Speaker 1: When you're ready to ride Metro, we want you to
Speaker 1: know we're ready for you. Here are just a few
Speaker 1: of the people at Metro to tell you how we're
Speaker 1: doing our part to keep riders safe. We're cleaning like
Speaker 1: nevill before half build greatly. You've found has santizing station,
Speaker 1: no mask, no Metro need one. We have a few
Speaker 1: extras at Metro. We're doing our part to keep the
Speaker 1: DC area moving. Find out more at well mata dot
Speaker 1: com slash doing our part. How do terrible ideas get
Speaker 1: taken so seriously on college campuses? So I'm Strong and
Speaker 1: Getty extra large because four hours simply usn't enough. This
Speaker 1: is Armstrong and Getty extra Large. So freaking interesting. We've
Speaker 1: been fans of these people ever since the grievance studies
Speaker 1: thing hit last January. Yeah, the fake papers that they
Speaker 1: got into various journals. Peter Bogo and James Lindsay and
Speaker 1: how and pluck Rose. They made up just ridiculous crap.
Speaker 1: I mean ridiculous, no, as you say, nobody but an
Speaker 1: academic could believe it, but fall down funny crap and
Speaker 1: actually got them accepted into various peer review reviewed journals.
Speaker 1: And the fancy universities across the country. Peter Bogan wrote
Speaker 1: a piece for The Wall Street Journal recently, idea laundering
Speaker 1: an academia. Peter as an assistant professor of philosophy right
Speaker 1: in the belly of the Beast Portland State University. He's
Speaker 1: also the co author of a book, How to Have
Speaker 1: Impossible Conversations that we need to talk about at some
Speaker 1: point down the road, but probably not today. Peter Bagoan
Speaker 1: joins us, Peter, this is a real pleasure. We've been
Speaker 1: looking forward to talking to you for some time. I
Speaker 1: love talking to you, guys, I really do, and I
Speaker 1: sincerely appreciate your support because I can't do what what
Speaker 1: I do without without you. So thanks. Yeah, when the
Speaker 1: whole grievance studies story hit and we were just so
Speaker 1: taken with it and it's so exciting for everyone. And
Speaker 1: I've watched a ton of YouTube is with you and
Speaker 1: James Lindsay and that over the last year. So, but
Speaker 1: has any progress been made our universities better off than
Speaker 1: they were before you did this or that's a good question. No, no,
Speaker 1: no progress has been made. In fact, um, they've they've
Speaker 1: doubled down on their nonsense and there you go take
Speaker 1: scholarship and attempts to successful attempts to self credential. So
Speaker 1: the situation as I see it, has actually gotten worse
Speaker 1: inside the academy, But outside the academy with the Dave
Speaker 1: Chappelle comedy show or Bill Burr or certain cultural now
Speaker 1: they want to know a gender Santa claus Um. I
Speaker 1: think outside the academy you're seeing pushback, but withinside the
Speaker 1: academy that absolutely it's absolutely gotten worse. Well, and I'm
Speaker 1: sorry to hear that given the number of dollars American
Speaker 1: families are throwing it educating their young ones. Are you
Speaker 1: surprised to hear that? I'm not surprised at least. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is the same dynamic of power you seeing government
Speaker 1: and anywhere else where power and money are at stakes.
Speaker 1: Self policing rarely works. But I do love the idea,
Speaker 1: idea that more and more people are feeling um. I
Speaker 1: hate to use the term empowered because it's trade out
Speaker 1: of grieving studies, but they're they're they're feeling more empowered
Speaker 1: to call bullshit on this stuff and they realize, wait
Speaker 1: a minute, I'm not a bad person because I think
Speaker 1: this is goofy um this is goofy right. And not
Speaker 1: only that you're not a bad person because you're a male,
Speaker 1: you're also not a rapist because you're a male. You're
Speaker 1: not a bad person because you're white. You your your
Speaker 1: ancestral line has absolutely nothing to do with your decency
Speaker 1: and dignity as a person. So I think it was
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal that ran your piece about idea
Speaker 1: laundering where we explained that whole thing, And that's why
Speaker 1: we wanted to have you on today because I found
Speaker 1: it's fascinating because I've wondered all along, where do the
Speaker 1: stuff comes from? How did this stuff catch on? Can
Speaker 1: you explain idea laundering to us? Yeah, So think about
Speaker 1: it this way. This is how they get away with it.
Speaker 1: This is how they do it, and here's how they
Speaker 1: do it. To an example, let's say that you let's
Speaker 1: say the three of us have some kind of moral idea, like,
Speaker 1: let's just give me a moral idea like you know, um,
Speaker 1: I don't know, like yeah, it's wrong to steal or
Speaker 1: I was thinking like something contemporary political issues like you know, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, impeach Trump for moral senses. Okay, so we
Speaker 1: have an idea, you know, build a wall. Let's just
Speaker 1: use that one. We need to build a wall, or
Speaker 1: we build a wall, doesn't matter what it is. Okay,
Speaker 1: you have this strong moral urge, you feel something really
Speaker 1: strong in your heart. I have this strong moral urge.
Speaker 1: I'm in the academy. I'm a professor at university. We
Speaker 1: both know, we both hang out. Maybe we know each
Speaker 1: other from Twitter, or maybe we know each other. We
Speaker 1: a life for Facebook? What have you? So we we
Speaker 1: all you need a couple of other people have these
Speaker 1: strong moral urges. What we do is a result of that.
Speaker 1: Is I a could journal, and in that I call
Speaker 1: it the journal of you know, um some some fancy
Speaker 1: academic name. I take papers into my journal that pushed
Speaker 1: the narrative, whatever moral narrative I want to push. Stealing
Speaker 1: is wrong, stealing is right. We want to build a wall.
Speaker 1: Everybody should be polyamorous. Note it doesn't matter what it is.
Speaker 1: Am I clear? So far? Okay? Cool? We then published
Speaker 1: in this journal, my journal that I create. I we
Speaker 1: take those articles and I start teaching them to my students.
Speaker 1: So the idea, it's called ideal anders is Brett Wae
Speaker 1: and my friend Brett Weinstein's idea. He was the professor
Speaker 1: who was hunted at Evergreen. It comes in as an
Speaker 1: idea and it goes out as knowledge. So when you
Speaker 1: ask these people, well, how do you know that obesity
Speaker 1: is just a narrative? How do you know that there's
Speaker 1: white fragility and then all whites are racist? How do
Speaker 1: you know that whatever insane idea they want to put forth,
Speaker 1: how do you know there's no such a thing as
Speaker 1: biological sex. Well, it's in this journal, but the journal
Speaker 1: itself is bogus. So the whole journal is it's been fabricated.
Speaker 1: Whole clause. You have a bunch of ideologues who get together,
Speaker 1: who have a moral idea, make a journal, publishing the journal,
Speaker 1: and it comes out to the other end is knowledge,
Speaker 1: And I imagine it's chuck full of highly questionable research,
Speaker 1: generally not even questionable, totally fabricated. The whole thing is fact,
Speaker 1: the whole it's fabricated, whole cloth. It's no relationship to
Speaker 1: reality whatsoever. That's no scientific method, there's no control groups,
Speaker 1: there's no testing, there's literally nothing. So it's so it's purposeful.
Speaker 1: Then they make this stuff up because they're so certain
Speaker 1: of their moral belief that they're they're willing to make
Speaker 1: this up so that they can teach it. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: teaching straight out of this journal, right, this review journal, right,
Speaker 1: and but your pearents are all whack jobs like you,
Speaker 1: And it's it's even worse listening to you guys. You're
Speaker 1: just you really are such nice people, and we're talking
Speaker 1: about some really vile id logs here. So it's far
Speaker 1: worse than that characterization. So it's not only that. So
Speaker 1: the way that this game works, if you get seven
Speaker 1: papers in seven years, if you're on a tenor track,
Speaker 1: you you you received tenure. When you receive tenure, that's
Speaker 1: a job for life. So you have now fabricated a journal.
Speaker 1: It's totally until the to reality. You're teaching these things
Speaker 1: to students' knowledge. Those students are getting out and going
Speaker 1: to the workplace. They're going to Google, like what they
Speaker 1: did to the Google engineer James more famous from the
Speaker 1: now Google memo. They're going to Twitter and the ship
Speaker 1: shadow banning. They're going to YouTube and institute of trutionalizing
Speaker 1: them monetization. But even within the academy itself, they institute
Speaker 1: mechanisms to restrict speech right biased response teams. A student
Speaker 1: can anonymously be reported to over two hundred universities have
Speaker 1: biased response teams, divert offices of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Speaker 1: And these words don't mean what you think they mean.
Speaker 1: So they institutionalize these deranged ideas that they themselves have
Speaker 1: manufactured in journals which are completely unscientific. These are the
Speaker 1: ramblings of ideologues, and they point to all of this
Speaker 1: stuff as knowledge, and anybody who questions it is a
Speaker 1: racist or a bad person, or a homophobe or bigot. Well,
Speaker 1: and I'd imagine that each iteration of it, each layer
Speaker 1: of or every semester it's taught, adds to the credibility, right.
Speaker 1: And one of the things you mentioned in your article
Speaker 1: is building up over time, over decades or whatever, some
Speaker 1: of these whack job ideas. You know, you get more
Speaker 1: and more articles from multi generations that sign onto this
Speaker 1: crap that is absolutely correct, And that's how they manufacture
Speaker 1: a canon of knowledge. This is a completely pretend canon
Speaker 1: of knowledge. Well, and and honestly, what makes it so
Speaker 1: terrible and makes me so worried about it is that
Speaker 1: these ideologies, as you mentioned, are utterly repugnant. If you're
Speaker 1: a student of of global politics of history or whatever.
Speaker 1: You understand that inter ethnic, interracial, inter religious strife is
Speaker 1: the source of most of the horrors um, you know,
Speaker 1: putting aside communism, um of of the last several centuries.
Speaker 1: If you can whip up people to believe that the
Speaker 1: other is evil, which is what these people are doing
Speaker 1: all the time, I mean, the results are truly horrific. Right,
Speaker 1: and again you got your very nice people. It's not
Speaker 1: only that they're evil. Privilege is their original sin. But
Speaker 1: unlike original sin from which you can find redemption through
Speaker 1: the savior Jesus Christ, there is no redemption for these people.
Speaker 1: If you were born white and male and cists in
Speaker 1: hetero I would use a word or on the air
Speaker 1: beginning with f We can believe you are fucked. There's
Speaker 1: no redemption. That's it. Yeah, you're you're you're irrevocably stained,
Speaker 1: indelibly stained by your whiteness, your maleness, your privilege, your heterosexuality,
Speaker 1: and your sister genderness. That doesn't sound at all Nazi.
Speaker 1: So somebody, So somebody could start decades ago, you know,
Speaker 1: some something about white privilege and and start a journal
Speaker 1: and by now they're they're a senior member on whatever campus,
Speaker 1: and they're looked at the here's somebody for twenty five
Speaker 1: years has been doing research into this completely made up.
Speaker 1: It's been made up the entire time. And they're an expert.
Speaker 1: They're a quote unquote expert, and the media contact them
Speaker 1: and they teach students, and their students didn't go on
Speaker 1: at twenty five years. They go on to leadership positions
Speaker 1: and they sway the academy and they they're the ones
Speaker 1: that you hear what they're consulted. They're consulted for jury cases.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you this is a massive problem. And and
Speaker 1: the question becomes for the university system is my friend
Speaker 1: for Oisin said, if you're if you have a dog
Speaker 1: and your dog has rabies, that's not your dog anymore.
Speaker 1: If your dog has cancer, then you get the dog treated.
Speaker 1: Does the university system have rabies or does that have cancer? Interesting?
Speaker 1: And I think it at this point, the university system
Speaker 1: has rabies. It's irredeemable and nothing can be done about it.
Speaker 1: Are we're going to get worse? Am I correct that?
Speaker 1: And I'm thinking of um the recent move in the
Speaker 1: University California system that you must submit a statement of diversity,
Speaker 1: is that what it's called to get hired. I imagine
Speaker 1: hiring practices are highly tilted toward recruiting people who are
Speaker 1: going to tow the party line. Well yeah, okay, so
Speaker 1: this isn't another conversation. But you're absolutely correct diversity, equity
Speaker 1: and inclusion, and we should probably spell those words out
Speaker 1: at some point, but you have to hire a diversity
Speaker 1: statement moreover, and I published a using the Philosopher's magazine
Speaker 1: about this called deluded Departments. Here's how it works. One
Speaker 1: of the single greatest insights in all of critical thinking
Speaker 1: comes from the a man by the name of Dr
Speaker 1: Michael Shermer. Why does smart people believe weird things? Well,
Speaker 1: we've answered that question. Here's the answer to it. Because
Speaker 1: smart people are better at rationalizing bad ideas. In other words,
Speaker 1: the smarter you are, the better you are at justifying
Speaker 1: a bad conclusion, and then you convince yourself that it's true. Okay.
Speaker 1: That same mechanism operates when you have more people involved.
Speaker 1: So if you have ten people involved, they're better at
Speaker 1: rationalizing a bad idea. What we have now in the
Speaker 1: university system is we have entire university departments that are
Speaker 1: pumping out justifications complete nonsense. And those justifications are themselves
Speaker 1: based upon the literature that these people have fabricated. Well,
Speaker 1: and if it were merely that they were claiming dinosaurs
Speaker 1: were ancient giant people, I mean that would be idiotic
Speaker 1: and and and you know, uh, not temptable from an
Speaker 1: intellectual point of view. But the fact that they're pitching
Speaker 1: the most horrific sort of ideologies is Yeah, you talk
Speaker 1: about being fucked trum. I was watching a YouTube video
Speaker 1: with I think you and James Lindsay, or maybe it
Speaker 1: was just James talking about the whole critical race thing
Speaker 1: and how it's a no win situation and I worry
Speaker 1: about this raising I got a couple of young white boys,
Speaker 1: um where either you're you're a racist or you're anti
Speaker 1: racist in the in the new theory of things, either
Speaker 1: you're actively working either you admit your racist and you
Speaker 1: actively work toward being anti racist, which is defined it's
Speaker 1: undefined herble and defined by others. They will tell you
Speaker 1: what it means exactly. You can't ever win and that stuff.
Speaker 1: It makes my head want to explode, but it seems
Speaker 1: to actually be happening. Right. It's called a costa trap,
Speaker 1: and that is so this is the This is the
Speaker 1: way they view the world. We already know you're a racist,
Speaker 1: so you should just admit it and work toward it.
Speaker 1: And if you say no, I'm not a racist, they
Speaker 1: point to the fact that you said no, I'm not
Speaker 1: a racist as evidence that you're a racist. So there's
Speaker 1: literally nothing that you can do if you start with
Speaker 1: the idea that someone is a racist, no matter what
Speaker 1: they say has taken as evidence of their racism. You know,
Speaker 1: there's there's there's no redens. Let me just let me
Speaker 1: just go on some My daughter was adopted from China.
Speaker 1: We got her as a waiting child, which means she's disabled,
Speaker 1: and I'm not using that as a weapon or touting
Speaker 1: that around. That's not evidence that you're not a racist.
Speaker 1: If my wife were African Americans, she's not. But if
Speaker 1: you were, that would also not be evidence that you're not.
Speaker 1: There is no evidence that you can provide somebody that
Speaker 1: you're not a racist. These starting given is that you're
Speaker 1: a racist. How many people think like you on college
Speaker 1: campuses as opposed to the whack jobs. Who's winning this
Speaker 1: battle in terms of numbers? Yeah, that is a fantastic question.
Speaker 1: The part of the problem is We don't know. So
Speaker 1: we don't know because people are afraid to voice their
Speaker 1: actual opinions because if they voice their actual opinions, then
Speaker 1: the mob will come for them. And we have seen
Speaker 1: over and over and over again. You know, Laura Kitness
Speaker 1: writes some great stuff about how Title nine has been used.
Speaker 1: We don't really know how many people hate this. I
Speaker 1: mean people will come up to me and they'll whisper something,
Speaker 1: or I'll get emails. Think about this, just really think
Speaker 1: about this. I'll get emails anti Trump emails on p
Speaker 1: s U s UH University server. Now I should say
Speaker 1: I'm a liberal and I'm an atheist and I don't
Speaker 1: like Trump to say the least, But that is so inappropriate.
Speaker 1: It's beyond inappropriate to use university mechanisms to give political opinions.
Speaker 1: Here's the other thing these people have managed. And I
Speaker 1: know this is going to sound utterly crazy, but it's
Speaker 1: true and the evidence bears this out. First, they came
Speaker 1: to the conservatives. There's only one person at the entire
Speaker 1: unipruence a university who I know of who's a conservative.
Speaker 1: Now there may be others, but they're probably too terrified
Speaker 1: to speak out. There's one moderate and they've come for him.
Speaker 1: You should look Bruce Gilly up. He wrote the paper
Speaker 1: The Case for Colonialism, and they have been greefing him.
Speaker 1: He this is fascinating. He wanted to have a court.
Speaker 1: Now again, this is not a conservative, he's a centrist moderate.
Speaker 1: But for these people Stephen Pinker calls at the left
Speaker 1: pole if you're on the left, everybody the far left,
Speaker 1: everybody looks like they're on the right. So I, as
Speaker 1: a liberal atheist, look like I'm on the right. They
Speaker 1: think I'm on the far right. So this guy, Bruce
Speaker 1: gilly wanted a course in conservative political thought. The university
Speaker 1: denied it because they said there wasn't enough diversity in
Speaker 1: the course. So so they've come for him. The course
Speaker 1: on irony there at Portland State right now, they're coming
Speaker 1: for the liberals, right, So now they're coming for people
Speaker 1: like me because I am a show whatever they want
Speaker 1: to say. But the but here's the problem with this.
Speaker 1: Part of the problem is they have created this insane
Speaker 1: ecosystem where any time you want to voice, any time
Speaker 1: you even ask somebody for evidence, Hey, what's your evidence
Speaker 1: for that, that's construed as racist. Think about that. That's
Speaker 1: a micro asking someone for evidence as a microaggression. This
Speaker 1: is the exact opposite of what we should be doing
Speaker 1: in the university, because evidence and appealing to logic is
Speaker 1: white paternalism based traditional right, we're screaming away from the
Speaker 1: Enlightenment back towards somebody at the top gets to decide
Speaker 1: what's true and what's not exactly, and the idea is
Speaker 1: you can't disable the master's house with the master's tools. Reason, evidence,
Speaker 1: the scientific method. Those are all from white system, heterosexual males.
Speaker 1: Therefore they're tainted as evil. You know, that's why Hitler
Speaker 1: hated communism because Marx was a Jew. Right, this is
Speaker 1: the kind of the same thing that's employed, the same
Speaker 1: way of thinking that's in place. Wow, it's just it's
Speaker 1: so true bling. I mean, the idea, the ideology itself
Speaker 1: is incredibly troubling. The idea that young people at their
Speaker 1: most vulnerable, vulnerable are being indoctrinated into this is truly disgusting.
Speaker 1: I don't you know, I'm glad we have a voice
Speaker 1: and a and a reasonably you know, significant one. This
Speaker 1: is incredibly disturbing. Yeah, and I really this is the
Speaker 1: message I really want to get to people, and I
Speaker 1: hope that I articulate this to do you guys know
Speaker 1: what phrenology is? Yeah? I think so reading the lumps
Speaker 1: on people's heads is that what that is? Yeah? Okay,
Speaker 1: So let's say that these lunatics were had journals of phrenology.
Speaker 1: That's ideal laundering, right. They write about phrenology and they
Speaker 1: know it's true. They say, how do you know it's true?
Speaker 1: They point to all these articles in the Journal of Chronology,
Speaker 1: and then they start, you know, not only testing people's skulls,
Speaker 1: but they start assigning scholarships on the basis of the
Speaker 1: protrubances in your head, like, oh, this guy is a
Speaker 1: bump at L seven or whatever, you know, put him
Speaker 1: in engineering. Okay. So, if the people in power who
Speaker 1: are advocating phrenology are liberals, and I call out phrenology
Speaker 1: as not having enough evidence, that does not make me
Speaker 1: a conservative. That just makes me someone who doesn't think
Speaker 1: there's enough evidence to institutionalize and insane idea. If the
Speaker 1: people in power are conservatives and I call it out,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter their political orientation. They're peddling bad ideas.
Speaker 1: And this is not a matter of right or left
Speaker 1: or liberal or atheist. Or believer. It's none of that.
Speaker 1: This stuff is pure unadulterated bullshit, and their teaching as
Speaker 1: to kids as knowledge, and it's got to stop. To
Speaker 1: what extent does this sort of thing resemble a religious
Speaker 1: cult and it's norms and its enforcement mechanisms and the rest,
Speaker 1: it's a complete religious cult in James Lindsay and Helen
Speaker 1: clock Rose and I have written about that extensively. You know,
Speaker 1: they have the same mechanisms. Blasphemy is big in the
Speaker 1: religious space. They have the same mechanisms with political correctness.
Speaker 1: This case, however, they can actually enforce those mechanisms, enforce
Speaker 1: blasphemy or political correctness with the university mechanisms, and at
Speaker 1: some point, let's do let's do this. Let's okay. There
Speaker 1: are two things going on we haven't talked about, but
Speaker 1: I think are very important. One is, if you just
Speaker 1: think about this issue as a free speech issue, you're
Speaker 1: not understanding the whole thing. These people do not just
Speaker 1: want to take away your freedom of speech. This is
Speaker 1: an issue of cognitive liberty. They want you to think
Speaker 1: a very certain way, and if you don't do that,
Speaker 1: they will punish you. And when you understand the problem
Speaker 1: like that, you understand how unbelievably serious it is and
Speaker 1: why these ideologues have to be stopped. That's some damn
Speaker 1: interesting stuff. Man. Okay, what what was the second point
Speaker 1: you said? He had to Well, okay, yeah, I have
Speaker 1: to so you know, Okay, it's very complicated. What they've
Speaker 1: managed to do. Why this is so difficult is if
Speaker 1: I say the word to you social justice mostly of
Speaker 1: course on for sociive. Who isn't for social justice. It's
Speaker 1: like the word affirmative action. Of course I'm for affirmative action.
Speaker 1: Of course I'm for positive action. But the words don't
Speaker 1: mean what people think they mean. So when you say
Speaker 1: do you want you know, the big push on universities
Speaker 1: now is to have inclusion, right, And if you just
Speaker 1: look at the word inclusion, like, well, inclusion, who what
Speaker 1: kind of every same person should want inclusion? Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: every same person should want inclusion. If someone is a
Speaker 1: minority or sexual minority or transfer, of course they should
Speaker 1: be included in the conversation. Of course they should feel welcomed.
Speaker 1: But that's not what inclusion is. Okay, So inclusion means welcoming,
Speaker 1: all right, Just the definition of what does what does
Speaker 1: to include? Someone needs to make them feel welcome. But
Speaker 1: if somebody says something that could make someone feel unwelcome,
Speaker 1: then this space isn't inclusive anymore. So what we need
Speaker 1: to do is to restrict speech so that people won't
Speaker 1: say anything that makes other people feel unwelcome. So when
Speaker 1: you hear the word inclusion, what that should translate that
Speaker 1: in your head is restricted speech. That's what the word
Speaker 1: inclusion means. And that's another way to rob people of
Speaker 1: their cognitive liberty. Wow, wow, good stuff. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: I think the best thing we can do is to
Speaker 1: recommend folks, uh follow you and and James and Helen
Speaker 1: on the Twitter and read the stuff. You're right, and
Speaker 1: we'll certainly bring it to people's attention as it comes out.
Speaker 1: Keep fighting the good fighting. We'll stay in touch. I
Speaker 1: love watching the videos, I love reading your stuff. You know, well,
Speaker 1: thank you. We we appreciate your support. And what I
Speaker 1: said the beginning of the hours true, We're just we
Speaker 1: can't do that. I'm trying to fight a whole university system,
Speaker 1: and I'm trying to take on a system of indoctrination.
Speaker 1: And you know, most people they don't even know what
Speaker 1: a peer of you paper is and when I call
Speaker 1: out this nonsense, they come for me. So when I
Speaker 1: have the support of you guys, that's a huge deal.
Speaker 1: That that that makes it possible for me to fight
Speaker 1: keep fighting this fight. So I am incredibly grateful. We'll
Speaker 1: use us like garden tools, Peter, because we we believe
Speaker 1: that stuff and we're with you. Well, thank you. I
Speaker 1: sincerely appreciate that. It's always great to talk. Thanks a
Speaker 1: million extra large. When you're ready to ride Metro, we
Speaker 1: want you to know we're ready for you. Here are
Speaker 1: just a few of the people at Metro to tell
Speaker 1: you how we're doing our part to keep riders safe.
Speaker 1: We're cleaning like novel before, were half builded greatly. You're
Speaker 1: a found hair sanitizing no mask, no Metro need one.
Speaker 1: We have a few extras at Metro. We're doing our
Speaker 1: part to keep the DC area moving. Find out more
Speaker 1: at wilmata dot com slash doing our part