It’s Tough to Like the Post Office

Listen to this episode

S1: The following podcast may be a little dirty, but forget about that. Going to tell you to go to our Twitter feed at Slate, just dot com. It’s Wednesday, May twenty seventh, twenty twenty from slated to the gist, I’m Mike Pesca. In a statement as relayed on CNBC, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared The end of Hong Kong is anything other than just another part of China.

S2: Secretary Mike Pompeii’s said that no reasonable person can assert today that Hong Kong maintains a high degree of autonomy from China, given the facts on the ground.

Advertisement

S1: I don’t know if Mike Pompeo is qualified to be secretary of state, but with that statement, he is now qualified to be general manager of the Houston Rockets. That’s really all the NBA ever wanted to hear. Now, I’m not saying Mike Pompei would want to be the GM of the rockets, for one thing. It’d be pretty hard to get James Harden to walk your dog. And unless you convince Russell Westbrook that a dry, clean run, a dog walk and making dinner reservations for Mike and Susan counts as a triple double. He’s not biting either. But what the statement actually does, it seems, isn’t to give up the fight on Hong Kong, but it allows the U.S. to engage more forcefully, perhaps by certifying that Hong Kong isn’t free. It strips Hong Kong of beneficial trade status and also triggers the possibility of sanctions. The internal politics is that Trump likes to wheel and deal and prize his personal relationships above coherent policy. So he’s been hesitant to really go after his so-called good friend, President Xi. On the other hand, he did engage in a tariff war, which he said would be easy to win, which by all economic measures, he lost or he didn’t lose. We all lost. Pompeo, in contrast, has shown a willingness to at least be consistent on hawkish and Sino antagonistic U.S. policy in the past. He has sometimes sidestepped the president, especially in cases like North Korea. But there’s a lot of debate if sanctions would be smart strategy for the United States. It turns out that Donald Trump. I mean, he may very well be the case that Trump’s dissolute petty ego stroking might result in a more beneficial policy than Mike Pompeo is clear, unassailably true, intellectually consistent declaration as mandated by law that Hong Kong is no longer the Hong Kong that we once knew and that we hoped it could be, but that to enforce it via sanctions might be worse. Government policy. Probably the best thing would be to let the tensions cool a little bit. And for the U.S. to do what it can do to get China to realize that it’s in its own interests, not to totally crack down on Hong Kong because that would threaten Hong Kong status as an economic hub. Of course, to do so would require disciplined communication strategies.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S3: Diplomacy, subtlety, and just generally not lashing out in a fit of pique actions that the U.S. government used to be able to achieve, acts that to Donald Trump are like snakes to a mongoose. Stay tuned, as Mike Pompeo rues the day he gave up Clint Capela in a trade to Atlanta on the show today a page out of my personal files. You know I don’t like to get too personal but I’m going to do it now as relates to a quasi government office. Yeah I know close to the bone.

S1: I call it the post office. American Horror Story. But first, Korona deaths have officially passed 100000. An emergency physician, Dr. Leana Wen, was on Twitter today making some points about what we’ve learned. She says, quote, We were working to get to containment in the U.S. Social distancing worked here to Americans. Should be proud of what we did to flatten the curve. Unfortunately, we gave up too soon. We reopened without hitting key metrics. We didn’t use the time to ramp public health infrastructure. As a result, we gave up trying to contain the virus and instead have switched to a strategy of harm reduction. When the former health commissioner of the city of Baltimore went on to say, we pay a price when we ignore science. So let us not ignore it. In fact, let us talk to Leana Wen up next.

Advertisement

S4: So in our ongoing effort here on the just to d’Arvor, very smart people who know a lot about things like medicine, viruses, epidemiology and Baltimore. OK, that’s a little wildcard, but it’s applicable to my next guest.

S3: I have invited on the very learned Dr. Leana Wen, who’s an emergency physician and a professor at George Washington, and she contributes columns to The Washington Post. And she was once Baltimore’s Health Commissioner Price Center, a lot on CNN and places saying wise things about the coronavirus. Now she’s here. Welcome. Thanks for joining us again, Dr. Wen.

Advertisement
Advertisement

S5: Thank you very much. Mike, it’s a pleasure to join you.

S3: The last column you wrote for The Washington Post was about harm reduction. And I had an insight that I want to ask you about. But first, can you spell out what we mean by harm reduction and why you think that that’s what we’ve, I’m going to say, stumbled into?

Advertisement

S2: Yeah, that’s a good way of putting it, Mike. Because I don’t think that any of us at the outset of this pandemic would have wanted to do harm reduction. Actually, what we were trying to do all along was containment, ideally at the beginning of this outbreak. We would have been able to identify every new case by aggressively testing and finding these cases and then doing contact tracing to figure out who these people are exposed to during the time that they are potentially infectious. And then also isolating, quarantining those individuals. So you’re able to stop the virus in its tracks before it has a chance to spread throughout the communities. But unfortunately, we have not been able to do that. So then we had to resort to these pretty aggressive measures of these shelter in place, stay at home. Orders are really aggressive. They were necessary by that point, but that’s what we call a blunt instrument. That’s not ideal for trying to contain the virus, though. We did that because we had to we needed to reduce the case numbers, not overwhelm our health system and give us the opportunity to rebuild our public health infrastructure and get that testing, contact tracing, isolation in place again. Well, we were doing that. We were well on our way, actually, to getting somewhere because of our really tremendous sacrifices that people have made. But unfortunately, we have essentially given up on that strategy by reopening too early, by reopening without having those other measures, these other capabilities in place. We’re essentially saying this is too hard. We’re not going to do it anymore. We know what we need to do to be safe, but we’re not going to do it. And instead, what we have is this default strategy, as you said, like we’re stumbling into, which is of harm reduction. And the idea is that if we are going to be engaging in risky practices, then we have to reduce that risk as much as possible. But really, ideally, we should not be here. It’s a tragedy, in fact, that we are here. It’s like, as someone said about this, Andy Slavitt, I think, made this analogy that real boulder uphill and it’s gone halfway. And now we’re saying we give up. Let’s just have it come back down. I’m afraid that the sacrifices people have made will be in vain. But at this point, the best we can do to reduce the harm to one another is harm reduction.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S4: But I wonder, let’s take that Boulder analogy. I wonder if the task wasn’t Sisyphean, meaning that it was doomed to roll back down. And what I mean by that is this I’ve read in many places, ProPublica, New York Times, others that reported. It seems unlikely to me that we really could have contained the virus, especially travelers in New York, maybe from cruise ships in off the coast of Washington. That was possible. But we know now that people had corona virus in the community long before we ever thought they did. And people, even Dr. Berk’s and Dr. Foushee were saying in February, things along the line of the panic could be worse than the cure at the exact time when there were people with corona virus inside the country. Now, maybe some states could contain. I just wonder if we could really have contained it because we would have had to been on it earlier than we thought that it existed.

Advertisement

S2: It’s a good point. And I actually think that we can look back at that period in early February and say, look, there were a lot of other factors. A lot of things were outside of our control and we just didn’t know this was a new virus. There are a lot of different factors at hand and hindsight is 20/20. We couldn’t have predicted how easily transmittable this disease will be. We didn’t know about asymptomatic transmission at that time. We also didn’t know how widespread across the world that it was by then. And so maybe we couldn’t have contained it at the very beginning, but then we had the opportunity to do it. And I think this is what bothers me the most. We definitely knew by early March about the importance of testing and we’ve had now two and half months to bolster our testing capacity. We’ve known for two and half months at least about the importance of contact tracing, the fact that we need probably at least. Hundred thousand, if not more contact tracers. We’ve known about what’s needed in order to contain the virus. We did these again, these very aggressive social distancing measures, that blunt instrument. We applied it in order to go back to the containment phase. We wanted to get the cases low enough to get back to containment. Other countries have been able to do that. Other countries have been successful in doing them. But we have failed. And now we’re just admitting that this is no longer a strategy that we can pursue, not because we’re not able to, but because we don’t have a national coordinated effort the way that other countries have. And I think that is forever going to be the stain on this government, this administration.

S4: Well, we’re admitting it by our actions will never admit it by our words. The rhetoric is one of we’re already triumphing. But to put that aside for a second, I talked to a lot of people who listen to the show and who disagree with me. And I along with you on how seriously we should take this and if some states are opening too early and too haphazardly. But what they say is this, that when we were sold on the idea of flattening the curve, it wasn’t crushing the curve. It was flattening the curve, buying us some time. And what that would do would be to reduce the influx of hospitals so that everyone could have a ventilator. And they point out, you know, no one died for lack of a ventilator. And it essentially worked that there wasn’t some huge spike that required. That’s what we did, flatten the curve. And they will say now you’re changing the terms, you’re moving the goalposts. And what you once described as a means of preventing hospital overrun is now being prescribed as the cure all for everything. Let’s just stay forever inside. I have I have some arguments with that. I don’t know that it’s necessarily an argument from the basis of, hey, we’re all trying to get through this together. And if some communication had to be oversimplified, we understand that. But what would you say to that argument that the flattening the curve was meant to do x X was achieved?

Advertisement

S2: Stop prescribing it first is that I would contest the argument that no one died because of our actions. I actually don’t think that’s true. I mean, when we look at the number of even of health care workers for infected, we’re talking about at least 10000 healthcare workers who were infected with Koven 19. And arguably many of those infections could have been prevented if we had proper PPE. And one could also argue, when we look at the excess deaths, the escalating numbers of deaths, we also know that early social distancing applied consistently and aggressively save lives. And so if we had done even more earlier, we could have saved even more lives. Now, I don’t disagree with you, of course, that the goal is not to keep the economy shut forever. I mean, we all actually want the same thing. We all want to reopen safely. And the question is, how can we do this? I mean, at this point, we don’t have those corm capabilities in place. And this tragedy, again, is we were not that far from getting there. I’m not saying that we need to get to zero cases by the time that we reopen. The gating criteria that the White House rotavirus task force came up with was a steady decline over 14 days. That’s not saying zero cases or crushing the curve entirely. That’s saying that we need to get this virus under enough control, that we’re able to identify spikes as they occur. And that way, if we have those types of early warning systems in place, then we can prevent the hospitals from being overrun again because we are not out of the woods yet. We could well see the New York style outbreaks occurring in multiple communities around the country. We could well run out of ventilators in other parts of the country and all at once in a way that would make this infection really not only difficult to control, but we could run into those awful scenarios of individuals having to fight over ventilators and doctors and nurses being faced with that excruciating decision, including in parts of the country that don’t have a robust healthcare infrastructure, as New York does. So we’re not anywhere out of the woods. And the importance of keeping that close I’m is actually for this purpose to not have the curve just escalate and end and have us be in the same situation that we were back in March.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S4: Are any states or any portions of states opening in a proper manner in your assessment?

S2: I think that the regional arrangements that have been made by states in the Northeast, the work that’s been done in Maryland, that has been done in California, Oregon, Washington, I mean, there are examples of states that are at least trying to do the best they can with balancing these various needs. But I also think one of the failures thus far continues to be with the federal government’s response in the last couple of days. We’ve seen the release of these CDC guidelines, the detailed CDC guidelines around reopening. Why is it so late? I mean, states have already reopened, businesses have already decided to reopen, various states and counties have already made their decisions about what can reopen and what the guidelines are. I mean, I’m glad that the CDC finally has put out their guidelines, but it’s late. It’s piecemeal. It’s also not as specific and direct as we’re used to getting from the CDC. And so I think that there just are a number of things that we really rely on the federal government to do. And I speak as a former local health official. There’s a lot that we need the local folks to do, too. And in fact, local control and direction is a good thing. But we also need federal guidance, especially in times of a pandemic.

Advertisement

S3: So I want to go back to Georgia just to nail you down a little bit on some numbers. So the seven day moving average of deaths touched 40. There were it on April 22nd, about a week earlier. It was the record high, 53 deaths in one day in that state. And we understand that sometimes there’s a data lag and sometimes the reporting isn’t 100 percent accurate, but there is this moving average. So it was an it was at almost 40 in the last week of April. And then they open, then open all at once and then it open everything. But they have been moving towards more and more opening. And as they’ve done so, that seven day moving average, it was in the 20s, was in the teens. And now, you know, it’s at seven or so, which isn’t to say it can’t come back. But if it doesn’t come back, if I talk to you in a month or so, is that enough time to make the assessment and will we make the assessment? OK. This wasn’t the Euge rebound horrific rebound we had feared.

Advertisement
Advertisement

S2: I mean, I think if the situation that you outlined is the case, there probably is a seasonal effect. If there is going to be a seasonal effect, we’re going to see the seasonal affect the other way around, too, that there could be a resurgence, the fall that will coincide with flu season, and you get the double whammy of the flu and a resurgence of covered. And I think what we’ve seen all along is that we as a country and as individuals have not been good about anticipating what’s ahead. We’ve been responding to what’s in front of us, but we have not been anticipating. And so I don’t want for people to look at data in a month’s time and say, well, this is covered isn’t so much of a problem. We overreacted all along and now we’re not going to prepare for the surge in the fall. I think that’s actually what all of us should be getting ready for, for this possible, very likely double whammy situation. We should be getting the PPE. We should be getting more ventilator’s. We should be ensuring that we don’t have supply chain issues for medications that we could be running out of. We should be protecting our health care workers. I mean, we should be doing all these things that we should have been doing all along. And I just really fear that there could be a level of complacency due to what happens.

S4: So you were Baltimore City Health Commissioner and when you held that job, I’m sure that you priced into whatever public advice you gave. First, you have to get the science and you have to figure out the right thing to do. And then you had to figure out the right thing to say. And of course, you knew that not everyone would literally hear it. And a small or a certain percentage of the people who heard your messaging wouldn’t respond. That’s something that epidemiologists and public health communicators all know. But did you ever anticipate this sort of act of disinformation measures targeting that position and essentially targeting truth and actively trying to rebut what you would consider to be the best message to save people’s lives? Is that something you ever priced in when you were doing that job?

Advertisement
Advertisement

S5: Yes and no, certainly not at the level that it’s at now. I do find the level of politicization of science to be really stunning. And, of course, harmful to health. But that isn’t something that’s new. While I was the health commissioner, I dealt with the anti vaccine movement. And I think that there is unfortunately a lack of understanding of life science. And when we can’t have the same basis for what is fact and what is fiction, if we don’t let science lead, we end up paying the consequences.

S4: That’s true. I would assume public health communicators job is hard enough for all the reasons I listed. It doesn’t make it just all but impossible that not only do you have noncompliance, but you have active malfeasance and, you know, disinformation campaigns attacking your science. That might go unheard even if there was no, you know, static getting in the way of the message and the people’s ears.

S2: So much of public health is about finding not only the right message, but also the right messenger. And a lot of our work in Baltimore, too, was understanding that our populations are extremely vulnerable.

S5: And some of them have a long history. Of being disenfranchised. Being lied to. Having real reasons to distrust a government and other institutions. And so we knew that, for example, if I were to talk about the importance of putting down your weapons and using words and not weapons, I mean, it just you know, if I were walking the streets of West Baltimore to ask people what to do to not shoot each other, I’m not the most credible messenger for that. I mean, we had a program called Safe Streets, which hired individuals far from the communities that they serve, people who are free before, often recently released from incarceration to do this because they are the most credible messengers. Similarly, we hired community health workers for from the communities that they serve to talk about safe sleep practices, to talk about the importance of testing for lead poisoning. They were much more effective messengers than someone from the government or even their own doctor might be. And so I think in this sense, what we’re talking about, misinformation about things like hydroxyl, chloroquine, I actually think it’s the same idea that for these individuals whom who are listening to this type of misinformation, they’re not going to listen to me. I can do my best. But actually, we really need people like President Trump, like the people he listens to on Fox News to actually be the ones to carry that water. They need to step up and talk about the best available public health information, because for millions of Americans out there, they are the most trusted messengers. And no matter what I and other public health experts are saying, they’re not gonna listen to us. They will listen to these people. And we really need them to step up during this time of an other pandemic.

Advertisement
Advertisement

S1: To Leana Wen as an emergency physician, she served as Baltimore’s health commissioner. She teaches public health at George Washington University and writes for The Washington Post. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mike.

S3: And now the spiel. The post office. You know it, you have associations with it. It was once synonymous with boredom. Also a somewhat crude means of tracking highly dangerous criminals. Perhaps you think of the post office when you think of a kissing game from junior high school that some parties weren’t invited to. Also, it’s associated with mass workplace slayings, which I’ve got to say they’ve linked. So it’s not like the post office is unknown or associations that we have with it are newly invented. And yet there is a move to redefine the post office in a somewhat more heroic light.

S6: The Postal Service has a rich and storied history. It actually predates the founding of this country and it has an obligation to bring mail to every single household, even transporting it to the bottom of the Grand Canyon by mule. That was John Oliver. This is Elizabeth Warren.

S5: The Postal Service is one of our country’s greatest accomplishments.

S3: You know what? I’d be right there with them. I like my mail carrier. I like the idea of everyone paying the same price to mail a letter. I like the idea of the interconnectedness of our country as mandated in the Constitution. The only complicating factor in this reverie is one small thing, and it’s this. I’ve actually been to the post office and man, does it suck. So today, maybe you heard in the New York Times podcast, The Daily, they interviewed a mail carrier, great twant for radio, and he was asked to conjure his earliest post office experience when I was growing up and roll, they began on a course.

Advertisement
Advertisement

S7: Then they were all the video games and computers and everything. We were in the yard with balls and buyouts and the summers when we would be home from school, you know, we would be out the mail carrier that came through. You know, we were always right there, the same. And he said, give me a little piece of candy or a piece of bubble gum or something that we don’t do now.

S3: That was his first memory of the post office. It was simply rock wellin. Here now is my most recent experience. It was Hopsin, so it was my son’s birthday. It was coming up and its grandmother sent him a package. She’s far away. She’s in Nevada. She can’t see her grandson. She wants her grandson to love the present because really I realize it’s more than a present. It’s connection, a wanted connection between grandma and grandson, a less wanted connection between mother and son. I’m the son because mom would call every day and say, I sent it. We’re tracking it. D.C., where it is. Do you see where it is now? Here’s the tracking update. OK. It’s close. I understand, Rob. Very, very excited. It is a loving gesture. But the daily blow by blow. I get it. It reminds me a little of this still common proclamation. It’s my go on the phone and he’s calling long distance, but it’s family. You can’t opt out of status alerts. There is no toggle switch for that. So I thank her for the updates. My girlfriend, Michelle, thanks for the updates. Thanks. Thanks so much, Neila. Until the updates start trending towards the disappointing. They said they tried to deliver it. They said they couldn’t deliver it. They said access to your mailbox or driveway was blocked. What now? They say it’s at a post office and you have to go to the post office. OK. We’ll go to the post office. Did you go yet? No, not yet. It’s hard to get there during the working day. Did you go yet? No. I know we have to go. It’s just that. Well, I got to be honest, I’m not eager to wait on the line indoors during a pandemic, especially for this gift, which I wasn’t informed of the exact contents. But in a bid to temper what my mom assumed would be my sky high enthusiasm, she informed Michelle that her grandson is, quote, probably not going to like it anyway. This is called expectations management. It is an oft used tactic. And I have to say it never works. It doesn’t work before a debate when Marco Rubio’s advisers say, oh, he’s not going to do as well as Jeb Bush. It doesn’t work when grandma tells you that there’s a package at a government facility open at inconvenient workday hours. And I got to tell you, it almost never works. It almost never works for product launches. It almost never works when Marco Rubio’s advisers use it before a debate. And it certainly doesn’t work when grandma tells you that there is a package at a government facility open at inconvenient workday hours that will probably be met with, at best, indifference. But we don’t know what the gift is because she said, quote, I don’t want to ruin the surprise. So a few weeks ago, there was a slate mandated day off and we knew we had our opening. We’re gonna go to the post office masks glove. Pure relin pocket. I get all the information down, we have the tracking number. I have the virtual receipt and I have time to make sure I have all my documentation in order, because when I get to the post office, there is a line. Well, not when I get to the post office, when I get outside the post office and down the block from the post office. It is a long line. Also, it is raining. Not so much that I’m drenched, but so much that I consider coming back when it’s dry. But then I figure it know if anything, the rain is probably suppressing others. This is going to be the quick shot. I have to go into the post office so the line winds as only a line or the occasional river can do. And now I’m inside the post office. But there’s still a line. There’s tape on the floor for spacing. That’s good. I tell the employee who’s in there who seems very nice that I’m here to pick up a package. I have a tracking number. She says, Do you have your license with an accurate address? Indeed I do. That was part of the instructions that the boy’s grandmother had debriefed me on extensively. So we wait some more inside and after about 50 minutes, I get to the window. Yes. Here’s my number. Yes. This is the package I’m here to pick up. And I have this idea. OK. She takes it all. She looks at the I.D. and is this the name on the package? And I say no. My name is Michael. This is addressed to my 13 year old son, Milo. Well, then Milo has to come pick it up. Sorry, Milo is twelve. Force of habit. He’s actually 13. And I do not want my 13 year old waiting on a 50 minute line at the post office during school hours. I just waited on this line. Sorry, he has to pick it up. I’m not bringing him back to pick it up. Then you’ll have to just bring his birth certificate. His what? His birth certificate. So I. I think quickly. Oh, well, actually, mom, when I said my love, you know, Milo’s a nickname for Michael. I assert I am lying. I’m lying to a federal official. I am. She both being a hard ass and a dumb ass. I believe she is. But I continue with this ploy maybe just to give us both enough plausible deniability. We both know it’s in everyone’s interest for me to be able to get out of here. Yeah. Yeah. You know, Mike, if it said Mike on the package, you’d give it to me. Michael. Well, to we. Greek people. If I’m lying when I invented ethnicity. Michael and Milo, same thing. No, sir. You have to bring back a birth certificate. It’s my initial my low first two letters. Same last name at your address, address on the license is the address on the package is the address in this tracking number, sir? Look, man, it’s a pandemic, sir. The line is long. Don’t you think for everyone’s health, it’s better if I or my son don’t clog up this line in the future. Sir, I’m trying to save. Ma’am, I am trying to save both our lives, sir. You need a birth certificate to pick up a package. Right. Right, right. Of course I do. Because the post offices legendaries standards of proof, because every time my mama drops off copies of a bed, bath and Beyond coupon, he does a spot check of all the I.D. in the house to make sure they only go to the appropriate parties. Literally two thirds of the mail I get is delivered to the house address to resident. I possess no birth certificate that says the word resident unless the Social Security Administration gave a number to someone who’s walking out there named current occupant. Pesca. There is no one who answers to that. My house either. I am not bringing a birth certificate back to you people is not what I said. What I said was, ma’am. I hear you’re trying to get an eighty nine billion dollar bailout. Good luck with that. I wasn’t trying to inconvenience or hurt her. I was trying to help her and to help me. To help all of us, to help everyone else who might further be on the line with us. I’ve seen stories detailing how postal workers are the first line of defense. John Oliver played one from a local FOX affiliate where they interviewed postal workers.

Advertisement
Advertisement

S6: I don’t want a contract to bring it back to my family. Do you feel like you’re at risk every time you go to work? Yes.

S8: And say that it’s not on the back of everybody’s mind. There is a joke about the office. Are we essentially are sacrificial lamb?

S3: I did not want to cloud the Postal Service up anymore, but they were intent on clogging me up at a time when they’re in danger of being shut down. And this is during a time when they might lose their funding, which is a threat to the ideals of letter delivery to say nothing of democracy itself. Right. Nancy Pelosi.

S8: Vote by mail. Is it Democratic? It gives people more options, given those obstacles and barriers to voting, which is what we want to do, voting by at home. Essential to it is a lively, thriving postal system.

S3: But this experience, which is so frustrating, standing in line haggling over ill conceived regulations. And that is why with Stamps.com, you could send packages anytime, anywhere they give you a free scale. Nothing to add. Just get it would not be great if this whole thing were some huge run up to an ad. It would be great and I’d be paid for the hassle. Now, what it is a huge run up to is a government agency that needs us. The public more than ever and yet is still intent on requiring birth certificates for 13 year olds who, quote, probably won’t even like their presence. I know the woman inside the post office was just following protocol. And I know the mail is usually important, but right now it’s actually vital in terms of mail in ballots. But you know what, the post offices competitors don’t have, quote unquote, protocol and post office antagonists in Congress don’t have much protocol. Come on, post office, it’s time to put on the charm offensive or at least the charm inoffensive.

Advertisement
Advertisement

S1: Just not whatever that was, sir. Little decency, a little common sense. So the story this whole story ends with me and Michelle telling my mom, sorry, we’re not going to be able to do it. I’m not going through that again. Maybe we could get a refund. And it turns out we could get a refund. And it turns out grandma sent a new gift via Amazon. And it turns out it got here with no problem at all. And it also turns out my son did like it. It was the Lego creator expert assembly square with Lego. You can make a whole downtown, a detective office, a Parisian cafe, a downtown diner. It’s super detailed and realistic. And as soon as he gets around to assembling it, I’m going to go in and rip out the post office.

S9: And that’s it for Today Show, Margaret Kelly is the associate producer of The Gist. She found it a bit onerous when she ordered chicken sandwich from a Popeyes and they would not release it without her giving a blood test. Oh, negative. It all checked out. Daniel Shrader, just producer, is wondering about the ninety five billion dollar DMV bailout and asks if we’ll get self-driving cars before we get an efficient Department of Motor Vehicles. The gist? Birth certificates at the post office. OK, I get it. But two factor authentication for redeeming your number at the deli. Hey, I just want half a pound of roast beef. You don’t need to know my mother’s maiden name. Pay Adepero to Peru. And thanks for listening.