The Listening Tube Welcomes Matt Hasty

SPEAKER_00 0:01

Hey, the listening tube welcomes a guest.

SPEAKER_01 0:04

My guest today is a retired U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer who earned a bronze star as well as other accolades during more than two decades of service. Primarily serving outside of the United States gave Matt Hasty a unique perspective on the United States, the U.S. government, and what it means to be an American. Matt spoke with me from his home in Charleston, South Carolina about those observations, his run for Congress, and I don't want to start a riot, but he also reveals who is the best fictional superhero. The first thing I wanted to ask you about was uh like most people I speak with are authors, they have a book out or a movie or something, a website, an app. You don't seem to be pushing any products or anything. So I guess I I was I'm just curious on what what do you hope to accomplish by being on podcasts?

SPEAKER_03 1:04

I I first before I answer, I have to tell you, thank you for noticing. You're the first person that I've had this conversation, these kinds of interviews with that that has noticed that I'm not trying to sell anyone anything. Um because of my background, I I briefly got involved in in politics and I considered myself to be motivated um more than more than anything else by, you know, I don't want to get too religious on you, but I I kind of feel like I'm being called by God for for certain things, but I'm very much an American patriot. And I am truly concerned about the direction of my country right now. And one of the many blessings that I have been given, I feel, is the ability to public speak and kind of engage with people on complex topics and share my perspective in a way that is easier to understand, maybe not easy to understand, but easier than some people who aren't prepared to have the hard conversations. So ultimately, what I am trying to accomplish is to expand the reasonable discourse that's going on in our political system right now and in our country. Long term, I would love to be able to build some kind of following that I could turn into maybe a political career. That's not something that I'm holding out for as a goal, as much as I'm simply trying to do as much good as I can with the blessings that I have. Does that make sense?

SPEAKER_01 2:34

It might seem like kind of a cop-out, but No, that's uh I think that summed it up rather well. You're uh retired from the United States Army, from from what I understand, correct? And you were uh 20 years. You were a warrant officer. Now, from what I understand, warrant officers are a pretty unique bunch. I always associate them with helicopter pilots. What was your job?

SPEAKER_03 3:02

The warrant officer, there was when I was going through, there was some controversy over whether you say the warrant officer corps or the warrant officer cohort. But in the warrant officer corps, there's actually uh two divisions, and one of them is the aviation that's the pilots, and I believe that is the majority of warrant officers, but the others are called the techs. And the the difference between the two is largely that to become a warrant officer pilot, you can actually join straight from the army, you are straight from enlistment, you can join the army, go through basic training, go through some additional pilot training, and you can become a warrant officer pilot very early in your military career. To become a warrant officer tech, the technicians are pulled from the ranks of the NCO Corps, the people that are most experienced in their specific fields, so that in order to become a warrant officer tech, it's not just a matter of evaluation reports or your assignments or your competency. It's also that you have to be a technical expert in your field in order to become a warrant officer tech. So at the brigade level, you might only have one warrant officer that is a communications warrant officer. And that communications warrant officer is expected to be an expert in all the communications of the brigade. Does that make sense? It's it's a little more specific than that because I was a warrant officer for network, I was called a network management technician, so I was expected to be an expert in all things related to the networking of information systems, but there are also more specialized warrant officer fields for uh server management, for information warfare. Uh there are legal warrant officers, there's maintenance warrant officers. There's a wide variety. Did that explain it?

SPEAKER_01 4:51

I didn't want to tell you. I just always associated them with helicopter pilots. Now, unlike an enlisted man who might be called sergeant or a commissioned officer who might be called captain or sir, a warrant officer was addressed as Mr. Yes, sir. Was that the case with you?

SPEAKER_03 5:09

There is a regulation. I think you're not allowed to call a W01 a fresh a fresh warrant officer. So the ranks are W01 stands for Warrant Officer 1, and then you have CW2 all the way to CW5, and the CW portion stands for chief warrant officer. So uh as you're when you are a W01, according to regulation and according to practice, you don't really call that person a chief. But once a warrant officer reaches CW2, they are traditionally referred to as chief and and sir, and uh, but the Mr. is really more common at the W01 level. Once they get to the CW2 level, it's much more common to say chief or sir. And even at the WO1 level, you you you're getting your salutes and people are calling you sir, but it's just the it's one of those uh drill and ceremony, you know, customs and courtesies kind of minutiae.

SPEAKER_01 6:04

And and if you were a female, you wouldn't want to address a female as mr. What yes, what would the proper way to do that be?

SPEAKER_03 6:13

I believe it would be ma'am. Um, I'll be honest with you. I don't want to lie to you, but um Madam. Maybe madam. But well, and I I'll be because that that logically it seems like the the counterpart would be madam, but I've never heard a warrant officer referred to in that fan. It's usually and even in uh whether or not the customs and courtesy says to call a W01 chief, traditionally they are still referred to as chief. And it might be just be one of those simplistic things, like the difference between a Marine Sergeant and an Army sergeant is that in the Army, traditionally you refer it doesn't matter if they're a E5 sergeant, a staff sergeant, sergeant first class, or even a master sergeant, you usually refer to that person as a sergeant, as a sergeant. But in the Marines, it's it's considered disrespectful to do that. A sergeant is called sergeant, a staff sergeant is called staff sergeant. You can't get away with calling a staff sergeant a sergeant. So the army's just a little more relaxed in that stuff.

SPEAKER_01 7:11

Now, your military service has taken you around the world, and you seem to value that experience in as much as it gives you a different perspective on the United States of America. Now, I agree with that premise, as when I was living in West Berlin, I couldn't help but notice that while America has the most freedom, other places have different kinds of freedom. For example, in West Berlin, you might go to a public park and suddenly witness naked people playing frisbee. Something you're not likely to see in the United States. So my question is like, what differences have you witnessed about other countries and the liberties they have?

SPEAKER_03 7:54

I I do I do I'm glad you brought that up because that's that's a great example. Even in the uh I was in, I've actually done about four tours in Germany, and that's one of the things I think would be shocking to Americans that go over there is you'll walk into a gas station and on the magazine rack there's gonna be pornography. There's gonna be naked women on the cover of you know newspapers that are right there where you where your children will come through. And I don't know what the cult I would I wouldn't feel qualified to to comment on the cultural influences on something like that, but the the you don't want to simplify it into Puritan, but America has a much more conservative uh attitude toward sex, or at least we did, maybe maybe it's moved a little bit, that when compared to the European mentality. Besides that, I would say that there is a cultural expectation in European countries that I noticed that the dedication toward the community and the sacrifice of your individual preferences for what's good for the community is much more expected. And that doesn't necessarily mean that we don't have that in America. I just didn't see it as as pronounced. And one example would be driving. In order to get a driver's license in America, you really just need to be uh nowadays, I think it might be 15 or 16 years old, you have to pass a written test, you have to pass a very short driving test. In Germany, you are going to spend years going through driver's training and you have to drive in all kinds of weather. Um, you're gonna spend thousands of dollars. It it's it's a very difficult thing to achieve. And one of the reasons is that they have this expectation that if you are dri your liberty and freedom to drive a vehicle to transport yourself from one place to another takes a back seat to the societal needs of maintaining safety for everyone. There was also, and you you probably still we probably still have this in some of our neighborhoods today that I don't really experience, but when I lived in Germany, they they have these huge houses that we we would just look at and think that they're mansions, but in fact, on each floor is a different kind of apartment. And I remember one day I was backing into my parking space just out of habit, and the one of the neighbors came over and was yelling at me in German. And I mean, when I say yelling, he didn't he didn't bother to introduce himself. He's yelling at me. And my neighbor, luckily that spoke English, translated it for me, and he was very upset that I was backing into my parking space because the exhaust from my vehicle was going into his backyard. Now there was a fence there, but there was still exhaust going into his backyard. And my immediate response was, you know, that's kind of your yard is next to a parking lot. I don't know why you would have that expectation, but he felt that Americans are much more disrespectful towards the community in favor of their individual liberty.

SPEAKER_01 10:55

And it's it's interesting. Uh certainly there is a difference in in culture and what we value as freedoms or what we don't recognize as freedoms. What other things has looking at the United States from a distance, have you noticed that people who have always been here may have not noticed?

SPEAKER_03 11:20

Well, I well, first this that America is exceptional. That that that's a very large part in my mind of the apathy that modern Americans have is that I think we have viewed our own history through this lens, and even our modern culture through this lens of comparison to other nations and through and through an ideological lens that we we've lost sight of the fact that America is not meant to be a nation that is based on history. If you if you look at other cultures and nations throughout the world, Germany and France and England, and I'll I'll just stick to Europe because that's where most of my experience was. These nations were built on historical events that that they had one form of government that collapsed, and then that led to this other form of government, and then you know, one after the other. America was kind of the first nation that was built on a philosophy of creating a government that was the least amount of government possible. I I believe our founding fathers were were they were very adamant that there's no such thing as a benevolent government, that all forms of government are inherently tyrannical because they have to enforce laws onto people, which is an infringement of personal liberty. But since we all hopefully we can all agree that the anarchy is not a viable system to maintain a civilization, we need some kind of government that is the least amount of government possible. And it's it was never really tried before America, which is one of the reasons that, one, it's why we're exceptional, but it's also one of the reasons that we consider America to be an experiment, because it's the idea that people can self-govern in a way that prioritizes the individual liberties and freedoms of small communities and families and people while also maintaining the spit the stability of a nationwide federal government. And one of the things that I think we have forgotten in America is each one of our states is not meant to be subject to a larger government that is dictating down a culture from a national level. Each one of our states is meant to be a laboratory where they're combining these variables of individual liberty and government regulation and the needs of society in order to find the right mixture so that they can figure out what style of government, which balance of government maximizes justice while also honoring the values of the Constitution. It wasn't just traveling overseas that helped me to understand this. It also takes a lot of study and a lot of reading and understanding of the nature of America when compared to the nature of other nations. I think it was Margaret Thatcher. I might be getting the quote wrong, but they said that uh Europe is a nation that is built on history and America is a nation that is built on philosophy. Once we have moved away from that philosophy and tried to reach a point where government power can be used not for justice, but for fairness, for the validation of individual emotions as they apply to the concept of fairness, I think is when we lost sight of the original intent, the original philosophy. I might have given you a $50 answer for a $5 question.

SPEAKER_00 14:51

Oh no. The listening tube will return at the speed of sound. Send email to thelistening tube at outlook.com.

SPEAKER_01 15:02

I'm fascinated by uh your perspective, and uh it makes me curious as to you know how your observations of America, both from within and from without, have contributed to your political viewpoints. Do you do you classify yourself with uh with any particular uh political party or or direction?

SPEAKER_03 15:25

I think like most people nowadays, I try to avoid any categorization or any labels to be placed on me because I I if I identify as a Democrat immediately, I'm associated with all Democrats, with every Democratic platform position. And it's the same with the Republican Party. If I even if I call myself a Christian nationalist, it doesn't matter that the word Christian means follower of Christ. It doesn't matter that the word nationalism is patriotism with the additional factor of believing that your nation is superior or exceptional. That what matters is if if you use those terminologies to apply to yourself, it classifies you within the minds of the people who are hearing the words. If I had to pick a single category to identify my beliefs, I would say constitutionalist. Um, I would love to just say American, but I know that that's probably too broad. Uh beyond that, the only real category I'd like to take is veteran, um, unless we're moving outside of the political realm, and then I would say Christian veteran. But I do fall on the right side of the political spectrum. I'll never deny that I fall on the right side of the political spectrum. I'm actually very opinionated and passionate about how dangerous the American left has become in various ways. So I I actually considered myself to be a liberal. I was very pro-gun control, I was very pro-unal health care. I had a lot of beliefs that would have once fallen on the left side of the spectrum, and then my beliefs evolved as my knowledge increased and I started to see what was going on in our politics. But to be very clear, both parties are a problem right now. Neither party is the good guy anymore. We we've descended to a point where it's federal paper number 10 all over that the emotional factions of democracy have been propping up demagogues for over a century, you know, close to two centuries now, all the way back to Andrew Jackson. And we have allowed what is popular to replace what is best, to the point that there's no such thing as statesmanship anymore. There's there's no such thing as leadership, really, if you ask me, because those two terms imply that the people who are making decisions at the national level are doing so based on what is best and not what is popular. And I think that that's a large part of the reason where we are now, because you can't keep getting if you keep giving into what's popular, all you're gonna do is motivate people to organize as many people as possible around a boogeyman or around some kind of emotional outrage or whatever it takes to motivate them to provide money, votes, and power to the same corrupt individuals that have always, you know, taken control of institutions of power, from Catholic Church all the way to the modern American government.

SPEAKER_01 18:15

Well, when I was in the Air Force uh back in the 80s, we we were, even though we didn't know it, near the end of the Cold War. Back then, the communist threat was always top of mind, front and center. The Soviet Union was the clear enemy, and communism was the opposite of everything America stands for. Now we're electing socialists who want to dismantle the constitution and reform the government. And I think you just kind of touched on it a little bit, but how how how did we get there? How did that happen?

SPEAKER_03 18:54

Uh there's a there's a great video out there. Uh you might have uh heard it. Have you ever heard of Yuri Bezmanov? He was a he was a KGB defector, and he gave an interview in the 80s where he talked about um the ideological subversion that the Soviet Union had been pushing into America since at least the 60s. And what he was talking, and this was in the 80s, he gave this interview, and he explained how the majority of the KGB's resources were not dedicated to James Bond style espionage, they were dedicated to psychological operations and the subversion of American morality. I bring him up to anybody who asks these questions because it's amazing to watch his interview. It's on YouTube, and I think the full thing is like an hour and a half long, but there's there's snippets of the ideological subversion element of it. But if you listen to that, he explains how by incorporating into universities, incorporating in universities especially, but incorporating into media organizations, into government organizations, into private companies, and pushing a morality that was different than the common morality that united Americans in the past, they are able to subvert the nation from within to the point that Americans begin teaching other Americans this ideology. In the 80s, he said the process had already been completed, that now it was being performed by Americans to Americans. So I think what we have today, and once the population's been demoralized, this is what he, I'm not stating this as fact, this is what he described, but once a population has been demoralized, they cannot be reached with facts. They cannot be reached with reason or logic or truth because any disagreement to them is considered, you know, evil. It's wrong, it's immoral because their morality is based on those political beliefs. And one of the reasons I bring it up to everybody is because once you listen to this interview, it's going to be you're you would be amazed at just how well it explains what's going on right now. The ideology that we saw in the Marxist 60s, which brought us, you know, the the civil, I'm not saying this stuff doesn't have good applications because we needed the Civil Rights Act. I think we needed, you know, some of these concepts of equality, but once they are expanded beyond the idea of justice and into the ideas of fairness, and they move from the concepts of American equality and into Marxist equity, and those two things get merged to the point that no one can separate them, we end up with what we have right now, which is people will embrace socialism if they think that's the pathway to the most justice. They will embrace Marxism and communism without even realizing they're doing it. That was another thing he talked about in the video something called the useful idiots of communism, which is a term we we've heard associated with Trump. But in this video in the 80s, he described The useful idiots of communism that they they buy into the utopian ideal of everybody can live together and everybody can be happy and we can have enough resources for everybody until the revolution occurs. And because these people are the idiots who bought it and they realize that they'll never receive their utopia, they're the first ones to be killed. They're the first ones to be put in jail. But you can't explain this stuff to the people that have embraced the ideology because, in their mind, that's the only pathway to good. And I think we got here because those people that were victims of this ideological subversion in the 60s, they didn't go away with the Civil Rights Act. They became, they went from the students in the universities to the professors in the universities. The professors became the deans, the reporters became the editors, the assistants became the politicians and the executives, and they passed those values and beliefs down to their children and grandchildren and created entire communities that believe in this ideology. And I think that's where we are today. It wouldn't be dangerous if there was only a couple of dozen or a couple of hundred, but there's tens of millions of them. And what we have now is that they have taken control of one of only two major American parties. That's why I say that I don't think there's a greater danger to the Constitution of the United States today than the American leftists that have taken control of the Democratic Party. I think they're dangerous beyond all words. But uh that's another one of those things I say that usually causes people to shut down. They think I'm being, you know, that's hyperbole or exaggeration.

SPEAKER_01 23:35

Well, thank you for uh for noticing the difference between uh equality and equity. Uh I've long been warning on this program that the words uh have begun being used interchangeably, and they are not the same at all. No, sir. They should not be used interchangeably. Do Americans have a common enemy? Now you might think it would be Iran, but clearly it isn't. So is there is there anything that can galvanize uh American patriotism again, like, say, the Soviet Union did back in the Cold War?

SPEAKER_03 24:12

I I think we're too far gone. I I don't I I personally believe that we don't have a country in the way that people think we do. I think that if you want to have a country, if you want to have a shared society, a shared civilization, there has to be something to unite you. And for most of American history, no matter what the disagreements were, it was respect and love for the Constitution. You know, we all fell underneath the same flag. We all realized that no matter, I think it was Obama that said, you know, these elections are scrimmages. We need to remember that, that the enemies are outside the borders, not inside the borders. And I would love to go back to believing that, but what we have today are it's a political movement that considers the constitution itself to be evil. It considers objective morale. It was something that came out in the news not too long ago. The Smithsonian had listed all of these traits of what they consider to be white supremacy, and there were so many absurd things on there, but one of them was objectivity. The the ability to be objective with information and with reality is considered to be a form of bigotry. And I don't think whatever we talk about, first you have to have shared morality, but we we've moved so far away from that. But if you don't have shared morality, if you don't have shared values, if you don't have uh a shared history that you can respect together, and all the way to where we are today, where we can't even agree that objective reality should unite us across all our tribal lines, I don't think we have a country anymore. I I've I try to avoid being so cynical and uh what they call blackpilled, because I don't want to be that person, but I also think we need in order to fix the problem, we first have to identify the problem. And our biggest problem we have right now is that we have moved away from all the things that used to unite us as Americans. I told a friend of mine, who this is another thing I tell people that they they uh shut down. I think that it would it won't happen, there's too many guns, but if the the communist Chinese Party invaded America tomorrow and flew a Chinese flag over the White House, there would be an insane number of people in America that wouldn't care. I I think that the level, the number of Americans who would not care at all is much, much higher than anybody else does. I think a large part of the Democratic Party. If you go back and look at some of the polls that came out after the Ukraine invasion, when Russia invaded Ukraine, there was a poll that came out that asked if people would be willing to fight if America was invaded and a Ukraine-style invasion, would you fight for America? And if you look at the differences between the people on the right side of the spectrum and the left side of the spectrum, it was, I mean, it was almost half. I want to say it was between a third and a half of the people on the left that no, they would never fight for America. In a lot of their belief systems, America itself is a source of evil. They consider it to be a tool of white supremacy, a tool of colonialism, a tool of oppression, so that if a foreign enemy comes in and invades America and takes over, they would consider that to be an improvement, no matter what the belief system of the other country is. It's a level of uh cognitive dissonance and just pure ignorance that I think would have been unthinkable even 50 years ago, much less, you know, during the founding of the country.

SPEAKER_01 27:35

Now you have run for political office, uh, I'm assuming a house seat in South Carolina, is that uh correct?

SPEAKER_03 27:43

It was uh it was a house seat in Louisiana's 5th district in in 2020.

SPEAKER_01 27:47

Okay.

SPEAKER_03 27:48

Yes, sir.

SPEAKER_01 27:49

And uh what what did you learn about the American political process by running for office?

SPEAKER_03 27:57

Well, and in like I said, to in order to fix a problem, I think the first thing you have to do is identify the problem. And one of the things that I think we all need to talk about much more is how much of our current political problems are caused by American voters. And I don't, it's hard for me to say this because I don't want to make it sound like I lost because Americans are stupid. You know, how could you fail to see how great I am? You know, I don't I don't want to make it sound like that. But what I saw is that the message I was pushing and the speeches and the ideas, none of these things matter when it comes to choosing the best candidate for office. It's it I to me, it's not that I didn't have the best ideas, it's that nobody cared about the best ideas. Nobody really cared about who can give uh the best speeches. They didn't care that I spent 20 years overseas and I have a perspective on America that would be unique. There is so much apathy and complacency and ignorance really about the process of our politics and what it's intended to be. The the biggest eye-opening for me is that if you are not the recognized Republican candidate, or at least the Republican candidate with the most donors and fundraisers and endorsements, most Republicans are not gonna consider you at all. The same on the Democratic side. And anybody who's in between who claims that they're not in either party, they're really not gonna consider either the only two candidates they're gonna consider are those two major ones. And I can understand that to a certain degree, because if I got elected to the House, I would have been one of 435. And if I wasn't in a Republican Party, then I would have no allies. I would have to go around and make allies as opposed to having this ready-made team. So I understand the mentality, but I also think that we have lost sight of these two political parties are not constitutional organizations, they're they're they're not government entities, they are private organizations that are funded by private donors that invest in candidates and expect returns on those investments. If we consider the American Empire to be the most powerful organization in the world, then the two political parties that switch control of the empire are by far the most powerful private organizations. And the idea that either one of those private organizations is invested in changing a status quo that they are benefiting from, it's just insane to think that you can elect this Republican wants change, so let's go with this Republican. This Democrat, I none of them really want change. They want to give the voters exactly as much as they can get away with without having to worry about cutting off their donors. So the the biggest wake-up call for me during that process was realizing how broke the system is. And it's not just the politicians, it's the the voters that have become so comfortable with the system that they won't consider anything that's outside of the ordinary. Might make their lives a little more difficult. So they just go with it's always worked this way since I've been alive, so let's continue to do it this way. And if you keep doing what you've been doing, you're gonna keep getting what you've been getting.

SPEAKER_01 31:12

Right. That's true. Now, if you were to try politics again, how would your approach be different? Or what advice would you give to someone who's considering it for themselves?

SPEAKER_03 31:25

Uh, first would be to humble yourself. One of one of the biggest uh mistakes I made in that campaign is I I don't think I listened to enough people. I was very idealistic and I was very naive. And I felt that's uh now I'm gonna give myself away as a zealot, but I really did feel that God wanted me to run for Congress so I could win and go to Congress. So, in a lot of ways, I wanted to do it the way that I wanted to do it because I felt guided by a higher power. But even early on in the campaign, I was given advice that I considered to be, oh, well, you're just trying to make me like all these other politicians. You just want to run things the way that all these other campaigns, I don't want to do it like that, I want to do it like this. So, first would be to surround yourself with smart people and listen to them. Second is never to underestimate the power of money. I would love, I ran my campaign using nothing but my retirement check. I sold my motorcycle, I moved back in with my mom and used nothing but my retirement check to try to fund my campaign. I had I had small donations here and there. It never broke $1,000 because that's when campaign financing kicks in. But the commercials, the the flyers, the mailers, the signs, the radio spots, all of these things cost so much money that it requires the donations that you have to go out and solicit from people. So don't underestimate the the power of money. And above all else, I have to say this because those other two things were hard lessons learned. But if you want to maintain your values, say what you mean and mean what you say. Don't ever be one of these politicians because vote one of the biggest reasons we have so many people in our political system that are not paying attention to politics anymore is because none of the people who are standing up there giving political speeches are coming off as genuine. It's one of the reasons that Obama was so successful and that Trump is so successful, is because whether you believe they're liars or not, they come off as genuine. It seems like they are meaning what they say and they say what they mean, which is very appealing to anybody who is sick of the corruption.

SPEAKER_01 33:26

Now, Matt, uh we have we have just a few minutes left, and I have one more question for you. I'll try to keep it short. Who's the best fictional superhero?

SPEAKER_02 33:39

That is an outstanding question. Thank you so much, Bob. The answer is Batman. The answer is Batman.

SPEAKER_01 33:46

Well, I I thought that would be a a lot more complicated of an answer.

SPEAKER_03 33:50

No, and the reason it's Batman is because Batman exists in a world that is, even if you consider the Marvel universe to be great, Batman exists in a world of Superman, of Wonder Woman, of the Flash, of the Green Lantern, all of these heroes who are so they're so far beyond powerful in that universe, they have to invent new ways to make these people vulnerable.

SPEAKER_02 34:12

And not only does Batman hang with them just based on his intellect and strategy and tactics and the ability to see ahead, not only does he do that, he can defeat them.

SPEAKER_03 34:25

He can defeat them. That's why, because Batman proves that the power of the mind, the power of the person, the human, the natural person, if used correctly, is enough to overcome even Superman.

SPEAKER_01 34:40

All right. Now, it seems to me that the one thing all superheroes have in common is a specific weakness. And you just touched on that a little bit. An Achilles heel, if you will. So could it be that Achilles is the benchmark for being a superhero?

SPEAKER_03 35:00

I don't know about the benchmark, but it's definitely a defining trait. If they're not flawed, they're not relatable. And if they're and not to mention, if they're they have no Achilles heel, then they're undefeatable and they're not very interesting. No, if Superman doesn't have kryptonite, what's the point of him even having a fight, right?

SPEAKER_01 35:18

Right.

SPEAKER_03 35:18

So I don't know that it would be a benchmark, but they definitely have to have it.

SPEAKER_01 35:23

They have to have a flaw, they have to have an Achilles heel. All right, Matt. Well, hey, thank you very much for the conversation today. I really do appreciate you spending some time with me in the listening tube. And I've found the conversation to be uh fascinating. I hope you have enjoyed it as well. I have, yes, sir. Thank you so much for having me, Mr. Woodley. Many thanks again to Matt Hasty for spending some time with you and me in the listening tube. You might want to keep an ear out for Matt Hasty in the future because I get the feeling he's not ready to slow down anytime soon. Be sure to follow the listening tube at thelisteningtube.com, where you'll also find this week in history and not the headlines. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. I'm your host, Bob Woodley, for Val Ad Infinitum.