What A Day - Should Anyone Automate Their Life?

Episode Date: October 8, 2026

New polling out Thursday shows that concerns about artificial intelligence are crossing party lines. According to an AP-NORC survey, 64% of Americans think AI is developing "too fast." But we wanted to hear from someone who sees the opportunities AI presents and how the technology can make our lives better. On today's show, Jane speaks with Axios co-founder and CEO Jim VandeHei about his new book, "Simplify: Do 50 Percent More with 50 Percent Less."Show Notes: Check out Jim's book – https://tinyurl.com/4wjby6a2 Call Congress – 202-224-3121 Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/y4y2e9jy What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/ For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail]

I realized three years ago this is going to be big, and I threw myself into really understanding it and utilizing it. And I've dumped everything I know into various agents and different LLMs that I work with. Everything from my medical records to my MRI results to everything I've written, said, done, my books, everything. Mainly because I want to see how it works and I want to see what's real and not real. It's Thursday, October 8th. I'm Jane Koston, and this is what a day. Vice President J.D. Vance was asked today what socialism is. And no, he does not know what socialism is. It's a hard term to define these days because very often socialism, you know, classically, you would think socialism is about prioritizing workers. And yet in reality, I guarantee that most of the self-described

socialists running across the United States of America are going to how about this announcement today, which is prioritizing American workers over foreign workers. So I don't know what the term means anymore. I think in reality, what it actually means in the American context is that you want to replace American workers with foreign workers and you want boys to play in girls' sports. That's what unites the socialists that I see running across the United States of America today. J.D. Vance has no idea what he's talking about, Part 1000. Vance was announcing today that the Trump administration is suspending Microsoft from a program

that permitted foreign workers who held H-1B visas to apply for green cards. Microsoft is being accused of fraud and abusing programs such as this one to recruit foreign workers for jobs that Trump supporters allege undercut Americans. This could be, in part, why you see so many Trump supporters screaming about Indian American citizens on the Internet. Also, Trump is giving the CEO of Microsoft a medal today, so that's weird. I want to tell you about a woman named Daniela. When she lived in Miami, Daniela Fuentes styled hair for clients and performed in Drag at a Nightclub.

She was born in Cuba and she's trans. And in Miami, she was able to be herself. Now she's been deported to the Central African Republic as part of the Trump administration's effort to deport people to third countries they're not from. She has no ties to the Central African Republic and there are no legal protections for trans people in that country. She's living in a compound with four Cuban men, also deported from the U.S. U.S. She told the Associated Press, quote, I don't know this place, the people, or the language, and I have no idea what will happen to me. The Central African Republic is one of the world's poorest countries of the history of conflict. The U.S. State Department advises Americans to avoid

traveling there. And now, Daniela is stuck there, back in the closet. Worryers around artificial intelligence are crossing party lines with a vast majority of Americans saying the U.S. government should prioritize keeping AI under human control. and protecting workers. A new AP Norfolk poll finds that most Americans, 64%, think AI is developing too fast, while 27% say its development has been about right, and only 8% say it's developing too slowly. So I wanted to talk to one of the people advocating for using AI and how we can use it to make our lives better. Maybe. Joining me is Axios founder, Jim Van Baha'i. His new book is called Simplify. Do 50% more with 50% less. Jim Vandehi, welcome to Water Day. Great to be here.

Thank you for having me. So your book, Simplify, is intended to help people simplify their lives, reduce a number of hours spent working. But that's been the promise of every technological advance we've ever had since the washing machine. And yet we spend a lot of time, apparently, not doing the things we want to be doing. Why? Well, we're weird. I think we start from that premise. I think, listen, I think we're all creatures of habit, right? There's a reason that's a cliche, because we all just kind of take on these habits and we do what we've always done. And so I think that's a preexisting condition. Then I think over the last 20 years, with technology spreading faster and running deeper into our lives, we're just perpetually distracted. We're perpetually distracted. We're

perpetually pulled in directions, not necessarily of our control. So then we end up as a result of that spending almost an absurd amount of time doing things we didn't set out to do, don't really want to do. And that necessarily should be doing it all, whether it's at home or whether it's at work. And, you know, in the book, we go into a lot of the data, but it's very clear that we are wasting, and I think even I do this, we're wasting a good chunk of our work week doing things that never should have been done and that you don't want to do and shouldn't do. And you do it out of inertia.

You don't do it because you're lazy or you're stupid. You just do it because you take a job, you look around, and you assume, because this is what other people are doing, this is how it should be done forever. And, well, I've always had that meeting. I'll go to that meeting. I'll always have 15 people at that meeting. Never questioning, should that meeting ever take place. Should there actually be 15 people there at all?

Are you talking about something that anyone even cares about? any longer, and it's shocking how often this happens at any company, bigger, small, and it ends up eating away way too much more time. Now, there is no bigger advocate of could this meeting have been an email than I am. But obviously, a lot of the book talks about using AI to make your life easier. You recommend people use AI as a sparring partner to increase creativity. You even have a QR code in the book. People can scan that they have prompts for AI to simplify.

their lives. But as Axios itself has reported, most people don't use AI at all. They don't use chatbots. They're kind of concerned about them. They don't use agents. A lot of AI is currently being created to benefit people who already use AI, which is why a lot of AI people online are very concerned about restaurant reservations. How do you think people should be using AI and why are people not using AI in the ways that you think could make their lives better? Yeah, two things. Like one, the book is all about like power tools that you can apply, whether you use a technology at all.

Our point is, is if you don't use the technology right, it's just going to create a hell of a lot more complexity for you. I live this every day. Now the number of people who do use AI who can write a little bit better and write a little bit longer or do longer, more flashy PowerPoints. It's absurd. I'm getting just inundated with stuff, and it's not actually useful stuff. So the book basically tries to walk you through it if you're going to use AI. This is how you can use it to hopefully get rid of stuff, not create more stuff.

In terms of like this gap between people who use it and don't use it, I think is one of the most interesting things that's happening in America today. Because it's such a dominant part of the economy, a dominant part of coverage. And yet the vast majority of people, like vast, vast majority, rarely use. it or if they use it, they just use it as a souped up search. Right. That's how I use Claude as kind of super Google. I do not use it to do tasks. Most people don't use it to do tasks. And personally, I'd be kind of anxious about asking it to do anything beyond super Google, especially given everything that we hear about AI hallucinations and just kind of a general reticence.

Yeah. So I would put myself in that category of the 2% who use it a lot. And And I do it very purposely. I'm not a technologist by training. I'm a journalist and then became an entrepreneur. But I realized three years ago this is going to be big. And I threw myself into really understanding it and utilizing it. And I've dumped everything I know into various agents and different LLMs that I work with. Everything from my medical records to my MRI results to everything I've written, said, done, my books, everything.

Mainly because I want to see how it works and I want to see what's real and not real. What I can tell you from personal experience, once you use it a lot, it is a, like, it's, it's better than people think. It's difficult to use because you actually have to be trying to solve very specific problems. And I run a company, so I have a lot of things to solve. And you have to work at it a lot. I actually have the time allocated to work at a lot. And then you have to put in a lot of information and really try to, you know, fine tune it by saying this works, that doesn't work. Stop doing this.

Do more of that. But the results are, like, I see why people in Silicon Valley get so damn excited about the technology. It's just that for whatever reason, most people aren't using it that way, don't want to use it that way. I think one day will, but it's going to roll out way slower than anyone had anticipated because most people have your reaction, not mine. How has using AI so much changed you? How has it changed me? I'd say, again, there's so many different dimensions to AI. And I write about it a lot.

I read about it a lot. And so I think way too much about this topic. So if you want to step way back, it's probably made me more anxious in that I've kind of played out the scenarios of how I think AI could unfold. And for the first time in my life, maybe since when I was quite young and we used to worry about nuclear weapons and I had to get into a fallout shelter. It's the first time, like, I'm really worried. Like, I think there can be like some pretty bad things that could happen if this isn't handled correctly. So there's probably a little bit more anxiety than what I felt before. It's balanced by I can do so much more at work of things that I thoroughly enjoy doing.

And this might be where I have a little screw loose. But I love ideas. I love products. I love building things. I love designing things. I can do in now 10 minutes what it would have taken me two or three months to do. It's truly that quick. I right now, is my personal view, I would never use a human designer.

I would always use AI. It is so much better than any person I've ever worked with that design. I don't think I'd ever use a human researcher. If I could make the choice, I would choose AI the way I fine-tuned it because I find the research way deeper, way better, way quicker, way more nuanced, way more challenging of my own biases and kind of assumptions. And I would never turn to a group of people to prototype a product because I can get it prototyped in 10, 20 minutes now.

And so it's been like literally, but again, like I'm not a good, I'm not a great lab rat on this because I run a company and I'm entrepreneurial and I was early to thinking about it. So I have way more use cases than if I go back in time, once upon a time I was just a journalist. And if I was just doing my job as a journalist, I'd probably be more in your camp. I'd be using it as a souped up Google. But that's probably it because I'm like you, like I don't buy a lot of stuff. So I'm not going to use it to shop because I don't really care about shopping. And so the agent things that people find appealing, I just don't care about. So it's probably really good at it.

The times I have used it seems good at it, but it's just not me. You mentioned talking about how you wouldn't hire a human researcher, you wouldn't hire a human designer. How is a – I mean, you run a company. You run Axios. How has AI changed Axios? Are there people who were working at Axios who aren't now because of AI? Well, I mean, we anticipated it three years ago, so we'd kind of restructured kind of like we could have, as AI was coming on, we were simplifying the company. We're really trying to figure out what are we going to focus on that.

We can be better than anyone at. So like, did we make changes because of AI? Not directly, but AI was coming and it probably factored into the thinking. It's been interesting how it's affected the company. Because had you asked me this two years ago, I would have said, oh, we're just going to do a lot more with a lot less. And there was a little of that in the beginning. But then almost instantly, as we basically, we did something most companies didn't do. We basically said, listen, we think AI is going to be as big as people think it is.

We're going to give everybody access to open AI. We're going to pay for it. I'm going to bring in trainers. We're going to teach you how to use it. And all we ask is that if you're interested, you should play with it internally in terms of the very specific work that you have to do. Because our theory is, is that if you can just take this tool, like say you're a designer, that designer, if I just said, you do this without using technology, I'm going to choose the AI over that person. If that person had smartly thought of the way I think about it and is now using AI as a force multiplier for the design work that they're doing,

well, I can go to them because they're going to do what I would have done. And now they can do exponentially more, probably better than they could have in the past. We see a ton of that. And so we don't have the angst internally, even though we use it a ton. people are actually quite excited about it. The other very, very, very interesting thing about it is it goes to your 2% thing. I don't think, I think this is probably true with most technologies, but I think that even when AI, everyone's using it,

I think most people are going to use it quite passively or they're going to use it kind of the way you're talking about it, right? It might just be much more integrated, but you're not going to be thinking about it. There's about 2% of people, certainly in our company, who for whatever reason, the technology, their brain just matches with it. And I'll give you a couple of examples. There's a young lady in finance who works for us. And she was junior.

And I had heard early on that she had automated 20 wrote things in finance, payroll, stuff like that, and just was great at it. So I said, get on a Zoom with me. So we got, her name's Carol. We got in a call. And she was explaining to me. She's like, oh, listen, I got automated these things. Well, come me what you've automated?

She explains, but how? And she's like, she literally lit up. And she goes, for the first time in my life, I feel superhuman. Like, I know how to solve problems, and I tend to think that way. And now I have this tool that lets me do it. Carol is now one of the heads of AI enablement, where she embeds across her company and teaches other people how to use the technology to automate things that they don't want to do. Another person in sales did the exact same thing.

hit, one of the problems with sales is like, particularly at the local level is you've got endless number of clients. And so she built something that figures out who are all the people advertising in any city. What are they advertising and builds ads based on that. And now, and so I was like, wow, that's amazing. So let's scale that. And can you help other people do that? And now she does that. And what I've realized by talking to them, and I've not like done a brain scan or anything on this, but it's my theory, is that if you think and if you're like a problem solver, you tend to think in kind of fact pattern recognition and you tend to be kind of persistent in wanting to solve something, AI unlocks a whole new world for you. But I don't

think that that's a ton of people. I think it's a relatively small number of people. Most people here simply use the technology once we've figured out a way to make it make their job better. So this book comes at the exact time, and as Axios has been reporting, that there is a lot of anxiety around AI. And I like to joke that part of that is because the people behind AI keep saying it's going to take all of our jobs and then they're very confused as to why people think it's going to take their jobs. So what was it like working on this book that is talking about making your life easier by using tools such as AI? At the same time that your colleagues and reporters are talking about how people are very concerned about data centers and they're

concerned about data centers because of AI. They are concerned about AI not in the way that that the 2% are, the people who have thought a great deal about this, who have dove deep, the people who are worried about super intelligence, but the people who are worried about like, you know, my kid is an intern at a design firm. Are they just going to get fired because an AI that makes everything look kind of creepy is going to replace them? How do you, what was it like doing the book the same time

that there's so much anxiety about the technology that you're really enjoying? Mainly because the book was written like a power tool that you don't really need to use AI to put the things into practice. I didn't wrestle with that question as much as I do in the workplace. I run a company. I write about this. I write about the people saying what you're saying. I've written exhaustively about all of the dangerous scenarios. And yet we're using the technology.

I think that's where I kind of live what you're talking much more vividly. And part of me is like it just is what it is. Like I didn't, would I wish this technology upon people? I don't know. It depends what the outcome of it is. But I run a company and I have to think about, okay, what is the best way to be able to make axios? Get more high quality content in the hands of more readers. How do I need to use this technology, not use this technology?

So on the one hand, I think, okay, how do we responsibly use this technology to do the work that we need to do? on the other, like we're in the writing, like we're wrestling with this. It's not just that it's going to take your job. The people selling the technology tell you that it could take your job and it could eliminate humanity in seven years. Right. Okay. That's weird.

And again, like I don't agree necessarily with that thesis. I do think that there are many bad outcomes that could unfold in the next coming months if we don't get smart people making really good decisions about technology that is becoming smarter than a lot of people in a lot of areas. And so it kind of, it's like much of life, right? We have to hold two things to be true at once, even if they're in direct conflict. And even if one of them is kind of spooky at different times. And so that to me is like the only way.

I got to go to a war with my company with the battlefield we have, not the one I necessarily wish we had. We'll get back to my conversation with Jim Vandehi in just a moment. more today is brought to you by Zbiotics pre-alcohol. I have to tell you about this game-changing product I drink before I have a night out with drinks. It's called Pre-Alcohol by Zbiotics. Zbiotics Pre-Alcohol Probiatic is a world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was engineered by Ph.D. microbiologists to break down acetaldeh, an unwanted byproduct of alcohol metabolism.

Make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and enjoy your next day activities. Zybiotics has sold more than 14 million bottles and earn the trust of thousands, including me. Because with Zbiotics, even if I have a fun night out with friends, I can still hit the trails next day with my husband feeling amazing. Try for yourself today, and if you are unsatisfied, they will refund your entire order, no questions asked. Head to Zbiotics.com slash Wad, code Wad for 15% off your first order. Zbiotics is an amazing partner of this show. This episode is brought to you by the Make the Case podcast. Who is the right to wear a mask at a protest?

How do we protect voting rights from attack? How do flock cameras and invade our privacy? What does it mean to be suddenly stripped of your legal immigration status? It makes the case a new podcast from the ACLU of Northern California. Go behind the scenes with the people fighting for your civil liberties and civil rights. In each episode, host Carmen King sits down with attorneys and organizers and asks them to make the case for why their work matters and what happens when they win or lose.

Listen to make the case wherever you get your podcasts. Let's get back to my conversation with, Jim Van de High. So getting back to the book, you've talked about in the book how you've used all the tools you're talking about to make your life easier and to get done in a shorter period of time, what would have taken you much longer? Outside of work, what are you doing with the time that you've saved? I think about this all the time because I meet people who are like, you know, they read like the four-hour work week, but then I know that they're spending the rest of the time looking at Instagram. So like, what are you doing? Yeah. Yeah. So,

for me, and we, you know, we simplify, we talk very specifically how can you apply this to work, how can you apply it to your life. Again, like I take this probably to almost an absurd level, and maybe it's why we ended up writing the book. But I think all the time about, and I'm older than you, right, I'm 55, so I'm probably wrestling with my own mortality more than younger people are. But I've always thought about, okay, like at the end of the day, when this is all said and done, what do I want to be able to say about my life? And I think about that a lot. And, and, and, and, And I write that down and I always have, mainly because I want, I then use that as a filter for how am I going to allocate my time, right?

So like a big thing for me is the most important thing is I want, my parents are still alive, my siblings are still alive. I have my original family five. I have now my family five. Like I want to be, I really want everyone to say, oh, he was a great son. He was a great sibling. He was a great father. He was a great husband.

And well, to do that. That then answers your question. Well, what do I do with that time that I have? I try to cut out like tons of social obligations, tons of professional obligations, so that I can actually spend time with those people, doing things that I enjoy focused on them. So I try to free up my time to be able to achieve what is the number one thing on my list of things that I want to be able to achieve.

I also with the additional time that I'm able to free up, and in the book we go through big things like, like are these obligations that you take on that require a day or a week? Do you really need to do those down to how do you put things on auto buy so you don't have to like worry about your deodorant and the things that you buy every single couple of months? And I tend to use that free time to be outside. I love nature. I love fishing. I love hunting.

I love exploring. And so those would be the places that I that I put those. And again, like I'm a CEO. I can, you know, I've started a couple of companies. I have more freedom. I definitely have more opportunity to do the things that I want. But I think this works for anybody. I think that our point with the book, and we had seen it really play out at Axios, was we just let habit and complexity suck the life out of us. And if you don't attack it every single day or every month, you're just going to keep falling into this trap.

And the most interesting indicator happened at work, which is when we adopted this three years ago and really talked about, how to simplify and really worked with people to focus on the things that actually they're really good at and get rid of the things that they don't want to do. People were not just more productive. People don't want to be productive. Like me as a manager might want people to be more productive. But people just want to have more satisfaction. But that's what we saw.

People were happier. Well, why? They might not be able to trace it to this. But I'm certain it's because they're spending more of their time at work doing things they're actually good at that they want to do, that they know dry value. and make them better at the thing that they choose to do with their life. It's something I want to get back to talking about your use of AI and talking about AI in the book. So something you mention is using AI as a sparring partner and using it, for example, to play the role of your toughest boss. So I know that this is kind of an odd question, but how do you trust language learning models or the AI agents you're using to understand?

what it would look like to be a tough boss? How do you understand, how do you put so much trust, basically, in these models to understand what it would look like to be a tough boss or a creative boss or any other sparring partner that's required for creativity? That's kind of the, that's that 2% versus 98. If you just, if I just opened up OpenAI for the first time and I just asked that, I wouldn't trust it because not that I'm going to get a bad answer, I'm going to get a very generic answer. So for me, before I ever asked it that, I would explain very precisely like what I think a good boss is, what I think good leadership principles are, what I think good performance looks like.

And I'd probably even ask the LLM to ask me questions so that they could fine tune it and then read it back how its memory is going to think about that question. Once you do that, you have a very interesting conversation. At least I find it to be an exceptionally interesting conversation. But if you don't put that work in there, if you don't say, that's stupid or stop sucking up to me, or no, that is not a good principle. Oh, that is a good principle. Only once you do that, because remember, all these LLMs did, if you want to boil it down, they just ate the totality of all human information that was put on the Internet.

So it is working from a massive corpus of all knowledge and all words. Well, some of them were great words and they're very helpful and some of them were dumb, right? It ate everything on Reddit, not just the good stuff on Reddit. And it's getting better just in its natural state. It's quite good now, way better than it would have been a couple of months ago. But you still need to really work at making sure that you've kind of, that you've done that fine tuning. And that's where I think most people don't do. And that's why most people, I think, have very unsatisfying experiences with LMs because they just asked it something generically.

They got kind of a generic answer. And they're like, whatever. I'm going to go to the bar. Right? They just moved on. Yeah. And I would be also interested, you know, as you know, these models have been learning from the corpus of human knowledge. Humans tend to have biases.

Personally, I've noticed that some language models, if you ask it question, it has a bias towards, I mean, you see this with the, not this, but that. So how do you work through those biases? How do you check yourself when you're interacting with these models? You obviously are part of that 2%. You've been working with these models for a long time. But how do you step back and say, hang on a second, I need to check me about how I am interacting with this model. No, I think it's a great question.

I think I don't know that it's that different than interacting with people. If I was going to have a conversation with you, I carry into that conversation biases, right? There's no doubt about it. And as do you. And when I'm, if I'm interacting with an LLM, and I don't do, I don't really do any of the philosophical stuff with it. I tend to do work-related stuff.

But I'm understanding that, like, I don't take it as gospel. I take it as, oh, here's a suggestion or, oh, here's a path to go down. Or, oh, here's something I did not know that I should spend more time thinking about. you still need to me that human layer, right? You hear a lot about the human in the loop, which is such a weird-ass term. But the idea would be like even now in areas at work where I think the machines do really well, I still want people overseeing that. I want people making sure, does that match the nuance of axios?

Does that live up to the standards? Does it factor in that there could be biases baked into it? But the good news about LLMs, unlike algorithms. So I just want to spend one minute. An algorithm, which is what populates whatever you see on the screen when you're on Instagram or book, it has a very perverse incentive. An algorithm's incentive is just to keep you locked in, whether you're doing something that's healthy or unhealthy. Hopefully the good news with an LLM, they only work if they're actually extremely accurate and overtime are not biased. because if it's inaccurate or you feel like it's biased,

you're just not going to utilize it. Whereas you might still use the algorithm, right, because you're getting something that's entertaining you or feeding something that might be, you don't even realize subconsciousies a perversion of yours or whatever. And so I do think that the LLMs have a better incentive structure than algorithms.

I don't know if that's, hopefully it'll live up to that promise, but it's fundamentally to me different than the algorithm, them, which did just lead to a lot of misinformation, a lot of pollution, a lot of sadness. And obviously, it had good things, too. But it definitely is one of the explanations of how we landed as a society where we've landed today. And my hope is with this tech, and the thing about LLMs, the reason that I do think people should use them more is I am so certain in my bones that this is so much bigger than the

internet. And it's already seeping into every company, every job, every screen. by using it, at least we have awareness and hopefully societally, we can make much better decisions with how we utilize this technology. If you think about algorithms, hell, we were 15 years in before we were having serious conversations about the downside effects that were pretty obvious to us early on with algorithms. If we wait 15 years with LLMs and then we start to think about regulation and think about,

and not just government regulation, self-regulation, if we only, wait 15 years to think about what's good for everyone as opposed to a few rich and powerful people, we're going to have really bad outcomes, really bad outcomes. That would be the thing that worries me most right now is that I think this technology is moving at an insane velocity. And I don't feel like we have the best and brightest people across different domains studying and thinking about this so that we can make really good decisions in real time. And I worry that we're making a lot of the mistakes that we made with the last big technology, which I'd say is like the internet and the phone. Jim, thank you so much for joining me.

Thank you. Great conversation. Appreciate it. That was my conversation with Jim Van de High. He's the co-founder of Axios and author of Simplify, do 50% more with 50% less. Before we go, every Wednesday, non-partisan journalist Nate Silver, Galen Druk, and Claire Malone, formerly of the 538 podcast, dig into the latest numbers in politics and polling to help us understand what's happening in American politics.

In yesterday's episode, they checked the latest flipper forecasts for the House and Senate before discussing the closer than expected Senate race in Minnesota. Then they discuss potential 28 presidential candidates. Check out still counting on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review. Let's all get Eric Dieter's mad about Trumpian corruption and tell your friends to listen. And if you weren't to reading,

and not just about how U.S. ambassador to Greece, Kimberly Guilfoyle, asked Eric Dieter's a right-wing activist and attorney for $100,000 to pay a credit card bill, and he is furious about it. Kimberly Gilfoyle is a grifter. Kimberly Gilfoyle, I have no doubt, has done this to more than me. She's doing it right now in Greece. I know Corey Lewandowski did this stuff. I know Christy Noam did this stuff.

Like me, what a day is also? a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at crooked.com slash subscribe. I'm Jane Koston, and the Wall Street Journal reporting that broke this story is truly worth reading for the text messages alone. Because of course, they were all texting about this the whole time. What Today is a production of Crooked Media. Our show is produced by Emily 4, Erica Morrison, and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Haley Jones, Greg Walters, Matt Berg, Adam Lippertrude, Johanna Case, and Desmond Taylor. Our music is by Kyle Murdoch and Jordan Cantor. We had helped today from the Associated Press. Our production staff is proudly unionized for the Writers Guild of America East.