ht you try to discourage people from looking into the Wuhan lab as the source just because it might have a dampening effect on other research that's essential? It's a tough one, isn't it? Because you might find that the most moral position you could take on this is to lie. It's not impossible. It could be that the most moral position would be to lie about it and just downplay it because you don't want this other research, which is essential, to be just killed at the same time just because people can't abide by this kind of stuff. That wouldn't be a bad reason. I'm not saying it was the reason. I'm saying if anybody thought that way, it would be reasonable. You can make your own decision about what is moral or ethical.

Fauci also said directly, I believe he said this, that accusing China before we had some kind of solid evidence — we had less evidence then — that it would make them less compliant with our requests. Is that fair? Do you think China would respond differently to an aggressive accusatory approach versus something more moderate? I don't know. You know, China might just do what's good for China no matter what. But it's not crazy to think that we would get a little less participation from them if we were mean to them. So that's not crazy. It's just hard. But it's subjective, right?

How about the fact that looking into the Wuhan lab would at least highlight the fact that Americans are funding some gain of function stuff? That's going to look really dicey. And even if the reason we were doing gain of function funding was to make vaccinations and to avoid pandemics, it's not going to look like that, is it? So in the real world, you do avoid telling people the truth when the truth looks worse and more misleading than a lie. That's the real world. Sometimes the truth is the most dangerous thing you can put out there. That's just a fact, right?

You could argue that you want it anyway. You could argue you'd rather take the danger to get the honesty. I'd listen to that argument. But it's a fact that lying to the public sometimes has utility. That's why it happens. It's one of the reasons it happens. So there were good reasons for people to push back against the lab leak story which had nothing to do with whether it was true. Sort of a cover your ass, cover your other funding, make sure it doesn't come into your backyard, you know, make sure we don't get blamed for the wrong thing. Those are all reasonable reasons.

All right, I have the most provocative, probably get me cancelled, topic of the day. And it's based on this. So the rioters in Minneapolis were smashing windows and looting at some scale. I don't think it was the biggest thing in the world. And it's because there was a suspect who was already accused in a homicide, and he was stopped. And I guess he wasn't supposed to have a firearm, but he had one. He brandished it. He was shot in his car by law enforcement. Now of course he was Black, so that sparked these riots.

Now you might say to yourself, but wait a minute, this is exactly the opposite of George Floyd. This is a known or at least accused murderer who had a gun and brandished it during a traffic stop. This is nothing like anything else. Yeah, somebody says good riddance. Here, yes, I join you in saying I have no sympathy for anybody who resists arrest.

But here's my question. Would this be racist? I need a ruling. Give me a ruling. And I'll start with this context. It would definitely be racist if you decided to move because there were too many Black people in your neighborhood. Can we agree on that? That if you just said, ah, there's a lot of Black people in my neighborhood — let's say you're not Black — and you decided to move just because there were too many Black people in your neighborhood according to you, is that racist? Yes, yes, that's about as racist as you could get, I would think, right?

I see somebody say no. Okay, but I'm going to get to your point. Hold on, hold on. So I think it would be racist if you just said I don't like being around any ethnicity and then you moved. But how about this? Suppose you said to yourself that in our current fake news politicized world that the fake news is riling up a certain population to be more disruptive than they would normally be. In other words, it has nothing to do with the ethnicity. It has a lot to do with the fake news targeting a group and getting one group all worked up against another group.

Under those conditions, if you were a white person deciding where to move to or even where to move out of, could you use the density of the Black population as one of your criteria without being racist? Could you? Because on the surface it sounds racist as hell, right? But if the context is nothing about the individuals — and this would not be, this would not be anything about the individuals, which would be totally racist — it's about the fake news and the fake news weaponizing part of the public against the other part. Do you want to be somewhere where the people who live in walking distance are weaponized against you? I say no.

I say that in 2021, and this would not have been true in the past, but in 2021, because of this special case of the fake news weaponizing the public against each other, I think it's a fair variable. And I think that there are people who are going to say, you know, I just don't want to live next to a Black population center because even if they haven't been radicalized yet, it looks like it's going to happen because the fake news is relentless, right? So yeah, it's going to be a judgment call, but I'll put that out there. We'll see if I get cancelled for that.

A funny story of the day that you could interpret in any way you want. But apparently Hunter Biden is moving from his 5.4 million dollar rental home in Venice Beach, which appears to be overrun by the homeless. Now not his home per se, but the place he lives is overrun by the homeless. Is that the reason he's moving? Is it possible? And the story doesn't make this connection because he could be moving for any reason, right? He could be moving just because he got a better home, which seems more likely. But the implication here is that he would want to move out of this place because it was overrun by the homeless.

Why were there so many homeless there that weren't always there? Would it be Democrat policies? Is it possible that the president's son had to move out of a place that had too many Democrat policies? Or was it too much access to drugs? That's a possibility too, right? Too much access to drugs. Because you know, no joke, you know we can all be critics of the Bidens etc. politically, but there's one thing I will not be. I refuse to be a critic of which is Hunter Biden's drug addiction. Drug addiction is a medical problem, right? I know you want it to be about your character. You want it to be about being weak willed. You want it to be all those things, but it's not. It's a medical problem. And yeah, I see the disagreements, so I'm conscious of your disagreement on this. But in my opinion that's the one thing that I'm not going to give him a hard time for. I just wish him well in terms of his health.

Here's something I did not see coming. Reparations apparently is happening and it's working. Working in the sense that it's happening, not working in the sense that you necessarily like it. If you look at the defunding the police, that's kind of reparations because it allows more crime without punishment in a place where you have a large Black population. And so you'd have fewer people presumably going to prison. So that's good, although they may have committed crimes, so if you're the victim that's bad. But also I would imagine shoplifting and looting are through the roof. And at least one member of Black Lives Matter I believe has defended that as reparation