mepage. So I'm looking at how much real estate is devoted to each kind of topic. Then there's a whole bunch of stuff about how this Justin Amash is talking about impeachment. There isn't going to be any. That's a big story. It's about some person is against the president but it doesn't really matter because the Republicans have too much control in the Senate. It's a story without a story. It's a story about something that can't happen. Impeachment actually just can't happen.

Alright here's some more. There's a big piece about Buttigieg and his appearance on Fox News. Who cares? There was a candidate who had a town hall on Fox News which probably ended his chances of winning because he appeared on Fox News. It probably didn't work out to his favor. Then there's a bunch of stuff about weather and blah blah blah. Nothing, nothing. And then Game of Thrones. That's it.

Think about that for a moment, will you? There isn't really any bad news. How do you have a whole page of CNN and the worst they can come up with is people didn't like the Game of Thrones ending? That's really amazing, isn't it?

Once more good news. Here it comes. AOC recently said that she's open to the conversation about nuclear energy as part of the Green New Deal. It gets better. And then she adds, especially the newer technologies. Boom goes the dynamite. Do you feel it? That was the far left and the far right. Boop. It's the biggest news in the world. It's not on the CNN homepage because it's sort of not the news that they like to specialize on. It's also not on the Fox News page because Fox News doesn't like to give too much positive attention to AOC. They're far more likely to do a story about her and if it's negative. But it's also not in CNN. CNN would like to do positive stories about AOC. Their audience would love that. But AOC is being smart about nuclear energy. Say what you will about anything else, her views on the economy etc.

I'm not talking about anything else she's done that you don't like. She does represent a big point of view and an influential point of view even if it's not big on the right. And she has said unambiguously she's open to the conversation on nuclear, especially the newer technology. So in other words she now understands there is a difference. This is the biggest news in the world, completely ignored. Why? Because nuclear energy is probably the biggest part of what's gonna drive the world's economy in the next 30, 40 years. It's probably one of the biggest factors. And she just endorsed it. Now I'm pretty sure she knows enough about the topic that when she says I'm open to the conversation it means she's already agreed that the risk/reward makes sense. That's sort of how I interpret it. That she knows the risk versus the reward of nuclear when you look at it in the context of climate change being in her opinion an extinction event potentially. Then suddenly she has essentially endorsed the path that most people on the right would say makes sense.

As long as she's saying do everything fast, do more wind, do more solar, develop new technologies as fast as possible, maybe look at ways to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and also look hard at nuclear, newer technologies. That is the thinking style, the point of view, the way to frame our risk for climate change in the most completely productive way. Because whether you believe climate change is the big risk or a small risk or no risk at all you still want as much green energy and low-cost energy, which is what nuclear gives you, as you can get. So this is like one of the most positive developments in the world.

Now can all of you take a little more patting on the back? I'd like to prime you. You know how this works. One hand back here. Get ready to pat yourself on the back because there will be a moment in which this makes perfect sense. Prepare yourself to give yourself a self-pat on the back. Here it comes. You and this Periscope have watched me, and especially with the help