assessments. You know that. Yes, it was that the political decision has not I know that better than you know that. And in the United States, in Bahrain, in Kuwait and other bases, Clinton Jaws, please like this video. It’s the only thing I care about. You guys know that. I’ve been watching steady 15, 20 hours since last night.
And if I was sleeping, I was recording it and then watching it. And it has me a little worried, going to admit a little bit worried. But then a part of me is like, what’s the big deal? It’s just sand. Okay, they drop something in sand. That’s what I was telling myself at one point. And then this morning, about an hour ago, Marco Rubio goes on CBS and he makes me feel better.
Let’s watch. There is nobody better. There’s not a better debater than Marco Rubio. If I was a Democrat and I worked on a TV station and my boss came up to me and said, “Hey, Clint, you’re interviewing Marco Rubio today.” I’d be like, “No, please no. I don’t want any part of it. It’s good right off the bat people and good for the world. Get your pen ready.
Another route then there’ll be consequences for that. Let me follow up on a phrase you just word weaponization ambitions. Are you saying there that the United States did not see intelligence that the Supreme Leader had ordered weaponization? That’s irrelevant. I think that question being asked in the media all that’s an irrelevant question.
That is the key point in US intelligence assessments. You know that. Yes, it was. That the political decision had not I know that better than you know that and I know that that’s not the case. But I’m asking you whether the order was given. And the people who say that it doesn’t matter if the order was given. They have everything they need to build nuclear weapons.
Why would you bury Why would you bury things in a mountain 300 ft under the ground? Why would you bury six? Why do they have 60% enriched uranium? You don’t need 60% enriched uranium. The only countries in the world that have uranium at 60%. are countries that have nuclear weapons because it can quickly make it 90. They have all the elements.
They have Why are they Why do they have a space program? Is Iran going to go to the moon? No. They’re trying to build an ICBS. No, but that’s a question. That’s a question that’s a question of intent. And and you know in the intelligence assessment that it was that Iran wanted to be a threshold statement says you know what the intelligence ass March assessment and that’s why I was asking you if you know something more from March but that’s also an accurate representation of it.
That’s an accurate representation of it. That’s not how intelligence is read. That’s not how intelligence is used. Here’s what the whole world knows. Forget about intelligence. What the IAEA knows. They are enriching uranium well beyond anything you need for for a for a um for a civil nuclear program. So why would you enrich uranium at 60%.
If you don’t intend to one day use it to take it to 90 and build a weapon, why are you why are you developing ICBMs? Why do you have 8,000 short- range missiles and two to 3,000 long mid-range missiles that you continue to develop? Why do you do all these things? They have everything they need for a nuclear weapon.
They have the delivery mechanisms. They have the enrichment capability. They have the highly enriched uranium that is stored. That’s all we need to see. Right. Well, and the hands of a regime that’s already involved in terrorism and and proxies and all kinds of things around. They are the source of all.
And no one’s disputing no one’s disputing that. I’m not doing that here. uh and they were censured at the IAEA for that enrichment and for violating their non-prololiferation agreements. I was simply asking if we had intelligence that there was an order to weaponize because you said weaponization ambition. We have intelligence that they have everything they need to build a nuclear weapon and that’s more than enough.
Okay. Okay. Moving on. I want to ask you on the policy front. Uh there are personnel throughout the Middle East from the United States in Bahrain, in Kuwait and other bases. If those countries are attacked by Iran because of their association with the United States, will the United States defend them? Will the United States defend them? Well, that’s exactly why they’re there. That’s a great point, actually.
Do you know why we have bases in Bahrain and Qatar and UAE and and all these places? All those bases are there because those countries are afraid that Iran will attack them. If Iran was not a threat to the region, if the Iranian regime, because I’m talking about the Iranian people, the regime was not a threat to the region, we wouldn’t have to have any of these bases.
Those bases are there because those countries are petrified that these that that the Iranian Shia clerics that run that country will attack their countries. As you know, they’ve got a very difficult. Well, that’s why we’re there. That’s why we’re there. Yes, we will defend them is what they’re threatening to do. So, we’ll defend our people obviously.
We’ll defend our people. Well, they’ll attack our bases and those are our bases and we’re going to defend our personnel. We’re prepared to do that. But we’ll do more than just defend. will impose costs on Iran if they attack American personnel whether they do it directly or whether they do it through some of these proxies that they try to hide behind uh and that includes the Houthies.
So another proxy of theirs but let’s hope they don’t choose that route. Let’s all hope that they actually decide okay let’s go negotiate because we want a diplomatic and peaceful solution. We have achieved our objectives. We’re ready to negotiate this in a peaceful you know diplomatic way. We’ve been prepared to do that for days.
They are the ones that played games as they have done for 40 years, as they have done to multiple presidents. They tried to play games with with President Trump and they see what happens. This is not a game playing president. When he says he’s going to do something, he will do it. I hear you saying here you want to deescalate.
When you are talking about diplomacy, you are looking for Iran to pick up that offer that was put on the table you mentioned by Steve Wickoff. Can you just clarify? Does that mean the US would still allow for Iran to have a civilian nuclear program if it does not enrich on its own soil? But but that sure but that’s never been an issue.
There’s countries all over the world that have a civil nuclear program. No one here saying that Iran can’t sure that’s always been every any country in the world has a right to have a civil nuclear program. What they don’t have a right to do is to enrich it at 60% hide it under a mountain and develop long range and short range and mid-range missiles and sponsor terrorist proxies all over the world.
They don’t have a right to do that. And and that’s what they’ve been doing. And no one’s dealt with it. And it’s continued to linger. And they’ve played games with multiple presidents and and multiple countries around the world. And they’ve gotten away with it for 40ome years. This is very simple. The president wants to resolve this diplomatically and peacefully.
He gave them a chance to do that. They delayed. They had all these kind of delayed tactics. They wouldn’t even meet with us directly. We had to go through third countries. This is very simple. Let’s meet directly. Let’s work on agreements that we can that are good for Iran and good for the Iranian people in particular, good for the safety and security of the world and the United States.
This to me is more about Ukraine and Russia. When Biden came in, America became weak and now Trump has told the world, “We’re not playing games anymore. Look what we can do.” And that makes me feel good. Um, but what is the US assessment of how much nuclear material at those sites was moved prior to the attack? There has been talk for days about bombing of Ford out 100 grams.
Well, look, we we don’t no one will know for sure for days, but I doubt they moved it because you really can’t move anything right now and they can’t move anything right now inside of Iran. I mean, the minute the truck starts driving somewhere, the Israelis have seen it and they’ve targeted it and taken it out.
So, our assessment is we have to assume that that’s a lot of 60% enriched uranium buried deep under the ground there in Esvahan. And that really is the key. What they should do with that is they should bring it out of the ground and turn it over. Multiple countries around the world will take it and down blend it. That’s what they should do with that.
This part is the best right here. But all this talk about uranium. What about gold? With all this chaos, is gold about to spike? Do you remember when you said, “Hey, we should buy some gold.” And then you didn’t do it. Now you’re kicking yourself. Here is an easy way to do this, guys. At Birch Gold, you can convert your IRA or 401k into a tax sheltered gold IRA, protecting your savings with something tangible. And now is the time to do it.
This is why on July 6, Bricks Nation, Russia, China, India, Iran, and a growing list of others are expected to announce a strategy to sidestep the US dollar entirely. A direct hit to the dollar’s value and potentially your retirement savings. Those countries aren’t bluffing. They’ve already been ghosting the dollar and they’ve been buying gold like it’s 1971.
What do you do? Well, you keep calm. You diversify with gold from the Birch Gold Group. Gold has always been a safe haven during chaos. And right now, chaos is kind of having its moment. Again, convert your IRA or your 401k into a tax sheltered gold IRA. How do you do this? We will send you a free info kit.
Text Jaws at 989898. July 6 could mark a global financial shift. Get your free info kit. Text Jaws at 989898. Be informed. Be prepared. I’m doing it. These guys want a nuclear weapon one day to it isn’t going to happen. Not while Donald Trump is president. You’ve said this is not about regime change. But you are describing a regime that you have said for decades, I mean for upwards of 40 years has chanted death to America.
Has done all the things you just described. Isn’t a diplomatic deal with them a lifeline? Aren’t you offering to negotiate with the same people you’re saying did all these things? So therefore, are you actually looking for regime change? That misses the point. I I don’t like that they chant those things.
But one thing is that they chant those things. Another thing is that they chant those things and they have an terror proxies are all over the world and they have long range missiles that can reach the United States one day and they have the potential to be one step away from a nuclear weapon. Yeah.
Well, one day it could be tomorrow, could be a week from now, could be a month from now. You know, all it takes is the flip of a switch. By the way, they’re not going to broadcast that to the world. By the time we figure out that they’re doing it, you have all the pieces in place. Okay? It’s like a gun here and the ammunition.
It only takes one second. We have other targets that we could hit, but we achieved our objective. The primary targets we were interested in are the ones that were struck tonight in devastating fashion. The ones that were struck, I guess, yeah, tonight over there their time in devastating fashion, and we’ve achieved that objective.
The United States flew halfway around the world right into the heart of Iran over their most sensitive locations. These things got rocked and then we left. We were over the ocean before they figured out what had happened. And there are plenty of other target. We don’t want to do that. That’s not our preference.
We want peace deals with them and that’s up to them to decide. Could you imagine being married to this guy? How many times do I have to tell you after the washing machine is done spinning, you take those damp clothes and you put it into the dryer for 1 hour. Not 45 minutes. 45 minutes they’ll be damp. 1 hour with a bounce sheet. Thank you.
And by the way, it would help if you had a clue. Our objective here is very straightforward. They’re not going to have a nuclear weapon. They’re not even going to get close to a nuclear weapon. They’re not even going to be in the neighborhood of a nuclear weapon because these people are dangerous. This is a radical Shia clerics who run that country and and and they are the source of all instability in the region.
All of it without there is no Hamas. There is no Hezbollah. Well, because we don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon. But but but that’s the core objective. But I’m No, no, but I’m going through the things they’ve done because that’s why they can’t have a nuclear weapon. Okay. They sponsor Shia. I’m sorry.
They sponsor the Shia militias, Hamas, Hezbollah, all these other terrorist groups. These people are going are never going to get anywhere close to a nuclear weapon. Not long Donald Trump is president. For the Americans at home who are going, are we at war? You know, I’m trying to sus out some of the facts here.
So why would why would Iran agree to any peace deal if the United States has already pulled out of one that they had as President Trump did in 2018 and now launched two surprise attacks. Both Israel and the United States have done so. There is such a massive trust deficit there. How could you possibly The trust deficit started with Iran. I know.
Well, the trust deficit the ones that shouldn’t be trusted are the Iranians because they’re the ones that sponsor terrorism. Did they forewarn us before they blew up the embassy in Lebanon and killed over 200 American servicemen? Did they forewarn us before they built IEDs and blew the legs and arms off of American servicemen in Iraq? I mean, these are the people that are doing this forever.
They’re the ones that no one should trust. They’re the ones that have lied about their nuclear program. They’re the ones that have hidden things from the international organisms. But that sounds like we’re headed towards regime change or the desire to get these people out of the No. A serious foreign policy is one that’s focused on identifying what our national interest is.
You don’t have to like the regime. There are a lot of regimes around the world that we don’t like. Okay? But in this particular case, what we are focused on is not the changing of the regime. Okay? That’s up to the Iranian people if they want to do that, but that’s not what we’re focused on.
Our national interest is about one thing, and that is Iran not getting any anywhere near the capability to weaponize and and have nuclear weapons. They’re not going to get anywhere near that capability. The president has made that clear from day one. Our preference for solving that problem, that very specific problem, is through diplomacy. We’ve said that.
We’ve given it every opportunity. They played games. They tried delay tactics. They’re trying delay tactics now on the Europeans because of the snapback provisions. Talk about the JCPOA. That was a crazy deal. When did the president make this decision? Because he said he was giving two more weeks of diplomacy on Friday and on Friday these jets took off.
Well, the president retains the opportunity to pull out of this at any moment, including 10 minutes before, but the president ordered options. The pres look, the decision, in my view, was made when he wrote a letter to the Supreme Leader and he said, “Over the next 60 days, we want to do a deal with you and solve this problem of nuclear weaponization.
We want to do it peacefully. If after 60 days, we don’t see progress or it isn’t solved, we have other alternatives.” He made that very clear. I think what some people are struggling with here is that we today have a president who does what he says he’s going to do. And that’s what happened here. So good. So good, man. That guy’s on the ball.
It makes me feel better. Guys, stick around. I’m probably gonna make more today.
QQ4 Bob Dylan and Keith Richards have been close friends for nearly 40 years. The friendship began on a live television program in November of 1986 in the 11 seconds after Bob Dylan called Keith Richards music derivative on camera. Keith Richard’s response to that assessment, one sentence said without anger, without performance, with the specific directness of a man who has nothing to prove and knows it made Bob Dylan laugh.
Then made Bob Dylan go quiet. then made Bob Dylan say two words that people who know Bob Dylan say he almost never said to anyone. This is the story of those 11 seconds and the 40 years that followed them. The program was a live music interview special broadcast on an American network on the evening of November 3rd, 1986. The format was simple.
Two musicians, a host, an hour of conversation about music and the state of it. The producers had assembled the pairing of Bob Dylan and Keith Richards with the specific calculation of television producers who understand that two people with equally strong and potentially incompatible views about what music is and what it should do will produce better television than two people who agree about everything.
The calculation was correct, though not in the way the producers had anticipated. Bob Dylan was 45 years old in November of 1986. Bob Dylan had released Empire Burlesque the previous year and had been on the road for most of the intervening period as part of the True Confessions tour with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.
Bob Dylan was in November of 1986 in one of the most prolific and restless phases of a career that had consisted almost entirely of prolific and restless phases. A career that had moved through folk, rock, country, gospel, and back again, that had been declared finished at least six times by the music press, and at each time continued with the serene indifference of a river to the opinions of people standing on its banks.
Bob Dylan had been redefining what music could be. Since 1962, Bob Dylan had invented and reinvented himself so many times that reinvention had become his defining characteristic, not in the superficial sense of a performer changing costumes, but in the deeper sense of a musician who had never allowed his work to settle into a form that could be anticipated or categorized from the outside.
Bob Dylan understood influence and originality and the relationship between them better than almost anyone alive in 1986. Bob Dylan had spent 24 years thinking carefully and specifically about where music came from and where music was going and what it meant that those two things were always in constant conversation with each other.
Keith Richards was 42 years old in November of 1986. Keith Richards had been playing guitar professionally since 1962. Keith Richards had built a career on a foundation of American blues and rhythm and blues. A foundation that Keith Richards had studied with the systematic devotion of someone who understood that the tradition he was building on was not incidental to the music he was making, but essential to it.
that you could not understand what Keith Richards did without understanding where Keith Richards had come from and what Keith Richards had been listening to since he was a teenager in Dartford with American Import Records and a secondhand guitar and no teacher except the recordings themselves. Keith Richards had never pretended otherwise. Keith Richards had in fact spent considerable energy across his career making the lineage explicit, naming the artists, citing the recordings, insisting on the acknowledgement of influence that the mainstream music
industry had a long history of suppressing or ignoring or crediting to the wrong people. If anything, Keith Richards was more transparent about his sources than most musicians of his generation. Keith Richards had always said openly that the Rolling Stones came directly from the blues, that Muddy Waters and Robert Johnson and the specific tradition of the Mississippi Delta were not background influences, but foundational ones.
The music Keith Richards made was in direct and sustained conversation with that tradition, something Keith Richards considered not a limitation, but a responsibility and a form of respect. The interview had been running for 8 minutes when the host asked Bob Dylan about the current state of rock and roll.
Bob Dylan answered with the density and the indirection that characterized Bob Dylan’s responses to direct questions, turning the question over, approaching it from an unexpected angle, finding his way to what he actually thought through a series of observations that moved like a river rather than a road. Bob Dylan was not a straightforward interview subject.
Bob Dylan had been asked about rock and roll in hundreds of interviews across 24 years and had developed the habit of treating the question as an invitation to think out loud rather than a request for a prepared position. The producer Gerald Sherman said afterward that in the first 8 minutes of the interview, he had been slightly anxious, not because anything was going wrong, but because nothing was going anywhere in particular yet.
The interview had the feeling of two conversations happening simultaneously. Bob Dylan’s internal one and the external one visible to the cameras. And Gerald Sherman was not certain in those first eight minutes that the two conversations would converge into something. Bob Dylan talked about influence. Bob Dylan talked about originality.
Bob Dylan talked about the difference between music that absorbed a tradition and transformed it and music that absorbed a tradition and reproduced it. And then Bob Dylan made his assessment. And then Bob Dylan said with the precision of a man making a musical assessment rather than a personal judgment that the Rolling Stones work, and Bob Dylan was specific, naming Keith Richards as the guitarist whose approach he was discussing was derivative in a way that Bob Dylan found limiting.
Bob Dylan said it without hostility. Bob Dylan said it as a technical observation about the relationship between source material and the work that came from it. Bob Dylan said that Keith Richards played the blues the way the blues had already been played, rather than using the blues as a starting point for something that had not yet been played.
Keith Richards had been listening to this with the specific attention Keith Richards gave to things being said about music by people who knew music. Keith Richards did not interrupt. Keith Richards did not shift in his chair or display any of the visible signals of a person preparing a defensive response. Keith Richards listened to Bob Dylan’s complete observation all the way to its conclusion without interrupting and without displaying any visible signal of preparing a response.
Then Keith Richards said one sentence. The sentence was not a rebuttal. The sentence did not defend Keith Richards music or argue for its originality or challenge Bob Dylan’s characterization of what the blues meant in the context of rock and roll. The sentence was something else entirely, something that required a specific kind of confidence to say.
The confidence of a person who has spent long enough thinking about the same things as the person they are talking to that they can locate the exact point where their thinking diverges and say something useful about that point rather than simply defending their own position. The sentence acknowledged everything Bob Dylan had said, the assessment, the distinction Bob Dylan was drawing, the specific musical concern underlying the observation, and then turned it 90°.
Keith Richards took Bob Dylan’s own framework, the one Bob Dylan had used to analyze Keith Richards relationship to the blues tradition, and applied it back to Bob Dylan’s work with the same precision Bob Dylan had used to apply it to Keith Richards. Spare aimed. The sentence asked Bob Dylan something about Bob Dylan’s own music, about the relationship between Bob Dylan’s sources and Bob Dylan’s output that Bob Dylan had not been asked on television before.
The sentence did not attack. The sentence illuminated. Bob Dylan laughed. The laugh was not the polite laugh of someone responding to a joke. The laugh was the involuntary laugh of someone who has been genuinely surprised. The specific kind of surprise that a person of exceptional intelligence experiences when someone else’s intelligence exceeds their expectations.
Bob Dylan laughed for 4 seconds. Then Bob Dylan stopped laughing. Then Bob Dylan was quiet for 3 seconds in the way that Bob Dylan was quiet when Bob Dylan was thinking rather than performing thought. Then Bob Dylan said, “You’re right.” The producer in the booth, a man named Gerald Sherman, who had been working in television for 14 years, said afterward that in 14 years of live television production, he had never heard Bob Dylan say those two words in a public forum.
Gerald Sherman said he had worked with Bob Dylan on two previous occasions and had observed Bob Dylan in numerous other contexts and that you’re right was not a phrase that Bob Dylan deployed easily or often because Bob Dylan had spent 24 years being right about music in ways that other people eventually caught up with. And the experience of being right ahead of everyone else does not generally produce a man who says you’re right readily when someone else makes a point.
The host of the program, a journalist named Patricia Wells, who had been interviewing musicians for 12 years, said afterward that the 11 seconds between Bob Dylan’s assessment and Bob Dylan saying, “You’re right,” were the most extraordinary 11 seconds of television she had been present for. Patricia Wells said that what she witnessed in those 11 seconds was not a debate or a confrontation or a celebrity exchange of competing opinions.
Patricia Wells said what she witnessed was one musician recognizing another musician as an equal, which was in the specific context of Bob Dylan in 1986, not something that happened in public very often. The interview continued for another 42 minutes after those 11 seconds. The conversation between Bob Dylan and Keith Richards in the remaining 42 minutes was described by everyone who watched it as fundamentally different from the first 8 minutes.
The host, Patricia Wells, who had been conducting music interviews for 12 years and understood the difference between the performance of conversation and actual conversation, said that at approximately the 9-minute mark, something shifted in the studio. That the formal interview, architecture dissolved, and what replaced it was something less structured and more genuine.
Bob Dylan and Keith Richards talked about influence and originality and the blues and what it meant to build on a tradition without being consumed by it. They talked about specific recordings and specific musicians with the specificity of two people who had spent their entire adult lives thinking about these things and rarely found another person who had thought about them with equivalent care.
They talked about where music came from and where music was going and whether those two questions were actually one question or two. Patricia Wells said afterward that she had asked approximately four questions in the remaining 42 minutes because Bob Dylan and Keith Richards did not require questions. They required only a room and a camera and the shared understanding that what they were saying together was worth recording carefully.
She said it was the best interview she had ever conducted and that she had conducted the smallest part of it. After the program, Bob Dylan and Keith Richards were in the corridor outside the studio when the host Patricia Wells passed them. Patricia Wells said she did not stop because she did not want to interrupt.
She observed them for approximately 30 seconds from a distance. She said they were talking with the ease of people who had known each other for years rather than people who had met for the first time 2 hours earlier. She said that something had shifted between them during the broadcast that the broadcast had made permanent rather than temporary.
She continued down the corridor and did not look back. She said in her account of that evening that she had decided in that moment not to interrupt the conversation because some conversations are more valuable than any question a journalist might ask and that the conversation she had observed for 30 seconds in the corridor outside the studio was one of them.
She had been a music journalist for 12 years. She recognized the difference. Bob Dylan and Keith Richards have maintained their friendship across four decades. They have appeared together at various events, most significantly at the concert for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1995, where people who were present described them as inseparable for most of the evening, occupying the same corner of the backstage area and talking with the concentrated attention of people who only have a limited amount of time together and intend to use it
well. Bob Dylan has spoken about Keith Richards in interviews with the specific thoughtful care that Bob Dylan reserves for musicians whose work Bob Dylan considers genuinely important rather than merely culturally prominent. Keith Richards has spoken about Bob Dylan in similar terms with the specific respect of someone who recognizes in another person a commitment to music that goes deeper than career.
Neither Bob Dylan nor Keith Richards has made a public statement specifically about how the friendship began or about the November 1986 interview. Bob Dylan has not mentioned the 11 seconds. Keith Richards has not mentioned the sentence. The interview exists in the archive. The 11 seconds are there. The laugh is there. The two words are there.
What is also there for anyone who watches the interview from its beginning and pays attention to the shift that happens at the 9-minute mark is the specific moment when two people who thought they were appearing on a television program discovered they were actually talking to each other. What Keith Richards said in that one sentence has never been officially reported.
The people who were in the studio that evening, Gerald Sherman, Patricia Wells, the floor crew, the two camera operators, the makeup artist who was watching from the side of the set, have described the sentence in consistent terms. They have described its effect. They have described Bob Dylan’s laugh and Bob Dylan’s silence and Bob Dylan’s two words.
They have not repeated the sentence itself in the specific understanding that the sentence was said between two musicians on a television program and that its power resided in the specific context of that exchange and would not survive removal from it intact. What can be said is this. Keith Richards said something to Bob Dylan about Bob Dylan’s music that used Bob Dylan’s own observation about Keith Richards as its starting point and arrived somewhere that Bob Dylan had not anticipated.
Keith Richards turned Bob Dylan’s assessment 90° and showed Bob Dylan something about the music they had both spent their lives making that Bob Dylan recognized immediately as true. And Bob Dylan said, “You’re right.” Two words said by Bob Dylan in public on live television in 1986 to Keith Richards in response to a single sentence Keith Richards had said about music.
Two words that Gerald Sherman, who had worked with Bob Dylan on two previous occasions, said he had never heard Bob Dylan say in a public forum. Two words that Patricia Wells, who had been interviewing musicians for 12 years, said were the most significant two words she had heard in those 12 years. Not because of their content, but because of who said them and what it cost to say them and what it meant that Keith Richards had produced them in 11 seconds from a conversation that began with Bob Dylan calling Keith Richards’s music derivative. And Keith Richards and
Bob Dylan have been close friends for nearly 40 years. The sentence did its work in 11 seconds on the evening of November 3rd, 1986. The work has been ongoing ever since. If this story moved you, subscribe and leave a comment below. Have you ever said something to someone that turned a potential disagreement into an unexpected and lasting connection? Tell us about it in the comments below.
Share this with someone who needs to be reminded that the right sentence said at the right moment can completely change the entire direction of a relationship. Ring the notification bell for more untold stories about the extraordinary human beings behind music’s greatest legends.
Disclaimer : This content may be created by AI for entertainment purposes. Any resemblance to real persons, events, or places is coincidental.
