It's Friday. January 23rd, 2026. This morning,
I was looking at the price of milk in Mississippi,
and it sent me down this rabbit hole that somehow,
weirdly, ended with Dungeons and Dragons. That's
quite a jump. It is, isn't it? But then you look
at the stack of research we have for today. You've
got economic data from Arbor, the political reporting
from Electoral Vote, and some really fascinating
stuff on cognitive science. And it actually starts
to make a weird kind of sense. It does. It really
does. When you lay it all out, you stop seeing
just, you know, random headlines. You start to
see a very specific story about pressure. Exactly.
And that's the mission for this deep dive. We're
not just recapping the news. We're trying to
map out exactly where the walls are closing in
financially, legally, politically. And then,
and this is the important part, how people are
trying to find a way out. because the data really
suggests we're hitting some kind of tipping point.
I think so. It's about how much noise the average
person can actually handle. That really is the
theme. We're looking at a world that just feels
more and more expensive, more politically volatile.
We've got this inflation data that just refuses
to go away. A constitutional showdown brewing
in Minneapolis. And a political theater in D
.C. that seems to be, well, losing its audience.
Right. And the response to all that pressure
isn't what you'd think. It's not mass protests.
It's... Rolling dice. But we'll get to the escapism.
First, we have to look at the reality. Let's
start with the money. We've got fresh inflation
data for early 2026 and well. The kitchen table
is looking pretty expensive. It really is. The
numbers are in and they paint a picture of what
economists like to call a sticky situation. Sticky.
That's the polite way of saying painful and not
going away. Precisely. The headline number that
really jumps out is food away from home. So that's
restaurants, takeout, even your morning coffee.
It's hovering right around 4 .10 percent. That
feels incredibly high for 2026. I mean, aren't
we supposed to be past all the post pandemic
shocks? We are, but this isn't really about supply
chains anymore. This is more structural. What's
driving this is labor costs and service overhead.
You know, those wages went up, which is great
for workers, but it means a $15 burger is probably
the new normal. not just a temporary spike. OK,
so dining out is a luxury again. And historically,
that's fine. You just you stop going out to eat.
You cook at home. That's the classic relief valve
that financial adviser Thomas Moreno mentions
in our notes. Right. Moreno's whole point is
that consumers used to have agency. If the restaurant's
too expensive, you just retreat to your own kitchen.
You dodge that four percent inflation by shifting
how you spend. But the data showing that valve
is getting jammed shut. It is. Because grocery
prices are going the wrong way. Exactly. Back
in 2024, food at home inflation had dropped to
nearly 1 percent. Everyone thought, OK, we've
stabilized. But here we are early 2026 and it
has completely reversed course. It's climbing
back up to 2 .4 percent. So what's behind the
reversal? If it's not the supply chains, why
is my grocery bill getting bigger? That's the
million dollar question. The data suggests there's
a kind of decoupling going on. The raw costs
things like fuel grain. They've mostly stabilized
What we're likely seeing now is retailers and
producers trying to preserve their margins So
they raised prices when they had to and now they're
not lowering them even though they probably could
They found out that the consumer has a much higher
pain tolerance than anyone expected. We're just
getting used to the pain but That pain, it's
not spread out evenly, is it? This was the part
of the Arbor data science report that just, it
blew my mind, the geography of this squeeze.
It is stark. I mean, if you live in the southeast,
especially Mississippi, you are facing a really
brutal reality. The data shows a staggering 10
.57 % of the median household income is going
just to groceries. Wait, let's just pause on
that for a second. Over 10%. Now, I know food
has always been a major expense, but wasn't it
historically higher? Like, if you go way back
to the 50s or something? It was higher in the
50s, yes. But here's the context that makes all
the difference. Back then, things like housing,
healthcare, education, they took up a tiny fraction
of the budget compared to today. It's going 2026.
You're paying modern prices for your house and
your health insurance, and you're losing over
10 percent of your income just to put food on
the table. There's just no margin for error left.
It's the combination that gets you. Right. Now,
compare Mississippi to the Northeast. In Massachusetts,
that number is 6 .13 percent. New Hampshire is
6 .25 percent. So is food just that much cheaper
in Boston? That doesn't feel right. It's not
about the price of milk. It's about the size
of the paycheck. The income baselines in the
Northeast are just significantly higher. And
that cushions the blow. Pennsylvania, for example,
sits in the middle at about 7 .75 percent. The
big takeaway then is that for a huge part of
the country, that relief valve of cooking at
home is still incredibly expensive. You're squeezed
at the restaurant and you're squeezed at the
grocery store. OK, so that's the economic pressure.
Now let's pivot to the legal pressure, because
if the money stuff makes you feel broke, this
next story might make you feel, well, unsafe.
We need to talk about ICE and the Fourth Amendment.
This is where we move from tightening belts to
tightening rights. There's been a whistleblower
leak and it involves a memo from the acting ICE
director Todd Lyons dated May 12th, 2025. And
this isn't just some bureaucratic paper shuffling.
This memo tries to fundamentally change how federal
agents can enter a private home. It absolutely
attempts to, yes. The memo asserts that ICE officers
only need an administrative warrant to enter
a home without consent, not a judicial warrant.
Okay, let's be really clear for everyone listening.
That's not just legal jargon. What is the actual
functional difference between those two pieces
of paper? It's the difference between checks
and balances and Well, just checking yourself.
A judicial warrant has to be signed by a judge,
a neutral third party in the judicial branch.
They look at the evidence and have to agree,
yes, there is probable cause to violate this
person's privacy. That's the bedrock of the Fourth
Amendment protection. Exactly. An administrative
warrant, on the other hand, is signed by an ICE
official. It's the executive branch giving itself
permission to act. Historically, these were for
arresting someone in, say, a public place. couldn't
use them to kick down a door. And this memo just
says actually you can? It argues exactly that.
It's a massive erosion of the separation of powers.
You're just bypassing the judge entirely. And
we're seeing this play out on the ground right
now in Minneapolis. We are. The reports coming
out of Minneapolis are intense. We're hearing
phrases like house to house raids. And the really
damning part is the video footage. Residents
are filming these encounters and you see agents
flat out refusing to show any paperwork. That
refusal is everything. If you have a valid judicial
warrant, you show it. It's your legal shield.
Of course. If you're refusing to show it, it
strongly suggests you're operating on this new
administrative authority. You're essentially
saying, we're coming in because we said we can.
And the administration, they're not even denying
the activity. JD Vance went to Minneapolis himself,
but his take on it was. Something else a classic
political pivot. He didn't defend the lack of
warrants instead. He blamed the local leadership
He claimed Minneapolis officials were obstructing
IC forcing them to take these kinds of measures
He labeled anyone who opposed it as far -left
agitators. So you shift the debate from Why are
you breaking into homes without a judge's permission
to why does Minneapolis hate law and order? Exactly.
You turn a constitutional question into a partisan
culture war But this isn't just a blue city issue.
Look at what's happening in Maine. Right. Operation
Catch of the Day, which I have to say is a grimly
cute name for a raid operation in lobster country.
It is. And the politics there are just fascinating.
Maine is usually pretty quiet, but you have Senator
Susan Collins in the fight of her political life.
The polling data we have shows her in some real
trouble. She is struggling, yeah. She's facing
potential challenges from Governor Janet Mills
or Graham Plattner, and she's down in a few of
those hypothetical matchups. Now normally, a
Republican incumbent runs on safety and security.
But does a heavy -handed ICE operation in quiet
Maine towns actually help her? That's the question.
It's a double -edged sword. It might fire up
her base, but for that moderate independent who
really values privacy, and that is a very main
trait, seeing federal agents swarring the neighborhood
could really backfire. It brings the chaos right
to their doorstep. Exactly. And speaking of doorsteps,
the surveillance isn't just coming from guys
in vans anymore. It's coming from our own front
porches. We have to talk about this partnership
between Flock and Amazon's Ring. This is where
the pressure just becomes almost claustrophobic.
So Flock is an AI surveillance company. They
do license plate reading, movement tracking,
and they've now partnered with Ring to get access
to user footage. So if I buy a Ring camera to
watch for my packages and I opt in to this program,
my footage now goes to Flock and then potentially
to federal agencies. Yes. You essentially become
a node. in a massive federal surveillance network.
But here's the real problem. And the source material
points this out so clearly. What about my neighbor?
The involuntary participant. That is the core
issue. You might consent to share your footage,
but your camera is pointed at the street or at
your neighbor's driveway. they never consented.
And yet their movements, their visitors, their
daily patterns are all being fed into Flock's
AI. It creates a situation where you can't really
opt out of being watched unless you I don't know,
move to a cabin in the middle of the woods. And
even then, a satellite probably gets you. It
just creates this low -level, constant anxiety.
You're always potentially on air. And when that
spills over into actual protest, the crackdowns
are getting more and more severe. We saw a rest
in St. Paul from a protest at City's church,
including the activist, Nikima Levy Armstrong.
And significantly, they tried to charge the journalist,
Don Lemon. That felt like a real line being crossed.
A magistrate judge threw it out, didn't he? They
did. initially. But the fact that Attorney General
Pam Bondi was publicly pushing for charges against
a journalist who was just covering a protest,
that sends a chill down your spine. It signals
that the executive branch is willing to test
the boundaries of the First Amendment, just like
they're testing the Fourth with ICE. So let's
just take stock here. You have economic tightening.
You have Fourth Amendment erosion. You have a
surveillance dragnet expanding. You would think,
in a functioning democracy, this is where the
political system would step in to provide some
leadership. Or at least clarity. One would hope.
Instead, we look to Washington and what do we
get? Theater. Pure theater. I want to talk about
the Jack Smith testimony because it feels like
the perfect example of this. This noise that's
just exhausting everyone. It was a real steady
in contrast. You have the former special counsel,
Jack Smith, testifying before the House Judiciary
Committee. And on one side, you have this very
specific performance art from the GOP members.
The reporting described them as struggling to
land blows. Because they were just playing to
the cameras. There was a lot of yelling, a lot
of soundbites designed to be clipped for social
media. But Smith. the sources describing as being
almost unnervingly calm, just professional. There
was that one moment about the phone records that
really just laid bare the hypocrisy of the whole
thing. That was the key exchange, I think. Republicans
were acting outraged that Smith has subpoenaed
their phone records. And Smith just humbly pointed
out that the only reason he needed those records
was because the president Donald Trump had tried
to enlist those specific members to help him
overturn the election. It's like I wouldn't be
looking at your phone if you weren't on the phone
with the guy trying to stop the transfer of power.
Exactly. And The Democrats really hammered that
point. They highlighted that we have the records
of these members condemning January 6th in private.
We know what they really think. But publicly,
they support Trump. It just reinforces that what
you're watching in these hearings isn't governance.
It's content creation. And speaking of content,
Trump's reaction was, of course, immediate. He
went on Truth Social and called Smith a deranged
animal. Standard operating procedure. Attack
the messenger. But... And this is where I think
we're seeing a real shift. Is anyone actually
listening anymore? We have this fascinating bit
of data about Trump's recent interview on News
Nation. This falls under the Schadenfreude part
of our notes, but I think it's actually a serious
metric of public fatigue. So Trump sits down
with Katie Pavlich. This is the former president,
the leader of his party in a prime time interview.
And the viewership was. 75 ,000 people. 75 ,000.
That is that's statistically negligible. To give
you some perspective, in that same time slot,
he was outdrawn by reruns of Gunsmoke, the Golden
Girls and my personal favorite, SpongeBob SquarePants.
SpongeBob pulled better numbers than the president.
Significantly better. Now, Trump has mentioned
ratings over 600 times on social media. He understands
that currency better than anyone. For him to
pull numbers that low, it suggests the audience
is just tired. The shtick as one source puts
it just isn't working anymore. People are tuning
out the noise. They are And that brings us full
circle, doesn't it? We've described a world of
immense pressure, financial, legal, surveillance,
and a political class that offers nothing but
noise instead of solutions. People are tired.
They are checking out. And that explains the
final and most surprising piece of research we
have. The renaissance of play. Board games. We
are seeing a massive surge in analog gaming.
And we're not talking about dusting off Monopoly
to have a fight with your grandma. No, no. This
is a very sophisticated industry now. We're talking
about modern class. like Ticket to Ride, Carcassonne,
the juggernaut that is Catan. Which I learned
is just Catan now. They dropped the settlers.
They did. But the study by Gray Atherton really
digs into why this is happening. Why, in 2026,
with all the VR and AI and infinite streaming
content, are people buying little pieces of cardboard?
It's the control, isn't it? It has to be. Think
about everything we just discussed. The rules
of the economy are changing under your feet.
The rules of privacy are changing. The rules
of politics seem non -existent. But when you
open a box of Cat An, the rules are right there
in the booklet. They are rigid. They are fair.
And they apply to everyone at the table equally.
A sheep is always worth a sheep. The robber always
moves on a seven. It's a relief valve for your
brain. You enter this little world where you
have agency, where your decisions actually matter,
and the outcome depends on strategy, not on which
politician is yelling the loudest on TV. There's
also a really interesting medical angle here,
too, about neurodivergence. Oh, this is fascinating.
The research shows these games are incredible
tools for social connection, especially for neurodivergent
individuals, like those on the autism spectrum.
Take a game like Dungeons & Dragons. The game
that caused a satanic panic in the 80s is now
considered therapy. It really is. It gives you
a structured environment to practice social dynamics.
You have to collaborate, you have to empathize
with other characters, but there's a clear framework
for it all. Your character sheet, the dice rolls.
It removes so much of the ambiguity of real world
social interaction that can be so exhausting
for people. And for people who are just emotionally
burnt out, there was one specific game they mentioned,
Dixit. Dixit is wonderful. It uses these cards
with very abstract, dreamlike artwork, and you
tell stories based on the images. The research
highlights how this lets players express complex
emotions without having to find the exact words.
So if you're feeling that low -level dread about
the surveillance state or the grocery bill, you
can just pick a card with, like a storm cloud
or a trapped bird, and you're communicating that
feeling without having to give a whole political
speech. Exactly. It's connection without the
confrontation. In a world this polarized, just
sitting around a table and agreeing to play by
the same set of rules is, well, it's kind of
a radical act. It's reclaiming the kitchen table.
We started the show talking about the kitchen
table as the source of stress. It's where you
pay the bills. And we're ending with it as a
source of relief. It's where you play the game.
That's the cycle. pressure and release. So what's
the takeaway for us for you listening on January
23rd, 2026? I think it means we have to be vigilant,
but we also have to protect our own sanity. The
economic and legal pressures are very real. This
administrative warrant idea is a development
that every citizen needs to watch because it
fundamentally changes the relationship between
the government and the governed. But at the same
time, we have to recognize when we're just being
fed noise. Right. When the political ratings
are tanking, that's a signal. It's a signal that
we don't have to engage with the theater. We
can choose to tune out the deranged animal posts
and the performative hearings. I want to leave
you with one final thought, something that's
been nagging at me since we talked about that
ICE memo. We all talk about the castle doctrine,
this idea that your home is your ultimate sanctuary.
A core American concept. So if a government agency
can grant itself permission to bypass a judge
and enter that sanctuary, where does the boundary
of that castle actually lie in 2026? Is it still
a castle or is it just a leasehold that the executive
branch can inspect whenever it feels like it?
That is the question, isn't it? And frankly,
until the courts or Congress step in with a clear
answer, the answer is pretty unsettling. Something
to think about tonight. Or maybe better yet,
something to forget while you're setting up a
board game. Thanks for diving in with us. Stay
safe out there. We'll see you next time.