Josh Hawley argues that American “liberals” (anyone who isn’t a conservative Christian) don’t have a story to tell about men’s purpose in the world. But it turns out things are a lot more complicated than he lets on. It turns out that those “liberals” just might have a story worth telling after all. And, even worse for him, it turns out that his story actually isn’t so different from theirs after all. What is this story? How is it similar to and different from the story Hawley wants to tell? And what will that mean for Hawley’s ongoing exploration of manhood? Take a listen to this week’s episode to find out!
Subscribe for $5.99 a month to get bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 850-episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/Linktree: https://linktr.ee/StraightWhiteJC
Order Brad's book: https://bookshop.org/a/95982/9781506482163
Subscribe to Teología Sin Vergüenza
Subscribe to American Exceptionalism
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Hello and welcome to It's in the Code, a series as part of the podcast Straight White American Jesus.
My name is Dan Miller, professor of religion and social thought at Landmark College.
I am your host and pleased to be with you as always.
And as always, I want to begin by saying thank you to everybody who listens to us and supports us in all the different ways.
Subscribers absolutely cannot do what we do without you.
But if you are not in a position to subscribe and you like what we do, please tell other people about us, click those likes, give the reviews, do all the things that help to keep us doing what we're doing.
And as I always say, this is a series that I think more than anything we do in Straight White American Jesus depends on you and your help.
So please let me know.
Other topic ideas, other episode ideas, thoughts on this series, thoughts on this episode.
You can reach me, Daniel MillerSwedge, DanielMiller, S-W-A-J at gmail.com.
Always behind in my emails.
That has been true.
It's like an eternal truth at this point.
It's just like the myth of Sisyphus, just pushing the hill, the stone up the hill all the time.
I whittle down the emails and then there are more, which means that you're contacting me, which I love.
I just can't keep up with it.
But please let me know what you think about other ideas, other topics, other series.
I've got ideas for what comes up after Josh Hawley's manhood book, which is where we're living at present, but could use your input for that.
And if you're a subscriber, you can be a part of our Discord.
Please drop ideas in there.
Catch up on those as well.
Thank you so much for listening.
Thank you for being here.
Thank you for the time to do this.
And so let's dive in.
I say that because people ask about being academic sometimes.
You're like, you spend a lot of time reading stuff you don't like.
That's how this is.
I've had people who ask about doing the podcast and they're like, don't you basically spend like all of your time looking at stuff that like makes you mad?
I'm like, yeah, pretty much.
And I'm feeling that this week.
But we're continuing our dive into the contemporary right-wing discourse on manhood and masculinity and masculine virtues.
And we are looking at Senator Josh Hawley's book of that name, Manhood.
And we've been working our way through his book because it gives us sort of a lens into how the right talks about manhood and what that is and what that looks like.
And as I like to say, I'm reading it so you don't have to.
And we're in the second chapter of the book.
Again, I'm reading it as we go.
I have not read past the second chapter yet.
I promise I will before I talk about the third chapter.
I'll read the third chapter.
But I'm in the second chapter.
And I want to kind of rehash where we've been because I think things build up pretty sort of logically in Holly's book.
And I think it's important to kind of map where we've been.
So Holly says that without the Bible's story to guide them, men don't have a purpose.
Their lives lack meaning.
So what do they do?
They essentially sit around not doing anything but looking at screens and watching porn.
I'm not making that up.
He, like virtually every other commentator on the right, is just fixated on the notion that like, I don't know, men just watch porn all the time.
It's apparently all that we do.
I feel like I'm missing out or something.
It's not all that I do.
It's not all that anybody I know does.
But apparently, if you don't have the Bible's purpose driving your life, that's all you'll do.
So that's what we've been talking about.
And like again, typical of the conservative, high control religion of which Holly is a part, he assumes that the Bible is an ultimate authority when it comes to religion and morality.
And as it turns out, masculinity.
And so we spent an episode looking at that and talking about the idea that he doesn't actually say that.
He just assumes it.
But I talked about what I think the Bible is for him.
Like if you could sit down with Josh Hawley and say, why should we listen to the Bible?
The answers he would give you.
I laid that out and I argued why the way that he actually uses the Bible shows what is typical of high control religion, which is essentially that their claims about the Bible don't actually fit how they use the Bible.
So we talked about that for an episode.
And then in the last episode, we looked at this notion of what it is that he says the Bible tells us about man's quote-unquote purpose.
This is a chapter called Man's Mission, Man's Mission in the World, Man's Purpose.
And I argued that despite the appearances he wants to advance, his account of what the Bible names as God's purpose for men, it turns out to be vacuous or empty.
He says that men are supposed to be productive and to help transform the world into what God wants it to be.
But it turns out, if you dig down into it, and again, last episode is where I tried to lay this out.
If you dig down into it, the Bible doesn't actually tell us what that means.
We're not all called, for example, to be farmers or herdsmen.
That's what Adam, the first man in the gospel, or sorry, the book of Genesis, not the gospel of Genesis.
In the book of Genesis, the first man, Adam, is told to go and like till the land and cultivate the soil and raise animals and do all that stuff that, you know, God did in the garden.
All makes sense in the cultural context of which that book is produced.
Makes no sense for 98% of American men or Americans generally.
I'm assuming the statistics are, eh, maybe they're different for men.
Anyway, the vast majority of American men, they're not farmers.
They're not involved in animal husbandry.
It's not something that they do.
So that can't be their purpose.
And so what does it mean?
Well, we're called to be productive and to transform the world in other ways.
And Josh Hawley's example is his nine-year-old drawing pictures of cars.
So the point is the Bible doesn't tell us what God's purpose actually is for us and certainly not for us as individuals.
So the claim that the Bible tells men what their purpose is supposed to be is essentially empty.
Okay.
So why am I spending so much time rehashing that?
Because I think it leads us right into this week's focus.
Because Hawley's claim is not just or not only that the Bible tells the story that communicates men's purpose to them.
He goes further.
His claim is also that this matters because those who don't accept the Bible story, he calls those people liberals.
And we need to be aware, again, when he uses the term liberals, he means anybody who's not a MAGA conservative.
Anybody else is labeled a liberal or a non-Christian or whatever.
Society breaks into two camps.
Those who voted for and support Trump and think things that Hawley thinks and everyone else.
Okay.
So if you're part of that everyone else, his claim is that you don't have a story.
So it's not enough for him to claim that the Bible tells a story that can provide a purpose for men.
And we've called that into question.
I've said essentially it's so abstract and general that it's empty.
It's an empty statement.
So it's not enough to claim that.
It's not enough for him to claim that it's a better story than alternative stories, right?
Again, I think it's not because it's empty.
But he also wants to claim that there is no alternative story.
You accept his story or you have no story.
And this is the point where I think he's also really, really wrong.
And that's what I want to pick up on this week.
Okay.
So I'm not going to argue that figuring out what our purpose in life is or what men's purpose in life is is easy.
I don't think that it is.
I think it's hard.
I work with coaching clients, you know, my clients working to deal with religious trauma.
And this is one of the most common questions or common issues that people are wrestling with is how do I find out meaning?
Like, oh, what my purpose is or what do I do?
Why should I get up every day and go out and do things in the world?
That's a hard question.
I'm not trying to pretend that it's not.
And I think Hawley is right about a couple of things.
I think he's right about the power of stories to help us do that, to help us find purpose or meaning.
And I do think that the political and religious and cultural right is a lot better at telling stories than the left.
I've talked about this in the podcast a lot over the years.
It's something I've felt for a long time.
I think it's been apparent for decades at least that people on the political left are just not as good at telling stories as people on the political and religious and social right.
Okay.
I think all of those things are true.
But here's where I think it falls apart for Hawley and the right.
Like they're right in those things, but in my view, they're telling the wrong story.
And also, and this is the important point for today, their story can't do what they say it does.
Because Hawley's story is effectively empty, it can't do the work he needs it to do.
And his attacks on the left, they play the same role that they always do for the right.
They are misdirection.
They are intended to distract us from the emptiness of his own claims, from his own story, from raising our hand being like, excuse me, Professor Hawley, law professor Hawley, it doesn't seem like your story is actually saying anything of real substance or value to individuals.
Instead of saying that, he wants to attack his opponents and sort of misdirect us into not looking at the story that he's actually telling.
Okay.
But we're not going to let him do that.
We're not going to let him misdirect it.
Instead, we're going to dig a little deeper and we're going to see that because his story is empty, he's actually no better off than the opponents that he attacks and mocks.
And that's what I want us to think about for the next few minutes here.
So let's pick up a thread from last week's episode.
Again, we are told that God has a purpose for us.
It's a purpose to be productive and creative and to help transform the world into what God wants it to be.
But what happens when that's too abstract?
Let's imagine the times when I was a pastor and people would come and this is a real thing and say, what's my purpose?
And if you were to say something like, it's to work with God to make the world into the world he wants it to be, a temple that he can inhabit, all the kinds of things that Josh Hawley says.
I'll be like, well, okay, that's fine.
But like, I'm glad that God has a person for me.
But like, what is it?
Like, how do I be productive?
What is my role in helping to make the world into what God wants it to be and so forth?
How do I figure that out?
That's a hard question.
And conservative Christians have a name for this.
We called it discernment.
We have to discern what God's plan is for us.
So let's say that somebody goes to their pastor or their spiritual advisor or maybe a parent or a friend or a seminary professor or whomever, and they ask for help in discerning what God wants for them, what God's purpose is, and getting from the general abstract notion that we're supposed to work with God to make the world a better place to the notion of like, well, okay, but like, how do I do that?
What's my role in that?
Let's imagine they go for that help and discernment.
What will they hear?
And again, I've been on both sides of this.
I have been the person working with somebody and saying, how do I figure out what my role is in Christian terms, what God is calling me to do in the world or whatever.
And I have been the pastor who is tasked with trying to help people discern that same question.
And so in concrete practical terms, once we get past directives to read the Bible, because again, the Bible isn't going to tell them.
Here are the kinds of advice and sort of focusing questions we'll get.
Somebody might ask you, a pastor might ask you, what kinds of things are you interested in or passionate about?
Why is that relevant?
Well, because God gave you those interests or passions.
What skills do you have that you think could be put to use in improving your community or helping the church or serving those around you?
God gave you those skills.
And of course, the skills often relate to passions and abilities and so forth.
What do other people describe as your gifts and talents?
That language of gifts is this notion within conservative Christianity that the Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts and people are given sort of different capacities to do things.
And these are usually not like sort of miraculous gifts.
are just things like, you know, what is your personality style?
And maybe you're good at teaching or maybe you're more suited to serving or what have you.
What are your gifts and talents?
How have others described those to you?
God gave you those gifts and talents and other people in your life can help you discern what they are.
Your pastor might even use some sort of personality profile tool to help you get an idea of your personality type.
Maybe they'll do an Enagram work or it's the Myers-Briggs typology or it's some other of the million different kind of personality tests and you'll get a list of letters or a number or maybe like an animal or something that's supposed to summarize your personality and so on.
What's my point?
My point is this.
If you're listening and thinking, well, that doesn't sound all that religious.
Nothing about that sounds distinctively Christian.
It's because it's not.
Why?
Because when it comes to trying to discern in practice what our purpose is, or maybe not our purpose in some general abstract sense, but my purpose as the person trying to fill out my life, when it comes to trying to discern what that is, what we're supposed to do, it's not all that different from what a counselor would do or maybe a life coach or a career advisor or somebody like that.
We even had in seminary once, I remember that this like guest speaker came in and like administered basically a kind of like career interest survey thing to help us discern what our talents were and so forth.
Now, we were supposed to say, how do these relate to like working in the ministry, but it was the same kind of idea.
You end up developing a kind of inventory of your strengths and weaknesses, your interests, your passions, your skills, your growth areas, and you try to see what you can do with all of that to discern how it is that you would go about serving God and helping make the world better.
So the fact is that the Bible story that Holly appeals to, it doesn't actually tell us what our purpose is.
And it doesn't tell us what the hell any of us as individuals should be doing to achieve that purpose.
So in practice, what the Christians tell us to do to discern that purpose, it looks just like what anyone else would do.
There is nothing distinctively Christian or religious or revealed or divine about it.
And that brings me to Holly's accusation that liberals can't provide meaning or purpose.
When we listen to what he has to say about the purposeless liberals, those of us who apparently live lives of, you know, Thoreau might call it lives of quiet desperation because we have no meaning or purpose, right?
We just exist in this state of anime, watching screens and born.
When he tells us about the purposelessness of liberals, what he actually describes is not that different from the way that so-called Christians undertake their practices of discernment.
And that's what I want to try to show.
Now, to get there, though, I got to make what's going to feel like a detour, and I'm going to make a detour because Holly makes a detour.
He goes in a weird direction here.
He's not satisfied with just critiquing liberals.
He's not satisfied with doing what lots of people on the right do just say like everything went wrong in the 60s and ever since the 60s, you know, proper Christian morality hasn't had a place in the public square and the terror country is terrible now or something like that.
He wants, I guess he wants to seem more sophisticated.
I'm not sure.
But what he does is he tries to tie liberals, everybody who disagrees with him, to the fourth century BCE, so fourth century before the common era, 2,400 years ago.
He ties them to the Greek philosopher Epicurus.
Starts talking about Epicurus.
And he notes that Epicurus denied that there was inherent meaning and purpose in the universe.
That's right, as I understand Epicurus.
He says that Epicurus held that if the gods exist, they are uninvolved in human affairs.
And I think that's true.
It's true, not just of Epicurus.
Lots of Greek philosophers were critical of like the Greek gods and the pantheon that we all hear the fables about and stuff.
when they thought more sort of philosophically about the divine or divinity, they often felt that if the gods existed, they existed on this kind of sublime level that, you know, they were just, they didn't care about human affairs, or maybe they were so sublime that they were not even aware of human affairs.
So God just becomes irrelevant if there is a God.
And Epicureanism was an early form of philosophical materialism.
Epicurus develops a theory of what he calls atoms, which are these tiny little indivisible particles that combine together and make things.
And he develops a kind of physics about the movement of those atoms and so forth.
Okay.
All fair enough as a presentation of Epicurus and early Epicureanism.
Okay.
I think the real reason, that's part of it.
So again, for Hawley, if you're a materialist, you're an atheist.
If you're an atheist, you don't believe in God.
Obviously, if you don't have God, you don't have morality.
You don't have meaning.
You don't have purpose, et cetera.
That's one reason why he's talking about Epicurus.
Another is that Epicurus advanced a philosophy of hedonism, according to which the pursuit of human happiness is the highest good.
So Hawley attacks Epicureanism as the doctrine that, quote, happiness is all that matters, end quote.
And what he's doing there is really he's trying to play on contemporary senses of hedonism.
If we hear the word hedonism now, we tend to think of like the pursuit of sensual pleasure in particular.
And so if you say the highest, you know, we are a hedonist and that the highest good is happiness, they tend to think that that means that the highest goal is the pursuit of like physical pleasure or something like that.
Okay.
That's what he's trading on.
So what he wants to do is draw a straight line from Epicurus to contemporary liberals and arguing that in the absence of a meaningful story about purpose and belief in God and so forth, they can only advance an ethic that, quote, instructs us to prioritize self-fulfillment over duty, pleasure over sacrifice, end quote.
We all just seek our own pleasure to the sacrifice of everybody else.
Okay.
Now, this line of critique, it's really familiar.
In contrast, they'll tell us, somebody like Holly will tell us, in contrast to the high-control Christians who can live with meaning and purpose, liberals are just self-centered hedonists who seek worldly pleasures.
If you grew up in high control religion, that's the message about the quote-unquote world that you heard all the time.
But here's the issue.
This is why I'm spending some time actually talking about him, talking about Epicurus, okay?
Is that this is a caricature for a number of reasons.
It's important to recognize this.
People like Hawley trade on presenting a falsely simplistic vision of society.
So here are three ways that it's a caricature.
First, this probably won't surprise you.
There are more than two kinds of people in American society, and there are more than two visions of the good life within American society.
There is not just MAGA World, Holly Camp, and everybody else.
There's a whole bunch of different options.
Second, it is simply impossible to draw a straight line from a Greek philosophy that is 2,400 years old to contemporary Americans who aren't buying what Holly is selling.
If you want to give an account of contemporary American liberals or progressives or atheists, whatever category you want to put them in, you're going to need to do more work than just reaching out to Epicurus.
And this is a point that's worth mentioning.
A couple of times I tried to give a little credit to Holly on his reading of the Bible and said that while I didn't agree with it, it was more sophisticated than I expected.
That stops at the Bible.
He puts effort into the Bible because he believes the Bible and the Bible is important to him and so forth.
When it comes to anything else, it's pretty slapdash work that he's doing here.
And his work on Epicurus is the same.
He cites a text or two, not of Epicurus, he cites a book where a person's reading Epicurus and so forth.
It's just lazy work.
He doesn't put the same effort of work that you'd expect if he was going to talk about psychology or anything else.
We're going to see that as we move forward.
Anyway, here's the point, though.
Let's even assume those first two.
Let's just set them aside.
Let's assume that, okay, society is two kinds of people, Holly and everybody else.
And second, let's assume that he's right and that everybody who's not Holly has been influenced by Epicurus.
Okay.
Well, here's the key.
He completely misunderstands the idea of hedonism as outlined by Epicurus.
And he has also a famous Epicurus does, later Roman philosopher who used his ideas named Lucretius.
And I've taught Lucretius a number of times.
I'm more familiar actually with Lucretius than Epicurus, but he was elaborating Epicurus' thought.
You probably don't care about that, but you know, if you want to go read Lucretius, it's a good read.
Here's the point.
Epicurus' hedonism, it is not as exciting as what we typically think hedonism would be.
It is not.
You go read Epicurus or Lucretius, you are not going to hear like tantalizing tales of sensual pleasure.
Quite the opposite.
It is not a philosophy about self-indulgence or living for worldly pleasures or setting aside sacrifice and things like that.
On the contrary, and this surprises a lot of people.
I've taught this before and like, you know, students will talk about what do we think of the term hedonism and so forth.
And then when they start reading the philosopher, they're like, oh, really?
His hedonism is almost ascetic in its focus.
Why?
Well, because for Epicurus, a key part of seeking happiness, if you're going to make happiness your highest good, water, what he's going to say is you need to cultivate proper desires.
You need to be content with little so that you are not desiring much.
And if you don't desire much, you can be happy or content in your current state.
So, for example, one learns not to desire excessive wealth or sensual pleasures or too much food or all of those kinds of things.
One cultivates a simple, even self-sacrificing lifestyle, bringing about happiness for oneself and others.
And this focus on happiness is the highest good.
If we understand it that way, it can be developed into a moral model that probably looks something like what we call now utilitarianism.
I know I'm throwing out like lots of philosophical stuff today.
Blame it on Holly.
But what do I mean by utilitarianism?
I just mean the view that the good, sort of ethically speaking, what is good is that which brings the greatest benefit or happiness to the greatest number of people.
Or the modification I would put on it is that which brings the greatest flourishing for the greatest number of people.
Why does that matter?
Because even on Hawley's grounds, even if we want to say, okay, cool, let's draw a straight line from Epicurus to now.
I think that sounds like a story that could motivate us.
I think we're uncovering a counter story where Hawley says there is no story.
It sounds like a story that people Hawley doesn't like could tell about America.
What is our purpose?
What kind of society should we be creating?
Well, maybe our purpose is to create a society where the greatest number of people can experience the greatest flourishing.
Maybe that's our purpose.
And whatever else we do, we're doing it aiming at that.
Lots of ways to do that.
You still got to do all the hard work of saying, what does that mean for an individual and so forth?
But I think that's a story we could tell.
What does that look like?
Well, why support universal health care?
To bring the greatest flourishing to the greatest number.
Why have a more equitable distribution of wealth?
Which is an idea very in keeping with Epicureanism, in my view.
Why have a more equitable distribution of wealth?
To bring happiness to the greatest number, to bring greater flourishing to more Americans.
Why protect the rights of minorities and work toward a more equitable society, a more just and equal society?
To bring the greatest flourishing to the greatest number.
We could go on and give examples, but I'll also just say this.
It sounds pretty damn American as well to affirm life, liberty, and what?
The pursuit of happiness.
Josh, it's there.
There it is.
I think that's a story that people could tell, and they don't need Josh Hawley's reading of Genesis to do it.
Okay, so here's my point.
Hawley says that those who don't agree with him don't have a story to tell.
But even if we accept the caricature of American society that he gives us, I think we do.
I think we can find a story there.
Now, even if he was forced to acknowledge it, I don't anticipate that I'm going to hear from Josh Hawley.
I don't anticipate I'm ever going to meet Josh Hawley or talk to Josh Hawley.
Let's imagine that I did.
And let's imagine, I don't think this would ever happen.
Let's imagine that he said, okay, okay, yeah, there's a story, but that's just, that's just a human story.
We can't trust it the way we can trust the divine story in the Bible.
But again, he never tells us why we should believe the Bible is anything other than a human story.
He just assumes it, and I've tried to show why it is that it can't be what he assumes that it is.
And even if we said, okay, I'll grant the premise of your argument.
For the sake of argument, Josh, I'll say, okay, let's assume that the Bible is more than a merely human story.
Okay?
It's an empty story.
As I've kind of, you know, I realize I'm beating the proverbial dead horse here, but it's an empty story.
If Christians still have to try to figure out what their purpose is, what it means to make the world into the kind of place God wants it to be, then Josh, we're all in the same boat.
And suggesting that maybe we should make the world the kind of place where the greatest number of people can experience the greatest flourishing, maybe that would be a good answer to the question of our purpose, whether we're Christian or not.
He just hasn't done anything to show us that that couldn't be the answer.
And here's the final point for me.
If you boil it down, his story is actually the same as the story he's trying to pretend doesn't exist.
The counter story that I'm telling, in many ways, it's the same as his.
All of those concrete ways that conservative Christians will tell us to discern our purpose, they all come down to some version of what brings you happiness or what brings you fulfillment or what makes you feel you're contributing to something positive in the world or what helps you aid the flourishing of others.
It's all the same questions.
The point is that his story is so empty that by the time he fills it, by the time he has to fill in the gaps, all we're going to see are his preferences for what makes a life meaningful or the world better or whatever.
Not a definition of the good, but Josh Hawley's definition.
So in classic high control religion fashion, he's just going to cover that with a veneer of divine approval.
That's all he's going to do.
And I'm confident that is all we're going to see as we go through the book.
So in many ways, it's the same story with this caveat.
Here's one big difference.
Okay.
His story is not going to be about helping everyone in society flourish.
That's not going to be his focus.
It's going to be about protecting the privilege of some in society to the detriment of others.
It's going to be about privileging men and Christians and straight people and white people and cis people.
And man, if you have all of those, if you can tick all of those boxes, man, you're really going to win out.
But that privileging is always going to come at the detriment of everybody who doesn't fit in those categories.
It is not about the flourishing of everyone.
That's the difference.
And that brings us to the end of our discussion on Hawley's chapter about man's mission.
There's always more we could say.
There's more we could say about this.
But we would be stuck in chapter two forever.
I don't want to do that to you.
I can't do it to me.
So we're going to move on.
Okay.
Next episode, we'll press on.
We'll see where it goes.
But I don't think Holly's off to a great start.
If you're keeping score, here's how I see it.
He can't make the Bible say what he needs it to say without sacrificing what high control Christians say about it.
The story that he insists the Bible tells us turns out to be empty.
The people he says don't have a story to tell actually do have a story to tell.
I think it's a pretty good one.
He can't give us any more reason for listening to his story than to other counter stories that people might have to offer.
He hasn't given us a single reason.
And in fact, it turns out that his story really isn't that different from the story that he not only rejects, but the story he just pretends doesn't exist for anybody else.
Not a good start.
We'll see if it can get any better for him.
Chapter three sounds pretty exciting.
It's called Man's Battle.
Can't read something on the right without the notion that being a man is about fighting.
It's always about fighting.
So we'll see what he has to say.
We'll dive into that next week.
I'm interested to see what he says.
I think I have a hunch what that's going to be, but you know, we'll see.
In the meantime, again, thank you for listening.
I say it often, but I mean it.
If you're here listening to this or watching this, there are other things you could be doing.
So thank you.
If you're not a subscriber and that's something that you would be willing to consider doing, I would ask you to do that.
We are an independent show.
We put out a lot of content.
You listen to other podcasts, you know that we put out content three times a week, sometimes more.
It's a lot of work.
We can't do it without you.
And as always, I want to hear from you.
Please.
Daniel Miller Swedge, DanielMiller, S-W-A-J at gmail.com.
Please, comments, feedback, quibbles, what have you.
If you are a subscriber, you can also join when we do our live recording events.
If you've got comments or questions or would like to do a deeper dive on some of this, drop those into the chat in those.
And we'd love to talk about those live and see where it goes.
