Podcasts about Cuban Missile Crisis

A conversation with Tim Hwang about historical simulations, the interaction of policy and science, analogies between research ecosystems and the economy, and so much more.  Topics Historical Simulations Macroscience Macro-metrics for science Long science The interaction between science and policy Creative destruction in research “Regulation” for scientific markets Indicators for the health of a field or science as a whole “Metabolism of Science” Science rotation programs Clock speeds of Regulation vs Clock Speeds of Technology References Macroscience Substack Ada Palmer's Papal Simulation Think Tank Tycoon Universal Paperclips (Paperclip maximizer html game) Pitt Rivers Museum   Transcript [00:02:02] Ben: Wait, so tell me more about the historical LARP that you're doing. Oh, [00:02:07] Tim: yeah. So this comes from like something I've been thinking about for a really long time, which is You know in high school, I did model UN and model Congress, and you know, I really I actually, this is still on my to do list is to like look into the back history of like what it was in American history, where we're like, this is going to become an extracurricular, we're going to model the UN, like it has all the vibe of like, after World War II, the UN is a new thing, we got to teach kids about international institutions. Anyways, like, it started as a joke where I was telling my [00:02:35] friend, like, we should have, like, model administrative agency. You know, you should, like, kids should do, like, model EPA. Like, we're gonna do a rulemaking. Kids need to submit. And, like, you know, there'll be Chevron deference and you can challenge the rule. And, like, to do that whole thing. Anyways, it kind of led me down this idea that, like, our, our notion of simulation, particularly for institutions, is, like, Interestingly narrow, right? And particularly when it comes to historical simulation, where like, well we have civil war reenactors, they're kind of like a weird dying breed, but they're there, right? But we don't have like other types of historical reenactments, but like, it might be really valuable and interesting to create communities around that. And so like I was saying before we started recording, is I really want to do one that's a simulation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. But like a serious, like you would like a historical reenactment, right? Yeah. Yeah. It's like everybody would really know their characters. You know, if you're McNamara, you really know what your motivations are and your background. And literally a dream would be a weekend simulation where you have three teams. One would be the Kennedy administration. The other would be, you know, Khrushchev [00:03:35] and the Presidium. And the final one would be the, the Cuban government. Yeah. And to really just blow by blow, simulate that entire thing. You know, the players would attempt to not blow up the world, would be the idea. [00:03:46] Ben: I guess that's actually the thing to poke, in contrast to Civil War reenactment. Sure, like you know how [00:03:51] Tim: that's gonna end. Right, [00:03:52] Ben: and it, I think it, that's the difference maybe between, in my head, a simulation and a reenactment, where I could imagine a simulation going [00:04:01] Tim: differently. Sure, right. [00:04:03] Ben: Right, and, and maybe like, is the goal to make sure the same thing happened that did happen, or is the goal to like, act? faithfully to [00:04:14] Tim: the character as possible. Yeah, I think that's right, and I think both are interesting and valuable, right? But I think one of the things I'm really interested in is, you know, I want to simulate all the characters, but like, I think one of the most interesting things reading, like, the historical record is just, like, operating under deep uncertainty about what's even going on, right? Like, for a period of time, the American [00:04:35] government is not even sure what's going on in Cuba, and, like, you know, this whole question of, like, well, do we preemptively bomb Cuba? Do we, we don't even know if the, like, the warheads on the island are active. And I think I would want to create, like, similar uncertainty, because I think that's where, like, that's where the strategic vision comes in, right? That, like, you have the full pressure of, like, Maybe there's bombs on the island. Maybe there's not even bombs on the island, right? And kind of like creating that dynamic. And so I think simulation is where there's a lot, but I think Even reenactment for some of these things is sort of interesting. Like, that we talk a lot about, like, oh, the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or like, the other joke I had was like, we should do the Manhattan Project, but the Manhattan Project as, like, historical reenactment, right? And it's kind of like, you know, we have these, like, very, like off the cuff or kind of, like, stereotype visions of how these historical events occur. And they're very stylized. Yeah, exactly, right. And so the benefit of a reenactment that is really in detail Yeah. is like, oh yeah, there's this one weird moment. You know, like that, that ends up being really revealing historical examples. And so even if [00:05:35] you can't change the outcome, I think there's also a lot of value in just doing the exercise. Yeah. Yeah. The, the thought of [00:05:40] Ben: in order to drive towards this outcome that I know. Actually happened I wouldn't as the character have needed to do X. That's right That's like weird nuanced unintuitive thing, [00:05:50] Tim: right? Right and there's something I think about even building into the game Right, which is at the very beginning the Russians team can make the decision on whether or not they've even actually deployed weapons into the cube at all, yeah, right and so like I love that kind of outcome right which is basically like And I think that's great because like, a lot of this happens on the background of like, we know the history. Yeah. Right? And so I think like, having the team, the US team put under some pressure of uncertainty. Yeah. About like, oh yeah, they could have made the decision at the very beginning of this game that this is all a bluff. Doesn't mean anything. Like it's potentially really interesting and powerful, so. [00:06:22] Ben: One precedent I know for this completely different historical era, but there's a historian, Ada Palmer, who runs [00:06:30] Tim: a simulation of a people election in her class every year. That's so good. [00:06:35] And [00:06:36] Ben: it's, there, you know, like, it is not a simulation. [00:06:40] Tim: Or, [00:06:41] Ben: sorry, excuse me, it is not a reenactment. In the sense that the outcome is indeterminate. [00:06:47] Tim: Like, the students [00:06:48] Ben: can determine the outcome. But... What tends to happen is like structural factors emerge in the sense that there's always a war. Huh. The question is who's on which sides of the war? Right, right. And what do the outcomes of the war actually entail? That's right. Who [00:07:05] Tim: dies? Yeah, yeah. And I [00:07:07] Ben: find that that's it's sort of Gets at the heart of the, the great [00:07:12] Tim: man theory versus the structural forces theory. That's right. Yeah. Like how much can these like structural forces actually be changed? Yeah. And I think that's one of the most interesting parts of the design that I'm thinking about right now is kind of like, what are the things that you want to randomize to impose different types of like structural factors that could have been in that event? Right? Yeah. So like one of the really big parts of the debate at XCOM in the [00:07:35] early phases of the Cuban Missile Crisis is You know, McNamara, who's like, right, he runs the Department of Defense at the time. His point is basically like, look, whether or not you have bombs in Cuba or you have bombs like in Russia, the situation has not changed from a military standpoint. Like you can fire an ICBM. It has exactly the same implications for the U. S. And so his, his basically his argument in the opening phases of the Cuban Missile Crisis is. Yeah. Which is actually pretty interesting, right? Because that's true. But like, Kennedy can't just go to the American people and say, well, we've already had missiles pointed at us. Some more missiles off, you know, the coast of Florida is not going to make a difference. Yeah. And so like that deep politics, and particularly the politics of the Kennedy administration being seen as like weak on communism. Yeah. Is like a huge pressure on all the activity that's going on. And so it's almost kind of interesting thinking about the Cuban Missile Crisis, not as like You know us about to blow up the world because of a truly strategic situation but more because of like the local politics make it so difficult to create like You know situations where both sides can back down [00:08:35] successfully. Basically. Yeah [00:08:36] Ben: The the one other thing that my mind goes to actually to your point about it model UN in schools. Huh, right is Okay, what if? You use this as a pilot, and then you get people to do these [00:08:49] Tim: simulations at [00:08:50] Ben: scale. Huh. And that's actually how we start doing historical counterfactuals. Huh. Where you look at, okay, you know, a thousand schools all did a simulation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In those, you know, 700 of them blew [00:09:05] Tim: up the world. Right, right. [00:09:07] Ben: And it's, it actually, I think it's, That's the closest [00:09:10] Tim: thing you can get to like running the tape again. Yeah. I think that's right. And yeah, so I think it's, I think it's a really underused medium in a lot of ways. And I think particularly as like you know, we just talk, talk like pedagogically, like it's interesting that like, it seems to me that there was a moment in American pedagogical history where like, this is a good way of teaching kids. Like, different types of institutions. And like, but it [00:09:35] hasn't really matured since that point, right? Of course, we live in all sorts of interesting institutions now. And, and under all sorts of different systems that we might really want to simulate. Yeah. And so, yeah, this kind of, at least a whole idea that there's lots of things you could teach if you, we like kind of opened up this way of kind of like, Thinking about kind of like educating for about institutions. Right? So [00:09:54] Ben: that is so cool. Yeah, I'm going to completely, [00:09:59] Tim: Change. Sure. Of course. [00:10:01] Ben: So I guess. And the answer could be no, but is, is there connections between this and your sort of newly launched macroscience [00:10:10] Tim: project? There is and there isn't. Yeah, you know, I think like the whole bid of macroscience which is this project that I'm doing as part of my IFP fellowship. Yeah. Is really the notion that like, okay, we have all these sort of like interesting results that have come out of metascience. That kind of give us like, kind of like the beginnings of a shape of like, okay, this is how science might work and how we might like get progress to happen. And you know, we've got [00:10:35] like a bunch of really compelling hypotheses. Yeah. And I guess my bit has been like, I kind of look at that and I squint and I'm like, we're, we're actually like kind of in the early days of like macro econ, but for science, right? Which is like, okay, well now we have some sense of like the dynamics of how the science thing works. What are the levers that we can start, like, pushing and pulling, and like, what are the dials we could be turning up and turning down? And, and, you know, I think there is this kind of transition that happens in macro econ, which is like, we have these interesting results and hypotheses, but there's almost another... Generation of work that needs to happen into being like, oh, you know, we're gonna have this thing called the interest rate Yeah, and then we have all these ways of manipulating the money supply and like this is a good way of managing like this economy Yeah, right and and I think that's what I'm chasing after with this kind of like sub stack but hopefully the idea is to build it up into like a more coherent kind of framework of ideas about like How do we make science policy work in a way that's better than just like more science now quicker, please? Yeah, right, which is I think we're like [00:11:35] we're very much at at the moment. Yeah, and in particular I'm really interested in the idea of chasing after science almost as like a Dynamic system, right? Which is that like the policy levers that you have You would want to, you know, tune up and tune down, strategically, at certain times, right? And just like the way we think about managing the economy, right? Where you're like, you don't want the economy to overheat. You don't want it to be moving too slow either, right? Like, I am interested in kind of like, those types of dynamics that need to be managed in science writ large. And so that's, that's kind of the intuition of the project. [00:12:04] Ben: Cool. I guess, like, looking at macro, how did we even decide, macro econ, [00:12:14] Tim: how did we even decide that the things that we're measuring are the right things to measure? Right? Like, [00:12:21] Ben: isn't it, it's like kind of a historical contingency that, you know, it's like we care about GDP [00:12:27] Tim: and the interest rate. Yeah. I think that's right. I mean in, in some ways there's a triumph of like. It's a normative triumph, [00:12:35] right, I think is the argument. And you know, I think a lot of people, you hear this argument, and it'll be like, And all econ is made up. But like, I don't actually think that like, that's the direction I'm moving in. It's like, it's true. Like, a lot of the things that we selected are arguably arbitrary. Yeah. Right, like we said, okay, we really value GDP because it's like a very imperfect but rough measure of like the economy, right? Yeah. Or like, oh, we focus on, you know, the money supply, right? And I think there's kind of two interesting things that come out of that. One of them is like, There's this normative question of like, okay, what are the building blocks that we think can really shift the financial economy writ large, right, of which money supply makes sense, right? But then the other one I think which is so interesting is like, there's a need to actually build all these institutions. that actually give you the lever to pull in the first place, right? Like, without a federal reserve, it becomes really hard to do monetary policy. Right. Right? Like, without a notion of, like, fiscal policy, it's really hard to do, like, Keynesian as, like, demand side stuff. Right. Right? And so, like, I think there's another project, which is a [00:13:35] political project, to say... Okay, can we do better than just grants? Like, can we think about this in a more, like, holistic way than simply we give money to the researchers to work on certain types of problems. And so this kind of leads to some of the stuff that I think we've talked about in the past, which is like, you know, so I'm obsessed right now with like, can we influence the time horizon of scientific institutions? Like, imagine for a moment we had a dial where we're like, On average, scientists are going to be thinking about a research agenda which is 10 years from now versus next quarter. Right. Like, and I think like there's, there's benefits and deficits to both of those settings. Yeah. But man, if I don't hope that we have a, a, a government system that allows us to kind of dial that up and dial that down as we need it. Right. Yeah. The, the, [00:14:16] Ben: perhaps, quite like, I guess a question of like where the analogy like holds and breaks down. That I, that I wonder about is, When you're talking about the interest rate for the economy, it kind of makes sense to say [00:14:35] what is the time horizon that we want financial institutions to be thinking on. That's like roughly what the interest rate is for, but it, and maybe this is, this is like, I'm too, [00:14:49] Tim: my note, like I'm too close to the macro, [00:14:51] Ben: but thinking about. The fact that you really want people doing science on like a whole spectrum of timescales. And, and like, this is a ill phrased question, [00:15:06] Tim: but like, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around it. Are you saying basically like, do uniform metrics make sense? Yeah, exactly. For [00:15:12] Ben: like timescale, I guess maybe it's just. is an aggregate thing. [00:15:16] Tim: Is that? That's right. Yeah, I think that's, that's, that's a good critique. And I think, like, again, I think there's definitely ways of taking the metaphor too far. Yeah. But I think one of the things I would say back to that is It's fine to imagine that we might not necessarily have an interest rate for all of science, right? So, like, you could imagine saying, [00:15:35] okay, for grants above a certain size, like, we want to incentivize certain types of activity. For grants below a certain size, we want different types of activity. Right, another way of slicing it is for this class of institutions, we want them to be thinking on these timescales versus those timescales. Yeah. The final one I've been thinking about is another way of slicing it is, let's abstract away institutions and just think about what is the flow of all the experiments that are occurring in a society? Yeah. And are there ways of manipulating, like, the relative timescales there, right? And that's almost like, kind of like a supply based way of looking at it, which is... All science is doing is producing experiments, which is like true macro, right? Like, I'm just like, it's almost offensively simplistic. And then I'm just saying like, okay, well then like, yeah, what are the tools that we have to actually influence that? Yeah, and I think there's lots of things you could think of. Yeah, in my mind. Yeah, absolutely. What are some, what are some that are your thinking of? Yeah, so I think like the two that I've been playing around with right now, one of them is like the idea of like, changing the flow of grants into the system. So, one of the things I wrote about in Microscience just the past week was to think [00:16:35] about, like sort of what I call long science, right? And so the notion here is that, like, if you look across the scientific economy, there's kind of this rough, like, correlation between size of grant and length of grant. Right, where so basically what it means is that like long science is synonymous with big science, right? You're gonna do a big ambitious project. Cool. You need lots and lots and lots of money Yeah and so my kind of like piece just briefly kind of argues like but we have these sort of interesting examples like the You know Like framing a heart study which are basically like low expense taking place over a long period of time and you're like We don't really have a whole lot of grants that have that Yeah. Right? And so the idea is like, could we encourage that? Like imagine if we could just increase the flow of those types of grants, that means we could incentivize more experiments that take place like at low cost over long term. Yeah. Right? Like, you know, and this kind of gets this sort of interesting question is like, okay, so what's the GDP here? Right? Like, or is that a good way of cracking some of the critical problems that we need to crack right now? Right? Yeah. And it's kind of where the normative part gets into [00:17:35] it is like, okay. So. You know, one way of looking at this is the national interest, right? We say, okay, well, we really want to win on AI. We really want to win on, like, bioengineering, right? Are there problems in that space where, like, really long term, really low cost is actually the kind of activity we want to be encouraging? The answer might be no, but I think, like, it's useful for us to have, like, that. Color in our palette of things that we could be doing Yeah. In like shaping the, the dynamics of science. Yeah. Yeah. [00:18:01] Ben: I, I mean, one of the things that I feel like is missing from the the meta science discussion Mm-Hmm. is, is even just, what are those colors? Mm-Hmm. like what, what are the, the different and almost parameters of [00:18:16] Tim: of research. Yeah. Right, right, right. And I think, I don't know, one of the things I've been thinking about, which I'm thinking about writing about at some point, right, is like this, this view is, this view is gonna piss people off in some ways, because where it ultimately goes is this idea that, like, like, the scientist or [00:18:35] science Is like a system that's subject to the government, or subject to a policy maker, or a strategist. Which like, it obviously is, right? But like, I think we have worked very hard to believe that like, The scientific market is its own independent thing, And like, that touching or messing with it is like, a not, not a thing you should do, right? But we already are. True, that's kind of my point of view, yeah exactly. I think we're in some ways like, yeah I know I've been reading a lot about Keynes, I mean it is sort of interesting that it does mirror... Like this kind of like Great Depression era economic thinking, where you're basically like the market takes care of itself, like don't intervene. In fact, intervening is like the worst possible thing you could do because you're only going to make this worse. And look, I think there's like definitely examples of like kind of like command economy science that like don't work. Yes. But like, you know, like I think most mature people who work in economics would say there's some room for like at least like Guiding the system. Right. And like keeping it like in balance is like [00:19:35] a thing that should be attempted and I think it's kind of like the, the, the argument that I'm making here. Yeah. Yeah. I [00:19:41] Ben: mean, I think that's, [00:19:42] Tim: that's like the meta meta thing. Right. Right. Is even [00:19:46] Ben: what, what level of intervention, like, like what are the ways in which you can like usefully intervene and which, and what are the things that are, that are foolish and kind of. crEate the, the, [00:20:01] Tim: Command economy. That's right. Yeah, exactly. Right. Right. And I think like, I think the way through is, is maybe in the way that I'm talking about, right? Which is like, you can imagine lots of bad things happen when you attempt to pick winners, right? Like maybe the policymaker whoever we want to think of that as like, is it the NSF or NIH or whatever? Like, you know, sitting, sitting in their government bureaucracy, right? Like, are they well positioned to make a choice about who's going to be the right solution to a problem? Maybe yes, maybe no. I think we can have a debate about that, right? But I think there's a totally reasonable position, which is they're not in it, so they're not well positioned to make that call. Yeah. [00:20:35] Right? But, are they well positioned to maybe say, like, if we gave them a dial that was like, we want researchers to be thinking about this time horizon versus that time horizon? Like, that's a control that they actually may be well positioned to inform on. Yeah. As an outsider, right? Yeah. Yeah. And some of this I think, like, I don't know, like, the piece I'm working on right now, which will be coming out probably Tuesday or Wednesday, is you know, some of this is also like encouraging creative destruction, right? Which is like, I'm really intrigued by the idea that like academic fields can get so big that they become they impede progress. Yes. Right? And so this is actually a form of like, I like, it's effectively an intellectual antitrust. Yeah. Where you're basically like, Basically, like the, the role of the scientific regulator is to basically say these fields have gotten so big that they are actively reducing our ability to have good dynamism in the marketplace of ideas. And in this case, we will, we will announce new grant policies that attempt to break this up. And I actually think that like, that is pretty spicy for a funder to do. But like actually maybe part of their role and maybe we should normalize that [00:21:35] being part of their role. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. [00:21:37] Ben: I I'm imagining a world where There are, where this, like, sort of the macro science is as divisive as [00:21:47] Tim: macroeconomics. [00:21:48] Ben: Right? Because you have, you have your like, your, your like, hardcore free market people. Yeah. Zero government intervention. Yeah, that's right. No antitrust. No like, you know, like abolish the Fed. Right, right. All of that. Yeah, yeah. And I look forward to the day. When there's there's people who are doing the same thing for research. [00:22:06] Tim: Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Yeah when I think that's actually I mean I thought part of a lot of meta science stuff I think is this kind of like interesting tension, which is that like look politically a lot of those people in the space are Pro free market, you know, like they're they're they're liberals in the little L sense. Yeah, like at the same time Like it is true that kind of like laissez faire science Has failed because we have all these examples of like progress slowing down Right? Like, I don't know. Like, I think [00:22:35] that there is actually this interesting tension, which is like, to what degree are we okay with intervening in science to get better outcomes? Yeah. Right? Yeah. Well, as, [00:22:43] Ben: as I, I might put on my hat and say, Yeah, yeah. Maybe, maybe this is, this is me saying true as a fair science has never been tried. Huh, right. Right? Like, that, that, that may be kind of my position. Huh. But anyways, I... And I would argue that, you know, since 1945, we have been, we haven't had laissez faire [00:23:03] Tim: science. Oh, interesting. [00:23:04] Ben: Huh. Right. And so I'm, yeah, I mean, it's like, this is in [00:23:09] Tim: the same way that I think [00:23:11] Ben: a very hard job for macroeconomics is to say, well, like, do we need [00:23:15] Tim: more or less intervention? Yeah. Yeah. [00:23:17] Ben: What is the case there? I think it's the same thing where. You know, a large amount of science funding does come from the government, and the government is opinionated about what sorts of things [00:23:30] Tim: it funds. Yeah, right. Right. And you [00:23:33] Ben: can go really deep into that. [00:23:35] So, so I [00:23:35] Tim: would. Yeah, that's actually interesting. That flips it. It's basically like the current state of science. is right now over regulated, is what you'd say, right? Or, or [00:23:44] Ben: badly regulated. Huh, sure. That is the argument I would say, very concretely, is that it's badly regulated. And, you know, I might almost argue that it is... It's both over and underregulated in the sense that, well, this is, this is my, my whole theory, but like, I think that there, we need like some pockets where it's like much less regulated. Yeah. Right. Where you're, and then some pockets where you're really sort of going to be like, no. You don't get to sort of tune this to whatever your, your project, your program is. Yeah, right, right. You're gonna be working with like [00:24:19] Tim: these people to do this thing. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, and I think there actually is interesting analogies in like the, the kind of like economic regulation, economic governance world. Yeah. Where like the notion is markets generally work well, like it's a great tool. Yeah. Like let it run. [00:24:35] Right. But basically that there are certain failure states that actually require outside intervention. And I think what's kind of interesting in thinking about in like a macro scientific, if you will, context is like, what are those failure states for science? Like, and you could imagine a policy rule, which is the policymaker says, we don't intervene until we see the following signals emerging in a field or in a region. Right. And like, okay, that's, that's the trigger, right? Like we're now in recession mode, you know, like there's enough quarters of this problem of like more papers, but less results. You know, now we have to take action, right? Oh, that's cool. Yeah, yeah. That would be, that would be very interesting. And I think that's like, that's good, because I think like, we end up having to think about like, you know, and again, this is I think why this is a really exciting time, is like MetaScience has produced these really interesting results. Now we're in the mode of like, okay, well, you know, on that policymaker dashboard, Yeah. Right, like what's the meter that we're checking out to basically be like, Are we doing well? Are we doing poorly? Is this going well? Or is this going poorly? Right, like, I think that becomes the next question to like, make this something practicable Yeah. For, for [00:25:35] actual like, Right. Yeah. Yeah. One of my frustrations [00:25:38] Ben: with meta science [00:25:39] Tim: is that it, I [00:25:41] Ben: think is under theorized in the sense that people generally are doing these studies where they look at whatever data they can get. Huh. Right. As opposed to what data should we be looking at? What, what should we be looking for? Yeah. Right. Right. And so, so I would really like to have it sort of be flipped and say, okay, like this At least ideally what we would want to measure maybe there's like imperfect maybe then we find proxies for that Yeah, as opposed to just saying well, like here's what we can measure. It's a proxy for [00:26:17] Tim: okay. That's right, right Yeah, exactly. And I think a part of this is also like I mean, I think it is like Widening the Overton window, which I think like the meta science community has done a good job of is like trying to widen The Overton window of what funders are willing to do. Yeah. Or like what various existing incumbent actors are willing to [00:26:35] do. Because I think one way of getting that data is to run like interesting experiments in this space. Right? Like I think one of the things I'm really obsessed with right now is like, okay, imagine if you could change the overhead rate that universities charge on a national basis. Yeah. Right? Like, what's that do to the flow of money through science? And is that like one dial that's actually like On the shelf, right? Like, we actually have the ability to influence that if we wanted to. Like, is that something we should be running experiments against and seeing what the results are? Yeah, yeah. [00:27:00] Ben: Another would be earmarking. Like, how much money is actually earmarked [00:27:05] Tim: for different things. That's right, yeah, yeah. Like, how easy it is to move money around. That's right, yeah. I heard actually a wild story yesterday about, do you know this whole thing, what's his name? It's apparently a very wealthy donor. That has convinced the state of Washington's legislature to the UW CS department. it's like, it's written into law that there's a flow of money that goes directly to the CS department. I don't think CS departments need more money. I [00:27:35] know, I know, but it's like, this is a really, really kind of interesting, like, outcome. Yeah. Which is like a very clear case of basically just like... Direct subsidy to like, not, not just like a particular topic, but like a particular department, which I think is like interesting experiment. I don't like, I don't know what's been happening there, but yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Natural, natural experiment. [00:27:50] Ben: Totally. Has anybody written down, I assume the answer is no, but it would be very interesting if someone actually wrote down a list of sort of just all the things you [00:28:00] Tim: could possibly [00:28:00] Ben: want to pay attention to, right? Like, I mean, like. Speaking of CS, it'd be very interesting to see, like, okay, like, what fraction of the people who, like, get PhDs in an area, stay in this area, right? Like, going back to the, the [00:28:15] Tim: health of a field or something, right? Yeah, yeah. I think that's right. I, yeah. And I think that those, those types of indicators are interesting. And then I think also, I mean, in the spirit of like it being a dynamic system. Like, so a few years back I read this great bio by Sebastian Malaby called The Man Who Knew, which is, it's a bio of Alan Greenspan. So if you want to ever read, like, 800 pages about [00:28:35] Alan Greenspan, book for you. It's very good. But one of the most interesting parts about it is that, like, there's a battle when Alan Greenspan becomes head of the Fed, where basically he's, like, extremely old school. Like, what he wants to do is he literally wants to look at, like, Reams of data from like the steel industry. Yeah, because that's kind of got his start And he basically is at war with a bunch of kind of like career People at the Fed who much more rely on like statistical models for predicting the economy And I think what's really interesting is that like for a period of time actually Alan Greenspan has the edge Because he's able to realize really early on that like there's It's just changes actually in like the metabolism of the economy that mean that what it means to raise the interest rate or lower the interest rate has like very different effects than it did like 20 years ago before it got started. Yeah. And I think that's actually something that I'm also really quite interested in science is basically like When we say science, people often imagine, like, this kind of, like, amorphous blob. But, like, I think the metabolism is changing all the [00:29:35] time. And so, like, what we mean by science now means very different from, like, what we mean by science, like, even, like, 10 to 20 years ago. Yes. And, like, it also means that all of our tactics need to keep up with that change, right? And so, one of the things I'm interested in to your question about, like, has anyone compiled this list of, like, science health? Or the health of science, right? It's maybe the right way of thinking about it. is that, like, those indicators may mean very different things at different points in time, right? And so part of it is trying to understand, like, yeah, what is the state of the, what is the state of this economy of science that we're talking about? Yeah. You're kind of preaching [00:30:07] Ben: to the, to the choir. In the sense that I'm, I'm always, I'm frustrated with the level of nuance that I feel like many people who are discussing, like, science, quote, making air quotes, science and research, are, are talking about in the sense that. They very often have not actually like gone in and been part of the system. Huh, right. And I'm, I'm open to the fact that [00:30:35] you [00:30:35] Tim: don't need to have got like [00:30:36] Ben: done, been like a professional researcher to have an opinion [00:30:41] Tim: or, or come up with ideas about it. [00:30:43] Ben: Yeah. But at the same time, I feel like [00:30:46] Tim: there's, yeah, like, like, do you, do you think about that tension at all? Yeah. I think it's actually incredibly valuable. Like, I think So I think of like Death and Life of Great American Cities, right? Which is like, the, the, the really, one of the really, there's a lot of interesting things about that book. But like, one of the most interesting things is sort of the notion that like, you had a whole cabal of urban planners that had this like very specific vision about how to get cities to work right and it just turns out that like if you like are living in soho at a particular time and you like walk along the street and you like take a look at what's going on like there's always really actually super valuable things to know about yeah that like are only available because you're like at that like ultra ultra ultra ultra micro level and i do think that there's actually some potential value in there like one of the things i would love to be able to set up, like, in the community of MetaScience or whatever you want to call it, right, [00:31:35] is the idea that, like, yeah, you, you could afford to do, like, very short tours of duty, where it's, like, literally, you're just, like, spending a day in a lab, right, and, like, to have a bunch of people go through that, I think, is, like, really, really helpful and so I think, like, thinking about, like, what the rotation program for that looks like, I think would be cool, like, you, you should, you should do, like, a six month stint at the NSF just to see what it looks like. Cause I think that kind of stuff is just like, you know, well, A, I'm selfish, like I would want that, but I also think that like, it would also allow the community to like, I think be, be thinking about this in a much more applied way. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [00:32:08] Ben: I think it's the, the meta question there for, for everything, right? Is how much in the weeds, like, like what am I trying to say? The. It is possible both to be like two in the weeds. Yeah, right and then also like too high level Yeah, that's right. And in almost like what what is the the right amount or like? Who, who should [00:32:31] Tim: be talking to whom in that? That's right. Yeah, I mean, it's like what you were saying earlier that like the [00:32:35] success of macro science will be whether or not it's as controversial as macroeconomics. It's like, I actually hope that that's the case. It's like people being like, this is all wrong. You're approaching it like from a too high level, too abstract of a level. Yeah. I mean, I think the other benefit of doing this outside of like the level of insight is I think one of the projects that I think I have is like We need to, we need to be like defeating meta science, like a love of meta science aesthetics versus like actual like meta science, right? Like then I think like a lot of people in meta science love science. That's why they're excited to not talk about the specific science, but like science in general. But like, I think that intuition also leads us to like have very romantic ideas of like what science is and how science should look and what kinds of science that we want. Yeah. Right. The mission is progress. The mission isn't science. And so I think, like, we have to be a lot more functional. And again, I think, like, the benefit of these types of, like, rotations, like, Oh, you just are in a lab for a month. Yeah. It's like, I mean, you get a lot more of a sense of, like, Oh, okay, this is, this is what it [00:33:35] looks like. Yeah. Yeah. I'd like to do the same thing for manufacturing. Huh. Right. [00:33:39] Ben: Right. It's like, like, and I want, I want everybody to be rotating, right? Huh. Like, in the sense of, like, okay, like, have the scientists go and be, like, in a manufacturing lab. That's right. [00:33:47] Tim: Yeah. [00:33:48] Ben: And be like, okay, like, look. Like, you need to be thinking about getting this thing to work in, like, this giant, like, flow pipe instead of a [00:33:54] Tim: test tube. That's right, right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, [00:33:57] Ben: unfortunately, the problem is that we can't all spend our time, like, if everybody was rotating through all the [00:34:03] Tim: things they need to rotate, we'd never get anything done. Yeah, exactly. [00:34:06] Ben: ANd that's, that's, that's kind of [00:34:08] Tim: the problem. Well, and to bring it all the way back, I mean, I think you started this question on macroscience in the context of transitioning away from all of this like weird Cuban Missile Crisis simulation stuff. Like, I do think one way of thinking about this is like, okay, well, if we can't literally send you into a lab, right? Like the question is like, what are good simulations to give people good intuitions about the dynamics in the space? Yeah. And I think that's, that's potentially quite interesting. Yeah. Normalized weekend long simulation. That's right. Like I love the idea of basically [00:34:35] like like you, you get to reenact the publication of a prominent scientific paper. It's like kind of a funny idea. It's just like, you know, yeah. Or, or, or even trying to [00:34:44] Ben: get research funded, right? Like, it's like, okay, like you have this idea, you want yeah. [00:34:55] Tim: I mean, yeah, this is actually a project, I mean, I've been talking to Zach Graves about this, it's like, I really want to do one which is a game that we're calling Think Tank Tycoon, which is basically like, it's a, it's a, the idea would be for it to be a strategy board game that simulates what it's like to run a research center. But I think like to broaden that idea somewhat like it's kind of interesting to think about the idea of like model NSF Yeah, where you're like you you're in you're in the hot seat you get to decide how to do granting Yeah, you know give a grant [00:35:22] Ben: a stupid thing. Yeah, some some some congressperson's gonna come banging [00:35:26] Tim: on your door Yeah, like simulating those dynamics actually might be really really helpful Yeah I mean in the very least even if it's not like a one for one simulation of the real world just to get like some [00:35:35] common intuitions about like The pressures that are operating here. I [00:35:38] Ben: think you're, the bigger point is that simulations are maybe underrated [00:35:42] Tim: as a teaching tool. I think so, yeah. Do you remember the the paperclip maximizer? Huh. The HTML game? Yeah, yeah. [00:35:48] Ben: I'm, I'm kind of obsessed with it. Huh. Because, it, you've, like, somehow the human brain, like, really quickly, with just, like, you know, some numbers on the screen. Huh. Like, just like numbers that you can change. Right, right. And some, like, back end. Dynamic system, where it's like, okay, like based on these numbers, like here are the dynamics of the [00:36:07] Tim: system, and it'll give you an update. [00:36:09] Ben: Like, you start to really get an intuition for, for system dynamics. Yeah. And so, I, I, I want to see more just like plain HTML, like basically like spreadsheet [00:36:20] Tim: backend games. Right, right, like the most lo fi possible. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Yeah, I think it's helpful. I mean, I think, again, particularly in a world where you're thinking about, like, let's simulate these types of, like, weird new grant structures that we might try out, right? Like, you know, we've got a bunch [00:36:35] of hypotheses. It's kind of really expensive and difficult to try to get experiments done, right? Like, does a simulation with a couple people who are well informed give us some, at least, inclinations of, like, where it might go or, like, what are the unintentional consequences thereof? Yeah. [00:36:51] Ben: Disciplines besides the military that uses simulations [00:36:56] Tim: successfully. Not really. And I think what's kind of interesting is that like, I think it had a vogue that like has kind of dissipated. Yeah, I think like the notion of like a a game being the way you kind of do like understanding of a strategic situation, I think like. Has kind of disappeared, right? But like, I think a lot of it was driven, like, RAND actually had a huge influence, not just on the military. But like, there's a bunch of corporate games, right? That were like, kind of invented in the same period. Yeah. That are like, you determine how much your steel production is, right? And was like, used to teach MBAs. But yeah, I think it's, it's been like, relatively limited. Hm. [00:37:35] Yeah. It, yeah. Hm. [00:37:38] Ben: So. Other things. Huh. Like, just to, [00:37:41] Tim: to shift together. Sure, sure, go ahead. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I guess another [00:37:44] Ben: thing that we haven't really talked about, but actually sort of plays into all of this, is thinking about better [00:37:50] Tim: ways of regulating technology. [00:37:52] Ben: I know that you've done a lot of thinking about that, and maybe this is another thing to simulate. [00:38:00] Tim: Yeah, it's a model OSTP. But [00:38:04] Ben: it's maybe a thing where, this is actually like a prime example where the particulars really matter, right? Where you can't just regulate. quote unquote technology. Yeah. Right. And it's like, there's, there's some technologies that you want to regulate very, very closely and very tightly and others that you want to regulate very [00:38:21] Tim: loosely. Yeah, I think that's right. And I think that's actually, you know, I think it is tied to the kind of like macro scientific project, if you will. Right. Which is that I think we have often a notion of like science regulation being like. [00:38:35] literally the government comes in and is like, here are the kind of constraints that we want to put on the system. Right. And there's obviously like lots of different ways of doing that. And I think there's lots of contexts in which that's like appropriate. But I think for a lot of technologies that we confront right now, the change is so rapid that the obvious question always becomes, no matter what emerging technology talking about is like, how does your clock speed of regulation actually keep up with like the clock speed of technology? And the answer is frequently like. It doesn't, right? And like you run into these kind of like absurd situations where you're like, well, we have this thing, it's already out of date by the time it goes into force, everybody kind of creates some like notional compliance with that rule. Yeah. And like, in terms of improving, I don't know, safety outcomes, for instance, it like has not actually improved safety outcomes. And I think in that case, right, and I think I could actually make an argument that like, the problem is becoming more difficult with time. Right? Like, if you really believe that the pace of technological change is faster than it used to be, then it is possible that, like, there was a point at which, like, government was operating, and it could actually keep [00:39:35] pace effectively, or, like, a body like Congress could actually keep pace with society, or with technology successfully, to, like, make sure that it was conformant with, sort of, like, societal interests. Do you think that was [00:39:46] Ben: actually ever the case, or was it that we didn't, we just didn't [00:39:50] Tim: have as many regulations? I would say it was sort of twofold, right? Like, I think one of them was you had, at least, let's just talk about Congress, right? It's really hard to talk about, like, government as a whole, right? Like, I think, like, Congress was both better advised and was a more efficient institution, right? Which means it moved faster than it does today. Simultaneously, I also feel like for a couple reasons we can speculate on, right? Like, science, or in the very least, technology. Right, like move slower than it does today. Right, right. And so like actually what has happened is that both both dynamics have caused problems, right? Which is that like the organs of government are moving slower at the same time as science is moving faster And like I think we've passed some inflection [00:40:35] point now where like it seems really hard to craft You know, let's take the AI case like a sensible framework that would apply You know, in, in LLMs where like, I don't know, like I was doing a little recap of like recent interoperability research and I like took a step back and I was like, Oh, all these papers are from May, 2023. And I was like, these are all big results. This is all a big deal. Right. It's like very, very fast. Yeah. So that's kind of what I would say to that. Yeah. I don't know. Do you feel differently? You feel like Congress has never been able to keep up? Yeah. [00:41:04] Ben: Well, I. I wonder, I guess I'm almost, I'm, I'm perhaps an outlier in that I am skeptical of the claim that technology overall has sped up significantly, or the pace of technological change, the pace of software change, certainly. Sure. Right. And it's like maybe software as a, as a fraction of technology has spread up, sped up. And maybe like, this is, this is a thing where like to the point of, of regulations needing to, to. Go into particulars, [00:41:35] right? Mm-Hmm. . Right, right. Like tuning the regulation to the characteristic timescale of whatever talk [00:41:40] Tim: technology we're talking about. Mm-Hmm. , right? [00:41:42] Ben: But I don't know, but like, I feel like outside of software, if anything, technology, the pace of technological change [00:41:52] Tim: has slowed down. Mm hmm. Right. Right. Yeah. [00:41:55] Ben: This is me putting on my [00:41:57] Tim: stagnationist bias. And would, given the argument that I just made, would you say that that means that it should actually be easier than ever to regulate technology? Yeah, I get targets moving slower, right? Like, yeah, [00:42:12] Ben: yeah. Or it's the technology moving slowly because of the forms of [00:42:14] Tim: the regulator. I guess, yeah, there's like compounding variables. [00:42:16] Ben: Yeah, the easiest base case of regulating technology is saying, like, no, you can't have [00:42:20] Tim: any. Huh, right, right, right. Like, it can't change. Right, that's easy to regulate. Yeah, right, right. That's very easy to regulate. I buy that, I buy that. It's very easy to regulate well. Huh, right, right. I think that's [00:42:27] Ben: That's the question. It's like, what do we want to lock in and what don't we [00:42:31] Tim: want to lock in? Yeah, I think that's right and I think, you [00:42:35] know I guess what that moves me towards is like, I think some people, you know, will conclude the argument I'm making by saying, and so regulations are obsolete, right? Or like, oh, so we shouldn't regulate or like, let the companies take care of it. And I'm like, I think so, like, I think that that's, that's not the conclusion that I go to, right? Like part of it is like. Well, no, that just means we need, we need better ways of like regulating these systems, right? And I think they, they basically require government to kind of think about sort of like moving to different parts of the chain that they might've touched in the past. Yeah. So like, I don't know, we, Caleb and I over at IFP, we just submitted this RFI to DARPA. In part they, they were thinking about like how does DARPA play a role in dealing with like ethical considerations around emerging technologies. Yep. But the deeper point that we were making in our submission. was simply that like maybe actually science has changed in a way where like DARPA can't be the or it's harder for DARPA to be the originator of all these technologies. Yeah. So they're, they're almost, they're, they're placing the, the, the ecosystem, the [00:43:35] metabolism of technology has changed, which requires them to rethink like how they want to influence the system. Yeah. Right. And it may be more influence at the point of like. Things getting out to market, then it is things like, you know, basic research in the lab or something like that. Right. At least for some classes of technology where like a lot of it's happening in private industry, like AI. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. [00:43:55] Ben: No, I, I, I think the, the concept of, of like the metabolism of, of science and technology is like really powerful. I think in some sense it is, I'm not sure if you would, how would you map that to the idea of there being a [00:44:11] Tim: research ecosystem, right? Right. Is it, is it that there's like [00:44:17] Ben: the metabolic, this is, this is incredibly abstract. Okay. Like, is it like, I guess if you're looking at the metabolism, does, does the metabolism sort of say, we're going to ignore institutions for now and the metabolism is literally just the flow [00:44:34] Tim: of [00:44:35] like ideas and, and, and outcomes and then maybe like the ecosystem is [00:44:41] Ben: like, okay, then we like. Sort of add another layer and say there are institutions [00:44:46] Tim: that are sure interacting with this sort of like, yeah, I think like the metabolism view or, you know, you might even think about it as like a supply chain view, right? To move it away from, like, just kind of gesturing at bio for no reason, right? Is I think what's powerful about it is that, you know, particularly in foundation land, which I'm most familiar with. There's a notion of like we're going to field build and what that means is we're going to name a field and then researchers Are going to be under this tent that we call this field and then the field will exist Yeah, and then the proper critique of a lot of that stuff is like researchers are smart They just like go where the money is and they're like you want to call up like I can pretend to be nanotech for a Few years to get your money Like, that's no problem. I can do that. And so there's kind of a notion that, like, if you take the economy of science as, like, institutions at the very beginning, you actually miss the bigger [00:45:35] picture. Yes. Right? And so the metabolism view is more powerful because you literally think about, like, the movement of, like, an idea to an experiment to a practical technology to, like, something that's out in the world. Yeah. And then we basically say, how do we influence those incentives before we start talking about, like, oh, we announced some new policy that people just, like... Cosmetically align their agendas to yeah, and like if you really want to shape science It's actually maybe arguably less about like the institution and more about like Yeah, the individual. Yeah, exactly. Like I run a lab. What are my motivations? Right? And I think this is like, again, it's like micro macro, right? It's basically if we can understand that, then are there things that we could do to influence at that micro level? Yeah, right. Which is I think actually where a lot of Macro econ has moved. Right. Which is like, how do we influence like the individual firm's decisions Yeah. To get the overall aggregate change that we want in the economy. Yeah. And I think that's, that's potentially a better way of approaching it. Right. A thing that I desperately [00:46:30] Ben: want now is Uhhuh a. I'm not sure what they're, they're [00:46:35] actually called. Like the, you know, like the metal, like, like, like the [00:46:37] Tim: prep cycle. Yeah, exactly. Like, like, like the giant diagram of, of like metabolism, [00:46:43] Ben: right. I want that for, for research. Yeah, that would be incredible. Yeah. If, if only, I mean, one, I want to have it on [00:46:50] Tim: my wall and to, to just get across the idea that. [00:46:56] Ben: It is like, it's not you know, basic research, applied [00:47:01] Tim: research. Yeah, totally. Right, right, right. When it goes to like, and what I like about kind of metabolism as a way of thinking about it is that we can start thinking about like, okay, what's, what's the uptake for certain types of inputs, right? We're like, okay, you know like one, one example is like, okay, well, we want results in a field to become more searchable. Well what's really, if you want to frame that in metabolism terms, is like, what, you know, what are the carbs that go into the system that, like, the enzymes or the yeast can take up, and it's like, access to the proper results, right, and like, I think that there's, there's a nice way of flipping in it [00:47:35] that, like, starts to think about these things as, like, inputs, versus things that we do, again, because, like, we like the aesthetics of it, like, we like the aesthetics of being able to find research results instantaneously, but, like, the focus should be on, Like, okay, well, because it helps to drive, like, the next big idea that we think will be beneficial to me later on. Or like, even being [00:47:53] Ben: the question, like, is the actual blocker to the thing that you want to see, the thing that you think it is? Right. I've run into far more people than I can count who say, like, you know, we want more awesome technology in the world, therefore we are going to be working on Insert tool here that actually isn't addressing, at least my, [00:48:18] Tim: my view of why those things aren't happening. Yeah, right, right. And I think, I mean, again, like, part of the idea is we think about these as, like, frameworks for thinking about different situations in science. Yeah. Like, I actually do believe that there are certain fields because of, like, ideologically how they're set up, institutionally how [00:48:35] they're set up, funding wise how they're set up. that do resemble the block diagram you were talking about earlier, which is like, yeah, there actually is the, the basic research, like we can put, that's where the basic research happens. You could like point at a building, right? And you're like, that's where the, you know, commercialization happens. We pointed at another building, right? But I just happen to think that most science doesn't look like that. Right. And we might ask the question then, like, do we want it to resemble more of like the metabolism state than the block diagram state? Right. Like both are good. Yeah, I mean, I would [00:49:07] Ben: argue that putting them in different buildings is exactly what's causing [00:49:10] Tim: all the problems. Sure, right, exactly, yeah, yeah. Yeah. But then, again, like, then, then I think, again, this is why I think, like, the, the macro view is so powerful, at least to me, personally, is, like, we can ask the question, for what problems? Yeah. Right? Like, are there, are there situations where, like, that, that, like, very blocky way of doing it serves certain needs and certain demands? Yeah. And it's like, it's possible, like, one more argument I can make for you is, like, Progress might be [00:49:35] slower, but it's a lot more controllable. So if you are in the, you know, if you think national security is one of the most important things, you're willing to make those trade offs. But I think we just should be making those trade offs, like, much more consciously than we do. And [00:49:49] Ben: that's where politics, in the term, in the sense of, A compromise between people who have different priorities on something can actually come in where we can say, okay, like we're going to trade off, we're going to say like, okay, we're going to increase like national security a little bit, like in, in like this area to, in compromise with being able to like unblock this. [00:50:11] Tim: That's right. Yeah. And I think this is the benefit of like, you know, when I say lever, I literally mean lever, right. Which is basically like, we're in a period of time where we need this. Yeah. Right? We're willing to trade progress for security. Yeah. Okay, we're not in a period where we need this. Like, take the, take, ramp it down. Right? Like, we want science to have less of this, this kind of structure. Yeah. That's something we need to, like, have fine tuned controls over. Right? Yeah. And to be thinking about in, like, a, a comparative sense, [00:50:35] so. And, [00:50:36] Ben: to, to go [00:50:36] Tim: back to the metabolism example. Yeah, yeah. I'm really thinking about it. Yeah, yeah. [00:50:39] Ben: Is there an equivalent of macro for metabolism in the sense that like I'm thinking about like, like, is it someone's like blood, like, you know, they're like blood glucose level, [00:50:52] Tim: like obesity, right? Yeah, right. Kind of like our macro indicators for metabolism. Yeah, that's right. Right? Or like how you feel in the morning. That's right. Yeah, exactly. I'm less well versed in kind of like bio and medical, but I'm sure there is, right? Like, I mean, there is the same kind of like. Well, I study the cell. Well, I study, you know, like organisms, right? Like at different scales, which we're studying this stuff. Yeah. What's kind of interesting in the medical cases, like You know, it's like, do we have a Hippocratic, like oath for like our treatment of the science person, right? It's just like, first do no harm to the science person, you know? [00:51:32] Ben: Yeah, I mean, I wonder about that with like, [00:51:35] with research. Mm hmm. Is there, should we have more heuristics about how we're [00:51:42] Tim: Yeah, I mean, especially because I think, like, norms are so strong, right? Like, I do think that, like, one of the interesting things, this is one of the arguments I was making in the long science piece. It's like, well, in addition to funding certain types of experiments, if you proliferate the number of opportunities for these low scale projects to operate over a long period of time, there's actually a bunch of like norms that might be really good that they might foster in the scientific community. Right. Which is like you learn, like scientists learn the art of how to plan a project for 30 years. That's super important. Right. Regardless of the research results. That may be something that we want to put out into the open so there's more like your median scientist has more of those skills Yeah, right, like that's another reason that you might want to kind of like percolate this kind of behavior in the system Yeah, and so there's kind of like these emanating effects from like even one offs that I think are important to keep in mind [00:52:33] Ben: That's actually another [00:52:35] I think used for simulations. Yeah I'm just thinking like, well, it's very hard to get a tight feedback loop, right, about like whether you manage, you planned a project for 30 years [00:52:47] Tim: well, right, [00:52:48] Ben: right. But perhaps there's a better way of sort of simulating [00:52:51] Tim: that planning process. Yeah. Well, and I would love to, I mean, again, to the question that you had earlier about like what are the metrics here, right? Like I think for a lot of science metrics that we may end up on, they may have these interesting and really curious properties like we have for inflation rate. Right. We're like, the strange thing about inflation is that we, we kind of don't like, we have hypotheses for how it happens, but like, part of it is just like the psychology of the market. Yeah. Right. Like you anticipate prices will be higher next quarter. Inflation happens if enough people believe that. And part of what the Fed is doing is like, they're obviously making money harder to get to, but they're also like play acting, right? They're like. You know, trust me guys, we will continue to put pressure on the economy until you feel differently about this. And I think there's going to be some things in science that are worth [00:53:35] measuring that are like that, which is like researcher perceptions of the future state of the science economy are like things that we want to be able to influence in the space. And so one of the things that we do when we try to influence like the long termism or the short termism of science It's like, there's lots of kind of like material things we do, but ultimately the idea is like, what does that researcher in the lab think is going to happen, right? Do they think that, you know, grant funding is going to become a lot less available in the next six months or a lot more available in the next six months? Like influencing those might have huge repercussions on what happens in science. And like, yeah, like that's a tool that policymakers should have access to. Yeah. Yeah. [00:54:11] Ben: And the parallels between the. The how beliefs affect the economy, [00:54:18] Tim: and how beliefs [00:54:19] Ben: affect science, I think may also be a [00:54:21] Tim: little bit underrated. Yeah. In the sense that, [00:54:24] Ben: I, I feel like some people think that It's a fairly deterministic system where it's like, ah, yes, this idea's time has come. And like once, once all the things that are in place, like [00:54:35] once, once all, then, then it will happen. And like, [00:54:38] Tim: that is, that's like how it works. [00:54:40] Ben: Which I, I mean, I have, I wish there was more evidence to my point or to disagree with me. But like, I, I think that's, that's really not how it works. And I'm like very often. a field or, or like an idea will, like a technology will happen because people think that it's time for that technology to happen. Right. Right. Yeah. Obviously, obviously that isn't always the case. Right. Yeah. Yeah. There's, there's, there's hype [00:55:06] Tim: cycles. And I think you want, like, eventually, like. You know, if I have my druthers, right, like macro science should have like it's Chicago school, right? Which is basically like the idea arrives exactly when it should arrive. Scientists will discover it on exactly their time. And like your only role as a regulator is to ensure the stability of scientific institutions. I think actually that that is a, that's not a position I agree with, but you can craft a totally, Reasonable, coherent, coherent governance framework that's based around that concept, right? Yes. Yeah. I think [00:55:35] like [00:55:35] Ben: you'll, yes. I, I, I think like that's actually the criteria for success of meta science as a field uhhuh, because like once there's schools , then, then, then it will have made it, [00:55:46] Tim: because [00:55:47] Ben: there aren't schools right now. Mm-Hmm. , like, I, I feel , I almost feel I, I, I now want there to b

Join our free Florida income properties webinar, tonight, Monday, November 27th for 5.75% mortgage rates at: GREwebinars.com Today's topics: Conventional financial advice is God-awful; tertiary real estate markets; I've got a solution to guilt tipping; whether or not the world is uncertain and unsafe. Conventional financial advice is so bad. I attack the practices of setting budget alerts and paying off your smallest debts first.  Don't roll a debt snowball; roll a cash flow snowball. In the past five years, tertiary markets are beginning to exhibit the rent stability of larger markets. Guilt tipping is out of control. Learn my elegant solution. You'll never pay a guilt tip again. It seems like the world is increasingly uncertain and unsafe. It isn't. I talk about why it only seems this way. Timestamps: The limitations of budgeting (00:02:43) Discussion on the drawbacks of using budgeting platforms and how they reinforce scarcity thinking. The debt snowball concept (00:05:09) Explanation of the debt snowball method of debt paydown and why it is not aligned with an abundance mindset. Investing in tertiary real estate markets (00:09:43) Exploration of the emerging bullish case for investing in smaller, tertiary real estate markets and their stability compared to larger markets. Tertiary Real Estate Markets (00:10:56) Discussion of the advantages and objections to investing in smaller tertiary real estate markets. Increasing Investor Appetite in Smaller Markets (00:12:02) Exploration of the growing interest and sales volumes in tertiary real estate markets. Guilt Tipping and a Solution (00:20:16) Explanation of guilt tipping and a proposed solution to avoid feeling pressured to leave a tip when making digital payments. Guilt Tipping and the Increasing Expectations (00:21:20) Discussion on the rise of tipping expectations and the use of digital payment prompts to ask for tips. The Problem with Guilt Tipping and the Inconvenience of Undoing Tips (00:23:45) Exploration of the annoyance of guilt tipping and the difficulty of undoing tips after poor service. The Solution: Paying Cash to Avoid Guilt Tipping (00:31:18) Suggestion to pay with cash as an elegant solution to circumvent guilt tipping and ignore electronic payment terminals. The Uncertainty of the World (00:32:25) Discusses how uncertainty has always existed and how waiting for complete clarity can hinder investment decisions. Disasters and Uncertainty (00:33:47) Lists various disasters and events that have occurred in the US, highlighting the constant presence of uncertainty and the relative sense of certainty and safety today. The Ultra Safety of American Society (00:36:13) Examines how society has become ultra safe, discussing the term "safetyism" and providing examples of excessive safety measures. Resources mentioned: Show Notes: GetRichEducation.com/477 Join our Florida properties webinar, free,  Nov. 27th at 8:30 PM ET at: www.GREwebinars.com For access to properties or free help with a GRE Investment Coach, start here: GREmarketplace.com Get mortgage loans for investment property: RidgeLendingGroup.com or call 855-74-RIDGE  or e-mail: info@RidgeLendingGroup.com Invest with Freedom Family Investments.  You get paid first: Text FAMILY to 66866 Will you please leave a review for the show? I'd be grateful. Search “how to leave an Apple Podcasts review”  Top Properties & Providers: GREmarketplace.com GRE Free Investment Coaching: GREmarketplace.com/Coach Best Financial Education: GetRichEducation.com Get our wealth-building newsletter free— text ‘GRE' to 66866 Our YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/c/GetRichEducation Follow us on Instagram: @getricheducation Keith's personal Instagram: @keithweinhold   Complete Episode Transcript:   Keith Weinhold (00:00:01) - Welcome to I'm your host, Keith Weinhold, with a rant on how conventional financial advice is so terribly god awful an outlook for tertiary real estate markets, then? Are you getting worn down from guilt tipping? I've got a proven solution on how you'll never pay a guilt trip to a business again. And finally, how do you arrange your investing in personal finances in a world that's uncertain and unsafe? All today on get Rich education? When you want the best real estate and finance info, the modern internet experience limits your free articles access, and it's replete with paywalls. And you've got pop ups and push notifications and cookies. Disclaimers. Oh, at no other time in history has it been more vital to place nice, clean, free content into your hands that actually adds no hype value to your life? See, this is the golden age of quality newsletters, and I write every word of hours myself. It's got a dash of humor and it's to the point to get the letter. It couldn't be more simple text to six, 6866.   Keith Weinhold (00:01:15) - And when you start the free newsletter, you'll also get my one hour fast real estate course completely free. It's called the Don't Quit Your Day dream letter and it wires your mind for wealth. Make sure you read it, text GRE to 66866. Text  GRE to 66866.   Speaker 2 (00:01:40) - You're listening to the show that has created more financial freedom than nearly any show in the world. This is get rich education.   Keith Weinhold (00:01:56) - Welcome from Los Angeles, California, to Las Cruces, New Mexico, and across 188 nations worldwide. I'm Keith Wayne holding. This is get rich education. When you pay for a low level service item like a Chipotle burrito, and another human is looking at you to see if you leave a 20% tip on a digital payment terminal, does that make you feel uncomfortable? Well, now you're being asked to. Guilt tip I've got a foolproof way on how to never get put in that situation again. That I'll share with you later here. You know, sometimes you just hear something that triggers a rant. I recently heard an ad for a digital platform that helps you manage your finances.   Keith Weinhold (00:02:43) - And what an awful, in scarcity minded way of thinking this reinforces. But this is actually what mainstream financial guidance looks like. All right, it was an ad for a digital platform trying to attract you there. And here's basically how it works. You set up your account. Then based on your income and expenses, you set up your budget. And as you know, that is a bad word around here, a budget. It's not how you want to live long term. All right. Then, when you're close to hitting your spending budget for the month or whatever, this platform triggers a budget alert. Are you kidding me? You get emailed a budget alert. How convenient. Oh, geez. So much for living an aspirational life by design. What a dreadful idea. Like someone that really wants more out of life would actually take effort to set up something like that. You would be building an architecture to establish life patterns that completely say, I think that money is a scarce resource. Now, in the short term, you've got to do what you've got to do, which might mean living below your means for a little while.   Keith Weinhold (00:03:55) - But in a world of abundance, delayed gratification should be a short term notion for you. I think that this type of platform that centered around stupid budget alerts is so limiting. Gosh, you've got to feel cheap just saying that out loud a budget alert. But anyway, that sounds conducive to this concept of scarcity based finance called a debt snowball that you can read about the debt snowball on Investopedia. But the debt snowball, that's basically how you pay off your debt with the smallest balance first, not the highest interest rate, but yes, the smallest principal balance it would have basically says is in the first step, what you're supposed to do is list your debts from smallest to largest, and that's regardless of interest rate, just smallest to largest based on the amount. And then the next step is that you make minimum payments on all of your debts except the smallest one, because you pay as much as possible on your smallest debt. And then the last step is you're supposed to just go ahead and repeat that until each debt is paid in full.   Keith Weinhold (00:05:09) - That's the debt snowball. So according to that, why do they say to disregard the interest rate, which is your cost of capital? Because they say that when you pay off the smallest debt super quick, that you're going to be jumping up and down with excitement, and that is going to motivate you to keep working hard to get debt free. They say that hope is more important than math. That's the school of thought. And along the way you should lower your expenses, cut spending, work hard and add a side hustle where you can. Oh my gosh, that is all congruent with this debt snowball concept that we sure do not endorse here at. I mean, that is 100% orthogonal to the world of abundance that we believe in. So often on your high interest rate debt. What you would do then is you'd make the minimum payments with this debt snowball, and then you focus it all on your smallest debt amount, regardless of interest rate. You've heard that right? And it even advocates that you stop investing and just focus on that smallest debt amount, even if it's a low interest rate.   Keith Weinhold (00:06:22) - That makes no sense. If you've decided that debt paydown is the best allocation of your first expendable dollar. All right, even if that were a yes, then in most cases you'd want to pay down the highest interest rate independent of the total principal balance on each of your debts. I mean, that's arbitrage, but they even bigger question for you, almost existential in nature is why is the best way to allocate your first expendable dollar on debt? Paydown. And. Any way it's or that. First, because one of the first places to look is how you can leverage that dollar 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 as long as you've controlled cash flows. Now, sometimes there are instances where you'd want to pay down debt before investing, certainly like a 20% Apr credit card debt, that could be one such place. So could retiring a debt to help your DTI, your debt to income ratio so that you can originate a new business loan or a new real estate loan first? All right, you might do thatrillionegardless of the interest rate on a loan.   Keith Weinhold (00:07:30) - But my gosh, if we want to stick with the snowball analogy, since we're a few days from December here, instead of trying to push a debt snowball up a hill to start rolling a cash flow snowball down a hill, when you buy an asset that pays you a monthly income stream to own it, that is constructive. Compounding your cash flows beats compounding your debt paid out. Instead of trying to push a debt snowball up a hill because you're cutting your one and only quality of life down. Instead, start rolling a cash flow snowball down a hill, and now you've got gravity working with you in the right way. That is the end of my rent. Hey, maybe I just feel like complaining a bit. My Jim was playing Phil Collins and Elton John all weekend, so maybe that's a kind of what in the world kind of mood that had generated in me, I don't know. And hey, nothing wrong with Phil Collins and Elton John. I mean, those guys are truly talented singers, 100%.   Keith Weinhold (00:08:28) - I just don't want to be working out to those guys. Michael Bolton, George Michael that's not motivating me to hit 20 burpees. Okay. Hey, well, I hope that you were set up for a great week. Be sure that part of it is that you are signed up for our live event tonight for 5.75% mortgage rates on Florida Income property@webinars.com. Now, whether you're looking at investment property in Florida or most any of the other 49 US states, there's a really nascent and interesting development that's been taking place for at least five years now. And that is what's happening in tertiary markets, smaller markets. I'll define tertiary a bit more shortly, but we're talking about metro statistical areas, MSAs that are probably not under 100,000 population, not that small. From a rent growth perspective. What's happened is that over the last five years, tertiary markets have had similar patterns to bigger markets. And historically, these smaller markets have been more erratic. But in rent growth terms, tertiary markets have stabilized. Now, a primary market is something like New York City or Chicago, a secondary market.   Keith Weinhold (00:09:43) - You might think of that as a little Rock, Arkansas, where it's under a million in size, and then a tertiary market that's going to be somewhat discretionary. But we're talking about a population of 100 K up to, say, 300 K. And what's noteworthy is that there are now more analysts and investors that are bullish on vibrant tertiary markets. So let's talk about why this is happening. I think there's an emerging bull case for overcoming some of the historical roadblocks to tertiary market investments in a diversified multifamily or single family rental portfolio. And one classical objection is that tertiary real estate markets are too volatile. Historically, we perceive smaller markets as more volatile. Yes, and some surely are. But over these last five years, markets outside the top 50 in size were regularly more consistent. Okay. They avoided rent cuts in 2020. They recorded sizable but less lawfully rent hikes in 2021 and 2022. And now they remain moderately positive in 2023, even as larger markets have kind of flattened out in the rent growth.   Keith Weinhold (00:10:56) - And of course, we're talking about a composite group of tertiary markets here. Some are more stable than others. You got to watch those local trends as always, of course. And you know, classically a second objection with these smaller markets is that, well, it's too easy to add a lot of supply. And yes, that is sometimes true and sometimes it's not. Indeed, there are a handful of small markets that are building like crazy, like Sioux Falls, South Dakota in Huntsville, Alabama. But as a group, the construction rate in what that is is the total units under construction divided by the total existing market, that is 5% in large markets versus the construction rate of just 4% in small markets. See, it can be harder to build in certain small markets due to NIMBYism or a lack of debt availability, especially if local banks aren't interested in the check size needed for construction loans. It can also be harder to build in certain small markets due to a lack. Of equity because it's a tougher sell to ask investors in a syndication to bet on a market that they don't have a lot of knowledge of.   Keith Weinhold (00:12:02) - Another objection to these tertiary markets is that small markets are not liquid. Since 2019, sales volumes in dollars going into tertiary markets has doubled. Investor appetite has definitely increased in smaller markets. And that's particularly true among these traditional regional investors that are looking for better yield as the larger cities got pricier. So good small markets, you know, a lot of them really are not secrets anymore. And there's only one more objection to these tertiary real estate markets and that it is harder to scale operations. And yes, there is always benefit in efficiency of scale. But, you know, it's certainly been getting easier with better technology today. Investors can always work with top local property managers. And for investment property owners or managers, they often target small markets adjacent to larger markets where they have a bigger presence. So some other considerations before you as an investor go deep in one of these smaller tertiary markets is you want to be choosy in your market and in your site selection. Look for small markets that have multiple drivers.   Keith Weinhold (00:13:13) - You don't just want these one trick ponies. You know, I've discussed with you before about how markets that are heavily focused on commodities or heavily focused on military, they are not favorable because those two sectors, for example, commodities and military, are just pretty volatile. Look for growth or steady markets, lots of small markets. They continue to grow at a pretty healthy clip. And you want to look for markets with an absence of new product. Now why don't I name a few tertiary markets so that you can get a better idea of this. So about 100 K to 300 K in population size. Not that these next ones are necessarily good or bad markets. It's just for size comparison. I'm thinking about Ocala, Florida and Shreveport, Louisiana. You know those two. They're almost getting too big. They're almost secondary markets Wilmington, North Carolina at 300 K. That's a tertiary market. So are Akron and Canton, Ohio Dayton. That's pretty tertiary, but it's also close to Cincinnati. So you got a little more safety in Dayton.   Keith Weinhold (00:14:20) - Toledo is secondary. Burlington, Vermont is tertiary. Bellingham, Washington is tertiary. Yuma and Flagstaff, Arizona are both tertiary. Yes. We're talking about the stability in rents in tertiary real estate markets. Conventionally. You know, in the past, I've said that MSAs of 500 K population or more, that's pretty much where you want to be. But anymore, with the rise of remote work after 2019, it's really making some of these smaller tertiary markets more palatable to real estate investors and something that you probably want to consider. So really, that's the takeaway for you here and say this is the kind of stuff that really plays into my interests as a geography guy. See, I'm a real estate guy, but I might be the most geography interested real estate guy out there. Geography is something that I really love, though I could I don't share too much geography here on a real estate show. Sometimes it's relevant because both geography and real estate are location, location, location, but sometimes it's less relevant.   Keith Weinhold (00:15:25) - For example, North America's longest river is not the Mississippi, it's the Missouri River. The New York City metro area is so populated that more than one in every 18 Americans live there. That's almost 6% of the entire American population. See, some of this is more trivial or of general interest than it is relevant to real estate. Although you could learn some geography from me. Do you know the closest US state to Africa? If you draw a straight line, the closest state to Africa is not Florida or North Carolina. It is Maine. Look on a globe. Part of the reason that Maine is the closest state is that Africa is primarily in the Northern Hemisphere, not the southern, contrary to popular belief, and to look at a different continent. The entirety of South America is east of Jacksonville, Florida. Here's one more piece of geography. Canada's beautiful and mountainous Yukon Territory is larger than California, yet California has more than 900 times the population of the entire Yukon. Yes, the giant Yukon has less than 45,000 people.   Keith Weinhold (00:16:39) - It is the practice of guilt tipping out of control. And how do you respond to our world that seems to be increasingly unsafe and uncertain. That's coming up next. They say, if you give a man a fish you have fed him for. Or a day. But if you teach them to fish, you have fed him for a lifetime. Well, here at gray, we do both. I'm not talking about both in terms of men and women, but we teach you how to fish and give you a fish. Get rich. Education is where we teach you how to fish. With this show, with our blog and newsletter and videos, we also give you a fish. That's it. Gray marketplace. It's one of the few places you'll find affordable, available properties that are good quality there at marketplace. They're all conducive to our strategy of real estate pays five ways I'm Keith Wild. You're listening to get Rich education. Jerry listeners can't stop talking about their service from Rich lending group and MLS. For 256.   Keith Weinhold (00:17:45) - They've provided our tribe with more loans than anyone. They're truly a top lender for beginners and veterans. It's where I go to get my own loans for single family rental property up to four plex. So start your pre-qualification and you can chat with President Charlie Ridge. Personally, though, even deliver your custom plan for growing your real estate portfolio. Start at Ridge Lending Group. You know, I'll just tell you, for the most passive part of my real estate investing, personally, I put my own dollars with Freedom Family Investments because their funds pay me a stream of regular cash flow in returns are better than a bank savings account up to 12%. Their minimums are as low as 25 K. You don't even need to be accredited for some of them. It's all backed by real estate, and I kind of love how the tax benefit of doing this can offset capital gains in your W-2 jobs income, and they've always given me exactly their stated return paid on time. So it's steady income, no surprises while I'm sleeping or just doing the things I love.   Keith Weinhold (00:18:55) - For a little insider tip, I've invested in their power fund to get going on that text family to 66866. Oh, and this isn't a solicitation. If you want to invest where I do, just go ahead and text family to 66866.   Speaker 3 (00:19:16) - This is real estate investment coach Naresh Vissa. Don't live below your means. Grow your needs. Listen to get rich education with Keith Weinhold.   Keith Weinhold (00:19:34) - Welcome back. I'm your host, Keith Weinhold. There will only ever be one great podcast. Episode 477. And you're listening to it perhaps on one third of our episodes. Throughout the show's history, there is no guest. It's 100% me, a slack jawed monologue like it is today, and lots of great Jerry episodes coming up in the future, including Robert Helms other real estate guys here soon as he runs alongside me for an episode as we discuss goals. If you get value from and you don't want to miss any future episodes, be sure to hit subscribe or follow on your favorite podcast platform so that you're sure to hear from me again after today.   Keith Weinhold (00:20:16) - Is guilt tipping out of control? We have all felt it now. Does this happen to you today when you're about to pay the Starbucks barista or for the subway sandwich and they spin the digital payment terminal around toward you and say, it's just going to ask you a question before you pay. And then they stand there and they look at you in the face and they watch what you choose. All right. Does that right there give you a tinge of anxiety or even stress you out? Well, if you give in to that, that is called guilt tipping. And you know what? I've got a solution to guilt tipping. A simple and elegant way that I'm going to share with you so that you never have to see a payment terminal like this in your face again, that asks you for a tip when you're out shopping or dining and paying for something. Yes, I've got a proven solution for how you'll never even be asked to leave a guilt tip again because I tested it and mastered it. It works.   Keith Weinhold (00:21:20) - We even have an unverified report on Reddit of a self-serve digital kiosk now even asking you for a tip. What? I mean, how far will this go? Yes, like a self-checkout for your own groceries at a supermarket like Giant or Safeway? First, let's get some context about why this is so important to you in the first place and how bad it's getting. It might even be worse than what you're thinking here. All right, a new study from Pew Research. It found that 72% of people said that the long standing practice of tipping is now expected in more places than it was five years ago. My reaction to that stat is what? How is it not 100% of people saying that it's happening all over the place, and consumers like you and I are increasingly getting tired of it? The way it works is that today's digital payment prompts, they allow businesses to preset suggested tip levels, so it's easier than ever for them to ask for tips and companies that have not done so in the past. They are definitely doing it now rather than giving employees a raise.   Keith Weinhold (00:22:35) - Instead, they're asking you to supplement the employee wage by asking you for tips where they didn't before. Must you fight back like David Horowitz, if you're uninitiated on that? I learned about a popular show that apparently ran on prime time network television in the 1980s. The show was called Fight Back with David Horowitz, and it advocated for how consumers can fight back against unscrupulous business practices. In fact, let's listen into the cornball intro of this show, which your parents might remember. It's something about fight back. Don't let businesses push you around.   Speaker UU (00:23:20) - But don't let anyone push you around. Fine, but stand up and hold your ground. I got. Someone tries to you in. Five spot. Just.   Speaker 4 (00:23:44) - Oh, jeez. Yeah.   Keith Weinhold (00:23:45) - Fight back against guilt tipping, I suppose. See, a few years back, the reason that you began getting asked to leave a tip in places you hadn't before. That's because it was a way for you to provide a gratuity for service workers. Because you were supposed to have appreciated that they showed up during the health crisis when a lot of workers did not want to show up.   Keith Weinhold (00:24:09) - But now that the crisis appears largely over with, the tip requests have not gone away. They've gotten worse because by now companies see what they can get away with. Now, look, people don't want to feel like a jerk or a cheapskate. You don't. I don't, but businesses are taking advantage of that fact by making bigger than usual tips. The default option on these payment terminals. It really that's the crux of the annoyance. Say that you're given choices of 20, 25, or 30% on a payment terminal just for someone handing you a pre-made sandwich that's already wrapped in cellophane. I've had it happen to me, and then hoping that you will just go ahead and pay the extra amount, rather than hassling with clicking custom tip and entering a smaller number like 10% or zero. Understand something here. The business call it a sandwich shop. They're not the ones that always decide what tip options you're presented with. Did you know that because the companies that own the payment systems, they can earn a cut of your money from each transaction? Those payment system companies, they also have an incentive to increase those amounts as much as possible, not just the sandwich shop, but they are both complicit in this scheme together.   Keith Weinhold (00:25:37) - But now sometimes you get asked to leave a tip beforehand before you're even delivered any good or service. And see, that's getting awkward too. And see the fear of that you and I should have. Now is that in this case, as the customer, as the client, you are going to get punished if you leave a low tip before they deliver the service to you. See, that's another big problem here with guilt tipping. Now, traditionally, tips were thought of as a way to reward good service after you already received what you paid for, right? That's how it works. You pay your server after a meal, you pay your valet. After they bring you your car. You pay the tour guide after your volcano hike or snorkel tour. If you thought that they did a good job. Now, just the other day at a chain fast casual Mexican restaurant that you've certainly heard of, I was being rung up about $35 for two double steak burritos, and there's a lower service level there than a full sit down restaurant.   Keith Weinhold (00:26:44) - But I left a 10% tip at the counter on that day. I thought they put lots of steak on them. And then I walked my burritos to the tables and the tables were messy. I could not find a clean table anywhere, but I had already left the tip. It was too late, so I left the tip and then only later did I discover the poor service, the messy tables. Oh gosh, I wasn't going to go back and try to undo the tip, huh? Before I tell you about my elegant solution so that you can forever avoid guilt tipping. So let's understand just where are Americans tipping today? The situations when people add a gratuity. You know, this really offers some insight into the new tipping landscape. And again, this is according to Pew Research for dining at sit down restaurants, 92% of people are tipping there. And of note, a majority said that they would tip 15% or less for an average sit down meal. That kind of surprised me, because etiquette experts say the tipping 20% at a full service restaurant is standard now, and that's what I do.   Keith Weinhold (00:27:48) - Okay, getting a haircut 78% of people tip today. Having food delivered 76% for those using a taxi or rideshare service like Uber, 61% of people said that they would tip. I tip for all those things. Buying coffee. Only 25% of people leave tips and eating at fast casual restaurants only 12%. So look, people are upset because we've had years of high consumer price inflation and service inflation on top of that. And then a tip on top of that. Yeah. So it's tip relation on top of inflation. And then there is this preponderance of restaurants especially. It suggests that you tip the post-tax amount. Have you noticed that that means that you're also paying a tip on the tax that you pay? So just pay attention to that next time you're at a sit down, full service restaurant, or really most any other place that suggests a tip amount. And yeah, that's annoying. And I really doubt that that business sends that extra revenue to the IRS where you're paying a tip to the tax amount.   Keith Weinhold (00:29:00) - Gosh. But it all comes back to tip and the influx of automatic prompts at businesses like coffee shops, it gives you more chances to tip, and it'll just wear you down and then wear you out, creating this sense of exhaustion thinking what is all this for? It is just wild. If supermarkets are asking you to leave a tip for self checkout, your supermarket wants to outsource their checkout duties from clerks and cashiers to you, asking you to scan your own groceries. By the way, that is an example of service inflation. And then they ask you for a tip. On top of this food inflation and service inflation, you're doing it all yourself. What is next? You're going to have to unload the store's delivery of food from the 18 Wheeler truck in the back, onto a forklift, and onto the shelves yourself. I kind of doubt that. But if grocery stores are convenience stores, self-serve kiosks, if they're requesting tips, then it's more likely that soon enough, your human checkout clerk is going to start requesting tips.   Keith Weinhold (00:30:09) - When you're checking out at Whole Foods or Publix or Wegmans or Safeway, that human checkout clerk that's going to appear as some sort of small luxury comparatively. I mean, I would expect that to come to your town next. Expect to see it if you haven't already. There used to be this general understanding of what different tip amounts convey to servers and workers. Now, decades ago, it used to be a 10% tip meant, all right, well, hey, it wasn't horrible, but it wasn't great either. A 15% tip was normal and 20%. That meant that person did an excellent job. But now those amounts have all become expected and they've all been bumped up 5% or more. All right, well, here's my solution to avoid guilt tipping the way to no longer see a digital payment terminal spun around put in your face. Putting you on the spot to make a nice tip is just this two word solution pay cash. Yes, when you pay cash, you don't have to see an electronic payment terminal at all.   Keith Weinhold (00:31:18) - And it's far easier for you to ignore a physical tip jar that's sitting on the counter over to the side of you. The elegant and simple solution to guilt tipping is to pay cash. Now go ahead and leave a tip for good service if you want to. I'm not here to suggest that you stop all tipping. It's about how you can make an elegant circumvention of guilt tipping. If you have an eight second long exchange where you ask for a cup of coffee and they turn around and pour it from a spout and hand it to you. And that's all they did. Well, that tips discretionary. The bottom line is that you don't have to tip every time you're prompted. And now go ahead and hit up that ATM with cash. You will be armed and you can avoid guilt tipping completely. And hey, can we say that you will be fighting back like David Horowitz? Tipping is fine, but guilt tipping is out of control. And hey, if you want to see more on guilt tipping, I really brought it to life on a video recently where I really broke it down.   Keith Weinhold (00:32:25) - That is on our YouTube channel. We are consistently branded as they say. Our YouTube channel is called get Rich education. So you can watch me talk about guilt tipping and show you more over there. Do you feel like the world that you're living in is increasingly uncertain and unsafe? And is that adversely affecting your investment decisions? That happens to some people and you can't make gains when you stay on the sidelines. I think some people make too much of uncertainty, even though it has always existed. Just look at the last about four years. You know, someone could have said, I am just paralyzed with inaction because of the pandemic. Oh, that's uncertain then the recession fears uncertain, then rising interest rates where they rose fast, uncertain. And today it might be wars uncertain. And you know, the same people that get paralyzed with uncertainty. They will soon say something next year like, well, it's a presidential election year. So. I think uncertainty is going to sideline me again. If you wait for uncertainty to abate, such as you have complete clarity or even great clarity, you're going to be waiting your entire life.   Keith Weinhold (00:33:47) - Uncertainty and an absence of complete safety that's existed in the world every single day since the day that you and I were born and before you and I were born. And it will exist after we're gone, too. I mean, really, just look at some of these disasters that have taken place just this century, and we're still in the first quarter of this century. And let's look here at some just in the US, not foreign crises. I'm thinking about the Y2K bug, the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Towers in the Pentagon, the Iraq war, the invasion into Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina, where 1800 people were killed, the GREAtrillionECESSION, the Arab Spring, the surprise of Donald Trump becoming our president in 2016. Remember, that was a real upset over Hillary Clinton. How about the jarring events of January 6th of the Capitol less than three years ago, the eviction moratorium, the slow creep of climate change, the riots and civil unrest with the George Floyd protests, the wildflowers from California to Maui.   Keith Weinhold (00:35:00) - I mean, I could go on and on about how winners just keep thriving despite a world that's constantly uncertain and unsafe. And I'm only talking about things that involve the United States here, and I'm keeping it confined to this century just a little more than two decades. I mean, before that, we had World wars. We had the Dust Bowl, Cuba's Bay of pigs invasion in the Cuban Missile Crisis that could have led to a nuclear apocalypse that completely destroyed the entire world. There is relative clarity today compared to all that. How about an assassination attempt of our President Reagan? I mean, things are substantially more certain today in a lot of ways. And today, American employment is strong, GDP is growing. Our currency is fairly stable despite our problems, which will always exist. Today, the US economy is outperforming everybody in the world. And in a world that some feel is uncertain and unsafe, just consider the relative sense of certainty and safety you have today. Well, we discuss wars today. As bad as they are when they do happen, they're never on US soil.   Keith Weinhold (00:36:13) - Can you imagine an attack on American soil? How would that sound? Like? The enemy has destroyed and taken control of Charleston in Savannah. And next they're moving inland to take down Atlanta. I mean, that's so unlikely that your mind isn't even conditioned to think that way. But the reason that it seems, seems like your world is getting less certain and less safe is because of media. Media is more fractured than it's ever been. It wants your attention. So with more competition with everything from YouTube videos to TikTok clips now competing with legacy media, you get introduced to more fear in order to get your attention. My gosh. I mean, is American life safer than ever? You can make the case that it's become too safe even. I've talked to you before about how things could very well be in safety overboard mode in real estate. Now here we talk about providing clean, safe, affordable and functional housing. But she should need GFCI outlets all over the place in your property, and carbon monoxide detectors and fire rated doors, even when their improvement to your safety is negligible.   Keith Weinhold (00:37:32) - American society at large is so ultra safe and in fact, there's even a term for this now it's called safety ism. Yeah, look it up. It's how excessive safety is becoming harmful to society. When you are on your last passenger plane flight at night and you just wanted to take a nice nap, or you wanted to get some sleep, did the pilot come on to the intercom system and wake you up, telling you to sit down and put your seatbelt on every time? Just a small amount of turbulence was being felt. Oh, there are endless instances like that where society's gotten so safe that it's just annoying. The last time that I was shopping at Lowe's, the home improvement store, a forklift driver was slowly driving the aisles really carefully. And besides just the forklift driver sitting on the seat, there was a second man, a flagger, that was out in front of him, walking, holding two little flags. So the shopping customers knew that a forklift. This coming. Like, that's such a wild hazard to human safety.   Keith Weinhold (00:38:37) - I mean, gosh, the gross inefficiency of that just to improve safety ever so slightly. Construction workers that have to wear hard hats outdoors in an open field. I mean, our society has become Uber safe. Now, don't get me wrong, some measure of safety is definitely a good thing, but I'm underscoring the fact that historically, this world that you're living in is ultra safe and ultra certain. And then within our investing world, take a look around what can be said to be certain and uncertain. Apple. They're the world's largest company by market cap at about $3 trillion. And their risk is that eventually they might fail to keep innovating. How about Bitcoin? Bitcoin could have government crackdowns or some other lack of certainties, their money in the bank and owning Treasury bonds. All right. That's fairly safe and certain. But you aren't getting any real yield there. And in a world that feels more uncertain and unsafe than it really is, bring it back to the positive attributes of being a real estate investor here.   Keith Weinhold (00:39:46) - You know, monetary inflation is a near certainty, and so is the fact that people will pay you rent if you put a roof over their heads. Certainty. It helps to be mindful that safety is the opposite of freedom, and that having security is the opposite of having opportunity. Hey, well, speaking of opportunity, join our investment coach Norris for Grizz Live event that is to night. You can join from the comfort of your own home. You get to select from one of the two options for Florida Income property. You can select either a 5.75% mortgage rate or the 224 program, which means two years of free property management. 2% of the purchase price. In closing cost credit to you and a generous $4,000 lease up fee credit. Sign up. It's free. It's our live event tonight, the 27th at 8:30 p.m. eastern, 530 Pacific. If you're a few days late, be sure to watch the replay soon. register@webinars.com to have a chance at putting some new Build Florida Income property in your portfolio.   Keith Weinhold (00:41:00) - Until next week, I'm your host, Keith Winfield. Don't quit your day dream.   Speaker 5 (00:41:08) - Nothing on this show should be considered specific, personal or professional advice. Please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate, financial or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own. Information is not guaranteed. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. The host is operating on behalf of get Rich education LLC exclusively.   Keith Weinhold (00:41:36) - The preceding program was brought to you by your home for wealth building. Get rich education.

Max Good - JFK Assassination witness Ruth PaineJuly 5Without question, one of the most famous events of the 20th century was the JFK assassination. As time has passed, the tendrils of conspiracy have lead to a point where 80% of the American public believe there was a conspiracy to kill the President.However, the blurring of the lines between who fired the shots, who they worked for and why have intersected, often wildly. The reasoning for the hit has been everything from his dealing with the Russians over the Cuban Missile Crisis to his alleged determination to announce the USAF had found conclusive proof of aliens.The facts around Lee Oswald are similarly murky; his motivations, movements and murder are all mired in contradictory theory and conjecture.When Max Good read James Douglas's Unspeakable - the seminal work on the events of 22nd November 1962, the consequences and, perhaps most intriguingly, the events which built up to it. He became interested in the Warren Commission and, in particular, in certain key witnesses testimony.DocumentaryPatreonWebsiteThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/1198501/advertisement

“Height of the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis had happened just a year before. The last thing you want is to show the world's superpower to be so incompetent that they shot their own president. And you can understand why they would cover that up and try to hide it.”  In memory of US President John F Kennedy, and to mark the 60th anniversary of his assassination, we peer beyond the conspiracy theories to find out what really happened on the fateful day. Did Lee Harvey Oswald really fire all three shots, as the official reports suggest? Mark Taylor is an imagery analyst, holds a degree in psychology and has been an avid target shooter since the age of 11. With this unique skill set, he's analysed the evidence in a level-headed and expert way. Examining footage like the Zapruder and Bronson films, images of the bullets, photos of the motorcade and the grassy knoll, Mark concludes the fatal third bullet came from another gun. In this episode we dig deep to find out who pulled the trigger on that final shot, and how Mark reached his conclusion. You can also watch the full episode on YouTube here. A word of caution, we're discussing a murder, and will be showing video footage captured on the day of the assassination. As such, the content of this production may be emotionally challenging. If this is not for you, skip this episode, and join us next year for series 9. Otherwise, please take care while watching or listening. See Mark's full analysis here, in a presentation titled The JFK Assassination - The Real Nightmare On Elm Street. Your host is inkjockey founder Mark Heywood. Behind The Spine is an inkjockey production, and the audio accompaniment to The Writing Salon. Sign up to the newsletter here. You can buy copies of our anthology series here.  You can view the full transcript here. Connect with the show: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/behindthespinepodcast/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BehindTheSpine Twitter: https://twitter.com/BehindTheSpine Website: www.behindthespine.co.uk

To commemorate the 60th anniversary of the JFK assassination we're setting the wayback machine to 2018 when I spoke with Helen O'Donnell. Helen is an accomplished author and historian as well as the daughter of President Kennedy's chief of staff Kenny O'Donnell -- you might recognize Kenny from Kevin Costner's portrayal of him in the stellar film about the Cuban Missile Crisis, Thirteen Days. Helen's new book -- out now -- is called Launching LBJ: How A Kennedy Insider Helped Define Johnson's Presidency, culled from Kenny O'Donnell's tapes and journals about the early days of the Johnson administration following Kennedy's assassination. Meantime, please subscribe to our Patreon page at bobcescashow.com. Music by Jim Wurster.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." - John F. Kennedy,  January 20, 1961~~~John F. Kennedy presided over three of the most turbulent years of the Cold War. From the Bay of Pigs to the Cuban Missile Crisis and a coup in Vietnam, the stakes have rarely been higher. But how did he overcome youth and bigotry against his Catholic faith to reach the White House? Well, it helps when your daddy has money and you have charisma to spare.Bibliography1. An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917–1963 – Robert Dallek2. Richard Nixon: The Life – John Farrell3. Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream – Doris Kearns Goodwin4. The Years of Lyndon Johnson and the Passage of Power – Robert Caro5. Indomitable Will: LBJ in the Presidency – Mark K Updegrove6. Eisenhower in War and Peace – Jean Edward SmithSupport the show

On the 15th October 1962, President John F Kennedy was presented with photographs showing Soviet nuclear missiles on the island of Cuba, just 90 miles off the Florida coast. So began the Cuban Missile Crisis, depicted in the political thriller Thirteen Days, Directed by Roger Donaldson and starring Kevin Costner.Join our editor Ollie and Director Tim Hewitt as they discuss the film including best scene, best performance, most inaccurate scene and legacy rating.LinksThirteen DaysAbyss: World on the Brink, The Cuban Missile Crisis 1962, by Max HastingsCommand: The Politics of Military Operations from Korea to Ukraine, by Lawrence FreedmanOllie on XTim Hewitt on X

How did movies change the Cold War? Neil deGrasse Tyson and Chuck Nice learn about how apocalyptic films influenced us and began the first cybersecurity measures with Future of Life Award recipients and filmmakers Lawrence Lasker, Walter Parkes, and Nicholas Meyer. NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free.Thanks to our Patrons Kaleda Davis, Saúl Franco, Jake Egli, Josh Rolstad, Roxanne Landin, jamie brutnell, and Bailey Manasco for supporting us this week.Photo Credit: United States Department of Energy, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Steve Schlesinger is a Fellow at the Century Foundation in New York City. Mr. Schlesinger authored "Act of Creation: Founding of the United Nations," And he is an expert on the UN and international issues. He offers an update on the 78th Session of the UN. The UN has changed dramatically since its creation in 1945, especially in aid to refugees, economic development, climate change, cultural and educational development, and avleassisting ships, mail, aircraft and weather information in the international arena. The UN, albeit not perfect, is indispensable. The UN is critical to the success of many US foreign policies, e.g. Korean War, Cuban Missile Crisis, democratic elections and refugee assistance. In a political move that damages the US and the UN, the Republican-controlled US Congress has adopted—for the very first time-- a State Department bill to not fund the UN. The UN is not a one-world government, has no taxing power and no military.

Subscriber-only episodeThis is the entire three-part series from our interview with Major General William Matz who served WITH DISTINCTION in the Vietnam war and on four presidential administrations.  He would earn the Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, Purple Heart, four Legion of Merit awards and the Army Distinguished Service Medal. He would also serve during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ole Miss riot of 1962, Operation Just Cause and the terrorist attack in Riyadh. 

In this first episode, you'll hear General Matz as he describes his journey into the the armed forces by overcoming the effects of childhood polio as he starts his storied career as an airborne trooper during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Ole Miss riot of 1962 and the the early days of what would become the Vietnam War. Support the show

61 years ago this month, in October 1962, Americans anxiously heard news for almost two weeks straight about the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba, less than 100 miles away from the U.S. Nuclear War was possible, to some imminent. In this encore episode from 2022, we offer a brief history of the Cuban Missile Crisis and, more importantly, a remembrance and reconsideration of the events of October and JFK actions throughout the crisis. JFK has been praised for his firm resolve, courage, and strength in handling the crisis but the reality is that he was provocative and almost caused a war against Russia. In this episode we'll start by giving a background on JFK's aggression toward Cuba, then we'll offer a brief narrative of the crisis, and finally we'll discuss how Kennedy continued his subversion against Castro's government after the Missile Crisis. JFK was not heroic. His recklessness and need for credibility almost caused a nuclear exchange. The media doesn't tell you this story. Green and Red does . . . ---------------------------------- Outro- "We'll Meet Again" By Vera Lynn Links// The best resource for the Missile Crisis is the National Security Archive, at https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/. It's recently put out a series of briefing books with documents on the crisis. Follow Green and Red// **G&R Linktree: https://linktr.ee/greenandredpodcast **https://greenandredpodcast.org/ Support the Green and Red Podcast// **Become a Patron at / greenredpodcast **Or make a one time donation here: https://bit.ly/DonateGandR This is a Green and Red Podcast (@PodcastGreenRed) production. Produced by Bob (@bobbuzzanco) and Scott (@sparki1969). “Green and Red Blues" by Moody. Editing by Isaac.

Michael McCusker explores wide-ranging topics, from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the Supreme Court’s views on social media and government.   

Annnnnnnnd we're back.In his infinite wisdom, David is breaking his oath to keep this down to three episodes, and is adding (at least) one more.Speaking of infinite wisdom, hey, the CIA is here! In this episode, the Guys talk about the Bay of Pigs, airplane gaslighting, and why it's so dang hard to organize a right-wing coup in Cuba. Email: gwscrewed@gmail.comPatreon: www.patreon.com/guyswerescrewed

(00:00) Intro (1:35) Hindenburg disaster (4:44) Cuban Missile Crisis overview (6:59) Defense weapons (11:59) Blockades (13:54) Negotiations (17:22) Real world applications (23:32) Cuba back in the day (27:33) Outro Chief joins the show to talk about the Cuban Missile Crisis. We get into how it started, the role JFK had in it, how this applies to other events around the world, and more.You can find every episode of this show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or YouTube. Prime Members can listen ad-free on Amazon Music. For more, visit barstool.link/thedogwalk

Download the Volley.FM app for more short daily shows!

WELCOME, once again, to Wait Fright Minutes, our exploration of horror-themed episodes as we prepare for the spookiest season of all! This week, we take a deep dive into the wonderful film MATINEE, the iconic director William Castle and his horror gimmicks, and the complicated history of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Florida.  Go to the Wait Five Minutes website for more! Pick up your copy of FLORIDA! right here!   I do not own the rights to the clips played in this episode. Give them a watch right here! MATINEE (1993) Trailer William Castle - Introduction to 'The Tingler' The Tingler Loose in the Movie Theater Matinee (1993) - Clip 1: Mant!   Besides the music in the aforementioned clips, all the music in this episode was originally composed. 

A four-way discussion on the historical political thriller Thirteen Days (2000), starring Bruce Greenwood, Stephen Culp, Dylan Baker and Kevin Costner, directed by Roger Donaldson.Based upon the book The Kennedy Tapes : Inside the Cuban Missile Crisis by Ernest R May and Philip D Zelikow—(a massive work of over 700 pages containing transcripts of John F Kennedy's secret recordings of White House meetings during the Cuban Missile Crisis)—Thirteen DaysThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/4656375/advertisement

Jacob Hornberger centering in the thesis that Kennedy's assassination is best understood as an instance of the US national security state's exercise of its illegitimate power of assassination, we discuss subjects such as: The Bay of Pigs, The Cuban Missile Crisis, The Berlin Crisis of 1961, Laos, Vietnam, and the CIA's alleged involvement in various regime-change operations around the world.This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/4656375/advertisement

In this riveting episode of the Moonshots Podcast, we delve into one of the most pivotal moments in modern history when President John F. Kennedy demonstrated extraordinary leadership during the Cuban Missile Crisis. On October 22, 1962, the world held its breath as JFK addressed the global community regarding the Cuban quarantine in a speech that would shape the course of history.Buy The Book on Amazon: https://geni.us/ndGAtOBecome a Moonshot Member https://www.patreon.com/MoonshotsWatch this episode on YouTube: https://youtu.be/n2_GChcNjg8?si=njrKCHS_BgQv1uhcVALUESHost Wes O'Donnell takes us on a journey to uncover the timeless leadership lessons from this critical juncture. At a time when the threat of nuclear war loomed ominously, Kennedy's ability to maintain his composure under immense pressure became a shining example of leadership at its finest.Keeping Calm Under Pressure (3m21) - Wes O'Donnell explores how JFK's unwavering calmness in the face of unprecedented danger became a cornerstone of his leadership legacy.LEADERSHIP LESSONSRenowned author and strategist Ryan Holiday joins the conversation to shed light on JFK's remarkable talent for objective decision-making. This skill was pivotal in steering the world toward peace during the crisis. Kennedy's mastery of second-order thinking, the ability to see beyond immediate consequences, serves as a crucial lesson for today's leaders.Be in the Present - We learned the importance of being fully present in the moment, a practice that allowed JFK to make explicit and informed decisions even amid chaos.Jonathan Fanning offers unique insights into one of the most profound pieces of leadership advice ever shared with a president. He asks, "What is your sentence?" encouraging us to distill our purpose and values into a concise statement, a practice that guided JFK throughout his presidency.OUTROAs we conclude this episode, our team at Biography explores how JFK forever transformed the relationship between the American people and their president. We reflect on his greatest strength—his willingness to be open to advice and collaboration. This quality allowed him to navigate the treacherous waters of the Cuban Missile Crisis and ultimately, as JFK eloquently put it, "put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind."Join us as we unravel the remarkable leadership journey of President John F. Kennedy, reminding us that even in the darkest hours, clear thinking, objectivity, and remaining calm can lead to solutions that change the course of history.Buy The Book on Amazon: https://geni.us/ndGAtOBecome a Moonshot Member https://www.patreon.com/MoonshotsWatch this episode on YouTube: https://youtu.be/n2_GChcNjg8?si=njrKCHS_BgQv1uhc Thanks to our monthly supporters Austin Hammatt Catie Ivey Zachary Phillips Vanessa Dian Antonio Candia Dan Effland Mike Leigh Cooper Daniela Wedemeier Bertram O. Corey LaMonica Smitty Laura KE Denise findlay Krzysztof Diana Bastianelli James Springle Nimalen Sivapalan Roar Nikolay Ytre-Eide Ana Beatrice Trinidad Roger von Holdt Jette Haswell Marco Silva venkata reddy Karthik Tsaliki Hari Birring Dirk Breitsameter Ingram Casey Ola Nicoara Talpes PJ Veldhuizen rahul grover Karen Petersburg Evert van de Plassche Ravi Govender Andrew Hyde Daniel Alcaraz Craig Lindsay Steve Woollard Lasse Brurok Deborah Spahr Chris Way Eric Reinders Andrei Ciobotar Barbara Samoela Christian Jo Hatchard Kalman Cseh Berg De Bleecker Paul Acquaah MrBonjour Sid Liza Goetz Rodrigo Aliseda Konnor Ah kuoi Marjan Modara Dietmar Baur Ken Ennis Marjolijn de Rooy Bob Nolley ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

This is the thirty-third installment in Eric's epic summer series covering the contentious and war-torn season of American history from 1914 to 1974. In this episode, he explores the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962. This extraordinary thirteen day event ranks as possibly the most dreadful and fearful two week period in American history. And the man given the task of leading America through this dark hour was President John F. Kennedy. His decisions under pressure have defined the world in which we live. ------------For more information about Daily Thunder and the ministry of Ellerslie Mission Society, please visit: https://ellerslie.com/. If you have been blessed by Ellerslie, consider partnering with the ministry by donating at: https://ellerslie.com/donate/

For episode 300 of TMR—the 14th of our Movie Roundtables—we welcome back our good friends Mark Campbell, Frank Johnson and Antony Rotunno for a four-way discussion on the historical political thriller Thirteen Days (2000), starring Bruce Greenwood, Stephen Culp, Dylan Baker and Kevin Costner, directed by Roger Donaldson. Based upon the book The Kennedy Tapes : Inside the Cuban Missile Crisis by Ernest R May and Philip D Zelikow—(a massive work of over 700 pages containing transcripts of John F Kennedy's secret recordings of White House meetings during the Cuban Missile Crisis)—Thirteen Days retells and dramatises (with a mix of historical accuracy and artistic licence) the world-shaking events of 16th - 28th October 1962). Faced with photographic evidence of Russian nuclear missiles on Cuban soil during the height of the Cold War, Jack and Bobby Kennedy (along with various advisors) struggle to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the Crisis in the midst of fear, uncertainty and opposition from their military chiefs. Join us as we discuss the film's production, ponder its historicity, and ask if there is anything to be learnt from it for the present time. [For show notes please visit https://themindrenewed.com]

For episode 300 of TMR—the 14th of our Movie Roundtables—we welcome back our good friends Mark Campbell, Frank Johnson and Antony Rotunno for a four-way discussion on the historical political thriller Thirteen Days (2000), starring Bruce Greenwood, Stephen Culp, Dylan Baker and Kevin Costner, directed by Roger Donaldson. Based upon the book The Kennedy Tapes : Inside the Cuban Missile Crisis by Ernest R May and Philip D Zelikow—(a massive work of over 700 pages containing transcripts of John F Kennedy's secret recordings of White House meetings during the Cuban Missile Crisis)—Thirteen Days retells and dramatises (with a mix of historical accuracy and artistic licence) the world-shaking events of 16th - 28th October 1962). Faced with photographic evidence of Russian nuclear missiles on Cuban soil during the height of the Cold War, Jack and Bobby Kennedy (along with various advisors) struggle to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the Crisis in the midst of fear, uncertainty and opposition from their military chiefs. Join us as we discuss the film's production, ponder its historicity, and ask if there is anything to be learnt from it for the present time. [For show notes please visit https://themindrenewed.com]

We've got a live one! Or...maybe a dead one? Or maybe...and UNDEAD one?!?!I know what you're thinking. You Guys are only stalling because David underestimated the Cuban Missile Crisis, even though he claims to be a communist, and now he's back at work and is struggling to find time to finish his notes for part 3, because he promised there would only be 3 parts and oh yeah, Vampire Survivors came out on Switch!First of all, how dare you? Second of all, everything is going according to plan. David has never even heard of Vampire Survivor. But we have heard of The Mortuary Assistant!Have you ever wanted a game where you could semi-realistically embalm a human body while you fight the demons of your drug-addled past AND fight literal demons trying to take your body? Boy, did we find the game for you. Join us as we throw on our gloves, look at our checklist twice, and burn crematorium ashes onto a dead body to find out which House a particular demon belongs to. It's a gas!Have you ever wanted to hear what David's wife, Lori, sounds like? Well, don't ever tell anyone that. That's weird. But Lori was a pivotal member of the MA Tucson Team, and she is here to share her insights.Email: gwscrewed@gmail.comPatreon: www.patreon.com/guyswerescrewed

The intrepid Timewatch agents are once again on the case of changes to the time stream! This time they are sent to another nuclear themed situation, as they jaunt into a closet on a Soviet nuclear sub during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Which, even when dealt with, the source of the problem is not what one would expect...Theme to Timewatch (C) Pelgrane Press. Used with permission. Hatchet and Axe is part of the scenario / campaign book Behind Enemy Times, written by Kevin Kulp, Matthew Breen, Michael Rees, and is available at Pelgrane's website.Dan - GMBen - Urrk - A neanderthal who was saved by Timewatch and has been recruited as a member of the team. Zug zug.Ethan - V5 - A robot killing machine from the 21st century from another plane of existence, recruited by Timewatch after gaining sentience and deciding to rebel against being a machine of death.Greg - Skegg - A Sophisaur, a psychic velociraptor from another plane of existence, hoping to make up for his people's tyranny by joining Timewatch.

Diane and Sean discuss Joe Dante's under appreciated love letter to movie-making, Matinee. Episode music is, "This Is It" composed and conducted by Jerry Goldsmith, fro the OST.-  Our theme song is by Brushy One String-  Artwork by Marlaine LePage-  Why Do We Own This DVD?  Merch available at Teepublic-  Follow the show on social media:- Tumblr: WhyDoWeOwnThisDVD-  Follow Sean's Plants on IG: @lookitmahplantsSupport the show

Sam Harris speaks with Carl Robichaud about the ongoing threat of nuclear war. They discuss the film "Oppenheimer," the ethics of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the false lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the history and future of nuclear proliferation, the logic of deterrence, cyber vulnerabilities, the history of de-escalation, the war in Ukraine, war games, the nuclear taboo, growing tensions between the U.S. and China, artificial intelligence, getting to nuclear zero, the role for private citizens in mitigating nuclear risk, the Longview Nuclear Risk Policy Fund (https://www.longview.org/fund/nuclear-weapons-policy-fund/), and other topics. If the Making Sense podcast logo in your player is BLACK, you can SUBSCRIBE to gain access to all full-length episodes at samharris.org/subscribe.   Learning how to train your mind is the single greatest investment you can make in life. That's why Sam Harris created the Waking Up app. From rational mindfulness practice to lessons on some of life's most important topics, join Sam as he demystifies the practice of meditation and explores the theory behind it.

On your marks... get set... technical difficulties!  Join your favourite TransAtlantic podcasting crew: Ian, Liam, and Georgia (Megan and Ethan weren't Ford type people) as we're heading to rural France in search of a 3 minute perfect lap and do our best to go 24 hours in reviewing it. We're all just trying to keep up with the leader as BFF of the BFE, Hermes Auslander blasts ahead regardless of the RPM count. We don't have Ethan or Megan to blame it on in our 187th episode as we discuss: Damon vs Bale - who's the better actor? Why did this film need 2 different titles in English speaking markets? Who were initially signed up to play the leads in an earlier draft? Don't ask me how but we got onto the Cuban Missile Crisis and the ongoing trade embargo somehow (the yellow button is ready for next week) We've got some technical gremlins in this episode and they're not quick fixes but we do power through - stay tuned for the longest BFE coda ever Hermes joins us and tries to rename the podcast Ian once again tries to re-write the ending of a film - He'd argue it's better We go over our chicken wing challenge in Cambridge and reveal who ate the most Whether or not Ford v Ferrari / Le Mans '66 is the Best Film Ever Become a Patron of this podcast and support the BFE at https://www.patreon.com/BFE We are extremely thankful to our following Patrons for their most generous support: Juleen from It Goes Down In The PM Hermes Auslander James DeGuzman Lina Oberholzer Ensign Ian Davies Chris Pedersen  Duane Smith (Duane Smith!) Randal Silva The Yeetmeister Nate The Great Rev Bruce Cheezy (with a fish on a bike) Andy Dickson Holly Callen Richard Ryan Kuketz Dirk Diggler Shai Bergerfroind AJ from Nova Scotia Buy some BFE merch at https://my-store-b4e4d4.creator-spring.com/ Massive thanks to Lex Van Den Berghe for the use of 'Mistake' by Luckydog.  Catch more from Lex's new band, The Maids of Honor at https://soundcloud.com/themaidsofhonor Also massive thanks to Moonlight Social for our age game theme song.  You can catch more from them at https://www.moonlightsocialmusic.com/

22 October 1962: President Kennedy goes on prime-time TV and announces a blockade around Cuba to prevent more Soviet missiles reaching the island. But US sailors call the so-called ‘quarantine' nothing but ‘grand theatrics.' Not a single Soviet ship is stopped by the US Navy. What was going on?

The principle of unity, now featured as Robert Cialdini's 7th Principle of Persuasion in the New and Expanded version of Influence, is important for anyone in business to understand. Fundamentally, it is about fostering a communal sentiment between the communicator and the audience, making them feel as if they are part of the same group. This unity transcends mere similarities and taps into shared identities such as nationality, family, or political affiliation. More than being an effective tool for persuasion, creating a sense of unity also helps build stronger, more meaningful connections with others. Throughout the interview, Dr. Cialdini explains all seven principles of persuasion: reciprocity, authority, liking, consistency/commitment, social proof, scarcity, and unity. He provides thought-provoking examples and tips that anyone in business can learn from and start being more influential (and persuasive) immediately! Don't miss this one. In this episode: Uncover the basic principles of persuasion and their impressive influence on human behavior. Learn about the (now) 7 Principles of Persuasion from the godfather of influence himself. Hear some questions from listeners like you, that Melina asked Dr. Cialdini! Embrace ethical persuasion and the responsible handling of influence strategies. Discover a little about what Bob is doing now, as Melina mentions the Cialdini Institute, a new initiative that has launched since this refreshed episode originally aired. Show Notes: 00:00:00 - Introduction, The episode introduces Dr. Robert Cialdini, a renowned persuasion scientist, and discusses his iconic book "Influence" and its new and expanded version, which includes the seventh principle of persuasion, Unity. 00:03:15 - Cialdini's Background and Research, Dr. Cialdini shares his background as a persuasion scientist and his early research, which involved immersive observational studies of various professions that rely on influencing others. He emphasizes the importance of studying naturally occurring environments and the common principles of persuasion he discovered. 00:06:41 - The Original Six Principles of Persuasion, Bob presents the six original principles of persuasion: reciprocity, liking, social proof, authority, commitment and consistency, and scarcity. He explains each principle and how they influence people's decision-making processes. 00:15:55 - The Seventh Principle: Unity, Dr. Cialdini introduces the seventh principle of persuasion, Unity, which focuses on creating a sense of shared identity between the communicator and the audience. He explains how unity can break down barriers to influence and strengthen the impact of persuasive messages. 00:19:45 - The Cuban Missile Crisis and Reciprocity, The conversation begins with a discussion of the Cuban Missile Crisis and how the commonly held belief that Kennedy stood firm against Khrushchev was not entirely accurate. It was actually a reciprocal exchange of concessions, with Kennedy promising to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey in exchange for Khrushchev removing missiles from Cuba. 00:23:05 - Problem-Free vs. Problem-Freed Experience, The conversation shifts to the importance of resolving problems for customers in business. It is argued that a problem-freed experience, where a problem is resolved in favor of the customer, can lead to increased loyalty and advocacy. Customers appreciate when problems are quickly and effectively addressed. 00:29:40 - Principles of Influence in a Digital World, The conversation explores how the principles of influence adapt to a digital world, such as social media. While the platforms may change, the principles themselves remain consistent. Social proof, in particular, has gained traction with the availability of online reviews and testimonials. 00:33:53 - The Effectiveness of Persuasion Principles, Melina asks a question from a listener on whether or not the principles are less effective now that people are aware of them and the landscape is changing. Dr. Cialdini explains his thoughts on this question. 00:39:32 - Reader Letters and Social Proof, The inclusion of reader letters in the book was not initially intended as a social proof strategy, but rather as a way to engage with readers. However, the readers' reports became a popular feature, providing social proof of the principles of the book in everyday situations. 00:41:46 - Future Book Plans, Dr. Cialdini mentions his plan to write his next book as a collection of readers' reports, with his thoughts on each. This format has been well-received by readers and provides valuable insights into how the principles of persuasion work in various contexts, so he thinks it could make a good full book. 00:42:41 - The Power of Unity, Dr. Cialdini shares a personal story of how the principle of Unity helped him obtain data for a grant application from a colleague who is known to be less-than-helpful. By emphasizing their shared history and belonging to the same department, he was able to persuade his colleague to provide the necessary data. 00:45:30 - Learning More from Dr. Cialdini, To learn more from Dr. Cialdini, listeners can visit the Influence At Work website, where they can access his other books and also find information on training programs. Dr. Cialdini emphasizes the importance of ethical persuasion and offers resources to help individuals become effective and ethical persuaders. 00:45:57 - Reflecting on Influence, Melina reflects on her conversation with Dr. Cialdini and highlights the power of reciprocity, liking, and social proof and how they can all be achieved in one act – in this case, the endorsement he provided for her second book, What Your Employees Need and Can't Tell You. Melina also shares a bit of what Dr. Cialdini is up to now, including the newly launched Cialdini Institute (links below). 00:46:54 - Conclusion, Melina's top insights from the conversation. What stuck with you while listening to the episode? What are you going to try? Come share it with Melina on social media -- you'll find her as @thebrainybiz everywhere and as Melina Palmer on LinkedIn. Thanks for listening. Don't forget to subscribe on Apple Podcasts or Android. If you like what you heard, please leave a review on iTunes and share what you liked about the show.  I hope you love everything recommended via The Brainy Business! Everything was independently reviewed and selected by me, Melina Palmer. So you know, as an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. That means if you decide to shop from the links on this page (via Amazon or others), The Brainy Business may collect a share of sales or other compensation. Let's connect: Melina@TheBrainyBusiness.com The Brainy Business® on Facebook The Brainy Business on Twitter The Brainy Business on Instagram The Brainy Business on LinkedIn Melina on LinkedIn The Brainy Business on Youtube Learn and Support The Brainy Business: Check out and get your copies of Melina's Books.  Get the Books Mentioned on (or related to) this Episode: Influence, by Robert Cialdini Presuasion, by Robert Cialdini Influence Is Your Superpower, by Zoe Chance You Have More Influence Than You Think, by Vanessa Bohns What Your Employees Need and Can't Tell You, by Melina Palmer Connect with Robert:  Robert Cialdini on Twitter Follow Robert Cialdini on LinkedIn Cialdini Institute Website Top Recommended Next Episode: The Unity Principle (ep 216) Already Heard That One? Try These:  Reciprocity (ep 238) Social Proof (ep 87) Influence Is Your Superpower, with Zoe Chance (ep 308) Framing (ep 296) You Have More Influence Than You Think, with Vanessa Bohns (ep 197) Priming (ep 252) Magic Words, with Jonah Berger (ep 301) 5 Years, 299 Episodes, These Are Your Favorites (ep 299) The Power of Scarcity, with Mindy Weinstein (ep 271) Precommitment (ep 120) Scarcity (ep 270) Familiarity Bias (ep 149) Friction, with Roger Dooley (ep 274) Negative Reviews and How to Deal with Them (ep 163) Episode 76: The Brainy Benefits of Gratitude What Your Employees Need and Can't Tell You (ep 225) Other Important Links:  Brainy Bites - Melina's LinkedIn Newsletter Influence At Work, Cialdini's website

Today's episode is brought to you by LifeForce.Visit mylifeforce.com and receive $200 off your membership today.If you're in your 30s, then your parents raised you through the global financial crisis, SARS, the bursting of the tech bubble, and 9/11. They saw two wars in Iraq, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Black Monday. If you're in your 40s, they experienced that and the crack epidemic, the AIDS epidemic, stagflation, Chernobyl, and the final saber rattling of the Cold War. If you're in your 50s, then your parents raised you through Vietnam and Watergate and the Berlin Wall. If you're in your 60s, they raised you through the Civil Rights movement, the counterculture revolution, the draft, Vietnam, the Kennedy assassinations, MLK's assassination, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. If you're older than that… well, now we're getting into even headier territory: the war in Korea, the Iron Curtain, the Second World War, the Marshall Plan, and god knows what else.✉️ Sign up for the Daily Dad email: DailyDad.com

In this jam-packed episode of Adams Archive, we plunge headfirst into a whirlwind of controversy, unearthing the stories that are setting the stage in both politics and pop culture. We kick things off with a deep dive into the indictment of former President Donald Trump, scrutinizing the charges and dissecting the bias in his legal predicament. Then we pivot, bringing you some startling footage of Trump and Governor Ron DeSantis amidst a smear campaign that has tongues wagging. Next, we delve into the world of religion and free speech, highlighting a disturbing incident where a young Wisconsin preacher finds himself at odds with the law for spreading his beliefs at a drag event. We question the direction our society is heading in, where the lines of freedom of speech seem blurred. Then, hold onto your seats as we navigate the murky waters of celebrity scandal. We examine the explosive allegations of sexual harassment against pop icon Lizzo. From there, we venture into the world of tech and social media, where Meta is shaking things up in Canada. The climax of our narrative? An intriguing exploration into the familial history of Justin Trudeau, and the striking evidence suggesting his lineage might trace back to the infamous Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. All Links: https://linktr.ee/theaustinjadams Substack: https://austinadams.substack.com Merch: Https://antielite.club ----more---- Full Transcription:  Adams Archive.   Hello, you beautiful people and welcome to the Adams Archive. My name is Austin Adams, and thank you so much for listening. Today. On today's episode, we are going to be discussing the recent indictment of Donald Trump. The former president of the United States has now been indicted over the January 6th. Insurrection. So we'll look at those charges, who the judge is, which is, it happens to be an Obama appointed judge who has a history of going after people and giving longer sentences that are related to January 6th. So we'll discuss that. Then we will look at Trump's response to all of this. Moving after that, we'll look at his some of the videos that he put out, which is pretty hilarious of him and Ron DeSantis that is going on this smear campaign. And then we will move over into the Devin Archer interview that was conducted by Tucker Carlson. Following up on that conversation. And after that there was a Wisconsin preacher, a young man who was arrested after. Preaching the Lord's word at a drag event on his sidewalk. So pretty infuriating when you watch this video. I, I remember seeing this stuff in Canada, and I never would've thought it would've come to the United States. You know, we, we always talk about the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion and all of these things that, that we supposedly have written down on documents that should not be imposed upon. And here we are. Next up, we'll get into some little fun, fun and disgusting pop culture with Lizzo getting sued for sexual harassment by several of her former dancers, and then also some sexual accusations made to her. Involving bananas, so I'm sorry to do that to your ears. After that we'll also get into the recent hearing in or recent judgment in Canada regarding meta Facebook and Instagram no longer allowing for news to be posted in Canada, which happens to come on the same day as Justin Trudeau and his wife. Separating after 18 years of marriage. And that leading us into a conversation about Justin Trudeau, his family history, and whether or not he actually happens to be the son of once Dictator Fidel Castro. Hmm. And there's actually some, you know, there's a striking resemblance, which is one thing. There's some videos by Joe Rogan where they talk about it. But it's one thing for the resemblance, it's another thing with all of the corroborated evidence that we will go through. So stick around for that. The longer you're here. The deeper we get. All right. First thing I need you to do is head over to the sub stack, Austin Adams dot sub stack.com. Go ahead and sign up for the Sub Stack Companion for the podcast. All of the clips, articles, links, everything will be on there that we discussed today. Then you will also check out the original sub stack that I put from the last episode about the silent weapons for quiet wars, which we'll be having the part two come out. On Friday early morning I believe, or Saturday for you. So make sure that you're subscribed to the podcast. You follow me on YouTube 'cause you can actually walk through the documents with me. You'll be able to see what I'm looking at on this episode today as well. And leave a five. Star review. Guys, I can't stress that enough. I is the single way that you can give back to me for all of the time, effort, and energy that goes into this. It is now 10 30 at night. I just put my kids to bed putting together this episode for you. So I hope you appreciate it. And what you can do to show that appreciation is just by going and pressing a button. And I, I ask you every episode, and it truly means a lot to me. Just to be having these conversations and that you're listening. But the next step is just kind of giving back by pressing that little tiny button. That's all you have to do for me. And then every time that you hear this, when you listen to the episodes next week and moving forward, you'll always just know that you already did it. You'll feel good inside. It's a little bit of good karma for you. So head over. Leave a five star review. Join the sub stack, Austin Adams dot sub stack.com and let's jump. The Adams archive. Alright, episode number 80, I believe. Pretty wild that we've been here together for 80 episodes from the Red Pill Revolution podcast. Now to the Adams Archive. I appreciate you from the bottom of my heart. So, 80 episodes kind of a landmark and can't. I can't wait to keep this going and, and getting up to a hundred. So on the very first article of today's episode, we're going to be discussing President Donald Trump has been indicted for his involvement in the conspiracy of January 6th. Now, if I've, I've actually done several deep dives into this conversation. I did a deep dive into the CIA's responsibility and who Ray Epps was. So we'll get into maybe some of that conversation today, but let's jump into what this indictment looks like. Like, and then I'll give my opinion on it and what I think is actually going on, because I think it's pretty cut and dry. I think we know that by now. One thing that I did see DC Draino point out was that the type of indictment that we have here, the charges that we have Maybe I can pull up the tweet to get the specifics, but it does not allow them to disqualify him from running for president as a result of these these indictments. So that was a, a big distinction here that that was very relieving to see was that the indictments that we have here are fluff. They're nothing that's not gonna stop him from running for the presidential candidacy in 2024 against Joe Biden and hopefully not against Joe Biden. Hopefully against. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. If I was a perfect world, and you know, I've already given my thoughts on that in some of the past episodes, but. Trump has been indicted for obviously political additional political weaponization of our Department of Justice, and you've probably heard that over and over and over again because this is the fourth indictment that has been going on during the last, I don't know, three to four months of, of Donald Trump. Meanwhile, and, and we, again, we talked about this laps last at some point, but it's so crazy to me that a single time in history, we have both the current president. The last president being indicted on federal charges of corruption conspiracy. I don't know if there's ever been another period of time where that's been happening and it just shows you, it just, it just clues you into what I've talked about all along, which is that the government is just a mafiaa of. Slick haired mafiosos who are there to siphon money out of a pool of your taxes in any which way that they can for their own profitability. Right? Everybody throws money, throws money into a big pile in the middle of of the room, and I. All these politicians are looking to do is siphon money from that in, in through different deals that they're doing with, you know, maybe Ukrainian energy companies and maybe Chinese bio labs. And eventually their goal is just to see what, what they can pull out of your tax money by sending a bunch of money to a Ukraine bio lab and then having that same company pay them off to come speak at some event with 12 people at it for $40 million later. Right. It's, it's just so crazy to see how, how much of a. Comparison there is between our government even taking those taxes from people the same way that the Mexican drug cartels go to business owners and say, Hey, if you don't give us 25% of your profits, we're going to maliciously and violently shut you down, which is what they do with taxes. They tell you that if you don't pay us taxes, we're gonna throw you in jail and throw away the key. It's like, Maybe likely not, but if you're Wesley Snipes, they might make an example of you. Right. So it's pretty crazy to see how we actually have two simultaneous presidents, the sitting president and the previous president. I. Both being charged with criminal criminal offenses simultaneously, which is wild. So here's the article. This is coming from Atlas News. One of my favorite, most trusted news sources, which covers news around the world. Not sponsored or anything by them, but just really like the work that they do. It's a lot of like wartime news. So they're, they're covering the current kta in Niger, there's some fine lines that you have to walk in that I saw. I saw a response to Atlas News where somebody commented back to them regarding the kta in, in Niger, and they said one, one letter away from getting banned by Instagram with like a sweating emoji. And the response from Atlas News was like, I can't tell you how many times I proofread this article. Alright, this article says Donald Trump indicted on electoral interference and conspiracy charges. Former United States President Donald Trump has been federally indicted on charges in relation to his alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Charges include, so it breaks down all four charges for you conspiracy to defraud the United States. By using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defend the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government. So let's break down each one of these charges. Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. Did knowingly combine conspire, confederate and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the grand jury, to corruptly, obstruct, and impede an official proceeding that is the certification of the electoral vote, and then obstruction of an official proceeding attempted to and did corruptly obstruct and impede an official proceeding that is the certification of the electoral vote like this so vague, attempted to. Corruptly, obstruct and impede an official proceeding. Like what are you even talking about? What does that even mean? And the last one being conspiracy against rights. Did knowingly combine conspire confederate and agree to co-conspirators known and unknown to the grand jury to injure a press, threaten and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of their a right. Privilege secured to them by the Constitution and Laws in violation of Title 18, the United States Code Section 2 41 of the United States. That is the right to vote and to have one's vote counted, which is funny because none of this actually came to fruition. They say that, oh, he did impede and interfere with this. It's like, no, what did he specifically do? Right? He called for a protest. If anything, you should be charging the F B I with conspiracy to. Have election interference. You know, maybe for what they did against Hunter Biden's laptop, by going to all the tech companies preemptively and telling them not to run the story or to actively stifle free speech. Maybe it's for implanting people like Ray Epps to go out there and say, let's go into the Capitol, into the Capitol. M maybe one of the many, many things that we've seen, including the F B I, you know, weaponizing itself against the documents at Mar-a-Lago against. I mean, all of these things add up over time and, but, but, you know, let's go after the one guy who's running for president and, and against the person that we installed as the president of the United States in this Banana Republic. I can't help but think of the, the brand Banana Republic when I, when I say that, but it is so true, right? It's like, what is even the definition of Banana Republic, we hear it, you know, being utilized in this sense over and over again, right? And it's like, you kind of get the sense of it, but the Banana Republic is the first thing that comes up is actually the brand. Right? Of course. But let's see what the, the actual definition of a Banana Republic is for you. It's like an installed government that a third world country that weaponizes itself against people. But a Banana Republic is a politically and economically unstable country that with an econ economy dependent solely on the export of natural resources. The term originated in 1904 to describe Honduras in Costa Rica under economic exploitation by US corporations such as the United Fruit Company. Typically a Banana Republic has a society of extremely stratified social classes, usually a large impoverished working class and a ruling class. Plutocracy composed of the business, political and military elites. Such exploitation is enabled by collusion between the state and favored economic monopolies in which the profit derived from the private exploitation of public lands is private property while the debts incurred, therefore are the financial responsibility of the public treasury. So there you go. That is the actual definition that has nothing to do with tight, skinny jeans, in case you were curious. Alright, now it says that there was six co-conspirators. But it does not name them. But it says that they are an attorney who is willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that the defendant's 2020 reelection campaign attorneys would not. Hmm. Is that one Rudy Giuliani. Co-conspirator. Two. An attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the Vice President's ceremonial role overseeing certification proceedings to obstruct the certification of the presidential election co-conspirator. Three. An attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud the defendant publicly acknowledged to others sounded crazy. Nonetheless, the defendant embraced and publicly amplified co-conspirator three's disinformation. Co-conspirator four is a Justice Department official who worked on civil matters, who with the defendant, attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations. Oh, could you imagine and influence state legislators? With knowingly false claims of election fraud. And then number five is an attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to abstain or obstruct the certification proceedings. And then the last one being a political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceedings. So there you go. Those are the charges, and those are the co-conspirators, which I guess we'll find out who they actually are here in the following weeks, but, Like I said, we all know that the F b I was the one who actually caused this insurrection, even if you want to call it that. We know it wasn't that from the footage that we saw. Right. We know it was more of a glorified museum tour as you see the police walking through the hallways with them and letting them through the doors. As you see them politely speaking with authorities as they're walking through you know, walking through the building, it's pretty wild to see how much they can make it. And I think this was their plan all along. I think this was absolutely the plan of the F B I to in, in to plant the seed of this insurrection back all the way in 2020. And to cause them to have the ability to go after Donald Trump four years later, so he cannot rerun. Now, obviously, as we talked about, I don't believe that's the case with these charges and we'll see. Maybe I can get up DC drain o's post about this and I believe it was on Twitter, so maybe I can pull it up and, and see that the differentiation or x I guess they call it now. But let's see if we can pull it up. It says Pence implicitly admits, so that's something we should look at too, is Mike Pence, what Mike Pence actually said, which was like the craziest, most stupid thing in America. Pretty wild, but let's see if we can find this first. So DC Draino said, wow, he tweets a lot. This isn't a swing of the miss friendly reminder that Adam Schiff is one of 25 congressmen us, or history to be censored. Let's see. The feds and Jack now know Trump is going to win in the landslide. The proof is in the polls that came from Trump's nephew is the Twitter account. I am not seeing it here. Hmm, maybe it was on Instagram, but I do recall him posting something. Oh, here we go. Okay, so it says President Trump has been indicted on four federal counts, conspiracy to defraud the US conspiracy. Let's go ahead and pull this actually up for you guys. Conspiracy to defraud the US conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding conspiracy against rights. It is very important to note that he was not charged with seditious. Conspiracy or insurrection, those two charges, if convicted by a leftist DC jury, would prohibit him from running in 2024 dc. Dino said, these charges are desperate acts from a desperate regime trying to do everything they can to stop a man that will hold them accountable in 2025. Agreed. Right. So good to know that that's actually not gonna stop him from running. And it just continues the narrative that they're weaponizing the actual federal government. So let's see. Donald Trump's responses to this, and he's posted lots and lots of videos about this, but let's read his actual, let's read Donald Trump's response to this. Indictment. It says, this is nothing more than the latest corrupt charter or chapter in the continued pathetic attempt by the Biden crime family and their weaponized Department of Justice to interfere with the 2024 election in which President Trump is the undisputed front runner in leading by substantial margins. But, Why did they wait two and a half years to bring these fake charges right in the middle of President Trump's winning campaign for 2024? Why was it announced the day after the big crooked Joe Biden scandal broke out from the halls of Congress? The answer is election interference. Donald Trump says The lawlessness of these persecutions of President Trump and his supporters is reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, the former Soviet Union. Another authoritarian, dictor, or dictator role dictator role regimes. President Trump has always followed the law and the constitution, but with advice from many highly accomplished attorneys. These un-American witch hunts will fail and President Trump will be a reelected to the White House so he can save our country. From the abuse, incompetence and corruption that is running through the veins of our country at levels never seen before. Three years ago, we had strong borders, energy, independence, no inflation, and a great economy. Today we have a nation in decline. President Trump will not be the turd. By disgraceful and unprecedented political targeting. Alright, and Donald Trump said from his account also, why are they putting out another fake indictment the day after crook, Joe Biden scandal, one of the biggest in American history, broke out in the tall in the halls of Congress, a nationwide decline. Interesting. Another tweet that or truth that came from him was, I hear that deranged Jack Smith, nor did they interfere with the presidential election of 2024, will be putting out a yet another fake indictment of your favorite President me at 5:00 PM Why didn't they do this two and a half years ago? Why did they wait so long? Because they wanted to put it right in the middle of my campaign prosecutorial misconduct. Interesting. Alright, so then he goes on, let's see if there's any other tweets here. So he has some videos that we can watch. But I don't know the value of those other than what we've already discussed here. But he did post some funny things about Ron DeSantis and. Here he says thank you to everyone. I have never had so much support on anything before this unprecedented indictment of a former highly successful president. He says, in the leading candidate by far in the, both the Republican Party and the 2024 general election has awoken the world to the corruption scandal and failure that has taken place in the United States for the past three years. America is a nation in decline, but we will make it great again, greater than ever before. I love you all and. Just video after video that he posted. Here's a, let's see if there's anything to this one. 10 minutes of Democrats denying election results. That's a real thing that what I'm scared about in 2020, but rightly, because I think he's an illegitimate president that didn't really win. So how do you, you know, fight against that in 2020? You are absolutely right. He's an illegitimate president in my mind. Would you be my vice presidential candidate? But folks, look, I absolutely agree. Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and he was put in the office. This was Jimmy Carter, Russia's affair. Trump knows he's an illegitimate president. The president elect, although legally elected is not legitimate. I don't see this president elect as a legitimate president. You said you believe that Russia's interference altered the outcome of the election. I don't. Hmm. So just 10 minutes of Democrats denying election results, and now they're indicting him for, you know, whatever it is, words he said that they're saying should go to jail for right over and over and over again. We see them trying these things and over and over and over again, we see them fail. I. And it's more about the, because when you can get a headline, the headline is 80% of the, the, the purpose. Like it's like 80% of the value is in just putting that subconscious framework out there for you, right? There's something called neurolinguistic programming, and when you can put something in front of somebody, Over and over and over and over again. Eventually people start to believe you, whether it's about the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, whether it's about election interference, whether it's about an insurrection, insurrection, insurrection, right? It doesn't matter whether what you're saying is truth or not, it matters more so that you say it. Over and over again consistently enough to where it drops into the subconscious of the human psyche. So when they're putting these headlines out there and they're doing these fake bullshit Indic indictments that are going to go absolutely nowhere, the purpose isn't for him to go to jail. In any of these cases, Donald Trump will not go to jail. But what will happen and what they know will happen is that by putting out these headlines and having this negativity surrounding his campaign, there's going to be a sub. Conscious reaction from the general public, even if there's no merit to it, right? If you just say, you know, the sky's green, the sky's green, the sky's green, the sky's green over and over and over and over and over and over again. The children, when they're in the 10th grade, eventually they might look up and see a hue of blue that they start to vividly look at as green. So it's, it's not as much about what happens as it is about the headline itself. He was on Sean Hannity recently, the lots and lots of different discussions that he posted from True Social. But I will save you, you can head over to his True Social account and check those out yourself. Now in the midst of all of this Donald Trump indictments the day before Devin Archer. So I just wonder if they have like a portfolio of bullshit that they're just sitting on, which, you know, if you watched like the House of Cards, they kind of alluded to that. Right. They have like a black file on everybody that no matter what happens, they can just push out some sort of. Negative campaigns surrounding an individual at any given time and, and it just makes you wonder whether or not they've been sitting on this for something like the Deon Archer situation to come out while simultaneously, while a business partner of Hunter Biden comes out to a select committee hearing and. Just tells them everything, tells them the, the inappropriate conversations that he had with business people in, in Ukraine and China comes out and, you know, talks about where the money came from, that they were getting all of that simultaneously, you just so happened to have the next day that this comes out, you happen to have the president or former president of the United States get indicted. So he went on to Deon Archer being the former prison former. Business Associate of Hunter Biden from Rosemont Seneca, who also sat on the board of the Ukrainian biotech company and Energy Company, Bura came out and spoke out against him. Now, the reason that Devon Archer did this was because of a lot of people have. Kind of concluded was because there's a text message that Marjorie Taylor Greene came out with in a tweet recently, like yesterday or the day before that showed that there was a feud back and forth between Hunter Biden and Deon Archer, and what a stupid combination of names between. Archer and Hunter. But anyways the fact that there, the, what what was happening was Deon Archer had the Department of Justice allegedly weaponized against him to throw him in jail. He was, I believe, convicted and sentenced to a year in jail as a result, which he still has not served. So my hypothesis is, which he was claiming that. Directly to Hunter, that it was Hunter's fault and his association with his family. That was the result of him having to get this one year sentencing for whatever associations that he had as a result of that. So there's a, a, a thought here that the reason that Devin Archer is going to the select Committee hearings and, and in doing all of this, was because he was either mad or getting some sort of deal surrounding his sentencing. So here's the article from the Post-Millennial talking about Deon Archer. Admitting to Tucker Carlson on the phone, or Deon Archer admits to Tucker Carlson. The phone calls from Joe Biden were an absolute abuse of power. I. And here is the article. It says in the new episode of Tucker on Twitter, Tucker Carlson sat down with former Hunter Biden's business partner Devin Archer, to discuss the Biden family's corrupt overseas business dealings. Archer, who testified before Congress on Monday in a closed door meeting told Carlson of the more than 20 phone calls during business meetings that Hunter Biden would put his father on speakerphone, and it was an absolute. Abuse of soft power and here is some of the interview that we will look at and listen to together if it, you know, Plays quickly enough for you. But we'll read the article while it's loading. It says the power to have that access in that conversation. It's not in a scheduled conference call and it's part of your family. That's like the pinnacle of power in dc. Archer said, Archer said he could definitely say that at these business meetings where Biden was put on the phone. He knew there were business associates. I don't know if it was an orchestrated call in or not. It certainly was powerful though, because you know, if you're sitting with a foreign business person and you hear the Vice President's voice, that's prized enough. I mean, that's pretty impactful stuff for anybody. When asked what Hunter Biden brought to the table in skills, Archer said at the end of the day, he, you know, he had a career in Washington. He graduated from Yale Law School and had a very big network in DC and brought that know-how and understanding of DC and ultimately the Biden. Brand, that Biden brand bullshit drives me nuts. There's absolutely no, there's no brand behind a vice president. It's not a brand. It's, it's, it's an assumption of power. It's an assumption that if I give you this thing, you will give me whatever it is that I want back. Right? You will, you will in, in the case of the. Bio or of the energy company, Barisma. What they wanted was to leverage Joe Biden and they did it successfully, allegedly, to stop the prosecution of their company in Ukraine. So you are not so it's not a brand, there's no brand behind Joe Biden. The only brand he has is falling asleep while he is talking, not being able to finish a sentence, and also sniffing small children, right? So, so here's the video. Let's go ahead and watch it and see what they had in their conversation. Hunter Biden in a bunch of different businesses. What were the skill, the specific skills that he brought to clients? Well, at the end of the day, he, you know, he had a career in Washington. Yeah. Graduated Yale Law School and had a very big network in, in DC and brought that knowhow and understanding of DC and ultimately the Biden brand, the know-how. So as far as I could tell, he wasn't. Doing legal work? Correct? I mean, he wasn't in the council's office at Barisma, right? No. No. So the, the network and the Biden brand sounds like the, the kind of key component of Absolutely. Yeah. What he was bringing. Yep. Do you think that he would have been in those businesses not having a business background without his father being in a government position? It's hard to speculate in in those regards. I mean, yeah, I think when we initially met and and he talked about his advisory business, his business that needed to transition from lobbying to advisory and the interest in private equity, it seemed. You know, it seems like a new and interesting network for us to expand our business. Whether he could have, you know, been in that position. It's, it's hard for me to speculate, right. But obviously the brand of Biden, you know, adds a lot of power when New York Dad's Vice President for sure. And there was a time maybe 10 years ago when private equity, maybe like AI now was just one of those terms people were throwing out, I'm in private equity, right? But the mechanics, having done it, coming from a business background yourself are. Kind of complex, are they not? Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. No, it's a complex business. Takes years of training, but again, they're the initial idea around the business that they were gonna provide, you know, the government insight and an additional network to raise capital and then, you know, deal with regulatory issues that you might have at the corporate level. Right. Regulatory issues. Exactly. Okay, so that would be more his area, right? That would be his space. Right. But did he have a, a sophisticated understanding of regulation, do you think? I think that he led a team that had had a, had a sophisticated, okay. Because I lived in Washington a long time around a lot of regulation. Also a very complex area. Absolutely. Absolutely. I think there's, you know, you gotta be an expert in knowing the guy. And he was the guy that was the expert in knowing the guy. He was an expert in knowing the guy. Right. And who was the guy he knew? Well, he knew a lot of people, Joe Biden. Yeah. But obviously there was some familiar, you know, some, his brother, his father yeah. Some of his, his father's siblings. So he, he knew a lot of people. And, and obviously I know you're pointing to, you know, the father being the key relationship. Well, no, I, I'm just trying to get a sense of Washington's not a money town. Right. You know, people don't, aren't in business in Washington for the most part. Right. And most people don't have business skills that I've noticed in 30 years of living there. So really the business of Washington is, is selling access. That's what it looked like to me. Yes. Not just Hunter Biden, but like, yeah, no, do I think that's, I mean, I think that's the, one of the like core misconceptions. I mean, it seems like when I, you know, understanding a regulatory environment means selling access at the end of the day. Yeah. That's how I interpret it. And I think that's how most people on, you know, in Wall Street, whether they admit it or not interpret it. Yeah. So we're gonna, we've got a complex business that intersects with government. We need a guy who knows a guy, right? How do I, you know, deal with getting a guy a visa that needs to come over for a business deal, right? Call our lobbyist that knows the guy in d h s or used to work in D H Ss or you know, in customs border patrol or the people at the embassy and state, they, they might be able to help. So they're very like tactical elements that are regulatory and compliance and governance that you have to go through. And you gotta know the guy that right, worked at the old agency that now has the lobbying firm that can go back to the agency and. You know, get, get things put to the front of the line. So the reason I'm asking this is because it is not to give the Bidens a pass hardly. Right? But when people say, well, there's some question about whether Hunter was trading on his father's name, I. If you live in Washington, like that's the whole city right there. Right? Right. I think you, you know the answer to that at the end of the day. Right. So anyone, he had the best advantage to do that because of where he was. And you know, we thought that when we went into business, this was a great opportunity for us. So I get it. And you're not the only one who did that. Right. There were a lot of lot. Well, what's crazy too is it's like, it's not selling access, it's selling influence. It's, it's if, if you're the guy who can call the guy and get the guy to get a visa and skirt around, what would normally be the proper channels of communication and steps to take to have something accomplished, but you know, you can call somebody to have something done that is not normally allowed. If that person that you're calling to have something done with is. The president or the vice president of the United States and happens to be your father there, there should be some level of removed access from the children being able to pedal their father's influence as the vice president or president of the United States. It's right. It's like it's not selling a brand. It's not selling, it's not selling access. It's selling decision making and influencing. The very decision making of the person who was put into office by the, the general public. Right? It's, it's, it's has nothing to do with access. It has everything to do with decision making. So when you have a vice president of the United States, le they're, and they're not even levy levying their own power. They're levying the power of the United States that was bestowed upon them by the public. By you and I, by our tax dollars, by our alleged 81 million votes. Right? So, so that's, that's the infuriating part about this and, and, and where it even gets even deeper and darker and more murky waters is the 10% to the big guy. Right? Maybe, maybe it's Maybe Hunter Biden should be in jail. Right? Maybe, maybe. It's hard to, to define how Joe Biden played a part in this, but if that 10% to the big guy, if all of the influence who's of everybody, if you had to say there's a statistical likelihood of the connections that Hunter Biden has, who would the big guy be? Who do you think that would be? Would it be, you know, the guy that was in his contacts list as Petto Pete, his father, Joe Biden, the president of the United States. And God, it seems like such a dystopian weird thing that Joe Biden is actually the president in, in this simulation theory, right? I've said this several times, you know? This simulation must just be a comedy because the fact that we have Joe Biden as the president and we have this like sleeping old man cabinet of, of politicians running our entire country, and this interwoven fabric of oligarchy and, and. Elitist families who pedal the the, the money, like have all of the, the corporate and, and personal power in the world to drive change for everybody involved. Right. And then meanwhile, we have a man who can't even stay awake while he talks to other presidents from other countries. When it was like, who was it? The president of Israel, who he was speaking with, where he. Couldn't even finish a whole sentence. Like it's, it's so crazy to me that we've gotten to this point in reality and it just is proof of the simulation theory. To me, Biden is not the only son of a famous government official who's done this right at all. But I just wonder, like when you hear people say, well, it's kind of an open question, right? About why they hired Hunter Biden. Like, that's pretty disingenuous. No. Right. I think at the end of it, so. When you look at the whole, there, there are people that maybe were, you know, sons or relatives or brother-in-laws of other high ranking officials, but I think what we ran into and with, with what Hunter ran into was like almost like an Icarus issue. So he got a little, it was too close to the sun. Right. It was too good to be true. And the connections were, were too close in the scrutiny. Too much. Yes. And it ended up destroying, you know, he, it left the wake of a lot of dis, you know, a lot of destruction in businesses over a number of years. You know, so how many it's been reported, and you have said that there were occasions when Joe Biden would call in with clients present on a speaker phone. Right. How, how many times do you think that happened? I mean, over a 10 year partnership? I would you know, the number I'm going with is 20. That's probably the, the, the amount that I, so a lot kind of record. Yeah, a lot you could say. So Joe Biden, who's very much a product of Washington, of course, must have known that he was calling in to effectively a business meeting that his son was having. He must have understood that, that that was kind of what his son was selling. Well, that's, I mean, it's hard for me to speculate on that, but like, I guess my que, just to keep it to the facts, Tucker Joe Biden, then the city Vice President. Knew that there were hunter's business in the row there it in your face. Yeah, I think I can, I could definitively say at particular dinners or meetings. He knew there were business associates and he, you know, we, or if I was there, I was a business associate too. Yeah. So I think or if, you know, any of the other colleagues from the DC office or the New York office were there. So, yeah, at times there were from the, you know, to be, you know, completely clear on the calls. I don't know if it was an orchestrated call in or not. It certainly was powerful though, because, you know, if you're sitting with a foreign business person and you hear the Vice president's voice, that's prize enough. I mean, that's, that's, that's pretty impactful stuff for anyone in the world. It's, it's been reported and I know that it is true that the hunter and his brother were very close to their dad. Absolutely. Which I. They were also very close to Bo's, his other son's wife. If you recall that you know, hunter Biden actually took on his brother's ex widowed wife after Bo died, turned her into his girlfriend and sexual partner entering the very same vicinity of, of flesh that his brother did. Pretty disgusting stuff happening in this family. I think it's great. Yep. I've got a lot of kids. I'm very close to 'em. Talk to 'em every day. Yeah. Never called them on speaker during a business meeting. That's weird. Yeah. You've got a lot of kids, you're close to them. Do you call them on speaker during business meetings? I. Do I call, I mean, yeah. What is that? A grown man calling his dad on a speaker phone for sure. During a business meeting. Right. And to be clear, sometimes it was the call was coming in and the speaker would go on. Yeah. Yeah. So it was, it's just the presence. You have to be, I mean, you're, you, you understand DC right? So the power to have that. Access in that conversation, and it's not in a scheduled conference call and it's a part of your family that's, that's like the pinnacle of of power in DC a hundred. So he was selling power, right. There you go. If you wanna go watch it Tucker on Twitter is obviously on Twitter and you can see the entire interview there. Alright, moving on. There was, and I wanna make sure this is the exact video that I was looking at. Yeah, it's, this is an absolutely infuriating, infuriating. So let me give you my synopsis of this. First, there was some young men who were sitting out there preaching the Lord's word, reading from a Bible, nonetheless, from a public sidewalk in the United States of America during a drag show. Speaking the, the, the words of the Bible, and they came up and arrested one of these guys while he was speaking from the Bible. We saw this in Canada, right in the dystopian socialist world. That is Canada, just in Trudeau's socialist, communist stomping grounds. But now it's happening in the United States. This video, if this doesn't infuriate you, I don't know what will. This is against everything that we stand for in the United States of America. Here we go. Here you go. I'll walk you through what we're looking at here. So there's some police officers. I see him speaking from the Bible and he's trying to rip out the microphone from his hand. Right? And these guys are probably 22 or so. Absolutely doing the right thing. 22 years old, sitting out there on a sidewalk with a big speaker speaking out against this like drag some type of parade or something that's going on while they're on a public sidewalk. There's absolutely, you're right, you have the freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want in the public forum. You can protest, you can do whatever you want as long as you're not saying fire or calling for violence. Right? And he's sitting there ripping a microphone from his hand. These police officers should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. They should be removed from their positions of power. Their, their family and friends should dis be disgusted by them, and he is ripping stuff out of their hands as one police officer is I. This is, well, how come there's no amplification? What's this? So here we go. Start this over for you guys. You'll be consumed by one another. So here he is talking about it. Hey, what are doing? Grabs the microphone out of his hand. What is the problem? Vacation? Whatcha doing? What's wrong with it? What are doing? I, he didn't give him any warning. He grabbed the money. Oh, this is the same one that we had. Yeah, that was in there. It was not out here. What are the wrong, what are you doing? Let go you guys. Morning. They said we can have, they said we can speak out here on the sidewalk freely. You can speak, but there's no amplified devices. Nobody told us that there's no amplified devices. Is that, is that in the constitution? How come there's no amplification? This, Hey, you guys pushing him. They're grabbing his arm from behind. Three police officers grabbing this young man right to be out here engaging in speech. Sirens. He has everything and they put him in handcuffs speech. There's cars driving by with their radios playing. That's amplified sound. People are standing out here with radios. That's amplified sound. The ordinance has to do with a decibel gauge. You don't just get to pick and choose which amplification you like and which you don't. That's selective enforcement of the law. That's discrimination on the basis of speech. That's what you all just did. Content-based, discrimination based on speech, and they detained this young man in handcuffs for speaking words from the Bible on a public sidewalk. This is unbelievable in the United States of America where we have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and meanwhile this. Coward of a police officer takes it into his own hands to stop this, this atrocious act of saying the Lord's word on a public forum. Right? And then they use the bullshit tactic of saying that it's because of the amplification. Like, oh, oh, is it, is it, and it has nothing to do with you wanting to tuck your dick between your legs and pretend to be a woman with your what, what is it called? Whatever that fetish is of dressing up as a woman that these drag guys do. You know, I, I'm sure this police officer just loved being on the side of the street where he gets to look at all these men talking their dick between their legs and then go and arrest some young nice man for reading from the Bible. I. That that is one of the most infuriating things that I've seen in a very long time. So it says, A Christian protesting a pride event over the weekend in Watertown, Wisconsin, was handcuffed and detained by police in the video that went viral. Several members of the Christian group Warriors for Christ were Evangel evangelizing at the city's annual pride in the park on Saturday, an event. Organizers advertised as family friendly. In the video, Marcus Schroeder is reading from the Bible in a Into a Microphone when officers surround him and grab his microphone and speaker as his group questions. The officers, they handcuff Schroeder and explain that he was being arrested for violating a sound ordinance. About noise amplification. Jason Storms, a fellow member of the Evangelical Ministry who filmed the encounter and shared it on Twitter, told the Republic Sentinel that police had also arrested three other young people from the group who were prey and talking to attendees on orders from city leaders. The police per orders from city leaders arrived. Or arrested several young people. Three were arrested earlier in the day while inside the park praying and talking to attendees, and then released with warnings. Yeah, because you had no fundamental legal basis for detaining them. You cowered. Storms alleged the officers were violating the right to free speech correctly as Schroeder was preaching on a sidewalk across from the public event. He told the outlet that the young man was charged with unlawful use of sound amplification and resisting arrest. Or resisting arrest. Yeah. Okay. However, the Christian youth who were arrested said they didn't regret their actions. Of course, and you shouldn't. It was worth it. It's actually an honor to be counted worthy, to stand with the cloud of witnesses who have gone before us and been arrested for the sake of spreading Christ in his kingdom. If the police wanted to try and set an example for others or anything like that, the only thing I've seen is actually the exact opposite, where more and more people are seeing the severity of what's going on and being called to more action. Good. Absolutely. Good. Alright, so here comes the most disgusting part of this episode, which has to do with Lizzo. But first I need you to hit the subscribe button, leave a five star review, and head over to the ck. You get everything that we're talking about here. I'll include the YouTube videos, some of the breakdown of clips, the articles that we're discussing here, all of that on the sub stack, Austin Adams dot sub stack.com. Go check it out right now.  Alright.  Lizzo was sued by former dancers for sexual harassment in creating a hostile work inve environment. So it says, while on tour with the singer, three women alleged that they were pressured at a strip club and weight shamed. So when you have the single fattest. Most obese artist in the history of popularity in the United States of America and probably the world next to maybe Jba the Hutt. She's now fat shaming her own dancers. I, I, I don't know yet, without reading this article, whether or not it was, they weren't fat enough or they weren't skinny enough, but I guess we'll find out. So it says that Lizzo has been sued by three former dancers for sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment. N B C News reports The lawsuit viewed by Pitchfork was filed Tuesday or today in Los Angeles Superior Court and also named Liz O's Big Girl, big touring production company in Dance. Captain Charlene Quigley, the dancers. Are suing for damages over emotional distress distress, including unpaid wages, loss of earnings, and attorney fees. Pitchfork has reached out to Liz O's, representatives and Quigley for comment. The three dancers behind the lawsuit all began working with Lizzo in 2021. Arianna Davis and Crystal Williams were hired around the Amazon Reality Series. Watch Out for the Big Girls. A third Noelle Rodriguez was hired after appearing in the 2021 Rumors video. The lawsuit also described an incident that took place at a post show after party in Amsterdam earlier this year, where Lizzo allegedly pressured Davis to touch the breasts of a nude performer with Goding chants. The lawsuit also claimed Lizzo Wass encouraged answers to. Catch dildos launched from the performer's, vaginas and eat bananas, protruding from the performer's vaginas. So that's where the secondary article comes in, which says, Lizzo forced fat dancers to eat bananas from hooker's, vaginas, bombshell lawsuit alleges. Hmm. I like to eat, eat, eat bananas from vaginas. Maybe you know that song if you're a parent and if you don't it's probably just a little weird. But I happen to be a parent. I like to oat, oat, oat. Bananas from prostitute vaginas. Three former dancers from Lizzo are suing the rotund rapper for alleged fat shaming them and forcing them to endure sexually depraved behaviors and participate in disturbing sex acts. Plaintiff's Ariana Davis, crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez claim the 44 page lawsuit that Lizzo and her team. We're responsible for a hostile work environment, sexual harassment, assault, racial and religious harassment, disability discrimination, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and false imprisonment. What Lizzo herself pressured plaintiffs and all her employees to attend outings were new to the in sexuality were a focal point in disregarded any apprehensions from plaintiffs the suit reads. This work environment would shock the conscious of anybody as it did for the plaintiffs. In one disturbing account, the plaintiffs alleged that while at Lizzo the special tour in Amsterdam in February, 2023, the purported performer invited them out for a night on the town. Which ended with them visiting the infamous Red Light district, known for sex shops and clubs and sex theaters featuring full nudity. At that point, things quickly got out of hand. The lawsuit states Lizzo began inviting cast members to take turns touching the new performers, catching dildos launched from their vaginas and eating bananas, protruding from the performers, vaginas the lawsuit states adding that Lizzo allegedly pressured and goaded Davis into touching one of the new performers breasts. The plaintiff's claimed that a monthly. Later, Lizzo 35, deceived them once again. Oh no, you deceived me. After all of that, they had no expectation that they would ever be deceived again. Deceived them into attending a n show, therefore robbing them from the choice not to participate. Davis also claimed in the lawsuit that at one point she had no choice but to soil herself on stage during an excruciating re-audition, fearing the repercussions of re excusing herself to go to the bathroom. What, excuse me if I have to shit myself for any employer, I'm out, whether you're Lizzo, Elvis, the Lord himself. If that's your requirements for occupation, then sorry. I'm not your guy. Not your guy. I, I enjoy bathrooms and honestly, I enjoy bidets Japanese bidets from the depths of, you know Kyoko Japan. Maybe that's a little bit more my style than, you know, soiling myself on stage at a Lizzo concert. Davis also alleged that Lizzo was recently had a meltdown over disparaging comments about her excessive weight on Twitter. Fat shamed her in a meeting while asking Davis why she seemed less committed and less bubbly and vivacious. In professional dance, a dancer's weight gain is often seemed as the dancer getting lazy or worse off as a performer of the suit reads, Lizzo and the choreograph choreographer's questions, choreographer's questions about Mrs. Davis' commitment to the tour were then thinly veiled concerns about Mrs. Davis weight gain. The plaintiff's attorneys Ron, like, what did you expect? You hired a bunch of fat girls to dance behind you because you're fat. You wanted to make yourself feel better, and now all of a sudden they're getting fatter. Like, but what do you think got them there? You thought they were just at a point and they were done like, oh, this is it. This is all I'm eating. This is exactly the weight I'm gonna maintain. Like prob probably not. In a professional dance, a dancer's weight gain is often seen as the dancer getting lazy or worse off as a performer. The plaintiff's attorneys, Ron Zaro, called out Liz's hypocrisy in the blistering statement, which said the stunning nature of how Lizzo and her management team treated their performers seems to go against everything. Lizzo stands for publicly. Well privately, she weight shames her dancers and demeans them in ways that are not only illegal, but absolutely demoralizing. Davison Williamson. Were among the 13 contestants of the Emmy winning Lizzo. Watch out for the big girls, which debuted an Amazon last year. I will include the entire 'cause I know you really want to read it. The entire lawsuit on my ck which I'm looking at right now, I will download this and have this for you 'cause I know. Just know you want to read it and I would read it for you. But I don't know if that's the best use of our time here. So I will include that on the sub stack. Alright, next up. Justin Trudeau and his wife's Sophie Trudeau are getting divorced after 18 years of marriage. Alright, and so, I, I couldn't imagine anybody actually wanting to be engaged or, or married to that man. So it, it's not a surprise to me, but 18 years of marriage is a pretty long time to event, you know, just suddenly get into a divorce. So this article comes from Reuters and it says that Justin and Sophie Trudeau separate after 18 years of marriage. I. It goes on to say August 2nd today, the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau and his wife Sophie, said on Wednesday that they were separating an unexpected announcement that appeared to mark the end of the couple's 18 year high profile marriage. The couple had talked, frankly, in the past about difficulties in the relationship and in recent years where even seen less often together in public, there was actually some sort of allegations against Justin Trudeau with underage girls. I believe they had talked frankly. Allegedly they've talked frankly in the past about difficulties in the relationship and in recent years where I've seen less often together. Trudeau 51, it looks pretty good for 51. That's about the only positive quality this man has. But he looks pretty good for 51. And Sophie, Greg Gore, Trudeau I wonder if he's had a lot of the you know, Hollywood. Wine as one would say, we're married in May of 2005 and have three children together, age 15, 14, and nine. While that's super unfortunate, if you get divorced at that time, like that's such a crucial critical time for your children and to have a, so he had a child when he was 42. It's kind of late on their anniversary in 2020. He described her as my rock, my partner, and my best friend. Yeah, sounds like it. For Trudeau, there was also a painful historical parallels. His father, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, separated from his wife Margaret in 1977, which were just about to get into when he were in a second. The development is also one of the biggest personal crisis of Trudeau since he became Prime Minister in 2015, especially since he often stresses the importance of family life. The couple made the announcement that week after Trudeau unveiled a massive cabinet shuffle and a bid to boost the fortunes of his liberal party, which is trailing in the polls. AIDS said AIDS said that he also determined to lead the liberal into the next election liberals into the next elections, which must be held by October, 2025. Sophie and I would like to share the fact that after many meaningful and difficult conversations, we have made the decision to separate the Canadian Broadcasting Corp at Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc. One of Trudeau's closest allies with brief members of the cabinet later on Wednesday. Wow. Yeah, he looks pretty good for 51. She doesn't look too bad for 48, but you know, he's definitely drinking something. Maybe it has to do with the internal saturated blood of who knows, people underage. I joke. Kind of. Alright, so here's where it gets fun. Justin Trudeau, A lot of people seem to think that while being born in Ottawa, which is a considerable distance from Havana, that his mother, Margaret Trudeau visited Cuba nine months exactly before Justin was born. And there are photos of her mingling with Fidel Castro. On the right of this photo is Pierre Trudeau. His father, allegedly, his father and his wife. Castro, which I don't know about you, but if anybody touched my wife like this while I was standing in the room with them, we would be having a problem. And I'm not somebody who's like, you know, super possessive, but this looks like a little bit more like if anybody's fucking in these. In this picture, it looks like the two people on the left, like the dictator with a cigar in his mouth, and the younger woman, they're not the businessman 10 feet away from them. So there's this whole narrative. Now, if you go actually look at some of these pictures that I'm about to show you, or you go look them up yourself, you'll see that there is a substantial amount of evidence physically and historically around the idea that Justin Trudeau is actually the son of Fidel Castro. Lots of it, and many, many people have thought of this. So there's actually a video that will come up here that talks about Jo Joe Rogan. So let me give you the name of the account. This is coming from D O M L U C R E on Twitter, and he does some really good stuff, big following does some great deep dives into different topics. But this is the account that I will be following as I walk you through this discussion. And he says, according to Canadian and the to Canadian, the globe, and male, Pierre Trudeau and his wife Margaret, crossed paths with Fidel Castro. For the first time in 1970, the Globe reports and during friendship between the arc arch Liberal Pierre Trudeau and the Marxist revolutionary, Fidel Castro was formed. Now the article that is being put here, In front of us says Castro in Trudeau, a famous but also fraught friendship. And this comes from 2016. And it says Robert Wright teaches history as the, the writer. It says, just days ago when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made his official visit to Havana, the rumor mill was a buzz with the aspersion that Fidel Castro was somehow snubbed. Had somehow snubbed him by refusing a private meeting. Now with Fidel Castro's death, we may surmise that the official Cuban line was true, that his health was so precarious as to preclude even the short whatever this word is. Tati. I don't know what the hell that is. Certainly Mr. Joe himself gave no indication that he had been affronted. Yeah, maybe he wanted to see his dad before he died. It says fact checkers love refuting. The allegations that the Trudeaus were in Havana nine months just before Justin was born. There are certain truths that they just refuse to confront during the same period that Judo went on a Caribbean vacation on April to April 12th, 1971 to an unidentified island. And this is a snippet of a newspaper article. Which says Barbados Prime Minister Trudeau and his wife, or it says in Bridgetown, Barbados, prime Minister Trudeau and his wife left here Monday by chartered plane on a quick side trip to an unidentified nearby island. They arrived here Thursday on a brief second honeymoon and have reportedly been staying at a private residence on the island's posh West Coast. Heavy security measures have been in the fact since their arrival and the local press was asked to respect the newlyweds desire for. Privacy. There were also stories on trips to numerous Caribbean islands. While Cuba was not on the official itinerary, it seems unfathomable. Unfathomable that they would tour adjacent islands and choose not to visit their close Buddy Castro in Havana Wall in the area. He spoke also at Trudeau's funeral. Interesting. And there's an article that came from a website that shows the actual discussion that Fidel had to Pierre Trudeau, which says Fidel bids farewell to Pierre Trudeau. The 3rd of October, 2000 Cuban president Fidel Castro arrived in Montreal to attend the state funeral of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Fidel was asked by the family to serve as the honorary pallbearer. Wow. Alongside us former president Jimmy Carter Fidel arrived at the church, was greeted by shouts of Viva Fidel and Viva Cuba. I had come from Cuba at this time. He said of profound sadness of the Canadian people to pay my respects to the unforgettable memory of Pierre Trudeau, a WorldCast, a world class statesman for whom I had personal bonds with. His wife may be a friendship born of feelings of sincere admiration. I always considered him to be a serious political leader and with real concerns for the problems of the world. In the third world, a rational politician who made a trans transcendent contribution to modern Canadian history, a righteous and courageous man. I. Who encouraged in difficult circumstances, relations between his country and Cuba goes on and on and on. After Cuba Cuban Communist dictator, Fidel Castro's death was reported. Trudeau stated he was mourning his death and among other positive statements called Castro, a remarkable leader outrage erupted and many mocked him with Trudeau hashtag Trudeau eulogies on Twitter. And here is the video. It is been 14 years since the Cuban Missile Crisis, but with the present situation in Angola, prime Minister Trudeau's visit to Cuba this week was regarded as a bit dicey politically. His entourage thought the trip came off very well. They were very impressed by a certain quality of Premier Castro's, and it's a familiar word, charisma. 16 years ago, Pierre Trudeau tried to paddle a canoe from Miami to Havana, but he was turned back by American authorities. This time he made it and was royally welcomed, die hours before his arrival. Cubans by the tens of thousands lined the streets. Such enthusiasm was sustained for the three day visit and was clearly orchestrated by Premier Castro himself. It was his way of expressing gratitude to Canada for continued trade throughout the blockade with relations between Cuba and the United States going sour again because of Angola, premier Castro was eager to strengthen the Canadian Cuban connection. At a rally in the south coastal city of San Fuegos, not even a five hour wait under a blazing sun could diminish the enthusiasm of 25,000 sugar cane workers who chanted long-lived friendship between Cuba and Canada. The charismatic presence of Dr. Castro is always a drawing card for Cubans, but adding a fluently Spanish speaking leader like Trudeau made it an event. Few wanted to miss. Brotherhood and independence were the impressions both leaders wanted to convey to the world. Informal talks at an island Hideaway intensified their respect for each other and their mutual enjoyment of skin diving. Added to the rapport, the controversial skin diving. His wife was debated and Premier Castro defended his position that a Canadian reception. He pointed out that much of his country's population is of African extraction, and so a call for solidarity from Angolans to help defend their country against South African Invaders justified his support. We cannot do anything. Than to help the Ang people. Alright, so there you go. Just some legitimacy to what we're discussing here. It says, on January 1st, 1971, Margaret Trudeau described Fidel Castro as the sexiest man she's ever met, and claims that Prince Charles Ld down the front of her dress in her autobiography Beyond Reason Margaret was famed in the 1970s for her risque before marrying Trudeau. And here it says, prime ministerial mothers usually dwell as the far fringes of the spotlight. Stephen Harper's mother, who this is just reading an excerpt from her autobiography it says, I use my mother as an obvious example because she's the person closest to me worried about the stock market these days. Harper said at the time, Margaret Trudeau, by contras