“Gen Z vs Boomers: The Battle for America’s Future”

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:10

I want to open with a provocation. And the provocation is this. Every generation thinks it's youth revolt is the real one. The morally serious one. The one with actual stakes and actual enemies and actual courage.

SPEAKER_00 0:22

And every generation thinks the one before it was theatre.

SPEAKER_01 0:26

Exactly. Self-indulgent, photographable, ultimately harmless theatre. And here's the thing like every generation is right about the previous one. And catastrophically hilariously wrong about its own. That's not pessimism. It's pattern recognition, which is what pessimists call it when they've read enough history. Today we apply it to two specific generations because the pattern has never been more visible, more instructive, or more delicious than it is right now.

SPEAKER_00 0:50

That's a very composed opening for a show that's about to become significantly less composed.

SPEAKER_01 0:55

It won't stay composed. But I want the architecture up before we start throwing things.

SPEAKER_00 1:00

Here's my counterthesis. The 1960s promised a revolution and delivered Ronald Reagan a gutted university system and a housing market that operates like a bouncer with a clipboard. Go on. And the current generation, which has absorbed every lesson of the anti-discrimination tradition, is producing some of the most confused, self-contradictory political behaviour seen on Western campuses in decades. Both generations revolted. Both failed. In ways that rhyme so perfectly, it should embarrass everyone, and mostly doesn't, because embarrassment requires self-awareness, and self-awareness is the first casualty of ideological certainty.

SPEAKER_01 1:43

That's the whole show.

SPEAKER_00 1:44

I've been saving it.

SPEAKER_01 1:46

The 1960s. The actual history, not the commemorative poster your aunt has in her bathroom. My aunt absolutely has that poster. Everyone's aunt has that poster. 1964 Gulf of Tonkin. The Johnson administration claimed American ships were attacked by North Vietnamese forces. The first incident was real but politically inflated to the point of fiction. The second attack, the one Congress cited when authorizing full military escalation, almost certainly never happened. The administration knew this. And what followed? The war that followed uh killed 58,000 Americans, and between one and three million Vietnamese, when people ask why young people radicalized, a government manufactured a crisis to send them to die in a jungle, and enough of them figured it out fast enough to constitute the largest sustained anti-war movement in American history.

SPEAKER_00 2:36

And I want to give them genuine credit for that before we do what we're about to do to them. Because calling your government a liar in 1965, when that made you the enemy, when the FBI was in your correspondence, when the National Guard had actual bullets that required something, that was a choice with consequences attached.

SPEAKER_01 2:54

1970. Kent State, National Guard, fires on students, four killed on their own campus.

SPEAKER_00 3:00

On their own campus.

SPEAKER_01 3:01

And a significant portion of the American public's response was they were being provocative, which tells you exactly where the mainstream was and exactly why the protesters were right to be furious.

SPEAKER_00 3:11

Woodstock is what we remember. Four bodies at Kent State is what we've agreed collectively and quietly to forget. That selective memory is a political choice dressed as nostalgia. If you only remember the music, you can sell the t-shirt.

SPEAKER_01 3:27

Someone is absolutely still selling that t-shirt.

SPEAKER_00 3:30

$45 plus shipping. The revolution is available in sizes small through triple extra large, and the person buying it today thinks they're honouring something. They think wearing Shea Guevara's face to a farmer's market in Connecticut is a political act.

SPEAKER_01 3:46

Shea Guevara would have had them shot.

SPEAKER_00 3:48

Possibly for the tote bag.

SPEAKER_01 3:49

The tote bag is doing an enormous amount of ideological work in 2026.

SPEAKER_00 3:54

The tote bag is carrying the entire weight of the progressive tradition and several pounds of artisanal Shay's.

SPEAKER_01 4:01

The civil rights movement is the most morally serious thing running through all of this. 1964, Civil Rights Act, 1965, Voting Rights Act, 1968, King in April, Kennedy in June, Chicago in August. The protesters outside the convention, tear gassed, beaten by Chicago police on live television.

SPEAKER_00 4:23

Real enemies. Real consequences. Real bullets. And even so, and this is the part that ruins dinner parties, so apologies in advance, even the 1960s had an enormous performative fringe. The tie-dye shirt changed nothing. The peace sign bumper sticker changed nothing. The boomers took virtue broadcasting from cottage industry to multinational corporation. What's different now? Infrastructure. In 68, you had to physically show up. Today you do it from your childhood bedroom at two in the morning and reach a hundred thousand people by breakfast. When the cost of the signal collapses, the signal carries less information. If Shea had had Wi-Fi, he would have had an intern.

SPEAKER_01 5:06

Economics. Supply and demand applied to political identity.

SPEAKER_00 5:10

Exactly. Although some of those signals are attached to real fury about real things.

SPEAKER_01 5:16

We'll get to the the numbers.

SPEAKER_00 5:18

We'll get to the numbers. But first the sentence that explains everything.

SPEAKER_01 5:23

Which sentence?

SPEAKER_00 5:24

Don't be coy. You've been circling it like a cat around a hot pot.

SPEAKER_01 5:29

The generation that rejected conformity is now demanding it.

SPEAKER_00 5:32

Jasis. Yeah, there it is.

SPEAKER_01 5:33

Different conformity, different content, but structurally identical. The correct vocabulary, the correct hierarchy of grievances, the correct performance of correct values, conform or be expelled. And the people being told to conform are furious. Some of that fury is the specific disorienting pain of recognizing your own tactics being used by someone who doesn't know you wrote the manual.

SPEAKER_00 5:56

History has a sense of humour. It just has absolutely no mercy in it whatsoever.

SPEAKER_01 6:02

That's either very wise or something you heard in a pub.

SPEAKER_00 6:05

Those aren't mutually exclusive categories, Mike.

SPEAKER_01 6:08

In your case specifically, no. They are not.

SPEAKER_00 6:12

Five years of friendship and a lifetime of suffering.

SPEAKER_01 6:16

Same thing.

SPEAKER_00 6:17

Not a scale of difference.

SPEAKER_01 6:19

Let's get into the specific content of the current revolt. The university campus, the patriot of every generation's political experiment. Sit in in the sixties, encampment today, with different aesthetics, same basic impulse.

SPEAKER_00 6:31

What's different is the theory of change. The civil rights movement had a legislative agenda. Specific, achievable, measurable, end segregation, pass the Voting Rights Act. When you achieve it, you can point to the law. And now? The current movement's demands are primarily cultural change. How people think change how people speak. And I want to say before the critique that cultural change is not nothing. The shifts in how Americans talked about race in the 60s preceded the legislative changes and in many cases made them thinkable. Culture matters.

SPEAKER_01 7:12

Culture matters enormously, but cultural goals are never fully achieved because you can always find someone still thinking wrongly.

SPEAKER_00 7:20

The moral leaderboard never closes.

SPEAKER_01 7:30

The ally of today is the problematic figure of tomorrow, which creates a permanent revolution. And a permanent revolution sounds exciting and is exhausting.

SPEAKER_00 7:40

And mathematically suicidal as a coalition building strategy.

SPEAKER_01 7:44

Democracy requires majorities.

SPEAKER_00 7:46

Purity apparatuses produce minorities. Very principled minorities.

SPEAKER_01 7:56

Now, the identity question, the foundational moral claim of the civil rights movement is that you do not assign moral standing based on immutable characteristics. That claim is universal, or it is a preference wearing a principal's clothing, and significant portions of the current movement apply it selectively.

SPEAKER_00 8:14

I'll stop you there. Because I think you're about to make the argument in a way that is incomplete, and I want to push on it. Push then. Correct at the extreme end. At the extreme end, yes, telling an individual student his voice doesn't count because of his demographic characteristics is discrimination. Full stop. But that extreme is not the whole spectrum. Most DEI work is asking people to be aware of their assumptions. That's not the same thing as what you're describing. And treating the extreme as representative of the whole is the move that bad faith critics make.

SPEAKER_01 8:45

I take the distinction. Good. And here's where I push back on your pushback. The institutional tolerance for the extreme end, the institutional unwillingness to name it and correct it when it happens. That is not incidental. When institutions can't name a thing because naming it feels disloyal to the cause, the thing grows. Without exception.

SPEAKER_00 9:04

Every time the failure is institutional cowardice, not the project itself.

SPEAKER_01 9:10

Exactly. The reason I press on the extreme is not to conflate it with the whole, it's because the extreme has been getting less institutional pushback than it deserves, and the gap is being filled by bad faith critics from the right who would love nothing more than for the moderate centre to keep going quiet.

SPEAKER_00 9:26

That's the better version of the argument. I'll give you that.

SPEAKER_01 9:30

The project itself is serious and important. The failure to police its own excesses is what's doing the damage.

SPEAKER_00 9:36

Now, the vocabulary. In the 1960s, the counter-cultural vocabulary was deliberately transgressive. Language as liberation designed to break the spell of conformity. And now? The vocabulary has become its own conformity. Deviate from it, and you're the transgressor. The language that was the tool of liberation has become the mechanism of a new orthodoxy.

SPEAKER_01 10:04

And the boomers are being asked to learn it, and some of them are, and some of them can't. And the ones who can't are being told they're reactionary when sometimes they're just old and the vocabulary move faster than they did.

SPEAKER_00 10:16

There is a version of political vocabulary that moves faster than a reasonable person can track and then punishes them for not tracking it. Calling that dynamic progressive is I struggle with that.

SPEAKER_01 10:28

It's conformism wearing a liberation costume, which is the most boomer outfit imaginable when you think about it.

SPEAKER_00 10:34

The branding is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

SPEAKER_01 10:37

Now. The boomers, because we've been circling them, and I think it's time. Bring them in. The generation currently being revolted against for the broken economy, the warming planet, the unaffordable housing, the failing institutions is the same generation that mounted the greatest youth revolt in American history 60 years ago. They told their parents, your conformity is death, your wars are lies, your system is rotten.

SPEAKER_00 11:03

They are now the system.

SPEAKER_01 11:04

And they are being told by their grandchildren, your conformity is death, your economy is broken, your planet is ruined.

SPEAKER_00 11:12

And the boomer response, individual boomers vary enormously. I want to be fair, some of them are fine. Some of them are fine. The generational self-presentation is we built this, we marched, we changed the world, which is word for word what the greatest generation said to them. The men who fought at Guadalcanal, who stood in bread lines during the Depression, they said in 68, we built this, we suffered, we sacrificed, and the boomers said your sacrifice produced a system that is killing people, and we will not perform gratitude for that.

SPEAKER_01 11:52

And now someone is saying the exact same thing to the boomers.

SPEAKER_00 11:55

The wheel is a thing of terrible perfect beauty. The numbers are not kind to anyone who wants to argue that young people are simply ungrateful.

SPEAKER_01 12:12

In 1970, the typical American home costs roughly two and a half times the typical annual household income. And today? In major metropolitan areas, and I'm specifying major cities because the numbers vary ratios of eight to twelve times annual income are common. That structural shift happened over 50 years of accumulated policy decisions about zoning, taxation, and housing regulation.

SPEAKER_00 12:34

And university tuition, some analyses put the inflation-adjusted increase since 1980 at over a thousand percent. The generation that attended university cheaply bought houses when the ratio was two and a half to one, and then spent 30 years in political dominance, consistently favoring existing asset owners over future ones. That generation is now being told it has nothing to answer for.

SPEAKER_01 13:00

And young people looking at those numbers and declining to agree.

SPEAKER_00 13:04

Which seems reasonable.

SPEAKER_01 13:05

I want to be fair to the boomers. They didn't design the economy from scratch. They operated within inherited systems. In a democracy, you vote for your interests.

SPEAKER_00 13:15

Every generation does. And young people vote in lower numbers, so their interests are underrepresented, so the cycle perpetuates, the system rewards the people already inside it. This is not a conspiracy. This is just how systems work when they're not actively corrected.

SPEAKER_01 13:29

The specific boomer irony, and I take genuine aesthetic pleasure in this, I'll admit it.

SPEAKER_00 13:35

He does. It's a slightly unsettling pleasure to watch.

SPEAKER_01 13:40

The generation whose central political identity was built on rejecting conformity has become the establishment. The revolt being mounted against them is also a demand for conformity. And the boomers whose self-concept entirely rests on having refused conformity are being told to conform.

SPEAKER_00 13:54

And some are doing it.

SPEAKER_01 13:56

And some are furious. And the fury gets called reactionary when sometimes it is simply the disorientation of being handed your own playbook by someone who doesn't know you wrote it.

SPEAKER_00 14:05

Here is the punchline that history delivers with absolutely no mercy. The generation beaten by Chicago police at the 68th convention largely voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980. And again, in 84. Tell me what happened. They got houses. That is the entire story. People who own assets vote to protect assets.

SPEAKER_01 14:26

Marx never factored in granite countertops.

SPEAKER_00 14:28

The radical of 22 is the homeowner of 42. The homeowner of 42 votes against zoning reform because zoning reform might affect his property value, and he didn't get beaten outside the Hilton in 68 to have his property value interfered with. Thank you very much. The revolution had a mortgage. The mortgage won. Nobody, not one person in recorded human history has ever radicalized after closing on a three-bedroom. You don't overthrow the system when you just painted the nursery.

SPEAKER_01 14:57

Never.

SPEAKER_00 14:58

The moment you sign those papers, something leaves your body, goes right out through the sunroof on the drive home from the title company.

SPEAKER_01 15:06

And what fills the space?

SPEAKER_00 15:08

Property values and a suddenly fierce opinion about whether the neighbours should be allowed to build an extension.

SPEAKER_01 15:15

The extension. The great conservative radicaliser.

SPEAKER_00 15:18

No ideology has ever survived the question of whether the neighbour's extension will affect your light. Not one. Marxism, libertarianism, anarcho-syndicalism, all of it dissolves the moment someone submits a planning application that puts your kitchen in shadow.

SPEAKER_01 15:33

That is a genuinely brilliant observation, and I resent that you made it before I did.

SPEAKER_00 15:38

Write it down, I'm not saying it again.

SPEAKER_01 15:40

And 30 years later, you're telling your grandchildren you changed the world, and they're looking at what you changed it into, and they're thinking, changed is doing an enormous amount of heavy lifting in that sentence.

SPEAKER_00 15:50

What does the current generation get right? Because the prosecution deserves a defense.

SPEAKER_01 15:55

The visibility argument. This generation has watched institutional failure in real time without mediation. George Floyd on their phones, January 6th, live. No filter, no delay. They've grown up understanding that official accounts require scrutiny and that institutions have interests that don't always align with the public interest. That skepticism is the best thing the 1968 generation had. The thing the boomers taught their children and then forgot to apply to themselves the moment they became the institution.

SPEAKER_00 16:25

The boomers taught their kids to question authority and then became the authority. Of course the kids are questioning it. That's precisely what they were trained to do. It's almost too on the nose. It is entirely too on the nose. History has no subtlety whatsoever.

SPEAKER_01 16:40

The climate anger is rational. The scientific consensus is not ambiguous. The current generation will live longer in a warming world than any previous one. Being angry about 50 years of inadequate energy policy is not hysteria.

SPEAKER_00 16:54

It's arithmetic.

SPEAKER_01 16:56

Exactly.

SPEAKER_00 16:57

Where the current movement loses me is in the specific moral incoherence that emerges when a movement built on universal principles starts applying those principles selectively because that's when a political project becomes a tribe. And tribes are very good at solidarity and very bad at governing. And the people outside the tribe notice. They always notice. They vote. And that's where the generational failure closes the loop in the specific places where the current movement has turned against the communities most essential to building the tradition it claims to be continuing.

SPEAKER_01 17:30

There's another move the current generation makes that I find historically sloppy. The language collapses time. Imperialism becomes not a historical period but an eternal identity category. The 22-year-old in a dorm room today did not personally build the British Empire.

SPEAKER_00 17:44

I'm gonna push on that.

SPEAKER_01 17:54

I'm not saying the slate was wiped clean. Good. I'm saying the period from roughly 1890 to 1990 was one of the most reform-intensive centuries in recorded history. Anti-colonial movement succeeded, civil rights legislation passed, international human rights frameworks were built after the Second World War, specifically because people recognized what imperial brutality produced.

SPEAKER_00 18:17

That's fair on the analysis. What I get uncomfortable is in the application. Because you're ignoring the reforms can very easily become stop complaining, and those are not the same argument.

SPEAKER_01 18:29

Agreed. Completely. There's a difference between acknowledging that reform happened and telling people the work is finished. The work is not finished. But if you treat the 22-year-old barista in Chicago as morally indistinguishable from Cecil Rhodes, you're not doing analysis. You're doing symbolic revenge.

SPEAKER_00 18:45

Symbolic revenge is not a legislative programme.

SPEAKER_01 18:49

Responsibility has to be proportionate. The son is not morally identical to the grandfather. If you erase generational distinction, you replace accountability with inherited sin. And inherited sin without redemption is not politics.

SPEAKER_00 19:03

It's theology.

SPEAKER_01 19:04

A very unforgiving theology.

SPEAKER_00 19:07

And here's the irony. If you actually study the reform movements of that century, you discover something humbling. Most of the work was incremental, compromise, driven, legislated, negotiated, slow, not romantic, no viral clips, just committee rooms and lawsuits and votes.

SPEAKER_01 19:29

Which may be why it's easier to pretend it didn't happen.

SPEAKER_00 19:32

The aesthetic doesn't travel well, but it did happen. And pretending it didn't erase the people who did the work, which is its own kind of injustice. And more dangerously, it creates a moral narrative in which the present is permanently guilty and therefore permanently illegitimate.

SPEAKER_01 19:50

If the system is nothing but empire in disguise, then participation becomes collaboration.

SPEAKER_00 19:56

Voting becomes collaboration, working becomes collaboration. That framework doesn't produce reform, it produces nihilism. And I say that as someone whose instinct is always towards solidarity with the dispossessed.

SPEAKER_01 20:09

Which is exactly why it matters that you're saying it. The coalition.

SPEAKER_00 20:23

Before we go where I know we're going because we have to go there, can I say something that has nothing to do with anything? When has that ever stopped you? The mug. What mug? The podcast mug with our faces on it. Someone in Ohio is drinking their morning tea out of my face every single day. And I find that simultaneously flattering and deeply unsettling, and I don't know what to do with that feeling.

SPEAKER_01 20:46

The mug is acknowledged.

SPEAKER_00 20:48

Thank you. Now, the coalition.

SPEAKER_01 20:51

Jewish Americans were among the most significant organizational and financial supporters of the civil rights movement. Three workers were murdered in Mississippi during Freedom Summer in 1964, James Cheney, who was black, and Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, who were Jewish, all three got on that bus knowing what might be waiting. The coalition they represented is one of the genuinely heroic chapters of that era.

SPEAKER_00 21:15

And on certain campuses today, that coalition has fractured in a way that is historically extraordinary.

SPEAKER_01 21:23

The congressional hearings in December of 2023, when the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT were asked directly whether calling for genocide against Jews violated their campus codes of conduct. I remember watching that. All three gave answers that amounted to, it depends on the context. The question was framed as a conditional could such calls violate policy? And their legal instinct was to hedge. But everyone watching understood what the hedge meant. Three leaders of three of the most powerful universities in the world could not apply their stated anti discrimination principles consistently to this one group on camera, in public, and Jewish students.

SPEAKER_00 22:00

At those institutions, including students who oppose Israeli government policy, including students who identify as anti-Zionist, are being physically blocked from accessing classrooms, targeted not for their politics but for who they are.

SPEAKER_01 22:11

The movement doing this describes itself as the inheritor of the civil rights tradition. That is the historical inversion I cannot get past.

SPEAKER_00 22:18

You know what I keep thinking about? Tell me. I keep thinking about what the people doing, the block and believe. Because I don't think they're malicious, most of them. I think they have a framework, a categorization of who is oppressed and who is oppressor, and within that framework, what they're doing makes a certain terrible sense.

SPEAKER_01 22:35

And that is exactly how prejudice has always operated.

SPEAKER_00 22:38

It has never needed malice. It only needs a framework. The framework is the mechanism.

SPEAKER_01 22:46

That's the most important thing said on this show today.

SPEAKER_00 22:48

Which is why the remedy is internal. John Lewis named anti-Semitism when it appeared inside the civil rights movement, from inside, by someone withstanding. The only criticism that doesn't get dismissed as bad faith is from inside the movement, by someone who shares its values and says this specific thing is wrong by our own principles.

SPEAKER_01 23:09

That courage is what's currently missing.

SPEAKER_00 23:12

And its absence is the most telling failure of the current generation's revolt.

SPEAKER_01 23:17

Now, the underlying question, because you can't discuss any of this honestly without saying where you stand, there is a Palestinian people with a genuine national claim and a genuine history in that land that is real and it matters. Agreed. And there is a Jewish people with a 2,000-year history of being told they belong nowhere expelled across Europe, massacred in every century, subjected in living memory to the industrialized extermination of six million people. The political conclusion drawn from that history that the Jewish people are entitled to a homeland is not extremism. It is the position the United Nations proposed with its partition plan in 1947.

SPEAKER_00 23:55

And here's where I want to say something that I think costs me something to say. Because I'm Irish American. The Irish have our own history of colonial dispossession and famine and centuries of being told we didn't fully belong in our own land. And the instinct, the very strong instinct when you carry that history, is to reach for solidarity with every other people who've been dispossessed automatically, without interrogating it. But the Irish history and the Jewish history are not the same history. And the Palestinian question is not the Irish question. I think sometimes Irish Americans and I include my younger self in this reach for that solidarity without doing the work of understanding why the situations are different. The Jewish people's claim to a homeland is not the British claim to Ireland. It is the claim of a people who have been stateless for 2,000 years and systematically murdered for the entirety of that time.

SPEAKER_01 24:48

Those are not equivalent situations?

SPEAKER_00 24:51

They are not. And treating them as equivalent because they both involve dispossession is lazy solidarity. It feels righteous and it's lazy.

SPEAKER_01 24:59

That's a harder thing to say than most people are willing to say. It cost me something.

SPEAKER_00 25:04

I'll tell you that for free.

SPEAKER_01 25:05

And from the Australian side of this table, Australia was built on the dispossession of indigenous people. That's not contested history. So when I argue for the right of a people to a homeland, I'm arguing from a country whose founding involved the forcible removal of the people who are already there. I hold that tension, I don't resolve it.

SPEAKER_00 25:24

The tension is the honest place to be.

SPEAKER_01 25:26

The only honest place. Two peoples with real claims, no easy answers, and the only path forward requires a future for both, not the elimination of one.

SPEAKER_00 25:34

Which is why calling for the elimination of the Jewish state is not a peace proposal. It forecloses the conversation before it begins. And comparing Israeli military operations to the Holocaust is a rhetorical weapon, not historical analysis. The current generations movement, if it wants to be taken seriously as the heir to the civil rights tradition, needs to say so. Clearly, from the inside.

SPEAKER_01 25:56

Although, and I want to say this honestly, the young people on those campuses who are chanting those chants, some of them are also carrying real grief about real deaths of real people that the current conflict has produced genuine human catastrophe on both sides. Acknowledging that doesn't weaken the argument. It's just true.

SPEAKER_00 26:16

I'll take that. The grief is real. Push grief is not the same as a political program. The campus movement has, in certain of its expressions, allowed grief to become a political program that targets people who had nothing to do with the source of the grief. Jewish students in Ohio had nothing to do with what happened in Gaza. That's what the framework makes available, which is why the framework is the problem, not the grief.

SPEAKER_01 26:41

The grief is human, the framework is doing the damage.

SPEAKER_00 26:46

Now the wheel. Because I want to end on something true rather than something tidy. The wheel? The generation currently being revolted against was once the generation doing the revolting. They had the righteous anger. They were the ones being tear gassed. And now they are the ones saying, You don't understand complexity. And they are sometimes right. And their grandchildren are sometimes right. And the wheel turns.

SPEAKER_01 27:16

A 22-year-old most furious at the boomers today will be 72.

SPEAKER_00 27:20

Someone will be furious at them. They will have changed some real things and broken others, and somewhere in there will be a mortgage with their name on it. History suggests the mortgage is always waiting. History suggests exactly that. And here's what I keep coming back to, not as despair, but as the most honest thing I know about how change actually worked. The civil rights workers murdered in Mississippi in 64. Cheney Goodman Schwerner did not live to see a black president. They did the work anyway. That is the only answer to the mortgage, the only answer to the wheel that doesn't end in resignation. Do the work.

SPEAKER_01 28:05

We've spent 50 minutes explaining why they were both wrong. I have absolutely no doubt that we are also wrong about something. Something obvious to people in 30 years that we can't currently see.

SPEAKER_00 28:16

I think we might be wrong about the mortgage. I think there might be a generation coming that doesn't get the mortgage. That the economy has broken badly enough that the radical of 22 stays radical at 42 because there's nothing to buy and nothing to protect. And I don't know what that does to the wheel. I don't think the wheel has been tested under those conditions in a very long time.

SPEAKER_01 28:36

That's either very hopeful or genuinely terrifying.

SPEAKER_00 28:39

Both. It's definitely both. That's the show. The Mike and Mark history experience. See you next week when we will, as is tradition and as is our gift to you, get into more trouble than we planned for. Considerably more. Guaranteed. Not a syllable, less. Take care of yourselves.