Tangle - The testimony on antisemitism from college presidents.

Episode Date: December 12, 2023

The college presidents. On Saturday, Liz Magill, the president of the University of Pennsylvania, resigned amid controversy over remarks she made during congressional testimony on antisemitism. Magill, along with presidents Claudine Gray of Harvard and Sally Kornbluth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), appeared last Tuesday before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.You can read today's podcast ⁠⁠here⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story here, and today’s “Have a nice day” story here. You can also check out our latest videos, and interview with presidential candidate Marianne Williamson here and a look at what a potential second term for Donald Trump could look like, here.Today’s clickables: Announcements (0:47), Quick hits (2:03), Today’s story (4:51), Right’s take (7:17), Left’s take (11:22), Isaac’s take (15:13), Listener question (21:57), Under the Radar (24:36), Numbers (25:26), Have a nice day (26:47)You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the poll. Do you think the university presidents should have received repercussions for their testimony? Let us know!Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Breaking news happens anywhere, anytime. Police have warned the protesters repeatedly, get back. CBC News brings the story to you as it happens. Hundreds of wildfires are burning. Be the first to know what's going on and what that means for you and for Canadians. This situation has changed very quickly. Helping make sense of the world when it matters most. Stay in the know. CBC News.

Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to

your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about the college presidents currently under fire after their

testimony on anti-Semitism before Congress. We're going to break down what happened, what has happened since, and then share some views from across the political spectrum. Before we do, a couple quick notes. First of all, we've got a new interview up on our YouTube channel with Marianne Williamson. She is running for president as a Democrat. Some polls have her polling about as well as Nikki Haley right now in the Democratic primary. Just to give you a little bit of a picture of where she is, if you're unfamiliar with her work, her views, the things she's done, her campaign, highly recommend going to her YouTube channel and checking it out, Tangle News on YouTube. Also, I want to give a big

shout out and thank you to Mike Peska, one of my podcast idols. He is the host of The Gist, a podcast that I love, and he invited me on to come on his show to talk about Tangle, which was really cool. I had a great time. There's a link to our interview in today's episode description, or you can just go look up the gist anywhere you listen to podcasts and check out the episode titled Untangling the News. Thank you, Mike, for having me on. It was an honor, super fun, and I thought we had a great chat, so you should go check it out if you want to hear me talk a little bit about my work and what it's like doing this on the day-to-day. All right, before we jump in, we're going to kick things off with some quick hits.

First up, Special Counsel Jack Smith has asked the Supreme Court to consider and quickly rule on whether presidential immunity protects former President Donald Trump from prosecution in his election interference case in Washington, D.C. Separately, Rudy Giuliani's civil defamation trial to determine punitive damages began in Washington, D.C. yesterday. The case involves two election workers from Georgia that Giuliani could owe as much as $43 million. Number two, 15 members of the Air Force are facing disciplinary measures for their failure to address intelligence-related activities by accused leaker Jack Teixeira. Number three, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrived in Washington, D.C. to meet with President Biden and Republican leaders as Congress considers another round of military aid.

Number four, a jury ruled against Google in an antitrust case brought by Epic Games, which argued that the company's app store and billing constituted a monopoly. And number five, a Texas woman left the state to seek out an abortion after the state Supreme Court reversed a lower court order and ruled that she could not seek an emergency abortion in Texas. A quick bonus quick hits, we just got some inflation numbers and it appears inflation continued to cool, easing pressure on the Federal Reserve as the Consumer Price Index increased 3.1% in November from a year ago. And the inflation index rose 0.1% on a monthly basis, which was just a sliver above the 0% forecast, but still a pretty good sign for inflation overall. The presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania are under fire for their responses on how to handle calls for Jewish genocide on campus. Well, tonight, second gentleman Doug Emhoff, who is the first Jewish spouse of an American president or vice president speaking at the National Menorah Lighting, just said, quote, the lack of moral

clarity is simply unacceptable. Tonight, the pressure is growing on the presidents of the elite universities of Harvard and MIT to resign. This weekend, the president of the University of Pennsylvania, Liz McGill, stepping down after critics blasted her testimony before Congress about anti-Semitism on campus. The president of Harvard University is still in her job at this hour, but there's been a real debate about whether she should be allowed to stay. There are dueling letters from Harvard's broader community, one calling on the university's governing board to force her out,

and one asking the university to support her. One of those governing boards has reportedly been meeting about that today. On Saturday, Liz McGill, the president of the University of Pennsylvania, resigned amid controversy over remarks she made during congressional testimony on anti-Semitism. McGill, along with Presidents Claudine Gay of Harvard and Sally Kornbuth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also known as MIT, appeared last Tuesday before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. The three presidents testified for several hours, but the parts of their testimony that got the most attention came when New York Republican Representative

Elise Stefanik, a Harvard graduate, asked whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated the school's codes of conduct. Each president gave indirect answers to her yes or no question, saying that it depended on the context and whether the speech turned into conduct. McGill, when asked, said if the speech turns into conduct, then yes, it would constitute harassment. Her comments drew significant backlash, and she later posted a video on Twitter trying to clarify the university policies. I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate, she said. It's evil, plain and simple. However, the damage appeared to have been done. Shortly after, a wealthy donor withdrew a $100 million gift to the university, and videos criticizing

her testimony received tens of millions of views on social media. A petition calling for McGill to resign received over 26,000 signatures. McGill then announced her resignation on Saturday. It has been my privilege to serve as president of this remarkable institution, she said. It has been an honor to work with our faculty, students, staff, alumni, and community members to advance Penn's vital missions. Shortly after the testimony, Republicans in Congress announced a new House committee investigating anti-Semitism on the campuses of elite colleges. Critics of Gay and Kornbluth continue to pressure them to resign as well. On Tuesday, Harvard's board voted to keep Gay as the school's president despite the backlash. Today, we're going to explore some reactions to the testimony and the news that McGill is stepping down from the right and the left, and then my take.

We'll be right back after this quick commercial break. We'll be right back after this quick commercial break. First up, we'll start with what the right is saying. The right mostly supports McGill's resignation and says the Harvard and MIT presidents should also be ousted. Some say their testimony is emblematic of the broader issues plaguing United States colleges and hope this moment brings a reckoning for these schools. Others argue colleges need to rethink their free speech policies. The New York Post editorial board said one awful university pressed down most of U.S. academia to go. Most American university leaders would have done just as badly, and so would the default replacements for McGill and Co., because they all won their

jobs precisely for the willful moral blindness that forced out McGill and may. because they all won their jobs precisely for the willful moral blindness that forced out McGill and may yet oust the other two, the board said. It's the job of a modern college leader, you see, to wrap a warm haze over the hard left's takeover of the campus, the faculty, and the administration so the money keeps flowing in from the alumni and the feds so that the ideologues and the soulless place servers can keep on feeding at the trough. Oh, and ensuring the next generation will sleep even more in progressivism. Every sick trend in higher education these last few decades is tied to this transformation, soaring tuition and insane administrative bloat, grade inflation and stark de facto racial administration quotas,

the emphasis on luxurious dorms and the dumping of most classroom teaching onto grad student serfs, the phasing out of courses on the classics, and the proliferation of ex-studies departments, the rise of campus kangaroo courts and mob rule assaults on faculty, and outspoken speakers who challenge the reigning pieties. In Fox News, Jay Green argued that college presidents just showed America their moral cowardice. The refusal of the leaders of our most elite universities to answer questions directly and to acknowledge inconsistencies in their institution's response to hatred vented toward Jews and other groups was a shocking display of

moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty, Green said. It appears that actually murdering Jews, since it is conduct, is subject to university discipline, but only calling for their murder, even as Jewish students walk to their dorms or sit in class, is just part of the robust dialogue needed to shape our best and brightest. The sudden adoption of an absolutist free speech position by these universities is especially surprising given that none of them upheld that principle when non-Jews were the targets. Harvard's record of failing to protect free speech is so abysmal that it was awarded

the lowest possible rating by an academic freedom advocacy organization, Green said. The hypocrisy of suddenly discovering a deep commitment to free speech when Jews are the ones being attacked is bad enough, but an anything-goes approach to speech on campus is also educationally inappropriate. In the New York Times, David French explored what the university presidents got right and wrong about anti-Semitic speech. If the university presidents were largely, though clumsily, correct about the legal balance, why the outrage? To quote the presidents back to themselves, context matters. For decades now, we've watched as campus administrators from coast to coast have constructed a comprehensive web of policies and practices intended to suppress so-called hate speech and to support students who find themselves distressed by speech they find

offensive, French said. The result has been a network of speech codes designed to protect students from alleged emotional harm. It would be wrong to carry on as if there weren't a need for fundamental change. The rule cannot be that Jews must endure free speech at its most painful while favored campus constituencies enjoy the warmth of college administrators and the protection of campus speech codes. The status quo is intolerable, French wrote, but reform can't be confined to policies. It also has to apply to cultures. That means disempowering a diversity, equity, and inclusion apparatus that is itself all too often an engine of censorship and extreme political bias. Alright, that is it for the rightist saying, which brings us to what the left is saying.

The left defends elements of the president's testimony, though they acknowledge the poor optics of their answers. Some question the motivations of Republicans on this issue, suggesting they don't actually care about the safety of Jewish answers. Some questioned the motivations of Republicans on this issue, suggesting they don't actually care about the safety of Jewish students. Others criticized the presidents for failing to meet the moment during a challenging time for schools. In New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait argued the college presidents were right about campus anti-Semitism. What Stefanik was demanding was the wholesale ban on rhetoric and ideas that Jews find threatening, regardless of the context. The university should protect students from being mobbed or having their classes occupied and disrupted. But should it protect them from an op-ed in the student newspaper calling to globalize the Antifata? Or a demonstration in an open space demanding from

the river to the sea, Chait asked? That would entail wholesale violations of free speech, which, in addition to the moral problem it would create, would likely backfire. The president's efforts to deflect every question about genocide of the Jews into a legalistic distinction between speech and conduct may have sounded grating, and Stefanik's indignant response may have sounded like moral clarity. But on the whole, they were right to focus on the distinction between speech and conduct, and Stefanik was wrong to sneer at it. A better criticism would be that colleges are failing to protect Jewish students by refusing to enforce rules of conduct, but that is different from, and in some ways the opposite of, the point Stefanik chose to stand on. In the American Prospect, Robert Kuttner said it's time to call BS on the right's concerns

about anti-Semitism. Do you recall Representative Elise Stefanik's passionate statement of outrage when a gunman massacred worshipers at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh? Me neither, because there wasn't one. Or how about her eloquent speech attacking the Jews will not replace us marchers at Charlottesville? Nope, Kuttner wrote, Stefanik is late to the party. The far right is philo-Semitic only when it serves their purposes. The extreme right defends Jews as a way of both bashing universities and defending Netanyahu, who conflates criticism of Israel's actions with anti-Semitism. It's a cynical alliance of cynics. Universities have homework to do. In some respects, they may have made themselves sitting ducks with exaggerated DEI regimes and attempts to police correct language.

When students and faculty are accultured to be hypersensitive to microaggressions and the wind shifts to grotesque macroaggressions, it's time for a new script. But MAGA apologists and billionaire donors are the last people to dictate that script. But MAGA apologists and billionaire donors are the last people to dictate that script. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+.

The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province.

Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCellVax.ca. Learn more at fluselvax.ca. In the Los Angeles Times, Michael S. Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, wrote that college presidents are supposed to be moral leaders, not evasive bureaucrats. I understand their predicament as they tried to square lawyerly advice with what they must have known was the only answer that would be morally acceptable. Calls for genocide are repugnant and subject to university action. But I'm also a Jew, and I was appalled that they could not bring themselves to say that, Roth said. College presidents are not just neutral bureaucrats or referees among competing protesters,

faculty, and donors. We must not hide behind the language of lawyers. We must speak up on the issues of the day when they are relevant to the core mission of our institutions. Leaders of colleges and universities must not allow ourselves to be put on the defensive by politicians who are mostly interested in scoring points. We must defend academic freedom and intellectual diversity to ensure that demagogues don't get to decide what we read or how we teach. Our campuses should never be so protective that intellectual confrontation is off-limits, and they should foster forms of inclusion and respect that enable students to thrive, to be open to ideas and perspectives different from their own and from which they can learn.

All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So, as I said on Friday, I think there are parts of this story that are complicated and parts that aren't. Here's what is not complicated. When you are a university president and someone asks you if calling for the genocide of Jews constitutes harassment on your campus, the answer is yes, it does. It assuredly violates some code of conduct or policy, and it warrants punishment. The reasons for this are simple. Calling for a genocide of Jews is not a legitimate political position. It is an incitement to violence. Permitting unambiguous genocidal language is also very obviously a threat to the free speech and

rights of Jewish students on campus. Free speech is not just about being able to say whatever you want or demonstrate wherever you want to demonstrate, despite what most Americans with a rudimentary understanding of free speech may think. It is also about the freedom for everyone to participate in speech and to access the metaphorical public square. Obviously, if I were attending a college where students were allowed to call for committing genocide on the Jews, it would be reasonable for me to not feel safe. Here is the complicated part. What constitutes a call for genocide? There are two reasons why the answers from university presidents were suffocated by hedging and legalese. One is that they were

worried about restricting free assembly on their campus. The other is that they were worried about restricting free assembly on their campus. The other is that they were worried about the responsibility of defining what constitutes a call for genocide. As far as I know, there has not been a single instance of a group of students on campus in America chanting, quote, kill the Jews. I'm not aware of anything really close to that. For a lot of people, that makes this entire conversation a gigantic distraction and absurdity as thousands of college-aged and younger children are dying in an actual real war in Gaza. And yet, I'm quite sure some explicit call for the genocide of Jews has happened somewhere, at some point, on some campus, and maybe a reader or listener is going to send me an example right

after this episode goes out. But I haven't seen any of those instances. What I have seen are students coming together and chanting things like Globalize the Intifada, which is one of the things Representative Stefanik asked the presidents about. Again, this is where it gets complicated. Intifada is an Arabic word that means tremor or shaking off. Intifada is also used to describe the popular uprisings of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip aimed at ending Israel's occupation, the first beginning in 1987 and the second beginning in 2000. Both intifadas included quite a bit of violence, together amounting to the deaths of approximately 1,400 Israelis and

5,000 Palestinians. The violence included suicide bombings and random attacks on Israelis, and then brutal military campaigns in the occupied territories in response. So, if you are someone who is familiar with this conflict, the word intifada and the phrase globalize the intifada carries a terrifying connotation. Images of suicide bombings and random terrorism and ground invasions and war. And yet, in many modern progressive and campus contexts, globalizing the Intifada is framed as a simple call for what we are seeing now. People across the world rallying in support of the Palestinian cause peacefully in the streets. So, is globalizing the Intifada mobilizing demonstrators or killing the Jews?

That is the debate college presidents have to navigate if they give some kind of promise they're going to address these demonstrations. The issue for me is that they avoided the debate by agreeing with Stefanik that this is a call to genocide and then debated her on the wrong issue. There was an easy answer to this question. Sally Kornbuth, the MIT president, actually provided that answer with relative ease, noting that she had not heard calls for the genocide of Jews on her campus and that language about Intifada required more context. She also suggested such chants would be investigated and would be harassment if pervasive and severe. That sounds like a pretty good answer to me. Here is how I would

have answered the question. Yes, any explicit calls for the genocide of Jews would obviously constitute harassment and be a violation of our policies. As a college president, I am committed to creating healthy and free learning environments where students are allowed to protest and express themselves, but that would not be legitimate political speech. We draw the lines at calls for or acts of violence. Then, when the inevitable follow-ups about global intifadas came, they could have said they would have to evaluate the context of the chant. They could have noted that it is impossible to speak in hypotheticals given the nuances of these situations. I don't know why that was so hard for McGill and Gay, and I certainly

understand why not being able to offer a thoughtful answer could cost them their jobs. Of course, all of this is made worse by the fact that many college campuses have spent the last decade attempting to ensure students can navigate their learning environments without feeling unsafe, and there has been a broad backlash against the mainstreaming of microaggressions in safe spaces that has resulted in books like The Coddling of the American Mind. In that context, to use that word again, many Jews watch this testimony in horror. None of this makes me feel particularly good. For one, we're talking about three instances of bad testimony and really just two. I don't think that's something we should be spending an outsized amount of time on, even though the breadth of commentary has necessitated us covering it

today. Two, I worry a great deal about the ways in which the free speech rights of pro-Palestine protesters are being violated, including college-age students being blacklisted for jobs. I don't endorse their views wholesale, obviously, but far too many well-intended students, many of whom are still developing their own worldviews, are simply objecting to the horrors of war that they are seeing, maybe for the first time in their lives. Then, they're being punished for speaking up. As someone who is really concerned about speech and how it's being restricted on college campuses, that is my primary concern. And finally, as much as I believe someone like Liz McGill should not be a university president if she's incapable of navigating this moment,

I really squirm at how it's happening. McGill losing her job reaffirms all the anti-Semitic tropes about Jews having power and controlling things. It's not particularly comforting to watch these presidents lack the necessary clarity on this issue, and it's even particularly comforting to watch these presidents lack the necessary clarity on this issue, and it's even less comforting to watch the backlash to their testimonies being used to prove the most stereotypical anti-Semitic conspiracies. We'll be right back after this quick break. after this quick break. All right, that is it for my take. As always, if you have some thoughts, feelings, or responses, you can write in Isaac, I-S-A-A-C at readtangle.com. Next up is your questions answered. This one is from an anonymous reader in New York, New York, who said,

in the event Trump is unable to be the Republican nominee, legal issues, health issues, etc., who do you think it will be? A Trump loyalist? Someone opposed to Trump personally, but with similar policies? Someone of the never-Trump mold? Is it probable to be a current candidate, or might someone come out of the woodwork should the landscape change? So, I don't think it's going to happen. Let me just get that out of the way first. That being said, the answer depends in part on when Trump hypothetically drops out. If he is elected president but is unable to serve, then the next president would almost assuredly be whomever he picked to be his vice president. That could mean one of the people

who have been floated for that role. Carrie Lake, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, Vivek Ramaswamy, or someone unexpected like Senator Tim Scott, the Republican from South Carolina, whom more people should be talking about as a potential vice president, in my opinion. This is definitely the case if the president-elect dies, and I think it would be true if Trump got into legal trouble. I also think Trump's running mate could be the nominee even if he drops out before the election simply because a Trump endorsement would automatically make that person a frontrunner. Except for maybe Robin Swamy, I don't think Trump will tap any one of the people currently running to be his vice president. All that said, the

Republican Party isn't required to promote Trump's running mate to become their nominee if Trump has to drop out of the race after he names one. According to the GOP's presidential primary rules, the party will choose its new nominee either through another national convention or a majority vote of its delegates. Regardless of which method the party chooses, the outcome should be the same. They'll elect the next most popular candidate. be the same, that will elect the next most popular candidate. If that happens, the primary challenger to Trump's running mate would be someone who's still in the race, and at the front of that pack is Ron DeSantis. Even though Nikki Haley has gotten recent headlines for donations and she's a favorite among Tangle readers, she doesn't look like she has the momentum to surpass him. And Christie and Ramaswamy have made it this far, but being able to say that is about as good as

it's going to get for them, obviously. I would not bet against the Republican nominee being Donald Trump, but if it ends up being anyone else, I think the most likely person is whoever Trump picks as vice president. And if he drops out before he chooses one, I think it'd be Ron DeSantis. All right, that is it for your questions answered which brings us to our under the radar section with the world focused on the middle east and ukraine a stalin-like purge appears to be taking place in china's ultra secretive political system the implications for the global economy and prospects for peace in the region are profound. Even as China's security services have ramped up repression tactics, the unexplained disappearances and removal of China's

foreign and defense ministers is setting off alarms, while other high-profile disappearances, including the generals in charge of China's nuclear system and the most senior officials overseeing the financial sector, are going largely unnoticed. Politico has a story on what we know, whom is missing, and what it might mean. All right, next up is our numbers section. The percentage of Americans who say they have very or somewhat positive view of Jews is 35%. That's the highest favorability rating of any religious group, according to a March 2023 survey from Pew. The net favorable-unfavorable rating for Jews in the same survey is plus 28, also the highest of any religious group. The number of anti-Jewish

hate crime incidents in 2022, the highest number recorded in almost three decades, and the second highest on record was 1,122. The percent increase in anti-Jewish hate crimes between 2021 and 2022 was 37%. The number of anti-Semitic incidents recorded by the Anti-Defamation League is 2,031 between October 7th and December 7th, 2023. The number of anti-Semitic incidents recorded by the ADL on college and university campuses during this period was 400. Meanwhile, the number of complaints of anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian bias received by the Council on American-Islamic Relations is 2,171. That was between October 7 and December 2, so almost an identical number to the number of anti-Semitic incidents recorded by the ADL.

Finally, the percent increase in such complaints over the same period in 2022 is 172 percent. All right, and last but not least, our have a nice day section. Neuroscientists at the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery of the Catholic University Rome and the Fodazione Polchino Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, I don't know how to say any of that Italian stuff, may have just made a breakthrough in treating memory loss. The researchers genetically modified LIMK1, a molecule with a key role in the normal functioning of the brain by adding a molecular switch. In the presence of the common anti-aging drug rapamycin, improving the memory of the drug taker, the LIMK1 protein plays a crucial role in determining structural changes in neurons,

crucial in learning and memory processes, according to Professor Claudio Grassi, a senior author of the study. The next step will be to verify the effectiveness of this treatment in experimental models of neurodegenerative diseases exhibiting memory deficits, like Alzheimer's disease, he said. Further studies will also be necessary to validate the use of this technology in humans. The findings were published in the Journal of Science Advances. Medical Express has the story, and there's a link to it in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's podcast. As always, if you want to support our

work, please go to reetangle.com forward slash membership. Consider becoming a member. Thank you all for your feedback on the Friday podcast. We are making it a top priority to bring you some more premium subscribers-only podcast content early 2024. So your enthusiasm on that was very much appreciated. We'll be right back here same time tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Peace. also our social media manager. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. If you're looking for more from Tangle, please go to readtangle.com and check out our website. We'll be right back. web is family's buried history and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases.

What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed.