Co-Founder Chris Hughes Calls For Breakup Of Facebook He Built With Mark Zuckerberg During Their Harvard Days; Cal Polytech Faculty And Trinity
<Show: INGRAHAM ANGLE>
<Date: May 10, 2019>
<Head: Co-Founder Chris Hughes Calls For Breakup Of Facebook He Built With
Mark Zuckerberg During Their Harvard Days; Cal Polytech Faculty And Trinity
University Students Voting To Remove Chick-fil-A From Their Campuses Over
Their Alleged Anti-LGBTQ Views; President Trump Has Stood Against The
Interventionist Strain That Runs Through Much Of The Republican Party That
He Now Leads; 94 Percent Of Heroin That Comes Into The United States Comes
From Mexico; The Six Cartels In Mexico Are Shipping The Opioids Into U.S.,
Which Last Year Killed At Least 70,000 Americans; Catholic Priest Invites
Louis Farrakhan To Speak To Congregation After Facebook Ban; Panel Of
Democratic Voters Do Not Display Confidence President Trump Will Lose In
2020; Dr. Drew Pinsky Discusses Concept Of Toxic Masculinity; Pro-Life
Demonstrator Criticizes Harassment By Pennsylvania Democratic State
Representative - Part 1>
<Sect: News; Domestic>
<Byline: Laura Ingraham, Mollie Hemingway, Raymond Arroyo, Guy Benson>
<Guest: Raheem Kassam, Kevin Walling, Drew Pinsky, Ashley Garecht>
<Spec: Chris Hughes; Facebook; Mark Zuckerberg; Harvard; Cal Polytech;
Trinity University; Chick-fil-A; LGBTQ; Donald Trump; Republican Party;
Afghanistan; Heroin; United States; Mexico; Opioids; Religion; Media;
Politics; Government; Abortion>
JASON CHAFFETZ, FOX NEWS HOST: Have a great weekend. Happy Mothers Day!, especially with your mate. My mom, who I miss, who passed away and my wife, Julie, love you. “INGRAHAM ANGLE” is up next.
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: I’m Laura Ingraham, this is THE INGRAHAM ANGLE, from Washington tonight. We’re going to do something a little different. OK. Ready? No Comey, no Mueller, no Barr, no contempt to Barr, no impeachment talk. What the heck are we going to talk about. Well, I’m telling you we’re not doing it, because to a lot of you, it’s lot of white noise. None of that really matters to you to some extent. So, Friday, we’re going to be talking about a lot of culture, political stuff, but things that get lost in the shuffle, especially when we had as much news as we had this week.
And we’re going to answer questions such as this. What does the debate over Facebook’s future really mean for free speech? Huge issue. And if we can’t patrol our own borders, can’t control them, why should we be defending the borders of countries thousands of miles away? Interesting question. We’re going to examine the backlash to all these boycotts out there, specifically how Chick-fil-A’s emergence as the fastest growing fast food restaurant in the country.
How that can teach a lesson to those who want to punish Christian conservatives in this country? You know it’s the third biggest fast food chain in America today. And Raymond Arroyo is here, Friday Follies. Why is a radical priest trying to rehab Farrakhan? Well, of course for all the wrong reasons. All that and more coming up with Raymond.
But in a much-ballyhooed New York Times op-ed, former Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes called for the breakup of the company he built with his buddy Mark Zuckerberg during their Harvard days. Now, his piece got him booked far and wide across the media landscape.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS HUGHES, FORMER CO-FOUNDER OF FACEBOOK: This is a monopoly. The market is frozen. There is no competition and there is no accountability.
The time is up. There have been too many scandals. There have been too many problems. It’s up to government to come in. Break up the company and set this baseline of standards.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: OK. Who is Chris Hughes? He was the Harvard classmate of Zuckerberg where of course they founded the social media giant, Facebook. Now, he left the company over a decade ago with a small and very lucrative stake valued at roughly $850 million. That’s about 1 percent of the company. Well, after he cashed out though, Hughes volunteered for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. And then he used his newfound wealth to buy the notorious liberal, New Republic magazine inserting himself as editor, tried to rehab that, revive that, well didn’t work, ended up selling that off couple of years later.
Recent years, he’s become a proponent of universal basic income. It’s only when you know all of those liberal bonafides that Hughes has that you start to understand the real thinking behind his call to break up the social media giant. His main gripe is this, “I’m disappointed in myself and early Facebook team for not thinking more about how the news feed algorithm could change our culture, influence elections and as my favorite empower nationalist leaders.” Trump. Well, there it is. My guess is that if Hughes thought Facebook was amplifying the right voices, meaning the left voices then there wouldn’t be the need for this correction. There are plenty of issues with Facebook, privacy, monopoly, power et cetera. All of which we’ve documented on this show.
But to suggest that the movements around the globe in Europe and beyond things like Brexit, the rise of Trump’s economic policies, they are only popular because of Facebook is just ludicrous. Completely missing the point. And at bottom I think this is typical leftist snobbery. We don’t like your ideas, so they can’t be organic. It’s kind of like the way they treated the Tea Party back in 2010. They called it all Astroturf. It didn’t matter.
Well, the same thing happened with Trump’s election. Disillusioned elites were so shocked that they had to create another reason for their loss. And in the end, well the breakup of Facebook - it might even be a good idea, but the reasons are putting forth aren’t that convincing. So, with the emergence of these social media companies as the main vehicle for disseminating free thought to break them up on these grounds could actually have a chilling effect on speech that some of the former leaders or even current leaders of Facebook don’t like.
Joining me now for this very big topic Mollie Hemingway, Senior Editor at The Federalist, a Fox News Contributor and Raheem Kassam, who is the Global Editor-in-Chief of the brand new newly launched, relaunched Human Events. Raheem, it’s great to see both. Why does the left always want to silence the views of those who disagree with their world view?
RAHEEM KASSAM, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, HUMAN EVENTS: Well, I think these guys in particular a different kind of left. They’re a liberal left, they’re left that hasn’t necessarily gone through academic rigors. Some of our good counterparts on the left have. So, they actually don’t have arguments behind what they believe in. And when you are operating in a vacuum of arguments, the best way to defeat your opponent is to silence them rather than take them on. And I think that’s what’s happening in Silicon Valley at the moment.
I think this is a very important op ed and very long one, by the way.
INGRAHAM: 6000 words.
KASSAM: 6000 words. Even for somebody like me who reads copy all day every day. That was a bit too long, but it’s important because he is a leftist and it’s important because he is somebody who was there at the founding. It’s all well and good me going on television and go on Facebook bans me.
INGRAHAM: I espouse Zuckerberg. He had same a couple of years.
INGRAHAM: He’s at this house, kissed this kid. I mean they’re friends, but I don’t know how friendly.
KASSAM: We should just take it very, very seriously, I think.
INGRAHAM: Dustin Moskowitz the other co-founder of Facebook tweeted out, I guess in response to saying Chris’s op ed said this, If the goal is to improve democracy, we should break up Fox and Sinclair first. He deleted that. Real quick, but of course.
MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, SENIOR EDITOR, THE FEDERALIST: I can imagine--
INGRAHAM: Deleting tweets doesn’t really work.
HEMINGWAY: But it gets at this underlying issue, which is that online, which is the primary means by which we discuss politics and have political engagement. There are these efforts to shut down conservative speech and there are serious issues that need to be dealt with. It doesn’t mean that using government power is the way to do it.
But even the way that they’re talking about it is if the opposite were true as if online space is such a friendly place for any right perspective is completely at odds with what we have seen from a lot of these tech giants that D platform conservatives that limit what people can say and that’s a big problem that I mean we are going to see some people pushing for regulation. And I think there need to be some smart answer.
INGRAHAM: It’s a very tricky thing, because there is an impulse in me and in part that these things are so big and so - they have a billion people on the platforms, WhatsApp and Mollie on WhatsApp all-day. Snapchat and of course Facebook, all combined, they bought both companies a couple of years back. That’s a huge, huge imprint. On the other hand, for the government to step in and say, we’re going to cut this, cut this.
It’s not clear that that’s going to bring about more free speech. I don’t understand how that necessarily will bring about more free speech, because I want to play something this is not from a conservative by the way, this is CNBC professor. I spoke out I think yesterday when this whole controversy emerged from this op ed. Let’s watch
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARUN SUNDARARAJAN, PROFESSOR, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Breaking up Facebook by itself isn’t really going to solve some of the core issues that Facebook has faced criticism for the fact that social media platforms have led to political polarization. The fact that users have very limited if not any privacy rights. None of these things are going to be addressed by the breaking up of Facebook, it’s sort of rooted in 20th century economics.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Trust busting. So, breakup. His point is - it’s led to the polarization. No, polarization Mollie, you’ve written about this - has been created because globalization ran over the middle class and Europe and France and Britain and Italy and Sweden even with a mass migration of us, so polar - globalization open borders has hurt a lot of people, it has nothing to do with Facebook.
HEMINGWAY: Well, I don’t know entirely though. I mean I think that there are issues with Facebook and there are problems, but there is I’m not a fan of laws about monopolies, but we do have these laws and there are a lot of privileges that have been accorded to some of these tech giants.
On the premise that they are these open platform areas where anybody can speak, but they’re not actually behaving that way. And I think that that is something that can be looked into. Should they receive these privileges of sort of government help when they are - and they are in some cases a monopolistic type enterprise. Now, I don’t have a huge problem with that but there are laws governing these things and I think that they need to behave in such a way as to not take advantage of their--
INGRAHAM: Yes, Raheem, conservatives always, we can’t do antitrust. That’s a liberal thing. Sure. Margaret Thatcher loves small business. She was very distrustful of these large multinational corporations and this is the among the biggest of the big, Mollie is right. They can squash you; poor old David Horowitz keeps getting banned from various platforms, seems like what did I do. It always happens to go the conservative way.
KASSAM: Yes, I actually disagree with a lot of the conservative voices out there that are pushing back against the idea of regulation somehow. Number one, regulation doesn’t have to be an active government thing. They can just stop undergirding what keeps some of these companies up like the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, get rid of that and then you’ll see more competition. I actually agree with Chris Hughes in his article as well if you do breakup Facebook, I think it allows for competitors to move into the space a little bit easier, only a little bit easier.
But it’s still a little bit easier and I think the other thing we need to recognize when it comes to the platform access issue is that we are now talking about this in civil rights terms, because the public square is actually no different from the digital public square and anybody who thinks that is going to go apart rather than more together they’re living in cloud cuckoo land.
INGRAHAM: By the way, I added to their empire incorrectly, Facebook does not own Snapchat. They own Instagram.
INGRAHAM: Massive, massive. Panel, thank you.
HEMINGWAY: Thank you.
INGRAHAM: I think we are going to see some movement on this. It’ll be coming up in the campaign. Elizabeth Warren, Dick Blumenthal all speaking about this issue.
Also, tonight, the liberals are coming, the liberals are coming for your chicken.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Two colleges are pushing to boot Chick-fil-A from their campuses. Cal Polytech faculty and Trinity University students voting to remove the fast food chain over their alleged anti-LGBTQ views.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Well, this comes after successful efforts last month that banned the fast food restaurant from airports in San Antonio and Buffalo. But these actions have produced what I like to call a boycott backlash as Chick-fil-A is now the third biggest U.S. restaurant chain after sales have tripled in the last decade. Joining me now, Guy Benson, Fox News Contributor, Host of The Guy Benson Show on Fox News Radio. And Kevin Walling, Democratic strategist. All right, Guy, critics would have you believe that because Chick-fil-A’s board has given money to things like the Christian Fellowship, Youth Fellowship or to YMCA that this is an organization that is routinely discriminating against gays and lesbians and hiring and in service. What is the truth?
GUY BENSON, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Both of those claims are false and totally baseless. Right. I frankly I’m mystified by this obsession with Chick-fil-A.
INGRAHAM: For years, they’ve been obsessed with these years, I’m hungry even having this conversation by the way.
BENSON: They keep getting angrier and we keep hearing about them like are we still doing this - we’re still doing this. Meanwhile, Chick-fil-A keeps growing. And here’s why now. This is going to be really shocking. They make really delicious fried chicken products and they have reliably friendly service and clean restaurants. Imagine that combination. And they’re only open six days a week and they’re still crushing it. The product is what matters and all this other noise I guess it makes headlines and there’s these activists on campus depriving deliciousness of other students. That’s their loss. People are going to find their way to the products that they want and they’re clearly making their way to Chick-fil-A.
INGRAHAM: Yes. It’s been seven years since Dan Cathy, he’s the Founder of Chick-fil-A, a firm biblical marriage in an interview and yet the LGBT lobby has not dropped the matter. We’re still told that eating Chick-fil-A chicken nugget is an act of bigotry against homosexuals because of views expressed by Dan Cathy during Obama’s first term in office. The problem here is if you are going to say that people who believe in biblical marriage, basically don’t deserve to be in the public square selling or even speaking because you’re hearing that pushback as well, that’s a lot of people who are just removed from the American understanding, American current life.
KEVIN WALLING, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes, Laura, as a full disclaimer, I survived on Chick-fil-A all throughout college and came my sophomore year at Catholic University. I loved it. So, the same respect given to people’s views and a corporation’s views on different issues should be given to protesters who choose to take their dollars elsewhere. I would point out that not only do they provide a welcoming environment, but the key thing that we should focus on is the zero percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign on their employee practices, right, so they don’t support adoption rights. They don’t support spousal benefits for same sex couples. So, I think there is a little bit of an argument for these activists to make there. But again, to Guy’s point, it’s good chicken. I survived on it and we got to see the difference here.
BENSON: I have no problem, Laura. If someone like I’m gay, I eat at Chick- fil-A, I’m more of a Wendy’s guy, I’ll admit, but Chick-fil-A is delicious. If someone feels so strongly about some of the issues that you brought up, that’s fine, you don’t have to go and eat there.
INGRAHAM: Don’t go to Chick-fil-A.
BENSON: But don’t try to like to agitate to get these things banned from schools and airports. A lot of us want to eat that stuff. Don’t try to impose that on the rest of us.
INGRAHAM: But it’s amazing that some of these colleges and universities, the boards of trustees and the administrators, most of them, not all, but just wilt at the first sign of going to get 10 letters and they just - we decry the bigotry of Chick-fil-A. I’m like what bigotry are they talking about.
BENSON: Conservatives. Need to step up too.
INGRAHAM: Right, conservative alarms do. They have to say - or any hungry alarms have to step forward.
WALLING: I think Pete Buttigieg, Mayor Pete had an interesting line. He said, I disagree with the politics of Chick-fil-A, but it’s pretty OK chicken, right. And he wants to be a bridge those folks that are up in arms about this issue and we should find a bridge to Chick-fil-A into those activists and see if we can bridge that gap. If it can be bridge.
INGRAHAM: This is a restaurant chain. They’re not denying access to people based on their political beliefs, but everyone has the right to their own beliefs about whether it’s about affirmative action or immigration or marriage or. And millions and millions and millions and millions of Americans agree with Dan Cathy. And so are all of them horrible, awful, rotten people. The left is going way too far on this and there is a big backlash. These boycotts are on at the Chick-fil-A are - they’re helping Chick-fil-A.
BENSON: I also think it’s exhausting to a lot of people. Everyone just chills the hell out and eat some tasty chicken and move on with your life. Here’s a thing. I’m also a fan maybe too much of a fan of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, right. Some of them are Ben and Jerry’s flavors are delicious and I indulge in that maybe from time-to-time I cannot stand the politics of those--
INGRAHAM: Me neither.
BENSON: At all.
INGRAHAM: Since I was in college.
BENSON: But I’m not sitting here saying I’m choosing to buy their product, because it’s good. And I’m like let’s shut down the locations on campus.
INGRAHAM: I want to show you guys. This is a list of the groups that Chick- fil-A has donated to. OK. These are the ones that are - they’re so objectionable. Fellowship Christian athletes Salvation Army and Paul Anderson youth home. Kevin what’s the problem here.
WALLING: Yes, I mean there are some issues with the Salvation Army in their treatment especially of transgender folks in their different community centers. I think we’ve come a long way actually with Chick-fil-A, they actually used to--
INGRAHAM: They do no good.
WALLING: They actually used to support - no, the Salvation Army supports a lot of important causes. I think we’ve come a long way from their supportive ex-gay ministries right. Conversion therapy that we saw in 2011, 2012. That was the big--
INGRAHAM: Obama was for traditional marriage like five seconds ago.
INGRAHAM: So, most of the Democrat party.
WALLING: We’re talking about conversion therapy, which is really bad for LGBT kids in this country and youth and I think we can both agree on that. And they’ve come a long way from that.
INGRAHAM: Yes, and I think again instead of more speech and more debate, they want to demonize people with whom they disagree. I’m not demonizing--
WALLING: Let’s have a debate.
INGRAHAM: Debate it. Like have a conversation.
WALLING: More speech, more debate, more chicken.
INGRAHAM: I’m very hungry. it’s late. All right, guys. Thanks so much. And this week we documented firsthand how much trouble we’re having - keeping our border security. You saw the pieces. You saw the interviews we did. So, why are some demanding that we continue to overextend ourselves overseas, defending the borders of other countries. And what did that end up costing us. And why are you being blamed for all that. We’ll explain next.
INGRAHAM: President Trump has stood against the interventionist strain that runs through much of the Republican Party that he now leads. The endless war in Afghanistan for instance provides a perfect example of how this all plays out. So, the President has long advocated for immediate drawdown, even folks once affiliated with his administration like former National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster are saying this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
H.R. MCMASTER, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: There is this defeatist narrative now that is inaccurate and doesn’t reflect what’s at stake and oftentimes doesn’t reflect the actual situation. A young student stood up and he said, all I’ve known my whole life is war. Now he’s never been to war, but he’s been subjected I think to this narrative of war weariness.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Oh! My God, I cannot believe he worked in the administration. Did you get that. America’s war weariness isn’t rooted in fact just fell down from the sky or Trump made him feel that way. This is lunacy. The benefit of fighting a war is thousands of miles away has to be a parent to people especially after a decade plus.
Here now retired U.S. Army Colonel Doug MacGregor. Colonel, are the Americans the ones to blame for their war weariness? I’ve heard a lot of nuttiness when it comes to foreign policy coming from the Republican Party. But that’s about it.
DOUG MACGREGOR, RETIRED U.S. ARMY COLONEL: Well, I think McMaster expresses an opinion that’s widely held in neocon circles here in Washington and inside the Pentagon and that is that the war is an end in itself. There is no connection to policy analysis or coherent strategy. The idea is you’ve got to keep the war going. And when you ask questions, you’re obviously ignorant. The President is a fool. Why does he continue to ask why are we there? We’ve spent $6 trillion, lost thousands of lives. We have more enemies than we had 19 years ago, what are we doing.
INGRAHAM: We can’t even get the actual figure really for how much we’ve spent. It’s kind of hard to track that down. Some goes between 2 trillion and 6 trillion. But we have some figures here. In Iraq, 822 billion, it’s got to be more than that way, do you think, way more.
I saw that number, I’m like there is no way that can be right. Syria inherent resolve 54 billion, Afghanistan 975 billion, it’s got to be more than that. Pakistan, 10 billion, that’s just a drop in the bucket though, is it not. And yet we were down at the border this week. It’s a shock. It is - we don’t have the manpower; we don’t have the judges. I’ve done on the right laws obviously. But these people are outmanned and overwhelmed by a porous U.S. border and we’re over there and these other--
MACGREGOR: And Laura, in the meantime, 94 percent of the heroin that comes into the United States comes from Mexico. The six cartels in Mexico are shipping the opioids into the country that last year killed at least 70,000 Americans. And we’re hearing General Mackenzie and CENTCOM talk about allegedly the Iranians have killed 600 Americans over the last several years and this is the justification for threatening Iran.
INGRAHAM: They want to go to war with Iran, don’t they?
MACGREGOR: Yes, probably, but I mean why aren’t we militarizing our border and protecting the country.
INGRAHAM: Oh, that’s too obvious. Colonel, just today the Pentagon announced it shifting 1.5 billion originally targeted for the support of the Afghan security forces and other projects to the border to help pay for construction of the 80 miles of the new fence or wall, whatever we’re calling it. Is Trump finally winning this fight or?
MACGREGOR: No, absolutely not. I mean it’s a nice gesture, but the cartels are now flying their own unmanned aircraft so that they can pick the areas where there are no patrolmen and dump off new migrants. We’ve got to understand Mexico is not a normal state. It’s controlled by the cartels. It’s time to--
INGRAHAM: Calling it a narco. It’s a narco.
MACGREGOR: It is a narco state. It’s trying to militarize that border. And President Trump needs to do it, if he wants his base to come out for him, that’s what he’s got to do.
INGRAHAM: Well, I’ve got to tell you Colonel what we saw, and these are great men in the Border Patrol, it is so unfair. What’s done to them. And we’ve got to change these asylum laws, we have to immediate turn back at the border. Colonel, thank you. It’s great to see you, tonight.
MACGREGOR: Thank you.
INGRAHAM: And coming up, a little different. Friday Follies with Raymond Arroyo and it is fantastic. Stay there
AISHAH HASNIE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Live from America’s news headquarters. I’m Aishah Hasnie. President Trump saying the trade talks with China were productive, but no deal has been made. He also says that his relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping remains very strong. But despite the positive words from Trump, the U.S. imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods today. Chinese state media says that China will not accept a deal that undermines the sovereignty and dignity of the country and will not compromise on the matters of principle. While the Pentagon announcing it will move a Patriot missile battery into the Middle East region, a pre-emptive counter to possible threats from Iran. Patriot missiles serve both surface to air and antiballistic missile rolls, an anonymous official says, intelligence shows Iranians loading missiles and other equipment onto small boats. I’m Aishah Hasnie, now back to THE INGRAHAM ANGLE.
INGRAHAM: It’s Friday night and that means it’s time for Friday Follies. Radical priest tries to rehab Farrakhan, a panel of Democrats fight over 2020, and one that you want to avoid in the field.
Joining us now with all the details, Raymond Arroyo, FOX News contributor, of course “Will Wilder” author. Raymond, I thought after Farrakhan was banned from Facebook that, I don’t know, his days in the spotlight might be coming to an end. But now a Catholic priest is trying to resurrect him.
RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Laura, it is simply unbelievable. Chicago priest Father Michael Pfleger, a leftist activist, which we will get to in a moment.
INGRAHAM: Oh, God, not him.
ARROYO: Yes, he invited the controversial Nation of Islam leader to speak at his Chicago parish yesterday. The reason, he wants Farrakhan back on Facebook. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Minister Farrakhan has been a bold voice against injustice done against black people in this country. His voice deserves and needs to be heard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARROYO: To underscore the point, Pfleger broadcast Louis Farrakhan’s visit from his parish on Facebook, flouting their ban, even though Farrakhan was banned from the social media site in part because of his allegedly anti- Semitic speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LOUIS FARRAKHAN: To the white people who think I’m a hater, you don’t know me. Somebody made you hate me. This is just the beginning. Banning me from a social platform. I used that platform with respect. And I’m here to separate the good Jews from the satanic Jews.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARROYO: Laura, this man, he is out of his mind. And for Pfleger to think that this is appropriate or in any way social justice to bring a man like this spouting hatred and anti-Semitism to a Catholic church, frankly, it is amazing to me that the Chicago archdiocese hasn’t intervened here, Laura. Outrageous.
INGRAHAM: Pfleger has been doing this nonsense, this type of stuff, Raymond, for years. And yet the Vatican looks the other way, there is no comment. Pfleger has been a nightmare, frankly, for a lot of Catholics in the Chicago area and frankly across the country for a long, long time. We should’ve brought Pfleger on our Facebook panel that we had a few minutes ago. We should have brought him on.