 Radical, Fundamental Principles of Freedom, Rational Self-Interest, and Individual Rights. This is the Iran Book Show. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Book Show on this Thursday, early afternoon here in Puerto Rico, morning from many of you. Thank you for joining this morning, and I hope you're having a great week. All right, first up, two shows today. The second show will be with an interview with Tera Smith, a conversation with Tera Smith. Should be really fun and interesting. I hope you'll join me tonight at 7 p.m. East Coast time. All right, let's jump in. I mean, the holiday weekend, as I think I told you over the weekend, it was like the only news was this big storm that was going on in the Midwest and the East Coast, for much of America freezing weather, lots of snow. I mean, not that unusual, maybe a little colder than usual, but generally we get storms on a regular basis. But it seems like the airline industry struggled to cope, and again, not unusual, this kind of weather disrupts flight patterns, it strands pilots and crews, it makes it difficult to manage a system, a complex system, like how airlines, American airlines, the American airlines have. But most airlines recovered quickly, and because this is pretty standard practice, this does not happen, that this is not that way. Almost all the airlines recovered quickly, you can see I've seen charts where they show how quickly and how few flights have been canceled as we moved away from the thrust of the storm, except for one airline. And that is Southwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, it has been an unmitigated disaster that has not gone away, and they're still struggling, they've canceled 13,000 flights since last Thursday, probably more because it's about a day old. This is, you know, 60%, I think, of the flights have been canceled, there were days in which it was much more than that. They are struggling to come back, the airline is really, really, really on its heels, and this is a massive, unquestionable, massive business failure, it is a specific business Southwest that has failed. And it's particularly sad because I think Southwest has an amazing history, it's one of the great business successes of the 20th century. It started as a, Kelly, who started the airline, you know, it started as a small airline flying routes within Texas. It expanded in the 19, once deregulation, hit the airline industry. It started expanding into the 1980s, massive expansion in the 90s and into the 2000s, and today it's one of the largest airlines in the United States, and it has some international routes, I think Canada and Mexico and some Caribbean islands. But it is being also a favorite airline for many people, you know, because it's kind of, it's been fun to fly, which you can't say about almost any other airline. It's fun to fly in the sense that the flight attendants have always been friendly and happy and focused on customers, flights tended to be on time, Southwest always set records in terms of turning flights around, unloading them and reloading them. They had this attitude of the plane is a bus, you get a seat wherever you want, first come for a serve, or at least if you can pay a little bit to get a higher number in terms of boarding, but generally, and it's just been, you know, in the old days, I remember the 1990s, they used to have, they used to play practical jokes on each, there's flight attendants used to play practical jokes on each other, they used to play practical jokes on the passengers, the announcements over the loudspeakers, you know, those stupid standard announcements that you heard 3,075 times, those, they used to embed those with humor and make them, make them funny. I have a feeling that some of the funny stuff got eliminated because of regulation, because I think the FAA came after them, but there was always this vibe, very casual in the summers, they used to wear shorts, I don't know if they still do, I haven't flown Southwest in a long time, but you know, this is an airline that really stood out. It's the only major U.S. airline that does not have a spoken hub system, so it does not have hubs, like American has, Chicago, Dallas, L.A., I don't know, Charlotte, Philadelphia, and Miami on the East Coast, and all the flights emanate from there, and you go from hub to hub, and then you take a spoke to where you need to go. That's how all the big American airlines are organized, Southwest was never like that, Southwest is point-to-point, it just flies, you know, now granted, the point-to-point is part of the problem they had this last week, point-to-point is far more difficult to manage, it's far more difficult to manage, but it really is, it really is sad what happened to Southwest, and the question, of course, is why, and the approximate cause, the immediate cause that we know of is basically a failure of the computer system. The computer system that matches crew with flights, so, you know, the computer system should know where the crews are, where the pilots are, and where the flights are, where the planes are that need crews, and it matches them up, and, you know, almost always the system works fine, even in Thanksgiving week, the system would great, matching up crews and flights. The storm disrupted flying so much that basically, you know, the system just collapsed, the system could not match crew, pilots, to airplanes, it could not allocate the crews to the right airports, there were plenty of planes, there were plenty of crews, I mean, Southwest was fully manned, there were plenty of people ready to go, everything was set, but they couldn't match the people to the planes, and this became evident in the midst of the storm, and they tried to transition to a manual, so throughout Christmas weekend, in the Dallas headquarters of Southwest, they were manually trying to match, as they did in the old days, match crews to the, but the airport, the, sorry, Southwest has 60,000, over 60,000 employees, I don't know how many airplanes, this is impossible, now the advantage Southwest has, this is one of the things that made Southwest so profitable, and it was, it was profitable, it was profitable for the longest streak while other airlines were in bankrupt over and over and over again, Southwest was profitable until 2019, I think until COVID, it was a profitable airline, and part of that was the fact that it only flew on plane basically, it flew Boeing 737s of different varieties with 737s, some maintenance was easier, and seating was easier because all the planes are laid out the same way, and you know, but this manual matching just didn't work, it fell apart, so the approximate cause of all this was clearly that the computer system called Sky Solver is a computer system that maybe worked in the 2000s, but in the 20 teens and the 20 20s antiquated, slow, it did not, could not deal with the capacity, and the obvious question then is, what the hell? Why is Southwest running a computer system that can cope with an emergency? Again, it's not like winter storms are unheard of, it's not like winter storms like this are one in a thousand years, this is, you know, maybe one interview five years, maybe this one was one in a decade, but still one in a decade for an airline is not that bad, and here the reason I think is management, you know, from whatever had, first of all, the founding CEO, the founder of the airline, Keller, I mean he was just a fantastic CEO, I mean he's the guy who built it, established it, I think he retired in 2001, I've seen 2004 listed somewhere, but I think it's 2001, he was a front line kind of CEO, he would go and he was at the airport, he would get on planes, he would be part of the practical jokes often, right, he would either be playing the practical joke on the crew or they would be playing it on him, he was often sighted on airplanes sitting in a regular seat, he was very, very attuned to the operational needs of the airline, and since then there have been a series of CEOs that I think over the years have gotten further and further away from the operating side of the business and become more financed people and less operating people. Now the current CEO, the CEO who just came in a few months ago, who you really can't blame this for, is more of an operating CEO and has been committed to a placing Skyscroll Solva as the software program, but just hadn't had the time to do it, these changing software takes years, now months, years for big company. So, you know, I think the ultimate cause of this is a management team becoming removed from the day-to-day operations for the actual challenges. Pilots and crew have been complaining about Skysolva for years now, for about ten years. It has created all kinds of weird sending crews to places and circling them back to where they originated from and all kinds of things that didn't make any sense, they were clearly losing the company money and didn't make any sense from an operations perspective. But it was small numbers, it was at the margin, so I guess management didn't focus on that. Now they have, they upgraded things like customer facing software, reservation software, they upgraded a lot of those experiences, but the back end, the operating, the thing that actually runs the airline that makes it possible to run, they messed up and they are paying the price. By the way, this conflict between a CEO who's a visionary, operator, product oriented, and a CEO who's oriented towards finance, and you know I love finance and I think finance is crucial, but the orientation in terms of what a CEO should be is amazingly beautifully dramatized in one of my favorite movies and one of the best movies about business you will ever see. I think it's in the 1950s, it's called Executive Suite. If you can find Executive Suite, watch it. It is a real treat, it is a movie that in the opening scene, in the opening scene of the movie, you never see the CEO, but the CEO drops that. And now the question is who is going to replace him? It's with William Holden, Barbara Stanwyck, Fredwick Marsh, I mean Walter Pigeon and it's directed by Robert Weiss. Robert Weiss is an excellent director, he did some really good westerns as well. 1954, I think Barbara Stanwyck won best actress in a supporting role for this, but oh she was nominated, she didn't win. William Holden is brilliant, Fredwick Marsh is brilliant, it's a great movie, highly recommended. If you want to understand what happened in Southwest in a sense or in a lot of American businesses, imagine that at the end of the movie, well I don't want to give away, imagine the wrong guy gets the job at the end of the movie. So, you know, check out the movie. Anyway, one more thing about Southwest, right, I think there's a saying, isn't there saying like don't let a good crisis go to waste? Something like that. Well, Pete Boutiger, Boutinger, Boutiger, whatever his name is, and the transportation department and Democrats in Congress certainly wouldn't want this crisis to go to waste. They're already proposing new regulations and controls. Maybe Pete would have done a better job running Southwest than the current management of Southwest, he certainly thinks so. They are going to make Southwest be held accountable. By the way, the attorney generals of 34 states, that has to include some red states, 34 states, are jumping in on this and they want more power to regulate the airlines and regulate customer service and penalize them for being late. Southwest stock is down 11%. I mean, a lot of people who got stuck this weekend are going to hesitate ever to use Southwest again. Do you think Southwest is suffering? Do you think Southwest is being held accountable? We need politicians to hold that accountable. Politicians who've never really run a business, who have no clue how to run a business, who don't understand customers, don't understand markets, wouldn't know a software program like this from, you know, from an app on their phone, if their life depended on it. This is exactly why you need a separation of state from economics so politicians can't dabble with this kind of stuff. Do companies fail sometimes? Absolutely. Did the U.S. soccer team not do well in the World Cup? Absolutely. I think politicians should get involved in running it. I mean, things don't always go as planned. Companies fail. And there is an amazing way in which to keep them accountable. An amazing way in which to have them pay. And that is, that is, markets, markets are beautiful things. And they're the best way to make the accountability match the problem. And the solution be matched with the problem versus government, which would just, this would be an unmitigated disaster. But Democrats are going to jump all over this. They're going to try to pass new regulations. They're going to try to somehow, you know, fix this through laws and new regulations. And again, this is true of left, right, and attorney generals and federal government and the whole, the whole bunch of them. Just butt out. Stay out. Markets are really dealing with this. Southwest is already trying to fix it. Indeed, the reason Southwest appointed this new CEO a few months ago is exactly because of this. They needed somebody who was more of an operator to deal with the issues that Southwest was starting to face. All right. So sad to see. Sad to see Southwest has always been a great company. But it is a challenge to move from a founder, operator, hands-on CEO, particularly, you know, over the decade, well, you know, two decades later, and keep that same level of engagement going at the, you know, the executive suite. Southwest has also grown dramatically and that creates its own challenges. It's not the same, you know, managing a medium-sized business and managing a massive business are not the same. They are complicated and difficult and challenging. Southwest has also gone through a couple of mergers. Mergers are hard and they often have negative impacts on the corporate culture. So lots of challenges. I hope that Southwest recovers from this. I hope it returns to its glory days. I hope it figures out how to solve these problems and head off into the right direction. Ragnar, thank you. Really appreciate the support. Don't forget, guys, we've got a $250 goal and... Whoops, I didn't mean to do that. And... $250 goal for the morning shows and what else did I want to say? Yes, I want to remind you of a few things. One, tonight I will be interviewing Tara Smith. We'll be talking about a bunch of different things, a lot about things like... We'll follow up on some of the stuff we talked about on Ambition with Don. We'll talk about happiness. We'll talk about some of the things she's working on. We'll talk about, you know, free speech, freedom of the press. Maybe we'll cover some of the Twitter stuff. So that should be a lot of fun. It should be interesting. Hopefully you join us at 7 p.m. East Coast time. And then I want to remind everybody on the 31st of December at 2 p.m. East Coast time, I'll be doing my year-end show looking for the 2023. We'll do, it'll be a long show, probably three hours. We're going to do a... There's going to be a $10,000 match. There's an anonymous contributor to the show who is willing to put up up to $10,000. So every dollar that you do in a super chat, or I'll also open up... I'll also open up, what do you call it, PayPal for it. So on that day during the show, it has to be during the show, anything contributor, either PayPal or on... God, I keep doing this. PayPal or on super chat will be matched up to $10,000. The reason I'm opening up PayPal is there's some limitations in super chat. And I know some of you foreigners, for example, or if you want to give more than $500, you can do so on PayPal rather than super chat. All right. Let's see. Yesterday, today, I don't know what time zone you are on, the new Governor of Israel was sworn in. Benjamin Netanyahu is back as Prime Minister of Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu seems to have the ability of never going away. He is the most nimble, manipulative politician I've ever seen. He has managed to survive court cases against him. He's managed to survive being incredibly unpopular. He's managed to survive everything and he keeps bouncing back on his feet and he has just formed a new government. This will be the most right-wing government in Israeli history, right-wing here, meaning not protection of individual rights, but right-wing in this context being nationalist, meaning religious by far. This is a government where religion is going to be a major issue and a major issue of contention I think throughout forever long it lasts and I don't know how long it'll last because I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of contention. Netanyahu generally as a person and many within the Likud, his political party are secular, but he has aligned himself with two types of religious political parties. One type of political party is a political party that is not interested at all basically in much of Israel, particularly not in security and not particularly in economics for some exceptions. What they're interested in is elevating religion in politics in Israel and securing for their own people, these are the ultra-orthodox Jews, all kinds of goodies like welfare, even if they never work, like the men don't work, the women work, the men study all day, and not going to the army, everybody else in Israel has to go to the army, they get excluded, they don't go to the army. They also, a lot of their population, a lot of their population votes for them because they don't work are fairly poor. So they don't like price controls, they don't like because they think that keeps prices low, they don't want dramatic liberalization of the economy because it creates uncertainty for them, and they want things to be regimented, they generally like central planning, they like to shut things down on a Saturday, they like to be able to define who is a Jew for the purpose of immigration, and they want to be very strict about it. In any way, their whole issue, their whole stick, all they care about is the religious agenda. You've got another political party, it's also religious, they are religious nationalists. So what they care about primarily is religion as it applies to the state of Israel, that is defining and making clear and unequivocal that the state of Israel is Jewish with a capital J, and that it treats, clearly they have every incentive to treat Arab citizens of Israel, second class citizens, West Bank, they would like to get rid of those Arabs and transport them to Jordan if they could, but in any case, the importance for them is the Jewish identity of the state of Israel and linking that up to annexing the West Bank and having one whole state. The other aspect of this is there are some people, both in Netanyahu's government, not Netanyahu himself, but Netanyahu's government, and in this religious nationalist who do have some, by the way, both the ultra-orthodox and these religious nationalists hate gays, they hate LGBTQ, it's funny because as speaker of the Israeli parliament, the first openly gay person has been appointed as speaker of the house, as part of the compromises that were done in order to get this government through, and when he thanked his husband, he must have gotten married outside of Israel because Israel doesn't have gay marriage, as he thanked his husband, all the religious members of parliament were just shaking their heads and covering their eyes and super upset. So you know there's going to be conflicts in this government between the more secular members and them. Now, so there are some members of this coalition that are pro-free markets that want to liberalize the Israeli economy in significant ways and they're talking about that. They will face some opposition by the ultra-orthodox who have no interest in doing this and it'll be interesting to see what they can do and how they can do it and whether it actually gets done. The history is Netanyahu governments, when Netanyahu has been prime minister, have done almost nothing to liberalize the economy. Indeed it has, I mean, there's really been no movement towards greater liberty, economically since Netanyahu became prime minister, what was it, 12, 14, 16, I don't know, years ago. So I'm not holding my breath for great economic outcome, great liberalization to come out of this. All right, let me just see. I wanted to quickly cover this other story. Just a reminder to everybody, December 31st, 2 p.m., we have the UN program, which will be a Super Chat match up to $10,000 and we will be reviewing last year and looking forward to next year. All right, let's see. Yeah, I thought it would be kind of fun to quickly go over new laws passed by California that are going to kick in by 2023. Just to see, like, are these the kind of things you would pass? Is this kind of your priorities for new laws on the books if you were running things? So one of the big laws is no more furs in California. So Assembly Bill 44 outlaws the manufacturing and sale of all new fur products in the state. Mink coats, raccoon hats, chinchilla scarves have basically, they are all now illegal to produce and to sell. So tough for those of you who want to winter in California, who want to somehow do okay with the horrible winters we have in California. You can't use your mink coats, at least if it's new. It turns out that you can still buy furs, used furs. So there's a resale market in furs, you can still buy those. And of course, fake furs are very popular these days. Furs became a status symbol in the 1970s, but have become a lot less popular more recently. All right, there's a new law in California that is going to kind of sort of go light on jaywalking. So if you like jaywalking, if you like kind of crossing the street where there are no lights and stuff like that, the police are not going to harass you anymore. So, you know, jaywalking was initially a crime lobbying for by the car industry, but it's no longer a crime in California. And you know now it's, you can actually, you can actually jaywalk. There you go. So finally, a positive move towards liberty in the state of California, because I think laws against jaywalking are bad laws. Okay, loitering, right? This bill bans arrests for loitering with intent of prostitution, with intent of prostitution, right? So, you know, prostitution is still illegal. This is not legalizing prostitution, everybody assures us. But if you're hanging around with the intent to be a prostitute, the police can do nothing about it. Why not not legalize prostitution? Anyway, I'm just giving you an example of things that California thinks are important for next year. All right, this is a, let's see. Have you ever noticed that shampoo aimed, this is what I'm reading for this news article. Have you ever noticed that shampoo aimed at men is often cheaper than a very similar product aimed at women? Or pink razors tend to cost more than black ones? That's true. That's the only difference is the color. But anyway, this is called the pink tax ban. It's been estimated that women pay a staggering $188,000 more than men on similar products through their lifetime. That's discrimination. That is clearly wrong, right? Assembly Bill 1287 states that a person from partnership, corporation, company or business shall not charge a different price for two goods that are substantially similar if those goods are priced differently based on gender of the individual for whom the goods are marketed and intended. I mean, my guess is men's product prices will go up. But, and when people ask why their products, when the price went up, they'll say, well, I had no choice. Otherwise I'd be sued for the, you know, I can bet you anything, the products are not the same. But anyway, because if they were the same, women would buy the black razors and, you know, they wouldn't buy the pink ones. And whoever, you know, unless you're willing to, Jennifer's willing to pay for the aesthetic value, fine. All right, those are some of the new laws in California. In addition, California minimum wage is going up. You know, in 2016, they signed a law that would move the minimum wage to $15 an hour each year until California hit $15 an hour. In 2022. So we hit that benchmark last year. And California minimum wage will be $15.5 per hour moving forward in 2023. And in the Bay Area, which has a higher minimum wage, it's going to be $17 per hour. There's all kinds of other stuff. There's employers must disclose salary ranges. We've now restricting use of song lyrics in court. So you can't use rap songs in a criminal court. You can't like anyway. Well, we know California is on the right path. Cool. All right, let's see. Let's turn to your questions. Let's see. Michael asks, what's going to be the ultimate alters in 1973, which he knew the hours are going to attack and wanted to launch the first strike. But listen to Kissinger when he told that a wait until they struck first Israel could get the support of the US. I mean, it's not clear, right? I mean, the real evil here is what Kissinger said. So she, there's some evidence to suggest that she wanted to strike first. Although there's, there's counter evidence to, so I'm not convinced of the story. But Kissinger told him, look, if you strike first, we won't be able to help you. It turned out Israel needed help. Needed weapons. There was a, there was a whole airlift of weapons into Israel during that 1973 war. And it was an altruism. She had to make a calculation. The calculation was if I, if I don't strike first, a lot of Israelis are going to die in that first round, but then we'll get American help and we'll be fine. Or I can strike first. We'll have a lot less casualties early, but later when we might need American help, we won't get it and we might get more casualties then. So it was a, it was a very, very difficult trade off. I think she probably made the wrong mistake. And I think if she had to do it again, she would do it again. She would do it differently be given, given how the, that war played out. But this is a horrible situation, which the Nixon administration in Kissinger put the, put the Israelis in. Now, the evidence that I suggest that this wasn't the case is that, you know, 12 hours before the Arab countries actually attacked was, I mean, hours before. Reserves had not been called up in Israel. Israel was not on a, on alert. It was not ready. It wasn't just that it didn't counterattack. It didn't, it didn't put itself in a position to defend itself. And, you know, so it's, so the fact is that most of the reserves were not called up until the actual Arab attack happened. And when certain intelligence people suggested that because of certain communications going on, an attack was probably imminent, that was not taken seriously by, by, by commanders. Now, why wouldn't she at least put the army on alert? Why wouldn't she at least have called up the reserves, even if you don't do a counter strike? I don't, I can't square that one. So I would have to read up more about the war and about the evidence and about what was going on exactly to figure all that out. But the two stories seem to contradict a little bit, although there might be, of course, an explanation for it all. But I do think if the story is true, the real evil here is Kissinger. The evil here is the Nixon administration. I mean, you had a very, very, very difficult decision to make. I think she made the wrong decision, but I wouldn't call it an altruistic one. I mean, she was altruistic in other ways, but not there. Fender Harper, I might sound like a parrot, but cheers to the new shows. I trust your research. And when I look into claims you make, you seem to include more context than your sources. P.S., maybe my song review could fill the new year show. God, I'm so behind on the song reviews. If it doesn't, then I promise on Tuesday, the Tuesday show, the first show of 2023, I will catch up on all my music reviews. I also owe Shaw's Bot a review of a MASH episode. So I'm way behind, and I apologize. Ian says, on the Honest Broker Substack, there was a good article on turnaround of Barnes & Noble good business story management material. I'll have to look for that. Thank you, Ian. Really appreciate it. I love stories like that. Michael says, if you want to reach the 10K goal this Saturday, bring on Harry Binswanger for at least two hours and debate gun control, open immigration. I will donate a ton if you can make that happen. Probably won't do it. It's not what I want to do with the show. I hope you donate a ton anyway, Michael. You've donated a ton all year long, so it's hard for me to appreciate what you've done no matter what happens on the 31st. Michael says, is the saying, you must always be open-minded and attack on objective reality, is being closed-minded actually a vice? I mean, it's closed-minded, open-minded, what do you call it? It's just a wrong term. It's just a stupid term. You don't want to be closed-minded. You want to always open to the true arguments, to new facts, to new evidence. But what does open-minded mean? Once you have the evidence, once you have the facts, you have to make a decision. You have to come to a conclusion and suddenly can be attained. So the whole idea is that you want to have an active mind. You always want to have an active mind. And you want to have an active mind that's objective. You always want to be objective. But open and closed are not terms that I would use as relating to thinking. I don't think they're relevant. I don't think they're helpful at all. Michael says, in what capacity do immigrants raise wages? Well, because they create economic activity, and by creating economic activity, they increase the size of the pie, which is available to raising wages. But I will do a show on this. So I will do an episode of the show in the coming weeks on how immigration raises wages. This is economic arguments on how it happens. Thank you, Michael. Would eliminated capital gains tax and dividend tax be more effective for growing the economy than getting rid of the income tax? I don't know. I think getting rid of the income tax is a bigger deal because the income tax is much bigger than capital gains or dividend taxes. Dividends are taxed twice, so is capital gains. So it's a form of double taxation. You could leave dividend and capital gains taxes and then eliminate the corporate tax. You could do a lot of different things, but the key is to lower tax burden and to simplify taxes and to make them more transparent, make them easier for people to plan for, easier for people to know what the tax consequences of their actions are. So that is, so it's less about, I mean, getting rid of the income tax would be the biggest deal because it's such a huge, complex, massive tax. But if you're going to lower ones and what is politically feasible or not, it's all very, very complicated. And unless you do it right, unless you really think it through and reform all the taxes, not just one, you're not going to achieve as much as you can. A friend of Harper who was running for president in 2024 is running on a platform that would felonize jaywalking. Good luck winning. Adam says, why not make the minimum wage $300 an hour seems that would be even better. I think it should be a thousand. I've long advocated for $1,000 an hour minimum wage. Make everybody rich. It would solve so many of the problems that the United States faces if everybody was rich. All right. Thank you, everybody. I mean, somebody could jump in with $50 question and get us that $250. But if not, that's okay. Jennifer's up to $5,000 an hour. I don't know. I think Jennifer's being a little greedy. I think a thousand is good enough. All right. Remember tonight, Trevor Smith, 7 p.m. Eastern time on Saturday, 2 p.m. East Coast time. We'll do a year in review and looking forward to 2023. It'll just be me. Just be me and you. So please come ask questions, harangue me on the chat. Bring your credit card, checkbook, super chat, PayPal, whatever. We've got a $10,000 match, which I hope we can make. But last New Year's Eve, we did $6,000. So we had a $5,000 match and we exceeded it and we got to $6,000. So maybe, so please join me tonight with Tara and on New Year's Eve for the New Year's Eve show. Thank you to all the super chatters. Thank you, Jason. Jason says, I wrote you an email. I've joined AMA. Oh, one other thing I need to tell you. There is a members only show. Members only show. You should get a notification about it. So please let me know if you don't get a notification. Those of you who are members, those of you members. And let me know if you got the notification, there will be a members only show tomorrow night. So tonight a show, tomorrow night a show and on Saturday. It will be members only live afterwards. Everybody else will be able to see it. It will be a members only chat. So it should be fun. It's 7 p.m. eastern time on Friday. Please let me know if you don't get a notification because this is the first members only show I've ever done. And I've done exactly how it works. But I assume you'll know about it. So please join if you're a member. And we're going to talk about how to change the world. Little topic like that. Should be fun. Should be enjoyable. If you're not a member yet, just press the join button under here in YouTube. Just join YouTube. You have to join YouTube to make a facility you actually being able to be on the show. Those of you who contribute elsewhere, you know, if it's the same amount, I guess you can cancel elsewhere and do the YouTube membership. But the YouTube membership, I will be doing one show a month for members only. And, you know, Scott with the cynicism, since he's not a member, won't be there. So we won't have to, we won't have to tolerate it on the chat. All right, everybody, have a great rest of your week. I will see you.