 The Radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran Book Show. All right everybody, welcome to Iran Book Show on this Tuesday, January 17th. We're in the second half of January and it is noon in Puerto Rico. Morning for many of you I know and evening for some of you. Thanks for joining me to get caught up on the news of the day. I appreciate that. So let's jump right in. As you probably know there was a missile attack on, I mean there's missile attacks every night on Ukraine. A couple of nights ago a missile hit a building in the city of Dnipro. Dnipro, I'm butchering names as usual. In this case it was a residential building and 44 people were killed. So there's one interesting aspect of this, or at least that I found interesting. Ukrainian presidential adviser Olexiy Orestovic. Olexiy Orestovic, somebody who I guess has his own YouTube channel has like 1.6 million subscribers. 200,000 views for his daily videos updating people on the status of the war. And he's an adviser to Zelensky. Anyway when it first happened he suggested that the missile had been, this was a Russian missile. I think it's a KH-22 missile which is very inaccurate. So these are not exactly precision weapons. Anyway he said that this KH-22 missile had been hit by a Ukrainian air defense system and had dropped on the building and killed other people. And there's a massive outrage and the Russian propaganda machine has picked up on this and they're basically saying, see it's not our fault that 44 civilians were killed. It's Ukraine's fault for shooting down the missile. There's some crazy moral inversion going on here, right? It's truly astounding. Of course it's Russia's fault. No matter whether the missile was pointed at the building or not pointed at the building, no matter whether, given its inaccuracy, it doesn't matter at all. But it doesn't matter if the Ukrainian shut it down. If the missile hitting the building was, and I'm not suggesting this was, a missile that the Ukrainians launched to defend themselves. All the deaths on the battlefields of Ukraine are Russia's fault. All of them. So a big deal has been made about him claiming this. He's since said no, he was mistaken. Indeed the KH-22 missile is one that the Ukrainians can't shoot down. And he's offered his resignation, and there's a big uproar, and the Russians are celebrating and the Ukrainians are mourning. Anyway, it's a... But it doesn't matter. Russia started this war. Russia is the aggressor. Russia is launching massive missile attacks into Ukraine every single day. Some of those missiles are going to go, even if they're targeting military infrastructure, some of those missiles are going to go astray and kill civilians. The fact that they're targeting infrastructure is going to kill civilians. Russia has no problem killing civilians. It hasn't shown any concern during this war about killing civilians. This is 100% unequivocal Russia's fault. And as a consequence, anything else is irrelevant. And somebody needs to stand up and say this rather than debating. Did the Ukrainians shoot it down? Didn't they shoot it down? It's irrelevant. I mean, it's interesting to know, and it's important for the Ukrainians maybe to know, if they could shoot down a KH-22. But the reality doesn't matter. The moral blame, it doesn't matter for moral blame. It doesn't matter for anything that is actually relevant here. All right, why is this not working? No, okay, it's picking up the wrong one. Sorry, I've got a small technical problem. Let's see if we can fix it. All right, that's better. Anyway, so just a quick update on that vis-a-vis Ukraine. It just shows the inability of people, in this case, Ukrainians, to think in terms of clear moral categories and clear morality. And the fact that the Russians can exploit this is just absurd and nuts. All right, for the first time since the early 1960s, when Mao starved millions and millions of his own population, the population of China is actually show to decline. Now, let me just say that this is assuming we believe Chinese numbers, because it is indeed hard to tell what is actually going on in China. And there are demographers and there are commentators out there claiming that China's population, in particular, that China's population has been declining for several years now. But according to official Chinese statistics, for the first time since the early 1980s, China's population fell by 850,000 people to 1.41 billion. And the country had 9.56 million booths, 10.41 million deaths, and population is shrinking, young people 16 to 59. You can think of it as working age population. It's also gone down to 62% from 62.5%. I mean, these are significant numbers. The expectation is that this will continue, that this will continue significantly until indeed 2021. So a tiny little increase in population. Now, part of this is COVID. But COVID, you know, we'll see I think the impacts of COVID more in the 2023 numbers. China is announcing as declared the 60,000, they had 60,000 COVID deaths between December 8th and January 12th. But nobody believes that number. Everybody who looks at what's happening in Chinese hospitals and what's happening in Chinese cities believes the number is much, much larger than that. Maybe 10 to 20 times larger than that. Very few people, China has a foreign workforce, but they don't count those in the population because foreigners, I don't think, I don't think foreigners can become Chinese. But they also have, you know, one of their big problems is where they're going to have to allow some immigration, is that they have way too many men and too few women. So as a consequence of the one child policy, not only did they gain a shrinking population, one child is not enough for a placement, but they also, there was a lot of self-selecting for boys over girls. So what happens is that there's an entire, I think, two generations of Chinese where there are way more men than women and therefore they're not going to be able to have that many kids at all because there's just not of marriages unless they allow immigration of women into the country for the purposes of marriage, which they might do, who knows. I don't think they have done, but they might do in the future. There are foreign workers by million in Southern China and certainly in places like Shanghai, but they don't count them in these statistics and they don't count them as immigrants, as technically immigrants. The other thing that was announced this week is that China reported its lowest GDP number in, I think, the only other year was 2020, that COVID year at 3% for 2022, it's much lower than previous Chinese government targets. It's significantly lower than the high growth rate of China's last 40 years. I think American investors and European investors or generally investors are pouring a lot of money right now into China, into Chinese markets, into Chinese companies under the assumption that now China's opened up and now in a sense that they're getting COVID out of their system that what's going to happen as a consequence is the Chinese economy is going to boom and we're going to go back to the good old days and this is a great time to be investing in China. Let me just say I'm skeptical. I think that slower economic growth is what's installed for China in the future, at least as long as Xi maintains his commitment to central planning. I think it's probably foolhardily to jump in with such enthusiasm as it seems like foreign investors are. Now a lot of times the foreign investors, it's funny because a lot of the foreign investors investing in China tend to be Taiwanese, for example, or Chinese from overseas. Taiwanese should know better than anybody and it's funny that Taiwan being under constant threat of Chinese invasion is maybe the biggest investor in mainland China, one of the biggest investors in mainland China, per capita certainly the biggest investor in mainland China and making it possible for them to kind of build up the resources that would make an invasion of Taiwan possible. It's a bizarre world in which we live, in which the victims are constantly sanctioning the aggressors and constantly supporting the aggressors. So that's just a little bit more in China. I'm sure we'll be talking more in China as the year develops. There's going to be a lot of foreign policy and economic issues that China's going to be involved in and of course it's going to be interesting to see how COVID ultimately lands up playing out in China. The Chinese population shrinking as I told you it would and that's going to accelerate. And by the way, that is expanding population is pro-growth, economic growth, just sort of pure growth perspective. Shrinking population is a challenge for growth. So it's going to be interesting to see how China deals with these challenges. It's going to try to bribe people to have kids but that doesn't seem to work and doesn't seem to work anyway in the modern world. All right, let's see. Yeah, this is a good topic. Economists out of touch. So last week the American Economics Association had their annual meeting. I used to go to these annual meetings because they usually held in conjunction with the American Finance Association, which I was a member of and used to go in the old days. And the American Economic Association is basically all the economists in the United States belong to it, both government employees at the Fed and so on and private economists, university economists and so on. It's a big conference in which cutting-edge research and papers are presented and it's obviously a place where all the economists aggregate famous and young and old and everybody else. And it's always an interesting place. It's an interesting place in the sense of what are people presenting about because the presentations are papers that one day expect to be published. So this is kind of the pre-publication. This is the people pushing the envelope a little bit, trying out new ideas, trying out new things. This conference, like I think last year, part of it was held virtually. So that was a bit of an issue. So there was some commentators, some participants via online participation. That generally did not go well. A conference full of economists. There were lots of technical problems. It was kind of funny. Everybody was in freezing Chicago and everybody went to hear Larry Summers. Larry Summers, after all, is now, he's always been famous. He's always been highly regarded. But now he's like God because he actually predicted inflation and one of the few economists out there were actually predicted price inflation. Everybody went thinking that Larry Summers would show up live. So it was the largest session at the conference. And it landed up that it was by video, and of course the video didn't work, so they heard his voice before they saw his picture. And then when he finally showed up, they are all huddled in some hotel room in New Orleans and Larry Summers is actually talking to them by video from a beach somewhere in the Caribbean. It was just kind of a funny thing. Anyway, a couple of observations, well actually three observations about the conference that I've read about. I did not go to the conference, but I read about. One, crazy COVID policies. This is the American Economics Association. These are people who are supposed to understand statistics, understand risk, understand probabilities, be able to evaluate risk and, I don't know, be in touch with the world. The economists are supposed to be evaluating stuff in the world. They should know. Well anyway, it turns out that the American Economics Association required attendees to show a COVID-19 vaccine card indicated that at least had one booster. If you hadn't had a booster, it couldn't come so that they could get their pass. There was a mask mandate for all those in attendance at the main hotel. I guess if you were doing it virtually by video, you didn't have to wear a mask, but in the hotel you had to wear a mask. Now notice that the hotel didn't have a mask mandate, so other guests at the hotel didn't have to wear a mask, but the conference attendees had a wear mask. So you had this ridiculous thing of, and I'm reading here from an economist, Ryan Bourne, who was there, and he says, so you had that ridiculous spectacle of other guests and families in the hotel walking around unmasks as hordes of smartly dressed economists paraded the K-95s of economists walking unmasked in busy shared areas only to then mask up when entering sparsely populated sessions like some of these sessions are like two, three people, but they wore masks. A presenters taking off masks to talk loudly at large groups and sessions before putting their mask on to watch other presenters in silence, of groups of economists eating and drinking together in the hotel or surrounding bars and restaurants only to then put on their mask on to chat with the same people in the hotel conference areas. This is insane. I mean, you have to be completely detached from reality and to demand this. Put aside whether the mask is effective or not, it doesn't matter if you're taking them off and you're putting them on, you're taking them off and you're putting them on, you're taking the same people and the same... it doesn't matter. It's just stupid. The other thing that Ryan found interesting was the hero economists again, they should know the data, they should know the science, the scientist after all, somewhat scientific. And he says young people who are not particularly susceptible to COVID and who face low risk of COVID, right? Low risk of having a severe outcome if they have COVID. I mean, very low risk of severe outcome COVID and vaccinated and boosted. It was young people in their 40s or younger, 90% of which women asks, it was less than 30% in 50 and older. So this could be younger generations and more fearful, more broadly, more generally. It could be virtue signaling, younger people are more interested in using this to signal their virtue because they have job prospects, they're on the job market or you never know, right, when you're young, you might want to switch jobs and you want to make sure that everybody knows that you've got this right. Versus older people who are actually susceptible, most susceptible to disease and have more to lose, if you will, but don't have to virtue signal because they've already got their jobs and they're not looking to replace them. I mean, this is not a stupid population. This is not a dumb population. This is a well-educated, particularly in statistics and probability, particularly in risk and understanding risk, you'd think. And it shows that they have no knowledge, no understanding of the science and are not behaving in any ways to reflect of that or maybe what they are behaving in ways that reflect future-earning potential, that is this virtue signaling in nonsense. That's one aspect, point one about the American Economics Association and the ridiculousness at this point in the pandemic of not only demanding vaccine passes and boosters on top of it, but also a mask mandate in a hotel that doesn't have a mask mandate in a city that doesn't have a mask mandate. Just absurd and ridiculous. The whole thing is ridiculous. I don't know, sure of what, but just stupidity. Stupidity and virtue signaling, they want to show that they're an organization that's responsible. I wonder what the board meetings are like at the American Economics Association for them to come to these kind of conclusions. All right, but then there's the issue of the session Topics. So it turns out that, and this is Ryan's calculations, this is from his substack, by his calculation of all the panels, papers and plenary sessions at the conference, there was 69 featuring at least one paper that was focused on gender issues. This is the American Economics Association. 66 papers focused on climate-related topics and 65 papers looking at some aspect of racial issues. Now, just to give you a perspective on this, take an issue like inflation. Inflation, which is ravaging our economy. Inflation, which is purely an economic issue. Inflation, which every American is really concerned about. And it would be important for economists to address inflation. That economists, with exception maybe of Larry Summers, did not predict inflation, which is still not fully understood in terms of its causes, at least not by these economists. Inflation had just 23 papers, 69 on gender issues, but 23 on inflation. God, they don't understand inflation, but they guess they don't want to understand inflation. They'd much rather write about gender issues, climate issues, racial issues, and what? They've impacted on the economy, they've impacted on employment, they've impacted on what exactly? I mean, sure, some of those papers had some, or most of them, all of them had some relations to economics, but this is a little detached from reality, detached from the concerns of most human beings. Another topic, economic growth. Economic growth, another important topic, given that we've gone through over a decade now of very low economic growth. It is one of the big puzzles to them, to the mainstream economists, of why, why we have such low economic growth. What's going on is this permanent, is growth even possible? A worthy topic for an economist trying to understand? Again, only 23 papers that could reasonably, according to Ryan, be considered to be about the subject. In other words, roughly three times as many sessions featured papers on each of race, gender, and climate, as there were sessions on topics of inflation or growth. For the conferences, a whole, that means 13.2% of all sessions featured gender issues, 12.6, climate, 12.4, race, against just 4.4% for inflation and growth. I mean, that's modern economics, modern academia, modern irrelevancy, modern irrelevancy. These people are going to make themselves and their profession irrelevant. And related to that, there's an economist article that talks about the fact that the American Economic Association, there was no ambition there. There were no big projects. There was no new theories. There was no breakthrough research. It was all just incremental, same old, same old, nothing. And now I will add there's very little of any significance in these things. Most of these are studies that have no relevance to anything. But there's a broader point. And that is, and this is a point Tyler Cowan makes of George Mason University. Tyler Cowan, you probably know a free market economist he makes. In the last 30 years, the reliability of empirical world and work and estimation have risen dramatically. That is the econometrics, the statistics, the probability, all of that, the gathering of data, the quality of the data, all of that empirical work, that has gotten better. So in the past 30 years, the reliability of empirical work and estimation have risen dramatically, which is good. But few new important ideas have been really generated. So we can crunch the numbers. We just have no idea what they mean. And we have very few explanations for them. Indeed, one of the fields in which you're seeing the most progress in economics and the most investment in economics and the most people interested in economics is the field in a sense of machine learning AI using massive sets of data in order to explain the world. Now, this is truly scary in my view because all this does is it gives central planners more hubris, more delusion that they can actually run the world. That, you know, with the right kind of AI, with the right kind of algorithm, with the right kind of powerful computers, they can actually make a difference. It just gives them the impression that central planning can work because, oh, I have so much data. Remember, one of the problems is that in much of the standard critique of central planning, including the Hayekin critique of central planning, reason is the enemy. The idea is that central planning fails because we don't have the capacity to integrate all the data. If we had the capacity to integrate all the data, we could centrally plan the economy rather than an understanding where values come from the fact that, no, it's not an issue of the quantity of data. It's the issue of where the data resides and the data is individual valuing and the fact that you can't access that even if you have the most powerful computer in the world. So that Hayekin still leaves an opening for if I just had a powerful enough computer. And I think other Austrian economists understand that that's nonsense. It's not about the power of the computer. We're trying, you know, Stanford and other places, they're building massive programs, massive quantities of data to try to explain the world mathematically and to plan it as a consequence. All right, I don't know what's happening this week, but you guys have to step up your game in terms of helping fund the Iran Book Show, particularly these morning sessions. We can't do these sessions unless we're funding for them. We can't devote the time to them unless they generate some income. Right now we have, oh, we had 100 people watching earlier. Now it's about down to 92. But between 90 and 100 people, if everybody puts $2 each, we can make our numbers, but everybody has to put $2 each. So if those of you motivated enough to put in some money, put $5 each, we can make our numbers. All right, I want to talk about cancer mortality. Cancer mortality rates have over the last 50, 60 years declined substantially and they continue to decline. It's one of the really good news stories in healthcare. In spite of the fact you hear horror stories about cancer constantly, the actual rates of cancer, the actual mortality of cancer is declining. And it's declining for a number of reasons. Part of the reasons are we just have better therapies. And I think I actually expect that we're going to have a real revolution in therapy over the next couple of decades so that the impact is going to be dramatic on cancer survival rates or mortality rates in the next two decades because of therapeutics, because of new therapeutics, because of therapeutics that make it possible for people who get cancer to recover from it and for it to be cured. And in ways that are far less harmful and traumatizing as radiation and chemo have been over the last few decades. So I'm very optimistic about our ability to cure certain cancers over the next 20 years with new therapies that are far less disruptive and disastrous. And, you know, so we'll see. Let's hope that that indeed is the case. Another reason why you're seeing a big decline in cancer mortality is behavior. That is people have changed their behavior. People have stopped smoking. People are generally, at least some people, are eating better. There's much more awareness of the role of food and of the role of smoking and of all of alcohol and of all of other things in cancer. And as a consequence, some people at least at the margin are changing their behavior and their changed behavior is having a real impact. You can see this with lung cancer and smoking. A massive impact on the decline of cancer mortality in the United States but really in the entire world including in the entire western world. So there is a real impact of behavioral changes. We've got therapeutic behavioral changes. I want to focus, I want to say a few things now on the third and maybe the most important right now way in which cancer has declined in terms of mortality and something you guys can do something about in your own life. Now certainly you can change your behavior which I encourage everybody to do. Life is too precious to fit it away, I don't know, for French fries or for dessert or for a smoke. But there's one other thing that turns out to be really, really crucial when it comes to cancer and that is screening. That's early prevention. And I'm going to tell you a real story that happened at one of the listeners of this show. One of my better supporters for a number of years now on the Iran book show. And John lived in San Diego and a Canadian citizen was living in San Diego. I visited him a couple of times. We had chatted. He was one of the ones who had purchased, in a sense, one-on-one time with me. And at some point I'd mentioned to him that I was doing health nucleus. I'd mentioned this. I haven't mentioned it on the show for a long time. But I have this program with a clinic in Southern California where I go in Northern California actually, Southern and Northern California. I go in once a year and they do a full body check-up. They do an MRI scan of the entire body. They do blood work. They do an echocardiogram for the heart. They do a calcium score for the arteries. They put you through everything. They scan everything. They review everything. And then they review it with you. And basically they do the full body MRI and detailed MRI of the organs and things like that, basically to look for cancer. And I've done this twice now and so far, so good. Nothing's being discovered. But we have, I've done a lot of work with the doctors there on trying to improve my health generally. And we've done just based on the blood work. We've done some pretty amazing work and it's worked out well. So I am a big supporter and a big fan of health nucleus. And I told John this, I told him a number of times about this being really good. And he lived close to where the clinic was. And finally a few months ago he went. And he did their full body scan. And the full body scan, he discovered a nodule in his lung. And, you know, they said, okay, well, you know, it might be nothing because I have nodules in my lungs. It's happened to be nothing. But they said, let's do it in four months and test it again and see what happens and see if it's grown, if it goes away. And they tested again four months later and they hadn't grown. But it was suspicious and it was there. And ultimately he went to a lung doctor, a pulmonologist, I think it's called. And they decided to do a biopsy. And they did a biopsy and it was cancer. Stage one, very early, he is now in Canada. He has health insurance through the Canadian system. And he's going to go through surgery next month or in a few weeks to take out the cancer cells. It hasn't spread anyway because they caught it early. So I'm a huge fan of screening. Now a lot of people are afraid of screening because of false positives. Deal with false positives. The best way to deal with false positives is more screening. I would rather have a scare than maybe I have cancer and find out that I was scared for nothing than actually have cancer and not catch it. So screen. Get those disgusting colonoscopies. Get the mammograms. And if you can afford it, find a service like this one. It's called Human Longevity. If you look up HumanLongevity.com or just look up Google Human Longevity. And you don't get a service that screens you once a year. The nice thing now is I have an MOI benchmark now for basically every organ in my body. I know what it looked like two years ago. I know what it looks like today. A year from now we can see any anomalies, any abnormalities. We've got a really, really, really good picture of my heart. We know exactly how my heart functions. Any abnormalities, any changes, anything to my blood work, to my imaging, to any of these things you know to investigate. And it's pretty amazing. It's pretty amazing. And you could save a lot of your life. Cancer is a killer. And it doesn't have to because if you catch it early, most cancers are treatable. Almost all of them are treatable if caught early. But it's a big if. It's a big if. So anyway, while we wait for the therapies, they're coming and they're already a lot better than they used to be, but they're coming. And while you should engage in behavior change, by the way, John never smoked, ate an incredibly healthy diet, was in great shape, worked out regularly. Cancer, many cancers just don't care. It's just kind of a, you know, who knows, a biological fluke. It's just a biological thing that happens. So don't rely on just behavioral changes. Anyway, just thought I'd give a pitch for screening, whether you use health nucleus, human longevity, it's the same company or not. Whatever you use, it saved John's life, probably. Hopefully it can change yours. All right, save yours. All right. That is it. As I said earlier, you know, this is not good. So I'm hoping, if not today, then in, you know, we need to get some of our whales to listen. By the way, those of you who listen to the show later and you want to support it on YouTube, you still can. There's still a way to provide funding on YouTube for these shows. Also, you can of course become a monthly supporter and you can do that on Patreon and SubscribeStar on your onbookshow.com slash support. So please do so. But we are, I don't know, we're almost 200 short of a goal, which is no fun. Everybody would have to do, yeah, two bucks each in order to get us the way we need to be. Thank you, ex-Canu. Thank you, surreal truth. Thank you, Walter. Thank you, Darlene. Thank you, Rob. Thank you, Shazba. Thank you, Vladimir. Thank you, Theemasta. And thank you, Jonathan Honing. All of you participated and contributed. There are about 90 people who have not or more than 90 because some have left. Okay, Ian. Ian, thank you, Ian. Thanks for having Adam Masoff on. It was a great show. And I wish I had been watching live to ask questions. Everyone talks about the influence of Alex Epstein, but I think Adam's influence is just as important and a great example. I agree. I mean, I don't know how to measure influences, but Adam's had an enormous influence. He is the main voice out there for intellectual property rights. He is testified in front of Congress. He writes a lot of papers. He is known in the profession. He is known globally. I mean, years ago, he traveled to China and actually helped them design their property rights regime, or at least advised them on that. He is known globally internationally as an expert. And I think he is also known as an objectivist. I don't think he ever hides that. So that combination, I think, is incredibly powerful. It helps give us the philosophy of real legitimacy and it helps spread these really important valuable ideas, for example, of intellectual property and their connection to reason. He defends it on objectivist grounds. He defends it on Rand's philosophical grounds. So yes, kudos to Adam and to everything he's done. Jennifer asked, did you see the Mina pick? Remind me who Mina is. What am I missing here? I'm blanking out. Sorry, Jennifer, blanking out. Bree says, tell your friend to not trust a free Canadian health care. My cousin caught a stage one lung cancer in 2017. Had it removed in the UK, they failed to follow up and returned. She died in 2020. He doesn't completely, and as a consequence, Bree, he is in constant contact with the doctors from human longevity in the United States. He wants to make sure that the treatment he's getting in Canada is the right treatment. He wants to make sure that they follow up. He will be going back to human longevity to follow up and to continue the scanning. So absolutely, I mean, you shouldn't trust. I mean, in that sense, you should always get second opinions, third opinions, fourth opinions. You can never get enough opinions. It's good to get multiple opinions. It's good to find real experts. It's good to get, find the best doctors in the world and ask them. So absolutely, you know, I won't let anybody cut me up unless it's an emergency. Unless I've talked to two, three, four doctors and made sure that there's no alternatives and made sure that the doctors I'm consulting are some of the best. This is why you should, you should if you can afford to have the best healthcare, the best insurance you can so you can talk to the best doctors. But even if it costs you out of pocket, it doesn't cost that much to get a consultation with a world expert somewhere. So yes, research, research, research, don't let them do anything to you without really understanding and knowing what's going on. Oh, so Jennifer's asking about Mina Hood dog, this cute little dog. Yes, I saw the picture. It was really, really cute. If, you know, I don't like pets. I don't have pets, but it was a cute dog. I like other people's dogs. I just don't want my own. All right, Alan's got the last question here. Thank you, Martin, and thank you, Colleen. Really appreciate the support. Alan says, general support. Thank you, Dr. Book, for being a voice of reason in an unreasonable world. I appreciate that, Alan. All right, so we made up a little bit. It's about only halfway the way we should be. But I appreciate all of you who supported the show. Remember, this is value for value. I'm not asking for anything without hopefully trading. If you don't value the show, please don't contribute anything. And anyway, thanks, everybody. I will see you tomorrow. I hope I'm flying tomorrow. So when I get in my hotel, if I have the internet and if I have the time, I will do another show. But we'll see the same Thursday, Friday. They are contingent on hotel bandwidth and contingent. Friday, there won't be a show for sure. Not in the morning and not in the evening, because Friday, completely swamped from 6 in the morning on. But so Wednesday and Thursday, I will do a show. And Adam reminds me to remind you all. Tonight, Adam is sponsoring a show on sports and how sports reflect philosophy and how sports is kind of the last bastion in which one can appreciate and celebrate good virtues and values, objectivist virtues and values, but some of the best that the culture has to offer, both through particular athletes who, I think, exemplify some of these virtues and values, and just through the phenomena of sport, the engagement of sports. It should be fun. So please join us and participate. And come on live. It will be at 7 p.m. East Coast time. And yeah, it should be a lot of fun. I think I'm going to show a bit of a video of Kobe Bryant. So yeah, and I'm curious what your favorite sports are and why and what you admire about them and what you like about them. And those of you don't, I know some of you don't like sports at all. Maybe we can convince you to like them a little bit. Maybe we can convince you to like them a little bit. Tonight at 7 p.m. East Coast time, join us and it'll be a lot of fun. Yeah, whether you're a football fan or soccer fan or basketball. I like baseball. We can talk about baseball and why baseball is an amazing thing. Or you're a fan of the Olympic sports or, you know, Winter Olympics, whatever. We'll try to cover them all in one way or another. All right, everybody, thanks a lot, Adam. Thank you for adding that in the end. Thank you for reminding me to remind everybody else. And yeah, I've seen a couple of movies I've actually enjoyed. So I will let you can tell if you know about those tonight. See you tonight, everybody. Bye.