I'd love to see a poll on this — but anecdotally the moms are protecting their children and that's the primary energy at the individual level. That might be the primary energy because that's what people ask about. If you say hey, let's go talk to a bunch of Republicans, you see what comes out of their mouths is not necessarily inflation even though it's a huge issue. Even fentanyl, all these issues. If you just ask them to say what's on your mind it's not going to be fentanyl unless they had a direct experience as I did. But I think it's the children and I don't know how you could program against that.

So if Republicans ran on "save the kids," who beats that? Who beats "save the kids" when people are primed to understand that that's the real problem? Because "save the kids" handles a whole bunch of stuff. It handles fentanyl. Fentanyl is part of "save the kids." Some of them are older kids but they're still somebody's children. And it goes to fixing schools, and fixing schools would fix systemic racism. It would be the biggest lever you could push to fix racism. So when you say "save the kids," if you do it in any kind of sensible way there are a whole bunch of topics that get fixed at the same time.

Have you heard Professor Scott Galloway talking about the lost generation of young men? The current situation with dating is women are going for the top 10 percent of men and the rest are left to porn and masturbation and empty lives. But as Scott Galloway correctly points out, a lot of that is because the young men are not growing up to be worthy partners. They're just not developed in a way that some woman's going to want to say give me some of that. And I think there's something to that whole story, but there's a lot to that.

So this whole "save the children" just bubbles up into almost everything. How would you save the economy? Well you've got your short-run stuff which probably we do roughly correctly, but your long run is just education. Am I right? You educate the kids in the long run. Your economy is dead unless you educate kids better and get rid of the fentanyl. So it's basically you have to solve the kid problems to solve the economy. So "save the kids" ends up being really "save us all." "Save the kids." I'm sure that the left would say what about the climate? And that's easy. We love the climate but we don't want to do something that makes things worse. So it's easy to counter any argument against it.

I don't know, but put that into your thinking cap and maybe just do a little observing about what people bring up unprompted, because it's the bringing it up unprompted that makes it kind of stand out. Education does not mean what you think it does. Well I like to broaden education to mean any kind of training, anything that's useful for your life especially your financial life but also anything that's useful for your sanity and happiness as well. That should all be education.

All right, let's talk about Doug Emhoff, the so-called second gentleman. He's not even the first gentleman. He's the second gentleman. I don't know how you rank adult men in 2023, but apparently if you had been married to a female president you'd be the first gentleman. If you're married to a vice president who's female you're the second gentleman. And if the vice president that you're married to owns a pet you're something like the third creature, because the pet's going to be a little higher than you. Let's face it. So you've got to get that right.

Well Doug Emhoff, the second gentleman, is in the news by saying there's too much toxic masculinity. And apparently he is stating — he's not selling anything, that's just a jerk word like I hate myself for saying that, withdraw, withdraw — he's simply stating he thinks there's too much toxic masculinity. But apparently he has escaped the curse of toxic masculinity. He's pretty happy about it. And a lot of people wanted to argue with him about masculinity and blah blah blah.

Here's my take. Why are we arguing about that? That's arguing over a