As predicted by Ricochet's own Troy Senik, it looks like last night's debate confirmed what has been happening in the Republican race for the last week.  Cain is seriously ahead.  Newt is coming on strong.  From the Daily Caller:

Herman Cain is the new frontrunner to be the Republican nominee, according to a Public Policy Polling poll released Wednesday that found him leading Mitt Romney by eight points.

In the nationwide poll of likely Republican primary voters, Cain got 30 percent of the vote. Mitt Romney came in second with 22 percent, and Newt Gingrich has made a stunning surge into third place, taking 15 percent. Rick Perry is in fourth with 14 percent. No other candidate breaks double digits.

I said this last night on the live chat: Newt commands.  Last night, he made interesting points, he took the stage, he acted, in short, like a president.  He really has earned a second look, especially from those of us who have just reflexively dismissed him as temperamentally unsuited for the job.

I mean, he probably is unsuited, but his performance over the past few weeks has been impressive, unlike Rick Perry.

And it must be even sweeter to Newt that he's knocked Perry down to fourth place.  Gingrich's top advisors, you may remember, famously defected from his campaign in June to work for the emerging Perry campaign.  Newt may be a weirdo, but he's not so weird that he's not loving this.

My four year-old has Down syndrome. Yesterday, I sent her off to school for the first time in our new suburban town. We chose this particular suburb because of its reputation for a committed and loving approach to educating and including children with special needs. In New York City, where we lived for eight years, the best strategy for families with limited financial resources looking to get their special-needs kids into decent education environments was to sue the city. Every year. Until they turn twenty-one. Usually these suits are successful, but we have no stomach for this kind of thing, and we don’t have the finances to keep a lawyer on retainer for seventeen years, so we moved. Even though we’re now in a better neighborhood, I can't help but worry a little bit extra about my sweet Miss M, since the country seems to be falling apart on so many fronts. Five years ago, the medical team who told us our unborn baby would have Down syndrome advised us to “terminate.” Hearing a diagnosis of Down syndrome is a horrible, terrible shock. All your hopes for your unborn baby, for your family, for your own journey into old age, change in an instant. To have people not-so-subtly reminding you that your child will also be a burden on society is a crushing blow. Yet this is the message that all too frequently gets sent to people in this very unfortunate, and vulnerable, position. We know Miss M won’t be going to Harvard, just as we knew we had to get out of the city in order to find a more hospitable place to raise our family, a place where she has the freedom to pursue her interests and talents. Maybe she'll end up living on her own, holding down a job, and, at least partially, supporting herself. Come to think of it, that’s what I’m hoping for all my kids. But under a government that seems intent on making ALL of us wards of the state, how long before some of us are deemed too much of a burden? After all, we’re living in a country where the president's right-hand man feels free to drop the R-bomb in the White House and Mr. Obama himself jokes on late-night TV that his atrocious bowling skills might qualify him for the Special Olympics (remember? he got a few laughs). I wonder what the future holds. Not just for my little Miss M, but for all of us.

I’ve been grumpy lately. Really grumpy. I’ve got one of those debilitatingly severe colds that doesn’t seem to want to get much better. I’m not looking for sympathy, but I mention it because I’m hopeful it’s partially responsible for my reaction when I re-watched the 1942 classic film, Mrs. Miniver, earlier today. Greer Garson won an Academy Award for her wonderful portrayal of the quietly brave title character who led her family through the dark days of World War II. The war was seen not on the battlefields of Europe, but through the lives of the people who resided in the small English town where the Minivers lived. The strength of character and the resolve and the quiet dignity of Mrs. Miniver and those around her was incredibly moving. But it got me wondering about today’s America and whether that strength of character, that resolve and that quiet dignity still exist. Do we have what it takes to make it through a really dark period? Do we really believe there are ideals and institutions worth making terrible sacrifices for? Can we really come together as a people to resist a terrible outside force?

My swollen head is truly worried about the answers to these questions. We seem soft and spoiled. We seem more connected to our communications devices than to the real world around us. The traditions, ideals and institutions that typically bind a people are under figurative attack as never before, and one has to wonder how they would fare under an actual attack. I know there was a burst of patriotism following the September 11th atrocities, but it didn’t seem to take long for political cynicism and expediency to begin to tear at us. Would the Miniver families of today be more willing to trade their way of life for peace and quite and uninterrupted satellite TV?

The world always looks a little darker when seen through swollen, watery eyes, so I hope those among you with clear heads and clear sinuses can say something comforting before I take another dose of NyQuil.

Just to prove that Richard Epstein and I are not the same person, Richard came over to Berkeley Law yesterday to debate Obamacare with my friend, colleague, and good old New Deal liberal Jesse Choper.

To my surprise, Richard predicted that the Supreme Court would uphold Obamacare, though he was clear that this was because of the sad state of the Supreme Court and not because he thought it consistent with the original meaning of the Commerce Clause.

But what equally caught my attention was that Richard said there were a number of free-market fixes that Republicans could propose in Congress that could do far more to make health care efficient and more broadly available than anything in Obamacare. 

This to me has to be part of the center-right conversation -- it is OK to call for repeal, but to truly win on the issue one has to propose sensible reforms for what most people agree is a dysfunctional system.

I will let Richard post here to do his arguments full justice.  But I think that Ricochet folks could start the process of developing a package of ideas to replace Obamacare when the time comes.

The fallout from Romney's interview with Bret Baier of Fox News this past Tuesday continues.  Now making the rounds:

In this brilliant essay Charles Krauthammer discusses that question.  And he steers it in a provocative way, one that shows why politics—more specifically, why getting politics right—is so important to any form of intelligent life.

Let me now write perhaps the second-most controversial statement I’ve ever written on Ricochet.  The answer to the above question, I believe, is yes – that we humans are the only intelligent beings in the universe.  (I believe my first-most controversial statement was that the BCS system in college football might be sort of okay.)

One reason I believe this is that the counter-theory is not falsifiable, in the sense argued by the great philosopher Karl Popper.

To explain this, let me first explain the opposite—that my theory is falsifiable.  What this means is that I can imagine an observable event that would make me disbelieve my theory.  One such event is simply that aliens visit our planet.  Another is that we receive radar signals from a distant planet that unmistakably come from an intelligent source.  E.g. suppose the signals, like those in the movie starring Jodie Foster, followed a pattern of prime numbers. 

However, the same is not true with the opposite theory.  That is, suppose you believe that we are not alone – that somewhere in the universe there are other intelligent beings.  What event would make you believe that that is not true?  I assert that you cannot imagine such an event.  E.g., suppose we send additional spaceships to Mars that conclusively show that no life exists on that planet.  You could simply respond, “Well that’s only one planet.  It’s still possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere.”  No matter what sort of experiment that a scientist conducts, you could respond with a similar statement.

As Popper explained, we should be skeptical of any theory that is not falsifiable.

A second reason is a form of the Fermi Paradox, which asks “If it’s so easy for intelligent beings to arise in the universe, where are they?”

Here are some quick calculations that I’ve done.  Over the last 2000 years, human population growth has been about 0.16% a year.  Suppose: (i) at least one civilization has existed for at least a billion years (The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, while the universe is about 13.7 billion years old.  If it is easy for intelligent life to arise, then at least one civilization must have arisen before the birth of Earth.  If so, then that civilization, if it still exists, must be at least 4.5 billion years old.), and (ii) that civilization has experienced population growth similar to ours.  If these two facts are true, then the population of that civilization would be more than 10^700,000.  This is more than there are atoms in the universe.

Clearly, if it were easy for intelligent life to arise, and it grew at even a tiny fraction of human population growth, then—assuming such beings could invent technology to colonize other planets—such beings should exist in all corners of the universe.   This clearly is not the case.  It is one more reason that makes me skeptical that other intelligent life really exists in the universe.

Two million YouTube views in two days.  Dad punishes daughter.  

And I am violating the Ricochet Code of Conduct by posting this.  But it's really blowing up on the internets, and it's exactly the kind of thing I'd like the smartest, wisest group anywhere to chime in on.

So, call it Executive Privilege.  Since this isn't really a democracy, I'll accept lashes from Peter and Peter alone.  

Still: fair warning:  There's some salty language, but it's PG-13, I promise.

I honestly don't know what to think about this.  So far, he's got 73k "Likes" on YouTube and only 5500 "Dislikes," so maybe that's saying something.  I have to confess, though, that I got seriously creeped out at the end.  Maybe it was the use of the "hollow points."  Or am I being a squish?

Special Note:  Sharp-eyed Ricochet member PracticalMary beat me to this post by several hours. Apologies to her!  If you commented there, feel free to cut and paste here....

From my latest at The Daily Caller:

Now is a time to give voice to the hard, embarrassing truths. One of the hardest and most embarrassing to confess is that the democratization of higher education has been a failure.

We flatter ourselves that America is the land of individuality, and that college is the place we go to “find” our unique “selves.” In fact, at prohibitive cost, college is churning out a single kind of person — self-entitled, immature and compliant. The nation’s prestigious cookie-cutters, and the human cookies they mass produce, are luxuries we can no longer afford.

From the New York Times wrap-up of today's primaries in Alabama and Mississippi:

The biggest question hanging over the Republican contest is whether Mr. Gingrich will stay in the race.

Should he?

On Dennis Prager’s radio program yesterday, he devoted the entire third hour to a discussion of the annoying tendencies exhibited by many of the drivers with whom he shares the roads.  At the top of his list was the driver who, while waiting to make a left turn at an intersection where there is a left-turn arrow, refuses to proceed with his turn after that arrow goes out.  The lesson: unless there is a red signal indicating you have to wait, it is permissible to make your turn even after the green arrow is no longer illuminated; you just have to yield to oncoming traffic as you would at an intersection where there is no left-turn arrow.

Related to this and just as vexing to those unfortunates stuck behind such people is the driver who, when making a left turn, remains at the limit line when the light turns green rather than pulling into the intersection while waiting for traffic to clear as the law and common sense allow, thereby leaving the drivers behind him with no chance to make their turns before the signal changes to red.  Mr. Prager said he takes it as a “point of pride” that as many people as possible are able to make their turn behind him, an opinion I wholeheartedly share.

High on my own list of driving frustrations, owing to my profession, are those drivers who refuse to pull the right and stop for approaching emergency vehicles.  I’ve seen people here in Los Angeles who seem to think that a police car, ambulance, or fire engine going down the street with its emergency lights ablaze and its siren wailing is there to serve as their escort through heavy traffic.  I once even had someone pass me as I drove code-3 down Central Avenue, apparently figuring (correctly) that if I was in such a hurry to get somewhere, I would not take the time to stop and ticket him.  The lowest pit of Hell awaits him, whoever he is.

And now I put it to the Ricochet community: What are your pet peeves about your fellow drivers?  (As time allows I’ll try to answer any questions you may have about the traffic laws.)

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, dedicated to a great civil war.

The world will little note what they did here. It is rather for us to perish from the earth.

A number of those who have commented on various posts have mentioned the OBOPE Zogby Poll released on Thursday, which showed Herman Cain surging to 38%. I found it interesting for other reasons as well.

As you will see if you click on the link, the sampling took place on 30 June, 11 and 25 July, 29 August, 12 and 26 September, and 5 October. Mitt Romney started out with the support of 14% of the prospective Republican primary voters polled, rose to 17%, dropped to 12% when Rick Perry entered the race, and rose again to 18% when Perry proved to be tongue-tied. Ron Paul has been steady throughout with support varying from 11 to 13%. Newt Gingrich has ranged from 2 to 6%. Rick Santorum started out with 7%, dropped to 3%, rose to 5%, has fallen steadily in recent weeks, and now commands the support of 1% of the prospective primary voters. Jon Huntsman’s support is steady. He has support from about 4% of those polled. And Gary Johnson has run the gamut from 1% to 1%.

There are three dramatic stories evident in the data.

Back in June Michele Bachmann had the support of 34% of those polled. Since then, she has lost ground steadily, and she now commands the support of 3% of the prospective primary voters. Her support dropped like a stone when Rick Perry entered the race, but it did not recover when she savaged him in the debates. She, in fact, appears to have done herself as much damage as she did the frontrunner at that time, and the same may be true for Santorum.

When Rick Perry entered the race, his support surged to 41% almost immediately. At the same time, support Romney fell 5%; for Cain, 10%; for Bachmann, 16%; for Santorum, 2%; and for Not Sure, 7%. Briefly, until he stumbled in the debates, Perry took the wind out of nearly everone’s sails (Ron Paul being the exception).

Then, Perry committed hari kari on national television three times in a row, and Herman Cain jumped from 12% to 28% to 38%.

To make sense of this data, we have to ask what Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain have in common. The answer is, I think, twofold.

First, they are not libertarian utopians – like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson – persuaded that, if we were to cut our defense appropriations in half, adopt a posture of isolationism, legalize marijuana, and puff many a magic drag in, all would be well, everyone would be mellow, peace would break out, and we would henceforth be unmolested.

And, second, not one of the three is the proud father of the individual mandate that lies at the heart of Romneycare (and, of course, Obamacare). Moreover, none of them is a Republican Al Gore intent on proceeding down the well-worn path towards Reinventing Government on the presumption that, if the fat is eliminated and government is made more efficient, all will be well.

All three are, in fact, constitutional conservatives – dedicated to restoring limited government in this country.

Here is the upshot. There is within the Republican Party a very large floating constituency of constitutional conservatives – some 34 to 41% of the prospective primary voters – and they are desperately looking for a plausible conservative candidate. And to this number, one can, I suspect, add the remaining support of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum: another 16% of the prospective primary voters.

I would like to think that Herman Cain can prosper where Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum have foundered. But, of course, if wishes were horses, beggars like me would ride. I suspect that Bachmann and Santorum – the Republican ankle-biters – will take him down in the next debate. Watch them. I guarantee that they will try. Neither of them can stomach the possibility that someone else might emerge as the champion of the constitutional conservative cause.

I am left with a question. Is it not odd that, in a time when the country is increasingly open to the suggestion that the administrative entitlements state is on its last legs and that the moment has come for rolling back its encroachment on the prerogatives of the states and the rights of individuals, there is not one seasoned Republican officeholder capable of articulating the argument for limited government who is willing to step forward, shoulder the burden, seize the opportunity, and take the bull by the horns. What has this country become? Greatness beckons, and no one genuinely qualified rises to the occasion!

Paul Ryan! Mitch Daniels! Your phones are still ringing. If you do not answer, I am virtually certain that we will be left with the last man standing – and given the intensity of Republican dissatisfaction with that option, I would not be surprised were he to lose in November, 2012.

Is there anyone apart, from his co-religionists, thrilled at the prospect that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee? When members of Ricochet say that they would vote for a syphilitic camel over Barack Obama, do they not have Romney in mind? Come November, 2012, how many of our fellow Americans will be willing to swallow a syphilitic camel in a good cause?

I, for one, will be willing – but I shudder to contemplate the consequences.

Per WSJ News Alert:

Before taking questions at a midday news conference, the president said the U.S. is suspending the exploration of two regions off Alaska, as well as off the Gulf Coast and Virginia, and will suspend action on 33 wells currently being explored.

Is that sound a cheer coming up from Iran? You bet. 

A friend just said to me; “Assuming that the "top kill" working, how long before critics say ‘why did BP wait so long to try this approach?’  There is no winning.” 

He’s right. We have become a nation of utopians, arrogant 2^nd guessers, and Lilliputians who are certain that enough rules will make everything work just right, not realizing that at some point they will just make everything grind to a halt.  And with perfect timing, Obama has decided to extend his fiats to…make everything grind to a halt.

Bravo, Nicole Gelinas, for drawing the connection between China's treatment of Ai Weiwei and its treatment of Unilever:

In the week and a half since the Chinese government detained artist Ai Weiwei on suspicion of "economic crimes," Western governments and the global arts community have condemned China's repression of free speech. Regular Americans, too, should care about China's habit of stifling information that it doesn't like to hear. China is applying the same habit to another type of speech, economic speech. And the results could hit Americans more directly — in the pocketbook.

Nicole points out something that cannot be pointed out enough: Prices convey information. Interfere with the free flow of information at your peril.

I'd use a slightly different taxonomy: It is not so much that free markets are, literally, free speech, but that both are essential aspects of freedom.  Not only is it inherently wrong to limit freedom, but if you gag either one, you shoot yourself in the foot--and, in this case, you shoot the rest of the world, too. 

Catching up on my reading, I just now came across this piece, "The Future of the Obama Coalition," on the website of the New York Times.  The author, Thomas Edsall, spent 25 years covering politics for the Washington Post before taking his current position as a journalism professor at Columbia.  If I had to make a wager, I'd bet a lot that Edsall is as liberal as any other product of Washington, D.C. newsrooms.  But I've met Edsall a few times, and in conversation, as in his large body of work, he strikes me as thoroughly fair-minded.

Which makes his piece today all the more arresting.  An excerpt:

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

The New Class plus poor people of color.

Everybody deserves representation, of course, and who knows? That coalition may indeed put Obama over the top.  

But the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey--the party that prided itself on championing the ordinary working American--has utterly vanished.

Making the case for the Ron Paul purge, The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol:

“A lot of people when they criticize Ron Paul have to preface their criticism by saying, ‘you know, he’s good guy, he brings a lot to the debate,’” Bill Kristol said on C-SPAN. “I actually don’t buy that. I do not think he’s a particular good guy . . . I think it would be better for the Republican party, if he left the Republican party.”

[...]

“[Buchanan] left the party in 1999 and a lot of people, and I was one of them, said, goodbye and good riddance, you’re not in the mainstream of the Republican party, go run as some Reform party candidate . . . he did in 2000 and he didn’t get many votes and actually George W. Bush I think was helped—and the Republican party was helped—to be free of Buchanan’s extreme isolationism, protectionism, anti-Israel views, and the like. Ron Paul is a little different from Pat Buchanan—but he’s no better, in my view. And I actually think we’d benefit in the long run—but even in the short run . . .I don't think anyone should plead with him not to run or to stay in the party. I would be comfortable in a general election if Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum as the Republican in the Reagan tradition and debating both Barack Obama and Ron Paul.”

And on the other side of the great Paul debate, Sen. Jim DeMint:

"One of the things that's hurt the so-called conservative alternative is saying negative things about Ron Paul," DeMint told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. "I'd like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas."

Moreover, Sen. DeMint has said that he really hopes Ron Paul stays in the race for as long as it takes for the GOP frontrunner to adopt some of Rep. Paul's ideas. And as was pointed out over on the Member Feed, Sarah Palin has articulated something very similar.

So who's got this one right? Would the conservative cause be better off if Ron Paul made his exit from the GOP now, or does he bring something of value to the table?

Gallup is out with a new polling showing that "Americans perceive that there is a large U.S. gay population -- one far larger than is likely reality."

It's almost absurd. No, it's completely absurd. While the actual population that identifies as gay or lesbian represents around 2% of the total population, Americans estimate that some one in four are gay -- and young people and females think it's close to one in three!

Why is this? Is this a failure of the preachy culture (Glee), the mainstream media (constant editorializing against traditional marriage), or an education system that systematically removes rational abilities from the students? Or what? How could this poll show such absurd results?

 After welcoming one and all to the weekly installment of Ricochet's primary podcast, James Lileks typically brings in Peter Robinson and Rob Long and asks how they've been getting along.  Whereupon Rob can be counted on to preface his remarks with a happy reference to, "Sunny Southern California." Uh huh.   Having spent today in southern California, I can vouch that this is the kind of sunshine that resulted in Noah's ark.  Perhaps Rob really said, "I'm growing gills," and I just misunderstood.  I've been very busy misunderstanding a lot of people lately.  

The load that brought me to Ontario, California today originated in the Nashville area on Tuesday.  My understanding of the load was that it had to be delivered by 6PM today.  I planned my trip accordingly.  Then, Wednesday night, I checked the computer and saw that the delivery had been changed to 8AM today, effectively moving events almost a full work day earlier.  Did it really change, I wondered, or did I misunderstand the assignment in the first instance?  What followed was a grueling schedule that culminated with an all-night drive last night, providing time to wonder if I've been paying sufficient attention lately.  

At 2 o'clock this morning, while I was nearing the Arizona / California border, a contemporary yet deliciously sweet piano rendition of Bach's Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring filled the cab.  The patch of desert landscape, illuminated by the headlights, seemed all the more bright against a cold starless night.  The delicious warmth of the coffee seemed especially comforting.  I caught just a hint of what looked to be a brush of silver light to my left, almost like a reflection from one of the dashboard gauges against the driver's side window.  I looked again and saw that it was moonlight, formless, without focus, just a wisp of silver fading in from behind the clouds.

I had misunderstood my fortune, because rather than an arduous task, this night time drive was turning into a wondrous experience.  Or so I thought.  The California authorities were thoughtful enough to construct an inspection station in the middle of Interstate 40, where they could more properly welcome commercial drivers.  "Papers," said the nice officer.  More misunderstanding ensued because I didn't believe myself to be passing through Checkpoint Charlie into East Berlin.  I handed over the bills of lading, which stated that I was delivering medical supplies to a Costco distribution center.  "Wachagot?" he asked.  "Pardon?" I asked.  "What are you carrying?" he asked.  He was staring at the load list that told him precisely what I was carrying.  So I answered, "drugs."  "What?" he said.  "Medical supplies," I clarified.  I was allowed to proceed.  

A few hours later, I was traveling south on Interstate 15 toward Los Angeles, when the highway took a turn up through a mountainous region.  We drove up into large black cloud of "Sunny Southern California," which opened a deluge on us, causing me to remember that I had come all the way out here and forgotten my suntan oil.  

Later still, the load having been delivered, I wandered inside the truck stop restaurant in Ontario for a hot breakfast prior to turning in for some rest.  In most truck stops, if one wants to engage in conversation with other truckers, one sits at the counter.  Drivers who opt for a table or booth are generally understood to be feeling a little less sociable.  Soaked to the bone, I went straightaway to a booth.  A few minutes later, another driver sat in the adjacent booth.  "Hope you drive wrong," he said.  "Pardon?" I asked.  "Have you been driving long?" he repeated.   It was going to be one of those meals.  

Now, my daughter and I don't always have the greatest of phone connections, due to my cell signal and her wireless gizmos, so that what she says and what I actually hear are not always the same thing.  Occasionally, instead of asking her to repeat something, I'll simply tell her what I thought I heard, which is always good for a laugh.  This morning's conversation was worse because the guy would neither speak up nor  shut up.  I had hoped, after asking him to repeat himself some five or six hundred thousand times, he might give up and go back to his eggs and bacon.  Alas, his narrative was as boundless as his appetite.  I threw in the towel:   

Him:  "My aunt flapped on a flatbed all the way to Norfolk." 

 Me:  "Really?"

Him:  "Yeah, I told the idiot that lumber wouldn't make the trip in a ribbon like that, but you know how dispatchers are." 

Me:  "Yep."  

Him: "Spinach." 

Me:  "What?"

Him:  "Spend much?  On food?"

Me:  "About 10 bucks on average."

Him:  "Yeah, you know what I told the manager at Petro?"

Me:  "Yep."  

Him:  "I told that sonovabiscuit eater that there ain't no way a cackeroni with flim flies can run no 8 bucks." 

Me:  "Really."  

Him:  "If l'm lyin' I'm fryin', besides, the menu said the steak lice was sledge over cork."

Me:  "No kiddin'."  

And on it went.   And went.  He ate more food than I could manage, quicker than I could manage, and never broke stride with his story-telling.  I'm not sure, but I think he was telling the waitress how much he'd like to take her to Topeka on a wheel barrow, but I might have got that part wrong. It was time to pay the bill and get some sleep.  I was reminded of the story of the genteel old man who, on the occasion of his 60th wedding anniversary, told his wife, "Honey, I'm proud of you."  "Well," she said, "I'm tired of you too."  

Meanwhile, the southern California sun continues to rinse off my truck.  I think I'll have to turn the volume up for the next podcast.