Ep. 72’s host skewers Bernie Sanders’ "free living" promises, mocking New Hampshire voters’ extremes—from tar-and-feathering him to Trump’s 97% support—while questioning Clinton’s electability amid FBI scrutiny and Steinem’s outdated gender claims. The episode frames leftist identity politics as media-manipulated control, citing Cruz and Rubio’s ignored 2016 wins, and blames millennial socialism on historical amnesia, dismissing Zinn’s textbooks for ignoring America’s triumphs like WWII and Cold War victories. Capitalism is defended as the engine of innovation, contrasting it with socialist envy, while success stories of Jewish, Irish, and Italian immigrants debunk systemic privilege claims. The segment ends by urging voters to reject "stupid" choices before election day. [Automatically generated summary]
Stalwart New Hampshireites will brave the winter weather in order to put their heads out their front doors and decide it's too cold to do anything but stay inside and watch Jumanji and other great films set in their state, like Jumanji a second time.
Early polling shows that many New Hampshire Democrats will live out the meaning of their creed, live free or die, by voting for Bernie Sanders, who has promised that everyone will be able to live for free.
And as for dying, well, the guy's 74, let's face it, he won't be around forever.
Other New Hampshire voters understand the state slogan differently.
They feel that live free or die means live with personal liberty or die fighting for it.
These New Hampshireites will not be voting for Sanders, but will instead tar and feather him and throw him in the Merrimack River and pelt him with fruit as the current carries him away forever.
Meanwhile, the FBI has now confirmed it is officially investigating Sanders' opponent, Hillary Clinton, also known by the aliases Big Hill, Hilly HaHa, Scarfaced Hill, and Killer Hiller.
On hearing of the investigation, Mrs. Clinton released a statement to the press which reads, quote, as a former United States Senator and Secretary of State, I can only say that you will never take me alive, G-Men.
Eat lead, John Law, and I'll see your lousy federal mugs in hell.
On the Republican side, 97% of those polled say they'll be voting for Donald Trump, who has promised to personally beat the crap out of anyone who disagrees with him and then build a wall around his house so that no Mexicans or Muslims can get in unless they say something nice about him or pay a small bribe.
Meanwhile, Senator Marco Rubio says Obama knows exactly what he's doing, what he's doing, what he's doing, what he's doing, which caused Chris Christie to shake when he laughs like a bowl full of jelly.
All in all, surveying their choices, the people of New Hampshire have declared they will stand together as one and say, Jumanji, in the hopes magic jungle animals will suddenly stampede and chase all these low-life pals out of their state.
Trigger warning.
I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
All viewers of Jumanji thought those funny joke.
Both people who've seen the movie Jumanji who happen to be in this room today.
What an election this is.
We've got criminals, communists, Donald Trump.
It makes you long for the old days when we had ordinary corruption and incompetence.
This is an amazing election.
And the polls, it's impossible to know what's going to happen in New Hampshire today.
polls are completely wonky because they have this weird system where if you're an independent you can show up at the poll and just declare suddenly that you're a republican or a democrat so there's no way to even the people who are undecided may be undecided between bernie sanders and donald trump You have no idea where they're going to land and what they're going to do.
So we actually have just no idea.
In the polls, you know, the actual polls that pollsters are taking, Bernie Sanders has a double-digit lead over Hillary Clinton, which leads to the question, is there anyone who can't beat Hillary Clinton?
I mean, is there any, like, if you were in a turtle against Hillary Clinton, would it be like the tortoise and the hair or something?
You know, it seems like anything she touches, like she just loses.
I remember that Senate campaign, they had to get rid of the Senate candidate who was running against her before she could win for Senator in New York.
Now she's getting desperate, so she sent out her, she's playing the gender card and she sends out her spokeswoman.
She had Gloria Steinem came out and said that young women, young women are abandoning Hillary and droves.
They hate her.
And Gloria Steinem said, that's only because she is a corrupt criminal who has traded government favors for donations to her foundation and spent the 90s defending, destroying the reputations of innocent women who plausibly accused her husband of rape and abuse.
Oh no, that's not what she said.
No, that's no, that's not what she said.
She said they only want to do it because they want to be near the guys.
Listen to this.
This is Gloria Steinem, the famous feminist, talking to Bill Maher, explaining why women, young women, are abandoning Hillary Clinton for Bernie Sanders.
It's kind of not fair to measure most women by the standard of most men because they're going to get more activist as they grow older.
And when you're young, you're thinking, you know, where are the boys?
The boys are with Bernie.
Now, if I said that.
No, no, no.
Yeah, they're for Bernie because that's where the boys are.
No, dude, dude, dude.
But it's not.
Swap me, come on.
When the boys are much who love to be.
He's walking down some street in town.
And I know he's looking there for me.
Oh, man, folks, if you are not subscribing to this show or just listening, you just missed Mathis Glover's tenderly romantic my dodge.
I'm afraid you'd say, hey, Bravo.
Oh, that was really funny.
That was the first time I saw it, so I got to enjoy it with the rest of you.
Oh, boy.
So, you know, this raises a couple of questions.
One is, is anything Gloria Steinem has ever said been true?
Have true words?
I mean, it's not that she lies.
She's just wrong about everything.
And she says these things that get into like quotation dictionaries, like a woman needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle.
Like, who thought that was true?
Who ever thought, like, yeah, what do women need men for except life and making the race continue?
You know, you know, it's like every word out of her mouth.
And then she says this thing about how women get more radical as they get older because men get more conservative because they gain power as they get older, but women lose power as they get older.
So they get more.
Is that true?
I mean, does anybody, it's not in keeping with my personal experience, but I don't know.
Why Gloria Steinem Is Wrong00:13:55
I've never seen, and I've looked it up, I've never seen any kind of indication that anybody's ever done a study to see just these words come out of her mouth that have no relationship to the truth.
So here's the thing that gets me about this.
Here's the thing about identity politics, okay?
Identity politics, which pretends to be about race and gender, is never, ever, ever about race and gender.
It's only about leftism.
Listen to this.
Here is an article from the New York Times, a former newspaper by Roberto Surro, about the fact that a Latino, Ted Cruz, won the Iowa caucus the first time in American history that a guy of Latin background won a caucus for President of the United States.
And it's not even being reported.
I mean, you remember the reporting about Barack Obama being the first black guy with a chance of becoming president.
Listen to this.
This is this article from the New York Times.
Defying most polls and predictions, a Latino won the Republican Iowa caucuses and another Latino, pardon me, another Latino came in third.
Together, they won more than half the vote, with Senator Ted Cruz taking nearly 28% of the vote and Marco Rubio getting 23%, each vastly surpassed the results for any other Latino candidate in any previous United States presidential contest.
How is that not being celebrated as historic or at least worth a headline for a day or two?
How indeed?
Here's the answer.
The answer is not that complicated.
Neither Mr. Cruz nor Mr. Rubio meets conventional expectations of how Latino politicians are supposed to behave.
Neither of these candidates claim to speak for the Hispanic population or derive a crucial portion of their support from Hispanics.
And neither bases much of his political identity on being a Latino.
To varying degrees, they oppose legalization for unauthorized immigrants, a policy that is central to most organized Latino political interests and that is supported by a great majority of Latino elected officials and Latino voters.
No less an arbiter than Jorge Ramos, the Univision anchor, seemed to condemn them without naming names in a column last month.
There's no greater disloyalty, he says, quote says Jorge, than the children of immigrants forgetting their own roots.
That is a betrayal, he wrote.
It is criticism that echoes the rhetoric aimed at Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court and other successful members of minority groups who are perceived as failing to uphold their own group's interests.
Now let me translate that into honest.
This is one of the free services you get at the Daily Wires.
We translate the New York Times from New York Times into honest, okay?
Because one of the things you have to listen to always in the New York Times, I did a video about this, I didn't bring it in, but is the little words, the little connecting phrases that they use, okay?
How is that?
The answer is not that common.
Neither of them meets conventional expectations of how Latino politicians are supposed to behave.
Whose conventional expectations?
Whose conventions?
Whose expectations?
The New York Times.
If you don't agree with the New York Times, then no less an arbiter than Jorge Ramos, a left-wing pro-immigration, pro-open borders, basically.
He just thinks that Mexico should be able to flood the country.
Not that Americans should be able to flood into Mexico, only one way.
It only works one way.
So how did he get to be any arbiter of anything?
I mean, he is a partisan guy.
So he's a partisan guy.
He's welcome to his opinion.
But why is he the arbiter of who's a Latino?
Why is the New York Times an arbiter of who's a Latino?
And who says that you have to speak for his...
He says neither of these people bases much of his political identity on being a Latino.
That's just a lie.
Marco Rubio, this is his whole routine, who he is, where he came from.
And by the way, this is the same with Justice Clarence Thomas, who of course was not black because he didn't agree with the New York Times and with radical left-wing black people.
The whole thing about identity politics, it's not about your identity, it's about leftism.
They want to control your ideas.
They use the color of your skin.
They use your gender to control your ideas.
They tell you, you are not part of this group if you don't agree with us.
They become the arbiters of your identity.
They become the arbiters of your identity.
It's all about control.
And here's what gets me kind of crazy about this.
Young people who are supposed to be so libertarian, young people who are supposed to say, you know, we want to do what we want to do.
We want to love who we want to love.
We want to be who we want to be.
I decide what my identity is.
I decide what I'm going to be.
They're perfectly willing to hand over their ideas, the most important part of themselves, the most important part of themselves.
They're perfectly willing to hand over their ideas to the left to determine who they are, to determine what their ideas should be.
Think about this for a minute.
I mean, think if nobody knew your skin color, wouldn't your ideas still define you?
If nobody knew your gender, wouldn't your ideas still define you?
If you were a quadriplegic and your body has essentially been taken out of the picture, except as a source of discomfort and you had no body, wouldn't you still be a full and complete human being because of your ideas?
Isn't your ideas, your soul that makes you who you are and the way you act on those ideas and your relationship between you and your actions and your behavior and your ideas.
That's what they want to control.
That's what they want to control.
And they decide that you are not, you are not a man or a woman, a black or a Latino, unless they tell you that you are.
They have the right to tell you what you should be or else you're just not.
You're just not.
They're not going to report it.
There's not going to be a headline about a Latino winning the caucus because you didn't agree.
So you're not a full Latino.
You're not a legitimate Latino.
So now, young people are flocking to Bernie Sanders.
They love this stuff.
Let's listen to Bernie.
I just took an old cut from Bernie Sanders because he describes himself very, very accurately and succinctly in the Scottish.
Just listen, this is what they're going to listen to, the young people.
I happen to believe, John, that in a democratic, civilized society, all people should be entitled to health care as a right.
Yeah, I do believe that.
Is this a radical idea?
No, it's not.
Every other major industrialized country on earth does the same.
Yes, I believe that it is absurd that in our highly competitive global economy, we got hundreds of thousands of bright young people who are qualified to go to college but can't because their families lack the income.
So yes, I do believe that public colleges and universities should be tuition-free.
Is this a radical idea?
Well, gee, Germany does it.
Other countries around the world do that because they know investing in their kids is good for their economy.
And by the way, we're going to pay for that by attacks on Wall Street speculation.
See, it's a radical idea.
He says it's not a radical idea because other countries do it.
It's a radical idea that we should be like other countries.
We have always been better than other countries.
We have always been, and other countries will admit this if you get them drunk enough, we have always been the standard by which other countries judge themselves.
You know, we are the support of all those countries that have social systems and social health systems.
We support them by defending them with our military, by paying for the drugs that they buy.
When he says you have the right to health care and an education, he's telling you that you have the right to other people's labor.
You have the right to other people's money.
Joel Kotkin, a really good writer, guy I know, kind of leans left, I think.
I think he's kind of more of a lefty.
He wrote this piece where he said, the biggest and most important development of this election has been the massive support among the new generation of voters for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and his open embrace of socialism.
We are seeing the embrace of an openly socialist Septogenarian by a generation that within a decade will dominate our electorate and outnumber baby boomers as soon as 2020.
Americans are flocking in big numbers to a politician who rejects the efficacy of capitalism and seeks to create a new, notionally fairer system.
A poll from Pew finds that 43% of millennials have positive connotations about the word socialism compared with less than half that level among people over 50.
Kotkin goes on to say, perhaps one reason for this divergence lies in memory or lack of it.
Few millennials remember the collapse of the Soviet Union's evil empire, which occurred when the oldest of them were barely out of diapers.
Conservative academics, a small but sometimes hardy band, place blame on a lack of teaching about the realities of socialism by generally left-leaning instructors at universities or high schools.
That's what I think the problem is.
I mean, I get this a lot.
I get these tweets that say socialism isn't communism.
Well, yes, actually it is.
I mean, it's communism.
It's just by vote.
You know, voting to take your people's property away is no better than taking it away by force of arms.
It is taking away by force of arms.
Why do you think they're giving you the property when you vote, except for the fact that you have the military and the police behind you to back you up, to arrest people?
And the way these kids have been taught the history of the United States, a lot of it comes from this guy, Howard Zinn, who wrote this terrible, terrible, dishonest book.
And like the New York Times, it's dishonest by omission.
It's dishonest by the things that it leaves out.
I found this thing online, which is a virtual imitation of Howard Zinn, a history of the United States.
Just listen to a minute of this.
This is the history of the United States, basically, that kids are learning today.
Now it's time for a brief history of the United States of America.
Hi, boys and girls, ready to get started?
Once upon a time, there were these people in Europe called filters, and they were afraid of being persecuted.
So they all got in a boat and sailed to the new world where they wouldn't have to be scared ever again.
Oh, I'm so relaxed.
I feel so much safer.
But as soon as they arrived, they were greeted by savages and they got scared all over again.
Get up!
So they killed them all!
Now, you'd think wiping out a race of people would calm them down, but no.
Instead, they started getting frightened of each other.
Witches!
So they burned witches.
In 1775, they started killing the British so they could be free.
And it worked, but they still didn't feel safe.
So they passed a second amendment which said every white man could keep his gun.
I loves my gun.
Loves my guns.
Brings us to the genius idea of slavery.
You see, boys and girls, the white people back then were also afraid of doing any work.
So they went to Africa, kidnapped thousands of black people, brought them back to America, and forced them to work very hard for no money.
And I don't mean no money like our kid.
Well, Martin make no money.
I mean zero dollars, nothing.
Not a zip.
Doing it that way made the USA the richest country in the world.
So he came.
Yeah, it's amazing.
But that's Howard's in.
That is, I mean, obviously that's not by Howard's inn, but that is a perfectly good satirical representation of Howard's in history.
And that is what kids are being taught.
We came over, we killed the Indians, we burned each other as witches, we killed, you know, enslaved black people, and that's what we did.
Some of which, by the way, you know, is perfectly true out of context.
I mean, the treatment of the treatment of the blacks and the institution of slavery in a country dedicated to freedom was a shame.
It really was.
The Indians, much more difficult situation, kind of was out of the government's control, just people spreading out, just like any kind of invasion, any movements of peoples.
That's why people are so worried about these Islamic people coming into Europe, is when that happens, there's going to be clashes, there's going to be conflict.
But let me ask you this.
If that's the kind of history you've learned, if that's what you think is the truth, what would your life look like if I took out of it everything that was decent, if I only left in the envy and the smallness and the bitter things you'd done, the gossip you told, the time you beat up your little brother, the time you cheated on your girlfriend?
You know, what would your life look like if I just stripped it of everything but that?
Because here's the other side of America.
Every country, every country has sins like that in it, like the ones that he's talking about.
Every single country, any history that goes on long enough is filled with atrocities.
Every single person who is walking around free, politically free, on the globe today is free because of America.
Every single one.
Every single man, woman, or child who is politically free is free because of this country.
It's not just the Constitution which inspired freedom throughout Europe, continues to inspire freedom, continues to be the document that everybody bases their political freedom on.
It's not just the Constitution.
It's the wars we fought to, first of all, to enshrine the Constitution, but it's the wars we fought to end slavery.
You know, slavery.
Slavery was universal.
It was universal.
Only, only the West ended slavery, and only this country sacrificed so many lives to bring that institution to an end.
The World War II, how much of the world did we free from an oppressor unlike any we'd ever seen before?
A guy who made a till of the hun look like a pansy.
You know, this is a guy who was like slaughtering people en masse, dominating, taking over governments en masse.
Every single European, everybody who was threatened by either him or Japan, which includes China, every single one free because we defeated those people.
We defeated those people.
We would have freed, I mean, even the Cold War, the Cold War, that we won because of Reagan, Thatcher, you know, every, that's Eastern Europe, all of Eastern Europe free.
Russia, if they would choose to be, free because of us, because of America.
Every single person walking the globe today.
And those are just the wars, okay?
Those are just the wars that have freed people.
That's leaving out all the industry, all the inventions, all the things that happen when people are left to their own devices and not regulated and not controlled.
Every iPod, an iPad, an iPhone, an i thing that you own, all from us.
All this stuff.
It didn't happen every, the light bulb and the, you know, and the telegraph, all the stuff that Americans invented, they invented because people left them alone to get rich, to do that evil, evil thing that people hate about capitalism, to get rich.
Let me show you a chart that was in National Review just for a minute.
Innovations That Freedom Brings00:05:30
Take a look at this.
Do you have that chart?
Yeah, there it is.
Okay, here are all the cities that Black Lives Matter rushed to to protest.
Here are all the cities where people are, you know, the occupiers go and occupy.
These are the cities.
Those dates that you see up there, 1927 in Chicago, that's the last time they had a Democrat mayor, you know, 1957 in Minneapolis, 1943 in St. Louis, 1957 in Detroit.
Last time they had a Republican administration, last time they had anything that looked like conservatism in those cities.
It never occurs to the, you know, it's true what Bernie Sanders says, that there is too much inequality, but it's gotten so much worse under Obama, and yet it doesn't occur to anybody that it has been the slowly encroaching grip of socialism and socialist practices that have made that inequality worse.
Here's, you know, here is my favorite professor talking to young people in a language they can understand about the meaning of money.
Take a listen to this.
Liberals, it's time we had a little grown-up to liberal talk about the facts of life.
Specifically, I'd like to answer a question that may have been on your minds recently.
Where does money come from?
Now, it's perfectly natural for someone at your pre-adolescent stage of development to ask this question.
And even though it may be awkward to talk about, it's important you get the answer from a conservative or other adult.
Otherwise, you might be told schoolyard lies.
You're telling me we got to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?
The answer, yes, I'm telling you.
Or old wives tales.
Unemployment insurance, the economists tell us, return $2 for every dollar that is put out there for unemployment insurance.
Or a lot of superstitious, puritanical nonsense that'll only make you feel unnecessarily guilty.
I mean, I do think at a certain point, you've made enough money.
You see, money is a lot like the birds and the bees.
That is, it's a symbol for something else.
What's it a symbol for?
Well, let's say a bee wants to put his pollen in a flower.
But unfortunately for the bee, the flower would rather have a flat screen TV.
The bird has a flat screen TV for some reason, but wants to trade it for a signed photograph of Mila Kunis.
The squirrel has saved up a stack of Mila photos because he's a squirrel, but he wants honey.
The bee, who's really pissed off at this point, has the honey.
Now, rather than going through an elaborate circle of barter that would limit the ways in which all the animals could have, you know, intercourse, the little creatures use money as a symbol of what someone wanted from them and what they want from someone else.
That's right.
Money is a symbol for desire.
Money is a symbol for desire.
What you want and what's if somebody can give you what you want, you give them money.
It's a free exchange.
You think that the thing that they have, you desire it more than you desire the money in your pocket.
That's how money is made.
That's how it collects.
And when you leave people free, then things find their natural prices because people know how much they desire something.
They know that they desire an iPhone more than an Android or vice versa.
And that's how things get better too, because we keep making things that people desire more because we want more money.
And the people on Wall Street, those evil Wall Street people, those are the people who invest in the guy who has an idea who makes the iPhone.
Those are the guys, everything you have, Google, Facebook, Apple, everything you like, Starbucks, they are all products of that system of capitalism, and they don't exist anywhere else because only capitalism lets people rise.
What these guys, guys like Bernie Sanders and Black Lives Matter want to do, they want to take the top guy down.
They want to bring him down.
They want you to envy him and bring him down.
What capitalism does is it just frees the bottom guy to do what he wants, to let him be.
It says, we're not going to put regulations on you that make it so impossible to start a business that only big guys with lots of lawyers can start a business.
We're going to leave you free to do that.
And that system has eroded over the last 20 to 30 years.
This is not just Obama, though he's made it much worse.
It's eroded to the point where, yeah, things have stagnated and it's hard for people to move.
And Sanders wants to complete that process and lock them in forever.
You know, here's the thing, going back to identity politics.
Jews came over here and they never said to anybody, oh, people despised the Jews when they came over here.
They hated the Jews.
They barred them.
They wouldn't let them into colleges.
The Jews didn't say, oh, you have Christian privilege.
Give up your Christian privilege so we can rise.
They just said, we're going to be better.
We're going to break in.
Give us any kind of fair shot and we will break in.
Same with the Irish, same with the Italians.
The blacks say, oh, you have white privilege.
Give up your white privilege so we can rise.
Make yourself less so we can rise.
That's not a black problem.
They don't do that because they're black.
They do that because they're leftists.
They do that because the left has convinced them.
When you bite the apple of identity politics and you start to believe that they're doing that because they're black, A, you start to hate them.
B, you start to think, you start to despair.
I mean, this is one of the reasons I'm always kind of put off by despair because people despair because they think, oh, like Beyonce got up at the Super Bowl and sang this Black Lives Matter thing.
She didn't do that because she's black.
She did that because she's been convinced by leftism.
She's been taken in by leftism.
Black people are just like anybody else.
They can be convinced by ideas.
When was the last time one of our politicians went into their neighborhood and tried to explain things?
Great Novelists' Impact00:02:56
The way Chris Christie did at that debate the other day when he explained why it's wrong to tax millionaires.
We never do it.
We never do it.
And so it's the leftism.
I mean, that's the thing.
It's all the stuff that you see that's a problem.
It's the leftism.
It's not the color of your skin.
It's not your gender.
It's the leftism that's making you miserable and making the country stagnate.
All right.
Now, I have to get back to this issue.
A guy on Twitter yesterday, I said that Jane Austen was a great novelist and that there aren't very many great women novelists.
And I knew people would get upset by that.
And one guy on Twitter wrote me and he said, Mary Shelley, J.K. Rowling, Flannery O'Connor, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Agatha Christie, very few great female novelists.
Are you crazy?
Which, first of all, I love the way people argue on the internet.
Nobody just says, I respectfully disagree.
Interesting point of view.
And yet I'd like to take issue with you, Mr. Clinton.
Nothing.
Are you crazy?
It's like this is where Donald Trump came from.
This is the cesspool out of which Donald Trump comes.
As I pointed out, I think I said this yesterday, there are many women who have written great novels.
Mary Shelley is one of them.
Frankenstein is a great novel.
Jane Eyre is a great novel.
Middlemarch, one of the greatest of Victorian novels, written by George Eliot, who was, that was a pseudonym for a woman.
That's not what I was talking about.
What I was talking about is great novelists, which is different.
As Frank Sinatra said, a professional can do it twice.
Great novelists are people who write massively great novels again and again, and even their failures and even the things that aren't great are great because of their consciousness.
A great novel, a truly great novel is like scientific theory, like E equals M C squared.
It's a major human achievement.
When you read something like War and Peace and realize that the guy also wrote Anna Karenina and realize that he also wrote all these incredible, brilliant short stories and novellas, and that every word that came out of his pen was in some way worthy of interest.
That's Leo Tolstoy.
You know, if you realize Dickens didn't just write David Copperfield, one of the truly great achievements of the human mind, but also Oliver Twist and Great Expectations, all these things.
Those are great novelists.
Those are the people I'm talking about.
The only woman who's done that that I can think of is Jane Austen.
And she's a demigod, like one of the, you know, like Dickens and Tolstoy.
These people are like among the great achievers of the human imagination.
And that's what I was talking about.
And I wasn't running anybody down.
Like I said, Mary Shelley, Frankenstein is great.
Flannery O'Connor was not really a novelist.
She wrote two novels, but her short stories that are achievement.
As for Agatha Christie, I just want to address this as a mystery writer.
You know, Arthur Conan Doyle, who made Sherlock Holmes, that's an eternal creation.
That is one of the great creations.
He's not a great novelist.
He's not a great writer.
I mean, he did something great.
And I really don't know how to categorize that.
And Agatha Christie, really, I really admire her books, but she's not a great novelist.
Anyway, I just wanted to clarify what I said.
Valentine's Stuff I Like.
More importantly, moving on into Valentine's Stuff I like.
Never Read Muir's Ghost00:01:22
The Ghost and Mrs. Muir.
Has anyone ever heard of this?
Have you?
Okay.
This was based on a novel which I never read.
And I realized as I was researching this that I never read the novel.
And I will now.
I think I'll wait probably until around Christmas time and I'll read this novel and see if it's any good.
There was a TV series about it in the 70s, like maybe only a year or two years.
It had Edward Hare and Hope Lang, who was a beautiful actress who nobody now remembers.
But the movie made in 1947 starred Jean Tierney, one of the most beautiful, yeah, lovely Lindsay knows, one of the most beautiful actresses who ever lived.
She really was.
I was so crazy about her when I was a kid, and Rex Harrison is in it.
And it's about a widow, a recently widowed woman who moves into a house that's haunted by this very bold, daring sea captain.
And she falls in love with a dead man.
And it's a great, you know, thwarted love story and has a wonderful, it's got comedy, it's kind of spooky at some points, and it's really a good movie, and just as watchable today as it ever was.
1947, The Ghost and Mrs. Muir with Gene Tierney and Rex Harrison.
That's it.
People in New Hampshire, don't do anything stupid.
We're counting on you.
And I will see you tomorrow.
We'll actually have some information.
We'll actually have something to talk about, some new results, and we'll find out how it went.