with carbon dioxide and kids and masks. So if kids wore masks for any length of time, the quality of the air they were breathing went down. So less oxygen, more carbon dioxide. And apparently that has some types of health risks. And so the suggestion is that maybe masks are bad for kids.

Did you need a study for that? I'm not sure you needed a study to decide not to put masks on kids, but your mileage might differ. Maybe you're afraid of the Delta variant. Beware the Delta variant. Put masks on the kids because the Delta variant is coming for you.

So I wondered how long it would take for somebody to debunk this study. It took Andreas Bachhouse about five minutes until he saw my tweet and came in and said, you know, every time Andres or Anatoly Lubarsky, my two favorite critics, anytime they criticize something I just shake my head because it's usually something I should have seen. You know, even with my limited analytical abilities, even I should have seen it, but I didn't really look for it. Usually. Here's what Andre says about this study. He says in the JAMA paper there's no difference when measuring only the inhale. There they have to throw in inhaled and exhaled there to find something. Now I'm not sure I totally understand that, but it looks like on the surface that the inhaled air was fine, but the exhaled air had too much carbon dioxide in it. How is that even a thing? I mean, I'm not, I don't even know how that could be a thing. But the suggestion is that maybe you should ignore that paper, you know, or at least wait for more papers to confirm it. But put a little asterisk next to that paper that said children and masks seems like a bad idea to me.

So it's been a few days now since Tucker Carlson talked about the NSA spying on him, and no news organizations seem to be agreeing with him, including his own. And the NSA has denied it in a way that confirmed it. Now we talked about this yesterday. The NSA's overly specific denial is as clear a confirmation that it happened as anything, just clearly confirming it. And we just moved on. How did that happen? This should be one of the biggest stories in the country, if not the world, that the government was spying on a political person, you know, somebody who talks on the news. And then they basically confirmed it by denying it in a way that really does confirm it. And we just let that go. I guess there's just nothing you can do about it. You know, maybe there's some legal thing that Tucker is looking into. But can you see how thoroughly the news business can just make a story go away? They just made this thing go away. I don't know what would be bigger than this.

I'm saying Matt Gaetz is calling for an investigation as well. He should, because you know Matt Gaetz is being watched by the NSA, don't you? Don't you figure that Matt Gaetz is being spied on one way or another? Now it may not be directly. They may have some case in which they're looking for somebody else's stuff, but they just get his incidentally. But I would say that the odds that Matt Gaetz is not being spied on by our government is low. It's probably low. I'm almost curious. In fact, I think the odds that my digital communications are compromised are 100 percent. I mean, I don't know that there's any chance they're not. I would say that if you have any public standing in terms of politics, and standing in this case just means you talk about it, y