It's a Numbers Game: The Numbers Behind the Maduro Arrest: Polling Data, Military Intervention, Immigration, and America’s Cultural Shift

If you remember, on that last episode, I was saying to you that early polling information looked like most Americans didn't have strong feelings about the raids outside of how they felt about Trump. Like, if you like Trump, you support the raids. If you didn't like Trump, you didn't like the raids the arrest of Dictator Nicholas Monduro, but if you but a lot of people were kind of like ambivalent to form policy is not a big issue for them. I said that based upon early polling information

at the time. Now new information has come out, Basically sitting there and saying, yeah, most Americans are really tied to how they feel a Trump with the access option of Hispanics. Hispanics have a stronger opinion, especially if they are Venezuela and our Cuban That is the big caveat, but overall it falls under partisan lines. Let's break it down.

So new poll came out from the Washington Post. It was released on Tuesday, and it found that forty percent of Americans supported the raid the arrest of Venezuelan dictator Nicholas Mdurou, seventy four percent of the being Republicans, thirteen percent of Democrats, thirty four percent of Independence, forty two percent opposed the raid, seventy six percent of Democrats, ten

percent of Republicans, and forty two percent of independence. Basically, the Democrats and Republicans mirror each other, right, It's strictly a partisanship, almost entirely Independence, lean a little against it, but not that heavily. And independence. Once again, it's hard to pull independence because a lot of them usually always vote one way or the other. They either always vote Democrats they say they're an independent, or they alway vote

Republican they say they're independent, but they're pretty partisan. So anyway, very very evenly split. Eighteen percent had really no opinion in putting twenty four percent of independence, which I think a lot of people are in this country, not a majority, but a big slice really don't have an opinion. They're not as highly informed on Venezuelan policy. Two. And that follows a similar poll that Washington Post pole, which I'll

come back to in a second. That follows another poll that also came out on Tuesday from Reuters, and the Reuter's poll found that thirty seven percent of Americans supported the arrest of Venezuelan dictator Nicholas Maduro, thirty eight percent oppose it, almost exactly the same as the Washington Post

lower numbers, but follows the same trajectory. Now, the Ruters happened to have polled this question several months ago, asking would you support a future military intervention into Venezuela, And that poll had forty seven percent of pose twenty one percent support. Because I think when you hear when in an American hearers about a military operation, they think Iraq, Afghanistan.

They were thinking, we're going to lose thousands of people, We're going to have a decade of violence, We're going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars for very ungrateful people who will end up coming to our own country as refugees. Right, the fact that it was a fall is the executed campaign where no one died, it didn't cost, you know, a trillion dollars. I think that that changed

people's opinion about it pretty pretty spectacular. After the arrest of Nicholas Mondoro, the poll found that thirty seven percent supported the operation thirty percent of pose. That's a twenty five point swing in favor of the operation after it was executed. Because of this perception that show is it was a very successful thing. There was another poll taken

by company by Aliga Survey. I had not heard of them before, so I don't know how accurate they are, but Alika Survey and it asked Latin Americans how they felt about the raid. Eighty seven percent of Costa Ricans, seventy seven seventy eight percent of Chilean, seventy seven percent of Colombian, seventy six percent of Donians, seventy four percent of Peruvians. All of Latin America wildly approves, wildly approves

of it. The only country where it's on the margin is Mexico, which remember, voted for a socialist president not that long ago. But aside from Mexico, the rest of Latin America very supportive of what President Trump has done. You know, not like the Europeans or anybody else, but Latin Americans who have seen Nicholas Maduro being a dictator really really were happy that he was arrested in his

face in his trial. So speaking of the trial, let's go back to the Washington postpall that I talked about earlier. Fifty percent of Americans say that Nicholas Maduro should go to trial for drug charges. Right, A lot of Americans don't have a very deep understanding of who Nicholas Menduro is, or his government or anything, especially when you compare him to like a foreign leader like Xijimping or putin somebody who's in the news constantly. You know, Nicholas Mondoro is

not at the forefront of many Americans minds. I'll just say like that, But fifty percent still believe that he is he should go on trial, because, after all, he is a dictator of a narco state. He's not exactly mister Rogers. That includes seventy nine percent of Republicans, forty two percent of Independence and a plurality of Democrats with

is twenty nine percent. Only fourteen percent of Americans say that he should not be on trial, including just two percent of Republicans, fifteen percent of Independence and twenty four percent of Democrats. I looked through every crosstab that was publicly available to see if there was any group of American where a majority or plurality opposed putting Maduro on trial,

and there wasn't. Every group of people in this country, whether they voted for Harris, whether they are a liberal, whether they are white, or college educator or not college educated, a plurality or a majority support putting Nicholas Maduro on trial in the United States for drug chargers. Anyone saying that this is that the everyone's outrage is only talking to purple haired They them's who are overweight with too

many college Greece. It is overwhelmingly on one side saying he should go on trial, and a plurality of every group, if not majority, support that. Remember what else I told you, guys when it comes to Venezuela. Americans don't want a prolonged war. They don't want another Afghanistan, they don't want another Iraq. We are just a war weary country. It is the It is what happened from the Bush legacy, from the Bush presidency that continued onwards after Obama and

in Afghanistan into the first Trump term. I mean, and the withdrawal from Afghanistan was horrendous how it was executed. So we are just very war weary. We don't want a long intervention. And also remember Venezuela is not Afghanistan in Iraq. I'm talking to my liberal friends about this and they're like, it's going to be the same thing. Venezuela had democracy in our living memories, right. They had their last free election, really free election nineteen ninety eight.

I guess two thousand and two was also fairly free. It wasn't Chavez was the leader at that point, but it is not. It was not like the subsequent elections in Venezuela, which were completely fraudulent. But nineteen ninety eight was a free election, and it is people's living memory. Everyone over the age of you know, thirty five probably

remembers nineteen ninety eight existing and being around. So it's not like you have to pull people who are you know, one hundred to sit there and say do you remember when there was a last election in Iraq or Afghanistan, which I'm not saying that they would even know, but what I'm saying is that Venezuelans have some tie to democracy, unlike Afghanistan or Iraq. When you ask Americans do you support America taking over Venezuela and choosing the new government,

Americans are very against it. Still, twenty four percent support that idea, forty five percent of post and remember Trump kind of flirted with that idea and then he's kind

of changed his mind several times. Among those who support it is nine percent of Democrats, eighteen percent of Independence, and forty seven percent of Republicans, which is the parality, but it's not a majority for something that Trump has was I endorsed, which is a unique that doesn't happen a lot where Republicans are willing to a majority of Republicans willing to sit there and say I'm not so sure or flat out no. Among people who vould have

heard Trump, forty six percent said yes, nineteen percent said no, and thirty four percent said they weren't sure. Among Trump's most loyal voting block, which are whites without a college degree, thirty four percent say yes, thirty five percent say no, which is crazy that she's not winning a plurality even of his most loyal voting block outside of Republican voters.

I was talking to a friend of mine whose wife is a Venezuelan refugee, and I think she's a citizen now, but I call them when Medora was arrested, and I said, I'm sure you're so excited, and you know, this must be so great for your wife. And she was on Maduro's hit list and she would have been executed if she would have stayed in Venezuela, so I'm sure that she probably thinks this is, you know, wonderful, and you

guys are so happy. And we started talking about what happens next and what they would like to see happened next, because they don't have very strong opinions about what the Venice As Weal and government should look like. Right. I hope they're not a terrorist supporting nation, but other than that, I'm not really I don't have a lot of strong feelings about them as well. But I asked her what they think is next, and they said that they were like, you know, if we need to invade that they would

be okay with it. So I kind of made a joke and I said, well, you know, instead of Americans going there, we could send the seven hundred thousand Venezuelans who have come here in the last five years, give them arms and send them back to their own country and say have at it, like, you know, get have your own election, become you know, run your own country now. This is your time to run your own country. And they were kind of I don't know if they were offended.

People always get offend it by stuff I say, but I like in my regularl life, as if they don't know who I am, but that they were. They were like, no, no, we would want Americans to do the job. And I think that this is a very clear dividing line for Republicans right. The New York Times and this map if you're listening to this podcast, if you watch it on YouTube,

I have the map on display there. The New York Times put up the five I have one hundred counties that have the largest amount of enlistments, of military enlistments where they come from. And if you look at the map of where our enlistments come from, they're very concentrated. It's the South. It is parts of the Midwest, parts of Indiana and southern Illinois and Kentucky and Missouri and Ohio. It is Texas, which is you know, Texas, Texas, and

south of South it's Texas. It's Texas, the South, the parts of the Midwest, and the inland Empire between California, Arizona, Nevada, that Idaho, that whole stretching not on the coast of California, but inland into the west western part of our country, that very republican part of those states. That's really where military recruitment is extremely concentrated in this country. You know, I've said the old adage before. Kids in blue states wave foreign flags, kids in Red states get American flag

striped over their coffin. It is not an even distribution of sacrifice. And when you compare that map to the for election is Overwhelmingly's counties with high enlistment rates have voted for President Trump. Now that's not shocking given that a lot of lower income people see the military as not only part of their heritage they do generationally, but also as a ladder into the middle class. People do it because they're very patriotic, in Red states, because they

believe in the military, they support it. There's a lot of reasons to join the military, and in Red states, in Red County America. They do so overwhelmingly. So we were to do in a long standing invasion of Venezuela. Guess who pays the price for it. Guess who overwhelming

bears that sacrifice. It is white Americans, majority white Americans, white American men from red counties and Red States, people who voted for Donald Trump in part because he was the man who sat there and said that Iraq was a failure, who told Jeb Bush that on the South Carolina debate stage. Now, their support of what happened because it was flawless, it was easy, it was one two three,

and they trust their president. I don't know if President Trump would want to burn that trust by engaging in long, maybe a decade long conflict where those same people's children, those their sons get murdered for a war than necessarily they didn't vote for right. I think that that's an important part as why the Republican overall voter as much as they love this and they're saying, hurrah, you know America,

let's kick something. You know what, there's some trepidation when it comes to further involvement, and that's really where fellow non interventionalists are getting this wrong. I have friends of mine who are big anti anti interventionalists, and I'm more on that side than not on that side. However, we don't live in a bubble. We have to engage where we have to engage. The bombings in Iran went great, right,

we bombed, were in, we were out. We didn't We didn't occupy it, We didn't lose American lives, we didn't sit there and lose American treasure. It was a one two three thing to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. Great. The arrest of Nicholas Maduro one two three, No Americans die. We were in, we were out, and we're gonna have a drug lord of an arco state that killed a lot of Americans killed on trial. That's great. We don't live in a bubble. We should apply pressure.

We should try to make the world function better. It is our military that makes the world operational, as we understand. It is our navy that keeps the seaways safe, all

the rest of it. However, that doesn't mean we should engage in prolonged occupations of foreign countries at the expense of American treasure and American blood, especially because so often it is the Republican sons that go and fight and die in these wars or come back deeply depressed, deeply mangled, sometimes deeply wounded personally, spiritually, physically, They carry that burden overwhelmingly. It is not a Zora Mandani voter who was going

out there to fight these wars. It is always the ones who belong to the frat and or could afford college, and they work at a garage and they're trying to do the best in life, and they join the military for a myriad of reasons, but they bear that sacrifice. So there it is. There's the data. We love how the Republican Party loves how President Trump did. Americans pretty evenly split, but more favorable than they used to be

on the whole conflict with Maduro and arresting Maduro. Don't want a foreign invasion, don't want to occupy Venezuela, don't want to decide its future. They want the Venezuelan people to decide and hopefully they make a good decision. I have some immigration data that's coming up next that is very wonky but so interesting. I think you guys are gonna love it. That's coming up next. So a woman I think it's a woman named a Lenni Karanaki, Kajanaki.

You guys know, I can't pronounce names. It's a Greek name. Though she is an assistant she or he is an assistant professor professional research fellow at the London School of Economics.

And they did a study on immigrants and the success of immigrant and who it came to the UK basically over the last decade, and they were saying, how has the wealth gap changed over the last decade among these immigrant groups in the UK, basically studying how third world immigrants, how they're doing in a first world society, especially in the UK, and how that translates not only just among like individual just like you know, native born versus forum born,

but different individual groups. Right, And here's what the study says. The analysis of this stage considers that both cross sectional changes in ethnic wealth gap and ethnic gaps in short term wealth accumulation, using changes in wealth across waves. That means basically, people who came two thousand and eight, sorry, twenty twelve, twenty sixteen, in twenty twenty one, how the

wealth changed over those different times. The fightings re really stark and persistent inequalities in wealth across ethnic groups, which widened over time and highlight how initial wealth positions determine wealth growth. She's wrong about that, but here's why. The study concluded that since twenty twelve, median wealth gaps between ethnic groups have widened sharply, with gains concentrated among White

British and Indian ethnic groups. Median wealth substantially for those groups rose, but median groups remained closed to zero for Black Africans, Black Caribbeans, Bangladeshis, and while adults of Pakistani ethnic groups experience a marked decline basically over the course of this decade. In the last decade in the UK, wealth accumulation has risen for Indians primarily because they've been buying huge pieces of property in the UK, that's what

the data shows. And for white British, White British have made up substantial gains, Indians and beansistantial gains, everyone else is basically flat and Pakistanis are also declining. Now, remember this comes at a time of exorbitant population increase. For all those groups except for White British, their numbers are pretty stagnant, but everyone else has this explosion in population, So you would think there's all these people coming into

the household, they're able to work harder. You know, you have three generation, two generation working household families among these immigrants, and yet they're actually either stagnant or losing financial stability. I'll go on, which is the wealth distribution. All ethnic groups experienced losses, with exception of Indian ethnic groups. Minority groups are substantially larger losses than white British groups, reflecting

the accumulation of a larger debt holdings. Adults in Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Black Caribbean and Black African ethnic groups registered gains at higher wealth quadrants. Basically, the very wealthy did very very well, and those of the middle class or lower class did not do well, but those were remarkably smaller than white British and other Asians. Even the top A quadrant of

Pakistanis and Bangladeshis had significantly lower performances than every other group. Pakistani's, Bangladeshis and Africans experienced lower levels of savings than white British,

with fifty percent saving absolutely nothing. Now what's crazy is I mean, she the writer kind of blames it on racism, which is so stupid when you realize that I mean, Indians and Bangladeshies and Pakistanis are not all the same, obviously, but they're they are more in common than I would say, like Indians and Icelandic groups, you know what I mean, Like they're they're more in common than they're not. There's a lot tons of cultural difference, but as far as

racial difference, it is extremely minor. And to the average person. If someone if an Indian and a Bangladeshi and a Pakistani are all wearing, you know, a business suit, they probably can't tell them differently. So the idea they're racially discriminating against two of the three and not the third seems quite strange and probably not likely that it's happening.

What's crazy is not only did later groups of these of the study the one crazy thing not only were they saving less, but they were actually giving more money to their native country that she looked at remittance rates. Remittance rates for rece waves of black Africans was forty one percent recent for Bangladeshi's twenty six percent, for other

Asians twenty nine percent for Pakistani's fifteen percent. Huge amount of money was going instead of saving, instead of building wealth in the UK, was going to be sent to family members throughout Africa and Southeast Asia and the Caribbean.

And when you look at native born Pakistani British warn er, the British born Pakistani, British born Indian British worn Caribbean into the second generation, into the third generation, what the study found, while they acted more like white British, their mean, how they averaged out, how they saved money and treated wealth accumulation was actually closer to that of an immigrant.

So why do I bring this all up? I know this is very, very very wonky, and I put on a lot of graphs for people who are watching this program instead of listening to it. I bring this up because a couple of years ago, there was a book called The Cultural Transplant, How migrants make economies they moved to look like ones they left. It was a book by a professor named Garrett Jones. Ask me come on

this podcast. A couple of times. News always denied me, which breaks my heart because I like him, even though he probably thinks I'm annoying, But in essence his philosophy, his opinion in this book was that cultures that come to our country they change us more than we changed them. Especially over I mean, I guess in the margins over generations, but it's very, very very rare. And I think that for Indians especially, what you're looking at is because there

was a strict caste system in India for generations. It's not as prevalent as it was then, for sure, but there was a strict cast system. We managed to get the wealthiest, the well educated, the well to do the upward mobile Indians from India to the First World. I'm sure if that was broadened out where everyone had to take one hundred million Indians of randomized demographics, those numbers would change dramatically over a very short period of time.

But we've gotten the upward mobile Indians in this country. But what he says is if you look at a country in the year fifteen hundred, how it did in the year fifteen hundred relative to that time around things like scientific advancements, if they had a functioning government, other things like that. That shows how those immigrant groups do

in as immigrants now. Right. So unless you're taking the upward crust, unless you're taking like the very few Algerians or people from Madagascar who are extremely advanced, right, those top quadrants of Caribbeans that I mentioned who are very very wealthy, or Africans who are very very wealthy. Maybe on a diamond mind, if you take just those yes,

you'll see vastly over performance among immigrant groups. But the overall group as a whole looks a lot more like their native country into the second and into the third generation. In essence, culture doesn't change because people move. It doesn't change even when they're born into a certain place, if they're still more ingratiated in their in their ethnic culture that they came from. And I think that plays into something that Trump posted about on True Social I know

you're like, Ryan, You're going all over the place. I promise you I'm landing the plane right now. Trump posts on Truth Social picture of welfare dependency based upon ethnic groups, right, he said, people from Bhutan eighty one percent welfare, Yemen seventy five percent, Somalia seventy two percent, Dominican sixty eight percent, Afghan sixty eight percent. Those were the top I decided, let me look at those groups that that study came

from from the UK. Wow, welfare dependent? Are they Bangladeshi's fifty five percent, Pakistani's forty percent? Parts of Africa, like Rwanda, Ethiopia, live Liberia forty seven, forty seven, forty nine percent. Those immigrant groups, whether they be in the UK, which has had much worse immigration policy in the last five years in America has but whether it be in the UK or whether they be in the United States, they're very close to mirroring each other in many respects when it

comes to welfare and dependency and wealth accumulation. And I'm sure if you look throughout Europe those groups are mirriamselves. I mean, we see them the Somalians right now in Minnesota, Somalians in Minnesota, and we've done about Smalians and studies about Smalians in Denmark and Sweden and in the Netherlands, and it's they're the most expensive immigrant group any host nation could possibly take in. They have the worst wealth accumulations,

overwhelming welfare dependency in every place they go. And I think that as this information is breaking in the UK, I would love a stay like this in the United States. But as this information is breaking, I think that the important questions that therein says when we talk about immigration and we talk about immigrants, we don't like to demonize immigrants,

but where always lumping them all in together. We should be talking about them as cultures, as groups, because while we don't wait to sit there and say everyone from a group is the same, and that's obviously not true, the means are true, the laws of nature are true, the averages are true. And is it worth it as a country then to bring in cultures that stay impoverished

generation to generation to generation. If it costs over a million dollars in a Somali a refugees life right costs one million dollars and in their children's life they're still running a deficit, is it worth us spending million plus dollars over two generations to hopefully get to a third or fourth generation where they're producing and promoting prosperity in our own country. I think that that's a worthwhile question,

especially when you think about the Somali and Freud. If they stole a billion dollars on top of the million plus it costs personally for their welfare and their entire life, it will be generating. It may be a century until the overall Somali population has paid back the cost of importing them. And is that worth it? When we talk

about the future of our country. When we're talking about the future of AI and robots taking jobs, do we need to bring anybody or should we be highly selective and we can start looking at cultural backgrounds that are complimentary to ours and then have long records of producing prosperity and acting peacefully. Worthwhile and worth looking at and thinking about. Next is ask Me Anything. Stay tuned now

it's time to Ask Me Anything segment. If you wanted part of the Ask Me Anything segment, email me Ryan at Numbers gamepodcast dot com. That's Ryan at Plural Numbers gamepodcast dot com. I love getting your emails. Question comes from Greg greg says Hi, Ryan's Greg from New Jersey. Hey, Greg, Jersey,

Ryan from New York. Over here. I was wondering if you heard of the book of the book The Gods of New York from Jonathan Mahler Egotist, idealist opportunists and the Birth of the Modern City from nineteen eighty six to nineteen ninety. It deals with the periods involving Trump's rising real estate, rising crime, and Rudy Giuliani and the AIDS crisis. You said on your podcast about people from Venezuela voting for socialism on a Hugo Chavez and Nicholas Maduro.

If New Yorker's now but it for socialism, I'm der mundani. Is it not the candidate that is bringing about the revolutionary change but the culture, the cities or the country like Venezuela, embody is New York City just Babylon, always rising to come crashing down from its own sins. Thanks big fan of your and and Coulter, who's the smartest woman in politics? I will let him know that that is a fabulous question. Greg that was really smart. I haven't read that book. I want to read that book now.

I'm probably gonna pick it on audio because I have a couple of audible books that I'm going to I have a free passed force, so I might pick that one up. Here's the thing about New York and this, and I speak as somebody who was born in the city. My family came to the city forget it, over a century ago. We've been here forever in this city, and we went from Manhattan to Brooklyn to Queens to back

to Brooklyn. I mean they never left. They mean like it's cockroaches, and like my family like that will stay here for the nuclear fallout We are not the same city. The city that I was raised in, the city I was born in, the city that New York of legend and lore does not exist anymore. New York is not a twenty four hour city. The New York is not the sty that never sleeps. New York City sleeps. We

are apartments are built differently. We are built like suburbs that are more compact with no backyard, that live on top of each other. The infrastructure is all beyond it, cell by date, like everything should have been repaired in order to occupy all these people and the people who were here for generations. The people who are native to this city, they've voted for Cuomo or for Sliwa. They

did not vote from an Donnie. The people who came to the city, either as immigrants or as you know, internal migrants, people from like Iowa, blue hair and nine genders. They came here and then insisted that it was too hard and too expensive and too bad. So that's the very curious thing is that they they moved somewhere and said it was too tough for them, and then change it.

And it comes to this old idea that I used to fight with my boomer relatives about is you know I have I don't have a lot of liberals in my family. I have a couple though, that are just like nuts cyber one relative, specifically a first cousin who's mentally deranged. And my boomer relatives always say with this cousin, they would say, well, wait till they graduate school and they're going to have the real world hit them. And I would say, no, they're going to change the quote

unquote real world. And for people under forty, not even under thirty, people under forty or forty five who came to New York thinking I'm going to be able to make it here based upon what things used to be like or this idealized version of New York from the eighties and nineties, realized it was in that place and that they really were having a difficult time but didn't

want to leave. They wanted to enjoy the fruits of prosperity but couldn't deal with the actual cost of it, either because they're you know, they're trust fund kids or whatever, or they are old just socially ideologically the same and they're very progressive, but they didn't want to have to live with those the grittiness of the city, the hardship of that the city breaks people down in and so they changed it, and they picked a guy who was also not from New York, who also disagreed with the

fundamentals of New York. And I don't think that he's going to accomplish most of what they promised. I think, I mean, I think he said something today about as a recording this podcast about New York becoming the next being modeled up to South Africa, what like the biggest failed state right now in that used to be a prosperous country that is going besides Venezuela. I don't think they are aware of the ideological and racial perspective that

far left social activists come from. They like the bullet points. They like the idea of, you know, staying in New York and not visiting Israel, which was a debate line. They like the idea of free public busting or making a housing more affordable, or you know, fighting against landlords who keep jacking up their run. They like all that. They don't understand other things that he can accomplish that

are radical, what that would do to them. I just don't think that they do or they do when they're so soaked in ideological purity that they that they you can't you can't negotiate or talk to them, which is also a possibility, right, And I think that's a very big dividing line among native New Yorkers and New Yorkers who are our recent immigrants. And if Mundanni is a successful mayor, and I hope that he is in some

capacity that well, you know, he'll probably be reelected. But if he's not, and if he's really horrendous, as a New York was in the late eighties before Giuliani, I think it will be on the backs of people who want to be prosperous and don't understand how bad racially idealized socialism is, right because what it is, and this is the thing that they don't understand, right, is that it is not just domination. What it is in New York is that whites are a minority in New York,

for sure, but we are an economic dominant minority. Whites have an economic dominance in New York despite being a minority of the population. And that was true of a lot of groups in parts of the world throughout history. And those are the groups who are persecuted the fastest and the hardest. And what we're seeing in this emerging Mundannie administration is people saying home ownership is whiteness, and home ownership is white supremacy, and we need to break

those things down. And they're trying to coalesce around the demonization of white people and whiteness. This alliance of multi different racial groups, all of which I don't know if they all agree in everything, and if it fails, and I think that those ideas usually almost always do fail, it will be because some of those groups sit there and realize a little too late. Oh, I'm on the losing end of this, of this equation. But as far as did the culture elect him or did he elect it?

I think he did. I think that he brought the ideas and he sold himself, and he's got that stupid grin and you know those those Instagram you know reels, and he just happened to be lucky enough to run at a time when New Yorkers are a minority in their own city. You know, had he come around in the hard hat era of the seventies, or in the nineties era, or even in the two thousands, right of nine to eleven, they would have told him to buzz off.

But luckily enough, those New Yorkers are either in the cemetery or in Florida, or are a minority in their own city. So fabulous question, Greg. I'm going to read this book now. Now that I'm thinking about it more, I want to read it. Thank you guys so much for listening to podcast. Please like and subscribe to this podcast if you want to get more of it. I'll be back on Friday. It's on the iHeartRadio app, Apple

podcast YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. Please like and subscribe, don't miss an episode, and I will see you guys on Friday.