So, who do I trust today? In short, his name is Professor Scott Galloway.

I first heard about Scott when a close friend got into NYU Stern and called me like she’d just met a new boyfriend. She was even a bit giddy when she said: “Joey, I have a new favorite professor… he’s hilarious, and he’s the best storyteller I’ve ever heard, and his name is Scott Galloway.” And then she added one more detail: “Everyone loves him! Not just me, everyone… even the guys!” That’s when I knew there was something different about this dude. My friend Deb was in love, but not with a new boyfriend.

​​Over the next couple of decades, I followed Scott’s work as a marketing professor in the way someone in the business of advertising does, half curious, half skeptical. But I never really paid attention to him as anything other than a storied academic with a big brain. Over the past few years, however, I’ve been a regular listener to his many podcasts, Prof G, Raging Moderates, and Pivot, and I recently read his new book on masculinity, Notes on Being a Man. And now I understand why he resonates with so many people, including my dear friend Deb. He’s real.

Scott doesn’t feel manufactured. He doesn’t speak in carefully crafted language. He’s just himself: hilarious, profane, occasionally ridiculous, wicked smart, and then, unexpectedly, deeply thoughtful and caring in a way that catches you off guard. He’s a man who seems to know who he is while also being openly curious about who he’s becoming. And this combination of confidence and ongoing self-examination is shockingly rare.

I’ve always believed that trust can be built through humor. And Scott is consistently funny. And not in a polished or rehearsed kind of way, like a seasoned comedian. His humor feels more like a byproduct of introspection. He studies himself, he studies human behavior, and then he shares the absurdity of both. Many of his jokes fall flat. And when they do, he doesn’t retreat. He laughs at himself. He acknowledges the gaffe and keeps going. And there’s something disarming about watching a public figure fail without trying to hide his mistakes. It builds a kind of credibility that no amount of media training can ever match.

Of course, some folks take issue with his style. Scott can be crude. His humor doesn’t work for everyone, and candidly, there are more “dick jokes” than most people would consider necessary in a business or political podcast. “My nickname was tripod in college,” But to me, his authenticity is part of his appeal. And in his defense, if I had a dick worth crowing about, I’m not sure I would even own pants. But I digress. And Scott’s candor signals that he’s not trying to be universally liked. He’s just trying to be himself. And in a world where so many public figures are overly engineered to avoid offending, his childlike honesty is welcome.

I don’t believe Scott because he’s right about everything. He’s not. It’s that I believe he believes what he’s saying when he says it. He’s not shaping his opinions to suck up to an audience or align with a specific tribe. He’s merely thinking out loud and occasionally admitting something most of us find hard to accept… that constructive criticism can be valid. As he notes in his book, “If an outside assessment throws you off balance… It’s usually a telltale sign.” That level of self-awareness is a gut punch to absorb, but it’s also where real growth begins. I recognize this simple truth in myself, both personally and professionally, and it’s not a place you visit casually. It’s an internal admittance that you limp into and sit within, until it dissipates, slowly and painfully.

And his book, focused on masculinity, resonated with me because it avoids the bombastic extremes that dominate today's conversation. He frames masculinity not as a set of rights or privileges, but as a set of responsibilities: To “provide, protect, and procreate,” a set of criteria that’s had plenty of pushback, specifically from political progressives. But, in true Scott fashion, he then pushes back even harder, arguing that none of this matters without structure. You don’t wake up one day and become a man. You build a code. You develop discipline. You accept the reality that time is finite. As he puts it, “There is no such thing as balance, only tradeoffs.” It’s a simple idea, but it cuts through a lot of the bullshit. You can do many good things in life, just not all at the same time.

Scott’s practicality shows up in his advice to younger men as well. It’s not glamorous. It’s not inspirational in any sense, but it’s fundamental. He shares axioms like “Do hard things,” “Show up early,” “Have good manners,” “Develop a firm handshake,” and “Stand up when a woman enters a room.” Old school. The basics. These are not the kind of insights that go viral, but they are the kind that help transform boys into men. They require consistency, not intensity. And consistency, as it turns out, is where most men fall short.

Where Scott’s vulnerability deepens is in his discussion of scarcity. He describes growing up in poverty as both a financial thing and a psychological thing, like being followed around by a vicious little voice that tells you that you’re not enough. As he writes, “Growing up without money shrinks your sense of what’s within reach.” That sentiment captures something fundamental about how poverty perpetuates itself, and not just through a lack of resources, but through low expectations.

A story he shares about losing a winter jacket illustrates this idea perfectly. His mother buys him a new coat at Sears that’s slightly too big, so it will last longer, a very practical decision driven by her empty bank account. Two weeks later, Scott loses his jacket. On the surface, it’s a typical boyhood mistake. But underneath, it represented something much larger for him: the gravity of sacrifice and the quiet understanding that your mistakes have consequences beyond yourself, even when you’re only twelve years old. When Scott told his mom that he had lost his new jacket from Sears, she burst into tears. It changed him forever. And I know what this level of shame feels like. I, too, grew up poor, and it’s the kind of thing that breaks your brain. It frames how you think about responsibility, money, and even human dignity.

Scott’s reflections on being a dad also hit a soft spot in my heart because, like Scott, I’m a father of two boys. He describes having children as a kind of “mercy killing” of your former hedonistic self, a brutal but accurate way of saying that becoming a father isn’t simply a small change in your life. The person you were before becomes a memory. As he wrote, “It wasn’t about me anymore.” And that statement, simple as it sounds, is the foundation of being a good parent. It’s the difference between being a father and a dad.

He also emphasizes what he calls “garbage time”, the so-called “unremarkable” moments that end up mattering the most. Like the car rides back and forth to school, or to soccer practice, where your son shares his new favorite song or video game, or talks about a girl he likes. These moments don’t occur inside our calendars or on some Google Doc. They happen because you’re there, sitting next to your child, listening, and allowing them to share their inner world with you, even if only for a moment.

And perhaps Scott’s most poignant idea on parenting was his warning that “Parents who infect their kids with their own trauma are superspreaders.” It’s a stinging way of stating the obvious, but it’s highly effective. He reframed his idea of parenting as not just about providing, protecting, and being present, but also about managing yourself and your emotions so you don’t pass down unchecked chaos to your children. He also reinforces the importance of accountability, of apologizing when you make mistakes, and of modeling the behavior you seek in your own kids. Of being real.

Even his emphasis on manners, something that can feel outdated or overly rigid lately, lands differently in this context. For Scott, manners aren’t about etiquette or appearances; they’re about respect and social competence. Manners are small signals that shape how you treat the world around you and how you make others feel while in their presence. Those things matter.

On relationships, Scott’s perspective is similarly grounded. He argues that kindness, something often dismissed as secondary, is actually central. “The secret sauce of mating is kindness.” It’s not a sexy idea, but it aligns with observable reality. Strong relationships tend to make people better, more disciplined, more thoughtful, more stable, more everything. I know my own marriage did. And while this idea may not fit neatly into more traditional narratives about masculinity, it reflects a deeper truth about how people grow as adults.

I recently watched a documentary called The Manosphere with Louis Theroux, and it only reinforced something I’ve been feeling for some time now: Scott is the antidote to a lot of the poison coming out of that crazy world. Louis’ film did a brilliant job of exposing how masculinity built on grievance, insecurity, and macho nonsense will harm us all. And it was impossible to watch this movie without thinking, this is NOT it. What Scott offers, both in his book and how he shows up in public life, feels like a much-needed counterweight. He’s proving through his actions and behaviors that you can be both kind and formidable, self-aware and ambitious, that strength doesn’t require cruelty, and true masculinity is the exact opposite of the Red Pilled monsters featured in The Manosphere.

And all of this leads back to why I want to be Scott Galloway’s friend. It’s not because he has all the answers. It’s not because he’s always right. It’s not because of his dick jokes. It’s because he’s trying, objectively and demonstrably, to be a better man. He has said himself that he didn’t really become a man until his forties, and that kind of admission carries weight. It acknowledges that manhood is not automatic; it doesn’t just show up on your eighteenth birthday. Manhood is earned, often later than we expect, and usually through a series of uncomfortable realizations and palpable tragedies.

In a media culture where many men are now focused on appearing powerful or “alpha”, there’s something super cool about someone who is focused on becoming more human and more trustworthy. It’s quieter and less performative. And it’s needed today more than ever.

And lastly, Scott repeatedly tells his readers and listeners to “Find impressive men, and befriend them.“

So, Scott, let’s grab a drink (or three) next time you’re in San Francisco.

The conversation argues that the opening strikes may have been tactically impressive, but that tactical success is not the same as strategic clarity. Shanker raises a central question: what changed so dramatically that Iran had to be attacked now? If the intelligence community could not clearly show an imminent new threat, then the public rationale for war starts to look alarmingly fuzzy. From there, the episode follows the consequences outward — the Strait of Hormuz, asymmetric retaliation, drones, sleeper cells, missile depletion, and the growing possibility that the U.S. has stepped into an escalation trap without a clear off-ramp.

More broadly, the discussion is about how America keeps repeating the same error: defining threats in ways that justify force, while failing to define an achievable political end state. Iraq, Afghanistan, and the post-9/11 national security mindset all hover over this conversation. The result is a sober and deeply nuanced look at whether Washington understands the war it has started — and whether anyone in power has a realistic plan for how it ends.

Captain Litchfield has extensive experience in personnel investigations, policy development, recruiting, crowd control tactics, and managing large scale critical incidents.

He is also a graduate of the POST Command College Strategic Foresight program, and a former fellow with the Institute for American Policing Reform.

During our time together, we discussed the specific training differences between the men and women who serve as peace officers vs. the training of ICE and Border Patrol agents today in the Trump administration.

We talked at length about the tone, tenor, and screening of ICE officers and how their specific training is not focused on working with the public, and why this has proven to be deleterious to the institution of ICE, its agents on the ground, and to American citizens writ large.

We also discussed the leadership of J.D. Vance, Kristi Noem, and Steven Miller…specifically…how they have publicly declared “Immunity” for their federal officers, vs. the Qualified Immunity standard they will be held to in a court of law.

Captain Litchfield helped me better understand the importance of training, screening, and governance of both state and federal officers and agents. I hope you find this helpful as well.

*Note that this episode was recorded before the killing of Alex Pretti on January 24, 2026.*

Watch Episode:

As shared during our interview, the three of us have been jarring about politics on a private thread for over a decade now…and please note that we argue like brothers (without the fisticuffs), while eventually hugging it out.

During our chat, we walked through the November 4th elections, specifically the Governors races with Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, and Abigail Spanberger of Virginia respectively. We then dove into Zohran Mamdani’s decisive win as New York City’s new mayor, and his many lofty promises and remedies to NYC’s myriad problems on affordability.

Our next areas of debate included why ICE is failing in its duty, how blowing up boats in the Caribbean is probably not a good idea, why Congress is failing for our least fortunate on SNAP, and why Trump’s tariffs are not working as planned.

We all had a blast…and I hope you learn something (other than Kevin is wrong most of the time) :-)

Watch Episode:

Bill was the resident MAGA representative during our debate. I encountered Bill due to his daily arguments with my friend Terry on Facebook. To say it nicely, Bill likes to stir up shit as a proud member of MAGA, and is a very vocal fan of President Trump.

I’ve watched Bill interact online for the better half of a year, and decided to debate him on a subject about a week or so ago… which he refused to do, while offering up whataboutisms as a repeated response to my many questions. So… knowing that I wasn’t getting anywhere with our online interaction, I asked Bill to join me on the show so we could debate in person… and he graciously accepted. He then asked “Do you mind if I bring my friends Mary and Steve?”

Well… how could I say no?

Both Mary and Steve agreed to do this interview as long as I did not publish our Zoom interview on my YouTube channel…so this interview is in audio only.

We began our chat by discussing the tragedy of the Charlie Kirk assassination…which quickly moved to our discussions on Erika Kirk’s heartfelt speech about her husband at his recent memorial/rally in Arizona.

We discussed the recent drama about the “indefinite suspension” of Jimmy Kimmel and Brandon Carr’s overreach and public comments as the head of the FCC.

When then free-formed a bit around topics like our federal government becoming the largest shareholder in Intel, and why that may be a conflict worth analyzing - which quickly jumped to the Trump tariffs and how these specific actions are affecting our farmers here in America.

We closed our debate by discussing the many constitutional violations of ICE, and why the J6’ers deserved a blanket clemency by President Trump (yes, many folks believe this level of nonsense).

The good news…we held a very spirited and sometimes contentious debate…without any name calling, or ad hominems of any kind. And as you will soon hear, it wasn’t because we agreed on everything (we did not).

I hope you learn as much as I did from our debate. And please leave your comments…I will respond in kind.

Rich was part of the 1992 Clinton/Gore presidential campaign, helping to craft policy and messaging on emerging global issues… and was subsequently appointed by President Clinton to head the speechwriting staff and be part of the policy planning office at the Department of Commerce.

I invited Rich back on the program to talk about his recent piece on his own Subtack called, “The Wisdom of David Gergen”. I was so touched by the piece that I wanted to share it with our listeners.

During our chat, we talked about Mr. Gergen’s decency, his acumen in bipartisan politics…and Rich shared a few personal stories about their friendship along the way.

I hope you enjoy your time with Rich as much as I did.

Watch Episode:

Despite the fact that I was living in St. Petersburg, FL, this decision hit very close to home; I am from Philadelphia and a big fan of the work, research and otherwise, performed by universities. Never a fan of President Trump’s overreach and vindictiveness, this stung hard.

Unfortunately, I would soon find out exactly how much I appreciate the research done by universities - especially Penn.

Two weeks prior to the White House announcement regarding Penn, my wife Jamie had bloodwork done for a routine physical she was having the next day. That afternoon, she pulled up the results in our system portal and read words that are exactly the things you don’t want to read, the sort of words that can alter life in an instant: the word critical, bold, in caps and written, ominously, in red, next to various markers that very well meant she might have cancer.

Astoundingly, our primary doctor in St. Petersburg was not alarmed. He was not even worried. “You’re not sick,” he said to Jamie, me breathing a naïve sigh of relief. “Let’s monitor over the next year and see how things look.” Some, he said, have abnormal blood counts that don’t necessarily intimate a problem. I walked out feeling that things were probably okay, that our worst fears were unfounded. The man was wearing a white coat after all, representing a medical group in one of the 20 largest metro areas in the country.

Jamie was not so sure. As usual, she was the smart one.

She sent the hematology results to her sister in Philadelphia. My sister-in-law owns a home health care agency and has contacts at local hospitals. One of those contacts read the results and had a much different reaction than our St. Pete doc: stop what you’re doing and get a bone marrow biopsy. Now.

We flew up to Philly, had the biopsy. On March 14 – five days before the White House announcement – we got the news: Jamie has MDS – Myelodysplastic Syndrome - a blood cancer. At first, the doctor suggested it might be on the lower end of the spectrum, that monitoring and managing for the rest of Jamie’s life – she, like me, is 64 – would suffice.

Soon after, and after biopsies at two more cancer centers - one each in Philly and the Moffitt Center in Tampa - it was divulged that Jamie’s MDS was worse than originally feared, that she would need a bone marrow transplant. The sadness and fear from hearing this diagnosis was matched only by the anger felt towards the St. Pete doctor who flippantly told us not to worry.

I later wrote him a long note in the portal. He has not responded. Perhaps he feared I had blind copied my lawyer.

Penn would not go broke if it lost $175 million. Its endowment as of June, 2024 was around $22.3 billion. Its consolidated operating revenue as of fiscal 2022 was $14.4 billion. It is said the school receives around $1 billion annually in federal funding.

But monies don’t simply get shifted from one priority to another and reports at the time stated that the $175 million would most directly affect research and student loan programs. At the time, the university said the cuts would mostly jeopardize research on preventing hospital-acquired infections, drug screening against deadly viruses and protection against chemical warfare among other studies.

Recently, Penn relented, and the funding is to be restored. The school agreed to remove male athletes – and, of course, former male athletes now competing as females - from women’s sports and restore athletic records to female competitors.

It’s a Faustian bargain to be sure but at the moment, I am not conflicted; with a spouse about to enter Penn’s hospital for a month that will include a bone marrow transplant that will hopefully save her life, I’d sacrifice some transgender athletes for research. In the world – and country – I grew up in, a university’s research funding would never be threatened and mature, educated folks would chat about things such as whether or not a Lia Thomas can compete for Penn’s women’s swimming team with no extremely expensive carrot at the end of the stick.

Oh, lest we forget: our recent and current president graduated from Penn’s Wharton School in 1968. Guess nostalgia was absent from his March decision.

This is not all about my wife or Penn, my selfish and quite possibly legit reasons notwithstanding.

The White House has unleashed a lot of fury in its first six months (back) in power and much of it will have potentially far-reaching impacts on the health and lives of millions in the future. Most of those affected will be the least able to withstand cuts to their safety net.

• Medicaid: $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade, mostly due to new work requirements, eligibility checks and cost-sharing which will mostly affect low-income individuals. It is estimated that 11.8 million people could lose health insurance by 2034

• Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces: the big, beautiful bill will make it harder to enroll and retain coverage.

• Planned Parenthood: the bill bans Medicaid funds from going to clinics that offer abortions

• Rural health: the Medicaid cuts will reportedly – and disproportionately – impact residents in rural areas, jeopardizing access to healthcare and potentially leading to hospital closures.

• Health and Human Services: the administration plans to shrink the HHS by nearly a quarter including cuts to the Center for Disease Control and National Institute of Health. NIH funding would drop from $45 billion to $27 billion, harming minority health and research of all kinds, including that done at universities.

• CDC: several programs would be shut down including those focusing on global health, chronic disease prevention, HIV/AIDS and minority health among others. Many employees were laid off April 1.

• Executive orders: Trump reversed many Biden-era policies, scaling back ACA provisions, rescinding Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services drug pricing initiatives and withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO).

• USAID: the United States Agency for International Development, established in 1961 ceases to exist as a separate agency after Trump dismantled it shortly after taking office. Many worry that hunger and famine – already on the rise, worldwide – will worsen, especially for the most vulnerable recipients of its largesse.

The bill, which passed the House and Senate without a single Democratic nod, cuts federal spending by around $1 trillion in the next decade. Trump’s 2017 tax cuts would be extended, permanently, good news for the highest income bracket. Some temporary tax breaks most helpful to low-income people are due to expire after 2028. There is a boost to the Child Tax Credit but many may not collect due to eligibility requirements or income thresholds. There will also be cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), further targeting low-income individuals.

The silver lining for those opposed to these measures? There are midterm elections in around 16 months. The Republicans currently hold a 220-212 edge in the House with three vacancies – the deaths, recently, of three Democrats – and a 53-47 edge in the Senate. It should be noted that two of the 47 are Independents that caucus with the Dems.

When Jamie and I received the revised diagnosis, we had a seemingly simple decision to make: where would she receive her treatment.

There was of course nothing simple about this. Jamie and I were still living in St. Pete but had already decided to move to Denver to be near her pregnant, older daughter. I was researching jobs and apartments, all eventually secured. I was about to receive my job offer in Denver – coincidentally, at a university – when we found out Jamie needed the transplant and it was determined we would move back to Philly, as it was suggested she be near family and friends. Recovery, we were assured, would be taxing, on her, and me.

We had briefly considered staying put since Moffitt is in Tampa. The lead hematologist there had confirmed the diagnosis and suggested the targeted, first phase of her treatment, a pill that would hopefully put her cancer in remission in advance of the transplant.

Tibsovo received its final FDA approval in October, 2023, approved for relapsed or refractory myelodysplastic syndromes with IDH1 mutations.

In mid-April we met with the heads of hematology and the bone marrow transplant division at Penn and were impressed enough that we decided on the spot to have them handle Jamie’s treatment. In a sense, we had little choice: Jamie had a fever and was admitted the same day, staying for a week. She had practically no immunity.

During that week, the lead hematologist agreed with the Moffitt suggestion of Tibsovo as a first treatment. Jamie’s numbers improved immediately, and she has been as healthy as could be hoped for as she prepares for her hospital admission next week. The impact of university research and the shared finding of these two doctors have led us to the desired result, a normalization of most of Jamie’s blood counts. It has brought her two relatively healthy months after an April filled with trips to and from doctor offices and hospitals.

I can only hope that people and caregivers fighting this disease never have to worry that their university researchers will be stymied from their appointed missions.

Johnson has designed and implemented systems that promote respectful interactions, fairness, and community trust, shaping how billions of people engage online. While at Meta, Fay was the product lead on designing and building the Oversight Board, and its integration into the broader Facebook ecosystem.

She is currently a fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Institute for Internet and Society where she is doing applied research and product development focused on depolarization and increasing civility in online discourse.

During our chat, we discussed Meta’s decision to cut back on Fact Checking, which includes both long-term and short-term consequences.

We also dove into the roles of platforms like Meta, Twitter, and Nextdoor – specifically, if they have any moral or ethical responsibility with their Tenants and Conditions.

We then talked specifically about some of the lessons she learned while running her product teams, and what the future may hold for these platforms with technology and systems like AI and Community Notes as possible remedies for what ails our online communities.

I hope you learn as much as I did from Fay.

Watch Episode:

During our chat, we talked at length about his new book: Outrage Machine: How Tech Amplifies Discontent, Disrupts Democracy―And What We Can Do About It.

The topics discussed include all of the usual suspects: Are our phones hurting our children? Has social media retrained our brains? Have algorithms remapped our chosen content? How is technology changing the industry of journalism and our democracy at large?

I had a wonderful time learning from Tobias, and I hope you also enjoy hearing about his story…and his decades-long focus on how technology is changing our world.

Watch Episode:

Prior to that, he worked for Senate Whip Jon Kyl as Communications Director and chief spokesman. Joe is also a veteran of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served as Press Secretary and Legislative Assistant for Rep. J. Randy Forbes (VA-04). He began his career in the office of Senator George Voinovich (OH)

During this episode of Joey Squared, we talk about The Alphabet People, our beloved LGBTQ+ community, and why they are not a monolith, nor should they be treated as one.

We then talked at length about one of my favorite journalists, Nellie Bowles and her new book, Morning After the Revolution: Dispatches from the Wrong Side of History - and why it was such a romping good read.

Nellie’s collections of stories proved to be a wickedly funny treatise about the ideological capture of her former colleagues and editors at The New York Times. And Joey and I use her witty and engaging stories as a cursor to our discussions about the fringe left of my party, and how their narratives and messaging are being widely rejected by the majority of Americans today.

I hope you enjoy this episode as much as we did. 

Watch Episode:

Quested has produced over 40 films, including several war documentaries directed by Sebastian Junger. Prior to producing, he was an award-winning music video director. Quested directed more than 100 music videos and commercials, working with artists including Dr. Dre, Jay-Z and Sting. 

Nick has won two Emmys and a DuPont-Columbia Award, and has been nominated for an Oscar and a PGA Award. His company, Goldcrest Films, has won the Academy Award for Best Picture twice.

Leading up to and during the 2021 United States Capitol Attack, Nick had been embedded with the Proud Boys, a far-right organization involved in the attack. In June of 2022 Nick testified – under subpoena on live television – to the US House of Representatives January 6 committee. As part of his testimony, Nick revealed that his crew had filmed a garage meeting between Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and Oath Keepers founder and leader Stewart Rhodes on January 5, 2021, the night before the attack.

During our chat, we talked about why Nick chose to live his life behind a camera, how he pivoted from shooting hip hop music videos to war documentaries, where he literally put his life on the line. 

We then discussed how he found his way into the inner sanctum of The Proud Boys – and how and why Enrique Tarrio allowed him to film the illegal activity of his Boys, and how this footage in his new film, 64 Days, helped put many of these Jan 6th rioters behind bars.

I hope you enjoy this interview as much as I did.

Watch Episode:

Check out 64 Days:

Website: www.64daysfilm.com 

IG: @64daysfilm

Stream the film: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/64days

Brad joined me to discuss Dr. Jonathan Haidt’s newest book, The Anxious Generation, How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. 

Brad is a longtime friend and colleague from my time in the world of advertising. And over the years, he has made it clear that he is “Less than impressed” with Dr. Haidt’s many books and conclusions in the field of social psychology. 

In today’s chat, Brad quickly points out that Dr. Haidt’s title alone is flawed - because there is no “Epidemic of Mental Illness” nor is there any causal data to back up this very controversial claim. 

During our time together, I admit my biases… and do my best to defend my years-long intellectual crush on Dr. Haidt…in spite of Brad’s cogent and valid concerns about the book’s lack of unidirectional causality, specific to its title and theoretical positioning in the field of social psychology. 

As usual with my time with Brad, I had a blast, and learned a ton. I hope you enjoy this episode, too.  

Brad Berens’ Socials:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/bradberens/

And The Brad Berens Weekly Dispatch:

He was recognized by The Hill as a Top Lobbyist in 2022 and 2023. He is also a 2022 Maverick PAC Future40 Awardee.

And Joe (one of my favorite all time Republicans) was recognized by The Hill as a Top Lobbyist in 2022 and 2023. 

Today on Joey Squared, we talked about Dana Bash’s CNN interview with Vice President Harris and Governor Walz and why our politicians refuse to answer questions. 

We then discussed the wave of excitement around the Harris/Walz campaign since Papa Joe stepped aside: whether or not Kamala has EVER been a Moderate or not, how and why progressive ideology derailed her Presidential campaign in 2020. And we ended our chat by discussing the choice of JD Vance and Tim Walz as our VP candidates in 2024.

I hope you enjoy this episode of Joey Squared!

Partial excerpt: 

“This guy ain’t no motherfucking MC, I know everything he’s gonna say about me. 

I do live in a trailer with my mom, my boy Future is an uncle Tom…

Don’t ever try to judge me, dude, You don’t know what the fuck I’ve been through, but I know something about you. 

You went to Cranbrook, that’s a private school. 

What’s the matter dawg? You embarrassed? 

This guy’s a gangster? 

His real name is Clarence, and Clarence lives at home with his parents. 

And Clarence’ parents have a real good marriage… 

He’s scared to death, he’s scared to look. 

At his fucking yearbook; fuck Cranbrook…

Fuck y’all if you doubt me! I’m a piece of white trash, I say it proudly. 

And fuck this battle, I don’t wanna win, I’m outtie. 

Here, tell these people something they don’t know about me.” 

This lyrical onslaught was pure genius, and not just because of the diction, but because Eminem anticipated his opponents insults and used them against him like a cleaver. It was a power play for the ages, and one that took Sun Tzu’s most notable quote to heart, “Every battle is won before it is ever fought.” 

Spoiler alert: Clarence from Cranbrook quickly exited stage left without saying a word. End scene.

So, what can politicians learn from The Eminem Defense? 

More specifically, what can Vice President Harris and Governor Walz learn from America’s most celebrated battler?

These were questions I weighed while watching Dana Bash interview our new democratic duo on CNN recently. And sadly (and unsurprisingly), neither Harris nor Walz used Eminem’s winning theory when asked about their past vulnerabilities or gaffs.

Dana’s interview began with questions that were handled with relative ease. But then she asked Harris “In 2019, at a town hall, you were asked if you would consider a federal ban on fracking on your first day in office, and you said, there is no question that I’m in favor of banning fracking. Have you changed your mind?”

Harris: “In 2020, I made it very clear where I stand, and in 2024, and I’ve been very clear where I stand, and I have not changed that position, nor will I going forward. I kept my word, and I will keep my word.”  

This is a direct quote from Harris during her 2020 debate with Vice President Pence:

“Joe Biden will not end fracking, he has been very clear on that. I will repeat, and the American people will know, that Joe Biden will not ban fracking.” 

So, our Vice President was indeed clear about Papa Joe’s position on fracking, but she was not clear that she shared that same belief personally. 

What if she had adopted The Eminem Defense? To wit “I did say that, Dana, and I was wrong. After doing some additional research, I learned something new and changed my position.” 

When was the last time a politician admitted they were wrong on prime-time network television? And how cool would it be for a Presidential candidate to offer up this level of honesty with a politically exhausted American electorate? 

And when Governor Walz was asked about his recent gaff about “carrying weapons in war”, he too responded with muddled deflection. 

Dana Bash: “You said you carried weapons in war, but you’ve never been deployed in a war zone. And a campaign official said you misspoke, did you?” 

Governor Walz: “Well, first of all, I’m incredibly proud, I’ve done twenty four years of wearing the uniform of this country, and I’m equally proud of my service in a public classroom, whether it’s Congress or the Governor, my record speaks for itself, but I think people are coming to get to know me, I speak like they do, I speak candidately, I wear my emotions on my sleeves, and I speak especially passionately about our children being shot in schools, and around guns, so I think people know me, and they know where my heart is, and my record has been out there for over 40 years to speak for itself.” 

Which prompted Dana to repeat her question “Did you misspeak as the campaign has said?” 

Gov. Walz: “Yeah, I said, we were talking about, in this case, after a school shooting, the idea of carrying these weapons of war, and my wife, the English teacher, told me that my grammar was not always correct.” 

Oh, for the love of God… what if the Governor said, “Oh, Dana, I did misspeak, and it was a doozy, huh!?” 

That would’ve been so cool.

As I watch Presidential politics play itself out in 2024, I can’t help but notice the similarities between a rap battle and an election. In both circumstances, people use words to hurt each other, to make the other look foolish, to tell stories.To win.

And Eminem told his story with unabashed honesty, and won. 

So… maybe it’s time for our politicians to adopt The Eminem Defense.

And in the case of Vice President Harris and Governor Walz, if they do so, they might even win the Presidential election in November.

In addition to teaching, she has taken on numerous side gigs, mainly to stay current in her ever-changing field. In 2012, she was hired by Linkedin, where she learned how to show journalists and other communicators the tips and tricks necessary to get their LinkedIn profiles to “all-star” status.  She has since written a book called Social Media Journalism.

This summer, Wilson taught two courses in the Journalism Minor program.

When she’s not teaching or working at one of her side gigs, Wilson loves to write fiction, travel to faraway places, and watch Paw Patrol toy videos with her four-year-old grandson.

During our chat, we talked about why she chose journalism as her career; why she chose to stay in California, and why she is now enjoying teaching her craft to future generations.

We then talked about the realism and possibilities of Objectivity in journalism today – is it possible - or was it ever possible? We opined about the New York Times poor handling of an op-ed from Senator Tom Cotton, and why that was a watershed moment for this august publisher. 

We also discussed the business model of journalism, and why audience capture is influencing what stories get published and when – and how this is only exacerbating the divide between fellow Americans.

We ended our chat by talking about the future of AI and Social Media in the realm of journalism.

Yumi is a treasure to the industry of journalism, and I hope you learn as much as I did from her. 

Check out Yumi’s podcast here: https://yumiwilson.me/podcast/

Watch Episode:

Morris is a former professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. He is a founder of the Morris Institute for Human Values, and author of over 30 books. He is also a business and motivational speaker, applying philosophical themes and concepts to business and professional life.

During our chat we discussed his newest book, Stoicism for Dummies, and why it is such an important book for our politically divided culture.

We talked about the founding fathers and their love and understanding of philosophy; the beauty, simplicity and reasons that philosophy matters today more than ever.

I was thrilled to have Professor Morris back on the program to share his decades of wisdom and experience. I hope you learn as much as I did from our time together.

Watch Episode:

Check out some of Tom’s books:

The Everyday Patriot

Stoicism for Dummies

The Art of Achievement Silver Anniversary Edition

As Senior Vice President of The Daschle Group, Joe is known for his expertise in Senate politics and procedures. Notably, Joe served as a lead Republican consultant in securing passage of The Respect for Marriage Act and played a key role in shepherding The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act following the January 6 attacks on the U.S. Capitol.

Previously, Joe spent 12 years as a senior advisor in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, including more than six years as Chief of Staff to U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (NE).

Prior to that, he worked for Senate Whip Jon Kyl as Communications Director and chief spokesman. Joe is also a veteran of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served as Press Secretary and Legislative Assistant for Rep. J. Randy Forbes (VA-04). He began his career in the office of Senator George Voinovich (OH)

Joe was recognized by The Hill as a Top Lobbyist in 2022 and 2023. He is also a 2022 Maverick PAC Future40 Awardee. In 2017, Joe was named by POLITICO as a top Senate operative in the “New Guard” Power List, a guide described as “crucial to understanding the players who are breaking through in the all-consuming era of Donald Trump.”

Joe is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Georgetown University and the George Washington University School of Law.

Joe and I talked at length about the origins of the TikTok bill, and the legislation drafted to ban the Chinese-owned app for over 170M Americans. We talked about the young man named Bijan Koomariaie. 

Joe then shared a story about how he met and interviewed a young lawyer named Bijan Koomaraie, who he introduced to Congresswoman Cathy MacMorris Rodgers of Washington State – a top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce committee – to be her legal counsel. Shortly thereafter Steve Scalise, House Majority Leader – based on Bijan’s acumen as counsel – poached Bijan to be HIS technology counsel overseeing all that’s going through the house Republican conference. 

This same TikTok bill was passed by the House and the Senate, and signed by President Biden on April 24th of 2024. 

We then moved on to talk a bit about RFK and his ascendancy as an Independent candidate – a candidate who pledges to be on the ballot in all 50 states before the November election – and how and why RFK is making some real waves for both parties in 2024. 

We ended our talk by discussing the possibilities of Mr. Trump’s growing stable of VP candidates – and which ones we believe have a chance – and those we deemed unworthy of future discussions.

This was my first interview with Joe Hack, but we had so much fun (both on and off camera) that we are going to continue our conversation under the heading of Joey Squared moving forward.

I hope you enjoy this episode as much as I did.

Watch Episode:

During our chat, we talked about Rich’s purview of geopolitics as a former member of the State Department, the hot wars in Russia and Israel/Palestine, past administrations foreign policy - both good and bad - why NATO matters more than ever - and the continuing dysfunction of our current Congress.

It was my honor to have Rich join me on the program and I truly enjoyed every minute of his storied history, tenure, and storytelling of all things Washington D.C.

Watch Episode:

Prior to his time at these academic institutions, Shanker was a longtime Pentagon correspondent and editor for the New York Times. His tenure with the Times included thirteen years covering the US Department of Defense, overseas combat operations, and national-security policymaking. 

Shanker conducted dozens of reporting trips to Afghanistan and Iraq and was embedded in the field with units from the squad and company level through battalion, brigade, division, and corps. He has chronicled a historic series of defense secretaries, including Donald H. Rumsfeld, Robert M. Gates, Leon E. Panetta, and Chuck Hagel. More recently, Shanker served as deputy Washington editor of diplomacy, military, and veterans affairs. 

Before joining the Times in 1997, Shanker spent five years as the Tribune’s Moscow correspondent, covering from the start of the Gorbachev era to the death of the Soviet Union and the communist empire in Eastern Europe. 

Shanker is an author, with Eric Schmitt, of Counterstrike: The Untold Story of America’s Secret Campaign Against Al Qaeda, published in August 201. The book became a New York Times best seller. 

During our chat, we talked at length about his newest book, Age of Danger that he co-authored with Andrew Hoehne. Their book was published in May of 2023 to much acclaim by both military experts and politicians alike.

During our chat, we discussed the history of our “warning and action systems” specific to our military readiness, and how these systems have been altered and improved over the decades to protect Americans and our national security. We also discussed the many new challenges presented by climate change, pandemics, AI, and our ever increasing involvement with two hot wars in the middle east and Russian. 

It was a fascinating conversation with a true legend in the world of investigative journalism, and it was my honor to have Thom join me on the program. I hope you learn as much as I did from this chat.

Watch Episode:

During our chat, we talked about her tenure as a journalist and media executive, why she started a company called Epicenter NYC during Covid, how and why she co-founded her company URL Media, and why she believes that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are so important in today’s news rooms.

I was honored to have Mitra join me on the program, and I hope you learn as much from her as I did.

Watch Episode: