This is an I-Heart podcast.

Oh, you're the smart, sophisticated one.

It's one more thing.

Armstrong and Getty.

One more thing.

I was going to work up a big belch to follow that, but it was too much even for me.

If New York Times readers are the ones that are smart and sophisticated compared to the rest of us,

and I guarantee you, they feel like they are, then why are there so many articles about psychics

and even pet psychics and so many people who believe in that crap.

How do you put those together?

I'm not sure that there are more people that believe in pet psychics among the New York Times

reader crowds in the general population, but they do think they're smarter and more

sophisticated than the rest of us.

Yeah, you know, it's funny.

I just got hoodwinked into starting an incredibly long article by Nate Silver about the canceling of Stephen Colbert's show.

And there was a fair amount that was interesting in there.

But one sentence just stuck in my craw, I said,

progressives who are generally the side that values evidence-based decisions.

Really?

And I'm like, wait, what?

Wow, that's something that he feels that.

Yeah.

...