The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 388 - Person Of The Year

Episode Date: December 11, 2019

Greta Thunberg is named person of the year, but I'm concerned the choice isn't woke enough. Also, AOC trots out a bizarre argument in defense of her insane family leave policy idea. And speaking of not being woke enough, Megan Rapinoe scolds Sports Illustrated after they give her an award. Can't get enough of The Matt Walsh Show? Enjoy ad-free shows, live discussions, and more by becoming an ALL ACCESS subscriber TODAY at: https://dailywire.com/Walsh Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You probably heard that climate activist, Greta Thunberg, has been named the Time person of the year. I have to say I'm frankly appalled, outraged by this choice. Because you're telling me that in the year 2019, 2019, the current year, you're naming a privileged white cisgendered person as your person of the year. Wow. Wow. Time magazine. Wow. Very progressive choice. Reinforce white heteronormativity some more. Why don't you? Promote colonialistic gender binary paradigm some more while you're at it. Push more oppressive societal constructs. Just continue with your insinuations that Western cultures are more engaged on climate issues while ignoring the literally millions of Vietnamese pansexuals, gender fluid Ethiopians, who have been fighting this fight for thousands.

Thousands of years, but none of them can be named person of the year, can they? Oh, no, we're just going to pretend they don't exist. Couldn't even find an intersex, Aboriginal, genderqueer, South Korean. None of those available, huh? Oh, they're not doing anything. No, no, no, no, no, no. It's all the white people. It's all the privileged white people who care about the planet.

I am tired of seeing the climate activism of marginalized communities erased by the media. I'm tired of the media pretending that people of color and agendered people and bi-gendered people and trigendered people and quad-gendered people don't exist. Time Magazine is a white supremacist publication. It should be listed as a hate group by the government. And to Time magazine, in the words of Greta Thunberg herself, I say, how dare you? How dare you? How dare you? How dare you? Okay. Anyway, actually, by the way, speaking of woke climate activism, I wanted to, have you, I don't know if you've seen this, check out this flyer that somebody posted online.

It's a picture of, well, it's a picture of a flyer for a course at Portland State University, courtesy of their women, it's their women, gender, and sexuality studies department. So, you know it's going to be pretty good. Let me see if I could pull it up. I just retweeted it on Twitter at Matt Walsh blog, by the way. Okay, here it is. So this is the flyer for the course. It's a course on queer ecologies, queer ecologies rethinking the nature of nature. And then it describes the course. This class uses a queer lens to understand bodies, places, and the environment. We explore how gender, sexuality, and queer experience and identity. intersect with race, class, disability, and settler colonialism to construct bodies and places as natural

and the role that science plays in defining nature. Topics include queer bodies, queering settler colonialism, queer environmental politics, disability and queer environments, queering science, queer animals. Sorry, this is a very serious topic. I don't mean to laugh. I'm really just laughing with joy. I'm laughing with joy that finally, you know, these sort of subjects are being taught to our children. I mean, for too long, our kids have gone to school and learned about things like science and history, and we have completely neglected to talk about queer animals. Queer environmental futurity, futurity, futureity, futureity. Queer environmental futurity. Well, that's a word. That's definitely a word.

This class seeks to reimagine nature, bodies, and places through a queer lens. So there you go. All I'm going to say is people are going to pay money for this course. People are going to take this course and pay money. And those same people, given that this is Portland State we're talking about, those same people in a few years are going to be unemployed and have massive debt. And they're going to start crying about their student debt and demanding that we give them debt forgiveness. They're going to take out their violins and they're going to play them.

And they're going to tell us a sad story about how hard their life is. Well, if you are plunging yourself into crippling debt for the sake of this nonsense, then you deserve all of the consequences that come your way. I paid $100 grand to take classes on queer ecology and vegan history. Now I can't find a job. Help me. I'm a victim. Eh, no. I don't think I will help you. I think of if I were to make a list of all the people in the world who deserved help, you would literally be at the bottom of it.

You would be like number seven billion on the list. I think we should help every other person on earth before we help you. All right. So our old friend AOC was doing a bit of grandstanding at a congressional hearing on Tuesday, par for the course, her favorite thing to do. And in this case, she was grandstanding for government mandated paid family. family leave. She wants the government to mandate that companies give at a minimum. She says three months of paid leave, but she really wants six months, nine months, 12 months, I believe she said,

mandatory. And in order to make that point, she pulled out a rather tortured analogy. Do we know how long puppies are allowed to stay with their mothers after a dog has given birth? I don't. Eight weeks. Well. So the market has decided that women and people who give birth deserve less time with their children than a dog. And I think that that at its core has shown that the market has failed to treat people

with dignity and with basic respect. And so when that happens, I think it's our job as the public to redefine the rules of society and to treat people who give birth with the dignity that they deserve. Thank you very much. Okay. Where do we even begin here? First of all, well, okay, I honestly don't know where to start. All right, first of all, there really isn't much comparison between dogs and humans,

and to compare a human mother to a dog with a litter of puppies seems rather dehumanizing to me. But the eight-week thing she's talking about, that's the amount of the amount of, of time that puppies stay with their mothers until they are shipped off to another family, generally, permanently. So we're talking about at eight weeks, they are permanently separated from their mothers. Nobody's talking about permanently separating human mothers from their children. Nobody's even talking about separating mothers for days or weeks at a time, unless the human mothers are working for a company that mines resources from rocks in the asteroid belt or something like that, and they'll be gone for 50 years. But other than that, they probably come home at the end of the day.

So what we're talking about is mothers working for part of the day and then coming home to their family. So it's really not comparable at all. Second, did you notice how she said women and people who give birth? So she couldn't just say women who give birth, or really just women. You don't really need the stipulation of who give birth. But people who give birth and women. Two distinct categories. She couldn't just say women, of course, because this is the sort of nonsense that leftist political figures are forced to engage in.

They don't believe it themselves, even AOC. As empty-headed as she sometimes comes across, I can guarantee. guarantee you that AOC doesn't really believe that men can give birth. She doesn't really think that. My theory, and I can't prove this, of course, but I would be willing to bet that almost everybody on the left knows that this gender stuff is crazy. They know that, of course, men can't give birth. Of course, your sex is determined by your anatomy, your biology. I mean, they know that. They have to know it.

Everybody knows it. I think the number of people who are really confused on the subject is very, very, very small. But they all are pretending, and they want us to pretend also. One of the ways that I know they're pretending is I have in many, many times, I have engaged with these people on this issue. and you find that they just have no, if you try to back them into a corner to defend the proposition that anyone besides a woman can have a baby,

they can't even begin to defend it. And they won't try. They know that it's a position. They cannot at all defend. Yet they will continue to say it. And that should really, why are we even, there's a part of me that thinks, we shouldn't even be engaging.

Like the left, you've just lost everything. You have totally lost every argument now. All of your positions are disqualified because you are claiming that men can have babies. The moment you say that, nothing else you say I take seriously. Because either you are arguing in such bad faith that you are willing to propose insanity like that,

knowing that it's insanity, which means I can't talk to you because you're dishonest, or you're insane. I mean, those are the two options. You're crazy or you're pretending to be crazy. Either way, what is there to talk about? I can't talk to you about anything. And this is one of the, this is the problem. This is the divide that exists in our culture these days, that you've got one side of the political divide living in a fantasy world, just live, just make, have completely rejected science, biology, all of it, out the window. And then the third issue here is I can't help but point out that AOC is a pro-abortion radical. She believes that it should be legal and is moral to kill a baby five seconds before it emerges

from the mother's birth canal. The mother's birth canal, not the father's. The mother or the father's birth canal, as AOC might say. But that's her opinion. The child can be killed at any point, for any reason, at any point for any reason before. which means that she has lost the ability to be taken seriously when she prattles on about dignity and respect. Just like she can't be taken seriously when she talks about science, considering the fact that she thinks or pretends to think that men can have babies. Also when she talks about dignity and respect for human beings, we can't take that seriously anyway because this is someone who defends the worst kind of barbarity.

So she has lost the moral high ground. Fourth thing, as for the paid family leave issue, the idea that the government should require companies to provide, according to AOC, a year of paid family leave is obviously madness. It just doesn't work. So like many liberal ideas, it sounds kind of good at first if you think about it for only one and a half seconds. So if you spend 1.5 seconds thinking about it and you don't think at all about implementation, cost, effect, or anything else, then maybe it sounds good to you. If you approach

liberal policies like a word association game or somebody says a word to you and then you have to react to it instinctively without thinking about it, I guess for a lot of people, it seems when they approach liberal policy ideas that way, which is how a lot of people approach these issues, it sounds kind of good because you say, well, paid family leave, who could be against that? I'm not against it. I think paid family leave is wonderful. But it has to be something employers work out themselves with their employees. The government cannot mandate this because think about it. If an employer is required to pay a woman for 12 months to not work and to stay at her house, the employer is also going to have to hire a replacement

who will have to be paid as well. So now for a year, he's paying double for that position. Add in, let's say, another woman on 12 years or 12 months of leave. Why not 12 years, actually? Let's do 12 years. Add in another woman on 12 months of leave, and now you've got four times the cost for two positions. And keep multiplying that.

unsustainable pretty quickly, obviously unsustainable. Now, the only way that an employer could make this work, maybe, is if when the mother goes on that year of leave, he kind of, whatever she does, whatever her position is, he divides it up and gives it to other people, that other employees. And so her position is absorbed by, and her duties are absorbed by other people in the company. The issue with that is, well, if he does that, and now for a year, the company works fine with other people doing her job along with their own jobs, then why should he hire her back? He doesn't need her anymore. So in that 12-month period, either the employer is paying double, which is unsustainable, or the woman has become redundant at a

her own job because other people are doing it and she's not needed. Either way, it doesn't work. Here, I think, is the problem. When it comes down to it, in the industrial age, we have radically reordered the family and society. We did away with the traditional arrangement of men being providers and women being caretakers. That's the way that it worked, obviously, in many societies for many thousands of years. But we said, no, we're not going to do that anymore. And now both, parents can be providers and both can take turns being caretakers. Whatever you think of that shift doesn't matter. That's not my point. My point is that there are tradeoffs, unavoidable.

These tradeoffs are inevitable. The tradeoff is that one of the tradeoffs anyway is that now with both parents working, and in many situations I admit that both parents have to work because that's how we've arranged society. We didn't have to arrange it this way, but we did. And so now for a lot of people, it's not a choice. It's like when I talk about the public school system, and I'm a big advocate for homeschooling. I think that that or private schooling as well, depending on what private school we're talking about, because they're not all good by any means. But, and I'm a big critic of the public school system. Ideally, I think there shouldn't be a public school system, but many families are in a position where they have to send their kid to public school because both parents have to work.

that can't afford private school or there aren't any good ones in the area, and then what are you going to do? There really isn't any other option. And I fully acknowledge that, admit that. But my point is, we have set up society in such a way as to be dependent upon this institution. It doesn't have to be that way. And we could start working in the long term towards making it so that we're not dependent on this institution of the public education. We could also in the long term work towards a situation where we don't need to talk about 12 months of paid family leave anymore.

But those are choices we have to make as a society. As it stands right now, with both parents working, children, not just babies, don't have the same opportunity to bond with and be raised by and influenced by their parents. That's just how it goes. there's no way around it unless we do a radical reorganizing of society unless we are willing to look fundamentally at how we approach families and work these really foundational things unless we're willing to look at that and say maybe we're doing this wrong if we're not willing to have that conversation then this is just how it's going to be folks like aOC they want to have it both ways They want to say, oh, yeah, women should go out, have a career, focus on that.

And that's how what it means to be empowered is to go out and have a job and all that, while at the same time insisting that children shouldn't be deprived of their mother's presence in the home. Well, wait a second. How can it be both? You can't say both. And why are you? I joked a minute ago that if you're doing 12 months, why not 12 years? Well, really, why not?

Because it's not like a baby's benefit from having their mother. others in the home for the first 12 months and then don't benefit anymore, that benefit that you're talking about extends throughout the entire childhood. So we have made a choice in this society. That's what I'm trying to, that's the argument I'm making here. We have made a choice. The choice that we made collectively is that, you know, it's more important to have the parents out of the house working than it is to have them in the house as a constant presence. And we also decided that other people and institutions like the public school system or babysitters or daycare centers can sufficiently compensate for and fill in for the parents.

That's the decision that society made. that is in fact the decision that people like aOC will still defend while at the same time from the other direction attacking it so it doesn't make any sense that's that's not necessarily that's not how i feel i'm not really on board with with this but uh that's the way it is now and I don't think you can fix it just by mandating some policy. And then there's this, the most overrated athlete in America, also the most unlikable, Megan Rapino, won person of the year from Sports Illustrated this week. I think it should have been Lamar Jackson that won personally.

Now, I'm a Homer. I'm a Baltimore guy, so I'm biased. I think Lamar Jackson is not only changing the game of football, not only is he the story of the year in American sports, just electric, electric athlete, a lot of fun to watch. But he's also just a really likable guy. He's a great role model. He does all of his press conferences after the game, he shows up wearing a t-shirt that says nobody cares work harder. That's just the best message you could hope to get from somebody in a position like that. And he lives it too. He doesn't complain, doesn't make things about himself. He's kind of the he's kind of the anti-cap. make in a lot of ways. I don't mean that in a political sense. I don't know what his politics are. Doesn't talk about them, which I think is great. But just in the sense of he's not making it

about himself, he's not complaining, lifts his teammates up all the time. I think he's a great. I think he's a great role model for kids. And he should have been the sports person of the year. But no, we didn't give it to him. We gave it to, in many ways, his diametric opposite, Megan Rapino. But during her acceptance speech, she blasted Sports Illustrated for not being diverse enough. Watch. And while we don't get to choose what it is that we witness, we are the gatekeepers of those stories. And we do get to decide how we bear witness to the world around us and to the truth that we see. Is it true that I am the fourth woman deserving of this award? Is it true that so few writers of color deserve to be featured in this publication?

No. Is it true that so few women's voices deserve to be heard and deserve to be read in this publication? I don't think so. So there you go. And I have nothing to say about that other than to laugh at it. This is what you get. you know, Sports Illustrated, they have gone above and beyond to appeal to the woke crowd. They've done everything they can to wokeify. And it's never enough. Never, ever

enough. This is the lesson we learn over and over again. It's never enough. You can, they are giving her an award and she's still upset at them. She's still mad. Still somehow persecuted. But so there's Megan Rapid. That's why I really really, really, I just, I don't, there are some, I think Lamar Jackson very easy to root for someone like Megan Rap, you know, going around complaining constantly, complaining about her money. That's the worst thing to complain. She's a rich athlete going around complaining she's not paid enough. When in reality, she's actually overpaid, all this stuff about the women's soccer, women's stars aren't paid enough or underpaid compared to the men. That when you look at how much money

they bring in, in comparison how much money they make, they're actually overpaid. And they make a lot of money. Megan Rapino is a rich, rich woman. Still complains about it, though. So this is someone who's just impossible to root for. I don't know how you do it. All right, let's go to emails. Matt Walshow at gmail.com. Matt, this is from Rina, says, Matt, why do you have just one stocking on the mantle behind you? It's kind of depressing. I do have just one stocking. I don't think there's anything depressing about it. It's actually a really fun tradition in my house. the tradition is I'm the only one who gets a stocking for Christmas. I'm also the only one who gets presents on Christmas or at any other time of the year.

So everyone has a chance to really go out, have a great time buying me presents. And the good thing is that everyone in the family learns about the value of giving. Now, I've already learned that value, so I don't need to learn anymore, so I don't need to give. But everyone else needs to learn. So they go and they buy me presents. And then it's very sweet on Christmas morning. You know, the kids rush down. Everyone rushes down to, you know, it's a classic Christmas.

Everyone rushes down into the living room. And then they form a circle. I sit in the middle of circle and unwrap all my presence. Usually it takes about three hours. And the kids are just crying tears of joy the whole time. It's really a wonderful, wonderful tradition. This is from Hunter says, hey, Matt, I've been watching your show for a few months now. And although I enjoy the show, I'm decidedly more liberal than you.

On the topic of abortion, you seem very firm in your belief that it is an act of evil. Yes, I would say I am. Over the months of watching the show, this has been one of the handful of issues that you haven't been able to sway my position, my opinion on. There are two points that always come up to me come to mind when thinking about your argument. One, what if I were to get my girlfriend pregnant? I'm 19 working on my education. My girlfriend, 18, is getting ready to ship out to Air Force basic training in January. A baby is not a part of our short-term plans and would undoubtedly destroy both of our plans for life.

this must be a concern for many young people, and it is a very real fear, despite taking the proper precautions. I know this is not an excuse for evil, but I would not be able to put my personal feelings aside, and neither would my girlfriend, if I came down to abortion. Two, putting aside my own personal feelings when looking at abortion from a statistical point of view, is it possible that abortion would help a society overall by limiting the number of single mothers and the amount of crimes, so on and so forth? If this was proven to be true, could abortion be looked at through the lens of a necessary evil, such as war or allowing AOC supporters to vote? Well done. But I don't consider that to be a necessary evil, actually. I would love to hear back from you privately or at the end of your show, keep up the good work.

Well, you say that I haven't been able to sway you on abortion. I consider that a huge failure on my part, considering I talk about it so often. So let me see what I can do here. You give your two sticking points. One is you feel like you might need to have an abortion, quote-to-quote, need, to have that option open to you because a baby would destroy your plans in life, you say. And number two, you say that it's a necessary evil because it cuts down on single motherhood, crime, poverty, et cetera. Well, I feel like I probably don't need to argue against your first point. That's not so much an argument from you, but just you being honest about your motivations.

I appreciate the honesty. I think I probably don't need to tell you. In fact, I know I don't need to tell you because you say it yourself that it's not an excuse for evil. Well, it's not. That's the answer. It's exactly right. See, what we're trying to figure out is not whether abortion might be useful. I can see that it could be. So if that's the discussion, is it useful? I say, sure. Lots of things could be useful. If they were to legalize bank robbery, that could be very useful to me. If I'm in a pinch and I don't have any money, I can go rob a bank.

Now, it's not so useful to the people who get their money stolen or just. to the bank or to the people who maybe get harmed during my armed robbery, not so useful to them, but to me, selfishly, yeah, very useful. Carjacking is a useful option if you don't have a car but don't want to go pay for one at the used car dealership. You can just steal somebody else's. Useful for you, not so useful for the person who gets their car stolen. Murder can be useful, too. I acknowledge it can be a very useful tool. Think about how useful it is for the mob when they murder witnesses, okay? How useful it is for drug gangs, when they kill off the competition. It's a very useful thing. The question, though, is not whether it is useful, but whether it is objectively right

or not. Also, by the way, babies don't destroy your plans in life. They might require an adjustment, but there's no reason why I have to destroy all your plans. I have four kids. Now, I'm married and I'm older, but I have four kids. I haven't abandoned my goals or my dreams or my plans in life at all. In fact, I feel even more motivated to pursue my goal. My goal. because I have kids. There have been chances that I've taken. There have been risks that I've taken. Gambles that I've made, smart gambles, they turned out to be, calculated gambles, that I have made in pursuit of my goals that I maybe would not have made if I didn't have kids. But one of my main motivations is to provide for them, to provide a life for them and to provide for them in life.

So it all depends on your perspective. You could look at having a baby as, oh, my gosh, my life is over. Or you could look at it as this is a new life that has come into existence. My life has gotten more interesting. Maybe there are going to be more challenges, but it's also more fulfilling now. And I've got more motivation, more reason to work harder. But let's move on to your actual argument. You say, is it possible that abortion could help a society overall

by limiting the number of single mothers and the amount of crime and so on and so forth. If this was proven to be true, could abortion be looked at through the lens of a necessary evil? There's a major flaw in your argument, Hunter, and maybe by pointing this out, maybe it'll sway you a little. You'll have to let me know. The flaw is this. Everything you just said would just as much justify killing infants and toddlers as it would killing the unborn. So let me ask you this. Would you support a campaign encouraging poor single mothers to murder their two and three-year-old children?

What would you think if suddenly across the country mothers were taking their toddlers into bathtubs and drowning them legally? Now, this would undoubtedly help the mothers financially. Also, let's face it, some of those babies are going to grow up and become criminals. Some of them are going to grow up and end up on the welfare system. And so we've dealt with that problem by killing them. Of course, some of them may also have grown up to be philanthropists and teachers and surgeons and doctors and soup kitchen volunteers. And so you've wiped all them out too. But certainly there are going to be some future criminals in that bunch as there would be in any random group of children.

But what would you say about that? Again, it is justified using the exact same argument you just made. exact same situation. It's not like this is unprecedented either. Infanticide has been practiced in many cultures throughout the world and throughout history. So what would you say? I'm guessing you would be horrified. And why?

Because you realize that these pragmatic considerations could not possibly ever, ever, ever justify the mass murder of innocent children. And further, you realize that any societal gains made through efforts like that are not even close to being worth the cost. You realize that if killing toddlers helped us become a richer society, that would not be a compensation for the fact that we have forfeited our souls. We are a richer society, but also a very evil one. And you realize that if all of this death and bloodshed would make us wealthier as a society and more comfortable, then in that case, it would be better to be poorer and less comfortable. So when you look at this situation, I'm assuming you would say that if this is the only way, I'm assuming you would say you would rather be

a poor country that doesn't kill toddlers than a rich one that does. And if I'm right about how you would feel about two and three year old children being drowned in the bathtub in mass, then all I'm asking you is to take that logic and apply it to the unborn. And then you, you see how your argument, though pragmatic and practical, is totally off base, because it completely ignores the moral consideration here, which we cannot ignore. And if we get to a point where we're saying the only thing that matters is whether or not this might practically help some group of people, that's what we're saying. Then we have just invited in all manner of the worst kinds of evil you could ever imagine.

Thank you for the email, though. And thanks for listening and keeping an open mind, as they say. This is from Joe, says, Dear, Mighty and Powerful Leader, I recently started working at an office with an open floor plan and low-walled cubicles. Yesterday, a co-worker microwaved canned tuna for lunch. The stench permeated through a large portion of the floor

and lingered for 10 to 15 minutes. I searched my immediate surrounding area in order to hopefully hand down a swift punishment but found nobody eating the tuna. Therefore, the smell came from outside a 10-foot parameter or made its way all the way through a break room 50 feet away. Under your regime, how would this individual would be punished for this vial assault

on my olfactory nerves? My first thought is a twisted version of eye for an eye and they'd be stoned to death with cans of tuna, but I would like to know your official ruling. I have so many questions, Joe. Who microwaves tuna, first of all? That's just egregious. Bringing tuna to work in the first place

is unacceptable, but microwave it? It's like if someone took their shoes off on a plane, which is bad enough, but then stuck their, their smelly, disgusting, hairy feet right under your air vent overhead so that the stench is wafting directly into your nostrils. That's the kind of thing. If a person does that on a plane, the air marshal is going to arrest them and throw them out of the plane at 35,000 feet. I'm pretty sure that's the law. What I would say with your suggestion, you say stoning them to death with tuna cans, I find that pretty inappropriate and shocking, honestly that you would suggest that because the cans aren't going to be hard enough, I think, to actually bludgeon someone to death. So what I would suggest, this might be a little impractical.

My penalty, I think, would be bring them out to the ocean, find it, you know, capture a real tuna fish. Those things are pretty big. Buying them to the tuna fish and then let the tuna fish drag them into the dark depths of the ocean. That's my first thought, you know, about how we would handle that. But certainly some practical concerns. I think as a matter of justice, that would certainly be the most just way to deal with that. And I'm sorry that you had to be assaulted in that way at your place of work. And then we've got a bunch of other emails. But I think, you know what, we're going to wrap it up there.

And maybe I'll save some of these other emails for tomorrow. Again, Matt Wall Show at gmail.com. Matt wallshow at gmail.com. Thanks, everybody, for watching. Thanks for listening. Godspeed. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.

We're available on Apple, podcast, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcast, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Null's show, and the Andrew Claven Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Supervising Producer Robert Sterling, and. technical producer Austin Stevens, editor Donovan Fowler, audio mixer, Mike Coramina. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2019. Hey, everyone, it's Andrew Claven, host of the Andrew Claven show.

Donald Trump is giving the right a masterclass on how to reclaim the narrative and leave the left in a smoking pile of dust. Stinky, radioactive, dishonest, and did I mention stinky dust? We'll talk about that, and we'll have the mailbag, so all your problems will be solved. That's kind of nice. I'm Andrew Claven. That's on the Andrew Claven show.