Rational Security: The “Fifth Anniversary Hot Take Takedown” Edition

Malay, all the redness of longevity is from longevity. There are no more than our body.

It's the most important thing.

But one can't.

“Life is important to minerals themselves.”

The minerals are what they want to eat, and it's different. It's the least valuable minerals and natural coal-solid-wild-carnish oil. It's a real craft, a real craft, a real steel. There's spray, medium, and natural, and if you want to know how many minerals your water has, it's just enough to get rid of minerals.

[MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC] [MUSIC]

Mike, your snack is something unusual.

What is this? Snacking on three unusual things, but the one to which you are referring was brought to my attention by a post-on-blue sky by one of our hosts, Quintir Jurassic, which made me aware

“that the fall, 2020-6 Oreo-limited editions have hit the stores.”

So I immediately went out and purchased all three, and the one I am snacking on is the deep-fried Oreo-flavored Oreo, as well as the Apple Pie Alabod Oreo. There is also a cinnamon roll Oreo, which I'll confess. I am not particularly enamored of, so I have replaced it with Candy Corn Pumpkins. So all three of us choice combinations.

Good Lord, Mike.

Yeah, I want to clarify that the deep-fried Oreo-orios are not deep-fried Oreos.

They are a deep-fried Oreo-flavored Oreos. That's false advertising. No, I have a problem with that. Just one? Just deep-fried flavor, mean.

I could pull one of them out and break it down. What is this as we're interested about it? Because I buy it. Is this a communications decency act violation? So what you'll see, if we do a close-up on the Oreo, is a combination of technology,

we do not have folks that don't jump to the video for those that don't have their eyes. We have traditional filling to mimic an Oreo's regular center, we have chocolate-flavored filling to mimic an Oreo's normal chocolate cookie and then we have the golden Oreo cookie itself to mimic the beer batter that would surround it where it to be deep-fried. Does it taste like fry?

It tastes like heaven is being created in your mouth. So wait, I have a metaphysical question, which is should we take one of those deep-fried layers of beer battered and then deep-fry it? The universe turns in on itself at that point. Exactly.

And that will cause the singularity.

“I think that would save America, honestly.”

I think I should give it a shot because nothing else would work. They had done that at the festival of state fairs or whatever it was called for America to 50, it would have been a resounding success frequented by everybody in the DMV instead of the flop that it was. Exactly.

I was at the Minnesota State Fair this week and where you can get anything in the world fry deep-fried on a stick. But I think the deep-fried deep-fried Oreo on a stick was not available and now I know what we're doing for next year's Minnesota State Fair. Can we make Oreos Oreos again?

I can get five of those. Hello everyone and welcome back to Rational Security. The show we're going to invite you to join members of the Loffer team as we try to make sense the week's big national security news, whether it is in our land or not. But not this week.

This week as we celebrate our fifth anniversary of Rational Security, two point of latest iteration, we are going back to an old standby celebration. That's right. It is the latest edition of the hot take take down where we have members of the Loffer team present their hot takes to a panel of esteemed judges for their withering assessment

as to whether those takes are hot enough or not. The real to be joined today to evaluate our hot takes by our wonderful newish members

the arena.

“We have a trio of withered visages from rational security history joining us once again”

to test judgments on their successors joining us as is often the case but always a thrill

on the list is first Loffer editor and chief and co-host emeritus of Rational Security Benjamin with us Ben. Thank you for coming on to podcast once again. I want to have withered visage emeritus be my title. There you go.

This can be done we've made up all these titles so we can definitely do that too if you need to. Also joining us less of a weather visage but a visage nonetheless that has been too long from our sites is also Rational Security Coast emeritus and Atlantic staff writer Quintet Jurassic Quintet.

Thank you for coming back on the podcast. I'm offended that I'm not withered. A inspiring. Give it to me. A inspiring.

We're there withered. We're there withered. We're there withered. There we go. Exactly.

Soon enough it will come for us all. I'm drowning out our panel of esteemed judges none other than other Rational Security Coast emeritus and also of the Atlantic Shane Harris back on the pod.

Finally once again Shane wonderful to have you back on as well.

Hello. I'm oyster eyes today to keep my weathering. There you go.

“I think Shane since you're back on the show you need to give a hello and welcome to”

Rational Security. Hello and welcome to my withered face and then I even I get a little twitter faded when I hear that. I miss it. I miss the old hello.

It can be your ringtone. Scott, I can make one. Just one Shane calls. It was just a hello. It's a hello.

That's convenient. Our birthday. Wonderful. Well, we are excited to have three of our new or I don't think entirely new can be entirely sent for all of them and they're all familiar faces on Rational Security.

But new or members of the law fair team from the last year or two to come on and present their hot takes to us. Join us first is law fair public service fellow Julia Curley. Thank you for coming back on the pod Julia. To step into the arena and try and come up with the most perfectly temperature take

imaginable. Thank you Scott. Oh and I would be you know remiss and not pointing out Shane was self promotion. Also with sometimes contributor to the Atlantic. That's that is the biggest taken over this podcast I know or has law fair taken over

the Atlantic. You can really both ways. Also joining us is a law fair senior editor in former public service fellow Mike Findberg Mike, thank you for coming back on the pod.

Thank you and I suppose I would be remiss if I did not note that while I have never contributed

to the Atlantic, I have been profiled by a choice. Hey there you go there you go two more times than me and joining us last but not least by no stretch of the imagination is other law fair senior editor Molly Roberts. How many times have you been profiled in the Atlantic, Molly? Zero for me.

How about you? Yeah, I have nothing I can add about nothing impressive about any relationship I have to the Atlantic. Just wait until our profiles if you come out. Yeah exactly.

“Yeah that's why you didn't ask me I'm the only one here who's been fired by the Atlantic.”

I'll work on that. I need some distinction. No I think went to and Shane made a step one step ahead of you on that one for further forward. There we go.

There we go. A story for another episode of Freshland Security for now we will turn back to the hot take take down. For those who have not heard our prior hot take down to this is how the game works. Each of our competitors will step in to their reanipers that a hot take give a defense

of their hot take in front of the withering questions for our panel of judges who will be interrogating them on the hotness of their take and then once we are concluded discussing it we will take a vote by which I mean our three judges will take a vote and they will determine was this take too hot out spicy wake at the end take cannot handle it. Too hot to put on print is it too cold, uninteresting totally totally vanilla not something

that's even worth spending a blue sky tweet or whatever you call those things on now or is it just right the Goldilocks solution what everyone's wanting for exactly that take that you're like yeah this will sell newspapers. I will put this on my editorial page at least the headline for a few people read that further beyond that that's really what we're looking for.

So without further ado let be hand the baton over to our first contested Julia Crone Julia take the metaphorical podium and give us your hot take. Well let me set the scene first every night a few hundred people across the IC stay up all night to prepare a document with thousands of reports being distilled down to just a few pages. The most expensive daily publication in the world for circulation of baton doesn't.

So I did that job I was a PDB briefer and the first Trump administration this is my lanyard which I wear proudly now. I briefed the vice president and I say this with love in my heart my take is that we must abolish the PDB. So like the Holy Roman Empire it is neither presidential daily nor brief in any recognizable sense

I've got two main arguments for this.

“Okay first of all the president doesn't read it especially this president.”

The public record says that Trump is reading about two a quarter we're taking about two briefings a quarter and as far as I'm aware not actually reading the physical book that would be delivered to the White House every day. He's on track to about 32 for the whole term that is less than half of what Obama received as president it's lowest in modern times you know David Priest and all of his work friend of

the pod has said that every president wants their style and so the institution always is

contorting itself to try to get it down to one standardized book that could work for anyone and it basically works for no one often times in my experience the the PDB was very much yesterday's reporting today and so it just doesn't work and which leads me to my second point

“which is it's a dead news paper model you know a president who doesn't read shouldn't be”

reading this either it's old it's a compromised product it's written for a reader who might be any president and like every newspaper in America that's having to reinvent itself for a customer set that doesn't just wait on the paper to be dropped off in the morning it needs to be radically changed it survives mostly when the briefer on their own initiatives subverts the process and what I mean is they basically bring in a customizable second book which they can you know conveniently slide over

this warmed over product that's been put together and deliver that using the briefing as the

pretext to come and deliver the briefing and that's not a good use of the multi-billion dollar

enterprise that that we built over the years and there's a lot of effort that goes into it with seven layers you review that really doesn't work for anyone so my fix to this my hot take is that we should abolish the book and that every senior customer the president the vice-president national security advisor should have their own briefer or two briefers just basically in a signing to them a liaison from the intelligence community and so that second book that I said is the

real book over the Potemkin book that should be the only book that exists it should be available around the clock it can answer their questions immediately and it is their standing liaison to the

15 agencies of the intelligence community the value of the PDB has always been in the relationship

that the briefer has with the customer and not in these sort of dog and pony shows that often occur in the oval office it should be a one-on-one relationship and should be customized to whatever the the customer's needs so that is my hot take abolish the PDB. Damn yeah that's hard things I have no good yeah but we have questions this interrogation

“but I learned some things I like this I believe Ben said he has questions let me go to Ben”

first then Quinty I see your hand up and then Shane I'll turn it over to you but Ben want you get us started all right my first question is this seems like a terrible idea for those of us who relish Washington scandals because there is a special type of Washington scandal that is typified by the you know summer of 2001 I'll kind of preparing to blow up airplanes PDB where something terrible happens and then there's a PDB from six weeks earlier warning about it

that becomes the record for countless congressional hearings and you know winded condy rice no and what did she know and so I just want to ask isn't this going to be terrible because it reduces the paper trail of presidential accountability for bad things that want reasonably predictable but that somebody in the intelligence community flagged might happen like for those of us who want a good presidential scandal why are you hating funds so much Julia so as a as a former intelligence

officer and hopefully a future member of the of the US government again you just made all my great points of why it should be abolished because it's like gotcha waiting to happen the Ben Laden determined to strike the US you know when you're when you're hammering a customer in the morning they barely had their coffee and and there's one piece in there among you know the dozens of reports they would receive that they don't instantly take on board and know that the future pretends that

this will will come true unlike 99% of the other things that they see that don't happen so you want to make it that George W. Bush would have had to say hey briefer is Ben Laden perhaps determined to attack the US that seems like it's putting too much of a burden on the president well I want to make sure that Michael Morelle who is his briefer at the time is warning him about the reports that were coming in and that this and making sure that he's getting those warnings

behind them which may have all others incentives like the book is light this week which is the

though you know oldest most terrible phrase for an intelligence analyst a face I just wanted to be a custom product and and not be you know the yesterday's news and in that case you're right the US should have taken it more seriously and I don't think the answer was forcing the president's

“head down on a piece of paper I think he needed to be more directly served by the briefer”

all right Quinta you had your hand up please this sounds very familiar to me is someone who's watch many newsrooms try to reorganize themselves so my suggestion is what if the ppb pivoted to video so you say that yeah well of course they've tried of course they have with this president it's got to be vertical video though it's a huge it's exactly and let's say they apply in the AI Sora that can like in the middle of the night create something like that it's a giant production

process any additional thing you add in whether it's interactive product or graphics it slows

down this cycle of of production and it won't be current and the most important thing that a

briefer is providing is up-to-date information no one is invented a working model for for for that and to clarify just to clarify one aspect of your counter proposal it is that the briefer is still going to practically sit down with the principal and walk them through with you know the highlight to think that they and the I see think is most relevant it's just that there's not going to be all these backing pages that implicitly the principal was supposed to have read instead they're

going to get the highlights and then they can dig in on the questions right right right and yeah right and you know and to some degree it happens in the breach anyway it's just that there's an enormous

waste of time and effort to create what what we all imagine is the standardized book which just

“doesn't doesn't work for a modern customer do I think pivoting to video firing all of your staff”

and relying on underpaid freelancers AI summarization maybe some of the stuff that the Washington Post editorial page has been doing where they live in op-eds written from other places through some kind of confusing process that I don't fully understand. You have like the pack of Stanney service providing the existing articles of the TV today right but what I'm not talking about is giving the customer a chatbot so they can directly politicize analysis you know ask ask

a lot more efficient that we have you don't need an analyst just say right me the report with all the available information that says that the Chinese are interfering in our elections for example just just just a thought. I like this idea because internalism we also have a publication that people labor hours and hours to produce and that no one reads it's called the economist. Sorry that was my little day I have to get a good one. I love the economist. I read it once a

year okay. What you were saying is like the PDB is like the economist where it's like heavy everybody wants to be seen getting it in the scene reading both they really want is the daily mail. They want it like well they want the feed. One side of the screen I was sitting next to someone and he just asked like this older business band he was like you look serious to you read the economist that's the vibe well and it becomes this thing I mean to to bands point like I just cited

this statistic about the number of of briefings that Trump allegedly is having in the old but each of those I mean that those numbers are probably meaningless because those end up being just talking pony shows where all of the principles are trying to show off in front of the boss about their own thoughts on the matters of the day and that's not what a president needs in that context. President needs a one-on-one relationship with somebody who can help educate them on the world on

what the hoothies are doing which we forgive them for not being an expert on and they don't need to be observed by all of these other people I have been a policy customer I hate the idea of some person or other people watching the read while I'm trying to process information. Well to extend this metaphor a little bit like I'm just picking on Nikon as which I love but they also have some great writers who are super active on social media and actually are doing

some of their best commentary and analysis on their x feeds. I'm thinking of lecture Shank Jo, so you just became the US correspondent. It was awesome. So it sounds like you want something it's more active, more immediate. My question is does that risk though the briefer is not... Do you you risk it? Lots of different briefers are giving lots of different takes and the IC is not speaking

“with one voice. If you do that model. Well that's why the briefers work together is a team”

that's why there's a management above the PDB and the individuals who are briefing across the

sent to the end of the other briefers. Just ways of addressing that without forcing everybody into

this homogenous product. So we are at time for this topic truly. Thank you so much. We'll excuse you to step back under the veil of ignorance. I don't know what to say. Really you just got a step out for meeting. That's right. As we deliberate and vote on how we hot we think your take was. Ben, Quintas Shane, are you ready to vote? Do you want to talk about amongst yourselves a little

“bit? Oh I think we need to deliberate. I mean that's too much. I mean that's too much. I have limited time.”

We have two more to look at. Like are there three options? What is three options are? It's too hot. This take is way too spicy and it's something that you're going to be ridiculed for putting on

an editorial page. The other one is too cold. You also be ridiculed for putting on an editorial page

before the other reasons. And that is just uninteresting. And then there's just wreck. Strecking that exact balance with a little sensation. It's going to pick up some eyes. It's going to sell some newspapers a little about the ordinary but not so out there that it's completely crazy. But it's out there. I mean it's spicy but I like it. It's spicy. Do you know what I mean? It's like that's a hot sauce that I would put on my eggs. That's right. I like it. We're going to take this

“caliente thing as far as it'll go. Then the quintet thoughts are you ready to vote?”

I am ready to vote. Not sure. Okay. All right Ben, I'll start with you then Ben. I love this

take. I also think it's totally harmless if it doesn't work. You can revert to the previous model.

And I think people should be being very creative about how to get consumers of intelligence actually to consume intelligence. And it's really important that it be delivered in forms that people can use and will want to use because you know the alternative to intelligence is ignorance and stupidity. And so I think being creative about it makes all the sense in the world and being having a highly bespoke product that is actually directed to the individual makes a lot of

sense. And so I think this take is just right. All right, Quinta, how about you? So I agree with everything Ben said, which is actually why I think the take may be too cold. It's like it's so reasonable. I feel like it's truly be hot. There needs to be like something additional on top like

“and that's why the you know in the United States government should transition to interpret”

of dance. Like some we need some additional thing. Pusha look. It has no too hot. Really mad. All right. I feel like we could get it there. It just needs a little bit more. Close. We have just right in a too cold chain where you coming in on this one. I think this one's super spicy, but not too spicy. I think it's just right. I love the idea that the that the PDB is this aging, you know, outmoded form of delivery, the idea that somehow what the U.S. government

moves at like daily speed, but the rest of the world doesn't. That's crazy. That doesn't make any sense. And I've long suspected that the PDB is a document that has kept alive more by sort of tradition and bureaucratic turf fighting than it is any actual need. And also it's like a dozen people are reading this thing and we're spending this much time or they're not reading it. Forget it. 86 it. Let's say that. But yeah. I think it's just right. I think it's just right. 86 PDB.

All right. He thinks that makes that a hot take. That's a wish. That is too hot. You can't say 86. Well, that is a strong showing from Julia Curley. That is two just rights and a two cold vote. That's one of the strongest notes we've had on any take. Let alone the top take. So a lot of competition for Mike and Molly. Let's see if they're up to the task. Mike, let's hand it over to you. Bring us more hot take. All right. So my hot take. Surprising to nobody who knows me in real life

is going to be a hot take on both national security and film criticism. And it's something that's going to be a hot take to a lot of the world. But I think to anybody like myself who works in the intelligence community for any length of time, it's self-evident. And the hot take is this. In the film series, which bears his name, Jason Born is the villain. And if the audience should be rooting for anyone, it is the heroic CIA and J. Sock operatives who are trying to kill him where he stands

and the shadowy bureaucrats directing them to do so. And it's a pretty simple rationalization. I don't know that I even need five minutes. Jason Born is sent on a mission to conduct a

an illegal use of J. Sock or CIA assets. It's gone through the processes. It needs to go through in order to be legal under U.S. law and mid-operation. He breaks off and vanishes with something like 13 false IDs put together for him by the U.S. government. Millions of dollars in a Swiss bank account. The information for which to access is literally on a piece of microfilm

surgically implanted in his thigh so nobody else can get to it. And when he first shows up

back on the radar, he hospitalizes two Swiss policemen and causes a shootout in a U.S. embassy. The United States government and intelligence community would be negligent in its duties if they did not try and take him off the board immediately. So to the extent there are people who are doing their duty to flag and country in this film series, it is those who are diligently leveraging other treadstone assets to stop him from doing more damage to United States' national security

and to the United States' reputation. Treadstone asset. I do believe we need a spoiler for the boring conspiracy. We have to insert that one in there, Freddy. Listeners, have we got around

“to it yet. But Mike, a trench and defense of Treadstone. I don't remember what that is,”

but I can't say that. Some governments are making us a way deeper in the cinematic universe. Yeah, the lore. I love it. Can I ask, let's show some basic film-agraphic questions here. Who plays Jason Bourne? Matt Damon. And I think you and I, Ben, both know where this is going. Yeah, let's get to it. Let's, let's, let's go to the, uh, the cross-examination. Do you harbor any personal animus toward Matt Damon? I do because if you look at his filmography,

writ large, it is almost designed on purpose to be both critical of the U.S. national security

apparatus and pro-CCP propaganda. Really, why isn't this your hot take? I think it's,

“that's a really hot take. Wait, wait. You should have led with that. We're going to draw this out on”

yeah, yeah, I can't go. I can't go anymore. It's like, is your, is what underlies the tectonic layer of your position that the fictional character, Jason Bourne, should be killed is that the actual actor, Matt Damon is hostile to U.S. national security and basically an asset of the Chinese Communist Party. No, it's not that. I think you're mixing up the cause and effect,

uh, that has led Mike Topia to reach this conclusion. And basically, it was the Bourne films that

got me thinking about how Matt Damon portrays the intelligence community on film. Because he also does it in the film green zone. Don't forget, good shepherd, good shepherd, where he, you know, they don't even have the decency to point out that the character there is based on two real people. And if I was Richard Bissol or James Hesoux-Sangleton's descendants, I'd be very upset with that portrayal. Okay, I just want to explore the parameters of this bandeta that you're pursuing here. And

is it not the case, Mike Feinberg, that you went on a multi-year geod to prevent your nephew from watching Kung Fu Panda? Yeah, but that is nothing to do with Matt Damon. Wait, is he in that movie? No. No, no, I'm just trying these propaganda films are different. I'm just pointing out that Mike's not animated. Not a dad of films under every rate. If you'll

“give me 30 seconds to explain my opposition to Kung Fu Panda, I think any reasonable listener will”

be for you already, sir. So look, Kung Fu Panda at least the first one is a very simple story. It is the story of a Chinese panda who has to fundamentally stop a rogue state represented by a snow leopard from disturbing the peace of the happy valley where Kung Fu Panda lives.

It's about snow leopards are found into Colorado. Oh, no. And to the extent, there is a villain in

Kung Fu Panda. It is the land that provides a home to the snow leopard. And how does Kung Fu Panda defeat this villain by learning the ancient art of Chinese Kung Fu and leveraging it against the homeland of the snow leopard? The entire film, and I don't think most of the Americans who took part in it even realize this. But the entire film is a metaphor about China crushing Tibet. And I just don't think that the youth of America needs to have that propaganda

“rammed down their throat at the tender age of toddlerhood. But what does that have to do with that?”

That's also a hot take. Nothing about mad David. I'm going to cut off this tension and circle. I'm going to start here in the questioning over to Quinta. That's right. Quinta, what mad David related questions do you have? Nothing about it. I guess. Don't ask about the apples. Other than that. So, my question. Can we go back to the mad David and this CCP thing? Yeah. Is that acceptable? Yeah. I guess my question is if you looked

at any Hollywood leading man or possibly woman, although I feel like this might be gendered, how many of them would share the same trend in their filmography? Like there aren't a lot of movies about how great the government is except for like zero dark 30, which is also hashtag problematic. And as a female star, wow, makes you think so. So, I wonder if it's just like

“being an actor who gets cast in action movies? I don't think it's that simple because I think”

the action movies that I'm thinking of which star mad Damon are uniquely problematic in not necessarily a neutrality towards the Chinese government, but in actual propaganda endeavor.

The first that I'm thinking of is the Martian. And, you know, if you're familiar with the plot

of the Martian, it's an American astronaut stranded on a hostile planet who has to as the tagline says science is way out of the problem, but his American can do spirit and know how turns out not to be enough. He has to rely on the Chinese space program to help extricate himself from the dilemma. And the other film I'm thinking about is a film called Great Wall, which is almost a reverse white savior film, where Matt Damon goes to medieval China and helps the Chinese

people fight a variety of monsters attacking the Great Wall of China. And in the process learns the lesson that he is actually not a savior, but he is a mere cog in the magnificent machinery of the Chinese forces, which will save civilization. Now, look, this stuff happens, you know, you mentioned other female stars, Sandra Bullock in gravity goes through a progression very similar to Matt Damon's

in the Martian where she's ultimately rescued by the Chinese space program. What they don't tell

you in that movie is that the model of shuttle which rescues her was actually based on stolen US plans. But, you know, Matt Damon's made a number of films that are propping up the CCP as a savior of humanity. And that's fine, there's a monetary interest in it, I get it. But at the same time, he's making the series of films, which portray a treasonous operative as a hero. And I just think we need to call it out eventually. Do you also feel this way about arrival? Like is this just an action movie

thing? I haven't seen arrival. I've read the short story on which it has been involved. Well, yeah, no, and I've read this, I mean, if it's at all like the short story, it's actually a PLA kernel who helps save the world. But I feel like arrival takes place in a fictional enough landscape unlike the Jason handoff or great wall or the Jason board films that they could get away with it. All right, so I want to make a couple of a couple of points. And then Mike, you responded,

tell me if this change, it will change your mind. But, so true in the Martian, it's a Chinese rocket engine that comes in to save the day. My understanding is that was added almost like in post-production

“to that film to make the movie more marketable in China, which is not to say that, I think that's like”

not a Matt Damon's responsibility. I don't know that he was a producer on the movie or not,

movies will do that, including like deleting, I think like Taiwan was taken off of Maverick's flight

“jacket and talk on Maverick. And then put back on after protests. Yeah, yeah, so that kind of”

thing sort of happens, which seems to me like not like a uniquely Matt Damon, like ProChina, propaganda thing. You know, I do think that there is a long critique of, you know, American hegemony and power in his filmography, starting in Goodwill Hunting, in which he praises Howard Zinn. And you know, in a kind of one line, which kind of tells you where he's coming from. It's like I get that, but I'm not sure I'm buying the whole, it's like a Chinese-plock thing.

And then as far as the DeBorn movies go, which I admit, I have only seen one of them. I'm not a

born completeist or a born supremacist in that for that matter, but it seems to me that that's also maybe borrowing from a long line of narratives about the intelligence community and the government that kind of are more rooted in like sort of 1970s, paranoia, you know, three days of the condor paralyzed view, that kind of thing. So, so anyway, those are my responses, and I will admit, I'm a Matt Damon stand though, so I'm a little bit defensive. He's also really cute, Mike.

Okay, so Shane, you have probably written more about the national security world in

covert operations than anybody I know. So surely you're aware of the difference between a

winning agent and an unwitting asset. I'm not saying that Matt Damon is doing this on purpose. I'm just saying he is a tool that is easily leveraged by the CCP for its propaganda purposes. It may be no fault of his own. He may just be, and I don't mean this literally. He may be an unsophisticated actor. He is a dumb Hollywood liberal, Mike. You can say it. It's okay. No, I mean, I mean, I'm not like this isn't about his power pick.

The makers of team America would agree with you on that one too. And you raise an interesting point, because I actually love both three days of the condor, the original novel, which actually takes place over six days and the later film.

“And I love the parallax view. I think I've got them both in the other room in hard copy.”

But they were made in a world that was immediately before or still reeling from the church committee revelations. And there were a number of reforms, which I think did a pretty good job of mitigating the concerns present in that film in those films. And when you have the born films come out, they're not actually reacting to specific allegations against the US government. They're more just in favor of a vibe that the Hollywood left had against an aggressive American

foreign policy in the wake of 9/11. In other words, it's not a specific critique. The way three days of the condor or the parallax view or winter kills are. It's just this sort of cinematic venting against the zeitgeist of a muscular American foreign policy. And because that vagueness, I don't think it ever sticks the landing. And look, and the plot points I raised,

“I think are valid. At the end of the day, he's a rogue agent who disappears with millions”

upon millions of dollars, a number of secrets. And when he resurfaces, he reacts violence on American citizens and allied nation's forces. So, regardless of whether his motivations in the film are pure as the driven snow, he's still acting in a way that the US government has a moral obligation to stop. Just a little bit of a dream.

Let's understand of Bedine's D. Schlaf is Davigum. Well, I think we'll bring the debate to a close on this one. I will say, if you had led with the Matt Demon Thesis, and you should have made the great wall exhibit A. If people have not seen this

I don't know if you're getting a lot of words on the board. But regardless, regardless, that's not what we're debating here. On Mike's thesis of Jason Born, what's the bad guy in the Born

“conspiracy? I think the main move we're talking about here from the other ones. Ben, Quintixane,”

how are you feeling about this? So, I have been dealing with Mike's, let's just say crusade against Chinese influence in American film for a long time. We used to go to the gym together, and he would rail at me about going through Santa. Well, doing deadlifts. One of the great things about this bit that Mike has

is you can never tell whether he's joking. He does it with a smile, he knows he's being ridiculous,

and yet there's something genuinely heartfelt about it. I'm going to go with with well, it is too hot, but it is an authentic representation of Mike's core, and I could not love it more. A personal endorsement from Ben, what a photo of too hot. Quintixane, how are you feeling about this one? So, on the Matt Damon is the villain in the Born movie, it's I'm going to go with just right. I think it is a fun hot take that people would argue about, but X, who you think is the

good guy is actually the villain, is a time-honored trope in film and literary criticism. So, thumbs up.

“Matt Damon is an unwilling tool of the CCP is too hot. In my opinion, I think you need to workshop”

this one a little bit more. It's all part of the same thesis. I know, I know, but as we know, you know, the core of the take is how you present it. Now, Grinch it, it would make many people mad. This is like the White House ballroom as integrated drone, to get out like security thing, they're there are layers of this thing. I still think that Matt Damon is an unwilling tool. The CCP is too hot. I'm sorry, Mike. So, where do you come out on on the thesis a whole year?

You're going to let the Born style. Well, are we, are we, are you what, what is, what part of the thesis is the main part of the thesis? Because I didn't come on here to make a generalized argument about Damon. I'm afraid you came on to make the jacer footage about three films. Other feelings that were not part of my case in sheath got brought out by an interlocutor during cross-exactly. In effect of cross-exactly. So, I am, I am only here today to talk about the Born film series,

not the career of Matt Damon writ large. I'm going to go with just right with a little asterisk. There you go. All right. You just chased that little red thread. Not quite too far off

“the cork board. You saved it, Mike. Good job. Shane, what, how do you feel about this one?”

Well, unlike Ben, I have not been initiated into Mike's blinding hatred of Matt Damon, and I am for one appalled. Well, I fully support his opposition to Chinese influence in propaganda, and I suspect we are both very disappointed in American film companies that tailor their scripts

to be more friendly to Chinese international interests just to sell movie tickets. Amazing

that production companies would do such a thing. I cannot support Matt Damon violence. I just can't do it, Mike. I'm sorry. But since you want to qualify that the core of your take is just Matthew Born is the villain, and that's it, and leave all the other stuff out, I don't think that's spicy enough. I think you needed to go with the fuller take, which I would have said is too spicy. So I'm going to vote for not spicy enough.

You got the rare Neapolitan ice cream flavor results for too much, just right at the two gold.

Mike, I like it. I've got the first to fire a call on the game show contestant. Well,

thank you, Mike, for competing. Keep putting those pins on that shot on that Matt Damon cork board, and we'll see where the salt pulls together eventually. But we have one last competitor to step into the arena day, and that is none other than senior editor Molly Roberts. Molly, what have taken you for us for consideration? Okay. I'm a little concerned. No, I should have done more research on what to expect them. I'm already a little worried that it's, well, it's

literally a cold take. Okay. So the Greenland crisis is not over. It's still very much active,

That is my headline, or, you know, the Mad King wants Greenland, and he won't rest until he has it.

Okay. So President Trump's desire to take over Greenland isn't only not a joke, and isn't only worth ticking seriously. It's worth viewing as a top priority for his presidency, and he's likely to pursue it even more aggressively than he already has, much more aggressively, if he manages to extricate himself from the Iran quagmire that he's gotten into along the way. And we should think that for two reasons. So one, this is part of a pattern. Trump has multiple times

named Greenland alongside invasions and attacks he's actually carried out right after the Venezuelo operation that lasted Maduro on Air Force One. He named Greenland as a future target alongside Cuba, then went on to talk about the Don Road doctrine at Mara Logo, and he's even recently framed Iran as a detour or a diversion from this overall policy of focusing on the Americas, which is enshrined in the National Security Strategy. Although Greenland is not mentioned there by name.

Reason two has to do with the particular quirks of this president. So it's important to remember that he's been obsessed with Greenland for a long time. The Greenland obsession predates this presidency,

goes back to the first term when everybody said, "Oh, you know, he just saw the Mercator

production and had a whim." And then it turned out that it was more than a whim he had people in the National Security Council looking into it. There was reporting after the fact that showed that he

“forced them to take it seriously then, and then, and I think that this is something that you might”

read as, "Oh, okay, it really is." Ridiculous, it's actually a reason to read it as more serious. In an interview with Peter Baker and Susan Glasser, after he was out of office, after January 6, he was still thinking about Greenland, and he compared it then to a real estate deal. And I think the fact that he compared it to a real estate deal, and you know, said things like, "Look at the size of this, it's massive, and that should be part of the United States." This is the guy who is

making construction in DC, a top priority. This is the guy who flew over the East Potomac golf course and said, "That looks big and cool. I want that, and is now trying to take over the golf course." So this is a priority for him. He's cast it in the terms in which he casts things that then he proves to indeed be priorities for him. So I think people say, "Okay, this crisis, Crest it in January, it's over. He threatened tariffs. He dropped the tariffs. He came to a deal with

Mark Root." But they didn't come to a deal. They came to what Trump called a framework for a future deal. He clearly was not satisfied at the time. He was upset about, he said, "The fact that in 1951, Truman gave Greenland back after the war, deprived the United States of sovereignty over something it should have had." So why would he be satisfied with an agreement that

was basically just an expansion of that? That was nothing near the complete and total control. And

he said, "Hit in complete and total control is psychologically necessary." When you hear Trump say,

“something is psychologically necessary for him, that's when you should get pretty freaked out.”

So I don't know. I have more to say, I think I might have already gone over my allotted amount, but I think that there may be a Trump land on the map in our future. They cold ore about to go hot in Greenland from Mali Roberts. Ben, Quinta, Shane, what questions do you have from Mali? Do you think Matt Damon could be involved in this plot in some way? I mean, is there an opportunity?

Yeah, I think if you get a movie about, you know, once this has happened, if you get a movie about how it happened, that makes the United States look super bad and is in fact an argument about for how China would be a better hedgemon. Matt Damon could absolutely star in that. He's already in the Green Zone for just one more. I do have a serious question on this because I will confess that I share Mali's concern and general conclusion that the obsession with Greenland

is not over. It's only been tabled. If it's even really been tabled to be honest. But do you think that, I mean, back when he, you know, route to and daddy, as he calls Trump, you know, seem to come to this agreement and Trump like really quickly backed down from the rhetoric. I mean, I remember covering it and like we were all wondering if he was going to invade Greenland in the next couple of days. That was obviously before the war in Iran began. How do you factor in

what I would think even for Trump is the chasing experience of his excursion or adventurous

“he calls it in Iran, which is, you know, I think even as clear to him has not at all turned out.”

Like he planned and is, you know, maybe he doesn't see it as stretching the limb, showing the limits of American power. But, you know, the military is depleted by that experience. How does that factor in if at all to his coveting Greenland and his plans to take it? Yeah. I mean, I think you can view Iran as having taught him as currently teaching him

gone on this far overseas adventure. He was, you know, the core is here. And I also think that he's

talked about Greenland in the context of Iran in a way that suggests that it has only made him more interested in Greenland. He keeps bringing it up. He brought it up this summer at the NATO summit in Ankara. He said the United States for the World Greenland again. He said that what began his sort of upset with NATO is on tip of the toward NATO was Greenland. He said it all

“began with if you want to know the truth Greenland. And he said, speaking about Iran and his”

critiques about NATO with regard to Iran, NATO wasn't this is an all-caps. NATO wasn't there when we needed them. And they won't be there if we need them again. Remember Greenland, that big poorly run piece of ice. And that was about Iran. So I think that you have this sort of

situation where he just don't want us to skip over the line that big poorly run piece of ice.

Which he really wants. More because of the big part than the poorly run part, I think. But so I think he's doing two things. He's blaming Greenland for- he's blaming what NATO did on Greenland for his antipathy toward NATO. But he's also sort of using the current lack of NATO support for what he's doing in Iran as a reason to do Greenland because he's mad at NATO for that. So I think that I don't think the Iran thing is made him feel any less that he wants to go

get Greenland when he's done with this. And even while he's been in Iran, he's been doing Greenland related stuff like saying he's going to send a hospital ship for sick Greenlanders and that kind of thing. Quinta Ben. What are your thoughts on this? One lines of increase. We'd be pushing on Mali.

Yeah, I don't mean to be a Debbie Downer. But saying Trump still fixated on self-grantee

“iosity. Why should I not be like duh? Well, I think, okay. So I guess that maybe it's sort of an”

audience issue. But I guess if you look at how the country is viewing Greenland, if you look at the degree to which the media generally is reporting on Greenland, I think even if you looked at our own coverage on law fair on Greenland, we had stuff at the moments where it seemed like this crisis was active. There were headlines at that time. But what's going on in the interim has been under reported on undernoticed, under disgust, and we're just not talking about it.

The Europeans are talking about it. The Europeans are taking it very seriously. You know, not only did Greenland ask its citizens to prepare for U.S. attack and not only did they get explosives to disable air strips to prevent U.S. landings. But there are multiple operations. There's Operation Arctic endurance that is forces from 11 European countries. There's Operation Arctic Century. Just this week, Ursula Vanderland went to Newc and Greenland

and signed a joint declaration about Greenland's defense. I mean, the Europeans are taking it seriously. Which also suggests that they have reason to view it. Maybe reason that we're not aware of specifically. But that exists to view it as an active threat. So I mean, you might say duh. I don't think most Americans would say duh. And I think that even if you're saying duh, it's

“not like you're up at night thinking about Greenland. But my take is that you should be up at”

night thinking about Greenland just as much as you're up at night thinking maybe about Cuba. Which I would imagine that you are. And I think people here are getting that right. They're getting the Greenland part wrong. He cares just as much. Mark Godes and cares much. But he cares just as much. I have to say the the point about the uh about Greenland looking big on the map. Maybe put something together. Which is do we think that Greenland looking big on

the Mercator projection was part of why the US voted against changing to the different projection at the UN. Because right wasn't the US the only country that voted against it. So obviously the US looks smaller too. But Greenland looks a lot smaller. Yeah, right, right, right. And you don't have this giant thing that you know, dwarfing us and making us look, you know, not as big as compared to Greenland as we should be. Although it makes you wonder if he gets Greenland

when he want to go back and change that, you know, if he gets the name change to Trumpland, we'll be able to go back and write it so that it's just as big as it used to be. No, I think I think there's something to this map. Maybe if they change the map, he's going to move on from Greenland and start trying to take over Brazil or it's a good idea that we could we could totally. We could take them. Yeah, right. No, I mean we could we can manipulate

him out of this, but it's true there's going to be if something else gets bigger that becomes the target then. So we have to decide what we're willing to part with. We'll not part with. I guess where they're United States. We get it. So while let me sharpen, try sharpen your thesis or sharpen it. This is one part is your argument. Simply that it's a bigger deal. It needs more media coverage and attention in the United States. Is it that we should expect President Trump to do

something specific about this, whether military action or something else, coercive action

what you're predicting or you're criticizing? Is it more of a media critique saying like we're

not paying enough attention as we need to pay more attention? Is it just a comment on Trump, Trump obviously himself is personally still obsessed with us? Or is it really a prediction saying we're going to see more action on this? And we need to prepare for that. We being, I guess, Congress or Europeans or what are their other institutions and actors? That Europeans are preparing.

“Yeah, at the latter, right? Otherwise, I'm going to get rolled too cold, which again. I think”

I'm, you know, I'm in great danger of getting any of this. I can't answer your question to anything about the last that it's a prediction that it's a yes, of course we should be paying more attention. We should be up a night thinking about it because this is something he's going to return to as

soon as he gets himself out of Iran, if he gets himself out of Iran, or even if he doesn't,

because he's so fed up with Iran, this is something he's going to do to make himself feel better. And it's not just going to be what happened last January where he threatens tariffs and drops tariffs. He's going to escalate the pressure and he's not going to be as willing to drop it. So the take is he's going to take it? Yeah, he's going to, yes, he's going to take it at the very least he is going to provoke like a true international crisis by which we're wondering whether, you know,

there's some threat of NATO feeling that they have to invoke Article 5 because we're starting to put troops on Greenland and say that at least parts of Greenland are ours.

“There's, I think it fits into a very familiar genre of Trump hot take, which is X is a”

distraction from Y. Oh, yeah. And the innovation of this hot take is that not, you know, Greenland is a distraction from Iran or something like that, but Iran is a distraction from Greenland. Exactly. Exactly. And that, that is my pitch. That is, thank you. Everybody for sharpening my two call fit to me. We get it to just write or at least get one just write about please. Yes, thank you, Matt. You said, are you changing this now to Iran is a distraction from Greenland?

Is that the take? I said, okay, to be fair, I'm not even just changing it now. That at the

outset, that was one of the first sentences I said was that. This year, I was always at war.

Okay, so we did the structure there. We did so there. We did. We did. We did. I made a mental story there because I saw your eyes laid up quintet when I said it. And I should have, I should have honed in then and tried to just court you for you said the word distraction and all the alarms went off. Yeah, right, my, my, my point is stop focusing so much on Iran. Think about Greenland. For Trump, Iran is a distraction, a detour from Greenland. He has said that explicitly,

we should view ourselves also as being distracted from Greenland by what is going on in the moment in Iran. So your take is that he invaded Iran to distract from Greenland? No, no, no, no, not at all. My take is that he got distracted from Greenland by Iran and his sort of regretting that now. Okay, got it. All right, Molly, I will escort you under the veil of ignorance once again.

“And Shane, Quinta Ben, do you need to deliberate? Do you need thoughts? Are you ready to vote?”

How are you feeling? I know, I know how I feel. I think it's just right. I think that's why I wanted to clarify like are you saying that Iran, he did Iran to distract from Greenland and Molly's and I was saying that would have been just, we call you today, we local. But no, I think she's right. And I think that you're right to phrase it as he is going to do this and not he might. I think you're, I support your leaning into it and making the argument. I agree with you,

the Europeans agree with you. Most Danes and Greenlanders I've talked to agree with you. I've even written about this that the way he could do it is just by simply saying, it's hours and like daring anyone to stop him. I think that it's, it's an easier lift in some ways than Iran, but the global strategic consequences at least to NATO would be far more devastating. So yeah, just right. Quinta. I'm also going to go with just right. I do think I do think it is a

little spicy. We do have to make sure that we ferment in a spicy way. But it is concerning enough to make me think seriously about it. I would say and I personally certainly had put Greenland in the bucket of thank God I don't have to think about that anymore. So now I have something new to worry about. And I feel like that is often the core really good hot take. There you go. Ben Wettis, bring us to a close of deliberations. Where do you feel about this one?

Okay. I'm going to splash cold water on this. I think it's too hot. I think there are reasons to believe that Trump has been actually deterred from Greenland. There was a moment when he really could have pushed and gotten it done or provoked the crisis. When he stared that in the

NATO with all of our closest allies on the other side was not something that he could actually

“bring himself to do. I think it's the classic example of Taco. And it's the kind of thing”

because he's fixated on it. He's and he has no impulse control. He can't stop bringing it up and talking about it. But I actually do think the structure of the deterrence is pretty stable. And you know, he's crazy, but we actually stared in the face the scenario that Molly is describing once and it wasn't that long ago. And he backed off. And I think that is probably speaks louder than all his whining about it and occasional chest thumping. Well, that brings us to a close

for this hot take take down. There is, once again, no clear winner. We have to find this truly

a curly with two just rights and one two gold and Molly Robert to just rights and one to hot.

“Thank you. And I want to start by thanking the judges and by saying that I accept this”

victory, which I won decisively. Now it has come to my attention that Molly Roberts is claiming to have tied with me. I've discovered that the tabulation equipment was assembled in Shenzhen. And I'd note the same place where Ben's microphone came from. I am formally requesting that the United Clayton drive to the crime scene and conduct a full forensic analysis and recount.

I will not concede. Thank you to the judges. I would also like to claim to have one decisively

on the grounds that in a hot takes competition to just rights and one to hot is clearly better than two just rights and one to cold. So thank you to the judges. God bless the USA. God bless Trumpland. Which do we prefer? I don't know. But you know what? Maybe we'll have to do a hot take take off. Hot take take down take off something between you two at some future take a bake off or that. Either way, regardless, we can't resolve this one today. But Molly Julia, Mike, thank you so much

for entering the arena on this year's hot take take down with your hot takes. Some of which may be appearing on Laugh Fair, other pages, publications, sometimes we'll see. Occasionally that has happened. But with that, we are almost out of time for this episode. But this would not be rational security. If we'd doubt the other with it, object lessons to ponder over in the week to come. And we of course have three veteran object lesson providers

with us today. Shane, what do you have for us this week? Well, today I have a rather delightful object that comes to us from across the pond, as they say. This is a new Instagram account new to me that I've discovered that goes by the handle grant pass by. So grant pass by. And it is a co-production of a man named David Bickford, who was the legal director for M.I.5 and for M.I.6, and yeah, I've do you know, I'm okay, cool. And I don't know. I'm only discovered him now in

his post government life. It's a co-production of David Bickford and his grandson, his 14-year-old grandson, Bo. And the page consists of kind of his existence of Bo asking his grandfather questions about spying and being a spy. And David Bickford former spy answering them. So it'll be things like, you know, which spy movie is actually the most realistic. Can a spy just quit? Would you rather go up against a spy who was clever or stupid? And they're really actually in addition to

having this like, you know, very sweet chemistry. And it's just the Bo is a very precocious eager kid and his grandfather is very patient and a good explainer. You actually see kind of Bickford working through these naive questions with sophisticated answers. And you actually learn a lot,

“I think. And it so becomes that I could actually pretty educational. I find it pretty engaging.”

I gather that David Bickford is also a novelist. I didn't know this. So now I'm going to go check out some of his novels. But go check him out. Yeah, it's grandpas spy on Instagram. If 14-year-old grandson asked the questions former MI5 MI6 legal director provides the answers. It's super cute.

a lawyer. He's a lawyer spy. He's a special appeal to the law fair listeners. Yeah, this is like,

“yeah, very much will be right up the alley of a law fair listeners. I love it. I love it.”

Quintau, what did you bring for us this week? So my object lesson is to continue the sort of literary theme if record is a novelist. Um, is a novel, which came out recently called a cool machine by Colson Whitehead. I have enjoyed these books for a while. So it is the final book in a trilogy called the Harlem trilogy that is about a Harlem furniture salesman from the 1950s through the 1980s, who is also involved in various criminal shenanigans. And he sort of

starts off being less involved and then becomes more and more involved over the course of the series. So Whitehead has won the Pulitzer Prize twice, which is fairly impressive for two pretty depressing books I would say. And then as far as I know, basically my understanding is decided

“that he wanted to write something that was less depressing and do something fun and so wrote a bunch”

of crime novels instead. But because he is a Pulitzer winner, they are just incredible and delightful.

They're this wonderful kind of very textured picture of New York City through the decades. And very, very specific about what the experience of living in Harlem would be at this period. There was a lot about furniture design over the decades because the main character is a furniture salesman. So we start with all of these like beautiful mid-century modern descriptions of like the C-foam green couch and then it becomes the seventies and everything becomes brown.

The last book has a running joke about people being Reagan supporters because it's set in the 1980s. They're totally delightful. They're so good. They're thought-provoking but not in a way that makes them difficult to read. I would say and mostly just wonderful and joyful and thoroughly researched. So highly recommend when I went to pick mine up from the bookstore, it turned out that I somehow managed to finagle a copy that was signed. So that was kind of cool. I did not anticipate that.

Yes, there you go. So you cannot borrow my copy, but I do highly recommend this series.

“And I think they're making it into a TV series as well, which I will be very interested”

to see how that goes. You know, not the first white head recommendation or actual school days.

I will say I think probably not the first from Quinta. I suspect. I think my original one of his other books previously, but a wonderful recommendation. Well, for my object lesson this week, I will bring the object lesson of love and of merit-a-love because it's my anniversary today. And now that is my ninth anniversary on September 9th, 2026, not 299. We almost lined it up perfectly. But three nights ain't bad. I'm incredibly lucky to be married to a person who's absolutely

the right person for me. I know this because the two of us looked at each other on Sunday and said to each other, do we be able to be going on this week? We both said, no, I don't think so. And only yesterday realized that, in fact, the days of history, we should probably go out to dinner to celebrate. And none of us takes any language at that. But she's absolutely the best part of our class for us. So I love you very much. And thank you. And I did actually get her flowers,

which is not going to hear this till today. So don't worry when you hear this. If I miss the date, which will hear this till tomorrow. But their flowers go into the house as well. And with that, then bring us home. What is your object lesson for us this week? So everybody has that pandemic project that they undertook that went unfinished. And mine, there's really only one, but it has stuck with me for a long time. And it was the conference table that I was building

for law fair, which is a poured resin thing with lots of law fair memorabilia embedded in it. And for the last several years, it has sat in my driveway unfinished and increasingly dilapidated. And recently, we made a decision that we were acquiring new offices. We are now in the process of acquiring those offices and moving law fair into its new home base. And in celebration of that, I am reviving the resin conference table. Can I have to run that one by the furniture committee,

then? I know it's going to make the cut. You know, it may or may not be accepted by the group, but I am going to finish it, which actually means ripping it apart and completely restarting it from scratch. Are there things living in it, possibly? Oh, no, no, it's coming apart. There's no, it's it's not

Okay. Although, you know, you can freeze them in the resin. There's our new associate editors.

“So if you have ideas for things that should be embedded in the law fair conference table,”

let me know this time folks, it's going to happen.

May never make its way into that law for office, but I love, this is a good threat indeed.

This came up at a lot. Ben is reviving the project because it came up at a law fair stuff. I was shocked. Someone mocked him for never completing it. I was like shut up. Shut up because now he's going to find and bring this table back. But we'll see what's in the future seasons coming up. Ben,

“you might need some new canling. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. I think this mention is nicely with my”

object lesson that involves furniture. There you go. There you go. That's good. Wonderful. Well, we look forward to seeing the final product in the law fair museum. No, we're just setting up at some point with the many artifacts they're in. But for now, this brings us to the end of this very special anniversary episode of Rational Security. But Rational Security is, of course, still a production of law fair. So be sure to visit lawfirmedia.org for our show page

for links to past episodes for our written work and the written work of other law fair contributors and for information on law fairs, other phenomenal podcast series. Well, I had to be sure to follow us on social media. Wherever you socialize your media, be sure to leave a rating or review wherever you might be listening and sign up to become a material supporter of law fair on Patreon for an ad-free version of this podcast among other special benefits. For more information, visit

lawfirmedia.org/support. Our audio engineer and producer this week was no miles band of

go rodeo and our music has always performed by Sophia again. We were once again edited by the wonderful

Jen patcha. On behalf of my guests, Ben, Quinta, and Shane as well as our competitors, Julia, Mike and Molly. I am Scott, our Anderson and we will talk to you next week. Until then, goodbye.

“Why can't we not be able to use the production of our competition? Why should we use our data?”

Let's see if we can use an incredible ROI. All read over K.I.

But of course, we have no choice. K.I. from A.V.S. should be clear. And to make the possible applications of K.I. preferable. With one-sided agents and unfasten K.I. tools and services, you can take care of your ad in vikkins, couchs or with partners to work. We need to think more about it. With K.I. from A.V.S.