everything in one story. Have you noticed that? You know, you have lots of different stories about politics, but every now and then there'll just be one story that just sort of combines everything bad into one thing. And it turns out to be the Georgia voting law. So let's talk about that.

So as you know, some corporations are giving them a hard time for changing their voting laws. Allegedly, according to Major League Baseball and Coca-Cola and Delta, these changes in the laws will make it more racist and harder for Black people especially to vote, and people of color, low-income people in particular.

Now this is an interesting take because the biggest issue is about the requirement for a legitimate identification. You would think maybe a basic thing to ask for in an election: can you identify yourself as a citizen? But no, big companies say that's kind of racist. Yet Major League Baseball, as James Hurston pointed out in a tweet, Major League Baseball requires a photo ID to pick up your tickets from will call but boycotts Georgia for voter ID laws.

Now why does Major League Baseball require ID to pick up tickets? Why do they do that? What's the point of it? Because if you can just have somebody sign a piece of paper that says I am who I say I am, why is that not good enough? And who exactly would cheat on will call picking up tickets? Because wouldn't the real person just come in behind them and say, "Uh, where are my tickets?" And then they check and they say, "Oh, somebody's sitting in your seat. We'll send somebody to get them out of your seat because it's obviously you."

So I can't think of literally anything, any process in the world in which you need a photo ID less than picking up tickets, where they can check immediately if you're the wrong person. Because for the next three hours you're sitting in the wrong seat and it's got a number on it and you could just go look and say, "Hey, you're in the wrong seat." Literally nothing requires an ID less than picking up will call tickets.

Now of course you always have to ask yourself, maybe the real reason is just it's easier, right? It might just be easier. You hand them your ID and then they're looking at the name. But if you were to say your name, you'd go up and say, "Hi, my name is... what? My name is Bob Circle." "Can you spell that?" "Yeah, B..." And every transaction would take 10 minutes. "Can you spell that again? I'm looking in the wrong place." Versus here's my ID. You go, "Ah, Scott Adams. It's got Adams. There you go."

So the point is funny, but I would imagine it has less to do with identification and maybe more to do with it just being faster. That's just a guess. But it's a good point. We have a world in which you need ID for all kinds of things, and they're all less important than voter ID.

All right. Do we want a political system in which the corporations run the government directly? Because that's what's happening. It's bad enough that the big corporations have influence. They've got money and donations and they've got lobbyists and stuff. And we're already concerned that big corporations are too involved in making government decisions. But now they're doing it somewhat directly, just saying we won't do business, we'll boycott if you don't change your laws, etc.

And you have to ask this question. It's one thing for a company to pursue its own self-interest with donations and lobbying and stuff like that. We kind of accept that. You know, we complain about it, but we kind of accept it if there's some transparency. It's better. But do you want them directly to boycott somebody to change a law? I'm not sure we want that. But we're sliding into it.

However, it looks like the corporations may have picked the wrong state to take a stand. And I tweeted this this morning. Of our 50 states, there are lots of states where you can just kick Republicans all day long. It's like, hey, there's a Republican. Let's go kick him. Anybody want to join me? Yeah, let's go kick the Republican. We'll do it all day long. I'm not entirely sure Georgia is one of those states because they seem to be having an attitude about it. They don't like to get kicked.

So what we're seeing is a response in which they want to remove the monopoly. I guess there's some special legal rights that Major League Baseball has. And then the state is saying, well, let's take those away if you want to play hardball. It works both ways. So the state is actually just going after Major League Baseball. Just take them down. Trump is after them, of course. Republicans are after them.

I have a real question about how many Republicans are going to be drinking Cokes and Diet Cokes this week, but I think less. I think there will be fewer Republicans drinking Diet Coke. I don't know if that makes a difference to somebody as big as that.

But by the way, would you like to know how to quit your Diet Coke or Coke habit? I can tell you how I did it, and it's easy and hard at the same time. It's easy to know how, but it's about two months that are kind of hard. All you do is only do that one thing. Just stop drinking Diet Coke. Don't try to quit anything else at the same time. Just the one thing. Because if it's only one thing missing in your life, you can distract yourself with other stuff. But you don't want to be going on a diet at the same time you're trying to quit your Diet Coke habit. That's just too much. Just pick that one thing and say for two months I won't have a Diet Coke.

And what's going to happen? Let me tell you what's going to happen. Yeah, you might drink more coffee. I did that and it helped. Here's what's going to happen. For the first week you're gonna crave that Coke or Diet Coke if you have a habit. I had a really bad habit, 12 a day. But if you wait two months, this is my promise to you, if you wait two months without drinking a soda, soda will feel disgusting to you in two months and you'll never want one again. So the hard part is two months. But it's not like cigarettes. I hear, I've never quit cigarettes, but I hear that when you quit cigarettes you go a long time still wanting one. Is that true? Can anybody confirm that?

Whereas a Diet Coke, it actually turns disgusting. The thought of putting what looks like a science experiment in your mouth, because it doesn't really register even in your mind as food or beverage exactly. It's almost like a lubricant or a chemistry experiment. But boy, when you're hooked on it, it's just the best thing in the world, as I was.

So if Coca-Cola would like to play hardball with Georgia, I would like to tell you how to drink less of their product, and it's pretty easy. And by the way, I'm not an expert on the health impact of soda, but I don't think it's a lot that's going to be positive, right? I don't have the data to say that it's negative. A lot of people say that. I don't have that data. But I'm sure it's not helping you. I'm sure it's not a health food. I feel safe in saying that.

All right. So, and then I think Mike Cernovich was pointing out that the county that was going to get a hundred million dollars of economic benefit from the Major League game voted for Biden. So the county that's hit hardest by Major League Baseball pulling out of the All-Star Game is Democrats and Biden voters. So got what they voted for.

I would like to say that this is a weird issue that we're all concerned about because in my opinion baseball is the most useless of all sports. Now I know, I know some of you love your baseball and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. We're all different, right? So you can like one thing, I could like another. But I would point out that there's a saying in America, I think it's an American saying, that something is so boring it's like watching grass grow. Have you ever heard that? It's so boring it's like watching grass grow.

Baseball is the only spectator sport in which 99% of the time that's all you're doing. You're actually just watching a big field where the only thing that's happening is the grass is growing. Now you can't see it, but it's the only thing happening. So I don't know why people like baseball. I've never understood it. I like playing it, but watching it, it's mostly statistics with uniforms.

So the governor of Georgia points out to, he points out that New York, he was responding to Schumer who was giving him a hard time about their voting laws in Georgia. So Governor of Georgia Kemp says New York has nine days of early voting. Georgia has a minimum of 17, it's like with an additional two Sundays as an option for every county. New York requires an excuse to vote absentee. Georgia does not. They're lying and they know it, talking about Schumer.

Now what does it mean? What does it mean when we're all fighting over a topic where as far as I can tell literally none of us understand it? Let me be at the top of that pile. I don't understand the Georgia voting thing. Do you really? Do you really? I mean we understand the top line of it, right? We understand that the Democrats are calling it racist because the change will make them less likely to win. So they're lying and saying it's racist, but really they care about winning. The Republicans are saying no, we're making it fair and secure. But of course they're lying. It's true, it's true, but that's not why they're doing it. They're doing it to win.

Now can the Republicans make rules changes just to win? Well the Democrats did. It's legal. It's completely legal to change the rules within the laws of the state just to win. The Democrats did it and won the presidency. So the Republicans learned. They learned the rules. Oh wait, we can just change the rules to give ourselves an advantage and then we can argue some about why we did it.

So let me be really clear about what's going on. It's Democrats and Republicans lying, and then we're acting like that's not happening. They're just both lying. They're both changing the laws to get an advantage for their side. There's no good team here. They're completely disreputable, both sides completely non-credible.

Now that said, the Republicans have the stronger argument because security and making Georgia's rules comparable to other states in the same way that they handle security, they have the strongest argument. But they're still lying, right? You can still be lying and also have the strongest argument. There's no conflict, right? So they're lying about why they're doing it, but they do have a good argument.

So here we are in the public trying to understand these things and we don't. We don't know the details really. Kind of none of us do. We know, we think we do. We know one or two things and we're making our decisions based on that, but we don't really know what's going on there. None of us have read the law or hardly any of us. So we're mostly fighting for things we don't understand and don't know if we want. That's where we're at.

I've told you before that one of the only ways to get rid of bad laws is to obey them but obey them aggressively. Like just really obey them. Because if you obey a bad law it breaks the system. And here's an example. I tweeted this morning that I'm coming around to the point of view that requiring identification to do anything in this country is racist for the reason that the voter ID people were arguing against it, which is there are more Black citizens who have no ID. So that's the claim. I don't have data on that but that's the claim.

But why doesn't that apply to just everything? Why are we limiting that to voter ID? So one of the things that Georgia could do would be to float some legislation which would require that no company can ask for ID. They can ask for somebody to sign a paper to say I am really who I say I am, but you can't ask for any ID in the state of Georgia. Just make it a law. Just make it a law.

Now I think you'd have to have some exceptions if there's some federal thing, right? But where the state has control, couldn't they say you're not allowed to ask for ID in the bank and just let the banks pout about it? And you just play it straight. You act like you really mean it and say no, I think it's kind of racist if you're asking for ID in the bank because that closes down all the people with no ID.

Now the bank would say, well but they don't have much money anyway. And I'd say racist. That's not the point. The point is not how much money they have. The point is you're being a racist. That's the only point. So yeah, forget about the fact that people with no ID don't have any money to put in the bank. That is beside the point. That's we're just playing the same rule. Take the same set of rules and say if it's racist you just can't do it. It doesn't matter why you're doing it. It doesn't matter that you've got your good reasons. Racist is racist and that's the beginning and the end of the conversation, right? You can't have a reason. It's just racist.

So what would happen if all the banks and then Coca-Cola and everybody else just couldn't ask for ID in any context, not even their own employees getting into the building? So let's say that you said it would be illegal for anybody to show an ID even to get into the building as a visitor. They'd be a little concerned about that.

All right. Here's what I'd like to see to fix this whole states having different laws. Of course the Constitution, I understand, requires that the states are in charge of the elections so they can kind of do whatever they want as long as the state itself wants to do it that way. But here's what we should do. We should have a national standard, a federal standard for states that is non-binding. It would do only one thing. It would tell you and I whether any individual state is either below the standard or above it. That's it.

So in this case if Georgia was above the national standard in terms of doing it right, you'd say well there's nothing to see here. The national standard says do it at least this well and they did it that well. It's the end of the story. So it would just simplify for the public so that we don't have to look into every state and figure, oh this one does it this way and this one is this way. You just have a national standard and you say are they above it or below it and that's it. If they're below it then everybody gets to criticize it. If they're above it, shut up.

But we shouldn't be asked as citizens to analyze every state and figure out is it more about security or more about racism. We don't have that capability. Just give us a standard. Make it non-binding. It's just information. And then we wouldn't have this problem. We'd know what we're talking about.

If we had a functioning press. And we really don't. I mean that's not hyperbole, right? At one point that sounded like hyperbole. We don't have a functioning press, but now it's just flat out true. You look at this story and you know because the whole country is arguing about these Georgia voting laws but the press is worthless. They just don't even treat it like it's a factual question. You're not seeing a bunch of analyses of if this change helps or hurts. Nothing like that. You're just seeing somebody yelling racist and somebody yelling we need voter security. That's it. And none of that is even on point because they're both just trying to win the election.

So having no functioning press, it really hurts in these situations.

This next thing kind of highlights it. There's a study that declared that AOC is one of the least effective members of Congress, which is interesting because the way they measured it was on how much legislation they can all get through. But I don't know if that's the way to measure an AOC because I think that her influence is on the whole body. It's not legislative specifics. So I guess she got basically nothing made into law so she was one of the least effective in actually changing laws. But I would say one of the most effective in the world, or the country anyway, in getting her message across. So certainly she pushed the Green New Deal and all that stuff.

I've told you before that I now self-identify as a Black citizen of America. Now I have to say this every time I mention it. It's not a joke. Not a joke. As long as we have the right to self-identify and I've always agreed with it, I've never disagreed with anybody self-identifying any way they want. I've always been in favor of it. So I'm going to take that same right, if you will, or at least it's an option, and say that I'm a Black American. And it has several benefits. Number one is that I have an affinity for that group for reasons I've described before. But I could also be more useful. Sometimes it's easier to fix things from the inside, right?

So what would be the single hardest thing for Black America to get done that they also want to get done? Reparations, right? Reparations would be the hardest thing to get done because there'd be so much resistance. But I think I can help. And the way I'm going to help is by saying tax the major corporations but tax them intelligently.

Here's why you tax the corporations for reparations. You tax the corporations because they put themselves in a situation where they can't say no. They can't say no. They're trapped being woke. Once they realize that they have to be woke or their own employees will chew them to death and the customers will chew them to death, then you just have to propose it and they're going to have to say yes.

If you say, I'm sorry Amazon.com, did I hear you right that you're not in favor of reparations? You know hypothetically if they decided to oppose it, they can't oppose it. But do you know who can oppose it? You can. I can. Individuals can oppose it all day long because they're just say