Emily Jashinsky (45:10)
Let's go. All right, Mark, well, you get Back to your StairMaster. Thanks for coming back on soon. Likewise. Incredible. He's going back to the StairMaster. Well, before we get on with the rest of the show, Mark goes to his, his StairMaster. Did you know that chips and fries were once cooked in beef Tallow until the 1990s when corporations, corporations swapped it for cheap seed oils. Now, those oils make up 20% of the average American's daily calories and are linked to inflammation and metabolic issues. Somehow that got sold as healthy. This is the types of things that send you to the StairMaster at 10:30pm But Masa Chips is flipping the script. They use just three ingredients. Organic corn, sea salt and 100% grass fed beef tallow. No seed oils, just bold flavor and serious crunch. Strong enough to scoop guac without crumbling or salsa by the way I was experimenting with this over the weekend. Snacking on Masa is a whole different vibe. You feel satisfied, light and energized with zero crash bloat or that gross sluggish fog. It really is different and they're so delicious. Beef tallow is the secret sauce. It helps keep you full and focused, not mindlessly munching. Favorite flavor I really like the spicy flavor. I like the lime flavor. I really love the churro flavor. Basically, I just love masa chips. So if you're ready to give Masa a try, go to masachips.comafterparty and use code AFTERPARTY for 25% off your first order. That's masachips.comafterparty, and code AFTERPARTY for 25% OFF your first order. Don't feel like ordering online? That is totally fine. Masa is now available nationwide at your local Sprouts supermarket. So stop by and pick up a bag before they are gone. On the rest on the docket for the rest of the show. Rosie O', Donnell, more New York Times and J.K. rowling I think because we just left off talking with Mark in some detail about media changes, the Washington New York Times. We obviously talked to him about what tanakasi Coates had to say in regards to Charlie Kirk. I think it's a good time to dive into this New York Times article on Charlie Kirk. I'm going to put this up on screen and what we're going to do is walk through it a bit. I mentioned a tease at the top of the show. It's a little might be a little academic. This is the type of thing I used to do with my students at the National Journalism Center. But sometimes it just helps to take apart different paragraphs of an article so you can see the full picture that's very intentionally being built in a piece itself. So here it is. The headline here is the debate style that propelled Charlie Kirk's movement. And this is an attempt to deconstruct all of these different videos of Charlie Kirk over the years and try to come up with the individual pieces of the big puzzle and explain to New York Times readers how Charlie Kirk did what did. But you'll soon see why it's it's worth taking issue with it. The first line Charlie Kirk may be best remembered for arguing in public. Nothing really wrong with that. But they go on to say by tackling hot button button issues like abortion and trans rights, Mr. Kirk created content that became perfect fodder for brand building on social media. Curated clips Highlighting his wins promoted with captions describing him as destroying. Liberals have racked up tens of millions of views on TikTok, YouTube and Instagram since his assassination. Mr. Kirk has been lionized mostly by those on the right, but also by some who do not share his views as a champion of free speech and an interrogator of viewpoints that spanned the political spectrum. And here's where they do a little, a little bit of bragging. The New York Times reviewed more than four dozen of Mr. Kirk's debates stretching back to 2017 and discussed them with four debate coaches and university professors. They say the Times review reveals how Mr. Cook used the debate to deliver a consistent hardline message while orchestrating highly shareable. Now what they're doing, you're already seeing it in this paragraph, is trying to make this more about style than substance. So they're trying to. It's actually an interesting new cope, I think is probably the best way to put it that we're seeing from some on the left as they react to the legacy that Charlie Kirk leaves behind. Rather than deal with the substance of why Charlie Kirk Kirk was so impactful and influential over young Americans and over the conservative movement in the Republican Party, they are going to chalk it up to clever media techniques. And yes, Charlie Kirk was a fairly clever strategist, but I think you're going to see why this is probably more cope than anything else. So they say this genre of debate, which Mr. Kirkhoff Pioneer, is now a template that other social media personalities across the spectrum have increasingly adopted. Here's a look at how Mr. Kirk constructed his viral confrontations and. All right, well, we'll go on. I have more to say about this, but here, you see, they take out an example and their subheading is hyperbole and go to quips. This part is actually really. This part is just funny. It's also kind of weird, but they act as though it's some type of scoopy bit of information that they found four times where he referred to North African lesbian poetry Tree. You guys needed to sit through hours of Charlie Kirk debates to bring your readers that he, like every public speaker, uses canned lines. Okay, so he used this line about North African lesbian poetry five times. He used the exact time, the exact same line in the past two years, five times. They found at least four other examples of it that he's a speaker. This is what public speakers do. And they're acting like this quote go to quip for Charlie Kirk is some type of like, listen, it doesn't say this in the story, but we're talking about what they're implying and what the sort of point of the entire story is. Because don't tell me that someone at the New York Times pitched a story about how they're going to find the quips that Charlie Kirk used five times over the course of two years. No, they're trying to imply that. That Charlie Kirk was up to no good, that he was being intentionally manipulative rather than actually just being a good debater. They say he's engaging and subduing the audience. So they say by restraining his audience from shouting down his opponents, Mr. Kirk insulated himself from seeming like a bully to many viewers of clips shared on social media. Insulated himself from seeming like a bully. Bully. You could also just say he was not a bully. There's another way to communicate the point that you're making. But of course, the New York Times is conveying this point, which is from a reporter, by the way. This is not in the opinion section, but is conveying this point in a way to suggest that it was. It was all an act. It was all a clever manipulation. And not just that Charlie Kirk genuinely wanted to hear from other people because he was fully confident in his own beliefs and also knew, unlike readers of the New York Times Times, that people on TikTok, Instagram and YouTube want to see the clash of ideas, the. The sort of clanging noise of debate. That's actually what happens. So they go on to say Nazi analogies and playing to the crowd. This is another of their subhead, subheadings, trying to capture what's. What made Charlie Kirk a clever strategist here and this one man, they say in this one example, the University of Tennessee, Mr. Kirk, who opposed abortion, responded by proposing a cesarean section as a better alternative and then asked the student if she know what the procedure was. Knew what the procedure was. This is the New York Times quote. It was a tactic Mr. Kirk frequently used, asking opponents to define a term so he could score easy points by making them appear uninformed if they could not. Again, that is meta as hell and avoiding saying that Charlie Kirk, who did not go to college, was just raking these college students over the coals in the debates because they couldn't define terms like cesarean section, even though they purported to have great arguments and points about it. So as we're deconstructing this article, I hope it's becoming clear what the New York Times is trying to do. This is again, maybe a perfectly clear, a perfectly fine, acceptable piece For a lib to write in their opinion section for this to be published under the news section of the paper by a reporter in is completely insane. And you would not see treatment of somebody on the left in. In this meadow way in because it's a cope. That's what this fundamentally is in the pages of the New York Times. So they say in this case, the student knew what a C section was. So Mr. Kirk quickly pivoted to another common strategy by addressing allies in the crowd. This is for you guys with advice on how they should respond to the question if they ever came up in their own lives. Mr. Kirk's claim that C sections are safer than abortions is widely disputed by medical professionals. The rate of medical complications during C sections is more than four times times set of abortions according to research published. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Again, this is a New York Times fact check of posthumously of Charlie Kirk. I'm sure he would have significant rebuttals. What the New York Times is saying right there. They say later in this debate with the same student, Mr. Kirk shifted to more extreme rhetoric calling abortion, quote, worse than the Holocaust. Then they cite a professor of rhetoric, rhetoric at Southern Methodist University saying, quote, discussing forbidden topics and upholding forbidden arguments, quote, is a muscular and emotionally resonant strategy to which Mr. Kirk regularly returned. A strategy? I mean, you have to be kidding. You have to be kidding. Of course it might have been part of a strategy, but on the left we would. In the media, people would take that as what they. As their sincerely held beliefs. I'm telling you, somebody on the right, that is the sincerely held belief of many, many people on the right, they're not people that the New York Times often comes into contact with, but they are real people with real views and beliefs and even in death. The New York Times is publishing an article in which they're posthumously analyzing all of this as a clever strategy more than it was these sincerely held beliefs of Charlie Kirk. So I say after more, more back and forth, Mr. Kirk laid a rhetorical trap. When the student replied human to his question about what species an embryo is, he claimed victory, saying that implied embryos deserve human rights. Again, like, do they listen to themselves? Seriously, do they listen to themselves? They're chalking this up to a rhetorical trap rather than just allowing it to be Charlie Kirk believing he had won an argument and Charlie Kirk's allies believing he had won an argument. Because if you look logically at what the student just said, which is that an embryo is a huge. Is part of the human species. Again, we don't often hear that in the pages of the New York Times, not from the opinion side, not from the news side. But it's possible also that Charlie Kirk maybe just won some of the these debates and it wasn't a dark op, it was just him being better at debating despite the fact that he did not go to college. Now we just, we're seeing a lot of this stuff repeated over and over again. They quote a professor of speech and debate who says this approach is trying to quote, trivialize his opponents as an out of touch member of the elite while, quote, increasing his own ethos as the defender of the regular working class people. Because he once accused his opponent in a debate of insulting, quote, the working poor by suggesting there's a correlation between poverty and violent crime. So just over and over again, rinse and repeat, same time, it just keeps going. More of these quotes that we've seen taken out of context about the Civil Rights Act. The New York Times I think does a slightly better job, a slightly better job treating it with more context. Still not great. But they also at this point talk about a debate that Kirk was winning with a student. And they say because his opponent was unable to fact check Mr. Kirk in real time, she was forced to concede and debate in a framework that was no longer grounded in reality. Well, was he fact checking in real time? They're acting like because she didn't have her laptop up and was able to fact check in real time. But that's, But Charlie Kirk, she approached Charlie Kirk, she had all the time in the world to prepare to have a good answer for this question, just as he prepared to have an answer for the question. So again, like it just, it's cope over and over again. They next accuse him of unprovable generalizations. Basically, you get the point of all of this. There's really no read, no need to read the article. But they end by saying debate videos are now a widespread source of entertainment, entertainment information, particularly for members of Gen Z and Gen Alpha. Yes, yes, because they don't get this in the pages of the New York Times and they certainly didn't until relatively recently. But that is something that Charlie Kirk strategically was smart about understanding. And I saw this happen from behind the scenes. I've mentioned this before. My first job out of college was working with a group called Young America's foundation that was sending Ben Shapiro to campuses after, after particularly what sticks out in my mind is you may not remember this, but there were, there was a really nasty dust up at the University of Missouri that I think ultimately led to their enrollment numbers going down significantly, at least for several years. I haven't checked back on that. Lots of schools are losing enrollment, but this seemed to be a pretty clear correlation. And we sent Ben Shapiro to that campus with a camera crew and we're starting to clip this stuff for social media. And Ben was really eagerly debating people, particularly on the left. And then he started doing that at more and more schools. And people like Charlie Kirk learned from that about the appetite for moral clarity and debate. I've said this a bunch of times, but what the New York Times here is accusing him of doing is having a sense of moral clarity on a lot of issues that other people are sort of timid about. And that's another thing I wanted to say about the TA Nehisi Coates quote calling Charlie Kirk a hate monk monger. A hate monger. First of all, TA Nehisi Coates is a terrible leftist to say that in corporate media. Listen, yes, I. He doesn't need me conservative to call him a terrible leftist, but I genuinely mean that because he is encouraging the division, the division of working class people, middle class people, along racial and gender lines. And that should be anathema to anybody who cares about the material circumstances, circumstances of the, the middle class and the working class. These are often distractions. This idea that Charlie Kirk was necessarily a hate monger is more divisive. And if you're a leftist, you should see that as something that is dividing people from being able to come to the table on questions of material prosperity. Maybe you would also say that Charlie Kirk did that, but I'm talking about TA Nehisi Coates here who purports to be a leftist. Leftist. So that's part A, part B. Gets to why this continues to happen, which is that Charlie Kirk saw the examples of other conservatives who went before him and had very timid conversations. I mean, think about how many people on the right Republicans reacted to the Duke Lacrosse case. People were terrified in real time to other than Stephen Miller, who, by the way, I think there are clips of him on Fox News at the time talking about the Duke Lacrosse case. How's that for full circle? But people, people were timid. And many, many, I mean, Mitt Romney was, I would say, probably one of the more timid voices in a very racially fraught time period, 2012, on that campaign. And Joe Biden still came out and said that Republicans want to, quote, put y' all back in chains. Mitt Romney was accused of being a racist. And people like Charlie Kirk saw that and realized that their argument documents were going to be called racist no matter how they were packaged. And so they realized also that Gen Z and Gen Alpha are swimming in a, a pool of information that is from varying sources. It's hard to, to parse through. It's just sort of everyone's adrift in the information sea and, and in the argument. See, and what people value is those who come to the table and make their arguments are boldly leaning into it, whether they're on the left and the right. Because earlier in the show that allows you to compare right and left. A right wing voice, a left wing voice and you can say, well in this case this guy's wrong, in that case that guy is wrong. But you've had the opportunity to compare and contrast. And yes, it's true that Charlie Kirk understood that Gen Z was interested in that kind of content and actually that a lot of Americans are interested in that kind of content. But to act as though he was an evil genius engineering it specifically like he was the Monsanto engineering these crops of argumentation is completely insane. And it is a cope that I'm increasingly seeing on the left so that they don't have to reckon with why Charlie Kirk was winning so many of those arguments and winning over when you look at polling, particularly young men. But we have seen shifts towards the Republican Party and shift towards cultural conservatism on many different issues. And rather than, I think at first there was this moment. Ezra Klein's initial column was a good example. And what he's been doing over the last couple of years by talking to people on the right is a good example. There's this initial reaction that this young man was doing something laudable by going out to campuses and having these conversations where he brought the people who disagreed with him to the front of the line and sent these debates bopping around the Internet so that people could make up their minds minds for themselves. And that has now evolved into him basically being only successful because he was some type of strategic genius and not actually somebody who was. Who's making good arguments and doing it in a way that the audience felt was helpful. So those are some thoughts on that insane New York Times article. For some levity, I thought we would listen to Rosie o' Donnell talk about publicly about conversations she has with her therapy therapist on Nicole Wallace's podcast, which I believe hilariously is called the Best People. You can't make this stuff up. Let's go ahead and roll the CLIP he has a cult like control thanks to Mark Burnett's Apprentice show that lied to the American people. Mark Burnett's sold fiction as fact and people were confused and lied to and then reality tv, Fox News, and they were more lost. So when people say I changed my mind, we have to say welcome back to reality. And when the Medicaid cuts go in, old people are going to start to die, to die. And if he's not stopped now, we have lost our country. And I don't know, Nicole, how it is that some people cannot see it. My therapist said, why are you so upset? And I said to her, why are you not. Yeah, yeah, I have that conversation too. Because the gaslighting that I think you're alluding to, if you're a thoughtful, informed person, you do stop and say, well, maybe it is me. I mean, what a beautiful moment of self awareness, this glimmer of self awareness from Nicole Wallace. The gaslighting that I see in that clip is Nicole Wallace Wallace having a podcast called quote, the Best People. That is the ultimate form of gaslighting. You should, if you ever get a chance to talk to somebody who worked on the McCain Palin campaign, ask them about Nicole Wallace, try to get some insights, even people who aren't particularly fond of Sarah Palin to this day about how Nicole Wallace and Steve Schmidt treated Sarah Palin when they were working on the McCain campaign. The best People. That is just a really perfect name for a podcast that features Rosie o' Donnell talking about conversations she has with her own therapist. And just, let's just pause on this because Nicole Wallace there was her quote, quote, if you're a thoughtful, informed person, you do stop and say, well, maybe it is me. Incredible. You, I couldn't have put those words in her mouth in a better way. But of course, it's not her she believes. It's everyone else. After she spent years at msm, MSNBC, cheering on Loft, cheering on the Russia collusion hoax as the former press secretary to the George W. Bush administration after people who voted for Trump, of course, in many cases were former Democrats who voted on an anti war basis for Barack Obama and then voted on an anti war basis for Donald Trump because of what, quote, the best people did to their friends and family and their communities over the course of many, many years. You almost don't know what more to say because this is a decade now of Trump coming in, exposing exactly why people like Nicole Wallace should have no claim to the moral high ground. Ground. Rosie o' Donnell is a different question. I'D love to be a fly on her wall. On the wall in her therapy sessions because I imagine the specter of Donald Trump haunts her psychologically and not for. I don't necessarily blame her for being psychologically tormented by Donald Trump's stinging rebukes of Rosie o' Donnell over the years in very public formats. So. So she might actually have a good claim here to being upset that Donald Trump continues to be the President of the United States. But they're looking around and wondering why don't people, why don't people see what we see? Why don't people agree with us that the apocalypse is nigh? Well, because they've seen you do what they think is worse. They've seen you do what they think is worse. I feel this with Comey to too. I'm not saying this is a perfect reaction, but with Comey, the idea that we should have sympathy for James Comey and fear of Donald Trump's. This narrow question of Donald Trump's retribution just lands on deaf ears with me. I'm concerned about the doom spiral of retribution that James Comey started. This particular indictment is one of the least concerning, concerning political retribution lawfare acts that over the last like 10 years now do I think it's great? No. But the fact is James Comey, there's a pretty good case to be made that James Comey by first saying Hillary Clinton violated the law, then he wasn't going to charge her, and then, you know, coming out and making the announcement he did late in the game about the wiener laptop investigation to kind of COVID his ass for what he did with, with Clinton earlier in 2016 and then getting so deeply involved in the Russia collusion hoax, allowing his deputies to get so deeply involved in Russia colluding host, misleading the public, abusing his position and public resources to target a political opponent. A lot of people want to point the finger at Donald Trump for starting us down the doom spiral. I think there's a better case to be made that while they are both participants in the doom, doom spiral, it came down to James Comey and Nicole Wallace and Rosie o' Donnell treated the guy and his, his ilk like boy scouts for the better part of the last decade in ways that they've yet to reckon with. Because a lot of these claims about Russia collusion, that's a really good example, just have been proven false. A lot of the ways that they gaslit throughout the years about Russia collusion, Covid all of the that. So I think this is great for Ms. Now I Think this is great content for, for Ms. Now creating this, carving out this new tunnel in the echo chamber of like never Trump world. I think this is actually really perfect. So congrats to them on a job well done. And before we run, let's, let's look at what J.K. rowling said about Emma Watson's comments that we discussed last week. By the way, my JK Rowling pronunciation was corrected. I started reading the Harry Potter books when I was like, I don't know, probably like five or six somewhere around there. So all of the pronunciations in my head, maybe, yeah, maybe I was like seven or eight. But all the pronunciations in my head of J.K. rowling, whatever, they're, they're wrong. Like I, in my head, I pronounce the characters names in completely butchered ways that a seven year old old would pronounce them in her head. So that's my explanation of why I referred to J.K. rowling as J.K. rowling. But after Emma Watson said that she's trying to hold space, like Ariana Grande, who apparently posted something about Donald Trump today as well. Did you guys see that? She apparently went off on Donald Trump, but she was saying she held space. Emma Watson held space. I really distracted myself by bringing Ariana Grande into this. That's okay. Emma Watson was saying she was holding space for reckoning with J.K. rowling's position on transgenderism and the J.K. rowling that she knew as a child who was supportive and created this beautiful world. And I reacted to that last week by saying it seems like a moment of cultural maturity, maybe personal maturity on behalf of Emma Watson, just for being able to say what should have always been able to be said, said, which is that you can disagree bitterly with people. And this goes back to Ta, Nehisi Coates and Charlie Kirk without also saying that they're racist hate mongers who are putting, you know, trans people's lives in jeopardy when that's not the case. Like that is not a fact. You may think it's a fact, but it's a, it's, it's a tenuous fact at best. It's not really a fact, but even if you think it, you should, you should recognize it as an opinion and an argument you have to make, not a fact that just exists in the world independent of your ability to build it into some type of argument. So Rowling reacted on X by saying, I'm seeing, saying I'm seeing quite a bit of comment about this. So I want to make a couple of points I'm not owed. Eternal agreement from any actor who once played a character I created goes on to say Emma Watson and co stars have every right to embrace gender identity ideology. Such beliefs are legally protected and I wouldn't want to see any of them threatened with loss of work or by violence or death because of them. However, Emma and Dan in particular have both made it clear over the last few years that they think our former professional association gives them particular right and the obligation to critique me and my views in the public. Years after they finish acting in Potter, they continue to assume the role of de facto spokespeople for the world I created. If you're J.K. rowling, that must be infuriating. Point point taken for sure. When you've known people since they were 10 years old, it's hard to shake a certain protectiveness. Until quite recently hadn't managed to throw off the memory of children who needed to be gentle coaxed through the dialogue in Big Scary Film Studio for the last few years, I've repeatedly declined invitations from journalists to comment on Emma specifically, most notably on the witch trials of J.K. rowling. Ironically, I told the producers that I didn't want her to be hounded as the result of anything I said. That's new information and interesting information and assuming that it's true, I think very commendable. The television presenter in the attached clip highlights Emma's all witches speech, which if you follow this stuff closely, you know know. Rowling continues to say, in truth, that was a turning point for me, but it had a post script that hurt far more than the speech itself. Emma asked someone to pass on a handwritten note from her to me which contained the single sentence quote, I'm sorry for what you're going through. Rowling says she has my phone number. This was back when the death rape and torture threats against me were at their peak, at a time when my personal security measures had to be tightened considerably and I was constantly worried for my family's safety. Emma had just publicly poured more petrol on the flames, yet thought thought a one line expression of concern from her would reassure me of her fundamental mental sympathy and kindness. She goes on to critique Emma Watson on a really interesting class basis. She says she'll never need a homeless shelter. She's never going to be placed on a mixed sex public hospital ward. I'd be astounded if she's ever been in a high street charging room since childhood. Her public bathroom is single occupancy and comes with a security man standing guard. Outside the door. Has she ever had to strip off in a newly mixed sex changing room at a council run swimming pool? She goes on to say, I wasn't a multimillionaire at 14. I lived in poverty while writing the book that made a Emma famous. The greatest irony here is that, and I'm just reading chunks of this because it's very long, had Emma not decided in her most recent interview to declare that she loves and treasures me a change of tech? I suspect she's adopted because she's noticed. This is the interesting part, full throated condemnation of me is no longer quite as fashionable as it was. I might never have been this honest. Emma is right, rightly free to disagree with me and indeed to discuss her feelings about me in public. But I have the same right and I finally decided to exercise it. So, so you can see the frustration pouring out. You can, you can sense the frustration pouring out of J.K. rowling here. And I do not blame her one bit for this reaction. In fact, I think it is entirely fair because, and maybe this is a mistake that I made last week. I actually try to celebrate these moments where we see that shift in culture that J.K. rowling herself just mentioned where she says I should, she suspects, respects, she's adopted this tack quote because she's noticed full throated condemnation of me is no longer quite as fashionable as it was. That doesn't mean, I guess I don't think I did this last week, but that doesn't mean anybody has to be lauded for their bravery and intellect when they failed to act courageously, boldly for the last 10 plus years and when they still appear to be on the wrong side of an issue. And Rowling is right that people like Emma Watson are on the wrong side of this issue for, in many cases for class reasons, because they don't understand that this is happening at homeless shelters, at women's shelters, in the locker rooms of kids whose parents can't afford fancy lawyers. This is real. It's hurting kids who need scholarships and track, for example, and those scholarships are their ticket to success in higher education or debt free higher education. And I mean these class concerns are absolutely real. And her frustration is so raw and I think well placed in this case. So Rowling's reaction to this is eloquent and entirely within the bounds of reasonable, I would say like a reasonable rebuke of Emma Watson for years not wanting to say exactly what she said in 2025 when it's easier to say it because especially in the uk, I mean we talk about the quote vibe shift that's come here to the US and about Donald Trump's Kamala's for they them ad being something that really changed the election. If you followed the Cass Report story in the UK and how actually in some sense because they had a centralized place in the Tavistock Clinic to track the treatment of transgender identifying, identifying individuals, they were actually able to study much more closely and put the lie to a lot of claims from dubious studies that have been pushed for the left by a really long time about self harm and what happens if people go without treatment. And that was a sea change in the UK on this particular issue. So it is opportunistic. It is not a, I mean it's still a slightly brave act given the circles Emma Watson runs in personally, but professionally it will make her more palatable. There is an opportunism to that. There's no question to be asked. I still, my, my instinct is still to, to celebrate a moment when we see public pressures catching up with cynical, craven celebrities who are inching towards a better position because they've realized maybe that they, they made a mistake in the past. And I wonder actually if Emma Watson, like many members of the public in the UK are, the US actually will change their minds on the issue entirely. I sort of doubt it, partially because of those class reasons that Rowling herself outlined. Thanks anyone who wrote in and corrected my pronunciation of Rowling. That was nice of you. We did another episode of Happy Hour last week which was a blast. If you haven't been listening to Happy Hour, that's where I go. Audio only. Just riff on all your questions about all kinds of different topics. Politics, politics, culture, personal, Lilith Fair, whatever. Truly whatever it is a complete grab bag. You can find that on the podcast feed on Apple or Spotify. Wherever you get your podcast, please subscribe. Over there you get all these live episodes. They're posted on the podcast feed. And also Happy Hour is there just for podcast listeners. And I love doing it because there's something fun about just you and a microphone. So those come out on Friday nights. You can continue to send in your questions to emilyevilmaycare media.com that's where you can reach me. I'm doing my best to keep up with the email. I try to answer everyone. We will be back on Wednesday with more with more After Party Happy Hour on Friday, but more After Party on Wednesday live at 10pm Eastern. See you all then.
