4-8-25 - 7am - Extreme Weather Events

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Taco bell E. Taco John's is a whole lot better.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
The Tata lays Yeah.

Speaker 1 (00:08):
And what was the last one? What was that?

Speaker 3 (00:12):
The cattle lays, Yeah, potato, Potato lays that like chips, Yeah,
like potatoes.

Speaker 1 (00:19):
Or is that another new place we haven't heard about?

Speaker 3 (00:24):
Taco John's.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
Yeah, no, taco with John's. I've been taking john Taco
John's is fine.

Speaker 3 (00:29):
I don't know if I've ever been to a Taco Johnson.

Speaker 4 (00:31):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (00:32):
Well, I'll tell you what you can't do now in Colorado.
You can't go to a Dell Talk. Yeah, you can't
do that. Dang, Yeah, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (00:42):
You.

Speaker 4 (00:44):
I think people are.

Speaker 1 (00:46):
Just kind of jiving with us today. I think they're
lying to us. I find I find it so disheartening
to think that this audience would lie to us. But
I think they are Dragon Carbon Carbon Sitas or whatever
it was the other one.

Speaker 3 (00:57):
This this audio audience has been nothing but honest with
us since day one.

Speaker 1 (01:03):
Particularly you go read the text messages today, they're like
pretty scathing. Today. I think people are just in a mood.
It's it's just a Tuesday, and people are just pissed
off today for some reason. They purgatory, having listened to
us for the rest of their you know, for that,
and then they make fun of me because I'm bitching

(01:24):
about the the The interchange was closed today and I
had to take a detour, and the McDonald's line was,
I mean, these are lives problems.

Speaker 3 (01:34):
See this one. You all are some nasty ass mfors
actually liking Taco Bell breakfast. We didn't see we no
one know.

Speaker 1 (01:42):
I've never had Taco Bell breakfast. I had to ask
what was on the Taco Bell breakfast.

Speaker 3 (01:46):
But they've got the normal menu has the crunch trapp Supreme,
which is delicious. I really do like those. So what
I hear though, is the breakfast menu instead of the
tortilla shell in the middle, it's got a hash brown
and that it's glorious.

Speaker 1 (02:01):
I I don't every time every time you talk about
your eating habits, I have this my my brain cells
kind of go. They they lurched to a stop because
I'm looking at a guy that's lost, you know, one
thousand pounds, and yet you're talking about, Oh my god,
that Taco Bell crunchy breakfast is fried and it's got

(02:24):
it's got hash browns in the middle and it's got
everything else. Oh my god, that's so good my own
and I don't.

Speaker 3 (02:30):
I mean, they've had breakfast for years, and you know,
I can't recall having somebody I do. I will admit
the Good Times Burger Place. They do have breakfast burritos
there that are absolutely delicious.

Speaker 1 (02:41):
I haven't made. I've not been to a Good Times
Burger joining agent uh huh huh.

Speaker 3 (02:48):
A little greasy, sloppy and messy, but you know, sometimes
that's what you want out of a burger.

Speaker 1 (02:53):
There's a story I play I want to get to
later today, speaking of food and restaurants, a story about
just how bad difficult it is to run a restaurant
in Colorado. It's unfreaking believable. Do you remember yesterday we
casually mentioned something about I had. Yeah, it was because

(03:15):
it was Monday. Gosh, time flies when you're having fun.
It's already Tuesday.

Speaker 3 (03:20):
You were here yesterday, it's already.

Speaker 1 (03:22):
Drag its already Tuesday. It's almost Friday. We're already looking
to work forward to Friday. And I mentioned that Janis
dean over in Fox News was giving the so called
weather report. Now I don't quite know how the and
when did we start doing this anyway. But a national

(03:43):
cable channel giving a weather report, that's like al Roker,
Al Roker, who I don't think I may be wrong,
I don't think. I don't want to get superlibel and
slander here. But I don't think he's really a real meteorologist.
Maybe maybe he's an honorary meteorologist. But you know, if
and I haven't seen the Today Show, and I betefn't

(04:04):
watched the Today Show in fifteen years, but if I
recall their weather report, it's basically, here's a map of
the United States, and in this general region covering about
five states, the highs will be like in the seventies,
and then over here in this general region covering about
seven states, the highs will be in the forties, and

(04:24):
then down here in the south, and then they have
little sun or little clouds. And that's the weather report.
Doesn't tell you a damn thing, nothing at all. If
you want to read the weather report, you need to
go read Cody's weather report or go Dave Fraser. They
eat Colorado's most accurate forecast, which in Colorado is saying something.
Doesn't mean it's a good forecast. It's just the most accurate.

(04:46):
Because in Colorado, because of the cotton mientll divide and
because of the planes, well we have we have a
pretty difficult time predicting the weather.

Speaker 3 (04:54):
The internet AI says, yes, Al Roker is a meteorologist,
but when you scroll down some of the other stories,
it does say that Rooker did not earn a degree
in meteorology.

Speaker 1 (05:06):
Well, then by them, I'm a meteorologist.

Speaker 4 (05:08):
True.

Speaker 3 (05:09):
Yeah, the weather presenter a weather presenter. So here was
Janistine And I've met Janisteine a few times. She's a
wonderful human being, and so I'm not.

Speaker 1 (05:19):
I'm not. She's just that's her job, right, she got
a job. Fox said, hey, we'll pay you a bazillion
dollars a year to come out and talk about the weather.
But there she was talking once again about you know,
a third of the country is going to be covered
by severe weather. You know, the only thing she did
not do yesterday was give us the population, because that

(05:40):
makes it really scary.

Speaker 3 (05:41):
I thought she said something like fifty million people are
gonna know. You said that, Oh you said that. I
don't think she shouldn't make that up. I'm sure I
saw it or heard it somewhere well.

Speaker 1 (05:51):
Maybe she did. I but I just I don't remember
hearing it because or maybe I'm so pissed off about
that I've started to tune it out and I don't.

Speaker 3 (05:59):
And I don't hear fifty million people impacted by severe storms.

Speaker 1 (06:02):
Yeah, you mean spring, right springtime. So anyway, she was
talking about tornado season, and I've always had I've chased
tornadoes my ear One of my earliest, not these, but
one of my earliest childhood memories is being on my
grandparents' farm in Osage County, Oklahoma, near the Indian Reservation,

(06:25):
and my mom grabbing me and my little brother at
the time didn't have my little sister, but grabbing me
and my little brother, and we had to run across.
We ran out the kitchen door, across the yard. You know,
chickens are running everywhere. You know, the wind's blowing, and
we go down into the root cellar and it's dark

(06:46):
and dank, and you know, there's kerosene lamps there. I mean,
this is the dark ages. And you get down there
and I'm like, you know, what's going on, and my
mom's explaining, you know, there's a tornado. You know, we
need to be inunderground, as you know, to be safe
from it. And then my dad and my grandfather and
my uncle who's now deceased, Uncle Jerry, who was living

(07:10):
with them, they all kind of go back up the
steps and open the cellar door just enough so they
can peer out, and of course I go climb up
behind them because I want to see too, And I
can see this tornado in the distance and all of
the debris flying all out across these fields, and I
distinctly remember that thinking I wasn't scared. I mean, I

(07:33):
felt I didn't feel I didn't know to feel scared,
but I felt safe because my mom, my mom's there,
and were down in this place that seems to be,
you know, kind of spooky yet safe. So I've always
had kind of a fascination with tornadoes grow and growing
up in Tornado Alley, Tamer and I were just used
to it. We were just used to, you know, the

(07:53):
sirens blowing. Okay, well, here we go again, and then
never get impacted by it, damn tornado until I move
the Highlands Ranch, Colorado. In two years ago. Our house
gets hit by a tornado. Go figure that out. But
here we are a tornado season again. The predictable media
claims that link severe weather to climate change are now

(08:17):
rolling in like clockwork. Now, first and foremost sympathies to
everybody who gets impacted by a severe thunderstorm, a tornado,
a flood, any of these natural disasters. I've seen them, all,
been involved in all of them, and they're horrible, and
they really are devastating to those individuals. And I specify

(08:42):
that because when I think of devastation, when I think
of catastrophes, I again am more like Book of the Eli.
I'm well, Tammer probably wishes I was Denzel Washington, but
I'm more like den What are you laughing at.

Speaker 3 (09:02):
The same thing? Over here? Missus Radber, she's does.

Speaker 1 (09:04):
She have the hots for Denzel? Does every woman in
the world have the host for Denzel Washington? I mean,
is there It's true, it's two, it's two. But here's
Denzel Washington walking through this these apocalyptic scenes. And that's
what I consider to be devastation catastrophe. But I know

(09:29):
you can have localized devastation. But the words are just
overused and try and it drives me nuts. And and
I think we should acknowledge that, yes, there is human
suffering and there and there is human loss, and there
is commercial and financial loss, and it disrupts your lives.
It's horrible. But here's what we don't have to do.

(09:51):
We don't have to accept flawed or exaggerated narratives. When
we start blaming these tragic weather events on man made
or anthropogenic CO two emissions, it's a distraction, it's a
cop out, and it prevents us from addressing the real
challenges of being prepared, early warnings and the resilience of

(10:15):
the infrastructure. Because if you and I distinkly remember this.
So back in the late eighties, maybe even in the
early nineties, governors in Florida and the Florida legislature started
revamping their building codes because after Hurricane Andrew, which devastated

(10:40):
the George H. W. Bush, just like I told George W.
Bush that a hurricane would devastate us because we weren't
you know, DHS was screwing everything up, they started doing
these building codes that made the infrastructure so much more resilient.
Now we don't do it in Colorado. And I know
we would be expected and see, but you know we

(11:01):
would have the money, but we spend the money on
all the wrong things. But when you have.

Speaker 3 (11:04):
Blizzards and ice storms, wouldn't it make more sense to
have your transmission lines buried or a lot more resilient
than what they are.

Speaker 1 (11:13):
But we don't do that. I when you start focusing
on anthropogenic global warming or global cooling, whatever's just climate
change now, whatever the hell it is, it distracts from
really teaching people to be prepared, learning to it, to

(11:36):
predict and give early warnings, and then making sure that
all the infrastructure. By infrastructure here, I don't mean just roads,
bridges and highways, I'm talking about power lines. I'm talking
about buildings themselves, and understanding that you know, when the
ververbial feces hits the fan and you've got a really

(11:56):
bad snowstorm, blizzard, ice storm, you know, chinook win, whatever
it might might be, then you're going to be without power.
You might not be able to get to work. But
when you examine the claims that climate change is increasing
both the frequency and the intensity of tornadoes, which is

(12:17):
what I want to focus on here, the data clearly
demonstrates otherwise. But that means you have to look at
the data. Small tornado counts increased only because of improved
detection methods. While the most destructive tornata on the EF scale,

(12:42):
you've got everything from EF ones, which is what we
usually have out here on the eastern Plains of Colorado.
You have EF threes, fours, and fives. Those are the
most destructive tornadoes. The most destructive tornadoes EF three pluses
have actually decline since reliable record keeping began. Now, despite

(13:04):
all these repeated assurances by the climate activists I didn't
even want to call them scientists, and of course because
of the cabal.

Speaker 4 (13:11):
The media, there are repeated assurances that all extreme weather
events are going to intensify and become more frequent, but
the data just doesn't back it.

Speaker 1 (13:24):
Up, especially when you start looking at tornadoes. Last year,
the tornado season was particularly active. Now before I even
give you the number, because of the advances in radar,
Doppler and otherwise, the advances in detection systems, were now

(13:49):
able to more easily detect actual circulation in a low
pressure system to determine that, oh yeah, that's actually a tornado,
that's just not straight when that circulating wind it may
just be an EF one or maybe even slightly less.
But were able to better detect them so last year,
the tornado season which we are now in because it's

(14:11):
mosslem at springtime, there were more than seventeen hundred tornadoes recorded,
and that is above the historical average. But what is
the historical average? The top five from nineteen fifty to
twenty twenty four, counting from January one to December thirty. First,

(14:35):
because tornadoes can happen any month of the year, the
number one year was two thousand and four twenty years
ago with eighteen hundred and seventeen tornadoes. Twenty twenty four
last year came in second at seventeen hundred ninety six,
and then it drops way off back to two thousand,

(14:55):
actually twenty eleven, sixteen hundred, two thousand and eight, sixteen hundred,
nineteen fifteen hundred. So yes, despite the higher frequency, twenty
twenty four continued a now decade long drought in the
most severe category of tornadoes. So there are more tornadoes

(15:17):
being detected, but the number of EF fives, the most
damaging the most severe category of tornadoes, is decreasing, almost nonexistent,
but media reports there you go. The cabal frequently highlights
the increased frequency of tornadoes and then make this illogical

(15:41):
leap to claim that that's evidence of a climate crisis.
And what do they do. They convenely omit the ongoing
absence of the most violent and destructive tornadoes. Now, think
about this. Logically, if the climate's getting worse and worse
and worse, and there is a causation between the climate
getting worse and the number of tornadoes, wouldn't the severity

(16:03):
of the tornadoes be getting worse also? But the exact
opposite is happening. So if you buy into the climate narrative,
then oh my god, the climate's changing, it's getting worse
and worse and worse, and the frequency of tornadoes are increasing.
But wait a minute, the severity of the tornadoes is
actually decreasing. When you when you look at the twenty

(16:28):
twenty five tornado count data, the total tornado count data
for twenty twenty five, I know, we're only what four
months into it still remains within the historical averages, although
currently right now it's above the mean average because of
these recent outbreaks. Now there's been a handful of significant

(16:49):
outbreaks that have dominated the news coverage. You have to
be living under a rock to not hear about, Oh
my gosh, this is just it's horrible, and it's prooved
that climate change is just killing us. But when adjusted
for historical consistency and technological changes, that supposed increase completely evaporates.

(17:12):
There was an article recently in The Guardian, and I
think it's one of the most egregious media examples. That
article said this, the severity of such events is being
amplified by the climate crisis. Scientists have said, well, wait
a minute, what's scientists and what's the data which they

(17:33):
don't put in the article because that kind of reporting
disregards both historical tornado data and the explicit scientific uncertainty
that's outlined by the climate authorities that are actually looking
logically at the climate science. Now, let's turn back to
something that I think is really remarkable and completely absent

(17:56):
from the media headline, and that is the drought in
EF five tornado, the most powerful category the American Meteorological Society,
according to a new study. By then, we've gone now
over eleven years, more than a decade without a single
EF five tornado in this country. Yes, more than a

(18:20):
decade without the most violent tornado classification.

Speaker 5 (18:26):
Okay, guys, let's tie this all together. Probably the best
fast food. Tacos are at a place on Parker Road
in Parker on the west side before you get to
Main Street. It's called Twisters. So there we've got our
Tornado tie in and tacos. They are really good, fresh

(18:48):
ground beef tacos, but without all the filler. Thank me later.

Speaker 1 (18:53):
Twister Taco Tuesday.

Speaker 3 (18:54):
If it's the same franchise that as a Twisters. There's
one in Aurora. If it is that same one, And
I don't know if I've had their tacos, but I
have eaten there many times and they are good.

Speaker 1 (19:05):
Really yep. So what's the origin of the Twister name?

Speaker 3 (19:10):
I'd beat TCA. I mean, it's it's New Mexican food.
So it's not Mexican food. Mexican how do you know?
How do you know it's New Mexican because it's on
a sign. Twister's New Mexican.

Speaker 1 (19:19):
Oh okay, if it's the same one that's over in Parker,
I haven't been over to the one on Parker Okay,
so Parker Road. Yeah, on the she said left side.
I assume she means the east side.

Speaker 3 (19:37):
I thought she said what I thought she said west west?

Speaker 1 (19:40):
Oh western left.

Speaker 4 (19:41):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (19:42):
Okay, well, twisters, I'll have maybe maybe today, you know what,
maybe today's today to do. Yes, I am referring to
the enhanced Fujita scale that was adopted back in two
thousand and seven or eight. It was just, you know,
we talked an F one or F five. Now it's
an e F one, two, three, four or five, And

(20:04):
it does take into consideration the amount of damage that
it has done.

Speaker 3 (20:08):
And that's not the speed or anything, just the damage. No,
it's it's speed and damage. There's a I'd have to
pull it up. There's a chart that shows you. In fact,
you should put this up on the website.

Speaker 1 (20:19):
Drive.

Speaker 3 (20:19):
So a one put in the middle of Denver that
would cause a lot of damage, but a five out
in the middle of nowhere is not gonna cause anything.

Speaker 1 (20:25):
No, not, because it's a combination of both. So let
me say it like weird. Let me see if I can
find the chart somewhere. Uh, hang on, do do do
do do do do do as well? I look, Uh,
let's see. So in e F zero sixty five, so
sixty five eighty five mile an hour winds, it's not
gonna do a lot of damage downtown Denver. It's it's

(20:47):
going to you know, stuff that's not bolted to the sidewalk,
like the druggies and the homeless people and the tents
and all that is going to blow away.

Speaker 5 (20:57):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (20:58):
EF one eighty six d ten miles an hour, two
eleven one hundred and thirty five miles an hour three
one thirty six to one sixty five e F four
one sixty five to two hundred EF five is two
hundred miles an hour plus. And then you have all
the different categories of the damage. But the point is

(21:19):
regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the inclusion, look,
damages is a subjective analysis. And again, if if an
e F five blows through, I always pick on Campo Colorado,

(21:41):
And I know I don't do it because I don't
like Campo. It's just a Campo exemplifies rural America that
is dying, that doesn't have I mean, the people there
are hardy people, they're great people, but there's just not
a lot there. And it's and it's sad. An EF

(22:03):
one or zero blows through Campo, Yes, uh, some stuff's
going to get you know, trash candle will be flying.
The trash candle fly into the Oklahoma Panhandle, and the
you know, you know, the dogs and the cats will
go flying somewhere else, but it's not going to cause
in terms of damage, a lot of damage. And even

(22:24):
if so, then if you take an e F five
that blows through Campo, yes, the the extent of the
damage is going to be completely destructive. The dollar amount
of the damage is not going to be that great
as compared to an e F five that might blow
through Cherry Creek, because now you've got the you know,

(22:49):
or Greenwood Village. Now you've got the dollar amount is
going to the the the physical destruction is going to
be as great as it is in Campo, but the
dollar and that's not going to be is great because
the value of the property is less Incampal than it
is in the dollar value, not the value to a person,
because whatever you own is valuable to you. But don't

(23:13):
get hung up on that. Get hung up instead on
this idea that for over a decade we've gone without
the most violent tornado classification. And that is a phenomenon
that the climate catastrophe congregants simply cannot explain, and they

(23:36):
fail to explain because the climate scientists, the so called
climate scientists and particularly the climate advocates, have repeatedly insisted
the extreme weather of every kind, especially the most intense storms,
are going to increase dramatically because of human driven warming.

(23:58):
Yet here we are right now amidst historical drought in
e F five tornadoes. The EF five drought is best
I can tell. More than just a statistical curiosity. I
think it's actually a direct challenge to the claims that

(24:19):
climate warming inherently leads some more severe storms. If you
go to and I would say, in particular, let's go
to the American Meteorological Society, because and I don't mean
to pick on this group, but of all of their researchers,
of all the researchers around the country, they might actually

(24:40):
be the most objective, only because they have they're not
beholden to grant money or to any particular agenda. According
to their researchers, the previous long this gap between EF

(25:01):
four EF five tornadoes since nineteen fifty was an eight
year period. The current gap now extends beyond ten years
and is unprecedented in modern records. So here's what I
think is the critical takeaway. If increased atmospheric energy an

(25:25):
increased moisture due to climate change reliably led to stronger tornadoes.
We would be seeing more EF fives, not fewer. Stop
for a moment and just think about if you paid
any attention to the national weather, which hasn't really been
affecting us in Colorado, but if you're listening to me

(25:47):
somewhere throughout the Midwest and throughout the South, where these
storms have been really severe over the past several weeks,
then you would think, well, wait a minute, right, We've
not seen a bunch of EF fives. So this current
drought I just like to use the word drought when

(26:09):
I'm talking about the weather. The drought in extreme tornadoes
I think suggests that either this theoretical framework that links
tornado severity directly to warming has got to be fatally
flawed or and I think this is true too, natural
variability dominates these processes, which is and the reason I

(26:34):
say is particularly true because that's what I believe. The
climate goes through these natural variabilities. We warm, we cool,
we warm, we cool, we cool, we warm, and that's
all driven by And I don't it's been several weeks
since I read it, but some enormous sun spot occurred

(26:58):
over the past few weeks, disrupting communications. I mean it
didn't affect me any, but disrupted communications all across the
planet just certain you know, maybe short term, but nonetheless
blackouts were suddenly boom, something's not working. It's always been
the case. And when you look when you look at

(27:21):
the historical record, particularly with regard to CO two, because
CO two, that greenhouse gass is the most dominant thing
that's causing all this to happen. Well, CO two levels
were significantly higher way before industrialization. So if you go
back and you revisit the EF three plus the most damaging,

(27:44):
and you look at the trends and you put in
the twenty twenty four data, there's a decreasing trend line
since well let's take the peak, which was about the
mid nineteen seventies, but from the nineteen all the way
through twenty twenty four there has been a marked declining

(28:06):
trend in the most destructive tornadoes despite rising global temperatures
by you know, zero point one degree integrator whatever it is.
And the last EF five recorded was in twenty thirteen.
So if you're going to rely on the data driven reality,
that stands in complete contrast to what the sensationalist media

(28:28):
narratives keep telling you over the airwaves I have And
here comes the editorial, not picking on Janis Dan necessarily
because she's just doing what she's told to do, and
she's you know, she's got two minutes to tell you
what the weather is across three hundred and fifty plus
million Americans and across a country size of the United

(28:50):
States of America. So obviously she can't give you a
detailed weather analysis. But for people who consume cable news,
who consume the networks, who consume the top of the
hour news that we have on this radio station, you're

(29:11):
being fed and narrative, and the narrative is, oh my gosh,
your hair. It's just like tariffs or anything else. I
think everybody ought to just which I try to do
for a certain period of time, either either walking the
dogs or just when I'm working on show prep, which

(29:33):
is kind of hard to do, because that seems to
be a contradiction of just unplugging from that cabal. You'll
have an entirely different perspective on the world if you
just unplug.

Speaker 2 (29:46):
It seems to me you're saying, the more tornadoes we have,
the less wind we've got. Oh my god, we're running
out of wind. Oh lover, that's the even worst tragedy.

Speaker 1 (29:59):
See, somebody would pick up on that, and now well
the truth is out.

Speaker 3 (30:06):
Yeah, these goobers are as dumb as you think they are.

Speaker 1 (30:08):
Well, they're not as dumb as you keep telling me
they are. I keep telling you I think they're pretty smart,
but you keep trying to refute it. There's the proof
right there. We're running out of wind. It's all it's
you know, it's just all contained up in Wyoming and
Neil Home a panhandle. It's just in two spots, and
it's nowhere else doesn't exist. There's an outfit called the

(30:31):
Network Contagion Research Institute the NCRI. They've done an assassination
culture study. Oh my god, this is really bad. These
findings signal, I think, a real threat to political stability
and obviously to public safety. Here's one of the key

(30:53):
data points, murder justification. Murder justification, those two words should
not be together, because if I kill somebody in self defense,
it's not murder. I didn't murder somebody. Murder has a
legal definition and meaning. So thirty one and thirty eight
percent of respondents to this survey believe that murder is

(31:17):
justified when it comes to Elon Musker Donald Trump thirty
one percent Elon thirty eight percent Trump. Now, the effects
were largely driven by respondents that self identified as left
of center forty eight and fifty five percent at least
somewhat justified murder for Musk and Trump. So here are

(31:41):
the stats that are just mind numbingly stupid justification for
murder of Musk and Trump for Elon among all respondents, So,
whether I self identified as left, right, center, or agnostic,
thirty one point six per believe there's justification for murdering

(32:03):
Musk or Trump. Almost a third.

Speaker 3 (32:09):
Of self reporting people of all political persuasions.

Speaker 1 (32:12):
Holy cow. But if you identify left of center forty
eight point six percent of you, almost half of people
left to center believe that the murder of Musk or
Trump is justified. For Trump, all respondents is about thirty

(32:34):
eight percent, and left of center respondence is over half
at fifty five point two percent. Now, percent, let's go
to something not quite as dramatic as murder. You want
to destroy a Tesla dealership. I'm not talking about vandalizing
a car a Tesla car. I'm talking about destroying a

(32:55):
Tesla dealership. Among all respondents say it's justified to go destroy. Now,
think about we just talked about the environment, we just
talked about climate change. Of those same a holes think
it's among all respondents, I gotta clarify. Among all respondents,
forty percent say it's okay to destroy a private business.

(33:21):
But if you're left of center, fifty seven point six percent,
so well over half believe that there is a justification
for destroying a Tesla dealership. We live in a sick
and decaying culture, and remember politics follows the culture. Culture

(33:48):
is always ahead of everything else. I think you think
that we're in trouble. Yeah, I think we're in big,
big duty.