Biden Turned the Tables on the Topic of Student Loan Forgiveness. A Clever Debating Tactic.

Biden answers a reporter's question

Turning the tables on your opponent is often a clever debating strategy. Use your opponent’s own argument against them. President Joe Biden recently announced a program of partial forgiveness for student loan debt. Republicans immediately held that this was unfair to people who had already paid off their student loans.

In his White House speech announcing his student loan forgiveness program, Biden listed the expected facts and figures. He reviewed the personal problems that Americans face due to crushing student debt. That was all fine. His speech was calm, drama-free, and thoughtful. Ho-hum. The zinger came at the end, when he answered a few questions. Let’s look at what happened.

As Biden was walking out of the room, a reporter asked whether forgiving current student loans was fair to people who had already paid off previous student loans. Biden turned the tables on the questioner. Unable to say that his policy was equitable for everyone, which it obviously was not, Biden pointed out that conservative economic policies also lacked equity. Here’s how the exchange went:

“Q Mr. President, is this unfair to people who paid their student loans or chose not to take out loans?

“THE PRESIDENT: Is it fair to people who in fact do not own a multi-billion-dollar business if they see one of these guys give them all a tax break? Is that fair? What do you think?”

Why was that such a clever debating tactic? First, Biden’s response was short and crisp. A long answer would invite a convoluted response, which Biden had no interest in dealing with. Second, Biden shifted the burden of proof to his questioner: “What do you think?” Third, shifting the burden of proof, he broadened the issue to overall policy instead of just the one specific issue.

Biden’s point was that the same argument that Republicans were making against his student debt forgiveness plan could equally be made against programs favored by Republicans. Both policies lacked equity.

If, however, Biden’s opponents opposed loan forgiveness, Biden pressed them to reject their own previous positions. The challenger is then led either to defend loan forgiveness or to condemn the Republican’s previous policies. By broadening the concept, Biden challenged the questioner's assumption that policies must be equitable. 

Turning the tables often tames a debate opponent because the speaker uses the other side’s argument against them. They cannot very well refute their own argument, can they? Chalk up a point for Biden. 

___________________

How Did David Hogg Turn the Tables on President Trump to Advocate Gun Control?

AOC Turned the Tables on Republicans in Less Than a Minute During the Coronavirus Relief Bill Debate

How Does Tucker Carlson Use Personal Attacks Instead of Proof about Climate Change?

Image: White House YouTube channel

The First Trump-Biden Debate: Interruptions for a (Non) Cause

Last night, Donald Trump and Joe Biden participated in the most bizarre excuse for a debate in American political history.

The polling website FiveThirtyEight's headline about the debate said, “Trump Interrupts to Point of Chaos in First Debate.” No kidding. Let's be clear: a debate is an organized exchange of ideas following rules. Trump ignored the rules, interrupting Biden while dodging obvious questions for which he should have been prepared. Biden broke the rules a few times himself, mostly when he tried to get in a word edgewise. 

Earlier Post: You Need a Good Debate Format

I was on my high school and college debate teams for six years, and was a debate coach at four universities. Three points about last night’s debate: 

(1) Trump interrupted Biden to prevent Biden from making his points.

(2) Trump interrupted Biden to show that he is forceful.

(3) Trump was appealing to voters who do not care about policy.

In this post, I'll talk about (1), and plan to write about the other two points in days to come.

Why Did Trump Interrupt so Often? 

Here’s a hypothesis: Trump’s policies are basically failures: he has never presented the comprehensive health care overhaul he promised, even though the nation is overrun by a pandemic, while unemployment is sky-high and the economy is collapsing. He hasn't built the wall, and Mexico hasn't paid for it. Let us further suppose that Trump was unprepared, failed to do his homework, and lacked awareness of even the most basic policy issues. Further, Biden was prepared and does understand basic policy issues. 

Now, if Biden got a chance to speak at length, for the full time that the debate rules allowed, without interruptions or distraction, he would have conclusively demonstrated that his policies were superior. Trump would be unable to respond in kind since he has no policy expertise or successes to offer. 

So, during the debate, Trump interrupted, quickly and loudly, to make bizarre, off-the-point comments to draw Biden away from substantive issue discussions. 

Trump's Healthcare Interruptions

Here’s a gloriously awful example from early in the debate. Moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News, who was far more effective four years ago when he moderated one of the Trump-Clinton debates, asked Biden to talk about a public option under the Affordable Care Act. The public option is, of course, a conservative bugbear that leads to constant ranting on Fox News and talk radio. Wallace asked: 

“I am asking the question. That it will, it will end private insurance and create a government takeover of health care.” 

Trying to correct this common misunderstanding, Biden said: 

“It does not. It's only for those people who are so poor they qualify for Medicaid, they can get that free. In most states, except governors who want to deny people are poor, Medicaid. Anyone who qualifies for Medicare -- excuse me, Medicaid -- would automatically be enrolled in the public option. The vast majority of the American people would still not be in that option. Number one –” 

So far, that sounded like a precise, well-rehearsed answer in the making. Of course, Trump couldn’t allow that. Biden would make him look like a fool. So, he interrupted: 

“So you agree with Bernie Sanders, who’s left on the manifesto we call it, that gives you socialized medicine.” 

Now, first, it was not Trump’s turn to speak. Second, Bernie Sanders isn’t running for president. Third, Trump’s interruption stopped Biden before he could explain why his policy was not socialized medicine. Trump’s diversion worked just fine, for the next thing Biden said was: 

“Look. The fact of the matter is, I beat Bernie Sanders--”

Maybe Biden was trying to explain that his policy and Sanders policy differed. He never got the chance, for Trump broke in again: 

“You got very lucky.” 

That, of course, had nothing to do with healthcare. Unfortunately, Biden took the bait: 

“I got very lucky, I’m going to get very lucky tonight as well. And tonight I'm going to -- here's the deal, here’s the deal. The fact is that everything he’s saying so far it's simply a lie. I'm not here to call out his lies; everybody knows he’s a liar. I want to make sure --  I want to make the President--” 

That wasn’t a bad answer. Biden expressed confidence and criticized Trump for speaking falsely. But did you notice what he didn’t talk about? He didn’t talk any more about healthcare or the public option. I’ve written before the Trump is a master of misdirection, just like a stage magician. Yes, Trump was rude, and irrational, and incoherent. But he put a dead stop to Biden’s answer, tricking him into wasting his time. 

Earlier Post: Trump, the "China Virus," and the Art of Misdirection

It got worse. Trump next said: 

“You just lost the left. You just lost the left. You agreed with Bernie Sanders on a plan.” 

That didn’t make much sense, but Trump got Biden to stop talking about healthcare and diverted him to talking about political strategy. Biden then scored the zinger of the night: 

“Folks, do we have any idea what this clown is doing?” 

Okay, sure, fight fire with fire. Trump had it coming. But, going back to Wallace’s question, this was Biden’s chance to talk about healthcare policy. Instead, he let Trump continue to bait him. Yes, Biden got the better of the exchange. No question about it. All the same, his well-rehearsed discussion of the healthcare public option had screeched to a smoking halt. 

Realizing that he’d been diverted, Biden turned back to the topic: 

“Let me tell you what. He is not for any help for people needing health care because he in fact already cost 10 million people their health care that they had from their employers, because of his recession, number one. Number two, there are 20 million people getting health care through Obamacare now he wants to take it away. He won't ever look in your eye and say that's what he wants to do. Take it away.” 

Okay, that was back on track. Good. Biden stated some numbers and contrasted his policy with Trump’s. Not for long, however. Trump interrupted again, blurting out this incoherent nonsense: 

“No, I want to give them better health care at a much, much lower price because he has no, he doesn't know how to read fixed he has never already played it to an extent he has now.”

I’m not sure that’s even English. Of course, we all know that neither Trump nor any of the other Republicans have ever actually proposed an Obamacare alternative. Get better healthcare at a much lower price? Trump has been promising that for years, without ever giving the actual plan to make it happen. That’s not the point. The point is that, once again, Trump stopped Biden from giving his policy. By this point, moderator Chris Wallace, who was just as bamboozled as Biden, actually turned the discussion over to Trump. With that ill-considered transition, Wallace bypassed what was supposed to be Biden’s opportunity to speak: 

“I know you’ll realize you’re both speaking at the same time. Let the President’ s -- go ahead sir.” 

A moment later, Wallace did try to give the exasperated Biden a chance to explain his policy, but by that point he had lost his train of thought – as any other debater would have by this point. No, Trump never gave a healthcare policy. No, he never said anything remotely coherent or intelligent about Biden’s policy. 

By interrupting, bullying, and ranting, Trump prevented Biden from giving the two-minute explanation of his healthcare plan that the rules entitled him to present. 

Anyway, that’s just one example. This kind of thing went on throughout the debate. 

So, back to my hypothesis. Biden was well-prepared with policy proposals. He had done his homework. Trump, in contrast, had no idea what he was talking about. Instead of talking about policy, which was beyond his ability, Trump spewed out conspiracy theories and nonsense that he must have picked up from conservative cable news and talk radio shows. What Trump did, with supreme success, was to short-circuit the debate to stop Biden from making himself look good. Deep inside, I think that Trump knew that Biden was better prepared and felt that his only chance was to direct attention away from Biden’s policy. The interruptions and crosstalk served that purpose brilliantly. 

So, yes, Trump looked and sounded very bad during this debate. No, he did not act like a grown-up. Yes, he was incoherent. No, he didn’t say a single thing about how he would make healthcare better. 

What he accomplished was to stop Biden from explaining how he would make healthcare better. So, the debate was a disaster for Trump, but it was, to some extent, also a disaster for Biden. Trump was not trying to win the debate. He was trying to make Biden lose. 

Earlier Post: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Suffered from Talking Points Disease in the Third 2016 Presidential Debate

Suggestions from a Former Debate Coach

How to prevent this? Every high school and college debate coach has judged dozens if not hundreds of academic debates with unruly debaters. Any experienced debate coach could have handled this better than Wallace. Here are some suggestions: 

(1) When a speaker’s time is up, the moderator should stand up, and, if necessary, walk up to the podium and stand directly in front of the speaker until the ranting stops. Obnoxious, but effective. The moderator is not trying to win a popularity contest.

(2) Any time a speaker interrupts, even just one word, the opponent should get an extra minute added to the speaking time. This should be done electronically, preferably with a flashing interruption light.

(3) The speaking time should be put in a huge, bright display directly behind the speakers so the television audience can see whose turn it is and how much time is left.

(4) If all else fails, mute the microphone - right away. 

Conclusion

Yes, unscrupulous people will break the rules. We need rules because people do not always behave themselves. And, although Biden could have confronted Trump more effectively, it’s not his job. It’s the moderator’s obligation to control the debate. What a shame that Wallace, with all his experience, didn't know how to do that. 

Once Again, Trump Proves That Speakers Need Research

Donald Trump, White House photo

Yes (sigh), once again, Donald Trump needed research. Trump’s town hall yesterday at the Lincoln Memorial, although bizarre, was no more bizarre than his usual public presentations. He made simple factual errors that could have been easily prevented. All he needed was a few minutes of research. 

Of his many odd statements, what struck me most was his ignorant comment about the 1918 flu epidemic:

"So in 1917, we had a horrible, that case was the flu, you remember the Spanish flu? So much has been written about it, now of course it’s the hottest.” 

He continued:

“Everybody that writes a book about the Spanish flu of 1917, it killed between I guess 50 to a hundred million people. It probably ended the first world war because the soldiers were all getting sick. It was the worst the world has ever seen that we know of.”

Speakers need research, and Trump didn’t have it.

First, the so-called Spanish flu broke out in the spring of 1918, not 1917. Somehow, Trump seems to have in his head that it started in 1917 and he has been unable to get that straight. The History Channel website, for instance, explains that: “The first wave of the 1918 pandemic occurred in the spring and was generally mild.” For a more prestigious source, we can turn to an article in the scientific journal Revista Biomedica, where scientists Jeffery K. Taubenberger and David M. Morens explain that “The ‘Spanish’ influenza pandemic of 1918–1919, which caused ≈50 million deaths worldwide, remains an ominous warning to public health.”

Second, although the influenza epidemic spread across the world and infected many service personnel, it did not end World War I. A simple glance at credible sources (like the History Channel) would establish that the 1918 (not 1917) influenza pandemic swept through the United States Army and Navy, and yet the United States was on the winning side. An article in the scientific journal Virology gives similar information in more depth.

I assume (it’s not entirely certain, given his comments) that Trump understood that the United States did, in fact, fight on the winning side? If not, research makes that information available as well. For example, an article on the Imperial War Museum website explains the 1918 armistice’s terms. The United States Library of Congress offers a PDF file of the armistice’s actual text.

Speakers Need Research: Donald Trump Suggested Injecting Disinfectants to Cure the Coronavirus

The sources that I cited are easy to find. I avoided sources like Wikipedia or other encyclopedias and instead looked for information published by responsible people and organizations. Primary sources, such as the actual text of the armistice, are especially credible. I was careful not to rely just on one source for potentially controversial information. It didn’t take me long to get the basic facts.  The History Channel website shows up prominently on a Google or Bing search, whereas Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/) offers quality academic sources, often with full-text links, at the click of a button.

Mike Lee Tries to Make Fun of the Green New Deal but Only Makes Fun of Himself (P.S. Speakers Need Research)

If he decides to stop making silly mistakes, Mr. Trump can make either of two choices: (1) he can get on his famous cell phone and look up simple facts, or (2) he could ask his advisors for some quick research before (not after) he opens his mouth. Neither method would take any more time than sending out four or five rage tweets

Millions of people believe the President of the United States just because he is the President. That means that the President of the United States really should make basic efforts to get his facts right. At the same time, the more mistakes the President makes, the less likely it is that people will believe him in the future. Even slavish acolytes might have limits. Trump’s political prospects could improve if he didn’t make so many silly mistakes and commit so many unforced research errors.

P.S.: Many of the things we learn in school become out of date 20 or 30 years later. That is why the most important thing you can get out of high school and college is to learn how to locate and evaluate quality, credible information for yourself. Learning and education are lifelong tasks.

Speakers Need Research: Donald Trump Suggested Injecting Disinfectants to Cure the Coronavirus

Coronavirus Task Force, White House photo

Last Thursday, President Donald Trump asked during a Coronavirus Task Force press briefing in the White House whether scientists might look into injecting disinfectants or shining ultraviolet light into coronavirus patients to cure this terrible disease. This stunningly stupid idea created enormous controversy, although probably not as much as it should have, with interesting rhetorical effects:

1. President Trump was obviously unprepared for the briefing, showing once again that speakers need research.

2. Trump and his enablers in the conservative media have subsequently been going overboard trying to reconcile his ridiculous speculation with some kind of rational belief system. But they failed to coordinate their stories. 

3.The other task force members played dumb, showing, once again that people need to speak the truth to power.

This post looks at #1: speakers need research. I plan to write about #2 and #3 over the next few days.

What Trump Said
Let’s start with what Trump said. He made his comments immediately after a report from William Bryan, Acting Under Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and not in answer to a reporter’s question. Bryan discussed various disinfectant solutions and made the mistake of saying, “you inject summer — the sunlight into that. You inject UV rays into that.”  That should have been harmless enough, except that, by saying “inject,” Bryan apparently gave Trump an idea. Oops.

I’ll quote Trump’s entire section to make sure that the context is clear (since, as we’ll see in a later post, the White House claims that he was taken out of context):

“THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Bill.

“Q Mr. Bryan —

“THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too. It sounds interesting.

“ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We’ll get to the right folks who could.

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.

“So we’ll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that’s — that’s pretty powerful.”

This was not an offhand comment; Trump suggested his bizarre medical solutions at length.

Later in the briefing, a reporter (finally) asked Bryan about Trump’s statement. Trump then backtracked:

“Q But I — just, can I ask about — the President mentioned the idea of cleaners, like bleach and isopropyl alcohol you mentioned. There’s no scenario that that could be injected into a person, is there? I mean —

“ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: No, I’m here to talk about the findings that we had in the study. We won’t do that within that lab and our lab. So —

“THE PRESIDENT: It wouldn’t be through injection. We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work. But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.”

Speakers Need Research: The Continuing Case of Donald Trump?

Speakers Need Research, and President Trump Gathered a Little Bit of Research About the Coronavirus

Trump Got His Facts Wrong
Pretty much any mother in America could warn you that it’s a bad idea to take disinfectant internally. Responsible people quickly jumped Trump’s ridiculous ideas. CNN’s Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, said that injecting disinfectants had “absolutely no merit.” The Clorox Company, which manufactures bleach, quickly issued a warning on its website carefully distinguishing between consuming disinfectants as opposed to using them to clean surfaces:

“Bleach and other disinfectants are not suitable for consumption or injection under any circumstances. People should always read the label for proper usage instructions. Disinfecting surfaces with bleach and other disinfecting products is one of the ways to help stop the spread of COVID-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

The manufacturer of Lysol promptly issued a statement warning against taking their product internally:

“Due to recent speculation and social media activity, RB (the makers of Lysol and Dettol) has been asked whether internal administration of disinfectants may be appropriate for investigation or use as a treatment for coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). As a global leader in health and hygiene products, we must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body (through injection, ingestion or any other route). As with all products, our disinfectant and hygiene products should only be used as intended and in line with usage guidelines. Please read the label and safety information.”

The ultimate humiliation, at least to Republicans, might be an article from Al Jazeera, the Arab news agency, quoting a number of medical authorities to explain how dangerous Trump’s suggestion was.

Trump Needed Research
Now, let’s talk about why we need research. On the one hand, President Trump can pick up a phone and in a few minutes talk to people either in or out of government who know more about just about any subject than anyone else in the world. He could, on the other hand, look up information about disinfectants on his infamous cell phone. If he had done so, Trump might have encountered this passage in which, two days before his disastrous press conference, WebMD warned that the coronavirus pandemic had resulted in increasing cases of poisoning when people, especially children, consumed disinfectants:

“‘Exposures to cleaners and disinfectants reported to NPDS [the National Poison Data System] increased substantially in early March 2020,’ noted a team led by Dr. Arthur Chang, a researcher at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

An argument walking around in the dark corners of conservative talk says that only an idiot would have taken Trump seriously. This is so. Nevertheless, what does that stay about the uninformed president who asked an idiotic question founded on appalling ignorance? I hope to talk about that in an upcoming post.

The President of the United States has great prestige simply because of his office. Incredibly, despite his long record of getting things wrong (PolitiFact.com has rated hundreds of Trump statements, finding 21% to be Mostly False, 34% to be False, and 14% to be Pants on Fire) millions of Americans hang on President Trump’s every word. He has a responsibility to get things right.

The idea of a press briefing is to convey factual information to the public during an international crisis. The people who present such briefings have a basic obligation to get things right. For the president to spew dangerous nonsense, recognizing that millions of Americans are foolish enough to believe the things he says, overthrows the briefing’s purpose. Fortunately, there are no signs that Trump’s supporters are mainlining bleach. At least, not yet.

Although it is surprising that he didn’t understand that people should not inject disinfectants, Trump could easily have checked the facts before he opened his mouth. It’s okay if the president doesn’t know everything off the top of his head. It’s not okay if he fails to gather simple, easily available information before he briefs the American public about a national emergency.

Mike Lee Tries to Make Fun of the Green New Deal but Only Makes Fun of Himself (P.S.: Speakers Need Research)

I first became interested in communication and rhetoric because of my participation in my high school and college debate teams. In academic settings, the debaters with the best research win the debates. Unfortunately, however, we need to remind politicians to check their facts before they speak.

Stay tuned for future posts about this bizarre press briefing, when I will write about Trump's advisors and the desperate responses on conservative media.

Update: Increased calls about disinfectant consumption after Trump's briefing?

AOC Turned the Tables on Republicans in Less Than a Minute During the Coronavirus Relief Bill Debate

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

During today’s debate in the House of Representatives about a coronavirus relief package, Democratic firebrand Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gave a 30-second speech attacking the Republican position. Sometimes good things happen under time restraints. Well, she actually spoke for almost 50 seconds, but who’s counting? Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had accused Democrats of lacking urgency in passing the bill. Ocasio-Cortez turned McConnell’s attack on its head.

Ocasio-Cortez began by establishing her ethos: “On behalf of my constituents in the Bronx and Queens, New York’s 14^th Congressional District, the most impacted district in America.” Her thesis brought home the  coronavirus pandemic's human cost: “calling people, losing their families every day." She then quickly (what choice did she have? In only 30 seconds?) absolutely denied that the Republicans felt any urgency: “It is a joke when Republicans say that they have urgency around this bill. The only folks that they have urgency around are folks like Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse and Shake Shack.” That referred to the seeming glitch that allowed large chain restaurants to get a disproportionate share of the last "small business" bailout. “Those,” she insisted, “are the people getting assistance in this bill.”

Ocasio-Cortez insisted that, “you are not trying fix this bill for moms and pops.” Focusing instead on what she saw as a key issue, which was to fund hospitals and public health, she concluded: “And yet to fight to fund hospitals, fighting to fund testing, that is what we’re fighting for in this bill.” She stated that the Republican position was “unconscionable.” She said that if they wanted to treat the pandemic as urgent, “they should legislate like rent was due on May 1.” That powerful metaphor struck hard because rent relief is one of the Democrats’ priorities during the pandemic shutdown.

Ocasio-Cortez’ delivery might have been over-the-top for a congressional speech: she spoke rapidly and became louder and faster as her brief talk went on, waving her arms wildly. Still, I can’t blame her. Trying to rise above piles of controversy, bizarre conspiracy theories, and federal government lethargy, she instinctively recognized that no one would hear an ordinary speech. Her style must have worked: her brief appearance in Congress today became a featured clip on C-SPAN and it’s all over social media. Her short talk made the news. Ocasio-Cortez found a way to rise above the din. Her 30-second (50-second?) talk is probably the only thing people will remember from today’s congressional debate.

Lessons to learn? Every good debater knows how effective it is to turn the tables on your opponent, that is, to turn your opponents’ own argument against them. Republican leaders had insisted that the bill was urgent. But how urgent could it be to them, Ocasio-Cortez asked, if they were helping big business without adequately funding hospitals and public health testing? We see that energetic speakers get noticed. We see how a speaker can establish her standing with a couple of razor-sharp sentences right at the outset. We see that a short, well-prepared but extemporaneous speech can accomplish more than a long, tedious, rambling exposition. The biggest lesson that Ocasio-Cortez taught us is how important it is for a speaker to hit straight to an issue’s heart.

Typically making no effort to deal with Ocasio-Cortez’ arguments, conservative response on social media seems to rely on personal attacks like “@AOC is a puppet. No brains, all party” and “Where did she go to school ? I want to make sure, I don’t send my kids there !!!! They vote, I’m sure more people want to go back than not ! @aoc wins today’s Duntz Cap !!!” I assume that the writer meant “Dunce Cap.”  When you reduce your opponents to illiterate ad hominem arguments, you know that you’re making progress. 

Urgency indeed...

P.S. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez graduated with honors from my brother’s alma mater, Boston University, with a double major in economics and international relations. And, it is, in fact a prestigious, rigorous, church-related university. It reflects poorly on our nation that successful women need to face so much abuse in the political arena.

Query: Conservatives love to call Ocasio-Cortez, who obviously has one of the sharpest intellects in Congress, an idiot or a lunatic. And yet the Republican President of the United States just suggested  that we might cure the coronavirus by shining ultraviolet light inside people and injecting patients with chemical disinfectants. So who is the idiot or lunatic here?