Making Chemicals Partisan

Listen to this episode

S1: The following recording may contain explicit language I can’t get more explicit than May with literal say it may.

S2: It’s Monday, April 6, 2020, from Slate’s The Gist. I’m Mike PESCA. When Barack Obama gave his keynote address and made his name really at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

S3: Imagine when he was talking about red states and blue states, red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats.

S4: We all knew what he meant, how everything had become politicized and the examples he reached for gay friends, Little League federal agents poking around in libraries. We knew which side of the political divide he was assigning. Those activities were those concerns, too. Let’s go back go back to 2004, in your mind, if you can, and cast your mind forward to today and try to fathom what you would think then of how much more political everything has become. It’s insane. Red hats are politicized. The okay sign has become politicized. Certain brands of pillow’s politicized. Chachi and Nike, the actress Meryl Streep, the boxer Jack Johnson, fast food cheeseburgers, the NFL. You know what? Maybe we saw that one coming, but not the way it went down. The NFL became a Democrat thing for a season there. But now the craziest, absolutely most bananas substance to ever have become politicized has become politicized. We’re talking 18 molecules of carbon, 26 hydrogen and a whole bunch of other stuff, hydrochloric when we’re debating intensely debating about a chemical compound. Your opinion of the chemical compound tells me all I need to know about who you’re voting for voted for. At issue is this is the president too optimistic about the efficacy of this chemical compound? Peter Navarro loves this chemical compound. The actual scientist, Anthony Foushee, has a more let’s say, a more accurate view of it, which isn’t that it’s a bad chemical compound when it comes to treating Corona virus, but that we don’t know if it’s the right chemical compound to treat Corona virus effectively. And they argued about this according to axios. What a debate this must have been. The scientist with a background in training, in organic chemistry and the protectionist economist who has written on the economics of trash collection, which is an interesting topic. Sure. It’s just not organic chemistry. Navarro was on CNN talking, kind of debating with their host, John Berman. And Berman said this.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S5: We all want the same thing, which is people to get better, surely to some time. What are you talking about? Hang on. Hang on here.

S6: You’re really but you’re setting setting this up kind of as a false dichotomy between, you know, Tony Stark here.

S5: Over here. I respect you. I respect you. Don’t you dare for a second suggests that I don’t want people to get better from this. Now, I’ve got two friends and I got two friends. And then right now, that’s what I said.

S6: I don’t put those words in my mouth. But when you say that, you know, when we come on here, we say we all we all want the same thing. There’s this political overtone, this battle between, you know, you’re trying to get this false dichotomy is no false dichotomy that we want people to get better.

Advertisement
Advertisement

S5: We want it better then. Absolutely. I said there has to be stronger efforts to do so. I appreciate it. But don’t suggest that my questions are just other than trying to figure out what the science is behind this and the efficacy.

S7: Fair enough. John Berman did not like that. Oh, OK.

S4: OK. Navarro, you want to get on that high horse? I happen to have staff to Clydesdales on top of a Shetland pony buddy over on Fox. The interview with Peter Navarro was somehow less contentious. The trade representative making this argument that we are in war.

S6: President Trump is a wartime president.

S4: In the fog of war, I have never heard the fog of war offered as a pre hoc justification. Well, you know, people make mistakes. Let’s have this. Be one of them. Don’t you understand? Dr. Foushee has his position based on medicine, and I have mine based on a fog. Wasn’t the original cause of the plague thought to be a miasma? And now miasma is being cited to tout the current end of the plague? The reason why this is the stupidest argument we’ve ever had is that there actually are not two sides to the argument. I’m not saying one side is right and the other is wrong. No, I’m saying there aren’t two sides. No one’s arguing two different things, right. One side is saying, hey, this could be a game changer. This could very well save lives. But the other side is not saying, no, it won’t. The other side is just saying, let’s say. And the champions of chloroquine are angrily arguing back. Let’s see what you mean. Let’s see. Let’s see if it works. Your attitude should be high. Let’s see if it works. Yeah, I know. Let’s see if it works. Because it could work. Yeah, because it could work. No, no. You’re traitorous pessimist. It could work. This is what we’re arguing about on Twitter, all these people with American flags and their names are saying the media are hoping chloroquine doesn’t work. Tucker Carlson, a man with an American flag implied in his name, said this about the media because the president was hopeful the press was the opposite of that.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S8: Basically, they opposed finding a cure for the Corona virus because they feared it might give the president some political advantage.

S9: Yes. Yes. So true, it was a member of the media can tell you how many times I’ve had conversations with my fellow saying, hey, do you want there to be a corona cure or not? I mean, a lot of people will be saved. But it could help Trump. Yeah, I think we got to let all those people die. But wait a minute. Say all us members of the press to each other. But what if some of the people who die would one day have gone on to get an abortion? Wouldn’t that be sad to lose the future abortion getters? Because, you know, they’re the real heroes to which everyone else in the media says, I don’t know. It’s so hard to tell without clear instructions from George Soros. Look, obviously, Tucker gets it stipulated, but at the risk of saying something that deep in his heart of hearts, he knows no one is hoping chloroquine doesn’t work. Anthony Foushee hopes it works. John Berman hopes it works. John Berman’s vertically arrayed horse configuration. They all hope it works. The tiger in the Bronx Zoo hopes it works. The most erudite minds in science, hope it works the least. Educated, unsophisticated people on Twitter.

Advertisement
Advertisement

S7: Hope it works. I call those people the hope. Hicks o hope. Hicks hopes it works. Pink. Chris Cuomo. Andrew Cuomo. The descendants of Perry Cuomo. They all hope it works. But if it doesn’t, I also hope that we have a backup plan. I can hope both those things at once.

S9: On the show today, a spiel about tigers. Save the tiger, the later the tiger. Why not both? But first, let’s check in on a topic that we. I have left unexplored for some time now. When we last left the Democratic primary, Joe Biden had all but sewn it up. He’s maybe even a little closer to the phrase presumed nominee. The promise of the youthquake that Bernie Sanders needed did not materialize. Now, back then, there’s a couple weeks ago I talked to Charlotte Alter of Time magazine, who had been reporting on younger voters to figure out what happened. Her book, The Ones We’ve Been Waiting For, is about the youth, the Utes. And our conversation, which, as I said, was held a couple of weeks ago but was preserved in amber, is still quite relevant and well-observed. And here it is for you now.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S1: All my life, I’ve been promised two things. One. Soccer is going to be the sport of the future. And two, that kids are going to overtake politics. And they didn’t mean one has totally happened, but they both happened a little bit. You know about soccer. I don’t have to tell you about that. Here’s where we are with younger voters. They’re consistently liberal. They’re more active than they ever have been before. But I do find that the predictions of their transformative power have often crashed upon the rocky shoals of reality right before me. I have a list of all the vote of the 18 to 29 year olds in midterms. In 2006, 60 percent went Democrat. In 2010, 55 percent went Democrat. In 2014, 54 percent went Democrat. Now, you know, in 2018, there is a huge youth movement. But all this time they’ve been telling me all the kids are going Democrat and are going liberal. Added to this analysis of this generation is, I think the best book that I’ve read, because it is deeply reported. It has all the statistics that you’d want. And it has profiles again, reported. You can’t beat reported. It has profiles of some of the biggest, most important political figures of the younger generation. Name of the book is the ones we’ve Been Waiting For. How a New Generation of Leaders Will Transform America. The author is Charlotte Alter. Charlotte’s here with me now. Thanks for coming in. Thanks so much for having me. So this book this book is great. And again, reported. It’s deeply reported. It’s not just assertions and manifestos and angry hands in the air. And you will also say where there’s been a lot of predictions, sometimes it doesn’t always match up right. Where there is always this idea that the youth movement’s coming and then often it doesn’t. And you analyze that and acknowledge it. Right. Right.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S10: I mean, in some ways, I think that, you know, there’s like a couple ways to look at this. One way to look at it is that kids will vote this way. Young people will do it as young people will do that. There’s no way to say what will happen. What we can say is that today’s young people are tomorrow’s middle aged people in less the virus, really, unless the virus, you know, actually coronavirus might be threatening that. But like that is, I think, a pretty safe assumption that the people who are in their 70s and 80s who are in charge of things now. Yes. Won’t be in charge forever. Right. And that. People who are in their 20s and 30s who are just now beginning to to grasp at political power, are going to have more influence on the future than the people who are in their 70s and 80s right now. Yes. And so that’s the premise of this book, is that by looking at these people who are the young up and comers, it’s not necessarily about the youth vote more broadly, because, as you rightly said, it’s unpredictable. You know what has happened with Bernie Sanders and on Super Tuesday.

Advertisement

S1: But well, the biggest thing that’s the most fascinating thing. He was right and he was wrong. He did rate with the youth vote. He predicted he’d set records with the youth vote. And absolutely, he crushed Biden with the youth vote and everyone else. However, the youth vote, as always, the smallest portion of the electorate and then never changes. Yeah.

S11: I mean, there have been some moments where it’s changed. I mean, Obama drove out young people to a tremendous degree in the 2018 midterms. There was record youth turnout. Yes. In the general election. Important to know that in the general election, which is different from a primary, I think a primary can be really especially hard for young voters because it’s like confusing. Remember, like these are oftentimes young voters or first time voters. Right. Yes. Which means they have to figure out all the stuff about where they live. You know, like when people are confused about why young people don’t vote, I like to explain all the ways that it’s like actually logistically pretty hard for a young person to vote, probably by design, probably by me, not his homeowners and taxpayers.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S1: And the government serves. And you send a notice to someone who’s been living in their home for years and they know where their polling places for years.

S12: Yeah. Because they’ve I know he gets contacted. Right. Exactly. Whereas young people like look at the living patterns. Right. A lot of people are renting apartments, they’re subletting and they live in three different apartments in two years. And maybe they’re getting their mail to, you know, their last apartment and not their new apartment. Right.

S1: Martin, all different states have different rules about when you can qualify as an in-state voter or vote absentee. Yeah, not as easy.

S12: Right. And and all this stuff. I mean, think about how much of our voting system is based on mail. Hmm. Right. Yeah. Like, you know, you get you have to register with your mailing address. You have to present pieces of mail to, you know, prove where you live. All this stuff is like this is a generation that does not understand the post office.

Advertisement

S1: They literally have never licked a stamp.

S12: Literally, you have maybe lift looked like two stamps in their life. So, you know, that is something that is like it’s it’s just like confusing for a lot of young. I’m not saying it’s an excuse. Right. Definitely. They should get over it. But but it’s like one reason why they’re so unreliable.

S1: So the other thing is, I’m not a huge believer in the idea of generations as distinct cohorts. I think that it’s a little more accurate than horoscopes, but it’s a little less accurate than science, because I think that once you norm for like a couple of really big things like familiarity with technology and the actual economic circumstances that you entered the workplace, that pretty much explains everything about a generation, I would think explains 90 percent about a generation. Then again, maybe I’m saying I do believe in generations. I just defined it as familiarity with technology and their economic circumstances. But here’s the question. So to private to as high profile, highest profile people in the book are Pete Bhuta Jejoen AOC, very different politics, very different styles. But also I think importantly booted born eighty-two AOC born eighty nine. Aren’t they as dissimilar as similar just based on that seven year gap as much as anything else.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S10: So I mean yeah. In that like you could say that people to judge born 1982 might, you know, be as distant as somebody born in, you know, 1974.

S11: Yeah. So. Yeah. I mean like definitely this isn’t as you said before, it’s an inexact science is even not the right word. What the theory of generations tells us is not really that it’s about being, you know, young or old or who your parents are or who your grandparents are. It’s about how old were you at a particular point in time? It’s the study of people moving through time. And what some, you know, pretty reputable political and social scientists have found is that events experienced in early adulthood have roughly like three times the impact of events experienced in later adulthood. So, for example, let’s take the climate strikes. RATCH just happened last year, right? If you are 19 years old, those climate strikes might seem like a huge moment for you, like a huge political galvanizing moment for you. If you’re in your 50s and 60s, you’ve seen a bunch of strikes, you’ve seen a bunch of protests.

S12: It might not be it’s like out great. More people in the streets. No big deal. Right. You know, you know, those climate protests are going to have a bigger impact on that 19 year old kid who’s going to remember that for decades and and maybe vote based on the politics that were informed by experiencing that event more than somebody who kind of walked by it on their way to work one day.

S10: I’ve seen a million of these. Who cares, right?

S13: So you interviewed AOC after she had been elected and was already a phenomenon. You got to boot a judge pretty early. Yeah. I don’t want to just focus on that. But there is something interesting to me there in that their communication styles are a little bit different. And AOC is primarily. She’s great at social media, although, you know, good at TV and public speaking, whereas booted judges. Okay. Great at social media, but really great at public speaking. So Bridget is better at the older style and AOC is better at the newer style. And it probably that probably says something about who they are appealing to. Yeah. Or does it say something about who they want to appeal to and who they put their emphasis on appealing to.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S10: I mean I think it says something about both of those things, but I also just think it says something about their fundamental approaches to the system. I mean, AOC is an activist. Yes. Who happens to be elected to Congress. Right. She approaches politics through the realm of changing the frame of the debate and then the laws and the votes will follow. You know, changing hearts and minds with, you know, whipping people up into hope and anger so that, you know, they demand more of their leaders. Right. Like that’s her theory of change. He is a much more kind of traditional Obama style pragmatist or sort of pragmatic idealist in some ways, like he thinks. And and remember, he’s a mayor. So he’s used to small, concrete, tangible. When. Yes. Yeah. He’s not really he’s not an ideologue. And that’s something that I think people misunderstand about, Pete. A lot of people who see politics only through the lens of ideology hate people to judge because they’re like, what do you believe? We don’t know what your beliefs are, Lalah. He is not ideological. He fundamentally doesn’t see things in a way, you know, I am to the left. Therefore, what is what is the farthest right revolution to the left? He’s like a total pragmatist, which a lot of people see as like a sellout thing. But that’s just kind of how he sees problems because he’s forged his political career in South Bend when he had to be like, okay, we need a new community center on the west side of the city. Like, how do we take it from not existing to existing as quickly and as efficiently as possible?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S13: Now, personally and maybe it’s a function of my age, my generation, or just how I’ve been paying attention. It seems to me that the IOC way or theory of change, if I were an activist, I’d have to subscribe to that theory of change, because the only way to get change. But I don’t really think that’s how change occurs. I think change occurs more like, as Barack Obama explained, steering the aircraft carrier to degrees at a time and then you eventually get there. And he was using that analogy terms of gay marriage, but it could have been a lot of other things. So if you look at how society has changed, it has been by, you know, getting down, rolling up our sleeves, saying the cliches and doing the work. But is it generational? Does the younger generation does the millennial generation believe actually in gradual change or do they subscribe to the AOC theory of change? Big swings. Let’s all get active and then we’ll get the actual government policies to change based on our passions and to add to that. It does seem like that theory of change is born of social media and the idea that while 12 people in a room, what can they do but thousands of people clicking likes. Oh, that’s the thing with meaning.

S12: I think to answer your question, it’s basically a little bit of both. And in some ways, what this book is about is the dance between those two theories of change. Right. Because that’s I think what’s going to define this generation is, is that the people working outside the system, the people, the AOSIS of the world, are gonna have to run for Congress and get to work a little bit inside the system in order to get what they want done, done. You know, that’s the difference between, frankly, an Occupy protester and Alexandria Castillo Cortez. They both have a really similar analysis of what’s wrong with American government and what’s wrong with money and politics. The difference is that somebody at Occupy was, you know, protesting in the streets and AOC ran for Congress.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S1: And now, as you know, of voting House member also Occupy was they denigrated the idea of demands. They laughed like that was the biggest joke. I any real activists will tell you. You have to tell them your demands or you’ll never get them right now. I don’t even know if who’s from conceiving of this book till now. But there’s another big change. I don’t even know if you noticed it, but there’s so many references to Facebook working really well about five years ago so that mayor of Ithaka turns his parking spot that he didn’t need because his millennial millennials don’t have gone into like this public park the size of a parking spot, EW.com and chat with the mayor. But it was all the message got out on Facebook. Right. There are like four or five references to when Facebook wasn’t a for a destructive force. And so I wonder if, you know, the the version of this book or when the paperback comes out, if there is. And then social media turned against the millennials just like every other institution did also.

S12: Well, yeah, I mean, I think that that’s certainly a part of it. But I would say that the failure of social media. The reason it’s been such a destructive force has a lot to do with the failure of older politicians to regulate it well, because they just don’t fundamentally understand it. So there’s a whole chapter in this book called Senator We Run Ads. Yeah, because that’s what because that’s what Mark Zuckerberg said to the like, you know, septuagenarians who he was testifying in front of in the Senate who literally had no idea how Facebook worked and what the business model was.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S1: And how does Facebook make money. Exactly right. Or when they had. Who was it from? Was it from Google? And Steve King was asking them on the iPhone. Exactly. This pops up. Yeah, like my phone.

S12: Like what? What? This app. What you let my daughter don’t like the iPhone. Exactly. So, like I I would argue that in some ways, you know, the fact that Facebook has been able to get out of control in the way that it has is because tech regulations are run by people who were, you know, already eligible for Social Security when when Facebook was invented. And, you know, you’re right that probably I will update this in a in a paperback version of this book. But one I think big moment was the difference between Alexandria Ocasio Cortez cross-examining Mark Zuckerberg vs., you know, a Chuck Grassley or Steve King or Lindsey Graham asking crêpe questions to Mark Zuckerberg is a huge difference. So I think that when you have more millennials who are sitting on the other side of that table asking the tough questions, knowing the capabilities of these huge social networks, you’re going to see a lot tougher regulation.

S1: Well, Chuck Kress has a bedtime of, I think, 7:30. Yeah, well, he’s older than the chocolate chip cookie. Really? Yeah. So as I said, as I said on the way in, on the way out, I’ll say it again. And maybe from this chat, our listener has got the idea. This is mostly about ideas. It’s actually mostly about people and very expertly like documentary, like Spellbound or even cheer. It’s organized around an event. It culminates it’s the election of 2016 and all these disparate characters crest and they all have to react to that election. It’s really well done, really well researched. Thanks for coming on, Charlotte. Alter, author of The Ones We’ve Been Waiting For How a New Generation of Leaders Will Transform America. Thank you, Charlotte. Thank you so much for having me. This was so fun. That was great.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S4: And now the schpiel. Tigers. Tigers in the news.

S9: There’s a Tiger King documentary that I’ve refused to see, even though my producer tells me not seeing Tiger King is not a personality, Mike. Okay. What if I aggressively call it the Tiger King? Have you seen the Tiger King? How about the Tiger Kings? That little bit more of a personality. Also, Tiger Gray. Detroit Tiger. Great, that is alkaline has died. Are you like me when someone dies these days? Someone famous. Do you immediately start scanning? The article was a corona was a corona was a corona. But it’s really all I care about. I need to know which section of the newspaper to put it in the corona or just the regular obit section. Normally I’d care if Alkaline died. It was a great baseball player. I read a little bit about him, but if he died of Corona, it means something else. If it’s not Corona and I read the obituary of, say, 72 year old former Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn. And it’s not Corona. I’m not saying I’m disappointed. I’m just saying it’s a little less relevant and less deserving to be in the news section. But if Bill Withers dies of Corona and he did die of Corona, I think C what does that say? A C? See what like an 81 year old couldn’t have died of something other than Corona or C? It really does kill 81 year olds, which we knew. I don’t know why I think C, but I do think C don’t really need examples. Sorry for Bill Withers that he was one, but I guess it more fits in with my narrative. Now here’s something that didn’t necessarily fit in with my narrative. That’s why it’s news. That’s why it’s interesting. Nadia, a 4 year old female Malay and Tiger at the Bronx Zoo has tested positive for Corona virus. So it turns out that Nadia had been on spring break with Pink and Kevin Durant haha. This is what happens. This is why we told the scientists to close the beaches. The head veterinarian at the Bronx Zoo said the tiger should recover. I hope so. She’ll have to make amends for her actions because the day before the diagnosis she took questions from the media, then licked all the microphones afterwards. Not of the tiger did apologize. I think I have a clip of the tiger apologizing for all that I haven’t done.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S14: I am so sorry.

S9: Sorry, wrong, tiger. You know, I had this item on my desktop for years and years, something that I wanted to one day get to, I do this sometimes it was labeled Tiger News and I remember I had it. I don’t even remember what the news was. And I clicked it open thinking about this poor tiger at the zoo and alkaline. And there was a story from 2010 and it was just laying there on my desk, actually, in my desktop was my computer desktop that I’m talking about. And I’m gonna talk about it now because I can’t wait another 10 years. Here is that story from The Guardian. The world’s first Tiger summit wrapped up today with lingering concerns about the fate of the endangered predator. The high profile conservation conference called by Russian President Vladimir Putin and World Bank President Robert Zoellick mobilise political, financial and celebrity support behind the goal of doubling the number of wild tigers by 2020 to celebrities, including film star Leonardo DiCaprio, who pledged a million of his own money. And supermodel Naomi Campbell rubbed shoulders with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and leading conservationists. I know you here rub shoulders these days and you deeply inhale because of social distancing. But remember, remember, it was 2010. This article goes on or went on past tense or to honor Leo, I guess we should say. The article goes on. The heart will go on anyway. Here’s what it says. Despite donor pledges of almost $330 million aimed at making V great cat worth more alive than dead. Yep, that’s true. Because there’s a black market for tiger bones and tiger hides and yeah, tiger penises. That’s a surprise. Your Frosted Flakes, huh? But look at the math. Back then, the global wild tiger population was listed at 3000 tigers and 330 million divided by 3000 tigers. Means that every tiger is worth a little over a hundred thousand dollars. I mean, back when the article was written, hopefully the Tigers invested wisely. But hunted tigers, black market tigers, their hides and penises didn’t go for a hundred thousand dollars. I don’t understand how tigers with that kind of value were being poached. I say there should be some sort of tiger, a sovereign wealth fund. I mean, who would kill a tiger if you knew he was that valuable and also friends with Leonardo DiCaprio or had the protection of Vladimir Putin? I would think that that would be a big disincentive if Putin was really serious about protecting the Tigers. I think Putin could protect the Tigers. And the article, as I said, said the goal was doubling the population by 2022. It’s good to read articles with lofty goals that are far in the future. If you wait a decade to read them because you could judge the progress and they didn’t make it. There are now about, they say, about 4000 tigers in the wild. Why did it fail? Well. The article also talked about working through the Global Tiger Initiative at the World Bank. When I clicked on the link, there was a link in the article to Global Tiger Initiative. It did take me to a Web site called Global Tiger Initiative, dawg. But the entirety of the Web page was a link to an Australian online gambling site. I do not see how that is going to save the Tigers. And now with poor knottiest sic up there in the Bronx, it is a tough time for the Tigers for all of Tiger Adam. It is nothing to purr about. Actually, did you know this? Tigers don’t purr. They chuff. Do you know what chuffing sounds like? I have a sound file here somewhere. OK. Here is what Tiger sounds like.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S1: I have a lot to atone for again.

S9: Wrong, Tiger. All right. I will play an actual tiger chuff right here. That’s some good chuffing. But as I said, a tough week for the tiger. Nadia, get well soon. Hesh has a care. She’s Tiger alkaline rest in peace. He doesn’t care is dead. Tiger Woods. Sorry the Masters had been moved to November. He doesn’t care. He’s rich. Robert Zellick can’t get a handle on the World Bank’s hold. You are Rell’s. He doesn’t carry left the World Bank in 2012. I guess these days we’re also concentrating on saving ourselves that no one’s concentrated on saving the tiger or all the other things that used to be good uses of our time and resources. And I still think it’s good to pay attention to some issues that aren’t the immediate issue. The one issue. It’s a good reminder that the problems of the world haven’t stopped because of the pandemic and that there will still be lots of work to do once the virus is behind us. Now you might think, oh my God, that’s depressing, that’s daunting, that’s pessimistic, but I don’t think so. I kind of think that once we’ve been up against and hopefully through this worldwide scourge, that the rest of the problems in the world and the wildlife they’re in won’t maybe, I hope won’t seem quite as impossible and insurmountable as they once did.

S15: And that’s it for today’s show. Priscilla Lobby is the justs associate producer. Her favorite Tiger is Shulman. It builds confidence and offers a greater robock workout. Margaret Kelly is the newest addition to the Gist staff. Her favorite Tiger is Tiger Williams, member of the Toronto Maple Leafs. He’s the NHL career leader in penalty minutes, meaning he was both wild but often in captivity. Just producer Daniel Schrader’s favorite Tiger is flying Tiger. Copenhagen for their broad array of items that sell for only two or three dollars, but are clearly worth like two seventy five or 350. The gist our favorite tiger is tiger bomb are the soothing relief of Tiger Balm, menthol and camphor so much better than rival brands ocelot ointment and leopard liniment tiger bomb. Get it wherever weird smelling lubrication is dispensed. ROOM for a desperate new brew. And thanks for listening.

S16: Bom bom bom bom bom bom bom bom bom bom bom.

S17: It’s the.