Speaker 1: You're listening to Wake Up Call on Demand from KFI
Speaker 1: AM six forty. You are listening to the Bill Handle show.
Speaker 2: Then he's a hero. You're gonna say postion down to
Speaker 2: zoo KFI AM six forty Bill Handle. Here. It is
Speaker 2: a Wednesday morning, December eighteenth, and we've got seven more
Speaker 2: days until that faithful day Christmas and Hanukkah this year,
Speaker 2: both starting the twenty fifth of December. And that doesn't
Speaker 2: happen very often. Amy said, the last time was two
Speaker 2: thousand and five, right, yep, Oh, it's almost twenty years ago. Okay.
Speaker 2: I want to talk a little bit about California and
Speaker 2: it's auto emission standards. As you know, California, Gavin Newsom
Speaker 2: has declared and this is state law now, by twenty
Speaker 2: thirty five, there will only be ev sold. There will
Speaker 2: be no gas powered cars sold in the state. So
Speaker 2: does that mean there will be no gas powered cars?
Speaker 2: Of course not. That doesn't mean that at all, because
Speaker 2: you know, people have cars two, three, four, ten years later.
Speaker 2: Cars last a long time, so they'll be gas powered
Speaker 2: cars for a very long time. And I don't know
Speaker 2: how long you can keep a car. I'm assuming the
Speaker 2: average car today lasts I don't know, seven, eight, ten years,
Speaker 2: if not longer, because they're so reliable. So California has
Speaker 2: decided we're going to do all evs. California has also
Speaker 2: decided that the auto emission standards that are in place,
Speaker 2: because they're getting more and more strict by the year,
Speaker 2: are well. They're in place and they can stay in place.
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court just ruled, but it's a mixed ruling
Speaker 2: because quite often the Supreme Court when it rules, just
Speaker 2: allows a company or a person or an entity to
Speaker 2: go ahead with the suit. So you file a lawsuit.
Speaker 2: The other side then says you don't have standing, you
Speaker 2: cannot sue, and then the court decides whether you can
Speaker 2: or not. We're not talking about the merits of the
Speaker 2: case now, we're not talking about the underlying merits. We're
Speaker 2: just talking about the ability to sue. And Wayne comes
Speaker 2: up with that and that's a lot. That's many cases
Speaker 2: that he comes up with on Monday when we do
Speaker 2: the legal segment here on KFI. And so what happened
Speaker 2: was there were a bunch of states, sixteen states or
Speaker 2: seventeen states that sued California, stripping it of its authority
Speaker 2: to adopt vehicle emission standards that were stricter than the
Speaker 2: federal benchmarks, saying California doesn't have the ability to pass
Speaker 2: its own laws that are stricter than the federal government
Speaker 2: because this is a federal issue. That's it. And the
Speaker 2: same time, you've got the fuel producers that have sue
Speaker 2: that have joined lawsuits. So there are two plaintiffs here,
Speaker 2: fuel producers and the states. Well, the Supreme Court just
Speaker 2: rules that California, the state of California, they have standing
Speaker 2: to sue. They'll just and they'll decide that. Let me
Speaker 2: see if I got this right. Ohio California one. And
Speaker 2: then it was a challenge up from Ohio and the
Speaker 2: state Supreme Court rule that California is prevalent here that
Speaker 2: the states do not have the right to sue. Boom Over.
Speaker 2: So not the merits of the case, not whether or
Speaker 2: not the standards are good or bad, it's just the
Speaker 2: states can't bring the lawsuit forward. California's immune to the states. However,
Speaker 2: the fuel producers can bring the suits forward. So now
Speaker 2: the lawsuit is limited to the fuel producers who are
Speaker 2: arguing the same premise that California does not have the
Speaker 2: right to have ambissions stronger than more stringent than the Feds.
Speaker 2: And why is that Because the fuel producers are saying
Speaker 2: those are actual damages to us. The states more broadly,
Speaker 2: they states say, well, it's a damage to us by
Speaker 2: these standards, these excessive standards that California has. Well, it's California, guys.
Speaker 2: What does that have to do with Ohio. Now you
Speaker 2: don't have a lawsuit here. You can't prove that California's
Speaker 2: law hurts Ohio's law. Because California has more stringent laws
Speaker 2: about fuel emits, the fuel producers have a better argument
Speaker 2: because they can't point to actual damages in the sense
Speaker 2: that the fuel producers are going to sell less fuel
Speaker 2: the more stringent the California rules are. And California goes
Speaker 2: beyond the federal government all the time. For example, the
Speaker 2: amount of pollution the fossil fuels emissions that flow out
Speaker 2: of cars that are produced by cars, California is far
Speaker 2: more rigid than anybody else. And so you know what
Speaker 2: ends up happening. They're fine, California can do it. Because
Speaker 2: of the damage that happens to the state because of
Speaker 2: fuel imute emissions, carbon dioxide, methane, I mean all of it.
Speaker 2: And you know what ended up happening. Why it's become
Speaker 2: moot because even though the rest of the company a
Speaker 2: country doesn't meet Californifornia standards on car pollution, they manufacture
Speaker 2: cars to that standard anyway all over the country. Cars
Speaker 2: sold in New Jersey meet the same standards as car
Speaker 2: sold in California, because California is too big a market,
Speaker 2: so we might as well adopt California's rules. It's that simple.
Speaker 2: On the other hand, California also demands a fuel during
Speaker 2: the summer, during the summer, the summer blend that produces
Speaker 2: less pollution. The other states say, too bad. You know,
Speaker 2: you do what you want. So what ends up California.
Speaker 2: We can't bring in gas from other states when there's
Speaker 2: a shortage of gas here, we can't bring it in.
Speaker 2: All we can do is use California refineries. There hasn't
Speaker 2: been a refinery built, I don't know, in decades, while
Speaker 2: our population has doubled over the last thirty years. So
Speaker 2: when there is a shutdown of a refinery, guess what happens.
Speaker 2: We have a reduction in fuel. One refinery going down,
Speaker 2: one fuel prices go up because the amount of fuel
Speaker 2: that is produced in California. Every drop is used because
Speaker 2: no one wants a refinery near them. You know, it's
Speaker 2: an mb situation. Yes, we need more refineries, not in
Speaker 2: my neighborhood, you don't. So it ends up that we
Speaker 2: are screwed other states when there's a shortage, you know
Speaker 2: what they do. They're pipelines. They just bring in. You know,
Speaker 2: for example, you've got let's say North Dakota is short
Speaker 2: of fuel because of some reason, maintenance problems, refineries are down. Well,
Speaker 2: the South Dakota produces its own fuel and it has plenty,
Speaker 2: so they ship it in, not in California. So this
Speaker 2: was sort of kind of a win for environmental advocates
Speaker 2: and they're cautiously optimistic. Now we have the lawsuit that
Speaker 2: is going forward by the fuel producers. Where is that
Speaker 2: going to go? We don't know. But the states that
Speaker 2: suit ude, they're out. Okay, was that too wonkey? By
Speaker 2: the way, do that makes sense? Guys, that's a question
Speaker 2: I'm asking you. They're asleep, Okay, thank you, I'll wake
Speaker 2: them up. Now. Let's go to seventeen ninety three. A
Speaker 2: little bit of a handle history. James Madison, fourth President,
Speaker 2: wrote the trust and the temptation would be too great
Speaker 2: for any one man. What was he writing about the
Speaker 2: ability to declare war, which Congress has solely under Article
Speaker 2: one of the Constitution, Congress must declare war. That's it.
Speaker 2: When FDR proclaimed on December eighth, a day that will
Speaker 2: live in infamy, he asked Congress to declare war on Japan,
Speaker 2: he didn't have the ability to do it. Well, now
Speaker 2: let's talk about the atomic bomb, nuclear weapons. The president
Speaker 2: basically has a sole authority to order a bomb dropped.
Speaker 2: Harry Truman, it was his decision. He said, all right,
Speaker 2: we're going to bomb Japan. Now it's both. You know,
Speaker 2: you can argue that the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima
Speaker 2: was a good decision, bad decision. There's a lot of
Speaker 2: history there in interpretation, but the bottom line is since
Speaker 2: nuclear bombs came into being, it's been the president who
Speaker 2: has made that call. And the argument is that's not
Speaker 2: a declaration of war. Although you tell me bombing a
Speaker 2: foreign country is not a declaration of war, since then,
Speaker 2: it's only the president. By the way, the last time
Speaker 2: war was declared, and look at the number of fights
Speaker 2: of conflicts we've been involved in Vietnam, Korea, you have Granada,
Speaker 2: you have Serbia, and those are among the very very
Speaker 2: few examples of many, many battles. Not once was war declared.
Speaker 2: Last time war was actually declared was December eighth, nineteen
Speaker 2: forty one. Korea was a quote police action, which is
Speaker 2: still not over. It's an armistice. They're still at war
Speaker 2: North and South Korea. And when it came to Vietnam,
Speaker 2: Congress did allow President Johnson to fight, but it wasn't
Speaker 2: to declare war. It was the Tonkin Resolution, Tonkin Gulf Resolution,
Speaker 2: where Lynna Johnson made up an attack on an American,
Speaker 2: an American warship that was in those waters, international waters,
Speaker 2: he says, And it wasn't and anyway, there's a whole
Speaker 2: history there, but it was not a declaration war by Congress.
Speaker 2: So now you have an issue where the president, and
Speaker 2: this has been going on since nineteen forty five, in
Speaker 2: August when the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki took place,
Speaker 2: the president makes a sole decision. Congress has nothing to
Speaker 2: do with it. And in light of the fear that
Speaker 2: Donald Trump is going to be president and he is,
Speaker 2: let's say, reacts very quickly and doesn't think things through,
Speaker 2: and therefore a lot of people are frightened. I'm not.
Speaker 2: I'm not If Kim Jong un does not launch a bomb,
Speaker 2: who is far crazier if you run that gets a
Speaker 2: nuclear weapon and they're working very hard on it, and
Speaker 2: they're within a couple of years. I don't think would
Speaker 2: launch a bomb. Certainly Donald Trump would never launch a bomb.
Speaker 2: But it comes to an interesting position here and studying
Speaker 2: the fact that a president has the ability presses the button.
Speaker 2: It's not a button, by the way. What it actually
Speaker 2: is is by I think today it would be an
Speaker 2: email and a phone call that he says, Okay, let's
Speaker 2: launch this thing, and there are some safeguards it has
Speaker 2: to go. He actually doesn't order specifically, it's the Secretary
Speaker 2: of Defense that actually orders it. But the secretary of
Speaker 2: Defense works for the president, so the secretary of Defense
Speaker 2: can say no, thank you. So there are some safeguards,
Speaker 2: but the decision ultimately is the president's. Now here's the
Speaker 2: question I want to throw at you. Is the president
Speaker 2: allowed to defensively use nuclear weapons? The reason we have
Speaker 2: not gone to war with Russia and used nuclear weapons
Speaker 2: we had we had the concept of mad mutually assured destruction.
Speaker 2: You launch, We're going to launch right there, I mean
Speaker 2: within seconds of us seeing the launching, because a nor
Speaker 2: rad up north that can figure out Russian missiles coming in.
Speaker 2: They still have that system, by the way, And so
Speaker 2: do you wait for Congress to declare war? If launching
Speaker 2: an atomic weapon is a declaration of war, that's the argument.
Speaker 2: That's what makes this whole thing kind of fun, And
Speaker 2: the fact that wiping out the earth in a nuclear
Speaker 2: holocaust is kind of fun. I'm one of the few
Speaker 2: people that think that's entertaining. But I love discussing the
Speaker 2: issue of when is it appropriate for a president to
Speaker 2: launch a nuclear weapon? Now if preemptively canny launch can
Speaker 2: because of fear of a nuclear weapon by being used
Speaker 2: by the other side. Can a president launch and not
Speaker 2: in self defense, although you argue self defense but premature
Speaker 2: well not prematurely, but launch first. Yeah, a president can
Speaker 2: do that. And according to James Madison, that is way
Speaker 2: too dangerous. If you look at a president and they
Speaker 2: didn't have many nuclear weapons in seventeen ninety three, granted
Speaker 2: so he probably wasn't thinking of nuclear weapons, but he
Speaker 2: was thinking of Congress having the sole power to declare war,
Speaker 2: not the president, only Congress. So you got to think
Speaker 2: this one through. I find this fascinating because a preemptive
Speaker 2: law launch, is it a declaration of war? And if
Speaker 2: it is constitutionally speaking, the president can't do it. On
Speaker 2: the other hand, if it's in self defense and Russia
Speaker 2: or any enemy knows the president can do that, maybe
Speaker 2: it doesn't do that. Or if the law says that
Speaker 2: Congress has to meet, well, let me ask you. You got
Speaker 2: the congress people driving and flying in to vote for
Speaker 2: a declaration of war that takes days, takes twenty minutes
Speaker 2: for a launch from Russia or Iran or from North Korea.
Speaker 2: Fascinating topic. I love this, And we go back to
Speaker 2: is wiping the earth or wiping humanity from the earth?
Speaker 2: Is that entertaining? Is that fun? Well? I'm one of
Speaker 2: the few people that think, yeah, you know, that's kind
Speaker 2: of interesting concept, isn't it. Now here's a stat that
Speaker 2: from CNN the median renter in America, the renter has
Speaker 2: a net worth of ten thousand dollars. The median homeowner's
Speaker 2: networth is four hundred thousand dollars. Now, right off, that's
Speaker 2: fairly easy to explain, because a homeowner has equity in
Speaker 2: the house for the most part, and anybody who bought
Speaker 2: a house even a year ago or two years ago
Speaker 2: have seen their property values rise a year ago. When
Speaker 2: I decided to buy a house a year ago because
Speaker 2: there was no housing and because I had I had
Speaker 2: boxes had to be checked out, and I found the
Speaker 2: perfect house, well short of a remodel or parts of
Speaker 2: it remodeled, I paid top top dollar and realized, you know,
Speaker 2: it's not going to get more expensive than this. Property
Speaker 2: values have to fall because I've paid an insane price.
Speaker 2: The previous owner, who had bought the house a year before,
Speaker 2: made astronomical profit on it. Well, my house has risen
Speaker 2: twelve percent in value in a year. And I'm going,
Speaker 2: wait a minute, now, it didn't matter to me because
Speaker 2: I'm going to live there basically forever. I'm going to
Speaker 2: end up dying there, probably in the next couple of years.
Speaker 2: But let's go, yeah, let's hope. So, but it's just
Speaker 2: my value in that house and I put you know,
Speaker 2: I put a chunk down. All of a sudden, my
Speaker 2: net worth increased twelve percent of the value of the house. Yes,
Speaker 2: not bad, And that's what happened. If you're a homeowner, Neil,
Speaker 2: same thing. He bought the house, I don't know how
Speaker 2: many years ago, and the value of his house has
Speaker 2: what gone up fifty percent, doubled maybe, oh easily. Yeah.
Speaker 3: And fifteen years ago in our cabin, which we bought
Speaker 3: us kind of an investment property as well, within two
Speaker 3: or three weeks, I think we gained thirty five thousand.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So your net worth is much higher based on
Speaker 2: property values. That's for the most part, but there's really
Speaker 2: more than that, because, by the way, the stat this
Speaker 2: is a wonderful one. The typical homeowner has almost forty
Speaker 2: forty times as much wealth as the typical renter, all
Speaker 2: based on equity in homes. And not only that, renters
Speaker 2: have less positive cash flow. Renters have less debt. And
Speaker 2: that's just statistic. Renters are most likely to or excuse me,
Speaker 2: renters have less positive cash flow, less positive cash flow,
Speaker 2: bigger debt, fewer savings, and more likely to hold the
Speaker 2: student loans in in bigger, bigger amounts. So it's it's
Speaker 2: a person who can own and afford a home simply
Speaker 2: is financially better off than just the value of the home.
Speaker 2: It's just someone who can afford a home. Who is
Speaker 2: that today? Nobody million dollar homes. I've said this before.
Speaker 2: We look out the window of the studio and we
Speaker 2: look at these little cracker jack you know, cracker box
Speaker 2: houses is that the right word, that are down the
Speaker 2: street and they're eleven hundred square feet in their two bedroom,
Speaker 2: three bedroom, one bath, a million dollars on loss side.
Speaker 3: Yeah, big Teluca Lake is outside the window.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you know there are many There are many
Speaker 2: many areas. Woodland Hills is crazy, Sherman Oaks and Sino
Speaker 2: is crazy. This is not Beverly Hills, mind you. I mean,
Speaker 2: these are very healthy parts of Los Angeles and a
Speaker 2: lot of them. And so you got a million dollars
Speaker 2: down the street for a little tiny house what used
Speaker 2: to be a starter home. And so a million dollars,
Speaker 2: you get a loan, you have to put two hundred
Speaker 2: thousand dollars down. So now you're sitting after two hundred
Speaker 2: thousand dollars after tax money that you're writing a check
Speaker 2: for or wiring it in these days, and then you're
Speaker 2: looking at an eight hundred thousand dollars mortgage at six
Speaker 2: point six percent just came out, and so six point
Speaker 2: six percent on eight hundred thousand dollars. What is that
Speaker 2: seven thousand dollars a month, and it used to be
Speaker 2: four thousand dollars a month thirty five hundred dollars a
Speaker 2: month a few years back. So if you're a homeowner,
Speaker 2: you're in great shape. If you're a renter, it's tough now.
Speaker 2: Some people rent because it's just easier. For example, you know,
Speaker 2: and I've told you when I retire, I plan on
Speaker 2: living in Italy for part of the year, if not
Speaker 2: for the entire year, just moving. I'm never going to
Speaker 2: buy a home. I'm going to rent for the rest
Speaker 2: of my life. I just don't want to deal with
Speaker 2: home ownership because it really has a pain in the ass. Insurance.
Speaker 2: Home insurance is the delight, isn't it. Taxes are a delight.
Speaker 2: Used to be you could deduct taxes as much as
Speaker 2: you paid in property tax. Used to be off your
Speaker 2: federal tax Now because of Trump in his previous administration,
Speaker 2: Captain at ten thousand dollars is the deduction, by the way,
Speaker 2: ten thousand dollars. Oh my god, who pays ten thousand
Speaker 2: dollars in taxes? Anybody who has a home that's a
Speaker 2: million dollars in value, and that's virtually every home in
Speaker 2: southern California. And the reason Trump did that because he
Speaker 2: hates California. And the same thing. As far as income,
Speaker 2: you pay your state income taxes, that was deductible against
Speaker 2: your federal taxes, and that was capped the ten thousand
Speaker 2: dollars wide. Because our wages are much higher than the
Speaker 2: rest of the country. Because when you buy a house,
Speaker 2: for example, in Arkansas, and your car is out in
Speaker 2: front and there are no wheels, and it is on
Speaker 2: cinder block, on cinder blocks, and the couch is on
Speaker 2: the porch, and the springs have sprung, and there's no
Speaker 2: dentists within one hundred and fifty miles. Now, wages aren't
Speaker 2: very very high, and the home prices aren't very high. Okay,
Speaker 2: enough of that. Now tell you about my daughter Pamela.
Speaker 2: Pamela and her roommate Harper have been working on a
Speaker 2: game for the last over a year year and a
Speaker 2: half and I mean a lot of hours. And you
Speaker 2: would think they would do an app, right because that's
Speaker 2: where you put games. It's a board game, it's not
Speaker 2: an app, and you go board games. We can seet
Speaker 2: during the pandemic, family sits down. You play Monopoly. In
Speaker 2: my case, it was Shoots and Ladders, and I had
Speaker 2: a very hard time understanding it. I finally got it.
Speaker 2: You've got various games that scrabble, a lot of just
Speaker 2: fun games, and then you figure out the pandemic. Okay,
Speaker 2: it's done. Now we go back to our reality, and
Speaker 2: board games just keep on going and going and going.
Speaker 2: And board games or a Monopoly, for example, was created
Speaker 2: in the third in the middle of the depression because
Speaker 2: it was a money issue, and as we know, people
Speaker 2: were completely broken. This was a sort of a sidebar.
Speaker 2: Let's play, let's play with fake money. Other games came
Speaker 2: in at the turn of the last century. We just
Speaker 2: like board games. Now they were losing all kinds of attention,
Speaker 2: and the number of people that were playing board games
Speaker 2: just really started falling off the radar, especially during the fifties.
Speaker 2: I think fifties and sixties started going downhill. And it was,
Speaker 2: as I said, during the pandemic, it completely exploded. And
Speaker 2: if you were the manufacturer of a board game, you
Speaker 2: did just great. So this phenomena is now increasing and
Speaker 2: why well, here's what's happening. People are still kind of lonely,
Speaker 2: and they still talk on the internet, they're not in person,
Speaker 2: so people are sort of desperate to get together. So
Speaker 2: you know what's going on, not just board games, but
Speaker 2: clubs where people get together to play board games. Again, Pamela,
Speaker 2: she does a weekly game of Dungeons and Dragons with
Speaker 2: a group of people she never met before. It's sort
Speaker 2: of a coffee clatch clotch where they get together, and
Speaker 2: that's not unusual. There are thousands of those groups across
Speaker 2: the country, particularly in New York. For some reason, New
Speaker 2: York is sort of the center of this. You know why,
Speaker 2: because New York has had chess clubs forever. When you
Speaker 2: look at people in the park playing chess in movies
Speaker 2: or TV shows, it's always New York because that's what
Speaker 2: they do here. In southern California, you go to Venice
Speaker 2: and it's always these bodybuilders who take a lot of
Speaker 2: steroid and their balls are the size of raisins. It's
Speaker 2: a different culture here there across the Midwest. But the
Speaker 2: concept of these New York clubs that play board games
Speaker 2: is really rising, and I mean dramatically. By the way,
Speaker 2: tabletop board games go back thousands of years. The ancient
Speaker 2: Egyptians played board games, and where it really started here
Speaker 2: is in the United States, was the nineteenth century, the
Speaker 2: eighteen hundreds, where wealthy men would play chess, and then
Speaker 2: that expanded into various board games, and then in the
Speaker 2: fifties the number of games just exploded. There is in
Speaker 2: New York City backgammon clubs held at restaurants in Brooklyn
Speaker 2: and Manhattan. Ten dollars per event. Is the admission cost
Speaker 2: thirty five hundred people? Yes, is what the number they
Speaker 2: can figure out Green Tile Social Club in New York
Speaker 2: and Majong Mistress. Okay, they also offer a lot of
Speaker 2: other stuff. The Majong Mistress. I thought Majong was only
Speaker 2: old Jewish ladies getting together talking to each other playing majan. No,
Speaker 2: I mean I've seen majong where they talk to each other.
Speaker 2: My son's a docta. No, he's not. He's a dentist. Doctor.
Speaker 2: That's not a docta. My son is a real doctor.
Speaker 2: My son is a specialist. He is not a doctor
Speaker 2: doctor like your son is. Those are my jong games.
Speaker 2: It turns out there's a lot more than that. By
Speaker 2: the way, if you've ever seen a bunch of old
Speaker 2: Jewish biddies playing majong. That's exactly the conversation they have.
Speaker 2: So still Chess is at the top of the game,
Speaker 2: so to speak. Chess is still the number one because
Speaker 2: it's been around a whole long time. And the reason
Speaker 2: it has exploded far more than did before is the
Speaker 2: mini series in the movie the Queen's Gambit that just
Speaker 2: gets things started for Formula one Racing has exploded because
Speaker 2: of the Netflix series. I don't miss that series, the
Speaker 2: Formula one series. I've been watching it for six years.
Speaker 2: What did I care about Formula one until that came out?
Speaker 2: So we are susceptible to TV movies and that just
Speaker 2: spins us in that direction. So because of the Queen's Gambit.
Speaker 2: By the way, you see that movie, I thought it
Speaker 2: was tremendous. I loved the Queen's Gambit. Yeah, everybody's nodding.
Speaker 2: Neil is nodding, Ann is nodding. Cono is not paying
Speaker 2: at ten, Amy is not paying attime. I'm paying attention. Okay,
Speaker 2: have you watched what movie? Am I talking about? Queen's Gambit?
Speaker 2: She took my words? Oh sorry, Oh we both listening. Okay, Well,
Speaker 2: it's a shocker. That's unusual Amy. Did you see the movie? Uh,
Speaker 2: it was a series. Actually, remember, Oh, I didn't see
Speaker 2: a movie. I watched the series and I thought it
Speaker 2: was fantastic. Yeah, watched the movie too, the movie that
Speaker 2: was the basis of the series. It's tremendous. I saw
Speaker 2: the series. Did you say you didn't see the movie? No,
Speaker 2: watch both. They're really great. All right, this is KFI
Speaker 2: AM six forty. You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2: Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
Speaker 2: and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.