S1: The following content could, in fact, be explicit, contain moments of explicit, reflexive, explicative sure trace elements of explication. Actually, that last one’s goal.
S2: It’s Friday, February 5th, 20 21 from Slate, it’s the gist. I’m Mike Pesca. Senators took the floor on Thursday morning, didn’t break for lunch and worked past dusk past dinner time, passed their usual postprandial cordials.
S3: And I don’t want to cut to the end of the whole shebang, called the voter Rama and ruin the drama. And I won’t because there really wasn’t that much drama. But the exercise was a legislative necessity to get to the step of actually voting on a covid relief bill. But it wasn’t the covid relief bill. So I will cut to the part where Bernie Sanders, somewhat of a hero of the night, somewhat of a hero of the vote, Rama, giving away the most impressive detail of the entire day or the entire day, night and next day.
S4: We now come to the end of a debate that has gone on for over 14 hours. Yes, 14 hours. There were 550 amendments offered and each one got two minutes of debate. So they were lucky to get out of there in just 14 hours. And what’s worse, one out of every hundred people in that room for those 14 hours was Ted Cruz.
S3: The senator from Texas did provide a brief moment of bipartisanship, however, when his fellow Republican, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, stood up to repay Cruz amendment that he said was a rip off of farmers in his state.
S5: Can you imagine the free market person that Senator Cruz is wanting the government to set prices? This is this is very this is dirty big oil versus clean burning ethanol. And and and for the benefit of people on the other side of the aisle. I had conversations, Mr. Regan, this week. He said that your president was our president was for ethanol. He said he he also said, I know that campaigning in Iowa, Biden campaigned for ethanol. So this is an opportunity and this business that this is going to cost anything. EPA itself said that there’s no compliance cost and EPA and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals made very clear that these are these waivers for small refineries. We’re violating the law. Time has expired.
S6: Hear that cheering, that is House of Commons type stuff right there, you don’t normally hear that in the Senate, Ted Cruz uniter, perhaps the only truly surprising moment was provided by Bernie Sanders. Now, I called him the hero because as chair of the Senate Budget Committees in the middle of the action, he ran the show and he was clear from the outset who he was fighting for, the little guy, the minimum wage worker. And by the outset, I mean, you know, four hours in when this statement came.
S7: Well, let us be clear. The minimum wage in this country has not been raised since the year 2007 and now stands at seven dollars and twenty five cents an hour. That is a starvation wage. That is an embarrassment. And that minimum wage must be increased so that we can give a pay raise to some 32 million workers.
S6: But Joni Ernst, the other Iowa senator, took issue with a raise to fifteen dollars an hour, especially for a constituency like hers.
S8: The cost of living in states like Iowa is very different than the cost of living in states like New York or California. We should not have a one size fits all policy set by Washington politicians.
S6: And then Senator Sanders pulled his surprise move. He said, you know what, you’re right, I shouldn’t be pushing for 15 dollars right away.
S7: There appears to be some misunderstanding. As the author of the Raise the Wage Act, it was never my intention to increase the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour immediately. And during the pandemic, my legislation gradually increases the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour over a five year period. And that is what I believe we have got to do. We need to do it in the reconciliation bill and we need to end the crisis of starvation wages in Iowa and around the United States.
S6: That was either one senator listening to the concerns of another or more likely, a more skilled senator recognizing that a mistake was made by an opponent who overstated and misstated the intentions of the skilled senator. But like I say, the entire exercise was mostly about intention. It was the first important step. But it doesn’t mean that the relief package will pass, doesn’t mean how big the relief package will eventually be. It does signal that there is an opportunity for bipartisanship. Oh, no, not about the budget or the pandemic or reconciliation, but about the idea that even an 87 year old who’s usually asleep by seven thirty pm can score some points off of Ted Cruz on the show today. It’s an antenna, Twigg, we owed you one. But first, Kuhnen is the conspiracy that made its way to the Capitol in the form of rioters and also a member whose beliefs are a riot of nonsense, danger and dishonesty.
S9: But I wanted to get more into how Kuhnen works, how it really works and where it might be going from here. David Gilbert Vice has been in the forums, has been following the feeds, has been monitoring the madness.
S10: And he joins us next.
S4: Margaret Taylor Green believes in 9/11, that was actually never an issue, even the conspiracy theorist believes. Well, first of all, if you look at a calendar, there is a date, 9/11, 2001, and second of all, something happened there. Buildings aren’t there now, but conspiracy theorists believe it was an inside job and they doubt planes at the Pentagon. But she wants you to know she believes in 9/11. She also believes, or at least did until she disavowed it the other day. She also believes that the Vegas mass shooting was a false flag operation, that the Sandy Hook shooting was a false flag operation, that the Parkland shooting didn’t happen or happened in a way to try to take guns away. She believes in a lot of crazy things. As of yesterday, we found out, I guess she doesn’t believe in a lot of them. Most of her beliefs fall or at least correlate to the beliefs of Kuhnen, but importantly, not all. And in fact, she started declaring that she had some of these beliefs before a guy named Q even started his drippings on social media. I want to get into what Marjorie Taylor Green believes, but also how Kuhnen is really working in the United States and the world. Joining me now is David Gilbert. He reports all this stuff out for Vice News. David, thanks for coming on. Thanks for having me, Mike. So you put together a very good, useful compendium of agreed the headline. Here’s every disturbing conspiracy Marjorie Taylor Greene believes in. And we saw yesterday her very half heartedly disavowing them and giving a horrible explanation of how she came to them. But very importantly, if you look at the timeline, she’s been believing this crap like 9/11 conspiracy theories before anyone named Q ever came to the public’s attention, right?
S11: Yeah. She seemed as if it kind of she was waiting for her to come along, essentially. And to be honest, that’s that’s the way for a lot of cute unbelievers is they were primed or they have been primed for a while to believe in some conspiracy theory. And Kuhnen came along and it just provided the perfect vehicle for all these different, you know, 9/11 deniers, false flag shooting, conspiracy theorists, anti boxers. It’s kind of an umbrella term for that. All these people have kind of, you know, toked on and promote it.
S1: So when did when was the first Q drop on 4chan?
S11: October twenty. Seventeen. So it was a whole month later before Miyaji Taylor Green decided to put up a half hour video discussing. Q When pretty much no one in the US had ever heard of. Q She was. She was a month after the first drop, she was right there. She was discussing it, calling him a Patreus. She described it last night in her speech saying that she had become disillusioned in twenty seventeen. Put the news media, Fox and CNN saying that she wasn’t kind of getting the information that she needed. And so she went on the Internet looking for this information. And this is what she found. And within a month in that video, she seems convinced, she seems sure that this is there’s something here. This has to be explored. We have to promote it.
S4: Yeah. And before there was even a Q because of her dissatisfaction, she was reading and writing about not just the 9/11 conspiracies with which were out there, but a conspiracy that has become a central tenet of Q Democratic child sex trafficking and abuse.
S11: Yeah, she was writing for American Troops Seekers, the now defunct conspiracy website. She wrote something like 60 articles for them. This is after she had retired from her family business or created across the gym and then sold us. So she was looking for something to do, obviously, with her time. And so she fell into right wing conspiracy theories for this website. And she remarkably predicted almost exactly what she would be based on. But it’s not that surprising, really, because this kind of, you know, global child sex trafficking ring is kind of a theory that’s been circling the Internet for four decades. It’s not new. It’s just been given a new lease of life by Q..
S9: What’s the best way to explain to people that here are technical beliefs, but here are the live beliefs that someone who might be described as a kuhnen believer would probably have?
S11: Yeah, that’s it’s a good question. It’s a major problem, I think, because it’s changing. But a lot of the coverage of Q and on up until now has been of the form of kind of pointing and laughing at us as if it’s something completely off the wall, as if it’s something that isn’t, you know, that only crazy people and loonies take part the the Democrats message this week where they kind of basically said that only on a. People were following Q and was another part of that, and it’s really dangerous because I’ve been speaking in the last couple of weeks to the family members of people who have a TULLEN person in their life and the breadth and scale of the different levels of society and different wealth and different education. You know, there’s there’s people with masters degrees. There’s teachers or doctors. There’s it’s white, it’s black, it’s Asian. There isn’t a typical Cuban unbeliever, really. Mostly they’re kind of believe in some form of Christianity. But it’s not a good idea to pigeonhole people. And I think one of the ways that we can maybe get better at talking about what Khilnani is and getting people to understand it is telling the stories of the people who are suffering because of Kuhnen. And by doing that, you’ll you’ll expose people to realize that their neighbors, their friends, possibly their relatives, could be going down this rabbit hole. They’ll be able to see the signs are taken. So I think it’s we need to focus more on talking about the impact that this court is having to people across the US. And it’s from from the reporting that it’s it’s devastating. You know, people are losing their families. Husbands and wives are getting divorced. Family members are no longer talking. There’s several suicides after happening that have been linked to Kuhnen. And it’s it’s it’s really, really terrifying to listen to these stories. And I think that is something that people can relate to rather than this kind of more extreme version of Kuhnen. So I think by promoting or not promoting that highlighting that aspect of Cuban, I think people will get a better idea of just how dangerous and insidious this cult is.
S9: What is the either psychological or propagandistic purpose of Cuba, the person who is Cuba or the people who create the Cuban mythos?
S11: How does the crazy stuff reinforce the practical on the ground stuff to try and figure out how they kind of crazy stuff is helping get to the ultimate goal of keeping Trump in power? That’s that’s a pretty impossible question to answer, I think, without knowing who’s behind Cuba. And then if you’re going to start down that road, you’re going to get into a really, really difficult conversation because no one knows. And if people tell you they know, then they don’t, because there is no one has produced conclusive evidence yet. The prevailing theory is that when it started on 4chan, it was started by someone as a a game, you know, because it had happened before. There was a guy called FBI and on and there was a highway patrolman and there was a couple of other, you know, at this game on 4chan where people pretended to be high ranking members of government and people kind of played along and they did this kind of got out of hand. Q And I mean, it just happened at the right time and then it moved to AirCon and Jim and Ron Watkins’s the people who ran it and kind of took it over and then they ran us until now. That’s kind of the basic simplistic theory. There’s there’s other theories saying that it’s a psyop and you don’t want to get into that because it’s just it’s more conspiracy theory area. But yeah, to me, if you want to try fix theory. Exactly. And like you can, I think in the in the Q&A community, in the last couple of weeks, there’s been a lot of talk and a lot of energy expended on kind of debunking stuff. And it’s just wasting time because I think the real important thing about you and I was how it is spreading in the US now and the damage that it’s doing.
S4: And that’s what the party’s focus should be on, is the identity of Q the actual person or persons anonymized to every known person in the world? Is there any network board administrator who knows that is yet Ron Watkins and Jim Watkins?
S11: No cures or at least their facilities. Q Posting on Edcon and can they be gotten to?
S4: Are they violating because they don’t live in the do they.
S11: Like they’re either violating laws. One of the laws are violating is that cuz impersonating a federal government official which is a which breaks the law as far as I know, no wonder Jim around Watkins are actually posing as Q or facilitating if they’re still potentially in legal trouble. Ron Watkins is currently, I believe in Japan or was at least recently Jim Watkins’s in the Philippines, though he does come back to the US. He testified before the Senate last year. So he does come back and forth to the US, but they’ve always denied being Q or had anything to do with Q But most people most people believe that they at least know who he was or are facilitating the posting of the Q drops.
S4: Now, you talked about 12 people who are kind of keeping this myth alive. Are they known?
S11: Some some are known, some aren’t. It’s more than 12, but like, you know, at least a doesn’t kind of big major accounts and they all have their own. But there are some of them that are true believers who are doing it just because they believe deeply in. Q And the purpose of Q And a lot of them are grifters who are trying to make money off their followers by getting to sign up subscriptions and video services of podcasts and Patreon. And although they’ve been kicked off most kind of mainstream services like Patreon or PayPal and stuff like that, so they’re kind of relying on more fringe websites that are the same thing, but they want to keep it going because they’ve built up this following over the course of the last three years to become to be in positions of power where otherwise, you know, these guys wouldn’t have the position of power. They don’t want to lose stuff because it is a hugely important thing.
S4: Yeah. And I’ve been on some of these boards, too. And one characteristic is it’s very hard for a person with a rational brain to apply rationality, but every single thing that is said is characterized when it doesn’t come true or clearly seems to be wrong. It’s always explained and people buy it. Oh, no, don’t you understand? This was the misinformation they had to give to throw off the scent of the real story. So my point is that within these cults, and certainly it’s true of Kuhnen, it will never collapse under its own weight. People will never see for themselves without some sort of outside force that this thing was lying to them all the time.
S11: Absolutely. Like, this is what infuriated me when I saw Marjorie telescreen speech last night is her line was that she saw some misinformation and kuhnen. I like that. That’s that’s that’s something that people say all the time. It’s like she was just repeating what they say because there was a shoe drop saying disinformation is necessary. And so that’s every time something happens, it doesn’t seem to fit. In fact, they just go back to said this information is necessary. So that’s this is just this information will this can be disinformation, but something that’s happened that does seem to fit with the plan. That’s not disinformation. That’s that’s real. So there’s no logic to this. This is just kind of they can do whatever mental gymnastics they need to do in order to make it work.
S4: In fact, Marjorie Taylor Green’s speech, from what I understand of Q, would probably hearten a lot of them. I think it was probably a great day for. Q And on that this was, you know, the big comeuppance that they’re most public adherent ever had to face?
S11: Oh, yeah, I wrote about it this morning. It’s it’s I kind of did a translation for for people who like because if you if you listen to the speech, you know, it makes zero sense how she explained how she fell into the Q and on Rabbit Hole, it doesn’t make sense. But if you kind of read it with a Q and on mindset, it makes perfect sense. And on the boards this morning, no one was disavowing Marjorie Taylor Green. There were, you know, threatening to kill the 11 Republicans who voted against her, but no one was saying, oh, majority of Britons, a traitor. They were saying, of course, you have to say this because she’s better off inside than outside. So she had to to say and the way of twisting it today was that she said from misinformation and lies and Kuhnen, this is again another ongoing thing. But some followers because. Q and a drop one says there is no. Q And there was only Q And there is a Norns. And his thing was that. Q And on is just something that the mainstream media has made up to demonize this movement. So whenever someone says. Q and they kind of take it that they’re not really talking about the Q are the movement, they’re just they’re just kind of pandering to the mainstream media. So they didn’t see what Marjorie Tator Green said as a disavowal of Cunegonde whatsoever.
S3: Yeah. So David, how does this end? Does this end with arresting the right people, shutting down the right websites, bringing around the right social conditions? That’s a big lift so that people aren’t drawn to this. How does this end?
S11: I, I don’t know. I really think I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet. Maybe it is happening that the FBI hasn’t been doing more to look at Jim and Ron Watkins who are facilitating whatever else they may be guilty of. They’re facilitating. Q by allowing him polster them post on their website and they have information about who this is. You know, getting that information would kind of, you know, if it turned out they could prove that Jim Watkins is behind is this he’s an ex army vet. He’s currently a pig farmer in the Philippines. And he has some of his other websites host child abuse imagery. If they could show that it is actually Jim Watkins’s the person who’s been posting these dewdrops, then that would have a massive impact on the ability of the community to kind of keep up its belief that there is some conspiracy going on here. But I think no matter what happens, that even if that did happen, that would be spun as a kind of a. State intervention to try and stop Kulen from taking over the world of something, the real danger, I think, is, as he said, that there are the social conditions currently in the US that are absolutely perfect to radicalise a huge swathe of people into this. And it’s happening still on Facebook and Instagram and Twitter, not overtly but covertly through different communities like even retirement communities, because older people are involved in this, especially the wellness and yoga, natural health communities. That’s a big problem because the influences are still there and they’re using kind of subtle hints about Kulen, but not overt. So they won’t be banned. Just why there is such division in the U.S. and people are looking for an answer or a solution, then Kuhnen will be a very attractive proposition to a lot of people, just the way it’s set up, the way it’s to do your own research aspect of us, the fact that you feel like you’re on the inside of something that no one else knows about, that’s hugely appealing to a lot of people. And it it makes it so much harder then to try and get people out of deprogram them.
S9: Well, one way this ends and it wouldn’t be an end, but it would be it would be a hindrance to their growth. Is some horrific, undeniable atrocity committed by Kuhnen believers in the name of Kuhnen that we all see now. You might be saying or one might be saying, wait, didn’t we just have this with the attack on the capital? Again, the police officer who died directly, Brian Michnik, we didn’t see that on film. That’s really important for convincing people and making people have moral clarity. Plus, there were certainly people involved in that who didn’t really believe in Kuhnen or were espousing other ideas. I just think of Timothy McVeigh and his horrific bombing of the Oklahoma the Murrah Federal Building. It did, to some extent set back the movement. We know that white nationalism is still here, but it went so far in trying to, you know, vindicate whatever grievances he had about Ruby Ridge that, you know, the experts will tell you for a time it discredited that ideology. I could see something like that happening to Kuhnen boringly.
S11: It’s kind of a growing possibility that there is you know, people are getting more and more radicalized. If you listen to the stories that people tell about their family members, like people are getting more violent. They’re on the move now towards the sovereign citizen or the kind of merging with the sovereign citizen movement who are trying to work with. Q I believe because, you know, a lot of their beliefs overlap, that’s worrying. And they’re being pushed to more extreme websites where groups are kind of preying on Cuban unbelievers to kind of bring them into the fold of white nationalism, whatever else. But some huge, terrible incident could happen very soon. I’m not sure I agree with you that that would necessarily have a massive impact on the growth of David Gilbert covers, among other things, Kuhnen for vice news.
S9: He does a great job and he’s opened my eyes to a lot of things that I’m not sure I. I’m glad I saw.
S2: David, great talking to you. Thanks, Mike.
S3: And now, before the spiel, I would like to recommend you go back and listen to Monday’s episode, if you missed it, there was a lot of good stuff about GameStop and how the guys on Reddit are no heroes and how a knee jerk default to cheering on the populist’s isn’t always the right move. Plus, a great interview with Jill Lepore.
S12: The computer in people’s minds was this giant, giant, giant machine like the size of an airport hangar or something that could control the whole universe. And so when the story of Kennedy’s campaign, having purchased the consulting services of this company that sold services of a people machine, people really freaked out and said, like, this is the end of democracy.
S3: I know by the time Friday comes around, you may have missed one. And if you want my recommendation, the Monday show is a good one, plus a little bit of a gateway drug because that Lapore interview is a two parter and Tuesdays the second part and now the spiel and not just the spiel and 10 twigg are word for a three week period in which we go over, dissect, discussed, apologize. I say discussed, yes. Expressed disgust, but also discuss many of the statements I have made and many of the statements you have made back to me. You know, it’s twenty, twenty one and we’re getting closer and closer to a form of communication that is instantaneous and online. I prefer the old fashioned handwritten missive, but some of you even send me emails, others Twitter and I will even get into an area of the Internet that I’ve since given up on. It’s called Facebook, but perhaps the winner of the lobster of the antenna twig will be from that most Eisley esque hive of scum and villainy.
S4: So first, I would like to thank David Sirota, who at first I was a little worried, thought might be David Sirota, who is a Bernie Sanders spokesman and kind of a left wing flame thrower bomb thrower. It’s funny, a bomb throwers and flame throwers are very similar. But isn’t a bomb just a means to produce a flame, whereas the flame is the flame itself, the bomb could go further, but the flame is much more impressive and can be seen from afar anyway. Cerrado is writing about a segment I did where I played a lot of those ads and talked about moderate to severe and mild to moderate and the protection they might provide from coronavirus. And he says, I’m an infectious disease doctor and long time listener. You had me an infectious FFI. The definitions of moderate to severe covid are defined in. And then he linked to a bunch of protocols from Johnson and Johnson studies. And I said, I delve into it and I did. And I understand. And actually I did understand it going in. I made a bit of light fun at the verbiage of these commercials because I think the public is trying to watch these commercials and they might not understand mild to moderate, moderate to severe nomenclature when it comes to coronavirus, which you don’t want to get. But you also want to prevent anyone from getting mild or even asymptomatic coronavirus.
S3: To this point, another listener, Armand Sprecher or in German almond speaker writes, Hi, Mike, I enjoy your rants there spiels, but we’ll go on. But these would be even better if a bit of nuance were added. When isn’t that true? Claims like ones found in ads for pharmaceuticals require evidence in the studies that generate that evidence for medical claims need to have well-defined clinical endpoints. Exactly what is meant by mild, moderate, severe can must be found in the studies that allowed for licensure of this product being advertised. The FDA sets the rules that you can say in the ads. I agree it makes for lousy ads, but at least they’re unambiguous. The alternative is the vacuous nonsense in the nutraceutical space, which is, you know, about support for the immune system or wellness nutraceutical, which is a very I guess it’s a real scientist’s word for vitamins. Maybe a real scientist, a Sprecher type scientist would not want to use scientist willy nilly. Matthew a share. Ashar writes, Mike, love the gist. But not long ago, you rightfully chastised Laura Ingram for her defensive deployment of the mocking voice. Then right around the seven minute mark of today’s podcast, this was one oh from back in twenty twenty. Did you not use the mocking voice to dismiss criticism of the Biden Cabinet? Just asking. Just asking. Is Matthew. Oh, she’s just asking. No, no. That would be the mocking voice and that would be wrong. I listened back. What I did was I was talking about the people who are criticizing the Biden cabinet and saying it was too chummy and they were using phrases like team of buddies. Now, it would be the mocking voice if I said team of buddies, you have a team of buddies.
S4: But I didn’t mock the mocking as the mocking my voice. It had a bit of mock was about it mock two or mock three. But the mock wasn’t for the phrase itself. The mockery was deployed in after. Words when I describe the phrase team of buddies, and I said, oh, what a burn. Now, if you really want to break this down, I was mocking perhaps myself or someone who would criticize team of buddies. I was mocking the idea that this was, in fact, an insult. So I think the mocking voice is fine if you’re not doing it for the direct quote. I was mocking in content when I said, oh, what a burn or ho ho droll. That’s fine. And that is a mocking voice. But it doesn’t undermine the argument because it is adding substance, a substantive critique, the sarcastic assertion that it is not droll or it is not a burn.
S1: And all I’m doing is adding a little emphasis to that substantive critique. Oh, how droll. I could have said, but oh how droll drills better off the tongue. Mac Kratz, now here’s here’s why my friends in the pharmaceutical space, I understand what they’re saying because they both acknowledge and a few people wrote in about my take on the ads, they said, look, I know you’re having fun and I know you’re exaggerating, but you should know the real science behind it. And oftentimes my position is, yeah, come on. You know, sometimes they just speak off the top of my head and I might get an example wrong and I’ll acknowledge that. Right. Like when I said Vanilla Sky, I think it was based on a French film. It wasn’t as Heinrich Dreamhouse and many others noted, it was based on a Spanish film, probably going to butcher the pronunciation and don’t write. And if I do, a brainless OIOS, but I lost OIOS. OK, so that was an example where I said, you know, I think it was based on a French film. Think it was it wasn’t. I was wrong. But, you know, I’m happy to correct it. But other times I will say something off the cuff and if I get it wrong, it is just off the cuff. But sometimes the things I say off the cuff are actually researched. So when Mark Cretz writes in and says that I quoted the Emperor Justinian as saying It’s always darkest before the dawn in Latin, Mark crat says Justinian probably would have been quoting it in Greek, not in Latin. I do have to say, I put in a little research and I looked it up and Justinian was the last emperor who was a native speaker of Latin. So it’s probably better if you can assume when I get it wrong, it’s because I do no research. I guess the fact that sometimes I do some research undermines my basic defense that I do know research. Which brings me to a guy who claims to love the show. But just just put yourself in my shoes and know that every three or four days I get a letter of this tone. Greg writes, What bothers me to no end is why someone is clearly intelligent and thoughtful in your interviews. OK, it’s nice you got me. Here’s the praise sandwich. Now, here’s the slight critique. See if you could pick it up. OK, so thoughtful in your interviews is often so spectacularly shallow and often pointless in your commentaries. I know it’s easier to go after the crazies of the right and the left. Your mindless attacks on progressivism and seemingly no commentary on conservative policies really irritate me. Yes. Yes. You weren’t hiding that. I got that. I expect a lot more from you. Maybe that is too much to ask in a daily show, but I do think you have it in you. A question. Is the arrogance you project in your commentary intentional? It’s intentional. Just to question that expression on your face. Is that by choice? Just a question. Your height, girth and boldness, your height, girth and baldness, does that just thrust, sadly thrust upon you? I have no answer to this except to say I do field inquiries of this every so often, but I have to put that out there because every day someone tells me that I’m better than this or I have it in me. And let me assure all of you, I am exactly the same as this. I think I can prove it. Another stupid mistake I made in talking about Biden’s electoral I this was one of those not research off the top of my head offered. Yeah. I can’t have a president who between election and inauguration had so much happen. And John Stiglitz wrote in to say, Lincoln, that is true. There was the whole, you know, secession from the United States in between that time. So now we get to the star of the Atlantic. We’re going to have I was having a hard time selecting from all the people who ask me, are you really that ugly or is it just an act you’re putting on? But I found on Facebook, on the Facebook Messenger app, which I never use, I don’t know why was there a fellow named John Bell wrote in and say, hi, Mike Pesca, I’m a big fan of your podcast because you use language so well. I liked your Jonathan Lyons episode. I’m also a puppeteer. Hi. Wonder what he thought of the Frank Oz episode denigrating the puppeteering arts. So he wanted to give me feedback. He said I pronounced Paice wrong, meaning as per or the Latin use of pace if you’ve seen it in writing, which means something like to take a kind of exception to or acknowledging the exception of so-and-so. And John writes in and says it’s pronounced pacy. PACY. Is he right? Well, tell me, Mr. Dictionary.
S10: PACY. PACY.
S1: Aha. Now I like when my pronunciation is corrected. If I get a definition wrong, I want to know it. And if I pronounced something a little wrong in an unacceptable way, especially a foreign phrase that I’m only using because I think it makes me smarter and I’m actually making myself dumber by saying it wrong, you know, making myself sound dumber because.
S3: You say things wrong, that’s not my fault, wow, I got to say, I’m not ashamed. I want to pronounce words correctly. And this is this opens up delightful opportunities. For instance, I could make a statement like, you know, it is often the case that men’s names migrate to women’s names, but it doesn’t work the other way around. PACY, Tracy and Casey. Or I could often say a lot of times husbands will take the heat and go to jail even if their wife did the crime. PACY William H. Macy or heavy metal guitarists do the windmill counterclockwise, it is believed, because of hemispheric forces pacy AC DC. And with that, John Bell. You, sir, are the pop star of the Antón Twigg.
S2: And that’s it for Today Show, Shayna Roth is so aghast at CU and Kuhnen, she has refused to eat quinoa and quince pudding. Margaret Kelly, just producer, takes it one step further or a few letters in Shimoni croquettes. The Montgomery executive producer of Slate podcasts won’t even play croquet. The gist. You want to stop cuz it is hard, but the message to the Watkins brothers has to be to stop. Q. We are going after you improve that produce and thanks for listening.