So that's interesting um
I was I had to look up the word allegiance because
wasn't that on Mars complaint that there were members of Congress who are showing quote allegiance to Israel, and I actually had to look up the word 'cause. I wasn't sure I knew exactly what that meant. So here's the definition
this is the first definition is loyalty or obligation of loyalty as to what nation, sovereign or blah blah, and so I said, ok, allegiances, loyalty due to a nation, for example, which would be the case. Would it be true that American Congress people have a loyalty to Israel and I thought I'd better look up loyalty just to make sure right, so you look up loyalty,
definition is a feeling or attitude of devoted attachment and affection. Would it be true that American Congress people have a feeling Tord Israel, that could be described,
it a feeling or attitude of devoted attachment and affection.
I would say yes, wouldn't you, I would say that
We have that feeling against all of our allies, not against. We have that feeling about England, Great Britain. We had that feeling about Japan. We have that feeling about S, Korea. We have that feeling about France. We had a feeling about Germany, we we have close attachments and we have
attitudes of devoted attachment and a section and the faction for all of our close allies is Israel, a close ally, yeah sure. So why wouldn't we have affection for Israel, but there is another definition of allegiance and the other definition is where you treat them as
as your boss. Basically, so one definition of allegiance is essentially affection, which I would say is fair. Another definition is, is sort of fealty to or obeying, and that would be the second definition
and that one doesn't seem to apply in this case. So we have affection for the Saudis not as much. I think that would be fair to say not as much all right. No Kamal HEER said the court about this and she said that here is what the quote from Kamal errors. She said. I am concerned that the spotlight being put on Congress, woman, Omar,
they put her at risk. The spotlight on Congress, woman Omar, may put her at risk. True or false I'd, say true. What did Kamala Harris say about President Trump? She quoted the fine people. Hoax Ann put me at risk me personally. I am personally a risk because of what Camala Harris says in public in which he spreads the fine people hoax, because since I say good things about President Trump on a regular basis, I say I criticized as well as you saw in this
Horoscope already, but mostly I say good things about his skill level, because he has a good skill level. It puts me at risk as a supporter
when she goes on television and says that the president called racist, fine people, which simply didn't happen. It's fake news, so Comala. I agree with your point. Comala Harris has a really really good point
that the putting the emphasis on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk at physical risk. It's a good point. She put me at risk, she being Kamala Harris, not Omar Kamala Harris put Maine a physical risk she's. One of the reasons that I don't do public events and she continues that hoax and it's one of the most dangerous things in the country. So I take your point that it does put Omar at risk now uh. Nobody wants anybody to be physically touched. Certainly, but Omar certainly has a political risk.
All right now, you may have seen a salute to users on the internet for a new show on the internet too, with Candace it. So can someone says her own show? I don't have the details of it, but if you, Google, Candace Islands show I'm sure it'll come up, and I saw a teaser that she's gonna be talking to HAWK news. You could not the the
there's nothing, you could do to stop me from watching that. Oh, it's somebody says it's on Prager Ui think that's right, uh, oh my god. I so want to watch that, but that little teaser and I want to talk
that for a moment, so when the teaser- and it was edited- so you don't know if you got the whole context, but Candice was talking about the importance of fathers and I assume the context was inner cities. You know the
african american situation and it looked like Candice was
saying something that would be a typical conservative republican thing to say, which is we need to put more emphasis on Father's, because that will help things hawk. It looked like he was pushing back, and here we don't have the full context. So let me not you know, I hope I'm not misrepresenting either of them, but I
I think this was in the hawks comment was in relationship to the same conversation and he talked about the his importance or his priority was food equality, meaning that if african american kids specifically,
thank think the is the idea if they had the same nourishment their performance
their behavior and everything would be different to the point where that would be the biggest lever that you can play with. So you know Harbison saying: fix food equality, they've got Candice's saying we need. You know more fathers
fathers need to stay around all these single mom families? Are you have a problem and.
For those of you don't know my history, I had been working with HAWK trying to get a constructive conversation going for months and months, but he sort of Mayday.
strategic pivot toward being a little more anti white. If I can just say it that way, so when he was trying to push for a quality, I was all in and I want to help us.
Is that good, but when it became sort of anti white I said sorry hawk. We have to part ways, you know, that's that's the end of the road for frost. Now, all I care read hawks mine and I won't try to. I will point out that he may have to act strategically in terms of
things he does to satisfy his base. Those are his decisions. I don't
I have an opinion on it right now. I just couldn't work with them, so it's not personal. It's just he and I could not have continued conversation once he became overtly anti white in the way he was framing things. So I don't know what he's thinking I want to say. He has personal thoughts like that, but politically he was framing it. That way, so I was out. Candace is just so you have
cool sense of my bias. Before I make my point, Kenneth, I'm a big fan of I met her in person when I did um Fox and friends. Few months ago she introduced herself gave me a big hug. She makes the best
first impression. You've ever seen in the human being a big smile comes over, gives me a hug. We exchanged some compliments, so I have a really positive feeling about her and I got a bit of an attitude about hawk because he won the direction that I can't support. But on this point the one point about Father's value, fathers and then the other view, which is not contrary. But it's another view hawks
the food quality might be the bigger lever. I am, might be leaning toward a hawk. I might be leaning toward hawk and let me run through this for you, so you can say no. I will accept that a father, a good father and a good mother just sort of an ideal situation for kids. So I think that's just a given, but let me say this: historically, you pretty much had to have two parents and one of them needed to be a dad.
To survive and do ok, 'cause women couldn't earn as much money they weren't safe as a van wasn't around I'm talking bout historically, but time goes by right and now women can earn as much as men.
and you can hire a housekeeper and you can use door dash to feed your kids and maybe your
Maybe your maybe the grandparents are watching the kid so today I would ask you this question in a generic sense. If you had to choose between the these
two choices, and this is all you knew. You could have a kid who has one good parent and I'm going to define good as somebody who has a good income
loves the kid and doesn't have any abuse, problems or addictions, or anything like that. So that's a good parent. They love the kid they do what they can. They make a good income.
Kid is taken care of the baby. The grandparents are part of that too. Compare that that's a single parent situation with an average two parents of situation and they the Keyword and the trick word- is an average to Paris situation, which is better the good one parent who has a good income and means well and doesn't have any problems or an average two two parents, because if you take the average of any two parents, one of them is probably going to be bad one of them's going to be a jerk on average
On average, one of those two parents isn't going to know how to be a parent on average. One of them might not have a job and bring down the income of the whole deal on average. One might have an addiction on average. One might be cheating on the other one on average, one of them might be an abuser
So, on average one of them might be really dumb and not be able to teach the kid good lessons. So I would argue that historically and really historically all the way through,
maybe the 80s. It was unambiguously true that a two parent situation is just just going to be to one current situation,
not one hundred percent of the time, but you could depend on it to be
a pretty good rule of thumb, and so it would be worth shooting for that as a standard in the past. But today I would argue that one good
parent. If you knew one was going to be good, is a better situation than two average parents 'cause the average is, one of them is going to be bad and that's a terrible situation to grow up in one bad parent is a big big problem that effects everybody. So I would say- and let me let me extend this a little bit because it's two thousand and nineteen uh two women- let's say two women who are married,
could. They raise a kid, as well as to average man, women combinations. Probably in most cases you get a great outcome, so I would
that the the old rules of of you need a dad in the situation was definitely true from you.
Something like the eighties all the way back to the beginning of time. It was as true as anything could be. True,
but in twenty nineteen
you can be a single parent if you're a good one and you're going to get a pretty good result. Now. I would add to this conversation that over in great Britain there are you have a situation where the kid reaches a certain age and they send them off to boarding school. Now the boarding school has neither a mother or a father, just a boarding school. Now I haven't seen the statistics, but I have to think that that situation does pretty well in race.
Naked and when they still have parents, but they don't have much contact with them when they're in school there a boarding school, and so I would say that we do have evidence that the the
You have to have a dad in the family,
can be a real advantage and maybe
even more often than not, but I don't think it's the golden bullet they used to be.
so, I'm going to give you this summary of that having a good mother and a good father or two good mothers or two good father's grave situation. The kid, I think, will thrive as long as the two of them are good. Two is better than one right for income for caring
for all kinds of reasons. Two is better than one. I agree with that as a general rule, but there are probably lots of cases where one good parent is way better than one good one on one bad one better than two bad ones better than two average ones. So there are a growing number of situations where the one parent situation. Unfortunately, nobody would
This may be, but unfortunately there are plenty of situations where that's the case now, let's talk about so I'm going to
greasy in general, with Candice's view that having a good dad and a and a good mother or any to all extended, this is my own. I don't know what Candice was I, but I think any two parents, depending doesn't matter the gender, would do a great job. Those talks about yeah the hawks idea, which you don't often see, which is, if you fix nutrition, you get a lot of big benefits. I think he's right on that, but here's the better part it's testable. So what is proposed a testable hypothesis that I think has enough scientific
backing that is worth trying. So I would love to see some philanthropists say: okay, HAWK, let's just test wins will will pick a group of people will have a control group and we'll give. I the billionaire will make sure that this group of kids this family, let's
they get good nutrition, I'll just send them. The food and they'll have good nutrition and then
you just you just check their grades. You check their performance, you check their. Let's say
legal issues what they have and you just track it, you could probably track it for no scientists but five years in five years. Would you have a pretty good idea? If nutrition changed
now comes now whether that works or doesn't work. I think HAWK has presented a testable hypothesis that has
Logic behind it, it has, you know, experience suggests it's a smart thing to do, and it also suggests there is testable. So I got to say I give an a plus to the hawks proposal. It doesn't solve every problem, but it's not meant to as a testable high leverage, potentially high leverage thing that is very accessible.
We could test that, it's very, very testable and, and so to me it seems almost irresponsible if we don't
If it is there's nobody testing that hypothesis, I would find that you're responsible and I would back- walked a hundred percent on that proposal, which is not to say that the great dad wouldn't be at the vantage to
yeah. There's plenty plenty of evidence that plenty of evidence that good nutrition changes outcomes plenty of evidence of that alright hook. As a legal background. Somebody somebody asks what was his background use lawyer all right, uhm. I think we've covered all our points. I'll give you one little tease uh
after I talked to doctor Shiva on the topic of climate, and I ask the question: is there any kind of gold standard any
any one testable part of climate change where both the skeptics and the climate
just to say we have a big problem. Is there any one thing we can all look at? Where will say? Okay, if this happens then to climate change is real and if it doesn't happen, climate change is definitely not a problem. Is there one.
easily tested the hypothesis, because, no matter what you look at there's always something else. If you say hey, we tested the ice cores, somebody's gonna say those I scores are wrong and then you say well, we check these
parameters, and somebody say those thermometers are wrong. So it's
This whack Amole thing, but
or any one thing- and I will t is this to say that doctor she called me yesterday and said he had an idea for that. One thing and I'm not gonna tell you what it is yet because he's going to summarize that for me and then I'll, you know invite Amman and will present a two year. Maybe I'm not sure if he needs to be on for that, because it could be just one sentence but we'll see what comes up with, but what we talked about. Did it
in fact sound to main, like a totally testable hypothesis that if it, if it's not true- and we could observe it if it's not true, climate change is not a problem, and if it is true
climate change is definitely a problem, and will you see it in
so you know, you'll have your chance to weigh in as to whether it's a good idea or not, but I was surprised I have to admit. I was surprised to find out that there might be something objectively, testable that everybody would agree with. There might actually be that thing, and so we'll we'll find out soon. Alright,.
Somebody said: how could there be one thing we could test see? That's the trick, I'm teasing it, but I don't want to tell you. The answer
there is a pretty good answer and it will surprise you as a surprise Maine. It's not going to be as obvious as just measuring the temperature all right, and I will talk to you all later