 the radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran Brook Show. All right, everybody, welcome to Iran Brook Show. On this Friday morning, hopefully everybody's doing fantastically well. You had a great week. You're looking forward to a good weekend. And you're taking all Iran's rules for life seriously and having a phenomenal time. All right, I'm curious about sound. One, I made some changes to OBS that hopefully should solve this problem. Let me know. Sound is good, Action Jackson says. Let me know if that is universally agreed upon, that that is the conclusion. Sound is good today, Ian said. Maybe it's good forever. If this solves it, then we are a bit low, a bit low in volume. That can be fixed. Surprising, but that can be fixed. That better, that better in terms of low volumes, that better in terms of volume. Let me know if that's better. And then I can certainly adjust it. Mirzloff says it's a bit low, but was that before I changed it or after I changed it? Jennifer says, now it's good. All right, right now, East Coast time is 12 o'clock. So here's the thing. I'm probably going to run this poll more than once. And so you'll have multiple opportunities to answer this. But I am running a poll about if I converted the show instead of having kind of a morning early afternoon show and then an evening show and having a news roundup every day, then followed up by a more serious topic and then doing it five days a week, not doing anything on Saturday, not doing anything on Sunday. If I did that, what, I guess, my question to you guys is, would there be something? What would be the best hours for me to do that? Is it 12 to 2, 2 to 4, 4 to 6, 8 to 10? It looks like the least favorite time slot is 4 to 6, which is probably good because it's not a very good time slot for me. So now the question is, 12 to 2 or 2 to 4? My guess is that that's going to depend on whether Europeans are answering the question or Americans are answering the question, whether it's East Coast people or West Coast people. And this might vary between the people who typically listen to my news hour and people who listen to my evening shows. But please vote. Please let me know. And I don't know if I'm going to make the change. I don't know when I'm going to make the change. But it would be helpful. It would be helpful to know what your guys preference is. I've put up the volume. Let me know if the volume is good now. Let me know if you get any kind of distortions, any kind of hissing, or any kind of anything. But is the volume good? Is this the right level for volume? It should be. It looks like all the markers are there, but it might still be low. So let me know what you guys think. All right, what else? So please fill out the we've got 30 people watching and 20 people voting. So please vote on the thing. All right, so the echo is gone. Sound is great. Still a little low here. And are you sure you've got your volume all right? I mean, we're going to take this. That's got a scary territory. Take this to. OK, let me know if this is better. This should be plenty loud. But if it's not, then there are more things I can do. And let me know if distortions come back. All right, so that was point number one is the poll. Please vote. Please let me know. Everything's East Coast time. Everything is PM. And we can play around with it. Maybe it's 1 to 3. Maybe it's 3 to 5. We can play around with them as well. But for now, 12 to 2, 2 to 4 look like the winners. So we'll carry this into the evening shows and see what people are thinking about that. All right, quickly, when I remind everybody, particularly those of you in Europe, that I am doing a public speaking seminar in London, October 18th, small group. It is expensive, but sort of be in the hundreds of dollars, but not in the thousands of dollars. But we'd love to have a small group of people to do it. We've already got a few. We're going to cap it at 10. So I won't have more than 10. 5, 6, 7, 8 is really, really good. It would be really, really good. So the way to sign up is basically to send me an email, Iran at Iran Book Show. Iran at Iran Book Show. And then I'll send you more information. Those of you have already written to me, I apologize I haven't got back to you. I will get back to you over the weekend. I want to see if I get a few more bites, a few more people interested. All right, let's see. Reminder to use the super chat to ask questions. And yeah, let's jump in. Quite a bit of AI news. This every day seems to be AI news, but a couple of interesting items coming out on AI that I thought I would share with you guys. So there is a study that was done by an analyst firm called Forrester that does, they do a lot of employment data, a lot of employment consulting contracts, things like that. So they're employee experts and employment. And so they did some projections in terms of how does AI affect jobs by 2030? So that is in the next seven years. And by their estimates, 2.4 million jobs in America will be replaced by AI. That is, will be replaced by artificial intelligence, by software over the next seven years. That is a significant lower number than a lot of the panic and hysteria that we were hearing when Chai GPT first came out. And there was generally a lot of panic here. Of course, it's only seven years into the future. That could change dramatically as we move further into the future. And also, let's see, the kind of jobs are interesting. So it's primarily white collar jobs. And the ones that are most at risk are things like technical writers, social science research assistants, proofreaders, copywriters, and generally administrative assistant positions. Those are the ones that are most at risk. And they've got a whole list here of the legal profession is most at risk, people working in the legal profession, doing research in the legal profession, at most risk. And then it's kind of life sciences, life physical and social sciences, office administrative, and so on. But it is a white collar, much more substantive than loss of jobs is the number of jobs that are going to be affected. That is where what will happen is you'll get AI to assist. So your job will be assisted by AI. That is a more substantial number. It is projected that most research jobs, most white collar jobs over the next 10 years are going to have a component that involves interacting with AI. So AI is going to dominate kind of the employment landscape, particularly the white collar, if you will, employment landscape of the next 10 years. Interesting. Of course, people are very wide about AI. There's a lot of panic. There's a lot of hysteria. There's a lot of Doomsday sayers. And of course, we all know, we talked about this in a previous show, that the heads of all the AI companies have gone to Washington and kind of almost groveled and begged that Washington regulate them and come up with regulations to save humanity from the plague that is AI, the latest Doomsday predictions, projections are now AI related. I think that's replaced climate change as the number one fear that people have is well going to die because the machines are going to turn against us. Anyway, not to worry, you really shouldn't worry because Congress is on top of this. We now have a bipartisan group of US senators that meet weekly to talk and discuss issues related to AI and to consider regulations around AI to limit their damage. This group is led by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. It includes who is from New York, of course. It includes Todd Young, a Republican from Indiana. Mike Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota. And Martin Heinrich, a Democrat from New Mexico. All of him, I am assured and have told without question, have PhDs in computer science and are proficient in the use and writing of algorithms for AI. I mean, who are these losers to decide on the fate of one of the most revolutionary technologies in human existence? What do they know about AI? What does Chuck Schumer really know about computers? Does he know where the power button is, maybe? I mean, really, these guys have no clue. They don't have a technical background. They have no idea what is involved. And what are the risks? What are they truly afraid of? Well, in the article, I'm describing this, it tells us what they're worried about. They're racing, racing, because they're really worried and it's a race. They're racing to formulate rules that protect Americans. Oh, god, help us. They protect Americans from AI's worst threats. What are AI's worst threats? Such as biological weapons. I guess AI will produce biological weapons and place them in the hands of people who we cannot trust and might inflict on all of us. And mass unemployment. So the biggest threats, according to this very prestigious group of senators who I'm sure know exactly what they're talking about and really understand this issue well, is biological weapons and mass unemployment. Now, I get biological weapons, right? I mean, what CHETGPD has the potential of doing is placing in the hands of pretty much anybody the knowledge and ability, maybe, to produce biological weapons. Maybe the bad actors can use CHETGPD to produce chemical or biological weapons or other weapons that have the potential to be truly disastrous. But the reality is that this is something that to some extent can be addressed through regulations, but the knowledge is out there. The knowledge is out there with CHETGPD or without CHETGPD, the knowledge is out there. And then equal to biological weapons is mass unemployment. So not only are these four senators likely completely and thoroughly ignorant of AI, what it means, how it works, what it does, but they're equally or even more ignorant. Actually, given their history, I would say even more ignorant if that is possible, the more ignorant of economics. CHETGPD AI will not create mass unemployment. And if this is what the senators are worried about, please, you know, what do you do? What do you do? This is where partisanship would be really, really good. Wouldn't it be great if they fought and they don't get along, and Republicans and Democrats hate each other so much that they can't work together to formulate a strategy to regulate AI and to prevent mass unemployment. I've always told you when Republicans and Democrats get together and they agree on stuff, that's when you have to run for the hills. But don't worry, because the article goes on to say, in interviews with senators, former staffers, and close observers, optimism, optimism is running high that the rare but mighty alliance between Democrats and Republicans can pull off the extraordinary, complex tasks of confronting AI. We're schumer at the helm. I mean, what we need here is heroic music of the charge of the cavalry or something. We're schumer at the helm so far. They've organized three briefings over the summer to educate senators on the technology and are preparing nine so-called insight forums to continue that work for the fall. Major tech and industrial leaders, including meta platforms, Mark Zuckerberg, Teslas, Inks, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates are slated to attend the first gathering on Wednesday. And we know that the senators we all ears, they'll be super dedicated to learning from these giants of technology, who they are suing in court and trying to break up and trying to pass laws to decapitate. What do you even do with this? So, yes, our senators are here to rescue us from the dangers of AI. If there was a God, God help us. Since there isn't one, I don't think anything is gonna help us. It's a disaster. All right, we're gonna skip that. We are going to skip that. Yeah, just a quick comment for all the doomsayers out there with regard to the dollar and the dollar's replacement and the dollar's collapse and the dollar's disappearance. The dollar was down a little bit yesterday and it made the news because the dollar's been going on this streak of upticks. It just gets stronger and stronger, almost at a daily basis. And it is on a daily basis. And the dollar is as strong as it is on a uptick swing as strong as it's ever had, maybe since 2005, nobody's seen it, anything like this. Now that does not say the dollar will weaken. It's not to say the dollar's not overpriced. But if you look at the dollar-yen ratio right now, it's approaching 150, the euro's holding up fairly well. The pound is holding up fairly well. But for many other currencies, the dollar is just ripping. Is this good? It's good for us in the sense that as Americans, the yuan has collapsed. So the Chinese currency has collapsed. The ruble we know has collapsed. So we've got a dollar that in terms of importing things from China, in terms of importing goods from much of the rest of the world, we're in great shape. So US consumers are in good shape. We can buy the best products in the world at a lower and lower price because our dollar is stronger and stronger. Of course, the reason the dollar is strong is because the interest rates are high. Interest rates are high, also making us as Americans poorer. They're causing assets to decline. Real estate prices decline. Mortgage rates to go up. Loan to go up. We become more indebted. Our interest on the payments goes up. So there are good things about a strong dollar, cheaper imports, and very bad things about a strong dollar, not the strong dollar itself, but the cause of the dollar is high interest rates, those high interest rates, of course, costing us, each of us in our pocketbooked. But it is interesting to watch the dollar when so many of our friends have made these predictions about its imminent collapse. And of course, they're still making predictions about its collapse, and maybe one day it will collapse, and they'll say we told you so. But they've been saying this for a long time and the exact opposite seems to be happening in spite of what they've been saying. And again, the main reason for the dollar strength thing is weakness, economic weakness across the world, in other places, and high interest rates in the United States. All right. Yeah, interesting story out of Cuba. So Cuban authorities say they have broken up a human trafficking ring, and they arrested 17 people. As a consequence, human trafficking out of Cuba, I mean, not horribly surprising, but then you read about what kind of trafficking this was. This is not the typical human trafficking of bringing in women or children for sex or for things like that. The human trafficking that the Cubans accused of is trying to lure young Cuban men to serve in the Russian military in Ukraine. So this suggests a number of things. One is, oh my God, Russia is pretty desperate if they're trying to get young Cubans to come and fight for them in Ukraine. But we know Russia's desperate, so this doesn't, is really a surprise. But what's really shocking is, given Cuba's close relationship historically with Russia, that Cuba would stop this. You know, according to a Cuban Interior Minister, as a result of the investigation, 17 people have been arrested so far among them the internal organizer of these activities. And, you know, they said the people involved in this would be punished up to 30 years in prison. A possibly a life sentence or even a death penalty, depending on the severity of the so-called crimes. According to, the Cubans are not allowed to fight as mercenaries overseas. I mean, that's surprising, given the Cuban has mercenaries in Venezuela and even in Mexico, arguably, Cuba has sent mercenaries. But somehow there is a break between Cuba and Russia, which is surprising. And something just to keep an eye on, I don't have an answer for this. I don't really, I haven't seen it very well explained in the media what exactly is going on. But it does appear that Cuba and Russia have a, you know, the Cubans are not sending the young people to die in Ukraine, even voluntarily, they're not allowed to go voluntarily, and indeed they're put in the jail if they helped organize such a mission. That is interesting given, again, a long history of very close relationships between Cuba and Russia. And indeed Cuba couldn't have survived as a communist regime without the help of Russia. All right, now the quick story from China. And that is that, you know, Apple stock has been declining significantly over the last few days. And a lot, some of it at least has to do with the fact that the Chinese government is starting to clamp down on iPhone use within China. And it's starting, it started in the same way as the United States started with TikTok. Basically what they're doing is they're banning the use of iPhones by government officials in China. So government staff is not gonna be allowed to have an iPhone. And of course the Chinese are saying the same thing as the Americans say when we ban Chinese equipment, national security, they're listening in, they're using the iPhone to spy on us, which is a bit of a joke because if you know the history, the Apple has been, you know, has fought the US government about gaining accents to the iPhone, about trying to break into iPhones. Apple is the one company that seems to be insisting on protecting our privacy, privacy at least vis-a-vis the government. So Beijing has told employees at some central government agencies in recent weeks to stop using Apple iPhones at work, there is a fear that this climb down will broaden. Apple sells a lot of its product in China. China is a big market for Apple, not only does it actually do the assembly of the iPhones in China, but it also sells significantly into that market. Apple stock has been beaten up as a consequence of this development. This is the little tits for tats that most of them are nonsensical and silly. The China and the United States are involved in right now as part of what is perceived to be a second Cold War. Let's hope it stays a Cold War, not a hot war. And so, you know, this is the kind of back and forth that is going on. Some of it's serious. There's every, every, every single reason to believe that Huawei technology, wireless technology being used in routers in the US were actually used for Chinese spying. So banning those made complete sense. TikTok, really, that's just silly and stupid and symbolic. You just use symbolically, but just again to stir up angst and to stir up infighting, not particularly meaningful at all. And then, yeah, so, so, you know, China demand for iPhones in decline and that explains a significant decline in Apple stock over the last few days. All right, let's see. Yeah, interesting. CNN just ran a poll, an election poll with, oops, news story closed on me. Looking basically at Republican candidates and how they do versus Biden. So taking them one at a time and looking at how they would do versus a Biden presidency. And it's interesting, it's Biden is of course unbelievably unpopular. I mean, it's quite, it's indeed shocking how unpopular Biden is with American electorate. Even among Democrats, over 60% of Democrats think the Democrats need to find somebody else that Biden is too old to do the job. And they are, you know, so there is very little enthusiasm, excitement, and ultimately support for Biden if he ran again. Of course, we all know that Trump has very low likeability and very low levels of support among the general public outside of the diehard Republicans. Outside of, you know, 50% of Republicans will vote for him, it seems no matter what. Trump has a really hard time mustering support. And he actually has greater support than I would expect but that's primarily because he's going up against Biden. So if you look at a matchup between Trump and Biden, you know, it looks like mostly a tie maybe with Biden, you know, a percent ahead of Trump, but not much more than that. So it's basically for all intents and purposes, a tie. Right now it's 47, 46 actually for Trump, but that's meaningless, that's basically a tie. 5% saying they would choose a different candidate 2% say they don't plan to vote. This is among, you know, this is in the CNN poll. If you look at other candidates, Vivek does as well as Trump, 47 to 46. Actually, no, Vivek does a little worse than Trump, 46 to 45. So Biden beats Vivek 46 to 45. Christie, Christie beats Biden, 44 to 42. DeSantis, absolute tie, this was shock, Scott, I know, but complete tie with Biden, 47. Now again, these are early polls. I don't have no idea what they mean if they mean anything, but that is a complete tie for DeSantis. Mike Pence supposedly and Tim Scott both beat Biden, 46 to 44, I think that makes sense. They're both perceived as reliable. I'm not sure Mike Pence, if put under scrutiny would actually get the 46, but you know who beats Biden by a big margin and solidly and, you know, really trounces Biden on a national poll of a Republican? Well, if you followed, you should know because the one I haven't mentioned yet, and that's Nikki Haley. Nikki Haley is the only Republican candidate to actually have more than a two-point advantage over Biden, and in this case, it's a six-point advantage. Nikki Haley beats Biden 49 to 43, 49 to 43. I mean, she would win the presidency if she ran. She's smart, she's articulate, she's solid. You know, she's not as radical as I would like it to be, but maybe that's what makes her electable. I think she's good on foreign policy. I think she's good on just basic stuff. She was brave enough to accuse both Republicans and Democrats of overspending. Vivek loses to Biden by one percentage point, 46 to 45. So basically a tie, basically a tie. He's actually the only Republican that outright loses to Biden. Trump beats Biden by a percentage, although I don't think that's true. Tim Scott and Mike Pence beat Biden by two percentage points. Well, I understand this is tied. Nikki Haley beats Biden by six points. Now, again, I don't know what this means. I don't know what the value of it is. But, you know, let's hope, I hope at least, I don't know about you guys. I hope that this helps her within the Republican primary. So let's hope she uses this to gain some visibility among Republicans and to gain a solid footing. All right, quickly, this is just a ridiculous, I just wanted to read you something. So there's a new institute being founded. It's called the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism. Zionism of course being the ideology of the founding of the state of Israel, which I am critical of. But listen to this, this is the description. And I don't know, I might pay somebody if they could explain what this actually means. But here's the description of the Institute from, I guess, its website. The Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism aims to support the delinking of the study of Zionism from Jewish studies. And to reclaim academia and public discourse for the study of Zionism as a political, ideological and racial and gendered knowledge project intersecting with Palestine and decolonial studies, critical terrorism studies, settler-canonian studies and related scholarship and activism. Now all of that was one sentence. Studying Zionism, it's direct work for the Israeli state and its other work is politically necessary. The rigorous transnational study of Zionism as a political ideology in practice and of Zionist institutions as political actors is necessary for the political pursuits from democracy to decolonization. Now it's interesting, because this is just a left-wing anti-Semitic and just anti-Israeli, just radical left horrific institution and supported by just horrific academics. But I find it interesting, in that first sentence, just the first section says that it's dedicated to the delinking of the study of Zionism from Jewish studies, right? And of course, the reason they did that, the reason they put that right there, the delinking of Zionism from Jewish studies, is say, look, oh no, we're not anti-Semites, this is not about Jews, just about Zionism, we're limiting it to Zionism as if you can make that separation. And as if Zionism means anything outside of its relationship to Jewish studies. But of course, what is it linking it to? And of course, you've got intersectionality here, intersecting with Palestinian and decolonial studies. This is all kind of critical race theory, intersectionality all brought in to attack Israel and to delegitimize the state of Israel. And yeah, it's critical Zionism studies instead of critical race studies. And it's perfect, this is where the left is. It is run by people who are big in the BDS, the boycott Israel movement. It is run by people who are horrifically anti-Israel and consistently anti-Israel. And it is an expression of deep-seated hostility to Israel because it is a successful, prosperous state and combined with real anti-Semitism. All right, on that wonderful piece of news, we will call that a day. We've got three questions. John has put in $400. Yvonne, will you review the 2011 album Join Us by the might, they might be giants. I know that your song review is $100 per song, but maybe you could pick four of your favorites and go more in depth with them. I really hope you chuckle a couple of times at least and get some enjoyment for this album like I have over the years and still do. All right, thank you, John. Really appreciate the support that you provide the show. And thanks for getting me to do the album. I will look at it and do some kind of review of it. All right, we only have basically the other, this is also from John. So we only have two questions. So this will be a short show, which is fine with me. But if you'd like to ask a question, if you have something you'd like to ask, please do so now because there's not going to be a lot of time once I answer these questions, we're done. James says, why has no libertarian objectivist ever held a high-level position in the United States? The Mountain West, Texas and other states all have that potential for someone to win. However, it appears people put up bad candidates. Yeah, I mean, look, it's hard to comment about libertarians. I mean, the libertarian party is a joke, always has been a joke. They put up joke candidates. They put up, you know, horrible human beings as candidates for many of these jobs. And they have, you know, people are not going to vote for anarchy. They're not going to vote for the number one thing on your plaque. I don't know. You're running on legalizing everything people are against. So you've got to have serious candidates and there are not that many serious people who want to run. And objectivists are never going to win in the Mountain West. The Mountain West is not pro-freedom. And the Mountain West is not in a position to elect an objectivist, a complete separation of state from economics kind of person. Now they've been, they've been city council members who've been objectivists, but they only could become city council members by playing a political game, which I think, you know, waters down their objectivism and makes them not very good politicians at the end of the day. So I don't know. I mean, bad candidates and the fact that the culture, anyway, including in the Mountain West, is not ready for it. Texas? Texas? Objectivist, any objectivist candidate is going to be pro-abortion. How can he win in Texas? Can't win in Texas. So I don't know. James, and I think this is more broadly, you guys just, I don't know why, but you guys think that what I say on the Iran Book Show is kind of mainstream or not mainstream, but is electable anywhere on planet Earth? I don't know what, what, you're not living in the same world as I am. The things I say here, representing, let's say, the objectivist attitude towards politics and political views, you know, would not, cannot win anywhere right now on planet Earth. An objectivist ran, I think, for Congress in Colorado. You know, I mean, he did okay, but he couldn't win. There's just no way. James asks, how does Texas overtake California without high quality universities? It has the most Fortune 500 companies in the country. It's going to be difficult without high quality universities. It's going to be, but I don't think Texas will overtake California without California declining. So the way Texas overtakes California is not by being super duper successful. It's by Texas faltering. It's by Texas declining. And I think that's a lot of the progress already being made, even in population. It's not so much people excited to go to Texas. It's people want to leave California. And that's too bad. It would be better and much better if it was the other way around. I don't know if the other way around, but if it was that people excited to go to Texas. All right. I just want to remind everybody we're running a poll about if I went to a show where I just did two to three hours every day, right? No Saturday, no separation between the news show and a more in-depth show. But every show would be, first hour would be news and then the second portion would be in-depth. What would be the best times for a show like that? And all of the times I've listed in the poll are East Coast Times and they're all PM. So I'm curious, I have a feeling today's show started very early. So I'm not surprised that people like very early shows in the majority right now. I wonder if I did the poll on my 8 p.m. show if the poll would flip. We will see because I'll do it on a number of different shows to see what happens. But I'm curious in terms of you, it seems like 12 to 2 right now is winning out. Although every time I've started a show at 12, that show has had the lowest number of live attendees. As my other show shows that tend to start at 2, tend to have the highest. They tend to have over 100 people live at any given point in time and here we're 69, 70. So I have a feeling the poll is biased by who's on right now. But I keep doing the poll and do it in different times and let's see if it makes a difference. But this is what is your preference for such a show. I am curious. It looks like 4 to 6 is the least popular time. It's the time people least want, which is good because it's probably the least convenient for me as well. Alright, let's see. Lewis asks, how did the Soviet Union hold up for so long and become so powerful militarily even stronger than other countries that had mixed economies more individualist? Well, it didn't hold up for very long. I mean, one, Soviet Union held up to a large extent because of detente, because of help from the West during a number of periods in the 70s. One that I remember, early 70s. There was real risk of famine in the Soviet Union. There was real risk of food shortages. And it's basically the United States that bailed them out and supplied them with food. We're talking about some of the most fertile ground, fertile land in the world under Ukraine and in Ukraine and Russia. And yet they were starving and the United States provided them with a means to feed themselves. Technologically, they survived by stealing from the atomic weapon know-how to pretty much everything else was a product of the Soviet Union stealing. And so economically, they weren't surviving. They were dirt poor. They won the verge of collapse a number of times. If not for US help, if not for detente, if not for US support, the Soviet Union would have ended a long time earlier than the Berlin Wall coming down in 1989. It would have happened a lot earlier. We, by supporting the Soviet Union, by supplying them with food and other products by trading with them, basically allowed them to continue to survive. But it's very poor under awful conditions. And then militarily, they were not strong militarily. What they had was lots of people, lots of weapons and lots of nukes. And they poured much of their resources into building those nukes. Nukes are not that expensive to build. They built a lot of them. They built a fast. And so that's what you had. You had a huge number of nukes. And that constituted, you know, Soviet military strength. They also had a lot of tanks, but awful tanks, not very war functioning tanks. They luckily for them didn't really get into any wars. The one war they got into is the one of Afghanistan and they lost that war. But they never got into a war with the West. And if they had, they would have been crushed, at least conventional, from a conventional weapons system. You know, the Soviet Union was in a lot worse shape than you guys think. And it survived to the extent that it survived only because of the assistance of the West. Wilhelm says, university professors didn't worry about AI. Their jobs could have been replaced by parrots, but haven't. That's pretty good. Fred Harper says, you got the pole function figured out. Awesome. Yes. All right. So we've only got 59 people on the pole, you know, 74 watching live now. So please consider voting in the poll. I really like to see right now. It's like, it's, it's, it's unhelpful because basically we've got, for every time slot, I've got like a quarter of you liking. So, you know, the rest of you who haven't voted yet, please vote. Maybe you'll sway the poll a little bit. Maybe we'll get some better numbers. I don't know, but, but let's at least, at least make an effort to, to get that up. You know, so this is, this primarily for the reason I'm doing this for on the live show is this is, I'm basically asking for those of you who watch live, would you watch live? What is the, where would you most likely watch live? That's what interests me the most. All right. So basically, there's not a clear favorite. 12 to two is, is favored, but I suspect that's because we've got a lot of Europeans on. All right. I'll ask again tomorrow and during Saturday show. So there will be tomorrow, a show tomorrow, 3pm. I will see you guys there. Thank you to all the superchatters. Thank you primarily to John for, for the payment for a review of an album. And, oh, Lewis has a quick question thought on the Cuban missile crisis. What would have to happen for the US? Had us retaliated after Soviets down their plane? Which plane? I guess I'm not, is this a, I'm not sure which plane you're talking about. But thoughts of the Cuban missile crisis. I thought Kennedy handled it okay. But, you know, I think it was absolutely right to demand a removal of the missiles from Cuba. It was, it was, you know, this was in the midst of the Cold War. It's within our domain. Oh, the U2. In terms of the U2 plane. Is that what he's asking about? What would have happened if the US retaliated after Soviets down the plane? Yeah, I mean, I don't think, I don't think the US would have, would have retaliated and should have retaliated after downing. It was a military plane clearly spying on the Russians. They had every right, if you will, you know, to down the plane to risk you taking the military. I don't think the US should have gone to war for that. And I don't think they would have. There are other things that the United States should have been a lot tougher with the Soviets on. Not helping them, but I don't think the downing of the U2 plane should have been one of them. But I do think that it was appropriate to be particularly tough on the Soviets vis-a-vis Cuba. All right. Thank you, Lewis. Thank you to all the superchatters. Don't forget to like the show before you leave. Don't forget to vote in the poll before you leave. And I will see you all tomorrow at 3 p.m. East Coast time. It's Saturday and a topic to be determined. I will post it as soon as I have the topic. Bye everybody. See you soon.