The Joy is Gone

Where do we begin, Well, there's the Washington Post. Jeff Bezos announced this week that he's going to refocus the editorial page instead of doing the thing where you got some syndicated columns all who are going to say things that you know exactly what they are going to say. Uh, he said, you know what, you can get that from the internet. We're going to do something different. We're going

to crusade and Bezos. And of course this era of of incipient fascism is concentrating on two things which ought to really scare the Coulottes off anybody, and that's free markets and personal liberty. And I know pearls clutched elsewhere all over the newsroom. The editorial page editor of the opinion page editor resigned after having been given such an

unfortunate edict marching orders. But it's really interesting that this is the sort of thing that's now regarded as dog whistles, you know, for this, for the for this, this this night of horror, terror and UH and authoritarianism that is enveloping us personal liberties and UH and UH and economic freedom.

What do you about this, guys? And how do you put this in the context of the actual A Washington Post itself, which used to be so tremendously important, and b newspapers, media organizations in general.

was curious or interesting. It's what he said. We want to change the focus to, you know, free markets and individual liberty. I asked her very talented editor, David Shipley to lead the effort, and then Bezos said this. I think I've got this committed to memory. He said yeah, And I told him if the answer wasn't hell, yes, then the answer in fact was no. And so David has chosen to leave. But I thought that was an interesting way of putting it. It sounds kind of like an ultimatum.

Maybe Bezos didn't think so, but I thought that post facto really kind of put Shipley in a box that I think that's a little Maybe he intended to be a little twist of the knife to the editorial staff of the paper. I'm not sure, but I that jumped out at me. Charles. I don't know if something if it jumped out at you or maybe something else caught your eye.

but he does. It's not too long ago that we were being told that the ownership of various social media was protected by the First Amendment, which it is that the federal government had no business interfering, which it didn't, and that if you wanted to change those institutions, you had to build your own build your own Twitter, build your own Facebook, well, build your own Washington Post. It's

owned by Jeff Bezos. He gets to do what he likes with it, and it is ridiculous to suggest that he has no say or should have no say over its direction. I used the analogy when talking about this yesterday of the Virginia public school system. Bezos reminded me of Terry mccauliffe when he said, you don't get to determine what your kids are taught. You don't get to have a say over the curriculum. That's the preserve of experts who know better than you do. Okay, So what

is the point of the parents then? Is it just to write the checks and provide the children and then go away. Jeff Bezos isn't going to lose one hundred million dollars a year forever on this newspaper. He's going to at some point want to have some say over it. It's just unbelievable entitlement. So I found that the most interesting thing is that the people who work they are still not worked out. That, Yeah, you can criticize the way newspapers are run, but it is his newspaper.

in that favor cliche of Obama and others. The side of history, right, I mean, if you think that if your fundamental premise, usually unreflective and not really grounded the way say Hegel did, is that you're on the side of history. You represent the vanguard of all those good and true and beautiful. You don't have to think very hard,

makes your life easy. And when somebody comes along, whether it's Donald Trump or Ronald Reagan, or Georgia Maloney in Italy or Jeff Bezos buying the paper, and they say, we think something different. They can't cope. I mean it just it does get to the core of their almost theological being. I'll put it that way. Maybe listeners will think that's too recondite an abstract, but I can trace that out at some length, and some day maybe I should write a book on this. I don't know well.

ideas which they believe it held mankind back. And so over the centuries we have seen the continual refinement of the human being and his institutions, until more and more liberty are granted to more and more people, the franchise is extended, ideas become more broad minded, et cetera, et cetera. And we can argue about the Enlightenment, but I tend to think that generally, yes, the idea that societies become more free, that people are granted the franchise, that there

is equality. These are all good things and these are advancements in human civilization. However, that does not necessarily mean that the the end result of this is supposed to be technicocratic rule by transhumanists who believe that they've come up with a completely new paradigm that dumps everything we've known before in favor of a brave.

that arc of history where it ought to be. And that's one of the things you're finding at the Washington Post with people screaming as they are. When I worked in Washington, DC in a news bureau, of course, the gold standard was always to go work at the Washington Post because that would be perfect. They had money, Galore, you'd have a job forever. I mean, the Post was it, and the Post was it in the sense that it

was a great company town paper. It was thick, it was well written, it was interesting, but it was a company town paper. It told you what you needed to know about, you know, living in trantor everybody I knew in the bureau was who was married, was married to somebody else who was in the blob. My wife worked for Justice. Somebody who was a beat reporter on Alabama or something, you know, might be dating somebody from the

Chlorine Institute. I mean, we were all, as soon as we got there, fitted neatly into these slots where we would do the reporting and they would do the lobbying and this other group would do all the money spending and the rest of it. And it all went on for so long, and everybody thought that we were all doing such good things. Until today you open Twitter and you find there's a controversy because my god, the end of the USAID money has meant that the only transgender

medicine clinic in India has closed down. Now, when you pair that with hegss's decision to keep to not to kick everybody transgender out of the military. You have a real shift in the way people are thinking, or tell me this, do you think we have an assertion or reassertion of why the most people actually think, and that this silent group is finally saying, now, we're not going to do this, We are not going to pay for this. We don't actually should not have people who have these

gender issues in the military. And it's stunning to the people who believe that the moral arch of history was supposed to deposit them at the place where you know, the transgender president was probably two three elections off. There wasn't a question at all. That was just a ranting a statement.

they want to go down guns blazing with this. It is, uh, it is amazing.

thirty million dollars and toss it? Joy's way to help her get under feet Maydock came out and said that this was part of a very disturbing trend at her employer, because they have also fired other people who qualify under the diversity of entner. And I tend to think that it probably is. And I know this may seem preposterous, but it's entirely possible that those people were not making enough money for the company to justify the continuance of

their show. But if you believe that networks exist, to you, it was a public service that they're supposed to, that they are obligated to do to put on these shows, and that profit is just one of those bygone notions to which we should not subscribe. I suppose, yes, you would be appalled at this restriction again for a free speech.

her house. She does not have a firm grasp on reality. She does not know what America is like. She doesn't know why things are happened. She is ensconced in the extended Rachel Maddow universe, and.

was a total liability. It's bad enough not being able to describe politics in the country you live in when your job is to describe politics in the country you live in when the president is a Democrat, but when everything that you had said about that person and everything that you had anticipated happening in the election turns out to be wrong because you are a lunatic, then you are no longer useful on a politics show. I just think this is the most obvious explanation of why she

was canned. And I know people aren't going to write this in the New York Times, but maybe they should. Maybe that would actually be good for the left for once, instead of constructing a bigger suicide machine. If they said, you know what, that guy's crazy. We just don't want to hang out with him anymore.

you know. He's he's actually in the back room with Spot playing three dchs that that people were going to say, wait a minute, Jake is on this book.

I have a hunch that he's the bulk of the reporting in this book, but the publisher probably wanted a big name because who's you know, most people don't know Alex Thompson, but they know Jake Tapper, And that's one possibility, I think. But the other one is this book and the flood that no doubt coming are all certain to absolve the media from any blame in all this, right, I mean, you know the who covered it up? Well, you know, I thought the media's job was exposing cover ups.

That's the credo number one ever since Watergate, Right, So you know, we'll wait and see what they say. I'll bet they're not even done writing the book the what it's a May twenty publication date, and I think they're trying to pre mup the field and be first out. And so, as Trump likes to say, we'll just have to see what happens. But I'm not expecting very much self reflection, Charles.

was say, she's just not answering these questions. And then he would write down what she had thought before, and then he would write down what she said she thought now, and he would know that it was mighty strange that there'd been no explanation for the shift. So I think he deserves to write this book. I don't think anyone

else does. And I suspect what's happened here is that the advance on a book like this, if Jake Tapper's name is attached this five times the size and the chance of it becoming a best seller and the contents being read by hundreds of thousands of people is much higher because Jake Tapper has a really solid platform, and that Alex Thompson thought, okay, I will take that deal,

and I can't entirely blame him for it. No, the phenomenon in general of the media now reporting on the thing that it did is infuriating, and it reminds me of nothing more than the twenty seventeen tax cuts that Donald Trump and the Republican Congress pass, which were lied about assiduously day in day out, including and especially by the New York Times. And then in twenty nineteen, the New York Times had the temerity to run a piece the title of which was face it, you probably got

a tax cut. The first paragraph of that piece said, there's widespread misapprehension about what the tax cuts did. Most people don't know what they did. Many people think that their taxes went up, Yes, because you told them that for two years. Well, why do you think the media has to write books now about the cover up of Joe Biden's sinility is because it's spent four years covering it up. And here's the thing. They say, Well, we didn't know. And I'm sure some of that's true. The

White House did engage in some shenanigans. I'm sure there is some extent to which they didn't know everything. But here's the problem. I was one of the people who repeatedly said Joe Biden's too old, a position that was shared by eighty percent of the American public, and we were called names. So even if you don't know everything about it, even if some bits are off the record, or you don't want to go out that a problem they didn't have during Russia Gate. But they don't want

to go out there on a limb. They shouted at us. They said that we were being mean to a man with a stutter, that we were falling for cheap fakes, that we were partisan, and go to hell. Guys, you can't now write books on this. But I will exclude Alex Thompson from my criticism because he actually was right from the beginning pretty good.

the debate and the tone that they used to. I have, you know, adjusted my new use consumption habits over the past couple of years to the extent where you know, I get it from X. And people just WinCE when you say that, because oh, that's what you mean. You're you're trapped in your own little bubble, your own little non contiguous information stream. No, no, no, I'd subscribe to a wide variety of voices that bring a wide variety of things on it. I have the fulminating of the

left end of the fulminating the right. But there's a lot of good sourced stuff in there that either goes to a primary source which is trustworthy, or itself is an interesting source that did not exist six months ago. Key example of this is Data Republicans small R. Do you know the account to which I prefer?

knew exactly. We would just hear that twenty million dollars have been granted for climate change of Bateman and low income communities, and we think, well, that's great, unless if you think, though, it's a scam. But that's, of course not what happened. Twenty million would go to this institution, which would take ten million and give it to this one, which would shave off two, and then eight would go to this place, and etcetera, etcetera. And somebody's coming into

the room to talk to me. Hi, Sorry, it doesn't matter, Sorry, just had an interruption. And so's she's come and she's applied for work a DOGE and apparently she's going to get it. She's going to get a security clearance and

bring these incredible skills to that. So I have learned more from her stuff, which is fairly transparent and easy to understand but complex, than I have from any single ever mainstream media newspapers saying well, let's take a look at the funding of the government and break it down and see how it goes. It just wasn't in their interest or their appetite to do so before, But now we've got people who have very large appetites for it

and very great interest in skills, and we're learning. We're learning things that we should have known years ago.

available in downloadable form. Not spending I mean, because you know, the ledgers are huge, but likewise, if you did budget work, you had to go through ledgers on paper and that meant thousands of pages. And now you can use artificial intelligence and other screens to get at it. This isn't the only effort. There's been this great organization out of Chicago for several years called Open the Books, and they do something like this. They produce some very good reports.

I think. I think they have a side Open the Books dot com or something, and they've done a lot of work on most of the state and local level around the country, but some federal about wasteful spending and stuff. But now at the next generation or maybe even the third generation of this, where you can use AI tools and find the things you really are looking for, and yeah,

the meat is just lazy about all this. That one parallel to that, I remember the Reagan ears, James, I think you do too, when every time there was a budget cut, which usually wasn't a cut at all either, it was a reduction in the growth exactly, but the media would find somebody who is hurt by a change in eligibility, and oh, they give a big SOB story. CBS.

You might remember, I think in eighty two or eighty three did a week long series Primetime called People Like Us and there was an hour a night of people being hurt by Reagan policies, and you know, Reagan, who was very disciplined about ignoring the media, was so angry he called up Dan Rather and yelled at him about it, how biased it was, and so okay, they're trying to rerun that now. Of course, with the federal workers losing their jobs, who are you know, saving babies in Zimbabwe

or wherever? And I don't know, I don't think it's getting quite distraction. But oh and finally, maybe did you, Charlie or somebody say this a while ago, did the media ever interview a single person who lost their job when Biden shut down the Keystone pipeline on day one? I think the answer is I think we know the answer.

business owners have when it comes to hiring. I mean, if you're a business owner, you probably sometimes have felt totally lost when it comes to HR and hiring. You know that's okay, that's okay, HR, hiring, onboarding. It's not what you do best because you're all about your business. But what you really do best, you small business owners, you large business owners, is to find solutions. And the solution to the HR problem is Bamboo HR. Bamboo HR. It's a powerful, let yet flexible, all in one HR

solution for your growing business. Stop spending your countless hours on your payroll and your time track and your benefits your performance management. No Bamboo HR, those hours are shaved down to minutes. And that's why over thirty four thousand companies trust Bamboo HR because it's an integrated system that's designed to handle your current and your upcoming HR needs. Plus, Bamboo HR prides itself on being super easy. It's easy to use, it's easy to learn, easy to implement, and

it is very easy to love. Bamboo HR handles everything from hiring and onboarding to payroll and benefits, and when business owners switched to Bamboo HR, the intuitive interface stands out right away. So why don't you take a couple of minutes to check out the free demo and see how nimble and affordable this valuable tool can be. Hr is hard, but bamboo hr is easy. Reclaim your time and do what the smart guys and gals do in business. Check out the free demo at bamboo hr dot com

slash free demo. See for yourself all that bamboo hr can do and how truly affordable to bed at bamboo hr dot com slash free demo. That's bamboo hr dot com slash free demo, and we thank bamboo hr for sponsoring this the Ricochet Podcast. I'd like to move to England now, Well, actually I wouldn't. Actually I would.

well with the locals. We also find that there is a bizarre desire to emulate the most banal portions of nineteen eighty four and knock on people's doors with things that they've set. Well. Trump is going to meet with British Prime minister here and they're gonna I think they

already have met. Yeah, and I believe that Starmer objected to JD Vance saying what he said about UK free speech, at which point he was roundly excoriated on x and Twitter by people who are saying, you're putting Grandma's in jail for Facebook post. For sake, Charles, looking back on your former country, we of course know that you're a

proud American citizen by choice and by effort. How do you regard Are we over exaggerating exactly the extent to which free speech, supposedly a cherished British value, is being trampled upon? Or is it really that bad?

applied to the people they hate. But Britain, having no constitution to stop this, has failed to stop it, and you've got a bunch of laws on the books that are designed to stop people talking about subjects that the government doesn't want to talk about under the guise of protecting people from hatred and discrimination. And in America those laws would be struck down under the First Amendment in

about seven seconds. The most egregious example recently has been the arrest and prosecution in some cases of people who are praying silently outside of abortion clinics. Now, this topic gets slightly complicated because when you look into some of these cases, including ones in America, you find that some of the people who were supposed to be praying or standing were actually blocking the entrance, and of course blocking an entrance is not speech. But in the English case,

they've actually been arrested and prosecuted for praying. In fact, one woman who was arrested literally said while she was standing there, I don't wish to stop anyone or coerce anyone. I'm just here to pray for you and talk to you if needed, because I know sometimes people are coerced into abortions and that was too far. When I was at Oxford, there was a kid in my year who was famously and very amusingly arrested because he called a

police officer's horse gay. This is a real story. This is a real story that you can look up and you'll find instant Google results for the case. He told the police officer, by the way, may your horse is gay?

had all of these absurd examples. There was a guy, a singer on Pierre at one of the English seaside resorts, who sang the song Kung Fu Fighting in front of a Chinese person, not because the Chinese person was there, but because he was a singer at a beach resort and he slung the song and he was arrested. We are equal opportunity prosecutor is when it comes to religion. We prosecute Muslims for criticizing atheists and criticians for Christians

for criticizing Muslims, and atheists for criticizing both. There was a guy who was arrested because he leafleted Liverpool Airport. The leaflet said there is no God. I mean, it's it's very, very silly, And yeah, it is a problem. It's not just the media getting over excuse.

word prior restraint. But the phrase she did use was it is easier to prebunk something than to debunk it after the fact. So that's just sugarcoating for we're going to stop people from dissenting and making criticisms and saying everyone's kung fu fighting and all the rest pre bunking. I know, I like that, right.

the charges were dropped. But the reason he spent the night in the cells was that he had been given the chance to pay an eighty dollars eighty pound fine without due process. They introduced that under Blair that a police officer could say, instead of going through the system, I will march you to an ATM right now and you can just hand me eighty dollars. So you've got two things there that will be unconstitutional in the United States.

One is arresting people for speech, and the other is punishment that is determined by police officers completely outside of the system of due process.

it a compliment. But for them to automatically assume that that was a slur shows the mindset of the policeman himself. And I'm surprised that he wasn't brought up on charges. No hum, All right, well, Stormy apparently is going to

embark on a crash defense build up. I don't know if you guys saw that, which I find interesting because British defense has perhaps not have been as robust as it was at the you know, at its imperial peak, which you know, I think we all get that, but their ability to project power is minimal, so great that they're doing that. On the other hand, you read that in ongoing investigation of the art in Westminster has decided that they have to take down a portrait of Lord Nelson,

and I find that extraordinary. I regard the way the British seemed to be cannibalized. It seemed to be denying their own history, the glories of for human frailties and failings or you know, egregious misdeas or whatever, to just wipe it all out and hang new portraits and say that this is who we are. It's remarkable. I mean, I mean, it's a matter of time before Nelson comes off the column, That's all I'm saying.

we had a protest outside the courthouse. It was one of the few Summer of twenty twenty protests that I thought had a point. There was a statue of Alexander Stephens, the vice President of the Confederacy, a man who's literally famous for believing that slavery was quote the cornerstone of the United States and that the Declaration of Independence was full of lies. And some of the speakers there said, this is not a good thing to have outside of

a courthouse. What message does that send? And I thought, you know what, that's a good point. But Nelson is not Stephens. Nobody, nobody looks at that and says, oh sir, that's Nelson. The incidental slavery supporter. They think that was Nelson, the great patriot who gave his life for the country and won the Battle of Trafalgar, defeatesd. Napoleon's navy many times.

That's why he's on there. So to drill down on all of these things that really weren't very important, if they're even true about him, seems to me to be silly.

of Soviet Monsters. And you could go there and you could see all You could see the Lenin in his various portraits, either Lenin, you know, gripping his jacket, the side of his jacket, or Lenin with his hand out like this, which they call the Lenin haaling, the taxi model, and you know, some bristly face of Karl Marx and then some local luminaries and forgettable people who who would assist with Soviet rule. They put him in a place where you could go and see him and laugh at him,

jeer at him, or study or whatever. But not to destroy them, because to destroy them would be to destroy the history that they represented. You can't. You ought not to do that. So I find it so hilarious when people are saying that we're renaming mountains now and gulfs.

It's the entire renaming project in order to create a more serene sense of I mean, when you start taking down the guys like Nelson, then Teddy Roosevelt comes down, then Ben Franklin goes down, then Thomas Jefferson is dethroned from his place in Washington, d C. And it's madness. And I think we stopped that. I think the fever has broken and we're no longer doing that, and I think people are kind of happy about out doing that.

Let's switch gears again, because I want to talk about Justice Roberts coming just to waken up in the middle of the night and saying no, no, Somebody want to explain that for everybody.

pending a more complete review by an appellate court. I'm not quite sure, but this is part of the larger scene where the Supreme Court fairly soon is going to have to confront issues we haven't had in front of us for fifty years, really since the Nixon era of presidential control over spending and then second presidential control. This

is getting more ink over the federal workforce. We're going to revisit a Supreme Court case from what almost ninety years ago now that said a president couldn't remove somebody. That's the Humphrey's Executor's case, long thought by just about everybody across the political spectrum in law schools like where I am today to have been wrongly decided and so fun to watch all this. The Court's going to have to do a lot of extra work right now, and I think they don't like that, but they don't have

a choice. They're gonna have to do it.

of the interventions that we've seen is really poor. You know, before he shifted on it, David French used to call it Trump law, that there was this different system for

Trump than anyone else. All of a sudden, in twenty seventeen, the plenary power over immigration, for example, that had been assumed in American law since the start of the twentieth century was shaved back, not because there'd been any alterations to the fact or any Supreme Court cases that had amended the presidents, but because Donald Trump was doing it.

And you know, I think we're seeing that. And then there is a shift I think, coming back toward Article two as it's actually written, and away from the New Deal era invention of so called independent agencies. As a case Humphrey's executor that I think Stephen Steve would be able to explain better than I that could well be overturned.

And you know, every time you see one of these judges jump in to try to prevent the president from doing something that, at least in the original Constitution is very clearly under his power, you are raising the likelihood that it will be litigated on the merits and that the Supreme Court will shift back to the pre New Deal are e correct understanding of presidential power within his

own department. So I do think that the decision you're discussing is important, but I think it is it's less to do with the wisdom on necessity of nationwide injunctions per se, and more to do with other.

to the White House that ought to be restored. And so we've ended up in a weird place, James, which is the president usurps an awful lot of power that belongs to Congress, and Congress doesn't do much about it. That's a problem at the same time, and people struggle with this if you believe both of these things. At the same time, Congress has imposed all sorts of rules on the executive branch that don't pass constitutional muster like that it has to preside over and execute agencies whose

staff it can't fire. It is nowhere in there, and you get the best modern example of this, The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau not only set outside of the President's remit, but Congress said it's outside of its own remit now, so it's funded by the federal reserves, so you can't even use legislative power to amend it. I mean it's I think these are new deal inventions that ought to be struck from American law.

Gene Hackman. I believe in Crimson Tide, I think, and the story is peculiar. When we heard the when everybody heard the Gene Hackman had died, you said, oh, well, he was very old. I'm sad, but not unexpected. And then the story takes odd twists when you figure when you learn more about it. I have nothing to say about that except to wait for what we're eventually told. But it does make one recall his various roles in

the movies. Everybody seems to be topping off with He was great as Lex Luthor, and I thought, no, I don't think so. That's like my least favorite Gene Hackman performance, and I've got a lot of favorite Gene Hackman performances. Any One of my favorites actually of his is Bonnie and Clydehere you don't even see him, just hear him crying out in Mad Fever Struck Nonsense from a distance. I liked him in Young Frankenstein is a comic turn. Loved the way he wore a hat in French Connection.

But what I loved most about people talking about Hackman was the realization that this is one of those guys that came out of the seventies no way, Actually we had him in the forties two. Every era has them guys that shouldn't be movie stars because they're not classically handsome, they don't seem to have Just look at him, you wouldn't but have that something and Hackman had that, and it's on for an actor of his intensity that I seem to remember him having. I always remembered him with

an easy grin. Liked the guy, and I just wondered if you had any other thoughts. Charles. I know you're still working your way with the classic American movie, so you may not be the go to man in this, but.

Join my show every Thursday and into the weekend as we take the media to task and call out phony and effeckless politicians, and dive into stops and invest in and explore internal affairs like health and well being, and have a glorious day.

that is like North Korea? M She said she was alone with extremely luxurious hair.

in Silicon Valley. Steve Jobs was famous for asking people what they did, and then, if unsatisfied, firing them. I don't think that it is like North Korea. I do think, although I've been defensive of a lot of doughs, that it was less useful as an exercise than much of what they've done.

very briefly, what are you watching? And I mean, you know the world girls, I mean I mean on on on the oh, on the television.

to pay it attention. And so now we're back and we're finishing off season one with the attention that it deserves, and it's terrific.

a secret service agent for a president. And it's funny how we, you know, sort of cycle our tropes of presidents and what we expect them to be. The Morgan Freeman era of presidents is over and we appear to be back to the William de Vayne era of presidents. Now I can't tell you anything about it because the first episode ends is with a startling twist and then

it's off to the races. Extraordinarily good storytelling, remarkably well done, and it has a penultimate episode, the seventh episode, which simply is one of the most thrilling pieces of television I've ever seen. I have never sat on the edge of my chair immobile for an hour like I did. It's really good. Paradise on Hulu. Five things folks you need to do this week. A. You need to go to Bamboo, hr dot com, freedomo and take a look

at what they can do for you. Two. You need to go to any one of the platforms that offers podcasts, suggestions and reviews and give us those five stars or however many stars they allow you to do, because that's great because if you do it on Apple, that means that more people see us, more people go to Ricochet. And that's your third thing. If you haven't signed up

for Ricochet yet, you need to do that. I mean, I've been telling you this for seven hundred plus episodes now, but it is the same civil center, right place you've been looking for in the Internet all of your days. You wonder why you didn't sign up before. Oh you can read it for free, but it takes you a couple of coin to get to the member feed, and

that's where the community start and really grow. And you can post too, and like other places in the Internet, if you don't cough up those couple of coins, you can't post. So it keeps thee keeps the bar for conversation high. That's why we love it. The fourth thing you need to do is to tell other people about Ricochet. And the fifth thing you need to do right now is to say, that was a great show. I'm going to just think about how much fun I had and

make sure that I'm there next week. That said Charles, thank you, Steven, thank you, listeners, thank you, Bamboo hr thank you, and we'll see everybody in the comments ed Ricochet four point goodbye.