Close

Jimmy Sengenberger

Radio Host · Speaker · Commentator · Nonprofit President

Nationally-recognized Radio Talk Show Host Public Speaker Political Commentator Nonprofit President

Trump, Buddhism & Understanding the Left – Part 3 (of 3)

August 4, 2018 Seng Center Blog compassion, history, Political Correctness, US socialsim?

Airdate:  7/7/18

DR. MARVIN TREIGER

[THIRD HOUR]

(Prof. Margesson was delayed and unable 

to appear on air.  This show is a full 3 hours with 

Marv Treiger on these subjects & more.)

[Continuation into Hour 3]

Third Hour:
-Historical origins of democratic socialism (con’t).
-Is government-orchestrated compassion the effective path forward?
-Is the U.S. headed for socialism?
-Is ‘political correctness’ more central than you think?
(This is the culminating part of the interview and goes into the origins, history and function of political correctness, identity politics and related issues.)
Podcast:
http://jimmysengenberger.com/podcasts/2018/180707_MarvTreiger_JimmySengenbergerShow_HR3.mp3

JIMMY SENGENBERGER:   Saturday night is never alright for the third and final hour of “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” because, well, it means that we’re less than an hour away from the end of this edition of the program.  But never fear, we’ll be back, same time same place next Saturday night for more engaging intelligent talk, same style right here on NewTalk 710 KNUS… (308) 696-1971, our telephone number.  

Dr. Marv Treiger joins us once again here on the program.  Marv, I want to go back to where you were at, we were making some very poignant historical points about the roots of Democratic Socialism and I had to cut you off because as I learned you can never ask a seemingly simple question to Marv Teiger because there’s always so many different intricacies that you’re going to want to get into which we love about having you on this program.  So please continue.

DR. MARVIN TREIGER:   Great. Well, so as I said, Great Britain had kind of invented Democratic Socialism, or gradual Socialism rather than revolutionary Socialism.  And not surprising that it came from (the 1880’s) in Great Britain, which had a democratic tradition.  And Edward Bernstein had shown that there was a growing bubble in the middle of the economic sector, called the middle class.  And that was going to ultimately be the basis for this gradual transformation and the reason why it needed to be gradual, because there wasn’t going to be the polarization.

Okay, well, they formed the Labour Party and the Labour Party embodied these values but also with nationalization and everything else.  And in the aftermath of World War II they came to power and they instituted their program and they nationalized the railroads and the mines and transportation, all these things, it was pretty much across the board.  And the result was that Great Britain started to slip economically.  They were already in the course of losing their empire and they began to then have all these growing economic problems and a lusterless economy, a dullness in the whole atmosphere.  And then Margaret Thatcher came around and revived this entrepreneurial spirit – the spirit of competition, of excellence, of merit, of opportunity, and it turned it  around.  So that would be Great Britain’s experience.

Socialism also, in a gradual form, emerged in Germany at that moment too, except there it as led by the Prussian State and Bismarck. They introduced Social Insurance, for example, for health and a bunch of other things.  But it came with a strong aggressive nationalism that eventually plunged Europe into two world wars – the culmination of which, of course, within Germany before the defeat in the Second World War, was the rise of Nazism which was National Socialism and truly could be called a fascist government.  So, the thing about it is that we need to understand that the fascist governments are themselves Socialist – in all cases you will find that that’s the situation.

Okay, flash-forward to the present.  So now we have the Democratic Socialists of America and this young lady [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] espousing their views.  Well, these are a collection of platitudes.  She was not prepared to answer the question or, I suspect ~~ now, it could be she’s not all that familiar with these things but I doubt it because in general the radical Left doesn’t feel comfortable really espousing their true program.  It tends to slip out.  So, I don’t think we got their real program.  The real program and example of socialism in this moment that we can look at is Venezuela.  So, what happened in Venezuela?  Well, they wanted to go after the Big Oil people and the big entrepreneurs and the people connected to America, the imperialist cronies.  And they did all that and then redistributed the wealth and completely killed the economy until finally the whole country has been reduced to practically nothing.  Because when you redistribute, you kill the goose that lays the golden egg, that is to say the entrepreneurs and the spirit of entrepreneurship who then hire workers, who then produce and create and develop things, and all of that was destroyed by Socialism in Venezuela.

But the slogans that bring them to power are always these very utopian-type slogans, which we’re getting from this young woman.  That everyone should lead a dignified life, well, who shouldn’t ~~ we all want people to lead a dignified life.  However, government can’t make people lead a dignified life.  The main person in charge of leading a dignified life has to be you and that’s true whether you’re rich or poor – whatever your conditions and circumstances.  That is something that my parents taught me.  So the government is not in charge of guaranteeing you a dignified life, can’t happen.  No one homeless ~~ by the way I take little walks around my neighborhood around which there are certain homeless encampments, and one of the things that I’ve learned is that there’s a certain section of the homeless population that doesn’t want to live in any structures – they like being homeless.  Trouble is that —

SENGENBERGER:   This is true, this is actually really true. I know somebody who works monthly and has for years at a soup kitchen.  And I was talking with this person and they were telling me that about 60% of the men that they encounter at the soup kitchen that they help, they firmly believe, about 60% of the people that show up, actually have chosen this as their lifestyle.  That I found to be very striking.

TREIGER:   Yeah, yeah, it is.  Of course, the problem is that it impinges upon other people’s lifestyle because they do not take care of their situation.  San Francisco is in a crisis right now with bags of feces, a twenty-pound bag of feces was deposited on a market somewhere.  And a medical association that was planning to have their convention in San Francisco cancelled it on the grounds of health reasons.  Now this is Nancy Pelosi’s district.  So there are problems with the issue of the homeless and it’s a problem that is very difficult, intractable and will be with us in one form or another for a very, very long time.

So the whole idea that no one will be homeless, so [inaudible] that and nobody will be too poor to live.  Well, actually America is pretty much there right now.  I mean, everybody lives pretty much.  I mean, there’re 320 million people, you can always find an exception.  But, you know, the safety net really does catch people and there are immediate responses to serious health and medical dilemmas that come very, very rapidly – it’s astounding.  And it’s even extended – which is problematic because of the costs and because of all the other complications – to the illegals.  So her Socialism, as often is the case with Socialists, is that they put forth utopian promises and then the reality comes about.  Someone’s got to pay or it.  The government can’t really do things for you, ultimately.  It’s really the human being that has to —

SENGENBERGER:   I want to jump in here because I’m so fascinated as you’re explaining this and you’re explaining exactly why it’s so flawed.  What was the appeal for you throughout so much of your life to Marxism, to this idea that the government could provide a living for people?

TREIGER:   Well, you know, I thought it was compassionate.  And this was long before I was a Buddhist and learned what real compassion is.  What I was involved in was what I would call now ‘idiot  compassion.’  Okay, so when one is compassionate, basically one is able to stay present to the suffering of another – to be there.  Maybe there’s some way you can help, maybe there isn’t.  But you’re there and there’s a kind of intimacy in that.  You know, I spent a month with my best friend last year who passed away with esophageal cancer, and most of the time I was just with him, and that was a form of compassion.  But the idea that compassion ~~ but when you’re not really compassionate it splits into two things, either idiot compassion – you know the guy who goes to work, gets his first paycheck, he’s got a wife and three kids and on the way home he sees a homeless person, not noticing that this one had alcohol on his breath, and gives him his whole paycheck out of compassion.  That would be idiot compassion.  

But the other more dangerous form is the idea that because I want life to be better for you, then I have an agenda how it’s going to become better and I’m going to impose this agenda on you.  And since it’s such a big problem we need a big solution, so we’re going to have the whole government, the whole state, the whole administration, the whole society is going to make life better for you.  And that inevitably ends up in a totalitarian impulse.  So it was a dictatorial and totalitarian impulse in me that was very much connected with that form of compassion.  It was unconscious, it was well-meaning but it could only result in disaster, which it did.

SENGENBERGER:   Very interesting explanation.  I like that.  The two different type of compassion, really, is just how it all plays out.  And we see in how it plays out in terms of government-sponsored compassion, if you will – it doesn’t work, Marv.  It just doesn’t.  Like, it’s not just the theory is flawed but the practicality is fundamentally flawed. I mean, you look at the so-called War on Poverty, we still have about the same percentage of people in poverty today as we did back in 1968 just shortly before the War on Poverty began.

TREIGER:   Yeah, that’s right.  You know, in the African-American community, which I was very much involved with, particularly during the Civil Rights Movement, and have been very interested in this subject all along.  By the way, one of the reasons I was for Trump was because Trump was willing to make those attempts to go to Chicago where, you know, in that community where he was driven out by demonstrations, but he didn’t stop and then he went ahead.  And in Detroit he also did an economics council, which was close to those areas and everything else and put forward his ideas and programs for the benefit of the African-American people.  The benefit that would give them more opportunity not that would take away their need to seek and apply opportunity. And, in contrast, when I was in Ohio working with Romney and Josh Mandel, they wouldn’t even go into those neighborhoods, they’d written them off. Democrats —

SENGENBERGER:   Oh, that is such a great point.  President Trump, the reason why he won more than anything else arguably, with all the faults, is that he went where Republicans normally wouldn’t go.  More after this.

[Commercial Break]

SENGENBERGER:   Alright, sounds like Warren Haynes singing about Socialism there, “Where’s My Mule?”  Dr. Marv Treiger, former Marxist radical turned Conservative Trump supporter is our guest – retired psychotherapist, a Buddhist teacher.  

You know, I just, in having this conversation with you in the last segment about compassion and this idea of government-orchestrated compassion.  Do you think that we are at a point in American history where this idea of Democratic Socialism is starting to really take hold as embodied in Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders, or is it just fringe elements that aren’t going to be able to make real traction except pushing the rhetoric of the Democratic Party more to the Left?

TREIGER:   Well, you know, in a way I think it can go either way.  I think that it’s very likely ~~ I mean, remember, the socialist tendencies are rampant throughout the world and America is an extraordinary exception.  And part of its exceptional nature is that it understands the flaws of human nature because it learned them from great religious teachings and from the great reasoning of the Greeks and Romans.  So, you know, America, the Founding Fathers really get who we are and so it’s almost as if it’s in our DNA to be free and independent and self-creating, we’re uncomfortable, really, when we don’t do things ourselves primarily.

So, I think that the soil is not all that ripe for them, but on the other hand there is a movement around the world and I think that at some point it’s likely to officially congeal into the opposition party.  I think it will devolve into a fringe if things continue the way they’re going under Trump now with a second Trump victory in 2020, because America’s prosperity will be fantastic. I mean, when you just look at the statistics of the gains, that’s going to marginalize these people further.  You know, 601,000 people have reentered the labor market who were just not even in the labor market; 3.7 million jobs have been created, there’s been an increase of 2.7% on wages going on; and there’s a higher percent, I think it’s 3.8%, for people who move from one job to another job.  So while those aren’t that high as yet, I think an Economics Act Part II or #2, which the Trump Administration is planning, will also assist in that.  So I see a very rosy horizon, I see America as having come back.  I’m very optimistic about the future, and that will reduce them to a fringe.  But if there’s some, you know, major, major setback under those conditions they could grow into, officially becoming the opposition party, or a new party.  It’s possible.  Who knows how it’s going to go?

SENGENBERGER:   I don’t think that we’ll have a new party but it’d be very interesting to see how it certainly unfolds.  You know, when I think about where we are today, Dr. Marv Treiger, I think about the importance of keeping up the fight, that we cannot rest on our laurels and say, oh, President Trump is President of the United States and we’ve got another Supreme Court pick, so on and so forth.  It is absolutely integral in my view to keep going, keep fighting, keep speaking out very plainly.

TREIGER:   Well, you know, the Supreme Court, just to take that one institution, is 4-4 today.  So that’s how close we are to a fundamental transformation of America now {back to strict constructionism}. Right now I think we’re in a safe place and it’ll be 5-4, but who knows what’s going to happen?  I mean Scalia died suddenly, things can change very rapidly.  Who knows what’s going to happen.  Ruth – Supreme Court Justice – Ginsburg, has spoken admiringly of the South African Constitution and that we could learn from it and maybe change our own.  Of course her job is not to do that, it’s to interpret ours based upon its actual written word.  But I don’t know if she’s been paying attention – and most people haven’t.  It hasn’t been in the newspapers very much lately – but South Africa is now engaged in basically racial genocide against Whites.  Hundreds and thousands of people are being slaughtered in South Africa on a monthly basis.  So — (note: the numbers cited above are exaggerated and anecdotal.  Official numbers are much lower but understated.  The ANC {African National Congress} is presently refurbishing through amendment the legalization of land redistribution from {white} farmers.  We can expect that violence will increase.MT)

SENGENBERGER:   Wow.  That’s stunning.  That’s stunning, just think about that.  We’ll be back, more with Dr. Marv Treiger here on 710 KNUS.

[Commercial Break]

SENGENBERGER:   With the best bumper music known to man, it’s “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” here on NewsTalk 710 KNUS.  We’ve been talking with [our] extraordinary guest.  He is one of the greats at understanding and explaining the thinking of the Left.  Dr. Marv Treiger – retired psychotherapist, the Buddhist teacher – he joins us here on 710 KNUS.  

Marv, one of the big things that we’ve been seeing rise big time and that President Trump has been vocally competing against is this idea of political correctness.  I mean it is overwhelming what’s going on on college campuses across the country and the media – so on and so forth.  You have some thoughts on this, what are they?

TREIGER:   Well, you know, the modern version of political correctness begins with The Communist Manifesto.  And I would recommend your listeners pull it out and take a look at the last chapter.  Because in that chapter, Marx counterposes Scientific Socialism to Utopian Socialism.  And he makes the distinction that his version of Socialism is scientific, objective, that it conforms with the laws of history, that he has discovered and put forward in how history was going to move in a certain progressive direction that would necessarily result either in the complete triumph of Communism or the ruin of the contending classes.  

So, what did that do?  It gave a sort of imprimatur to the idea that the views that are put forward, that are in alignment with this historical movement are necessarily true and correct scientifically.  Well, if it’s a scientifically-established fact then there’s no need to tolerate other views.  Other views are just simply reactionary views generated from the class interests of dying classes.  So that’s the beginnings of political correctness, in a false use of science. And there’s a name for that, it’s called Scientism.  It’s an overreaching of the position of science to apply to things that really it’s only limited in its capacity to apply to.

Okay, so we have that.  Then, as we talked about in the previous hour, a moment came when the scientific laws that he had discovered were proving to be false and they weren’t turning out, such as the rise of a middle class instead of an impoverished proletariat.  And at that point, a certain number of revolutionary Marxists in Europe, knowns as the Frankfurt School – Herbert Marcuse was one of them, there were many others – and they put forward the idea that the working class is no longer the agent of revolution, that in agreement with Lenin, they had been bought off by imperial profits and had become a labor aristocracy supporting the imperialist countries.  So how was the revolution going to be conducted?  Well, said Marcuse and the others, he advocated The Great Refusal – or to change the word for a modern time, The Great Resistance.  And The Great Refusal was going to be an assault on the culture, on the values of the society.  And so how did you do that?  You did that by creating a whole set of notions that were assumed to be given.  That is to say, politically correct, and anything else that was beyond the bounds of that was political indecency, and so it had a moral element in it as well.

Okay, so that was one of the reasons why the academies and the students and the professors – many of whom became tenured in the aftermath of the radical rebellion in the 1960’s – were in a perfect position to teach and train this doctrine of political correctness and then to impose it.  And the mainstream media, of course, goes along with it pretending that their views are the views of all Americans when in fact they are not at all.  So that’s one piece of political correctness.  

The second piece, which is extremely important, was introduced by a Communist by the name of Antonio Gramsci in Italy, who had been imprisoned under Mussolini and wrote these things called The Prison Notebooks.  And in that, he put forth the idea that there wasn’t going to be a revolutionary insurrection.  Instead, what there’s going to be is a movement that will take over the strategic positions in the society.  So, what are those?  Well, the educational establishment, the entertainment establishment, the news and informational establishment, parts of the political establishment, the military – all of these sectors were going to be places that one kind of went into and converted until there was a sufficient number of them in favor of fundamental change that simple gravity of it all would lead to a crisis and they would prevail.  So that was a really important thing.  Now, that was translated in the United States into the notion of community organizing by Saul Alinsky and the development of different identities – in group identities – so if the working class wasn’t the revolution who was going to be?  Well, there’d be the women and there’d be the minorities, the African-Americans who’d once been slaves after all, there’d be the Hispanics, there would be the homeless, there would be… the list goes on.  And interestingly enough, the list necessarily keeps growing.  People, instead of having an individual identity begin to associate themselves with a group identity as victims, and in being victims they become subject and willing to overturn and revolutionize the society that they’re in.

So that kind of lays, I think, pretty much a foundation for it.  And I don’t know if you’re coming on a break, I wanted to speak about identity politics, which I will —

SENGENBERGER:   Well no —

TREIGER:   I wanted to ask you if you heard about Rob.  Have you heard anything from Rob?

SENGENBERGER:   Oh, he —

TREIGER:   Is he alright?

SENGENBERGER:   Yeah, he is.  Dr. Rob Margesson was originally supposed to be in studio and join into the conversation.  He is okay, he just had something that had come up that I won’t get into on air, but he’s fine.

TREIGER:   Oh, okay.  Okay, good.

SENGENBERGER:   So, thank you.  So Marv, we do have more time, actually —

TREIGER:   Oh, okay.

SENGENBERGER:   And in fact, I’ve got seven minutes until the break kicks in…  

TREIGER:   Alright, so —

SENGENBERGER:   So, in terms of identity, you’ve established kind of the history here.  Now we find ourselves where identity politics is the root of so much on the Left, what we’re seeing college campuses and elsewhere.

TREIGER:   Exactly.  Now, when I was in the Communist Party, the way a cell was organized was every person in the cell had what was called ‘mass work’ to do, which meant that they were all involved and integrated into some organization  Maybe it was a community organization; maybe it was the Feminist Movement; maybe it was a Civil Rights Organization; maybe it was the Democratic Party – which it was.  In California, it was the Americans for Democratic Action, which was the main focus.  And it was in entertainment.  So, for example, I ended up meeting with John Howard Lawson who would come to our cell meetings and he was one of the blacklisted writers during the Hollywood period.  So, and then there was, of course, the trade union representatives, and they were always the ones that were considered the highest level – that all of these things were to bring everyone into the working-class movement.  But gradually, the working class itself began to be abandoned by the Communist Party.  And that translated into the Democratic Party also abandoning the working-class – particularly the White working-class.  So, you have ~~ so, the seeds of identity politics came out of – within the Left that is – that is, the seeds of it on the Left – came out of it with this institutional structure of the Communist cell, which then had its operatives go off in all directions.  And then maybe one person in the cell just operated and spoke as a Communist and was just representing the Communist Party in some kind of a way.  But the rest of them were all doing this subterranean work and they would put forward the general position, general line, get people around it, move people into the streets and eventually gain power.

So as the identity politics began to abandon the working-class, there was a kind of a vacuum, and so one issue after another started to come up.  So then became a question, well, of rights of gays, then it became a question of transgenders, then it became a question of white privilege, and increasingly you had an enemy that was defined in direct opposition to the group that you defined yourself as.  So, white privilege is the enemy of the Rainbow Coalition, and it goes kind of on like that.  Well, the trouble with that for them is that ultimately – and this, by the way, always happens with Socialist movements, especially when they come into power – is that they begin to eat themselves. So, you can’t ~~ which victim group are you a part of, and is it more victim-y than the other group, and is the other group’s behavior actually contributing to your victimhood?  And so what goes on at Left-wing meetings is constant arguments, splits and factions based upon who’s the most oppressed and therefore who should be the greatest vanguard.  So that’s kind of my thumbnail sketch of the process.

SENGENBERGER:   Yeah, it’s some interesting insights you’ve shared.  I’ve got a couple of minutes here, then we’ve got to run to the break.  What do you make of the idea, the concept of White Privilege?

TREIGER:   Oh, I think it’s a horror, it’s a nightmare.  As I mentioned at the end of, just before the last break, you know, based upon racism and ‘whitehood’ people are now being annihilated in South Africa.  So that’s the extreme of it.  And what is starting to happen ~~ here’s the thing.  Why White Privilege?  Well, it happens to be the case that it was mostly Caucasian countries except, of course, for Japan in the Orient.  And the United States here – European countries and the United States.  It was mostly Caucasian countries that revived the teachings of the Renaissance and of Classic Greece and of Jerusalem.  And revived them and translated it into a Constitutional Republic that took human nature into account preventing any group from gaining too much power.  And since it was primarily white people that did that, the Socialists, who really are against all of those institutions and all of those values, go after people with white skin as if they’re privileged.  Rather than understanding that it was because of all those values that a society was created that benefited people and led to prosperity.  It wasn’t because these white people were oppressing everybody.  It was because it was in the very nature of, well, the marketplace and a free economy and free speech and all of the things we cherish so much.  So, I think that it’s, you know, it’s offensive.  

It’s so offensive, you know, the whole idea that because you’re white ~~  You know, I ran into this myself.  I was supposed to lead a Buddhist group in Nevada and they told me that, you know, they didn’t offer me a teaching spot.  I would go on the preacher’s circuit and three years went by and then finally they called me in.  And I wanted to know why, because I’ve never ~~ people loved what I was doing.  And I was told that it was because I was a white man.  They didn’t throw in old white man, which I am also, but anyway, white man.  And that they wanted more diversity in the future —

SENGENBERGER:   Hold on one moment with that.  We’re going to be right back, one more segment with you.  Always insightful, Dr. Marv Treiger, “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show.”

[Commercial Break]

SENGENBERGER:   Hey-hey-hey, it’s “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show”, wrappin’ up and winding down on this Saturday, July 7th edition of the program, more than halfway through the year.  

Dr. Marv Treiger has been our guest.  It was not expected we would have him solo throughout this show but he’s been a real sport.  

I want to go back to this discussion of white privilege.  You were just explaining that after a few years of expecting at some point to get a call for this program in Nevada, because you’re a Buddhist teacher, that you were told that you would not be welcome to do that because you are a white person – a white man, to be more specific.

TREIGER:   Yeah, that’s right.  I was told on the side by someone – I mean, it wasn’t an official position —

SENGENBERGER:   Oh, okay.

TREIGER:   — but then I did come in after a three-year lapse and I had a terrific response.  There were quite a few people there – I’m told more than the usual number – and it was a weekend and they all really loved it.  And people said, gee, we so wish you would come more often. And so, you know, we’ll see what happens.  But it’s a good example of – if I may say, you know, I mean if I pat myself on the back, I hope I don’t dislocate my arm here [chuckle] – and that is that excellence, you know, when it comes to teaching, needs to prevail over simply touching bases in group identity diversity.  That’s the main thing.  I’m not against the other, anyone else teaching.  But, anyway, so that was the case.  And I think it may have been, who knows – you know these things are subtle, they go on behind the scenes.  It might have been that, you know, they know that I’m a Trump supporter.  And the American Buddhism, which I was hoping to get into with Rob, won’t get a chance this time.  But I’ll just say this, that it came in on the trade winds from the Orient as part of the Counterculture.  And so therefore the people who were gravitating toward Buddhism were themselves already on the Liberal, Countercultural, Bohemian Left.  And so they became Buddhists, but sometimes you get the impression that their religion is Liberalism and Buddhism is an ornament on the tree.

SENGENBERGER:   [Chuckling]

TREIGER:   Now, at the same time, there’re countless, magnificent practitioners and teachers within the Buddhist tradition and some of them have these kinds of views.  I, myself, I don’t preach from the pulpit.  And I’ve made it a point of that.  I suppose in part, for survival reasons, since most of my students have tended toward Liberalism, although a few move over after a while.  But I received an email during the election, because I had a three-day workshop I was teaching right after the election. It was a Conservative student and he said, Marv, you’ve got to talk about the election, it’s on everyone’s mind, I mean, what kind of ~~ you’re just being abstract and not connected to what’s really going on in the world and, blah, blah, blah.  And then I got another email that said, Marv, if you say one word about the election, I’m going to walk out and demand all my money back [chuckling].  So I wrote them back an email, and what I said in the email was that, listen, I don’t really give a darn whether you’re a Liberal or you’re a Conservative.  When it comes to the teachings of Awakening, are you open to and willing to dismantle the reactive and emotional patterns that cause your suffering and the suffering of those around you?  If you’re interested in that, we can do business.

And so that’s my basic philosophy about teaching and about politics and preaching from the pulpit, for my situation.  Now, I know there are other people who preach from the pulpit and that’s ~~ I don’t necessarily have a problem with that but I don’t do it.

SENGENBERGER:   Alright.  Hey, you completed a thought before we got to the music!  It’s just triggering now, the music —

TREIGER:   Hahaha!

SENGENBERGER:   Marv Treiger, always great, my friend.  Thanks for filling in for two people as a guest this evening on the program.  We’ll have you and Rob back in a couple of months.

TREIGER:   Okey-dokey.  Take care, Jimmy.  Bye-bye, everybody.

SENGENBERGER:   Bye.  Thank you again, Dr. Marv Treiger, here on “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show.”  That’s it for us today.  Monday mornings 6:00 a.m., “Business for Breakfast” 1690 KDMT, do not miss it, I’ll be talking with you then.

[End of Tape]