Episode 1523 Scott Adams: Today Will Be the Best Live Stream You Have Ever Seen
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Nuclear submarine runs into "something"
Misleading jobs report
Whiteboard: Nobel Prize - Old Focus vs. New Focus
50% say President Biden isn't an honest President
Misleading quotes placed on President Trump statement
Your brain, sleep and Alzheimer's
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Well, good morning, everybody, and welcome to the best part of life, the best live stream in the entire world, possibly the best entertainment of any kind, anywhere, in the entire simulation, the multiverse, the solar system.
In fact, infinity itself since the beginning of time, the Big Bang, and possibly before.
We're not sure what space-time is all about.
But I like to cover all bases.
And if you came here for the simultaneous sip, and all the smart people did, I know that for sure, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
Get ready. Did you make it in time?
Did you make it in time?
You're rushing. You're rushing.
Grab your cup. No!
You made it in time.
Good job.
Go.
Well, if you are on YouTube right now, you don't know that last night I gave a live stream drum lesson, you don't know that last night I gave a live stream drum lesson, beginning drum lesson to my local subscribers, and I'm going to And I was testing a theory that a beginner...
Can teach another beginner better, if they're a good communicator, than an expert.
And the theory goes like this, that once you become an expert, you eventually forget what a non-expert knows.
But if you're still a beginner, but you've picked up a few tricks, you know exactly what to tell another beginner.
It's like, whoa, don't make the mistake I made.
They won't tell you this for like a year, but you need to know this.
And I heard feedback that it worked.
So I'm just going to put out that concept that for some kinds of learning, a beginner who is good at communicating would be exactly the right person.
If you didn't see the controversy where Barbara Corcoran insulted Whoopi Goldberg's COVID weight gain...
On the view, well, you should.
I don't have anything to add to the story because the story's kind of complete just the way it is.
I think maybe the takeaway from this story...
Is that no matter how smart you are, and no matter how experienced you are, and no matter how rich you are, and this would describe Barbara Corcoran, she made billions of dollars building her own real estate empire from nothing, right?
So imagine how much capability...
Barbara Corcoran has.
A lot, right?
Like, super smart, capable of all this.
Lots of experience on TV from being on what you call a show.
Anyway, and she actually makes a fat joke on TV on The View.
Now, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have made that mistake.
Would you? Would any of you have made that mistake?
Now, apparently their friends were friendly, and she thought she was just kidding a friend.
But, my God!
That was a pretty big mistake.
Now, I also think that she didn't...
It wasn't poorly intentioned.
And so, yeah, as mistakes go, it was just a dumb mistake.
But it makes me feel good.
When you see somebody who operates at that level of capability do something that none of us would do, you know, we would have seen this one coming a little bit sooner than she did.
I don't know. It was just sort of a feel-good story in the sense that somebody that capable could do something so dumb in public.
Now, let me ask you this.
I've told you before that a, let's say, invulnerability to shame and embarrassment is a superpower.
Now, Barbara Corcoran has done something that, well, I guess for normal people, they'd feel ashamed and embarrassed and, you know, they'd have to crawl under their bed for a month.
Do you think she does?
I don't know. I mean, I can't read her mind.
But I'm just wondering... I'm going to speculate that by the time you're operating at the level she operates at, you just don't feel shame and embarrassment the way ordinary people do.
I'm sure it wasn't a good day, right?
It probably ruined her day.
But will it last?
Nope. Nope.
She probably already shook it off.
She apologized. What else do you want, really?
Um... Two movies on one screen.
Dave Chappelle, of course, has a new special.
You've all heard about it.
And he has some jokes that are, I guess, roughly about the LGBTQ community.
Some funny stories got there.
I haven't seen it yet. But the reporting on it gives you two movies.
Two movies. One is that Dave Chappelle said things that were disrespectful or insulting to the LGBTQ community.
And I don't know if he did or not because I didn't see it.
I'm guessing no, though, because that's sort of not his deal.
He's not really about punching down, is he?
Now, do a fact check on me.
I've been watching him for a long time, and I'm not really aware that he's ever punched down, has he?
In any mean-spirited kind of a way.
And so here are the two movies.
One is that, you know, one of the most prominent, successful comedians insulted the LGBT community, and so they're outraged.
That would be one movie. But I'm seeing a slightly different movie.
Slightly different movie.
Chappelle is a different class of comic or comedian, whichever word they prefer, than the average comedian, I would say.
And I would say that he's sort of in a class where when he starts making fun of the LGBT community in a not mean-spirited way, because I'm sure it wasn't, he's sort of signifying their arrival, right? Right?
Because he doesn't punch down.
If he doesn't punch down, and he's talking about you, what has he told you?
You made it. You made it.
You can be like white people now, or like adult white males.
You can take a joke now.
You made it. That's the only thing I say.
Now, I'm not saying that I have the priority opinion on this, right?
If your opinion's different, that's your opinion, of course.
You're certainly welcome to it.
But it should be...
I think it's worth noting that there are two completely different movies playing.
One in which the LGBTQ community was insulted...
Which I never approve of.
Being a, I'd like to think, a pro-LGBTQ kind of a guy.
Pro-people in general, so I can be pro-everything.
It's easy to say. But that was it.
I feel like welcome to the club.
So, LGBTQ community, welcome to the club.
I'm sure almost all of you can take a joke.
So... Let's at least consider the possibility that there's a little positive in this story.
Let me give you some advice.
You can't trust anybody.
That's part one of the advice.
And then you're thinking, well, that's pretty negative.
I can trust people.
You can't trust people about a specific thing they've promised.
But here's what you can trust.
That people will be the same people that they were yesterday.
Like, people don't change into a new person.
So you can pretty much trust that people will act about the same as they've acted lately.
If they were a liar yesterday, probably a liar today.
If they were not punching down yesterday, probably not today.
It's probably not the way they were thinking of it.
So that's enough about that.
There's a story about a man who plunged, I don't know if he jumped or he fell, but he plunged 100 feet from a ninth floor story in New Jersey from a high rise, and he landed on top of a BMW, collapsed it, and survived with a broken arm.
He survived with just a broken arm.
He fell nine stories, 100 feet, and demolished a BMW. Well, there are several things that we can get from this.
Number one, if he was trying to end his life, and I certainly do not support that, so I would discourage anybody from doing it, but if they've decided to do it, there is a better way to do it.
You should, at the very least, not aim for the BMW. Here's why.
Should you survive...
I'm pretty sure you're liable for paying to replace the BMW. Am I wrong?
If you survive, I think you're on the hook for paying for it, aren't you?
And the BMW being kind of a sturdy vehicle may be exactly the right composition for keeping you alive, which may not be your intention.
So my advice would be, first of all, don't try to end your life.
Don't anybody try to do that.
But if you are...
And you're not going to take my advice, I would say at least aim for the Prius.
Aim for the Prius.
This is the kind of advice you're not going to get on a lot of podcasts.
No, a lot of podcasts are just blah, blah, blah.
But you come here, I give you the practical kind of advice, the stuff you can use.
Aim for the Prius.
Because if your attempt to end your life doesn't work, well, you're still on the hook for paying for the car, but now it's a Prius.
BMW? Bad risk management.
Now, the other part of this story that I found interesting is that his only injury was a broken arm.
Tell me, how do you fall on a BMW from nine stories up and not have a concussion?
Anybody? Anybody?
How do you not have a concussion?
Well, hold this story in your head.
Just hold on to it for a moment.
Put a little pin in it.
And put it on the shelf.
But don't forget it, because it's going to come back.
All right? So just put a little shelf.
Hold it there. Moving on to the next story.
You heard about the nuclear submarine that was in the South China Sea, and it ran into something.
We don't know exactly what it was, but it ran into something.
And it damaged the submarine and injured a number of the people on it.
Now, there's no reporting on what that object was.
What do you think it was? Apparently there is history of one of our submarines running into an underground mountain.
Don't they have some kind of technology in those submarines to see, detect what's ahead of them, that would maybe detect a mountain?
I don't know exactly.
Don't know exactly why a submarine would not be able to see a mountain, but we do have a history of one that ran into an underground mountain.
Don't know how. But I'm guessing that we're not often running into stationary mountains.
Because of the sonar and whatnot.
And you'd think that they'd have the ocean bottom at least a better map down than that?
Do we really not know where there's an underground mountain?
I don't know. I have lots of questions about that.
But if I'm going to add some guesses to what they may have run into, allow me to add the following guess.
Chinese-made underwater drone.
Submarine drone. Those exist, right?
So the first part of the story is, yes, there are such things as underwater drones.
If you were China, and you wanted to discourage people from doing exercises in your waters, but you didn't want to start a shooting war, but you did want to maybe bloody a nose, leave a little doubt, how would you do it?
I would bump...
Bump a drone into a submarine.
I wouldn't make it explode, but I'd bump it.
I'd give a little, just a little black nose.
Not black nose.
Black eye. You know, bloody nose.
I don't know if that's what happened.
Maybe. Here's another thought.
You know, we've talked about UFOs and at least some reports of the UFOs going into the ocean.
Now, if you were an advanced technology, would you be more interested in the stuff that's above ground or the stuff that's underwater?
Don't you just assume that they'd be the most interested in us, the above-ground stuff?
But there's very little above-ground stuff compared to what's under the ocean.
Now imagine you had the technology to come to Earth from a faraway planet and buzz around.
Do you think you'd care if you were flying through oxygen or water?
Probably not. Your ship would probably be so good that you'd prefer the water.
Now look at the amount of water there is compared to land.
Theoretically, I see no reason that UFOs wouldn't spend most of their time underwater.
Because that's where more stuff is.
More real estate, more things to look at.
After they've looked at people, they're like, okay, we've seen that.
Let's see what's under here.
Maybe they ran into a UFO. I'd say the odds of that are low because they have good technologies in those UFOs I've heard.
Now, since we have a submarine that ran into something and apparently got dented or there were injuries, I'm thinking to myself, what kind of technology could we employ in our underwater technology, our submarines?
How could we build a submarine with something that's stronger than whatever they have now?
I don't know. Is it titanium?
Is it steel? What do they make submarines that of?
But what would be stronger than those things?
Well, definitely not a BMW. Because a BMW was just crushed by a guy.
But he didn't have a head injury, the guy who crashed into the BMW from nine floors up.
I'm just going to put that out there, that we should make our submarines out of whatever his skull is made of.
Because whatever that guy's skull is made of, he survived a nine-story drop onto a metal object without a head injury.
I'm just saying we should build our submarines with whatever that is.
I'm no scientist, so I don't know the details of how you do that.
But we clearly have a material that's available to us here on Earth, this man's skull, that's probably better than these damn submarines.
So let's...
2 plus 2 is 4.
Let's get it done. Breaking news, the U.S. jobs report falls short again and only hired fewer than 200,000 people, but estimates were up to half a million, so that's not so good, right?
That's not so good.
Far fewer people got hired.
It's probably misleading.
Here's why it's misleading.
The problem, I think, is that people are not taking the jobs, right?
That's more like a good problem.
A bad problem is there are no jobs.
You don't want to live in that world.
No thank you. That's the depression.
You don't want to live in a world with no jobs.
You want to live in a world where all the stores have a hiring sign and they just can't hire enough people.
That's where we are. Now, it's a bad reason that we can't hire them, because they're living a home and taking benefits or whatever they're doing.
But it's not the kind I'm going to worry about in the long run, because in the long run, that just adjusts on its own.
You don't have to do anything.
You just wait. You wait, people run out of money, they go to work.
Not a big problem. Let's talk about the Nobel Peace Prize.
You know that the Nobel Peace Prize has been announced.
And all eight winners of the 2021 Nobel Prize in Medicine, Chemistry, Physics, and Literature have been men.
Oh. Reigniting a recurring debate about diversity in the highly coveted awards, particularly those in science.
And I thought I'd give you sort of an overview of...
How things have changed in the Nobel Prize.
As you know, it's the most prestigious prize anybody could get in the world, I think.
And, you know, how we think of it has changed a little bit over the years.
I thought I'd catch up if you're not up to date on this.
Now, because I'm a professional cartoonist, I can do diagrams a little bit better than most people.
I think I nailed it in this case.
So in the old days, the focus of the Nobel Prize...
It was about the brain area, sort of the part within the skull portion of the human.
And we'd say, wow, these are really smart people, and we would honour them.
And it would honour science and great accomplishment.
And it was very, dare I say, brain-focused.
And that seemed okay.
But today it seems, you know, like really old thinking, doesn't it?
You're like, oh, all about the brain.
Oh, thank you, Grandpa.
Bunch of boomers.
You still care about brains and accomplishments.
So we updated that.
We're a little bit more progressive today.
And today the new focus of the Nobel Prize, quite rightly, I think you'll all agree with this, is more on the crotch area.
Far less focus on the brains.
Now, I'm not saying the brains don't matter.
Because everybody who got a Nobel Prize is very, very smart and certainly employed their brains to get there, and so they have very good brains.
But we're not really focusing on that.
It doesn't feel...
It just doesn't feel 2021, does it, to focus on the brainal area?
That's what it's called, the brainal area, for those of you who are not as scientifically literate as I am.
So the new focus, quite properly, is on mostly penis, yes or no, but not by itself.
So now it's...
Let me move this a little bit.
Now it's more complicated.
A little bit more complicated.
Because it's not...
It's hard to get my monitors here.
It's not just about the penis yes or no to get the Nobel Prize.
You would also have to know the self-identification.
For example, there could be somebody who had a penis but identified as female, and then that would give you some diversity within the winners.
Because right now we have a whole bunch of people with penises winning Nobel Prizes.
How's that fair?
But it's not just about that.
It's about self-identification.
And then, of course, the most important issue of all is the race.
So you have to get the right race.
Otherwise, your prizes will sort of lose their support.
People won't respect them anymore, and the whole system falls apart.
So that's the change.
And I think it's progress.
A lot of you are still Neanderthals and you're saying to yourself, oh, make it about brains and accomplishment.
Yeah. Yeah. Why don't you go back to your troglodyte caves with Dave Chappelle and maybe come back when you're a little bit more awoke and you know what's important.
That's important. Right there.
Take a look at that.
That's what matters. Depending also on how you identify, right?
And then brains, still good.
You still have to have them.
They're required. I don't want to minimize brains.
You know, my God, brains are important.
I'm just saying they're not as important as they used to be.
Or when we were back in the dark ages, we were like, oh, brains are everything.
No, they're not. Somebody asked me, why don't I make a Dilbert drawing and turn it into an NFT and sell it for millions before lunchtime?
And I said, that's not going to work.
Because I already made a couple of Dilbert NFTs, and they didn't go for nearly a million dollars.
But then I realized, what happens when I die?
Right? I'm pretty sure they go up in value when I die.
Now, I don't give financial advice, so this is not financial advice.
But generally speaking, when an artist dies, their products go up in value.
So, again, this is not financial advice, but if you see me with a dry cough...
Just take that into consideration when you make your NFT purchases.
That's all I'm saying. Mike Cernovich asked this question on Twitter.
He said, what person or media outlets do you generally trust?
And by trust, I mean you would tend to believe that person or outlet was giving you all the facts in a well-rounded and complete way.
And there were lots of answers to that.
Lots of people mentioned me as somebody that they would trust, and I appreciate that.
There were a number of other names.
A lot of them you would recognize.
They tend to be the independent voices.
And I thought to myself, is there something evolving here or self-evolving in which the independent voices become sort of an important fact-checker, at least on the logic and at least on the logic and bias and cognitive dissonance and that stuff of what you're seeing in the news?
I feel as if there is sort of developing or evolving a set of trusted outsiders.
numbers.
Of which I get lumped into.
So you've got your Jordan Petersons and your...
I won't name names because there are lots of names I can throw in there.
You're going to say, you left one out.
Don't leave one out.
Yeah. So I feel as if we're getting close to the point where it's somehow going to get organized to the next level, either self-organized or somebody puts together a book or it becomes a website or somebody develops a system or a process by which every news story can be bounced against the independents.
Let me put a little more...
Bones on this idea.
We're meat on the bones. Apparently YouTube and Google are going to demonetize people that they call climate deniers.
Obviously climate change deniers.
Because allegedly we have a climate.
So you got that happening.
But is that the best way to handle news that you as the platform believe might be misleading or take people to the wrong place?
Demonetizing it is a dangerous kind of anti-free speech way to go.
The alternative would be, I'll just put this out here, what if YouTube, instead of demonetizing climate deniers, simply gave you a link to a basket of people who would give you a broader context?
People who are neither deniers nor avid supporters.
Maybe people who haven't even decided.
But just people who are not lying to you.
Just people who are not liars, who are also paying attention.
That can help you a lot.
In the same way that...
I guess this is a bad analogy, Bill, to do it anyway.
In the same way I talked earlier how a beginner might be better at teaching a beginner...
Maybe you don't need the scientists to help you sort everything out.
You need them also, right?
Don't ignore the scientists.
But maybe you also need just some people who have just looked into it more than you have, and you know they're not liars, and you know they're not crazy, and you know that they have F-you money or whatever, and they just don't have a financial incentive to lie to you.
And I think the only people who don't have a financial incentive to lie to you are the people who don't know who their advertisers are.
Right? I make some small amount of money on advertising when it runs on YouTube, when they don't demonetize me.
And I don't know what the advertisements are for because I'm not the one who runs them.
But the moment I take advertisement, like I talk to an advertiser and say, I will take your money and then I'll associate it with this product, do you think I wouldn't be influenced by that?
I mean, I take great pride in trying to be not influenced by things, but I would totally be influenced by that.
I could try hard not to be.
I could honestly want to not be influenced by it.
But that's not how money works.
Money just influences.
You can want it not to.
You can want it not to all you want.
And then it does.
Because money is influential.
You can't remove that from money.
Money has influence. Here's some money.
I just influenced you.
No matter how much you swear I didn't, on average I did.
Maybe not every time, but on average money influences.
So if you're accepting advertisements from some big advertiser, you can claim you're not biased, but there will be stories you don't cover, and there will be points of view that you might minimize.
What is clank?
A lot of people on YouTube are saying clank.
Does that refer to something?
Or do you hear a noise?
I can't tell what's going on here.
Sticks and clank.
Oh, clank is sticks and hammer 666.
Okay. You can say clank all day long, but I still won't know what it means.
But you're welcome to keep saying it.
It would be good if you...
No noise.
Spoon clankers. I don't know what that means, so stop saying it if you think it's useful.
Biden's approval. We talked about how bad it was, but there were a couple points in that I didn't quite see before.
50% said Biden is not an honest president.
He ran on honesty.
He ran on honesty.
Coffee spoon goes clank.
Thank you.
Oh, he clicked for yours to brain train his audience like dogs.
Yeah. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Okay. I will ignore it again.
I would think the good Trump slogan for 2024, he'll never do this, but just because it's funny.
I'm going to turn off YouTube, I think.
Should I turn off YouTube?
Because you're ruining the show with whatever this clank thing is.
For some reason, over on YouTube, all the comments say the word clank, and they won't explain what it is.
I guess you're supposed to know what that means.
Should I turn it off?
Oh, clankers are Styx followers, I'm hearing over here.
And he's a YouTuber.
So what's that got to do with anything?
All right. A good Trump slogan would be...
Let's go, Brandon. Now, he's never going to do that, right?
He's never going to do that.
But it would be hilarious if he just said, my slogan is, let's go, Brandon.
It'd be funny. John Thompson on Twitter cleverly thought that we should build that into Biden's slogan, Brandon builds better.
Brandon builds better.
But I pointed out, as a professional humorist, that you should save the joke part to the end of it.
So it'd be funnier to say, build back Brandon, for Biden's slogan, to mock his slogan.
And then John countered my counter by saying, build better, comma, Brandon.
Build better, Brandon.
Instead of build back better.
Build better, Brandon. None of those things are going to happen, but they're funny.
I have this fantasy of Trump running for a second term and changing his personality.
Now, of course, the problem would be he wouldn't get elected if he changed his personality.
But sort of in my mind, I think, wouldn't it be funny if he just never insulted anybody or said anything provocative the entire second term and the news would go crazy?
Because once he's elected for a second term, he doesn't need the publicity as much to get re-elected some future time.
So what if he just played against type and just completely never insulted anybody?
It wouldn't be fun, right?
And literally, as I'm thinking that, I read this headline today.
This is how the headline is written.
I'll tell you it's fake news, but this is the headline.
Trump says many Haitian migrants, quote, probably have AIDS. So, let's just say that my fantasy of Trump softening his rhetoric and being a little less provocative, well, it doesn't look like that's going to happen.
It doesn't look like we're going to have any softening of the rhetoric.
But this, of course, is fake news.
Why is it fake news?
Listen to the way the headline is written, and then I'll tell you the story doesn't support the headline.
So the headline says, Trump says many Haitian migrants, quote, probably have AIDS. What do you hear?
Well, what you hear is the press who will absolutely, definitely...
Be turning this into Trump says, Haitians have AIDS. As in, all Haitians have AIDS. As in, the most racist, I don't know, homophobic, maybe, thing you could possibly say.
But did he say that?
Do you think he said that?
The headline says he said it.
That many Haitian migrants, quote, probably have AIDS. Here's the problem.
The part they put in quotes is probably have AIDS. Here's what he said.
He says, many of those people...
He's talking about the Haitian immigrants.
He goes, many of those people will probably have AIDS. Many of those people will probably have AIDS. And if they're coming into our country and we don't do anything about it, we let everybody come in.
So we have hundreds of thousands of people flowing in from Haiti.
Haiti has a tremendous AIDS problem.
So here he is giving context.
AIDS is a step...
AIDS is a step beyond.
AIDS is a real bad problem.
I think he means a step beyond even COVID. I assume that's the context.
But here's the problem.
If you take out this sentence, that Haiti has a big AIDS problem, it's really a sympathetic statement about Haiti.
They have a big problem, and they would import this problem in some amount to us if we let them in without checking it.
Now, you could argue that we should or should not do that separately, but do you think that this headline has captured that?
Because they take the many part, where he's not saying all Haitians have AIDS, they take the many part and they separate it out of his quote.
They do say he said it, but it's not in quotes, the many part.
So your brain erases the many part, and it looks at the quote.
The many, the word many, should have been within quotes.
Because if you put the word many within quotes, you say, many people from Haiti have AIDS, you'd say to yourself, well, I don't know, that might be true.
Like, you know, if you have some sympathy for the Haitians, gosh, there are too many of them who have this terrible problem.
It doesn't sound like anything except a statement of what's going on over there, and it's pretty bad.
As soon as you move the many out of the quote...
That's fake news.
Because it's misleading, even accurate.
It's accurate. The headline is accurate.
It's just misleading. Elon Musk is moving his Tesla headquarters out of California, moving it to Austin.
And one of his reasons was, he said, it's tough for people to afford houses, meaning California, and people have to come in from far away.
There's a limit to how big you can scale in the Bay Area.
There's a limit to how much he can scale up his business because the Bay Area would limit the people who could afford to live there.
I love how big he thinks.
Now, who knows if this is the only reason or there are more reasons or he's just mad at California or he likes Texas.
It could be a political statement in part.
Who knows? It could be many, many reasons.
But I love the fact that the reason he gives...
Sort of suggests that the size of Tesla is going to be enormous, like even bigger than it already is, which is enormous.
So I just love the way he thinks.
He's thinking in the grandest, largest scale all the time.
Let's go to Mars. All right.
There's some new research on sleep.
Apparently sleep is not just good for you in all the ways that we know, but they've discovered that there's a kind of a...
This is a weird term for it, but kind of a brainwashing that goes on.
So when you sleep, apparently there's some kind of synchronization of your neurons that allows this chemical to sort of flush out your brain.
It's a cerebrospinal fluid that rushes into your brain when you're sleeping, filling in the spaces left behind.
It kind of like clears out the gunk.
And the thinking is that if you don't get enough sleep, you're not going to clear out the crap in your brain and it would lead to Alzheimer's.
Because they think there's some connection there.
Now, I'm going to call maybe fake news on this.
It's not news so much as...
You're ahead of me.
So somebody says, is that Scott's problem?
Because as you know, I famously don't sleep very much.
But I'm going to say I don't believe this science.
Because here's what I observe.
And I always look for a congruity between what science says and what I observe.
Now, it doesn't mean that what you observe is the right one.
It could be that science is the right one.
But if they're out of whack, that's a red flag.
For example, science says that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.
And sure enough, I observe that most of the people who have lung cancer smoke cigarettes.
Fits. But when you observe something every day and it just doesn't fit what the science is telling you, you should at least ask the question.
Doesn't mean the science is wrong.
But here's my pushback on this.
My observation is that the people who don't sleep much...
And this is a generalization.
It doesn't apply to every person.
The people who don't sleep much...
Use their brains more, meaning that they're awake, let's say, three or four more hours than other people, and during that time, their brain is active.
They might be learning something, doing something, etc.
And there seems to be a correlation between how much you tax your brain and how much you can put off Alzheimer's.
See? So there's a little interplay here between keeping your brain active and learning new things and exercising it, which people who don't get much sleep do a lot of, because we're just awake more hours.
I do a full day's work before most of you wake up.
You know that, don't you? Except for the East Coast, of course.
But I do the equivalent of two or three lifetimes, I think.
In the time that you spend doing one.
If I get Alzheimer's, and I suppose I'm jinxing myself now, I'm not really the demographic that is likely to get it.
Because I exercise continuously.
I'm always exercising.
I have the right weight.
And I challenge my brain by learning new things even at my current age.
So I'm doing all the right things.
I exercise and brain exercise.
But what I do wrong, clearly, is getting enough sleep that might allow my brain to flush out in this good way.
I'm going to guess that I would be less likely to get Alzheimer's, given the things that I do right, than someone who doesn't do those things as right, but gets a lot of sleep.
And then weed, of course, makes me better.
I don't know if that's true.
I just like it. Matthew McConaughey.
Broke his silence about whether he's going to run for governor, and it looks like he's leaning against it because he doesn't think he could make a difference.
He's worried that whatever he did there just wouldn't be enough difference.
Now, that's the least surprising thing I've heard.
I never thought he was going to run for governor.
There's something about Matthew McConaughey that bugs the hell out of me, and I want to see if any of you have the same experience.
Now, as an actor...
He's great. Like, you know, if he's in a movie, I'm more likely to watch it than not.
I can't think of a single movie.
I didn't enjoy his performance.
Great actor. One of our best in terms of just, you know, star quality.
He'd like to see his old deal.
But when he does his commercials or when he's just talking as himself...
There's something that bothers me, and it wasn't until today that I could figure out what it was.
And here's what it is.
It's the uncanny valley.
It's not the way he looks, necessarily.
I don't think it's his physical look.
There's something about his personality that isn't registering as quite human.
Anybody else get that?
So you could Google uncanny valley so I don't have to re-explain that because I've explained it too many times.
Because when something is close to looking human, like an android, but not quite there, it gives you some kind of creepy revulsion.
Because it's like, wait, you're almost a human, but you're a zombie.
Ah, that's gross. Or you're almost a human, but you're an android.
Ah, that's gross. Somebody said Zuckerberg has the same vibe.
Yes, in a different way.
There are real people who, because of the way they present themselves, look a little off-model.
And in McConaughey's case, if I had to guess, I feel like maybe the way he presents himself on camera in public, probably different than he does in person.
Probably. It looks like he's acting a little bit, but since he's trying to be a real person...
The acting to be a real person makes it look like there's something wrong.
I feel like.
Here's my guess.
And with all due respect to Matthew McConaughey, who by all reports seems to be quite an excellent person.
Very talented. I feel like there's a genuine Matthew McConaughey that we're not seeing.
And I'd like to. Because by all reports, pretty awesome guy.
I feel like he just needs to remove a layer of artifice that maybe he doesn't even know he's putting on there.
Just a little advice.
I don't know. Because I have a positive feeling about him just in general.
But that thing, I don't know.
Sometimes we all need a little third party to say, you know, I'm looking at you and...
Something's off. Maybe you could adjust that a little bit.
By the way, people say the same sort of thing to me.
I mean, a different topic. But as a public figure, believe me, I get plenty of advice.
And I have to say that I've told you this before.
When you get criticisms as a public entity or person, the recording that should play in your mind as you're being criticized...
Is, ka-ching, ka-ching, people are giving you free money.
They're telling you how to be better.
And being better is free money.
So, yeah, it is criticism, and it hurts, and it hurts your feelings, and your ego is damaged.
But, cha-ching, if you're going to do something about it, it's free money.
So take the free money.
The shooter in the...
So there was a school shooter.
Again, I won't give his name or...
Don't like to give details on these shooter stories.
But it turns out that we have a little more detail and that the 50-year-old boy shot his bully seven or eight times.
Now, he also shot a teacher in the back, and he grazed a teenage girl before going on a run.
But the person he primarily was focused on was his bully.
Somebody says he's 18...
Well, I'm reading the story right out of the headlines.
It said... Oh, was it the 15-year-old boy was the one who punched him?
No. Oh, he shot a 15-year-old boy.
Thank you. Thank you.
So the person who was the shooter was older, and the person he shot was a 15-year-old boy.
And I guess the 15-year-old had repeatedly punched him.
So... We, of course, do not celebrate any violence on Livestream, YouTube, you listen to me, Google, talking to you.
We do not celebrate or condone any kind of violence.
How many of you celebrated when bin Laden got killed?
Anybody? Anybody?
Did any of you feel happy when bin Laden got killed?
Well, I can't be proud of it, right?
You're probably not proud of it.
Well, I'll bet you did. When I heard that a bully got shot seven or eight times, I was happy about it.
I was happy about it.
I would like to see more...
No, that would be promoting.
I'm not going to promote violence.
And I don't promote violence against anybody, including bin Laden, right?
But it is a fact that when I read this story and I heard that a bully got shot seven or eight times, I didn't feel bad for the bully.
Didn't feel bad. Felt a lot of sympathy for the shooter.
Felt like the shooter was more the victim than the bully was.
Now, it's a different story with whatever happened with the teacher and whatever happened with the teenage girl.
Obviously, there needs to be consequences for this.
But if the... I'm just saying hypothetically, if the only thing that happened is that the bully had been shot seven or eight times and nobody else had been injured, put me on that jury.
You know what I'm saying? I would fight to be on that jury because I'm going to get them off.
Or at least I'll hang the jury for sure.
There's no way on this earth I'm going to put anybody in jail for shooting their bully.
I'm not. You can, and I'm glad that the law doesn't allow it.
The law needs to be illegal, of course.
And I don't promote it.
I promote no violence whatsoever.
But when it happens, there's no way I'm going to convict that guy for killing.
No way. Nope.
Might thank him. Might shake his hand.
But of course, that doesn't really apply to this story, because he broke other laws and hurt other people, and there's no forgiving that.
Yes, he's going to have to pay for that.
All right. Lastly, many of you asked me about the status of Boo the Cat, who I've been trying to get to eat solid food for two weeks now.
Yesterday was the first time she ate solid food, so I had to take her off some meds, and that's going to be a problem because she has to go back on some antibiotic at some point.
But she was scarfing down her treats yesterday and was getting her energy and attitude back, and that looked good.
However, there's a but to the story, which is that she has cancer.
So her immediate problem was not the cancer.
It was just discovered in the context of treating an unrelated problem.
So the cat is on the roof.
She is happy and doing well today.
But we will not have her with us next year.
Don't know how long it'll last.
Don't know yet if there is any recourse.
Chemo is an option, but if the cat is already weakened and she's sort of in a weakened state from an unrelated surgery, probably chemo is not the option it would be with a healthy cat, an otherwise healthy cat.
So we may not have that option, but we're going to try for it, meaning that I will try to get her as healthy as possible.
I will get as much good advice from the veterinarian as I can, and I will do what I can.
