 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Brookshow. Hey everybody, welcome to Iran Brookshow. It's Wednesday, April 19th. Hope everybody's having a good time. Yeah, I mean, I think the most important news story right now actually is the one we haven't heard the result of. I'm waiting. We'll talk about it tomorrow would be my guess. And that is what we need to hear from the Supreme Court about the ruling regarding the abortion pill. That's probably the biggest story right now, but we won't know much about it until, you know, we get word from, we get word from the court. So should you hear before midnight today, it's unlikely they just don't say anything and let the ruling of the appellate court stand. It is that is possible. But I expect I expect some word from the Supreme Court by, I don't know, by 5 p.m. East Coast time or something like that. Hard to tell exactly what's going on in the chambers of the various justices. We'll see it's a big it's a big decision. It'll send the groundwork for a bunch of litigation that's going to end up with Supreme Court anyway. But at least this will get get things going. All right. That's the news we don't have yet and hopefully we'll have soon. Let's see. Colin says great show last night really appreciate that Colin thank you. Hope the rest of you enjoyed that show if you haven't yet go listen to it. It's it was not it didn't have a huge number of people live or a huge number of people watching it last night so early morning. So if you haven't seen it yet, go go watch it. It's about it's about organized crime and drugs and drug legalization and the consequence of organized crime and drugs and everything. So I thought it was pretty good show Ryan. Thank you Catherine. Thank you. They all got started on our path on our path towards getting to $250 which is our goal for the news roundup shows. So thank you guys. All right. Let's see. Danny will get to your question in a little bit. Let's start with with kind of the news. I guess over the last weekend, large numbers of teenagers in, you know, in various areas in downtown Chicago, aggregated together hundreds of them outside in various junctions around Millenium Park but also in other areas in the downtown vicinity. There was a number of videos floating around YouTube and other places of some of these teenagers beating up on passes by not exactly clear what what the passes by did to deserve the beatings but well probably nothing. Nobody deserves a beating like we saw on these videos. But to invoke the beatings to generate the beatings but it does look like it was a pretty brutal weekend. Police are not much to be seen on these videos. Police were way outnumbered by these teenagers and it looks like police backed off. A lot of stores shut down and actually had to find different ways through back alleys and so on to get their customers out because the exits seem dangerous to go into these crowds of teenagers. This is Chicago. If you remember during 2020 Chicago was one of the worst cities. In Chicago, these the so-called demonstrations around Black Lives Matter turned very quickly into riots and and turned very quickly more so than I think in other cities into looting. So in Chicago, many people, many gangs turned turned the demonstrations into opportunities to loot, particularly to loot high end stores on the millionaires mile and Michigan Avenue Louis Vuitton and other stores like that were looted. People ran in, grabbed bags, grabbed other stuff and ran out. In Chicago, I remember the mayor defending the looting, basically calling it just a form of reparations. Yep, reparations, redistribution of wealth, a little bit of redistribution of wealth is not a bad thing. I've argued, not surprising, you know, Chicago had some of the worst riots in in Millennial Park, where passerbys again were beaten up, where police were beaten up. It was brutal. This is continuing. I don't think that the the teenager, you know, there was some event with police that sparked I think this teenager, you know, wasn't exactly a demonstration and it wasn't exactly a riot. It's hard to characterize it again. But this violent outburst and against, you know, law-abiding citizens in in the city, it's just brutal. And the fact that the police will do very little or nothing. Police are supposed to have the kind of equipment to deal with riots. If there are beatings going on, it is the police's responsibility and job to do something about that, including, I don't know, using tear gas, using whatever mechanisms they have in order to break up a riot. You can't just let ordinary people be beaten up by people just because they're teens or just because they're large numbers of them does not give you an excuse to do that. And if you don't have enough police, hire more police. But of course, this is Chicago. Chicago is super tolerant of riots, super tolerant of disruption. You know, you should, I don't necessarily recommend watching these videos. And some of the videos, the attribution is questionable. We're not exactly sure. But of course, the mayor of Chicago just elected a super left-wing mayor. Chicago is just a disaster zone. The mayor came out and said, well, of course, we're always against violence and we'll get property crime and we're against this stuff. He said, it's not constructive to demonize youth who have otherwise been starved of opportunity in their own communities. So basically, it's not their fault that they're beating up people and that they're robbing stores and that they're committing vandalism. Because, you know, they're starved of opportunities and this is just another form of redistribution, reparations. This is to compensate them, you know, beating once in a while makes them feel better, I guess, given how oppressed they are the rest of the time. He says, quote, our city must work together to create spaces for youth to gather safely and responsibly under adult guidance and supervision to ensure that every part of our city remains welcome for both residents and visitors. Good luck with with Chicago's recovery. If this is the attitude of Chicago leadership towards violent crime against people just going in and out of stores and visiting the city. I mean, who the hell wants to go and be a tourist in Chicago when they might be assaulted in, you know, close to Millennium Park, which is a tourist attraction. Many commentators expect that the coming weekend will see teenagers again. And it is it is just it certainly is unbelievable the extent to which Chicago voted, given the history of violence, given the amount of violence that's happening in Chicago, that Chicago voted for a soft and crime progressive instead of somebody who ran explicitly on and we don't know how good he would have been but on a on a tough and crime agenda and they rejected that. Laurie Lightfoot, you know, condemned what was going on. You know, she she said this was reckless disrespectful and unlawful behavior. As I've said before, we as a city cannot and will not allow any of our public spaces to become platform for criminal conduct. More importantly, parents and guardians must now must know where their children are and be responsible for their actions instilling the important values of respect for people and property must begin at home. Yeah, where was she when she was mayor? I guess she's still mayor. She's the city mayor. The turnover hasn't happened yet. But where was she? What happened to all that redistribution stuff? What happened to the to the soft hand of the police and the soft hand of the city authorities during the BLM riots that inflicted Chicago and the looting that happened during that time? Give me give me a give me a break. Why not deploy the National Guard given given that the police seem to be outmanned outnumbered. There are lots of things that can be done. Lots of things that can be done. But I know. All right. So Chicago is still a mess. It looks like India, the population of India just according to UN estimates at least just surpassed the population of China. So for the first time, India has more people in it than China has. I think this is a big deal. It represents both a decline of China. I think China is in real trouble. Demographically, it is not only a shrinking population. It's going to start shrinking, but it is an aging population, dramatically aging population. It is lacking. It's going to lack in the decades to come the vitality of a youthful country. This is on top of the increased authoritarianism, increased regulation, increased control of the economy, which is going to slow economic growth in spite of the fact that the Beijing government just announced 4.5% annual growth in the first quarter of this year. That's below what they had said as a target 5%. It's still high, 4.5%, but is it real given that these are numbers produced by Beijing and these are numbers primarily based on government investment in infrastructure. So I think the change in population numbers represents a shift. While India, in terms of size of economy and GBDP per capita, is still far behind China, it has the population growth to sustain economic growth. It also has a significantly younger population. What India needs in spades now is basically a liberated economy and get rid of all the regulations and controls and just obstacles that both federal and local governments in India put before businesses to allow them to expand and to allow them to grow and to allow them to create wealth. And then what India needs is significant capital investment. They need new capital to come in. They need US and European companies to set up shop there. And of course for that, they need to lower trade barriers. They need lower barriers on foreign investment. They need to liberalize the economy. India has this massive potential. They have a very large number of highly educated individuals. They have some of the best engineering schools in the world. They have a real potential to become an economic superpower, which they are squandering. They're squandering with their control and regulations and limitations on foreign capital and everything else. They're squandering by sticking to the caste system. While officially it doesn't exist, it still very much exists where people are categorized from whom they are born, not by their own ability. So India has massive potential and massive, all kinds of constraints, artificial constraints placed on it that restrict its ability to grow and raise its own standard of living. Indians are still relatively poor, even as compared to the Chinese. And again, huge upside, young population, growing population, they need the liberty, the freedom and the capital to turn that upside into something real, into real economic growth and real economic wealth. Let's see, one second. Let's see. So you remember, as part of the documents that came out during this latest leak, that, you know, Tarkov Kostin and many others, particularly in the right, made a big deal out of the fact that it looked like Ukraine was running out of ammunition for its Soviet-era air defense system. And this was a sign that Ukraine was losing and they came to this massive conclusion that Russia was winning, Ukraine was losing. And a lot of this coming out of one document that stated that Ukraine was running out of ammunition for its air defenses and therefore was vulnerable for Russia basically gaining air superiority, dominating the skies, taking over the skies and having a free reign in bombing Ukraine. Well, today it was reported that Ukraine has just received, on Ukrainian soil, two batteries of Patriot anti-aircraft missiles. These are batteries that were promised, one by the United States and the other by, I think, a couple of NATO countries. It had been promised months ago that the Ukrainian teams have been training on these systems over the last few weeks and months. They are finally fully trained. The training took only four months instead of a full year. The Ukrainians are highly motivated and fast learners and therefore these systems are now being deployed in Ukraine. The Patriot missile system is light years ahead of anything that the Ukrainians have had before this. It is significantly ahead of any of the Soviet-era systems. It is significantly ahead of systems that the Russians have. These Patriot missile systems basically are going to secure the skies for Ukraine. Ukraine is finished because it can defend itself from the sky. The sky rhetoric, as usual, was just propaganda and nonsense and with no consideration for the fact that the cavalry was coming. In the cavalry, in this case, are these two Patriot systems. These are super sophisticated missile systems. They launch a number of different types of missiles. They are super expensive and they take months to train people on and now they've been trained and they have been deployed. The systems, we'll see where the Ukrainians deploy them, but these missile systems should be able to protect Ukraine both from Russian airplanes. I don't think the Russians have anything that can stop themselves being shot down by these systems. They can also shoot down missiles. They can shoot down ballistic missiles. They can shoot down cruise missiles. This will provide enhanced security to Ukrainian cities, Ukrainian forces from air attack. There is also talk for the first time of Israel providing the Ukrainians with air defense systems that don't replace, not instead of the Patriots, but overlap with the Patriots that provide for different type of projectiles, different type of missiles shot into Ukraine. If Ukraine can deploy Israeli systems as well, it will have an unbelievably robust air defense system much better than most other countries have. Indeed, it will guarantee a denial of the airspace to the Russian air force, which is pretty striking, because you would think, again, as I've said many times, you think that the Russians would dominate the skies over Ukraine and that has not happened and now, with the Patriot systems deployed, certainly will not happen. More reason, more, I guess, validation of my argument that Taka Kossom was just plain lying the other day and so is Candace Owen and so are the rest of them who are arguing that the documents that were released showed Ukraine was going to lose an unbelievable buy-in to Russian propaganda, but that is today's, much of today's right is serving that purpose of being a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda. So, yes, a lot of speculation about next steps in Ukraine, a lot of speculation about this idea of a spring offensive. It would be interesting to see if that spring offensive becomes a reality and it would be interesting to see where the Ukrainians choose to launch that offensive. Remember, the Russians basically have been using in the last six months to beef up the defenses, to build defensive lines. So it's going to be interesting where the Ukrainians identify a weak spot and where they choose to try to puncture those defensive lines. It's going to be an interesting cat and mouse in the next few weeks. Russians trying to figure out where the Ukrainians are doing, the Ukrainians trying to pretend they're doing one thing while doing another thing. It'll be a strategic, you know, a really interesting strategic game going on on the ground in Ukraine. All this while Bakhmut continues to hold. Who knows for how long, still, but continues to hold a massive, I think, distraction for the Russians while Ukraine prepares for this offensive. Okay, let's see. We are way behind on the super chat, so I just wanted to let you know that. We still have over $200 to go for the $250. Again, you know, it's really important that we raise the $250 every show or at least most shows as an expression of support for this format. This is still running as an experiment and we need to see if this is viable. Otherwise, we'll have to switch to a different delivery format, a different program format. I think some of you value the new shows. Hopefully many of you do, but those of you who do, please consider supporting this using the super chat or as a multi-contribution, www.urunbrookshow.com. Patreon, those are probably the two best ones. It seems like fewer people are using Subscribestar, so Patreon or PayPal through www.urunbrookshow.com. Super chat is important. It's a significant way in which we fund the show. It has become a significant way in which we fund the show over the last couple of years, so please consider doing something. We've got about 60 people watching, so we need about $4 from each of you, maybe $5 from each of you to get to where we need to go. It would be great if you'd consider doing $4 to $5. Volta, thank you. Vladimir, thank you for using the sticker feature without asking a question. I only got two super chat questions, so the show today is likely to be pretty short. A news item out of the European Union, which I found particularly interesting and I think actually good news. The European Union is this conglomeration of many countries. I can't remember how many in this, 17, 18, maybe 18 countries. But one of the challenges has been that every one of those countries has a different legal system. Every one of those countries has different corporate law systems. Every one of those countries has a different tax system. So there's a lot of difficulty in terms of setting standards that are European-wide and that can make it easier for businesses to function, and maybe one of the most important of those, and a legitimate function of government, and therefore particularly important, regulation is not a legitimate function of government, and that is the patent system. So in the past, if you'd wanted a patent, a product, a drug or something in Europe, you would have to file 17 or 18 different applications in all the different countries. Lawrence says they are 27 members. I screwed up. Anyway, you'd have to file in 27 countries, you'd have to file different patent applications, which is a major hassle, a huge legal expense, and basically a pretty cumbersome. Lawrence says now it's 28, so it's changing by the minute. As of 2023, there are 28 members of the European Union. Anyway, over the last couple of weeks, it was announced that 17 countries, 17 EU countries, have agreed on a uniform system that will allow companies to apply for one patent only, and it would be covered in all 17 countries. This is massive. This includes, by the way, some of the largest, this will include the largest economies in Europe, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands. I don't think Spain is part of it, but Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands are part of it, so 17 countries are part of it. It will dramatically reduce the cost of filing for patents. It will dramatically lower the cost of doing business in Europe, particularly innovative business. It will increase the incentive to innovate and to invest in Europe, and this is a major step forward for European countries. It would be nice if this was actually agreed upon by 28 countries, but now that a standard has been set and an organization has been established to file this patent, I think it will be relatively easy for other governments to join this, as compared to just sitting aside from it. I'll note that this is particularly good for small to medium-sized businesses, again, for companies like startups, because they're the ones who don't have the money to file in 28 different jurisdictions. So now, instead of 17 jurisdictions, they can file in one. I don't think this is slight. I think this is significant, particularly given that this covers the largest economies and should bolster innovation, bolster investment in small to medium-sized enterprises in the Union. This is the kind of stuff the EU needs more of. It needs more standardization across the entire system. I am, for one, I know many people are not. I am, for one, a fan of the EU, not because of Brussels, not because of the regulatory state. It's awful, not because of the control from Brussels. It's awful, but because anytime you can create a union where there's free movements of good capital and labor, that is a massive step forward as compared to the alternative. I think Europe would be a lot poorer today, if not for the EU. And I think right now the UK is suffering from not being a part of the EU for a variety of different reasons. While the UK just signed a big trade agreement with the Pacific, that trade agreement that Donald Trump did not want us to sign and America is not part of. The UK is not a part of, TPP, I think it was called. It still has a lot less free trade today. The UK has a lot less free trade today than it did with the EU. And generally what the UK has done with its court independence from the European Union has been mostly very little and mostly wasteful. Anyway, TT IP, it's still early days post-Brexit. We'll see. So far the Conservative Party, which was the one pushing for Brexit, has done almost nothing positive with regard to Brexit and has done very little. And I think the UK is suffering already the consequence of it. Again, I'm not against Brexit. As I said at the time, I'm for Brexit if they do the right thing. So far they have not done the right thing. So far it has been a waste. All right, let's see. All right, that is it. We're still way behind on the super chat. Thank you, John. $20 really appreciate that. Thank you, Volta. But again, at this point, $3 from every person on the chat, on the listening live would get us over the top. A few Johns with $20 would get, you know, $9.20 questions would get us to where we need to be. And we'll provide some questions. We only have three questions to answer. So there's plenty of room for you guys to do super chats. OK, Danny from Hungry, I take it. The book Why Machines Will Never Rule the World makes a philosophical and technical argument about the limits of AI and the possibility of many of the claims being made. I'd love to see more about this or this discussed on objectives, forums. I mean, yeah, I mean, basically I agree with what the book is trying to say, although I'm not sure I agree with the argument that they're particularly making. I haven't read the book. I've just basically looked at a summary of what the book says. But I think that the whole idea of AI gaining what's called artificial general intelligence is ultimately impossible. I don't think artificial general intelligence or what human beings have. I don't think can be reduced to zeroes and ones in the sense of it cannot be reduced to mathematics. I think it has something to do with biology in a way that I don't think we yet understand. I think the only way you are going to create artificial intelligence is by using biology. That is by using cells and by using potentially brain cells or something like that or creating life, human beings creating life. I think it has to be sentient. It has to have consciousness to actually be intelligent in a way human beings are intelligent. There has to be consciousness. Consciousness as far as we can tell in the universe only is connected with living beings. Computers are not alive. They cannot be conscious. So again, I think in order to get to the point where artificial intelligence has the capabilities that some people are so afraid of, it's going to have to be, again, it's going to have to be biological and that's not in the cards anytime soon. So yes, I think that's absolutely right. Now, whether I mean this book, which is selling for $130 hardcover $42 paperback $37 in Kindle, why machines will never rule the world artificial intelligence without fear. I like the title Jobs Langreb and Barry Smith are the authors. You know, it's probably over my head, so I'm probably not going to buy it. It's probably too mathematical for me, but it is an interesting topic. It is a topic I think objectives have a lot to contribute to both in terms of the philosophy and the integration with the mathematics and the biology of it. So I encourage people to read. It strikes me just again reading about this that I agree with the conclusions. You know, they say there are two reasons for the claim that artificial general intelligence cannot be created. One is human intelligence is a capacity of a complex dynamic system, the human brain and central nervous system. I think that's right. I would add to that it's biological and it requires consciousness. And without life and consciousness, you cannot have artificial general intelligence. It's not mathematical. You can't model it mathematically. And then the second reason is systems of this sort cannot be modified mathematically in a way that allows them to operate inside a computer. Again, that makes sense to me. But I don't know that because I can't prove it. I wouldn't know where to even start thinking about how to prove something like that. So this is beyond my, what do you call it, my pay scale. But I do encourage people who are interested in this. I do encourage objectivists who are interested in philosophy of consciousness who are interested in math and science and interested in AI to look into this book and examine it. It does look like a fascinating, fascinating book. Pay grade. Thank you. Above my pay grade. John. John is also asked a question for $30. Thank you, John. So we're like, we've raised $100. We're $150 short. So again, just letting everybody know. How does nihilism play into both mob violence and mass shooting? Well, it's the, nihilism basically is an attitude of resentment, hatred of the world, of reality. And it leads to, at least the desire to see things destroyed. At least the desire to see things crushed and flattened. And it, it of course makes it possible. Nihilism generally creates this attitude of uncaring about human life. It's just basically attitude that human life is meaningless. Life is value less. There are no values. Life is not a value. And while one's attitude towards oneself is that reflects one's attitude towards oneself. It also reflects one's attitude towards other people. That is other people don't matter. Their life doesn't matter, beating them up, killing them, shooting them, whatever. It doesn't really matter in the, in the big scale of things. And therefore it is, it is fine to engage in those kind of activities. Now I don't think you can explain every phenomena by reference to nihilism. It's not clear that a bunch of teenagers out that maybe they're drinking. Maybe they're just upset. Maybe they're mad. Maybe somebody pushes somebody. Maybe because of that push, somebody punches somebody. Maybe a fight breaks out and they land up beating up on somebody. It's not clear that what motivated that is nihilism. It could be just the nasty human beings. It's just, it just, you know, there is such a thing as kind of a mob mentality, a second-handedness, a just follow-the-mob kind of you that is reflected in it. So I wouldn't, I wouldn't say that all more violence is nihilistic, even though sometimes it is, sometimes it's purely motivated by that. But a lot of the theft, a lot of the riots, a lot of the slamming is motivated by anger. It's motivated by a sense of entitlement. And it could be motivated by, again, somebody pushing you. Or angered police because of the way police shootings are often framed or justifiably at police because what police really have done or doing. There's a lot that goes into kind of the mob violence that we're seeing. Mass shootings, I think, are a little different to go literally into a place and kill people randomly, particularly, I don't know, at a school, young kids. It has to be motivated by a really deep hatred of life and mankind and human beings. And that's much more nihilistic at its core, at its roots, it's hard. Now, some of the mass shootings are not. Some of the mass shootings have to do with political motivations, hatred of Jews because they, you know, what was that synagogue in Pittsburgh with the guy shot up, shot Jews because they were responsible for bringing in migrants who were replacing white people. The great replacement theory, which Takako Kosen has promoted. So it's that, that's just hatred. That it's not necessarily nihilism, it's not necessarily hatred, but it's ideologically motivated. So some mass shootings are motivated by racism or motivated by some ideology that is driving the shooting. So not every act of extreme violence is motivated by nihilism, but certainly nihilism can drive extreme violence. All right, we're about halfway there, guys. Frank asks, is gun control an experiment of the left to establish a taboo resulting in contributing to a culture of fear and its mockery anarchy? No, I mean, I don't think so. I mean, gun control is prevalent in many countries around the world. You know, in most countries have some form of gun control. Most countries have a lot of countries, I don't know about most, I've never looked at the study, have really strict gun control rules. Certainly Europe has that. I don't think you can just own a rifle in China or in Japan or in South Korea. I don't think you can own an AR-15. So I don't think so. I think gun control is an attempt to rid society of violence. It might be a bad attempt. It might be an inefficient attempt. It might be an attempt that involves violating individual rights to the extent that you have a right to own a gun in order to defend yourself. But I don't think it's a malicious event to establish some kind of taboo and establish a culture of fear and mockery. I don't see it that way. So, you know, the fact that, you know, South Korea, Japan are unbelievably safe countries. I mean, much, much, much on orders of magnitude safer than America's, safer than the most gun-friendly place in America. Yeah, I'd rather live in a safe place like that than have, you know, it's not guns that make us safe. Culture makes us safe. Guns lead to shootouts. So culture makes us safe. And having a culture like in South Korea and Japan where you're completely safe and there's almost no violence is pretty cool. I mean, the cultures, they have other problems, but that is a pretty cool feature of those cultures. The fact is that America is more violent than Europe is, in spite of the fact that we have guns and they don't. We're much more violent than Europe. So, I don't view, you know, gun control as the most pressing, or anywhere near the most pressing problem that we have in America today. We have far, far bigger problems than gun control. Gun control, I think, is a relatively minor issue in the grand scale of things. South London, even South London, is a lot safer than many parts of the United States. You can look at the numbers. And London generally is a lot safer than a lot of cities in the United States. And a lot of cities where guns are allowed in the United States. So guns are not what make you safe. Culture, in fact, a police saying, but primarily culture, is what makes you safe. Guns do not keep you safe from extreme government overreach. By the time the extreme government overreach reaches you, you will be handing the government your gun voluntarily. That is, extreme government overreach is a consequence of the population wanting extreme government overreach. Extreme government overreach in a place like the United States is not going to come as a surprise. It's not going to come as some big action against you. It's slow and steady, and you keep voting for it. You keep voting for it. South London, knife crime is out of control, maybe, but just compare. Compare motor rates in South London with Chicago. And you tell me what's better. And there are plenty of guns in Chicago. Or compare it to St. Louis, or compare it even to some cities in Texas. Yeah, I know. I don't make any friends by not making a big deal out of gun control. I'll probably lose another bunch of subscribers. I think I lost a bunch of subscribers yesterday. Maybe it's over legalizing drugs. Maybe it's something I said during the news segment in the morning. Maybe I said something negative about Trump or DeSantis. By the way, DeSantis seems to be really floundering, really floundering. Yesterday he went to Washington, D.C. and schmoozed with congressmen. At the end of his visit, three congressmen came out and endorsed Trump. Nobody endorsed DeSantis. So I fear those of you think DeSantis is going to save the Republican Party that he is thoroughly squandering his opportunity. Did I criticize Trump yesterday? Maybe it's a criticizing Trump. I lost a bunch of subscribers a lot yesterday, surprisingly. Hunter Hunter says, I recently had to pay my state's annual business privilege tax. Could there be possibly a more ridiculous name for a tax? Probably not a business privilege tax. It's a privilege that the government has let you have a business. There was something in California that I thought was a real winner. The Equalization Board. California has an Equalization Board that is responsible for sales tax or something. But it's an Equalization Board. It's right out of Atlas Shrugged or unbelievable. They're there to equalize us all. Nicholas Navarro says, do you have an opinion on Steve Schwartzman as a business person, CEO of Blackstone? Look, Steve Schwartzman, certainly early in his career was a phenomenal business person. There's no way Blackstone could have reached the size and influence and success that it has reached without its management being phenomenal and truly incredible from a business perspective. At some point, when Stephen got to the point of great wealth and great success, he decided that he wanted to be beloved as well and he wanted to sign on to the latest coolest social justice ideas. I don't know when that happened, maybe 10 years ago. But by that point, Blackstone was already this amazing powerhouse. He started advocating for ESG and all kinds of other nonsensical policies. So the fact that he was a very successful, very good, very competent, very effective CEO, I guess did not prevent his ultimate corruption. And so I wouldn't judge somebody like Stephen Schwartzman just based on the last 10 years. I would also really consider his early career versus his more political career in the last decade or so. All right, let's see. All right, on our last super chat question, we're still about 130 short of our goal, which is a big hole. I know it's going to require $3 from everybody watching right now. So that's a big hole. So that's fine if we don't make our numbers today. We made them yesterday, but made them yesterday in the morning anyway. So let's take Frank's last question. So if anybody wants to pitch in to get us closer to the goal, that would be incredibly cool and incredibly wonderful. But if not, I completely understand. Frank says, countries worried about climate change may consider nuclear power, but some raise their concern about storing radioactive waste. What can be done? Well, a few things. One is France uses technology in its nuclear power plant that basically has almost no radioactive waste. The waste is minute and tiny. Second, you can find a deserted place in your country and dig a very, very deep hole. Nuclear waste is not large in size. It doesn't take up a lot of space. Dig a very, very big hole and stick it down there and overload it with a bunch of concrete and rock and whatever so that no radioactivity leaks. We have the technology to do this. That mountain in Nevada in the United States could have contained all the nuclear waste that the United States generates without any problem, without any leakage for tens of thousands of years. It would have not been an issue. This is all artificially created fear mongering. There is no technical problem of nuclear waste. Look again at what Scandinavian countries are doing. Scandinavia is the only part of Europe that is actively expanding their nuclear power facilities. I think Finland just opened a nuclear power plant last week. This is after 18 years being constructed way over budget and way over price, but at least it opened a nuclear power plant. That's an achievement. They have somehow solved this problem. I think every country can solve the problem. I think it's a lame excuse. It's not anything else. Germany went off nuke, which is tragic. I talked about that yesterday or the day before yesterday, which is tragic for Germany. It just means I'll have to burn more coal and I'll have to buy electricity from the French who are using nuclear power for it. All right, everybody, thanks for being here. Thanks for participating. Thank you to all the superchats. Thank you for the support. Thank you to all the superchatters for their support. Really appreciate it. And as I said, you can support the show on a monthly basis on Patreon or on you on bookshow.com. See you all tomorrow morning for another one of these shows. Another one of the new shows. And please let me know if this continues to be a value to all of you.