 Why is this not working? All right, everybody, welcome to your Unbrook show. Sorry, I'm not sure what's going on with the music. Can you guys hear me? Hopefully you can hear me. Hopefully sound is working okay. Not sure what happened with the opening music. For some reason it is not working. All right, just give me a thumbs up that's all good. Great, I'm told that sound great, that's good. Let me just do this. So yep, everything's good. All right, today we're gonna jump into the news here. Don't forget, you can ask questions. You can use the super chat feature to ask me questions and steer the conversation in the direction you would like it to go or ask questions about items going on in the news or philosophy or anything else that you find of interest. So just jump on and let me know if you have any questions that way you can support the show. Remember value for value. All right, let me just do something here. Sorry, just trying to get this done. We can do that. We can do this and we can delete them both. Let's jump in, first item, interest rates. The 10 year interest rate, the 10 year, the interest rate on the 10 year Treasury security, Treasury bond, this is a key interest rate. A lot of mortgages are linked to this, a lot of loans are linked to this and the 10 year is a reflection of kind of long-term, kind of the long-term prospects for interest rates pushing out into the future. The 10 year interest rate just hit a 16 year high. It hasn't been this high in 16 years of 4.5%. Now, 4.5% historically if we go to 16 years ago and before that is not that high. But the reality is that a 4.5%, this is the interest rate that if the government wants to issue new debt and the government has to issue new debt because the government is running massive deficits, this is the interest rates they're gonna have to pay on that debt. And this is a reflection of the idea that interest rates, a reflection of idea that, you know, that what this is representing, if you will, and what the Fed is basically confirming is that interest rates, which are high right now relative to the last 16 years, the short-term rates, the Fed funds rates, the rates that banks lend money from the Fed, the banks lend money from each other, the interest rates that the Federal Reserve controls, the interest rates that the Fed pays the banks on reserves, those interest rates are all high and the Fed has been indicating that they are going to stay high, which is what this new record in the 10-year treasury indicates. Whereas in the past, people thought, oh, the Fed's gonna increase interest rates and then there'll be a recession or something and then they'll have to drop interest rates, reduce interest rates dramatically and long-term interest rates are gonna go back to being zero. What we're seeing right now is a clear indication both in the marketplace and from what the Federal Reserve is saying that the expectation for zero interest rates or the expectation for one, two percent interest rates in the future is a false expectation or at least an expectation that the Federal Reserve and the market now does not share. And that is gonna cause people to have to change their attitude towards investment, towards the way they think about projects and it's also gonna change our attitude towards the status of the Federal budget. We'll get to that in a second. So first, why does it affect the way we invest our money or more importantly, the way businesses invest in new projects? Well, when you invest in a new project, you think about the cash flows that you're gonna get in the future, you discount those cash flows to the present and if the sum of that, the sum of the profits of the project adjusted for interest rates, adjusted for the time value of money exceeds the cost of the project, then it makes sense to go ahead and do the project. The higher interest rates given particular cash flows, the lower the income, the lower the profitability in a present value sense is going to be, fewer projects are going to be invested in, fewer projects make sense. Indeed, projects we invested a year or two ago when interest rates were really, really low might not make sense. The same project might not make any sense anymore once interest rates have gone up and now kind of the threshold to make a profit is much higher given the cost of debt that we have to pay. So I expect we're still gonna feel quite a bit of economic pain as a consequence of higher interest rates. It is still gonna be true that as we move into the next few months, the next few years, they're gonna be projects, companies, investments that make sense at one or two percent. But don't make sense at four, five, six percent. Jamie Diamond today, oh, yesterday in an interview hinted that he doesn't think anybody's really ready if interest rates go to seven percent. And I think he's right. And I think the dislocation, the restructuring, the number of bankruptcies, the number of firms that will have to completely restructure themselves is going to be dramatic as interest rates continue to increase here. There was a point in which interest rates seem to pause and weren't increasing any further, which bewildered me. And I think what was happening was the market was again expecting this quick recession and then reducing interest rates quickly back to the old days of one or two percent. The markets realize that's probably not gonna happen. And this is just if 4.531 is what it hit today, this could just be the beginning. And that means we have to revalue. I've told you before, as interest rates go up, the value of assets go down, all assets, all income producing assets, the value goes down. That means commercial real estate, that means industrial plants, that means any investment, that means stocks, that means bonds, that means everything comes down. As interest rates go up, asset values come down. Interest rates of 4.531, maybe that's already been priced. I don't think interest rates at five and above is being priced. So we're in for some harsh economic times in our future and it doesn't matter at that point who the president is. There's very little a president could do at this point except what no president will do, which is a dramatic cut in spending because this is the other aspect of this. As interest rates go up, the government has to spend more and more and more on interest payments on the debt. That in and of itself creates greater and greater and greater deficits. It's a kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. More and more and more deficits cause interest rates or causally when assumes linked to higher interest rates but higher interest rates make the deficits go up because the government is spending more and more on interest payments. And this is a spiral that can be devastating. I mean, we're getting to the point where it could be that 50% of discretionary spending is going to be spent on interest payments. It could very well be that within a few years, 100% of all discretionary spending, all spending that Congress controls, all of it is spent on interest payments. It could be that all revenue at some point is gonna be paid out just on interest. No defense, no welfare, no healthcare. I mean, Medicare and Medicaid, you could argue have their own so-called trust funds. You could argue that Social Security has a so-called trust fund, but even those, very hard to see where the money comes from. Anyway, we're in for very turbulent times, very turbulent times in the United States, in Europe, in the rest of the world. And just as the Chinese economy now is struggling, I expect into 2024 the US economy to struggle and the rest of the Western world. This is probably good news for Donald Trump. It probably is only gonna increase the unfavorable ratings of Joe Biden, which means get ready for another Trump presidency in very turbulent times with the president ill-equipped as we saw during COVID to actually deal with turbulent times. All right. Wow, I've got a lot to cover today. Okay, Ted, I'm sure you've all heard about TED Talks. TED Talks are kind of the premier, kind of public speaking forum. Everybody important has done a TED Talk. I have not, maybe that tells you a little bit. But anyway, TED Talks are an amazing place to kind of catapult your career. You get exposed to millions of people. You get to take your message, a condensed, all talks, I think, can tell you about how long they have to be, 17 minutes or something like that. They're all in a particular format. They're all approved in advance. And they are, they're well-promoted and people watch the videos all over the place. Anyway, A Common Hughes. A Common Hughes is a black conservative, young guy who works, I think still works for the Manhattan Institute. Super articulate, super smart. He's a conservative, so I don't agree with him on everything, but he's a very reasonable guy and quite, again, very articulate and advocates on the issues of race for basically for color blindness. Well, last April, or this last April, he gave a talk at TED, at a TED conference in Vancouver. This is the big TED conference and he was excited, obviously, because this was a way to, again, catapult his career, which is already going fantastic, but has the potential for even bigger and greater things. And he's actually got a book coming out on the topic of the talk, which is basically color blindness. So he's talking about color blindness. And so he gave this talk in April at the TED conference. The talk had to be, by the way, this is from an article that he published today on Free Press, Barry Weiss' publication. So this is from Common Hughes' publication. So this is from Common Hughes' perspective. I have not gone out and talked to Ted about what their perspective on this is. Anyway, he gave a talk, well, the talk was approved in advance. Every aspect of it, the slides, he practiced it, they reviewed the practice, everything was approved. He gave the talk, clearly some people in the audience were unhappy with the talk. They frowned, but generally the audience was very pleased. They cheered it, there was a few people stood up, and it was generally well-received when given. In the closing session of TED, right at the end, where they kind of asked the audience, what did you think of the conference? The first two people standing up were people who said that they found the talk to be racist, dangerous and irresponsible, and, you know, willing to, and quoting from one of the speakers, willing to have a slide back into the days of separate but equal. Okay, so, and at the same time, he received an email from the head of TED, telling him that there was an employee group that's called Black at TED. That should tell you everything you need to know about this employee group. And he said, and they were upset by the talk. They were very upset by the talk. Well, of course. I mean, he's calling for color blindness, and they're proudly announcing that they're Black at TED. So he had some conversations with the head of TED, and they agreed that Coleman would meet with the Black at TED employee reviewer. And he said, well, he agreed that Coleman would meet with the Black at TED employee resource group and have a discussion about their concerns. Well, he agreed they did not. Conversation never happened. Later on, two weeks later, the CEO emailed him and said there was blowback about his talk, and that people, that people while TED, you know, likes viewpoint diversity and stuff that they have to say, the progressives have to say. People were really upset by the talk and there was a lot of internal angst and the social scientists had written them that there were real flaws in the talk and this went again, some journal article that was published. Of course, Coleman read the journal article. Journal article is much more supportive of a colorblind society than of anything else. So he wrote back to Anderson, back and forth and going on. Anyway, you know, again, TED basically wanted to withdraw this talk. Coleman stood his ground, wouldn't let them. They then said, OK, we'll release the talk, but we'll release it together with a debate that you do to present the other side. And like Coleman was going, why is my TED talk different than everybody else's talks? Why do I have to have a asterisk which says a debate? I said nothing wrong. So they went back and they went back and forth. Ultimately, the compromise was that they would release the TED talk on video on the channel and then two weeks later release a debate that Coleman had with some New York Times correspondent or something. And Coleman agreed to that and they released that. But then it turns out that even though they had promised to treat the talk just like they treat any other talk, it was not being promoted. Or at least it seems like it was not being promoted. And the outcome was that Coleman's talk, which you would think would get a huge number of views because it's controversial, it's about an interest. It's a current cultural topic. It's about something people talk about has almost no views or not almost no views. It has about, you know, a fifth of the amount of views that other talks presented at the same conference released at the same time as his did. In other words, today for the progressive movement to be colorblind is to be racist. To be colorblind is to be silent. To be colorblind is to be ignored. I mean, Martin Luther King could not deliver his colorblind, famous colorblind speech. Martin Luther King would be shunned by today's progressives. It's pretty disgusting. It's pretty offensive. All I can say is in support of Coleman and not just in support of Coleman, but in addition, in opposition to Ted and in a slap to Ted, this is what I'd like you guys to do. What I'd like you guys to do is go and find on Ted's YouTube channel. I'd like you to find Ted's videos, YouTube channel. I'd like you to find Coleman Hughes's video. I'd like you to watch it. I think you'll be entertained and getting value out of it anyway. And then I'd like you to share it as extensively as you can. Let's get those views up. I mean, I'm sure they're up already because of the pre-press article that he put out, but let's do a little bit of small community. Let's do a little bit to help get Coleman's videos more views, right? So go out there and watch the video and promote it and share it and, you know, assuming you like it. I mean, if you watch the video and you go, oh, this is awful. I don't have anything to do with this. Then don't share it. That's why I say watch it first. But I'm assuming it's going to be good or at least reasonable or at least not offensive. If it is, if it's good, share it, right? Share it and get the word out there. All right. A couple of updates on the Ukraine war. God. So a few things I'll just mention quickly. One is it really does appear that the Ukrainians have broken through the main line of defense of the Russians on the southern front. They had broken through a couple of weeks ago with infantry. But it was still very difficult to cross those lines with heavy equipment because of the mines, the trenches, the anti-tank set-ups and get-ups that they have over there. It looks like over the last few days that, you know, Russian heavy equipment, including tanks and, you know, troop movers, both American-made, German-made have been seen on the other side of, by satellite images on the other side of the main defensive line of the Russians. This means that they can now continue to push southeast, south and southwest in order to try to make it to the to the Ozov Sea. It is a significant breakthrough. It is substantial. And I know Russian propaganda continues to say otherwise and will continue to say otherwise. And some, like, can completely buy Russian propaganda, so they're not interested in actual facts or actual reality. So that is interesting news. The first American tanks, the Abrams tanks, have arrived in Ukraine. They will probably go into battle over the next month or so. And we will start seeing them deployed and those troops deployed, primarily, I think, in the south. They're also making significant progress in Bakhmut. You know, that is that little insignificant village that the Russians spent seven months trying to capture and finally captured earlier this year. Well, they're losing a lot of that ground that they spent tens of thousands of troops probably trying to gain and now will be, will be, you know, will be actually forced to retreat from. And I'm sure Ken says, I'm looking at actual video footage and I know you are completely trained in evaluating a video footage, assessing whether it's true video footage. And then, you know, the geography of Ukraine well enough to know exactly where it's being filmed, what is being attacked, who are the troops being involved. I mean, I'm sure you have vast training in military intelligence to be able to make those assessments. It is stunning to me how many people think that because they have a Twitter account and they can get or maybe a Telegram account and they can get some, you know, video footage, they think, they think, yeah. Yeah, you follow people who buy into all the Russian propaganda and that's good. You keep following them. And just like you were completely right about Russia and Ukraine in the fall of last year, I'm sure you're completely right about it right now. Second aspect of this, quickly on the war, is Ukrainians' success in attacking Crimea. There have been several attacks, both, and I mentioned this, both on the naval base in Crimea and also on the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet, a number of very senior Russian navy personnel have been killed and wounded in these attacks, including one of those attacks took out an S-400 anti-aircraft battery. Those are just to give you a sense of what that is. That's like the Patriot missile battery that the United States has. The S-400 has a export value of $1 billion. So this is taking something like that out is big news. I mean, this is a major piece of equipment for the Russians and the Ukrainians have taken out at least one of those batteries in Crimea. So they're making progress in Korea. Everything is going very slowly, but they're making it very difficult for the Russians to operate out of Crimea. The Russians have had to move several of their ships out of the main port in Sevastopol and move them to more secure ports in Russia, which are proper away from the Crimean coast. This is even before they get, what the Biden administration is now providing, promised to provide them, which are long-range American land-to-land missiles. Once they get those, that'll make their ability to destroy positions in Crimea even more effective and even more substantial. You're hopeless, Ken. Sorry, you're just hopeless. It's kind of funny, funny and sad. All right, let's see. Related to this, Russia has just announced a plan to increase its military budget in 2024 by 70%. They're going to increase the amount of money spent on defense from 3.9% of GDP, which it was this year, which was already up from 2.7% of GDP in 2021 to 6% of GDP. This is a massive percentage. The United States spends 3.2% of GDP a year on national defense. So Russia will be spending double what the United States does in terms of percentage GDP. Of course, it's a fraction in dollar terms. The United States spends $842 billion on national defense. The Russians will elevate their spending to $63 billion, so less than 10% of the US budget. And that's because Russian GDP is pretty small. And of course, the more they take from productive activity in Russia and they spend on tanks and military equipment, the more the Russian economy is going to suffer, the more challenges the Russian economy is going to face, and that creates other problems for Putin and the Russian regime. So huge amount of military spending, a real cost of war. This is generally a way to reduce the quality of life and the standard of living of your population. Of course, what they've done to Ukraine is they've devastated the quality of life and standard of living, not to mention the thousands of people killed in Ukraine and the, well, the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people killed in Ukraine and not to mention the tens of thousands of Russian and Ukrainian soldiers killed in Ukraine, all thanks to the Bruto-Russian regime. All right. I'll do this quickly, but God, beware of bipartisan bills. I always tell you, well, the latest bipartisan bill. I mean, I've talked about this before, but it seems to be further advancing in Congress. There are two bills all related to try to suppress and control the credit card industry. There's a significant campaign that is jointly by both Republicans and Democrats to try to reduce credit card fees, to try to reduce interest rates on credit cards, and so on. It is primarily driven by two Republicans, Josh Hawley and JD Vance, but it's not just them. You're also talking about, of course, in a bunch of Democrats and there's at least one other Republican. Yes, Roger Marshall, also Republican from Kansas, who is also behind this. They are trying to place price controls and all kinds of routing requirements to create, quote, competition in the credit card business and to reduce the amount of fees credit card companies charge from retailers. This is something that the retailers are pushing for, something that retailers, the retail association, has been pushing for, that why the bankers association are trying to protect their credit card fees. This is gang warfare politics, right? This is each gang trying to protect its little domain. Josh Hawley wrote an UpEd with regard to this. Let me just find what happened to the UpEd. Yes, here it is. UpEd, there was published in the New York Post about this. Cap credit card interest rates. They help Americans hammered by dynamics. God, this shameless. He starts off the UpEd by basically quoting the Bible. And the quote is, this is a quote that I use in my moral defense of usury, moral defense of interest rates that I published in my book, the moral defense of finance, which I encourage you to purchase. It's on Amazon. You can find it on Amazon. You can buy it. You can read it. It's definitely worth where I use this quote and explain the whole history of finance, at least to some extent as a consequence of this quote. Thou shall not lend upon usury to thy brother. And he says, the Western world took that principle to heart from the Roman Empire on nations enforced usury laws that severely restricted interest rates on loans. And what he doesn't tell you is any interest rate greater than zero is technically usury by that definition and was banned by the Catholic Church until the late 19th century and caused all kinds of horrors over the last two millennia, including was caused for significant anti-Semitism because note that Thou shall not lend upon usury to thy brother, which by the way Islam still holds, right? Islam still uses this passage not to charge interest rates, not to charge interest. But it says to thy brother, so Jews take this as you can't charge interest rate to other Jews, but you can charge interest rates to non-Jews. At least they took it that way in the past in Jews today practice usury from everyone, including other Jews. Anyway, we have a significant senator who is using biblical text stupid anti-economics, anti-freedom, irrational religious text in order to justify economic policy today, right? So, you know, he mentions that Massachusetts, the colony of Massachusetts, capped interest rates for decades at 6%. Yes, and that was horrible and terrible and they did away with that for good reason. I mean, the fact is that to this day, there are laws against usury in certain states in the country. They want to cap interest rates charged by credit cards. All that would do is restrain the amount of credit available by credit card companies, particularly for people with questionable credit. So the poor or people who are trying to rebuild credit, people who have a challenge by credit. They're the ones who get hurt by this. People with good credit will be fine, right? People who have money will be fine. But this is a populist. This is a great populist cause going after Wall Street, going after bankers. And by the way, this is not going after Wall Street. This is going after any bank that issues credit cards. This is going after credit card companies and Josh Hawley, JD Vance. These are leftist, economic leftist in disguise. This is why the Republican Party is hopeless and useless when it comes to real economic policy. All right, Battery Factory. Yes, you remember the Inflation Reduction Act has huge subsidies for battery factories, for development and building in order to put into electric cars that are going to be manufacturing in the United States. And the reason, and the subsidies only apply if the batteries are built in the United States and contain material from the United States and everything is the U.S. made in the United States. Everything has to be made in the United States. Anyway, I thought at some point, I decided to take advantage of this government-lawed yes by building a $3.5 billion battery factory in Michigan. It was just announced that the building of that has stalled that Ford has decided to save that money for now. We're pausing work, I'm quoting them, and we're going to limit spending and construction of the Marshall unit. This is the factory. We're confident about our ability to competitively run the plant, but they're pausing until... Well, no, sorry, I didn't read that right. They're pausing spending and construction of the Marshall unit until we're confident about our ability to competitively run the plant. In other words, people are jumping to build white elephants in order to get subsidies from government. There are elephant manufacturing plants that might never be able to be productive, be able to be competitive, be able to be profitable. But the government is giving them money, so they are launching into all kinds of factory building. Indeed, there's a factory building boom going on in the United States right now. Manufacturing, the future of manufacturing looks amazing in the United States. So, just because you build a factory doesn't mean that it's going to be competitive. Just because you build a factory doesn't mean you're going to be able to build something productive in it. Most of these factories are being built because of subsidies, and the reality is this is part of the bring jobs back to America. Jobs are not coming back to America. They might move to Mexico, they might move to Vietnam, but they're not coming back to America. And the amount of capital being wasted right now, is chasing subsidies instead of chasing real economic growth. This Ford plant is one example of that, is just horrific. All right, I am going to skip the water wars. I'll do that another time. I'll save that story and jump into your questions because I've got a hard stop at 2 p.m. We're about halfway to our goal. Thank you, Siobhanos, for the $50. Thank you, Ragnar of the Desert, for $20. I really appreciate the support, but we're still only halfway to our goal. So please consider asking more $20 or $50 or $100 questions to get us to our goal. And it would be good to close out September this week strong. By the way, there will be a show tonight at 8 p.m. We'll have a show tonight at 8 p.m. I'm not sure yet what the topic is going to be, but stay tuned. There will be a show at 8 p.m. tonight. Also, quick announcement. I'm still looking for a couple more people for the public speaking workshop in London. So a couple more people for the public speaking workshop in London. It's $750 for a full day. A lot of personalized attention from me. There will only be a handful of people. One hand, maybe two hand full of people in the workshop. It'll be in the center of London. And, you know, feel free to, hopefully, hopefully there's enough people out there who are still interested in this. If you are, email me, iranaturanbrookshow.com, iranaturanbrookshow.com, of course. And let's see. Central London, October 18th, October 18th during the day, six hours or so, maybe longer, depending on how many people we have. A lot of personal attention, you know, fill it in. Ken, there's no way I would talk to you about the war. You know less than zero about the war. You have no qualifications to talk about the war. You have no insight about the war. You know nothing about the military or about military equipment from what I can tell. Why would I talk to you? Not London or Ontario, London, England. So please, if you're in the UK or if in Europe and you would be willing to come, I think it would be a fun event and incredible value for all of us. All right, Mike, why is that if I tried to sue California because by not allowing car companies to sell gas cars that fringe you on my right to buy the car I want, I would have no standing? But when activists sued Montana for violating their non-existent constitutional right to clean and healthy environment by allowing fossil fuel development, day one, well, I don't know if you wouldn't have standing. I just think you would lose because the court would rule that you don't have a constitutional right to choose whatever car you want. The reality is that the way the courts view the Constitution, they view it as verbatim. Since the Bill of Rights does not include a right to own a car or a horse or something comparable of your choosing, you therefore have no right to own anything of your choosing. That is not a constitutionally protected right. They don't understand rights and they certainly don't understand, God, the Ninth Amendment which basically says these enumerated rights are not all the rights people have. And what the Montana court ruled is I think there's something about, I don't know, something like a general welfare clause. So they ruled their right to violate it on the basis of some kind of general welfare clause, that the state by allowing climate change was holding the general welfare, was holding their welfare, was holding their health or whatever, and that's what they were using. But there's no general property right protection as understood by the courts today in our Constitution and I'm pretty sure that's the case in California but even in the federal Constitution. There is no conception, I mean, you guys take this, I think you should take this literally and seriously, but there is no conception, literally no conception in our legal system today of individual rights. There's no concept like that. There's no idea. They're the rights and the Bill of Rights and we have to do it. Why? We have to uphold them. Why? Because they're in the Bill of Rights because they're part of the Constitution. Not because they represent something bigger because they represent the principle on which this country was based. Not they represent the legal framework for the entire basis for this country. No, but because they happen to have been written down and these other rights have not been written down and there are no rights. They have no concept of rights again. Justice Scalia, one of the most beloved justices on the right and admire justices and considered one of the great geniuses of conservative legal scholarship. Justice Scalia basically thought that rights were nonsense on stealth. He agreed with Jonathan Bentham. With Bentham, Benjamin Bentham, or something Bentham, anyway Bentham. So why is it surprising? You know, you want your rights to own whatever car you want or to drive whatever car you want, then it has to somehow be in the Bill of Rights. Jeremy, thank you, Jeremy, God. It was right there, but somehow... Okay, Frank says, $50, thank you, Frank. Catching up, reading The Populist Delusion by Pavani, a sobering collection of political elitism versus democratic populism. Excellent book. Interesting, I'll have to look it up. Thank you, Populist Delusion. Yeah, I mean, just the title is absolutely true. It is definitely a populist delusion. All right, let's see. We're like $78 short, guys. We've got 87 people watching right now, so it wouldn't take much for people to participate and get us over the threshold. A few stickers. $78, I think we can do it. Value for value. You get value from the show. You obviously are here. Your best friend says, did you catch the Richard Wolff art laughter debate? I did not. I did not. I'm curious how that went. I don't know how good art laughter has a debating. And most of the right-wing people I've seen or the conservatives or others that I've seen debate... that I've seen debate Wolff is way too nice and way too polite to Wolff. Jacob says, I have a good email to send you about race recruiting and my company a screenshot into the modern workplace. That would be great. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, it's pretty... the whole thing is... the whole attitude towards race is pretty sad and depressing. Paul Azuz says, your view on the word community or movement. They're good words. I have no problem with the word community or movement. They're both reflecting. Community reflects. I can't think... I don't have a definition ready, but it reflects individuals living together. You know, usually it would be a physical community living in the same place, sharing certain values and associating with one another on a regular basis. You know, a movement would be people who have a shared intellectual perspective and actively working towards that. So both are legitimate concepts. They're not collectivistic, if that is... Oh, wait, this is the last question, which means your last opportunity to get as close to that goal was still about $63 short. If everybody just did $1 sticker, we would be there. You know, if some of you did $5 stickers, we would be there, you know, $12, $5 stickers. We'd be there like that. So please, those of you who don't... You haven't given in a while using the super chat, listen regularly on here. And... All right. Let's see. Bre has the question. You should try and book a talk along the path of the 2024 solar eclipse, April 8th, 2024. That would be great. I wish I had that many options in terms of booking talks. All right, guys, it looks like we made, made, made with $4 short of our goal, but we'll take it. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Sylvanas, for another $50. We really appreciate that. Thank you, Paul. Thank you, Gail. Thank you, Martin. Thank you, John. Thank you, Bash Bandigan. I will see you all tonight. I doubt that I will talk about the war. I'm going to give it a few more... a few more weeks. I think once the winter sets in, we'll have a good opportunity to assess where the war is and where the war is going in terms of... and give you an update with maps and everything else as I have periodically, but that will happen probably in a few weeks. Let's see how things progress. All right. Thanks, everybody. See you tonight. It's 8 p.m. East Coast time. Bye.