ng for months and just ride it out because nothing's happening. It's just talk. As long as the protesters are just talking, they'll just jail a few, play it out, maybe wait for winter so it's too cold. They can just ride it out as long as they don't care about the interim damage of the protests themselves. They can ride it out. And so I don't see anything that looks like a risk to the government. Do you? Does this look like it's genuinely a risk to the government? Because I don't see it. Some of you say yes. Well, I would agree that things could turn in a minute. But so far the protesters are not doing anything that's physically aggressive, right? The protesters are not taking over buildings, are they? As long as they stay in the street, they're not burning anything, they're not looting. I know, but why does the government have to listen to them at all? Just let them run around and they'll get tired and then they'll run out of food and they'll have to do something else.

Now this brings us to the protest in Iran. Did you know that for whatever reason, I don't really know why, our media isn't really taking the Iran protests very seriously? Is that my imagination? Because if you know anybody who has Iranian connections, as I do, the word inside of Iran is very different from what we're hearing. Inside Iran it looks like a real revolution that might actually topple the government. And the thinking, at least from one smart person, the thinking is that what's different is that it's the women this time. And this is sort of like inside Iranian culture. So this is not me saying this. This is someone who knows Iran and knows the women of Iran. And the thinking is that you could piss off all the men in Iran forever and it wouldn't change the government. But you just pissed off the women. And when the women are mad and it looks like they're not going to back down, you can't really mow down the women. Does that work? Does that work anywhere? Does it work anywhere where you could mass murder women and then the men would be okay with that? I don't think so.

So I feel like the pressure in Iran has everything to do with how far the women want to take it. If the women take it all the way, probably they could topple the government. But it would require getting the men involved, right? Because there's a certain amount of violence that's required, and the women aren't going to do the violence at a scale. They need the men to jump in to do that.

Now why is it that our press is sort of ignoring it? What's up with that? Do you know? Like it seems to be our press would be all rah-rah-rah, let's overthrow Iran. But the U.S. press is basically quiet about it, right? Showed a few pictures, basically quiet. Somebody says the BBC's on it now. I guess the question is maybe if the United States looked like it was active, looked like it was organizing to help the protests, that that would help the regime because then Iran would look like it had an enemy from the outside. Maybe that doesn't seem like a good enough reason not to cover it. So I don't really know why. Could it be that it's not that big a deal? Or could it be that our press just doesn't have good information about Iran? Could it be that they want the nuclear deal? Could be. I don't know.

So I saw a quote by Naval. He tweeted that losing their privileged status on Twitter is the beginning of the end for mainstream media. No