Chapter 17 of Napoleon, A Short Biography. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Russell Newton. Napoleon, A Short Biography by R. M. Johnson. Chapter 17, Waterloo and St. Helena. Plan of Campaign, Ligny, March on Brussels, Waterloo, Second Abdication, St. Helena, Death of Napoleon. It's curious to find Napoleon confronted in his last campaign by precisely the same military problem as in his first, applying the same solution but meeting with a different result. In 1796, as now, his opponents were superior in numbers, occupied an extended line and belonged to two armies operating from two different bases.  The French army, numbering about 120,000 men, was rapidly concentrated during the first week of June and on the 11th, the Emperor left Paris to take command. On the 14th, he was at Beaumont on the frontier in the midst of his troops and within a few days' march of Brussels. So rapid was the French advance that the Prussians and English got little warning of the approaching storm. Blusier, in command of the former, was operating on the line of the Sambres and Muses through Liege and Nemours and his different corps were distributed in the neighborhood of the last named city and Charleroi. The British, under the Duke of Wellington, had their base at Antwerp and their line of communications ran from that city to Brussels and then some 25 miles south where the troops were quartered to the west of the Prussians in the neighborhood of Quattrobra, Genap, Niveau and further to the west. A road running east and west through Quattrobra and Lignet served to connect the Prussian right with the British left. It was at this point that Napoleon aimed. On the 15th, the armies were in contact, the French driving back such opposition as they met with and occupying Charleroi. Blusier succeeded however in concentrating the greater part of his troops in the course of the night and determined to hold his ground at Saint-Almond and Lignet the next day. The British were more completely surprised than the Prussians yet the small force occupying Quattrobra was left there and received such supports as could be pushed forward. On the 16th, Napoleon advanced to the attack of the Prussians, detaching a corps under Naye to operate against the British. A fierce struggle took place for the possession of the villages of Saint-Almond and Lignet that were at last carried by the French. Blusier, although he had lost heavily, retired slowly towards Genblu in a fairly good order. During the course of the same day, Naye had been engaged with the British at Quattrobra but had not gained any ground. Yet on the whole, the operations of the 16th had been very favorable to Napoleon. He defeated the Prussians, inspired his soldiers, and broken through the line of contact between the two allied armies. That night, Napoleon formed a corps of some 30,000 men which he placed under Grochet ordering him to follow Blusier's retreat. The Prussian general might withdraw along the line of the Sombra and Muse. This was the obvious course for him to follow and the one Napoleon hoped he would take. But he might play a bolder game and leaving his line of operations moved north and attempt to join hands with Wellington in the neighborhood of Brussels. Bolder yet, he might retreat eccentrically and threaten the French line of communications. During the early hours of the 17th, Napoleon waited to get information but Blusier moved fast, Grochet slowly. The French light cavalry was at fault and could get no certain news. At last, hearing that the British still held Quattrobra, Napoleon put the whole army in movement towards that point. Wellington had no intention of holding Quattrobra now that the Prussians had been forced to retreat and he had only a rearguard in position when Napoleon arrived on the scene. The Duke got into communication with the Prussians and believed that Blusier's intention was to move north and to effect a junction in front of Brussels if possible. He therefore decided to fall back some miles from Quattrobra to a strong position at Mont Saint-Jean where he hoped for support. On the morning of the 17th, he had not yet decided whether he would risk a battle at that point or not. That, as he explained to one of Blusier's staff officers, entirely depended on whether Blusier could undertake to support him with one of his corps. All through the afternoon of the 17th of June, Napoleon pushed on with cavalry and horse artillery after the British rearguard from Quattrobra northwards towards Brussels. In the evening, he had reached the farm of Label-Aliens and thence saw a mile in front the whole of Wellington's army evidently prepared to give battle. The emperor now stopped and as the evening passed into night, long columns of soldiers came up and were bivouacked right and left of the road between Jeannot and Label-Aliens. At that same night, Groucher, marching with painful hesitation and slowness, had only reached Jean-Blu. He had now, however, ascertained that the Prussians had retreated towards Wavre and proposed marching in that direction the following morning. Blusier had indeed acted with the boldness, decision and promptitude of a good soldier and on the night of the 17th, he had his whole army concentrated near Wavre. Thence, he dispatched a staff officer to inform Wellington that not one corps but three under his personal command would march to the assistance of the British early in the morning. This message reached the Duke about two o'clock in the morning of the 18th and he determined in consequence to hold his ground. On the 18th of June was fought the Battle of Waterloo, so called from a village some way from the scene of action, the last and most disastrous field of the greatest soldier known to history. Napoleon had some 70,000 men actually present, Wellington rather less. Blusier, who came up late, engaged his troops gradually and probably at the last had not more than 30,000 in the fighting. Wellington's army was of mixed composition and many of his troops newly recruited in Holland were of very poor quality. He relied chiefly on his excellent British and German infantry. He had disposed his line according to his favorite method some 50 or 100 yards back from the summit of a slope that the French would have to top in their advance. His infantry was in part further protected by a transversal sunken lane that acted as a sort of natural ditch. Wellington's position stretched out east and west of the Brussels road. On his right, the Manor House and enclosures of Hujamal formed a strong natural bastion. In the center, the farm of Lehes-Saint formed another advanced position. The British left was more open, but a move in that direction led over ground heavy and in part impassable for horses while it might also result in exposing the French to a flank attack from the Prussians. Napoleon, contrary to the opinion of all those of his generals who had fought the British in Spain, decided not to maneuver but to attack frontally. In this, it's hard to believe that he was right for the French troops maneuvered more rapidly than any in Europe while the British were equally preeminent for their unflinching steadiness under attack and their deadly musketry. Heavy rain since the preceding day had turned the roads into quagmires, guns and transport wagons could be moved only with the greatest difficulty. Napoleon could not get his army ready for action and the morning hours slowly passed. During that time, Groucher was marching steadily towards Wauvera while Groucher was struggling hard to get his columns on towards Mont-Ségeant but made hardly any progress in the muddy lanes in the valley of the dial. At last, at twelve o'clock, the Emperor opened the battle by sending the King of Westphalia to the attack of the Hujamal. This was only a demonstration, though fierce fighting took place at this point throughout the day. The real attack was to be made at the center where Napoleon intended to force the British line and establish himself at the crossroads of Mont-Ségeant. Heavy columns of infantry, twenty thousand men in all, marched forward to the attack, faced the fire of the British artillery, breasted the slope, topped it and then received the volleys of the British infantry. There was a fierce struggle. Piction led forward his brigade with the bayonet and was killed, the British cavalry charged and finally the French rolled back from the slope beaten while the horsemen wrought havoc among them. The British cavalry went too far in pursuit and was now assailed and routed by the French cavalry. The Emperor supported the first by fresh squadrons and a great mass of horse soon climbed the slope from which the French infantry had been so disastrously driven. The British infantry was now thrown into squares, alternating on two lines in chess-born pattern and the cavalry charged in among them but with no success. A new and more determined effort was made. Ney led the attack. Every available horseman was thrown in. Long lines surged upwards, steel-breasted curicers, tall horse grenadiers in bearskins, carabineers with gilded armor and enormous curved helmets, Polish Lancers with fluttering penions, dragoons, hussars. The British gunners from the crest line plowed great holes in their ranks then, at the last moment, ran back to the infantry squares for protection. But though the French cavalry easily overran the guns and swallowed the squares of red-coated soldiers in their midst, they could make little impression on the coolly-leveled bayonets while a destructive fire mowed them down in hundreds. Three times was the charge renewed but after the fourth failure it was no longer possible to hope that the Emperor's cavalry would turn the fortunes of the day. A great part of it laid dead and mangled along the front of the British position. The battle had not been long in progress when Napoleon observed a dark column of soldiers winding along a road some miles away to the east. Before long it became clear that some Prussian movement was to be expected from that direction and the French right was thrown back and reinforced. The Prussians attacked as soon as they could be brought into action, fighting in a line that may be roughly described as at right angles with the British left and parallel with the Brussels-Quattrois-Bois road. This they were beginning to threaten to the rear of the French right while the great cavalry charges against Wellington's center were progressing. Napoleon however was still hopeful of forcing the British line before the Prussian attack had developed sufficient force. He also hoped that Groucher might come up on his right and sent orders for that marshal to march in the direction of the main army. But Groucher obeying his original orders in a strict sense was following the Prussian rearguard which kept him engaged during the whole day in the neighborhood of Wauvera. The Emperor now ordered Ney to resume the attack and to carry Léhaix-Saint at any cost. Ney led his men in person and after a fierce struggle drove the defenders from the farm. He had now obtained a foothold in the British center and getting some guns in position at short range opened a deadly fire. Several of the English brigades were now nearly shattered. Some German and Dutch troops gave way and a stream of fugitives set in from the field towards Brussels but Wellington and his splendid infantry remained firm. Gaps were filled as best they could be and Ney could get no response to his pressing call for some fresh troops to drive home the attack. Napoleon had in truth at that moment no troops to spare. The reserves had been used, save a few regiments of the infantry of the guard and the Prussians had just carried the village of Plain-Chinois with striking distance of his line of retreat. The position was fast getting desperate for the Emperor. Two regiments of the guard however drove the Prussians out of Plain-Chinois and taking advantage of this respite Napoleon aimed one last blow at Wellington center. Some 4,000 infantry of the guard were massed into column and Ney advanced at their head over the ground where he had led the cavalry earlier in the day. The exhausted combatants to the right and left from L'Eix-Saint-to-Huge-Mont paused and watched the slow advance of that magnificent infantry, the last remnant of veterans of the great armies of the Republic and the Empire. From along the crest the English gunners poured down Grape and Canister. The commander of the infantry of the guard, Con Freon, fell dead. Ney's horse was shot down but the marshal jumped to his feet, drew his sword and marched on through the smoke dauntlessly. Once more the crest was won. Once more the British infantry behind it poured in their withering musketry. The old guard deployed its melting lines as best it could and for five or ten minutes struggled to hold its ground. But the fire was too deadly. The French began to recede and soon their broken lines were flowing backwards. At this moment the Duke of Wellington rode forward to the crest. His figure could be seen for some way along the British line. He raised his hat high in the air and waved it toward the enemy. At this victorious signal the British regiments advanced along the whole line, fives and drums, bugles and bagpipes urging the men forward. The French army was beaten. The sight of the old guard rolling back in confusion of fresh columns of Prussians closing in on the right told the defeated French that all was lost. On the high road by Label Allianz a few squares of grenadiers still held their ground and gave Napoleon shelter. But all attempts to stay the panic that had now seized the whole army was hopeless. The pursuit was taken up by the Prussians and it was not till three days later and many miles within the French frontiers that the army could be restored to some semblance of order. Napoleon had appealed to the supreme political test and failed and now apparently entertained no hope of being able to recover his position. He arrived in the capital on the night of the 20th and on the following day the chamber on the motion of Lafayette declared itself in permanent session and directed the ministers to report to it. In effect this was a withdrawal of authority from the hands of Napoleon and he accepted it in that sense. On the following day he abdicated for the second time in favor of his son. A week later the allies were nearing Paris and the provisional government led by Fouché was intriguing with the Bourbons. There was nothing Napoleon could now do but to try to leave France. He proceeded to Rochefort where he expected to be able to find ship for the United States but a British cruiser blockaded the port and Napoleon finding no other course possible finally went on board HMS Bellarafan, Captain Maitland and threw himself on the generosity of Great Britain. The arrival of the Bellarafan and her illustrious passenger at Portsmouth created great excitement in England. It's easy to see at this distance of time that Napoleon's career was run and that a magnanimous treatment would not have been dangerous but the feeling of those days was violent. Never had Great Britain been so threatened and alarmed as she had been when the army of Austerlitz was encamped along the shores of the Channel. The generation that had struggled with and defeated Napoleon could not forgive him and General Bonaparte as the British government childlessly insisted on addressing him was sent to the island of Saint Helena in the South Atlantic as a state prisoner. Of his six years residence in that island there is but little that can be said here with advantage. Controversy has raged about the trivial matters over which the illustrious prisoner and his gowler Sir Hudson Lowe disputed. Englishmen have written to prove that Napoleon was insulted and shabbily treated. Frenchman to prove that he spent his whole time lying and intriguing against Sir Hudson Lowe. It is altogether fortunate that these matters are of minor importance and that they need not be discussed in a work of these dimensions. It is a self-evident proposition that under the most favorable circumstances the coupling of Napoleon with the British military officer, not remarkable for tact or urbanity on a barren rock in mid-Atlantic could hardly lead to agreeable results. For those who have noted the peculiarities of Napoleon's character it will appear natural that his constant occupation at Saint Helena was to dictate to some of his companions in exile statements of a biased and misleading character as to his history. He was busy elaborating the Napoleonic legend creating an artificial atmosphere of fact from which he hoped would emerge in some future time an empire for his son. Towards the little King of Rome his thoughts frequently turned and when in 1820 it became clear that an illness he had felt before at intervals was now becoming dangerously acute he dictated long instructions for the future guidance of his son. The last sentence of his will was of an extraordinary character. Was it hallucination or was it astute calculation that made him right? My wish is to be buried on the banks of the Seine in the midst of the French people whom I so dearly loved. He died on the 5th of May 1821 of cancer in the stomach and was buried under a weeping willow near Longwood where he had spent six weary years of exile. British soldiers accompanied him to his rest with reversed arms and fired a parting salute over his grave. Twenty years later as if the violent contrasts of his life had not yet been exhausted his body was ceremoniously transferred to Paris and buried in the Invalides with every circumstance of military pomp and national mourning and under the auspices of a bourbon king. Chronology 16 June 1815 Lignier 18 June 1815 Waterloo 22 June 1815 Napoleon abdicates 5th of May 1821 Death of Napoleon End of Chapter 17 End of Napoleon A Short Biography by Robert Manson Johnston


Hey, check it out, man. Perfect fit, man. Perfect shirt, perfect fit. Appreciate your herbs. Now, we got some wide receiver galore questions coming up. First one came from my guy, Big Drizzy. He said, what's up, engraving? I'm currently watching your Miles Boykin video. We all knew he was done.  I hope so too. I really do. I hope he goes and gets more of an opportunity so we can really see what Miles Boykin got. But anyway, he said, my question is, who do you think we should sign in his place or do you think they are waiting to the draft to pick up somebody? Thanks for taking the time to answer. Hope everything is all good your way. Oh, everything is great, especially this shirt, which I love so much. Miles Boykin, as far as replacing, this is where Ravens would get a guy early. Because I think for Miles Boykin initially, maybe they may have envisioned him being their guy, but when him and Lamar, they never really got it going. They never got it going consistently. It was a play here, it was a play there, but it just wasn't enough. So it didn't end up working out. So you're not necessarily replacing Miles Boykin. You're not replacing him because the Ravens, they never really got that consistent impact from him as a wide receiver. They got it from him as a blocker, but as a wide receiver. So you're not really replacing him, but you are and should add a significant weapon to upgrade. So I think if they don't draft any, I mean, if they don't trade for anybody, then, because I don't expect it, like you got, who's out there?  So I don't expect him to sign any of those guys. I don't, Julio Jones will be very Raven-like though, but I don't expect him to sign any of those guys. So I think the draft is when that next wide receiver will come, whoever it may be. Boom, boom, boom. Next question came from Drumdrum. He said, I'll be honest. I was one of those people that thought you were crazy for thinking of drafting a wide receiver early and that we have plenty of weapons, but not anymore. You're good at convincing, I don't know about all that. Still probably might be a little bit crazy, but still, he said, with that in mind, I hope the outcome from night one of the draft is we pick a wide receiver at 14 and the Ravens do a trade to get another first round pick and use it on whatever the best play available is on defense that is ready to play now. Now, I guess my question is, what is your dream night one outcome in the draft? Yeah, that would be, I would love that. I would love, you said dream though, dream, if they had three first round picks, if they got three first round picks, if one was Jordan Davis, one was, I don't know what they saying, picking is probably gonna be in the second round, but if Ravens, I wouldn't be mad if they got him late in the first. Reason being because if you risk it, if you, like, if you could risk it, you could be like, oh, he's dropping, we could look at some teams in front of us. Oh, they probably won't pick a wide receiver. All right, and they snatched him. So I wouldn't be mad if they went out and got a wide receiver in the first, whether it's late in the first, earlier, and then, again, McDuffie. I've really grown to really like McDuffie a lot. Or they got an Andrew Booth Jr. Stingly, I would just be a little scared, man. I'd be a little scared with the injuries, but he can ball. And the thing, he can play inside and outside. With McDuffie, he can play inside and outside, with Sauce, he's an outside guy. So with the Ravens, they wouldn't necessarily need an outside corner right away, but you can never have enough. But at the same time, say for instance, they got Sauce, who's primarily an outside guy. You're gonna kick them all in Humphrey to the inside.   He's watching, what are you gonna do there? Because you have some options. And with the first round pick, it's like, hey, they gotta get on the field. They need to be on the field. So yeah, man. So my dream scenario for the first night of the draft would be three first round picks. And I know that probably sounds, or something sounds crazy, and it would be crazy. Maybe that's like, that's a lot of first round picks. That's a lot of first round picks. I do it in Madden all the time. I usually in Madden, I usually have like three or four, sometimes five, but I usually got quite a bit of first round picks. And that's why I always be having to get rid of people because I can't pay them all. But anyway, I'll be clearing capping these a lot to be cheating. But yeah, that would be me. That would be me. So pressure from the interior, the defensive line, wide receiver for another weapon for the Ravens, and also a cornerback. Or actually there's edge too. But yeah, you said my dream scenario. That would be it. Next question came from my guy Rashadi. He said, what's up in Graven? It's been a while since I asked a question, but I've been thinking.  At first I wanted us to draft the corner or pass rush, so I didn't even look at wide receivers in this draft class. But after hearing some names a couple of times in Twitter spaces, I'll admit they started to pique my interest. Especially after we let Sammy Watkins sign with the Packers. I just, maybe I'm the only person.  Because I never expected him to be back with the Ravens. So wherever he signed, if he would have had a visit, if he signed somewhere, which he ended up doing, I don't think that affected the Ravens at all. Like one bit. Because after Week 18, we knew that was the last time. Unless you watched Highlights of Summer or unless you were playing Madden. But after Week 18, we knew that was the last time we were seeing Sammy Watkins in the Ravens jersey. We knew that. So I just, I never expected him back, but anyway. He said, unless we'll let him, we'll let him crochet and dove off the leash, which I doubt, me too. I think we could see the Ravens draft the wide receiver early again. So I was thinking if both Sauce Gardner and Derek Stingley are gone and the top pass rushers are gone, I wouldn't mind getting Lamar another weapon. I think it's a better option than paying someone older a bunch of money, especially when we already know it won't be a proven number one like we've been asking for. Why waste that money on a prove it deal? I think that gives the Ravens time to pay Lamar and Hollywood, he said I'm crossing my fingers, of the following year. Mark is already locked up. I like the idea of everyone else being on rookie deals. If we did take a wide receiver, I think we should take one early. I think Jameson Williams will be a perfect fit. Now Hollywood and Bateman with a guy like that, with that kind of speed at wide receiver three could be special. Then you add Mark Andrews to it. And it's just crazy. I read somewhere that if it wasn't for his injury, he could have been the first wide receiver drafted. Yeah, I heard that same thing too. I don't think we should pass up on a guy like him if he's available when it's our turn to pick. But hey, that's just me. I'm interested what you think about this. And yeah, that would certainly be an interesting pick. I just don't see the Ravens, because adding a speed would be nice. You can never have enough speed. I mean, look at the dolphins getting Tariq here. I can't wait to see two in Tariq seeing how they match each other. Anyway, I don't think they're gonna do it in the first. I think they're gonna do it in the second though. As far as the wide receivers, yeah. Game changer, big playmaker. I get a little giddy when we talk about wide receivers and the potential of them being Ravens. Oh, but I'm glad I haven't fallen in love with any wide receivers yet. Trying to stay away from that because again, I got burned in 2020. 2020 really hurt me bad when it came to wide receivers because first that the Andre Hopkins news that came out right before the draft. And then on top of that, I fell in love with the potential of Jerry Judy coming in a CD lamb coming in and Henry Ruggs was like, oh, what do we got? One of them. Then they all started just going off the board one by one. I was like, oh man. That was pain for me, man. So this year I ain't falling in love with really any players like that, but so I wouldn't be mad. I wouldn't be mad at all. Now, if they did draft a receiver in the first, you did mention about Hollywood, hopefully they'll be able to re-sign him. So he will be the only wide receiver not on a rookie deal. And then depending on the length of his contract it could possibly run out when Bateman's runs out because Bateman has three years left and then he has a fourth year option. So that would be them signing Hollywood to a three year extension. Well, depending on if they pick up the fifth year option or not. So that's still to be determined. And then with the receiver that they drafted now, his fourth year would be Bateman's fifth. So everything would just line up. So they would be able to have their guys and of course, Mark Andrews too. And then of course, you kind of need to sign Lamar as well. So, but that's not till next year. But so they would have their guys locked up and they would have them locked up for a while to give them just a plethora of weapons. Give them all plethora. Like y'all could put me out there at quarterback. I mean, I could do some stuff now. I wouldn't be no Lamar, but I'd be the little, probably like maybe like the dollar store version of Lamar. No, no, not dollar store version. Maybe like the Walmart layaway version. I don't even know if Walmart still do layaway, but that would be me. I'll be the Walmart Lamar for the Ravens. So let me know if y'all need me. But anyway, if I had all them weapons out there, I could make some stuff happen. But with Lamar having all those weapons out there, you know he could make some stuff happen.  I know a lot of people scared of Drake because of, because Drake London, cause he goes to USC and a lot of USC receivers, they just don't pan out. Whoever it may be, Berks. Berks is one of that too, man, let's do it all. But whoever it is, man, it just adding to what we have already. Just adding to on top of what we have already. It could make things just so special. That's all we want. Next question came from my guy, Isaac. He said, why receiver at 14? What's up in Raven? Wishing you all the best into you and yours. I just thought that the Ravens released Boykin and it got me thinking, are the Ravens about to take yet another why receiver in the first round? It makes sense to me. Ravens have allegedly been in trade discussions for why receivers like DK and Debo. I still haven't seen that from anybody of significance. But anybody with credibility. We did see those rumors or whatnot, but just didn't see them from anybody credible. So I don't know if it's true or not. But anyway, he said, and the Ravens are known to zig when everyone thinks they're gonna zag. Oh yes, that's saying, oh, that's so true. And that could be a gift and a curse.  Okay, well keep that wall pulled over our eyes and do that. If we do go that route, who would you rather take? Chris Olave, Drake London, or Jameson Williams? Look at that. We just talking about them before. Chris Olave, speed, speed, speed, speed, speed, speed. Drake London, taller frame, shifter, then a lot of people give him credit for to move the yards after the catch as well. Jameson Williams, a little combination of both. Oh man. Probably either Jameson Williams, probably in the order Jameson Williams, Chris Olave, yeah. So Jameson, Chris, Drake. And it's super close, but Jameson, Chris, Drake. I feel like you couldn't go wrong with either one of the three, but yeah. So, and then as far as the size, like I know Chris is like six, he's like six one. I think Jameson is like six two and Drake, I think Drake a little taller. Let me see how tall Drake is. I think he like six, three, six, four, I believe. But let me just check for sure. Oh, even better, six, five. He actually looks like Drake too, a little bit. But yeah, I feel like either one would be good and beneficial for the Ravens, because again, the playmakers, the playmakers, because we just need more game changes. We got some, we got some, but get more. What up, man? You too, team, keep it clean. You see my boy, he like, I done made it. I done made it. Boy, that's my homie, ain't that right in Raven? Right in Raven. Team Keep It Clean, welcome to another episode of Questions From Sub, where you can ask me any, any, any, any NFL question that we answer in a video, just like this. If you wanna be part of it, send me an email to teamkeepitclean at gmail.com or for the patrons. You can send it directly on Patreon now. If you wanna join all the Team Keep It Clean patrons, you can go to patreon.com slash engravingvids. And if you don't want to, that's fine. You ain't gotta worry about it. Team Keep It Clean, we got some great questions like y'all already heard and we got some more too. Let's jump into it. Next question came from my guy, Javo. He said, with the draft being a week away, I'm putting you in a GM's fantasy seat. What would be the perfect draft for you? Since you don't watch college sports, give your followers the position for the first four rounds, but if you wanna provide a name, you're more than welcome to. Hope all is well. Let's hope EDC nails this draft since he can't nail free agency. Oh wow, the pettiness in there. Ooh, first four rounds. That's hard because you don't know how the board is falling. But first round, first round, interior defense. I mean, we kind of just talked about it in the previous question, but first round will be interior defensive linemen and either cornerback or wide receiver. Second round, wide receiver and edge. Oh, you know what? We need some offensive linemen too. Any more quality there at offensive line. Wow. Ooh, this is tough. Man, you just made me realize just how tough it is drafties. That is tough because, oh my goodness. Ooh, because you gotta stay ready so you ain't gotta get ready. Ronnie Stanley, Jawan, James, big question marks. Wow. So maybe my first round may have to change a little bit. So first round may be offensive line and interior defensive line. Now if I would probably try to push, try to find a way if I could, get back in there again. That's a lot of fifth year options too. But if I could try to get back in there again to get offensive line, interior defensive line and a corner. Ooh, man, that'd be tough. But if nobody was willing to trade with me for me to get back in this first round, then second round be wide receiver, corner or wide receiver and edge. And then I would still be thinking about free agency for corner. Then after that, it's kind of, it gets kind of like bleak because everything like, it's so hard to do it just based off of positions alone because again, we don't know how things are gonna, how the board is gonna fall, which players are gonna end up falling. Because again, that's why not every player goes to the draft itself. Because, oh man, and that's tough too.  That's like, ooh. But, hey, it's just part of the process, man. That's the risk involved, right? I mean, it's a risk by the players going to the draft if you might not get picked. But it's a risk with the teams that pick these players because they might not work out. But yes, it's tough, man. It's tough. But this was a little fun exercise, man. Last question came from my boy Matthew. He said, I'll keep it short and sweet. I just did a mock and was wondering, you in the flocks opinion, should I get the GM chair or just keep cheering from my couch? Many blessings.  You go for your GM role, man. You go get it. You never know. You might be the next GM of the Ravens, man.  You just gotta get in the building. That's the first part, man. He said in the first round, we received, I mean, picks 39 and 30. I mean, 29 and 30 from the Chiefs and they get our 14th overall pick and then our third round pick as well. So at pick 29, we take Trevor Penning. And then, where's the 30th? Oh, okay. Then, oh man, you were moving. Then he did another trade where we get the 40th overall pick and the 42nd overall pick from the Seahawks but they give us, no, no, no. So yeah, we get the 40th overall pick and 42nd pick in the second round but we give them our first rounder, the 30th pick that we got from the Chiefs and we give them a third round pick, pick number 76 and we give them a fourth round pick, pick number 110. So with that second round pick, we take Edge guy, Nick Bonito and then following that up, we take Jalen P3. I'm sure I messed up his name. It's probably like Piter or something but anyway, we take him from Baylor and then, oh, okay. Hey, that's all I needed to see. Draft is done after this. Then in round two, the 45th overall pick, they take George Pickings. I'm done. I ain't gotta say no more. I already approved of it right there. But then he said in round four because they don't have a third round pick because we gave it away or we gave up two of our third round picks to go back in the second and get those tricks.  Then in round four, oh, in round four, we get a running back from Notre Dame, Kieran Williams. And then round five, we trade all round. We know, so, no, no, still in round four. We trade our fifth round, no, no, no. Sorry, I was right. We trade out of the fifth round. We trade that our fourth round pick to the Saints and we received their fifth round pick and a sixth round pick. In the fifth round, we take a linebacker, Jack Sanborn from Wisconsin and in the, oh man, you traded again. Dog, you don't stop moving. Then he traded away a six round pick, two six round picks to move higher in the, is that the fifth round? I can't see it. No, to move higher in the sixth round. Yeah, to move up in a sixth round and they use that sixth round pick that he got from the Vikings. So he traded two six round pick over in 194 and 196 to the Vikings to receive pick 184. And with 184, it took the tight end from Marilyn Chee, who Lamar recruited by the way. So yeah, hey, your round two 45th overall pick, that's what had me so. Well, I let team keep it clean, they forget the rest.


Yes, my name is Michael Lilsen and you already got the title. So I guess just get going So this talk and the or this protocol is called the tiny table protocol Because it has something to do with tiny tables, I guess and it's a new protocol for two PC and it's Well, my opinion is that once you see it is like obviously simple, but I guess you'll see and decide for yourself So this a short overview of what I'm gonna talk about and just how this talk is gonna be I'm gonna start by motivating warming up as usual then I'm gonna jump straight to the protocol present the protocol Present the pre-processing material, which I'll come back to what is Some properties an extension of the protocol and finally a benchmark like how does it perform in real life? All right, so two-party computation. This is the Session we are talking about this is our basic setting our setting is special here because we only consider boolean circuits But at least on Bob each have an input x and y they want to evaluate some circuit See on their input such that the only thing that they learn is the Evaluation of the circuit of their inputs So this is this is good. We we really really like this box But we have to settle with a real-life protocol instead The problem with many protocols or existing protocols are that they are too slow so to the rescue we have the pre-processing model and I beloved child has many names. It's also known as correlated randomness something else But the main idea is that just as before the parties run some slow offline pre-processing protocol Where we push all the public key? Primitives and then later on we can do a super super fast online computation By using this pre-processing material D and D prime All right, so this is our setting and and of course the tiny tail protocol is The fast online and I will return to how we generate the pre-processing material So just to sum up being a bit more formal about the setting two-party computation In the pre-processing model malicious security static corruption and with this on its majority. So one party can be corrupt All right, so to get started with the protocol Let's do a simple warm-up with computing an AND gate Which is due to each eye at all from 13 and this is what an AND gate look like The pre-processing Functionality now. I'm just talking functionality. It's gonna do something very simple It's gonna assemble two random bits Then it's gonna scramble an AND gate and by this I mean we simply take an AND gate and then depending on the two masks We flip the AND gate like horizontally or vertically here Then we secret share this table By a usual additive secret sharing scheme. So we just take our table We just scrambled and then we secret share it by choosing a random share and making sure this invariant holds and Finally, we send one mask to Alice and the table a to Alice and the mask are B to Bob with the table B Now to compute the AND gate in the online protocol Alice and Bob now have real inputs X and Y First they encrypt their input using this mask as a one-time pad So they simply I used the notation EA for the encryption of a then they share the one-time pad encryptions of their inputs then they simply look up in their table a and B and Send the corresponding share in this index of the table and finally they reconstructed So a very simple way to compute an AND gate by making these correlated tables if you want And of course the tables and the mask is the pre-processing material here So now we are ready for the tiny table protocol. That's good So the offline phase in the tiny table protocol is a bit similar I'll say we have a circuit C with n gates and m wires and now for each wire instead we select a random mask and We will compute with EA which is the encryption of the real bit B. I For each gate we do this table trick just as before so we secret share a table But but notice here that the Rw is such that we also encrypt the output of the gate under the corresponding next mask on the output on the mask that we assign to the output wire of this gate and Then of course we send this to the players we send the corresponding input masks if they are gonna for which wires they are gonna input an Output mask in this case. We just assume both parties are gonna learn the output and Finally the tables just as before So for the online protocol, I I bet this is maybe the simplest Online protocol you have ever seen for two-party computation for the inputs We send the one-time pet encryptions of the inputs just as before for each gate as an invariant We know the encryptions of the input wires We simply look up in the tables exchange the shares and reconstruct the encrypted output and Finally for the output we just use the the output mask for the circuit to sorry to decrypt the output and Both parties knows this mask. So a very simple two-party computation protocol in basically three lines or so alright So of course this protocol is not actively secure. So The parties can cheat somewhere with the bits that they have And recall that there is back a mask bit for each wire there is the tables for each gate and Also know that that if they want to cheat somewhere They cannot really cheat at the input because that just constitutes to choosing another input and of course in the output Well, they just return an hour another output for themselves So the put the place that people can cheat is by sending the wrong table values when they look up in the tables So we fix this simply by making the pre-processing functionality commit the players to each of the bits in these tables a Symbol way is that for each table entry One party now holds two random bit strings and the other one holds the one in the position for his corresponding share so When computing the NAE way would be that after every single gate We also send a Mac for their share. So they send a bit and a Mac but we can easily extend this and make it more efficient in by Accumulating the Mac simply X oring the random bit strings whenever you accumulate an and or a computer and gate And then finally just before the output phase you send this big accumulated Mac alright so Some very short notation on secret sharing and max if you're not familiar with it already now I'm going I'm warming up for the pre-processing functionality that is going to generate these tables now for now It's just a magic functionality So we say that the parties Alice and Bob each holds a global key And we say that a secret sharing of X is such that X a plus XP Which is held by each party forms a secret sharing of of X and that these betas and the Y's is simply a Mac a linear Mac Now we have the terms a random sharing Which is basically just a secret sharing of a random value and a multiplication triples, which is three shareings But such that this relation holds that a B equals C and Note that with this with these secret sharing and with this notation players can locally add secret your values and they can use one of these multiplication triples by beaver standard trick to Compute a multiplication by secret here of secret shareings All right, so to generate the pre-processing material. This is again in the Pre-processing phase or whatever you want to call it So we attach ourselves on the tiny OT protocol which exactly spits out these random shareings and multiplication triples which we are going to use to generate the tables and The core idea here is of course to use a random sharing for each wire and then a multiplication Triple for each gate the scramble gate that we are going to compute So for each random wires, this is a protocol to generate the pre-processing material For each wire, they now assign a random sharing for each gate which now have three Shareings which corresponds to the the masking bits We we compute the table by first multiplying by using a triple the two input masks And finally we can buy by knowing constant C and D. There is like four entries. We can simply compute the table locally Also here the max are dependent. They are using this linear max scheme So we just use a random oracle to get two random bit strings if we want to use this Max scheme I showed you just before and Now for each input wire we open the wire to the guy who owns these wires Who is going to input on the wires and for each output wires. We just open all the The masks So now we have exactly our pre-processing material that we want All right, so a very simple protocols just to talk a bit about some properties this protocol has Of course, we have three XOR like every two-party Computation protocol or modern one and the idea here is simply we make The output mask which is going to encrypt the output of an XOR gate Simply be the XOR of the two input masks and then in the online phase. They can simply just locally XOR the two encryptions together to obtain the output Not gates. We simply negate the mask and then we Just remove the not gate from the circuit Also, we can generate larger tables instead of just boolean fan in two tables We can generate say the ASS box which has eight bits as input And it follows exactly the same pattern that we we Generate a truth table with this input mask. We encrypt it with the output mask and then with secretaries to a and B We can also use smaller max instead of these Long bit strings then we can of course use the linear max scheme which is used for the pre-processing phase So that we obtain for example for the S-boxes. We don't need 256 random bit strings for each of the 256 entries in the tiny tables and Finally, we obtain I think the the best complexity for a two-party computation protocol Namely by by constructing a special version of the tiny tail protocol using some coding schemes on top So one way to say if we just flatten out all the tables during the computation It's basically just a long bit string where we want to open some of the wires and by using this view We we can get the complexity down to To this k epsilon s alright, so I Want to talk a bit about a benchmark because this protocol is is fast as I as I promised you So we are benchmarking two versions one is a binary AS Which consists of a Boolean circuit from Bristol University or University of Bristol? Which is the AX AS expanded and this circuit has 41 layers Another one and and another more interesting view is is Yeah, we also have the free XOR and no knots here a More interesting version is what we call the optimized AS So basically in two PC AS is kind of the benchmark that you want to show you can do fast and that is Really lucky for us because it's because of the structure So AS is basically something like this at around key some rounds and then some other subroutines But if we look at these Subroutines we notice that all the green subroutines here. They are linear and Of course, we want to take advantage of that. So To make an optimized AS 128 version using the tiny tail protocol we can simply compute all the linear operations using AS and I so it's like We don't have to do any Boolean circuits. We simply just use like four operations directly on the CPU and for each in the subbyte which contains is it a 16 lookups We simply exchange each of the S-Box lookups with a tiny tip a secret sharing instead and Then of course we add max and we add two checks to make it actively secure Alright, so a binary AS version and an optimized version Here is some numbers on what the pre-processed data looks like in real life for the optimized and the binary and of course, it's a bit higher for the optimized especially So by this of course passive should make sense The linear is the linear max scheme and the lookup here is is just these random bit strings I talked about before the max scheme used with different security parameters 32 and 64 bits and Of course the the linear is smaller in size and And of course the optimized version takes more space than the binary version because we have these larger tables And here are some timings Where the LAN setting is simply two computers in our department and the cloud is is using the large computation machines on on Amazon and I think worth noticing here is that we are now in the micro second range which is down to Like I think this constitute to doing a yes around to make a Hertz which is some Somehow comparable to you know one computer doing it locally with no computation all right, so This was the basic protocol we We simply have a mask We simply compute on these one-time pad encryptions for each wire And then we simply have a scrambled table for each gate doing the protocol So the take home basis of this talk is that we like correlated tables and For linear functionalities like in the AES why not just compute these linear functionalities directly on one-time padding cryptid values And finally, let's just only pre-pros the non-linear blocks just as we showed you before Yes, so that's all I got for you Thank you


view from the North. It's really important discussion today. Canada is a huge energy producer and consumer. And in these days, after energy has become destabilized, thanks to Vladimir Putin, markets are roiling all over the world. Energy is more expensive. We should talk about the comparison between the U.S. and Canada and Canada and other places. And for that discussion, we do as we always do. We talk to Dr. Ken Rogers, and he tells us about Canada and how it compares. Welcome to the show, Ken. Hello, Jay. It's good to be here. And I probably have a different opinion than you do on some matters. That's why we like to have you on the show. Oh, well. You know, when you think of energy, the future, you really have to break it into just two simple concepts. The first one that most people don't count when they're talking about the second. And the first is that we're going to need an awful lot more energy. You know, for example, 15 years ago, China used half as much energy as the United States. Today, it uses twice as much. Now, the U.S. has about, you know, 5% of the world's population, but uses 15% of the world's energy. So if you just wait a little while and various countries in the world start to catch up, not necessarily at China's pace and not necessarily to get to the American pace, but certainly most countries, you know, 15 years from now may be similar to what China is now.  You know, I don't necessarily think the Philippines, Egypt and Ethiopia, each of which currently have more than 100 million people are going to pull up their socks as fast as might be the case, or you know, could be the case. Still, there's going to need an awful lot more energy. Well, the second piece is you can't separate anything to do with energy from global warming or the climate crisis. Well, if you're to start with the climate crisis, you could basically say, what causes it? Well, it's really better termed as global warming rather than, you know, the climate crisis. Well, global warming is caused by an increase in the gases in the atmosphere, which trap the heat. Well, CO2 gives approximately three quarters of the, let's call the weight of the gases that go into global warming or that have an effect. Well, you know, currently everybody with the, in the climate, let's call it anti-oil and gas business, rather than call it environmentalists. Yeah, spoken like, spoken like a Western Canadian. Well, I think there's a realistic touch to it. For example, carbon dioxide amounts to 77% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Now, on the other hand, you've got methane, which amounts to 11%. And you've got nitrous oxide, which is 7%. Well, nitrous oxide has a, compared to CO2, has 300 times the ability to trap energy or trap heat. That is, its contribution to global warming is 300 times as much as CO2. Well, if you have 77% of what, of the gases that are there are CO2 and only 7% is from nitrous oxide. You know, but if nitrous oxide is 300 times as powerful, then you're sitting where the nitrous oxide would be 27 times more important. That is, you know, you could eliminate one pound of nitrous oxide is just as good as eliminating 27 pounds of CO2. So that, you know, CO2 isn't necessarily the total story. You know, the environmentalists tend to be attacking it, you know, as the total story, you know, so that when you're trying to get the future for energy, and you say one of the objectives is to not have any greenhouse gases or eliminate global warming, you know, and the other one is you've got to have an awful lot more energy. And so you need a policy to get from now till then, you know, and, and so if you're trying to get from now to then, and you say, well, the biggest energy user in the world is China. Well, China is still an importer of energy.  You know, in China, out of its own production, where it's its production of energy by China itself, 71% of the energy China produces for itself is coal. Well, so if you're trying to say, gee, transition, the global warming question is really a world problem. It's not a Canada problem. Like Canada, it's almost like a joke compared to looking at China or the Orient or Japan, because I mean, Canada has four of the provinces like the one I live in, where 97% of the electricity in British Columbia comes from hydropower in Manitoba, which is just north of North Dakota. And Manitoba produces 99% of its electricity from hydropower. Well, nobody else has that luxury. You know, like Canada has 20% of the world's fresh water, so that you kind of have a little bit of an advantage. And we've got lots of mountains so that, you know, your water running downhill is important in enabling you to have hydropower. But, you know, countries, while Florida was a country, you know, and it has 21 or 22 million people, but it's flat. And it's not high enough. I mean, if you look at the flooding that occurred in Orlando solely because they had unexpected huge quantities of rain and it had nowhere it could drain quickly. So your energy question, you have to deal with what can one country do that would help the world as opposed to itself.  Well, those ports, like for shipping, are closer to Japan or Beijing, China than is Australia or any part of the United States or almost anywhere in the world where there's any energy other than like Malaysia or, you know, Brunei. The now what the Canadian government's done is saying they wouldn't allow any pipelines to have exports of any energy from those ports. There were 27 corporations applied for permits to export LNG, like that's the natural gas in its most condensed form. And, you know, the thing that's sort of saving Europe this week. Well, they didn't, they finally have one approved where, you know, when those 27 applications were made, there were virtually none in the U.S. Now the U.S. now has seven liquid LNG plants in operation and half a dozen more that are under construction or close to being started of construction. And those plants are, you know, one LNG plant produces billions of dollars a year in revenue.  And the United States has gone from, you know, an importer of LNG to the world's largest exporter. You know, just recently did, you know, have greater exports than either Australia or Qatar, which are now the second and third biggest exporters. Well, if you're trying to get, you know, transitional, you know, LNG to a great extent is transitional. And where transition becomes important is if you think of Europe. And how did they get in the mess they're in? Well, they started off with an overzealous, ill-informed or misguided, you know, if I could put enough adjectives in, race to have no carbon energy. You know, that is anti-carbon, like anti-oil, anti-gas. And so they had this big rush. And the first thing, they did just a magnificent, wonderful job, better than anybody else in the world at getting wind farms and solar farms. You know, but after a big effort on wind farms and solar farms, and they then sort of looked at, gee, all the negative stuff they had about oil and gas, you know, shutting down, and coal, you know, shutting down all of their coal power plants and, and, you know, while they were at it thinking that, gee, if, you know, we're talking environmental, why don't we pick on nuclear as well?   So suddenly they had a big panic. Like why I call misguided was they just didn't understand or didn't properly recognize the sheer magnitude of the energy business. And so suddenly, you know, they looked at over their shoulder and, and gee, they, all of these wind farms and solar farms just, just weren't cutting it. I mean, they were productive, they're pretty good. If you look at a country like Denmark, it looks pretty magic, you know, but if you Germany, it was a joke. You know, like the United States has done an awful lot of solar and wind, but today it really amounts to like 4% of the energy produced. Well, since they started doing it, the energy usage of the US has grown by more than that. You know, so it really hadn't gained much. Well, what Europe did was, you know, suddenly they recognized, gee, this doesn't work. Well, politically, once you've said, well, gee, nuclear is an awful thing, and we're going to decommission those plants, it's kind of a tough political decision to say, well, we want to change our mind.  You know, so they make a deal with Russia for natural gas by pipeline, you know, because natural gas was at least much, much cleaner than coal or oil. Was that supposed to be a transitional fuel? I believe that natural gas may never be relegated to the category of transitional, surely purely because if the energy needs of the world grow, the population grows, but if the standard of living of other countries start to, you know, pull up their socks, the need for more energy is going to be such that there will be great difficulty. Your transition is the whole science to me that needs to have a real effort. You know, for example, I believe nuclear power should be called a transitional source of energy. We may never get to the stage where we need to shelve it, like natural gas. It really depends on what the growth in the energy needs are. I don't see anybody taking a political stance that let's all use less energy. Well, a couple of thoughts on that.  You know, in Canada, for example, has plenty of those things. Aside from, you know, hydro, it has solar, it has wind, it is very abundant in the energy sources it has that are not carbon or fossil. So the question I put to you is, suppose you had a political will thing, where they said, well, we're going to not only do more than that 4% per annum, we're going to do lots more. We're going to throw the money at it. We're going to do solar and wind and everything renewable we can do. My question to you is, can we actually achieve, you know, an appropriate response to climate change? Can we reduce climate change by changing, you know, the basic systems in the US, maybe in Canada too, in Europe for sure, Asia, can we beat climate change if we really focus on it and treat it as the emergency that it is? I believe we have to. You know, we have to try, but we have to be realistic. You know, for example, there is a lot of stuff in the press nowadays about hydrogen. Now, hydrogen would be really, really nice as a partner with wind and solar, because when wind and solar doesn't work, if you've got an underground reservoir and you store a bunch of hydrogen under pressure, you know, then you can use the hydrogen, you know, for the period when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. And hydrogen works as a good fuel for transportation. You know, the difficulty with hydrogen is the cost to produce it. You know, you can do, you know, make hydrogen from water, which is really expensive, or you can make hydrogen from natural gas, which is very economic, but if you make it from natural gas and you capture the CO2, and you sequester the CO2, like carbon capture and sequestration, is the thing that they're trying to implement for most power plants around the world.  It's pretty easy to capture the CO2. And there's lots of old, you know, salt caverns and equivalent in which you can pump the CO2 into and it's sequestered very safely. Like that's a transitional move that really takes a lot of the negatives out of oil and gas, you know, particularly gas. When I come to, and I always wind up in this place, is that a couple of basics. Number one is an economy which has abundant energy is going to be a stronger economy. You can build stuff with energy. You can make the economy run better with energy any place. And of course, if the energy is too expensive, that's a problem, because it's not really abundant. If it's cheaper, well, then it's more likely to be the case that your economy will benefit by that. At the end of the day, question of money. And if you say that climate change is the most existential threat, it's the biggest story of our lifetimes and it's happening around us ever since Al Gore and before and worse all the time. And despite all these meetings and United Nations efforts and whatnot, we're still sinking into climate change. We're not putting in the political will, but we're also not putting in the money. I guess those two things are related. If we put in the money, and we make energy abundant everywhere around the world, and we make it renewable energy, A, we have a better effect on climate change. Maybe we save the planet. And B, we have better economy. So to me, it's a matter of focusing on energy and being willing to have political will and put in much more money than we're putting in now. Seems to me, we have the technology. You were just talking about that. We have the technology. We just have to deploy it, build the infrastructure and the like. And we're not really focused because look at Florida. Look at Florida. And they talk about all the sad stories of the people whose homes were wrecked and the lives lost, what have you. But bottom line, they're not talking about dealing with climate change. As you said, they're talking about rebuilding, but rebuilding only so it would happen again and again and again. And there's so many places in the world like that. So the answer is to try to beat climate change and that would be the biggest priority of all. And the other thing I wanted to just throw into the pot on that is nuclear. There was a young kid out of Virginia who is a Republican and who hasn't been completely candid in his campaign about what his position was, has now come out and favors nuclear. And there are companies in the United States and Asia for that matter who are ready to use nuclear technology and build bite-sized power plants, power plants that are safer, more efficient and so forth. And I suspect there's a groundswell of people who would support nuclear like you either as a transitional fuel until we get a handle on climate change or even more long term than that. So even if you don't have the political will, if you have the will to build nuclear, then maybe you can get your arms around this. I don't think we treat it seriously enough and I agree with you and that all of the wind and all the solar doesn't make that much difference in the face of fossil fuel, which is still our predominant source of fuel everywhere. So my thought is we aren't going to be able to beat this until we change the norms, change the political will, change our spending habits. What do you think? Well, you started with the premise of it would be really nice to have all of the energy come from renewable sources. Well, if you take Iceland, Iceland has a unique geology where it has enough geothermal that the majority of its energy can be geothermal no matter how much their population grows. But all of Iceland has such a puny population. It's less than a normal city. Well, similarly, Iceland, you'd say, well, compare Hawaii instead of Iceland. In Hawaii, you got way more sun than Iceland. So solar would work better in Hawaii. It would work much better in Nevada and Utah and Arizona. But Hawaii has quite a bit of sun. Because you have more clouds, not as much as Arizona. So each country has a different situation. Now, if you're sitting with a country that's densely populated like the Netherlands, you can't have a great big monstrous solar farms unless you're going to eliminate the dairy farm or eliminate something else like they're using every inch. I mean, they even plant things along the sides of highways. We're in Canada, we'd call that the ditch. In Canada's case, one would think we're blessed with a lot of natural resources, but there would be great difficulty in getting to the type of scenario that Denmark has. Denmark has a combination of wind, solar, and then they have natural gas from their interests in the North Sea. And so they've got a pretty clean, compared to anybody else in Europe, they've probably got the cleanest energy scenario, but they're still using a fair slug of fossil fuels for anything else. You don't try to manufacture anything without some byproduct of oil. You know, I'm just I'm conflicted on whether the solution is country by country, region by region, geographical construct against geographical construct. You know, it's one thing in Canada, it's another thing in Germany, and so forth. And we have world oil markets and world energy markets that supposedly alleviate this. And I would like to ask you about Putin, because one of the things that Germany and Western Europe did was they made themselves dependent on Putin's gas. And they really didn't think of what Plan B was going to be, and they didn't really recognize the geopolitical problems around Putin and Russia, and dependency. So if you have a flat world, so to speak, Friedman's flat world, if you have a world that's interdependent on energy, you subject yourself to those geopolitical things and dictators who, you know, want to take sovereign, get there, you know, invade their neighbors and the like, and be mean and nasty, and use the dependency of other countries as a lever. And so perhaps the answer is, like Denmark, you have certain primary sources that are local, and you have certain backup sources that you can replace if necessary. You know, one of the things that Germany is waiting for is American LNG, but they don't have the infrastructure to take it yet, and they're going to have a very cold winter. Um, how do you avoid being held hostage that way? How do you avoid the geopolitical manipulation of the energy markets?  And as a net result, for example, the countries in OPEC could have, you know, terrible human records, you know, what they do for, you know, with their public or with their, you know, no female rights whatsoever, etc.  Energy dependent. Well, each country is really standing on its own in this world. You know, if you say the United States, you know, is probably, you know, I would say for sure is the world's largest contributor to helping other countries. But, you know, how could you look your constituent in the eye and say, we're going to send a whole bunch of money to Somalia to enable them to have some wind and solar farms up, you know, right away quick and to, you know, do X, Y, and Z, which would also enhance their economy and energy self-sufficiency. You know, well, you know, you'd have, how could you possibly do that and not fix the problem in Puerto Rico? You know, is there's an allocation of resources? You know, you can look at the United States clearly discriminated Puerto Rico versus Florida. You know, your comments are so touching because it's just kissing cousin to the whole question of immigration. What country, you know, what countries are going to allow immigrants to come from? And on what basis? It's about borders. And so that suggests to me that what we are missing here, both in immigration and in energy, is a global organization. Now, the UN in many ways is a failed organization because, you know, they have the Security Council rule and then the bad guys can, you know, veto anything they want so they never get anything done. But assuming the United Nations was reformed somehow or more powerful somehow, wouldn't that be an appropriate place to organize global energy markets and allow for the, you know, the free transfer of power in an equitable way without allowing the interdependence to become dependence? Well, you'd kind of have why does the UN have problems, you know, and you're saying, you know, the Security Council veto by one of any of five countries, you know, you can say, well, how do you fix that? You know, can you say, well, let's have the G20 instead of, you know, the five and say you got to get three of the 20 or something. You know, you can have a change of rules.  But, you know, there isn't a structure to enable that fix. You know, if you said you want to change the veto, you know, you know, the United States might be the first one to say there is no way on earth they will be part of any organization where the U.S. doesn't get an absolute veto. And out of the other side of the U.S.'s mouth they'd say, yeah, but we shouldn't let, you know, a puny country like France have a veto.  But, you know, you've got to have much like compromise. Let's assume the compromise. Let's assume the empowerment of the United Nations. And I totally agree with you that it's really, really hard to reform the United Nations. Or for that matter, the problems in the U.S. clearly we spend a lot of time thinking about what the problems are, but not coming up with solutions. In any event, let's assume for this discussion that you could have an international organization that would manage energy markets. That would allow for the free and equitable transfer of fuels from one geographic area to another. Wouldn't that solve this problem we've been talking about? No. Okay. Let's just use China and India as examples. Now, China, from my statistics just looking at it, produces 71% or of the energy it produces itself, 71% of it's from coal. Okay. So the United Nations of your idea says, let's not have any coal production at all. Like we shouldn't have coal and steel. We shouldn't have coal for burning at power plants or for heat. And in particular, we're worried about every time you have coal mining, you get methane goes into the atmosphere and it's 20 times as problematic as CO2. Much like my example with nitrous oxide, the methane is terrible as an atmospheric greenhouse gas. Anyhow, how are you going to convince the Chinese to dig into their empty pocket to buy energy from somebody else? Like Iceland can't send them their geothermal power. Electricity, one of the problems which technology has yet to solve is transmitting electricity over a fair distance without losing most of the electricity along the way. I totally agree. This is a big problem. But let's assume for a moment that the United Nations organization is powerful and can speak power to China. Let's assume that these are wild assumptions, I understand. Okay. But what about hydrogen? Why can't this very powerful United Nations organization that runs energy markets say, look, we are making hydrogen a world fuel. And we take everything we can, short of fossil fuels, and we put it into hydrogen, and then we put those hydrogen tanks on ships and we move them around the world. And you can buy them off the ships and use them to power your cities. And it's the preferred and ideally the prevailing kind of energy. And we only use renewables to make the hydrogen. What about that? Is that a perfect solution? Hydrogen is an excellent fuel for almost anything. That is, if you could get the economics of hydrogen to work, it would be a great solution. I happen to think that hydrogen will play a major role in the future. In the short run, it's much like my China example is you get economics. Economics gets in the way of everything when you're trying to say what's for the social good. And you overcome that. Like if you have international money, everything working collectively, well that doesn't work. There is no international pooling of money. Europe and the United States can go their way and eventually the rest of the world will follow. But that's the only way you're going to get some of these things done. The Chinese are as keen as anybody to see any fuel like hydrogen work well. Well, we'll use hydrogen as an example. The province I live in has a ton of natural gas that's just locked in. You know, it's just sitting there. It's proven reserves. It's easy to produce. It's fairly close to a port. But the federal government in Canada just won't allow any pipeline to go from where the gas is to a port. Is that for environmental considerations? Well, it's not as good as the prime minister going on a photo-op. Okay, that's my cynical way to say where I made a comment earlier about the Europeans being ill-informed to make the mistake of cutting off all of their sources of energy and then having to get unbended need to get gas from Russia, which was going deeper into stupidity. But I lost my train of thought with that diversion. But the hydrogen you could produce from natural gas very easily and economically now. If you sequester the CO2 that results from doing that, then you have, instead of green hydrogen, which if you produced it from solar or wind, then call it green hydrogen. That would be really good and fit exactly what you're saying. Well, call it blue hydrogen. They actually have terms on hydrogen as to how it's produced. And if it's produced from natural gas but all of the bad stuff is sequestered, then it's blue. It's not quite green. Well, that's a great transitional thing. Now, you've got to do the transitional things and down the road find out whether you can even end the transition or whether you got to keep going with that transitional procedure, such as nuclear power, such as using natural gas that's but sequestering. But you got to start with the heavyweights first and get rid of coal. Yeah. Well, there it is. I think that's the takeaway from this discussion that you don't know how long you're going to be involved in a transition, but you know the transition is better than the status quo because right now we're still so heavily invested in fossil fuels. And it's okay to have a transitional bridge on this. Maybe that's not the right term. A transitional bridge when you don't know exactly how long the bridge is, but you only know that the transition is better than the status quo. It's a conversation that has to keep going. And I'm sorry we don't have more time, but I feel at least in my view we've made some real progress in trying to understand the larger picture, including for Canada, the United States, Europe, Asia, so forth. It's global markets. We have to see it that way. Thank you very much, Ken. Very valuable discussion. Well, if I add one thing, just when you use the United Nations political will, just pick on the United States and Canada. The United States produces or 13% of the energy the US consumes comes from coal, 5% in Canada. Well, if you can't solve that problem, how could you possibly look to somebody like India and say, gee, they should clean up their act? You know, if a wealthy country like the United States bows to Joe Manchin, you know, then don't look to anybody and talk about what they should morally do. Amen to that. We have to clean our own house, literally. Well, thank you so much. Be nice if Canada could clean its house and properly help the rest of the world, but our political will is dumber than yours. Well, Ken Rogers helping us clean up the world here. Really appreciate it. Again, it was really interesting to hear you go through those issues. And I look forward to our next discussion, which I hope will be a comparison of infrastructure in the United States and in Canada, how you do it, how you fund it, how well it works and so forth. And how bad it is. And how bad it is. Ken Rogers, view from the north. Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at think.kawaii.com. Mahalo.