 This is Think Tech Hawaii, Community Matters here. Okay, Friday, Trump week. I'm Jay Fidel. That's Tim Appichella. We're going to get right to it. We're going to call this show, The Democrats Take the House. Ooh, exciting. Let's go right through it. Let's discuss what this all means. Good morning, Jay. Thanks for having me on. I knew you'd say that. Well, I have to. These things are just mandatory. Good to be here. Well, this is a big moment. I mean, for a lot of reasons, number one, the composition of the house has changed forever. I mean, there are things that new members that came in that, you know, had never been in the house before. Oh, yeah. Sure. The diversity is really good, really incredible. And when Nancy Pelosi with all those kids around her, oh, it touched my heart. Yeah, I know it was an example of an accurate reflection of America today. Yeah. I mean, you and let's not forget that Nancy Pelosi is the second speaker of the house. That's a historical fact. It was a historical fact when she became the speaker of the house the first time, but now it's been, she's been reelected to the position. Yeah. She's good. I think she's the right person. You know, I got to tell you, at first I just said, let's move on. Let's start fresh. Let's move on from the, I hate to say it, the Clinton days, because I think Pelosi is associated with the Clinton days. And I said, let's start fresh and let's, you know, have a campaign that will actually be competitive in the 2020 election. But looking at how things are, she's the right person at the right time. She's the right time, right person. I agree, absolutely. But you know, and she got them together and she, well, everybody voted for her. It was really cool. But where does it go from here? She got them together to vote for the non-wall funding. That was good. Whether it goes anywhere is not a question. But can she hold on to that? How much of, how much of a leader is she? Is she a Lyndon Johnson, you know? By the way, you got to see that movie, LBJ, fabulous movie, Woody Harrell's is fabulous. Tell it. Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, so, you know, will this continue? Will she be able to marshal them? You know, a big question, I say it to everybody in the elevator, not a penny for the wall. I tell them, tell your friends, write to Nancy. But I think Nancy already says that, not a penny for the wall. And the question is, is she going to be able to maintain that? Well, her revised position was, I'll charge a dollar. I'll give them a dollar. How would you give them a dollar, my son? Well, she said she would. So a one dollar, a U.S. tender, that's what she offered. You know, it's interesting that she has, and as promised, the House was going to take up that Senate bill and pass it. But something interesting happened. Five Republicans voted for it. And these were Republicans that are in states, that are purple states, if you will. And those, they're up for election in 2020. So being pushed in this corner of 5.6 billion or bust, isn't sitting well with them. And they have actually come out and said, hey, you know, we will, we will vote for this. We can worry about the 5.6 later, but we want this government opened up. Senator Cory Gardner, Republican from Colorado. Now, Colorado, by the way, has a lot of federal employees. There are 7,000 residents, or, you know, our government employees, and they're pretty much out of work. And they're estimating that the park shutdown is costing them, you know, right now about $24 to $26 million. Not billions, but millions, but for a state that's a lot of money. That's a lot of, that's a lot of lost revenue. As I understand it, there are three separate possibilities. One is they continue to work in special agencies. They work and they get paid. Second is they don't continue to work, but they'll get paid later, they're at home. And the third, I'm not sure this is, you know, a large category, but they're on furlough. They don't get paid. They don't work. Nothing. In any event, what's happening is a substantial part of the federal government is not productive. And some of it is not productive. We're paying for it, both. So this is really destructive. And what he's doing is extortion. He's holding everybody hostage on his point, which he could not get Congress to agree with. It's the president trying to, you know, overcome the vote in Congress. This doesn't sound bare. It doesn't sound like it's the will of the people. It doesn't sound constitutional. I think he's pushing us into a constitutional crisis. I think we're already there. I think there have been many constitutional crises in his administration, but we're definitely a one. Now, how long can you continue without an operating federal government? Something is going to happen. Well, just about an hour and a half before this show's taking place right now, here at 11 o'clock in the morning, he basically said, I'm prepared to shut down the government for years. Years. So you go, well, you know, if you think you can shut down this government for years, what does that say about our government? And you know, why collect taxes? You know, if you don't need a government, why collect taxes? This is crazy talk. But he's threatening. He's polarizing the issue to a point where there's no wiggle room. And you've got, once you push everyone in a corner, it's whoever blinks first. So when you get in the elevator, okay, tell them all, I'm not a penny for the wall. Yeah? You know, I had lunch a couple of days ago, and I told the waiter, you know, he had to do something about the wall. And if he really wanted a, you know, substantial tip, he had to do something about the wall. And he came back to me with the tab, and he gave me this. You can't read it. It's too small. But what it says is a check. It says, pay to the order of blank, I'll fill your name if you like, five billion dollars, five billion dollars, memo border wall. And he named the bank. I won't mention it. I doubt that anybody around has that kind of money. I'm pretty sure there's not enough assets under that column of assets for that particular bank. But you know, the interesting thing about this is it's not enough money. It's only five billion, because sometime between my lunch on Tuesday here on Friday, the five billion went up to 5.6 billion. And I'll predict it's going to go higher. That's Mr. Trump's, you know, approach. You double down. Boy, you know it'll be six or seven billion. And this is his way of trying to get the five billion. Well, he patted, you know, he patted the House of Representatives on the back saying great job. The House actually passed the 5.6 just before, you know, the new year. And so he was very pleased with that. I just can't help but get my arms around the semantics. We're, you know, he's demanding 5.6 billion for a wall. And he says, well, you can call it whatever you want. I don't think the Democrats are opposed to border security. I just, you know, so we're getting lost in semantics. And the result is the methodology and semantics. But the end result is we have over 800,000 federal employees basically out of work. And maybe some of them will get paid back later. Maybe some of them won't. It's extortion. It's not the way you run a democracy. You have votes on things. And he and McConnell are not allowing this to come to a vote in the Senate. McConnell's really strange approach on this. I am not going to put this on the floor for a vote until the President tells me that he will sign it if we approve it. Wait a minute. Where's the equal branch of government? What is that? He's surrendering to the will of the President. That's not the way the framers intended. He's what he's doing is he's vetoing before a veto. That's not the way the framers intended. It's a violation and creates. It's a very strange action. It's a very, very strange action. And if you're taking your first civics class in high school, you're going, teacher, is this the way it's supposed to happen? Yeah. So what will happen here? Nice move on Nancy's part because it shifts the blame to where it should be to where Trump himself said it would be on him for shutting down the government. And he's trying to deflect it, but he said it was him. That's what he said in the meeting on December 11th, I think it was. So what happens now? I guess it's a question of whether the Republicans in the Senate break ranks. And the ones who broke ranks in the House are an interesting phenomenon because they indicate that some Republicans are willing to break ranks, to get out from under the Republican Party mantra these days, to get out from under Trump, and to improve their position next time they run for office, which I think it will. And now, so now the question is what other Republicans will do? Well, now we lost the critics of the Senate, of the president, Jeff Flake from Utah, Bob Corker from Tennessee. But remember, every time there's a vacuum, someone is always going to fill it in. And I think Mitt Romney might have thrown his hat into that ring to be a critic of the president. He's very, very popular in Utah. They said he could be senator for life, given the fact that he's that well adored and revered, and he certainly gets the votes when he runs for election. So what does Trump do? He criticizes him, calls him names, the way he did McCain, same thing. If you oppose Trump, he will call you names and belittle you and mock you and all that. This is his MO. And this is an MO we will see in the 2020 elections. We will see him do that no matter who is running against them. We're going to see this MO again. So before he came president, and it's his modus operandi. That's what he does. It's his strategy. He criticized Mattis the same way. Oh, horrible. I mean, poor general Mattis. He criticized him now in his efforts in Afghanistan. He said, well, he was fired by Obama. And what did he do for me? And then he basically called him a Democrat. Well, what that really means is he's not loyal to Trump. And if you're not loyal to Trump, you have to go. And he criticizes you when you do go, or when you criticize him. I mean, I think it's just phenomenal that this guy is rising up as the sole dictator of policy in the country. He's pulled the wings out of Congress so far. He's pulled the wings out of a lot of his departments. He's pulled the wings out of his staff, even staff that he hand picked, who ultimately weren't loyal as he wanted. And he is minimizing everything, except his own will of the wisp in surprise and inconsistent decisions. And he's wrecking us internally and in the world today. So anyway, I mean, I think that- Well, I think that you raise a really good point, particularly about his staff, because these were critical thinkers. The initial appointments of John Kelly and General Mattis. I mean, these were experienced critical thinkers and certainly were expertise in their field. They're now being- And they were courageous enough to tell them their thoughts. Right. That's correct. And so now the people he's replacing them with, particularly on some of these agencies, they're ex-lobbyists. Ex-lobbyists for the oil companies and ex-lobbyists for pharmaceutical companies. They're lobbyists. And by definition, a lobbyist is going to probably be a pretty much a yes person. And that's the kind of loyalty he wants. Yeses, don't give me any critical thoughts. Don't give me any critical suggestions. I know what is best. I've got a good brain. I only- I know better than anyone else. I know better than anyone else. I know more than the generals. I mean, more than the judges. So- More than the Democrats in general. You're correct. You're seeing the replacement of people that were brought in that actually knew how to run portions of the government that they needed to run. And now they're being replaced by basically those that will be loyal and probably not going to raise a whole lot of questions about his motives or actions or words. That's where he's going. I mean, the government is being transformed. I mean, you could say, oh, he's getting a lot of heat and the press and all that. But in de facto, the government is being transformed. He's doing what he wants to do. He's getting away with things. Getting away with things on the border. You know, yesterday, day before, they were doing tear gas against the caravans. And on some trumped up, I use the term advisedly, some trumped up statement that, oh, they were pushing the fence down. They were climbing the fence. Come on. And then they were using plastic bullets or rubber bullets yesterday. This is war. And he's doing this, I think, as a distraction. Because whenever he gets in trouble on something, he picks another issue to distract us with. A scapegoat issue. You know, the caravans are a scapegoat. Immigrants are a scapegoat. And there are people who grieve in them. It is most remarkable. Let's take one minute before I break him to talk about the fact that his base, apparently, is still there. He said the other day yesterday. It's incredible that he said this. This is more people are calling me, writing me, telling me now that they support me on the wall than ever before. I don't believe that. I don't know how anybody can believe that. But again, remember, we have 330 million people. So how many calls you need to get for him to be convinced that 330, at least 300 million, support his position? Yeah, four, maybe five. I don't know how many. It's one of his friends. So I just don't believe that there's any significant information there. The question, though, is the base still with him? Are the Republicans still with him? Isn't he decompensating in public now? It seems to me that he is. The press seems to be more on him. More people are on him for what he's doing and not doing for all the mistakes and incredible things he's doing. Are they still with him? You think they're fragmenting on him? No, I don't. And I'll tell you, you said it last week. You said it the week before. When he doubled downs, he doubled downs. Now, when you threaten that, I'm not going to open up the government until I get my $5.6 billion, and I don't care if it takes years. Now, that's not a double down. That's a triple down. Now, if you're a federal employee, you're going, what did he just say, and how long is this going to affect me? So again, I think the immigration is where he got his first stand, his national luster, if you will. It was on immigration and the fact that we're going to keep Mexicans out and we're going to keep Muslims out. And that stuff is raw meat. And not only do his followers like it, but there are other people in the Democratic Party that say, I support this because they're worried about immigration. They're worried about jobs being taken. They're worried about crime and drugs. And so he hits those fine points like a maestro. He really has honed in on this one issue. And why would he want to solve it? I mentioned that last week. Why would he want to solve it? Right. He wants to eat. He wants to churn. And meanwhile, I don't want to go into any detail on this because it's too long an article. There was a story in The Times a few days ago about some El Salvadoran teenager in Huntington, New York, in the high school. And his family came and they got sanctuary, what do you call it? And they applied for it and they got it. They were legitimate. Asylum. Asylum. But Trump engineered a bill through Congress to require what they call a resource officer, a policeman, in every high school. Maybe all schools, I don't know. And these guys would sidle up to the kids and then they would report their conversations back to Homeland Security. Not every state is willing to do that, but New York is. And so this poor kid's name was Alex in the article. Alex drew pictures of a logo with horns. Happens to be that's the logo for the Huntington football team. But the cop didn't know that. And the cop turned him into Homeland Security and they didn't know that. The next thing you know, he's arrested and deported. He appealed, failed. He appealed again, failed. And then he gave in and they sent him away back to El Salvador where he lives working. This is a kid who wanted to have a life, who studied very hard, who was not a gang member at all. But they treated him as a gang member and sent him back to El Salvador where he's working in the fields at $3 a day and afraid to go out at night because the gangs will get him. It's such a sad story and there are lots of stories like that and that's what's happening and we don't see that. We only hear what Trump wants us to see. You know, there's a big story about the press, how the press is not getting information about how the government departments are shutting them out, about how Trump is shutting them out. He doesn't have press conferences. He had the briefing, the 90 minute briefing a couple of days ago. Didn't take questions. Well that was a stream of conscious kind of thing. He was all over the board on that one. And I'm saying just before the break here that I think he's kind of losing it. He's doing things that are so outrageous now that either A, if people accept that it's a new normal, that's terrible. If they don't accept that it's a new normal, he'll distract us with some other, he'll double down on it. And what I was gonna say is that I ran into this Trump person over the weekend and I said, how do you think he's doing? And he said, he's doing great. How do you think his base is doing? His base is great. And I said, why do you say that? He's very disruptive. And he said, exactly. That's why they wanted to elect him. And that's what they love about him. They don't like Washington. They don't like the Beltway. They don't like Wall Street. They don't like the establishment. They want disruption. And this pleases the base. This is what satisfies. So the dismantlement of democracy in the republic is part of that? That was his point. And I'd like to dwell on that for a moment in the context of our break. It's Tim Appichella. I'm Jay Fiedel. This is Trump Week. We'll be right back. Hey, loha. My name is Andrew Lanning. I'm the host of Security Matters Hawaii airing every Wednesday here on Think Tech Hawaii live from the studios. I'll bring you guests. I'll bring you information about the things in security that matter to keeping you safe, your coworkers safe, your family safe, to keep our community safe. We want to teach you about those things in our industry that may be a little outside of your experience. So please join me because security matters. Aloha. Aloha. This is Winston Welch. I am your host of Out and About, where every other week, Mondays at 3, we explore a variety of topics in our city, state, nation, and world, and events, organizations, the people that fuel them. It's a really interesting show. We welcome you to tune in and we welcome your suggestions for shows. You got a lot of them out there and we have an awesome studio here where we can get your ideas out as well. So I look forward to you tuning in every other week where we've got some great guests and great topics. You're gonna learn a lot. You're gonna come away inspired like I do. So I'll see you every other week here at three o'clock on Monday afternoon. Aloha. Okay, Tim Apichella and me, we're back. We're doing Trump Week here on a given Friday and the title of our show is The Democrats Take the House, but it's more than that because what's happening? You can't live on headlines alone. It's like you can't live on bread alone. You can't live on headlines alone. There's so much happening and some of it we're not finding out about. And I think that's something, we always tell people you gotta be discerning, you gotta use critical thinking, you gotta read a number of news sources and that's the only way this democracy can survive by the connection of the individual and the press. But the press is being shut out and a lot of things that are happening we're not hearing about. And the government is discombobulating. It's failing. It's failing to do its statutory duties. It's failing to respect the morality of the country, the ethics of government and the people. And we don't hear about all of those things. And I think somebody has to, at times tries, I know in the Washington Post they try to do this, but it's harder and harder because this administration is shutting them out. And what, now you were talking about things that happen and we don't realize it. What are some of those things? Right, let me talk about, before I do that though, I think the press is doing an outstanding job of trying to raise all these issues. But again, it's the drinking out of the fire hose syndrome and there's this so much and there's only so much air time but there's so much that the president says, does, or doesn't say. Or doesn't say and the bottom line is they're doing the best they can but how can they get down to some of the other stories that we don't hear about? For example, we know that the government's shut down. We know that we have 800,000 employees that right now, basically in a position where they're not paying their bills. So one of the stories is that the office of personnel management they admitted doing this and they said, well it was an error, we shouldn't have done it but they admitted that they sent out some helpful recommendations to all these employees, these federal employees that have to pay their mortgage, have to pay their creditors, have to pay their landlords. And so in an effort to be helpful the office of personnel management said, here are some sample letters that you can send to them and this will help you. We're trying to be some support to you. Well, not so much. One of the letters was that this was pertaining to a sample letter to landlords and it basically said, I will be in touch with you to keep you informed of my income status and I would like to discuss with you the possibility of trading my services to perform maintenance, example, painting, carpentry, work in exchange for partial rent payments. Now this was their idea of how we can help you while the president has shut you out of a job, how to shut you out of a paycheck, you can use our sample letters and send it to your landlord and offer your exchange services for painting and carpentry. Isn't that thoughtful? OPM did admit that yes, that shouldn't have gone out to employees and then to start the conversation they said, we're gonna send you these sample letters. However, we're not attorneys, you should consult your personal attorney. Oh, spend some money. Spend some money on an attorney for money I don't have. He even paid my creditors. I can't pay my rent. You know, stories like that, you just kind of shake your head going, is the president that up, too? So now, he was asked a question about an hour and a half ago. One of the questions was, as long as they're being furloughed, what about the safety net? And the reporter asked, what about the safety net for the employees? And President Trump looked at her and said, the safety net, the safety net is the wall. The wall will keep them safe. What? That happened about an hour and a half ago when he was talking about this wall and how he's gonna get the $5.6 billion and how it's imperative that he get the $5.6 because it's national security. And yeah, the employees are going to be laid off and yes, it may be a hardship on them and it could be years, but they'll be safe because the wall will keep them safe. What do you say with your reporter in the crowd at that time or what do we say as an audience later on? This is crazy. Purely ridiculous. This is madness. It's kind of his response to a legitimate question about how these employees are going to pay their landlords, their mortgages, their other creditors. It gets more outrageous every day. And as you say, it's a firehouse of outrage. How do you deal? Which outrage do you handle first? You know, the first 20 stories in the Washington Post or the New York Times or The Guardian are all about Trump. Oh, God, I like to take a rest already, but he's doing more outrageous things all the time. Look at the stock market. We should take a moment about the stock market. He blames, who does he blame for the stock market? Well, the Fed. The Fed. Well, the Democrats, somebody else. It can't be him. It can't be his tariffs, which are wrecking the economy actually, especially in the Midwest with the farmers. He was trying to help. That's his base. I think his base is in great jeopardy because of that. The economy is at risk of coming apart. If the stock market is coupled to the economy, as it was in 29, the economy will suffer because of a lack of public confidence. And then you get this very stark thing that happened yesterday, which is out of nowhere, because Apple's sales in China had diminished. Maybe because Trump said it was because the price was too high. The Apple phones are too expensive. It's their fault, not my fault. But it's a lack of confidence in the Chinese. The Chinese economy is affected. You know, when the president of the United States coughs or once it sneezes, everybody responds to that. And the Chinese economy is responding. And the American economy is, whatever you want to say, it's tied up with the Chinese economy. So our economy is at great risk. And people say that in the next few months there'll be a significant recession. And it will be because of him and his machinations. So this is going to be awful. And one part of me says, okay, then people will finally realize, his base will finally realize what he's doing to the country, what he's doing to the world. But you know what? His base is not invested in the stock market. His base is that they don't care much about the economy. Well, they don't have really big 401K plans. You know, it's... So, I mean, wait, there's more. I keep saying, Tim, he's coming for us. We're going to be affected by this. The new normal is going to have an effect on everyone. So let's go to the last point, though, that we only have a few minutes left. And that is Russia, Russia. We still haven't heard from Mueller. Everybody's hanging on tenterhooks. All the talk about impeachment, has to be conditioned on what Mueller is going to say. It's right now, you know, it's an incomplete. You have to know more. You have to know what we think Mueller knows. And there's some Scuttlebutt that, you know, it'll be in February or something like that. The real question is, what does Mueller know? What kind of activities has he found Trump guilty of that could lead to impeachment? I mean, I believe he has things, but what? Well, did he get information that the oversight committees of the House that, you know, basically prevented from getting some of these documents and records, has he gotten access to them? Did Mueller get access to the phone company to find out who was called for that Trump Tower meeting? Because the oversight committee in the House certainly tried to get it. They couldn't. So has Mueller seen his tax returns? And are there correlations to his tax returns? I don't think Mueller has his tax returns. Well, okay, so the question is, how can Mueller come out with his report when some of these critical issues need to be, or it's critical pieces of information need to be put in the piece of the puzzle? Do we now have to wait for the House of Representatives to start getting these documents through subpoena? I don't think we'll have to wait too long. There's certainly going to subpoena his records, his tax returns. There was an interesting piece in, I guess the morning paper about the fact that his family, Jared Kushner and the son, they're actively involved, and really it's him, in building hotels where, in red states, where he succeeded in the election, they're building Trump hotels. They're not successful, but they're building them. And you know, it's remarkable what's going on and we need to tie it together because he doesn't really make a line between government and his personal business. And I think Mueller is going to get into that. Well, I think once this really comes out, you will, in fact, even Speaker Pelosi said, look, it is premature to talk about impeachment. She said, it's going to separate the party. She said, we have to wait for Mueller. We have to wait. And I've been saying that for the last few weeks. And until you really see some really substantial high crimes of Mr. Meener, we shouldn't be talking about it. Well, they shouldn't. But the press should be figuring out what they're finding. And the press should be reporting it to us because I think there's a lot of information out there that has not really come to the surface. It may be in the press, but it may not be at the surface because it's being subject to all the distractions. The oxygen is being sucked out in what he wants to be the headlines. How many distractions will we see when the Mueller report does come out? That's what I want to know. Oh yeah. How many multitude of distractions will be played out in order to take the attention off this report? The more heat, the more the distraction. So if things really got tough, I think he would somehow stimulate some protests, some violence, and then declare martial law. That's a great fear. And then all of a sudden, the Mueller report would be on page three. Really a problem. But I wanted to say that last night, Rachel Maddow, I tell you about this, had an interesting segment. Then she found that Trump doesn't know anything about foreign policy. He can't spell their names. He doesn't know anything about protocol, how to deal with them. But one thing is emerging. And that is that he knows little, little unimportant things or unknown things that reflect the Russian point of view. Propaganda things that we haven't heard from any other source, except we find in page 37 that the Russians like this. One of them was a rumor that Poland was going to attack Russia. That's propaganda and that's provocation. Sounds like task news agency back in the Soviet Union. Really? That's where it came from. It came from Putin. There was another one about Montenegro. He said Montenegro has some very aggressive people. They're going to create a war in Europe. What? World War III, I think he said. What are you talking about? Montenegro, Montenegro is a little country with a very few people and they're not aggressive. A long time ago, you thought you confused it with Sarajevo, but I don't know. But the various thing part about it was that Russia had been manipulating the government in Montenegro, including an attempted coup on the prime minister. Had been siding in the politics, trying to manipulate the politics on a vote. And Putin had been taking a position on this. Why? I mean, what is he doing in Montenegro? Well, he wants to destabilize Europe. We know that. But Trump knows what happened in Montenegro, even though. So is he really reading the briefing reports from the CIA? No, that's what. Or is he just getting this from the inquirer? Well, she used the word stovepipe, Rachel Maddow. And she said that he was in touch with Putin. Putin was educating him about these things and giving him the propaganda. And Trump believes the propaganda and then he repeats the propaganda. But if you connect the dots and her researchers did do that, I gave you two examples there and more. What you get, what you have to conclude is that there are telephone calls going on that he's not revealing to us that are not in the press between him and Putin, where Putin is telling him about these things and he's believing it, even though they're propaganda and not Trump. So he parents it back. Right. So what we have is, I think it's very credible what she was saying. I think we have a proof that Trump and Putin are in an ongoing, active conversation. And Trump, we've seen this. Trump believes it, he likes Putin, he accepts what Putin has to say, even if it's completely unbelievable. And this is probably known to Mueller. And the relationship of Trump and Putin is probably known to Mueller. He's got to be investigating this. Not to say that it's illegal for Trump to call Putin or Putin to call Trump. I mean, arguably that's, you know, a foreign policy, even though he has no foreign policy. But what's interesting about it is it establishes a relationship that is sort of under the surface. And this relationship, you know, in Ferris, implies that years ago, before the election, they had a relationship too about the hotel in Moscow and so on and so forth. So what I'm saying is, I think that Mueller is going to focus in on that kind of stuff and try to show that there were serious violations of US law by Trump while he was running. Again, collusion may not be a high crime in Mr. Meener, but conspiracy is. And we'll see what Mueller puts together in this package to say who helped try to hide these kind of relationships and certainly financial transactions back and forth. So that will be interesting. Well, I'm so glad we do this show, Tim. It's really interesting to be able to compare notes with you. We may not have it all, but if we look at it, it certainly encourages me to look at it. Then we can come to conclusions and even speculations that are worthy of discussion. And I think this should be discussion. You know, a lot of people don't want to talk about it. I think it's good to talk about it. Some of us are scared, yeah. So, not me. Not me. Have a new year. Thank you, Tim. Aloha. Aloha.