Episode 521 Scott Adams: “Fine People” Zombie HOAX, Reframing Immigration, Lawyers


Topics: 

  • AOC Twitter parody account (clearly indicated as PARODY) banned
  • “Fine People” HOAX promoters attempting to spin and maintain HOAX
  • WaPo HOAXers are ignoring Steve Cortes, Joel Pollack, me
    • My blog on “fine people” HOAX predicted WaPo article
  • President Trump hyperbole is psychology CREATING POSITIVE RESULTS
    • In contrast, “fine people” HOAX is destructive for the country
  • Enemy press tries to paint positive-result hyperbole as “lies”
    • POTUS uses hyperbole to drive POSITIVE results for America
  • 600 attorneys sign deceptive misleading letter
    • Trick 1: How many attorneys DISAGREE?
      • Data point taken out of context to create a perception 
  • Trick 2: President doing his job…can’t be obstruction of justice
    • Knowing now, what HE knew back then (witchhunt)
    • it was his job to manage Comey and others
  • Trick 3: “He would have been indicted”…but NOT convicted
  • The “persuadables” are the only people who should be polled
    • Team people (GOP or DEM) can’t be persuaded
  • Mexico and the America do NOT share a border
    • Drug cartels control border territory in Mexico
  • REFRAME #1: Whiteboard
    • Border wall is between America and murderous drug cartels
  • REFRAME #2: Whiteboard
    • Immigration Plans with estimated acceptable levels of crime
      • Objective priorities list for murder, rape, GDP, drugs
      • 1. What’s your plan cost?
      • 2. What’s the estimated crime reduction?

Please donate to support my Periscopes and Podcasts:

I also fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer these methods 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.
below is a demonstration of the personal DONATE button you can add to any blog or web page. All you need is a free account on the Interface by WhenHub app.

The post Episode 521 Scott Adams: “Fine People” Zombie HOAX, Reframing Immigration, Lawyers appeared first on Dilbert Blog.


Dilbert Blog

The “Fine People” Hoax Funnel

I’ve been publicly debunking the “fine people” hoax since 2017. The press created the hoax by consistently and intentionally omitting the second half of President Trump’s comments about Charlottesville. If you only see or hear the first half of what the president said, it looks exactly like the president is calling neo-Nazis “fine people.” But in the second part of Trump’s comments, he clarified, “You had people in that group who were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of the park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

In other words, the president believed there were non-racists in attendance who support keeping historical monuments. To remove all doubt, the President continued with “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay?”

Keep in mind that it doesn’t matter if the President’s assumption about the attendees was accurate or not. He clearly stated his assumption that some people were there for the monument protest, which he contrasted to the racists who were there to march and chant racist stuff. The New York Times interviewed a member of the non-marchers who said they did not stand with the racists. They cared about guns and free speech. See for yourself, here and more background on that group here.

Last week I chatted at length with one of the Charlottesville protest attendees. He hates racism, loves free speech, and wasn’t “marching with” anyone. He reports that there was chaos from the start, with lots of people all over the venue doing lots of different things. And there was no way to know what all of the people in normal street clothes were thinking by attending. He was there because he figured it would be a diverse group, from Antifa to neo-Nazis, with plenty of normal non-racists in between. Bolstering his argument is his Jewish heritage. He didn’t think he was attending a neo-Nazi event. He learned that from the press.

How dumb is that guy, you might reasonably ask?

I asked him to explain how he could look at the flyer for the event and NOT know it was organized by racists. I pointed to the little Nazi-looking winged image on the flyer to make my point. He said it looked like an American eagle to him. And when I started to push back on that point, he sent me other images of American eagles that are evil and warlike. At that point, I remembered a central truth about the human experience: If a hundred people look at exactly the same thing at the same time, they will arrive at wildly different opinions of what they are seeing. If you show that racist flyer to a hundred Americans, most would not recognize the names of the speakers, and many would not realize the graphic design was suggestive of a racist association. The fact that you and I would definitely recognize it for what it was does not suggest others would do the same. As evidence that people interpret the same information differently, consider every political disagreement ever. Most of it involves people looking at the same information and drawing mind-bogglingly different conclusions about what it all means. I wrote about that phenomenon in my book Win Bigly.

I remind you again that it doesn’t matter whether or not President Trump was accurate in his assumption that some non-racists attended. He stated his assumption and then spoke to the assumption. Worst case, the New York Times got the “fine people” story wrong, and Trump also got a detail wrong about the composition of the crowd. There was no reporting on the exact composition of the crowd, then or later. No one did a survey of opinions. We only know of the groups that had the highest profiles.

In America, if there is a large political protest of any kind, the most reasonable assumption one could make is that it will attract a diverse crowd including nearly every kind of opinion on just about everything. If the President is wrong about the existence at that event of some non-racists who were pro-statue, this would be one of the few times in history that there were only two opinions at an event attended by hundreds.

My point is that Trump could have been right or wrong about who attended, but it doesn’t change the fact that his words clearly and unambiguously condemned the marching racists while excluding them from his “fine people” category.

But there is something far more interesting going on here than just a story of fake news and quotes taken out of context. This topic is like a laboratory for testing cognitive dissonance. Rarely do you see a strongly held belief, such as the “fine people” hoax, which can be so easily and unambiguously debunked. You only need to show the transcript and/or the video of Trump’s comments in their entirety. The case is made. Easy, right?

After a few years of trying to deprogram people from this hoax, I have discovered a fascinating similarity in how people’s brains respond to having their worldview annihilated in real time. I call it the “fine people” hoax funnel. When you present the debunking context to a believer in the hoax, they will NEVER say this: “Gee, I hadn’t seen the full quote. Now that I see it in its complete form, it is obvious to me that my long-held belief is 100% wrong and the media has been duping me.”

That doesn’t happen.

Instead, people usually react by falling down what I call the Hoax Funnel. I use the funnel imagery because the big hoax (that the President called neo-Nazis fine people) is instantly replaced with a lesser hoax, and so on, until the final claim is laughably vaporous, consisting of a question without a claim. Here is the hoax funnel in all its parts. You can test this at home by debunking the hoax with friends and family. Watch how they all go down the same hoax funnel until they end with nothing but questions of the “How do you explain X, then?” type.

We start at the top of the funnel.

Trump called neo-Nazis and white nationalists in Charlottesville “fine people”

This is debunked by showing the full transcript or the full video in which he clearly, and without prompting, says the exact opposite, that the neo-Nazis and white nationalists should be condemned totally. See for yourself.

The believer in the “fine people” hoax will question the authenticity of the transcript first, which you can debunk by showing the actual video clip here. Once the legitimacy of the transcript is established, expect the believer to retreat down the hoax funnel to the following hallucination.

No “fine people” march with neo-Nazis!

Here you can expect the hoaxed person to hallucinate (literally) a fact that is not claimed and is not in evidence. There is no claim that “fine people” were “marching with” the neo-Nazis, or supporting them in any way. There is a claim that such people were in the same zip code. The “marching with” hallucination is easily debunked by a New York Times article in which they interview one of the non-racists in attendance who love guns and free speech and do not stand with racists, much less march with them. Excerpt here:

But it doesn’t matter if the New York Times got that story right. What matters is that the President explained his assumption about who attended. Keep in mind that the media has not reported who attended. No survey of opinions was taken, and there were plenty of people in attendance who were not physically marching or chanting with the neo-Nazis.

Once you debunk the “marching with” point, expect the believer to retreat down the hoax funnel to this next point.

Trump wasn’t talking about statue protests! He was talking about protesters versus neo-Nazis!

Again, showing the transcript debunks this claim. Trump specifically mentioned that people were protesting the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue. That clearly frames the “both sides” as being pro and anti-statue, not neo-Nazis versus anti-racism protestors, which of course was the biggest story theme from the event.

Once you have shown that Trump was explicitly talking about both sides of the statue debate, believers can be expected to retreat down the hoax funnel to this next level.

It was obviously a neo-Nazi event, so no one would attend who was not a racist!

That point would make sense if you had never spent a minute as an adult in the actual world. In the real world, a hundred people can look at a flyer and have a lot of different opinions on what it means. You might look at the flyer and conclude that only racists were attending. Someone else might look at it and not know some of the named speakers had racist views, or might assume the racists were a small part of a larger event about statues. The only way a believer can defend their “should have known” opinion is by assuming that the attendees were smarter than the average American seems to be in every other walk of life. You can’t get a hundred Americans to have the same interpretation of ANYTHING, no matter how confident you are that they should.

Once you have debunked this claim by showing how opposite the “should have known” argument is to all human experience, observation, and common sense, the believer will still hold it to be a rational argument. But you can finish it off by reminding the believer that the facts of exactly who attended do not matter to the hoax question because the President clearly stated he believed some non-racists were attending to protest the statue question. (No marching!)

At this point, your believer will retreat further down the hoax funnel to an even weaker position that looks like this.

Why didn’t the non-racists who attended turn and leave as soon as they arrived? Huh? Huh? Explain that, you apologist!

Notice we are entering the question phase instead of the opinion stage. When hoax believers are so far down the hoax funnel that the best point they can make is in the form of a question, you have already debunked the main point: The President was NOT calling the neo-Nazis and white nationalists “fine people.”

But watch how your believer will abandon the main point without admitting it, as if the lesser points that follow are somehow all the original point, but different. This is when things get really freaky.

Expect this question next.

Why doesn’t the president speak out against racism and neo-Nazis?

This can be debunked by referring to links showing the President repeatedly condemning racism and bigotry at different times and places. See here and here and here for examples. And of course here talking about Charlottesville.

After you have shown clips of Trump condemning racists repeatedly, and naming the groups, you generally see the hoax believer retreat down the hoax funnel to this.

Why is Trump “revising history” now, instead of when it happened in 2016?

Chris Cuomo of CNN asked this question recently when discussing the topic. And he asked the question immediately after reporting that Sleepy Joe Biden had raised the issue in his campaign announcement speech. Biden is the answer to the first part of the question as to why it is in the headlines. But why is Trump pushing back on the hoax now when he didn’t push back so hard in 2016?

Unfortunately, I have some insight into that question, and I don’t like it. According to my sources, the White House staff (many of whom were not as pro-Trump as you would expect, especially in 2016) and even some percentage of the management of FoxNews believed the hoax. That isn’t so surprising when you consider that half the country believed it and still do. Under those conditions, the President was trapped. If he couldn’t get his own staff and FoxNews on his side, maybe it was better to let the story atrophy from lack of attention. I can’t read the President’s mind, but without his staff and FoxNews on the same side, it would have been risky to take on the hoax without backup.

So what changed?

It turns out I’m part of the answer to that question. As I said, I’ve been publicly persuading on this topic for a few years, and slowly picking up support. But I wasn’t getting much traction until Sleepy Joe raised the issue, and that encouraged me to hammer at the topic with the help of my 312,000 Twitter followers. Brave writers such as Joel Pollack and Steve Cortes took it up a level with articles debunking the hoax here and here. Best of all, meme-maker phenomenon Carpe Donktum mocked the hoax in a way that is fun and visual, which increased its attention.

Collectively, including all the folks on social media who joined the debunking, we made enough noise to force the major news outlets to respond to the criticisms, with several of them naming me as a debunker. Wikipedia was the first non-right-leaning publication to debunk the hoax by including for the first time the entirety of the President’s statements. In the past week, I’ve seen other major publications debunk it as well, while pretending they are not. By that I mean they show the second part of the quote that debunks the hoax. They don’t frame it as a debunking, choosing instead (every time) to descend down the hoax funnel to find something – anything – that is tangentially related to the topic that they can claim is what they meant all along, or is true enough, or at least changes the subject. I include among the debunkers this past week the Washington Post, Vox, CNN, FoxNews, TheDailyBeast, RealClearPolitics, Breitbart, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and even Politifact.com. Any publication that printed the second part of Trump’s statement is debunking the hoax.

You might think all that debunking would be enough to end the hoax. But the hoax funnel goes deep. Chris Cuomo of CNN retreated all the way to this question.

Why does Trump speak out against Islamic terror more than white supremacy when the death count lately is higher from white supremacists?

I can’t read the President’s mind, but I observe he downplays everything he wants to see less of and exaggerates everything he wants more of. For example, he downplayed ISIS when the press was warning they were still a bigger threat. I interpreted that as a way to keep ISIS recruiting down. Who wants to join a losing team? Likewise, downplaying the rise of white nationalists/supremacists is how you get less of it. That last thing that would be helpful to the nation is hearing our President say the racists are doing great lately at getting their kill stats up. That would attract people to it.

We also know the press tries hard to frame the president as the cause of any rise in racist violence in this country. If someone is blaming you for causing a problem, would you respond by saying there’s a lot of that problem? You might think the smart answer involves minimizing it, given that you know you are going to take the blame for it.

It also doesn’t make much sense to say domestic racist terror is “worse” than Islamic terror based solely on the fact that the recent body counts are higher in one group. For starters, only a few dozen people are killed by domestic terror per year, compared to 280,000 people killed by handguns over the past decade. If all you do is count dead bodies, domestic terrorism and even Islamic terrorism in this country both round to zero. If you are being honest, you don’t compare those two groups on the basis of victim counts alone.

Islamic terrorists would love to use a weapon of mass destruction in the United States. They are an international organization bent on world domination, with standing armies, at least in the case of ISIS. And they are driven by an ideology that is hard to stop once it gets a toehold. By contrast, white racist terrorist attacks usually involve mental illness and lone wolves. I don’t see those risks as similar, and I don’t know how smart it would be to tell the public the racists are doing a great job of getting their stats up.

Now let’s say you have talked a believer in the “fine people” hoax all the way down the hoax funnel to here. Do they acknowledge how badly they have been misinformed and hoaxed by their trusted news sources for years?

Never.

Instead, expect them to pivot to one of the other debunked hoaxes that they are not aware have been debunked because their news sources are unreliable. That last gasp looks like this.

Well, Trump said other things that prove he is a racist monster, so…

That’s when the hoax-believer will present a laundry list of other hoaxes they still believe, including these gems.

Trump called Mexicans “animals”! (He didn’t. He called MS-13 gang members animals)

Trump called countries in which brown people live “shitholes.” (He didn’t. It was a reference to poor economic situations in some countries.)

Trump questioned Obama’s birth certificate. (Questioning an opponent’s legitimacy for office is politics 101. Trump did the same for Ted Cruz, questioning his Canadian birth. Politics of the most common kind is not racism.)

Trump said all Mexicans are rapists! (He didn’t say all Mexicans are rapists. He was using his normal hyperbole to say too many criminals were crossing the border.)

Trump said Judge Curiel couldn’t be fair because he is Mexican! (No, he indicated that Judge Curiel’s Mexican heritage might bias him against Trump because the media had painted Trump as an enemy of all Hispanics. In the legal process, calling out potential bias is normal and useful.)

Trump mocked a reporter who has an arm disability! (No, Trump uses similar mocking gestures for anyone he thinks acts stupid, including Ted Cruz. See for yourself here.

For a tour of some of the other hoaxes about Trump, see my blog post titled Why Democrats Hear a Secret Racist Dog Whistle and Republicans Don’t.

As I mentioned, this topic is interesting on the political dimension, but far more fascinating on the psychological dimension. As a test that you can try at home, see if you can push a believer in the “fine people” hoax down the hoax funnel. And just for fun, see if you can talk a believer into reading aloud the part of Trump’s transcript in which he “condemned totally” the neo-Nazis and white nationalists. I predict it will be hard to get anyone to read it. The cognitive dissonance should, in theory, freeze their brains and render them speechless. The believer will become “cognitively blind” to the transcript and probably get angry in the process. And you will give yourself a lesson in what cognitive dissonance looks like. Watch carefully the eyes of the hoax believer as their worldview dissolves. They will often get bug-eyed (literally widening their eyes) and start to sputter out laundry lists of other hoaxes.

You won’t change any minds. In my experience, the hoax believers go all the way down the hoax funnel and then forget the journey, returning to the top as if it had not been debunked one minute earlier. But you might enjoy breaking the brains of your critics. And you might learn something in the process.

Have fun!

The post The “Fine People” Hoax Funnel appeared first on Dilbert Blog.


Dilbert Blog

Episode 509 Scott Adams: Update on the “Fine People” Hoax That Died This Week

Topics: 

  • Collapse of the Russian Collusion HOAX, helped people recognize hoaxes
  • Biden now promoting 2nd biggest hoax…”Fine People” HOAX
  • Major promoters of the “fine people” HOAX…finally see the HOAX!
  • Many in media have pivoted…without admitting they were wrong
    • New hallucination: the “Marching With” HOAX
  • Charlottesville free speech supporter, witnessed the event
    • He wasn’t supporting or protesting the Nazis
    • He was there for his own reasons
  • A clergy group attended the Charlottesville event
    • They weren’t supporting or protesting the Nazis
    • They were there for their own reasons
  • A black guy who supports free speech was at the event
    • He wasn’t supporting or protesting the Nazis
    • He was there for his own reasons
  • Locals living in Charlottesville attended the event
    • Why wouldn’t a bunch of locals attend a big local event?
    • People have lots of reasons for why they do something
  • We don’t know exactly WHO attended, or WHY each one attended
    • Ambiguous then, ambiguous now
    • Safe to say, it was a diverse group with diverse reasons
  • The media has now confirmed that “Fine People” was a hoax
    • Democrats CONTINUE to spread this hoax, although debunked
    • Nobody  knows…exactly who attended the event
    • President Trump assumed there was a diverse group, diverse reasons
  • Actual transcript and video of President Trump’s words exist
    • How hard is it to read a couple paragraphs or watch a video?
    • Why is it so hard to get the media to READ or WATCH video?

Please donate to support my Periscopes and Podcasts:

I also fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer these methods 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.
below is a demonstration of the personal DONATE button you can add to any blog or web page. All you need is a free account on the Interface by WhenHub app.

The post Episode 509 Scott Adams: Update on the “Fine People” Hoax That Died This Week appeared first on Dilbert Blog.


Dilbert Blog

Episode 507 Scott Adams: Biden’s Race Hoax Gaffe, North Korea, Felons Voting

Topics: 

  • Joe Biden announces candidacy by repeating “fine people” hoax
    • Then he seemed to endorse Antifa and a slave owner
  • Chairman Kim visits President Putin
    • Peace and friendships are the path forward
    • Hope for Russia, China, US agreement to protect North Korea
    • Potential exists for North Korea becoming an economic star

Please donate to support my Periscopes and Podcasts:

I also fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer these methods 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.
below is a demonstration of the personal DONATE button you can add to any blog or web page. All you need is a free account on the Interface by WhenHub app.

The post Episode 507 Scott Adams: Biden’s Race Hoax Gaffe, North Korea, Felons Voting appeared first on Dilbert Blog.


Dilbert Blog

Episode 454 Scott Adams: Public Demonstration of False Memory, Charlottesville “Fine People” HOAX

Topics: 

  • Taking calls from people who believe the “fine people” hoax
  • Can they be deprogrammed in real time, during a call?

—————————————————————————-

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 454 Scott Adams: Public Demonstration of False Memory, Charlottesville “Fine People” HOAX appeared first on Dilbert Blog.


Dilbert Blog

Episode 449 Scott Adams: PART2 College Admissions Scandal, “Fine People” Hoax, Baby Killing Hoax, Insurance Policy Hoax

Topics: 

  • The defining characteristic of the right, “rules based people”
  • Transgender athletes: The question of “fairness”
  • Is Alyssa Milano fighting for right to murder babies after birth?
  • “Modern abortion techniques do NOT result in live birth”
    • Any baby born is a citizen…you can’t murder a citizen
  • Nick Searcy and others say you need to read between the lines
    • Law clearly says you can’t kill a live born baby
    • Nick and others say read between the lines, read their minds
    • Laws that allow the murder of born babies…are a hoax

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 449 Scott Adams: PART2 College Admissions Scandal, “Fine People” Hoax, Baby Killing Hoax, Insurance Policy Hoax appeared first on Dilbert Blog.


Dilbert Blog

Episode 446 Scott Adams: Press Secretary Sanders Totally Botched the “Fine People” Hoax Question From CNN

Topics: 

  • Two whiteboards that make things clear…
    • The “Fine People” hoax (Charlottesville)
    • CNN is fake news

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 446 Scott Adams: Press Secretary Sanders Totally Botched the “Fine People” Hoax Question From CNN appeared first on Dilbert Blog.


Dilbert Blog

Jussie Smollett’s Job Offers Have Dried Up After Alleged Hoax

Jussie Smollett’s career is just like an awesome script … complete with a major plot twist, then a climax and now the aftermath — and it ain’t pretty. Sources familiar with Jussie’s current situation tell TMZ … he was living a pretty good Hollywood…

Permalink

TMZ Celebrity News for Music


Jussie Smollett May Have Concocted Hoax After Attack on Lee Daniels’ Gay Cousin

Jussie Smollett might have gotten the idea to stage his own attack after Lee Daniels talked about his cousin getting assaulted because he’s gay … at least that’s what some members of the “Empire” cast think. Sources close to the…

Permalink

TMZ Celebrity News for Celebrity Justice


Episode 419 Scott Adams: (Part 2) How to Spot a Hoax, Distinguish Good News From Bad and See the Future

Topics: 

  • Applying current hoaxes to the above filter for hoaxes
    • A look at how recent possible hoaxes fit the filter, or not
  • My public statement that Charlottesville was a hoax, with reasons
    • Media IGNORES my claim, won’t report my claim
    • Media wants to perpetuate the hoax?  Why not report story?
  • Fun Whack-A-Mole debunking experiment you can try at home
    • Making a person FORGET a sentence written on a piece of paper
    • This is a repeatable experiment, simple sentence on paper
  • Intelligence does NOT immunize anyone from cognitive dissonance
    • Knowing it’s always POSSIBLE you’re wrong, helps
    • You aren’t as invested in always being correct
  • Highly intelligent people might have more cognitive dissonance
    • Your ego is a perception, you can reprogram it
    • Everything is an impression, a perception which can be changed

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 419 Scott Adams: (Part 2) How to Spot a Hoax, Distinguish Good News From Bad and See the Future appeared first on Dilbert Blog.


Dilbert Blog

Episode 340 Scott Adams: Our Useless Congress, Climate Hoax, Flynn Pardon, Wall Funding

Topics: 

  • The wall isn’t a political decision…it’s an engineering decision
    • Only engineers can determine an effective solution
    • Congress can’t act, cause both sides need to win
  • Will President Trump pardon General Flynn?
    • The only serious crime committed…was by our government
    • Morally, legally, politically, a pardon seems 100% certain
  • Why can’t we have a “poor person’s insurance plan”?
  • Climate alarmists vs. Climate Skeptics
    • Both are equally persuasive
    • How can non-scientists know who is correct?
    • We need both sides in the same room to work it out
    • A famous stock scam is eerily similar to climate science
    • EVERYBODY believes in climate change
  • Recent poll said 75% in favor of immigration
    • Isn’t it 100% favor, and just a question of rate and process?
  • The way that everyone is going after Trump is changing politics
    • Proposed new law for non-disclosure agreements (NDA)
    • Legal in all cases to pay someone to be quiet for a LEGAL act
    • Cohen issue could be taken off the table by congress
    • Fix this for President Trump and every future President
  • China is an extremely successful country, why?
    • Are more human rights always better?
  • People who are NOT climate skeptics…
    • …have NOT been exposed to the better skeptics side
    • Looking at BOTH sides, the skeptics side is more persuasive
    • The skeptics might be wrong, but they’re more persuasive
    • What happens to models that don’t support climate change?

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 340 Scott Adams: Our Useless Congress, Climate Hoax, Flynn Pardon, Wall Funding appeared first on Dilbert Blog.


Dilbert Blog

HBO Faces Huge Defamation Trial Over “Hoax” Child Labor Report


CEO Richard Plepler could be forced to testify in a massive case brought by a soccer ball manufacturer over a “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel” story that allegedly featured “staged” scenes and “doctored” interviews.

read more


Hollywood Reporter

How an Elaborate (Ok, Not Really) Hoax Brought Sanity to our Blended Family Holidays

Christmas with a blended family of six kids was pretty chaotic. First, the kids got gifts from a vast empire of grandparents and step-grandparents, and our ex-spouses had their own holiday bashes to boot. Trying to gift shop on a careful budget was tough, but it was even harder when the kids would send the same wish list to two sets of parents and then ultimately reap the benefit of a flurry of emails back and forth over who was getting what for which kid. For the record, I never did buy a pony, a car, “freedom,” a secret Bat Cave, a muzzle for our youngest son, “a fire extinguisher and a large coil of rope,” an Xbox One, any size television for any kid, or “new stepbrothers.” I honestly just wanted them all to have food, pants, and manners.

Second, having six kids in three different schools meant a slew of holiday performances right before winter break. I lost track of how many Santa hats we ended up with, and it never failed that one of the boys would suddenly need black pants on the day of the performance (apparently black capris were not all the rage). Coordinating our holiday schedule between school events, Christmas parties, Christmas dinners, church services, and visitation schedules required military-grade schematics.

Finally, blending holiday traditions from two distinct family units into one giant blended Christmas celebration was Armageddon. My kids were used to a Christmas Star tree topper. His kids were used to a Santa figure. My kids always had sparkling cider while we decorated the tree. His kids had enjoyed eggnog instead. My trees always had garland and clear lights. His had always boasted colorful twinkle lights and more Star Wars ornaments than the tree branches could reasonably handle.

With eight people living under one roof and trying to maximize every square inch of space, hiding presents was pretty impossible. We quickly decided that it would be easier to just wrap presents as we purchased them and put them under the tree in the weeks leading up to Christmas. On our first Christmas together, we learned that the kids were expert snoopers and could unwrap and rewrap gifts with remarkable dexterity. For Christmas #2, we double-wrapped every single gift so that opening the corners would only reveal a solid sheet of wrapping paper underneath. When I realized that our efforts were keeping Costco’s holiday section in business, taking a ridiculous amount of time, and creating an immense amount of paper waste, we decided to get more creative. Then came the brilliant idea of Christmas tree surveillance. When the kids were at school one day, we opened up a ceiling vent and slid an old computer microphone inside. It looked just like a tiny black camera poking out. Then my husband stood on a ladder and took some “bird’s eye” photos of the tree and the precious boxes beneath it. Some quick editing turned the photos black and white and made them appear to curve inward as if taken through a surveillance lens. Then I typed up an invoice from a Christmas tree monitoring firm. I paid a “continuous monitoring fee” of $ 275 and an “expert onsite positioning charge” of $ 25. We then “accidentally” left the invoice and photos on the kitchen island.

When the kids got home from school, the oldest quickly noticed some curious documents while he ate his snack. He stealthily began informing the others as they arrived, and soon the kids were nonchalantly circling the tree while stealing quick glances up to the ceiling. They spotted it. They had us figured out! The next weekend, we came home from an afternoon out alone, and all of the kids were grinning suspiciously. They finally confessed that they knew we had paid people to monitor them. While we had been out, the kids had staged an “epic” play for the cameramen to keep them entertained. It involved lightsabers, choreography, and IMAX-quality battle scenes. Finally, all six stepsiblings had unified to complete an amazing project. For an old computer microphone that could not see them.

We continued with “Christmas tree surveillance” for years. Christmases got easier over time. We learned to stop, even subconsciously, competing with our ex-spouses. We learned that it was ok to turn down invitations and just pile up on the couch to watch Christmas movies with our Star Wars-Victorian tree shimmering in the background. We learned that Christmas really could be joyful and bright despite the hustle and bustle. Finally, we learned that sometimes the key to surviving a houseful of kids with holiday-induced brattiness is just to laugh it off and come up with something we could tell them about when they’re dealing with their own someday.

2014-12-24-Christmascamera.jpg
Divorce – The Huffington Post

Need to File for a Divorce!