The WAY to WOW Shows
Cocktails & The Federalist Papers
March 27, 2025
Automatically generated from YouTube captions; names and wording may contain errors.

[0:02] And where are you going? What do you [Music] want? Hello and welcome to Jiggers's Place. I'm your host Kevin Bemel and we're here every other Thursday afternoon or evening if you're on the east coast to talk about everything that's not related to our financial

[0:38] lives. So we talk about relationships like today great books the issues that affect our lives uh for for good or for ill. So, on today's show, um, here here in the United States, there have been lots of discussions of late about the US Constitution. What does it mean? What are its guidelines? And so I'm going to be talking about a book called the Federalist Papers, which is really the seinal text for

[1:16] understanding what the framers of the Constitution were were trying to accomplish. And so in honor of that, my co-cocktail creator Chat GPT and I um created the Federalist cocktail. And um I you know I haven't tried it. I never tried these in advance. So you can get the you know the pure reaction. But this is a cocktail made from rye rye whiskey. In this case I'm using uh Templeton rye, the fouryear-old variety. I know there's at least a six-year-old

[1:51] because I've got that in my bar. Um, and I think there's an eight or a 10year-old maybe. But in any event, this is just a great um rye whiskey. Just very, you know, all all the sort of best characteristics of it. Um, they call it the good stuff. That's Templeton. And then we're going to be using sweet vermouth. So, this is martini sweet vermouth. It's been made since 1863 in Italy. This is also known as Italian vermouth. So, generally speaking, there's two types of vermouth. There's French or dry vermouth and

[2:27] there's Italian or sweet vermouth. Um, Italian I mean sweet vermouth is typically uh red in color. And although you can't see it in the green bottle, this is indeed red. And then we're going to be using an amaro lur. This is amaro means bitter. This happens to be um R Geleneck and it comes from the Czech Republic. Um this is a pretty pretty classic uh uh Amaro. It's been made since 1894. You if you watch the show, you know my affinity for for old things. And this brings back

[3:03] memories of of being in in Prague with my mother and our very longstanding friend um uh Sharon Cole. And uh and then finally some um Angusterial bitters. So um we've got our mixing glass with ice in it. And the first thing we're going to do is put in an ounce and a half of whiskey. Where are my marks here? They're hard to see. No, I think I'm going to use a different use this

[3:41] one. Yeah, there we go. Okay. So, an ounce and a half, also known as a [ __ ] And you would think, well, Jigger's Place, that must be named after a [ __ ] of liquor. And no, that's not the case. Jigger's Place is named after my dog, Jiggers. And I assure you, he was not named after a measure of of liquor. Okay. And then let's see. Uh 3/4 of an ounce of sweet vermouth.

[4:30] and a half an ounce of amaro. By the way, if you want to get the um cocktail recipes in advance so you can make them with me. So just um sign up go to my uh go to my website and sign up for my email list and you will get an email um the uh morning before uh the show and then uh what two dashes of English

[5:06] bitters. Okay. Oh, and I I realized I forgot to make a uh forgot to get a lemon twist. Okay, hang on one second. It's always better not to use refrigerated fruit um for a cocktail,

[5:42] but I forgot to take it out in advance. Okay, so we're going to we're going to stir the cocktail now. Ice it down and let some of the ice melt, which opens up the flavors. If you if you can see on the glass, it's it's got a frosty outside. You want to do this for about 20 to 30 seconds. Okay, that really gets it that really does what it's supposed to do. Okay, then we're going to use this. If you if you can see the recipe, it say use either a coupe or a rock glass. I'm

[6:19] going to use a rock glass in this case. We'll get our strainer out here and we're going to strain it into a rocks glass, otherwise known as an oldfashioned. Makes one good cocktail. Okay. And here's my peeler. So, we're going to take a lemon twist.

[6:57] Okay, it's it's a little bit too cold for it to be elegant. We're going to give it a twist. Drink just to put some of the essence of the lemon juice in it. Rub my hands and we're going to give it a taste, you know. It's kind of like a Manhattan. So, okay, I'll see you over on the couch.

[7:50] So, it's I don't know. It's kind of a chilly day here. You know, it's springtime and you would think that would mean that uh it's going to get warmer, but uh and it was supposed to be very warm on Tuesday. Um but, uh it didn't. It didn't. And now it's it's chilly again. So, um so I've got my uh electric fireplace on over here. So to add a little bit of warmth. So as you know I don't do politics um but I do do understanding as we say and I think that it's it's important for us

[8:30] to understand the uh the US Constitution um especially if you're if you're living in the United States but um so many other constitutions throughout the world are at least somewhat based on the US constitution. So, um, when the constitution was drafted at the constitutional convention, uh, you know, the the delegates, they knew what they were trying to accomplish, uh, and they voted on the final draft, but then

[9:06] it had to be ratified by, um, pardon me, three quarters, at least three quarters of the original 13 states. So, Prior to the Constitution, uh the United the 13 states were held together by something called the Articles of Confederation. And there was it the Articles of Confederation did not create a strong central federal government. And and for

[9:41] many people, this raised some problems. And so that was why in the end a constitutional convention was convened and a constitution was drafted and and as is always the case in human endeavor. There were people who were absolutely for it almost no matter what. There were ab there were people absolutely against it no matter what. and then the sort of bulk of the people were somewhere in the middle. Um, and they were willing to make some compromises in order

[10:16] to establish uh in order to try and make uh the United States a stronger and and better country. So once the once the constitution was drafted uh they then the the uh the the delegates to the constitutional convention as well as the people who were most in favor of it who became known as the federalists as opposed to those who were against it who became known as the anti-federalists. Okay? they duked it

[10:51] out, as you will uh over the issue of ratification. And uh in New York, the debate was particularly heated. And so three men um over the course of uh uh 1787 uh yeah through 17 I'm sorry 17 yeah 87 through 1788 they wrote a series of essays under the uh nom dlume the the name of of of uh pen pen name uh publicist

[11:31] uh and those 85 essays together have become known as the Federalist Papers. The three men who wrote them uh were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John J. Now uh and I I I have a few notes here, so I'm going to bring them over here. So, if I can glance at them as as I need to. So, Alexander Hamilton wrote the bulk of them, 51. uh James Madison wrote uh 29 and John J wrote the the other five. And in the federalist

[12:08] papers they talked about a wide number of issues all related to why a stronger federal government was not only uh a good idea but really a necessary idea. chairs. So, I I I um read and and somewhat reread the Federalist Papers earlier this year, and it is it surprised me how relevant

[12:46] these what 20 almost well 12 13 230 plus year old documents are in terms of their relevance to the issues. ues that we're still debating today. And so, um, I picked out six of them that I think are particularly relevant, uh, for, you know, to talk about on today's on this this afternoon's show. Uh, but they're really there's there's really no other way to to know the Federalist Papers but to read, you know,

[13:23] to read them. So, I know the last time I read them, I basically uh set a goal to read um one each day. Um so, it it would take me roughly three months to read all of them. And in the event I actually in some cases read more than one each day, I think it ended up taking me a little over two months uh to read the entire book because I I didn't want to rush through them on the one hand. Um, on the other hand, you know, it's it's not the most scintillating reading, frankly. It's it's not like

[13:58] reading uh, you know, a heratial hornblower novel that I I I talked about uh on uh the show uh on Tuesday, I think, and um um, Business Lessons from the Military. Uh, but but they are well worth reading. They will truly enlighten you. Uh and and to give you an idea of how how old this So this this version of them was published I want to say in the 80s maybe uh does it say here? No, it doesn't. So So this was uh

[14:33] the copyright on this version is 1961. I didn't get it in in 1961 because I was one year old then. Um but uh this this was probably something I picked up in the probably the 1980s. Um and it's really a book that um everyone should have uh you know in their library. Uh obviously these days you can get it online all that kind of stuff but uh in in order to understand uh what our what our government is is all

[15:08] about. Okay. So um so I'm I'm going to talk about three aspects. first on the need for the constitution, the second is on the structure of the government and the third is on the powers of the government. So, so first of all on the need for the constitution. So, um federalist number 10 uh and it was written by uh James Madison. So, he talks about the danger of factions. Factions being you know groups who are angling for their own

[15:43] benefit. And they can be factions by geography. They can be factions by uh business or trade, farmers versus manufacturers, etc. They can be factions by political parties. And Madison argued that the the creation of factions is just a factor of human existence. So uh George Washington for example, he was very against political parties. He felt that we should always have you know a unity

[16:20] party in essence in this country. the reality and and while ideally that would be terrific, realistically that's not how people behave. People are tribal, they're familial, excuse me, and to a certain extent selfish. And so there's always going to be this need to uh to to break into factions. And so uh Madison's idea in Federalist number 10 is the best way to deal with that is to have a large

[16:56] uh sort of a large republic so that um there are a number of factions and no single faction can gain hegemony over the entire country. So there always will be competing factions and so therefore no faction will become permanently ascended and we see that we see that even playing today. So, you know, both political parties to a certain extent seem to feel like if I if we only do this, we'll have an enduring

[17:33] majority for the rest of time and and then that turns out to be completely illusory and you know for a while you know populists uh you know reign but then um you know other groups come along so you know farmers are ascended and then manufacturers and then inventors and so all of these things, you know, they vibe back and forth. Um, and so no and and so Madison's idea in Federalist number 10 has turned out to be correct, which is in a large republic, no one

[18:08] faction is going to become permanently ascendant. Uh, okay. So that's that's federalist number one. in federalist excuse me number 51 Madison and Madison again talks about checks and balances and um in it he explains what's come to be known as the separation of powers right so this is a fundamental idea in that comes out of the US constitution if you saw my show for constitution day um which is I forget when that was and

[18:43] toward the end of last year I believe it was I'll put a link to that show in the show notes for this one. So, the federal government has three branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Each one has its own sphere in which it uh in which it operates. So the executive branch is there to execute the laws. The legislature is there to create the laws and the judicial branch is there to determine whether any particular action comports with the laws or not. Right? And so by separating

[19:20] these powers, now understand that in England um the the tradition was basically all of those powers were held by the sovereign by the king or queen. Right? Now with the advent of parliament, some of the legislative power was taken from the king and and invested in parliament. Um but at this but at this time the time of that the constitution was written uh the the king of England was a much more powerful individual than he is today where uh you know king Charles is really

[19:57] just a figurehead. He has no executive, legislative or judicial power uh today. But back when uh King George uh III, I believe it was, was on the throne during the American Revolution and thereafter, all of those powers were vested in him. Uh and and by the way, you still see that today in Great Britain where uh when a new prime minister is selected, he goes to the king and the king sort of, you know, blesses him to, you know, start, you know, to form a new government. It's kind of a vestage of of the way things

[20:34] used to be. But in fact, the the the king no longer confers any power on the prime minister. Uh it's it's it's purely ceremonial uh today. So uh under uh federalist number 51, the idea was that the ambition of one uh part of of of the government would be set against the ambition of the other. And so so for example, if the uh if the president tried to become too powerful,

[21:10] try started abusing the law, etc. So then Congress had the power in the House of Representatives to impeach the president. Okay? And if the president is impeached, then he's tried in the US Senate. And if he's found guilty, he's removed from office. Now, that's only happened once in American history. Andrew Johnson uh was impeached and then also tried by the Senate and removed from office. Um there have been two other presidents who've been impeached, but they were um they were not uh found

[21:47] guilty by the Senate and so they weren't removed from office. Uh and so that's a check on power. Uh the the justices of the Supreme Court are nominated by the president. They're confirmed by the Senate, okay, to serve for life. However, they are subject to impeachment just like the president. Okay. Uh now, what is the check on Congress? Well, the check on Congress is Congress can pass a law, but the president has to enact that law,

[22:24] has to execute that law. And if Congress passes a law that conflicts with the constitution, the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review and it can declare a particular law unconstitutional. Right? So these are the checks and balances that are built into the federal government that uh that Madison talked about uh in in Federalist number 51. and and it's really this sort of um this this this structure of government of power competing against

[23:01] power um that has I think to a certain extent kept the American republic enduring. Okay. Now on to the structure of the government. So uh in federalist 39 uh Madison again talks about the nature of the American government. So the American government is a federal government. So the checks and balances

[23:38] are not only lateral through the through the the the US government, the f what's called the federal government as well, but there's also there's another set of checks and balances. There's the horizontal ones that I just described, but there's also vertical checks and balances. So the states the individual at that time 13 now 50 states have power over the federal government as well. So the states send their uh send two senators no matter

[24:14] their size to the senate right and then they send their representatives to the house of representatives based on their population. Okay. And that that makes sure that the representatives to the federal government keep in mind the wants and needs of their constituents back home. So it's not the case where we have national elections for the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. We don't. we have state elections or we have elections I say I

[24:50] should say state by state and it's the representatives of the states that then convene in Washington to make to legislate laws and and decide what's going to happen. Okay. Now, um the this it used to be when when uh the constitution was first uh ratified that the state legislatures actually appointed senators to the US Senate and then at some point that switched

[25:27] to senators being elected by the citizens of each state. uh but nonetheless you can see there's a very direct connection between the power conferred to the f on the federal government by the individual states and that's very important because otherwise states small states either small in land mass or small and pop small in land mass like Rhode Island small in population like Wyoming even though it's a huge state in land mass they would be overrun by the other the large states like California New York,

[26:03] Florida, Texas, Illinois. Right? So, this is an important aspect of the structure of the federal government and it's something that helps keep the federal government uh uh responsible to us as individual citizens uh by way of the state in which we live. Okay. Um and another aspect of of federalists number 39 is the the federal government. So so

[26:38] uh yeah the federal government really operates by the consent of the governed if you've ever heard that term. What it means is the federal government is responsible to those whom it governs. meaning to us the people right in the United States the sovereign power in the United States is the citizenry it's the people who have the right to vote to vote representatives in to recall them those kind of things okay whereas in

[27:14] England the sovereign is the king or at least that time was the king right so uh federalist number 39 N emphasizes this idea of where the sovereign power lies and it's with the people. Okay. Federalist number 78 which was written by Alexander Hamilton talks about the judiciary specifically and among the things uh that that he does in that that he talks that Hamilton talks about in federalist 78 is the idea of an

[27:50] independent judiciary. Okay. So this is this is very important. So whereas in England as at the time judges essentially served at the pleasure of the king meaning that that the king didn't like what what they were doing. He just fire them and get rid of them and that was it. In the federal government, once a judge has been uh nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, that judge serves for

[28:27] life. Okay? The president cannot remove him all by himself. He does not have that power. And in fact, the impeachment process, while it only takes a majority of members of the House of Representatives to impeach a judge or for that matter the president, conviction in the Senate takes a 23 majority. Right? So, it's very difficult to convict an impeached official. Right? That's why it's only

[29:02] happened uh once in in US history, right? So, and by the way, going back to um Richard Nixon, one of the reasons that Richard Nixon resigned was although uh and Richard Nixon, if you recall, was a Republican, although uh Democrats at that time did not have a twothirds majority in the Senate, he was advised by a a a senior Republic Republican senator that there

[29:39] were probably enough votes in the Senate to convict him. And so rather than being impeached and getting convicted in the Senate, it was better for the country for Richard Nixon to resign, which is in the end, I think, what compelled Richard Nixon to resign. So you can see though it's a it's a very high barrier. it's very difficult to get a twothirds majority especially over something like the removal of a judge or the president from office. So um so that's that's what

[30:17] gives federal judges judicial independence. So also in federalist number 78 uh Hamilton talks about the idea of judicial review which is the idea that uh the the federal judiciary has the ability to essentially declare a law that's passed by the legislature by Congress and the Senate to be unconstitutional. Now, this is not a specified power in the Constitution, but it's an it's an

[30:53] implied power and it it was first exercised in a case called Marberry versus Madison. And in that ca that case that came before the Supreme Court really set the precedent for the idea that the Supreme Court can declare laws not to comport with the Constitution and therefore be unconstitutional. Okay. Uh all right. So that's that's on the the structure of of the government. And then finally on the powers of the federal government. So in federalist number 23

[31:29] um Hamilton talks about among other things um national defense defense. So um he argues that the federal government needs to have essentially unrestricted powers when it comes to issues like national defense, taxation, foreign policy that uh in that for the states, the individual states to somehow have to vote on these issues or something becomes far too cumbersome. And so then the United States would always be such a fragile government that it could never really uh operate the country

[32:06] effectively. And so we see that pretty much today. So the president of the United States has very very broad authority uh when it comes to the issues of national defense and foreign policy. One of the few checks on those powers is that it is up to Congress to declare a war. So this this has been very controversial over the last uh I would say you know 30 35 years where

[32:41] presidents have increasingly taken military actions uh that look like war um but but they don't call them a war. they don't get a war declaration from Congress and so they're evidently not wars, right? And and this is this is problematic. If you recall going back to World War II, uh after Pearl Harbor on dece December 7th, 1941, the next day, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President Roosevelt went to

[33:16] Congress and asked for a declaration of war against both Japan and Germany. And by the way, that was controversial because it was Japan that attacked at Pearl Harbor, Germany hadn't hadn't um aside from, you know, some some shipping contrad. Nonetheless, uh FDR decided to ask for a declaration of war against both uh you know, both members of the Axis. And in fact, we went more directly

[33:52] to war with Germany before we did Japan after Congress uh voted in favor of that declaration of war. There was only in fact one dissenting vote on that declaration. That is the last time that the that the that the United States went took military action on an actual declaration of war. So the Korean conflict was not a declared war. That's why it's although it's called the Korean War, many people like me call it the Korean conflict because it was not a declared war. The Vietnam War was also

[34:28] not a declared war. Uh and so and and all the one and all the military actions subsequent to that. So this has been uh controversial uh you know for for for decades. But um the president does have very broad power when it comes to defense and foreign policy. Congress on the other hand has broad power to tax. So uh while while the constitution did not give the congress the ability to levy an income tax, the constitution was

[35:05] amended u in the 1930s to do that. Um still uh uh Congress had the ability to uh levy tariffs, excise taxes, um many other types of taxes that it used to support the federal government. So um again, there were people among in the anti-federal federalist uh faction that did not want Congress to have the authority to levy taxation. They wanted that to remain with the states. But the concern was that the states would

[35:40] essentially always vote against it and they would starve the federal government of revenue and thereby make it completely ineffective. Right? So the constitution gave congress the authority to levy taxes pretty much unfettered by by the states. Okay. So that's federalist number 23. But you can see by the way that it's the idea of the constitution was it gave broad powers but only in certain areas. Now today it seems like the federal government can do whatever it wants. And this is one of the

[36:15] controversies uh that that is uh really coming to a head now uh that that President Trump has has come back into office uh and he's he's working to cut the federal government, get it out of many areas in which it's involved. For example, uh the Department of Education um and other and and and and the and his opponents are saying he does, you know, the federal government has to be involved with these things. So many of these issues if not all of them I think will eventually end up in front of the Supreme Court and they'll decide what is

[36:50] constitutional and what is not. Okay. So um originally the constitution was delegating only specific powers to the federal government. It it seems like over the centuries those powers have broadened and and now we're seeing an effort to shrink them and we'll have to see how that works out. And then finally, uh, Federalist number 70 written by Alexander Hamilton talks specifically about the executive branch and it makes the case for an energetic executive. In

[37:28] other words, a president who really takes the bull by the horns and really makes the federal government operate. Whether it's in foreign policy, whether it's in defense policy, what whatever it is, he makes the case we need a strong president. Now, there were many states who wanted to see a weak president. They didn't want to be eclipsed by the federal government. And the counterveilling art uh argument was we need a strong president in order to have a strong central government in order for the United States to be a strong country

[38:04] on the world stage. And over the last roughly 250 years, we've seen times when the president has gotten much more powerful and Congress has sort of usurped its a has allowed its authority to be usurped. And there have been other times when the president's power has waned and Congress has taken much more power. So in the wake of President Nixon's uh uh resignation, for example, uh Congress became much more powerful than it had been previously. So um under

[38:41] uh uh President Eisenhower and President Kennedy, the the presidency had become much stronger, much more energetic than it had been. Uh well, I I mean it was very energetic under FDR. it it it it after feed somewhat under Truman became energetic a little bit more under Eisenhower. Um and then under Kennedy it really became much more energetic and then during Nixon's time in office he kind of took over from Kennedy but then uh Congress sort of pulled back a lot of its power after the resignation of

[39:18] uh Richard Nixon. And then throughout the Carter years, it uh Carter was a relatively um not energetic president. And then when Ronald Reagan was elected, he sort of re-energized the presidency. So you see this sort of up and down flowing of presidents and presidential power, congressional congressional power, and and and that es and flows depending on what's going on in the country, etc., etc., etc. So um Hamilton's argument in Federalist number 70 was uh we need an energetic president especially in

[39:54] foreign affairs to make sure that we are competitive with uh other nations and to make sure in essence that the United States doesn't get trampled. Now um we I um I didn't talk about this specifically but I I and I don't remember which federalist paper it's in. um when I did my research I I I couldn't find it but um one of the aspects of the balance of powers and an energetic congress versus an energetic presidency you you know there's this third branch the judiciary.

[40:30] So the judiciary can never be energetic per se and that's because the federal judiciary can only act on the cases that are brought before it. it cannot call a matter before it on its own uh you know cognizance if you will. Okay. So in some ways this makes the judiciary the weakest branch of the federal government because it cannot initiate action on its own valition. Okay. on the other hand

[41:05] because it can essentially cancel a law that it deems to be unconstitutional, it wields a tremendous amount of power. So you see kind of a balancing act there as well. Uh power on a more sort of day-to-day bas day-to-day basis, power sort of over time waxes and waines between the president and congress. And then you've got the the judiciary kind of here um undergirling things, but it might spike up all of a sudden if it if it, you know, uh finds a law uh to be unconstitutional or it

[41:41] finds a controversial law to be constitutional, it kind of spikes up and then it kind of goes back down and, you know, unless something really controversial is brought before it, it c it kind of, you know, hangs out um you know, down here. So um that's an aspect of the federal government as well that's well worth understanding. So you know again going back to what I said at the beginning um of the show I think it's it's very important that we understand uh the constitutional structure of our government. Uh those of us who are Americans and for for people who are not

[42:18] um maybe they're in other countries they have a constitution that's similar to ours. So, uh, it's good to understand the foundations of the American Constitution and it gives us a foundation for cogent debate. No matter where we sit on the political spectrum, um, it's best to be able to discuss issues with a foundation of knowledge underneath them rather than just, you know, spouting our opinions. Our opinions are fine, but our opinions unsupported by by evidence by by uh um

[42:57] by uh um what's the word I'm looking for? All of a sudden I'm losing it. uh by by uh evidence by uh reasoned conclusions um and by um the the this this sort of history of the constitution I think is not particularly powerful or persuasive. So I I I encourage you uh to read the federalist paper pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap pap papers like I said if you do what I did you read one an evening probably takes you you know

[43:33] between I mean some of you can read in five minutes they're so short but but you know most you're going to read between 10 and 20 minutes to read it. Take 10 or 20 minutes a day for approximately three months and you will gain a much deeper uh understanding of Constitution and a much deeper appreciation for the United States of America. So I I thank you so much for joining me. You may have noticed I haven't been drinking too much of my cocktail. You know, not as good as some of them have been. That's that's uh you know, that's how it goes. Um, so you

[44:08] know, I'd be curious if you if you made yourself the Federalist Cocktail, uh, what what you think of it. Um, all the, uh, links to my social media will be in the show notes after this episode posts on YouTube. So, I encourage you to to let me know what you think. And, uh, if you have any personal thoughts, my email address is there as well. Feel free to send me an email. And, and this is my last show for this week. Uh, and so before uh signing off, just a a reminder, next week on Monday at 10:00

[44:43] a.m. is my show, Trust and Estates Weekly. My guest is Jolene uh Blackburn. Jolene is an estate planning attorney and she's going to talk about an aspect of estate planning that is very commonly overlooked. So really looking forward to having a conversation with Jolene. On Tuesday at 10 a.m. Pacific time is my show, Business Lessons from the Military. And let's see, what am I talking about on Tuesday? I just did the promos for it. Uh I don't remember. Um,

[45:19] and then on Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time is my show, People Making Money, and I'm going to be talking about uh John Wooden. Now, many of you may know I'm a Trojan, and you may be thinking, why are you talking about one of the greatest UCLA coaches who ever lived? Well, I I was fortunate uh to uh hear John Wooden speak in person uh when I was younger. He is a captivating speaker. He is not just a great coach. Uh he was not just a great coach but a

[45:56] great man. Incredibly inspiring and he has a tremendous amount of wisdom that will help us in our lives and especially in our business and professional lives. So kind of a a tribute to this uh uh amazing uh amazing man. I'm going to talk about uh some of John Wooden's ideas on people making money Wednesday 10 a.m. next week. So again, thanks so much for tuning in and um sharing a a schmoo as we say in Yiddish and a a cocktail uh especially those of you watching live. Thanks so much and I

[46:33] really appreciate it and wishing you a wonderful evening, a wonderful rest of the week and weekend. Looking forward to seeing you next week. Signing off as I always do. Marie darling, you are my bell. Courage at all times, my friends.