y. Insane. Like a kind of an open-mindedness that is just shocking in a good way. It's shockingly healthy to hear young people with not even a trace of what you would have considered I guess a normal amount of bigotry, use sexism, anti-whatever, anti-this, anti-that. It's really weird.

But at the same time the young people will talk quite bluntly about ethnicity. Like that's very much on the top of people's thoughts. You know this group and this. But it has more to do with cliques and who's friends with who. And it doesn't seem to be about race. It seems more about who's hanging out with who. But I'll tell you if you want to feel or see the future, if you want to see the future, you got to listen to kids talking candidly. It's pretty positive.

But here's the bigger question I have. Could you teach kids, if you get them young, to be politically independent? You could. But would we? Because you'd be taking away the parents' responsibility in some sense. Because you know you think the parents are the ones who should determine their opinions as opposed to the school. But I wonder if you couldn't teach young kids that blindly joining a political party and assuming that everything that one party says is right and everything the other party says is wrong, couldn't you teach them just that that's always wrong? Just to prepare them for the fact that the other side sometimes is right.

I feel as if you could prime them to make them a little bit more fluid in later life about whether they would cross-party lines or just be open-minded to stuff. So I know you couldn't teach a kid to be a Republican or a Democrat because that would be way over the line. But couldn't you teach them how to not fall into a team mentality? And you don't even have to mention which team you're talking about. Just don't make your decisions based on the team. That's it. I think you could if we get them young enough. And that seems like that would be valuable because most of our current problems are this team play stuff.

There was an article on February 21st in Wall Street Journal by Martin Kulldorff. Kulldorff seems to know what he's talking about from Johns Hopkins. So he's a medical professional from a credible place. And he's saying that in this article, it's now a few weeks old, that the number of COVID cases, how rapidly it dropped in January, can't be explained by the holiday traffic.

Now I had been saying, duh, infections are down because it's not Christmas anymore. And you could pretty much track the holidays or the spikes and then after the holidays things calm down. It's pretty universal. And so I thought it was pretty clear to me. It seemed, I could be wrong, but to me it seems really obvious that the traveling for the holidays is the big problem. And that when it's done you would get less of it. And it makes sense to me because I would think if I were to put the single biggest variable it would have to be the amount of time you spend indoors with bad ventilation.

So I'm not counting, let's say if you're in Africa or India you always have your windows open because it's always hot. So that's different. But if you're indoors with the windows closed it's how many people are coming in and out and are in close contact. It's probably just that, when I say just, is probably 60% of all infections or exactly that. Something that happens in your own house or in a house.

So I don't know how the holidays could not be the explanation of most of the dip. But his claim is that the only way to explain it would be if people have T-cell immunity from related coronaviruses maybe. Or there's way more infection so we have more herd immunity than we know. What do you think? Do you think that we can just look at this data? Can we just look at the curves and look at the data and make the conclusion that it's T-cell immunity?

I feel like that's a little too far. I feel like we don't have the data to say that that's the case. But his case is it's an argument by ruling out the other things. So can you rule out the most obvious thing which is that holiday travel brought people together who don't get together and put them indoors for a long period of time? So I'm going to say I don't buy it. I don't buy it.

I do buy the general notion that there might be more immunity in the public than we know and that it might be a pretty big variable. But I think the big dip had to be the holidays. I just feel that way. All right, we need more information.

So apparently some more rocket attacks are happening in Iraq on American military bases. And there was a contractor who died from a heart attack during an airstrike. So I don't know, was it the airstrike that killed him? I guess you could say so.

And here's the real question. So now that Biden had responded to the last attack by Iranian surrogates, is this Iran just seeing how far they can push Biden? Is that what's going on? Because if Iran is saying oh we'll just keep pushing, just keep pushing, would they have done this under Trump? Do you think that Iran would have attacked a second military base through a proxy, not directly? Do you think they would have approved that attack under Trump? I feel as if no. But you can't know, right?

But the thing that Trump had going for him is that he was less predictable. And I feel like we put Mr. Predictable into the office and Iran is just running with it because they can predict him. Maybe we'll see.

So I guess Governor Cuomo of New York was stripped of his emergency COVID powers. You know, just weeks before they would have expired anyway. Can New York get any dumber? I think New York is just, it seems to be setting new records for dumbness. Because I don't believe that the governor's emergency powers were really the problem here. Was anybody arguing, you know he did ask if he could kiss that woman two years ago so therefore he should not have emergency COVID powers?

What I feel like, New York is just shooting themselves in the foot because they're mad at their governor. Why would you want to take away his tools if you're keeping him in the job? Yeah we'd like you to still be in charge but could you do it with fewer tools? Well why would I do it with fewer tools? No reason. It's, you know, has something to do with a girl you tried to kiss. A woman you tried to kiss. So how does that make sense? It's just like New York proving how dumb they are no matter how mad you are at your governor.

All right, are you ready for the most controversial part of this Periscope? Are you ready? I'm going to bring up a topic you hate but I'm going to put a new twist on it so you should stay for the new twist. All right? Because it's even new for me.

There's a Rasmussen poll on what people think about transgender athletes. And specifically of course everybody's talking about transgender athletes playing women's sports. And we found that the majority of the public is against it. Majority of the public doesn't favor transgender being able to play on women's sports teams. And so we should go with the majority, right? What do you say? We live in a sort of a democracy-ish kind of a place. Should we go with the majority?

All right, well here's something that you could pull out of these numbers. The Rasmussen poll: women under 40, 57% favor transgender athletes playing female sports. So the category of people who are most directly affected, besides the athletes, the transgender athletes themselves, are women under 40. Because they would be the ones on professional teams, the ones who recently played sports, you know not that long ago in high school and college. And would even be having kids at 40, you know that's the age where your kids are getting into athletics early in school.

And that group, the ones most directly victimized, can I use that word because that's how it's being spoken. I don't use that word to speak of this. But some people are saying hey what about that biologically born female athlete who now can't get first place because the transgender athlete is just getting all the medals and winning everything.

If the people who are most affected are by a strong majority in favor of doing it, is it any of your business? Do you think everybody should have the same weight of opinion if there's only one group that is impacted by it? Right? Should these two people have the same vote on this