What's up y'all? I'm Skyler Diggins, 7-time WNBA All-Star, Olympic gold medalist, and mom. And I'm Cassidy Hubbard, host and reporter for nearly 20 years, covering the biggest names and stories in sports and mom. And this is And Mom, a community for athletes, game changers, and moms of all kinds. Dropping May 14th. Tap in with us. What does it take to be prepared for disaster? You have to be confident. You have to be calm. Will you be perfect? No. But the idea is that you'll have your bearings and this won't be something new to you. This week, unexplained it to me. How to stay ready so you don't have to get ready. New episodes Sundays wherever you get your podcasts. For the show, we celebrate the intersection of food and life. And this month, we're releasing a new series called Culinary Masters. It highlights some of the most iconic people in the food world. And we're visiting conversations with people who have fundamentally changed how many of us cook and think about food. People like Jacques Papin, Claudia Rodin, and Tony Bourdain to name a few. You can listen to this special series now. Just search for the Splendid Table in your podcast app. Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Jessica Tarlev. And I'm Aaron Pornes. And in today's episode, we're going to be talking about how the U.S. is extending the war with Iran, despite promises, many, many years of promises to avoid a long conflict. Pam Bondi's congressional subpoena over the Epstein files and what the tegna next to our merger means for the future of media. If you aren't already, please make sure to subscribe to our YouTube page to get up-to-date coverage on everything that's happening. We're releasing episodes every day. I've said this before. I'm a little tired. It's exhausting having a five-day-a-week job, but I'm loving it. So please subscribe and let's get into it. The U.S. is getting pulled deeper into this war with Iran, depending on is considering sending thousands more troops to the region. Projected costs were spending a billion dollars a day at least, and it looks like they're going to be asking for an additional 200 billion. And now you've got senior officials like Tulsi Gabbard openly suggesting the U.S. and Israel might not even agree on what quote-unquote winning looks like here. Erin, I'm not sure how you felt during this week, but something was different from the first few weeks of this war. A lot more conflicting signals going and just a general feeling of, like, everybody turning against this except for Pete Hexeth, basically. What were your thoughts? Yeah, I mean, I think this week was very different because I think now those around the administration and especially those online and within MAGA World, they're kind of seeing deja vu of Iraq, of Afghanistan, of what the United States went through in the early 2000s and the war that Bush brought us into. It's actually, this week is a 23rd anniversary of Bush announcing the war in Iraq. And so I think what we're seeing now is at the beginning, Trump promised a quick war. Then every day he would say something like, oh, I could finish this in a few days if I wanted to, or it's going to be a couple weeks. We're now entering the first month, week four of this war. We're spending billions of dollars. I don't know any Republican who supported Doge who also now wants to give another 200 billion to the Pentagon of money that we don't necessarily have. There are reports that the United States and Israel, like you were saying, are not on the same page in terms of what the end goal is. Israel obviously wants regime change here. Trump keeps saying that's maybe not what they want. We haven't actually officially defined this as a war in Congress yet, I mean, on top of it all. And then the Joe Kent resignation, whatever you may think of him, I mean, he has some very bad skeletons in his closet. That to me was kind of a bit of a breaking point because Kent resigns on the eve of Gavard's testimony in the Senate. And then I don't know about you, but when I watched the House testimony, it was a little different. Like the Senate one was more of like, let me defend what Trump is doing in a way. And then the House one was, it's not my personal opinion. It's not like I'm kind of going to stay away from whatever the administration is doing. This is just what the IC, the intelligence community is saying. So yes, I do think the tide is turning here. And I wonder if Trump is looking for an off ramp, but then you see Marines being deployed to the Middle East. So I don't know. Yeah, I think the problem is he could be looking for an off ramp, but there just isn't one in sight when you're this into something. And the fact that Israel and the US don't seem to be on the same page, blowing up the Qatari oil fields. Now, Trump is lying when he says, I didn't know that this was going to happen. Trump lying. Trump lying on social media and to our faces. Breaking news. Get that Fox News alert up there. I'll be doing it later today on the five. Like we had no idea this was coming, but that is a pretty big fissure. And I think that you're right about Tulsi. And I noticed that John Ratcliffe was talking a lot more on day two than he was on day one. He was basically silent for the first bit of this. And I feel like, you know, she's thinking, could you just send me to Fulton County? Like maybe this would be an easier life for me if I had to chase a conspiracy theory about election fraud. But the supplemental funding, I think, is going to be the easiest way for people who are maybe on the fence about this to latch on to something, to be able to say, absolutely not. Like you actually have to have clear, defined goals if you want this kind of money. And also we've already given 1.1 trillion to the Pentagon. How is it possible that this isn't enough when it's only been a few weeks? Right? Like you're not talking about you've been in here for three, four years, like the Ukrainians. I have a clip of some folks reacting in MAGA World to the supplemental funding. So let's look at that. I haven't seen the details. I will not vote for a war supplemental. I am so tired of spending money elsewhere. I think the original wording was around 100 billion. So we need to look at it. Let's see what the request amounts to. Whatever it costs to finish this is worth it. Lindsey Graham, we can always defend on you for whatever it costs to finish the job. I'm realistically understanding that this isn't the kind of thing that can just be canceled overnight. Right? Like 50,000 troops in the region already, thousands more are on their way. It's going to take some sort of ground force to secure the Iranian coastline. If we're ever going to open up the Strait of Hormuz, we don't even know how many of these mines they've got in the water already, either like at the top or heading down. So what does a fight over funding actually mean for the course of the war? I mean, I think it could be the catalyst that breaks the war in a way. So I think what we're seeing right now, and I've listened to a lot of national security experts about what's happening overseas in Iran, Iran is really dug in. They don't want a ceasefire. They don't want an off-ramp because they see what's happening inside the United States government right now in terms of kind of the divisions and the fissures. Remember, Iran is not a democracy. It's not like let's vote on whether or not we're going to stop this war. And that's not what's happening over there. There's a lot of religion infused in it. They're ready to fight until the end. And so it's going to be up to the United States to say, okay, we're willing to take an off-ramp, but then that's a loss for Trump. And the last thing Trump wants is to look like he just went into war just for funsies because that's what's happening right now. The regime is pretty much intact. You bombed a bunch of people. That's it. And you caused black and toxic oil rain to fall on Iran. You didn't really get much progress out of it. So the supplemental funding issue is going to be one that I think should unite Democrats. I mean, I think you should see every Democrat but Federman come out and vote against it. It should also unite truly the America first swing of the Republican Party. You can't run on doge. You can't run on cutting waste, fraud and abuse and then give $200 billion to a Pentagon that, mind you, has failed and audit repeatedly every single year for many years. Bernie Sanders has called it out. The Republicans have called it out. The Pentagon itself is the definition of waste, fraud and abuse. We are spending billions of dollars on projects that you'll never actually see deployed in the battlefield. And so I would hope that this is the crack that breaks the camel's back. I know I had a straw that breaks the camel's back. And Trump kind of says, you know what? We don't need the $200 billion in supplemental funding. Let's figure out an off ramp here. But I will say, and I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, I think if they pass $200 billion in supplemental funding, you're going to see a blue wave of like epic proportion in November. I mean, I would like that. I was a bit swept up in the fun in Texas last weekend being with James Tallarico. And when I saw the betting odds switched, right, that Democrats were favored to take the Senate. I was really high on all that. Now that I'm back in New York, I'm like, okay, this is a really steep climb. I also want to pay more attention to Iowa and Alaska than we have been. I think Mary Potola is very exciting. But yes, I think that if we are on war footing and we are certainly going to be on economic footing linked to a war. When we go into this election this morning, Maria Bartiromo had Chris Wright, that energy secretary on and she said the Saudis are staying 180 a barrel. The Qataris have said it could get up to $200 a barrel, but we're talking about by the end of April. We're not even talking about this is going to take a few months to get there. And the American people, it just can't be sustained. It's not even, I mean, this goes beyond elections. Like no one has had their wages go up. The job market is completely stalled is at zero. I'm sure you were listening to Jerome Powell talking where he was like between tariffs and no job creation. We're at a complete economic standstill. And I'm not sure what a working person is supposed to do and your premium just went up, you know, two to 400%. Well, I think, and I've said this a long time, is that the Trump administration hasn't prosecuted this war adequately. Right. The difference between today and 2003 when Bush brought us into Iraq was that when Bush brought us into Iraq, support for the war in Iraq was over 80%, over 90% in some polls. And then he went in the Oval Office, he went during a State of the Union address and he repeatedly prosecuted based on false information why we needed to go into Iraq. Trump today is just saying screw you. I know better than you. I don't have to explain to you why we're doing this or what the outcomes are going to be. Trust me, bro. Trust me, bro, it only gets you so far with so many people. And that's why the approval rating for the war when it first was launched was already underwater under 50%. And I guarantee you, if you poll the American people today, the approval for the war will some are being in the low 40s, high 30s. That's not a winning coalition in any way. Yeah, it's the lowest polling war, certainly in recent history, but maybe in all of American history, because I'm thinking like, oh, go back to World War II. People are pretty psyched about that actually because they understood what the cause was. I think you're right, I'm interested to see what the polling that comes out on Sunday looks like because support for going in was ticking up. It was hitting 50% in some polls, like in the Fox News poll, but what is consistently underwater with Republicans, independents and Democrats is boots on the ground. Yeah. And now it seems like there is no possibility that that isn't going to be the case. And we're not talking about like a couple people here and there. We've lost, what is it, seven or eight service members at this point. But when you're sending thousands of more troops in and you already have 50,000 in the region, some boots are going to be hitting the ground. And again, BB Netanyahu was saying the quiet part out loud. He said, yeah, there's going to be boots on the ground. Yeah. I mean, it's coming. And when people say boots on the ground, do I think we're going to have military troops in Tehran? No, I mean, I say that now, no, but in three months from now, we may very well have that. What boots on the ground looks like is they're going to try to secure a car garland where the oil facilities are. And then like you said at the beginning, the shores of the Strait of Ormuz. But that is terrifying for a lot of military families. I mean, you can't claim Iran is devastated and Iran is done. Iran just struck an F-35 yesterday. Right? Like Iran still has capabilities. Iran struck the Haifa oil refinery in Israel yesterday successfully. Iranian drones have successfully struck over 10 American satellite facilities in the region. This is not a regime that's just over and done with. They still have more firepower. And that also doesn't include like the lone wolf like potential for a suicide bomber by American forces on the ground in Iran. I mean, there's just so many issues with this. Yeah. You know, what's interesting is the question of whether there needs to be a peacekeeping force because, so let's say there is some off-ramb and Trump basically, you know, he says they were firing 900 missiles a day. Now they're firing eight to 12. This is obviously a win. The Ayatollah is dead. Never mind about Ayatollah Junior or any of that. And says we got to get out of there. Just like after Operation Midnight Hammer, if you don't destroy the infrastructure in an enduring way, they're just going to keep building it up. And Marco Rubio has acknowledged as much that, you know, you can stop the drone and missile capacity for a set amount of time, but they're going to rebuild. And then is this something that we do, you know, every five years, it's like a tradition, right? That we have to go back in and try to wipe it out. I mean, Israel won't settle for that. They're, you know, they're in a totally different position than we are from a national security standpoint. There are more rockets getting through the Iron Dome than we've seen in a very long time. Yeah. And it's killing Israelis, too. And I mean, I don't know that I think at the beginning of the war, even a lot of Israelis were very excited for it because they were like finally down with the Ayatollah, down with this regime, this murderous regime. But now even I think if you hold Israeli citizens, I don't know that they would be fully supportive of this. Because I still don't get what regime change is here. Like, and I don't think anyone has adequately explained that Netanyahu hasn't explained it, Trump hasn't explained it. Okay, you now have a new Ayatollah. Kill him next. Okay, you're going to have a new cleric that comes up that's even more hard line. You're creating a vacuum where you have more hardliners come in, more people who are willing to restrict the rights of Iranian citizens. And you're not actually doing anything to change it. And if you did put boots on the ground and did conduct a bloody war that will cost a lot of American lives and actually remove the regime in full, you can remove the regime, but you can't remove an ideology. You have millions of Iranians who still support the Ayatollah in this regime. What are you going to do? Kill them, too? Displace them? You can't do that. It makes no sense. Jared Kushner would probably say you can move them like we could move the Palestinians. Crazy. Totally crazy. Before we take a break, I wanted to ask you about the Democratic response. What grade would you give the party on how they're talking about affordability in the midst of this and how they're prosecuting the case for why this is a war that we have no business being involved in? I don't, I can't really grade Democratic response because I don't really feel like they've had a response in a lot of ways. I think they just put out a lot of strong statements and they've been asking the right questions and these briefings. But to me, that actually in and of itself gets an A grade because it's not like they're hurting the Democratic Party by doing it. They're just kind of coasting. So that's our standard now? The do no harm principle? It's better than before. But I will say if you have Democrats break on this supplemental and you have Senator Slotkin vote with Federmann, that's going to be a big problem. What about the DHS funding? Because the airports are a disaster. I actually, I flew last weekend and it was okay. But just before we got on, I was looking at the LaGuardia looks insane. Yeah, it's bad. It's really bad. And I saw that Slotkin was potentially open to like TSA funding within, you know, so not FEMA and CISA, but maybe TSA. You know, everyone doesn't want to give ICE funding, which I totally understand and I wouldn't want to either, but they are funded through 2029. So I'm not, I'm not sure how that argument holds up as we kind of descend into this further. Well, I think we're at the point and this is a very cynical way of looking at it from my perspective. Democrats care about people. Republicans don't, right? Republicans are willing to drag this out for as long as they can. And I honestly think Democrats should grow a similar backbone in this respect. Like Democrats are putting forth TSA funding stand alone, FEMA funding stand alone. Republicans are voting against it every single time. So I'm not sure what else Democrats can do if Democrats go and cave on the ICE stuff on CBP and just allow this funding bill to go through. Republicans are going to know just like the first shutdown, just wait 50 days, wait 60 days, and then they'll cave every single time. So it's a very, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. I feel for those flying, I feel more for the TSA agents who are right now working without pay. To me, I would rather collectively come together and like do a massive donation drive for TSA agents right now, right? Like that's what I would rather do for my position rather than just try to put pressure on the Democrats to reopen DHS because I get why they've shut it down. But I also think this is again a funding battle that should have never happened when it did. The fact that they allow the two week extension, they lost a lot of leverage back in January. They should have forced a shutdown of DHS and every other agency, force a bigger government shutdown, have more leverage here. They didn't do that. So I don't know. Well, I don't think, you know, the White House has offered compromises on things like body cams. They're not moving, it seems like on judicial warrants though. Mark Wayne Mullen intimated that that is a possibility that we could talk about it. Yeah. Do you think that that is the sticking point that if we get the judicial warrants versus the administrative warrants for ICE and CBP, then that's a go? Yeah. I don't think if they commit to that. But also like the White House's letter, I don't know if you saw, it was like, we're not going to deport U.S. citizens. And I'm like, okay, well, you can't already deport U.S. citizens. Like, why are we talking about things that it's already codified into law? So yeah, I do think the judicial warrants issue, if they cave on it, I think you'll get a funding deal pass. All right. Let's take a quick break. Stay with us. Hey, I'm Matt Buchel, comedian, writer and floating head. You may or may not have seen on your 4U page and I'm starting a brand new podcast. Wait, wait, don't swipe away. It's called That Sounds Like a Lot. As in that feeling when you check your phone in the morning, you read three headlines and you immediately think, oh, that sounds like a lot. I can't deal with all this. But guess what? I can deal with it. And I'm going to get into it every Friday. I'll break down whatever chaos is happening in the world, then I'll sit down with a comedian. You can be progressive and not be like fucking annoying. Maybe an actor. They go, feminism has gone too far. You go, why? Because the Sadie Hawkins dance happened. Maybe a filmmaker. Since leaving that show, I'm challenged to sparing. I just got to hang out and try to do so. You're the one with the charmed life. Could be a politician, basically anyone who responds to my cold DMs. We're recording the whole thing in a beautiful studio, so yes, you can watch it on YouTube or you can listen wherever you get your podcast. This is not the place to get the news, but it is the place to feel a little better about it. That sounds like a lot, part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. That sounds like a lot, part of the Vox Media Podcast. Complex and unprecedented, the Spanish authorities are calling it. Antes del desembarco, asintomáticas. Passengers who'd been stuck aboard the Hanta or maybe Hantavirus-stricken Dutch cruise ship disembarked in the Canary Islands this weekend, prompting the highest stakes game of where are they now since maybe COVID? Some of the evacuees, American and French, have since tested positive for the virus. And yet, public health officials seem remarkably calm. We do have one individual who was taken to the biocontainment unit early, early this morning. And we assess that individual. They are doing well. Possibly because this is not the one to freak out over. Today Explained drops every weekday afternoon. This week on Net Worth and Chill, we're diving into another edition of Am I the Asshole? Finance Edition. And trust me, these money dilemmas will have you questioning everything. I'm breaking down real stories from real people who are navigating financial situations that range from mildly awkward to absolutely unhinged. And I'm giving you my unfiltered take on who's on the right and who needs a serious reality check. Because let's be real, when it comes to mixing relationships and finances, someone's always asking if they're the asshole. Learn how to set boundaries, protect your wealth, and avoid becoming the villain in your own financial story. Listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on YouTube.com slash your rich BFF. Welcome back. Epstein, back in the news a little bit. Not as much as I thought that it would have been, but Attorney General Pam Bondy faced a congressional subpoena over the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein files. Lawmakers from both parties and survivors raised concerns about the heavy redactions, missing details about potential accomplices, and whether key information is being kept from the public. Did you see Todd Blanche on Stephen Miller's Wife's podcast on Katie Miller's podcast? I did. How crazy. Crazy? I was, she just snapped on him where he was like, oh, we've been totally transparent. She's like, there are three million files that you're not releasing. It really surprised me. But isn't there photos of her with victims and Jeffrey Epstein? Yes. And so wouldn't it be prudent to figure out which of those, you know, other perpetrators could be prosecuted still? I don't think the American people are wrong to want to see people go to jail beyond just Jeffrey Epstein and her. Oh, I agree. I don't think the American people are wrong. We will always investigate anybody for child sex crimes any day of the week. There are other victims who have come forward, though, in the SDNY case and in other cases. Why are we not taking them more seriously and prosecuting the people whom they cite? Well, we did. Yeah, I mean, I think she's, I wonder if Stephen Miller kind of was like asking this question. Back to you and after her? Yeah, yeah, I wonder. Well, he's probably just mad since he's been put in the corner. Right, like now. Oh, yeah. I think Todd Blanche has been sidelined, by the way, or not sidelined, but more of just like scapegoated in this whole Epstein thing. I think they've just thrown him to the wolves. Because they like Bondi so much that they're like, we could pin it on you. And I don't know how much Bondi likes Blanche. I think that was like a forced marriage onto her. So. Well, what did we learn this week about, I guess, the future of the Epstein vile releases or where this story is? So we learned a lot, actually, that unfortunately, media really isn't talking about. See, this is a different kind of week. I feel like last week, you know, it's like war. I don't really know. Epstein, I don't really know. And it was a quiet but action-packed week somehow. Yeah, there are like four big Epstein news stories that came out this week first. You have the oversight subpoena that was officially issued to Pam Bondi, five Republicans joined all Democrats in voting to subpoena Bondi. She then, hours after the subpoena was issued, went on Capitol Hill with Blanche and privately briefed members of Congress. It was like off the record, not under oath, deposition style briefing that didn't really materialize. Democrats walked out halfway through because she had no impetus to tell the truth and she was filibustering inside there. So that was number one. Number two, you still have the subpoena issued for April 14th. You have some Republicans now apparently wavering on whether to enforce that subpoena, that some of the Republicans who voted for it. So we'll see what happens then. If I was a betting man, I would bet she doesn't show up on the 14th. Does that mean that she's not going to show up ever for this deposition? No, just I don't know that it'll happen in the next three weeks. The third thing, Epstein's longtime lawyer, Darren and Dyke, testified in front of the oversight committee yesterday. And then Dyke essentially said he knew nothing about the crimes, knew nothing about Epstein's, what he was doing to the young children. But Darren Minn, one of the members of Congress on the committee was like, I'm shocked. He didn't plead the fifth because he seemed like he perjured himself repeatedly throughout the entire testimony. So that was number three. And then the fourth thing that has gotten zero attention, British authorities have actually expanded the investigation into Andrew Formley Prince to include sex trafficking investigation now. So they've now expanded their investigation according to the Times. It's much larger, much more expansive. So hopefully even if the United States won't do anything, the Brits may. Are you still fully on the side that the United States is going to do nothing or is this just going to be like pulling teeth and take several years, but we'll end up getting there? I'm somewhere in the middle of the two. I think it depends on if this issue, if Epstein remains in the news and Democrats keep it in the news after they win the house and they continue an investigation after November, I have higher hopes because then I see a president, a Democratic president potentially coming in and actually doing something more about it. If they just kind of let this fall to the wayside, then I don't think anything's going to happen. Well, are the survivors thinking and feeling right now? Abandoned again. I mean, but I think truly like, I think the public is feeling what many of the survivors have felt. It's been 30 years since Maria Farmer first reported Epstein. In 30 years, every time they came close to the truth, they were met with a redaction or denied FOIA request. Same thing now. I mean, as we get close to the truth, right, we get 3 million files, but they're redacted. You're not getting all of them. And it's the same thing just over and over again. It must be an insanely difficult way to live on top of the trauma of what happened. And I still feel guilty that we weren't paying attention. I'm not talking about like the government, but that Americans were not paying enough attention to a scandal of this level of proportions. It's sad. Yeah. We absolutely have to do better. I want to shift gears a bit and talk about the government taking steps to pave the way for the merger between next star and 10. To broadcast news giants who announced their intention to merge last summer. It's a $6.2 billion deal in an order for it to happen. Brendan Carr and the FCC had to waive the so-called 39% rule, which prevented one company from owning TV stations that reached more than 39% of households. But that's gone now. And next star and its partners will oversee 265 television stations in 44 states and DC reaching about 80% of U.S. households. What is happening? Well, that's why you have to subscribe to this YouTube channel because independent media has never been so important. I don't know if you saw it, but next star after this merger put out a statement declaring itself as the quote anti fake news and saying that they thank President Trump and FCC chairman Carr for ushering in this new kind of wave of media. But the truth is, is that this is just a monopolization of media on the local level. We see it with the Ellison's with CBS and soon CNN. Now we're seeing it with next star and Tegna impacting local TV. Unfortunately, it's going to impact older Americans the most because most young Americans don't watch traditional cable local TV. But older Americans who rely on local TV like your local affiliates, you're going to have changes in your coverage. And it is honestly terrifying to me because I think that it is this type of consolidation shouldn't be happening. Now there is one silver lining, which is eight attorneys general have already found a lawsuit to block this on antitrust related grounds. And I think that they'll actually win here because one company cannot control all of this. It's just too much. So we'll see what happens, but it's terrifying right now. It really is. It makes me think about remember when they started tracking what the anchors were saying on Sinclair local stations and they were all reading the same script. Yeah. I mean, that's that's this that it's very similar. And I wouldn't be surprised if that's going to start happening now too. Is there a way to let's say it goes through understand the eight attorney generals are suing about it. But let's say they find a way to get it through, which is usually the case with things that Donald Trump wants to get done. Is there a way to undo it or regulate it better when there is a different. Okay. What does that look like? So I think a lot of these companies aren't realizing it. If they are, they're taking a massive gamble with the future of their companies. And it's not just next to our techno to any one of these big mergers. You can undo a merger just as quickly as you can do a merger. And when I say quickly, I don't, I don't mean like overnight it takes years, but you can undo it and you can sanction these mergers. Lots of fines, lots of penalties and ultimately try to break up these conglomerates. I mean, Google's faced antitrust issues, Amazon's faced antitrust issues. All your biggest companies face antitrust issues and they usually face massive penalties and fines when they're targeted. All it takes is one Lena Con 2.0 to come in and good luck next to our techno. Interesting. Well, we'll definitely be watching that. And quickly before we go, did you see all the news about who Cesar Chavez actually was? Crazy. Absolutely. I mean, I guess not completely surprising and there are a number of people have been giving interviews saying like we knew bits and pieces of it. But obviously Dolores Huerta coming forward with her story is a critical component of it. What do you think lawmakers and really democratic lawmakers are going to do about this? Well, I think the, they should do the only thing that's right to do uplift Dolores and her story and the story of the women who were abused. The former children women that were abused and to stop idolizing Cesar Chavez the way that the Democratic Party had in past years. I mean, that's what you do and you try to uplift the stories of Dolores and others. Does his name come off monuments and schools and, you know, I mean, this is somebody who didn't have a tiny impact on the country and the labor movement and the party. I mean, California already ended Cesar Chavez day, I believe, and change it to like farm workers there or something. I would see, I would expect more of that to continue. But like, yeah, I mean, I think you do rename things. I think you do take his name off of buildings or whatnot. I mean, it's not permanent, right? Like just because you have a name on a building doesn't mean that name stays there forever. No, of course. And that's the argument that many people, and I don't even want to make it political because there were plenty of people on the right felt about, you know, bad guys from the Civil War, for instance, that they didn't, you know, want their names on things anymore. So, but that, I mean, certainly a lot of people that I know and work with felt like that's gone too far. But this, this feels like this isn't like Christopher Columbus or something. No, this feels like something that you could really undo. This is a no brainer. Okay. Aaron, it was great to see you. Thanks for joining me. See you soon. Yeah. Yeah.
