Paul? Are you still there? I'm getting trolled on the audio. Bunch of people saying I'm muted. Is that because they're—okay, yeah, everything's working. Trolls. Thank you, Paul.

So I wonder if DEI is actually a factor. There's no way to know. But the theory is that DEI should destroy every company and then every country it comes in contact with, because by design it destroys organizations. It is the one thing that guarantees that you focus on hiring less qualified people to meet a different goal. Now if you say, "Scott, you racist, why are you saying that some other group is less qualified?" I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if you focus on something other than merit, you're going to get something other than merit every time. It's just the way everything works. And there's a small pool of people available for certain types of jobs, and if you try too hard to fix things with that small pool of availability, it should destroy every company in America that focuses on it.

So although there's no direct evidence that that's what's happening at Boeing, given that they have a bunch of government contracts, I would pretty much feel confident in saying it's probably their biggest problem. I'm sure they have other big problems, but it's probably the biggest one. And it's not recoverable. It's not recoverable. They're not going to fire the people they already hired. So whatever their situation is now, that's what they're going to have to work with. So I don't know how they work around it. Create a skunk works? I don't know. I have no idea how anybody survives DEI. It should, by its design on paper, destroy every organization that touches it eventually. And certainly lots of evidence of that.

Well, you'd be delighted to know there's a research consortium—or consortium, or consortium, I don't know, but it's one of those things—but yeah, a bunch of geoengineering types want to dump a bunch of iron in the ocean to make the ocean capable of absorbing, I guess. Basically they'd be fertilizing the ocean with some kind of iron stuff, and it will make the phytoplankton bloom, and it'll suck the carbon dioxide right out of the air.

All right, let me ask you this. What are you more afraid of: a nuclear power plant or trying to change the chemistry of the ocean? This is the scariest thing I've ever seen. It's scary that they want to change the atmosphere, you know, have the planes release some kind of chemicals that will alter the atmosphere to solve climate change. But I'm not so sure I want to bloom a lot of phytoplankton, because I don't know exactly if we know what happens if you do that. So I'd be a little careful about this one. I suppose there's probably a way to test it small. But yeah, I don't know. And is it recoverable? If you stopped doing it, do things go back to where they were pretty quickly? I just don't know if this is a good idea, but I've got questions.

Well, this is exciting. According to the New York Post, there's this device that's been created by researchers at University College in London, and it's a little device that you stick your finger in. And somehow, believe it or not, it's a breakthrough medical device to stimulate what they call the natural, quote, "real feel" sensation of human touch. So if you're isolated and you don't have a lot of human touch, you can stick your finger into a device and it will give you the sensation that there's a human being touching your finger.

So I plan to get one of those to stick my finger into it. No, my finger. I'm just going to put my finger in it. Well, what were you thinking, you perverts? My God, you're disgusting. I'm going to put my finger in it. What are you even thinking? Oh my God, I'm disgusted by all of you. That never even occurred to me. Not once did I think if you can stick your finger in it and it feels like a real person that there might be some other application for it. I never thought of that. You're disgusting. I love every one of you.

All right, here's a story that makes you shake your head and say, should we just give up and leave the country? Maybe we should just give up on America if you're an American. Just give up. All right, here's a story that just makes me want to go, all right, we're not even trying anymore.

The National Association of Letter Carriers—in other words, Post Office Union—announced their endorsement of Kamala Harris and Governor Walz. The letter carriers, the people who will be holding in their hands the ballots. They know exactly what the voters in their area are likely to favor by a majority. They know if they're working a red neighborhood or a blue neighborhood. And they've just endorsed one side. And you have to trust the people who endorsed Harris to deliver your ballot without throwing it away, which is what they want to do. They want to throw it away because they don't want the other team to win.

Now I'm not going to cast any aspersions on any postal workers. My father worked for the Post Office for his entire career and retired. And if there's one thing I know from all of the many, many stories my father told us over the dinner table, you can trust the Post Office. No, you can trust the Post Office as much as you can trust any other part of the government, which is not at all. Not at all.

When I used to mail my art—so when I was a new cartoonist, we didn't do everything digital back then. I would actually create art on paper, and then I'd make copies of it because I knew I was going to mail off the originals. So I'd mail the original to my syndication company, and then they would do what they needed to do to put it in newspapers. I heard that Gary Larson, famous cartoonist of the time, had to stop using the post office because as soon as they figured out who he was, they stole all of his packages because they could sell his original art.

So I heard that, and I said to myself, well, but they don't know who I am because I was new. So I was mailing my art every day, and then I got a little more famous, and then they started recognizing me in the post office. And that was the last time any of my art ever reached its destination. They just started stealing it after that. So no, the post office cannot be trusted.

Years ago I also wrote a story about a single woman who didn't have any money but was giving money to homeless people when she saw them because they were doing even worse than she was. And she could not even afford basically anything. I wrote a story, and I said, you know what, here's a post office box if you want to send her some money and solve her problem, because she's literally so kind—this is a real story—she was so kind and religious really that if she could eat a sandwich that day and she saw somebody who might not, she would give him half her sandwich. Like literally she would reach in her lunch and give half of it to a street person.

And people were moved by the story, and they sent her envelopes full of cash. I mean not full of, but you know, a $20 bill here and there. And she got, if you could imagine, probably thousands—my best guess, thousands of dollars—were sent to her by just people who wanted to help her out. How many of those thousands of dollars do you think she actually received? Because it went through the post office. As soon as they noticed that one of her letters had cash in it—because I don't know, maybe you could hold it up and see it or something—they stole everything else that ever went to her. They got 100% of all of her letters and kept them.

The post office. Now you feel good about the post office? The post office is going to determine the election because the mail-ins will probably be the consequential thing. And they get to decide if they deliver it or not. If they throw it away instead of delivering it, you'll never know. And if you did know, it would be after the new president is already in office, and nothing would change after that.

How in the world is this legal? How in the world is this legal? Now Joel Pollak asked this question before I did on X, so I'm stealing his stuff. But I mean, I look at this and I think, well, I guess there's no law against it because of free speech. But if you design a system—let's say you drew it down on paper and you said, all right, we're going to have this election system. We're going to have the determined vote are going to come in the mail, and then we're going to make sure the people who deliver the mail are very biased in who wins, and they won't be watched every moment because mail carriers don't have body cams. So they could just leave the whole crate of ballots in their car, drive it home at night and throw it away, or throw it away in a dumpster on the way. Now, would you have ever approved that system if you were designing the system? Would you have approved that? No, you would not. On paper you would have rejected that immediately. You would have said no, whatever we do, we can't do that.

It's the least trustworthy group probably of any entity. I mean, I don't know what experience you've had with post offices, but it's hard to imagine a more corrupt organization, more corrupt at the individual level than the top. I don't have any accusations against senior management. I only know that the individuals that they hire are pretty damn sketchy on a regular basis. And I say that, you know, my father worked there for over 30 years, I thin