se they're still in it for their self-interest and their self-interest has no connection to using a nuclear weapon that could not possibly be a self-interest. Hillary was probably crazy from the start and we're not suggesting that the leaders of Russia or China are crazy.

You call the Ukrainian expedition logical? Yes yes because Russia will probably come out with some extra strategic goals. Putin will probably look good because of it or he'll make sure that the history reports he looks good. Yeah it looks like it worked because remember Putin doesn't care too much about his casualties. So yeah looks like he's working for him. I mean not it's not working as well as he wanted but he's gonna get some land and he'll be able to sell that as a win.

Iran and North Korea same situation. So Kim Jong-un in North Korea has his own little mafia kind of situation. Why would he want to ruin it? There's literally and by the way Kim Jong-un doesn't seem crazy to me. I don't see him. He's not acting crazy at all. So the good news is we don't seem to have any crazy leaders who have nukes. Iran is a special case but they don't act that crazy. Yeah even the Iranian religious higher level considerations it doesn't get you to that level of craziness. Biden yeah even Biden's not crazy enough to nuke.

Here are the things I think you should not worry about. Number one do not worry about getting nuked. We're not. We're not anywhere in that worry zone. Nowhere near it. Number two don't worry that there's an ongoing war to destroy all our food sources and infrastructure. There are definitely a bunch of strange things happening in that domain but there's nothing to tie them together to any particular foreign foe and certainly our foreign foes are maybe trying to influence those things that are hurting us just as we might be doing the same with them but we're not aware of it. So that sort of business as usual. We'll work that out.

My take on all the things that are falling apart is that we're just at that point in the country's age where things start to crumble if you're not funding them and maintaining them. So some of it's just the normal life cycle of stuff and some of it is that the news is surfacing stories to make it look like a pattern where maybe you didn't notice it before.

Let me ask you this. If the only thing you knew about what's happening in the country was from the mainstream corporate news would you believe that there's some kind of attack on the infrastructure? Because I think it takes social media to keep surfacing it so it looks like more of a pattern. You would say yes if you watched Fox News but here's the trick. Fox News is influenced by social media right? If social media were not making a big deal of the fact that it looks like some kind of coordinated attack do you think Tucker Carlson would talk about it? I don't think so.

I think only because social media sees it as a thing that the news says it's a thing or it might be a thing where people think it's a thing. But you take away the social media the corporate news would just talk about whatever they wanted to talk about and you wouldn't even notice a pattern. You're just like oh a lot of things get attacked. That'd be all. That's all you think about.

The attacks look like insurance scams maybe. Ford battery China connection. I don't know the details of that story well. We'll think. Consider this. If there have really been a thousand derailments in the past year I think Tucker said that. That is that track? It feels like too high. And maybe derailment has all kinds of different levels. You know maybe there's some kind of minor derailment where nobody gets hurt. 700 average per year. So that if it's 1700 per year there must be a big category of minor derailments that you never hear about right? Because it probably doesn't happen on the open lines. It probably happens like in the rail yard or something where things get switched around. I've got a feeling that that number is misleading while not necessarily being wrong.

Oh you think that they meant the number of cars derailed. Oh but still it's too many. It feels still too many. So imagine if this Ohio train had not happened. So let's say the Ohio derailment never happened. The one with the chemical spill. If you had never heard of that one you also never would have heard of the other 1700. And you wouldn't even be aware there was any kind of pattern. So you were one train derailment away from not knowing that any train derailments happen.

Do you know what I would have guessed per year if you'd said guess how many train derailments there are in the United States per year? I would have said on average one. I would have guessed that there are several years in a row when none. You know sort of like plane accidents. I would have guessed like plane accidents there could be years with none and then there'd be one and maybe in a weird case there'll be two but basically I would have guessed one. 1700 doesn't sound slightly believable to me. But imagine that you never would have heard of them without that one. The Ohio one. Without Ohio you would still think it's either one maybe three.

Yeah hot pocket. I agree with you they're probably more technical derailments at the train yard where it's all slow and you can correct it more easily. Probably that makes sense. Derailment doesn't mean crash correct. Derailment could mean they just immediately stop and then figure out how to fix it.

You said derailments caused by shunts. You believe that there were 1700 derailments caused by