Benjamin A. Railton's Blog, page 27

December 6, 2024: McCarthy’s America: Censure

[70years ago this week, the Senate voted to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy, akey final step in the downfall of that domineering and divisive demagogue. So inthis series I’ll AmericanStudy a few layers to McCarthy’s America, leading up toa weekend post on his and the moment’s modern echoes.]

On a seriesof quotes that reflect the histories and figures at the end of the December1954 censure vote.

1)     “Contrary to senatorial traditions”: By the springof 1954 McCarthy had been bullying and blustering his way through countless Senatehearings, but his April hearingson the U.S. Army still represented an escalation of those actions andattitudes. And one that prompted a striking response from one of his Senate andparty colleagues: on July 30th, SenatorRalph Flanders (R-VT) introduced a censureresolution against McCarthy, arguing that his actions ran “contrary tosenatorial traditions.” The Senate has always been a body divided between itsideals and its realities, as reflected by thehistory of the filibuster for example; but clearly McCarthy’s uglyrealities had finally become too much to bear by mid-1954, and the unusual stepof a censure debate illustrates that shift.

2)     “A lynch party”: On August 2nd, theSenate convened a bipartisanselect committee, chaired by Senator Arthur V.Watkins (R-UT) and featuring three Senators total from each party, to investigateFlanders’ resolution and the censure charges and report back to the entirebody. Throughout their months of work McCarthy was as aggressive and hostile ofa colleague as we would expect, building to an extended debate in Novemberduring which McCarthy calledthe entire investigation “a lynch party.” I’m not sure I need to say anythingelse about what that quote reveals about this man and his perspective, do I?

3)     “Dishonor and Disrepute” vs. “Dignity”: In responseto McCarthy’s attacks, SenatorWatkins delivered a speech on the Senate floor defending the “dignity” ofthe body. And when the Senate votedon December 2nd, 1954 to accept the committee’s recommendationand censure McCarthy, they continued to use that term and contrasted it withtwo others, arguing that McCarthy had “acted contrary to senatorial ethics andtended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute, to obstruct the constitutionalprocesses of the Senate, and to impair its dignity.” Whatever we might sayabout the real vs. ideal histories of this body, there’s no doubt that thisunusual senatorial action reflected just how far and how low McCarthy had gone—alesson, as I’ll argue this weekend, we would do well to heed.

Specialpost this weekend,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think?

December 5, 2024: McCarthy’s America: Roy Cohn

[70years ago this week, the Senate voted to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy, akey final step in the downfall of that domineering and divisive demagogue. So inthis series I’ll AmericanStudy a few layers to McCarthy’s America, leading up toa weekend post on his and the moment’s modern echoes.]

On the figurewho embodies American hypocrisies—and perhaps something more.

Back before he went around a wholeseries of increasingly extreme bends, the journalist Glenn Greenwald wrote ascathing critique of the modern GOP entitled GreatAmerican Hypocrites (2008). While I certainly agree with Greenwald’spremise and his specific examples, and similarly feel that hypocrisy has becomea core ingredient of a party’s entire political platform in a way that it hasperhaps never before been, I would also emphasize just how strong a rolehypocrisy has played in American narratives throughout our existence. Thatargument could go back, for example, to the official seal of theMassachusetts Bay Colony, which depicted a Native American beggingprospective arrivals to “Come over and help us”: the seal reveals not only acore hypocrisy in the Puritans’ perspectives, since (as WilliamBradford’s Of Plimoth Plantation and many others documentsdemonstrate) the local Native tribes quickly (well before this seal’s creation)and thoroughly became the Puritans’ greatest perceived obstacle to overcome onthe path to building their city on a hill; but also another and more subtlehypocrisy in their experiences, since without the early aid of local NativeAmericans such as Squanto (as Bradford does admit, to his credit) thePlymouth colony (and thus likely the Puritan settlements that followed it)would almost certainly have failed.

I could probably maintain a dailyblog on such American hypocrisies and not run out of examples any time soon,but for this week’s series I wanted to focus on a figure whose public andpersonal lives and identities perhaps most fully embody (in every sense) thesenational hypocrisies: RoyCohn (1927-1986). Cohn rose to prominence in political and public life asone of SenatorJoseph McCarthy’s nastiest attack dogs, a lawyer who seemingly thrived onferreting out hidden and secret (and, as ever in the McCarthy era, dubious atbest) details of the lives of government employees and other McCarthy targetsand helping expose them for a paranoid and fearful nation. As was generally thecase in the anti-Communist witch hunts, Cohn was never averse to directlylinking homosexualityand other forms of “deviant” behavior to Communist leanings, since, in thisperspective, one kind of secret life was likely to echo and reveal others. Itwas only decades later, when Cohnwas publicly diagnosed in the 1980s with the decade’s newest and mostthreatening disease, AIDS, that the truth of Cohn’s own very secret (he hadbeen famously linked to various famous women over the years) gay identity wassimilarly revealed. While it is of course both unfair and ultimately impossibleto speak with any authority about any other individual’s sexual and intimateexperiences and life, it’s perhaps least unfair to do so when that individualhas made identifying and attacking the sexual preferences of others part andparcel of his career and legacy—after all, if Cohn believed, as both he andMcCarthy stated explicitly on numerous occasions, that being homosexual shoulddisqualify someone from taking part in political life in America, then his ownidentity as a closeted gay political figure was ideologically as well aspersonally hypocritical.

The truths of both individualidentity and communal existence, however, are really more complicated thanthat, and while it’s tempting simply to point out Cohn’s hypocrisy, and moresaliently to use it to critique the profoundly destructive and illegitimateroots of McCarthyism more broadly, there’s significant value in trying toimagine and analyze this very complex and certainly very representativeAmerican’s life and perspective. By far the best such imagined version of Cohnproduced to date, at least to my knowledge, would have to be that created byplaywright Tony Kushner in his two-part, Pulitzer-winning, innovative andbrilliant play Angelsin America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes (1991-1993). Kushner’splay has a lot to recommend it, including some of the most raw and powerfuldepictions of AIDS yet produced in any genre or medium, but without questionone of its strongest elements is the characterization of Cohn, a vulgar, violent,petty, power-hungry aging lawyer and Washington player who also manages to befunny, charismatic, likeable, and ultimately even sympathetic as he struggleswith both the disease that he refuses to admit he has and the ghosts of those(especially Ethel Rosenberg) to whose destruction he contributed so centrally.In a play full of interesting characters and show-stopping moments, Cohn isperhaps the linchpin and certainly the anti-hero and villain and star, and Ican’t think of a better description of national hypocrisies more generally.

LastMcCarthy context tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think?

December 4, 2024: McCarthy’s America: Edward R. Murrow

[70years ago this week, the Senate voted to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy, akey final step in the downfall of that domineering and divisive demagogue. So inthis series I’ll AmericanStudy a few layers to McCarthy’s America, leading up toa weekend post on his and the moment’s modern echoes.]

On the specialreport that helped begin McCarthy’s fall, and the response that only hastenedit further.

In this piecefor the Saturday Evening Post, on the 50th anniversary ofWalterCronkite’s famous February 27th, 1967 special report on theVietnam War, I argued that Cronkite, along with his contemporary investigativereporter David Halberstam, helped provide models of adversarial journalism thatchanged the journalistic landscape and have endured into our own moment. But inso doing, CBS Evening News anchor Cronkite was also following in the footstepsof his equally influential predecessor at CBS (bothin radio and television), EdwardR. Murrow. Murrow had been delivering radio reports for CBS since the late1930s, and by the early 1950s was one of the nation’s most prominentjournalists in multiple media. His longstanding radio program Hear It Nowtransitioned to television on November 18th, 1951 as See It Now, and atthe same time Murrow began contributing both reporting and opinion pieces tothe CBS Evening News.

One of Murrow’smost important and influential See It Nowpieces aired on March 9th, 1954. Entitled “A Report on Senator JosephMcCarthy,” the half-hour episode used McCarthy’s own statements andspeeches to highlight his contradictions and hypocrisies (foreshadowing whatmedia commentary shows like TheDaily Show would do half acentury later). CBS was extremely wary of running the show, and did not allowMurrow and his longtimeproducer Fred W. Friendly to use the CBS logo or to take advantage of CBSresources to publicize the episode. So Murrow and Friendly paid themselves toadvertise the show in newspaper across the country, clearly believing that theywere doing meaningful work that should reach as broad an audience as possible.I would agree, and would emphasize that in the era before either cable newsnetworks or the internet, it’s quite possible (if not very likely) that mostAmericans had not had the chance to hear the majority of the McCarthy statementsand speeches used in the episode. They certainly would not have been able tohear them in close succession, and thus to understand the kinds of deceptions,falsehoods, and half-truths that (as I traced in yesterday’s post) McCarthy hadbeen relying on throughout his life and career.

The episode’svery first statement emphasized that McCarthy would have the chance to respondon a subsequent episode of See It Nowif he chose. He did, and joined Murrow for another half-hour episode on April 6th, 1954.Unsurprisingly, given the history of ad hominem and inaccurate personal attacksthat I also traced yesterday, McCarthy mostly used his TV time to take onMurrow, calling him a communist sympathizer and then adding, “Ordinarily, Iwould not take time out from the important work at hand to answer Murrow.However, in this case I feel justified in doing so because Murrow is a symbol,a leader, and the cleverest of the jackal pack which is always found at thethroat of anyone who dares to expose individual communists and traitors.” Notonly were these accusations entirely unfounded, but they reflected McCarthy’sunwillingness (or, more exactly, inability) to respond to the specific factualcharges that the original episode had leveled against him. The audience andnationwide responses to the rebuttal show were just as fully in favor of Murrowand critical of McCarthy as had been those to the original episode, and takentogether these two episodes illustrate the possibility for quality adversarial journalismto truly help shift collective conversations and debates.

NextMcCarthy context tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think?

December 3, 2024: McCarthy’s America: Chambers, White, and Hiss

[70years ago this week, the Senate voted to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy, akey final step in the downfall of that domineering and divisive demagogue. So inthis series I’ll AmericanStudy a few layers to McCarthy’s America, leading up toa weekend post on his and the moment’s modern echoes.]

Onespionage, railroading, and the true complexity of historical nuance.

In one of myearliest posts for this blog, I used the wonderful Season 2 West Wing episode “Somebody’s Going toEmergency, Somebody’s Going to Jail” to think about recently revealed detailsof the Rosenberg case and the question of historical nuance. In lieu of a newfirst paragraph here, I’d love for you to check out that post if you would, andthen come on back here for today’s thoughts.

Welcomeback! The same thorny questions I considered in that post, of how we canaccurately critique McCarthyism (on which more in tomorrow’s post) whilegrappling with the apparent truths of the Rosenberg case, certainly seem toapply to the story of two of HUAC’s most famous targets, HarryDexter White and Alger Hiss. InAugust 1948, HUACsubpoenaed Whittaker Chambers, an admitted former Soviet spy now working asa senior editor at Time; in histestimony Chambers named names of other alleged Soviet agents in the U.S.government, including Treasury Department official White and State Departmentofficial Hiss. Both men denied the accusations categorically; White died of aheart attack a few days later and the questionof his espionage remains entirely unclear, while Hiss waseventually convictedof perjury (thanks to documents provided by Chambers which contradictedHiss’ sworn statements before the committee) and imprisoned for years. Hissmaintained his innocence until his death in 1996, but recently released Soviet archivalmaterials seem toprovide proof that he was at least for a time on the Kremlin’s payroll.

There’s alot more to say about these cases than I can fit into one more paragraph, but Iwant to make three points here. First, it’s important to note that someoneworking for the federal government and spying for the Soviet Union is in a fardifferent and more troubling position than a cultural figure accused ofCommunist sympathies (like all those about whom I wrote in yesterday’s post);if that was indeed the case for Hiss, he deserved at least to lose his job, andlikely to serve time in prison. Second, it’s just as important to note thatlives can be and were destroyed by such accusations regardless of the facts;Harry Dexter White, one of the 20thcentury’s greatest economic minds, is exhibit A in that case. Andthird, it’s precisely the job—or at least one central job—of all who seek toexplore and engage our histories to include both those points, among others, inour nuanced and multi-layered understanding and narrative of the past. We canadd our own emphases and arguments to be sure, and I would argue that HUAC andMcCarthy were more damaging to the US than Soviet spies. But there’s no way tounderstand the 1940s and 50s in America without recognizing that both thosecommunities were problematic parts of our political and social landscape.

NextMcCarthy context tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think?

December 2, 2024: McCarthy’s America: Mythic Patriotism

[70years ago this week, the Senate voted to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy, akey final step in the downfall of that domineering and divisive demagogue. So inthis series I’ll AmericanStudy a few layers to McCarthy’s America, leading up toa weekend post on his and the moment’s modern echoes.]

An excerptfrom Of Thee I Sing thathighlights how HUAC and (especially) Joe McCarthy embodied the worst of mythicpatriotism.

“Boththe Depression and World War II eras’ fears of anti-American radi­cals,movements, and communities likewise extended into the post-war mo­ment in aneven more prominent and overarching way, with the emergence of the hugelyinfluential, mythic perspective expressed and embodied by Wisconsin SenatorJoseph McCarthy. Despite McCarthy’s central role in perpetuating and amplifyingthose myths, it’s important to note that another vital source for thatperspective, the tellingly named House Committee on Un-American Activities(HUAC), pre-dated both McCarthy (who became a Senator in 1947) and the post-warperiod. HUAC, also known as the Dies Committee after its chair, TexasRepresentative Martin Dies Jr., was created as a special investigatingcommittee in 1938, building upon and making more official the work of earlierCongressional committees such as the 1934–37 Special Committee on Un-AmericanActivities to Investigate Nazi Propa­ganda and Certain Other PropagandaActivities. From the beginning HUAC’s investigations focused on fears ofcommunism and targeted many of the period’s most prominent Americancommunities: student radicals, as illus­trated by a 1939 investigation into thecommunist-affiliated American Youth Congress; New Deal artists, as illustratedby the 1938 subpoena of Federal Theatre Project director Hallie Flanagan toaddress communist influences on that project; and Japanese Americans, asillustrated by HUAC’s infamous “Yellow Report” which made the case forinternment based on a number of mythic arguments about Japanese loyalty to theempire.

When Senator McCarthy extended and amplified thoseinvestigations in the post-war period, he did so with the help of twointerconnected mythic pa­triotic arguments. First, the World War II veteranMcCarthy used propagan­distic war stories to make the case for his owncandidacy and governmental role. McCarthy had served as a Marine Corpsintelligence officer and aviator between August 1942 and April 1945, and in theprocess received (or quite possibly gave himself) the nickname “Tail-GunnerJoe.” When he ran for the Senate against incumbent Robert M. La Follette Jr.,McCarthy criticized La Follette’s lack of military service, although LaFollette was 46 years old at the start of the war, and used the slogan“Congress needs a tail-gunner” to play up his own. He also created myths abouthis military service: an exaggerated number of aerial missions (32, rather thanthe actual number of 12) in order to qualify for a Distinguished Flying Cross;a broken leg that McCarthy referred to as a “war wound” but had in factoccurred during a shipboard celebration upon crossing the equator; and a letterof commendation that he claimed had been written by his commanding officer butturned out to have been written by McCarthy himself. None of these myths elidethe reality of McCarthy’s wartime experiences and service, but they reflect awillingness to create pro­paganda based on such real experiences, in order tosignificantly bolster his own authority and arguments.

Ashe began making his overtly exclusionary arguments in early 1950, McCarthy didso through equally mythic images of a government and na­tion overrun by andfighting back against “enemies within.” McCarthy used that phrase in a February9th, 1950 speech to the Wheeling, West Virginia Republican Women’s Club, anaddress in which he also produced “a list of names” of alleged “members of theCommunity Party . . . working and shap­ing policy in the State Department.” Ashe turned that idea into the origin point for a four-year exclusionary crusadeagainst “anti-American” forces and communities of all types, from communistsand fellow travelers to leftist intellectuals and academics, artistic andcultural figures, homosexuals, and other “subversives,” McCarthy linked thatcrusade to a mythic vision of an embattled American identity for which he wasthe consistent and chief cham­pion. “McCarthyism is Americanism with itssleeves rolled,” he argued in a 1952 speech during his successful reelectioncampaign, and he titled his book published later that year McCarthyism: TheFight for America.”

NextMcCarthy context tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think?

November 30-December 1, 2024: November 2024 Recap

[A Recapof the month that was in AmericanStudying.]

November4: The 1924 Election: Harding’s Shadow: A series on the 100th anniversaryof another wild election starts with lingering scandals from a deceasedpresident.

November5: The 1924 Election: Three VP Nominees: The series continues with threeGOP VP candidates who embody electoral chaos.

November6: The 1924 Election: KKKonventions: The Klan’s influence on both 1924Conventions and a contemporary echo, as the series campaigns on.

November7: The 1924 Election: La Follette’s 3rd Party: In honor of oneof the most successful 3rd party candidates in American history,three ways to analyze why such candidates exist at all.

November8: The 1924 Election: Foreshadowing the Future: The series concludes withthree ways that the 1924 election foreshadowed future political events.

November9-10: 2024 Election Reflections: I wanted in much of a mood for extendedreflecting after the 2024 election, but I did have one thing I wanted to makesure to say.

November11: AmericanStudies’ 14th Anniversary!: Foregrounding Favorites:For the blog’s 14th anniversary I wanted to highlight a handful ofthe types of posts that have kept me blogging all these years, starting with myfocus on favorites.

November12: AmericanStudies’ 14th Anniversary!: Lifelong Learning: The anniversaryseries continues with posts that have helped me continue to learn.

November13: AmericanStudies’ 14th Anniversary!: Teaching Thoughts: Howmuch I’ve appreciated the chance to reflect on my teaching in this space, asthe series celebrates on.

November14: AmericanStudies’ 14th Anniversary!: Great Guests: GuestPosts have been my favorite part of writing this blog—and I hope you’ll proposeone of your own!

November15: AmericanStudies’ 14th Anniversary!: Communal Crowd-Sourcing:The series concludes with a second way I’ve been able to share y’all’s thoughtson the blog.

November16-17: AmericanStudies’ 14th Anniversary!: Thankful Tributes: Aspecial weekend tribute to five folks who have helped make the blog what it’s becomeover these 14 years.

November18: AmericanTemperanceStudying: A 1623 Origin Point: For a famous organization’s150th anniversary, a TemperanceStudying series kicks off with afoundational law.

November19: AmericanTemperanceStudying: The Early Republic: The series continueswith three milestone moments in the movement’s early 19C evolutions.

November20: AmericanTemperanceStudying: Three Reformers: Takeaways from a trio ofradical reformers across the 19C, as the series abstains on.

November21: AmericanTemperanceStudying: The Anti-Saloon League: One importantinnovation and one troubling interconnection for America’s most influential temperanceorganization.

November22: AmericanTemperanceStudying: Prohibition: Three great scholarly booksthat can help us consider the multilayered contexts for temperance’s greatestsuccess.

November23-24: AmericanTemperanceStudying: The WCTU: The series concludes with six womenwho helped shape the Women’s Christian Temperance Union on its 150thanniversary.

November25: Podcast Thanks: A Serendipitous Conversation: For this year’sThanksgiving series I wanted to give thanks for moments and folks who helpedmake my podcast what it was, starting with a conversational origin point.

November26: Podcast Thanks: Supportive Peers: The series continues with fellowpodcasters who both modeled the work and gave me a chance to talk about mine.

November27: Podcast Thanks: CEM Connections: A vital website without which I neverwould have been able to create my podcast, as the series thanks on.

November28: Podcast Thanks: Audience Love: For Thanksgiving, how three of myfavorite people became pitch-perfect audience members for the podcast.

November29: Podcast Thanks: A Narrative History: And the series and thanks concludewith a narrative history that modeled that challenging and crucial form.

Nextseries starts Monday,

Ben

PS. Topicsyou’d like to see covered in this space? Guest Posts you’d like to contribute? Lemme know!

November 29, 2024: Podcast Thanks: A Narrative History

[The mostsignificant part of my work this fall was the launch of my first publicscholarly podcast, TheCelestials’ Last Game: Baseball, Bigotry, and the Battle for America. Alot of factors helped make that work possible, so for my annual Thanksgivingseries I wanted to express my gratitude to a handful of them!]

As I hopeall of my work over the last few years has made clear, including this blog andmy #ScholarSunday threadsand much else besides, public scholarly community and conversation areconsistently central to everything I do. Often that means sharing other folks’work, but sometimes it means highlighting scholarly models for what I’m tryingto do with my own projects. In the case of this project, as I discussed inWednesday’s post, the lack of definitive historical information meant that Ihad to think about whether and how to fill in and fill out those histories withsome narrative, with imaginative storytelling to complement the sources. And inso doing I had a great public scholarly model, one that I overtly talked aboutin one of my episodes: SaidiyaHartman’s Wayward Lives, Beautiful Experiments. I was inspired bothby the ways Hartman works to create the perspectives and identities of herfocal historical subjects and by the moments where she brings her ownperspective and voice into the conversation, and I hope I did justice to bothof those elements in my podcast. I’d be grateful if you shared your thoughts atany point!

NovemberRecap this weekend,

Ben

PS. So onemore time: I’d be thankful if you’d check out the podcast and let me know yourthoughts!

November 28, 2024: Podcast Thanks: Audience Love

[The mostsignificant part of my work this fall was the launch of my first publicscholarly podcast, TheCelestials’ Last Game: Baseball, Bigotry, and the Battle for America. Alot of factors helped make that work possible, so for my annual Thanksgivingseries I wanted to express my gratitude to a handful of them!]

HappyThanksgiving (and NationalDay of Mourning too)! For me the holiday is all about family, and so I hadto dedicate today’s post to my podcast’s three most dedicated audience members:my parents and my wife. They didn’t just listen, either—their thoughtful responsesand contributions truly shaped every part of the podcast, making both theexperience and the product infinitely better than they otherwise would havebeen. If I were to give fellow first-time podcasters any advice based on my owninitial experiences with the medium, it’d be that it is really important tohave particular audiences in mind when we’re writing and recording, so we’renot just talking to ourselves (this advice would obviously be different for aco-hosted podcast or one featuring guests). For me, these three favorite peoplewere my pitch-perfect ideal listeners and conversation partners.  

Lastthanks tomorrow,

Ben

PS. I’d bethankful if you’d check out the podcast and let me know your thoughts!

November 27, 2024: Podcast Thanks: CEM Connections

[The mostsignificant part of my work this fall was the launch of my first publicscholarly podcast, TheCelestials’ Last Game: Baseball, Bigotry, and the Battle for America. Alot of factors helped make that work possible, so for my annual Thanksgivingseries I wanted to express my gratitude to a handful of them!]

As Idiscussed throughout the podcast, and really got into fully in my PostgamePress Conference (an extra, 10th episode), one of the most challengingaspects of telling this story was the significant lack of information about itskey events and histories. That meant I had to do the imaginative work I’ll talkmore about in Friday’s post. But it also meant I had to rely quite a bit on afew key sources, and none was more crucial than the semi-defunct butfortunately not entirely lost CEM Connectionswebsite (I’m no longer able to access the site on my computer, but it stillworks on my phone, just FYI), and especially its extensive biographicalinformation on all 120 CEM students. I’ll forever be grateful to the site’sco-creators Bruce Chan and Dana Young for their work (and to Bruce for histhoughtful responses to and pushback on the podcast itself, which I alsoengaged in that Postgame Press Conference), and can only hope that itencourages more folks to find their way to the website and continue supportingtheir historical projects as well.

Nextthanks tomorrow,

Ben

PS. I’d bethankful if you’d check out the podcast and let me know your thoughts!

November 26, 2024: Podcast Thanks: Supportive Peers

[The mostsignificant part of my work this fall was the launch of my first publicscholarly podcast, TheCelestials’ Last Game: Baseball, Bigotry, and the Battle for America. Alot of factors helped make that work possible, so for my annual Thanksgivingseries I wanted to express my gratitude to a handful of them!]

As Imentioned in yesterday’s post, I’ve had the chance to appear on quite a fewpodcasts over the last few years, including the ones highlightedin this list among others. That meant I had a ton of great models for howto make the most of the medium, which was one vital way that my peer podcastershelped me immeasurably in creating my own. But I also had the chance to talkabout my podcast on a couple of those excellent examples of the genre: LiamHeffernan’s America: A History and Kelly Pollock’s UnsungHistory (my second timeon that great podcast). Starting an entirely new type of project can be a verydaunting endeavor, and I’m so grateful to have had such inspiring models andsupportive peers at every step of the process.

Nextthanks tomorrow,

Ben

PS. I’d bethankful if you’d check out the podcast and let me know your thoughts!