 If you want to know community matters, that is, it does really matter. I'm Jay Fidel. This is Think Tech and my friend over here is Peter Hoffenberg. He's a history professor at UH Minoa. Hi, welcome to the show, Peter. Thank you, Jay. How are you? Looking good. I'm feeling pretty good. Looking good. Maybe quarantine is a good thing for you. Yeah. Well, I don't want to do it forever though. Okay. It wears out after a while. Well, let me ask you about, I was reading and watching videos on YouTube. I spent a lot of time doing that, learning what not, you know, it's a quarantine is an opportunity to learn and think and even write down your thoughts, I'm sure you know. So I was learning about these meeting rooms, breakout rooms in Zoom. It's really interesting what you can do in Zoom and a lot of it is directed at education. So I wanted to ask you, you know, as a professor at UH who has students and you're still in the semester, you know, and there's still a need to go forward with classroom material, how are you handling that and how is Zoom, you know, how is Zoom involved? Okay. Good. Good question. Very relevant. I'm basically a Luddite, you know me, turning on a doorknob or turning on the light is hard enough. I would say Zoom in general has been a life raft, you know, not a perfect life raft. But I would say that first of all, the university has been very good about getting apps for us and has been good about helping us work through them because some of us never did this before. On the other hand, of course, some people have been doing it for a long time and they're very up and running. But if you ask me after one month, I would say as a professor that it's far superior to the other software or platforms, whatever you call it, would use for a couple of reasons. When it's working well, it is on real time. I always felt with Skype, like somebody would say something and I could actually go out and have dinner and come back and I would just finally hear them. But Zoom allows the students to be in real time. I think one of the great advantages is it only works if you shut up and listen and let the person finish. So as an old time unit boy check, we're used to shouting at each other. I know seminars you shout at each other, but Zoom has had a real advantage. It's forced you to stop, listen, pay attention. So that's all been good. I'll confess that my use of it is very rudimentary. So to answer your question, I can have a conversation with as many students as want to join at a time. We can review the readings. They can ask questions, which is a big plus over never seeing them, right, big, big, big plus. Sure. Yeah. The minus I suppose is always still to have good to have some personal contact and some people still are a little phobic about technology. I suppose my main concern would be, and I'm only a professor, my main concern is that universities around the country are going to see that this works. And this is going to accelerate the momentum to have more and more online learning. I hope it does not do that. My hope would be a hybrid that people like myself who never used it can take maybe one session a week and that could be online, but two should be brick and mortar. I mean, we always have a worry that crisis like this, usually people in large scale organizations are going to take advantage of a crisis like this to do something that they always wanted to do beforehand. And my fear as a faculty member is that the universities are going to look out and say, well, you know, this actually did work pretty well. So let's spend less money hiring full-time professors, let's spend less time worrying about in-class your education. So I don't want to be a downer because it's been very good and certainly for students, it's been a life raft, but I hope it won't replace in-class learning. I hope it works with. So tell me, I mean, we've had this discussion with other guests, but I'm wondering what you thought is, is education, is communication, you know, on Zoom by remote electronic communication like this better, or is there a, you know, a kind of philosophical, human kind of benefit in having personal communication of being able to see the roar of the grease paint and the smell of the crowd and feel physically what the other person is emoting and all that. Is there a significant benefit in that? Well, since our air conditioning rarely works on campus, we actually do. This is true. I'm going to quote the very well-known and very well-respected philosophy professor Libby J. Oppenberg, who will say, two things can be true. So it is true that there are skills and advantages to in-person discussion. Absolutely true. I think also though, oh, is this working okay or am I speaking? Okay, keep going. Sometimes Zoom does that. Are you right? I'm sorry. On the other hand, and they're not competing hands, this is probably a good skill for the students to learn. In part, we are all hoping that one of the consequences of this crisis will be fewer airplane flights, right? Less travel to conferences, more consciousness of the environment, and the ability to do what you want to do to conference from a long distance. So that's why I emphasize the hybrid. You know, let the kids learn these skills. Well, they're not really kids always, but let the students learn these skills, which are important skills, right? Sit still, listen, articulate, look at the person. Those are all great skills. And also be able to do those things in class with human beings. I just, I don't think really it's an either or proposition. I think it's not, we can do this and we can't do that. It's a matter of thinking creatively so that you can take these two different experiences. And there are also, I mean, living here for a very long time now and enjoying living here. One of the things I have noticed is that in the classroom at least, students tend to be shy. The written answers are almost always beautiful and I'm always surprised because the kid never said anything. And this is a way actually for some of the kids who are a bit on the shy side to participate a little easier, it's easier for them to communicate. They still do need to learn to speak in public, but it's not an all lose situation. I mean, so, but I would say that like we just had the glitch, it is important to just get the technology down. There's nothing more frustrating for a student, right? Than trying to make a point and suddenly the computer goes dead or some. Yeah, I have to expect that. I mean, there are benefits electronically between, as you said, between Zoom and other remote programs like Skype. Yeah, and Zoom does seem to work pretty well. It does and especially in the context of education, I think. For example, go back to my self-education over meeting rooms, breakout rooms. Zoom has an extraordinary set of tools about moving students or anyone in a Zoom meeting into a room and then letting them talk among themselves. And then visiting you, the professor, visiting the room and then visiting another room and having people go from one room to another room. It's like a physical conference, which is actually more than you would find in an ordinary history class, isn't it? Absolutely, yeah, absolutely. So if I give you a tool where you can have a bunch of students in one room, another bunch in another room, move them around, visit them, all that. Easily, but to push a button, does that help you in history? Is this something you would entertain having the benefit of these tools? Absolutely, intend them though, if we just be a little anal about it. They're three times a week we meet with our students. So I could see this the third time. So the first two times, we lecture, we discuss, we have questions. And then I could see this breakout. Because one of the difficulties of the breakout or the vast Zoom experience is what, for historians, we might say quality control, like avoiding fake news, avoiding. I mean, we've spent our lives doing this. We do know more than the students. They're probably smarter than we are, but we just happen to know more. So it is important to at least set the stage for those first meetings to get everybody at the same knowledge. And then I think it's a wonderful idea and actually it's advantageous to not necessarily have the professor looking over them, certainly. But the first day of the week, I need to look over them because the American Revolution did not take place in 1976. Although, maybe certain people would look at it that way. There just are certain things and today, ironically, that's more important because there's so much information available online. That part of our responsibility is getting our students trained to know what is kosher and what is not kosher. And sometimes you have to do that in person. But there are absolutes, though, Peter. For example, I don't think there's any debate whatsoever about the War of 1812. The War of 1812 happened in 1812. Am I right about that? Well, it depends how you define war. All right. I mean, you want to tell me what a discussion, okay? No, no precisely, right, no, exactly. But for example, it would be worthwhile in person having a discussion or reviewing some of the documents about the War of 1812. And then you could divide the class up and part of the class could be the New Englanders who wanted to join the British, or at least not join the Americans, right? Some could be African-American slaves. We realized British victory would bring liberation. So you could do that, but you got to start with at least being on the same page about that. I love to be in one of your classes. And I mean, a classic case is, for example, Holocaust denial. Yes. So what do you do when the smart kid in the class takes advantage of the situation by saying, well, there's not any gas in the soil and how could it be $6 million? All right. And the four of the kids who haven't studied it, what are they going to say? This kid's a senior. He's a chem major. So there are certain things that we do. Last two years ago, I had a student argue that slavery was beneficial for African-Americans because it gave them a roof and a job. Now, right. But if you're just with eight or 10 other students, I'm not sure anybody would want to contest that. Because they get a conflict avoidance or this or that. But it would be incumbent upon a professor and actually anybody with an IQ over six to suggest that that's really pretty abhorrent. OK. But who knows what happens in a little chat room, right? So that third day, I would like to set up the first two days. So that doesn't happen the third day. Or if it does happen the third day, the other students are confident enough to say, let's unpack the absurdity of that argument. Because factually, of course factually, it's true, right? Factually, there were roofs, of course. But that's a non-issue, right? And you have to be able to, the students have to be comfortable enough and well educated enough to say that's not an issue. I know I can see that happening in our time. There are people who are wedded to, I don't want to use the trite phrase, fake news. But there are people who wedded to arguments that are specious about important issues in our world. And you can't get them off these arguments. I mean, this happens in Washington on a daily basis, on a 24 by 7 basis. And so, I mean, I don't know what I would do with a kid in my class, a student in my class, who was wedded to an argument that was specious and destructive. And there he is in my class. And he's spreading that around. And he's arguing that. And he's got the rhetoric all worked out. And the other kids are being me, I use the term infected by this sort of thing. They may not have the skills to bring them down intellectually, bring them down. What do you do? Yeah. Usually in the classroom, at least here what happens is most of the students would not agree with that, but they just would not say anything. Part of it's the politeness, et cetera. So in that example, I had to take the role of rebinding the students not just historically, but also ethically and historiographically what she happened to be claiming. And as a lot of the arguments was mostly just the matter of laziness. It wasn't even political inclination. But there are political inclinations. I don't remember the name of the group, but there still exists a far right group of generally young men who go to college campuses and they try to interrupt professors. And that happened with one of my colleagues here. And that's exactly what they did. They come into the class, they present what appears to be a factual or scientific argument. They appear to do that. And most of the students look really uncomfortable and are embarrassed and shocked by it, but they're not really able to police the classroom. The professor still has to police the classroom. Yes. I know it was a purpose. I look at it as a colonial endeavor. So my allies are usually the antiques, the older Hawaiian or Chinese women who are taking my class while you're who will remind the 16-year-old next to them who's listening on their iPhone or whatever that this is a class. So go to the beach afterwards. Yeah. God bless the antiques. Exactly. So let me move on to the other thing we were going to discuss. And that is the position of the coronavirus and this crisis we're in in the context of history. Because I think a lot of people don't know where to put it. They don't know where it fits. They will say, I really I don't know what it is yet. I'm still kind of integrating what it means to me. And I think we need to talk to historians to get a handle on where it fits in the continuum of history. And I know you've been thinking about this because you've been thinking about everything in the continuum of history. So certainly you've been thinking about this because this is clearly historical. So what are your thoughts about this, Peter? I really need to know. OK. First of all, is I defer to the medical and scientific historians. So if we start with, can we find a medical or public health analogy or crisis? I think what John Davenette talked about was perfect, the Spanish flu right after the First World War. It seems to me that for that generation, not just in a scientific way, but also in a very important policy way. For example, as all historians agree, it was a fatal in part, of course, because of the war that had preceded it. So we're talking about four years damaging health and infrastructure. Well, this has heard a lot of poorer areas in this country and poorer communities who are made vulnerable the way the war made parts of Europe vulnerable. Secondly, that shows that when people went back after isolation, there was a second major outbreak. So I'm hoping that policy folks look and recognize, because I know there's everybody who's listening, and even those who are not listening have been hearing about folks getting in the streets wanting to go back to whatever life is normal. And sure, most of us would like that. But the history reminds us that in a crisis like this, what that has resulted in is a second outburst. Here's the Zoom expert actually, Dr. Schwartz. She's the Zoom expert. No, not at all. So those are two possibilities, right? But as far as the larger issue, many of us deeply influenced by that strange guy named Sigmund Freud have looked at history as really a series of catastrophes. And one of the ways to chart history and historical memory is to think about the consequence of catastrophes and how we recover or don't from them. So as a historian, and this in no way is to diminish how lethal this one is. But just as a historian, a basic historian, there are a lot of analogies with the Great Depression, a lot of very fundamental analogies. I think particularly for my good friends and the gay and lesbian community, there are a lot of analogies with the AIDS crisis, including a federal government that didn't pay any attention to it. And people have thought it had some moral connection. So I think that there are analogies and comparisons. I think two things I work with my students is everything is unique, so every event. But probably for this generation right now, for Americans, this is probably unprecedented, which is not necessarily a discussion of its uniqueness. But the dimensions certainly are unprecedented. And I would probably also say in addition to being unprecedented, these crises tend to reveal problems that have already been there for a while. And that was through the Great Depression as well. So if we look at this medically, is this an aberration or does this reveal some fundamental problem, demography and man's relationship to nature? Just like it did the Great Depression reveal a fundamental crisis in capitalism, or was it a matter of tweaking here and there? I don't know if that helps at all, but I think as a historian, but I would defer to medical historians, including a philosopher, Joseph Tonke, who's a head of, or used to be head of the philosophy department here, and he's setting up, but he may want to talk to him, he's setting up what will be a global, basically, working group about this. Oh, very important here. Yeah, I will put you, but because he's using technology right, he's incorporating the whole world, except the kids that we're going to talk about in a minute, who don't have computers that we need to talk about. So I don't know if that helps or not, but as far as the particulars, I think John did a nice job with the Spanish flu, and certainly that's been sort of at the front. But I've really been interested in some of the very, very important analogies to the Great Depression, and I think some significant social analogies to the AIDS crisis. The main difference being, of course, is that although people would love to target a certain group as being vulnerable, right? The argument was only homosexuals could get AIDS. Excuse me. That revealed some of the less tolerant, really brutal aspects of the way we treat other people. You can't sort of shy away from this the same way. This affects everybody. Everybody. And so I think in the AIDS crisis, of course, one of the major for Americans, one of the major moments was when Magic Johnson was diagnosed with HIV, right? Here's a stud, star, basketball player, married, kids, et cetera. And that was a real eye-opening element moved from a select group. And I think some Americans have had that shock when it turns out, you know, 41-year-old men and here a 37-year-old bartender, right? So you don't have to be 80 and don't have to be in a nursing home. And that's been a major shift. Yeah. You know, sort of like in New York and the Great Depression, in New York and the Great Depression, well, it's the accountant who's jumping off the building, not just the guy who lost his job. Yeah. Let's talk about the comparison with the Great Depression. You know, I think people forget because it's retrospective. But I think this is probably a problem we always have in looking backward. We look at 19, no, I don't know, 1929, 30, 31. And we say, well, it all got resolved. It took 10 years. It took a war. It got resolved. So, you know, we always knew it was gonna get resolved but we didn't know. We didn't know in 1930 that it would get resolved. We didn't know if the country was gonna be left standing at the end, but this experience, people were out in the millions, they were out hungry, waiting on food lines. And everything was, the flaws in the system were being revealed. And it didn't have to get resolved at all. It could have gone the other way. It could have been revolution. There could have been widespread, you know, revolt and disturbance. And we don't know that now either. We don't know how this is gonna work out. Nobody can say, and I know, you don't like to make predictions about the future. Historians don't do that. I'll leave that to the futurist, right? That's the futurist. But, you know, it just seems to me that like 1930, this is a time when we really cannot predict how it's gonna work out. Nobody can make predictions on this one. I think you're actually right. And historians, when we teach something like this, we remind our students that studying the experience of something, not knowing the end, is entirely different than our advantage. Whereas we might study, we might read Steinbeck, but we know what happened in the end. So you're absolutely right. I think it's also connected to what I just personally, and this is only personal, a kind of phrase I find annoying which is getting back to normal. You know what? No society who has ever had a crisis gets back to normal. Please don't tell me that France in 1920 was back to the normal of 1914. And that's sort of a platitude which I think sets people up. It's an easy kind of platitude, it's pleasant, but it sets them up to be disappointed. Or once again, it sets them up to be blind to some of the problems which the normalcy had always had. So we'll eventually get back to decent employment, but is that gonna mean hearing on why three jobs still or political teachers making 35,000? If that's the return to normal, okay, that still has all the problems that the normalcy had. So I mean, I understand why people, I mean, no way of belittling or denying it. I understand why, but it's our role to kind of be annoying as professors to remind folks that that mantra is a little bit like the current administration's mantra, right, of making, and I don't want this to be political, but the idea of returning something to being great, well, not only was it not always so great, it's probably not gonna be possible. So yeah, the depression eventually did end. Historians debate as to why, but it's not as if African-American employment was 100% afterwards, right? It's not that every farmer in the Midwest, right? So it depends sort of what normal means, getting back, yeah. We had Jack Balkin on the show something over 10 years ago, and he's the Dean of Constitutional Law at Yale and still is today. That's big mother, big, big mother. Yeah, big, big, big. And in fact, he has a blog on Constitutional Law, which the constitutional teachers around the country all contribute to called Balkinization, Balkinization. When he was on, a very nice guy, when he was on the show, Bush was in office and I asked him, I say a lot of people don't like what Bush has been doing. And I just wanna know, what are the chances of rolling it right back to the way it was before Bush when Bush is gone. And he said, no, no, he would take the same position that you are. He said, you have to understand everything is on the record. You can never go back to the way it was because all these events that are happening around us change things. And when you get out the other side of any particular transition, transformation, it's been affected by what happened. And so you don't go back, you only go forward and everything that happens affects where you are. And it's certainly been more true of the law and judiciary when presidents, regardless of their party, and especially if they're in office for eight years can fill a federal judiciary, which will have a lasting, absolutely lasting effect, or is in the case of the previous president, not allowing the judiciary to be filled. So in law, that's certainly the case, absolutely. And that's one of the reasons that, and Avi would be a good person to talk about this, that I've always found the originalist argument to be really a difficult position to take. Because even the law has changed, not just society, but the law itself has changed. So the originalist positions are pretty difficult, I think, to justify. One last thing I would like to raise with you is that when you have a war, transformation and unpleasantness, whether it be a plague, a pandemic, some very negative experience, a Holocaust, and you come out the other side, seems to me that there's a purification ritual involved where you begin to see more clearly the flaws in the system that existed and permitted these events to happen. And when I say we, we can see more clearly, and we can try to correct that. And our thinking as a species, as human beings, is maybe more clarified after the unpleasantness. And we have a time, it's a sign curve. We have a time when perhaps things are better in terms of our own collective thinking. Is this consistent with the, what do they call it, the sign curve of history, Peter? I think it's consistent if we pay particular attention to your terminology, thinking, and don't assume that thinking leads to policy. So yes, yes. But who would say that the Holocaust has ended anti-Semitism, right? Who would say the crisis of the Civil War provided pure emancipation for African Americans? So I think intellectually, absolutely right. Intellectually, it's like a laser. Intellectually, it's like a brush fire. But interesting enough, and historians are doing more and more of this study, particularly now that more and more archives of the late 40s and 50s are open in Europe, that whereas intellectually, like Truffaut and the French New Wave, great. Intellectually, you have breathtakingly fresh films, but you still have a conservatism because sometimes the thinking is too bold, right? The thinking is too radical. Marx said the nature of a revolution is when everything solid melts into air. So if your intellectual ideas have melted into air, that the pillars of society, I mean, a great example of South Africa, right? One would have hoped that eradicating the horrendous structures of apartheid would have liberated that society. And it's made people think about the alternatives, but they've been for a whole variety of reasons, sometimes frightened, sometimes through power, not able to take. So I agree with you intellectually, absolutely. But I don't always see, you know, the argument would be, for example, if reconstruction had really worked, the American South, right? That would be a good example of how a crisis forced radical rethinking, which forced the imposition of a radical new world. Didn't work out that way. So I agree with you intellectually, you could read books and essays, very important ones. And I'm certainly, as a nerd, I'm not denying the significance of ideas and writing by any means at all, but it takes the political and social will to apply those as a policy. And that makes a difference. And that's why among my personal heroes, and I hope it won't upset anybody who's listening, is somebody like Eleanor Roosevelt, right? He said, all right, we had this great crisis in 1945. I had a personal crisis and my husband passed away. I'm gonna spend the next 15, 16 years of my life trying to take the lessons we have learned from that crisis and apply them to create a better world. Okay, I mean, she's a great hero. And that's a good example, but let's remember the other people who took the crisis of the war and reverted to very conservative values, sometimes across Europe, extremely repressive values after, right? They took advantage of the purification of a crisis to do what they wanted to do before, right? They really learned, they had the opportunity to do so. Raphael Lemken, who coined the phrase genocide, said that it takes both a pre-thinking or a formatting and then a crisis. So it took the Nazi laws in and of themselves were not enough. It was the Nazi laws in the context of the war, which allowed them, in the case of a crisis, to actually do what they wanted to do. There's a combination of things, then. Well, it takes me to one more question I wanted to ask you. We were certainly not finished with this conversation and I would like to circle back with you because it evokes so many questions that I don't like to both. Well, my Around the World Travels have just been canceled, so I'm here. The last thing I wanted to raise. Harvard has rescinded my five-year teaching position in the European history. Yeah. So here we are looking down a very unknown road, a road with all kinds of potholes and minefields in it. And as a historian, you deal in priorities and you always make the analysis of, well, this phenomenon existed, but it did not really affect what happened afterward. On the other hand, this phenomenon existed and it had a huge effect. So you're engaged in a process of trying to figure out which phenomenon would be the guiding phenomenon or would be a guiding phenomenon going forward. And again, I don't wanna ask you to make predictions, but I would like to ask you this. What are the things that we should be looking at now? Certainly some things are really not important. Other things are hugely important. I mean, the continuation of our democracy for me is a big example of that and I think it's under fire. And also too many people on the planet and a lack of understanding between the relationship of people together and also people with nature. I'm just wondering what you see as the kind of phenomenon that we should be looking at now and trying to evaluate where it all goes. I wouldn't disagree with any of those by any means at all. But if I had say two or three things that I would look at is I think between this medical and social crisis and what really has turned out to be a very powerful campaign on the part of Bernie Sanders. I know he didn't win, but his ideas are out there. I think we're gonna have to come to terms with the inequality question connected to, and I don't mean this in a banal way, income and wages. We're just gonna have to find, I'm looking towards next five to 10 years. I don't know if it's gonna be a universal income argument. I'm not sure or whether in the United States the taxation is gonna be different. But I think that we've reached the real tipping point as far as just strict economic inequality. But again, as a historian, I could see it going the other way, right? That rather than recognizing the significance about democracy and human dignity depends upon having an income, having capabilities, having capacities. We're battling a very strong collection of people and institutions. We don't necessarily agree with that. I think that's a major battle coming ahead of us. And I think one of the key figures is Sen, S-E-N, who's old now, he's probably not gonna live much longer but a Nobel laureate who spent his entire life trying to wrestle with this really pretty fundamental question of can we get capitalism and democracy to work together? Like real democracy and real capitalism, can they work together? And I think the jury's still out on that, whether that's gonna work. So I would look to that. I think the crisis has pointed out that like all periods of globalization, they're just their pockets that are left behind. I mean, their pockets here that don't have Wi-Fi connection. Their countries that seemingly were isolated that now have been infected. So I think the second major issue is a referendum on globalization. And the only way really to solve this virus is to be global. It's, I don't care if Trump and the leaders of China hate each other or love each other or just grant much order. And they gotta put all that aside for a while. You know, we can't afford trade wars right now. This has to be where the great minds together, whatever their political empathy is. And that's really a globalization problem. And it's sad that this comes about with Brexit, you know, the diminution of the European Union, the high nationalist walls put up by so many countries. You can't solve these kinds of problems if you're gonna turn your back on the world. So I would say those are two things that interest me, inequality both between countries and within countries, but not a kind of, should we say, I don't think through his soft, but I'm not really strictly economic inequality, like just putting money in people's pockets. You know, most economists would say that's a good idea. You know, the check doesn't have to be signed by the president, but just put money in their pockets and find ways to have it consistent. Okay, that. And then how we're gonna rethink global, because globalization is not going away. And by any means at all, but are people gonna be more adverse to it because of this? I hope not. So those are two things I would look, but those are not in disagreement with any of yours because the environment is a macro issue. You can't do any of this without. I mean, environment is a good example of where, you know, income inequality can't continue to rest on destroying the environment. You can't continue to rest on paying folks, hacking, you know, apart jungles and then the Amazon a nickel a day. That can't work. And globalization is gonna have to find a different way than flying people all around the world and things like it. So they are interconnected, certainly. I think what they're gonna take is something we don't have. And I'll quote a very shy, withdrawn economics professor who wasn't even an economics professor. He's a moral philosopher named Adam Smith. He said the only way any of this works is trust. It's the only way society can work is trust. A social fabric. Yeah. I mean, you just have to, we all can't do everything equally all the time. You gotta trust and there's no trust. But I don't, you know, I don't blame this administration. I mean, this administration is an example of no trust, but it's not like they generated that problem. I mean, the recent world has been filled with, and sometimes for good reason, right? Not trusting your government. Sometimes you shouldn't trust, you know, or you shouldn't trust your neighbor. We have to get back to some way where that was in his early work on moral sympathies. You know, we need to have some kind of sentiments, particularly for people who will never meet. It's all a biblical foreign, a final exam. It's a final exam for the students, for you and me, and for everyone we know. I hope not humanity. Yeah. And, you know, we're not guaranteed to pass this exam. We better study for it. We better try to get more visionary about it. I say we, I mean, everyone. Well, we can go UH, pass or fail. You don't need to agree. Just pass or fail. Simple. Credit or no credit? Yeah. Peter Hafenberg, one of my favorite philosopher history people, and we're gonna regroup, so stay tuned. I'll see you next week is fine. Yep. All right. Thank you very much. Be well. All right. Continue to speak well. All right. Okay. Yes. And wash your hands. Wash your hands. I will. And I'll put on a pair of pants. Okay. Thank you. Stay safe. Bye bye.