 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran Brook Show. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Brook Show on this, what is it? It's Thursday, July 27th. We're here for another roundup, news roundup. So thanks for joining me. I am traveling, as you can probably see from the video. This is in my home view. This is me on the road. Oh, I should put on the video. Yeah, that way you can see. There you go. Now you can see me. Let me keep track. Okay, we've got the chat going on over there. That's good. As usual, we are raising $250 as part of funding these shows, part of making these shows possible. All right, I'm in Aspen, Colorado. I think I've got a little bit of this altitude sickness or whatever. I don't feel quite right. It's not anything specific, but it's just weird. Hopefully I'll get you stirred by tomorrow. I'll be fine, but I'll be here for a few days. It is high up here in Aspen. I have to tell you, Aspen is beautiful. If you've never been to Aspen, it's gorgeous. It's a little town tucked into this valley, mountains on the sides, green, pretty, filled with a lot of people here. A lot of people come here for the summers. Very, very wealthy place. There's a lot of wealth out in the streets here, but it's quite a beautiful place. So I encourage you to join us. All right, so we've got people from Italy. Thank you, Milko, for joining us. And Silvanos, thank you, has started us off with some super chat. That's great. Let's see. Is everything working here the way it's supposed to be working? Yeah, I think so. All right, let's jump in with some of our stories that we are following. I mean, the big story, of course, I didn't have our news roundup yesterday, so I apologize for that. I was traveling all day, but yesterday there was a hearing where Hunter Biden was supposed to plead guilty under a plea bargain agreement to two counts of, I guess, tax fraud where he didn't pay taxes on income of a million and a million and a half in two different years, and roped into that was a weapons possession charge. And he was supposed to plead guilty to that, and there was some pretty minor payment of the taxes, penalties, and then some, I think, pretty minor other penalties. So Hunter goes in there with his lawyers and judge Mary Ellen Nureka, who was appointed by Donald Trump in 2017, I think, and supported by Senate Democrats, so it was a hugely partisan appointment. Anyway, and by the way, the attorney, the prosecutor, whose prosecuting is also a Trump appointee, so you've got a lot of Trump appointees here, that's what happens when you have a presidency. Anyway, the judge starts questioning Hunter about the plea deal, and he expresses the willingness to plead guilty under the plea deal, and then she starts questioning the lawyers about the nature of the deal, and soon it becomes evident that there's some disagreement between the lawyers about what the deal actually includes, whereas the defense thinks that the deal covers everything, that is that the prosecution is committed to not prosecuting Hunter Biden on any other charges, the prosecution is going, oh no, no, no, we're still investigating certain aspects of Hunter Biden's activities in particular. We are investigating what's called illegal foreign lobbying on behalf of violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and with the prosecuting that, and that's not off the table, that's not part of the plea deal. Anyway, they don't agree. So at that point, I think they all go out, and the lawyers all renegotiate, and they come back and say, okay, we agree that yes, the plea deal holds for these charges, but doesn't include the potential foreign lobbying charges. So then the judge continues the question, and she says, look, this drug deal, this gun deal, as part of this other, this tax issue, that doesn't seem completely right. It doesn't seem completely constitutional, and I'm not a lawyer, so I have no opinion about whether that's right or wrong. Anyway, she says, this is complicated, and you expect me to just sign off on this plea deal? No, I mean, I need to really think about this. I need to evaluate this. I need to really examine this. This is not straightforward or simple. And she says, I can't accept this plea deal today. I have to go and figure out what's going on. What actually happened is Biden pleaded not guilty for now, and the judge has asked both parties to file additional legal briefs defending the constitutionality of the plea deal, defending the different provisions, explaining how they understand the deal so that everybody is on the same page. They have 30 days to file these briefs. At that point, the judge is going to evaluate, think about it, and then I assume issue a written ruling about whether she accepts that the plea deal is legit or not. So all this is now completely thrown out into the land of confusion. Nobody knows exactly what's going on. Nobody knows what the outcome. I think the Bidens were hoping this would put this behind them. This has done the exact opposite. This has given Republicans more time to go dig more dirt on the Bidens, or at least if they can't dig the dirt, keep talking about it and keep talking about digging dirt and keep talking about their speculation about what's really going on. As you know, the Republicans are claiming that there were big payments made both by Ukrainian authorities and by Chinese authorities to both Hunter and Joe Biden. They have no proof of this. The recordings that supposedly proved this have disappeared. Nobody can find them. So it gives Republicans more time to keep on it, to keep Hunter Biden's name in the news. The Biden family cannot be happy with this at all. And it looks like Republicans will keep this. There are urgent things that this government needs to do. You know, entitlement reform, cut spending, maybe reform the way our defense budget is done, and make sure that the U.S. is ready for conflict with China if it comes. We're going to deregulate, get the government out of our lives, get us on a proper path for economic growth and prosperity in the future. But God forbid Republicans focus any time on any of those things. The agenda now is to go after the Bidens with hope of scoring political points. So be it. I mean, this is what's going to happen. You know, I've told you from the beginning, would I be shocked if the Bidens were getting massive payments? No. Would I be shocked if Hunter Biden got into business deals, boards of directors, other deals because he's the son of Joe Biden? Absolutely not. Hunter Biden strikes me as an incompetent moron who knows nothing, a drug addict, a womanizer, not exactly a person you want to put on your board of directors, unless you want access to the former vice president or the current vice president, a former vice president, a current president of the United States. But that's the way politics is done in the mixed economy. The only way to get rid of that, the only way to get rid of those kind of transactions is to get rid of the mixed economy, is to move us towards capitalism, get government out of the business of business. You know, we're not any way close to actually doing that. So this is where we are. Whether this goes political point or not, it doesn't matter. Republicans are going to push this. They don't actually want to deal with the actual problems that this country faces. They don't actually want to deal. And they certainly don't have solutions for the actual problems that this country faces, including the cronyism, including the corruption. They don't actually want to deal with the root cause of the corruption and the cronyism. So they will continue to do these kind of things and go after them. I wonder if they go after their own children who leverage their political parents, the connections of political parents. And should people suffer for this corruption? Absolutely, they should. But if you really took this seriously, if there's a real anti-corruption campaign in the United States, then it's likely that the Bidens and at least Jared Kushner and the former Treasury Secretary, I forget his name now, God, he used to be a Goldman Sachs guy. Anyway, the guy who was Treasury Secretary under Trump and the Pelosi's and pretty much everybody in our political class today, that was the same. Think about all the congressmen and senators who benefited from the fact over decades now that they are not prosecuted for insider trading and they can make money off of the laws that they pass and the impacts that they have on stocks. I mean, the amount of corruption is just unbelievable. And if you really were serious about it, then you'd be serious about it. This is not serious. This is just a political charade. It's a political charade to beat up on your political rivals. All right, fine. And again, if there was a real investigation, they'd be investigating a lot more than just Hunter Biden. They'd be investigating many, many more people, many, many more families who are in political positions in the United States. Well, Trump, surprisingly, had an interesting twist on what happened yesterday. So he wrote this on his truth network. I wonder why he's not using X, formerly known as Twitter. They've approved his account, but he still doesn't use it. Anyway, this is what he wrote. Weiss, who is the prosecutor of the Hunter Biden case, which Donald Trump appointed. Okay, this is Donald Trump. Weiss is a coward. A small version of Bill Barr. Bill Barr, Trump's secretary of the Justice Department, head of the Justice Department, and a Trump loyalist almost to the end, but cannot be forgiven for not playing along with Trump's fantasies about stolen elections. So Weiss is a coward. A smaller version of Bill Barr, who never had the courage to do what everyone knows, everyone knows should have been done. He gave out a traffic ticket instead of a death sentence. This is Weiss. So Donald Trump is saying Hunter Biden should have got a death sentence. He gave out a traffic ticket instead of a death sentence because of the two Democratic senators in Delaware. They got to choose or approve him and or approve him. Trump actually nominated him. Maybe the judge presiding will have the courage and intellect to break up the cesspool of crime. The collusion and corruption is beyond description. Two tiers of justice. This is from a former president, the first in American history, who is an indictment now in two different courts, a state court in New York and a federal court for crimes that he likely committed, is facing a third indictment over his trying to overturn the election in 2020, in his actions around January 6th, and then is facing a fourth indictment from a county in the state of Georgia for trying to overturn the elections in Georgia, trying to manipulate people in Georgia to try to throw the election his way. This is a former president who actually currently has his lawyers meeting with the special counsel in the Justice Department to try to convince the special counsel that Trump should not be indicted for violating of pretty severe laws that bear pretty severe punishment if he is found guilty. So this is a president who has four indictments. Two federal, two state, all criminal. All could involve time in jail. He is talking about a cesspool of corruption. He is talking about two justice systems for everybody. I mean, he would like to get away from all of these. He would like them all eliminated because he is above the law. So yeah, this is a political class. Left and right, it doesn't matter. They think they can get away with everything. Alright, so he is not literally saying Hunter Biden should get a death sentence, but he is saying Hunter Biden should get a very, very, very, very severe penalty versus the very light penalty equivalent to a traffic ticket that he did get. So he is literally, yes, everybody gets that he is not literally saying they should shoot him. But still, that's the language he is using. Donald Trump chose to use. Nami, that's his words. And think about that severity. Imagine if that was the prosecutor's attitude towards Donald Trump in all these cases. He would be sitting in jail for longer than the next term of the president. He would be sitting in jail maybe for much of the rest of his life if they took that attitude. But, you know, this is the kind of nonsense that he does. And of course, people by answer, people are convinced that all of the prosecution of Donald Trump is one big conspiracy against him. And the prosecution of Hunter Biden is a conspiracy because, you know, they are hiding the true extent of his crimes. And of course, one could argue, you know, that Republicans were likely to believe that Trump is a victim of the Justice Department and Hunter Biden is skating free because he is not being investigated. And it's probably that Hunter Biden is getting a much less penalty than a mortal human being, not part of the political class. But I also think that Trump expects the same behavior. And that Trump appears to be guilty on all counts, all of those counts. And he expects to just be get away with it and become president of the United States and pardon himself forever, I think. All right, anyway, so Trump's lawyers are meeting now. A third indictment of Donald Trump is expected any day now if the lawyers do not manage to convince the special counsel that he is innocent and does not deserve to be indicted. All right, fun stories, fun stories. Okay, here's one that is both inspiring and depressing. So two companies, two companies Waymo and Cruz, Waymo and Cruz have been testing out self-driving cars in San Francisco over the last, since really the end of 2021, when they got permission from the state of California to basically run tests with self-driving cars, basically no driver. I mean, there's a driver there, there's somebody sitting there, but he doesn't manifest control. And you can like Uber, you can order one of these driverless taxis to come and pick you up and drop you off. And these have been driving around San Francisco for a year and a half now. The results are pretty astounding. That is, the number of accidents as compared to what one would expect from a human driver, a fraction, they're down by, I have actually the stats here. Here's what it is. 53% fewer collisions, 92% fewer collisions in which the driver, in this case, the driverless vehicle was at fault, right? So you still had collisions because the other party was at fault, right? Somebody else drove into the car, but even there, you know, 92 less fewer collisions where the car involved, in this case, Cruz, was involved, was at fault. 73% fewer collisions with a meaningful risk of injury than the human performance benchmark, right? So these are astounding results. Basically, if we switch to driverless cars tomorrow, the number of fatalities, the number of injuries, the number of major accidents on the road would plummet. And of course, it wouldn't be perfect. There'd still be some accidents going on. The driverless cars would make, quote, mistakes, and there would be challenges, but we'd learn from those challenges and keep improving the cars. And in 10 years or now, we might have a car system where nobody drives, where the cars are all driving themselves, and where there are basically zero accidents on the road. That's what happened with flight. Originally, flight was quite dangerous. There were a lot of accidents. People died. And yet the last airplane to crash with fatalities in the United States, I mean, major airline, was 2001. 2001. That's over 20 years. We have not had a major fatality, a fatality causing crash in the United States in airlines. Now, how did they do that? They did it by learning, by taking risks by learning. And yes, they were accidents and they kept improving. They kept getting better and figured out what happened. There's accidents and today we have nothing. So you have a technology that is going to, the potential to dramatically reduce traffic jams because people drive more effectively. They dramatically reduce collisions because right now it only reduced collisions by 53% because all the other drivers on the street, on the road, are human. But it has the potential to reduce collisions by 90% tomorrow if all the cars are self-driving cars and 100% of collisions within a decade or two. Reduce, dramatically reduce collisions with any meaningful risk of injury. And at the same time, but at the same time, you know, because at the same time, there is massive opposition to these cars, primarily by people in San Francisco where these things were being run. You know, people are objecting because, you know, this rollout, which California is considering rolling these out, allowing driverless cars in California, which is stunning and amazing and wow, so exciting. And yet there's a number of reports saying that a Waymo vehicle killed a small dog. A week later, there was a Guardian report saying that one of Cruiser's vehicles obstructed emergency crew responding to a mass shooting. Last week, there was a Twitter posted a video of a near-death experience at the hand of a driverless car after Waymo ran a yellow-red light and nearly jackknifed another car. And all these stories are rolling out and people are panicking and people are hysterical and people are worried what's going to happen, you know, people are going to die. And it turns out in every one of those cases, you know, people either lying or significantly misrepresenting the truth, with the little dog, the dog just ran out into the street with no leash. Behind a parked car, no human beings could have stopped at and he got run over. I mean, dogs are going to get run over. Don't allow your dog to be unleashed in a next-door street. You know, what were the other cases? It turned out that the obstruction of an emergency crew just never happened. The Waymo car that had noticed that there was an emergency, there was a mass shooting in San Francisco gang-related, it turned out that the car noticed that the emergency vehicles were en route. It did a U-turn parked on the other side of the road to get out of the way of the emergency vehicles. Indeed, emergency crews were interviewed later and testified that that's exactly what the car did and it actually helped them. It's not clear, human beings would have been that fast and responded that well. And the jackknife thing was the car not running a yellow-red light, but there were cars in front of it that were backed up into the intersection. It had realized that it couldn't go through, so it stopped before the pedestrian things, letting pedestrians pass. And yes, as a consequence, it was sticking into traffic behind. But that's pretty good. Anyway, a lot of this is driven by just fear of technology. But a lot of this is driven by drivers, by taxi drivers, by Uber drivers, by people who are afraid of losing their jobs. There's panic and fear of a new technology, but the data is unambiguous that autonomous vehicles are safer than human drivers by several factors and significant life-saving savers. And yet, there is a big battle, big battle in all of California over this. You know, the good thing about California is that there are a lot of smart risk-taking people there, the industry is there, and the industry is pushing to have this approved. But there are also a lot of these anti-technology forces. It's going to be interesting to see who wins organized labor is in lockstep opposition to the autonomous vehicle rollout. This is going to hurt, again, different unions that relate to driving. The fire department is against it. You know, in the fire, the firefighters' union is against it, the taxi workers' alliance is against it, the teamsters are against it. And you can just imagine all these forces against progress, all these leadite forces against this massive innovation. And here is a positive use of AI. Let's see. The Wall Street Journal has an article that's about the economy. You know, for years now, certainly since COVID, but even before COVID, there were a lot of complaints about the fact that working age, prime working age young, particularly men, were not joining the workforce. They were sitting in their mother's basement playing video games. They were living off of welfare. They were using their checks that they got from COVID not to go to work. And labor force participation for the 25 to 54-year-olds, prime years, I consider prime years, was way below historical levels. That has rapidly changed over the last year. The share of people between 25 and 54 working or seeking jobs is at the highest level since 2002. So much higher than in 2019, before the pandemic, much higher than 2007, before the great financial crisis. This goes back to 2002, before you see so many people participating. This effect is an overall effect, but it's primarily shown among women. You know, rates of labor force participation among women in their prime peaked in the late 1990s and then declined into the mid-2000s and then increased to 2019 and then crashed again. And in 2019, we're again at kind of historical highs. Right now, female participation, women participating in the workforce between the ages 24 and 54 is at the highest level it's ever been. 77.8% of women in the prime years are participating. With men, men have been under decline since the 1970s. So 1970, 96% of all men in those ages were working. That has seen just a steady systematic decline throughout the years. It kind of stabilized during the mid to late 20s and then dropped dramatically during COVID. And it's now back to 2019 levels of about 89%. But just think about, we've gone from 96% to 89%. So there's 7% that have just gone. So what's interesting here is that primarily women are going into the workforce. They're going into the workforce at these ages. And it's pretty stunning though how low workforce participation of young people is in the United States among men. Among women, it's pretty high. But even there, the 78% is still lower than most Western countries, lower than even in Japan, UK, France, Canada, all have higher labor force participation among women in those age groups. But yes, people are going back to work, which is a good thing and a positive thing. We need to get more men. We need to get men back up to 90 plus percent. It's sad that they are 10% of the male population in those ages that's not working. It means they're living off somebody. Not sure whom. Maybe their wives. Maybe the women in their lives who've gone back to work. Finally, I told you that the Israeli parliament passed a law that restricts the power of the Supreme Court to overturn decisions made by the government and decisions made by parliament. Certain elements within Israeli society have sued and asked the Supreme Court to take a look at this law and rule this law as, you can't say unconstitutional, but can the Supreme Court overrule the law, restricts the ability of the Supreme Court to overrule laws? There's a constitutional conundrum for you. It's not clear, and since there is no constitution in Israel, it's not clear about what standard you even decide this. The Supreme Court will basically decide whether they want to have a big confrontation with the government by overturning what parliament has decided, or will the Supreme Court decide to give this one to the government in hope that they, I don't know, go after them less in the future. I don't know. This is unprecedented kind of situation in a free country to have this kind of situation where the Supreme Court has to rule about a law that defines what the Supreme Court cannot, cannot do. I don't know how this is going to end, but this is just exacerbating the phenomenon right now where the basic laws under which Israel has been governed for a very long time are now being questioned and there's real upheaval around them. What are the right laws and what are the wrong laws? This is very, very controversial within Israel, and whatever the Supreme Court rules, it's going to create upheaval within the state of Israel. It's real tragedy that this is what Israel is dealing with right now. At a time when the Israeli economy was humming along, quality of life, standard of living was improving, a new government could have actually focused on reducing the cost of living. Tel Aviv is the most expensive city in the world. They could have done a lot to reduce the cost of living by deregulating, by freeing up more land for building, by doing things like that to improve the quality and standard of living of Israelis. They could have deregulated those segment of the Israeli economy that are heavily regulated and thus created competition to reduce prices there as well. They could have focused on actually making Israel much, much richer than it is and maybe one day dealing with some of these contentious cultural issues where there's no solution because it's 50-50 in Israeli society. Actually, it appears that it's 70-30 against these changes, but since the 30% has political power, they're going to pass them anyway. So a real mess in Israel, we'll see how it all gets kind of cleared out and handled. Alright, let's see. Yeah, Cook says Israeli politicians should read up about the Federalist Papers and draft the Constitution. They can't. The Israeli politicians, the Israeli political system cannot overcome the issue of a separation of state from religion. This is why there wasn't a constitution when Israel was founded. It's why there's no constitution today. There's just not enough agreement among the people to establish a constitution that actually protects your rights. And at the end of the day, a constitution has to be based on, at least to some extent, the consent of the governed. And no constitution you could write today would achieve the consent of the governed among Israelis. Israel is truly split on all the major constitutional issues. But the fundamental split is religion versus state. There's all the religion in the state. Alright, let's take a look. Wes, thank you for $50. That's great. Antonio, thank you. Steven, thank you. Fred Harper, Catherine Silvanos, thank you to all of you for participating in the Super Chat. We're still like $170 short, and I've only got two very, very quick questions. So this show is going to be over in four minutes unless we get more questions. And it would be great if those questions were $20 questions. And of course, we don't have to do questions in order to get our target. We've got 80 people watching right now. So, you know, two, three bucks from each person as a sticker would get us our target as well. Cook, thank you. So please consider supporting the show value for value you're listening. You must get something from it. Know the value you get by doing a sticker. Just that Super Chat button, that little button at the bottom that has dollars on it. You can do it on your phone. You can do it on the computer. And make a small or large contribution to sustaining the Iran Book Show, in particular with regard to these news roundups. Okay, again, two very, very short questions. Michael, what holes in the enlightenment did Ayn Rand plug? I mean, she plugs many holes in the enlightenment. She basically frees all of the enlightenment thinking completely from religion. I mean, they try to do it kind of natural rights, but it all kind of dependent on an intrinsicist, God-given kind of reality world. And so she basically plugs that big, massive hole, if you will, by grounding all the principles of the enlightenment, reason, pursuit of happiness, individual rights, political freedom, in a foundation that was secular, in a foundation that did not acquire a God. So that's one big one. She also then actually has a theory regarding the efficaciousness of reason that they didn't have in the enlightenment. They got it at a sense that freedom was, the reason was efficacious. And they try to come up with explanations, but explanations were filled with holes. And part of that is because they viewed, they were intrinsicists and rationalists, and they didn't have the conception concept, a proper concept of objectivity, of the role of human consciousness, in identifying truth. Truth just implanted itself on you, that's kind of intrinsicism. And so she brings objectivity to an understanding of reason, but she also brings the whole theory of concept formation, which is at the heart of how reason actually functions, how do we form abstractions, how do we then deal with abstractions, and what is the legitimate way in which we prove abstract knowledge, through reduction to reality. So all of that in epistemology, she makes these massive breakthroughs that ground this idea of the efficacy of reason, and reason as man's basic means of survival in science, in real philosophical knowledge. Then of course in ethics, she bridges the art gap, she solves the art problem, that there is an art, that you can't have moral principles derived from reality, from the nature of man and the nature of the world. I mean that's huge, now you can have a whole moral code built on the idea of the pursuit of happiness, built on the idea of independence, and built on the idea of human rationality. And an egoistic morality that is built on the nature, on the factual reality. And then finally, so that's of course in morality, and she has a whole moral code, which they don't. The enlightenment still relies much on altruism. And then ultimately, in politics she grounds individual rights in a morality of egoism, in a morality of self-interest, and in the need of human beings, all human beings, to use their reason in order to survive and to thrive, and therefore individual rights are the mechanism, the moral-political mechanism by which we secure the freedom of people to think and act based on their own thoughts. But you can only understand that fully by understanding the world of reason, and the fact that reason cannot function under force. And that's all I ran, that's all I ran's contribution. There's elements of that in the enlightenment, but the integration, the massive integration from epistemology to ethics to individual rights, that's I ran. And then of course, when it comes to capitalism, she is much more, to political freedom, she's much more consistent than the founding fathers, so she rejects the idea that governments should be involved in education or in any, she understands, because of the importance of individual rights, she understands that a free society is a society in which government only protects individual rights. That's its function. It doesn't have any other functions. To the extent that it does these other things, they are illegitimate functions of government, and therefore they should be scrapped, and she has a complete separation of state from economics, from state from education state, from science by implication and so on, which I don't think the founders had completely. So all of those are ways in which she plugs the holes, and much, much more. Because each one of those requires a whole philosophical argument. All right, we're still about $145 short. Thank you, Shelly, really appreciate it. Thank you, Steven. Thank you, Jennifer. We need like three people. Whoops, I guess my camera just disappeared on me. Why is that? Why is it not charging? Once again, I'll be right back. Let me just figure out, this has happened before, right? It didn't charge properly. All right. We'll see if that works. We're close to the end anyway. Last question by Justin is, Peacuff liked Ann Coulter, but you hate her. Why? Well, again, I'm not going to comment on Peacuff, on Leonard Peacuff's views and why we disagree. It's not fair for me to comment on it when Peacuff can't respond and he can't comment from his perspective. It just doesn't make any sense for you to be asking these questions when he can't respond. I mean, I'm not going to be... I don't want to put myself in a position of explaining why Leonard Peacuff holds view XYZ, you know, where we disagree. So I don't think these questions are fair to him or to me. And I really ask that you stop asking them. It's as if people are trying to get me to say something because I know this will happen. I'll say something Leonard Peacuff thinks XYZ. And then you guys will, some of you will immediately send Leonard Peacuff an email and I've seen this happen. You're on book said that you hold this and this and this and this and this. And you might report it accurately. You might report it inaccurately. But it'll just piss him off and then I'll have to go and explain to him what I actually said in the context for it. And this happens constantly. So why should I put myself in that position? Why should I put Leonard in that position? It's not fair to either one of us. And I don't understand why you're asking these questions. I mean, ask me what my opinion about Ann Coulter is. And unfortunately you're not in a position and probably never will be to ask Leonard those questions. That's just the reality. But to have me interpret is bizarre. You figure it out. Think about it. I mean, we disagree about immigration. And I have found Ann Coulter's work on immigration in particular to be filled with misrepresentations, holes, and distortions and evasions. Leonard obviously disagrees. So you guys will have to deal with that. Leonard deals with it. I deal with it. You guys have to deal with it if that bothers you. But stop asking me questions about why does Leonard pick up think X? Why does Leonard pick up vote this way? Why does Leonard pick up do it? He does what he thinks is right. And to the extent that he's in a position to answer your questions, he will. And to the extent that he won't, it'll stay a mystery for you forever. And I'll do what I do and I'll explain what I do because that I can explain. And I don't know how much Peacock likes Ann Coulter. You're saying that. I don't even know if that's true. I don't know how much he likes it. I don't know when he said that. So, all right. Cool. If anybody wants to contribute something, Mark, thank you. If anybody wants to contribute something, you get as close to the goal before we wrap up, which is basically now. That would be terrific. Let's see what else do I want to do here? We're good there. We thought about 80 people listening. So it wouldn't take much to get us to where we need to be. Yeah. Ken even says, maybe like is a bit of a strong term for Peacock's view of Ann Coulter. But I don't know. I don't know what the context is. And again, drop this. This objective has said that. What do you think? Ask them. Ask them what they said. I'll comment on my views. All right. Thanks, everybody. Thanks to all the superchatters. Really appreciate it. I'm not sure when I'll be back. I'll try to do another show tomorrow. Well, I'll try to do some longer shows over the weekend. We will see. We do have to pick it up in terms of the superchat in order to make our July goals. But we've still got a few days in order to achieve that over the next, well, we've got four days. Okay. We've got one quick question from Frederick. Guys don't bother the Canadian American hero with this stuff. He shows always Iran. Canadian American hero. Don't bother. Oh, in terms of Leonard. Yes, don't bother Leonard with this stuff. He's 89. He's going to be 90 very soon. Let him focus on enjoying life rather than on Iran said X. Shouldn't you come out and condemn Iran? Which is what many of you want him to do. I know. You're motivated to do that. But it's just not helpful. Not for anything. Not for anything. Thank you, Frederick. I appreciate the support both in the comment and in the dollar sign. Basically, we're halfway. So, you know, we'll call it a day. Thank you guys. I will see you all probably tomorrow. If not, then certainly on Saturday. Bye, everybody.