Episode 1217 Scott Adams: Today I Explore the Baseless Conspiracy Theory that Humans Drink Beverages Simultaneously
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Evidence Ivermectin obliterates COVID19
The Great Reset
Georgia runoff close enough to win by cheating
Should President Trump attend a Biden inauguration?
List of 2 million China communist party operatives
Reframing: A path to happiness
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Bum bum bum bum Bum bum bum bum Um, come on Come on in. It's time.
Oh, yeah.
Come on in and enjoy the majesty that is Coffee with Scott Adams.
Yeah, a lot of people saying there's no evidence that there's such a thing as Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's a baseless claim.
No evidence whatsoever.
But, despite that, Shall we enjoy it?
To its maximum extent with a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or a stein, a cantijunk or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine hit of the day.
The conspiracy theory that's true.
It's called the simultaneous hit, but it happens now.
Go. Ah.
Well, you know, they told us that things might not be as interesting in a Biden administration.
And while we do not have yet a Biden administration, I feel as if the boring came early, if you know what I mean.
You know, I didn't realize the extent at which our entire entertainment industry In the United States had turned into just watching Trump say provocative things.
We didn't have sports.
TV was mostly repeats.
You couldn't go to the gym.
All we had, the only entertainment we had, was Trump saying provocative things.
And if he stopped saying it, or they stopped reporting it, what do we have?
What are we left with? What's left?
That's what I say.
Well, there's a claim in the AP that is pretty interesting.
So the claim, and they're fact-checking this claim, and they say the claim is that the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin, quote, has a miraculous effectiveness that obliterates, unquote, the transmission of COVID-19 and will prevent some people from getting sick.
So that's the claim that this ivermectin really works well with COVID. But does it?
But does it? Here's what the AP assesses.
False. False, they say.
There's no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment.
No evidence. No evidence, people.
This was in an article showing all the evidence.
What is wrong with the news?
It was literally a story about a group of doctors who came to talk to the Senate to present the fact that there's a lot of evidence.
That was the context.
The entire context of the story that the AP was talking about and characterized as, quote, No evidence.
Was a story about all the evidence.
Except they left out all the evidence.
They just said it wasn't there.
But the whole reason those doctors were even talking in public is because they were the experts who had compiled a whole bunch of data, sometimes called evidence, that it works.
Now, does it work?
I'm not saying it works, because I'm not a doctor.
And even the doctors who are saying it's worth a look are also saying that it has not reached the perfect standard of proof that you would like with the best kind of large-scale, randomized, controlled studies. So nobody is claiming that that's happened.
But they are claiming that there's a mountain of evidence that suggests it probably does work, according to these doctors.
And the AP fact-checks the doctors as not having evidence.
Now, they could say the evidence is not conclusive.
They could say evidence is not proof.
They could say the evidence is controversial.
They could say people haven't quite studied all the evidence.
They could say we need to learn a lot more.
But one thing that is 100% obviously false Based on their own article.
I'm not even looking at other sources.
I'm looking at the AP's own article.
Completely false that there's no evidence.
And we've gotten to the point where the media can present lots of evidence as not existing.
And they can present non-existent evidence as having plenty of evidence.
They actually can't tell the difference between lots of evidence...
And no evidence.
Now, if I were to describe to you a news industry and you'd never heard of anything called the news, and suppose I were pitching this to you, and I said, you know, I've got an idea.
We should create an industry called the news.
And then you say, what's that?
I've never heard of this thing called news.
Yeah, this is an industry where various companies would compete with each other, To get the best information that's useful and valuable to the public, and then they would report on that, and then people would make decisions based on that.
And then you'd say, well, that might be useful.
An industry that gives us valuable information about the world that we can act on.
Yeah, that's good. And then I'd say, there's only one problem, and I feel like I have to tell you this in advance.
It will be an industry that is supposed to tell people what's happening.
But if I'm going to be perfectly honest, they do have a little bit of a blind spot.
And you say, well, how bad could it be?
How bad is the blind spot?
And you say, well, some people are making a big deal about it, but let's just say the news industry that I'm suggesting we create, it wouldn't be able to tell the difference between having no evidence of a thing and having a mountain of evidence for a thing.
And then you would say, well, I'm a little confused.
What does the news do then?
If it can't tell the difference between something which has a mountain of evidence for it and something that doesn't have any, just no evidence, it actually can't tell the difference?
And you might say, that doesn't even sound like an industry that has any purpose.
And I say to you, just give it a try.
Yeah, let's give it a try.
And I talk you into it. And the next thing you know, this news industry that you funded and I created is reporting that there is a ton of evidence for Russia collusion.
I mean, I tell you, there is so much evidence for Russia collusion, it's everywhere!
For example, did you know that There was a member of the president's campaign who was convicted of something completely unrelated to Russia collusion.
Well, that's proof of Russia collusion, isn't it?
If somebody gets convicted of something that has nothing to do with Russia collusion...
Ipso facto, QED, plenty of Russia collusion.
I don't think I need to make my case any stronger than that.
Somebody went to jail for unrelated charges.
Proof. And then, what about all the proof that Trump's a racist?
Well, you've got the fine people hoax.
They literally can't tell the difference between lots of evidence and none.
Hunter Biden?
No evidence.
Before the election? No evidence.
Baseless. After the election?
Well, there's quite a few investigations going on.
Seems that...
Let me tell you how this was reported by NBC News.
So Joe Concha tweeted this.
And the first time I read it, I had to read it two or three times to make sure it wasn't a parody.
But I think this actually happened in the real world, that what I'm going to describe actually happened.
The NBC News said that the probe was revealed, talk about the probe into Hunter Biden, the probe was revealed weeks after an election in which Trump and his allies Made unfounded and baseless claims of corruption regarding Hunter Biden and his father.
So weeks after these reported unfounded and baseless claims, that they're still calling unfounded and baseless claims right in front of you.
I'm not interpreting them.
They are saying in their own words, unfounded and baseless claims in the same story That they're reporting all the claims that appear to have a pretty strong base.
Now, what is happening?
What is happening?
Are we being gaslighted?
It doesn't even feel like gaslighting.
Because even gaslighting would have at least some sense to it, right?
It would be a plan, you know, At least that would make sense if somebody were gaslighting you.
So they couldn't tell election...
How about election fraud?
The news can't tell the difference between a thousand affidavits, according to Rudy Giuliani, a thousand individual eyewitness reports.
The news calls unfounded, baseless.
There's no evidence. Nothing there.
Russia collusion? Plenty of evidence.
It's all over the place. You're swimming in it.
Look at the evidence. There's some evidence on your face.
Wash it off. Get that evidence off you.
I can't even get away from all the evidence of Russia collusion.
But Hunter Biden? I don't even know what you're talking about.
Who says there's evidence about Hunter Biden doing anything wrong?
Where did that come from?
Weird. So...
You know, one of my favorite quotes from Mark Twain is that people can't tell the difference between good news and bad news.
Now, the first time you hear that Twain quote, that people can't tell the difference between good news and bad news, you say to yourself, well, that might be funny, but obviously we can tell the difference between good news and bad news.
Except that we can't.
We really can't.
Mark Twain wasn't joking.
I mean, it's funny, but he wasn't joking.
We actually, literally, 100% can't tell good news from bad news.
We don't have that ability.
How's that for a punch in the nads?
You can't tell good news from bad news.
But you also can't tell, apparently, if you work for the media, you can't tell the difference Between a pile of enormous amount of evidence, it might not all pan out.
Some of it might not be right.
But there's a lot of it.
Versus... I haven't seen anything.
It's all the same. And now we know that there's a subpoena seeking documents from Hunter Biden that covers more than two dozen entities.
And we're told by people who are smart...
That the fact that he's being investigated for tax-related things does not mean that his only problems are tax-related.
Apparently the way the legal system cleverly works is if they suspect you have problems across a number of entities and maybe you've got some sketchy business going on, If you can also make it a tax case, the tax case allows you to open up all their financial records.
Once you've opened up their financial records with the tax case, then any other crimes would become transparent.
So it's any other crimes that they might be looking for, but there's a little diversion right now because it looks like a tax case, but it might be just to get to the good stuff.
We'll see. But the public isn't any better than the press.
If you think that the press has a problem with the truth, the public is telling me that there's this thing called the Great Reset.
Now, I don't know how to talk about this without looking like a jerk.
I just don't know how to do it.
So if I seem like I'm being a jerk, In the next few moments, more than usual, right?
I suppose it's all relative.
But if I seem like slightly more of a jerk than normal, it's because this great reset thing is the most ridiculous idea in the news.
Now, I don't want to be the one who says, there's no evidence, because there are things such as what Justin Trudeau using the word reset.
So I will say...
Yes, there is evidence of people using the word.
There's lots of that.
If you want to find evidence, there's a lot of evidence that people have used the phrase.
And there's a guy named Klaus Schwab who's mentioned it.
The fact that there's a few people who think it's a good idea is a long way from it being a global conspiracy.
Now, there are certainly people who want certain things.
That's true. But the Great Reset?
Who's in charge of it?
Who's in charge of the Great Reset?
And somebody said, there's a document.
They were going to send it to me.
I'm seeing it in the comments. What about the documents, Scott?
Somebody should send me the documents.
Because there's plenty of evidence, so just send me the document.
I'm sure it's on the Internet.
Why don't you send me a link to all the documents of the Great Reset?
The Great Reset is one of those things that you don't have to wonder if it's fake because it's so obviously fake.
Let me tell you why the Great Reset is fake.
People from different countries don't coordinate that way.
There's no such thing as something that's going to be great for one country and just them and everybody's on board.
The idea that people from all different countries, the elites, I guess, are coordinating to do something which is good for them personally but not good for the countries that they live in is so ridiculous and so not understanding how humans work.
There are not a whole bunch of people selling out their own country for this great reset.
That's not a thing.
All right. There is, however, or there are, lots of things you don't like and lots of trends that you think are going in the wrong direction.
So there's lots of stuff you don't like and lots of it moving the wrong way.
But that's really different from a great reset to some kind of weird plan.
So the great reset, I will say with complete confidence, is not real.
So the vaccines are ready to ship.
And I saw a suggestion that Joe Biden should be the first or among the first to take the vaccination in public.
So the idea is that Biden can help confidence in the vaccinations by showing us that he's taking one right in public, and that would be good.
There's one problem.
I have one problem with the idea of Joe Biden going first.
Does anybody...
Somebody says, I'm scared.
Does anybody see a problem with Joe Biden going first to get the shot?
Any problem with that? Well, there's a statistical risk involved, and it goes like this.
If you were going to select anybody in the public eye who has a pretty good chance, I wouldn't say it's not over 10%, But a healthy, non-zero chance of dying for ordinary causes in the next two weeks, somebody who's 78 would be on my list.
So this is unlikely to happen, but it could happen.
Obviously, I hope it doesn't.
But if you're taking as your standard for health a 78-year-old man You kind of have to hope that he stays alive on his own for a few weeks after he gets the shot.
Because we have a non-zero chance of the following thing happening.
Joe Biden gets the shot on television, and within 24 hours he has a heart attack and dies.
Unrelated to the vaccination.
Personally, I think the vaccinations will be safe enough.
So I don't want to talk anybody out of any vaccinations.
I do expect I'll get one.
So, you know, your decision may be different.
But, it has to be said, he's 78 years old, and there is some chance he's going to die from natural causes, having nothing to do with the vaccination, within two weeks of getting the shot.
What's that going to do to your pandemic?
Yeah, if you give it to a 78 year old and he dies in two weeks, we're in big trouble!
Big trouble! Now the other question is, who gets it first, Kamala Harris or Joe Biden?
I have this image in my head of Harris and Biden both going to get the shot, and Joe Biden goes first because he's the president, and he gets the shot, and they're rubbing it, and he's putting his shirt on, and then it's time for Kamala to get her shot, and she's like, oh, one thing.
I wish I could, but maybe we could just postpone my shot.
What time is it?
Holy cow!
I've got a thing.
I'll be back.
I'll totally be back and get my vaccination after Joe Biden did.
I'm coming back.
Not right away.
I'm a little bit busy.
But I'll be back.
So I'd look out for that.
It looks like, according to the polls, the election in Georgia is within the margin of stealing.
It's within the margin of stealing.
So I think we can already know how that's going to go.
If something is close enough to steal and it's in Georgia, what do you think will happen?
Now, if the election was pretty far apart according to the polls, I would say to you, well, it looks like whoever is way ahead is going to win.
But if it's within a few percentage, if it's really close, and it's within the margin of stealing, what do you think is going to happen?
And why wouldn't it happen, really?
Name anything that would stop the Democrats from stealing the election.
What would it be? What would be any kind of a force or counterforce or protective system?
What would be the people or the computers or the fences?
Describe for me what would prevent Georgia from cheating in this election.
I'm not saying they will.
I'm asking you to describe anything that would prevent it from happening.
Is it all of the good witnessing?
Is it because there are witnesses who can see all the parts?
Is that what would prevent it?
Because don't we know that it won't be witnessed?
Is it because somebody has access to the computer code?
I think there would be voting computers involved, right?
Are we sure that it would be a good election because we have access to the code and we can watch the code and we would know if there was any mischief?
I don't think so. So if we don't have access to the systems, the computers, And we don't have visibility in the physical ballot counting area.
What would stop fraud?
Is it because so many people went to jail in Pennsylvania?
I don't remember that happening.
So it's not because people would be afraid of being caught if allegedly they believe it happened somewhere else and people got away with it.
Because even if it never happened anywhere else, People in Georgia think it did, right?
There would be plenty of people in Georgia who believe that other states had massive fraud and completely got away with it, even if they didn't.
There are plenty of people who believe it.
The polls say that even a lot of Democrats believe the election was stolen.
So there are lots of people who believe that fraud works because they think it worked in the presidential election.
Name any counterforce that you could think of that would stop Georgia from stealing the election.
I can't think of one. I mean, seriously, I can't think of one.
It's not going to be witnessed.
We're not going to look at the code.
And everybody involved believes that it worked the last time they tried it.
There's nothing, absolutely nothing, between somebody wanting to steal the election and succeeding.
There's no friction there.
It's a wide open road.
Now, if the Republicans win, maybe we found a way collectively to witness it better.
I don't know. I'd be surprised. I don't see how it could happen, frankly.
So, our new national sport, as you know, is the Proud Boys versus Antifa.
Have you noticed that Black Lives Matter has gotten a little bit quiet?
Black Lives Matter seems to be quite...
It's almost as if whoever was backing Black Lives Matter didn't need to back them after the election was over.
So it's down to Proud Boys versus Antifa.
And every time the Proud Boys form any kind of an event, as they did in Washington, D.C., Antifa will show up, and then you've got a proper sport.
You've got two teams.
They've got names. They've got uniforms.
They meet in a certain field.
They fight it out just like a sport.
There are injuries just like sport.
So last night, for example, there were four stabbed and 23 arrested.
That's the headline. Four were stabbed.
Now, let me say this again.
This was Proud Boys versus Antifa, and four people were stabbed.
Were the stabbers Antifa, or were the stabbers Proud Boys?
Who do you think was doing the stabbing, and who do you think got stabbed?
Well, I've seen a lot of footage of the Proud Boys, and I've seen a lot of footage of Antifa.
Have you ever seen the Proud Boys bring knives?
Do you have any experience, any report...
Have you ever heard of the Proud Boys bringing knives?
Because I feel as if that's not really a thing, is it?
You know, people tend to be consistent, and the Proud Boys seem to be about, you know, clubs and fists.
The Proud Boys don't seem to be bringing guns and using them.
I'm sure some of them are strapped, but they don't seem to be using guns.
I've never seen a Proud Boy holding a knife.
Have you? I'm not saying they don't own knives.
Of course they do. But I feel as if this headline is again trying to convince you that maybe there were bad people on both sides.
Because I feel as if there is some possibility, a non-zero possibility, because the news is a little unspecific, there's a non-specific or non-zero possibility that all of the stabbing was Antifa stabbing Proud Boys.
Maybe. I'm not saying that was the case, but don't you think that the reporting is lacking a little transparency?
Because if you had to bet...
Put your own money on it.
If you had to bet who was doing the stabbing, would anybody bet the Proud Boys were the stabbers?
Because it's just not their game.
They're just not stabbers, unless they decided to be last night for the first time.
I feel like this is clear disinformation, in which they're trying to create a picture like there were bad people on both sides.
I'll bet that the Proud Boys probably didn't start the trouble And probably didn't do the stabbing.
But I'll bet they responded aggressively, which is, of course, why they were there.
But here's what I say.
When a bunch of people meet in Washington, D.C., and four people get stabbed, it's the first thing that happened in Washington, D.C. this week that wasn't pointless.
That's it, yeah. If you've got a stabbing, at least it's not pointless.
Today we heard the tragedy that trailblazing country music star Charlie Pride died from coronavirus complications.
He was 86. Now, I told you early on in the pandemic that I wouldn't personally worry about Until a celebrity under the age of 65 died of coronavirus, because that's the category I'm in.
This is irrational, by the way.
Don't be like me.
But irrationally, I was saying, I'm not going to get worried until I hear at least one celebrity, because that would be my category, under 65, who died of the coronavirus.
Still none. Still none.
So he was 86, but he's the first one I believe Charlie Pryde is the first celebrity that I've heard of.
There have been a few that have done some work that I haven't heard of, but he's the first one I've heard of.
So it's coming at me.
Apparently Trump would not say if he would attend Biden's inauguration.
I would recommend that he do not.
On behalf of someone who supported him, And does support him still.
On behalf of myself, and if anybody wants to join me in this, I would say please don't.
I would feel it would be more respectful to not go.
Now, the exception would be Herman Cain wasn't under 65.
Somebody's saying Herman Cain.
And I don't consider him a celebrity per se.
He was a business person who happened to be famous.
I guess that's a celebrity.
So, I think that Trump should not attend the Biden inauguration unless Biden apologizes for the fine people hoax.
Because on behalf of the president's supporters, I would not want him to be anywhere near somebody who had done something that bad to his supporters.
I don't think Trump should be anywhere near Joe Biden.
Joe Biden is a very, very bad man.
Or he has dementia because of the fine people hoax.
All right. I'm also recommending, and I tweeted this, that there should be a pardon for Lil Wayne.
So Lil Wayne, the famous rapper, looks like he could go to jail for up to 10 years for weapons possession because he had a prior felony conviction.
Now here's the thing you have to know.
There was no victim, in at least the case of Lil Wayne having a gun in his possession, tried to get on an airplane, I think.
And the crime is simply that he can't own a gun because he has a prior felony conviction.
So there was no altercation.
Nobody was threatened.
There was no victim. It is simply a crime.
Now, how many of you think that Lil Wayne was likely to use his weapon to commit a crime?
I feel as if the only reason somebody like Lil Wayne would have a weapon is because he felt he needed it for self-defense.
Have you ever seen a cleaner case for a presidential pardon?
Now, on top of the fact that there was no victim, and it's sort of absurd to think that he even had the gun for bad intention, almost certainly, almost certainly, I would bet, without even knowing anything about the case, I would bet the reason he owned it was for self-defense.
And he probably had a legitimate reason for self-defense.
I'll bet that was real.
Now, he also had said some either good things or at least he would not say bad things about Trump.
So Lil Wayne was one of these people who got pulled into sort of the Kanye conversation of, hey, why are you not saying bad things about Trump when everybody else is?
And Lil Wayne, to his credit...
Decided that he would side with his customers.
And as he pointed out, when he looks into his audience, he sees a bunch of customers, many of whom could be Trump supporters.
And so he wasn't going to be anti-Trump.
Now, I believe that in the United States, once you become identified as a Trump supporter, you can't get a fair trial.
What do you say? Do you think in our current environment you could get a fair trial for any crime if you had already been identified as a Trump supporter?
I don't think so.
I think that that level of prejudice, at least in 2020, is so extreme that you could not guarantee that Lil Wayne got a fair hearing.
Right? So I would say that President Trump should pardon Lil Wayne And this would be just the easiest, cleanest, smartest pardon.
Because, you know, the president still is always suffering under the allegations of racism.
And there is some number of black rappers you could pardon.
Because I don't think he's the only rapper who's in prison at the moment, right?
It seems to me that every few weeks you hear about some rapper going to prison for one thing or another.
I think Trump should just release all the rappers before he goes, which would be hilarious.
But it would be hard to explain his legacy.
Just think what it would do to his legacy.
Yes, yes, he was accused of being this major racist for four years, and then he released all the rappers, the black rappers, before he left.
I don't think he's going to do that.
But it would so mess with the legacy...
And he could just do it by saying, look, I think they were unfairly treated.
That's the end of the story. I'm just parting them all.
It would be kind of awesome, actually.
But at the very least, I think the little Wayne pardon is an easy one.
I think that one's easy. Even if he's just doing it to make a point...
That the discrimination against Trump supporters is so extreme.
It doesn't really mean that Lil Wayne was necessarily disadvantaged by that.
But it would be a fun pardon, if you will.
And there was no victim, so I don't have a problem with it.
Sky News is reporting some kind of major leak, some kind of hack, in which nearly 2 million members of Chinese Communist Party We're identified as being essentially placed around the world in important positions.
So allegedly there are two million or so Chinese, I wouldn't call them spies, but they're part of the Chinese Communist Party and they appear to be part of a major program.
To get enough Chinese Communist Party people placed in big corporations and governments around, not governments, but around the world to influence things.
And now we know who they are and we know the extent of it.
Almost two million. How many spies does China have?
And I thought, this is really kind of a brilliant strategy in the long run, right?
If you have the most people You know, China has the biggest population, and you have enough money.
Why wouldn't you embark on a 100-year plan?
Because it might take a long time, but a 100-year plan to get your people in important positions all around the world until China just runs the world through just having more people and putting them in the right places and just waiting.
Two million people is a pretty serious program.
I think we should probably look to get rid of, to eject from this country anybody who has any connection to the Chinese Communist Party.
So now that we have the names, we should certainly immediately get rid of anybody on that list.
I did a lesson on reframing on the Locals platform.
On Locals, I'm going to be doing more on persuasion and success strategies.
That's the subscription platform for those who are on there.
I did a lesson on reframing.
I'll give you another example right now.
When it started to look like Trump was not going to have a second term, I found myself feeling sad because I thought, oh, all of my fun is talking about Trump stuff.
You know, 80% of all my entertainment was in this one category.
And I thought to myself, I'm going to lose my main entertainment.
What am I going to do? So that was my first frame.
So the first frame was I had lost something.
It was something important to me.
It was built into my lifestyle, and I was going to lose it.
That was my first thought.
But I found that with practice, you can reframe your subjective experience of life fairly easily.
Now, I'm a trained hypnotist.
And I can tell you that I don't just program other people.
I've spent my whole life since I learned these skills working on my own brain and reprogramming it using the tools that you learn to program other people.
You can just use them on yourself.
And so over decades, I've sort of programmed and reprogrammed my head so that I can change my Frame of life or my subjective impression of life almost like a light switch at this point because I've done it so many times.
And so what I did in this case is instead of being sad that I wouldn't have as many Trump stories to talk about that are always interesting, I redefined myself as a critic of Biden.
And it turns out that if you spend a week or two as defining yourself or framing yourself as a critic, it's way easier.
And all of the stress that I would have every morning, I would wake up every morning, and I'd look at the news, and it would be another story about something that Trump allegedly did but probably didn't, or allegedly said but probably didn't.
There would be some fake news story about Trump That I had to address.
Now, I've got to tell you, if you're going to spend a few minutes trying to debunk something that the world believes, that's hard.
It's a lot of work debunking stuff.
But simply criticizing Biden is easy.
It's simple. You know, what would be easier?
Making a movie like Steven Spielberg is at Okay, Finn.
Wow, you're nice. Thank you for that gift.
That was very generous. So, anyway, my point is that I've reframed my situation as a critic, and I have to say, in all seriousness, my tension, my...
A lot of things that were always at, let's say, predator-prey level, you know, what do you call it, fight or flight.
I went from continuously being in fight or flight mode to happily sitting on the bleachers mocking the athletes who were in the game because I don't have to be in the game.
I can just be on the sidelines and make fun of people.
And I thought, That's not bad.
I could get used to this.
So my point is this.
If you practice, you can learn to reframe your experience.
It doesn't change the objective reality if there is one.
But it might be fun.
I'm going to close on one little interesting story that has nothing to do with anything.
No politics here.
Some years ago, a friend of mine gave me this cool little gift.
I guess you'd call it an antique.
It's a very old ping-pong manual, and it is so cool-looking.
You can see it like really old-timey, and the cover is falling off.
And I found it the other day when I was cleaning up, and I opened it up, and it's really like old-timey writing, and it's just really fun.
And in the front of it, my friend who gave it to me, John, He signed it and wrote a little note in it.
So I did not...
When he gave it to me years ago, I had not looked at every page of it because it wasn't really that kind of a gift.
It's not something you read.
It's more like a cool thing to have sitting on a table.
And just the other day, I picked it up and I was flipping through it to see if there was just anything interesting.
And several pages in, I found this.
It's an original autograph by Bill Tilden.
Now, if you don't play tennis and you're not a historian, you don't know who Bill Tilden is.
But not only was he, he wrote the introduction to the book, but he was the superstar tennis player of his time in 1928.
So the autograph has 1928 in it.
So it turns out that I have an original autograph from Bill Tilden from 1928, who would have been Basically the Michael Jordan of tennis when tennis was new and it was sort of a big deal back then.
So that was the coolest little discovery.
An actual Bill Tilden autograph from 1928.
Now only those of you who have ever heard of him would be impressed by this.
But this is really cool.
Really cool. I didn't know that was there until I just saw it.
So, I don't know that it has any financial value, but in terms of its coolness factor, it just went through the roof.
Alright, that's all I have for now.
And, yeah, you can't tell a book by its cover.
It's literally, I've got scotch tape holding it together.
Alright, that's all for now, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.
Alright, YouTubers. The golden age of sport didn't end well for Tilden.
I don't know how Tilden ended.
Did Tilden have a bad end?
He's not around anymore.
Are you aware that YouTube is over-monetizing you?
What does that mean? Over-monetizing me?
I'm not aware that YouTube is over-monetizing me.
Does that mean they're putting too many commercials on there or something?
I don't know what that means.
Um... Or you have a fake?
Yeah, it could be a fake autograph.
Anything's possible. Alright, go watch SnarkWarts.
I don't know what that is. Tons of commercials.
Let me check the settings.
You know, I've had the problem before that YouTube, it feels like it changes its monetization settings or somehow I change it without knowing that I even was messing with them.
So I've seen that change a few times without me doing anything.
I'll go check that. But if what you're talking about is the number of commercials, I might have some control over that.
