Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/
God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Netflix Endorsement, Economist Mark Zandi, National Debt, Tetris PTSD Therapy, Hurricane Helene, FEMA's DEI Priority, Secret Service DEI Lawsuit, DEI Secretary of Defense, CA Blocks Local Voter ID, Google Election Influence, Dockworker Port Strike, Cardio Cognitive Benefit, John Kerry, Anti-1A, Free Speech Illusion, Anti-Constitution, New Yorker Magazine, Austrian Election, Hispanic Voting Shift, Bad Hombres Documentary, Steve Cortes, Church Ballot Harvesting, Peachy Keenan, Tim Walz, Reshaping Masculinity, Kamala Harris Demographic, Batshit Crazy MSNBC, AZ 98000 Voter Glitch, Israel Hezbollah Conflict, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
By the way, my new book, well, it's an updated book, Winn-Bigley, second edition, available now, but only in hardcover.
And you can see it now up on the screen.
If you get the blue one, the one that's got the blue background, the one you can see, that's the updated one.
If you go to Amazon, you'll have trouble finding it.
Amazon has hidden it.
So Amazon is not allowing the Kindle version or the softcover.
We couldn't even get them approved, and we can't even figure out why they're not approved.
We can't get any action on Amazon.
So is it a big fucking coincidence that the book that says that Trump is good at his job is the one that they can't get published? No, probably not.
Probably not a coincidence.
So you're going to have to look extra hard if you want to see what's real and what's true.
And thwart Amazon. So that's what the book is. It's a win bigly, but look for the one with the blue background.
That's the updated one.
The other ones I don't get money for, by the way.
If you buy the one with the old one with the black background, I don't get anything.
I get zero money from that.
So please don't buy the one with the black background.
All right.
Let's go back to a better picture of me.
There we go.
Anyway, if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their shiny, tiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, just dine in a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Ah, delightful.
Delightful.
No, there is no audiobook yet for Winn-Biggly.
Everything that I'm doing has been stopped by one kind of platform or another.
It's always a technical problem.
Yeah, there's a technical problem.
No matter what I do, there's a technical problem that applies to my material, but not other people's.
And no, I don't think it's a coincidence.
So if you want any of my materials, you're gonna have to work for it.
And if you want the Dilbert calendar, Page a Day calendar, which got cancelled for last year, but it's back.
Made in America.
The only place you can find it is go to Dilbert.com.
If you go to Dilbert.com, it'll have the link to buy it.
You won't be able to find it anywhere else in the world.
It's not going to be on Amazon.
Anyway, did you know that the CEO of Netflix endorsed Kamala Harris?
Which apparently is setting off a wave of cancellations, which makes me ask the following question.
Why would the CEO of a major consumer company endorse the candidate knowing it would be devastating for the shareholders?
Why would you do that?
That doesn't seem like that's a violation of your fiduciary responsibilities.
If I invest in a company, And they come out and endorse a candidate and make 50% of their base hate him?
I'm not going to be too happy with that CEO.
Now, nothing to do with the politics of it.
Why would you as a CEO do something so fricking stupid?
I mean, that's just stupid.
Isn't it?
So how do you explain it?
Well, I've got a suggestion.
One way to explain it.
I don't know if this is the way, but we're being conspiratorial today.
You ready?
Do you remember that in the early, earlier part of the last century, that the CIA was definitely talking to Hollywood and making sure that the movies and the TVs were compatible with the propaganda and brainwashing that the government wanted to do to the citizens?
Needed to make us Patriotic and want to join the military and think that America is the best and all that stuff.
So we know that there's a long history of the CIA and the government meddling with our major media entities.
What is our major media entity for movies you watch at home?
Netflix.
Netflix.
Do you think that Netflix is completely independent and has no connection to dark parts of the government which tell it what it can and cannot promote and which movies they should float to the top and which one should get the most exposure when it's recommended to people?
Well, I don't know.
But if the CIA is doing all those other things and they're leaving Netflix alone, that would be more of a story.
Netflix is the obvious place that the CIA should put their lever, because it's the big movie outlet.
So if you were going to do any kind of control over how people think, you'd go for that one first.
Which suggests that the founder may have a cozy relationship with somebody within the government.
And may have more at stake than just the stock price.
Now, I have no information whatsoever to imagine that anybody at Netflix is working with anybody in the government for any reason other than making money for their shareholders.
But when you see the CEO do something that's so plainly and obviously bad for the stock price, you must ask the following question.
Why?
Why would you have a job That is specifically to make your stock price do well, and then do something that's so obviously terrible for it.
I mean, really, obviously, and he would know it.
I mean, it's not like, I'm not saying I'm smarter than him.
And therefore, if he were smarter, he would have known that this recommendation would, no, everybody knows it.
A hundred percent of everybody in the world knew that that would cost them a big amount of money, but he did it anyway.
Now, I guess he's a founder, so he doesn't have to worry about being replaced by the board.
But if he hadn't been a founder, I would think the board should replace you if you do something that reckless.
But nope, there's probably more to this story and we don't know what it is.
Economist Mark Zandi, who is a fairly high profile economist.
I don't know if you've heard his name, but if you're a nerd like me, I've heard his name.
And he had something to say about our current economy.
And he's an expert, alright?
So here's an expert economist.
You can trust an expert economist, can't you?
He's using data, people!
He's gonna use data!
And I'm gonna tell you the data.
You believe data, don't you?
Come on!
Come on, you don't believe data?
And you don't believe experts?
You're just so cynical now!
You're so cynical!
Alright, I'm gonna read you what the expert economist said.
And then I want each of you, who are not experts, you are not, well some of you actually are economists, but those of you who are not economists, I want you to see if you can find out what's wrong with his analysis.
Now remember, you're not an expert, and he is, so this will be a tough challenge.
See if you can find the tiny, small, little, tiny, almost imperceptible problem with his analysis.
Okay?
You ready?
Mark Zandi says, I've hesitated to say this at the risk of sounding hyperbolic, but with last week's big GDP revisions, there is no denying it.
This is among the best performing economies in my 35 plus years as an economist.
Now he hasn't, he hasn't, uh, justified his opinion yet, but wait for it.
Cause it's based on data.
And I think the data is the accepted data.
So listen to this.
He said, economic growth is rip-roaring with real GDP up 3% over the past year.
Unemployment is low at near 4%, consistent with full employment.
That's an economics term for saying that if it were less than it is, you know, if employment were any better, it would cause inflation.
So that's how they say that.
They call it full employment.
So that would be great.
Inflation is fast closing in on Fed's 2% target.
Grocery prices, rents, and gas prices are flat to down over the past year.
Now remember, he's not making the mistake of saying that prices are down, right?
He's an economist.
He's not a politician.
Politicians say stuff like, oh, prices are down.
No, they're not.
They're way up.
Inflation is not as bad as it used to be.
It's just not, but the, you know, the base price is still way higher than it should be.
So he's smart enough to know that you have to say it the right way.
So he's saying it the right way.
And then he says, households financial obligations are light and set to get lighter.
Really?
Household financial obligations are light?
I didn't know that, but he's probably right about that.
Oh, with the Fed cutting rates.
Okay, so that's going to help.
Interest rates will go down.
House prices have never been higher.
Well, okay, that's good if you own a house.
And most homeowners have more equity in their homes than ever.
Corporate profits are robust and the stock market is hitting a record high on a seemingly daily basis.
And he says, you know, of course, there's some other things.
All right.
So what is the problem with his analysis?
Do you see anything?
Is there anything he left out?
Did you see any, any variable that you think might matter that's left out?
The national debt.
The national debt is on an unambiguous path toward complete destruction of the United States.
I feel like that should be mentioned.
There's not a single thing that he mentioned that's going well.
That would be going well if we hadn't borrowed and spent more than we have.
All of those things he says are good are based on the fact that we have a existential doom cloud like we've never seen.
$36 trillion worth of debt.
And we don't have any way of paying it back.
Do you know how I can make you all rich?
I can make you all rich right now.
I'll give you all a $10 million loan that you never have to pay back.
Hey, I just fixed everything.
I just made everybody rich.
Look at me.
Give me some kind of Nobel Prize in economics for that.
Yeah, if you ignore debt that is both crushing and unsolvable, things look great.
Things look great.
Now, how about the fact that young people can't afford homes and they'll all be replaced by robots pretty soon?
We got problems.
All right.
So it's a political season, so you can tell who he backs politically without much effort.
I don't know anything about his political opinion, but based on his economic opinion, leaving out the debt, I'm going to say he might be a Democrat.
Might be.
Anyway.
This next story is weird.
I'm going to get to all the big stories, but I like to start with the weird ones.
How many of you remember that the other day, it was only a few days ago, I speculated that playing the game Tetris, specifically Tetris, would be good for your mental health?
Does anybody remember me saying that?
Just a few days ago, that the game Tetris would be good for your mental health.
I think you remember, right?
Well, a few days later, there's this story that's just so weird.
I feel like the simulation must be real.
So here's a story I see today from Uppsala University, wherever that is.
A single treatment session, including the video game Tetris, reduces PTSD symptoms.
They actually tested it.
They tested PTSD for people paying Tetris.
Now remember what my hypothesis was.
The hypothesis was that our brains like things that will take our mind off of our troubles, but also that we're accomplishing things.
So every time you mentally twist one of those little Tetris blocks in your mind so it fits together with the other blocks, You're accomplishing a thing, and it requires some focus in a part of your brain.
Remember I talked about shelf space?
Yeah.
The more minutes of your day you spend thinking about not bad things, the better your mental health.
So if you make somebody focus on the visual part of their brain, you have to use the visual part of your brain to do the Tetris, because you're moving things in your mind before you make them real.
That's just a different part of your brain, and that doesn't involve your memory, right?
Your memory is one that's giving you the PTSD.
Oh, that thought, that thought, that intrusive thought, that intrusive thought.
Well, every single minute you spend not doing that breaks the habit.
PTSD and OCD and those recurring thought ones, the ones where you can't get the thought out of your head, that's a habit.
The only thing you need to do to break a habit is something else.
That's the solution.
You just have to find something else.
The more time you spend doing the something else, the less of a habit it becomes.
So sure enough, and apparently not only does it work while you're doing it, here's the real payoff.
It's a lasting benefit.
Your PTSD symptoms stay reduced after you've played for a little while.
It stays that way.
Not just the day, but like years.
Presumably.
So, what are the odds that I would tell you speculatively that Tetris would solve your mental health, and then within a few days there would be a story about Tetris doing exactly what I said it would do?
Now, I'm not going to brag about being smart, although I'm pretty smart.
I think I got this one right because of talent stack.
Meaning that I'm a trained hypnotist and so I really pay attention to the brain as a machine.
So when I think of the brain I don't think of magic and free will and your soul and things I don't even think are real.
I think of it as a machine.
What did it do the most of?
Did it spend most of its operating cycles doing this?
Or did it spend most of its operating cycles doing this other thing?
Because you can tell, like a machine, what the difference would be depending on what part of the machine you're stressing.
So that's the way I see it.
As a hypnotist, I see it as a machine.
Certain parts are stressed.
Certain parts are used.
And then you can just kind of figure out what would happen if you do a certain change.
Well, there's the hurricane disasters looking pretty bad for five states in the East.
The US, five states got hit pretty hard.
Millions are without power still.
People are missing, presumed dead.
We don't know the numbers yet.
And there's a lot of pressure on FEMA, which people say are not getting it done.
But it was pointed out today that FEMA's number one goal, their number one goal is to make sure that when there's a disaster, They save as many lives and as much property as they can.
That's their number one goal.
Number one goal for FEMA.
Oh wait, I read that wrong.
No, their number one goal.
That's not their number one goal.
Their number one goal is quote, instill equity as a foundation of emergency management.
So more of a DEI thing.
That's their number one goal.
So if you're going to judge FEMA, Because a bunch of people died or they didn't do enough.
I don't think that's fair because you'd be judging them against the standard, which is not their standard.
Their standard is how much did they support equity and DEI?
And I think they did a good job on that.
So all of you complainers who are saying, oh, oh, but the lights are off and we don't have food and people are drowning and we can't find them and there's not enough resources.
Stop whining.
They got the equity just right, and that was their number one priority.
So.
So.
Anyway, um, you might know somebody who predicted that if DEI became a top priority, no, with no, uh, let's see, with, uh, nothing to do with anybody's genes or culture or gender or anything like that.
It is a system which on paper should destroy the country.
In other words, if you look at it like a machine, you say, all right, suppose the country is a machine and it has these various moving parts.
What would happen if you threw a bunch of gravel into it?
Well, if you're not a fucking idiot, you'd know that putting gravel into a machine is a really bad idea.
So in this case, the gravel they're throwing in their FUMA machine is DEI.
I love the idea of having our big organizations represent the actual public.
I love that.
I do think that our big, important industries and governments should, in an ideal world, should represent the people who live here, should look a little bit like the public.
But if you force it, it's gravel in the machine, and there's just no way around that.
So we should, predictably, see a failure in all of our major institutions, and we should see the failure happening first In the government, because the government is pushing the hardest.
And been doing it the longest.
So sure enough, FEMA's getting a lot of bad attention.
By the way, I don't know that FEMA's doing a bad job.
I'm just saying that the critics are saying that.
I feel like FEMA's one of those agencies that will never seem like it's doing enough.
Because if you're in an emergency, if you're the person who's in the emergency, you never really think they're doing enough.
So I'm not entirely sure they're failing, but the criticisms are out there.
Well, it turns out that there's a proposed lawsuit against the Secret Service because of their DEI goals.
Apparently they were trying to reach 30% female workforce.
There is allegedly a non-profit That's defending women's issues.
So it's a weird entity to be doing this.
But some nonprofit is going to sue the Secret Service for what it alleges is, quote, arbitrary diversity, equality and inclusion that harms female employees.
Why does that harm female employees?
So this sounds like some right-leaning entity is trying to do the best they can, but make it look a little confusing for their own influence reasons.
So whether or not this lawsuit is effective, we don't know.
But we do know that there are criticisms of the Secret Service, especially that handling the Trump situations.
And some have said that DEI is directly responsible for that incompetence.
We don't know that for sure, but on paper, if you took the Secret Service and you thought of it as a machine, and then you said to yourself, I wonder what would happen if I threw a bunch of gravel into this machine called the Secret Service, what do you think I'm going to say next?
It's exactly what it should be.
These are the most predictable outcomes in the world.
If the DEI stuff had nothing to do with the failure of the Trump protection, which is possible, in the same way that FEMA might be operating really well, you know, and maybe the critics are going overboard, don't know.
But I can tell you that whether or not these are real failures caused by DEI, the system, as it's designed, is throwing gravel into the machines.
And there's no way I can't destroy them.
Whether it's happened yet, that's still a question.
Meanwhile, Kamala Harris says she wants to appoint the first woman to run the Pentagon.
What do you think I'm going to say about that?
Yes, she wants to bring DEI to the Pentagon.
Not only is she the DEI candidate, because she is.
Let's face it, Kamala Harris would not be the candidate if she were not a person of color and a woman.
We all know that.
And so she's the DEI Commander-in-Chief who is committed to use DEI to staff the military at the top.
So, uh, what do you think I'm gonna say about, uh, the machine that's the military and throwin' some fuckin' gravel in the machine?
It's gonna do exactly what you think it's gonna do.
Exactly what you think it's going to do.
But on top of that, there's something that's very different about the military compared to everything else.
And I need to say this as often as possible, because if you don't understand this, we're all dead.
Like actually dead, dead, you know, not hyperbole dead, but the dead kind where you're not breathing kind.
It goes like this.
Discrimination.
is immoral and unethical and unwise and it's not good for you in almost any domain you could think of.
So if it's employment, discrimination, don't do it.
Bad for you, bad for them, bad for society.
If it's in your personal relationships, don't be a fool.
You should at least be open to any group having, you know, the love of your life come out of it.
If you're choosing friends, It's hard to have friends at all.
If you can find any kind of friends, don't close yourself off because of race and gender and stuff like that.
So, for most of the things that are the common things that people do in the world, discrimination should be drummed out of it, and we should be trained not to be thinking like that, and it's not good for anybody in most of those domains.
There is, however, one exception.
Self-defense.
Self-defense doesn't have any discrimination variable.
If you're trying to protect yourself, you can discriminate as much as you want.
The only requirement is whatever's in your own head.
Nobody can tell you that's immoral.
Nobody can tell you it's unethical.
Nobody can tell you it's inappropriate.
You're just looking for what works, because if you don't find what works, you're dead.
That's what self-defense is.
So if you're going to discriminate in self-defense, all that matters is, did you do a good job of it?
Did you discriminate well?
For example, wouldn't it be great if people who have physical disabilities are not completely barred from the workplace?
Yeah, that's probably good.
Because a lot of people have disabilities, all kinds.
So making some accommodations for our citizens in the workplace, it definitely has a cost.
I know why people complain about it.
When I owned a small business, I didn't like building a ramp and having all these wheelchair things that literally nobody ever used.
But I also appreciate it.
I know where it's coming from.
I don't mind that expense.
To me, it's an expense.
But to me, that seems like where we want to be as a people.
You know, not letting people go because they got a bad leg or something.
Right?
When it comes to protecting yourself, you can discriminate all you want, and I don't think that women should be in charge of defense, because I don't think they're good at it.
Now, there could be exceptions.
There could be a specific exception that I'd say, okay, all right, Tulsi Gabbard, she's been in the military, I've heard her talk, okay, you can be commander-in-chief.
Fine.
And you could come up with, you know, ten more names pretty easily, where you'd say, okay, yeah, that one individual definitely should be Commander-in-Chief.
But if you're starting with, you're starting with they should be female, you're into the DEI force it kind of situation.
Now, I'm no expert on the military, but are there any women who have been in serious combat, extended combat, Who would also be qualified to be, you know, leading military groups?
Because I feel like you need to have been really, really in the thick of war to be a good general.
Because you need to know what doesn't work as well as what works from the ground up.
So I think men should be in charge of the military.
Because we're biologically suited for it.
I think women should take the lead on what the abortion laws are, and while men certainly retain all their rights and certainly have a say about spending money, the laws themselves are better suited for women to figure it out.
Just because it keeps the country together.
At least if women are on the same side of abortion.
And by the way, women and men don't have that much different opinion on the topic.
It's more like Republican versus Democrat.
So if you let the women work it out and just tell the men what they figured out and then we just go with it, that would be the equivalent, sort of the balancing.
For women, I'm asking, can you let the men do the defense?
You're really going to be better off.
Now, I'm not saying that every man Who could be a general would do a better job than every woman who could be a general.
That's obviously not true.
But don't push it, right?
Let it happen naturally.
You know, if a Tulsi Gabbard gets the nomination for president someday, then you'd say, would she specifically be a good commander-in-chief?
Probably yes.
Probably yes.
But don't just push it and say, we've got to get a woman in there heading the military.
That's gravel in the machine.
All right.
California, according to Politico, passed a law to prevent the local governments from requiring ID for voting.
That's because there was one place in California, Huntington Beach, that wanted to require people to show photo ID at the polling places to vote.
And Governor Newsom said, no, there's one thing we don't want in this state.
It's that knowing that people who voted are allowed to vote.
Now, can you come up with a second reason why this would be the law in California?
What's the second reason?
Or a reason?
Give me a reason.
If you ask them, they'll say, well, we don't want to, let's see, discourage people from voting.
And I think, Yeah, it would be disenfranchising some people.
Are those even real reasons?
They don't even sound like real reasons.
It doesn't even sound like somebody who's trying to do a good job of lying to you.
To me, this is completely transparent.
We plan to cheat.
Here's how we plan to do it.
We plan to have a bunch of people who can't vote, who are not citizens.
We plan to have them vote anyway.
And then we're going to make sure it's too late to reverse it.
It's right in front of you.
There's not the slightest doubt what the plan is.
It's right there, right in front of you.
Apparently, there are 14 states that do not require voter ID at the polls.
Let me guess.
Let's see.
14 states.
Well, we know one is California.
Let's see.
I wonder what kind of states.
Florida?
No, Florida, they require ID.
Let's see.
What other states?
Texas?
No, Texas, of course, would require ID.
Oh, it's all the Democrat states.
Yeah, all the blue states.
Except one, Illinois.
Somebody's saying.
Now, I don't know if it's all the blue states.
It's 14, so there might be one that's not blue.
But clearly the reason for it is fraud.
It's not like there's a second reason for this.
There is no second reason.
It's just fraud.
It's just fraud and it's right in front of you.
Anyway, so Trump said again, Breitbart News is reporting that He vows to prosecute Google at the maximum levels for election interference.
Now, election interference in this context is that they've allegedly rigged the search results so it says more good things about Harris toward the top, and it's harder to find good things about Trump.
Now, is it true?
Of course it is.
Yes.
It's very true.
It's 100% true.
It is election interference.
It is illegal.
I'm no lawyer, but to me, it looks like election interference.
And it looks intentional.
And it looks like it's transparent.
It looks like management has said it directly.
If you've seen the videos of the Google leaders all being sad when Trump won the first time, And vowing it wouldn't happen again?
Well, what do you think that means?
Of course it means that it's rigged.
Of course it does.
Now, here's what's smart about Trump threatening him.
When a Google employee, whoever it is, makes a change to the algorithm, and they know it's making a change that's negative for Trump, what do you think they think about that today?
Probably not much of anything.
It's like, oh yeah, let's just tweak this.
It's bad for that bad Trump guy.
It's good for Harris.
A little tweak.
Go back to work.
Here's what they should be thinking.
If I change that, am I going to go to jail?
That's what they should be thinking.
They should be thinking, if I change this code just a little bit, will I go to jail?
They should be thinking that.
Because the things they're doing are just horrifically undemocratic.
And yeah, they should go to jail.
They should absolutely be in jail.
So if they're not thinking about that when they tweak something, they need to start.
They need to start thinking what jail is going to be like.
You should picture it.
I'm sitting there in jail.
And I'm sitting there in jail.
And I'm still sitting there in jail, because there's not much to do in jail, except get abused, I guess.
So very good messaging.
So the longshoremen are going to strike.
I think that's tonight or something.
And I don't know what they're asking for, but they better worry about robots, because if I were a shipping company, I'd certainly be looking at robots to do my longshoreman work eventually.
So they got that to worry about.
So I can see why they'd want to organize.
They've got a lot of reasons to do that.
I'm going to give you the most contrarian view you've ever heard.
You ready?
This strike, which allegedly will be a big problem for the supply chain, It will involve some kinds of foods, maybe fruits coming from outside the country.
It won't starve us.
You know, we're not going to run out of food, but maybe some specific kinds of foods and then materials that we need for products, etc.
So it's going to be really, really inconvenient and we're not going to like it.
Here's the contrarian take.
Our supply routes and supply chains, we learned during the pandemic, were woefully terrible.
And we didn't really have backups and secondary ways to do things, but we created a bunch because we had to when the supply chains got broken.
People I think we need to break the supply chains a few more times.
Because if we don't break them in serious ways, they'll never be fixed.
In other words, we'll never have a reason to build the startup.
That could be the alternative.
You know, wouldn't it be great if they did the strike, but then immediately some startup pops up and says, you know what?
We've got this fleet of electric ships or whatever, and we can do this at half the cost.
We just need a chance.
Oh, here's your chance.
So I don't have a completely negative feeling about the strike.
First of all, I'm pro-union.
I think the union, if they're not getting what they need, and there's money to make them whole, sure.
But I do think that it could be good for the system, just to force some alternatives so that we're less susceptible in the future.
That might be a little too optimistic, but I'm feeling optimistic today.
Andrew Huberman, PhD, says there's more data showing that cardiovascular exercises improves your brain function in the hours that follow.
Now apparently cardio does much better than just lifting or resistance training in terms of your mental cognition.
Now, if you do too much, it'll make you stupid.
So if you run to the point where you're just, you know, you're done, you're not going to be thinking too well either.
But if you do like a good cardio, like a healthy level of cardio for whatever stage of life you're at, apparently that has a lasting brain benefits.
As somebody who does creative stuff for a living, and I spend lots of hours doing it, my biggest challenge always has been managing my energy and my mental state, because you need to be kind of in your top 2% to do what I do.
You know, if you're operating at 95%, just nothing happens.
You can't really be creative at a commercial level.
If you're operating at 95%, just nothing happens.
You got to get into that 99% of your own best before anything can happen.
So, I've been playing with this variable of exercise, and from my own anecdotal experience, doing resistance training makes me tired, and doing some cardio, if it doesn't go too bad, allows me to really concentrate on work and get stuff done.
So, anecdotally, it feels right.
Feels about right to me.
Cardio, but don't overdo it, is good for your brain.
John Kerry said, we talked about this before, but like, I can't get it out of my mind.
He said this quote at some event.
Our first amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer disinformation out of existence.
What we need is to win the right to govern by hopefully winning enough votes that we're free to be able to implement change.
Implement change to the first amendment?
The freedom of speech?
The New Yorker publication has an article in which the title is, Is it Time to Torch the Constitution?
Quote, Some scholars say that it's to blame for our political dysfunction and that we need to start over.
Okay.
So John Kerry is questioning the First Amendment.
The New Yorker, a left-leaning publication, thinks it might be time to torch the Constitution, or at least we should talk about it.
And RFK Jr.
at a recent podcast said that 37 hours after Harris and Biden were installed in the White House, they opened an illegal portal between the social media giants and the FBI, CIA, CDC to begin rampant censorship.
So, it appears that Democrats need, or they say they need, rampant censorship in order to run the country.
Otherwise, it's going to be chaos.
Now, you've heard me say, and I'm going to triple down on it, no country can survive free speech.
We've never had it.
We've never had it.
The way they controlled our free speech in the past is by brainwashing us so that when we thought we were speaking freely, we were just mimicking what we've been brainwashed to say.
So you can have something that feels like free speech, so long as you've been brainwashed to only say the things that are appropriate.
And so long as the entities that reported the news were controlled by the government, So if you said something that wasn't part of the brainwashing, well, you didn't get on the news.
Or if you did, they mocked you as some kind of communist criminal and you should be ignored.
Now, once the government no longer controls the news, and social media is sort of brainwashing people more randomly, as opposed to the government doing it, now you get a problem.
Because actual free speech, Where people are not brainwashed into their opinion, but rather it comes to them through some set of variables.
That's dangerous stuff.
That's dangerous.
I don't think any country has ever survived that.
I think that people, there's always some other either commercial or embarrassment or shame.
There's always some force to keep you from saying what you maybe think you should say.
So we never really have free speech and I don't think we can survive it.
But we do need to get back to the illusion of it.
The illusion of free speech is important.
The actual free speech is less important.
Now, How much this matters depends on how bad your government is.
If your government is terrible, then not having free speech is a disaster.
If your government is chugging along okay, let's say a George Bush senior kind of a world or a Reagan second term kind of a world, you don't really care too much.
People can say what they want.
We can argue about it.
Things are going fine.
It's just when you've got a really bad government, that's when the free speech going away is an existential risk.
And I would say that the Democrats, collectively, I don't know what's wrong.
Like, some say it's a Marxist thing, I don't know.
But there's something terribly, terribly broken in that the things that they're doing appear to be designed to destroy the country.
Meaning that if I gave you a set of Democrat policies and didn't tell you they're Democrat policies, and I said, instead, there's a terrible entity that's trying to destroy the United States.
Look at the things they're doing.
And if you looked at the things on their list, you'd say, oh, wow.
They're pushing DEI?
Yeah, that's gravel in the machine.
Obviously, that can't be for the benefit of the country.
Wait, they're not checking voter ID?
Well, that looks like it's designed for, I don't know what, but not for good elections.
Oh, they're trying to limit our free speech?
What?
You know, almost everything that they're doing, if you saw it on paper, and it had not been identified as Democrat policy, you would think it was a plan to destroy the United States.
I mean, it's that blatantly, obviously, what the hell are you thinking, situation.
Anyway, according to George, It's an account on X that you should follow.
Austria just had an election and the, I guess what is being called their far right, they might not call it that, just won.
And I don't think people were necessarily expecting it, but the side that won is anti-immigration and therefore mass deportation.
And their model is Hungary with Viktor Orban, who's sort of on the same page with that stuff.
So, and they're opposed to sanctions against Russia, and they see Ukraine as a NATO provoked.
All right.
And they're very angry.
Oh, okay.
That's according to a leftist professor, but he's probably not too far off.
Some say this is a sign of what's coming in the United States.
Is it?
You would expect that there would be some natural pushback, and there is.
Yeah, there is.
I don't know if it's telling us what's going to happen in the United States, but I'm putting Austria on my list of escape countries.
If I ever have to leave the United States, I'm going to say, Austria, hello!
Hello!
Can you take one more?
They're anti-immigration though, so I don't know if I'll get in.
It's like the good news and the bad news.
Hey, the good news is there's a country that might survive.
The bad news is the reason they're going to survive is they don't let people like me into the country.
All right.
The new polls are coming out.
Trump's now ahead in Pennsylvania according to four different polls.
Atlas, Intel, Insider Advantage, Rasmussen, and Fox.
Those all flipped in the last couple weeks.
Last couple of weeks.
We're getting closer to the election.
Things are changing.
MSNBC is reporting the Democrats are losing ground with Latino voters.
I saw an Eric Abinanti post on this, also a great follow on X.
40% of Hispanics said they'd vote for Trump.
Now, you might say, but 40%?
That's not so good.
That's less than half.
But here's what it used to look like.
The Democrat advantage.
In 2012, the Democrats had a 44 point advantage for Hispanic voters.
44 point difference.
That's huge.
But it went down a little bit.
By 2016, Trump had gotten that down.
I don't know if it's because of Trump, but down to 38.
38 is a big, big difference.
In 2020, it fell again to 33.
It's a big change, but 33 is still a big, big difference.
Current polling?
14.
So the advantage the Democrats had went from 44, 38, 33, and just cut by more than half.
38, 33, and just cut by more than half.
And the closer they are to the border, the more pro-Republican they are.
Bye.
Now, I don't know if that's because they're close to the border, or they're just in Republican areas, so maybe they just lean that way.
I don't know.
But there could be some surprises coming.
Steve Cortez, Steve Cortez, I don't know why I pronounced it wrong, but Steve Cortez has a new film out called Bad Hombres.
I remember that's what Trump said.
There were some bad hombres coming across the border.
And then the Democrats said, he's calling everybody a bad hombre.
No, no.
He's saying that some of them are bad hombres.
So it's the name of his film.
Google it to figure out where it is.
Steve Cortez.
Just search for bad hombres new video.
I recommend it.
I haven't seen it, but I'll, I'll watch it.
I just saw it, but heard about it this morning.
Well, here's a little, uh, sleeper variable for the election.
Let's see who saw this coming.
You know, have you been wondering if the Lara Trump and the Republican organizers are doing a good job?
Now we're hearing Scott Pressler doing an amazing job in Pennsylvania, registering people.
We know that, uh, there are going to be something like a hundred thousand lawyers and observers for the election.
That sounds pretty serious.
So these are clearly good things that are happening.
I think Laura was behind supporting Scott Pressler.
So you're seeing, you're seeing all these hints of smart, effective things coming out of the Republicans.
Well, here's one I didn't know about.
Turns out there's been an effort to organize churches so that the churches will help collect mail-in ballots.
Where it's legal.
Now that would be called harvesting, but it's not illegal everywhere.
It's legal to say, can I help you take this to the mailbox?
So churches are organized, and that could be a really big difference.
If the churches fully embrace mail-in voting, and they start collecting it in the church and getting everybody to sit there and fill out their ballot or whatever they're going to do, I think this could be a sleeper variable, because the left-leaning news is sort of invisible to them.
They're not really covering Republican church gatherings.
So, I don't know.
It's too early to say, because I don't know what numbers are involved, but given that the swing states have small margins, if you get the churches really organized, It feels like that delivers votes more than most things, right?
If the church is collectively doing something, it seems like the church members are going to be really influenced by that, so it could be a big deal.
All right, here's something funny I saw on an account called PeachyKeenan.
I don't know if that's a real name or, I don't know, just a name for Twitter, but P.G.
Keenan talked about Harris-Walsh, and I'm just going to read it because the writing is so good, but it also sort of nails a feeling that I had not been able to capture.
All right, so P.G.
Keenan says, quote, Metter grossed out by Kamala Tim because there's nothing to hook them.
The man, in quotes, on the ticket is a weird little troll-like creep with bilateral limp wrists, and the female is a sexless, vapid HR boss who projects deep hatred of masculine men.
Both couples seem like platonic relationships at best, and possibly one-beard situation.
Trump-Vance, on the other hand, are red-blooded hetero males with a healthy appreciation for biological women.
Their wives are lovely and poised.
It's a much more authentic, relatable ticket.
And Peachy says that Harris Walsh appeals to oddballs blitzed on mood enhancers and sterilized by long-term birth control and gender studies PhDs.
Yeah, that pretty much captured it.
And then I saw Jen Psaki.
was interviewing Doug Emhoff, and she's been pushing this idea that Walsh and Emhoff are the new masculinity.
So she actually said to Doug Emhoff in an interview, she said, you reshaped the perception of masculinity.
Let me just say this.
If you ever really want to get under my skin, And give me an insult that will, like, really, you know, get to the, get to my core.
Typically I'm pretty, you know, thick-skinned.
People insult me all day on social media.
I don't really think about it by the time I go into bed, right?
Sometimes I respond, but it doesn't really, doesn't really get to me.
But if you really, really wanted to insult me, like deeply, deeply insult me, here's what you should say.
Scott, Looks like you reshaped the perception of masculinity.
Oh yeah?
Well, screw you!
I don't have to take that from you.
Yeah, that's what I'd say.
But the more important thing is that Doug Emhoff does not have a brother named Jack.
I'll give you a minute.
You can work on that at home.
Doug Emhoff does not have a brother named Jack.
All right, everybody caught up?
All right, good, good.
Trump apparently is going hard at the idea that Harris is an idiot.
He's called her stupid, mentally impaired, and disabled.
And you might say to yourself, how could such a person be doing so well?
Well, easily.
One of the biggest demographic groups in the United States is people who are stupid, mentally impaired, and disabled.
Mentally disabled.
And they seem to love her.
You know why?
She looks good to them.
And I'm not even joking.
You know, in prior elections, and Hillary Clinton would be one, whatever you want to say about Hillary Clinton, she's not stupid.
Can we all agree on that?
She's brilliant.
Maybe evil.
But she's not dumb.
And, you know, if you looked at other women who have run for office, you know, Nikki Haley, you could name several other Democrats.
Do any of them register as dumb?
No, no.
Some of them you might prefer, not prefer.
But none of the ones, none of the women who ran for president look dumb.
But she does.
And I'm not saying that just politically.
She actually looks dumb.
And so I love Trump going after her for that.
But it might backfire because there's so many in that demographic group that they might say, wait, we have a dumb candidate?
Finally, somebody who could represent me.
Have I told you that I sometimes test my persuasion?
By using non-standard terms to see if they pop up in some other context.
Because if I persuaded using ordinary words, and then my persuasion influenced somebody else, I wouldn't really know it.
Because they would just be ordinary people using ordinary words.
So, one of the things I did intentionally several months ago, is I tried to see if I could Um, brand, uh, the Democrat policies and specifically the Harris policies as quote batshit crazy.
Does anybody remember me saying I was going to try to insert that term into the political conversation?
I want to see in the comments.
Do you remember me saying that or no?
Anyway, it was my intention.
To not say, I don't like these policies, or these policies are good for some people, but bad for others.
You know, the usual things you say.
Some of the policies, such as price controls, they're batshit crazy.
They are just batshit crazy.
And for a while, I was saying that every day on social media and on my live streams.
Well, I guess yesterday, Senator Lindsey Graham Called Harris's policies batshit crazy.
And he said it on a live broadcast.
Nicely done, Lindsey Graham.
Nicely done.
Now, we have collectively, you know, found reasons to criticize Lindsey Graham on this or that.
But if we're being fair, this was really good because it became a headline.
And I think we need to reframe this as not Democrat versus Republican, because this time it doesn't look like it.
Every other election looked like it to me.
You know, they all look like, oh, Democrat versus Republican.
This is batshit crazy, brain dead, walnut brain.
Stupid fucking idiot against a candidate who's interesting.
This is not just two political opinions.
There's no philosophical difference going on here.
There's one that's just batshit crazy.
And the MSNBC, you know, the main propagandist who support the Democrats, they're just batshit crazy.
I probably looked at Five different clips from MSNBC that were sent to me this morning.
Do you know why people sent me the clips?
For humor.
For humor.
And nothing was added.
In other words, nobody had to add the comment, look what they're doing, or Look how they cover this topic or nothing They just simply send me exactly what MSNBC said and I just go home I go off Oh my god, like I can't even believe it and I just laugh at it So MSNBC is literally morphed into no longer anything like a news entity It just looks like this weird propaganda brainwashing operation full of people who are mentally ill
It's a good thing.
It just looks like a monkey dance.
It's like total random mental illness going on.
The monkey part was not a racial term.
I wasn't thinking of any particular people.
It's just monkeys are funny.
There are plenty of white people who work at MSNBC.
Don't take me out of context.
All right.
Apparently there's this leaked telephone conversation between Arizona's Democrat governor and Secretary of State, and this is reported by The Gateway Pundit, Jordan Conradson.
And apparently this telephone call, they were worried and trying to figure out what to say about 98,000 voters that were part of a registration glitch.
Now I think the glitch was, we couldn't tell if they were citizens.
So there were close to 100,000 people who, if they voted, you wouldn't know if they were legal votes.
Now, I don't know if they were legal or not, but you wouldn't know because somehow it got disconnected from knowing who's actually eligible to vote.
So, apparently they were perfectly aware that if it became known that they had a 100,000 voter mistake, that it would show that the whole system is messed up.
Now, you know what's interesting?
That the thing we know for sure is that our elections are pristine and that there was no cheating involved.
And yet, every single day, I hear multiple reports of irregularities that can't be explained or are transparently illegal and or broken.
We have the most broken system of all systems.
And yet, for the last several years, we've been told they're perfect.
No problem.
They're not auditable by design.
Who makes an election system that can't be audited by design?
Only people cheating.
There is no second answer to that question.
Nobody builds something that can't be audited by design unless they don't want it to be audited because they plan to cheat.
There's no other reason.
All right.
There was a big Rescue the Republic event yesterday that looked like a big success in terms of turnout and big name speakers, RFK Jr.
and Tulsi Gabbard and Jordan Peterson and on and on and on.
It was quite a slate of stars.
But I don't know what it was trying to accomplish.
But only because I don't know.
I'm not saying it didn't accomplish anything.
I'm just saying, what were they trying to get done?
Was there something specific we were trying to get out of that or just raise some attention for some points of view?
Yeah, Matt Taibbi was there.
I heard he was great.
Yeah.
Okay.
So I'm a little under informed on the topic, but if somebody could let me know what was the objective of that, I could tell you if I thought they met it.
But, um, my guess is it got covered by all the right wing media.
And it got ignored by the rest, unless they said a bunch of racists met today.
So I don't know if it moved the needle, but I don't know if that's what it was supposed to do.
You know, maybe there was multiple variables involved.
So let me know if you think that moved the needle in some way that I'm missing.
Well, let's talk about Hezbollah.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Israel's been carrying out these small targeted raids in Lebanon.
And the suggestion is that they're going in on the ground.
Israel will make a ground assault on Lebanon to try to get rid of Hezbollah once and for all.
Now, the IDF has confirmed that they killed the commander of Hamas in Lebanon.
I don't know what THE commander is, so it's not the head guy.
The head guy, Sinwar, is still around.
They took out another leader.
Now, you really have to ask yourself, does Israel know at all times where all the leaders are?
Or did somehow they just got lucky and found out just when they needed to kill them all?
Because it looks to me like they have some kind of permanent program where they know where every bad guy leader is all the time.
It seems like a big coincidence they could get them all in a week.
So, I mean, the pager thing didn't require them to know where they were, I guess, so that was different.
So it looks like the war is on.
They're going to go in and take care of business.
It looks like If you judge based on what they've done so far, they've crippled the communication, which means that it would be hard for Hezbollah to respond with a massive rocket attack at the same time, because it would be hard to get the notice to everybody to do things simultaneously.
So if they can't communicate well and all the leaders have been taken out, this would be the time to attack.
If they're going to attack ever, this would be the time to do it.
Iran says they won't send forces to help Hezbollah.
Why would they say it?
It's interesting that they say it.
It would be one thing not to do it, but why do they say they're not going to send forces?
Because doesn't that make it safer for Israel to go in?
Or do they figure Israel's going in no matter what, and they might as well at least avoid being painted in that same brush, even though they're the ones supporting Hezbollah?
Well, over in Saudi, Saudi Arabia has banned all public displays of support for Palestine, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
So, if you basically said something to even support them, you get arrested in Saudi Arabia.
So remember there was a story that said that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia was not interested in the Palestinian problem.
And then they tried to clean it up and say, no, no, no.
He's totally interested, but only because his citizens are interested.
He's not interested personally.
He doesn't think that he should be spending time on it, but there are people in the country who think it's important.
So he's acknowledging the importance of his citizens.
But at the same time he's acknowledging that the citizens have this view, he's making it very clear that he doesn't.
And it makes sense, because they're big competitors, Iran, so the Palestinians and Hamas and Hezbollah are allied with his enemies.
So it makes sense that he would be trying to suppress them without making too big a deal with his own public.
The AP Referred to Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah that got taken out, as charismatic and shrewd in one of their headlines.
Charismatic and shrewd.
Let's see, how did they treat Republican Senator Jim Inhofe when he died?
They called him He called human-caused climate change a hoax.
So the AP is kinder to the head of Hezbollah than a Republican senator.
Yep, that's a real thing that happened.
If I haven't mentioned it, the Dilbert 2025 calendar, desk calendar, is available now.
You can pre-buy it.
Go to Dilbert.com to get the link.
It's the only place you can get it.
You can't get it on Amazon, but you can get my book, Win Biggly, second edition.
Look for the one with the blue cover.
That's the only one I get money for.
The other ones I think are pirated or used books or something, but there's a original, the black cover one.
Don't buy that one.
That one doesn't help me at all.
It's not the updated one.
All right.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I think I've said what I need to say for today.
Monday is going to be lit.
I'd watch the polls.
As you know, the polls are going to get a little more honest in the month of October, because all the pollsters have to become honest the month before the election.
You're going to see that in the next two weeks or so, because they don't want to suddenly close the gap like a week before the election.
You need a good solid month.
That means, by the middle of October, the polls should be close to something like reality.
And then we're going to find out some interesting stuff, like who's ahead.
We'll see if your anecdotal sense of things makes a difference.
Now, I didn't mention this before, but Bill Maher on Friday said that he can't tell what's true anymore because he reads one source that says crime is up and another source that says it's down, and he can't tell.
And he's getting very close to my opinion that all data is fake.
But I would ask you this.
On the question of whether the crime is up or down, what's it feel like?
If you ignore the news, just ignore the news, like the news never happened.
Your own life.
My neighborhood has been burgled three times in the last 18 months.
That's never happened before.
There was a somebody, you know, gunned down in front of a Home Depot in my town.
I think it was a year or so ago, but that was unusual.
Like we don't get that kind of gun violence.
Usually it's, you know, somebody knows somebody pretty well, but not a, not a random shooter.
So my experience is that crime is way up.
And then when I see pictures of the sidewalks in the major cities, I say, well, it looks like crime's way up.
And I see the fentanyl deaths are, you know, higher than ever.
And I say, looks to me like crime's up.
So, If you can't tell what the data is telling you, you might want to ignore the news and just look at your own situation.
Because remember, the news is pushing narrative on both sides.
It's not like one side's honest and the other's a narrative.
Both sides are pushing a narrative.
If it feels like it's more dangerous where you are, it probably is.
You're probably right about that.
So I'd go with that.
It does seem that the crime is worse in some ways.
There might be some categories where it's not.
All right.
It's a fact of life.
All right.
There was an Oakland resident who killed the guy at the Home Depot.
It was not the people waiting to be picked up to work.
The lived experience is a very different experience.
The lived experience.
Yeah, you can use it yourself.
The lived experience.
All right, people.
That's all I got.
I'm going to talk to the subscribers on Locals privately.
