Speaker 1: Good morning, Keeps, and welcome to wok F Daily with
Speaker 1: me your girl Danielle Moody recording from the Home Bunker.
Speaker 1: Both Happy Monday. It is a good day. I will
Speaker 1: say this. Headed it to the weekend feeling really great
Speaker 1: following Joe Biden's State of the Union, So I wanted
Speaker 1: to start out today with giving you my thoughts on
Speaker 1: how the State of the Union shaped up. So first off,
Speaker 1: you know, I will say that Joe Biden fucking delivered.
Speaker 1: And you know that I am somebody who does not
Speaker 1: mince words when it comes to my critique of the
Speaker 1: Biden administration of Joe Biden, and I will tell you
Speaker 1: that the State of the Union was a slam fucking
Speaker 1: dunk one because the expectations are set so low. The
Speaker 1: Right has done such a great job of creating this
Speaker 1: false narrative around sleepy Joe and unprepared Joe and stumbling
Speaker 1: Joe that all he has to do is, you know,
Speaker 1: come with some fire, and he came with so much fire.
Speaker 1: Now these motherfuckers are out here talking about, oh, he's
Speaker 1: on adderall, Oh he's on some cocktail of drugs. Nah,
Speaker 1: my friends, because the only person that was doing a
Speaker 1: bunch of cocktails and drugs was in the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: and that is by reporting from inside of that administration
Speaker 1: about how you know, the adderall the coke, and all
Speaker 1: of those other things just flowed like a river. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden came with it. He started out talking about democracy,
Speaker 1: talking about freedoms. He came for the Supreme Court directly,
Speaker 1: which no president has ever done, and rightfully fucking sew
Speaker 1: because their numbers not like they give a shit because
Speaker 1: they have a job for life, so what do they
Speaker 1: care what people think about them? But their poll numbers
Speaker 1: are in the fucking garbage right, just like the decisions
Speaker 1: that they have made. And he came for them directly
Speaker 1: and said that you overturned Roe v. Wade, But you
Speaker 1: know what, the women who have political power and are
Speaker 1: more than half of this electorate, they will have their
Speaker 1: voices heard. He came directly for Republicans. And I loved
Speaker 1: the fact. I love the fact that he kept referring
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump throughout his entire speech as his predecessor
Speaker 1: and said that his predecessor and people inside of this
Speaker 1: chamber right with everything that he said, because no, let's
Speaker 1: not get it twisted. It is not just Donald Trump
Speaker 1: that is trump Ism. It is all of them that
Speaker 1: are inside of that chamber that could not possibly find
Speaker 1: a moment within them to cheer for clean water, to
Speaker 1: cheer for lower drug prescription prices, to cheer for lower
Speaker 1: taxes for the working class right, to cheer for vaccinations
Speaker 1: that you know, had Americans stop dropping dead from COVID,
Speaker 1: like when you looked at the split screen. In terms
Speaker 1: of what Joe Biden was delivering, the applause that was
Speaker 1: coming out of the Democrats, and the things that Republicans
Speaker 1: were sitting on their hands about, I mean, democracy progress.
Speaker 1: They couldn't even clap for fucking shrinkflation right and ending that.
Speaker 1: And you know, there are some folks that will say,
Speaker 1: you know, oh, they think that this is something small
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden to have been paying attention to the
Speaker 1: amount of chips in a bag. It is not small
Speaker 1: for the average American person that is trying to feed
Speaker 1: themselves in their fucking families. When you're going into stores
Speaker 1: and you're paying the same exact price but you were
Speaker 1: getting less, you are getting cheated, right. So, whether it's
Speaker 1: with the junk fies that everyone deals with with credit cards,
Speaker 1: whether it's with strinflation in terms of the packaging, right,
Speaker 1: This administration gives a shit about whether or not you're
Speaker 1: being cheated by corporations that are making record fucking profits.
Speaker 1: So it was very clear that Joe Biden was laying
Speaker 1: out the stark binary contrast between him and Democrats and
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and the Republican Party. And if you are
Speaker 1: a person that cares about bodily autonomy, about immigration, about
Speaker 1: the plight of the people in Palestine, about you know,
Speaker 1: the plight of the people in Ukraine, and whether or
Speaker 1: not Putin is going to be given a fucking red
Speaker 1: carpet and say do whatever the hell you want. Right,
Speaker 1: you have nations joining NATO because of the actions that
Speaker 1: Putin has taken and because of the fear that they
Speaker 1: have of another Trump administration and losing the United States
Speaker 1: is an ally. So for me, Joe Biden delivered on
Speaker 1: every single point that he needed to deliver on, and
Speaker 1: he did it with fire. And he also did it
Speaker 1: in a way that wasn't scripted, because he went off
Speaker 1: script a number of times. And that was also brilliant
Speaker 1: because you know what that shows mental agility, which is
Speaker 1: what we know Donald Trump does not fucking have. So
Speaker 1: bravo to Biden to the team, because it gave me
Speaker 1: the energy that I have been missing, the ability to
Speaker 1: go out right not only on these shows but on
Speaker 1: TV to say this is the candidate that we need. Look, folks,
Speaker 1: I know where we are in terms of the humanitarian
Speaker 1: crisis in Gaza. I also know that if Donald Trump
Speaker 1: becomes president, they will bulldoze what is left of God
Speaker 1: and what is left of the Palestinian people, and there
Speaker 1: will be no hope for them whatsoever. So while the
Speaker 1: situation is absolutely bleak and you will never hear me
Speaker 1: minimize it, and I speak out on it all the time,
Speaker 1: the situation as it pertains to our democracy and holding
Speaker 1: on to it right just got a renewed vitality that
Speaker 1: it has needed. I think that the American people know
Speaker 1: what is at stake and are ready right to exercise
Speaker 1: their power and their vote. Now, let me take a
Speaker 1: moment and talk about the Stepford fucking wife that they
Speaker 1: put up to give the rebuttal Dear God, this is
Speaker 1: what the Republican people think about women. And I don't
Speaker 1: want folks to get all caught up in like the
Speaker 1: joking about this Stepford wife Katie Britt. But the reality
Speaker 1: is is that this is what the feminization of white
Speaker 1: supremacy looks like. Like they offer up their toxic strong man, right,
Speaker 1: and then they offer up their small soft right like
Speaker 1: meager woman, and this is the destructive pair in America.
Speaker 1: She was giving off a clarion call to white suburban
Speaker 1: women and say, don't you want this nice kitchen, this
Speaker 1: diamond cross, right, Just stand by your man and be
Speaker 1: a good wife. Right, don't seek too much, don't do
Speaker 1: too much, even though she is a senator, right, So
Speaker 1: I want folks to not get it lost on them
Speaker 1: what it is that the Republican Party is presenting and
Speaker 1: how it was that Joe Biden was able to respond.
Speaker 1: Coming up next in UH Today's episode is my interview
Speaker 1: with science journalists and the author of Countdown The Blinding
Speaker 1: Future of Nuclear Weapons, Sarah's Skulls. You know, often when
Speaker 1: we talk about nuclear weapons, we are talking about them
Speaker 1: in the past tense, right. We are talking about them
Speaker 1: as it pertains to the Cold War and World War.
Speaker 1: But we're not talking about what is being done right
Speaker 1: now in this country and in other countries, as we
Speaker 1: are still in the midst of an arms race, and
Speaker 1: so my conversation with Sarah, while terrifying, was also incredibly
Speaker 1: eye opening. And her book, Countdown the Blinding Future of
Speaker 1: Nuclear Weapons is out now, folks. I am very excited
Speaker 1: to welcome to WOKF Daily for the very first time
Speaker 1: the author of the book Countdown the Blinding Future of
Speaker 1: Nuclear Weapons, Sarah Skulls, who is a science journalist. And
Speaker 1: in this book, you are talking, Sarah about nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: And I think that what is interesting is that oftentimes
Speaker 1: when we talk about nuclear weapons, we go back in time. Right,
Speaker 1: we're talking about the Cold War, We're talking about dropping
Speaker 1: the bomb in World War Two. We're talking about these
Speaker 1: historic events. What we don't often talk about is the
Speaker 1: nuclear proliferation that is still happening today and how that
Speaker 1: is affecting our day to day lives. So, can you
Speaker 1: talk to us about why you decided to write this
Speaker 1: book and why it's important for us to pay attention?
Speaker 1: I mean, are we in the midst of a countdown
Speaker 1: like the title of your book suggest.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean those are all great questions, and they
Speaker 2: are the questions that ultimately led me to write the book.
Speaker 2: You know, I think I largely grew up or was
Speaker 2: mostly a conscious being after the Cold War, and so
Speaker 2: I think people who are a little bit older, you know,
Speaker 2: were part of that nuclear past and thought about the
Speaker 2: threat of nuclear war a lot more. And then nuclear
Speaker 2: weapons seem to kind of just recede into the background
Speaker 2: in our minds and in terms of like the kinds
Speaker 2: of policies that we talk about. But you know, they
Speaker 2: never went away. We still have thousands of them in
Speaker 2: the United States, and there are thousands more across the world.
Speaker 2: And yeah, I just thought, you know, we don't talk
Speaker 2: about them, but they still kind of underlie every interaction
Speaker 2: that any nuclear country has with each other, like they're
Speaker 2: still a part of the negotiations, whether we're talking about
Speaker 2: them or not. And in my early reporting, I found
Speaker 2: out that the US is embarking on a very large
Speaker 2: and very expensive modernization of nuclear weapons, and so I thought,
Speaker 2: you know, if we're doing all of that buy into
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons, they're probably not going anywhere. They're probably only
Speaker 2: going to become more important, and we should probably start
Speaker 2: talking about them in the present tense and not just
Speaker 2: the past tense, like you were saying.
Speaker 1: I think that what makes me really nervous, And I
Speaker 1: think that why your book is important. What makes me
Speaker 1: nervous is that in some way, nuclear weapons have been
Speaker 1: the kind of I don't know, horror movie scare tactic
Speaker 1: type of you know, they'll drop the bomb on us
Speaker 1: finger on the red button, that it almost seems kind
Speaker 1: of talked about in almost a very cartoon villain type
Speaker 1: of way. And yet we don't really in this country,
Speaker 1: for instance, talk about our history of destroying an entire city,
Speaker 1: right like of the lives lost, and like the people
Speaker 1: of Japan have a very different relationship and ship with
Speaker 1: nuclear history and how that is still very much a
Speaker 1: part of their present right again, Chernobyl nuclear plant. Like
Speaker 1: we talk about these things in these horrific kind of
Speaker 1: accidents or intentional damage that is caused, But I don't
Speaker 1: feel like in this country in particular, that we have
Speaker 1: a necessary grip on what it means to continue in
Speaker 1: arms race, but do so kind of under the radar.
Speaker 1: So like, I guess my question for you is talk
Speaker 1: to me about the investments that are being made by
Speaker 1: this country and what that signals to you, Right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think in this country they have become kind of,
Speaker 2: like like you said, an abstract kind of nightmare boogeyman,
Speaker 2: even though we the US, are the only ones who
Speaker 2: have ever dropped one on other people in anger and
Speaker 2: killed a lot of them and harmed a lot more
Speaker 2: people for a long time. And so I think, you know,
Speaker 2: the investment that we're making right now is between one
Speaker 2: and two trillion dollars probably closer to two over the
Speaker 2: course of thirty years to update these weapons that are,
Speaker 2: you know, on the scale of decades old. And what
Speaker 2: that says to me, I think is they are not
Speaker 2: going to be decreasing in importance. I think after the
Speaker 2: Cold War people thought, you know, we had this one
Speaker 2: on one conflict with the Soviet Union, and now that
Speaker 2: that has gone, they will kind of go into the background.
Speaker 2: But you don't update something that you don't plan to,
Speaker 2: you know, have be an important partner of your country,
Speaker 2: especially not to the tune of two trillion dollars. And
Speaker 2: I think we are doing that in part because the
Speaker 2: weapons are old, and also in part because other countries
Speaker 2: are doing it too, and so it does seem to
Speaker 2: me like a resurgence of the importance of nuclear weapons
Speaker 2: in the world. And so then of course when they're
Speaker 2: more important, there's more of a threat there is this
Speaker 2: sort of countdown doomsday clock sort of thing that you
Speaker 2: were mentioning.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because I mean, you know, it was the and
Speaker 1: I forget I believe it's like the atomic researchers who
Speaker 1: created this doomsday clock and said that we are the
Speaker 1: closest to midnight that we have ever been, you know,
Speaker 1: in this point in our history. And you know, and
Speaker 1: what that means is this idea that the world is
Speaker 1: in such a place of unease and instability and that
Speaker 1: we're seeing these powers that we thought were long gone
Speaker 1: return in a way that we haven't seen since the
Speaker 1: Cold War. And so you know, when I look at
Speaker 1: the Russian president Vladimir Putin the invasion of Ukraine and
Speaker 1: one of the first things that they did was seize
Speaker 1: the nuclear power plant there right, Like that to me
Speaker 1: is like you're making it very clear and known what
Speaker 1: you're going after. This is the largest nuclear power plant
Speaker 1: in that part of the world, right, And so when
Speaker 1: you saw that happen, and like the rest of us, again,
Speaker 1: do you think that we are talking about it in
Speaker 1: the media, talking about it in a way that makes
Speaker 1: it readily understandable and also the consequences readily digestible.
Speaker 2: I think, you know, I think that you know, regarding
Speaker 2: the attack on the power plant, that you know, nuclear
Speaker 2: things have this kind of cultural fear that other weapons
Speaker 2: and things don't be, you know, because they are worse
Speaker 2: in different ways. There's radiation, it's more long lasting. You know,
Speaker 2: you drop a regular bomb and there's a lot of
Speaker 2: devastation there, but it doesn't last in the same way,
Speaker 2: and its effects aren't kind of invisible in the way
Speaker 2: that you know, the radiation and fallow from a bomb are.
Speaker 2: And so I think that doing something like attacking a
Speaker 2: nuclear power plant, even if that's not dropping a nuclear weapon,
Speaker 2: does call up those like very reasonable fears you know
Speaker 2: that I also have. But at the same time, you're right,
Speaker 2: we kind of talk about it at a high level,
Speaker 2: talk about it in abstractions, and don't really get down
Speaker 2: to the human cost of what happens if there is,
Speaker 2: you know, another nuclear accident, in nuclear attack or a
Speaker 2: straight up dropping of a nuclear weapon. And I think
Speaker 2: that you know, so much information about nuclear weapons and
Speaker 2: what's going on is classified or at least not you know,
Speaker 2: talked about out in the open, that it's really hard
Speaker 2: for people who are not a part of that world
Speaker 2: to even get a sense of what's going on at all.
Speaker 1: What surprised you the most in your research for this book.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think what surprised me the most was kind
Speaker 2: of on the human side of the people who actually
Speaker 2: work within the nuclear world in the United States, and
Speaker 2: this is that a lot of them are actually pretty
Speaker 2: peaceful people who would prefer that there were no nuclear
Speaker 2: weapons on the planet, and in various ways see their
Speaker 2: own work as working towards that goal. Like maybe some
Speaker 2: of them work on, you know, maintaining the nuclear weapons
Speaker 2: in the United States so that you know, they don't
Speaker 2: have an accident, or they don't degrade in a dangerous way,
Speaker 2: or they deter conflict in some way. And then there
Speaker 2: are other people who work on you know, non non proliferation,
Speaker 2: the flip side of proliferation, of making sure there are
Speaker 2: fewer nuclear weapons as we go forward and you know,
Speaker 2: no new nuclear tests and things like that. And so
Speaker 2: it surprised me that there were people working within the
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons complex who you know, want to move the
Speaker 2: direction of eventually you know, eliminating that complex altogether.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess that is incredibly surprising because but you know,
Speaker 1: at the same time, I think that people that are
Speaker 1: that are scientists. Their whole work is about discovery, right
Speaker 1: and testing hypotheses. Like I don't think that that they're
Speaker 1: you know, like they're not like kill amongers that are
Speaker 1: a part of you know what I'm saying, that are
Speaker 1: a part of that field, like in that way, like
Speaker 1: you know, you know, let me not say that everybody
Speaker 1: is like a peacemaker. But I think that what we believe,
Speaker 1: like the people that create these things are not the
Speaker 1: people that are creating the strategy of how to use them.
Speaker 1: And I think that that is kind of the differentiator,
Speaker 1: is that you need scientists and chemists and all of
Speaker 1: these things in order to create something like this, but
Speaker 1: it is actually the military and the folks that are
Speaker 1: creating the strategy that causes the devastation. Right, If the
Speaker 1: United States, though in your opinion, were not to invest
Speaker 1: two trillion dollars over thirty years that you know, could
Speaker 1: go to a myriad of things that are actually helpful.
Speaker 1: If they decided to lay down their you know, their
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons. Do you think that other countries would, like
Speaker 1: we have tried, you know, or maybe they haven't really
Speaker 1: tried actually, you know, over the decades to have a
Speaker 1: reverse proliferation where we're having serious conversations about trying to
Speaker 1: deter this type of creation.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, I mean, there have been some success in
Speaker 2: decreasing the total number of nuclear weapons in the world,
Speaker 2: like there used to be. I believe the number is
Speaker 2: seventy thousand, which is an incredible number of nuclear weapons,
Speaker 2: and now there's around thirteen thousand, so that's a lot lower,
Speaker 2: still quite a few, still more than most people would like,
Speaker 2: I think, And those agreements in those decreases in the
Speaker 2: number of weapons have usually come because the countries that
Speaker 2: have them both agree at the same time, like, we
Speaker 2: will decrease our number of weapons or our capabilities in
Speaker 2: the same way so that no one's like got a
Speaker 2: one up on somebody else. And so I think I
Speaker 2: think it's unlikely that the US would ever kind of
Speaker 2: unilaterally say we're going to put these things away. And
Speaker 2: if they did, I you know, I can't see the future,
Speaker 2: but I would guess that at least at least one
Speaker 2: or two countries would see that as an opportunity to
Speaker 2: be on top rather than an opportunity to you know,
Speaker 2: disarm themselves. But there are paths forward that people like
Speaker 2: the Global Zero organization, which is a nuclear like get
Speaker 2: rid of them all organization have proposed? Are those kinds
Speaker 2: of things, like we all agree at the same time,
Speaker 2: here's how we're going to decrease things. These are the
Speaker 2: agreements we're going to make to not use them until
Speaker 2: eventually you get to zero. And so I think that's
Speaker 2: the more likely path forward in that direction.
Speaker 1: I mean, I wonder, do you ever think that we
Speaker 1: will live inside of a world that has zero nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2: I've been so steeped in the world of nuclear weapons
Speaker 2: for the past few years that they now just seem
Speaker 2: like such an integral part of modern life that it's
Speaker 2: hard for me to see a way that that works
Speaker 2: in the near future. But I think that is probably
Speaker 2: or definitely a better and safer direction for the world
Speaker 2: to go eventually. But I think there's a lot of
Speaker 2: steps and time on the way there that are unclear,
Speaker 2: probably to the leaders of every country.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you this too, you know, just as
Speaker 1: this thought came into my mind, which is that kind
Speaker 1: of going back to the Hollywood cartoon type of ideas
Speaker 1: around nuclear weapons, is that World War three has been
Speaker 1: said to be the end of civilization as we know it.
Speaker 1: If everyone were to just drop their bombs. What are
Speaker 1: your thoughts about that? And also like the reality of
Speaker 1: something like that happening.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of the experts
Speaker 2: I talked to. You know, usually when you talk to
Speaker 2: experts in a topic, they'll kind of take the hype
Speaker 2: down a notch and make you maybe a little a
Speaker 2: little less scared of some than you were before. But
Speaker 2: it was interesting talking to nuclear weapons policy experts who
Speaker 2: are as much or if not more afraid of, you know,
Speaker 2: a nuclear conflict than the average person who doesn't work
Speaker 2: in that field is, which is kind of disturbing. And
Speaker 2: so I think, I mean, I like to think that
Speaker 2: like let's say, you know, one country drops a nuclear weapon,
Speaker 2: another retaliates, that we could kind of come together as
Speaker 2: a world and be like, we don't want this to
Speaker 2: escalate further, like we did it and we need to
Speaker 2: stop it, and it's tracks now before you know, everyone
Speaker 2: is dead or you know, yeah, we set civilization back
Speaker 2: to zero. But yeah, I don't know how, yeah you
Speaker 2: go about that. It's a much more complicated nuclear world
Speaker 2: than it was in the Cold War, when you know,
Speaker 2: there were fewer countries with weapons. Yeah, lots of fewer motivations,
Speaker 2: fewer superpowers really, and so I think, yeah, I think
Speaker 2: it's just really complicated. And so I think the experts
Speaker 2: I've spoken to say that, you know, the nuclear danger
Speaker 2: we're in right now is the same, if not higher,
Speaker 2: than it was during the height of the Cold War,
Speaker 2: and it is a much more complicated world. So I
Speaker 2: don't know that anyone knows what that looks like, but
Speaker 2: I would personally not like to have a World War three.
Speaker 2: I imagine you wouldn't either.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just I guess what just scared this shit
Speaker 1: out of me is the fact that the experts that
Speaker 1: you talked to you, we're not trying to take you
Speaker 1: off the cliff. They were not trying to talk you down.
Speaker 1: So that doesn't feel comforting at all. Actually, that feels
Speaker 1: really alarming.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I feel like having so much information can just
Speaker 1: keep you absolutely on edge all the time. But I
Speaker 1: do honestly believe that people are not on edge enough
Speaker 1: right about the stakes at which we're playing with, you
Speaker 1: know what I'm saying, Like, I feel like, to your
Speaker 1: point about the Cold War, that the stakes are so
Speaker 1: much higher and the world is so much more complicated
Speaker 1: than it was then, and so to really have an
Speaker 1: understanding of what is going on and the risk of
Speaker 1: ignorance around it, I think is also really high. You know,
Speaker 1: last question for you, Sarah is that you know, you
Speaker 1: write this book and you cover these issues. What are
Speaker 1: your hopes for this book, for the information that you
Speaker 1: put out for people to walk away with after reading
Speaker 1: the Countdown?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I mean, I think my first hope was just
Speaker 2: to bring a lot of this information into a more
Speaker 2: public place than it was before, like that you know,
Speaker 2: the scientists who work at nuclear weapons labs, that the
Speaker 2: people working on policy, you know, they're not on soapboxes
Speaker 2: in general, out talking to to regular people. But this
Speaker 2: is stuff that affects all of us, and so I
Speaker 2: think all of us should have access to it. And
Speaker 2: so that was my first goal. And even though you
Speaker 2: know we're talking a lot about scary doomsday scenarios right now,
Speaker 2: I actually do hope that the book gives people some
Speaker 2: hope that there are people working to figure out how
Speaker 2: to make the world more stable, keep it stable, whether
Speaker 2: there are weapons or not, and like they definitely don't
Speaker 2: have it figured out yet, but they're very smart, very
Speaker 2: dedicated people trying to work in that direction, so hopefully
Speaker 2: it's a mix, a mix of nightmares and good dreams
Speaker 2: in the book.
Speaker 1: I think it's really extraordinary one to bring the concept
Speaker 1: and the reality of nuclear weapons into our present day reality.
Speaker 1: I think that, you know, again, the stakes are so
Speaker 1: extraordinarily high right now that people often are compartmentalizing what
Speaker 1: is happening and not really connecting the dots and really
Speaker 1: thinking about this is not the worst that things can be,
Speaker 1: do you know, And that that type of level of war,
Speaker 1: world War three, I think in a lot of ways
Speaker 1: would be the end, both you know, figuratively and literally
Speaker 1: just kind of people losing their minds. So I'm really
Speaker 1: appreciative to you for writing this book, folks. The book
Speaker 1: is called Countdown the Blinding Future of Nuclear Weapons. That
Speaker 1: is out now and I encourage everyone to get it
Speaker 1: and we will link to it in the show notes.
Speaker 1: But thank you so much, Sarah for making the time
Speaker 1: for WOKF but for honestly for writing this book and
Speaker 1: kind of raising an alarm that I don't think this
Speaker 1: alarm in particular that people are listening to. So really
Speaker 1: appreciate you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you for having me and for helping share
Speaker 2: the messages.
Speaker 1: That is it for me today. Dear friends on wok
Speaker 1: f as always power to the people and to all
Speaker 1: the people. Power, get woke and stay woke as fuck.