I'm your host with the most and we're going to talk about the hottest stocks of the day. There's one stock going really crazy and Bitcoin breaking 44,000 yet again, bouncing between 44,000 and right now 43,983 so probably going to be around 44,000 during the show and we're live and interactive on all devices. Hello. Merry Christmas. Happy holidays. Wishing everybody a fantastic end to December 2023 and there isn't that many days left until the start of 2024. Can you believe that? The year is just flying by. What we're going to do is we're going to talk about the hottest stocks and crypto of the day right here, right now, exclusively on the Rich TV Live podcast. Here we go. All right. We're going to start off talking about Bitcoin. Bitcoin is at 43,988. You can see on the yearly chart that Bitcoin has been a big, big, big winner, clearly trending in the right direction and been a monster for all investors all year. Congratulations to everyone that got in on Bitcoin. It's funny because when I talk to people about Bitcoin, people are still trying to tell me that Bitcoin is risky and I'm like, really, what's risky about it? You mean the fact that it's gone up 200% this year? I don't get it. I don't understand it. I don't understand why people are afraid of it, but they are. They're definitely clearly afraid of Bitcoin and they're missing out on the single greatest investment of their lifetimes to be quite frank and I think it's silly to miss out on those type of opportunities. Why would you want to miss out on that type of opportunity if you can avoid it? My advice is learn about Bitcoin, learn about crypto, get into it, take advantage of the moves in the market. These moves do not last forever and when they're here, you want to capitalize on it. It's one of those things where Bitcoin doesn't always go up, but it goes up more often than not and last year it was down 70% and this year it's up 170%, 180% and it's potentially going to go up another 200% next year and another 200% the year after that. It's definitely an amazing investment for those to understand it, but unfortunately too many don't understand it. While we're talking, it just broke 40,000 again. Here we are at $44,026 so it is right around a yearly high right now. Bitcoin is over $44,000 and that is right around a 52-week high so very, very bullish price sentiment for Bitcoin to end 2023 and remember it started the year at $16,000 and today it's at $44,000 so it's been an amazing investment for anyone that's been listening, anyone that got in, anyone that's been holding, anyone that's been buying, it's pretty much up because it's at a 52-week high this year so unless you bought it at all-time highs in the 60s or 50s a couple years ago, you're probably up on Bitcoin and I believe that there's a huge upside from here. We've got Bitcoin ETFs looking to get approved over the next couple of weeks. We've got Bitcoin having coming in a couple months so those are massive, massive catalysts that historically have taken Bitcoin much higher and I believe that that will be the case this time as well. So, stay tuned, get your popcorn ready. We will keep you updated every step of the way on Bitcoin and everything else that we are watching but Bitcoin breaking 44,000 again today very, very bullish for Bitcoin and of course, I am a shareholder, I'm a holder, I'm an investor and a long-term investor in Bitcoin and Bitcoin ETFs, Bitcoin stocks. I've been investing in all of them for years and we're having a very, very good year this year. Romeo says, Good afternoon, Rich. Yes, I'm still holding coins including Bitcoin. My man writing POL right now. Wow, you called it POL. Let's keep grabbing the bag, brother. Let's go champ. Yeah, man, let's keep writing this momentum. We've got lots of it and I agree with you 100% and POL, we're going to look at that right now is absolutely rocking it today and let's talk about it. Look at this unbelievable price action. This is a Christmas gift, an early Christmas gift for anyone that's buying POL today up 685%. That's right. POL today up 600 and right now 89% started the day at $1. It's now at $8. Man, oh man. Unfortunately, I didn't get into this and it's really bothering me because when I saw it at first, I was like, I started watching and I was like, okay, what's the catalyst? I didn't see any news. So I'm like, so this is popping on no news and it was up when I looked at it earlier this morning, like 100%. So it goes up 100%. I'm like, wow, it's up on no news. I started researching, still no news. Don't know why this is going up, but it is.  Clearly an early Christmas gift and congratulations to anyone that got in. Romeo, well done on POL, my friend. Well done on POL. Fortunately, I missed it. It hurts, hurts a lot. But hey, it's, wow, it hit 940. Did you sell it? I hope you sold it at 940, brother.  All right. What else is moving today? PRZO. PRZO, currently up 69%. You could see it came down, came up, came down, and now it's going back up again. So very volatile, very choppy. And this is one to put on your radar and put on your watchlist. PRZO currently up 71%. MVLA, this is another one that's up today, 37%. MVLA, put on your radar, put on your watchlist. They're hot today and up 37%. This is the daily chart. So you can see it's clearly going in the right direction today, clearly trending up, very, very bullish price action for MVLA. And if we look at the one-year chart, you can see that it has been trending down for much higher levels. So I've been talking about how a lot of these small cast have been beaten up all year and how they're setting up to explode next year. Some might start exploding right now, like POL is currently up 700%. So definitely watch small caps, watch penny stocks. I think that 2024 will be a much better year for small caps and penny stocks. MDVL up 28%. And you can see it's been doing this bullish price action now for three days in a row. So keep MDVL on your radar and on your watchlist, up three green days in a row this week, and has gone from $2 to $6 this week, MDVL. And it stays hot today, up 28%. LIFW, currently up 18% of the day. This one's been very choppy all year, been high, been low, been up and down and all the way around. Currently still pretty low, doing a little bit of a dead cap bounce here and up 18% on the day, LIFW. So put them on your radar, put them on your watchlist, they're up 18% on the day. All right, what else is moving? ENLV. ENLV is up 35% today. And when you look at the bullish price action, you can actually see that's two green days in a row. So starting to gain momentum, ENLV and currently up 35% on the day. A-I-R-E, another one of these stocks that's come down from these higher levels. Some of these stocks are just crazy where they trade. And then come all the way from $262 to $2. And now up 21%. So starting to do a little bit of a dead cap bounce. Look at the daily chart and you can see that it's clearly moving in the right direction today. So very bullish price action today. A-I-R-E, currently up 21%. Put them on your radar and put them on your watchlist. S-I-N-G, S-I-N-G sing. They've been having a good week. Let's look at the five day chart. And you can see that it's starting to go back up here. And if you look at the one year chart, you can see that it has come down from much higher levels. Can't believe this was at $500. And went to those lower levels of like 180 zone right there, standard, let's say around $2. And now it's starting to bounce back and currently at $3.15 up 20% on the day. So put them on your radar, put them on your watchlist, sing, making investors happy today. Solana. This is one of my cryptos that I hold and it's having a big year doing extremely well. You can see the price action. It's gone up a lot this year. It's about a 10x. Starting at $9, it's at $82. So it's been almost a 9x. It's up 900% this year. Solana do not sleep on them. They are hot. And obviously they're cryptocurrency. Score, S-C-O-R. This is an interesting one. So it's been as high as $300. What? It's been as high as $300. It's been as low as $9. Very interesting price appreciation. It looks like they did a reverse. Yeah, it looks like they did a reverse. That's why they were so high. And then they've come down and now they're starting to do a little bit of a dead cat bounce here. So definitely one to watch. Com score up 2% and at $14. ADA Cardano up 5% of the day. You can see on the five-year chart, this thing has been as high as 240. It's been as low as let's say a penny and currently at 60 cents having a big year. And if we go to the one-year chart, you can see that it has gone up a lot. Been as low, let's say this year as 22 cents. Currently at 16. And I believe that there's a nice gap to fill. Get back to all-time highs. And I believe it will. All-time highs around 240. Currently at 60. I think there's some huge upside for Cardano. And I think they're one of the cryptos that you probably want to hold for this next bull run that is, we're kind of in the middle of right now. Coinbase. All right. Coinbase just been an absolute killer. Up another 4% today. Up 350% this year from $31 all the way to 168. They are going to be the biggest winner of Bitcoin ETFs because most, if not all, Bitcoin ETFs have chosen Coinbase to be where they're going to hold their crypto for security and safety purposes because they trust their protection there, which is very bullish for Coinbase. That's why Coinbase is going up so dramatically this year from $31 to 168 with a huge gap to fill to get back to all-time highs of $400. I think that Coinbase could be really, really exciting for investors. So put them on your radar and put them on your watch. This Coinbase has been absolutely on fire. One of the hottest stocks of 2023. Coinbase doing well as Bitcoin rips. Told you it was passing 44. We're now at 44,146. Very, very bullish. Full disclosure, I am an owner of Bitcoin and a holder of Bitcoin and Ethereum. And I've been saying this all year and I've been saying this for many years that I think everybody needs to hold Bitcoin. And if you don't hold Bitcoin, you're missing out on one of the single greatest investment opportunities of your lifetime. And that would be silly to just miss out on that. Don't you think? I mean, do what you want, but I just can't do that. I can't sit on the sidelines while things are making everyone else money. Here's MicroStrategy's MSTR, an absolute juggernaut, Michael Saylor's public company, where all they do is buy Bitcoin. Stock is up $4 today at a $52 ECHI at $595. Another stock that's been an absolute juggernaut this year has gone from $100 to almost $600 this year with Bitcoin going into a bull market. MicroStrategy's is clearly very bullish. Speaking of 52 ECHIs, GBTC just hit a 52 ECHI today, $36. Another one that's up hundreds of percent this year, GBTC, Greyscale Bitcoin Trust, one of the largest holders of Bitcoin in the world. They have over 660,000 Bitcoin in GBTC, and they've been an absolute winner. Congratulations if you got into GBTC. All right, one that I bought last year on the dip told everyone it was a buy. I was 100% correct. It just hit a 52 ECHI today. Google, I sold it this year. It's continued higher. It's been a big winner. Congratulations if you got in on Google. I did. Sold and took profits. Just looking for a pullback to get back in. I just don't see it coming anytime soon. Ethereum. I'm a holder of Ethereum. I believe there's a huge gap to fill in Ethereum. You can see how it's gone up this year. I think it goes higher next year. Stay tuned. Keep your popcorn nice and ready because I think Ethereum is going to have a monster year in 2024. It's been a great year for Ethereum in 2023. Congratulations if you got in for the win, and I believe that that momentum will continue until next year. PayPal. I told you guys PayPal was coming from the bottom. I told you guys I like PayPal. I told you PayPal was too big to fail. I told you PayPal was going to go up. There's a massive gap to fill here, and I believe they will fill this gap. I don't know exactly when, but I probably say in the next couple of years we're going to see PayPal go back here. Huge opportunity here in PayPal. I wouldn't risk the farm on it, but I think that there's a huge upside opportunity for investors, and I think it'd be a mistake to miss out on PayPal. I'll be watching very closely. Amazon also just hit a 52-week high. Another one of those that I bought last year, when it was dipping under 100, sold it this year on the rip. It's continued even higher. I had a 52-week high. Amazon love them, but I would like to see a dip if I'm going to buy it, so I'm not buying it now at 52-week highs. Nova. This is a solar company that had a really big day yesterday. You can see here that it is trending in the right direction, as you can see from the bottom, that it's clearly been trending in the right direction, where it's been green for one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight weeks in a row. That's two straight months of green on Nova. Keep your eye on Nova. It's heating up solar, and it's gone from $7 to $15. It's doubled in two months, so definitely want to keep on your radar and on your watch list. Nova, heating up. Nvidia. Nvidia has been an absolute killer all year. One of the biggest winners all year, close to a 52-week high. Seems to sell off around that $500 mark. Nvidia is the number one chip maker in the world, and the number one AI stock in the world, and it has produced enormous returns for investors. Congratulations if you took advantage of this on Nvidia this year. An absolute juggernaut. Roblox. I told you guys about Roblox. I thought Roblox had some huge upside. I marked it up here, and so far it is going exactly as planned. You can see they have been green for one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12 weeks of green on Roblox, which means it's been green for three months straight. So put Roblox on your radar and on your watch list. Huge, huge potential, huge upside, and I believe there's a massive gap to fill here where, in my opinion, Roblox goes back to $100, and if it does, that's more than a double from these levels, and I believe it will in the next 12 to 24 months. Oil. All right. Oil had a nice day yesterday. Kind of was green earlier today. Now it's kind of a little bit red, but just slightly. So it was up, it was down earlier this year, then it was up, then it came down, now it's going back up. So kind of bouncing all around and very difficult to predict where it's going to go from here. Obviously, there's a lot of wars happening, but the momentum of the wars has really died down. So going to be interesting to see what happens here with oil. I'll be watching it closely and keeping you guys updated on the price of oil, but you can see currently down just a little bit today. Apple, very close to a 52-week high, close to that $200 mark, been a great winner about it last year on the dip, sold it this year on the rip. It's continued even higher, and I'm looking for a pullback to get in. I don't want to be buying anything around a 52-week high and around an all-time high for Apple. Uber, told you guys Uber has been on fire all year. We've been marking it, we've been charting it, we've been telling you about it. It's back to an all-time high again, just continues to grind higher and higher and higher. So keep your eyes on Uber. They are super, super hot. Enbridge, this is a nice dividend oil and gas play that's down with the price of oil and gas going down this year. I think that this is a nice play, more of a long-term hold, but they have a nice dividend of 7.7%. Put Enbridge on your radar and on your watch list. Enbridge, ENB, very bullish on Enbridge. Gold, holding above 2000, that's very bullish for gold. If you can hold this 2000 mark and continue higher, I'll be a believer, but every time it gets to this 2000 mark, it eventually sells off. So it will be interesting to see what happens and we'll keep you guys updated on the price of gold. Tesla, $257. I do believe there's a lot of catalysts coming for Tesla. There's the Cybertruck that's coming out. I think that's going to really help their sales and there's Tesla robots coming out. So pretty cool. I like Tesla. Bottom last year on the dip, sold them this year on the rip, continued a little bit higher after I sold. Really like this company, waiting for a pullback to position myself again. Affirm, one of the top AI plays of the year has been really bullish. Put them on your radar, put them on your watches, affirm having a really big year. Snapchat at $17 has been absolutely on fire recently. I think Snapchat is having an interesting year you can see here. So it's been as low as say just under eight bucks and now it's made this huge move up where it's been up for like a few months in a row and has doubled essentially from the bottom and is now at $17. I think Snapchat's going to continue to grow. Younger people, teenagers really use it a lot and they're starting to learn how to make money advertising. So I think that that's very bullish for Snapchat and I think there's a lot of upside for Snapchat in 2023 and beyond. All right. Wow. Look at POL. It's still going. Oh my goodness. Now at $10 up 856 percent, unbelievable. JYK says POL, $1.12 sent by 178 sell. You're sad. Yeah, I'd be sad too, but hey, what do you do? You're still in Romeo at 10 bucks. Oh my goodness, my friend. Well, what's your exit strategy, bro? Because at some point you got to take profits, but this POL is absolutely crazy. Look at the one day chart. Look at this thing. That's the one day. Went up pre-market and then just kept going. I mean, that was our Christmas gift, a 854 percent gainer in one day right before Christmas. I mean, it doesn't get better than that. That's literally our Christmas gift and hopefully you guys have taken advantage of it. I know Romeo has. Congratulations, Romeo. And we can see here that JYK also took advantage of it, but got out a little early. It's okay. You still made money. You still took advantage. Nothing wrong with that. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Be happy. Thank your stock gods for your daily bread and for your win and be happy that you got out with profits. That would be my opinion on how to handle that because you're not always going to win in the markets. Just not. It's not the way it works. So when you do win, just be happy and thank the stock gods for your daily bread. All right. Let's see what else is happening here. All right. Look at this Bitcoin really bullish. Look at this. Really bullish for Bitcoin right now at 44,200. If we look at the one year, you can see that the high for the year, which just happened a few days ago, was about 44,000. I think it's been about as high as 44,300. So we're right there. We're right at a 52-week high. 52-week high is about 44,300. Might have gone as high as 44,400. So maybe 44,400. We're sitting at 44,194. So very, very bullish price action for Bitcoin and full disclosure. I'm a holder and I think everybody should be in Bitcoin for the win. If you're missing out on Bitcoin, I really don't know what to tell you. I think it's a mistake. I think you're missing out on the single greatest investment of our lifetimes and why would you want to do that? Why would you want to miss out on Bitcoin? I just don't see why anyone would want to do that. But hey, at the end of the day, everyone has to live with their investments and I get it. I get it. You probably don't understand it. Despite the fact that it's been an amazing investment, you probably don't understand it and you probably don't want to get into something you don't understand, which is totally understandable, totally understandable. But I'm not that type of investor and I like to be into things that have a chance to explode and have a chance to make me money. And that's why I'm in Bitcoin. And if you're with me and you're in Bitcoin, it's been a great year for you. Congratulations. If you're not and you'd like to learn, you're welcome to join us on our website at richtv.io. And I'd love to help you and walk you through how you can learn about Bitcoin too, how you can invest in Bitcoin too, and how you can profit from Bitcoin as well. Love to be able to help you. It'd be a sad, sad day for you to sit on the sidelines and miss on something that's going up and giving you a chance to make money. Anyone have any questions? Please put it in the chat and we are literally days away from Christmas. And we are clearly having a Christmas rally in the markets. All right. Just responding to a couple of messages. Okay. All right. So that's kind of the stocks that I'm watching right now. It really isn't that much more that I'm watching. That's really getting my attention today. But if anything else comes to my attention, or if there's any big breaking news, you know, I'm always going to come live with it here on the Rich TV Live podcast. And I try to do it before anybody else. Kind of bothered by the fact that I missed on POL today, because I was looking at it. And I thought about throwing something at it. And I didn't. And I honestly regret it now. I do. But hey, that's the markets, right? You're not going to win them all. You're not going to catch them all. And in this situation, I didn't, I didn't catch it. You know, it is what it is. It's the holidays. Wasn't feeling like buying anything today. And, you know, I'm paying for it right now. Should have bought it. Because it would have been a nice winner. I would have made a lot of money today. But anyways, it is what it is. There's always going to be more. It's just funny that one of the biggest winners of the day happens to be one of the biggest winners of the year. And it just happened out of nowhere today. So definitely very interesting. All right. Any final questions from anyone before I say goodbye? This will be our last Stalks & Stacks show. Oh, I guess we'll have one more next week. So this will be the second last Stalks & Stacks show this year. There will be one more next week. And that will be the last one of the year. This is episode number 31. All right. So thank you guys for watching. Did I say washing? Thank you guys for watching. I'm the host of The Most, your boy, Rich from Rich TV. If you're not winning, you're probably not watching. We bring you the winners, CEO interviews, breaking news, trending topics, and we bring it to you first. I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy Holidays, and a prosperous 2024 and beyond. I believe if you're invested in Bitcoin 2024, we'll be a magical year for you. And I think it would be silly to miss out. That's my message to you. As far as everything else, we'll be watching all the Stalks and we'll be watching the markets and we'll be watching everything that's happening. So stay tuned. If you haven't followed us, please follow us wherever you're seeing this, smash the like button, comment down below, share the video everywhere, and subscribe if you're alive. I'm your host of The Most, your boy, Rich from Rich TV, wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Have a nice day, everybody. I'm out. Peace.


Hi, my name is Sandy Barrett and I'm here with the Vermont Institute of Community and International Involvement, talking about the current event, the Blockbuster film that's now currently in the theaters called Openheimer. I'm here with a number of guests, so I'm going to allow, hopefully, to introduce themselves and to talk a little bit about what Openheimer, the film, but also the man meant to U.S. history and to the history of the world and we're going to begin by having people introduce, the guests will introduce themselves and talk a little bit about their role and their thoughts about the film and about the period of history in which Openheimer was such an actor and then also what that meant for the history of the United States and the history of the world. Okay, but we'll begin with Robin Lloyd and once you can introduce yourself, right Robin? Okay, yes. Hi. Hi everyone. So I've been an anti-nuclear activist for a long time and in fact I really subscribed to the Catholic position that splitting the atom was a sin. Now what is a sin? That was, it was in violation of human nature and the universe. I mean that's sort of a far out position but I would like to just say also that a very trenchant part of the film I thought that sort of encapsulates the whole problem was when Openheimer was speaking to Einstein and he said, when I first talked to you about the atom bomb I told you the worst possible outcome was that it would start a chain reaction that could blow up the world. By that he meant that the single bomb was so powerful that it could literally trigger a series of other explosions upon detonation. He says while I was wrong about that one explosion the arms race has now created that chain reaction that we can't stop. And indeed we all know that nine nations have nuclear weapons and are building more and more nuclear weapons that chain reaction of preparing for war is out of control right now. And I'm so glad we're having this conversation. Thank you. Okay. Kurt. Okay. My name is Kurt Mehta. I'm an attorney in town and I'm looking forward to having a conversation with some friends here about this very interesting man and the role he's played in history. And you've read an 800 page biography of Robert Overton Hyde. Right. Right. Right. Written by Ray Monk. I really suggest it if you've got some time on your hands. A lot of time. 800 pages worth. Kai Bird. What? No. That's a different book. Oh, okay. What book are you talking about? The one I had heard was the one that this film was based on. The American Prometheus. Yeah. Yeah. That's not the book I read.  No. He writes often for the nation as well. I think so. Okay. Anyway, Mark. I'm Mark Astin. I'm a novelist and I do happen to have an 800 page novel only about 350 pages of which are set in Los Alamos. And so I have done quite a bit of research about the people and the goings on in the making of the Atom Bomb and watching this Oppenheimer film. I'm very, very aware of things that were left out that were extremely and continue to be extremely important. And if there's time, I'd like to mention a few of those. Okay.  I'm also, I would say a citizen activist. And I'm also, I used to and I still do teach history a lot. So the movie was fascinating to me in its view of history of that particular era. And I also would like to talk a little bit about that because I think it told many things that were true and that Americans really don't know about. And that is the position of the United States vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. But anyway, so let's begin, I guess. Kurt, if you could talk a little bit about the man and what you learned about him. I mean, not the details of his life, but what was his mission, in other words, in the project which developed the Atomic Bomb? First, let me ask you a different question. What was so different about the atomic bomb in the first place that people felt, as Robin does, that it was, it should be illegal? What sets it apart from conventional bombing that was taking place, I'm going to specifically talk about Japan in this instance. What we were mostly doing was, the United States, was implementing a strategy of dropping a tremendous number of conventional bombs on Japanese cities. In Germany. Yeah, I meant after the victory in Europe. Can I stop you for a minute? The victory over Germany occurred in April of 1945, is that correct? In May, the first week of May 1945, the Germans formally surrendered. So the Germans surrendered in 45. But yet the atomic bomb was used by the United States against Japan in August. And that's why we're here too, because it is the anniversary, August 6th, of the dropping of the first bomb on Hiroshima. On Hiroshima, correct. Okay, all right, so go ahead, I'm sorry. So over the course of that summer, the United States had bombed 68 Japanese cities to a point where they were destroyed to a greater extent or equal to Hiroshima. This was accomplished by conventional bombing. Tokyo was bombed. Tokyo, the number of people killed in the Tokyo bombing in one night was double what were killed during Hiroshima, and triple the number that were killed in Nagasaki. There was a plant that essentially destroyed every Japanese city, and apparently, by the time they had gotten to Nagasaki, supposedly there were only four cities in Japan with a population greater than 30,000 that were in existence. So there were only about four cities left on the preliminary list that the United States had at that point called the Department of War, not the Department of Defense. They called them the Virgin Cities because they were saving them for the big bomb. Right, right. Really? Yeah, so I mean, I think one of the interesting things about Oppenheimer that we can talk about was after August 6th and August 9th, there's a philosophical question that arose at that time frame in the 1940s when you had a lot of these great men and women who were extremely intelligent scientists. And the question that arose was whether or not these people can continue to hold on to the science that they were developing or whether it was basically considered the intellectual property of the government at that time. So Oppenheimer's objective after the war was over was to create a commission to share this technology with other countries, notably the Soviet Union, but as well as other countries, so that there could be essentially an international détente where no one would actually go to war again. Again, that was his objective. That's what he claimed. And it was something that he shared with President Truman a couple of weeks, I think, after the 1st and the 2nd bombs were actually dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And he also claimed that he felt that he had blood on his hands.  In the movie, he says, cry, baby. Okay, well, okay. So that was dismissed this goal of having this shared technology to hedge the possibility of another war between any great power from happening by sharing this technology and to use it for even peaceful means for energy distribution. But that was quickly dismissed over a series of events after that. Oppenheimer continued to essentially disappear from the forefront of not only the scientific community, but the way he was viewed politically within the Truman administration. Well, a lot of that had to do with his objection further of developing the hydrogen bomb, which was a project of Edward Tellers, who was a violent anti-communist. And so that got all mixed up there. But that's the objection to continuing the development of the hydrogen bomb was what really got him in trouble. Essentially, Mark, he wasn't a good soldier. He wasn't towing the line. He had his own points of view with respect to the science where he wanted to take the science. And the government looked at it as this is our science now. And we want to continue to develop a stronger device, a thermonuclear device, nuclear device, namely the hydrogen bomb. Okay, but one thing that is... But Oppenheimer developed the atomic bomb during World War II. No. Well, he was the head of the project. Yes. Well, he was the head of this... Manhattan Project. Well, not the Manhattan Project, but the Los Alamos Labs. Right. Manhattan Project, we think of it as everyone working in a single building and coming up with this amazing weapon, fearsome weapon. But Oak Ridge, Tennessee had a part to play. There were a lot of different cogs. And for Washington, did the plutonium. Right, right. Okay, so the question's been asked, so what?  Certainly. So what's the deal? This didn't even, as you say, destroy as many people as did the fire bombing of Tokyo. So what was different then about this particular weapon? Because I do think it's like qualitatively different, even though all the weapons are horrible, but this weapon, why was this considered such a horrific development? There was also, I mean, one of the distinctions, you know, is that there are significant, significant long-standing after-effects. Right, that's what...  Distinguishes it from conventional bombings. Okay, so it was a weapon against future generations. And actually against nature as well, right? As far as I could tell. Isn't that what makes it, in your mind, illegal? I mean, you're not talking about making all weapons illegal, although that would be a nice goal. But what you are saying is there is something that should be illegal about the atomic bomb. And I just want to point out that this slogan here is something that Oppenheimer would not have been aware of because it's a part of the treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons that passed in the United Nations. And 50 nations have agreed to that. And in the United Nations, when 50 nations, it's ratified by their governments, then it becomes law. So this is law by the United Nations. But the United States has its own laws, although we are part of the United Nations. So I think this is part of a sort of a legal war that's actually very deep between what is legal or not. Surely something that can destroy this many people at once should be viewed as being illegal. Not only destroying that many people in a moment, but for the future. That's what gets me is that it's a war against people in the future as well because it causes cancer, sicknesses, and it destroys nature, doesn't it? So that, to me, is what makes it different and therefore illegal. But what you're talking about is the United States, Russia, none of the major nations have made it illegal, if you think about it. There's now a nuclear arms race. They have it, but there was that moment of opportunity right at the end of World War II that was proposed to share it and control it. You probably know the story of that. Yeah, I think this is a very questionable sentence. And also we need to look at the development of the bomb, some unique grotesquery of humanity, but it was a tremendously logical and applauded step in the discovery of atomic physics. Starting in Lucretius, but really in the 30s, and one of the things I have to suggest about the film is that a very, very important character was left out of the film, and that is Leo Zillard. And Leo Zillard in the 30s conceived of the idea of a self-generating and widening fission reaction whereby the product of the fission would create more fission. And then that in the 40s was put into practice by Fermi with this huge atomic pile at the University of Chicago. And so then all of us, and then out of that, and then at the same time the discovery of plutonium by bombarding uranium with neutrons. So this is all a big, this is without we're going to kill anybody. Right, that's what I'm wondering. This is what the world is made of, you know, and all the radiation stuff, nobody knew what was, we didn't do it to affect future, we didn't know what future generations were about. And after the war there was a lot of medical work done and discoveries about radiation sickness and the timing of these things. But what you're saying therefore is that the development is rather innocent? No, yes, in a certain way it's part, it's a logical development, the history of atomic physics. Yeah, I mean the science, that's the direction that science was going in. I mean the weaponization of that science was the Manhattan Project. Okay, that's what's important though, to me. No, one of the things is because Oppenheimer did contribute to the weaponization of this atomic study, correct? Certainly, I mean even after, you know, when the bomb was initially dropped, you know, before he made the comment to Truman about blood being on his hands, he wanted the weapon to have been implemented in Germany. Against Germany, right, correct. That was fine with him. That's one of the points of the history of all this. The point it was fine with him. Yeah, yeah, but it's interesting that he didn't see it in the same context as we're now seeing that the whole weapon itself should be illegal. But that could be said of, you know, early bacteriology, right? Early experiments with gases and the effect of chlorine in the first World War and all of that. Much of science, and somebody was saying before about how, you know, we love science or whatever, much of science is easily turned into destructive means because we sort of understand the nature of the human organism and the nature of these other organisms and how they interact in destructive ways. But what you're saying is something that's interesting to me about Oppenheimer. I mean, I think you're right. As little as I know about it, the initial experiments, the initial study was rather innocent, correct? Well, I mean, what Mark is saying, though, this was a long series of, you know, even preceding the 30s, you know, research that a lot of, correct, correct. Right, okay, but who came up with the idea of it being weaponized is the point, yeah. There's an important point in the film that speaks to this question you're raising. At one point... Say your name. I'm Barry Snyder. There's a point in the film where they become aware that fission has been discovered. And it makes a point that instantly all the physicists knew what that meant. Which was? That it was going to... Weaponization. Okay, you're right. Yeah. So, but Mark is saying, which seems to be the case, that that science developed earlier was rather neutral. Was not the idea of creating a weapon. Is that correct? No, nothing has been neutral. As soon as you developed a car, you had a tank. Right, but I think she means, yeah, the intent. The intent was not to create a weapon. Is that true? It depends on whose intent you're talking about. Okay, but I'm talking about the original scientist. The point that I think the film makes is that Oppenheimer and the Truman Administration developed the bomb. Well, the Manhattan Project started, yeah, during Roosevelt's administration. Okay, and they deliberately did that. The Manhattan Projects, I mean, if you take a step back earlier, there was a whole political brouhaha about how to notify President Roosevelt once fission had taken place that what that meant to a layperson, you know. And they all recruited... Right, so they recruited Albert Einstein to author the letter. Who recruited him? Right, Zillard, right, in large part. Zillard wrote the famous Einstein letter to Roosevelt. Right. And he got Einstein to sign. Yes, Einstein, Albert Einstein, you know, a preeminent physicist at that time, world-renowned, signed that letter and let President Roosevelt know what the scientists, you know, working together the fission that... But in that letter, was there the idea that this could become a very... Correct. There was... That was the intent of the letter to let the President of the United States know that not only had this scientific development taken place, but it could be weaponized and used as a strong potential, you know, game changer in the context of war. And it had taken place in Germany. Right. It was developed by German scientists. Right. And, well, that's in Britain, no. But all the atomic physics went on in Germany. Sure. I mean, Oppenheimer himself, you know, he went to the University of Gattingen and spent a fair amount of time. He left Cambridge, Britain, because it wasn't challenging enough. The best and the newest scientific developments were taking place in Germany at the time. Right. But the idea of it being weaponized, well, it definitely was at a pretty early stage because to have a bomb, to have the uranium, you have to separate uranium 235 from 238, and that is an enormous, difficult process. And that's what went on in Oak Ridge, I think. Yes. Hundreds of people, mainly women, were seated at machines that were somehow separating the two kinds of uranium. Only one kind was suitable for a bomb. So it was mass production down there. Where? In Oak Ridge.  Yeah. Tennessee. And so the fact that that was going on, I don't know exactly at what stage at 42 or 43, to my mind is proof that the whole project was focused on creating a bomb. That's really important. There was a world war going on at the time. Yes, I know. So the objective was to prevail. And the letter to Einstein, I mean the letter from Einstein to Roosevelt, from Zillard, actually, was that we have to get on this bomb. We have to get on making a weapon before the Germans do. Before the Germans do. And interestingly enough, the other thing was the Japanese had a nuclear program also. It wasn't as advanced as the German program at the time, but this was where science was going. But that's exactly, is that the German program almost didn't exist. I know. And that's what we found out after the war. After the war. But they knew it during the war. I mean, I think Oppenheimer knew it. And part of one of the articles is one of the scientists resigned from the project because he became aware that the Germans were not developing a bomb and he didn't want to be part of something like this. I forget who. Rothblatt? Rothblatt, yeah. And the thing was that in the middle of the war, we had this information project to follow the advancing U.S. armies through into the German territories, specifically to look for what the atomic work had been. Yes, right. And city by city by city, zilch. Nothing. And then the question was whether Heisenberg, in his enormous capacity in German science at the time, and he had chosen to stay in Germany, unlike many of the scientists who left under Hitler, whether Heisenberg was responsible for keeping the... For stalling, essentially. For stalling the project. Was he in Germany or in Denmark? He was in... Yeah, you're thinking of Niels Bohr. So he was a spy for the West? Still don't know what his position was, because a lot of contradictions that he did in this famous visit with Niels Bohr. What went on at that conference? That's still a big mystery. And Niels Bohr was in Denmark, right? Cindy, about this subject, I think in the movie I heard someone say that Hitler didn't take it seriously, because he was coming from a Jewish... The anti-Semitic. No, from a scientist that was a Jew. So he was like... It was kind of racism that... Oh, really? That's in the film. In areas of art as well as science, the Nazi party derided a lot of material, strictly because it may have originated from someone who was Jewish. That's in the film. And that's also a very political point, because what Oppenheimer appeared to want to do was to use the bomb that he was helping produce against the Germans, because he himself was Jewish and felt like defeating Germany was the main task, and at the time it was. But there's something else in that that is not quite accurate, because the United States and Britain, I don't think regarded Germany as the only enemy. They really regarded their ally, the Soviet Union, as also an enemy. So while I believe Oppenheimer... I shouldn't say I believe, because I don't know enough to believe or not believe, but there's evidence in the film, I think to show that Oppenheimer would gladly have used the bomb against Germany, but not against the Soviet Union, while the United States really wanted, ultimately, to destroy the Soviet Union, and I think that comes out after the war is over, more in the Cold War. There was a meeting at Potsdam. Yeah. And which... Here. 1945. 1985 was Potsdam. July. Yeah. So the question was, could Los Alamos and the Manhattan Project come up with a demonstrable weapon during that meeting, so that Truman would know and be able to have that in his pocket to get Stalin in the right place? Exactly. During the Potsdam conference, I mean, one thing that happened was midway into the conference, they reached out to Hirohito, the Emperor of Japan, and Suzuki, the Premier, and asked that Japan unconditionally surrender, to which Suzuki said no. At the same time, Truman allegedly whispered to Stalin that we have this weapon, because the Trinity test had already taken place and he felt it was important to let Stalin know that they had this weapon that could essentially result in the kind of destruction that the weapon was capable of. The answer to why is that Stalin needed to know two things, that it was the U.S. that won the war. Yes. Even though they put in all of these... Well, we felt that Stalin needed to know that. Right. And they also needed to know that we had this weapon that could be turned against them. Damn, right. I think the latter point is probably even more important than the former. I mean, there's question as to whether or not the bomb actually ended the war. Right. There's a great deal of scholarship out there that states that the Soviet Union's entry into the war against Japan, which they said that they were going back to... You're not due. Oh, no. Going back to Tehran, going back to Yalta, they said that they were not going to get involved against Japan until at least three months after Germany's defeated. They already knew this by 1943 that this was in the works to take down that Germany was going to go down. Yeah. So they actually stuck to their word. Three months after the Germans surrendered unconditionally or in early May, that was when the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. Right. And there's a great deal of scholarship out there that states that that was the decision that the Supreme Council in Japan digested and decided to surrender. It wasn't necessarily the Hiroshima bomb because the United States was killing 100,000 people a night by conventional bombing. It was the entry into the war of the Soviet Union, which was the game changer for Japan and Japan's leadership. And that we knew that they were about to surrender and the only thing on the agenda was the disposition around the emperor how the emperor would be treated. That was a really big point. Because the war crime trials in Nuremberg had already, at least the creation, the structure of Nuremberg had already started and there was fear that this divine individual in Japan was going to be treated as a war criminal like garing or, you know, harass. So the general excuse that we used the bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war is simply not the case. The war was about to be over. We knew that. But why did we do that? And why we did it is because this bomb that had to be tested, there was no security at the enormously complex engineering of the plutonium bomb. The uranium bomb was simple. You figure out on paper what the critical mass is, you shoot a bullet of uranium into a perceptical of uranium and you reach critical mass of explosives. Nobody had any question. That didn't need to be tested. What needed to be tested was the plutonium bomb because in order for the plutonium bomb to work, you had to compress this sphere of plutonium and it required a lot of absolutely precise electrical and explosive directions to get that compression to work and nobody knew if that really worked. And so the plutonium bomb had to be tested. And if you just talk about one bomb as it is, the bomb, it isn't. There were two bombs. It didn't have to be tested. And the reason for Nagasaki was the second bomb. That there were two bombs. That this second bomb was very complex engineering and we needed to test it. And we needed to test it in a war situation and not up on a tower in a bomb that could be dropped and triggered. I think Mark raises an interesting point in that the Hiroshima bomb, which was on August 6, there's questions as to whether or not if the sole purpose of this was a demonstration of power to not only the Japanese but the Soviets, if that was going to be a means to be used to make the Supreme Council of Japan and the Premier to surrender unconditionally, why was the second bomb implemented so quickly, less than three days after the Hiroshima bomb, and I think it's largely what Mark is saying, that was more of a test for ourselves to see how that second more complex bomb works and if it works. Okay, I would like to get back a little bit to the historical context also. The film seems to indicate that during the war Oppenheimer wanted to share nuclear technology with the Soviet Union. Did you get that? Yeah. Okay, now that's really important to me to remind Americans of why that would have been the case because at that point, and I don't think many Americans even know this, at that point the Soviet Union and the United States were key allies, supposedly, correct? What's amazing in this film is the way in which the security hearings that took place and that's really sort of the structure of the film. I was going back to the hearings before the Atomic Energy Commission or see, I don't know exactly what group was persecuting. No, because they were secret. But this attitude towards the Soviet Union was so baked into so many officials in the government and it goes way back. As soon as the Russian people overturned the Tsar in 1917, by a couple of years from then, there was already what's called a pomerade and my grandfather was involved in it. He was a communist and he was put on something called the spider list, which was created by anti-communist forces to show what interconnections there were interlinking between people who were sympathetic to the Soviet Union. It was so quickly that the dismay at what communism is and what is it? It's against capitalism. Fascism is not against capitalism and that's why down under, it seems as though the American government is more happy with fascism with communists. Would anyone agree with that? I would. In fact, there's kind of evidence again to suggest that what Winston Churchill wanted out of World War II was that Bolshevism and fascism, in other words, Germany and Russia or the Soviet Union, just kill each other off rather than any intervention on the part of the British or the United States that both were considered enemies in a way, although clearly the anti-communist movement has always been stronger, I think, in the capitalist countries. In other words, the capitalist countries have always been much more anti-communist than anti-fascist. It seems to me. And I think that's what the film shows and it shows it from Oppenheimer's point of view. In other words, he is accused throughout the film of being pro-communist and that's what... I mean, to me, the film... Okay, because he had friends who were in the party. And what does it mean to be... Pro, I know. What did it mean then, in particular? What I really loved your comments about, Robin, is that the whole movie seems to point out the history of the Cold War. The fact that right away in 1945 we began this war against our former ally called the Soviet Union. After we'd been allies throughout World War II and after the Soviets had essentially beaten the Nazis. And lost so many people. 22 million people. You know who points this out in the speech that he gave in 19, maybe 62? It's JFK. He produces... I just saw it recently actually because of the candidacy of Robert Kennedy. So I re-saw the JFK peace speech and he says in that speech, put yourselves in the shoes of the Russian people. They lost 22 million people in World War II. They were the allies of the United States. You could make the argument that they defeated Nazi Germany. And yet, throughout the war, they were also deeply anti-Soviet, no matter what they did. And that, as you point out, happened right away in 1917. And I think it continues today in this war against Russia in Ukraine. I mean, I think it is, though, important to, you know, the nuance and this alliance that we had during the Second World War. You know, it was largely because this alliance was created, in part, because the Germans, in part, double-crossed the Soviets. They actually had a, you know, the Molotov-Ribbentrop, you know, a treaty, essentially, was a non-aggression pact between the two. The Soviets, and they had a similar non-aggression pact in 1941 that they signed with the Japanese. So they were kind of playing both sides, the Soviets, the Stalin. But also, let's go back a little bit in history. The Soviet Union had also been, not the Soviet Union, but Russia, had also been defeated by the Germans. Probably with the celebration of the British and the French a lot. The Russian people had been also defeated by the Germans in World War I, correct? Right. And that was the, and that, you're talking about that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. To separate Poland and the non-aggression pact. To separate Poland, but you could argue, and that's why I would hope that people had read that counterpunch argue. This is going to be very controversial. But you could argue about World War II and that pact. The French and the English nor the United States was going to help Russia if it got attacked by Germany again. They were not going to. They were going to let that happen. You could argue, therefore, that that was a defensive pact on the part of Stalin. Well, that's probably the most controversial thing that an American can say. But I'm going to say it because it's a different way of looking at history. That might be, at least there's evidence to support that it was defensive on the part of Stalin against a reinvasion by Germany. It gave him a couple of years. Yes. And then, of course, Germany then did break it. Right. It was Germany who broke it in June of 1941. They invaded the Soviet Union. I mean, I don't know. I mean, I heard also that that pact was also the destruction of the Communist Party here because there were so many Communists here who said that Stalin shouldn't be making any pact with Germany. That's the way it was viewed. You're right. Stalin was accused, then, of double-crossing, I guess, Britain and France. I don't know. But there's another way of looking at it. And that was in that article that you read in the Counterpunch. It was an alternate way of looking at the history of World War II, which is really, really what I got mostly from the Oppenheimer film a lot. I mean, I already had read a lot about all of this stuff, but it was kind of a reconformation that the United States throughout World War II and the British viewed the Soviet Union as a key enemy as well, even though we were allies. Is that what you got? I don't know. I think it's generally understood. It's not generally understood by Americans, but it is not. By people who study history.  We had discovered this bomb. We were going to use it and obliterate all possible enemies, and we did. And we are now to this day heganomic, is that the right way to say it, position where we are basically globally in charge and we refuse to acknowledge this slogan. But we're not the only people in charge of nuclear weapons. No, but we we see that there will be no talk about getting rid of them. We determine how nuclear weapons are dealt with in the United Nations and so on almost always. We are the head of it. We're the big nuclear we have the most. We have the most bombs. Russia has a few more bombs than us. What difference does it make? It's an elite club. But I think we're the chair of the commission we're the head of the club. Well, I want to get back a little bit because to me also the movie points out that immediately in 1945 immediately after the war, then begins the Cold War against the Soviet Union but also against communists in this country or people who are labeled communists like my father. I don't think it took a break during the war. I don't either. That's what I'm saying. I think it was evident during the war. In fact, that's one of the things that Oppenheimer after the war was persecuted about because he is perceived as being pro-communist. That's what the hearings were all about. So what I'm saying is this war against Russia has been going on really since 1917 with a big break of World War II but it wasn't really a break anyway. Somehow, the United States has been at war with Russia for a very long time. Now Russia is not a communist country so why do we continue to have this hostility? Well, I think, I mean, I could give my opinion one could even argue that it precedes communism. It does precede communism. If you think about the first invasions of Russia or probably by Napoleon correct? And it's such an easy way to overcome Russia because there's all those planes of fleet in Ukraine. But what is it that's why Russia feels vulnerable now? Because they always have. You know, Ukrainians are supported by our military now and they feel threatened. So they've attacked. Okay, I just briefly because I don't know if this is the major thing. I think Putin said an interesting thing lately. Which when the Russians occupied or reoccupied the eastern part of Ukraine and he said why. And he said Russia will not be a colony of the west. I think that almost since the beginning of time or since the beginning of the superiority of the capitalist countries, France, England eventually the U.S., eventually Germany. That Russia has been seen as a huge area of natural resources that the United States and the western West countries want to occupy and want to own just like they did in Africa. Russia is perceived almost the same way as Africa and Latin America is. As a huge area of natural resources which should be owned and used by the western capitalist powers. And I think the other thing was there was always a fear of historical and we're probably going before 1917 that there would be a new international player on the world stage that could potentially be a colonizer and they wanted to keep the numbers low to the existing countries. Who was the existing Chinese? No, no, no. Britain, France Belgium, the Spanish the Portuguese. I think we're going off topic. Yeah, no, I know. We are and we're not. Because I think that the most curious part of the film, in some way, not the most, one of the most curious parts of the film is that Oppenheimer didn't regard the Soviet Union in that way. I mean he was in favor of a lot of left-leaning clauses I'm sorry in the United States. He was never formally a member of the Communist Party. Yeah, his girlfriend was I believe his brother was and he didn't have a knee-jerk aversion to communism that many government officials at the time and people in general in the United States had. I want you to talk about that. Before the nuclear bomb appeared in our world there's no way the Soviet Union could have invaded the United States. I mean, they're way over there. There's a big a big lake between us and so the Soviet Union was no threat until nuclear weapons until they got nuclear weapons in 49 I guess a couple of years after we did and so then anti-communism became really more virulent because of feeling that the Soviets could just bomb our country. Well wait a minute. I think even before that when Europe was divided up and a lot of it goes back to a lot of it existed even before the defeat of Germany and Japan there was a great deal of disappointment on the part of the Soviet Union how quickly the United States and Britain had re-embraced at that point the western part of Germany and there was no significant de-nazification that was taking place as was taking place in the eastern part of that country. Yeah we got Van der Fond Bram but we got others. The head of the rocket program that the V-2 rockets and V-1 rockets that were developed in the Second World War in Germany and could have delivered atomic weapons. And eventually put us on the moon. That technology. We got a lot of outstanding scientists Yeah they came from Nazi Germany. They came from Nazi Germany. Dr. Strangelove, right? Dr. Strangelove is very serious about that. But Robin you wanted to mention also how the anti-communism and the McCarthy hearings how they worked in this country to destroy really leftist movements here, right? And Oppenheimer personally. In so many areas I mean in Hollywood in the kind of movies we would see a number of really progressive and brilliant writers were blacklisted Belton Trumbo, right? Yeah, yeah. And had a hard time coming back and creating plots and what did come back is the military is very involved now with collaborating with Hollywood and filmmakers to make sure that the military perspective gets conveyed. What about with your family? Well, they were they were wealthy enough to be not thrown in jail although actually that grandfather was put in jail for a few days. Your grandfather? Yeah. For what? For making a speech to overthrow the United States in Chicago in 1917 or something. And so he was he was arrested. It was only the the governor that said we should not have a millionaire in jail. That's not right. That was all killed, right? Wasn't it? I would like to talk a little bit about Barbenheimer. Oh, okay. Barbenheimer is started Barbenheimer is this conflation in American culture and enthusiasm and press and all of that about the movie about Barbie the Doll and the movie Oppenheimer which premiered on the same day. Right? And it started out as a theater between two studios. You're going to do this, we're going to do that. We'll see who wins this one. In a largely failing industry at this point. Yeah, unfortunately. To the theaters. And so via some you know smartass on online this got conflated and somebody started talking about Barbenheimer as a phenomenon. And then the press started talking about it. And then the actors in each of the films started talking about it. The day before the Hollywood strike, Barbenheimer was a big deal and then they couldn't talk about it for three weeks. So Barbenheimer is a really interesting phenomenon in American culture. It has several obvious results. One is that you take the whole happens thing and you mix it up with a doll and all of a sudden it doesn't become important. It's just a joke. And it's American culture. And it's plastic and plutonium versus plastic. They're both polluting the planet. So I think this is very serious conflation that's going on with Barbenheimer. It's seen as a joke but I think we have to be very careful about trivializing the whole nuclear scene with Barbie. And so that's all. If I could just make one comment about Barbie because I feel I don't know her and Ken that well enough but I was expecting at least that they would be friends and they might actually make love in the movie. And of course that didn't happen and therefore the very last sentence which Barbie is going to the gynecologist I found that as a quite strange conclusion and wondered whether young people even know what a gynecologist is and why one would go to it. You saw the film? No, I haven't seen it. They know what Chlamydia is. Oh, okay. Anyway, sorry to distract from the thing but I was really sort of confused with that detail about Barbie. I just wanted to we don't have a whole lot of time left but I wanted to sort of conflate what happened in the McCarthy hearings, what happened to Oppenheimer, the anti-communist fervor that developed this country immediately after World War II. Immediately. The development of the CIA in 1947. The develop of the National Security Council the idea of permanent war only came into being right after World War II. No way, Hoover emerges in the 20s. I know that. But this is a permanent military, industrial establishment and endless war. Hoover was in the 20s. Hoover wanted that. It was confirmed though after World War II really in the creation of NATO really in the creation of the CIA. Really in the creation of the warfare state was firmly in place by 1945 and it was all directed against the Soviet Union. And communists here are people who are pro-communist like your family. My family. My father was a bolsterer but he was too drunk to make a disciplined bolsterer. He was one. He was from Scotland. Very pro-labor. Very pro-Russia. Very pro-Soviet Union. He wasn't destroyed by that. He destroyed himself. However communists here and movements here were destroyed by McCarthy but destroyed by this whole idea that the Soviet Union was evil. And how did this happen so immediately after World War II? It didn't happen immediately. I know it happened during 1917 and it's happening again to me in the war against Russia which is occurring in Ukraine. Continuous. And know that, that's my point. It didn't let up when we were even allies. I mean look, the prospect of the organization of labor is a scary thing for corporations and for big business. Well I guess that's the case. And when you say Robin, why there's a couple reasons. One is that Russia has always been perceived as the colony of the west. Two, because Russia was also anti-capitalist eventually. The Soviet Union was not a capitalist country. Right? But anyway, so maybe we should have a few concluding remarks. If I could make an announcement even, which is that next weekend in Rochester, Vermont there will be a discussion called Voices for Peace and it's Medea Benjamin who is a activist and has written a book, War in Ukraine, Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict. She supports not sending weapons to Ukraine. And when I brought this up to the seven days, I said that, well that's not a theme that we can cover. She comes from outside of Vermont and we don't know how to evaluate the issue of who really controls the Soviet Ukraine and why we're giving weapons. And I was kind of astonished by that because when this all started so many Vermonters were into Ukraine and I think some of them are having different opinions now. I don't know. We'll see who turns out on the 12th in Rochester, Vermont. Hey, there were a lot of people at the time who had differences with that decision. It was an article, believe it or not CNN today saying that there are more Americans that are against further funding and supporting Ukraine than are for. Check it out on CNN. I bet if there was a referendum they would win those who are against weaponizing Ukraine. I bet. Well there's no oversight by our government as to where the weapons are going anyway and who are these people that run the government in Ukraine. I mean Zelensky is a very charming fellow but who else is there behind him? But there's a whole different question in my mind which I've always been of the opinion that this is really against Russia. The war is really a proxy war against Russia and if you listen to the rhetoric from essentially our leaders in Washington that's even what they say. It's not that different than Afghanistan. No, it's not. You're absolutely right. It's a war to destroy Joe Biden said it to have regime change in Russia. What? Yeah, it's incredible. It's incredible and that's what I found in some ways most current about this film is that we've been at war with the Soviet Union and with people who have supported communism for a very long time. I'd just like to say about the film that one of the things that I felt was most lacking was the intensity of the objection on many scientists both in Chicago and Los Alamos I don't know so much at Hanford about using the bomb. Objections? Objections to using the bomb. And Leo Zalard was the leader of that. Leo Zalard created the petition that was circulated through the Manhattan Project that he signed you know against using the bomb and that's important and it's not in the film and that's important. Why not? Okay, so we have one minute left any final thoughts? That was a final thought for me. Okay, anybody else? My final thought is I think people should see this film just to become more the bomb, the development of the bomb and all the real controversies about World War II and the period of the Cold War that people seem studiously unaware of at this moment. I guess my closing thought is I'm glad that there is a relatively intelligent film out there. I know this is a lot Mark says it's tough to get history in three hours but the fact that there's an intelligent film out there that's also a blockbuster that doesn't involve superheroes it's a good thing. That's all. My interest what revealed to me that I wasn't aware of it all was I think Oppenheimer was kind of a Buddhist even though he quotes Hinduism because the way he sat in the back of that hearing and just listened to all this crap being poured on him and then shook hands with one of the people who would betrayed him it was as if he was you know his personality was as a brilliant scientist someone who you know he didn't need to be he was being removed from the security security clearance he had it all in his head he didn't need to be upset about that that he accepted the way in which his friends turned on him I just was astonished at that his personality he didn't represent any anger and it was his wife that said you should not shake hands with that guy so that was an interesting part of it it did psychologically destroy him though losing those security clearances he had a very difficult several years after that I will say one of the most interesting things that I've noted my grandson 22 wants to see this film I know it but I'm astounded I don't know why I asked him and he said that he was interested I don't know why because he's a blockbuster he's a Barbie because he's a guy well then I would think he would want to see Barbie yeah I mean when you think about it it was all built by men I mean everyone there were wives that they got drunk about it they had no role in the act okay so we have 30 seconds thank you very much for being with us for this Vermont Institute of Community and International Vermont right and so we will be back maybe in a month or so


Or when you may be accidentally stepped on one and it doesn't get squished? It just sprints away? You see Berkeley researchers have discovered the secrets of how cockroaches achieve those astounding Houdini-like contortions, appearing or disappearing out of nowhere, able to avert certain death. And they're now using this discovery to build robots with those same extraordinary powers. Putting the American cockroach through a series of obstacle courses, the researchers found that even though its shell or exoskeleton looks stiff, it's actually malleable, allowing the roach to flatten itself, all the way down to just a quarter of its height. The experiments showed these roaches can withstand almost 900 times their body weight, without getting hurt. That's like an average person being crushed by more than 123,000 pounds. Not only that, even in their squished state, the American cockroaches were still able to run super fast, nearly 20 times their body length per second. Inspired by this awesome skill set, the researchers built Cram, a compressible robot with articulated mechanisms. The prototype has a segmented, pliable shell. And like the cockroach, Cram is able to sprawl out and run using other parts of its legs instead of its feet. Imagine the possibilities, like sending a swarm of cockroach robots into the tiniest spaces to find disaster survivors. So maybe next time you come across an American cockroach, instead of thinking creepy, you'll think cool.


Do oval chainrings improve your performance or are they just another bike industry gimmick? Today I'll be jumping into the science on oval chainrings to answer this very question. I'll also touch on what company makes the best shaped oval rings, will oval chainrings save your knees, what styles of riding benefit the most from oval chainrings, and whether or not oval chainrings will screw up your power meter readings. Welcome back to another video. My name is Dylan and I'm a cycling coach at CTS. If you're new to this channel, I make weekly science-based training, racing, and gear related videos. If you want to learn how to get faster or just more about the science of training in general, then be sure to subscribe. And if you have a training question or a topic you'd like to see me cover in a future video, be sure to leave it down in the comments section below. I do my best to get to all the questions in the comments. So let's get this out of the way right off the bat. A lot of the science on oval chainrings isn't very high quality. Some of the studies aren't published or peer reviewed, and others are funded by oval chainring companies seeking to prove that their product works. Obviously they're not going to put out a study saying that their product doesn't work because that wouldn't be good for their bottom line. Okay guys, I've done some in-house scientific testing and drinking hypergain beast mode mass gain or raw addition in the cupcake flavor, increased study subjects FTP by 28% over not drinking. Anything for four days, link down in the description. Unfortunately, they don't always disclose this information either. So favorable results should very much be taken with a grain of salt. That being said, weak science is still better than personal anecdotes or a company's claims taken straight off their website. In this video I tried to stick mostly to published literature that didn't have any apparent conflicts of interest. However, I did take into consideration every study I could find to come to a final conclusion. Without further ado, let's jump into the science on whether or not oval chainrings will make you faster. This study on physiological responses of riding with oval rings tested round rings versus the rotor Q-ring by having subjects perform two incremental maximal tests, one on each ring. The results, although maximal power was higher with the Q-rings, the results were not statistically significant. In a test of repeated 20 second sprints, again the Q-rings performed better, but the results weren't significant. And there's certainly plenty of studies that echo this conclusion. This study on various types of chainrings tested round, Shimano biopace, and an engineered ellipse. They found that gross efficiency was not improved by these designs. This study using a harmonic chainring or osometric design found that even though the ring was based on optimization analysis of pedaling, this did not translate into an advantage over round rings. However, for every study showing no advantage of oval chainrings, it seems that there are just as many that do show a benefit. This study testing osometric chainrings had subjects perform two incremental max tests with and without oval rings. They found that maximal aerobic power was higher when using the oval rings. When you get into these studies that show favorable results though, it's important to look out for industry bias because a company has a lot to gain by funding a study that shows that their product works. For what it's worth, the study's authors claim there were no conflicts of interest, although one major flaw of the study was that it was done on non-cyclists and the study even stated that they can't generalize these findings to well-trained cyclists. However, this isn't the only study showing a benefit to oval rings. This study that used well-trained cyclists found that it significantly increased performance in a one kilometer effort. Interestingly enough, this study testing osometric rings found no difference in muscle activation at higher cadences of 90 to 110 rpm but did find enhanced muscle activation at 70 rpm, suggesting that maybe oval rings are better at lower cadences. This is funny because one of the most notable osometric chainring users is Chris Froome and he's definitely a high cadence guy. I don't have time in this video to cover every study done on oval chainrings but I will tell you that the results are very mixed and there seems to be no consensus about whether or not they work. In all the studies that I looked at for this video and I put studies and quotations because some of them were just unpublished papers, eight showed that oval chainrings did show a benefit and nine showed that they showed no benefit. So what exactly is the reason for this discrepancy? Some of it may be due to factors that I've already talked about like industry bias or poor study design but we also can't rule out the placebo effect. Just thinking something will work will often make it true. In the case of oval chainrings, subjects may assume that they'll be able to perform better with oval rings and this belief is enough to produce a favorable result. On top of this, not all oval rings are created equal. Anyone who lived through the Shimano biopace era knows how much of a disaster that was. Oval chainrings have come a long way since then but there may still be some work that needs to be done. For example, this study on the effect of oval chainring ovality on power tested round rings versus rotor Q rings versus osometric rings. They found that the most pronounced non-circular chainring or the osometric ring evoked systematic alterations of joint specific relative sagittal joint power contribution. Basically the oval shape needs to be pretty pronounced for it to have any potential effect. From this paper comparing the biomechanics of every non-round chainring design using a mathematical model we can see that the osometric ring is close to the top performing ring and is actually the best performing commercially available ring while the rotor Q ring is close to the bottom just above biopace. The reason they cited was the lack of ovality and the orientation. In fact the best performing ring was the hull oval which has such an extreme ovality that it becomes problematic for actual practical use and the ring is not commercially available. It's important to point out that these were the results of a mathematical model and in real world testing even the osometric ring has mixed results as we've seen. But it could very well be possible that to get any effect out of oval chainrings the oval needs to be so extreme that you can't actually use it in any real world application. After all front shifting with oval rings is already compromised with the current light ovals. All of this being said there is one area that I found that oval chainrings kept showing a benefit for in the literature and that is sprinting performance. Remember in the first study I said that oval rings improve sprinting performance but the results weren't significant. Well there are studies out there that test sprinting performance with oval chainrings that do have significant results. For example this study on the effects of non-circular chainrings on sprinting performance used train cyclists to test osometric rings versus round rings in a max sprint. What they found was that the max power was greater with the oval rings by about four percent. Although it's important to note that they acknowledge and thank the osometric company for providing rings for the study which could lead to bias. Osometric certainly didn't let them use the rings with the intention of them showing that they didn't work. There are also two studies done on BMX racers using Q-rings both done on the Spanish national BMX team and both found improvements in start acceleration using the rings but only in the elite group interestingly enough. One concluded that the rings improve performance provided that the riders have a condition level enough to ensure the capacity to develop pedaling properly despite the strength needed. At best I would say that the evidence that oval chainrings improve sprinting performance is a little bit stronger than at lower intensities however the number of studies is limited so certainly more work needs to be done here. Another reason why people may choose to use oval rings is to reduce strain on the knees and I did find one study that addressed this. This study used osometric rings and found no difference between oval and round rings in patello for moral loading which shows a clear link with knee pain. Granted this is just one study and somebody in the comments is probably going to talk about how oval chainrings save their knees and now they can ride again. Certainly don't let me take that away from you and if that is the case then keep using oval chainrings. To throw another wrench in the spokes of oval chainrings some people have found that oval chainrings may inflate power readings on crank based power meters so if you purchase oval chainrings and you see an increase in power it may just be the rings giving you false numbers. Some people have found this inflation to be 2.7 to 4 percent. Well that sounds like the perfect product to give me an edge on Zwift this winter. I'll take five. Given the overall weak evidence that oval chainrings improve performance this fact alone is enough for me to steer clear of them. I did used to use oval chainrings a couple years ago and I didn't really see any performance benefit. In fact the year after when I switched around rings I had one of my best seasons ever. There are way too many variables here for me to give credit to the rings but this combined with the inconclusive research on oval chainrings was enough for me to give up on them. Mountain bikers who use oval chainrings often state that they are able to put out more even power and therefore not lose traction when climbing. There are currently no studies investigating this so I can't confirm or deny this. The available science that we have on oval chainrings is pretty evenly split and a lot of the studies that do show benefits often have industry bias. For sprinters the balance of evidence is in favor of using oval chainrings however this is based on only a few studies. Dylan let me stop you right there I got two words for you. Chris Froome checkmate. Some high-profile riders namely Chris Froome and Bradley Wiggins have used osometric rings to win some pretty big races like the Torr and if there's any oval chainring that might work it's probably osometric since the oval is more pronounced than other companies like rotor or absolute black for example. However interestingly enough Team Ineos doesn't have all their riders using these rings which you'd think that they would if they believed that there was an actual benefit to them and on top of this most of the Pro Peloton is content with just sticking with round rings. This certainly isn't evidence in itself just because a pro does something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do but it is another piece of the puzzle that will lead to my final recommendation on oval chainrings. If you like using oval chainrings then keep on using them if you don't have them on your bike then save your money and stick to round rings because they probably won't make you any quicker. Thanks for watching I hope you guys found this information helpful if you like this video be sure to give it a like share it with a friend and subscribe and if you want to be notified every time I put out a video be sure to hit the notification bell as well. If you're looking for a coach if you sign up through CTS be sure to use my code CTSDJ to save $40 by waiving the registration fee details are down in the description.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jaspy's casewrakes.com coming at you with 2020 Panini score football one-pack random team number 42 Jackie Robinson right there Big thanks to all of these folks for getting into the action and There are the teams right there Paul. What's going on? someone's a Someone's a break in personals right now. Oh, I see Yeah, tomorrow then or a Sunday All right, let's roll it let's randomize each list so we're always we're gonna do the break itself first And there all the teams are in right there now The whole point of this obviously is to try to win those Panini black NFL cards right there There's the list of teams right there now We got we have just have to do one more of these before we can unlock that great next packs already up If you want to go for it Jaspy's casewrakes.com All right break first four and one five times for each list one two three Four and a one fifth and final time After five times we've got Phillip all the way down to William and four and a one five times for the teams fifth and final time All right jets down to the Seahawks All right, so I'm not gonna read off all these names, but here's the first half list just a little pack break right here There's the first half. Here's the second half. Thank you everyone for getting into the action Let's sort that by column B Let's box those up. Let's print. Let's rip no trade windows in these as well There's the pack right there. Good luck folks and we'll do a different dice roll of those names at the end There's the final print out here. Bam boom Bam those are all vets right there. There's Darius sleigh gray CD lamb breakthrough Kyler Murray Celebration and we got a Darius Leonard autograph nice 13 out of 50 on that one Colts Nice, that'll be for Kevin M. There you go, Kev and some rookies here. You got a chase young got a Henry rugs I like these guys any quarterbacks and a Joe Burrow That's not bad either that goes to the bangles that'll be for William Hummel With Ohio State Joe Burrow of all things Interesting Paul do you mind us shooting us an email? By a support the support button on jazby's case breaks calm give us that feedback Make it official All right, so that's pretty great now. Let's see who wins spots Given away ten spots remember I do one more pack one more filler pack and then we can finally do that Random team break black football. All right, so William and the Cardinals and a William and the Redskins Let's get them in there. Let's roll it. Let's randomize it One and a four five times, so it's gonna be top ten after five Good luck one two three Four and fifth and final time after five Right, there's five top ten so from 11 down at 32. Sorry. We'll get him next time though Remember we got one more pack to do so if you want to try again feel free Congrats to William H William H Josh William William Josh William Matt Nick and Nick There you go top ten right there. You're in the break. Oh, sorry Forgot to switch screens So there's for sorry There's the time stamp right there. So if you're looking your clocks right now It'll be oh three or oh four on the timestamp and then there's five. There's oh three or four the timestamp. Sorry about that But there's the top ten right here You guys are in thank you very much for getting into the action really appreciate it like I said We're gonna do one more of these packs Give away the final ten spots then we can rip open that relatively brand new release 2020 a panini black NFL So check it out folks. Thanks for watching everybody. I will see you next time. Bye You