Hey guys, this is my review for Ally. Admittedly, this movie was very late, but I wanted to see it with my girlfriend before I saw it. Either way, Ally is a very interesting concept. Now, if you go and watch the original teaser, or the first trailer, you would have absolutely no idea what the concept of the movie was. I dare you, go back and watch the original trailer, and you will have absolutely no idea what the movie is about, other than that it's about a couple who are spies in the Second World War. It was the second trailer that introduced the idea that Marion Cotter could be a spy for the Germans. And now, I really like Robert Zemeckis' work, but the one big part that made me want to watch it was Stephen Knight. I like Stephen Knight's writing. The guy has some very interesting concepts. Locke was an amazing movie, with Guy just in a car, the whole movie. That was a really cool idea. P.E. Blinders was also his idea. There's a lot of things that this guy has that he has a really good writing. Really cool hooks with them. So that was the idea of this one, that his wife was a spy, and the whole movie you're trying to figure out what that is. Well, really, that's the second part. The first part is them arriving in Casablanca and taking out a German ambassador. And there was a lot of elements about this that I like, the idea of spy work in the 40s, and then kind of the adrenaline, the emotions, and everything that happens with a mission like this. There's a piece of dialogue that just before they're about to carry out their mission, he says to her, you look beautiful. You told me that already. Can you even see me? And he says, no, not really. And that's something that I thought was cool. The idea that they're addressing that they are pretty much like they're about to do something that could kill them, and they're just blind with like just adrenaline is rushing through their body. So then going on to the second half of the movie, that's when the whole spy element comes in. And admittedly, I actually was on the fence the whole time. Usually in films like this, you can kind of guess who is who, except this film does a really, really good job of keeping you guessing the whole way through it. I won't spoil it, but I did like how it ended. And admittedly it was something a bit, I thought actually it was gonna end differently, but that way it turns out it's still very good. The acting between the two is phenomenal. Brad Pitt has learned more French than he did in Glorious Bastards. And also, speaking of Glorious Bastards, they got the guy, the number three guy in it as well, which I thought was kind of interesting. Otherwise, this film is a bit, like, it's Robert Zemeckis is usually, I call him the other Steven Spielberg in my opinion. He always tries things that are kind of very heartwarming with certain aspects, but he's always been the guy who can also jump into mature content. And there was a bit in this film. And I did enjoy the film.  And Brad Pitt, as much as I like, is acting in some areas. There were some times where I was kind of wondering, is he trying to do something right here? But something that I was looking forward to was the chair kick. And I, that looks so silly in the trailer, but they pull it off in this movie that is just kind of suddenly comes. And I was like, oh, okay, maybe they realize how silly it looked in the trailer, so they just kind of didn't build up to it as much. I don't know. I just thought the chair kick looked silly, and it didn't look silly in the movie, oddly enough. I enjoy this film. The only problem is this is a film that relies on its twist, so you kind of can't re-watch it again afterwards. Like, you might enjoy some elements of it, but in reality, you wouldn't really be able to re-watch this again for its main aspect, like the usual suspects, all these other things, the films that rely off twists. So in the end, I'm going to give Ally a 5 out of 7. I did enjoy it. I think it's a good film. If you guys haven't seen it yet, it's very, I thought it was well made. Stephen Knight, I love his writing. So anyway guys, that's all from me. I'll see you guys next time.


Aloha, welcome to Think Tech Hawaii. And this show is Politics for the People. Our topic is can January 6th Select Committee do it in time? So I welcome shows, this show's discussion panel and these panelists are Jay Fiedel, Winston Welch, Tim Apichella. So welcome to all of you to our discussion show. Let's get on with it. And our first question is really the title. So what is it that we can expect the committee or need to expect the committee to do in time? What do they need to do, Jay? Can you explain a bit? That's a really good question. What are the things they should do in order to meet the test of the 2022 election? I mean, it all starts with the fundamental issue of bringing the facts out in such a way, maybe getting some indictments going on so that in those things affect the 2022 election. And how do you do that? Congress in itself does not have the power to indict or prosecute. They can only recommend. So the positive side of it is that they can, what was your term, Tim? Drib-drab, they can drip-drab the information out to the public, which they are doing. That's why I watch Rachel Maddow so intently because that's where the drip-drab happens for me but the others too. And that helps to sort of get the public at a higher level of awareness. And then of course, there's the report. And that's the biggest question, I suppose. Will the report be out in time? So just for this discussion, let me say that November is gonna be election day, but some states, some jurisdictions have absentee voting that that's a month earlier, maybe more even. And so you have to factor that in to this timeframe you're asking about, Stephanie. So if say September, sometime in September would be the last time you could reach some voters. So, and then of course you wanna get it earlier than that so it settles in. Public opinion doesn't necessarily turn on a dime. Sometimes it does, but for planning purposes you have to sort of get it into the nether earlier so that it settles in so people talk about it and it forms public opinion. So I would say sometime in the summer. And the question is, there's two questions I didn't come out of that and I'm happy to get off my pedestal here. Number one is, can the committee get to a level where it can do an appropriate report to reveal what is certainly forming up as a huge and treasonous conspiracy, especially around Trump? Can it do that in time? Okay. And then of course you have to look at the negative factors and the criticism that will always come from the GOP and all of these foibles that go on about people who are willing or not willing to testify. There'll be more of that. And so there are negative things that slow the committee down or that deflect and distract us from what it is finding, what it is drip-dragging and what would be in this soccer report. So that the question then becomes, will it be able to do these things by whatever deadline that is? So those are really two questions. Actually four questions. What are the positives? What are the negatives? Can they do it? Will they do it? And will they do it in time? All right. Very, very helpful. Very focusing for our discussion. May I please go back to the drip-drap? I have read or heard on TV that there are some questions about why are they, is this a drip-drap? Giving out some of these messages without identifying the speakers. And is that okay to do? And is that anything that is justifiable? What do you think, Jay? Is that drip-drap number one? And number two, what do you think its purpose is or doesn't have a purpose? Well, I think A, yes it is drip-drap for sure. They're tipping us off about things. And I think if you look at this as a way to inform the public, raise awareness in the public, get the public interested. Interested, because the greatest risk of all is that the public tunes out, doesn't care. And there's a lot of people already don't care. They've heard it all before. They have fatigue about this committee. They have fatigue about the insurrection. They've been distracted by the things that GOP is doing, which is what the GOP wants. So as to whether it's okay to drip-drap this out without identifying exactly who it is. Yeah, sure. This is a reality show, man. This is the battle of the reality shows. And so it's more interesting if you don't reveal these things. This is coming on next week's episode. So stay tuned. That's what it's about. Good. All right, so there's a little excitement in the game here. And maybe it's a little bit of against maybe gaslighting. So Wednesday- No, it's not telling lies. It's not deceiving anybody. It is really giving you a preview of what's to come. If they did deceive people or tell lies, they would lose their credibility and the whole project would be off the side. So I don't think they're gonna do that. I don't think they are doing that. Yeah. Well, I mean, how important so far? Okay, Winston, what's important so far about the reports that they've been giving, all these reveals, these little reveals? How important is this? And especially for the midterm election, if you want a goal for discussing why it's important or not, is it important? Well, for those of us that may have been horrified, which should be every American by the events of January 6th, I don't think that these will make much of a difference, honestly. It's important to have these historical facts laid out, but they're just coming out now, as I said, like 11 months after this thing has taken place. This is really, really late. They should have started and gotten this out much, much earlier, but okay, it is what it is. If this stuff comes out by January, February, March, that's fine, but who is it that the report is actually trying to reach? Is it trying to reach John Q. Public in general? Is it trying to reach the Fox News Watcher? Is it trying to reach the theoretical soccer mom who is swayed in the Virginia gubernatorial election? Maybe it's the latter. I don't know. It should be everyone. Every American has a vested interest in understanding the events of January 6th, who caused them, what led up to them, how we prevented again, who literally tried to overthrow our country and take over our institutions, and there's been a lot of damage done. So as far as who's important to and what the effect is, I would say it's for all of us, whether that actually takes effect and percolates down to the people it needs to get is another question. But I think if we look back just a couple of years ago, not even a couple of years ago, a year ago, think of the pure chaos, the fear, the nausea that the country was undergoing, that when you have how many defense secret, former defense secretary sign that paper saying the United States military doesn't get involved in these things, this is insane in the world's largest and most important democracy. There was a couple of things though that I wanted to point out is that there was a, there was the Summa Don Democracy or something along the Joe Biden held virtually, and it's just sort of trying to bolster democracies. Now he left out a few and then included a few others, but basically it was a broad scale scope, but it says, you know, America's Vox had an article recently. It was last week on the ninth by Zach Beauchamp, and he says that American democracy is tottering. It's not clear that, it's not clear Americans care. I don't think that's true. I think they're just fatigued and exhausted. So when it comes right down to it, if they're given a choice between the steady Eddie, maybe he's a little bit boring, maybe he's a little bit calm, but you know what? They're gonna go with that rather than the circus clown who really had some nefarious things at heart along with the whole cabal of people. It needs to come out. It's coming out. It's coming out in dribs and drabs. It's coming out wholesale. I love the Phil Waldron, the back of the election conspiracy theory with his PowerPoint that he circulated to Mark Meadows that then he turned over. So it's gonna be these little things that come out. Well, what do you think it was Liz Cheney's intent? She was the first, of course, as the vice of the committee, but she was the first to read these messages out anonymously as with anonymity. So what do you think she was trying to do with that? Do you think that she was being intentional or is it just a matter of getting information? What do you think Liz Cheney was thinking? It was gonna... She's thinking that I'm an elected representative of the United States Congress and it is my responsibility to inform the American public. And if it's not happening via the normal channels or whatever it is, she needs to get that out. So whatever Liz Cheney does to get out the information, she needs to do that because she also has a special place among these 10 Republicans that have stood up and said, this is such an anatomy to our society. We must challenge this. It doesn't matter what political party you ostensibly belong to because her party, of course, has been completely hijacked and stolen from her and she is trying to regain that party. And so all power to her, to for America to have a principled conservative party that is not held hostage by one individual or extreme ideologues who are intent on destroying our fundamental understanding of our society and the nature of our democracy. So I applaud Liz Cheney for however she gets out information. Okay, okay, so that's interesting. Okay, Tim, did you get any sense that there was any blame or that committee report was pointing to anybody as being mastermind or anything in that report? Did you get a sense that there was an idea there that there might be an indictment coming? What do you think? Oh, absolutely, absolutely. First off, getting to, I wanna touch on a couple of points from Winston and Jay and that is Winston is absolutely correct that the American public is fatigued, they're exhausted on this stuff, but that's why they're playing it out in dribs and drabs. To Jay's point, this is a reality show they've turned this into and guess who what? Liz Cheney is playing the Benghazi playbook like a Strativarius instrument and this is now a drama that's gonna tantalize and titillate the American public and they will start tuning in because, oh, did you hear what they said yesterday about Mark Metals? Well, wait, do you see what they're gonna say about Steve Bannon the next, you know, next week? I'm surprised we don't see commercials saying tune in next week, you know, like a soap opera. And it's the biggest mistake the GOP ever made was to deny the commission in the Senate because the commission would have had to kept the wraps on it and they can't release anything as a commission but as a House Select Committee. Well, we have, as Jay said, you know, we have the reality TV show here and it's gonna be in full swing until probably, I don't know, February. I think the report comes out in May and the reason I think it comes out in May is because what did all the, traditionally all the network TV stations do in June?  No one's really watching TV like they do during the winter months. So why would you wanna release the report during the summer? You wanna get it out in late spring, probably even maybe as early as April. But they want this in everyone's minds. And then, like I said, and Jay said, they're gonna play this like a reality show. And it's great, it's great to watch. I mean, I was glued to the TV watching what Mark's medal, what the text to Mark's medal was doing. I was captivated. And before that, I was burned out. I said, I can't take this anymore. I can't listen to it anymore. Well, I'm back in the chair again. So, Tim, what does that mean for that report that aren't you're saying now, they've gotta get that report out in late spring.  They're not gonna wait for Mark Meadows to take the fifth. They're gonna, they already have the information. They already have the reports. It's not important where they show up or not. All that was is the cherry on top of the Sunday to bring in those folks and have them confirm that what they already know. So then let's release the documents. That would be part of the report. They could already be drafting that report is what you're saying. Well, count on it. Count on it so much, right? Count on the first draft and, you know, Liz Cheney, like I said, she's right in the middle of all this stuff. And she knows how to fight like a Republican. She's teaching the Democrats a few things like the Lincoln project taught Democrats on how to do this and do this the right way. And she's right in the middle of it. So, hey, tune in next week. Well, Tim, do you think we've learned anything? Is she teaching them how to not do a Mueller report? I mean, that's perfectly stated. Absolutely perfectly stated. She's teaching them not how to do a Mueller report. Absolutely, perfect. And that would be why? To kind of go over that because that, you know. Because she wants them to look bad and she wants, and to follow Winston's point, this is a serious crime that's taken place and there's no room for it to be diminished and ignored by the American public. She is, not only is she playing the Benghazi playbook, but she's also playing the patriotic playbook. And that is, this crime shall not go unanswered and those who are involved shall not go unpunished.  And again, I don't agree with one bit of her politics, but I surely admire her as a citizen and a patriot of this country and her and Adam Kingsend and her. My hats are off to both of them. To stand in the wind and to take on the slings and arrows of their party and be, you know, criticized and name called and ostracized. But it's not about politics for them. It really is about patriotism. And I admire that. I really do. It's been a long time. It's refreshing to see it. Yeah, right, good. So Jay, thank you, Tim, that's very interesting. Jay, so is Mark Meadows gonna take the full fall of this?  Well, you have to separate it out. You have to separate it out. And one is the indictment for criminal contempt of Congress. Okay. And that will get referred to Merrick Garland who may or may not decide to prosecute him, you know. Fact is Meadows is closer to the president and to privilege than Bannon. And so Merrick Garland may, you know, take a conservative view and decide not, you know, that there is a privilege and he shouldn't have to be, I think that would be wrong because the privilege, if it is, is only about some questions. It isn't about blowing off Congress and not appearing, okay? So it should be an easy decision. I worry, however, that Merrick Garland is a wimp, that he is going to make us wait for a long time and that it's not certain at all that he's going to find for an indictment. I really worry about that. And that would really take the wind out of the sails of all of this if Congress were made impotent that way. So I hope he agrees that if the guy wants to raise the question of privilege, it's question by question. It's not refusing to appear. So anyway, that's one criminal indictment. The other is the criminal indictment of espionage, I'm not espionage, but treason and conspiracy, which are pretty serious. And I think it's good, you know, to talk about this whole drip-drap thing is that, you know, people are for the first time in a year, they're beginning to realize the magnitude of what happened legally. This isn't just a riot. It isn't just a bunch of ruffians out for a good time. This is treason. This is trying to overthrow the United States government. Nothing, nothing could be more serious, nothing. And so that's coming out now. And I think that's one of the reasons, Tim, that people are waking up on this, that their level of awareness and interest is increasing because that word is slipping in and the possibility of serious criminal process may take place.  Remember, if you plead the fifth, you can be granted immunity, right? And then you have to answer the question.  I mean, it's just complicated and very time consuming. And you know that he would have a plan on that because right now he is quite concerned about the second one being caught up in treason. And I believe that probably he could be, I said this on the show yesterday, probably he could be indicted and prosecuted and even convicted of treason without testifying about it because there's so much in the way of documents. And finally on the question of privilege, I wanna say something I mentioned yesterday and that is waiver. If you get in there and you write a book, make it appearance, make several appearances, talk about your conversations with the president, you know, release all this texting and email and what he's done, you know, you're waiving privilege and arguably he has the authority, the power legally to do that. So, you know, if there is ultimately a question of whether he can hide behind privilege that undermines his position in that regard. And finally, before I get off my stump here, I wanna tell you that what's happening in the select committee in Congress is only part of the reality show. Other things are happening and some of them are moving to fruition, some of them will have to wait. Leticia James supposed to be able to depose Trump on January 7th, that's two weeks away. If she can get him into the chair on a deposition, that is going to heighten this reality show to white hot, okay, and even if it isn't January 7th, if she gets an order requiring him to appear, if she gets him to sit down, oh boy, I'll tell you, that's one thing. The other thing is the district attorney in Georgia who is going after Trump for, you know, asking for 711,780 votes, remember that one rapist, Rapsonsburger, if that gets into court, gets public, that's another thing that's going to heighten public awareness. And finally, and this only came up this week, there's this guy who is the attorney general of the District of Columbia, who filed a lawsuit on behalf of the District of Columbia against not only, you know, the people in the insurrection that day, but against the conspirators, the Jandos and the Jandos and the dope corporations that funded it. He's going after all of them and he's got a really good case and that is going to raise public awareness. That's another side show that has the same effect of, you know, this reality show. What's missing, and I'll leave this at, what's missing, what's AWOL here is Merrick Garland. He should have started an investigation. He should have ceded a grand jury back in January as soon as he was appointed. And he hasn't done anything that we know of. People say, oh, maybe he's doing something. He just hasn't said, hey, if he was doing something, it would have leaked. Something would have gotten out. I can't believe that he's doing it and it didn't get out. I believe he's not doing anything.  I'll start. Jay, you answered one of the questions I was going to ask but I'm not sure I understand it completely. I heard John Dean say that Meadows had already blown his Fifth Amendment, right? Or he can't take it because he's already given the information and testimony through the documents so that he already can't use the Fifth Amendment. I'm not as our resident. That may be so. I'm not familiar with how you waived the Fifth Amendment but that may make a lot of sense. And if he takes the Fifth Amendment, that will be litigated. He'll insist that he has it right. But certainly executive privilege, certainly executive privilege on that point. Yeah. As in none or some, Tim. He's waived it. He's waived it. He's waived it. Okay. All right. I mean, John Dean's usually pretty good on this stuff but there was a very quick comment that just raised the question, which you started to answer, Jay. So thanks for that. Well, Winston, I'm hearing from Jay. Maybe some things are developing here that this committee is yielding some light, sunlight. What do you think, Winston? And that it may impact the people.  So what do you think? Do you agree with him on that? Let us pray that it's true. We have undergone such a collective trauma. And maybe Tim and Jay's comments are correct that America can't take it full scale. So it does need to be released like stories of old where they print one chapter a week. So you could read the whole thing. Honestly, given how what we used to, what we were at a year ago, two years ago, three years ago, four years ago, it wasn't day by day. It was not even hour by hour. It was tweet by tweet. We have become really damaged as far as our ability to focus and concentrate and come up with a coherent logical narrative that people can follow, that they have the patience or the bandwidth to follow given everything else that they're going through. However, it is required of those of us who love our nation to do so. I would like to refer our gentle viewers to a really good article yesterday. I thought in slate, it will not overwhelm you. It was maybe five pages long called the Chilling Lesson of Mark Meadows Text Messages. And it really details in there how the Donald didn't want the rioters to go home. And even, it was interesting because you even had Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram of Fox calling and saying, take off your attack dogs, please say something. Our country's on fire, even though we have poured gasoline on it. We need you to pull back now. Even if, I think Ivanka was even in there, Iban, whatever it is. Yes, yes, that was a great article. Thank you. So we need to really be aware that this is the person. These are the people behind this who fostered this, who encouraged this. It might be seeming as one man, but it's not. It's a group of people who think they just know better how to run this nation than this nation. And they're a very dangerous group. They've been very active in state legislatures across the nation as we know to try and subvert voting rights and all of that. We can come up with common sense solutions as a nation together. We cannot run the nation when it's one group trying to destroy and subvert our basic democratic processes. So more power to Liz Cheney, Adam Kitzinger. They are true American heroes standing up for the values that all of us should believe and that all of us, when you pledged allegiance to the flag in the olden days, now we don't do that anymore, we've pledged to the republic for which it stands. This is part of our duty as citizens to inform ourselves. So for those of you who can't, or you're worried about flipping to your next TikTok or Instagram, take a few minutes, sit down with these articles, go on Google News, ask for a news digest if you can't do it or ask someone who you trust and believe who understands what's going on for a synopsis and why it's important for you to pay attention. In any event, this show is part of it, you guys are part of it. We will get to the bottom of the truth, whether it makes a difference or not, I would really, really hope so. And if the driven drab is the way to go or the splashy or however it needs to get out. Yeah, good. So I think the big question is, of course, following this discussion is, is the committee gonna recommend an indictment for the past president, Tim? I think the evidence will certainly point that way. Jay mentioned what's going on in Georgia and Jay mentioned what's going on in the Southern District of Manhattan. I think that gets them closer to any kind of criminal prosecution than this committee report will give. What will really come out of this is election tampering. And that per se is not treason. Treason has a very narrow definition. It usually involves an outside enemy outside the borders of the United States when you aid in a bet the enemy is treason. This is serious. It's trying to rig an election. And as the commander in chief and the president of the United States, that certainly is a horrible charge to be levied against a president of the United States. However, I think he gets out of some of the criminal charges that could be levied, but he certainly will be damaged. I think he should be prohibited from entering his name into the 2024 election under the 14th Amendment, paragraph three. I think that's a shoe in. And Congress and the select committee could address that exact question. And whoever the candidate, yes. And whoever the candidate is that has standing in the election, all they do is pick up the report and take that report into the court and says, I don't want this candidate running for president of the United States in 2024. And I think that happens by somebody, somewhere, somehow. So a candidate could do that? Yes, a candidate that has standing. But it'll have to go to court because Trump will make it. Yes, it will have to go to court, but what better brief of evidence than the select committee's report? Exactly, yeah. It's all right there. The only thing it doesn't have is a bow on it. Yeah, right, we could put the bow on it. Well, let's do one lightning round here to finish up as we're getting close to end time. So, Jay, can you give us a brief comment on that issue that is there? Yeah, you asked him a minute ago whether he thought that would be an indictment for insurrection, treason, whatever it is, the larger conspiracy. And I think that the committee has or will have enough evidence to justify that recommendation. But remember, it's got to go to Merrick Garland who may or may not do anything with it. That's a great concern to me. The other concern is that it's gonna wind up in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court is no longer reliable as a place of justice, sorry. And a matter of fact, in the next show at noon, we're covering the reliability of the Supreme Court because that's the backstop to all of this, what they do when it gets there and you know Trump is gonna take it there. Okay, so Winston, how does that affect you? You're thinking about the situation. Boy, you know, as much as I might share in Jay's belief about that, I want to think that the courts will step up as they did during the election. Certainly we've seen a politicization there and their approval ratings going down with the public.  That is the fundamental thing. I'm not expecting any indictments out of this or if they are, they will be minor low level. Merrick Garland isn't going to do anything. The best we can hope for is a complete repudiation of what has happened here, a full accounting and the hearts and minds are changed and says this was a very detrimental wrong four years we suffered and culminating in this last month with a crescendo on the 6th of January. Right, good comment, thank you. And Tim, how about a final comment here for the program? Final comment is, I recall very distinctly when I was about 14, 15 years old and I told my friends, no, I can't play basketball. I've got to run home and watch the Watergate hearings. And I did that for months, a hot summer much. I watched Sam Rayburn and I watched them all, Sam Urban, I watched them all for months on end and I was fascinated. I can't wait to be that little kid again in a grown, a little older body and watch the drip and drab as the select committee comes up with the report and the reports that will come out of it. I think this is a serious horrible serious crime that's been committed against our constitution and our rule of law and our democracy. And I want to see this follow out and if it's like a Benghazi report and it's dribs and drabs, so be it. But I want to see justice, I want to see justice identified and I want to see justice serve. Yes, Stephanie, I want to add one thought to Tim's comment. The friend of mine spends a good part of the year in Singapore, he came back this morning. And so I talked to him and I said, are you following what's going on in Congress? And he said, are you kidding me, Jay? We watch it as much as you do. We see MSNBC and CNN and all that, every single day we watch it all day long. And in fact, the whole world does. So what we have is a reality show that the entire world is watching. This is all playing out now. This is the trial right now. Well, this is so important to hear from you and especially the international context. So thank you so much for all of the discussion and insight you bring to it. This is Think Tech Kauai and this show is Politics for the People. It's weekly and we'll see you next week. Thank you so much. Mahalo for your viewership and aloha.


Everybody forced here ripping 2223 prism basketball hobby 4 box number 63 let me change the title here Pick your team style Got Adam s Celtics and wizards Anthony see Mavericks Brandon P. Sons Callum has the Bucks Chad B. Hornets Corey s Hawks Daniel B. Blazers Dennis O heat Eric w has the Pacers rocket spurs and the jazz Ezekiel with the pelicans Jeff T warriors Jeffrey H thunder John K T wolves Joseph B nets Clippers Kevin B bulls Costa Raptors Curt D. Lakers Marvin and nuggets Michael G With the Kings Mike K. Nicks Richard K. Cavs Tom S. Pistons Yahuda with the Grizzlies Zach B magic and one second here and the name is not Most characters on Nishi gaki has the 76ers Good luck everybody. Let's go ahead and get started again. We got four teams on prism next That got to get filled up and then there are five spots left on the Fast break tiered 10 boxer. I saw they were down to Mike Nice pelicans hold on the next one. So there's just three to go now the three are The Hornets Clippers and Wizards. They're all under 30 bucks Silver prismatic hard and sixers silver Gary Payton Sox going to the Thunder red prism Diallo Pistons I was gonna be the 299 got hyper Brandon Ingram pelicans got so Han Silver fireworks debunked sons Silver rookie Dale and Terry bulls Ruby wave Yanis Bucks hyper Basley Thunder Malachi Brannum Keegan Murray Red power is a Terry Rose here to 75 for the Hornets Silver Kevin Porter junior Rockets Tyree Eason Yeah, my guy still was to brew inside Bruce Cassidy. I don't think he'll lose that series at Bruce Cassidy is there Blue Allen Iverson sixers number two one ninety nine Not that Montgomery's bad, but Cassie has coached You know all the way to a game seven in the finals. So silver Dave being Pistons pulsar Kevin Herter Kings Ruby wave John Moran Grizzlies Yeah, and I have made that joke many a times. Are you being silver blazers Jalen Williams? Biggest sixer span of Legals here now But if they lost even like I'm not a fan, I don't really care hyper John wall for the Clippers But if they win it's 360 windmill dunk on all the on all the self-expans They're gonna lose game. There's gonna lose game two.  Purple Carmelo Anthony Lakers. Oh, I wasn't watching number two ninety nine It's Carmelo purple silver Deer and Fox Kings as I'm sorry man is uh It's not a good feeling Ruby wave rookie Bryce McGowan's Hornets Hyper obi top and nicks silver Alec Burke's Pistons Yovitch purple ice obi top and nicks number two 149 they David Roddy Grizzlies rookie base auto Hyper all the depot heat Like Wesley Bryce McGowan's Clippers gone. So now it's just the wizards and the Wizards and Hornets everybody just wizards and Hornets again breaking next silver prismatic Lamello for the Hornets Silver Jammer and Grizzlies, Scottie Pip, Angeline Williams But again, y'all baseball breaks in the in the morning with Matt and then Ken's you'll be here for 10 bucks Tuesdays tomorrow Red Cody Martin to what 299 for the Hornets Cart Kellogg on the sensational signatures Pacers hyper rookie theobate Clippers Ruby wave is Garrison Matthews Rockets silver Halliburton Pacers Hornets gone now. So it's just the Who is it the other wizards left? Yeah, just a wizards left everybody like they're like 29 bucks Rookie pulsar Atari eason for the Rockets there Jay Griffin Blake Wesley silver prismatic Jalen Brown Celtics silver Devin Vasell Spurs Time to make sure if you hire anybody anybody new you put them through the proper hazing process You know, I can't say on you know If it's because of someone's if they're watching I don't want them to I don't want them to hear it Red Prism Obi-Tapin to 299 for the Knicks Hyper Deontay Murray Hawks Kybrannum Silver Fieldless Yolkich for the Nuggets rookie silver Palo Ben Caro an ice card magic Ruby wave Tatum Celtics Hyper Ubre for the Hornets Blue Ice Aaron Gordon Nuggets that's to the 125 Silver Naxes Bogdanovich Hawks Barkley Eason Ruby wave Devante Graham for the Pelicans Hyper Tony Parker Spurs Bate Silver Rudy Gay for the Jazz J-Dubb base Purple Eyes, D'Angelo Russell T. Wolves number two 149 Day Keegan Murray Kings rookie base auto one of the last bots purchase Congrats Kings There we go. Nice card hyper hard-and-sixers And we still got a fast break 10 bucks are coming up everybody Untop loading. Oh, dude. Oh, that sounds terrible That sounds brutal On top loading Harden carried tonight Red Prism Wiseman Warriors to 299 Got E. J. LaDal Pelicans on the rookie base auto Pulsar Rosier Hornets Ruby wave Reggie Jackson Clippers, Silver Vusevich Bulls Bari Walker, Isaiah Mobley Silver Fireworks LaMelo Ball Hornets Silver Rookie Max Christie Lakers Ruby wave Derrick White Celtics with a Hyper Yolkich Nuggets Purple Ananobe Raptors number 299 gonna be gonna make a legal top load for me at the national Silver Bobby Hortis Bucks So you can see what it's really like. These are a full case of release day prism Silver Wide Screen John Moran Grizzlies Silver Josh Richardson Spurs Taliban Kara Rookie for the Magic Highest valued prism cards, you know in a box like like this specific 22 23 prism hobby This year, I mean probably a few K Raul anyway Purple eyes Davion Mitchell to 225 sorry to 149 for the Kings Hyper rookie Vince Williams jr. Grizzlies. You say so Kessler Bruce Brown on the red power to 75 Nuggets Silver Kyle Larry heat gosh, but not That might be a bit much Hyper J Crowder Sons. I'll have to go to I'll take a legal to HR for that one Yeah, don't do that That one people go with their cards created. It says there were lip marks on my card What is this from? Oh, it's from our intern top loader Ricky Ruby wave Nicola Yovitch for the heat Our summer intern Darius basely thunder hyper he only did one break He won't go after that Shad Holmgren He's in our chat every night terrorizing the breaker And the other patrons of the of the chat silver Jeff green Nuggets Yeah, boom and recap will be later tonight's Shade on sharp Didn't have time during the break to do it had to keep up with the schedule red tim hardaway jr. Mavericks number to 299 Got to I under soon move bowls base auto Got hyper deandre hunter hawks I think matheryn Said that the break in the break a bunch times there Got silver prismatic durant nets silver dog McDermott for the spurs All right, so I wanted to go in the next one everybody Ruby wave to soon move bowls hyper narkage blazers Silver widescreen Kevin Durant for the nets silver rookie march on bow champ bucks Blue prism rookie sohan spurs nice car that one's gonna be to 199 67 of 199 pulsar wiggins warriors red power contavious called well pope nuggets to 75 silver LeBron james lakers Ruby wave rookie walker kessler jazz Got hyper davis bird tans mavericks silver rj barrett nicks Red rookie rockets ty ty washington jr. That's going to be to 299 with the color match 216 of 299 Demsion after hyper sohan spurs again here Is Peyton Watson rookie signatures nuggets Nuggets Peyton Watson story and finney smith mavericks This one is out of 125 silver erin nesmith for the pacers We are sold out on the next one nice. So we just got one more break tonight with spots everybody It's five to go on prism fast break tiered five to go two teams per spot Blue prism dominique wilkins goes to the hawks to 199 They Caleb houston magic rookie base auto got hyper rj hampton magic Christian brown jabari walker Ruby wave suns chris paul silver erin that he had a words t-wolves palabena caro base That's so cool Sonics going to the thunder a one-of-one black prism gary payton Gary the glove black prism one-of-one. That's awesome, man Again sonics going to the thunder One-of-one the glove That is the glove right there play good defense great defender awkward kessler That's awesome, man Last pack mojo Me one second to a recap. All right quick recap here. Caleb houston redemption nuggets Peyton Watson rookie signatures I had to soon move ej ladel keegan murray is a great one for the kings cart kelog David roddy And a dave bing and we had the black prism one-of-one gary the glove payton Sonics going to the thunder Thanks again everybody 64 is up next


Attendees of Pass Forward 2016, please welcome to the stage documentary filmmaker, John Valadez. Thank you for having me here today. I'm very excited to have the opportunity to talk to you about history and historical preservation, but from maybe a little bit different perspective. What I do is I don't really deal with buildings or places or spaces or objects. I'm a filmmaker. I make documentary films. And it's a very peculiar profession. I approach things in terms of story, so I think it's very different from what you do. I'm Mexican American. For most of my life, I've been pretty much the only Chicano filmmaker that I ever met. It's been very lonely. And I grew up in Seattle, Washington. I come from a family of migrant farm workers. So the idea of becoming a filmmaker was something completely absurd. It was something that you really didn't think about. It just wasn't within the realm of human possibility. And so I grew up and my family had fled eastern Washington because they were migrant farm workers and they wanted to escape the migrant farm working life, which is horrendous in case you don't know. And so they fled and they fled the Yakima Valley and they went to Seattle, and that's where I grew up. And I grew up in a community that was all white and I was the only Mexican kid. And this is very difficult for me and it's kind of embarrassing to say and I really don't talk about this publicly. But I feel like it's kind of necessary. I had a nickname when I was a kid. My nickname was Spick. Now, I don't know if you're familiar with the term. A lot of people aren't. But it's, I don't know, it's a racial epithet.  It's one of those words. And that's, I mean, that's what people called me. And the really embarrassing part is that I had no idea what that word meant because my parents never used those words. And so I just thought that they were like using this funny nickname. And I thought, oh, well, that's funny.  And I just had no idea. And so growing up throughout my entire educational process, through elementary school and middle school and high school, I never learned about any Mexican American in American history. Not one. And so I grew up thinking, and so did my white counterparts. We grew up thinking that it was other people who had built America. It was other people who had forged democracy. It was other people who had moved westward and tamed the wilderness. It was other people who had marched for civil rights and died for that cause. It was other people who had built the great industries of America, who had fought our wars. It was other people who were the inventors, who were the tinkerers, who really created the American story. But it wasn't Mexican Americans. We were the losers of history. While other people were fighting the good fight to bring freedom and democracy, not only to North America, but to the world, we were kind of hanging out on the sidelines with our hands in our pockets, watching history roll on by. And then, once a great nation was built, we were kind of jumping in to snatch the goods. We were taking the jobs. We were taking the benefits. We were kind of stealing. We weren't legitimate, because we hadn't fought that fight. So if some of us were citizens like me, we were really citizens in name only. We really didn't earn our American-ness. We were outsiders. We were foreigners. In other words, I kind of, as I found out what that word meant, spick, on some level, all the evidence seemed to indicate that, yeah, that's true. I am a spick. That's what the history, the story of America, told me. And so we were kind of in agreement in a way. So I finished high school, and I went to college, and I dropped out after about a year. I became a Latino dropout statistic. I pumped up the numbers that year. And a friend of mine had this crazy idea. We were hanging out, and he said, you know what? I was into photography. That was like my thing. I love taking photographs. And my friend said, hey, you know what? He had heard about a school in India, and he said, hey, why don't you write to them and see if they, if you can teach there. You can teach them photography.  It was like ridiculous. And so, but I thought, okay, whatever. So I wrote a letter. I got the address. I put it in the mail, you know, and I forgot about it. I went back to my job at the sandwich shop. And then a couple of months later, I got a letter back that said, yeah. Come on.  Right? I had never been away from home. I didn't know any India. What do I know about India? I saw the movie Gandhi. You know? So anyway, so I decided to go. And back then, what you could do is you could take a one-way trip. You could get a ticket. And as long as you went one direction around the globe, you could make as many trips as you want, going one way. And so I started to go. And I went to Paris for the first time. And I went to Greece. And I spent a month in Israel. And I landed in India. And so I got the students who could speak English because most of them spoke Hindi. And I taught them photography. We built a dark room. I showed them how to process film, how to print pictures. It was cool. And then one evening, they came to me and they said, hey, the villagers in Susara, the next village over, have never met an American. And they would like to meet you. And I thought, OK, well, let's go. So we walked through the jungle. It was evening, about two kilometers to get to Susara. And we got there. And the villagers had built a huge bonfire. And around the bonfire, they had pulled their beds from out of their huts. And they were around this bonfire.  And I felt very uncomfortable. I didn't know what to do. But we sat on the beds. And then they started telling these stories. And they were speaking in Hindi, so my students were translating for me. And they were stories about the gods and the goddesses. Hanuman and Ganesh and Shiva and Vishnu and Lakshmi and Krishna and Ram.  What are they talking about? But I just kept listening. And as the evening wore on, I began to see that what they were doing is they were telling these stories. And the stories were like little parables. Parables about what it is to lead a life well-lived and what it is to lead a life squandered. They consecrated what was worthy of remembrance and what was not and what should be forgotten and returned to dust and be gone with the wind. And so that evening, we went on until about 3 o'clock in the morning. And that evening we were walking back through the jungle. Maybe, yeah, like I said, 3, 4 o'clock in the morning. I don't know. And we're walking back and I began to think about the United States. I began to think about America. And I thought, what happened to our ability to gather around the sacred fire to tell the stories were so divided? And it seems like we always had been. And I thought, how do we capture that beautiful sense that I saw in India? And then it struck me. It seemed so clear. We do gather around the sacred fire. We gather around a burning box. And that burning box is television. And we gather around a burning wall. And that burning wall is cinema. And I guess now we gather, you know, around these, right? And it is through these fires that we tell the sacred story of our people. It's through these fires that we try to figure out what it is to lead a life well-lived and lead a life squandered. It's through these fires that we figure out what is worthy of remembrance and what shall be forgotten and turn to dust. And so I became a long story short. I ended up becoming a documentary filmmaker. And I had this idea that it was... that what I should do is tell the story of my people.   I don't know what that means exactly, but that's what occurred to me. And it kind of set me off on a life journey. And interestingly enough, as it turns out, and it's just purely by accident, I'd been shooting something, a work in progress, here in Texas, part of it. And part of it was actually shot not far from where we sit today in a little town just south of here called Goliad. And I thought, you know what, since we're in Texas and you probably come from all parts of the country, maybe I could share with you just a little clip and show you what I'm working on because I think it actually has something to do with why we are gathered here today. So let's go ahead. Can you guys dim the lights and can we show the clip real quick? This is what I wanted to show you because it is considered by many to be the most famous tree in all of Texas. Okay. This is the famous hanging tree of Goliad County. It was a site of extrajudicial executions. In other words, this is where they lynched Mexicans. How many Mexicans were there? Some say 80, 90, 100, but we really don't even know. And of course, on the other side of there is a famous whooping post where they would tie Mexicans and other people blacks and whoop them for transgressions against the social order. Over there, we have a tree where it is said that they hung the blacks because I don't know, it's kind of crazy. Even, you know, in Texas, we had standards.  You know, it just ain't fitting. It ain't fitting. It just ain't fitting.  And why? It was economics. And it was also the fact that they wanted our land. In fact, they came here to take our land and they were very successful. It's a tourist thing now here. Everything's named hanging tree around here. But, I mean, when you really think about it, it should give you the creeps. This is, I mean, this is horrible. You know? Yeah, it is horrible. It is what it is. It is what it is. The events that took place here in Goliad weren't unique. Over the next 70 years, there were 871 documented lynchings of Mexican Americans in 13 western states. And yet the violence found in the rest of the southwest didn't compare to the horror of South Texas. In a single decade, from 1910 to 1920, historians estimate as many as 5,000 Mexican Americans were murdered in a brutal wave of terror and mass executions. In proportion to their numbers, Mexicans were lynched in the west as often as blacks were lynched in the south. All right, is everybody totally depressed now? I mean, I didn't mean to bring you down, okay? This happened a long time ago. Okay, right, okay. But it's important. But it's important. This information that's in this film that I'm still making, it's a work in progress, right? It's something that most Americans don't know anything about. They've never heard this. How do you think Mexican Americans feel?  Okay, I just want to prepare you. After I leave here today, I'm actually going out to west Texas, not far from Marfa, which is out in the desert, way out there. And I'm actually going out there because I'm scouting what is, I guess you could call it, an unmarked mass grave. Okay? In 1918, really in the midst of all of this racial violence against Mexican Americans that was taking place, there was one incident that was sort of stands out for its egregiousness. There was a small little village near the, they're in Texas near the Mexico border called Porvenir. And there had been a robbery a month earlier, about 40 miles away, and some law enforcement folks got a tip that maybe in that village there might be someone associated with that robbery. And during the robbery, the shop owner got shot and was killed. Terrible thing. And so the Texas Rangers and the U.S. Cavalry came into Porvenir in the middle of the night, and they ended up rounding up the entire male population of the town which was all Mexican and Mexican American.  Executed them. Arms blown off, heads, the whole thing, it was really bad. And then they left. And the next day, the women and the kids went out to find, you know, what had happened and they found the bodies. And they loaded them onto a cart and they went just across the river which was no more than, you know, a couple of blocks away, city blocks away. And they dug a mass grave and they put all the bodies in there and then they fled to parts unknown. They were too scared to return to their homes and good thing they didn't because the soldiers and the Texas Rangers came back and they burned the whole place down. Now, because of this period of violence in American history, Mexican Americans across the country were traumatized, really scared. And they did something very interesting, actually. They began to organize and they founded an organization not far from where we are today. Down in Corpus Christi, called Lulac, the League of United Latin American Citizens and they founded this place called Lulac. And what they ended up doing is they ended up creating a program called Little Schools 400 which we know today as Head Start. And they started to sue. They brought more than 81 civil voting rights lawsuits and they won everyone. And then what they did is they sued in the courts over segregation and they ended up doing in 1947 a case Westminster versus Mendez versus Westminster. And they desegregated public schools in California and they worked with a young attorney an African American dude who came out there to work with them on the case. And that guy took all of those legal precedents that Mexican Americans had been doing across the country and the strategies and that architecture. And when he had a chance, he went before the Supreme Court and argued a case called Brown v. Board of Ed. His name was Thoreau Good-Marshall. Mexican Americans worked with that guy. We worked together. And it made this nation a better place. It transformed the lives of millions. When I was growing up in Seattle with those kids who called me Spick, I wish we had known that story because I don't want to see other kids called that. I don't want to see black kids called that. I don't want to see Muslim kids called that or Native American kids or transgender kids. I've been there. I've been a Spick. I know what that is. And I don't want white kids called that either. Most of the young people in the state of Texas today under 18 are Latino. Most of the young people in California today are Latino. And by the time they reach middle age, by 2050, we will be a majority minority country. And soon to follow, we will be a Latino country. Now we can go kicking and screaming, and we can become the United States of anxiety, the United States of acrimony, the United States of suspicion. We can figure out how to find our common humanity, how to span divides of difference and find new connections for positive change and understanding in an America that welcomes all of us. And I guess that's why I'm here today. Because I think what you do is so vitally important. You can tip the balance. Because when we have an understanding of who we are, the horror and the beauty, we can understand our common story and how complex it is. In my opinion, historical preservation is not really about buildings or places or things. What it really is, it's about the stories that those buildings and places and things represent. Because they tell us what it is to lead a life well lived and what it is to lead a life squandered. They tell us what stories are worthy of remembrance and what stories shall be forgotten and turned to dust. And so I feel like you and I, we do the same thing. We're in the story biz, right? And so much depends upon us, and that's why I love that tagline. Where is it? It's not a past forward. By understanding and reconciling the past, we can find a beautiful road forward. But we have to be honest and truthful about it. And that's why that other name is so important to me. The National Trust. That's heavy. So can we do it? Well, as my friend Dolores Huerta once told me, si se puede, yes we can. Thank you.


Welcome to CRMB. This is Crumb's Bake Shopped. It is now bankrupt, and I'm doing a video on this. I've never traded this in my life, but I'm doing a video on this because I think it's very important for people to learn from something like this. Now, I don't trade penny stocks. I've never traded penny stocks. People have tried to talk me into trading penny stocks. I've been wanting me to trade penny stocks. At one point, this was not a penny stock. It did go over a dollar at one point, and it was back worth a little bit more up in here, but it's been a penny stock now for a while. I really have never been convinced to trade stocks like this. I know that there's people out there that say that they're making money trading penny stocks. I don't know if they are. I don't know those people, but I do know that I have just no conviction in trading penny stocks. I can't press the button. When I've had people talk to me about it and say, this looks good, that looks good, or this thing, or that thing, or the other thing, I just can't press the button. I can't press the button with anything. I just can't. I cannot press it. I just have no conviction in doing something like this. I think part of it is my experience trading real full-on, full-fledged stocks in the stock market that have volume, volatility, and a good, decent strike price, which I'm talking about is really anything over $5.00. I'm from a range of $5.00 to $75.00, which is usually around where I'm playing, but even before, when I first first started out, I couldn't be convinced to do these. I couldn't be convinced to do these, and then as I got into trading real real stocks, and some of these penny stocks have volume, so it's not even the volume. It's the cost. It's the cost. It's this right here. It's exactly this thing right at this moment. If you own this stock, the CRMB, you're out to lunch. You just took the loss, and there's something that you can do about it. You can't add in the position to make it better. You can't do anything if you had any size in this. If you were in it at all, it's done now. It's been delisted from the stock market, and it just happened the other day, or a couple days ago, and it's over for this thing. It's one of these things where I think that it's a good lesson for people. I can't, with any level of conviction, tell people to even investigate trading penny stocks. I just feel like you shouldn't do it. I mean, that's my belief system, and it's my belief system because I can't do it. If I can't do something, then I can't advise people to do it. I only teach what I do, what I train. I'll only ever teach or advise people on what I know with 100% conviction and from experience. I can say that I've seen too many of these things do exactly what this has done for various different reasons. This is just the reason for this thing. I think that trading stocks that have no value is trying to make money day trading, or trying to hold them to make any money, is beyond speculation. It takes it to a whole new level where it's actually, I think, doesn't even make any sense to do it. When you trade in the stock market, there is a level of speculation with that because you are taking risk without knowing the exact outcome. That's what trading is, and you will always be in that position with the market if you trade whether your day or core swing trade. I think doing these things here is a level of beyond speculation where I think it's extreme high risk that it doesn't make sense to do. I just don't think it's a smart or wise thing to do. I know there's a lot of places out there that talk about trading penny stocks and love penny stocks and make all this money in penny stocks. Again, I don't know any of those people to say it with all certainty, but I know in the experience I've had just in six years trading the market that the best chance to make money a profit as a trader is in stuff that is moving, has volume, and is worth something, and has potential, has potential in either direction, whether you buy it or short it, and that people have a serious interest in. The problem is here there's just not enough interest garnered in these stocks at this price point for people to fully, full on invest in them that have institutions because institutions have a big bankrolls and lots of money. Why would they ever decide to invest heavily in something like this? So you're just not going to get the same kind of play or substantiation or movement and something that doesn't have the institutions in with them, which this, which is just obviously didn't. So this is a goner here. And it's one probably of many. And the danger is that if you decided you bought this, you're like, I'm just going to buy this, it can't go any lower, wrong. Oh, it can go lower, something can always go lower and something can always go higher. And you actually could have even tracked the gaps on this. But it just, I just find that doing these things is, is just not where I want to be. I've just I've just never had any conviction in ever trading these never not not at the time when I started not at the time now not at the time when I was figuring stuff out and was like, you know, one in a million dollar trade never never could press the button in these and just will never do it. So it's a lesson to be learned here with the CRMB it's done it's delisted just recently happened. And I really, really, really be careful if you choose to trade these penny stocks. And I know what happens is people do them because the buying power is cheap. And they do them then with the amount of money, whatever that they have. And they take the position and then they take a large position and then if it moves a little, then they could make $1,000 or whatever. But it's just I feel that it's too risky. And here's a great example right here. This previous days closing this was 590,000. That's not that's not even a sneeze of a volume. That's real volume in it. But how can you do something like this? Where's the play in it? You know, where's the payoff, I guess. Remember, risk to reward is more than just having something where you get into trade and it moves this many dollars per the dollar that you risk risk reward means it's worth you taking the risk for you to make money. It's not worth you taking the risk for somebody with a chance it could be bankrupt the next day or go out of business where it's so close to next to nothing where it's almost worthless. Basically. So good one here to look at and study and just a little tip of the day. This is Melissa with the stockswush.com. Have a great afternoon, everybody. The next golden gap class is this weekend, July 12 and 13. If you'd like more information, email me at Melissa at the stockswush.com. Just my two cents here. I don't think there's any way to make millions of dollars trading penny stocks. I think it's very, very high risk. It's a level beyond speculation. I think speculation is good when you have something called calculator risk involved. But these things are just something I'm never going to do. And that's the scoop. Have a great day, everybody.


Good afternoon everyone and welcome. This is Melissa Arma with the stocks. What should I'm reviewing? Racks. Anyways, let's just take a look at it. I loved the scat this morning. It didn't work. What happened? And in fact, I had such high expectations today is a good day to review my head because I had such high expectations for the money I was going to make in this today. Thinking it was going to go to a number that it didn't go to because it didn't work out as a short. Now, I will tell you that I have certain rules. I rate the gap. I watch the gap. The gap has to set up to this set up today. Yes. However, it opened a reverse whooshed. I wasn't going to do it. And then my heart just sank into my stomach because I was like, gosh, darn it. I really wanted to do this. And I loved it. This is actually a good watch for tomorrow for continuation gap to short. But anyways, make a long story short. I did end up doing it and I lost in it. Luckily, I only did a half risk unit. So I lost a half an hour on this today. But to be honest with you, I really shouldn't have done it. I really shouldn't have done it because it never should have opened and did this. And I knew it. But then when I did the reversal bar here, I got all excited. I then I was like, all right, maybe I'm being too hasty. Then it broke in here. Here was the entry. I only did a half hour lot. And I also put the stop tight. Then here's where I got stopped out. So I lost a half an hour in this. Boom, done. Never set up a whole day rallying. And then I knew at whatever point, I don't even know what time I talked about the room. Like, oh my God, this is going to go to 18. And it actually went to 19. Many, many, and it went over 19. Look at that. It's insane. That's insane. I do not buy reverse whooshes, but you almost could. I mean, I don't know. I don't like to have a bias of a directional way, which is short for this today. Did not work out. All right. And then flip it. I don't like that.  I don't think you see things clearly. But I'm telling you, as soon as I see something like that that opens a reverse whooshes, it's almost likely to buy it. Now, I did take a half lot in this today because of the immediate reversal bar, but it didn't work out. It didn't work out. I lost in this today. Luckily, I only did a half lot. No one should cry over spilt milk for losing a half lot or even one arm. That's why you have to size yourself correctly. But there were a lot of other good things to do today, however they were long. Did this fail today because of the market? That didn't help it. I'll tell you that. I don't think it's going to win anywhere near 19 or above 19 if the market didn't go like a crazy person today.  But I will tell you that that's not the reason this didn't work. It's just not. It just didn't work. It just didn't work today. Sometimes things don't work. But to be honest with you, I wasn't strict enough with myself today. If I was really, really strict, I wouldn't have done it at all. I wouldn't have touched it. I would have saved myself a half hour. But what are you going to do? Sometimes you love things and everyone's in a blue moon. Something that reverse whooshes will work when the gap is a very good gap. And this was, this is still a short in the long term. And actually you could be short this probably tomorrow because this didn't get over 19 into the close. And it's just lower. I mean, in fact, let's just look at this. I think, I'll tell you exactly why this didn't work today. I'll tell you exactly why this didn't work today. This is short covering that came in today. That's all that that happened. It was short covering that came in, swift and mighty into the open, and then with the market after the fact it got bought. So the short covering came in quickly into it, and then like over 17 it got bought with the market. But I still don't think this goes anywhere immediately other than down, but you can watch it. There's better things to do. But nice, nice gap didn't work out. I was not strict with myself today, but I did only do a half size luckily. And there was a lot of other things to go along today. Anyways, have a great day. Everyone email me and Melissa, the stockswish.com. If you'd like more information, remember, follow your rules. Even if you have a certain expectation to make thousands of dollars in the day, if the stock doesn't set up, you can't do it. You have to wait for the setup. Don't do anything that reverse wishes. Very important lessons to be learned today, and a constant, constant reminder. And actually, now that I'm thinking this to myself out loud, we will never ever, ever, ever, ever from now until the end of time. We are never going to short any reverse wishes the rest of the year because the market's going to be too bullish, and you can't short reverse wishes against the bullish market. Anyways, have a great night everyone. Email me at Melissa, the stockswish.com. If you'd like more information about the upcoming Golden Gap class, and it's this weekend, February 20th and 21st, you'll learn what a reverse wish is, you'll learn the entries, you'll learn the swish, the stockswish, something that made up, and it works. Have a great night everyone.


Hi everybody, Joe for GaspysCase of Breaks.com coming at you with a 10-pack break of those national VIP gold packs. Some really nice stuff here. There they are. It's a random letter break going by the first letter of their first name, obviously all card ship. Are you right? You get it. If you get a pull of Bryce Young, it goes to B. QO also is combined with all other letters that are not represented on this list. All right, so big thanks to this group right here for making it happen. There are the letters right there. I did post another 10-pack break if you want to go and check that out on GaspysCase of Breaks.com. Let's roll it. Randomized names and letters, two and a six, eight times. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eighth and final time. After eight, we've got Brian down to James. Two and a six, eight times for the letters, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight. After eight, there's B right up there down to R. All right, so Brian with B, Louis with T, K, L and T. You also have E, F, U, Brian with A, Louis with M, Brian with H, Craig with N, Darren with W, Louis with P, Robert with D, Raymond with G, Robert G with S, Monty with J, Eugene, QO, and all other letters, Darren with C, and James with R. All right, that's sort of alphabetically by letter, and we're going to, letter trades are kind of rare, but we'll pause the video just for a little bit, see if there are any, and when we come back, we'll rip open those 10 packs, B, R, B. All right, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. No deals are done, so that list remains the same here on a Tuesday. So you can probably see all the letters right there on one shot, there you go. 10 pack break is in the store right now, just randomly pulled from the box, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten. Good luck. Let's see what we got here. We got Giannis Antitocompo and a Joey Logano. Nice. A little NASCAR. Joey Logano going to go to Monty in the letter J. Giannis Antitocompo will go to G for, that's for Raymond, 66 out of 75. I think there are auto possibilities here as well.  That's for a letter P, that'll be for Louis in the letter P, not numbered. All right, we've got a rated rookie, Asur Thompson and more Giannis. Thompson twins, remember that song? Both in the NBA. Now Asur going to Bryan, letter A, 40 out of 199. And then we got Asur Thompson again and Jeff Gordon. Hold me. 122 out of 149. I had a picture. I guess the base cards on the back, Kevin Garnett to 199, KG going to Louis, hands off the glass KG, and there's Jabari Smith Jr. That's a rookie card. Letter J, that's going to be for Monty. Oh no, this one's numbered. Wow, nice. Anthony Richardson, rookie autograph. Bryan with the letter A, and look at that, seven out of seven. Nice low number on that one as well, just recently announced as the official starter. QB1 for the Colts, and there's Albert Pujols. Sure is Victor. Thompson twins, hold me now. I had a picture. Oh, to my wall. Albert, another A for Bryan. It's a nice one, hopefully he does well. We want to see him come out of the gates hot. There's Jackson Smith and Jigba. His brother plays baseball. That'll be for letter J. That's going to go to Monty, and Aaron Rodgers going to Bryan to 149. Kind of looks weird in a Jets uniform. We got Cal Ripken, and there's Jackson Smith and Jigba again, 104 out of 149. His brother's a prospect for the Pirates maybe? Got Joe Namath for the letter J, and we've got a nice rookie Jalen Williams, 121 out of 199, another letter J for Monty. And we've got a Seward Thompson rated prospect card. And back here is Peyton Manning, 60 out of 199. Oh, ma-ha! Louis with a letter P. This is what we could potentially pull out of these gold packs, ladies and gentlemen, so keep getting in on it. Jackiecasebreak.com. I'm Joe, and I'll break some more packs with you next time. Bye-bye.


All right, well, thank you. Thank you for coming here. So in a good way, this presentation picks up where the last one left off, at least a question at the end there, about quantifying if you do restrict food advertising, what sort of impact it can have. So my paper looks specifically of food advertising. And why food advertising? Well, if you look at the short term studies, the controlled studies, where they have people in laboratory settings, and they run ads or run fake ads, so to speak, it increases consumption of those advertised foods. So like Jennifer was saying at the end, the more foods advertise, parents are going to hear about it, and then there will be that desire to consume it. So when they do those short term studies, they find that obese children consume more of the advertised foods than normal weight. But the important point for this is that all end up over-consuming, end up consuming more of that target food that's being advertised than if it wasn't advertised. So the obese overweight consume more in those studies, slightly more, but the normal weight consume more too. And then the controlled studies, obviously, are the comparison. So with that then, you have a paradox when you look at the data on how much children are watching TV and their weight were BMI. So if you look at the latest NHA, NES data, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, you'll find that there's no statistical difference between hours watched by overweight obese children or normal weight children. And I ran some regressions on it as well, and that effect never comes up. That just TV is linked to overweight when you look at the whole sample. So yeah, sort of a paradox here where you say no food advertising works in the short term. And also you could kind of assume it works that companies are pouring millions, millions of dollars into it, it probably is having some benefit to them as well. So if it doesn't have any, if overweight children aren't watching more TV, then how is that advertising having the impact? Where's the effect coming through? Okay, so that's what my study looks at here. So this last year I've looked a lot, research law about self-regulation of calorie intake and written about it. And a landmark study, at least I think, back in 2004 looked at when they gave access to fast food to lean and overweight adolescents and again, all over consumed, more than you just compared to regular food. But what they found though, when they found that they tracked them over a three day period is that the lean compensated for that and ended up eating less later in that day such that when you took a three day calorie average for the lean, they were normal. Even though on that one day they had the big fast food over consumption, they were able to regulate that consumption over time. Whereas the overweight over obese were not. They ate more on the fast food day, never ate less at dinner. It was a lunch study and then ate the same the next two days such that over a three day period, they had a calorie surplus. So from that you could say that on the next slide here, from that you could kind of assume that overweight obese children have apparently lost that ability to self-regulate calorie intake. That's the assumption I'm making. And then therefore, at least a kind of interesting hypothesis, that if food advertising increases consumption in everyone but then the overweight don't compensate for that and eat less of other foods or eat less foods later, then that's gonna drive overweight obesity to increase the more in that group that they watch television, right? Or see those advertisements, same thing, okay? So any questions here so far? You can jump in if you're, I'm used to being interrupted when I teach, so it's no problem. Some other evidence, just so you can make sure I didn't just make this up. A number of other studies looked at self-regulation of energy intake and this was one of the most interesting ones that I found is that they took a group of overweight obese adults and said, okay, we want you to eat so many fruits and vegetables per day, right? I mean, that's a great thing, eat more fruits and vegetables, you'll be healthier, you'll lose weight. What they found was that they did eat more of those fruits and vegetables, but they actually didn't lose weight, they gained weight because they just added those extra fruits and vegetables onto what they were already eating. So it actually had a negative impact. It's one of the very few studies that's ever shown a negative impact from fruit and vegetable consumption because in this situation, they never said eat less of the other things and more fruits and vegetables, they just said eat another four servings of fruits and vegetables to be healthy. It didn't work, it actually made them worse off because again, no compensation for that extra food, they added it to what they were already eating. So I thought that was a very pivotal study. So then if you take those pieces of information, the theory then would be that the more, if you just censor your sample to only the overweight obese and within that sample only, when you allow for individual variation, the more that they watch TV, aka see food advertisement, the more overweight they should be.  All right, so then there's a side piece here since this is a paleo conference here, I wanted to talk about does food advertising really serve any biological function? In other words, if we're gonna ban it, then someone might say, well, is it serving any primary function? Not that I can tell, all right? Obviously people did find before food advertisement, and I say again, how do people regulate food intake they seem to do just okay without it. So it'd be hard to argue that food advertisement has any sort of really valuable or biological function to it that is so valuable that if you ban it, the ceiling's gonna cave in, right? It's obviously profitable for companies, we know that, but we're saying from a biological, physical perspective, does it do anything? No, and again, you can see how does the channels through works through, a lot of those ads simulate people eating. They've done other studies where they have, again, people who aren't self-regulating their calorie intake, and if they get them to eat with other people, and then they kind of do those stealth experiments where those other people eat more or eat less, then again, it impacts them to eat more or eat less if this kind of person they placed in there is eating a lot or eating a little. The lean, again, they do it a little bit, but then they end up compensating for that. So in a biological sense, if you think about hunter-gatherers in a tribe, if someone's eating more, if you're not hungry, that's not gonna affect you, but if you've lost that ability to regulate calorie intake, it will, it will get you to eat more. So that's what food advertising is, right? Showing the food, showing people eating it, enjoying it, right, it looks great tasting, et cetera, trying to get everyone to eat more of those foods. So my hypothesis specifically, right, is that higher levels of television viewing, which is a proxy for food advertising, is gonna have a positive relationship with Body Mass Index, but again, only in overweight slash obese children. And then a question as to what ads are they seeing, it's pretty obvious if you look at the study and the Yale Rudd Center, Jennifer, they have a lot of data on the amount of advertising points going to children and the types of ads and all that. So you can just see one study I put up, 2008, 49% of advertisements during Saturday morning basically cartoons were about food and actually of those 49%, 91% were for junk food, processed food, so to speak, high in fat, sodium, sugar, whatever, basically processed food. So the majority of those ads are going to process food and as I talked about my abstract, that is predictable from economic theory. A very, very small amount of commercials is directed towards fruits and vegetables. The large majority, over 90% in general in any sample is processed food. So a side question here that might come up, couldn't food advertising change a normal weight child? Into an overweight child over time. I say yes, certainly could, but that's not what I'm studying here. What I'm looking at is only a cross section in that NHS data and saying, okay, at that point in time, are the children watching more TV, are they, do they have a higher body mass index? So certainly this other question is viable, but it would take longitudinal data, a longitudinal study to try to figure that one out. All right, on to the data. So I got the latest data or at least the latest that had all the variables filled in that I needed. So 2009, 2010 data from the CDC. Children's age two to 11. And then what's neat about this is it's individual level data. It's an individual level survey.  So it's pretty comprehensive data set on the individuals in that survey. So again, my sample is only overweight, obese, not the normal weight. And then I group them together and some studies they differentiate and say this much in overweight and this much in obese. I just put them all in one category. I figure the goal is to get people to normal weight. So that's what the public policy really should be focusing on. So the dependent variable, if any of you guys run the regressions in your spare time or a professional time, I guess, is BMI. And then the variation in BMI, the independent variables, you have hours of TV viewing per day. And then physical activity, obviously you want to control for that. So this is the days where a child is at least physically active for 60 minutes. And then the control variables in there, the gender, the race, the income, obviously income is a huge factor. As somebody said, children don't have a lot of disposable income. So that's gonna play a role. And also obese overweight is higher in the lower income group in neighborhoods and that type of situation. There are some other variables I would have liked to have, but there was missing data in the NHS. So I went with what was available. Okay, so the regression results. Hopefully you can see this here. So I try to make it as big as possible. So you get the R squared up top, basically tells you how much of the variation in the dependent variable I'm explaining. It's a little low if you do this sort of stuff at 0.36, but only because I used BMI. I actually ran this with weight as well and the R squared was much, much higher, around 85% or something like that. So that's really more of artifact than just the data and the way it was constructed. But the key thing here is at the bottom. So you have the coefficients. Physical activity is a negative. So that's what you think, right?  TV video is the one I was focused on and then you can see that's positive. So what that variable is saying is for one more hour that a overweight obese child watches television on average, then their BMI should increase by 0.31. So you get some children that watch more, you know, four, five, six, seven hours of TV a day than that's a substantial shift in the BMI. The gender was not statistically significant. Age obviously was, race. Only really African-American was statistically significant and a pretty huge coefficient there. Just in this last 2009, 2010 data, there was a huge jump in African-American youth overweight obesity. Not really sure why, but especially among girls, African-American girls that really skyrocketed. So that's kind of a story for another day. And then that last variable is income-poverty ratio and that's negative and that's what you'd think from the previous things that the closer you are to poverty, right, then, or excuse me, the farther away you are from poverty, right, the BMI is gonna go down. Okay, I think of it as probably the easiest way to think of it. All right, any questions on the results here or anything? All right, so then the prediction from that is that if you ban food advertising, again, to adolescents, I'm not gonna get into the adults and the legal issues. Then watching television should have the same effect as any other sedentary activity in children. In other words, if you take the food out out so you negate its power and it's the same as just, you know, watching a movie or maybe, you know, reading a book or something like that. And actually sedentary activities have kind of a mixed finding in the research literature about are they really driving obesity overweight or not? A lot of studies find that they aren't having any effect. In fact, if you read, there was a New York Times article, maybe a month, two months ago, that talked about how actually reading among adults is related to lower weight. So you're just sitting there reading but they weren't sure if that was a marker of other things, other family variables or things like that. But at any rate, what you do is you, you know, if you negate the food ads, then TV is just another sedentary activity that shouldn't be a big driver of overweight obesity. Because again, we're controlling for physical activity. So what I did then was I reversed the effect of the TV. So I took that coefficient that I got from the regression and then I applied it at an individual level. So if someone was watching seven hours of TV per day, then their BMI was rolled back seven times .31. If they're only watching two hours of TV a day, then seven times .31, or sorry, two times .31 to roll it back. So I did this to get really specific accurate estimates rather than just put them all in one pool and say, here's the average four hours of TV and here's the coefficient and multiplied. That's gonna give you a much less accurate estimate than I could get with this individual survey level data. So it's pretty cool, I think, that you can do it on an individual level and get each person's predicted new BMI if all those food ads are taken out. And we'll see in the end here, I think it leads to better estimates than in the past. So I reversed that impact, recalculated BMI for all the subjects in the sample and then found that in the overall sample, if you negate that food advertising in the TV, then it would shift 5.8% of individuals' children from the overweight, obese category to the normal weight category. And then I broke it out by gender here as well, 4.4 and 6.2. So this is the change in total percent of overweight, obesity in children, which is roughly in this 2009 data, like 33%. So it would take it from 33 to 28 or 27 and change something like that. So it's a fairly big shift. As Jennifer said, it's not gonna completely eliminate it, obviously, because the foods are still there and everything, but it is a big chunk of the reason for that big increase in overweight obesity. So to compare the model I ran versus some other studies, Bolton is an older study that predicted the impact of food advertising and then its estimates on young boys and girls was minus 3.9 and minus 4.0. The Delphi was a survey of experts in their estimates as to if you banned it, it was like 33 or so experts from a couple years back as to what they thought if you banned food advertising, what would you get? You know, I'm not sure how technical their estimates were. Maybe they just got a phone call and made up a number or something, I don't know. I'm sure some of them were highly technical, but I'm not sure about the other ones. It seems they were getting kind of high compared to what I would think even without looking. So then my model shows minus 4.4, minus 6.2, a little higher than that Bolton case, but a little lower than that expert panel. And the conclusion then is that food advertising does negatively impact children who are overweight or obese. That's what that regression showed is it was a statistically significant coefficient on that TV video variable between that and BMI. And then also you could see the higher levels of exposure to that was then positively related to the BMI such that if you banned all advertising to children, it would reduce the overall prevalence of overweight obesity by 5.8%. All right, so a questionnaire, yeah. Yes, I totally understand your question, but not the way I set it up in my opinion, only because that original regression that got that coefficient was hours of TV and BMI. So yes, I mean, it could be the case in that hour TV, only 20 minutes or ads. And that tends to be relatively standard. So whatever that one hour of TV was kind of including implicitly the ads, then that's what led to the BMI shift. So it's kind of like I'm assuming that hour of TV that caused it and then you negate it is the same. So in other words, the 20 minutes adds in, the 20 minutes adds out, out of the hour. If you put the hour in and the hour out, it's the same thing. Again, for your point to be accurate, you'd have to show that the number of ads per TV hour was variable over time or over people or something like that, but generally it's the same. Yes, no. No, because what I'm saying is that the TV containing the ads is what's driving the increase in BMI. If you just say, surf the internet for an hour, that shouldn't have any impact on the BMI. There's nothing inflammatory, so to speak, in there. So it is because it's in the TV that the TV is driving the over consumption. But I definitely understand what you're saying. Oh, perhaps I missed it. Did you have a control group with people watching TV and no ads? Is that how you're determining that it was ads that had the effect? No, what I said was the way back here at the beginning, that was at the beginning? Yeah, I ran regressions separately on this, that normal weight and overweight obese children actually watch similar amounts of TV. So it's not that lean people are just not watching TV at all. They're watching TV, but it's having apparently no impact on them, because they're remaining lean. At least it's not impacting their weight. So if you have, roughly it was like boys was like 2.2 hours. So both normal weight boys and overweight boys are watching the same amount of TV. So from that you can't say that TV's doing anything just based on that. So I censored the sample to focus only on overweight obese. Thank you. All right. Okay, thank you. Appreciate it.