It's about teaching our Navy community about our Hawai'i and our Hawai'i cultural values and people, and it brings that Navy, I think, a little closer to Hawai'i because of that.  You know, today is Prince Kuhio Day. We're out here at pa'aiow. Though the fishpond is dedicated to the Queen Kalani Nuiia, who came well before Prince Kuhio, the day being out here today in honor of Kuhio is significant because it was Kuhio's vision when he was a delegate at Congress to establish Pearl Harbor, and he fought for many, many years to receive funding to dredge Pearl Harbor and establish Naval Base out here. He went so far as to bring people, well, senators, representatives, and their families to Hawai'i. He hosted them at his house in Waikiki and took them to Pearl Harbor, took them to places that he felt were very important. He was fighting for funding for not only Pearl Harbor, but also for Halekawa National Park and for Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park, and he finally was able to establish funding for the Pearl Harbor and those other national parks. At Pearl Harbor Hickam, we have a Makahiki celebration, and what that is is we have games. We invite the Navy families to come play games, and if they win, we have these feathered statues that we kind of give them as prizes, and the feathered awards are actually made by one of our Civic Club members, Uncle Shad Kani. He's a featherwork master, so that's one other event that is really important where Civic Clubs and the Navy are partnering with one another to celebrate this traditional time of celebration called Makahiki, but it just enforces the partnership, and then of course here at Pa'ai'au is another one where we have this partnership with the Navy, so those two I can think of is Pa'ai'au and Makahiki. So originally there was 22 fish ponds surrounding Pearl Harbor, and through the years, especially during the sugar cane era, those fish ponds were destroyed, filled in, and just decayed, and now there's only three remaining around Pearl Harbor, and this is Locompa'ai'au, which was one of the three remaining, and this was perfect because it's actually a little bit easier to get to. The other fish ponds are more difficult to get to getting access. This fish pond is located at McGrew Point, and so we're able to get to this pond through the Navy housing. Yeah, so even the shipyard, there was three fish ponds there, and during the development of the base, they were just filling in the fish ponds to create land, and so those are all gone now, and so part of our consultation, like with the shipyard, we're looking at putting resources into this fish pond to make up for the ones we lost. Yeah. Well, one thing that our prince did, which is really remarkable, he was the delegate to Congress from Hawaii at a time when we didn't have a vote. We were not a state then, and so he couldn't really help being anything home using boats, you know, being able to take a vote for another vote, and he said, he thought, well, what can I do to bring the resources to Hawaii, which he really needed at that time, and he just used his princely diplomatic skills and all of his personal resources to encourage them to come out to Hawaii and visit, and he actually brought, I think, over 30 congressional members with him at a time when to get to Hawaii, it took taking a train from Washington DC to Chicago and transferring to the coast, and then taking a boat and coming across the ocean to get here it took weeks, but he did that because he really felt strongly that we needed the help of the government to take care of us. He was really focused a lot on the harbor and improving our harbors so that we could develop them, and Pearl Harbor was actually the very first harbor to have been developed with Prince Peril's writers. It took him over a decade to encourage that, and it was just to offensive and diplomacy that he was able to bring home the resources that were needed to build the first Tridot and to build Pearl Harbor. We're really grateful to the Navy for identifying local EAPI out as a historic site and an important natural resource site. It is the last remaining fish pond that the community is able to access out of what was over 20 fish ponds. It's the last royal fish pond because it was created by Amo Iwahime from Amunimumia, and so once it's gone a whole way of living is extinct in this space, and it benefits the community and the military to work together to heal the land, heal the waters, have the birds and the fish return, and the native plants, and also to heal ourselves individually, each other, from all the anxieties and stress of our daily lives, and our own reciprocal relationships between the community and the military. We need that so much. We need to heal, and we need to heal together because this is an island. We cannot run away from each other. We're here, and doing this kind of work together changes our perspective of each other. We get to understand who we really are, and that we actually have a lot in common, and we become friends, and some of us may even say we're okanna, and we have many like that too, so it's, there's no better way to become friends and to live in peace and harmony than to work together to care for the animals.


And no, no, no, not coming down to any side in the Premier League. You've got no divine right to win games in the Premier League home or away. So, no, no, no, you've got to be diligent to the whole game. And I thought we were in other places at another chance. They could have scored before that when Jordan makes a big save. So, at the end of the day, there's got to be a balance to my words. And I think, you know, before the game, you want to win, of course. I mean, it's always to win, but you take a point when you're down here whilst the game's going on. So, at the end, I don't think it's bad to start changing the rules of that. You know, it's a tough place to come, and it's another point on the table.


Everybody Matt here for late in sports cards ripping two boxes of 2022-23 Panini contenders basketball hobby These are for Colin G. Good luck Colin Yeah, that's not basketball. Okay, I haven't ripped it. I've ever ripped it in years. That's different. Yeah, that's good All right. Yeah, Chris Muerte 249 playoff ticket white Howard James Harden mess me up. I thought I grabbed like contenders choice sis Jalen Williams rookie ticket. Yeah, this I thought that was gonna be an auto. It should be it looks like the perfect auto spot Ochaic Baji rookie of the year contenders and Jamarant superstar die-cut This is Jeremy Sohan playoff ticket rookie auto to 99 there you go Colin I thought I got myself combobulated. I'm ready to pull some big hits for you Mag that one for you. There's our J. Barrett. I don't know if combobulated is an actual word I know there's discombobulated but combobulated and Welmed the Chante Murray one of seven Game seven ticket Yeah, that's cool. It's a demand a rosin shade on sharp rookie of the year contenders Sugs Another auto coming. I think to bring something out of a state of disarray. Then yes, I will be combobulated Vince Carter Lamello and Lottery ticket Palo Ben caro This is Tyrese Martin rookie ticket on card auto. That's probably on all on card right marketing That has been submitted to websters. There we go Tyler hero that is game seven ticket one of seven again Yep, Steph Curry superstar nice die cut there's Dyson Daniels rookie of the year contenders and an auto coming David Roddy rookie ticket auto Donovitch I feel like if you remove a prefix for something it had like you can't put a prefix on a non-existent word Yeah, it's Michael Porter Jr. To 199 Exactly exactly. Yeah There's Luca Russell Westbrook that is permit to dominate Jabari Smith Jr. die cut Are these really tough pulls now? Okay Delicious can be work a bobbulate can be too Samari Stottemeyer Jabari Smith junior lottery ticket and redemption That is rookie variation cracked ice ticket Caleb Houston. Yep cracked ice rookie auto Yeah, all right last pack that's Keegan Murray rookie ticket Chris Middleton Parker Luca That'll do it for your boxes column. Thanks for the purchase appreciate it. Congrats on that hit We'll get these right out to you


So just a couple of notes before we begin. First of all, thank you for staying, right? Like, you had a choice. And so thank you for being here. Although Damaris, wherever she may have gone, when she said right before worship began, if you wouldn't mind just taking out your evaluation forms. I got to admit that there was like this little, like, that happened inside of me. But thank you so much. I had a mentor when I first started out at my church and ministry who said, the moment that you stop being nervous when you stand up to preach before people is the moment that you should probably stop preaching. So I would invite you all just to pray with me for a moment. Come, Holy Spirit, come.  Settle in us all that seems unsettled still and us all that is raging on in our minds and in our hearts so that we might better open ourselves up to you. Mind, heart, and soul. To hear the word that you are speaking to us this afternoon. Amen. So we've asked this a couple of different ways already this weekend, but I would ask you again, how many of you can associate with Moses in this story? Really God, me? I'm the one, really? Are you sure you didn't dial one of those numbers off when you made that call? Because I'm not so sure here. I can certainly associate with Moses in this story. I had a number of those moments. First between my sophomore and junior year of college when I felt this niggling call perhaps to seminary and to the ministry. I had planned on sports casting the Super Bowl friends this was something a little bit different. Then as I got on a plane to go and live as a missionary in the Dominican Republic out of seminary. And then, and especially then, when I landed back in the United States and I found the church where I have now served for 10 years as their associate pastor. When I entered into that church I had a grand total of about seven months of church experience all from my internship at Wapping Community Church. I had about seven months of on the ground church experience and we were in a time of transition and so all I could think was really I am here to do what now? What do you think I'm capable of? And so I remember the first baptism that I had where I was baptizing a toddler and he tried to jump out of my arms and I almost lost him. And then I had that wedding. You know, the wedding where I think the bridal party was about the size of all of you here gathered together and no wedding coordinator because why would I need one of those? I mean, I don't know what that was all about. So it turned into kind of a three-ring circus. We did get them married, so there you go. And then I had my first funeral and my first funeral I now have lovingly come to dub the roast of Homer Cusick because they said that they were gonna do a eulogy.  And the MC ended that eulogy right before I stood up to give my pastoral reflections by saying, oh, and by the way, Homer is probably rolling over in his grave right now to know that there is a female preacher officiating his service. And there you have it, right?  Me? Like, how is it possible that you have called me, God, to lead in this place? But I will tell you 10 years later, I realize all of the mistakes and all of the fumbles and all of those blessed Holy Spirit moment opportunities have taught me so much about being human and about pastoring and about leading and especially about the work of our Holy Spirit that comes and works in and among and through us. I wonder what Moses thought on the other side of the story that Kristen just read for us as he was gazing out at the promised land that stood before him. And as he was looking back at all of these people whom he had led masterfully, I suppose, out in the wilderness. And I wonder what he thought about his ministry at that point because clearly he had some doubts in the beginning. But I wonder if he realized all that he had learned about himself and about our God and about the way that our God calls people into ministry all the time. You see, I think we learned three really important things from Moses' leadership. The first of which is that the foundation of any of our leadership in the church, of course, should always be our relationship with God. And Moses, it didn't matter how he felt, whether he was angry or whether he was confused or whether he was happy or worried or related, Moses always brought his whole self, his real self, to God. I don't know how many times you've read this story but reading it over and over again in these last few weeks, I was reminded about how many times Moses just stopped and went to God and said, all right, God, like let's talk about this. What is going down here? And had a real honest to God, honest to God conversation with God. Moses talked to God all the time. I think sometimes with our crazy to-do lists and all the things that compete for our time and our demands, that can sometimes be the one thing that we go, oh, well, maybe that 15 minutes of devotion that I had set aside, I can kind of wait until later. Of all, God will understand. And yet Moses had it right. Keep on talking, keep on talking and keep on listening for God's guidance, the foundation of our leadership. Second, once Moses got over those initial little issues with self-doubt and his attempts to back out of this entire ministry, Moses actually went all in instead. He went all in and he grew into the leader that God called him to be. He used his gifts. That gift of curiosity was perhaps the first one where God said, oh, hang on, this guy actually wants to know what's going on here in this burning bush. And so started talking to him. He uses gifts of curiosity and shepherding and listening. How many times did Moses have to listen to people complain out in the wilderness and to share those complaints and those thoughts with God? So curiosity, shepherding, listening, wisdom, his vision, his faith, to become one of the first and foremost leaders and prophets in Israel's history. And third, I think Moses was really good at calling people off the bench, friends. He couldn't have done this alone. It would have been impossible. So I would imagine that Moses was not one of those guys who said, oh, no, no, you called me God, so I've got this under control. Instead, he had to call other people to be about the work of ministry with him. Whether you would call them small group leaders or associate pastors or, I don't know, minor judges, anything, he had to call all of these people up in order to lead folks out of bondage in Egypt and to the promised land and then to establish and uphold the law once they were there. This year in our review cycle at our church, we were having conversations and the word delegate came up a couple of times. And one of my PRC members looked at me and said, Jen, I wanna talk to you a little bit about that later. So he pulled me aside and he said, okay, so I get it delegation, said I get it, but that word, there's just something that kinda gives me the shivers. So because when I think about the word delegate, I think about you taking the crud off of your to-do list and putting it on mine instead. He said, but I think of the word empower. Said, and when you look at the gifts and skills that you see in me and you say to me, Bob, these are the things that we need for this time in our ministry and our church and I want you to partner with me in this. Said, that is opportunity. Moses was able to empower people to be in ministry with him. And friends, we need these kinds of leaders in the body of Christ. Leaders steeped in faith and willing to use gifts and service and leaders who invite others into ministry. Because when we look at our communities and our world, we realize that there are still a whole boatload of people out there who are enslaved and oppressed, who are living in bondage even today to so many situations of hurt and injustice. And God needs these kinds of leaders to bring about healing and change, to do the insane and yet rewarding work of bringing the kingdom here to earth now. And my friends, you who are sitting in these seats in this auditorium this very afternoon, you are these leaders. You have been chosen by God. And I don't know if I'm allowed to do this or not, but I wanna thank you on behalf of the Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ for saying yes to the call to ministry because all of those amazing ministries that you are partaking in our gifts and blessing. I think the question, the real question for today is not who me, but who else? Both on a personal level and on a communal level. Because I think when God calls and you get that niggling feeling, whatever it is for you, mine is always this really weird feeling I get in my stomach somewhere that makes me think, oh no, this is really God and I really have to respond right now. When God calls, we can say who me or we could say who else but me with these particular gifts and skills with this particular context, who else but me to answer this call? But I think there's another level of who else and that level is who else can be in this with me? Who else can I call into the ministry to which God is calling me? Who else can I empower to help fulfill the purpose to which God is calling me? It's all about interdependence, right Kent? Friends, we have heard it said this weekend that God continues to call every day ordinary and yet amazing and extraordinary people like you and me even today. God is calling us. God is calling our churches. God is calling the church to leadership for such a time as this, a time ripe for change and healing. So my friends, may we be willing to answer that call and to lead with confidence in our worship and our faith formation and our committee and outreach work in our risk-taking and change-making ministries called, empowered, guided and blessed by our amazing God. Who else? Amen. Okay, ready? That's good.


Hey guys today. I've just been reading this book this morning Time Innovation and Mobilities and It's really blown my mind about how traffic is really a political idea and not an engineering idea So here's what we'll do. We'll go for a bike ride and I will talk to you all about this book All right guys, so let's go for a ride. Here's a fun fact using a cell phone definitely against the law, but reading the book I Don't think so. So let's try and do this on the move So I think this book is really interesting. It talks about how the entire concept of traffic planning is based on very car-centric methods and that its view as a scientific and engineering technical endeavor instead of being viewed as a political endeavor and The fact that there's a lot of numbers and graphs really covers up the the idea that It's it has a political basis, but we've we've kind of framed it in a way So that traffic engineering appears to be value-free now Frank Peters Peter Frank Peters Then takes this idea and argues that there are two let's say contradicting or Or differing points of view when it comes to traffic and public space philosophy and how we design the streets So he argues that oh And I'm only able to do this because it's a three-wheel cargo bike. You can see that bright so He argues that there's on the one hand modernism, right coming from the tradition of the Corbusier of Frank Lloyd Wright and And this idea of traffic segregation Central to their designs I quote from page 132 Central to their designs was the ideal idea of zoning in which different urban functions such as working living Recreating and being in transit were segregated The Corbusier's design of an urban neighborhood consists of three systems of circulation constructed on three levels exemplifying the concept of zoning Now in this section on designing the traffic landscape He says the creation of material conditions for the intersection of traffic at different speeds is achieved by adjusting several elements That determine any given specific traffic scenario such as infrastructure urban layout and geography traffic designers Interesting the word designers and not engineer are used here that traffic designers work on a continuum of styles The ends of which he says are formed by two ideal types Ready for them. They're a modern so the Corbusier and and others and the other one being organic and Organic is is what he argues is Has become the Dutch approach since the 1970s at least in in in living neighborhoods Right, so he says what is the organic style the organic style is both older and also newer than the modern Whereas a modern style Attempted to solve the problem of intersecting speeds by preventing them from meeting in the first place The organic design style seeks to integrate traffic participants in this approach The traffic landscape has been designed in such a way that That differences in speed or minimized in practice. This means that Fast road users had to adapt to slow road users This approach is old in the sense that it entails a return to slow users Sorry, it returns to the kind of traffic landscape that existed before the introduction of motorized traffic So this is this would be if you're following the cycling research review series This would be referring back to the ideas of of Monterman the ideas of Hamilton Bailey on shared space and reflects a philosophy on And it's it's for this extent. Why do we even design for cars in the first place, right? So then he goes on to Describe one of these shared spaces Reconstruction of a central square in a city in the Netherlands from what was before a a Normal road street with segregations and it is now paved with red cobbles stones and nothing more Nothing less. No signs. No sidewalks. No bicycle lanes. Nothing. Not even the decorative railway sleepers Only when you look more closely.  Great. This is this is what this show should be so so then Peters talks about this idea of risk the relationality the section the relationality of time space and risk He writes the motorist driving at high speed in the city has little time to react To unexpected events such as the pedestrian who is suddenly crossing the street This means that certain skills and experience are needed to drive a car in urban traffic landscapes Car drivers are asked to prove that they possess such knowledge by carrying a driver's license The braking path is related to the speed of that the vehicle is going the faster the car The more meters away necessary to stop a car driving at 30 kilometers an hour while The energy is square velocity, right? Remember this the car driving at 30 kilometers an hour has a braking distance of 10 meters a car going at 50 kilometers an hour Needs 30 meters Braking distance can be calculated by taking the sum of the time an individual needs to react and the vehicle of a Specific mass moving at a certain speeds needs to come to a stop This means a car not only needs a right at the road right in front of it But that an even larger distance must be free in order to prevent collisions so it's not just the six square meters that car takes up, but it's also the the many many perhaps hundreds of square meters that's required in terms of road space to prevent a collision and in traffic engineering speak it's rather inoculus we call it clear zone or lane width and such but It's not so neutral because in an urban setting space is contested Peters goes on to talk about risk and this idea that that we are by managing speeds We are redistributing who bears the burden of the risk Thus speed is not only a quality of a vehicle but always presupposes a combination of skills technical characteristics of a car and An ordering of the traffic landscape in terms of the design and application of rules when different traffic Participants encounter each other An exchange of time space and risk takes place He argues that a pedestrian who walks calmly to the other side needs a certain amount of time Right if a car is approaching a pedestrian usually knows from the experience of the speed of the car And the braking distance that goes with it will leave if this Impending object will leave him or her enough time to reach the other side In this example the space of a street is thus Contested by two traffic participants the street constitutes part of the passage of the pedestrian and that of the car driver In the movements of both the pedestrians the car driver a Continuous exchange of time space is taking place the pedestrian must give Space to the car driver by either standing still or walking faster and the car Driver must give way to the pedestrian by braking the higher the speed of the car The more space is needed to look ahead To have enough time to react to unexpected situations Conversely, but as the pedestrian has a very short braking distance, but needs time to cross the street So in a way the pedestrian is much more agile The street is thus relational It is part of the movement of both the pedestrian and the car driver a street curves also illustrates the rationality of traffic space When a street has wide curves a car driver can take a quick turn left or right, but the pedestrian needs more time to cross the street So this is a distribution of space. The street is also a distribution of time Thirdly, another type of distribution is risk. Aha, here we get to it A traffic participant who takes risks for example driving faster than loud also enlarges the risk of an accident for other road users Between motorized and non-motorized forms of transit, they're predictable asymmetries in the chances of being in a fatal road accident So then Peters goes on to talk about the relationship between space time and risk He argues that this is constructed right through design through social interaction He quotes Harvey in saying that space is an order of coexistence That is an order among mutually contemporaneous states of things While time is an order of succession That is order being the various different mutually co-existing state of things Which because they are mutually co-existing must of course have a spatial structure According to this line of reasoning goes on to say Peters, the passage of cars and bicycles are part of each other The heterogeneous order of passage is partly laid down in the design of traffic landscapes for example By segregating bicycle and cars and this makes greater differences in speed possible So he continues to argue that because passages are related to each other That space time and risk are all being exchanged continually in the act of driving, cycling and walking And this naturally brings in the question of power So if you're in a bigger vehicle and you take more time to stop and other people know that Then you could deliberately influence how much you're putting other people at risk And he argues earlier that because pedestrians and cyclists are relatively more nimble That they are the ones who have the most incentive to get away because they're not in the cage And they are most able to do so because their slowness gives them the flexibility to change direction So this is one way in which the automobile driver exerts power on the road The question here is should cyclists have their own bicycle lanes or is integrating them with other traffic a better solution Now he goes on to talk about Dutch design for the bicycle He goes on to say that even in the case where the Netherlands a lot of people ride bikes and bicycle infrastructure We can say is relatively good that there are certain underlying assumptions Even in the question of segregation or integration See the Dutch approach is that in sections in which there are high car speeds and congestion, high volumes Physical separation should usually be advocated And this is in the interest of protecting cyclists But he points out that perhaps this logic of segregation is actually aiming to increase the free flow of motor traffic So on one hand you're protecting cyclists but on the other hand by doing so you are encouraging in a way faster motorized traffic So then he talks about the design manual And the design manual has a very very interesting graph It's actually innocuous if you're a traffic engineer But what this graph shows is that speed on the x-axis and then volume of vehicles on the y-axis You can choose, you're given a guideline on whether choosing whether to segregate or to combine traffic Now what's wrong in this graph? What's wrong is that this graph does not acknowledge the implicit political character of the problem Because we are taking for given that there are automobiles going at a certain speed Peter says the authors of the design manual have difficulty imagining a world in which the maximum speed of cars could be instead derived from bicycles What if we design a city in which the maximum speed was 30? This is not a new idea and a lot of practitioners have latched onto it But I think being expressed in this way is a new idea I'll say it again, the authors of the manual have difficulty imagining a world in which the maximum speed of cars could be derived from a bicycle Their approach to the problem shows their sense of realism That it's so ingrained in the way that we do traffic planning But by taking the speed of motorized vehicles as a point of departure for the design of bicycles friendly infrastructure They make it impossible to consider the justification of this speed or the cycling speed as a political question and thus a choice So the volume and speed of motorized traffic is given and we design bicycle infrastructure based on that But what the alternative is is not whether to separate or to integrate bicycle traffic The real alternative is how to design a city around the bicycle and not around the car as a given Because traffic is not given, motorized traffic can be controlled Motorized traffic can be tamed, motorized traffic can be calmed, motorized traffic can be banished altogether In the technocratic vocabulary of the design manual, scarcity and speed are given And thus the task of the designer is to look for an equilibrium between form, function and use by repeatedly adjusting these three linchpins in order to level the design In practice, this approach yields a great number of possible choices If we want to explicate the political character of passages, it would be better to make sense of this by using politics of these passages as part of the design philosophy And the final argument that he makes is that passages are relational space-time ordering So how people and vehicles are ordered in space and this exchange of time, space, risk are actually distributed among cyclists, car drivers, pedestrians And for the designers of bicycle friendly infrastructure, these are uni-local categories So then I finally also want to invite you to consider that different people have different conceptions or abilities to negotiate these ideas and spaces of time and risk And even their surroundings, right? So a person that is elderly, 80 years old, probably slower reaction time than someone who is younger Kids don't understand the dangers of traffic pose, so you're restricting both their freedom of movement and also adding stress and pressure to the parents who are trying to develop this freedom of mobility In a system in which we've made it dangerous to move about for kids And I think that this is the key point here, is that within this prescribed technocratic framework there are underlying political assumptions And these underlying political assumptions should not be then driving our decisions If they are driving our decisions, we should at least make them explicit and not purely in the technocratic engineering domain So I guess the riding didn't work while reading a book, but this cargo bike is my way of appropriating public space for private use Anyways, hope you enjoyed this rant, we will be back with more fun stuff here at the Urban Cycling Institute And I hope you have a nice day Hey guys, thanks for joining me for this rant of mine So Marco de Promescut has written earlier a book review on this book as well And it is posted on the Urban Cycling Institute website So I'll link to that written book review below And I hope to join you guys in very shortly back for another one of our Spokes podcast episodes So take care and have a nice day


All right my roundup for February 2016. At last month's wrap up I had just hit 400 subscribers on the YouTube channel and today I'm well past 450. So subscribership on the YouTube channel is continuing to grow but nothing else is. The patrons are still at $26 a month at three patrons. The Tumblr has stalled out at 80 or 81. Nothing much is happening on Twitter. Facebook still has zero likes. There's one person on Facebook who likes most of the posts I make there but the Facebook page has zero likes. There was no response at all to my suggestion about a science fiction book crate so I'll forget about that. I also said that I would start hosting 30 second sci-fi at 50th Street and I will but I'm the one who's responsible for designing that website and I'm stuck. I don't know how to do it. I've run into some problems and I'm going to have to consult help. Anyway before I get on to the books that I bought and read in February there's a couple of books I didn't mention last time. I forgot to mention that I read David Gerald's The Martian Child in January. This was a complete waste of my time. I didn't like this at all. This really isn't science fiction. I also bought Night Moves by Walter John Williams. This is a book that I read years ago and I've been intending for some time to get another copy and reread it so I can review it and I saw it for sale on Kobo Books dot com for 99 cents. I was going to send out a tweet or something telling people about it but that sale ended just a couple of days later. I didn't know it was a sale. Anyway there are books going on sale for 99 cents or a dollar each at Kobo Books dot com all the time and there are a number of sci-fi books that are being given away. For example I just bought Lagoon by Nettie Okorafor at Kobo Books dot com. It was on sale for a good price there and there's also I think a novella or a short story by her called Hello Moto. You can get that there as well. I also bought Legion by Brandon Sanderson and there were three free books that I downloaded Exigency by Michael Seamson, Perception by Lee Strauss, Neptune Crossing by Jeffrey A. Carver. I don't know anything about these books. I don't know anything about these authors but we'll see. I just started reading Lagoon earlier today by the way and it's good so far. So in February while we're still talking about e-books I read Of One Blood by Pauline Hopkins. I read it because they were covering it at hppodcraft.com or witchhousemedia.com. In fact they spent four weeks talking about it for consecutive episodes. Strange book. I may give it a review of its own myself. Now a book that I talked about this month on Tumblr, A Darkling Sea. I think I mentioned it at the last monthly roundup. I checked this out at the local library. I'd seen it on the shelf a few times and passed it by. I decided to finally get it. It's pretty good. I enjoyed it all the way through. I'll definitely review it. Books that I bought at the library gift shop. The Road by Cormac McCarthy. People sure talked about this an awful lot. I really don't know anything about it or about this author but we'll see. The Bradbury Report by Stephen Polanski. I know nothing about it at all. It was a dollar. It says here, destined to take its place besides such classics of speculative fiction as 1984, Brave New World, The Handmaid's Tale. That's a big talk. I can't imagine any book living up to that. But we'll see. Speaking of Handmaid's Tale, I remember reading parts of this once before and I liked it. I'll start over. A double book in another country by Robert Silverberg and Vintage Season by C. L. Moore. I know both of these authors don't know these particular stories. Shane by Jack Schaefer. A western novel, thin one. I would never buy a western novel but the name of this story is so famous, 50 cents I couldn't pass it up. Another big hardback book for a dollar. One of our Thursdays is missing by Jasper Ford. I've heard about this author quite a bit. I read a short story by him not long ago called The Locked Room Mystery Mystery. And this looks like it's the same kind of idea. Got these in the mail. Volumes four and five of Saga, the graphic novels. They continue to be good. Not quite as interesting as the first two volumes or first three but still good. And then I got volumes two and three of The Wicked and the Divine in the mail. I haven't gotten to these yet. I liked volume one. A e-van vote quest for the future. Ordered this from alibris.com. That's where I get most of my used books through the mail by the way. Alibris.com or eBay. Don't know anything about this. Great cover though. And Stardust by Neil Gaiman. I've read some of Neil Gaiman's short stories. Never read any novels by him. He's hit and miss as far as short stories go. His stories are always disturbing.  And I have to think this will be the same. I know you've been looking at this for the past couple minutes. This is not by me and this has nothing to do with my channel. It's by Philip Trippenbach. It's called 30 Second Sci-Fi. Which is by coincidence. He has a Tumblr where he writes super short science fiction stories that will take you about 30 seconds to read. That's why they're called 30 Second Sci-Fi. When I saw that he had a printed version that collected his stories I bought it immediately. 365 stories of a science fiction nature. So he was writing one a day. But there they are. One story per page. The address of his Tumblr is 30SecSF. So see we both had different ways of uh or abbreviating our titles I should say. So we haven't crossed paths really that much. Anyway give him a look. That is it I think for this month. So I will go on and do the first book review for March. See you then. You can support 30 Second Sci-Fi and my other projects by becoming a patron. There is a link in the description below. And visit the 30 Second Sci-Fi Tumblr. That's my headquarters. In addition to my videos I publish links and updates there every day.


I'd like to move on to our next presentation. It will be given by Anne Bartuska. Anne is a senior advisor at Resources for the Future. And the title of her talk is A Managing Forest for Climate Mitigation.  Well, good morning, everyone. And thank you very much for inviting me to be part of this workshop. Sitting here in Washington DC in the middle of a lot of policy work, that's going to be the focus of my talk as I go through this. I do want to thank the US Forest Service Office of Sustainability and Climate for a lot of the graphics I'm using, as well as the Forest Climate Working Group for many of the ideas that I'll be walking through. There's a lot of activity in Washington right now associated with the whole notion of natural climate solutions. It's really been triggered, I think, in part by the IPCC 1.5 study. But it has really gained momentum from a lot of the community. And I just wanted to put this out there in terms of the policy context for this Congress, because there is so much discussion taking place right now, starting with, or maybe not starting with, but acknowledging that there is the Trillium Trees Initiative that the White House has promoted and is now moving forward under the American Forests as well as the World Economic Forum. But beyond that, in terms of practical application, instructing agencies and organizations to actually make things happen, we have several bills that have been put forward that are really focusing on the notion of reforestation but reforestation within the context of climate mitigation. And so in some ways, it's a hopeful sign that there is a lot of energy and enthusiasm about doing this kind of work. The challenge, of course, is doing it right and having legislation that really captures the needs of being able to not only plant trees in terms of reforestation, but also achieve the goals that we've set for ourselves. And in the middle of that, you'll notice the Senate Bill, Growing Climate Solutions Act really is addressing some of the soils issues that Francesca just talked about, which is giving landowners the opportunity to improve their land use in order to directly address the carbon issue. Now, these bills really do just talk about the different aspects of reforestation. They don't include the reforestation backlog on federal lands, which are another set of legislation and guidance, as well as wildfire reduction. So my point is a lot of energy going into the topic and a lot of opportunities to guide success. But what does that look like? Part of the reason for moving this way, and you're going to see this figure over and over again, you already have, but in terms of being able to use natural approaches or native natural-based approaches to climate, reforestation and forest management are really at the top of the list. And so there is a lot of opportunity for success and progress, even though we recognize, just as Chris Field said yesterday, that there has to be a balance of many different things going on. This is not the solution, but it does add to the body of opportunity. But if you really start thinking about reforestation, I think one of the challenges that a lot of the legislation has is it's not just about tree planting. And so what we've been trying to do here and in DC is bring a focus on this entire lifecycle because there are multiple components that have to be addressed, starting with what seed are you going to be using. And you may want to use improved seed mixes so that you actually get some of the diversity that you want to achieve within that landscape. There's also aspects of nursery production, having the people to be able to do that production and then having sufficient capability to go out and plant. It's not all plantation forestry. There is a lot of reforestation going on in natural landscapes. That does require a lot of backbreaking work. And then it's more than just putting the tree in the ground. You also have to manage to ensure success, which could be three to six or eight years out from that initial tree planting. So being able to manage all of that and understand what is happening along that entire lifecycle is really critical to success. Whether or not you go into the figure that is an accruing stand, a forest that is building carbon, or into a landscape that has both utilization through harvesting and products to natural growing sites and being able to balance and understand the carbon flow within all of those different pieces. So as we talk about this whole notion of reforestation within the context of climate mitigation, this is the picture that we have to have in mind. It's from the seed to the long-term success if we really want to achieve our goals over time. It's also about increasing our understanding of what is the spatial and temporal scale. There is a very simple look at it. You have aspects of forest management that produce carbon and CO2 on the left. And this is deforestation, forest management activities of fire that do release carbon. And then you have processes of growth that take up that carbon and that net balance. But within those particular, that very ostensibly a simple system, there's actually a lot of complexities. And many of you know this, that you have growing stocks, you have forests that are continuing to upgrade and increase and as demonstrated here in the lower left of the graphic. But then you have these pulses of CO2 that come from fire. And what is the balance across the landscape of those two conditions? You also have opportunities for harvesting where you're going to be releasing. CO2 is part of decomposition, but you also have opportunities to take up more carbon as some of that forest grows. So part of the challenge and as we talk about what research is needed is being able to quantify all of those different pathways at the right scale that actually gives us the information we need to be able to make decisions over and especially over what part of the landscape we're actually operating in. And then as an ecosystem person myself, I like to think of the bigger ecosystem. It's not just the forest, but there is a connectivity between forests and agricultural lands because of land use trade-offs that are being made. In fact, there probably should be another box here that shows development pressure because often when these lands go out of being forested and that they don't go to ag, they may go into development which has a lot of economic value associated with it. So being able to look across those and I actually appreciate the soil connectivity across those different land uses. But we also want to take into account if you are extracting wood for various purposes, part maybe stimulating the actual through thinnings, the health of that forest or because you are deliberately having trees to be producing a product, then we also need to think about where is that material going? It could go into biomass energy, which is a CO2 producer, but is that offsetting at what level and what scale the use of fossil fuels? Similarly, if you're taking wood out of the forest and putting it into a product that has longer term use like furniture or houses that could be 50 to 100 to 150 years, then you're also offsetting the use for other materials. So the substitution effect is also part of the net calculus that we want to take at scale over and whether that can be temporal scale or landscape scale or spatial scale. And then I think we also want to keep in mind and this is part of the messaging as we've talked to policy makers here in DC is again, it's not just taking that slice of the forest and focusing just on that component. It's how do these different pieces interact and how do you want to have a integrated approach to forest management and to the economics of forest products that allow you to and support the growth of healthy forests, even as you are through market mechanisms, keeping that land in forest because you're producing products. So it really is a very, a balancing act, frankly, from an economic standpoint, but it's also a challenge in terms of thinking about the landscape and the scale at which some of these activities are taking place. Perhaps one of the more challenging ones, and I'll come back to this, is where does biomass and bioenergy fit? And there is a long history of the industry using bioenergy to offset other energy uses so that they actually have a closed loop system within their own production. But as we think about it as a substitute for fossil fuels, how do we get the numbers right? And again, I'll come back to that, I think this balancing between the production of a product and what that does in terms of CO2 emissions versus long-term storage is going to be part of our calculus. And a more complicated view than if we look at the, and I'm just going to look on the right side of the screen, the broad view is how do we then capture this cumulative carbon storage aspect? This is a graphic that has been used in several different reports now on how you then stack up the different places where carbon is going within the whole wood products cycle, starting with the soil and the pool that's there, that the litter has been mentioned, but also continuing in as trees are harvested for purposes and grow, there's carbon accumulation and then some systems that continues to go up where some of that is being converted to a product. Let's capture the amount of carbon that is going into those products, the substitution effects, for example, because of paper versus plastic might be an example, but also in terms of building materials as you're trading off using concrete and steel and the growth of the mass timber, the large tall wood buildings right now is really pushing the envelope on what we know about how much can this particular sink grow literally. And then the energy substitution piece. So as you look at all of these components, their overall is a net decrease in CO2 emissions because of the accumulation of all the different products and pathways that we're considering. And I just said I wanted to come back to bioenergy because I think it is one that we need to continue to get our understanding and our arms around. What is the total opportunity here? What is the trade-off in terms of wood use and through whether it be pellets or other biomass uses versus fossil fuels, but also how does that net out and being able to switch to a wood bioenergy for some part of our energy use within the country? And I think that within the US that is. As many people have said, this is not one size fits all. It's not the sole approach to being able to reduce the fossil fuel emissions. It is one component that enables us to achieve a net gain and being able to reduce the amount of CO2 and accumulate more carbon. Part of the reason for thinking about this pool as well as some of the others that I mentioned before is if a landowner has an opportunity to keep forests and forests, they do need to have an economic driver in most cases to be able to do that. It could be a conservationism, but it also could be selling part of that land for product and one of those products could be bioenergy. And so if we can think about that combination and being able to give a landowner the ability to manage for these products so that they do have an economic incentive to stay on the land. And that is I think one of the net issues that we've been talking quite a bit in the forest community is that exact trade-off. And what are the opportunities for investment in forest land so that you do have positive reforestation? There we go. And just to look at net balance of the various investment policies that are out there, incentives to being able to keep land and forest, incentives to expand the capacity, there is 11 million and some of you know this and some of you may not, 11 million private forest landowners in this country, many of whom do not have management plans, don't necessarily think about the value of their land. As they develop a plan thinking not only about a extractable product, but also maintaining that forest land in a healthy condition for carbon accumulation, as well as one of the important features and the added value of having these lands kept in forest, is there a water quality aspects to it in terms of maintaining cleaner downstream flow? There's biodiversity concerns, there's recreation opportunities, but all of these net out and are stackable when we think about keeping forests and their condition even as we think about carbon. So we being able to better understand the economic drivers of the different products is a clear part of what has to be included in any kind of, whether it be legislation or action that needs to take place. And so lastly, and one of our challenges was to think about what is needed as we go forward that could be the focus of research. And so I did put down a few ideas that we might use to think about future or further conversation. I've tried to, the first one is one that I think, I've mentioned a couple of times, but it keeps coming up and that is what's the scale of the analysis we're thinking about? I have sometimes sat in meetings surprised at the push to look at things at a stand level when as forest managers, we've been thinking landscapes and watersheds for a very long time and the management at that scale. And so being able to better understand what the reasons for that and the underlying concerns and then how do you integrate multiple stands so that you are at the entire landscape you're continuing to accumulate carbon and being able to address that, which means we have to be able to follow the carbon. We need to be able to monitor it, measure it and estimate carbon stocks. The good news in the US is that we have the forest inventory analysis program that's been going on almost 85 years at a fairly broad scale, but it has given us the basis to understand what how forests are regrowing or not across the country and by region and through calculus being able to estimate carbon stocks. The good news is the FIA program is looking at small area estimates to be able to get at that smaller scale that a lot of people feel is needed to be more effective. Then also you want to think about who is it who's going to be evaluating this material and or make sure that you're achieving the success you want. And I think we need to think more about forest certification and its role as a third party verifier of carbon management. We do have a very robust forest certification programs and system in the United States that actually globally and it's I think the opportunity to take that and because everybody uses it. I mean, that's one thing that the industry has really supported. How do we then look at it in terms of carbon? What might that change look like? So something along those lines in terms of third party verification becomes I think pretty critical. And then we still have a lot of I haven't mentioned offsets yet and I know it's come up and will probably come up in further and some of the conversations. There is a lot of activity in the offset field. A lot of big companies are trying to buy and are purchasing carbon offsets but we have multiple systems and really no overarching policy that would systematize that entire process and making sure that we're apples and apples and not apples, oranges and kumquats, if you will. And I think the opportunity is there. There's certainly a willingness, especially within some of the big investors to look at this in a much more deliberate way. And I hope I think actually some of the conversations tomorrow will get there. A lot of what I've talked about is probably had more of a private lands focus but we can't ignore the federal forest estate not only in terms of the sheer extent of the opportunity for reforestation and for creating healthy forest stands but the investment that would be required to do that and then the longterm risk associated with those sites that require active management to keep them functioning. In addition is how do you use those areas to achieve some of the carbon goals that we have and what's the actual number for that in the long run? And then finally, as discussed in a recent paper in science by Andrew, I get all there's a lot of risk associated with forest and being able to incorporate that risk into the amount of land set aside or tagged as a carbon for carbon or climate mitigation through carbon. How do we build that in? What's the projections associated with that? And I've actually heard over the years one interesting point that for at least the private lands side to have risk reduction by having the federal lands be in the surety or insurance for those private land investments. Is that even legitimate? So I think all of those areas are not insurmountable but they would give us I think a much stronger basis for being able to do the right calculation at the right scale over the right time and give us some level of confidence that in fact these treatments will add up these activities will add up to a successful use of forest and reforestation. So thanks very much and I'm looking forward to further conversation on this. Great, thank you so much, Ann. I really like also how you ended with the future research opportunities. I know we've got a couple of questions in already so I'll hand it over to Jenny, but before that I wanted to just mention that if anyone does have any comments on some of those research opportunities using the Q and A function to ask question or thoughts about it would be great. Okay, Jenny. Thank you, thanks Sarah. And Ann, thank you. That was fantastic talk, lots of information there. I'll go to Shafiq who has a couple of questions. Shafiq, would you like to unmute yourself and ask your questions? Thanks Jenny. Ann, I had a question in terms of you said close the balance on the forest. Where are the largest uncertainties that lie in trying to close that balance today? Where do you see the biggest challenges? Since we do have such a large area of private forest lands where there's not an integrated management approach, to me I think that would be where some of the great gains could be made. And I say that because you do, as I said, you have these 11 million forest land owners, many who seem, who are not locally based, a lot of them are absentee or only use their properties for recreation purposes, which is a valid use. But being able to capture that community and to give them the tools that they need, which means we're talking about incentives. And I think there are market driven incentives, but there's also those that we've used successfully at USDA for conservation purposes. And I'd love to really test those more deliberately in the forest landscape. I guess the other piece I would just mention is that the challenges we have in the federal lands, because we're mostly in the West, we've always had this notion if you're using, if you're cutting wood for a product, you've got to get whatever it is. It could be thinnings for wildfire prevention. You've got to get the wood to a mill or to a facility for treatment. And innovation would be as if we could get the facility to where the wood is, so that you're reducing transportation costs or increasing the efficiency. And what could that look like? I haven't seen a whole lot of work on that, but I think the opportunity is really quite strong there. Yeah, so I think, thank you for that. Michelle, we have you back, I think. Can you ask your question there? Okay, I think I did it. Can you hear me now? Okay, good. Yep. Sorry, the button kept on vanishing on me. Well, thank you for the presentation. It's really informative and I see that you cited some of the work of my colleagues at the Nature Conservancy. And just wanted to see if I could get your thoughts on, we highlight substitution and opportunities for reduction potential there through wood products. One thing I'm still trying to think through is how do we, you know, we can model it and see evidence that we can reduce emissions and climate impacts that way, but how do we in real time monitor substitution and reductions to actually ensure those benefits are happening? And that's where I get stuck. We could monitor in the forest and do inventory there, but as things start to travel down through the supply chain, it seems like it gets more challenging and there's more uncertainty introduced as things move through the supply chain. So do you have any thoughts on how we might be able to track that in real time to actually ensure that we get those benefits? Yeah. Amazon's to be doing that pretty well. It's tracking of products. And I think that's who you'd want to engage with is the manufacturing and the business side of the equation to talk through what are the systems that we have in place already that perhaps could be amended or could service the basis for doing that real time tracking. You know, for example, and this is analogous but not directly related, there is a thing called the National Establishment Trend Survey that gives you accurate information for every business and every zip code on what the income is, what the algo is, what the labor force is, and that gives you very powerful information on what's happening at a business level but then could be aggregated by a community level. So people know how to report things in a very deliberate way. I think the increasing automation of some of this reporting, I joke about Amazon, but there's a reason why their logistics work so well because there is a really rapid tracking. So how could you apply that kind of technology to some of the questions that we have? That if you look at a mill, there are mills are metered, there is energy being metered, there's water being metered. How else could that be adjusted? We put in those not transponders but the barcades on particular wood so that as a tree leaves a forest to a mill, people can track it and this has to do with illegal logging. So I think we're only limited by our imagination on this but we'd have to ask the question to the right community who would then want to be making those kinds of investments and just my guess, my last point on this I haven't thought about it until you raised the question. If you have the Amazons and the Delta Airlines and the McDonald's investing in offsets because they see some value in it, they're going to want to track that investment and so they haven't accepted, I think, to think and help answer the question you were just posing.


What's good George the boy Ross back out again with another video So we're gonna check out real reason why Brock less than one of WWE championship at elimination chamber 2022 by none other than Russell Lamey. We know the real reason. It's it's Vince It's always gonna be Vince. It's the real reason at the end of the day We know Vince wants Roman versus Brock title versus title That's the money-making match that they want for the main event that just use WrestleMania. So it's no surprise But we're gonna check out what the real reason is appreciate all the love and support Let's get right into this video. What is going on guys in his WrestleMania here back with another video a 2022 elimination chamber pay-per-view is into the history books and Brock Lesnar is your new WWE champion However, why did the WWE have the beast regain the belt after just losing it at the Royal Rumble or join us now as we look at the Real reasons why Brock Lesnar regained the WWE Championship all of them Be sure to subscribe and hit that notification bell for daily wrestling videos and follow us on Facebook for exclusive lists number one the WWE wanted something big for the Saudi Super Show Our first reason has to do with the incredible amount of money the WWE receives for running its Super Shows in Saudi Arabia That's why I fancy dream matches like Goldberg versus Roman Reigns and it's not a dream match. I'm sorry Maybe when Goldberg maybe first came back around potentially, but No, it's not a dream. That's not for me Reliative versus Becky Lynch However, while those dream matches are a good way to tap into the Saudi sports authorities thirst for nostalgia That's only the beginning the WWE added to the excitement by featuring two elimination chambers The first time said match was held in Saudi Arabia Just to make sure the fans knew they were getting something special the fans saw a WWE Championship change hands While the WWE Saudi shows might not be called WrestleMania The Saudi Sports Authority expects a WrestleMania like buzz. They certainly got it with this show number two Roman Reigns defeated Goldberg While it may seem like a case of apples and oranges The WWE didn't want the fans to send the fans home Disappointed that their heroes Goldberg and later came up short in their matches As we explained in our news and rumors video on elimination chamber The WWE has to please the fans and Saudi officials with some feel-good moments and having Brock Lesnar who it can be argued It's taken on the same legendary status as past Saudi favorites like Shawn Michaels the Undertaker and Goldberg When the WWE Championship was a way to make up for dollar bill and leader losing number three I'm not going with that. I can see that happening, but no It's because Vince wanting it to happen a title change is always good for big shows And whether you call them pay-per-views or premium events I'd love to just call them pay-per-views the WWE likes to feature title changes at their big shows Not only to give fans a reason to watch them But because the promotion feels that's one of the best places to feature them There weren't many title matches tonight Especially after the WWE turned the Smackdown tag team championship into a no contest after the Usos ambushed the Viking Raiders So the top best match of the show two nights in WWE's options were limited since the WWE was committed to Lesnar winning the belt What better place than at the pay-per-view number four the WWE wanted to establish Lesnar dominance and many of the reasons for Lesnar's win are interconnected Primarily the WWE's goals are making Lesnar versus Reigns the match of the century Well, at least until the Rock wrestles Reigns Roman can't wrestle just any opponent the Tribal Chief has to wrestle someone just as dominant as him As someone who seems more capable of defeating the Universal Champion Lesnar seemed to stumble a bit when Reigns defeated him at Crown Jewel But there were extenuating circumstances the usual interference from the Usos as was the case when Roman helped Bobby Lashley Defeat Lesnar for the championship at the Royal Rumble No matter how you may feel about Lesnar dismantling Riddle AJ Styles, Seth Rollins and Austin Theory in a matter of moments The WWE re-established Lesnar as the beast incarnate I mean I get it, but once again, it's just This is the same Seth Rollins that beat Lesnar a few years ago at WrestleMania You know I'm saying and he just got tossed away like it was nothing AJ Styles tossed away Matt Riddle tossed away Austin Theory killed it was one of things where it's like It would have been cool for them to put up some type of you know offensive, but no they got destroyed So it ultimately reinforces that idea to everyone that these guys ain't really Ain't really it They're not they're not main event worthy. They're not WrestleMania worthy, which sucks because I think they are It's not the end of the day this Brock Lesnar train at some point. He's not gonna come back So you're gonna be left with the people that are there every single day every week every paper view And if you're not building them up to somewhat be strong How can we even care about the future talent that's gonna come after Seth Rollins? How can we care about those guys when the guys we have on television? Future Hall of Famers are getting destroyed like jobbers. I Can I'm cool.  You're done. You're done. You're done And the only person that can stop him is Roman. That's that's the story they're trying to tell Having him dominate everyone in the elimination chamber And we do think this was a bad news, but as fans know Vince McMahon books the WWE well for himself Thank you, but the beast is back and he's ready to conquer Roman Reigns at WrestleMania Number five It's another notch in Lesnar's belt as minor as this reason may be the fact that Lesnar won the WWE Championship is another way of cementing Lesnar's legacy as one of the all-time greats Especially when he puts Reigns over again at WrestleMania Yeah, if y'all think Brock is winning this at WrestleMania, it's not happening The ultimate goal is to have Roman be on another level Last year's WrestleMania him defeating Dang, but Daniel Bryan at the time in edge pin both of them stop both of them in the triple threat match Of course with some interference that elevated him this year. You got to go up even higher beating Brock Lesnar For the WWE Championship and holding both belts That's a higher elevation. I just wanted to be clean if he could beat him legitimately clean Then then it's like, okay, because if he cheats again, then it's like Why you know I'm saying have him win clean have him win clean. He's a heel have him win clean Maybe do he like things leading up to it, but have him win clean Simple as that that puts him in Another stratosphere he beat him and took the belt. So now he has both belts So number six the WWE wants to save Lesnar versus Lashley for later While the WWE's booking of Lesnar crushing his opponents was questionable We think the WWE handled things well by taking Bobby Lashley out of the match with a storyline injury And case he missed the show Seth Rollins buckle bum Austin theory into Bobby Lashley's pod taking out the pod and Bobby Lashley with it This led to Lashley being taken out and the announcement made that Lashley was out of the match due to the WWE's concussion protocol This kept the Almighty from having to jump to Lesnar or anyone else in the chamber Which at least the door opened for a future match between Lesnar and apparently he was Legitimately injured. He's not to take some time off to get some surgery done That's one of the reasons why he hadn't really been doing anything on Monday night raw with the championship He was legitimately injured. So at least he was protected in a sense And I'm sure they will revisit them again And most likely Brock will win because Bobby Lashley has a win over him with the asterisk mark So it's gonna happen again, but the result will probably be Bobby Lashley will lose and Lashley down the road Lesnar can say Lashley's win over him at the rumble was tainted due to Roman's interference Well, Lashley can say he never lost to Lesnar in the chamber Number seven Lesnar versus Reigns has to be title versus title Facts And doubly the biggest reason for WWE putting the strap around Lesnar's waist is that Vince McMahon seems to have fallen in love with the idea of Lesnar versus Reigns being a title versus title match when they meet In an incredible instance of how promoters can turn chicken shit into chicken salad Roman Reigns's COVID related absence at day one led to the WWE inserting Lesnar into the WWE championship bout instead of his planned challenge for the Universal Championship The WWE must have realized just how much more special a title versus title match would be when it put the championship on Lesnar Realized how big title versus title would be at WrestleMania. And here's the thing Here's the thing There's still ways they could have did this without Inserting him in the Royal rumble. That's all I'm saying. Some of you guys are like, you know, there's no other way They could yes, there's a way it could have been title versus title There's tonight the winner of the Royal rumble could face someone on night one or what not most likely though End of losing obviously they say they want to face Roman Reigns. They're gonna lose say they want to face Brock They're gonna lose it still sucks for that person who wins it because it's like well They end up losing to that individual or you could pull a swerve You never know and then night two wherever wins from night one could face the person in night two There's the benefits of having two nights. So there's a way you can do it It's just gotta be something that someone wants to do or or You can set it up where I granted this is a stretch but WWE they stretch rules all the time The winner has an opportunity for the first time since it's gonna be a title versus title match If they would have established that the winner of this year's world rumble has an opportunity to be You know one of the competitors to win both championships Whoever wins that match since they agreeing to do a title versus title whoever wins the Royal rumble They get inserted into the match and now it's a triple threat title versus title match Whoever if the person wins the Royal rumble and they win the match they win both championships That makes the Royal rumble even more sweeter because that's the first time this ever happened.  I get both belts Of course that person will probably not win and they will probably end up eating the pin But it would still be a good almost moment. You know I'm saying there's just ways But I don't want to hear anyone say there's no way they could have done this because this was all convoluted While we pointed out that a title versus title matches only good in the short term WWE seems determined to unify the belts at mania I hope you do of course is that this is their classic hot shop booking and the WWE likely doesn't have any idea What to do when Roman Reigns defeats Brock Lesnar unifying the belts? Yep as history has shown no matter how many times the WWE has an Undisputed title it inevitably ends up creating a second world title to accommodate its two brands Yep, that doesn't seem to matter though because hot shotting is the name of the game Especially when it comes to the showcase of the immortals. We'll worry about booking later on says Vince number eight the WWE wanted to swerve the fans a Bobby Lashley's WWE Championship win over Brock Lesnar at the Royal Rumble was quite the surprise Especially for fans who believed a title versus title match between Lesnar and Reigns was carved in stone for WrestleMania Lesnar's last letter questions about what might happen to retain the chamber and mania with Speculation Lesnar might not regain the belt or even that Reigns might lose his Universal Championship Putting Lesnar into an elimination chamber match tipped the odds in Lesnar's favor But it was not a guarantee he would win giving Was it or an incentive to tune into the show and see if he could fulfill his goal of becoming WWE champion and number nine The WWE wants to hype mania a WrestleMania is always big But as you've undoubtedly realized the WWE seems to want to make this year's WrestleMania the biggest show ever There are a number of reasons for this including the WWE's decision to run mania over two nights again as well as the promotion's long-term business Goals the WWE's decision to make WrestleMania into another two-night event is a bold move Especially since the card is being held at Arlington, Texas's AT&T stadium Which can house anywhere from 80 to 100,000 fans depending on the show Although the WWE doesn't plan on filling the entire stadium the optics of a half empty stadium at WWE's flagship show Would be terrible. That shouldn't be a problem as the WWE is taking major steps to bring in as many big matches as possible With the rumors that Stone Cold Steve Austin could return to the ring While that remains to be seen the WWE has been planning to feature Brock versus Roman for some time now a match It can all but guarantee the WWE is also several long-term business goals related to WrestleMania being the most successful one yet Brock versus Roman is so important because the WWE seems determined to increase its live event presence Including WWE president Nick Khan's goal of housing more premium events at stadiums in order to give the WWE more Legitimacy and put it into a similar footing as major league sports like baseball and football If the WWE can make WrestleMania 38 into a sell-out You can be certain the WWE will do so with future additions to the showcase of the immortals This perception of the WWE as a hot property and more importantly a mainstream one will likely benefit the WWE with future deals Ranging from TV rights deals Advertising and even putting the company up for sale should Vince McMahon decide to go down this route The more popular the WWE gets the more money it can get and at this point as long as fans enjoy the product in the short term The WWE's ever-increasing revenues makes it the long-term booking a distant second to the almighty dollar They have a guy's facts, bro WWE Vince McMahon. It's it's a business knows it He's trying to make as much money off of his as possible and he's making the most money.  It's all about the bottom dollar What's gonna sell? What's gonna make them the most money simple as that? Brock winning is gonna make them the most money. Am I okay with it? No, do I like how he won? No, but I understand it from a business standpoint The only issue is at what point are the people that you have on your roster? Going to get that type of rub where they can be a next star Within your company That's all I'm saying. You don't have to ask them. Hey, can you come back? We need help. You know I'm saying you want to this is why you build up stars And they don't really have any big main event stars outside of Roman Outside of Roman that is a biggest star right now the thing that Vince wanted years ago. He has it now in Roman So I Get it.  Oh man. He got Destroyed but comment down below. Let me know. Are you guys okay with Brock winning?  Are you guys even excited for a title versus title match? Let me know down below, man. I appreciate all love and support row two 70 K appreciate y'all kicking with me See you on the next one