8-14-25 - 9am - 'Experts' Know Better Than You and Minors & Parents Responsibilty Act

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, that's great that they're going to indict shift, but
it won't mean anything, so it's all a waste of time.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
Don't they indicting then? And by an indictment, I mean
he's actually charged. Then there'll be a trial, there'll be
a plea negotiation, there'll be something. But he will then
we can refer to him as a felon. Yes, will

(00:34):
they impeach him? Probably not. I don't think the Republicans
have the coonies for that, which kind of leads him
to this idea that there's among liberals. I'm not quite
sure how to describe this liberal official prestige. The liberals

(00:57):
always have these really bizarre kind of solutions to problems.
And I don't mean like there's a problem of how
to fix roads on the Highway or there's the problem
of poverty. I'm talking about political problems too. Democrats Republicans
are a problem to be solved, and in the age

(01:19):
of Donald Trump, Donald Trump is a problem that needs
to be well. He's like a disease. We need a
cure for Donald Trump, and so far the cures have
been stupid stuff like Zoe fram And you know I'm
mispronouncing it. On purpose, Zoe fram Mom Donnie in New York,

(01:41):
or am Xandria Cassia Cortez or Gavin Newsom in California,
Jared Paul's in Colorado. Newtonian physics often represented by the
action of pool cues on billiard balls. We kind of
understand that basic basic operation the que transports transmits its force.

(02:08):
You know, when you push the queue to a movable object,
which then transmits its to others. You know, your your hand,
your arm moves the energy to the queue, the que
moves the energy to the ball, and the ball moves.
The entirety of the problem can be understood as a
puzzle about there about predicting the final position of the

(02:30):
balls that you hit and the order in which you
hit the first ball, to hit the second, third, fourth,
or you know, as it spreads out. I only know
that because that was one of the examples. Eight had
college physics, which I'm not very good at. But you know,
you take a high school math or physics homework assignment.
It never ends up with the queue breaking itself against

(02:54):
the shock of an implacable sphere, the ball, you know,
shattering the wooden shard everywhere, you know, getting splinters in
your hands.

Speaker 3 (03:03):
It just does not happen the the life of politicians.

Speaker 2 (03:09):
Life in the political world, I think sometimes is thought
of the same way. It's kind of easy to imagine
that the challenge of politics is limited to questions about
just where things will end up. And this is true
about Democrats and republics. But I'm gonna focus on Democrats
for a moment. That things will end up where we

(03:33):
want to end up if we just apply our enormous
and enormous, reliable, enormously reliable tools in various ways. My
old buddy Keith Oberman, the former star of MSNBC, who
I'm still a maze, you know, Can I just take

(03:54):
a moment of personal privilege here? I'm still I'm going
through right now because it's the twenty anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Well,
I'm going through this incessant of almost dreading waking up
and opening my email because there are invariably you're a racist,

(04:15):
effing scum pig that ought to rod in hell, or
we're going to you know, I hope somebody shoots you,
or they go on my Instagram account and I'm just
constantly deleting comments about you know, they'll there's a photo.
There's a photo of my granddaughter on my Instagram account.

(04:35):
I hope someday that she grows up and learns a
lot of you know, racist pig that you were. I mean,
it's just you know, now, I'm always fascinated by that
because the narratives get stuck and then and I think this,
these are all like a new generation of people, and
so this new generation of people is bought into the narrative.

(04:56):
The narrative sticks, and all they see is they say
one documentary, which, by the way, brag and you watched
that documentary and you were amazed at how many times
did I appeared in that documentary as part of a
live interview?

Speaker 4 (05:11):
Right, Yeah, there was a there was that time, There
was that other time, and that No, you didn't appear
at all in a livey interview in it.

Speaker 2 (05:18):
Oh so they never asked from my side, They never
asked about my point of view.

Speaker 4 (05:24):
I would have assumed watching it that they would have
asked you. And they would put some kind of end
title card saying that Michael Brown has declined interview for
this documentary. No, no, no, that that didn't happen at all,
Never happened at all everyone, I understand asking you as
I was watching it, they didn't even ask.

Speaker 3 (05:42):
They didn't even ask.

Speaker 2 (05:46):
I thought about that because Keith Oberman said something that
I think applies to the point I'm trying to make.
And Keith Oberman is one of several people Keith Oberman,
the three I think heavy hitters would be Keith Oberman,
Spike Lee, and Bill Maher all came out and initially

(06:07):
just vilified me, and then all three of them came
back out, you know, after a congressional testimony and other things,
and said, oh, you know what, and give them credit.
They actually said, we think we misinterpreted things. We think
we misunderstood things. We owe you an apology, and they
actually apologize and brought me back on. I remember Keith
says something to the effect who has been highly you

(06:29):
know we have on the program tonight, Michael Brown, who
has been unfairly criticized predominantly in these quarters too, and
then went on to, you know, ask me about okay, well,
tell me the true about what really did happen. So
as much as I think Keith Oberman has gone off
the deep end, nonetheless I least respect him for at
that time having the sanity to bring me on. Well,

(06:51):
he tweeted.

Speaker 3 (06:51):
This obvious, in an obvious rage.

Speaker 2 (06:55):
Quote, you know what would have stopped Trump's blackmailing of
these universities? Do you know what could still stop it?
If the University of Pennsylvania retracted his degree, if Pennsylvania
merely announced it was being reviewed because of problems in
the admissions office. Now when I read that, Yeah, Irek

(07:19):
Keith Overman's tweets, He's on one of my lists. That's
pretty remarkable, both for the sentiment that it expresses and
for the weapon that he's chosen. Because a place like
the University of Pennsylvania plays a double role in the
pool game of liberal politics. First, you have all of

(07:41):
the expert class, particularly at a place like the University
of Pennsylvania. The do the credential experts at such an
institution as the University of Pennsylvania are the ones who
can do the billiard math. They can tell you authoritatively,
with precision, and with that any question whatsoever. They can

(08:02):
tell you what's going on around you. Why Hillary Clint'
Hillary Clinton is going to beat Donald Trump in the
twenty sixteen presidential election. How one of your thoughts or
how something that you did constitutes a microaggression, or you
are by by what you just said or what you
just thought or what you just did, shows that you

(08:24):
have an implicit bias, or as we talked about earlier
this week, you need to wear a mask outdoors to
stop the spread of sars Kov two. If you're going
to be in fact you not only should you not
go surfing, you can't go surfing because well, we have
a law against that.

Speaker 3 (08:40):
Because we know better than you what you should be doing.

Speaker 4 (08:44):
That.

Speaker 2 (08:45):
That's the number one thing about something like what Keith
Overman says, Well, they've got the answers to everything, and you,
as an individual, don't have any answers because you're not
an expert. I don't care what I don't care what
your profession is. I don't care if you are a
stay at home mom. You have no expertise whatsoever. You
don't understand anything about child psychology. You don't understand anything about,

(09:09):
you know, rearing children. You just need to turn that
over to the schools. Let the schools do that, because
you're just you're just a you're just a housewife, you're
just a homemaker, and you don't know Squatt. But we
have experts over here, We've got experts. The second point
I would make about Keith Oberman's tweet is the expertise

(09:31):
of the academics at the University of Pennsylvania, or for
that matter, of the University of Colorado or anywhere else,
is itself one of the main tools of the progressive
movement in this country. You can attract Trump because the
experts gave him a low score on a democracy index.
You can win an argument because you've got the experts

(09:54):
to site, and you can't cite an opposition point of view.
From an next surt, that is a little insight into
why when when I do something about let's just say uh,
because I probably won't get to it today. I've got
some notes that I want to do about the endangerment rule,

(10:16):
the rule that you know decided that CO two was
a was a dangerousy mission that we got to, you know,
get like in Colrad I'll get to net zero. Well,
I've gathered some additional thoughts from that, and it's all
based on some experts that I've been reading. I've been
reading experts that disagree with those experts. Wow, imagine that.
Imagine going into a courtroom and facing another lawyer that

(10:41):
graduated from law school that is as smart as you are.

Speaker 3 (10:46):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (10:47):
If if you've read any Atla Shrug or any of
the other and Ran books, you know that Dagny Taggert
talks about arrogance, and her attitude toward arrogance is she
likes arrogance. If you are deservedly arrogant, like you're an

(11:09):
expert in your field and you truly know what you're doing,
that's who she wants to debate. That's who she wants
to argue with. And I've always kind of agreed with
that because it's really not fun arguing with a dumb
person because as much as you might win the argument
or really just kind of cut them off at the knees,

(11:29):
they don't understand it. They don't realize that that that
is what you've done. Anyway, So back to my point,
My main point is at the heart of this attitude
among liberals is the role of the credential, which makes
an expert somehow official. Now, of course, the credential is

(11:50):
precisely what Oberman suggested that the University of Pennsylvania should retract.
They gave Donald Trump a credential, Yeah, they gave him
a sh sheep skin. They said, you've graduated from Did
he graduated from the business school or something?

Speaker 3 (12:05):
Right?

Speaker 2 (12:05):
I forget what he did. I guess I'm not an
expert on Trump's educational background, so you can't can't cite
me this idea that some people in institutions have this
quality of being official and others don't. I think it's
part of the selective liberal meltdown about fake news, about misinformation, disinformation,

(12:30):
about conspiracy theories, that oh, suddenly we find out, oh,
that conspiracy theory happened to be true, and of course
anything that has to do with conservative skepticism about institutions
of higher learning.

Speaker 3 (12:44):
The sensible and admirable concern.

Speaker 2 (12:46):
That falsehoods and bull crap are easily spread is often
kind of unwieldy, since it gets us quickly into some
very difficult, difficult questions about how to figure out what's true.

Speaker 3 (12:57):
And what's faults.

Speaker 2 (12:59):
If you're actually smart, and by smart, I don't mean
like Nike, you of one hundred and sixty, I mean
just you know, above your average bear. You've learned if
from you know, i'd like to think you've learned from
this program, you've certainly lived from just your living through
life and working as whatever you do doesn't even have

(13:22):
to be a profession, just you know, working in the
trades or just working as you.

Speaker 3 (13:27):
Know, a blue collar worker doing, you know, working in a.

Speaker 2 (13:30):
Restaurant or whatever it might be. Through that life, you
have become expert in how life really is, what it's
really like. They think they know better than you do, regardless,
In fact, they would say probably irregardless, regardless of whatever

(13:51):
your experience in life is. That's dangerous. That's very dangerous.
Which makes me wonder what went wrong with these experts,
what went wrong with official stories? There's no master answer,
but very sorts of errors were made, and I think

(14:12):
those errors were made over and over again, confusing the
political with the non political. For example, I've talked to
just in the last hour. I use a phrase something
to this effect. There's a difference between.

Speaker 3 (14:29):
The legal world and the political world. Those are two
entirely different worlds.

Speaker 2 (14:36):
Now, do they intertwine, Of course they intertwine, but there
are still two separate worlds. And if you conflate both
of them and you suddenly think that makes you an
expert in both of them, then that's like me somehow
claiming that because I like sushi, that I'm a sushi expert.

(14:59):
I learned the other day that one of the ways
that I physically eat sushi is offensive to the sushi chefs. No,
a sushi chef didn't tell me that. I saw something
online about sushi, and then I went down a rabbit
hole and learned that, Oh jiminy Christmas, I've been doing
that wrong all the time. And if I'm sending out

(15:21):
a sushi bar and the sushi chef was watching me,
they were looking at me thinking like like I was
an idiot. At the same time that I was thinking, Wow,
you're a really good sushi chef and this is a
really good sushi. They're making fun of me for the
way I technically ate the sushi. Let's go back a
higher education. In applying for grants, if you're an academic

(15:43):
scientist or a mathematician, or you know whatever, for years,
you've been asked to frame the benefits of those grants,
not in terms of any sort of benefits, except in
terms of the political goals like diversity equity, you're include
or does this support our narrative? Even if the topic

(16:05):
of the research was something non political like I don't
know quantum physics. You still have to do it in
terms of what is their political objective, what's their political narrative,
and then clearly political projects. You take the twenty twenty
protests over the George Floyd death, those might be recommended

(16:26):
under the supposedly non political manner of well, we're public
health experts, we're policing experts, we're experts about whatever. When
I come into this program, I may be an expert
in a few things, but I'm not an expert in everything.
So when I come onto this program and I start

(16:49):
talking about a particular topic, I want to make certain
that I've found, you know, good, reliable, objective sources for the.

Speaker 3 (16:59):
Things that I say.

Speaker 2 (17:01):
Now, sometimes that objective, maybe it's not objective, but that
reliable source is hoh, my experience inside the Beltway, because
I've lived that much like the lu chef in a
restaurant has lived that life, or girl dad has lived
his life. It's a jag officer.

Speaker 4 (17:23):
Well, I have not done that, Smackel.

Speaker 3 (17:28):
You're an expert at being the head of goober Phlle.

Speaker 2 (17:32):
Congratulations Hed Goober Here Hedgober reporting, Gloucester Township, New Jersey,
and acted. I heard this story briefly somewhere yesterday, and
again it was one of those stories that I thought, oh,
I got to go home and look that up.

Speaker 3 (17:49):
It's called.

Speaker 4 (17:50):
First of all I did was see the headline and went, yes,
well make it happen.

Speaker 2 (17:55):
But there are two different things going on. New Jersey
already has a parental responsible statue. It's at section two
AASH fifty three a Dosh sixteen Printal Liability for certain
acts of miners. So that statute already exists. That's not
what this story was about.

Speaker 4 (18:13):
Yes, please make parents responsible for their case.

Speaker 3 (18:16):
Dild you just.

Speaker 2 (18:17):
Hold your horses a minute and let me get the
setup done. Fine, good grief. So I hear the story
and I first find that yes, there's a New Jersey law.
I don't care about that. I care about what's this
township done? And it's Gloucester Township, New Jersey. They passed
an ordnance in late July titled Miners and Printal Responsibility

(18:42):
Ordinance adopted July twenty eight, had an emergency clause went
into effect immediately. It Here's how generally speaking, it directly
holds parents, legal guardians, or anyone responsible for a minor
if the child is involved in certain public disturbances or

(19:04):
breaks specific local laws. So then I had to start
digging out to find out. Now, let me just give
you a background this comes. And I just randomly picked
this one because going back to our topic about experts.
I picked this particular YouTube video because it's from News Nation.

Speaker 1 (19:26):
A suburb will now put parents in jail for their
children's behavior. It's called the Miners in Parent Responsibility Act.
The ordinance is the result of a massive brawl last
year among roughly five hundred teens during a drone show.

Speaker 4 (19:41):
These agents.

Speaker 1 (19:42):
Rich McHugh joins us live so rich, what more can
you tell us about this new.

Speaker 5 (19:45):
Law, Nichol, So keep your children in control or face
the consequences. That's ultimately the message from one township in Gosh.

Speaker 2 (19:56):
This guy sounds like Bragan keep your kids in control
or consequences.

Speaker 5 (20:01):
Jersey Gloucester Gloucester township in southern New Jersey. Parents, if
they don't prevent their kids from breaking the law, they
could essentially face fines up to two thousand dollars and
jail time up to ninety days in jail. Some parents
are outraged to say this, that's a dangerous precedent. You know,
thanks to cell phones and YouTube, we're seeing more scenes

(20:22):
like this Playott costs country. It's what Gloucester, New Jersey,
found itself dealing with last summer with when more than
five hundred teams arrived at a city party, started a
brawl and needed over one hundred.

Speaker 4 (20:33):
Police to call them the situation.

Speaker 5 (20:35):
The mayor of Gloucester, addressing this recently, says he may
have a solution.

Speaker 6 (20:41):
We have a juvenile crisis in this country. This is
not unique to Gloucester Township, but rather is symptomatic of
a larger, larger societal juvenile crisis. Now, I'll tell you
I don't have all the answers, but one possible answer

(21:01):
he is to hold parents accountable for their children.

Speaker 5 (21:06):
Yes, so that new law that they pass is called
Miners and Parent Responsibility.

Speaker 3 (21:12):
It says that parents will be.

Speaker 5 (21:14):
Held responsible for and will be held accountable for public
disturbances caused by their child. The new law even suggests
they can go to jail.

Speaker 4 (21:21):
Some parents are andre outrage.

Speaker 5 (21:23):
This is Alex Bauer.

Speaker 3 (21:24):
She is with the group mine.

Speaker 2 (21:26):
Okay, that's not You get the basic background. So I
wanted to do the story because mister Redbeard and I
have a little bit of a venn diagram doesn't Kamala
Harris love then diagrams does.

Speaker 3 (21:41):
Yeah, So.

Speaker 2 (21:43):
Kama y gotta listen to this because Dragon and I
have a certain amount of commonality with regard to this,
and then we have a little bit of difference. So
I dig into the ordinance. There are the ordinance list
twenty eight defenses and they range from serious crimes all
the way down to minor infractions. Liability is not automatic

(22:08):
after a single incident. Now, if a kid is reported
is repeatedly found guilty in juvenile court, so you have
to have you have to have a charge, you have
to have a trial of hearing whatever, and they have
to be found guilty of violating the ordinance. Then the
parents or guardians can be subject to some penalties, which
does include up to ninety days in jail and or

(22:31):
a fine up to two thousand dollars. The exception is
generally guardians. And I'm not clear on this, but I
think guardians and parents receive a warning upon the initial
infraction and they only do prosecution after persistent issues or
multiple conviction.

Speaker 4 (22:53):
I'm fine with that, are you?

Speaker 3 (22:54):
Are you okay? With that.

Speaker 4 (22:55):
I'm good with that.

Speaker 2 (22:56):
Then I get to the text, and there's where I
find that they list twenty eight things for which parents
can be held liable. Not on the first offense, although
I think what I find ironic is on some of
these I think parents probably should be right.

Speaker 4 (23:13):
I'm sure there are probably some of those that would
be I got first offense, screw you, You're gone, right,
So i'd like to.

Speaker 3 (23:19):
Walk through these twenty eight offenses.

Speaker 2 (23:22):
Yeah, just as they're listed with my producer to see
bring where to see what bring it? A felony, high misdemeanor,
a misdemeanor or other offense. Your child commits murder.

Speaker 4 (23:38):
Oh that's first defense. You're gone. Seriously, Yep, you're responsibile,
You're you're the thing you are responsible for. Your child
has committed murder, So you're responsible. Your your child is
let's get the responsibility.

Speaker 3 (23:56):
Would would you just.

Speaker 2 (23:58):
Your honor destruct the just to listen to the question
before he answer, I.

Speaker 4 (24:02):
Can turn on my mic, will can you?

Speaker 3 (24:06):
I can try? But it doesn't do anything.

Speaker 2 (24:09):
So your your child goes to low dough, your child
does not have a weapon. Your child is walking down
the street gets attacked.

Speaker 3 (24:21):
By a gang.

Speaker 2 (24:23):
But your child decides that.

Speaker 4 (24:26):
Self defense at that point in time.

Speaker 2 (24:29):
Hang on, Let's say that the child instead picks up
a cinder block and proceeds to just defection in the
brain of one of the attackers, and they decided to
chargeh with manslaughter because they thought that the response to
the attack was disproportionate.

Speaker 4 (24:49):
Okay, still be held liable. Yeah, if through the courts
and everything. Yeah, if they've been found that he was
not defending himself and he went much further and he
needed to, then't you Your.

Speaker 2 (25:01):
Child is an a student, has no record, it doesn't
need discipline, is perfect gentleman, perfect lady, great gray, everything,
just an ideal child gets caught in that situation or
just goes back crack crazy one.

Speaker 4 (25:19):
Day, and because the child is still a minor, they
get put in juvie or whatever it is until they're
no longer a minor.

Speaker 2 (25:27):
Depending on the charge, that means that you go free. Okay,
all right, I'm iffy on that one because I think
it depends. I think that depends on each individual incident.
All right, how about the next one. This is number two,
violation of any penal law or any municipal.

Speaker 4 (25:46):
Ordinance, give me an example.

Speaker 2 (25:50):
Literally, sure yep, uh speeding, sure yep, breakfast driving, yep,
drunk driving, no matter what the circumstances.

Speaker 4 (26:05):
Correct. Yeah, I'm good with that.

Speaker 3 (26:07):
Okay, all right.

Speaker 2 (26:10):
If I would appear in front of the judge with
an ordinance like this and say which I can't say truthfully,
but if I could, I would say this, We don't
drink at home.

Speaker 3 (26:25):
We don't have any alcohol home.

Speaker 2 (26:27):
We have taught our children the dangers of alcohol, and
we have told them if they ever get caught drunk
driving that they're going to be grounded and the keys
will be taken away, the car will be taken away,
blah blah blah, all of that. And the kid just
goes to a party and just happens to get drunk
one night and you have no idea, and in fact
that he gets drunk at six pm while the family's

(26:50):
having dinner at home, you want the parents are going
to jail to Yeah.

Speaker 4 (26:55):
Remember this is this second defense. Those the first ones,
they get the warnings.

Speaker 2 (27:01):
Oh you know, actually that's a good point. Uh huh, yeah, okay,
I'll grant you that good point. Good points I forgot.

Speaker 4 (27:08):
It's the second effect, right, If they're feeding the concrete
side of the hideway, you know.

Speaker 2 (27:13):
Yeah, Okay, well that almost all these are going to
be we would probably agree on, huh, except I have
problems as a lawyer with some of the violations being
a disorderly person.

Speaker 4 (27:25):
They're starting fights or something.

Speaker 3 (27:28):
Just being a disorderly person.

Speaker 4 (27:30):
It's a little wishy washy on what that means.

Speaker 3 (27:33):
Yeah, I think so too.

Speaker 4 (27:34):
Yes, it's your second time, so because I think.

Speaker 2 (27:36):
You and I were fairly disordered orderly probably most of
this program today. True, I as I confessed I used
the closed bathroom today because it was habitual vagrancy. Your
child's habitual vagrant.

Speaker 3 (28:00):
There. I think they will to.

Speaker 2 (28:02):
Terminate the parental rights because if you're not taking care
of your child and your child's a vagrant out on
the street, that is your fault.

Speaker 3 (28:09):
Yep, yeah, okay, all right, Ah, answer this one.

Speaker 4 (28:14):
Immorality, there's the gray area and what is what is
being immoral?

Speaker 3 (28:25):
Right?

Speaker 2 (28:27):
I don't know, uh, making fun of making fun of Mohammed.
I think that's going to depend upon the prosecutor and
the and and the cops and the report they make,
Whether the cops decide, whether the prosecutor decides you know what. No,
I'm not going to take that to trial and I'm

(28:48):
not going to charge that kid with that immorality knowingly. See,
I like this one knowingly associated, and let me finish
the sentence be where you jump in knowingly associate eating
with thieves or vicious or immoral people.

Speaker 4 (29:06):
I'll get to that after the break.

Speaker 7 (29:08):
So, Michael, if a student is at school and the
school is acting for the parents I believe it's a
local parentis and the kid raises the law or maybe
shoots the school up, are the school officials liable or
are the parents because they the school would be in

(29:32):
charge of the child.

Speaker 2 (29:34):
That is a great question, because you can make an
argument that under the wardening of this ordinance, they are,
as you say in local sparentis, they are the guardians
for those hours that they're at school. So if they
deface the chalkboard or the desk or the walls, or
they vandalize the locker, well, then principal teacher I will be.

Speaker 4 (29:56):
Responsible and the parents I'm for both, and but I'm
for all of the above.

Speaker 2 (30:01):
Okay, So now a lot of these dragon are obvious,
like assault and battery, assaults, bugging, drunkenness, there was one,
let's see.

Speaker 3 (30:15):
Indecent exposure.

Speaker 4 (30:16):
Oh, totally okay.

Speaker 3 (30:20):
Destruction of playground equipment of public.

Speaker 4 (30:22):
Parks, yep, I agree.

Speaker 2 (30:24):
But what was the one I told you during the
break that I thought, Oh here number eleven.

Speaker 3 (30:29):
Idly roaming the streets at night.

Speaker 4 (30:33):
Yeah, if he's out, If your thirteen year old is
out at one am, in the middle of nowhere, roaming
the streets in theory up to no good?

Speaker 2 (30:41):
Okay, sunset tonight, I think is at seven fifty something.
Let's just say eight pm. So at eight fifteen pm,
your son decides to go. You know, I just need
to stretch. It's nice that stars are bright. I'm gonna
go walk around the block.

Speaker 4 (30:57):
Okay.

Speaker 3 (30:59):
Is that idly roaming streets at night? Where do you
cross the line?

Speaker 4 (31:03):
See, I think I have as much vague for sure.

Speaker 3 (31:06):
Oh, I think it's horribly vague. Growing up in idleness?

Speaker 4 (31:12):
What's that mean?

Speaker 3 (31:13):
But it also says or delinquents.

Speaker 4 (31:15):
I mean they're they're not in after school sports or
band or anything.

Speaker 3 (31:19):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (31:21):
Do we do incorrigibility yeah, okay, immorality knowingly associating with
thieves or vicious or immoral people. Of course, the obvious one,
or you know, sailing, use of drugs, defacing, you know, graffiti,
destroying the property of another. You've got a great story
about destroying the property of another, right.

Speaker 4 (31:42):
Yeah, When my kid was much younger, eight to six,
somewhere in that range, babysitters and he took the flip
phone that she had and bend it backwards because I mean,
he didn't really know much any better, He didn't get
to play with phones. He doesn't get to use phones
at that time. So he takes the flip phone backwards.
Guess what, I bought her a new phone. He worked

(32:04):
it off. You know, you're guilty of idleness right now. True,
you're guilty