ll them wherever I can. Now where that led me eventually was to become a syndicated cartoonist. And here I am.

Let me give you another example. When I started blogging, I was not blogging to make money because it didn't make any money. I mean really a little bit of ad revenue or something but basically no money. But I blogged almost every day. That was a system. I was becoming good at something by just doing it a lot in public. So that's the system: be good at something in public and it will attract offers.

Sure enough, because of that blogging I got book deals. And that blogging was not about cartooning per se. And it allowed me to shift my entire career focus into more of the life advice that had failed almost everything book, the Win Bigly book, and then Loserthink. More about how to live your life, etc. A complete career transformation that I did not plan. I simply had a system: blogging every day and doing it in public so people could see me work and then attracting offers. That's what happened.

When I started live streaming, some of you know the story. The very first live stream was just me thinking, hey, there's this new feature on Twitter that's now defunct called Periscope. And I just held up my phone and it was during the first election period for Trump. And I just turned it on because I wanted to learn about a new thing. That's it. I just wanted to learn about a new thing because it looked like it was going to be a growing, more important industry, the live streaming. And I said to myself I would like to learn about it, get a little wet, find out about it, and just add it to my talent stack.

I was not trying to do this. It turns out that this has been amazingly successful in terms of influence and the type of people who watch it. By the way, if I told you who watched this live stream you wouldn't friggin' believe it. But you know I hear it from people individually. So people will privately tell me that they watch it on a regular basis. But it's some really influential people. I know you're watching right now, influential people.

So none of that was planned. But of course you always have a general sense that if things went well, wouldn't you like it to get bigger? I mean, but is that a goal? You know everything is better if you get more of it and it's a good thing. So that's basically a goal: do more.

So I would like to push back on the idea that the systems versus goals thing is really just a word trick and you really do have goals. No, I'm completely serious about having a system without a goal. For example, I have a diet system to keep my diet on track and I have a fitness system to keep my fitness on track. What is my goal? I don't have one, right? I don't have a weight goal. I don't have a size of muscle goal. I don't have a goal. Just sort of generally would be better I guess, healthier, maybe more aesthetically pleasing if my body has better muscles or whatever. But no goal, right? Just health.

All right. I'm old enough to remember this. I don't know if you are. But do you remember when science was respected? It was a while ago. If you're old enough to remember this, I think it was last year, 2020, back when we still thought that science was a pretty good deal and very credible. And if scientists told us something was true, well it's probably true. Probably true.

This morning I read a tweet that said masks don't work any better than underwear can stop a fart. And I saw that and I said to myself, you know I remember a time when science was more respected than fart analogies. Maybe last year. But in 2021 it is literally true that science is not respected more than fart analogies. Because the number of people who read the tweet about the fart analogy probably believed that at about the same rate as we believe anything science tells us in 2021.

Just think about the fact that it is literally as credible — a tweet about farting through your underpants. I'm not even exaggerating. The tweet about farting through your underpants is as credible, not as true but as believed by the public, as science. None of that is hyperbole. It really isn't. And if you think it's hyperbole you're missing the point. That's actually how bad it is that we don't trust science more than a fart analogy. That's where we are.

So congratulations. Here's a really provocative story. So a federal judge in Manhattan tossed out an indictment against a Bronx shooting suspect because — why do you think this judge, a federal judge, tossed out an indictment against a shooting suspect? Well it turns out that the grand jury pool wasn't diverse enough. That's right. An indictment has been overturned because the judge ruled that the jury wasn't diverse enough.

Okay. Now you see a problem here that if you look ahead a little bit, like what's the logical place that this goes to? I'm not saying it's a slippery slope. I'm just saying that this opened a pretty big can of worms. Let's say you had been convicted of a crime in the past. See where I'm going? Let's say you've been convicted of a crime. Now you've got a little precedent going for you, right?

Now I'm not sure if this quite qualifies as precedent because it's not — I guess I'd have to be more of a lawyer to know if the word precedent could be applied to a judge throwing out an indictment. I'm not sure that qualifies. Can somebody here tell me? But at the very least it's giving cover for somebody someday to say my conviction needs to be overturned because the jury did not represent the community I was in.

How often do you think that happens, that the jury does not match the racial structure of the situation the person was in? A lot. Because how much off would it have to be? Suppose it was 40 percent off from the racial composition of your community. Is that a jury of your peers? How close to a peer group do you need to have for it to be a legitimate jury of your peers?

Because now there's a federal judge who says if you haven't hit a certain standard that I guess is subjective about diversity, that your indictment will be thrown out. It works both ways. If you got convicted and your jury did not look quite exactly like the situation in your town, can't you appeal? Don't you have a case?

You see the problem. The moment you throw anything out because of the racial composition of the jury alone, without regard to the facts of the matter, just the racial composition, as soon as you allow that that's a thing, it's got to be a thing everywhere. You can't just pick your spot. That's either important or it's not important. And the legal system ne