I spoke with filmmaker Judith Ehrlich about her new 29-minute documentary, An Ordinary Insanity: Daniel Ellsberg on the Nuclear Threat. Her first film on Dan was the Oscar-nominated documentary The Most Dangerous Man in America. Ellsberg first became famous as the whistleblower who released the Pentagon Papers. Judith’s new film focuses on another important aspect of Dan’s life: his years as a nuclear war planner, and the five decades he then spent fighting the plans he had helped write.
We discussed the documentary, which is gripping, and spoke about the disturbing absence of the nuclear threat from our public discourse even after the expiration of every major US-Russia arms treaty. We also talked about the need to eliminate ICBMs immediately, as well as the bipartisan support in Washington for a trillion-dollar “modernization” of our nuclear warmaking capability rather than for negotiations to end the suicidal arms race.
I also asked her lightheartedly if she re-watched Dr. Strangelove while she was making this film. In response, she quoted Dan’s comment after seeing it: “I didn’t know it was going to be a documentary.”
We covered many other topics as well. Please give our conversation a view/listen.
The film is free to watch online at www.anordinaryinsanity.com, where you will also find more information about Dan Ellsberg and the push to eliminate nuclear weapons.
(I also interviewed Dan Ellsberg twice on-air about the nuclear threat. Those interviews can be found here: Daniel Ellsberg on “The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner” and here: Daniel Ellsberg: ICBM’s -- Apocalypse For Sale.)
This work is only possible with continued reader support. If you find it worthwhile, please help out with a paid subscription through Substack (discounted here) or on Patreon. You can also make a one-time payment here. Many thanks—RE
Key Quotes
“Any nuclear plan is a plan for madness. I am living in a society that is preparing a catastrophe. I taste ashes in the wind.”
— Daniel Ellsberg, quoted by Judith“If this is where we put our money, it means a lot about what we value. And if what we value is mass murder…”
— Judith“Just one not-so-bright person in the White House could blow this up without much thought.”
— Judith“Of course, that’s hypothetical, because we’ve had such cognitively sound people in the White House lately.”
—Richard, in response to Judith’s “just one not-so-bright person” comment, above.
Transcript (lightly edited)
Richard Eskow: When future historians write the story of our time—provided there are future historians around to write it—one of the figures I think will loom largest in importance to the future of humanity is the late Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg, of course, originally became famous for revealing the Pentagon Papers.
He followed that with at least 50 years of committed activism and action in a number of areas. He was on this program a couple of times before his death in, I believe, 2023. My next guest has now produced and directed two films about Daniel Ellsberg, the latest of which has just been released.
Filmmaker Judith Ehrlich co-produced and co-directed The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, which was nominated for an Academy Award and a Primetime Emmy in 2009. Her other films include The Boys Who Said No, about the draft resistance movement during the Vietnam War. She also co-produced and directed The Good War and Those Who Refused to Fight It, the story of the men who refused to take part in World War II for the cause of pacifism.
She has twice won the top U.S. awards for history film: the John E. O’Connor Film Award from the American Historical Association and the Erik Barnouw Award from the Organization of American Historians. Her new film is entitled An Ordinary Insanity: Daniel Ellsberg on the Nuclear Threat, and she joins us now. Judith Ehrlich, welcome to the program.
Judith Ehrlich: Thank you, Richard. Nice to be here.
Richard Eskow: Did I get anything wrong in my introduction?
Judith Ehrlich: No, that was perfect.
Richard Eskow: Okay. I stumbled a little bit, but I’m a perfectionist—what can I say? An Ordinary Insanity is extremely gripping, I’ll say that. I’ve watched it a couple of times now. But first, tell us a little about the film and how it came to be.
Judith Ehrlich: Well, it had been in the back of my mind for a while. I made The Most Dangerous Man, which is really a biography of Daniel Ellsberg and his work as both a whistleblower and a troublemaker. But this film covers something we didn’t get into in that film. It’s about his work as a nuclear war planner and how he rebelled against who he had been.
He spent the last five decades of his life, at least, fighting nuclear war and getting arrested more than 80 times for protesting it. He protested other things as well, but nuclear war was the focus of what he really opposed, and he felt an obligation to do something because he had been a war planner.
This film is half an hour long. It was made with Norman Solomon and RootsAction, along with our very generous executive producer. It was really meant to be an advocacy piece. But what has surprised me is that it’s doing really well on the film festival circuit. I just sort of randomly thought, “Oh, I’ll slip it into a couple of film festivals.”
Everyone had been telling me the competition is ridiculous. And it’s gotten into about 70% of the festivals I’ve applied to, which was a real surprise. My first thought was, who’s going to want to watch this at a film festival? But it turns out people do want to watch it.
I think we had taken this so far off the table. Climate change was the big threat, and now AI is the big threat, and who has time for three big threats all at once? So could we just forget about nuclear war for a little while? We had that for a long time.
“Please don’t pull that out of the closet.” Well, I have to apologize for having pulled it out. But it just seems so important to who Dan was. At the time, Norman and I were both interested in talking to Dan about this issue. And you know Dan—there’s never a short interview with Dan.
This turned into a four-hour interview. I think we asked one question, and four hours later we were wrapping. For those four hours, your tongue is hanging out most of the time in amazement and fear. He went into the whole story of how he became a nuclear war planner.
And there’s a very interesting story at the beginning about the loss of the papers. He had two sets of papers in his safe. One was the Pentagon Papers. The other was the secrets of nuclear war planning. He had a whole debate with Randy Kehler, one of the prominent war resisters, who was a big influence on Dan.
They talked it over and decided he should release the Pentagon Papers. There was a chance he would have released the nuclear papers instead, but since the war was going on, he decided that was more important at that moment. So he did. And he hid the nuclear war secrets and gave them to his brother for safekeeping.
His brother buried them in a dump in upstate New York, where he lived, and put a stove over the spot. Then there was a hurricane. The hurricane picked up the stove and threw it down the mountainside, and Dan’s brother and his wife spent about a year looking. They rented a backhoe and dug up the whole dump, and they never found the papers.
Lots of other things, but not the papers. So Dan, because he was brilliant and an amazing researcher, went back through it all. He didn’t have the documents anymore, but he could recreate many of them from memory. He was also able to find them in archives and bring things up to date.
He then wrote The Doomsday Machine, a book about his experience as a nuclear war planner and the threat of nuclear war. It’s a very sobering book and really well written. I also wanted to plug this book, because I don’t think it’s gotten as much attention as it should. It’s called—can you see that?
Richard Eskow: Yes, I can. Some people will be listening on the radio, though.
Judith Ehrlich: Oh, sorry. Yes.
Richard Eskow: It’s Truth and Consequence.
Judith Ehrlich: Yes.
Richard Eskow: If you hold it up again, I’ll read it for our audience. Truth and Consequence. It looks like a compendium of Dan’s work. It’s got a subtitle.
Judith Ehrlich: Right. It’s called Reflections on Catastrophe, Civil Resistance, and Hope. It was compiled by his son Michael and his longtime assistant, Jan Thomas. It’s a really compelling read. It’s his unpublished work, his notes. Dan always had a little notebook with him. When he wasn’t talking, he was writing.
Something would always grab him. I’ve never been in a conversation with Dan where he didn’t write down some notes. So he had copious notes, both handwritten and digital, and they put the book together from those notes.
Richard Eskow: And a prodigious memory. He discussed The Doomsday Machine on this program. It astonishes me that it wasn’t more of a conversation changer than it was, although it certainly had a strong influence. And that brings me to a point about the creation of this movie, An Ordinary Insanity, Judith, that I think is really important.
There was an old political science truism in the ’70s or ’80s—that was my minor—I can’t remember who said it, but it was something to the effect that the media can’t tell us what to think, but it can tell us what to think about. I would argue that maybe it does both nowadays. But in terms of what to think about, I think you hit the nail right on the head earlier when you said everybody was talking about climate change.
Now they’re talking about AI. I have a computer background too. I do not think AI is an existential threat. I think it could cause harm. But isn’t it interesting that despite the terrifying brinkmanship of, for example, the first couple of years of the Ukraine war—there’s a book out now about crossing what Joe Biden called his red lines, risking nuclear conflict with Russia—we’re not talking about that? We’re talking about AI and its hypothetical threat, as opposed to this extremely concrete threat.
So I wonder, A, whether that was part of the thinking in creating this film. And B, I have to say I’m not surprised it’s done well at film festivals, because we—the collective we, the zeitgeist—may not think much about nuclear war on a day-to-day basis.
But in your film, within the first minute or two, there’s a mushroom cloud. And once we see that mushroom cloud, for most of us, our attention kicks in fast, and we’re reminded: oh yeah, this is what we’re talking about. I wonder if that was part of the thought process behind this film.
Judith Ehrlich: Definitely. There’s some very powerful imagery when you talk about nuclear war. It’s hard to avoid it. And what I love about seeing it from Dan’s perspective is that he always went to the moral question. It wasn’t just, can we do this? Can we get away with it? What are the repercussions? It was always: Why are we doing it? Why did we do it? Why do we spend this humongous—I don’t even know the word for how big it is—amount of money we’re now putting into modernizing these weapons, which we should be dumping? He really had a clear moral compass about why we do this.
And more people are jumping on the bandwagon because of the disruption of the Trump administration. The French are thinking about upgrading. The Germans want to get in. All these countries that haven’t had nuclear weapons are now hoping to get them.
So it’s gotten even worse. And China has become a real player in this, although they do not have a first-strike policy, unlike us and the Russians. It’s something that seems to have no justification for existing at all. I’ve been really lucky that my two impact producers on this film were both leaders of the California nuclear freeze movement in the ’80s.
It’s amazing to me the commitment people in this movement have. There are so many organizations still around, still doing great work, and we’re trying to embed the film in those organizations, because so many people are still involved with this issue. I was sort of shocked to realize that this hasn’t died for many people.
Claire, one of my impact producers, went to the UN, and she knew everybody at these meetings of the NGOs involved in disarmament. It was like, how can they still be there? This is 40 years later, isn’t it? I’m not so good with numbers, but it’s a long time. And many of these survivors are still very actively fighting for disarmament.
It isn’t over. It isn’t a done deal. Somehow it’s just been taken off the table. I think the Cold War ended, and we thought we didn’t have to worry about that anymore—let’s worry about all the other things we’re doing wrong. But I think it’s time to put it back on the agenda.
And I’m getting the feeling that a lot of people agree with us that it’s a good time to bring it back. And Dan’s the right messenger. Although he’s no longer with us, he is with us in spirit.
Richard Eskow: Well, and the title, An Ordinary Insanity, comes from his comment very early on that this insanity of nuclear war planning—of planning to annihilate most of humanity—is ordinary. He says it’s insane but common. And one of the powerful testimonies he can offer is that he was part of that cult.
He talks about it not just from a facts-and-figures point of view, but how it felt to be let in on these psychotic planning processes as a young man—first in the military, I guess, and then at the RAND Corporation. That is very striking to me.
You mentioned that we’re not talking about it much anymore. I should probably publish this, but I spent a lot of time going through John F. Kennedy’s 1960 platform—and I don’t idealize any politician—and Joe Biden’s 2024 platform from before he stepped down, which by default became Kamala’s because she didn’t update it.
Kennedy talked about disarmament, I think, a dozen times. He talked about a world free of nuclear war. That was the liberal, or Democratic, position. You said you didn’t know how much we’re spending. I believe Joe Biden’s 2024 platform boasted that, if reelected, he was planning to spend $1.5 to $2 trillion on upgrading our nuclear arsenal.
So there’s been nobody in the mainstream political world talking about disarmament. And yet the hair-trigger realities Dan described still exist, don’t they? We know that if not for a Soviet officer in 1983 or so, there might have been a war. That kind of thing could still happen, couldn’t it?
Judith Ehrlich: It’s happened many times. There have been many false alarms, and it’s shocking. Honestly, I can’t even look at that information. It scares me. How close have we come, and how many times, to blowing up the world? It’s hard for me to understand why people are willing to live with that and to invest so much money that could be used productively—well, who knows how it would be used in this administration. Probably more gilded buildings.
But it’s trillions of dollars that could feed the world, and we’re spending it to kill everyone on the planet and the planet itself. I was just reading a great piece Jerry Brown wrote in the New York Review of Books this month about Dan—a review of the book Truth and Consequences.
There were a couple of things I’d love to quote from Dan. He said, “Any nuclear plan is a plan for madness. I am living in a society that is preparing a catastrophe. I taste ashes in the wind.” That really grabbed me as something poetic and absolutely true.
The other one that really grabbed me was about the Titanic. Dan talked about the Titanic too, and so did Jerry Brown—Jerry Brown, the former governor of California.
Richard Eskow: Sure.
Judith Ehrlich: Speeding through the dark despite numerous ice warnings. His message was clear: we are not merely drifting toward Armageddon, we’re racing there. It feels like we just don’t look at the consequences of our behavior, and at how much this is costing us morally and economically. If this is where we put our money, it says a lot about what we value.
And if what we value is mass murder, that doesn’t seem like a good thing to me. I think it reflects badly on our society and on all the other nuclear perpetrators. But it isn’t as if no one is talking about this. There’s the—oh, what’s it called? I should know this. Something like 96 countries have signed a ban on nuclear weapons. But of course, none of them have the bomb.
Richard Eskow: Right.
Judith Ehrlich: So it’s easy enough to say “no more nuclear war” when you’re not one of the perpetrators. We’ve got to get the countries that have the bombs to start pledging to reduce them. The freeze movement—and not just the freeze movement, but the other movements that followed it—really did dramatically reduce the arsenals.
They’ve never gotten back to the levels they were at before that period in the ’80s. But there’s still more than enough to blow up everything.
Richard Eskow: And we’ve now seen the expiration of all the nuclear treaties between the U.S. and Russia. Let me see if I’ve got this right. Open Skies expired. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty expired. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty expired. As of February of this year, the New START Treaty expired. There are no treaties remaining.
And as I say, the Democrats as well as the Republicans have been talking about stepping up nuclear spending. I have to tell you, Judith, I’m very happy to hear you say that people are talking about it, because I’ve been feeling really concerned. I know there’s Defuse Nuclear War and some other groups involved as well, but I don’t know how we take the excellent work that you and the team have done with this film—this finite project—and amplify it.
Maybe I’d understand better if you told me what an impact producer is, because I have no idea. You mentioned you have two impact producers.
Judith Ehrlich: I’ve got two of them. What are they? I had no idea what they were either. It’s what we used to call an outreach person for films, but the latest jargon is “impact producer.” They’re trying to use the film to make an impact.
Richard Eskow: Good. That’s what I was hoping.
Judith Ehrlich: And it’s been really well received. We’re now very much in bed with Back from the Brink, which is the biggest organization working on this issue in the country. And if you look at the website—I just looked at this list and thought, so cool.
Richard Eskow: The website is www.anordinaryinsanity.com.
Judith Ehrlich: Correct. Was it on the Defuse Nuclear War site? No, I think it’s here: a list, with little pictures of their logos, of the organizations working on this issue. And there really are a lot. If you go to “Take Action”—
Richard Eskow: I see it. We’ll put it up.
Judith Ehrlich: It’s under “Take Action,” and it includes ICAN. That was the group I was trying to remember. They’re behind the effort to abolish nuclear weapons. And there’s Back from the Brink, which was started by Physicians for Social Responsibility but has grown. It has, I think, 40 hubs around the country where people physically meet each other and work together.
And I think 23 youth organizations. We did a webinar with the youth group from NYU last week. It was great. There are a lot of people working on it. Students for Nuclear Disarmament—Peace Action has a lot of folks working on the issue. And the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, of course, is the one that does the Doomsday Machine—sorry, the Doomsday Clock. And they’re now saying we’re 85 seconds from—what do we call it when it all goes—
Richard Eskow: Midnight, I think.
Judith Ehrlich: Doomsday.
Richard Eskow: Doomsday, right.
Judith Ehrlich: I guess that’s the term. Anyway, that’s the closest it’s ever been, and that’s pretty sobering. More than the Cuban Missile Crisis—if you think of all the moments when it seemed real, we’re closer than any of those. And then there’s the combination of that with people’s lack of attention to this issue.
But I think it’s not over. It’s not as if there’s no attention, but we need a lot, lot more.
Richard Eskow: We do. And I see that on your website, anordinaryinsanity.com, the section on successful arms control movements begins, “Need inspiration?” And boy, do I ever. So I’m certainly glad to see that. There are many striking moments in the film An Ordinary Insanity, Judith, but there’s another one that comes to mind for me.
This to me is typical Dan Ellsberg. He says that under the original plan, there would be 600 million deaths. We figured 350 million Soviets, and then 100 million in Western Europe, our allies. And now, he says, we figure it wouldn’t be an extinction event. “Ninety-eight percent of the people would die, but not an extinction event.” It’s like, oh, well, that’s a relief.
Judith Ehrlich: That’s good. The people in New Zealand would be eating mollusks on the East Coast. They would survive.
Richard Eskow: Right.
Judith Ehrlich: Seeing as I live half-time in Australia, that’s good news for me, but it’s really not very encouraging. I mean, it’s hard to want to think about this. I think you have to grab people by the face and yell at them about it to get any attention.
I have been to a number of meals with Dan Ellsberg where everybody looked ready to run out of the room when he started talking about nuclear war. It was just an ordinary luncheon, and suddenly you felt like a missile was going to come through the roof any minute.
He thought about this a lot. And Patricia said to me recently—
Richard Eskow: His wife. Yeah.
Judith Ehrlich: Sorry, yes, his wife, who’s a very dear friend of mine. She said, “You know, I think Dan really died at a good time. He would not be doing well with what’s going on right now and the threats in Ukraine.” The whole landscape would really be upsetting him terribly. Not that she was glad he died when he did.
Richard Eskow: No, of course.
Judith Ehrlich: But she did feel there was an upside to his not having to be here to see this.
Richard Eskow: Yeah. We like to think we live in a world of progress, right? And yet there’s been a fair amount of regress in this area. So here’s another good topic for us to at least touch on briefly. I know climate scientists and climate activists talk about this a lot.
How do you activate people and educate them on this issue—and nuclear war is certainly even more so than climate—without just terrifying them, and discouraging them so much that they’re buried in pain and fear and despair? That’s the question, isn’t it?
Judith Ehrlich: Absolutely. We tried to make something that wasn’t terrifying, that just laid it out. We used some bright, cheerful graphics to help the bitter pill go down. I feel like we hit a pretty good balance—but you should speak to that more than me. Did it work for you? You didn’t run away screaming at the end of the film?
Richard Eskow: No, I didn’t. I was actually stimulated by the film. But it’s a tough topic, for sure.
Judith Ehrlich: Dan does try to give us a little hope at the end.
Richard Eskow: Well, and of course Dan’s not with us anymore, but there was such a calm in his delivery, even when he was describing hellscapes beyond belief. He sounded so calm about it that it was almost like talking to your therapist, as opposed to talking about the end of civilization.
Judith Ehrlich: It’s true. It’s true. He doesn’t panic about any of it. He’d been thinking about it for a long time, and it didn’t cause panic. It caused more desire to understand where this is coming from and how to stop it. I think if everyone had the attitude Dan had toward it, we’d be in good shape. We wouldn’t be doing this.
And he lays out the whole relationship of the corporations to the military, and the profit that’s made from war and the potential for war. It’s hard to unpack that and not feel discouraged by what we’re facing. But I think a lot of people are getting organized. Defuse Nuclear War is organizing in the states where the ICBMs are.
That was the one thing Dan really focused on: reducing the risk of war by reducing the ICBMs, which they’re trying to modernize at tremendous cost. And a number of organizers are going out to those states. They’re in the Plains and the Rockies—Colorado, and so on.
Richard Eskow: The silos. Yeah, that was the subject of my last conversation with him. And he speaks about it in the film too: because the silos are stationary, fixed locations, they intensify the hair-trigger decision-making process. They narrow the window to virtually nothing in a country that’s willing to strike first.
Any nuclear missiles are a problem, but if we could move away from fixed silos, and the missiles were mobile, at least you wouldn’t have that motive to go for a first strike and devastate humanity. That was my understanding.
Judith Ehrlich: No, you’re correct. These ICBMs are in silos in places where the Russians know where ours are, and we know where theirs are. That’s the only reason we have this five-minute or ten-minute alert—whatever it is—in which the president has to decide whether to start a nuclear war with so little time.
With the other weapons, the planes can stay up and just hang out until they figure out what’s going on. If it’s a flock of geese that set off the alarms, they’ll know that, and they won’t start a nuclear war. Any of the others—the submarines, the missiles on the submarines—it won’t be a five-minute thing.
Because once missiles are launched from the ICBMs, they can’t be recalled. They can’t be shot down, so they’re going to blow up. And we do that within five or ten minutes. That’s what’s particularly scary about this. Not that the other stuff isn’t—it is. But it really gets your attention when you think: oh yeah, just one not-so-bright person in the White House could blow this up without much thought.
Richard Eskow: Of course, that’s hypothetical, because we’ve had such cognitively sound people in the White House lately. But sure, it’s terrifying. As we wrap up, Judith, I love what you said about Dan’s calm, about this idea of staying calm and focused as we confront this terrifying prospect. It’s like the experience of your car going into a spin on an icy road—all of a sudden, this preternatural calm comes over you.
And you’re just making decision by decision in the moment. Maybe that’s what we need to strive for, and another thing we can take from this film. But before I let you go, this is a silly question in a way, but I’m going to ask it anyway. Have you as a filmmaker lately taken a look at either Dr. Strangelove or the other, more serious film they made with George C. Scott? I’m blanking on the name. Was it Seven Days in May or something?
Judith Ehrlich: Wasn’t George C. Scott in Strangelove?
Richard Eskow: He was, but there was another one where the president has to make a decision. There were a couple of early-’60s Cold War nuclear war movies, I think.
Judith Ehrlich: Yeah.
Richard Eskow: Strangelove was ‘64, maybe ‘65. Have you watched any of those movies lately?
Judith Ehrlich: I got to watch Strangelove with Dan. And the thing Dan said when he first saw it was that it was a documentary, which I loved. He walked out of the theater with his comrades from RAND, I think, and said, “I didn’t know it was going to be a documentary.”
Richard Eskow: That’s terrifying.
Judith Ehrlich: It is terrifying. And it’s not too far from the truth. I think it could conceivably happen—maybe not with a cowboy riding a bomb, but there was a lot of possible truth to it. And I think it behooves us to try to stay calm, as you said.
I think that’s really important, and to keep plugging away at ways we can reduce the risk. The ICBMs are a really good focus. Back from the Brink has five things it’s promoting, but we’re kind of convinced that people aren’t going to remember five things. If we could reduce the ICBMs and not spend an enormous amount of money modernizing them, that would be a really good first step.
And I think Ro Khanna is behind us on that. There are a number of progressive—not candidates, well, both—
Richard Eskow: Well, incipient candidates, right?
Judith Ehrlich: Yeah, yeah, yeah—who are supporters of this: McGovern and Markey and Ro Khanna. We are not alone, but we are not a majority, and we need to get a majority to see the folly of this. It’s going to take a lot of effort. But I think a lot of people are supporting it.
Maybe this is the next issue that’s going to get some attention. We’re ready for it if it starts getting more attention, and we’re building toward it—hopefully with this film as part of that.
Richard Eskow: Your film is definitely part of that. So where can people go to learn more about it, and perhaps to see it as well?
Judith Ehrlich: That’s the good news. We have a very generous benefactor who has made it free. All you have to do is go to the website, ordinaryinsanity.com, and the film is there. The trailer is there too, if you want to share it with other people. We’re really encouraging people to show it to whatever organization they’re in, whether it’s a faith-based gathering or—Robert Ellsberg just showed it.
Robert Ellsberg is a very revered member of the Catholic community. He’s the editor of the Maryknoll press. He was Dorothy Day’s biographer and has written a lot of books.
Richard Eskow: Really?
Judith Ehrlich: Yes, he’s a lovely, really amazing person. Anyway, he just showed it to a very large crowd of Catholics in New York City, I think. He lives upstate. We’re getting a lot of different groups. We’re finding out after the fact that so-and-so showed it to 1,000 people here, and so on.
We know that about 10,000 people have watched it on our site, but some of them have shown it to large groups of people, and we don’t know the numbers on that. But it’s getting out there. We’re just hoping people take it and show it at least to their family and friends, get a sense that this is something we need to be aware of, and hopefully make some serious changes to our policies.
Richard Eskow: It certainly is an important issue. Again, my guest has been Judith Ehrlich, the filmmaker whose most recent film is An Ordinary Insanity. You can view it and learn more about it at www.anordinaryinsanity.com. Judith, thanks so much for all your good work, including making this film, and thanks for coming on the program.
Judith Ehrlich: Thank you so much, Richard. It’s been a pleasure.
Thank you, deeply agree, will watch!