The WAY to WOW Shows
The 24-Episode Campaign: Execution 5
April 28, 2026
Automatically generated from YouTube captions; names and wording may contain errors.

[0:00] Who are you? And where [music] are you going? What do you want? Hello and welcome to Business Lessons from the Military. I'm your host Kevin Bemel and I'm here every Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time to talk about military history, doctrine, and leadership practices and then distill from those lessons we can apply to our businesses and professional practices.

[0:35] So, I'm continuing with the 24-episode campaign. We're in the execution phase, execution number five, I believe it is. Yes. And we're going to talk about after-action reviews or what are sometimes in the military known as hot washes if they're done immediately after an action. So, the reality is that no matter how well planned an operation is, no matter how successfully it is it is it is handled, there are always better ways that any

[1:12] particular operation could have been handled. There are likely, even if it's successful, there were likely mistakes that were made. Uh not because you know, people [clears throat] were not um talented enough or because um they willfully did not comply with orders, it's just the the confusion on the battlefield um causes um things to happen that may not have been anticipated. And so, it is incumbent after an action to examine it and see

[1:49] what can be learned from what just took place, right? And so, it it it it the action doesn't end until those lessons have been captured. That's that's the best way to to to put it, I think. So

[2:07] >> [clears throat]

[2:07] >> the best performing military units, they analyze, they learn, and they adapt immediately. Right? So um every mission, successful or not, is followed by an after-action review. And that review, by the way, may happen at multiple levels. So it can happen at the unit level. And then those lessons can be passed up to higher echelons, um and and questions can be passed back down to be passed back up. So this process is taken very seriously.

[2:42] Uh I can tell you that during my time in the military I participated in these types of activities from time to time. And they were some of the um most important sessions in which I engaged. Um and they were not done um in in the spirit of rebuking anybody. Quite to the contrary, they were done with the intention of how do we improve things for next time? How do we make the

[3:18] situation safer for our colleagues, that that sort of thing. So this is really an issue of continual improvement. That's really what's at stake here. No matter how well things have been planned and done, there is always room for improvement. And that's that's what That's at least one of the things that makes the United States military uh so powerful and so effective. So an after-action review, it's a structured process that's used to

[3:53] examine an operation and answer essentially four questions. So, first of all, what was supposed to happen? Right? What was the plan? What was supposed to happen in accordance with that plan? Next, what actually did happen? Okay? So, the the the the um the I'm going up on the word. Wow, this is it's so frustrating. The action has been taken. Okay? What happened in that action? Next, why did it happen? So,

[4:31] whatever happened, why did it happen? What what were the factors that caused the activity to occur? And then finally, um what should we sustain and what should we change going forward? Okay? So, those are the four those are the four essential questions. Okay? The Again, the focus is not blame, it's learning and improvement. So, why after action reports work? Well, first of all, they're routine. So, they're conducted after every operation

[5:06] and the people involved in them know that they're they're going to be they're going to be held. And so, in the back of their minds, I think, you know, data is sort of being gathered and collated in preparation for the after action review. So, that's number one. Number two, they're immediate. They're done as soon after the action is possible while the details are as fresh as they can be. Number three, they're inclusive. From the most junior to the most senior person, input is sought.

[5:41] Uh the the floor is given, so to speak. Everybody gets a chance to give their perspective, provide information. And finally, they're they're they're honest. So, they're not Well, if they're done correctly, let's put it that way. There are they're clearly officers that will at times abuse the process, but done correctly, rank does not intervene or override the process of getting to the reality of what happened, why it happened, and what can be done to improve future

[6:16] operations. So, this creates a culture where mistakes are are identified as quickly as possible, and best practices on the other hand, best practices are reinforced, right? And so, teams the the idea is that teams, combat teams, units will improve faster than their adversaries. Okay, so, um this this is the the the key issue or the key principle. And that is to

[6:51] separate the person from the problem. So, in an after-action report, it's the actions that are analyzed, not the individuals. It's not a time for attacking individuals. There is essentially a stipulation that we're setting aside conduct or ability or the the actions as they relate to a particular soldier or Marine or sailor or airman or whatever. Okay? And we're going to focus

[7:26] solely on the actions essentially as a team, okay? And then, outcomes are examined without defensiveness. If if an action is or an operation is not successful, okay, it wasn't successful. This is not This is not the forum for deciding, for example, you know, were the people led incompetently? Okay? By the way, that may be the case. Um and it could, as a result of an after-action review, there could be an investigation

[8:02] into the conduct of an officer or the conduct of a member of the unit. But that's not the point of the after-action report after-action report. The point of the after-action report is to look at the look at the unit as a unit. Look at the team as a unit. And then [snorts] finally, leaders need to model openness to criticism. Okay? So, if there if if if if one of the whys is that there was inadequate communication

[8:38] between members of the unit, okay? And and the responsibility for that communication inevitably rests on the commanding officer of that unit or the commander of that unit. So, this is not a time for the commander to be trying to exculpate himself from responsibility. Okay? The The after-action report is there to identify that shortcoming. Okay? Later,

[9:13] it there can be a discussion about maybe some kind of uh some kind of leadership skill that needs to be developed on the part of the commander. Or, you know, if the communi- if the lack of communication was due to some technological issue. So then, there need there may need to be a discussion with the members of the team who are responsible for for handling those technological issues. Okay? This is This is not so much about problem-solving per se.

[9:48] The after-action report is about identifying what went right, what went wrong, and why. Okay? And [snorts] then for the things that went wrong, okay, then afterwards, if there's any culpability, that that can be examined. Okay, so Uh uh i- i- i- if you if you look at uh um for example, World War II. Um one of the reasons why, I think, the United States Army was so effective in the European

[10:23] theater is that the command structure was, in a way, looser than the command structure for the German Army. And this is important because in the chaos of the kind of warfare that went on in World War II, there had to be a high degree of adaptability. And to the extent that uh commanders and soldiers in the field felt that they would be penalized for not following

[10:58] orders, so then their adaptability is attenuated and their effectiveness on the on the field was limited. So an after-action report is is a sign of the um desire for within the American military to not be so closely tied to uh you know, to the orders, if you will,

[11:34] the the chain of command in that sense, that it impedes or imperils the success of an operation.

[11:42] >> [snorts and clears throat]

[11:43] >> So, for example, I mean, what this is one of the best-known incidents in World War on on D-Day, the invasion at Normandy. So, as the American, Canadian, and and British troops were hitting the beaches

[12:01] >> [snorts]

[12:01] >> um at Normandy, the uni- the German units guarding the Pas-de-Calais uh should have been called into action, okay? And there were German commanders in the field who wanted to do that, but they were afraid of doing so uh at the risk of essentially their lives because Adolf Hitler was was was asleep in the in the early part, and they didn't want to wake him up to make him aware of what was

[12:36] going on to get him to countermand the orders holding those units at the Pas-de-Calais, right? And so, this is this is a problem that comes from the sort of sclerosis that comes uh with with a a a in essence too tight a command structure, okay? And so, the after-action report is is designed to avoid that part of it and just look at what happened, what should have happened, what did happen, why, okay?

[13:12] What should we what what part of it should we keep that went right, and then we'll look at what we need to do differently for what went wrong, okay?

[13:22] >> [snorts]

[13:23] >> We need to do that in the business world as well. So, why do businesses struggle with this learning process? Well, first of all, most organizations fail to implement any kind of effective postmortem process. So, um up you know, often times people fear that they're going to be blamed or their their reputation is going to be damaged. Um there can there's there is no structured review process in which the the company engages and so it becomes

[13:59] it so even when they are conducted it becomes much of a free-for-all which is is not productive. Um often times they uh focus on the outcome itself instead of the underlying causes of the outcome and that's that's much more important, right? The cause and effect is much more important in these after-action reviews. We already know what the outcome is, okay? Could be good, could be not good, could be bad, whatever, okay? That's not the point of the after-action report. The after-action report is to identify

[14:37] what the causes were of the end result and fix those causes that that impeded a positive result. And then finally, businesses often times are moving too quickly to the next initiative and they're not taking the time to figure out what do we need to do better in the future, right? [snorts] And so as a result, mistakes get repeated, successes are not replicated, and knowledge is lost. Um if for out no other reason that it's that it's not reinforced, right?

[15:12] And so all of that is is problematic and it

[15:17] >> [clears throat]

[15:17] >> it really can hold back

[15:20] >> [snorts]

[15:20] >> um the progress uh you know, of of um a of a company. Okay, even if if your company is a a solo company, okay, [snorts] like like mine, for example. So, I'm I'm the only employee in my company, okay? But, I work with a lot of teams, okay? And part of what I need to do, essentially for myself, is when I have an interaction with a team, you know, working to get a particular result,

[15:55] after that particular action is concluded, I need to sit down with myself and say, "Okay, what should have happened? What did happen? Why? What do What do I need to keep doing in the future? What do I need to change in the future?" Okay? I can't impose those on my team members. They don't work for me. We work We all have our own practices and we work together. What I can do, though,

[16:30] is change my behaviors, change what I say, change how I, craft an image of what needs to happen in a way that hopefully will provide the the basis for a better result next time, okay? And in my primary business, where I administrate trusts and estates, that is what's important, okay? So, I'll give you an example. Uh, one of the things that I do, that I've mentioned a few times, is I report

[17:07] periodically to other people involved in the inner administration. So, in in taking on a new matter uh, recently, the lawyer with whom I'm working who worked with on on another case, he suggested that I not communicate as frequently as I did before, and he made his case why he thought that that would end up in a negative result, okay? And in thinking about it, one of the things I realized

[17:42] was I was I was hampering my own progress on a number of levels. One is I was using time to to do reports that could have been used to better purpose on other matters. That was number one. Number two, in some cases I was getting too much into the weeds with other people, causing myself even more problems when the fact of the matter is um some of these things were just going to routinely be worked out. They didn't require the input or knowledge of the

[18:18] other parties, and so I was I was actually delaying the completion of the administration of an estate by reporting on them, right? And so in in you know, doing my own sort of after-action report, okay, I made my processes better and made myself a more effective administrator of an estate. Okay, so

[18:46] >> [snorts]

[18:47] >> uh let's let's take a quick break and then let's look at some ways of translating this doctrine uh into business.

[18:55] >> [clears throat]

[18:57] >> When life brings unexpected changes, managing inherited property shouldn't add to your stress. Magnum Property specializes in probate and trust real estate management. We handle the complexities while you focus on what matters most. From property maintenance to tenant relations, from legal compliance to maximizing value, we're your trusted partner through every step. Magnum Properties Inc., turning property challenges into peace of mind. Call us today at 213-264-4396

[19:35] or visit magnumprops.com. Okay. So, let's then translate this doctrine of doing after-action reviews into the business world. So, first and foremost, a company needs to standardize post-mortems. So, the learning must be systematic. So, whenever there's a major project or the launch of a new product or service or an incident, it should be taken for granted that there's going to be an after-action review. That should just be part of the way the company

[20:12] is managed. Next, a consistent framework should be used. Okay? So, there there should be a consistent policy in terms of who is going to be involved in the AAR. There should be a set set of questions that are going to be answered by the people participating. Okay? There should be someone who's going to be taking notes or the session is going to be recorded or or whatever is going to be done to gather the data. And then there should be a way that that data is

[20:47] collated and distributed to the other members of the team and maybe to other people in the company who can benefit from learning those lessons. So, all of that should be essentially codified into a a set of procedures uh for for the company. And then, [snorts] as [clears throat] I just mentioned a moment ago, um there the the findings need to be clearly documented, and there needs to be access to it so that people can learn from it, okay? And

[21:22] there's got to be a system put into place that encourages people who to access that information and and actually apply it to uh you know, to future to future matters, right? So that uh uh you know, the benefit of the AAR is spread more broadly within the company, okay? So,

[21:48] >> [clears throat]

[21:48] >> without structure, without a a policy of with without after-action reviews being a policy uh that you know, the the the whole system just is not going to happen, and the company is not going to reap the benefit. Okay, number two. Focus on process, not personality. So, blaming people destroys insight, okay? The if if someone thinks they're going to get blamed for something, they're not going to openly talk about

[22:23] their viewpoint or what went wrong. Uh and by the way,

[22:28] >> [clears throat]

[22:29] >> the process should be the the after-action review should be so focused on process that someone who did make a mistake will volunteer that knowledge. Okay? That's how free from focus on personality the process should be. It should provide the forum for people to take responsibility for things that that happened that should not have, or things that didn't go well enough, or whatever. And [snorts] and and then get input from their colleagues on how

[23:06] to do better next time. Okay? So,

[23:09] >> [clears throat]

[23:10] >> we the the process should entail analyzing systems and decisions, not individuals. Okay? So, if a bad decision was made, the focus should be on the decision itself, not the decision maker. Okay? So, you know, what information was available for that decision? What were the options considered in that decision? Okay? Why was the particular choice chosen? Okay? Not why did you do these things?

[23:45] Why did you know, why you know, not pointing the finger at the individual, looking at the process of decision-making. Okay? Let's be honest. A bad decision can be made from a valid process. Okay? A lot of times decisions come down to the exercise of judgment. And sometimes we're going to make the wrong decision. And it's really not through any blame, it's merely because made the wrong call. Okay? There isn't any value in beating someone

[24:20] up for making the wrong call. If the process used was appropriate, if the data analyzed was valid, and if the choice chosen appeared to be at least as good as whatever whatever what other choices were available, okay, then okay. The wrong choice was made. Oh, well. That's what happens sometimes in life. Okay? So,

[24:51] >> [clears throat]

[24:52] >> focus on process, not personality. Encourage honest input from all levels. Now, this can be difficult if there are more junior people in the room and they feel or they think that if they say something negative about that could that so something negative that could look like a criticism of someone senior to them.

[25:14] >> [snorts]

[25:14] >> So, they may be very reluctant to say those things and yet they may have a key piece of information that will make the after-action review particularly valuable. And so, the ground rules need to be set and they need to be enforced by the most senior person there. Okay? That that you know, everybody needs to feel comfortable volunteering the information they have. This is not about criticizing anybody in this room. If you feel you're

[25:49] being criticized, re-examine those feelings uh because we're looking to get at the process of what happened and and and and examine the decisions that were made, but this is not this is not assigning blame. That's not what we're here to do. Okay? And then, if someone acts or reacts defensively, okay? Again, the most senior person in the room needs to tamp that down. Okay? Got it. Got it. Let's let's let's let's not be defensive. Let's refocus on the

[26:25] process and the decisions. This isn't about blaming anybody here. We don't need to respond or react defensively. Okay? So,

[26:34] >> [clears throat]

[26:35] >> creating some uh you know, as kind of woo-woo as this sounds for a show called business lessons from the military, but but creating some psychological safety enables people to speak truth, right? And and and in the end, that's what we want. Good leaders want people who will speak truth to power. Okay? For those of us who are junior to the leaders, we need to learn to do that respectfully and honestly. And those two can go together. I know too often these days

[27:12] the truth is used as a club to, you know, pummel someone. That is not an appropriate way to act, frankly, ever, whether it's in a business setting or in personal life. But indeed,

[27:26] >> [clears throat]

[27:26] >> this is what we need to do as as subordinates dealing with people who are senior to us. Okay. Next, the process needs to be geared to capture both success and failure. Right? So, um a lot of learning comes from a success that's not understood. Right? So, we had a successful operation. Hey, good on us. High five. Bang, bang, bang. You know, and move on. No, not the way to handle it. Why was it successful? Really dig into

[28:02] it. The the the the surface of why it was successful is unlikely to really get at the roots of why a particular business initiative was successful. And so, the AAR is designed to get below that surface and really dig into what worked and why. Okay? That's that's as important as what didn't work and why. Because if something worked, we want to understand it as thoroughly as possible

[28:37] in all of its aspects so that we can hopefully replicate that success in another situation, okay? Or recognize the core elements of it so that we can modify them and be successful in a different situation. Okay, if we don't understand why something was successful, we are far less likely to be able to replicate that success. Okay? And so that is the goal. To be able to replicate effective practices. Okay, that's the goal. So

[29:15] we [snorts] need to avoid assuming that success will automatically repeat itself. It will not. Unless and even then it's not automatic. Success will repeat itself when we understand what led to that accept that to that success. So I'm I'm dealing with a situation right now with a friend of mine where the CEO of a company has frankly fooled himself into thinking why certain

[29:51] initiatives in the company have been successful. And it's it's almost painful to to hear about and then talk about it. And I I I observed to my friend that I don't think I have ever uh encountered a leader who is so blind to his own shortcomings and is so deeply intent in shooting himself in the foot and damaging the company he leads. Right? He's He's

[30:28] convinced, I guess, that the success the company has had it comes from his leadership alone. Okay? Even though there are numerous other people involved in the success of the company, and the company was flailing before certain people were brought in. Okay? So, he really what he really should be doing is digging into some after action

[31:03] reviews to really get at the heart of why were more recent initiatives the company has has had, why were they successful? If he had done that, he would not be pursuing what are almost for sure going to be destructive actions within the company. Okay? So, uh you know, sometimes I think leaders are afraid of delving into why a particular initiative was successful because they may find out that it had far less to do

[31:39] with them than they want to think. Well, okay. So, what? Right? The point of being a leader is to lead an organization to success. If your part is smaller than you thought it was, so what? Okay? If it was the understand where the the the drive for success is within the company, and take advantage of that. Enhance that. Okay? That's your job as a leader.

[32:14] Not to take credit. Okay? I'm going to say that again because I think that's so important. Our jobs as leaders is not to take credit for success per se. It's to dig down and find out really why success has happened. Give the credit to those who have earned the credit. And then do our best to enhance that experience going forward, okay? So, success without

[32:49] uh analysis it it creates false confidence, okay? Or even worse in as in the example I gave. All right. Next, turn insights into action. So,

[33:03] >> [clears throat]

[33:03] >> doing the after-action report and filing it away might as well not have done it at that point, okay? Because to have your people, your team members, go through this process and then ignore it will be manifestly demotivating, okay? The value of going through the after-action report process is to find out what needs to be replicated and what needs to be changed, and then replicating and changing things. Okay?

[33:38] Without that final step the process uh just another way of defeating the organization. So,

[33:47] >> [clears throat]

[33:48] >> number one, we need to assign ownership for whatever improvements need to be made, okay? So, if there was some process that worked particularly well, one of the members of the team should be responsible for seeing to it that that process is replicated. Don't just leave it foggy. Okay, well, we needed to do this again next time. Well, yes, we do. Who's going to be the one driving that process of seeing to it that that that it's that it is replicated, okay? If if a process or a system needs to be

[34:25] updated or changed, who's going to drive that initiative, okay? And what are the changes what changes are they going to make? What are going to be the metrics by which they'll be able to gauge whether they have been successful in making those alterations. Okay? And

[34:48] >> [clears throat]

[34:48] >> that comes down to tracking implementation of the lessons, right? And that's why ownership has to be given to various parts of the process. Then those people need to be held responsible for that ownership. Okay? Not within the AR AAR, not within the after-action review, but in a one-on-one with the team leader or maybe someone who's not part of the team, but who's responsible for overseeing, you know, various teams, something like that. Okay? Uh when people know, when

[35:26] people have a clear idea of what they're supposed to be doing, and they understand that they're going to have responsibility for its accomplishment, then they can be held responsible. And there can be a candid discussion about that one-on-one between that person and his supervisor. Okay? And that that's the way we need to deal with people, but not in a multi-person forum. Okay? So, insights have to be translated into execution.

[36:04] Okay, finally,

[36:06] >> [clears throat]

[36:07] >> the the company needs to build a culture of continuous improvement. So, uh in a much overused term, I think, AARs have to become part of the organizational DNA. It's got to be part of its raison d'être, as the French say, its reason for being. Okay? We exist as an organization, not just to accomplish certain tasks, but to continuously improve how we perform those tasks. Okay?

[36:42] So, we need again, we need to make those these reviews routine. They have to be an expected part of of of things that happen within the company. So much so so that so that people realize until the AAR has taken place, that particular initiative has not been completed. Right? There and and there needs to be a reward system for transparency. So, if someone

[37:12] >> [clears throat]

[37:13] >> thinks that if someone provides information that shows, for example, that they made a bad decision, we shouldn't punish that person. We should reward that person. We want that kind of honesty and that kind of acceptance of responsibility. Okay? And that should be the ethos of the company. I you when I when I had my uh property management company, part of my sales pitch to potential clients was

[37:48] if you're looking for someone who's never going to make a mistake managing your property, don't hire me. If you're looking for someone who when a mistake is made, is going to do his best to make sure that you find out about that mistake from him along with a plan for what he's going to do to correct that mistake, hire me. Right? That was that was my commitment to my clients. And I will say that

[38:25] >> [clears throat]

[38:26] >> I had several clients the entire time I was in business because I think they realized that when I said that they they well they they not that they they realized they saw over time that that was not just something I said. It was part of the ethos of my company. Okay? I didn't want to be operating under the stress of I could never make a mistake. That's not First of all, it's not realistic. Second of all, don't want that level of anxiety in my life. But I also wanted to operate under the

[39:04] understanding that I'm a responsible adult and if I make a mistake, it's up to me to, you know, cop a plea as they say and fix it. And that I I can't encourage you more to instill that ethos into your company. So

[39:24] >> [clears throat]

[39:25] >> organizations that learn outperform those organizations that do not learn. And in fact organizations that survive, especially during tumultuous times, are the ones who learn and adapt most quickly. Okay, so what does this mean for modern organizations? Well, you know, the business environment changes rapidly and [snorts] so

[39:51] >> [clears throat]

[39:52] >> we have to uh and and so mistakes can compound more quickly, but at the same time opportunities emerge unexpectedly. We need to be prepared to deal with those. So organizations that learn slowly, they fall behind and they repeat errors, they can't replicate success, and so they lose credibility.

[40:17] >> [snorts]

[40:17] >> Right? Those that learn quickly, they're continuously analyzing what's going on, they're adapting rapidly, and they're refining their execution, and as a result, they get a compounding advantage, right? Small improvements Several small improvements happening quickly and regularly will lead to much greater overall improvement than one periodic large improvement. In that sense,

[40:52] learning and improving your company's performance is is much like compound interest, right? Compound interest is one of the seminal investment concepts where you earn interest on interest on interest on interest on interest. Right? Learning is the same thing. Learning and and making rapid positive changes on rap more on more learning and more rapid popular um uh productive changes, you keep doing that, and the organization will refine itself much more rapidly than otherwise,

[41:29] and it will it will out-improve the competition. So, like so many of the uh doctrines that we have analyzed in the 24 episode campaign, this requires discipline on the part of leadership. So,

[41:46] >> [clears throat]

[41:46] >> leaders have to invite criticism of their own decisions, and and not get upset about it if if you know, some employee or some you know, some subordinate says something, you know, ungracefully or something like that, okay? I- if you feel that they've said something to you that's disrespectful, pull them aside later and say, "You know, when you said X to me, I have to tell you I I don't think that was the most effective way you could have conveyed that information. Um next time think about, you know, coaching what you

[42:22] said in this way. It'll be more productive. Help them to learn better how to communicate, but don't don't take what may sound like an attack personally. Or if it was a personal attack, deal with that separately. Okay? Resist the urge to defend outcomes, especially if the outcome was negative, right? It's far more important to learn how to prevent negative outcomes than it is to defend them. Uh prioritize learning over ego.

[42:59] Everybody can learn. From the most junior to the most senior person, everybody needs to be dedicated to doing better. And finally, enforce follow-through on improvements, okay? Assign ownership. Hold people accountable, right? And all of this requires humility and consistency on the part of leadership. And indeed, that is why having humility as a leader is so important. I've talked about this before. I'm not a big fan of this idea

[43:34] of the so-called servant leader. I think what we want are leaders who have humility and exercise that humility judiciously for the betterment of the organization and the growth of their people, okay? So, execution is not just doing, it's improving. If we keep executing the same way time after time after time and don't improve it, we are falling behind. We are not performing like an optimized

[44:10] organization. So, the difference between average and elite organizations, it's not effort. It's how quickly they learn. Right? The difference between a SEAL team and a regular unit is how quickly a SEAL team learns and adapts. That's the whole basis. Well, not the whole basis, but it's a large part of what SEAL teams train to do. So, high performing teams, it's not that they avoid mistakes. Even high

[44:45] performing teams make mistakes. What they do is they ensure as much as possible that they don't make the same mistake twice. And that's why after action reviews are so important. So, uh thank you very much for joining me. Uh real quickly, the schedule of shows, Monday at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time, Trusts and Estates Weekly. Tuesdays, like today, at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time, Business Lessons from the Military. Wednesdays at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time, People Making Money. Every other

[45:20] Thursday at 5:00 p.m. Pacific time is my show Jigger's This Place. We have a cocktail and a schmooze and talk about all the things not related to finances. If you have uh questions, comments, criticisms, links will be in the show notes to social media as well as my email address on the three major podcast platforms, uh YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcast. Uh always en- enjoy uh reading your comments and your criticisms cuz I'm always looking to make these shows better.

[45:55] So, I thank you Oh, and by the way, since we mentioned them, if you're not a subscriber to the show, uh please subscribe on whichever platform you know you prefer. Would would very much appreciate having having you as as a regular viewer and listener. So, I thank you again very much for joining me today. Wishing you a wonderful rest of the day and signing off as I always do. Marie Darling, you are my bell. Courage at all times, my friends.