ught in that war were kind of suckers, would that offend you if your friend said it and nobody else was supposed to hear it? Let's say neither of you had served. Or alternately let's say both of you had served so that your peers, whichever way that goes, I think you would not be offended by that. Yeah, hoodwinked might be better. Somebody says in the comments hoodwinked might be a better way to put it. You know that Trump uses the more aggressive language for just about everything. So if he's saying these young people who got drafted in most cases, right, they didn't choose it, they got drafted, and they got drafted into a bad situation. If he called them suckers privately, would you have disagreed with that if you knew that he respected the service because he's your friend? So you know that you just think that he's making a case that the government screwed a generation, right?

So I've got a feeling that when people hear these stories that Trump said privately and they hear that somebody who was really an insider made them public, let me say this as clearly as I can. If there's something that you know happened privately and you're the one who makes it public and then it becomes offensive because it's public, it couldn't have offended anybody privately because there was nobody listening to it. You're the one. There's just no way around that. It's not the person who said it. It's you. It's you, Michael Cohen, are the one who made it offensive by making it public. It is you, Atlantic magazine and Jeffrey Goldberg, who are. Because whatever Trump said or didn't say could not have hurt anybody when he did it, and he would have known that a private conversation just doesn't hurt anybody. By making it public, plenty of hurt, because it actually degrades the readiness of our military because it puts some question in people's heads about the commander-in-chief. That is one of the most despicable acts of unpatriotic array you will ever see in your life. It would be hard to even invent a scenario short of actually directly hurting people that you could do a thing that would be more despicable than taking a private conversation that didn't hurt anybody and turn it into a public conversation that degrades the entire military readiness of the United States, creates chaos, creates a race war, creates God knows what. That is serious assholery. I mean that's like a 10 out of 10.

And I don't know if the public is sophisticated enough to do the mental gymnastics of saying, oh wait, wait, wait, I have to view this as though it were a private conversation because that's the way it originally started and that's a whole different context. All right. So I've got a feeling that just like the Michael Wolff book, the Michael Cohen book will be some headlines for a few days and then everybody will say we don't like Michael Cohen. How much do people like lawyers? Not much, right? You know, unfortunately lawyers do not have a great reputation. But let me ask you this. How much do people like lawyers who screw their own client? Now you could say to yourself, hey, Trump should have pardoned Cohen, whatever. But isn't it true that what you see is a lawyer who you already felt a little not so comfortable with because lawyers are not that popular, and then this lawyer actually publicly crucified his own client and his ex-best friend? That's the worst person in the world, okay? If your lawyer goes to jail, that's a bad lawyer. If your lawyer goes to jail and then writes a tell-all book in which at least some of this looks like he's just completely made up, that's the worst lawyer who ever lived. You couldn't even design a worse lawyer than this.

All right, how about some good news? Last week a British energy startup came up with this idea that looks like it could work for storing energy using massive weights. So in other words they'll use energy to lift a weight on a pulley, and then when they want to release the energy, you know, in a battery sense like a battery, they just let the gigantic weight go down the pulley and it generates electricity by making something turn. It turns out that this idea looks actually completely doable on paper and that it's come down to just an engineering kind of a situation. Now it might turn out that like windmills it sounds better on paper but then you have maintenance issues and it kills some birds and nobody saw that coming, so much or at least not to the extent that it happened. So we don't know if it'll work. But apparently they want to use abandoned mines. They have gigantic vertical holes that go down. It could be like a mile of depth. And put that giant weight in there, and apparently they can generate just a ton of electricity. But remember it's a battery, so you have to put the electricity in before you can get it out. But still, having a gigantic battery would be cool.

Somebody on Twitter whose name I didn't write down but it was a good comment, I wish I had, said why do you need a big hole in the ground? Why don't you just use something like a train, a car on a mountain on a train track? You know, why does that have to be under the ground? Why can't it just be some heavy object on a track? To which I say I wonder. There may be a difference in just how much friction is involved. Maybe there's an engineering reason why that isn't good enou