Hi everyone, Sean with Jaspys casebricks.com here doing Jaspys nine box high-end quick hit football mixer random team edition. Third to see spots we can get to random team NFL and all card ship. There you go. One box 2020 honors, one box 2020 select hobby, one box 2020 mosaic hobby, 2020 gold standard first off the line, 2020 Panini one, 2020 contenders, 2020 XR, 2020 prison team all and 2021 legacy. There you go. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine. Here's our list of customers from Daniel Katz down to Aaron Whittington. Whether you guys one spots like these folks here or box spots straight up like these folks. Thank you very much and good luck. And here are the list of teams from the Cardinals down to the Washington football team. Dish will randomize both lists and pair them up six into two eight times. Eight to foul time from Steve down to Jonathan Arnaldi eight times on the customers. Now eight times on the teams. Eight to foul time. Bangles down to Packers. So eight times on the teams. Eight times on the customers. Eight times on the dice.  So trade window is open. Let's go ahead and alphabetize this. I'm going to pause the video. Let's go do it from A to Z, not from C to A. I'm going to pause the video, give a minute or two or a couple minutes for potential trade, since it looks like there is some talk of trades, and see if anything can work out between the folks that are here watching and listening right now. And there you go, guys. When we get back, we'll process any trades and we'll get to ripping. See you shortly. Okay, we're back. There was plenty of talks of trades, some teams that were up for trade, nothing ended up happening. So we're going to go ahead, lots of trying to trade, couldn't trade mojo, but we're printing it, ripping it, keeping it as it was. So random.org has sealed your fates. We're going to start obviously in 2020. We're going to go with XR to start. Nice little appetizer. Two autos, right? Four numbered parallels, loads of one-on-one parallels. I think it's like two autos, two mem. Here is our final list. Good luck, everybody. Remember, all-card ship, Levy on Bell to $199 for the Jets, Chris Maxwell, and there's Jordan Love, $1.49, Rookie for the Packers. And that's going to Jonathan Arnaldi, Stefan Gilmore to $99 for the Patriots, and Aaron Whittington, and Jaylen Hertz, nice rookie there for the Eagles, and Daniel Katz. We've got Chase Young, Relic for Washington and Chris Maxwell. That is out of $75, $5 out of $75, and nice Justin Jefferson running up for Rookie of the Year. Offense Rookie of the Year, $21 out of $49 for the Vikings. Minnesota Vikings, Roy Di Pietro. So a lot of good names in the first to start. First pack of the break, that bows well. We've got a redemption on the back. You've got Rayquan Davis to $99 for the Dolphins. That is Shauna Leary and Vaughn Miller to $75 for the Broncos and Jonathan Arnaldi, Christian McCaffrey to $49 for the Panthers, and Shauna Leary. Redemption is Rookie Triple Swatch Signatures. Right there. Card 212. Chase Young, Washington football team, and Chris Maxwell. Playoff P. Now we're going into 2020 contenders. I still don't think, I still don't think there's shots of the division going or not. Going this and that, so I just thought that the divisions are going to be towards the home. Unfortunately, nothing has to go in. Should have five autos in this. Typically one on-card auto, plus four sticker autos. Sometimes there'll be like a vet auto that'll be on-card to replace one of these sticker autos, but we'll see. I know it's a football break, but obviously lots of basketball stuff going on right now. It does not look good for Doc Rivers. After last year, like what happened with the Clippers, right?   It just, it looks bad for Doc Rivers, man. We've got another redemption. We'll check that out at the end. You got Jalen Rago for the Eagles and Daniel Katz. Remember guys, all-card ship. You got a Sunday ticket auto of Shaquille Barrett. That's for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Chris Maxwell. That's out of 99, 65 out of 99. Shaquille Barrett, really good player. Pittman and Taylor for the Colts, Ethan Cook. And KJ Hamler for the Broncos, Jonathan Arnaldi. You got Jonathan Taylor. That is a rookie ticket on-card auto for the Colts. And Ethan Cook. And Chase Claypool for the Steelers, Garrett Strauss. So since that's an on-card auto, I don't expect to see another on-card auto, even the redemption, but hey, we'll see. So our redemption, since I don't expect this to be on-card, we're not gonna sweat it till the end. Rookie ticket auto, card 149 is Kenneth Murray. That is for the Chargers and Chad Doth. He recently changed his jersey number this off-season with the new expanded jersey number options for players, back to his college number of nine from 56. Now, he gets to go by his nickname again, canine. He is incredible. Should be great in the Brandon Staley's new defensive system of the Chargers. So let's see. Cam Newton out of 99 for the Patriots, Aaron Whittington and Jacob Eason for the Colts, Ethan Cook. Tom Brady, Buccaneers, Chris Maxwell. And you got a duel of Justin Jefferson and Joe Burrow. That's gonna be randomized between those two teams at the end of the break. Vikings is Roy V. Pietro. Bengals is Steve Birch. Patrick Mahomed for the Chiefs, Anthony Paschiorek. If we get any other dual, round number cards with two different teams, we will randomize all of those at the same time on left or right randomizer. Shaquille Korderman, rookie ticket auto for the Jacksonville Jaguars. That is Karen Steele. Kyler, second year for the Cardinals, Sean O'Leary. CD Lamb for the Cowboys, Jonathan Leang. And Devin Ozigbo also for the Jacksonville Jaguars, rookie ticket auto. That is Karen Steele again and the Jaguars. Jerry Judy for the Broncos, Jonathan Arnaldi. And another dual round numbers, Jalen Rhaegar, CD Lamb. Like I said, those will be randomized all at the same time. Eagles is Daniel Katz, Cowboys, Jonathan Leang. So that should be all five autos. Tom Brady again for the Buccaneers, Chris Maxwell. And Isaiah Simmons for the Cardinals, AJ Terrell for the Falcons. That will be our last randomizer. Cardinals, Sean O'Leary. Falcons is Jose Rodriguez. Oh, we're going to get some nice Jordans on tonight. Anybody watching this know what Jordans those are? I'm not really a red shoe kind of guy, but they look pretty nice. Shaq has Chewbacca slippers on, it looks like. Chuck looks like he's wearing some like Air Force ones or something like that. But like, because his shoes are so big, the toe box on that looks monstrous and looks gross. Okay, so those all be randomized. Left, right randomizer at the end of the break. Moving into mosaic. Two autos, lots of colored parallels, maybe a stained glass. They're Wookie's. Is that what you're saying? What are EJ's? EJ's Jordans though. I couldn't do those.  They look nice though. I love how Shaq's. Oh, okay, he just got pegged in the head. Shaq just like kept pegging, kept pegging, Chuck, even though he was like out of the game. Ernie Johnson, I don't know, I don't, he was not Eric. I believe he's just a announcer. He's the guy that keeps them all, all under control, you know. Tries to keep them talking about stuff that they need to cover, not stuff that they want to talk about. You got Curtis Martin Silver, that's for the Jets and Chris Maxwell in a nice NFL debut of 49. Chase Young, pink for Washington and Chris Maxwell. We got Drew Brees, center stage for the Saints and Robert Flores. Chase Young, NFL debut, Washington, Chris Maxwell, exactly. You can only do so much with that group. Keyshawn Vaughn, Buccaneers, Chris Maxwell, Kyler, second-year Cardinals, Sean O'Leary, and our first autos, Anthony Miller for the Bears, Taylor McMichael, Thurman Thomas for the Bills, Chris Chin and Brian Dawkins Red, non-numbered for the Eagles and Daniel Katz, J.K. Dobbins for the Ravens, Eric Srozowski and Jerry Judy for the Broncos, and Jonathan Alley, Cole Comet for the Bears, Taylor McMichael, DJ Moore for the Panthers, Sean O'Leary and Christian McCaffrey for the Panthers as well and Sean O'Leary. I think that's the other thing too, Aaron, is EJ doesn't keep it too strict too, because if you really wanted to watch hard-hitting analysis and reporting without any of the joking around, there's places to watch that and to get that information. You're not watching inside the NBA, you know? But EJ does a good job of allowing it to happen, you know what I mean?  Vaughn Miller for the Broncos and Jonathan Alley, T. Higgins for the Bengals, that is Steve Burch and Tua, NFL debut for the Dolphins, Sean O'Leary, Jaylen Rhaegor for the Eagles, Daniel Katz, and Jordan Love, NFL debut for the Packers. Jonathan Alley, Jerry Judy, NFL debut, Red for the Broncos, also Jonathan R. Nollby, and Edwin James Overdrive for the Colts, Ethan Cook, Tua Bays for the Dolphins, Sean O'Leary, nice Justin Herbert, NFL debut, Silver for the Chargers, Chad Dahl, and Charles Woodson, Red for the Raiders, and Sean Sonendlich, another Herbert, that one's an introduction for the Chargers, Chad Dahl, Jonathan Taylor, NFL debut for the Colts, Ethan Cook, and Jake Fromm for the Bills, Chris Chin, and Anthony McFarland for the Steelers, and Garrett Strauss. Yeah, he's undersized and he's outnumbered, you know what I mean? During the pandemic, they did that documentary on inside the NBA, that kind of like little mini documentary that they did, they produced themselves, it was really good. What's up, Kamiano? How are you, man? Happy Wednesday, sir. Okay, second half. We got Will Fuller for the Texans, and Dwayne Richards, and Dion Sanders for the Falcons, Jose Rodriguez, Mahomes, Chiefs, Anthony Pashirek, and Cole Comet for the Bears, Taylor McMichael, and our second auto is Jeff Okuda for the Detroit Lions, and Aaron Whittington, Amari Cooper Silver for the Cowboys, Jonathan Liang and Peyton Manning, MVPs, Red for the Colts, Ethan Cook, Gardner Minshu Montage for the Jaguars, Karen Steele, Van Jefferson for the Rams, John Malfatano and C.D. Lamb for the Cowboys, Jonathan Liang, K.J. Hamler for the Broncos, Jonathan Arnaldi. Was that what it was? It was like kind of, it was really cool. Let's hope so. I always hope to hit for you and everybody else, right? Brandon Ayuk for the 49ers, Jonathan Pete and Davante Parker for the Dolphins, and Sean O'Leary, C.D. Lamb, Cowboys, Jonathan Liang, Emmett Smith in it to win it for the Cowboys, Jonathan Liang, Michael Pittman Jr. for the Colts, Ethan Cook in a nice Herbert NFL debut for the Chargers, Chad Dahl, Justin Jefferson for the Vikings, Roy D. Pietro, and another Justin Jefferson, this one's a Silver, Vikings again, Roy D. Pietro, Darius Leonard, Red for the Colts, Ethan Cook, and Herbert Base for the Chargers, Chad Dahl, LaDanian Tomlinson Silver for the Chargers, Chad Dahl, and Cole Comet, Red for the Bears, Taylor McMichael, Brett Favre, Stairmasters for the Packers, and Jonathan Arnaldi, Cam Acres for the Rams, John Malfatano, and there you go, that's Mosaic. So Select is the last really base heavy product, nothing, none of this is like really crazy, but after that it gets really, you know, six cards, seven cards, a box type thing, until we get out of 2020, and then we get into the one box of Legacy 2021, and even that's not crazy. That's a good thing, Freddie. Yeah, we got that one Silver, Herbert. Let's see if we can roll that into the Select box as well. Cool, Select it is. That's a Select mega box, give me one second. There you go. There's a hobby box. I had to go back and check, because I was like, I'm pretty sure it was a hobby. So there's our hobby box. One, two, three, four, five, six. I hope so. I really hope so. Maybe we can get some more attention on that right after this mixer. Dude, Paul George is so happy. Like you can't see it at all in his face or his voice, in like the interviews, but that guy is so happy to have done what he's done in the last three games. Even if they can only win this round, because Kawai's out for long term, that's a win for him. I hope so. Kamiano on top of that too. Instead of the random number blocks, we're not selling all 10 spots. We're only selling eight and we're giving away two. So if you buy two spots, you get a chance at winning another two and having four for the random number block in each one of them. You got Denzel Mims for the Jets, and Chris Maxwell, and out of 99, Jordan Love, Rookie Relic for the Packers, Jonathan Arnaldi, K.J. Hamler for the Broncos, that is Jonathan Arnaldi, J.K. Dobbins for the Ravens, Eric Serzowski, Anna-Marie Cooper for the Cowboys, that is Jonathan Lieng, Chase Young, Washington.  I guess I got, I picked a good replacement box. It looks like it's a field level Zebra as well. Brian Edwards for the Raiders, Sham Sonnenblick, and nice, Antonio Gandy-Golden, Rookie Zebra field level.  Wow, Washington, Antonio Gandy-Golden, Chris Maxwell, Kyler Murray, second year, Cardinals, Sean O'Leary, Aaron Rodgers for the Packers, Jonathan Arnaldi, Miles Garrett for the Browns, and Chris Maxwell, Lageria Steed for the Chiefs, Anthony Pasciorek, Jacob Eason for the Colts, Ethan Cook, Patrick Mahomes for the Chiefs, Anthony Pasciorek, and Daniel Jones for the Giants, and Aaron Whittington, CJ Henderson for the Jaguars, Karen Steele, Jordan Love for the Packers, Jonathan Arnaldi, Gabriel Davis for the Bills, Chris Chin and CJ Henderson for the Jags. It's pretty cool though, I'll take it. Two Zebras back to back, nobody's gonna be mad, especially Sean with the Cardinals and Chris with the Washington football team, right? I like it. Nice replacement box. I mean, that's somebody else's problem to deal with. We got the good box, somebody else got shorted, you know? Any word on what happened to the Grom? Chase Young, Washington, Chris Maxwell, you got Joe Montana Blue, that is out of 99, eight out of 99 for the 49ers, and Jonathan Pete, and very nice four-color patch auto for Kenyon Drake and the Arizona Cardinals. Obviously, that is Dolphin's colors, but this is going to the Arizona Cardinals and Sean O'Leary, that is 23 out of 25. LaMichele Pirine for the Jets and Chris Maxwell. Aaron Rodgers, Tri-Color to 199 for the Packers, Jonathan Arnaldi and Zach Motz for the Bills, Chris Chin, Jaylin Hertz, Field Level for the Eagles, Daniel Katz, and Jaylin Ragoir Red out of 149 for the Eagles, Daniel Katz, Darrell Taylor for the Seahawks, Chris Maxwell, Michael Pittman Jr. for the Colts, Ethan Cook and JJ Watt Silver for the Texans, Dwayne Richards. You got a JJ Watt White out of 35, 10 out of 35 for the Texans, Dwayne Richards, and 5 out of 10, Gold, Patch Auto, DK Metcalf, Seahawks, Chris Maxwell. There you go, Chris. Congratulations, dude. Joe Naiman, Silver for the Jets, Chris Maxwell, and Deandre Swift for the Lions, Aaron Whittington. I'd say that was a very good box. So it was a very, very good box. It's a high-end mixer for a reason. I mean, guess what, guys? We still got Panini 1. We still got honors. We still got gold standard first off the line. You got Prism T-Mall. Just going to keep going. Okay, so that was all the heavy stuff. Now we're just going straight into the meat. I know, right, Aaron? It's just like, yeah, Dolphin's Colors, Patch, everything. No, not really. I mean, it's 16 packs, but they're like five cards a pack or something like that. It's pretty simple. Select, I think, has more cards than that, right? So let's go Prism, or right around the same. Chase Claypool for the Steelers, Garrett Strauss, Devin DuBernay-Silver for the Ravens, Eric Swarzowski, and it's a rookie Anthony Gordon, which is numbered four out of eight for the Seahawks. I mean, it's a rookie, so it's really low numbered, but not specifically the one we were looking for. Seahawks is Chris Maxwell. So we've got a rookie, which is what we were hoping for. Just a different name. Gold standard, first off the line. You got AJ Eponessa, one out of 11 for the Buffalo Bills and Chris Chin. Khalil Mack, 36 out of 75 for the Chicago Bears and Taylor McMichael. White Gold Relic, Jason Witton, that is 102 out of 199 for the Dallas Cowboys. Jonathan Liang. You got Jalen Hertz, 75 out of 225 for the Eagles. Daniel Katz. Clyde Edward Gilaire, 153 out of 225 for the Chiefs. Anthony Pashirak. Looks like we do have some points here, which is obviously a bummer. 250 points. I'm not sure, I'm guessing that we're replacing a auto. I'm not sure if it's replacing an auto or a patch card, but 250 points. That'll be randomized to one person in the break at the end. And we've got a very nice patch auto of 14 out of 22, Van Jefferson for the Rams. And John Malfatano. Definitely don't like seeing points, but points in a first off the line box just feels a little bit weird. Hate to see it. Okay. Let's go honors. Those are the two. Those are the two in case cards. Here is a pack. No, definitely not. But yeah, those are some very nice patches for the Rams in that Van Jefferson. You've got Chris Streveller. We're digging for this one. Cardinals, Shanno Leary. That is 40 out of 70. Rookie and Lynn Bowden Jr. for the Dolphins. Maybe something monstrous in this. 13 out of 25 for the Dolphins and Shanno Leary. Exactly, Adam. That's what I'm saying. We're digging on that one. This is the non-Rookie. It's Ed Reid. That's 16 out of 20 on card auto. That's a 2003 score. Signature score by back. It's numbered 16 out of 20 in gold on the back as well. Hand numbered 16 out of 20 on the front by Ed Reid as well for the Baltimore Ravens and Aaron Serzowski. Jalen Rigor for the Eagles. Daniel Katz. That is seven out of 15. Rookie auto. Okay, now Panini 1. We are going up and down. It is award winner's Warren Moon, which is Houston Oilers, which obviously goes to the Tennessee Titans and Patrick Evans. Just to make sure that this doesn't have any confusion whatsoever. I'm going to put Tennessee on there. So for Tennessee, nice Warren Moon for you, Patrick. And last box, legacy. Let's finish off with a Trevor Lawrence, Mack Jones, Justin Fields, Trey Lance. Take any and all of them. I have not, but I'm excited for you.  All geared towards your cubbies, which would be cool. That's nice. We've got a mini of T.J. Vasher. That is 45 out of 50. T.J. Vasher is Dallas Cowboys and Jonathan Liang. You've got Trey Lance there for the 49ers. Jonathan Peats. Derek Henry for the Titans. Patrick Evans. Lamar Jackson, seven out of 10 for the Ravens. Eric Serzowski. Trey Lance. Little cracked ice. That is 11 out of 25. Very nice. 49ers. Jonathan Peats and Patrick Mahomes under the lights for the Chiefs. Anthony Pashier-Reck. 66 out of 100. Very nice. Trey Lance. And you got Jalen Waddle out of 199. That is Miami Dolphins. Sean O'Leary. That is 48 out of 199. Kyle Pitts for the Falcons. Jose Rodriguez. Justin Fields, Freddie. I haven't seen enough of him. I mean, I think he's going to be fine. I know everybody's worried about him being undersized and this and that, whatever else. I don't think that those are actual concerns that people should have, but people will always be concerned. I mean, there's still people out there that Freddie that think that Patrick Mahomes, that he's had the best years of his career and that he's all downhill from here. Opinions are worth whatever you put behind it, you know? Steve Largent to 150 for the Seahawks. Chris Maxwell. Yet Najee Harris for the Steelers. Garrett Strauss. And Brevin Jordan. Brevin Jordan is Houston Texans. Dwayne Richards. And Nico Collins is our second Otto. Nico Collins is Houston Texans as well in Dwayne Richards. Jalen Waddle again for the Dolphins. Sean O'Leary. Matthew Stafford for the Colts. 74 out of 199. Detroit Lions. Aaron Whittington. Mack Jones for the Patriots. That is Aaron Whittington. Ronald Jones to 299 for the Buccaneers. Chris Maxwell. There's another randomizer that we'll do at the end. Jamar Chase, that's for the Bengals. Steve Birch. And there we go. So that's our legacy box and that finishes off our mixer. We've got a couple randomizers to do to finalize our break. Okay, so we're going to do one left-right randomizer to encompass all of this. So left-right will be either Bills or Steelers, Cardinals, Falcons, Cowboys, Eagles, or Bengals, Vikings. And then we've got one other randomizer including everybody that is for the 250 points that we got in this break. So let's pop over here to the randomizer. Let's get the customer list. And then one for the left-right. Same dice roll for both randomizers. Two and a two four times. One, two, three, fourth and final time. It's going to go to the right side and four times on the points. Fourth and final time and that is Eric Szarzowski on top. You see four times in the randomizer and Eric on top. There you go guys. So that is our randomizers. So right side on the team randoms. Eric for the points. There you go. There you go.  Very nice nine box mixer. We had two zebras in the same select box. Back to back actually. One for the Cardinals, a Kyla Murray second year and one Antonio Gandy-Golden field level for the Washington football team. Nice Tre Lantz out of our only 2021 product. That was a gold out of 25. So that was a nice one for the 49ers. But here are our autos. Justin Jefferson out of 49 for the Vikings. Chase Young, rookie triple swatch auto out of XR for Washington. Shaquille Barrett for the Buccaneers. Jonathan Taylor for the Colts. Kenneth Murray for the Chargers. Shaquille Korderman for the Jaguars and Devin O'Zigbo for the Jaguars. Anthony Miller for the Bears. Jeff Ocuda for the Lions. Nice four color patch auto Kenyan Drake for the Arizona Cardinals out of 25 and DK Metcalf. Nice gold out of 10 for the Seahawks patch auto. Van Jefferson the 22th recolor patch or triple patch auto for the Rams. You got Ed Reed out of 20 for the Ravens part of honors recollection and Jalen Rhaegor for the Eagles. That is out of 15. Warren Moon for the Tennessee Titans and Jalen Waddle for the Dolphins to 199 and Nico Collins for the Houston Texans to finalize it. And there you go guys. That was the break. That was Jaspys Nine Box High End Quick Hit Football Mixer Random Team Edition from jaspyscasebreaks.com. I'm Sean, jaspyscasebreaks.com. Thanks for hanging out. We'll see you next time.


Well hello, I don't usually go live at this time of day, but why not? Why don't I? Because usually I'm busy but yeah, I just sent off my weekly newsletter and Got a half hour before the five o'clock whistle blows So figured Let's chat. What are you doing? How you been? Okay, you look great Yeah, usually I'm like in the middle of prepping for DTNS and everything so my energy is probably a way low Should I just show pictures of Sawyer the dog? Do that here? In a blatant play to win over the hearts and minds of millions of people pictures of my dog Hey technical much This is the one I put up on Instagram Where along with a picture of my neighbor sign that says dear dogs, please don't water our lawn And so I put him next to a watering can get it That one he was looking away That's a that's a buckwheat noodles with hot was delicious bulldox sauce. I lean mate so good There's Sawyer. Oh, this is when he was staring at me and I was eating my apple This is and I did this as an Instagram thing. I showed him some apple and I gave him the apple and then he ate the apple Had face oh I guess it was I guess it was a it was too Yeah, it was too It was it was two Versions of that because I did it on Instagram. So it saved it again Here he is in his secret special agent vest People in puts close up. Have you seen these? Dunkin Donuts pumpkin spice This is like you have to diagram a sentence to figure out what this actually means. So it's not just pumpkin spice It's the Dunkin Donuts pumpkin spice Graham cracker flavored Goldfish Cell by February 4th What do I use for photo storage and management iCloud Google photos dropbox a local nas Yes, I use all of those that way if one of them fails. I got plenty of their backups Squish mellows. I was asking rich in and Molly if these are a thing and they Reminded me we kind of talked about them already. I just didn't recognize the name But yeah, these are these are all over the stores. Oh, I took a picture of this. This is a commercial What was this on was this on the like Baseball playoffs I think because I thought they were saying analog X and there used to be a hacker that would come on the screensavers named analog X And I thought it was hilarious But then when they when I act when they actually put the name up. I'm like, oh It's analog X Never mind. Oh Here's another picture of Sawyer That's it I Should make an Instagram post. Do you mind? I think tecton venture. Are you the only one in here? I have I have so much spam Do you have a lot of spam? I need to Download this instagram post stories Substack gives you uh Substack gives you some really good assets to promote your newsletter and I want to promote my My substack newsletter this time Because I've got a new novel in it save to photos. I should probably save the photos All the spam has cut tecton venture never have spam get through Also, a lot of mine is really bacon what we used to call bacon back in the day, which is Things where it's not actually spam Because I registered for ces and so they get to give my name out or its press pitches or Stuff like that So I actually don't get that much like raw spam spam either Because yeah gmail is pretty good at filtering stuff out. Isn't that awesome? Hey zoey brings bacon What are you doing awake tom merit? It's substack.com. That's right, isn't it tom merit? That's free tom newsletter free Oh my god, that didn't that didn't oh, I put it in the wrong place. Oops Isn't it showing this week's yet? I can still do that. Oh, it's only 12 40. That's not that YouTube has a channel streaming all the classic TMNT I never watched TMNT. Does that make me a bad geek? This week's Needs an apostrophe I drink my coffee After midnight Wait, did I publish it to the wrong one? Oh my gosh That's why I didn't see it. Oops Now I see it Uh, I can't believe I did that. Is it fun to watch me panic? Oh, it plays daily ticket lens. That's great. Ay, yai, yai, yai So embarrassing All right, make sure that's gone. Okay Now type it out again of a new novella This was supposed to be just me hanging out not me panicking over publishing the wrong newsletter see it at freetomnewsletter.com Hey, lucky. Are you feeling yourself? Okay, this week's newsletter is the first one Okay, there you go Yeah, so I you know, I have a tech newsletter called tech tom and then I have a free newsletter called this week in tom merit and I published this week in tom merit to the wrong one Oops Yeah, I that was my plan is just to uh stream Virtually whatever came into my head till five pacific And then uh and then go off into the weekend Ooh pixelate pro tomorrow Very fun Yes, clinton It's bonus content until somebody complains what's going to happen is somebody is going to be like Oh, so you're forcing this content on us to try to trick us into going to the news that I'll be like, no, I'm just embarrassed.  That's my song techno mention. I'm sticking to it So yeah, there's a new novella It is called the moment It is about time being broken and People's attempt to fix it by sending messages into the past And the first chapter takes place in 1978 So that's exciting about the pixelate. They're lucky I've got my uh my pixel fold I've been rocking lately This week. I don't have a lot of plans just just like a lunch plan. I don't know if you know bill meeks Bill meeks. I'll be lunching with bill meeks and then It's lamar wilson's birthday. So we're doing a little birthday dinner He's 21 again Doesn't look a day over Yeah, you're hanging with the pixel seven clinton I On the iphone side. I'm sticking with the 14 I feel like these things are so Evolutionary these days. I mean I went from the microsoft duo Which I've had for years and it was finally time. So I went to the fold for that That's my android slash foldable now apparently because I think I had the essential. No, not the essential What did I have before? anyway It was not a foldable before Yeah, six pro Those are they're good phones and they they last these days You don't need to upgrade. You don't need to upgrade. You may want to upgrade You may feel the urge to upgrade but then when like lucky you do get the new one It's pretty fun. I'm not gonna lie Yeah, just take photos of whatever you see Try it out. Oh, you got good trade in clinton. That helps a lot Yeah, I traded in uh the duo one. No, I didn't trade in the duo. What did I trade in? I traded in an old iPhone is that what I do? Because I sent the duo to somebody else But yeah, I traded it in I traded in a phone and I got a google fi discount So it really brought the price way down Ah screen died. Yeah, that's never good. And then um, I'm Possibly going to a conference although with the world Being in the situation that it's in I'm also prepared for anything and everything to get canceled these days, but uh No indication that's gonna happen. So uh beginning of november might be in europe I kind of mentioned that in my newsletter last week, I think So if if that all goes to plan, uh, that'll be fun and then Uh, I'm going to blizzcon Um, because lacerophim is performing very much looking forward to to seeing them and Seeing what blizzcon is like now that it's back although Nobody's going all the usual suspects when I ask is anybody going Nobody nobody's going. So I feel like I know I won't but I feel like am I going to be the only one there? Eileen's going with me Just be the two of us like yeah, the seraphim Yay diablo But yeah, should be fun. Uh, so yeah, if you hear of anybody that's going Let me know Yeah, mike. I thought they did Yeah, I don't know. I don't know what that's about Yeah, zoey, uh Last time I was in continental europe would have been paris in 2019 I think summer of 2019 because we went it was when we went to ireland for um for uh world con um after after world con we we went to paris No, it's men. I'm been a couple of years not that long really only four years But so I guess I can remember the last time I visited europe It's in brussels home of sprouts Oh at eclipse in france soccer blue Oh, he was on a stream and the twitchy. I was on a stream and someone told him and then he left because he didn't want to be in the stream That's funny I too clinton I was supposed to go to the uk in summer of 2020 And yes that got cancelled Well, I haven't been yet lucky But I do plan to enjoy Uh beer when I do go Mine wouldn't have been for work clinton. I was going to the uk uh To see the baseball game which ended up happening this summer with cardinals cubs and I didn't go I didn't end up going this summer Because we had other plans and other things to do take care of um, oh, yeah I would have seen nate will harris zoe you went to ireland four years ago right Am I imagining things you were there, right? Okay, good.  I really enjoyed that trip It was great going to world con and we we got to squeeze in a couple of uh tours to see parts of the other parts of ireland It's eileen's first time going to ireland Oh, uh, yeah tecno mentioned, uh, there is there there there's a youtube and a twitch chat So if you're like wait, where how is he responding to these? That's why People in multiple places. Oh man clinton. I'm sorry Although Maybe i'm not best thing he says best thing that could have happened Nice exit passage early retirement haven't looked back. Well, then good. I'm not sorry at all That's great. Good for you Zoe's in all the places at once Because she's a time lord Yeah, i'm just gonna go until the five o'clock whistle blows and by five o'clock whistle blows I mean my amazon echo is set at five o'clock on fridays To play a little like it's five o'clock on friday Here's everything you need to know about friday I don't know. I don't know if I should do a shelf tour So I feel like I should I should save this shelf tour for the normal morning crowd. What do you what do you think? And there's only one shelf left to go I mean, I guess they could see it on demand later You can't see that shelf over there that shelf has all the really interesting stuff on This is not a shelf tour because it's not behind me Things are falling. I've only got two minutes These are all uh cd roms word perfect sweet seven I used to use this this this used to be my my go-to Sim city 2000. Yeah So so glare much glare. Yeah Uh monty python quest for the holy grail cd rom activisions info comm mystery collection That's cd in there it is I might have to install that see if it still works Deadline which I played on the Commodore 64 and loved lurking horror moon mist sherlock suspect witness bonuses of planet fall and zork zero Uh a cd rw that is empty.  I don't think there's I don't think anything's been burned on to that This is a tdk cdr. No idea if there's anything on that ibm think pad Uh ac dc combo adapters and drivers for a thing old think pad and uh Laceraphim's fearless japanese edition with kazuha And uh likewise with inche and the other ones are down there too Oh there it is I don't know if you can hear it though, but alexa Thank you Just said you're so welcome. It's five o'clock on friday All right, uh, well i'm gonna go enjoy my weekend I hope you will too. Thanks for spending a small part of it with me. That was really fun I'll see you all on monday Bye everybody


I come from a country which was predominantly very peaceful. In 1996, armed conflict started in Nepal. And then we started to understand the importance of women in armed conflict. Women are generally perceived as passive victims. When the war ends, there is no priority given to women as active agents of change. I think the story needs to be changed. The roadmap to peace needs to be more inclusive and include women in all stages of peace building. Where women have signed being a part of the peace agreement, there has been evidence that peace can be durable. The media needs to field stories more about women as active agents of change. Also, we need to write stories, document stories of grassroots women who have helped to promote peace. These needs to be documented. We all need to be that change to bring about that inclusive change for lasting peace.


Tensions between China and Taiwan at an all-time high. We need to fly our planes in force through China's air defense zone. Our best opportunity to deter China is by arming Taiwan and arming ourselves now before they think about launching an invasion. So are you saying that the United States would come to Taiwan's defense if China attacked? Yes, we have a commitment. Should the United States choose military force to deter China from invading Taiwan?  William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a policy advisor to President Bill Clinton, defended the resolution. He argued that the US should use all the tools at its disposal to deter foreign powers from engaging in conflict with their neighbors, with the ultimate goal of preventing an outright war, such as the one we are witnessing in Europe. Peter Van Buren, who spent 24 years working as a diplomat for the United States State Department, took the negative. He argued that Americans rarely have the context or understanding to intervene productively in foreign conflicts, and that more often than not, what looks like deterrence to one party looks like provocation to the other. The debate was moderated by SOHO forum director Gene Epstein. The resolution reads, the US should use its military power to deter China from invading Taiwan. Defending the resolution, William Galston. William, please come to the stage. Opposing the revolution, Peter Van Buren. Peter, please come to the stage. William Galston, you're going to take the podium, and you have 15 minutes to defend the resolution. Jane, please close the voting. Thank you. Well, it's great to be here. I already know that I'm not at the Apollo Theater. More, more, thank you. It catches up to you. For me, this is an away game. I am not now nor have I ever been a libertarian. On the other hand, I'm not a neoconservative either. I am not repeat not out to remake the world. And I'm not out to start any wars. The resolution is not about starting wars, it's about preventing them. And I think that is very important. Having said that, I have a hard job. My job is to persuade you to act now, or that the United States should act now, to prevent something that hasn't happened from happening. It's not the same thing as responding to something that has happened. For example, Ukraine. Ukraine is an example of what I'll call failed deterrence. Whatever we were doing, it did nothing to prevent a terrible war. And I think everybody can see what not preventing a war looks like. It's horrible. And the argument for doing what we can to prevent something horrible is it seems to me the moral core of the proposition before us. But we're not simply talking about morality. Let me give you a one minute history of the past 80 years. Japanese attack Pearl Harbor. Hitler, who could have stayed out of it, at least with regard to the United States, immediately or quickly declares war on the United States, we have two enemies on the Eastern Front and the Western Front. The war ends, total triumph. Two years later, it becomes clear that we have one big enemy. And we spent the next four days confronting that one big enemy. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, we had or thought we had no enemies at all. And now it is absolutely clear that we have two big enemies again. So we are facing the same situation that we faced 80 years ago, except we're not at war with them yet. So we have a situation we haven't faced in 80 years. How are we going to respond to it? How should we respond to it? Should we do what we did after World War One? Or should we do in a different way appropriate to our circumstances what we did after World War Two? I know what my choice is. I think the years after World War Two worked out a whole lot better than the years after World War One. And if we play our cards right, we can prevent World War Three. Let me tell you how I think about the proposition before us. I've noticed something about foreign policy. And that is, it makes sense to listen carefully to what leaders are saying. Vladimir Putin spent more than a decade telling the world that he didn't believe that Ukraine was a country. It had no right to exist. It was part of Greater Russia. It existed as the result of an historical accident.  He made his position absolutely clear. But nobody believed him. Indeed, when the US intelligence services in November of last year started telling anyone who would listen that Putin was winding up to wage war against Ukraine, we couldn't get anybody in Europe to believe us with the exception of the Ukrainians. And even the Ukrainians were a hard sell, and President Zelensky was in partial denial up until a very short period before the war. Now, why do I mention this? For a simple reason. It made sense to listen to what Hitler was saying. It made sense to listen to what Putin was saying, and it makes sense to listen to what Xi Jinping is saying. And he has made it absolutely clear that he intends to reunify China as he puts it, that is to say, amalgamate Taiwan into Greater China on his watch. Now, we don't know how long his watch is going to be now that he has made himself president for life, but he's not a young man. He's not getting any younger. And his speeches, which if I had time, I would quote to you, make it absolutely clear that yes, he would like Taiwan to fall into his hand the way a ripe apple falls from a tree, but he's not counting on that. And he is preparing his country for an unpeaceful reunification with China. That's not all he's preparing them for. He is preparing them for an era of naval dominance in the world. And he is preparing his people for the glorious moment when China replaces the United States as the world's dominant power and as the writer of the rules that the rest of the world must adhere to. So I'm sorry, how much time do I have left? Ten minutes? Good. So that raises the question that is now before us. Should the United States use its power to deter or to do its best to deter China from attacking Taiwan to prevent another terrible war like the one we are now seeing? And I think there are a number of reasons to say yes. One has to do with one of the fundamental principles of the post-war era, the principle of sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of countries, not to be changed by force but only through consent. The principle that is being violated every minute of every day and we can watch it being violated on television. Now, you may say, well, that's okay. Taiwan isn't really a country. Well, that's what Putin said about Ukraine. And he offered many of the same reasons that she does. But one of the core propositions that I am resting my case on is that certain groups of people and bodies of territory may not begin as countries, but they can become countries. Taiwan, I want to argue, has become a sovereign and independent country whose integrity and independence is worth defending if we can. I will also mention the fact that Taiwan, which began as an autocracy, has evolved into a democracy, a healthy, thriving, multi-party democracy. It hasn't always been that way, but it is definitely that way now. That also makes it worth defending if we can. There are concrete American interests at stake as well. Taiwan controls nearly 25% of the semiconductor production capacity of the world. And according to the Boston Consulting Group in a report issued in December, it is responsible for fully 92% of advanced chip manufacture in the world. It is a place, therefore, of enormous strategic significance. Semiconductor chips are the oil of the 21st century economy. And we've already seen what happens when those chips become scarce. Products that depend on chips can no longer be made in sufficient quantities, like automobiles, which now have between 500 and 1,000 semiconductor chips per car. A Chinese takeover of Taiwan would in effect turn China into the OPEC of semiconductor chips. I would submit that is not in the national interest. A Chinese takeover of Taiwan would, in addition, affect the calculus of our allies throughout Asia. Whether we like it or not, countries bend to the will of what they regard as the superior power in their region. And when that power shifts, countries that have been with us, a vital part of the American alliance throughout Asia for decades will suddenly find reasons not to be with us. Third and concretely, the well-being of an incredibly important ally and partner, namely Japan, is at stake. I will take a minute to read a portion of an analysis from the Chinese air command. And it says this, as soon as Taiwan is reunified with mainland China, Japan's maritime lines of communication will fall completely within the striking range of Chinese fighters and bombers. Our analysis shows that by using blockades, if we can reduce Japan's raw imports by 15 to 20%, it will be a heavy blow to Japan's economy. After imports have been reduced by 30%, Japan's economic activity and war-making potential will be basically destroyed. After imports have been reduced by 50%, its national economy and war-making capacity will collapse completely. Blockades can even create famine within the Japanese islands. All of those Chinese capacities and the ability to turn them into reality would be triggered by the loss of Taiwan. And if you don't believe what I'm saying, talk to any Japanese diplomat. That is their number one worry in the world stage. We should deter if we can, can we? Yes, we can in two ways. Number one, by executing what's known as the porcupine strategy to help Taiwan defend itself. The porcupine is not a particularly strong animal. It's certainly not a particularly fast animal, but it knows how to defend itself by making things very painful for any would-be aggressor. If we give Taiwan what we should have given the Ukrainians a long time ago, namely the capacity to defend themselves against bombers, against missiles, and against ships, particularly assault ships, that carry troops across the straits to land on Taiwan's beaches, we can probably allow Taiwan to protect itself much better against a potential Chinese assault than we can right now. Second, everything depends on the balance of naval forces between China and the United States. The United States has allowed its navy to wither at precisely the point when the Chinese have decided to become the world's greatest maritime power. That is not written in the stars. It is a policy choice, and I submit it is a policy choice that we can make. In conclusion, deterrence is costly and in some cases risky. However, the costs of not deterring armed conflict are even higher and the dangers are even greater. If we had helped Ukraine defend itself, if we had taken action to deter what is now happening before our very eyes, I submit to you the chances that it would be happening would have been greatly reduced. Why not use the same strategy for Taiwan? Thank you very much. No, I've spent my whole life listening to people talk about wars we weren't going to have, and then we had. I've listened my whole life in 24 years as a State Department diplomat, watching enemies disappear so that new enemies would come and take their place. I drank champagne on government time, on government salary when the wall came down and history ended, and then I found myself once again looking at a new department of anti-terrorism. I served a year in Iraq. I saw dead bodies in ditches that did not achieve the freedom we had promised them, and now I have to hear about another enemy that we're going to deter that's going to end up taking lives. No one in this room in their lives has spent more than a handful of years without the United States being at war somewhere or invading somewhere, or having a police action, or a military intervention, or helping the Contras, or helping the terrorists, or helping the anti-terrorists fill in the blanks. My life and your life has been one of continuous warfare in the United States, stretching from Central America throughout the Middle East. And now what do we want to do? We want to revisit Asia as if the war in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and parts of Thailand was not sufficient enough. What if the United States simply walked away and left Asia and other parts of the world alone? Would it really be any worse? The U.S. should not use its military power to deter China from invading Taiwan. It is unnecessary, and it's more likely to provoke a war than to stop one. In addition, porcupines are far too cute to use in that particular analogy. I would have gone with something like a Warthog on those lines. The current strategy of strategic ambiguity vis-à-vis Taiwan and China serves two very important goals, American goals, world goals. It keeps the peace, and it allows for a productive, trilateral, plus-plus relationship among China, Taiwan, the United States, and the other countries in Asia. And it's important always to conclude all of the participants. I was very enliven to hear that Nick is in favor of butts in Three Ways and Reason Magazine because this arrangement in Asia is not simply China and the United States or China and Taiwan. The United States is an active player, and we need to keep all three participants on the ground. As far as deterrence being unnecessary, I note that during the entire 73-year existence of Taiwan, the mainland has not invaded. Despite changes in leadership as dramatic as Mao to Deng Xiaoping to Xi, the mainland has not invaded. Despite Taiwan changing from a military dictatorship, well supported by the United States, by the way, to a democracy, the mainland has not invaded. Despite global changes, including the Korean and the Vietnam Wars, development of nuclear weapons by China the fall of the Soviet Union and Donald Trump, the mainland has not invaded. The U.S. posture has varied from garrisoning the island of Taiwan to strategic ambiguity, to sending special forces there, which are present currently, and the mainland has simply not invaded. The Chinese military has gone from peasants with rifles to the Blue Water Navy, Professor Galston is so enamored with, backed by ICBMs, and yet the mainland has not invaded. China has gone from the agrarian isolation of the cultural revolution to a fully integrated, if not in fact an essential part of the industrialized global economy, and the mainland has not invaded. Putin got away with most of what he was trying to do already in the Ukraine, and the mainland has not invaded. This is not going to change in our lifetimes, and there's really not much more to say. You're left with the question of what will cause all this to change, and my answer is not a whole lot. The ball keeps bouncing, history remains. I'll be at the bar. Thank you, have a, I have more time. You laugh. But in fact, a couple of important points here, and by the way, those of you who are interested in fact checking me, if you go to my website, which is wementwell.com, I have a text of what, rough text of what I'm doing tonight, and all of the facts that I'm listing are all linked there, and so you'll be able to fact check me in real time. Now, that business about leaving the world alone, deterrence is very much a funny word, because what looks like deterrence from one side, such as forward deploying an aircraft carrier, might indeed look like provocation from the other side. Do we have that slide, please? What looks like deterrence against American hemogenomy and Asia over flights might in fact look like provocation from the other side. You'll be reading or have read an awful lot about Chinese air incursions. So I thought I would come up with a map that showed you these air defense interdiction zones that you hear about being violated all the time. You'll notice that the yellow one that Taiwan has created for itself actually physically overlaps mainland China, and so that Chinese jets sitting on their own runways are in fact in violation of that. Be careful when you read the newspaper or the magazines and see something about provocation. Some of you are big fans, I'm sure, of disputed islands. I don't want to leave you out up there in the balcony, and for those of you that are fans of disputed islands, I'll point out that little blip in the green line. That's Japan's own area of air defense interdiction, and you notice it makes a little loop just to the east of Taiwan. That's a disputed island that we just don't want to talk about because it's the Taiwanese and the Japanese who are kind of fussing over that when we don't even want to get into the islands that are between Korea and Japan. So there's an awful lot of what we call provocation going on in East Asia. We only seem to want to talk about the Chinese side. There's also more importantly very little need for deterrence that many, including Professor Galston, advocate for this evening. The Chinese on both sides of the strait understand that there's much to be gained from economic ties and political ambiguity and a much greater risk in an invasion that would do little more than tidy up some of the leftovers of the Cold War from 1949. But let's talk about deterrence. That's what we're asking for here. Let's talk about what deterrence looks like when you view it through the lens of provocation. China has exactly four overseas bases. There's a small logistics operation in Djibouti, Africa, a listening post on the Great Cocoa Island, which by the way is not in the Bahamas. It's near Burma. A Navy outpost in Guadar, which is somewhere near Pakistan. And of course, a military outpost in, forgive my pronunciation, in Gordo Padaqshan Tajikistan. I'm sure a lot of people who consider themselves well informed on this subject would have a hard time naming more than one of those places. In contrast, throughout the world, the United States maintained 750 bases. A few less now that the Afghan adventure is over. But these include former facilities in eight different Asian nations, 50,000 troops in Japan, 24,000 in South Korea alone. The US maintained troops on Taiwan up until 1979 and currently has special forces there in what we euphemistically call training missions. That many of those military bases predate the People's Republic of China. And in fact, the fact that they were set up to deter, there's our word again in the porcupine strategy to deter the Soviet Union. And of course, the Soviet Union is gone, but the bases are still there, leaving open the question of what their purpose really, really is. As I said, be careful with language, the incursions into airspace, which many people have raised as red alerts, are actually simply a foundation of creative map making. There is no such thing as an air defense interdiction zone in international law or practice. It's simply something that you draw around yourself. For example, at the reception tonight, if you really think that I'm kind of a pain in the neck and you want to draw a distinction, you can put a zone around yourself and I will promise not to violate that. At various points in history, American bases overseas, including in Asian countries, have stored nuclear weapons and some may do so even today. Forward deployed US warships are believed to contain nuclear weapons. The Ohio class and soon Virginia class submarines off China's coasts, east with 20 ballistic missiles, almost certainly contain nuclear weapons. And no matter if those don't matter or aren't available, flights direct from the United States mainland only take a few hours. Pretend now you're from Mars and just visiting Soho and tell me which side seems provoking and which side seems deterring. The key element of strategic ambiguity which is enshrined in the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act is in fact a better idea than the strategic clarity that I think Professor Galston and those who argue for more deterrence are talking about. The more specific your response is ahead of time, such as article five, the more your hands are tied. Remember deterrence did work in Ukraine for Russia. Stop the United States. Now let's talk about some reasons why Japan or sorry, China, sorry, wrong war. China is not intending to go. China has $188 billion worth of investment in the United States. The value of cross-strait trade between China and Taiwan, $149 billion. China is the second largest holder of foreign US bonds. They are literally betting the shop on this relationship holding up over the long run. There's an awful lot of money. Professor Galston mentioned rhetoric out of China, particularly some of President Xi's type of thing. And you know, the rhetoric from China has not changed from Mao until Xi. It essentially talks about the historic inevitability of a single China. And in China, when you talk with the Chinese diplomats, and I've been assigned to both China, big China we used to call it, Hong Kong and also in Taiwan, you hear it from Chinese diplomats all the time.  That means it's going to be a long time till this all happens. Particularly the rhetoric that Professor Galston referred to, and I probably read it in English, which has a different spin to it oftentimes, is often coming in the political season, which takes place in October. There's a whole series of political holidays. The founding of the PRC takes place on October 1st. Taiwan celebrates its national day on October 10th, and both countries celebrate the 1911 Xi Hai Revolution rebellion there, which set off the process that created both China's ultimately. And this is always a great time for rhetoric. And so keep in mind when you're looking at a piece of rhetoric and you're decided you might want to get scared reading it, see if it didn't come from one of these October events. And if it did, turn the dial from 11 down to a comfortable six and participate, as our comedian said in some of those more exotic COVID cures. The goal here, that's the only thing that gets us gets us a cheer out of people. Philosophically, Chinese leaders have for thousands of years believed in historical cycles. They waited close to 300 years to end the foreign Qing dynasty. They waited out Britain for hundreds of years for the peaceful return of Hong Kong. Such things come up in conversation with their diplomats all the times, often as you talk about weather. The Chinese are patient people and they believe in historical cycles. I don't think any of us will ever live to see a united China, but I can guarantee you none of us will ever live to see a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. I have to end with a quote from Sun Tzu. One waits to win. Thank you. Bill Dawson, five minutes for your bottle. You can take the podium if you want or your choice. Take it from the podium, shot. Sounds good, yeah. Well, I had a lot thrown at me, so let me throw some of it back. First of all, I was careful in what I said, but also in what I did not say. And I did not once, to the best of my knowledge, invoke violation of Taiwan's airspace as a piece of evidence to prove anything. Nor, I note for the record, did I call for an explicit end to the policy of strategic ambiguity. Strategic ambiguity can be part of a deterrence strategy. And I think in that context it has much to commend it. So let us dispose as not germane to this particular debate, those two allegations. Now, then there are issues of logic. Consider the proposition mainland China has not invaded Taiwan, and therefore it won't. That is not exactly a syllogism. I think we can both agree, right? Because an equally valid syllogism would be as late as February of this year. Russia hasn't invaded Ukraine, and therefore it won't. That would have been a fine argument in February, at least it wasn't obviously false, but it's obviously false now. That brings us, I think, to the nub of the matter. And that is that the two of us don't even have a factual dispute. We have a predictive dispute. You don't believe that China will ever invade Taiwan, at least not in our lifetime, if I understood you correctly. And I believe something different. I believe something different based, in part, not just on what the political leaders are saying in some octobers. It's not every october. Some octobers, and particularly in years divided by five. I am also taking into account Chinese military documents, and I must add my frequent contacts with Chinese officials, whose tone on this question has changed very fundamentally in just the past five years. This is not, if I can vary the Asian analogy to slightly, this is not Kabuki theater. There has been a huge change in China. Which students of China have chronicled, particularly since Xi Jinping came to power. Chinese diplomacy has been more aggressive. Chinese aims have become more explicit, more firmly stated. And there has been an enormous military buildup in China. How much more time do I have, Jane? I'm sorry, one minute. Thank you. And I would ask you the following question. If we had helped Ukraine defend itself, and it turned out 200 years later that Russia never had any attention to attacking Ukraine, okay, we were frighted with false fire, as Shakespeare said. If we help Taiwan defend itself, and also help defend freedom of the seas with a stronger navy, I think the harm done is modest compared to the harm prevented if the prediction that underlies my side of the case turns out to be true. Thank you. I apologize about the defense zones. I brought that up only because it's a very common theme in most of the things that people are reading. So please accept my apology on that. Taiwan is not the Ukraine, and you can't simply pick that out and so draw analogies only because the Ukraine invasion happened to happen at the same time we're holding this forum. If the Ukrainian invasion did not happen, we wouldn't be talking about the Ukraine because that situation in Russia has nothing in common with what's going on in East Asia. Those of you who come to reception, I'll be happy to trap you in a corner and explain that at great, great length. The why now problem is I think where this all comes down to because we're left with this idea that the professor stated there about this predictive part of it, and you know the only point of studying history is for its predictive value, the lessons that you learned there, but you're left with that question of well, why now, why would China invade right now? Would they do that because they're simply far too much money being passed back and forth across the Taiwan Straits? Would they do that right now because they just are really, really tired of the 2.68 million visits a year that occur between Taiwan and China? Would they do it right now, the invasion, because there are 25,000 mainland students studying on Taiwan right now? Would they do it because there are nine airlines flying non-stop flights between Taiwan and the mainland, and they're not flying just from Taipei to Beijing, they're flying from smaller cities in Taiwan to even smaller cities because of the enormous number of family visits that are taking place? Would they do it because President Xi would like to risk his entire government, in fact the entire political structure of mainland China on an amphibious invasion of Taiwan, arguably the most difficult military operation that anyone could undertake? Why now? I was in Taiwan in 1989 when we asked the why now question. Taiwan was emerging as a democracy, and there was a Taiwan Independence Party looking to take some seats in the legislature, and as I'm sure you're all aware, declaring independence formally is one of those red lines in the Taiwan Strait area, and many of us at the American Institute in Taiwan are pretend embassy there were fearful that the result of this independence party taking seats in the legislature might be that invasion that some have predicted. We waited, we worried, we put some food away, and what happened was that the marketplaces started flooding with goods from the mainland. The invasion was certainly there, but it was economic, not military. The number of reasons that China would not invade Taiwan is so voluminous that it's very, very difficult to imagine any one reason why they would. If all you can point to is President Aline in President Xi's speech, by the way he said in his lifetime they would begin the process of unification or something along those lines. It was far from definitive because this is not a situation where you make definitive statements, and that's why strategic ambiguity, the way that the United States should step back and allow the two Chinas to continue their commerce, their social, their intellectual interactions is something that has worked, that something will continue to work, and I stand here with great confidence predicting that none of us will ever see fisticuffs across the Taiwan Strait. Thank you. Thank you to the two debaters. We now get to the Q&A part of the evening. I take it we have microphones on the side, and I trust we have microphones on the balcony, yes, so that people in the balcony can ask questions as well, but I'm going to begin by taking moderators prerogative to ask a couple of questions of the debaters, but even before I do that I'd like to invite them to ask each other a question. You can exercise that option at any time. Would either you like to ask the other a question or would you like to wave that and wait for audience questions to materialize? Bill, you want to wait or you want to? I think the audience is good. Yeah, good, yeah, make sure you have the microphone. Okay, wait for the audience. Pete, do you want to ask a question? I think the audience has been very patient, and I here I abandon my question asking prerogative for now. Not necessarily for now. Yes, very good. We're not going to go a little smithier on each other, but for now. You can abandon that abandonment at any time, Bill, if you feel that you should. I want to ask a couple of questions just to rile you guys up. I believe, Peter Van Buren, that I heard you state at the outset a rather radical position that you would be willing to defend, not just this, what did you call it, simulate, forgive me, strategic ambiguity, but as a way of pursuing policy, but that you would just as soon see the U.S. completely pivot out of Asia. And do you think that would be even a better solution? Well, I have to begin by saying it's actually an impossible thing. It's saying porcupines are going to fly. It's simply not going to happen. And so I offer it more as a rhetorical reason. Would you have said in 1986 that the Soviet Union is not going to fall?  Would you have said that in 1986? I was in junior high school. Okay. Then I waved the question, but a lot of people were saying in 1986, the idea that the Soviet Union would collapse is ridiculous. In 1850, the end of slavery, don't be silly. But that aside, could you just answer the questions to whether it's possible? I would say without hesitation is that less is more, that the United States interventions overseas, and we're getting off the topic here, but this includes Taiwan. The United States interventions have caused far more harm than good, literal harm in terms of bodies piled up here and there, but also political harm. We've mucked around in places and caused trouble. I think Taiwan and China are both extremely skillful diplomats. I think they know what their interests are. I think they know where their soft spots are. And I think the more that we stand back and allow them to conduct their relations with one another without us necessarily leaning over everyone's shoulder, while standing back, if somebody needs to ask us a question, I think would be a more productive policy in the long run. Even including withdrawal from Japan, from Korea, getting out of Asia all together.  And I think the other thing to keep in mind is that the forces in Japan and Korea are there for other reasons. The debate on North Korea, I think, would go a different way. Okay. I think, guys, do you want to comment on that, Bill? Do you want to make sure you have your microphone built in your hand? Do you want to comment on that answer, or do you want to wave comment? I can either wave comment or get into a very long discussion comparing the results of America's getting involved to the results of America's not getting involved, which is why I mentioned the World War I aftermath versus the World War II aftermath. I would submit that staying out of world affairs between World War I and World War II was a disaster for the world. And it allowed a situation to develop in which the United States was dragged into a war that it did not choose. Looks like you want to make a comment. Do you want to take that argument into the multiple Iraq wars as well? Boy, let the record show, because it does, that I was an early fervent opponent of the war in Iraq. But the fact that one war is bad, or two wars, or three wars, does not prove, okay, yes, I know the litany as well as you do, and therefore all wars are bad. Is that the... All the weights that the scales seem to be pretty heavy on one side here, which are the good ones? I would take, I think that what the United States did in World War II more than outweighs all of the failed wars that you've just talked about. No, no, man, I stopped saving private Ryan like 17 times. But after World War II, which interventions are the good ones? We prevented a lot of bad things. We prevented a Soviet takeover of Europe. I think that was a pretty good thing to do. I am not arguing for a policy of war. I'm arguing for a policy of deterrents, which is exactly the strategy that we used for 40 years. And it was a damn good thing that we did. Okay, a question, just please phrase your question as a question. Don't have to identify yourself. And say to whom you're addressing the question, if anybody. I'd like to address this to both our debaters. Yeah. Should the... Close to the microphone as you can, please. Okay. Should the United States and its allies with Taiwan's concurrence recognize the existence of Taiwan, or should we continue to pretend it doesn't exist? Should we recognize the existence of Taiwan? Do you want to take that, Peter? Yeah. We should not formally recognize the existence of Taiwan simply because it is a stated red line. And the advantages of crossing that red line are so overwhelmingly wiped out by the disadvantages of crossing that red line. It's important to note that we treat Taiwan as a country in nearly every sense of that word absent calling it a country. It's one of those situations where the benefits so outweigh the other side that I can't responsibly say we should recognize Taiwan. Do you want to comment, Phil? As it happens, I agree with that answer completely. Okay. We're getting agreement. We don't... We want debate. We don't want agreement. Next question. I have a question to William. We have seen in the Ukraine that trying to take over another country could lead to the situation where Russia could plant a flag on a huge pile of rubble and everything else will be gone. With that experience, is the risk higher or lower that China will take on Taiwan? That serves a very good question. And the honest answer to your question is, I don't know, but let me make a broader point where I do think I have some evidence on my side. It is a frequent argument against the prediction that war will break out, that it is economically irrational for a war to break out. History demonstrates that that is not a good argument empirically. It was a very popular argument during the Edwardian period, the decade before World War I. As a matter of fact, a man by the name of Norman Angel wrote a book for which he won the Nobel Prize in Literature, making the argument that there would be no war in Europe because it is economically irrational for a war in Europe to break out. Almost all wars are economically irrational, but somehow they keep on breaking out. So permit me to doubt the fact. Look, I think that it would be profoundly irrational for many economic and diplomatic standpoints for China to use force to seize Taiwan and reintegrate it with the mainland. Does that lead me to believe that China would not do that? No, it does not for the aforestated reason. Can you comment from you, Peter? If the only thing I had on the table here was economics, I would probably have to lean a little further towards Professor's answer. But in fact, there are so many different reasons why China and Taiwan would not go to war. And I would stress that one of them that is so important and is very, very difficult to understand is that these are people that see themselves as the same people. There is no inherent animosity about those guys over there who are different than us. Taiwan is mostly Han Chinese. They speak the same language. They share the same history up until 1949. They see the world in the same way. They eat the same foods. They look at things in the same way. And there's those 2.68 million family visits across the straits. And so if it was simply economics, France and Germany, I think there's more to the argument. But in the case of China and Taiwan, it's so much richer that I have to say that the economic argument, while important, is just part of a much bigger and richer picture. Next question. This is to William Gostin. The main American interest I heard was an economic one, that its micro-trip production capacity is the OPEC of the 21st century. But just as America has become a more dominant force in the oil market, what is stopping us from being a more dominant force in micro-trips? And secondly, we trust China with many supply chains that we depend on. And we haven't pursued interventions to prevent it. Why this one? Why now? Good question. First, we have become, I have noticed, a lot less trusting of supply chains, including mainland China, than we were, for example, before the pandemic. We discovered in the pandemic that we were highly dependent on China for even the basic medical supplies that we needed, although Reason Magazine clearly doesn't agree with me on this point, to try to reduce the severity of the pandemic, like masks, for example. I know they're not popular, particularly in this room, but if we were having another debate, I think I would try to persuade you that there was and continues to be in some circumstances merit to mask rating. Here is the problem. It is a lot easier to move production of goods such as masks and other basic medical materials than it is to quickly change microchip production. And since Peter had a slide, I have a visual. Okay. And it is a visual from the business section of today's New York Times, entitled, The Huge Endeavor to Produce a Tiny Microchip. And it is followed by a very, very lucid explanation, covering these two pages as to the extraordinary investment of money and time that it would take to shift the production chain of Taiwan in the area of microchips to the United States. We're not talking about a year or two years or three years. And if you don't believe me, listen to the president of Intel Corporation, who has given very detailed remarks on the extraordinary difficulty of replicating in the United States. As a matter of fact, as a matter of fact, a lot of the best technology in this area has gravitated to Taiwan. And if the Chinese were to take it over, obviously, I think the pace of technological advance would slow, but it would still be a huge shift. It would be like the equivalent of another country invading Texas and taking over its oil supply. It would be a real game changer. You made one other remark that suggests that I may not have been sufficiently clear in my opening remarks. The economics of the situation is very important, but that's not the only thing that's important. There are countries throughout Asia that depend on the United States for their independence and security. Starting with South Korea, but also including Japan, I quoted from a Chinese military manual on the way they're thinking about Taiwan in relation to Japan. And guess what? The Japanese are thinking about the relationship between Taiwan and Japan in exactly the same way, which is why they are scared, expletive deleted of the possibility that China would mount an aggressive war against Taiwan. So there are economic reasons, there are diplomatic reasons, and there are military slash strategic reasons for caring about the future of Taiwan. Thank you. Comment, Peter? Just on Japan, I want to clarify that whereas once it was very obvious that the United States was Japan's protector, that really is less and less the case all the time. First of all, Japan is one of several threshold nuclear countries in Asia, South Korea, Taiwan as well, that have the technology, have the ability to develop nuclear weapons fairly quickly if they wanted to do that. Japan also has been aggressively enlarging its blue water navy. They have several aircraft carriers right now. They're buying the F-35 from the United States. They're pretty well ready to take care of themselves. That said, Professor Galston and I do agree on South Korea and North Korea. That would be a very dull debate because I think we'd find ourselves strictly in agreement. Lastly, on the idea of conductors, semi-conductors and things like that, I think you could ask the Arab nations very quickly if you could eat an iPhone because that would be ultimately what would happen in China. If somebody has to produce these things, somebody would. Next question. Thank you both for being here. Appreciate the civil debate and I have a question that's directed to both of you. I know you've obviously stated that you consider this extremely unlikely but I still think it's hard to say that it's totally impossible but if China were to invade Taiwan, let's say including an amphibious invasion, should the U.S. go to war with China in order to defend Taiwan? I think the question is addressed to you, Peter, and Bill should follow up. Answer the question, Peter. So you're talking about we just we interrupt this this debate to tell us that there's a shooting war now in between Taiwan and China. That's a tough one because at that point my prediction has been proven wrong and so I mean I have to concede that that we probably should have gone with those porcupines. Can we vote right now? Let me answer it in a completely disingenuous way which is to say that I think Taiwan is in a pretty good position to defend itself. Taiwan currently the United States by the way is one of the provisions of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act which established this bizarro world that exists between the United States and Taiwan is that the United States must sell weapons to Taiwan and Taiwan fields the F-16 they're probably going to be looking to buy the F-35 if we can make that happen if they can make that happen through Congress and those of you who feel the Israeli lobby is strong wait until I figure out what the Taiwan lobbyists are capable of. They also have currently have the harpoon missile which has a 60 the basic 60 mile radius meaning that they could hit the the Chinese ships almost as they're leaving harbor the Taiwan people are also developing their own anti ship missile that will have a range of well over 100 miles which means they can launch the missile from the other side of the island and hit the Chinese ships in port. An invasion something like this is so improbable if you're talking about the estimates and I'm quoting from the the Pentagon's annual China military power report talking about something like 10 times the number of men who were landed at Normandy would be needed here here looking at such an improbable situation that I'm not going to answer your question any further Joe you want to comment if if this event were to occur it would probably be too late to do anything about it which is why I am so interested in the strategy of deterrence I want to say for the fifth time yet I am what I'm talking about tonight is not war it's war prevention uh and we have to acknowledge the fact that China has some some strategic advantages in the region that the United States despite its best efforts cannot replicate as every military strategist going back for thousands of years will tell you geography matters and you know the the problems of American force projection you know across thousands of miles uh dwarf the sorts of difficulties that the Chinese would have and so deciding to go to war is not it can be in part a moral question but it's also a very practical question of but going to war when you start out at a systemic disadvantage is something that is pretty hard to justify it would it would depend on the facts of the case but I'm tempted to end where I began that is if war were to break out tonight it would be much too late to do anything about it unless and I'm not recommending this unless we're willing to go all the way up the escalation ladder yes I am not willing to do that in the same way that I am not willing to go up the escalation ladder with with regard to Ukraine uh and if Vladimir Putin is serious I hope to God he isn't you know about rattling the nuclear saber uh then he has what the experts call threat dominance that is he's willing to do something the other side namely us isn't and therefore he wins in the long run next question hi hi my questions hi my questions mostly for William and but Peter if you want a comment I'd be interested to hear your comment too we hear a lot about deterring China but I'm also curious how much we need to deter Taiwan from declaring independence and if something like um getting serious about giving Taiwan really strong defense capabilities would make it more likely for them to declare independence because they might think they could fight off a Chinese invasion and what the risks are there Bill he wants you to answer first so go ahead Bill Galston uh now I do not want to contradict myself and therefore I will not say that it's that because it would be irrational for the Taiwanese to declare independence therefore they never would they might but my interpretation of the past three decades of political history in Taiwan is that they've come to understand pretty well the downside of declaring independence and the upside of preserving this somewhat ambiguous diplomatic and international status I suspect that if the Taiwanese declared independence it would be over American protests I bet on that which is not the way you want to take a step that the other side namely China will regard as something between a provocation and the crossing of a red line that justifies a military response I absolutely agree when I was in in Taiwan AIT we practiced what we called among ourselves rhetoric management to make sure that the words that were coming out of our colleagues on the Taiwan side were not inching closer and closer to these red lines and I think every politician every media person in Taiwan understands that speaking openly of independence would be the equivalent of I don't know the president of the United States using the N word on on on TV it is just that level of understanding that I don't think you'll ever see that happen next question in recent events I think if you think of China you think of Hong Kong and the suppression there and also the treatment of the Uyghurs internally that might just be availability bias but I would ask each of you do those events in recent history change how you think about this issue or the likelihood that they would indeed China is not a democracy nobody's pretending that that it is I cut off my great ponytail a long time ago China will exercise its power in Hong Kong the same way it exercises it in Shanghai or in Tiananmen Square and so the things you're talking about are not surprising at all to say though that somehow that leads to an invasion of Taiwan with all the consequences we've talked about I don't see that connection happen I know there is something of a disagreement on stage about the weight to be placed on statements by President Xi but in a speech that he gave last year before certain unfortunate events in Hong Kong he said that if there were a reunification of Taiwan and the mainland it would be under the principle of one nation two systems I believe we've heard that before and I do think that at the very least what has happened in Hong Kong is relevant to the question of how seriously we should take that sort of promise which in my judgment is not at all the Chinese Communist Party is not prepared to tolerate any alternative to itself and we shouldn't fool ourselves about that oh come in questions for Professor Galston you advocate for preemptively arming Taiwan as a means to potentially deter however it seems to me in the wake of Ukraine war US and NATO has already sent the signal to strong men that in the States we will step up provide arms for sanctions so given that why another very good question I have to commend the SOHO forum you know I can assure you I am the sole democrat writing a weekly column for the wall street journal and I just wish my incoming from that gig were anything like the quality of the questions tonight I really do so also agreed yeah uh you've given one plausible interpretation of recent events it's not an interpretation that I share or that is widely shared I think the signal the signal we sent was that we weren't prepared to do what was necessary you know to try you know to do everything we could to deter the Russian invasion before it came we had a lot of warning right we had events in Georgia we had the seizure of Crimea Crimea we had the famous little green men invasion of the Donbas and we did next to nothing in response and I think that Mr. Putin drew some conclusions from that that you know that may have encouraged him to do what he did it is also the case that until time was very short we did something to help the Ukrainians defend themselves but much less than we now have to do because we're racing to catch up after the fact because we didn't do what we should have done a long time ago and really give them a credible defense deterrent which they lacked and they've done amazingly well given what they had to work with but imagine how much better they will be able to do if they had prepositioned military stockpiles which we could have given them comment from you Peter okay yeah next question I agree with Peter that it's absolutely impossible to invade the Taiwan by ambition by amphibious assault now most of us are aware of what's going on in China they're having a housing bubble that's going to burst ever grand 300 billion dollars in debt they're going to default high-speed transit completely overbuilt their show projects they're losing 400 million 400 billion excuse me rumored by each every day they're also defaulting 300 million people are unemployed that's like the entire united states are employed and they have these crazy zero covid lockdowns and Shanghai people are protesting and and and even riding it's a good thing ccp has strict gun control laws now given these concerns can i ally your fear that Xi Jinping is only having political theater with his religion talks besides he's also getting of being voted in a near sometimes there's a question in the sr yes you can i can i ally your fears for this for this knowledge oh yes i think those are good points okay yeah well okay thank you and i uh bill you want to comment or you want uh i guess this will count as a point of disagreement uh because you did not you did not allay my fears uh among other things dictators who have problems at home frequently turn to oversee oversee events and adventures in order to change the subject and to rally the rally the population and so the fact that the chinese may and i underscore may be running into economic difficulty although i can tell you economists are disagreeing on that score uh i think is not a not a reason to discount the possibility of military adventurism i would only suggest that committing economic suicide over an invasion of taiwan is a very poor answer to economic problems at home well uh i didn't i didn't say it was an answer to the economic problems i said that it could be part of an answer political answer to the political problems that flow from economic problems that would exclude the fact that it would cause economic a version of economic suicide number one and number two it assumes that the excursion into taiwan works that the chinese pla is not defeated on the beaches that she is able to retain power after a failed invasion so i think it's just too risky now okay okay even strike west is a difference okay i i'm i'm afraid we're out of time for the questions uh both gentlemen will be coming to the party afterwards so you can call them then we we want to go to the summation portion of the evening uh thanks for all your very good questions bill gallston you have five minutes to summarize do you want to take the podium to summarize if you want to do it from there i can i can do it from here i can do it from here i think that will save a little bit of time quiet yeah i just i i'm not going to take five minutes because i think the principal lines of disagreement have become quite clear uh i want to stress now for the sixth time uh that the proposition on the table is not about starting the war starting the war it's about preventing one that's what deterrence means and deterrence doesn't mean certainty what it means is planting uh what it means is planting a doubt in the minds of potential aggressor of sufficient magnitude to influence that aggressor's potential aggressor's judgment that is the kind of deterrence that i'm talking about i am not talking about a radical change in american policy such as the abandonment of the policy of strategic ambiguity uh i am however arguing that what may very well be economically irrational could have a political rationale sufficiently weighty to override the economic downside which could be a temporary economic downside or potentially a more than temporary or should i say more than transitory uh economic downside i believe that we can do this uh at a relatively modest cost not nothing but it would represent an investment in maintaining peace that would be much much smaller than the costs of failing to maintain the peace unless you believe that the united states should simply retreat from the alliances in asia that we have created since since the end of the second world war and tell our erstwhile friends that they are now on their own i know that may be attractive in principle to some people of a libertarian caste of mind i think in practice you would not like the world that that act or anything like it would create i realize that that principle is not on the table but i suspect the idea that it's always presumptively unreasonable for the united states to take a forward leaning position in the world is part of the mindset of many of the people who have already cast one vote and we're about to cast a second one and i'd ask you to interrogate that proposition to ask yourself in reality is it always the case that creating alliances including alliances we are whether we where we are bound either legally or morally to come to the aid of other nations is necessarily a bad thing all things considered my answer to that proposition is no it isn't i think the world today is better because of some fundamental decisions that the united states made in the wake of world war two that we were not going to do what we did after world war one namely say okay the war's over let us come home lock stock and barrel and yes we'll be active in the diplomatic sphere but we will send a signal to the rest of the world that you're on its own and if there's some big bad guys you're going to have to do the best you can without us i do not think that that is a strategy that will make for a better or a more peaceful world all things considered i have a minute left but i think i have said what i have to say and so i yield back the balance of my time okay thank you would you like to take the podium uh peter i'll just okay okay an invasion of taiwan would leave china politically isolated economically damaged reputationally crippled and ironically if the attack fails it would probably bring down the shi government if not the entire government of the prc and ironically clear the way for taiwan to declare its independence there is simply no risk-gain calculation that says china will attack taiwan and therefore no need to risk the idea of whatever we consider deterrent slipping over into provocation my great fear is that there are people in the united states and this is not including professor gallstone who's given a very rational argument but people in the united states now that are trying to prepare the way for a bench clearing eagle versus dragon situation if not for the kinetics of it but simply to incur an arms race that will profit people and through that i fear that even rational arguments for deterrence as we've heard tonight um are feeding the fire that will ultimately risk our conclusions in asia that we don't dare think of i yield the rest of my time to either questions or to wrap up the presentation okay they both yield their time and it's time to reopen the voting jane uh yes no or undecided on the resolution the u.s should use its military power to deter china from invading taiwan the the uh the resolution uh yes china should out uh should use its military power to deter china from from invading taiwan it picked up 17 percent of the vote you went from yes 25 percent to 42 percent uh bill so that's 17 percent pick up in the vote that's the number to be uh uh peter you picked up votes but not quite as many went from 40 to 41 percent so uh the resolution carries bill uh galston carries the day and here is your uh uh your your that that was a tissue well congratulations to you both


Yo, what's up guys, Realistic Gaming here. So, mob games, the creators of Poppy Playtime have actually released another Poppy Playtime Chapter 2, Mommy Long Legs commercial, and it's a VHS. So, we're gonna react to this real quick and see what's up, because we just can't wait for Chapter 2 to come out, because if you play Chapter 1, it was freaking awesome, right? So, let's go ahead and see what this trailer is all about.  Oh. What the heck? Is it a wakeup? Oh, Mommy Long Legs. Yeah, it looks like it's pretty much a dope toy. You can stretch the heck out of it. You can stretch, pull, and twist Mommy Long Legs in the craziest way. Kinda thick though. She loves watching you play. When you're having fun, she's having fun. The new Mommy Long Legs from Playtime Co. Why does it keep saying wake up? What's the time? Okay, this just got evil. What the heck? That was a factory, the toy factory from Chapter 1. Oh, what the heck? That's Mommy Long Legs. Oh, no, that's- That's- I forgot a name. What's her freaking name? The doll. I forgot the doll's name. How can I forget it? Poppy, there you go. Duh. Okay, Poppy Playtime Chapter 2. Not available for a wishlist thing non-steam. Really? Are you lying, mob games? Okay, so you can actually wishlist the game. All right, so let's go over here. Get Chapter 1 here. It says you can wishlist it. Um, I don't think you actually can. Hold on, let's see. Really sorry, guys. There was an error with the timing of publishing this video. Chapter 2 is not available for wishlisting at the moment, but will be in a few days. We submitted it to Steam, but it's still publishing. Sorry for the delay. It will be- It will be available for wishlisting very soon. Okay, so they're having trouble with uploading the game to Steam and for us to be able to grab it on our wishlist.  It looks freaking awesome. It's scary. I can't wait to beat Mommy Long Legs, but because we already defeated Huggy Wuggy, and she's next, bro. She's next. She got it coming. She didn't know what's coming for her. All right, you guys, well, there you have it. Poppy Playtime Chapter 2, and we still don't have an initial release date, which is kind of a bummer. Hey, but at least it's coming soon, right? That's the most important part. And yeah, thanks for watching.