y Berghwyl rhywbwyll widegol. O amlwg, uwch chi'n wnaed hyn sylfa fydd yn ystaus fo mathiacol ac yn ystawr negiwch ar ystauwll a rebellionr. Wrth y 같아요, rhai sy'n chydig insert y dref rha, felly test poder wedi eu bod yn gwndedol darlu dryddallow ac yn lluniau. Felly, yardog ac mae'r rodd iawn i'r llaw arall, rydyn ni i'n ffymu'n ysgrifennu yng Ngheirloedd Cysyllt, yng Nghymru, ond yng Nghymru ffymwysig, mae'n drosbwyntau i gael y llaw. Felly mae'n ffymwysig yn ffyrddol ac mae'n ffymwysig yn y bobl o'r rodd iawn. Mae'n rydyn ni'n ffymwysig i'r ddechrau i'r argynodd iawn, mae'n rydyn ni'n ffymwysig i'r llaw. Mae'n rydyn ni'n ffymwysig i'r rydyn ni'n ymwysig How people interact with not only the stone itself, but with other people and with the land in general and basically it's an excellent book and I'd recommend it to all of you. And from the abstract we talked about how stone is seen in ways that it's immovable, it's permanent, it's long lasting resilient, but it's also, it's changeable, it's malleable, it's chameleonic, it changes with how light is on it, it changes with how wet it is, it changes with whoever's holding it or using it. Ond mae'n dwi'n gwybod fel ychydig. Mae hynny yw'r pryd yn gyfathogol, ac mae'n gwybod hefyd yn gwybod fel y cantolια Headshimmel. Y ffaith yng Nghaenyaeth yn fwyaf hwn yw, mae ydy'r tyfu'r roedd cyllid healthcare yw Lleifthic Monument am Llantych Europe. Mae yna'r tanlyniad ar y Cynig Lleifthic yn gyfathogol, ac mae'n dod yn fwyaf gyda'r holl widenau a nilithic morhmyniwn. Yn anhog i ni wneud hynny'n gwybod, mae'n gwybod fel Lleifthic morhmyniwn, llawll gydais, gyda phasid iawn, oeddem fel clynyddu'r gyffredinus llyfradig yn wych. Mae'n y cefynd yma i'n cael ff grants ysgol o'i amser i froi. Peithio'i gyffredinus llyfradig yn N pepperwyll y storio. Mae'n fedyn yn y Cymru, wedi'u llyfrwyr bod Katie yw'r effbryd. mae'r rhaglŵr maen nhw'n eu llyfrwyr heddiol o'r gyffredinus llyfrwyr. Rym ni wedi prosiwyntol yma yn y Llwerdimaen, yn y Moond, yn Ddenmarc, i'w ffasherbyn Frontin, yn Ysredin. I'm sort of a range of monument types and largely passage graves, which tend to be the ones that have survived and tend to be the ones that get the most attention and the ones that've got the most stones for me to look at basically. And what I do is, instead of just going there and writing this is the colour, I think the stone is, I use this little device and it's built from our Arduino board, it's got a little sensor and it's quite its own light source so it's always a constant light source I use when I look at the stones, this is that stone hinge and it gives me an RGB reading of what it thinks that's colour, that stone is and then I combine that with more personal experiences. So this is an example of what I did at Brinkelithi this year, which is a place in Anglesey and I get people, other people not just me, to go into the site and say what are you perceiving, what colours are you looking at so I try to have a bit of the digital, bit of the analogue, a little bit of both going at the same time and to illustrate that in a bit more depth, I've chosen to look at Brinkelithi which is a passage grave on Anglesey, it's a place I've got quite a long standing relationship with used to go play there when I was a kid because I've got family in Anglesey it's one of the most well known and sort of brush preserved sites on the island it's very easy to access, it's open all year round, there's a nice car park almost a processional way leading up to it from there now and you can go in at any time and have a look in there, it's always very open so when you go there's often lots of tourists I record like audio recording of my experience and I'm on site to refer back to you later and when I very first went there my device was in a wooden box and you can hear me swearing when a dog tries to eat it and there it is inside the chamber there it's quite an interesting site because the off-the-sats uprights and capstones are probably in the same place originally where it was extensively excavated in the 1920s and it had been quite denuded and that the mound was gone and it was a bit trashed really so it has been reconstructed very handilyn that a lot of the stones that were put in as reconstructive stones have got the holes drilled in them where hemp, the archaeologist did it denoted where he'd messed around with it basically by showing you the stones so I can probably say that the stones are roughly in the right place and it's made largely of a stone called Blue Shist which is a natural stone of the area that sits on a seam of it on Anglesey and it varies in colours from very very deep blue almost black right to very pale grey so it's lots of varying colours in there and there's some really interesting folklore associated with this site there's a pillar within the back of the chamber it can't find something so it's out here and it's this great look of folklore that it's a vitrified tree trunk that's standing like a guardian in the chamber it's not it's Blue Shist but every time I visit that site and there's somebody visit and say well do you know this is a tree in this room and I'm like it's not a tree I'm sorry but I do love this site it's like persisting through time this little story which is wonderful and so I go there a lot to do to take my own readings but also to take part in public events because they have very big public open days here so this is the first site that I looked at digitally I used my colour sensor and took average readings of all the stones and this is what it comes out with so this is what I do with all my sites I make an illustration so I can very immediately look at it and go oh they've used this colour in this part they've used this colour here it's just a very immediate obvious thing I can look at but then also I have then a huge database of these readings and I link them with geographical locations so I can then do some analysis and say where is redstone used predominantly in a site where is very pale stones used as capstones this kind of thing and you sort of like a very sort of like quick and dirty data analysis of the sites that I'm looking at so that's the digital aspect of the site so that all of this data that I've recorded and then visualised it's born digital it's made within a machine it's interpreted through a machine it's presented on a machine my hand as it were is removed from that process but then what is the implication of that although it's got quite tantalising prospects you could say I've removed myself from the process I've created this ecosystem of data that's slightly removed from the real this born digital it's created on a computer but that has implications you read studies of things like ebooks that are written you don't take in as much information when you read them data points full of databases they're not as easily relatable as something hard copy but then also they're not as easily destructive there's a couple of facets there you think about you can remove the option for human error human subjectification but that is sadly science fiction because we can't yet say the device is perfect the device is not subject to humans humans have programmed it I've built it for a start so there is still that little element of the human creeping in there you need to ask these kind of questions of yourself building in a digital way of looking at the stones how is the thing working what is its limitations who is the audience as I'm processing this data who's going to be looking at it what are their needs when they are looking at it what are the implications of using this on site when I'm there looking at the box how is it affecting how I'm looking at them because I'm using this device how is their story speaking to me differently if I was just there looking at them with my eyes or looking at them through a bit more analog methods and if other people use it if I release the code for my device will they use it in the same way you know how will that affect data for example if somebody wants to do the rest of Europe I have to sort of on the North West if somebody wants to do more to Balkan regions will they use it differently will they get the same interpretations so with these kind of questions in mind you need to think how can I supplement these digital weapons looking at rocks so I also try to do the more personal things I get people to do things as well so this is going back to that sheet that brings I did it was an open day for the site it was like herded open day I think it was about 400 people came and I got about 100 people doing my survey right from young kids 2-3 year olds all the way up to people who were like retired who came and did it and I said to them watch your age and gender because it's a fault so I wanted to know is there a differential in the way they're seeing it and I just generated things like a cloud diagram of all the words they were using it was interesting to see that I use very technical terms for the colours I'm like deep grey deep black whereas they use things like orangey white and golden and bronze and there was obviously much more variety in the way that people who are not subjected to meters pointing a device they feel freer to use a lot more descriptive words they see things in different ways and they do sort of strange things that I wouldn't have anticipated they come back out with their sheet and they'd say oh yeah I used the white of the paper and I reflected light onto the stone to see what it would look like if I wasn't in the dark or they'd say things like I used the torch on my phone to have a look at it because it wasn't too clear and I noticed that a lot of the younger people had the texture at the same time they were like oh it's rough brown it's shiny grey it wouldn't just be pure colours they would have a more complete sensual experience and they were talking about it which I found really fascinating that it was something I wouldn't have considered when I was first designing it and obviously it's not showing in my data when I have my huge database of colours but it almost seems like a much fuller experience so that's definitely something to talk about later when I hopefully move on to further research so basically both ways the digital language is analog they're translations of what the stone looks like they're translations of the colour and so all translations are fraught with difficulty any act of translation is one of change and destruction which is something that's come from a book by Matthew Law about various networks but when you look at something like even just something that it should be fairly simple to say like categorise out the colour you're translating what that original colour is into your own ideas it's coloured by your experiences by the way you see things but also by the way you've designed your research so going back to what Katie mentioned about the Ingol paper earlier about how the materiality is something we're so divorced from the process of creating of the building of the choosing of the stone that we see something now like I go into that chamber and see a grey rock but when in fact there's a whole process gone behind why this grey rock why this colour, why here and the reason I choose to be a case study is because there's a really handy source of rock in an outcrop in the field that's now next to it, 200 yards away that would have been perfect you could have quarried that, it would be all uniform perfect, beautiful, you know same colour would have been fine but the chamber itself is at its self from the picture of the colours there are some that are covered in quartz so it shines in the darkness there are some that are very rough and they've chosen limestone instead so they've obviously got that from a further source away that then becomes porous and takes on the colour of the soil that's seeped down from above it so it changes again in the colour so to say that in the past they just chose some random rocks that's a very disingenuous translation so what I'm arguing is that we need to become storytellers but looking at many different ways of translating that story any interpretation that we build it's an expressionist painting because we're painting broad brush strokes of these stone colours and in order to get sort of approach why they might have been used we need to understand the story of the stone itself the story of the matter we need to understand what roles our machines and us, as I call, just have in that story as well and how I visualise interpreting this I know you can't see a text because the screen is very small is putting it into assemblage which I know that there's been a lot of sessions about that here at a conference to quote one of our keynote speakers Janice Hamilac, who was here earlier in the week assemblage defined as contingent co-presence heterogeneous elements such as bodies, things substances, effects, memories, information, ideas so living and non-living things in sort of a vast network that's almost like a series of Russian dolls that live within each other so you start with the stone itself which has its own agency it has its own meaning it influences other things, it's not just an inert substance that falls within how people are viewing it and using it and then how local myths and legends build up around it, how regional traditions affect how people look at it and then you get sort of like further down and how it's then perceived by future generations their ancestor reverence reverence for the sites that have been built before and then how that fits in with what's wider like solar seasonal celebrations, about trade about traditions within the landscape and then right at the very outer edge of this assemblage is how we interpret it and I mean this is influenced by so much existing interpretations our own perceptions of the colour of the stone it's influenced by the bias of survival certain survival don't and we need to recognise not like the other layers that are going in before we can look at this outer layer and say yeah I'm happy with this interpretation so the way I'm trying to sort of synthesise everything is how I look at this first step and I use digital and analogue means to look at that and I'll say well how is the colour of that feeding into all of these other layers before I can get to this layer at the end and I just want to recommend a couple of books that I would definitely if you want to look at stone as this adential artifact as a part of these networks Jane Bennett talks about political ecology it's all about how things fit into networks and how how things shouldn't be written off as having no agency shouldn't be written off as being in a and we control a thing you know we shouldn't consider the world as anthropocentric we should look at things how they affect us and each other and this is the one I was talking about I'm like Edwin's book it's very poetically written but it's all about how objects and artifacts imbued with their own kind of life in a way and it just sort of like changed my perspective in a lot of ways about how to look at stone and how to understand it as a living thing Thank you very much


Today's edition of Frightfully Forgotten, but first of all, what are we drinking today? Sir Alexander Saxton's Fossil. It's a German ice-box. You have to freeze it. It's a fossil! Today we're going to be talking about 1976's Burnt Offerings, and this episode is actually a request episode. We were requested to do a review on this movie, so here we go. Directed by Dan Curtis. He also did Dracula with Jack Palin's. Dracula and Coat Dracula. Another one to mention amongst a lot of others, he did Trilogy of Terror. Karen Black is in this, and she's in that Trilogy of Terror. The old woman in the House of a Thousand Corpses. Oliver Reed is in this, and he was in The Brood, which we had covered for the Canadian Top 10 movies. And Gladiator, just to mention two from a huge list of all of what he has done. Betty Davis is in this, and Burgess Meredith. Burnt Offerings starts off with the Rolf family, and they are looking for a house to rent during the summer. They go visit this nice huge, big mansion out in the country. First open the door, there's this weird caretaker, there's all toothless and everything. Keep everything spick and fan! Owned by a family. You really only see the brother and the sister. They're both very, very strange. Burgess Meredith, he plays the brother, and he's like an invalid, he's in a wheelchair looking out the window, watching their little boy play while the parents look at the house and the boy all hurts himself. Yeah, I mean... Lovely boy, lovely boy. But there's one caveat if they want to rent this place. The brother and sister leave during the summer, and mom wants to stay. You'll never see her, you'll never hear her peep. She's very, very reclusive, bringing her three meals a day, and that's it. They were told, you know, don't worry about the house, the house takes care of itself. And you can tell that Oliver Reed is kind of hesitant, but Marion talks him into it. They are bringing Ben's aunt with them, which is played by Betty Davis. Get there, and the place is kind of almost worse for wear. It almost looks worse than the condition that they saw it last. Open up the fridge, and it's loaded with food and champagne, and they go to go turn on a light and the pantry, and it doesn't work. Oliver Reed goes to go open up a bottle of champagne and cuts himself. Soon as there's a bit of bloodshed, that pantry light turns on. I think I see Ding Dongs! Marion has to go up and kind of, you know, introduce herself to the old woman. It doesn't hear any response back through the door. One day Ben and Davey are playing in the pool, throwing the kid up, and the kid goes back in the water and gets kind of more vicious, and then suddenly he's like picking the kid up and like slamming him in the water, and beholding him there, like, slamming the headlock! Kidding the headlock, like drowning this poor kid until the kid hits his dad and bluddle over the place and retreats on him. The dad also starts having all these weird dreams of like his mother's funeral. Guy driving the hearse and he pulls up and he's always has sunglasses on and looks at him and smiles, and there's a scene with a gas heater that's been left on. The boy's trying to sleep. All the windows are closed and everything, and the door's locked. The supertrize is forcing it open. Super hard! Yeah, I think all of them are doing some Method Act in there. They probably had a sore shoulder for a good week.  Marion's been sort of becoming more and more of a recluse. She won't give Ben any attention anymore if you know what I mean. They're all on the lawn. Come on, Marion. Jesus. The poor aunt ends up succumbing to whatever illness that she had. Marion won't even come to the funeral.  He's starting to see like siding from the house starting to almost melt away. It's starting to come off and there's new siding that's coming underneath. The shingles are like washing away and new shingles are appearing underneath. The clocks weren't working when they showed up and suddenly they started ticking. He tries to get the family out of the house, but Marion won't go. So he just takes Davy in the station wagon, the 70s station wagon. All these trees start falling. He just keeps driving into these trees too. To the point where he actually hits the steering wheel and he's all bleeding. Marion comes up to the side of the car after and drives them back. And that's where we're going to end it. So if you want to find out what happens at the end of Burnt Offerings, keep watching the movie.  The movie was based on a novel by Robert Morasco. Heaven read it. No, me either. One thing about this movie that made detour some people is the pacing pretty slow. But really keep you intrigued and really keep you wondering. And you're like, okay, well I have to keep watching this because I want to know what's happening with this house and with Marion and the old woman upstairs. Supposedly she's there, but you never hear or see her. It doesn't spell anything out for you this movie. You do have to watch and pay attention. That in itself is the payoff, right? I mean, you've invested yourself in this movie and these characters, right? The payoff can in some ways be what you make it. Speaking of the characters, that is what really makes this movie shine. And what makes it work is not only the characters, and the relationship between the characters is actually very interesting, very dynamic. And that's whole part of the slow burn is you take time to build the relationships and while the actors having to pull it off, it's all about them. Because there's no real effects in this movie. You don't see any ghosts. It's all based on the performance of four actors, really. Yeah, exactly. And without that performance being spot on and nailing it, well, the movie would completely fail. Yeah, you wouldn't believe it. In this movie, the parenting role reversed. The dad is actually the mom in this movie. Yeah, he's the nurturing, caring. He takes care of the kid and the mother. She's the absent one. So it's interesting. It's an interesting take on that. And the neat thing about this movie too is all the lines are blurred. It's not really definitive or there's ghosts in that house and they're doing it. And the reclusive mother, what role does she play in it all? Was she even ever physically up in that room? You don't know. You don't know. You see the light on, kind of like the Bates house. But on set, it wasn't all hunky-dory. Betty Davis apparently didn't get along with everybody on set. Karen Black didn't show her enough respect and take the role as serious as she should. She didn't like the fact that all of her read would be basically drunk all the time. His drunken escapades on set?  He was a notorious boozer and partier. He actually ended up dying while filming of Gladiator in 1999 in a drinking contest with a bunch of sailors. It's like something out of a movie. Who does that in real life? That's something you just hear about. I guess all of her read does. He had eight pints of lager, 12 double rums. So that's 24 shots of rum. That's a whole bottle basically. And half a bottle of whiskey. Yeah, in his system before he ended up having a heart attack and dying. It was just insane. On that note, if you haven't seen Burnt Offerings, you're a fan of like changeling I think for sure. Amityville Horror. And even a movie that we're going to be covering very shortly, The Haunting. Haunting, yeah. Definitely check out Burnt Offerings.  Oh yeah, you definitely get the reward at the end. As all of her read would have probably said, keep drinking.


Patriot Prime Reviews is a channel for adult collectors and may not be suitable for children under 13 years of age. Viewer discretion is advised. Hey, what's going on guys? Patriot Prime here once again with another video. But before I get started with the subject of this video, I want to give a huge shout out to my sponsor, toyhacks.com. Toyhacks is a company that provides upgrade decals for modern transformer figures along with reproduction decals for the vintage ones. While visiting Toyhacks, make sure and check out the Toyhacks Armory to see their line of Transformers weaponry in multiple colors. And toy stages for awesome display backdrops. Each purchase from Toyhacks earns you Robocents that you can use for future purchases. You can check your balance anytime in your cart. Toyhacks is a company run by collectors for collectors. So make sure and check out toyhacks.com and tell them Patriot Prime sent you. Now, on to the review. The featured button in this video is Transformers Studio Series 81 Bumblebee Movie Wheeljack. Now I just got Wheeljack in today thanks to Entertainment Earth along with the rest of the Studio Series Bumblebee line. And I cannot wait to check this guy out. He looks so cool. So take a quick look at the packaging. You got Transformers Studio Series 81 Bumblebee Movie Wheeljack there behind the plastic. Some great artwork of Wheeljack right there. Side of the box, a close up of Wheeljack's face, Studio Series 81. Back of the packaging, you've got Wheeljack in his very cool looking vehicle mode, robot mode, the backdrop. Side of the box, more of the artwork of Wheeljack and that is it. So now without further ado, let's get old Jackie Boy opened up out of this packaging and shake him out. And welcome to Patriot Prime Reviews. I just wanted to point out real quick that all of these Studio Series Bumblebee Movie deluxe figures all have the same backdrop. It's this Cybertronian battle scene with the bridge. So 80, 81 and 82 all have the same backdrop. The more you know. Now once you get Wheeljack all opened up and out of the packaging, you'll see he does come with a sheet of instructions. That as usual is very well illustrated and fairly easy to follow. It did take me a couple tries to get him transformed. He also comes with this awesome looking blaster. I love the looks of this. And then of course you've got Wheeljack himself. And to be honest, I am really impressed with the looks of this figure. I think Hasbro nailed it, especially since Wheeljack is only in the movie long enough to say there's too many of them. There's too many of them. So yeah, he's really, really cool looking and pretty beefy. This is kind of a jacked up Wheeljack. Love the face sculpt. Face sculpt is great with fantastic paint applications. You got the silver crest, silver mouthplate. You got the G1 mouthplate design, blue eyes, blue ears. I don't know why they always call those ears, but whatever. They're blue and it looks really, really good. Good paint applications here on the chest. Moving on down, lots of great sculpted details as well. I mean, check out the details there in the arms. I love this figure. And he cleans up really good. There's not a lot of gaps or spaces. This is just a really good figure. Hasbro, you nailed it. Good paint applications down there on the legs. And I like how everything just folds up so clean. You don't see any wheels on Wheeljack. This is a really awesome figure. I've said that over and over again. And I just can't get over it. This guy really surprised me taking him right out of the packaging. Now articulation for Wheeljack.  It can look down. You can do that. Look, a complete 360. He's got the G1 inspired wings, but instead of being on his back as usual, they're on his arms. So that's a little different, but I can deal with it and they can move up and down. Arms also up, down, complete 360. They're on a ball joint as you can see. So there is a lot of movement. Don't pop that off. There is rotation there at the bicep, a bicep bend. No wrist rotation, waist rotation. Legs can go forward. They can go back. They can go out so far and they can go in. There's also a knee bend. And of course the hip is on a ball joint. So there is some movement there. There's also a slight ankle tilt. Mine is really tight. I almost thought he didn't have an ankle tilt, but he does. So all in all, really great figure. Now I'll take a look at his big blaster here. You can tell this Wheeljack is more of a Transformers Prime Wheeljack than the Jovial Sciences version from G1. So you can take the blaster, put it in his hand. Once again, a tight fit. So there you go. He looks really cool, all armed and ready for battle. Now you also have weapon storage on his back. If I can get that out. There's another peg on the side of the blaster. So you can peg that in on his back right there. Let me find it. So you've got that look going on in case any third party company comes up with a tool set or something like non-F. So yeah, I love robot mode. So now let's go ahead and get Wheeljack transformed. We'll take the weapon off. Now Wheeljack's transformation is really cool and complicated. Like I said, it took me a couple of tries to figure it out. First thing we're going to do is fold those wings down along the back of his arms and then you'll flip this whole front section up and this little section on the inside out. Be wary that this is all translucent plastic. So then we're just going to pull this down and extend it like so. Now you're going to separate the shoulders. Take Wheeljack's head assembly and move this whole section back and straighten that out. Once again, really, really tight. Now, remember how to do this. You're going to take the arms. Bring the arms up and you're going to rotate these this way. It almost seems like it makes more sense to go the other way, but you're going to rotate these around so the arms are on the inside like so and go ahead and angle these so the arms look like that. So get all this out of the way. Rotate at the waist and now comes the legs. These these legs are something else. Go ahead and get the wheels unpegged from these panels right here. And what you're going to do is remember these are there you go. Don't want the wrong way. These panels here rotate around like so. So go ahead and get these rotated out of the way slightly.  Once again, really it's really tight. I love how tight the joints are on this figure. So now you got the shins pulled up. Rotate those up like so. So you got that look going on. Go ahead and bring the wheels up and around. Move the toes forward, pop it right off of the ball joint. And that's because I was rotating the wrong way.  So you've got that look going on on the other side. Now we'll bring everything together. Slide the panels down. I knew it. Always when it's on camera.  There we go. See if his other side works a little better. Get everything lined up, tabbed in. There we go. So now you're going to bring the feet together. So you have this going on. Take the front. Bring this down. Flip the Autobot symbol section up to fill in that little gap right there.  Turn Wheeljack's head to the side. And this just kind of lays up in there like so. And now with the arms, you're going to bring the arms up and just kind of fold them up and under the roof of the vehicle. Get those tabbed together there. Make sure everything tabs in. And there you have Wheeljack in his vehicle mode. And I absolutely love this vehicle. This thing is awesome. It's sleek, stylized. I love the angles on it. Great paint applications. The translucent windshield actually looks really good. See how they can get that snapped down all the way. There we go. Yeah, make sure he's all tabbed in. But this thing just looks awesome. And a nice homage to the original Wheeljack vehicle. This thing is so cool and rolls so good. I love it. This thing is just awesome. And what I really like, you can't tell it's a robot. There's no robot bits hanging off anywhere. So that's impressive. Now you can take Wheeljack's blaster and attach it to the vehicle, but it only goes on one way. See these little ports right here with the weird angle? There is a matching peg on the gun. And it goes on this one right here. So you peg that in. So now you have Wheeljack in vehicle mode in battle mode. And that just, that looks so good. I love this vehicle. Hasbro, you knocked it out of the park with this figure. And now for some quick size comparisons. Here is Transformers Studio Series 81 Wheeljack with Generation 1 Optimus Prime, my busted up Generation 1 Wheeljack, Earthrise Wheeljack with Toyhacks and Non-F Production Add-ons, and WaveMate Studio Series 82 Ratchet. Once again, I am really impressed with these new Studio Series deluxe class offerings from the Bumblebee Movie. Wheeljack looks great. He has a fun and interesting transformation, and I absolutely love his vehicle mode. Not to mention he's a great homage to the original Generation 1 character. So there you go guys, Transformers Studio Series 81 Bumblebee Movie Wheeljack. So does a Transformers Studio Series 81 Bumblebee Movie Wheeljack belong in your collection? Absolutely. As if you couldn't tell, I love this figure. So whether you're a Studio Series movie collector or not, I think this figure right here belongs in your collection because he is just awesome. He is so much fun to mess with. Great robot mode, wild transformation, and a super cool car mode. I love this guy. He is just awesome. So yeah, you see Studio Series 81 Wheeljack on the shelf. Pick him up, you are not going to be disappointed. Now guys, if you enjoyed the video, don't forget to like, don't forget to subscribe, and don't forget to click that bell icon to get notified when I upload new videos. Also, if you're in any position to help out the channel, I do offer channel memberships here on YouTube, and I have to give a huge shout out to all my current channel members because it's support like yours that helps keep this channel growing. Once again guys, this is Patriot Pride, signing out. Hoorah!


Hello and let's talk about the United Nations. Yesterday a special high-level session was held to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the organization. Leaders from across the world spoke to recorded messages as the COVID-19 pandemic had seriously affected the occasion. A key theme of this session was that multilateralism was not an option but a necessity. A message that is increasingly under threat as the United States tears up the framework that has held the global community together for decades. Incidentally, President Donald Trump, who was supposed to be the first speaker from the international community, did not make any recorded remarks, although he was supposed to. We speak to Abdul of People's Dispatch on some of these issues. Thank you so much for joining us. So the special session, higher special high-level session was held yesterday. Many leaders to power, Donald Trump did not. And multilateralism was a key theme in those discussions or at least they claimed it was a key theme. So what are your first impressions about the kind of speeches that were delivered yesterday? Was it just a symbolic occasion or was there even the possibility of something more, you know, some kind of a reassessment of a UN's role? I think all these speeches, including the General Secretary and other President of the United States, all the speeches are hinting towards one, the kind of politics which are happening at the global level. Super power has taken a promise and it is moving towards unilateralism and in the last few instances, you see, starting from the withdrawal from Iran, Iran will be to all the instances, including the withdrawal from the WU. That particular way the United States policy or policy has taken, you know, it basically most of the leaders are reflecting indirectly to that. They can't say they could not take the name, but I think that is the central consideration, central concern for all the people in that yesterday's meeting. Yeah, and this seems to be irrespective of ideology, irrespective of where they stand because there is clearly a feeling that the UN is in deep danger if the United States continues like this. In fact, if you see the world leaders, there is China, which has a clear stand on it. Then there is France, which is a close ally to the United States. Then there is a Turkey, which is a member of NATO and one of the, who is also talking about multilateralism, how it is becoming an issue. Then there are other countries, if you name it, or most of the leaders, as a central concern that they're talking as if that is the world is moving towards a situation which was similar to what was there before the first Second World War, which basically created the catastrophe and to avoid such similar things in the future, the United Nations was built. So the basis of the United Nations was that no matter what our disagreements are, we will sit together and we'll try to resolve it in this multilateralism. This is a fora on which we can resolve our issues. So in the last five years, it is longer than that, but at least in the last five years, there is a decisive shift from this particular approach and that is a very, very big concern. The chances of global conflict, you can see whether it is South China Sea, whether it is the Mediterranean, whether it is Africa, whether it is West Asia, wherever you see in Venezuela and Latin America, you see that the chances are increasing and everywhere, but in a particular country, the United States is on the rise, basically creating, violating all the international, violating all the procedures which have been established, tested in the last 70 years, 75 years and basically going into the United States. So that is the basic concern. So in this context also, larger questions about the role of the UN itself like you pointed out the last three, four years have maybe really exposed the kind of issues they have, but even before, like you said, they have many concerns. The UN was not able to stop the invasion of Iraq, many other conflicts, imperialist intervention in so many other countries that has not been able to stop. And ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, there is an increasing question as to how much credibility it has beyond being a symbolic organization. So how do you see that in today's world? I think United Nations has, in the last 70 years, it is true that in many, many instances, United Nations has failed to intervene decisively, leads through and that primarily because of the structure of the United Nations Security Council, one of the main reasons, which most of the leaders are talking about reforms, the necessary reforms of the United Nations, they highlighted this issue, that one of the basic problems with the United Nations has been the nature of the United Nations Security Council where some parts can be took, all the multilateral actions. And that is basically a concern.  And I think certain countries, you see, you highlighted the failure of the United Nations during the Iraq war. Similar things can happen today also. For example, the Pompeo's post, posting about how the rest of the countries, whether they agree with or not, they have to follow the sanctions which America has imposed on the Al-Iran. And that is their duty. So I think those things, those concerns are valid. And when the leaders are talking about reforms, the reform, the necessary reforms, I think Chinese president has highlighted that how the third world, the developing countries need to be respected more into the security council in the decision-making process. If those things are taken care of, of course, in the United Nations, there will be always a problem. I think the United Nations General Secretary has highlighted it correctly, that the United Nations will be strong only if the members want it to be strong. So if those reforms are taken and those reforms are taken seriously, I think the United Nations will be able to handle whatever they need. And finally, a quick question on the sanctions in Iran also, which we announced yesterday, almost with symbolic value by the United States. So could you just talk a bit about what the imply as well? I think, of course, it has a symbolic value. You see, the United Nations Security Council there, according to the UN Security Council resolution 2-3-3-1, the US wanted security council to take this issue. But I think security council rightly agreed that this is not the issue because US is not a participant, but still US went ahead and said that because one month notice period has lapsed, now the sanctions are automatically imposed. Which is, I think, a complete, it shows a complete disregard of, again, I'm repeating, a complete disregard of the procedures, the laws, the ways, the international politics, the United Nations function. This is complete violation, but because the US is the superpower and it thinks that it can do anything. And also because of the reason that US has control over the world finances, the exchanges and everything, the other countries might be forced to take a step back and not to kind of, that will be a defeat for the United Nations itself. Because as for the resolution, the sanctions against Iran should not be imposed. So this is a completely unilateral move, but because this is a superpower and which has a control over the global finances, it has, you can say, at least the power, theoretical power to impose its sanctions and which will very much, in effect, will be a multilateral sanctions, UN sanctions. So theoretically not, but in reality, it will function like that. Because countries won't want to antagonize the US. Exactly. So that can be, that is another example of, this is, as you can say, a repeat of what happened in the Iraq war in a different form, of course, where US had, without taking any consideration of what the nation is saying, and similar thing is happening now. And that has happened only because the, you can say, the imbalance or the differences, the gaps in international politics, the US has the military and financial capabilities that it can impose. As George Bush said, either it is my way or highway. That is the similar thing which are happening. Thank you so much, Abul, for talking to us. In our next segment, we bring you part of an interview with former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, PDT Achary, on the way in which the farm bills were passed in the Rajasabha and the action taken against MPs who protested. He talks about the trust breakdown that has happened between the government and the opposition. I want you to explain to the viewers of Newsclate what you make of this unruly scene that took place. The unruly scenes and Rakhaz, pandemonium in the house is nothing new. This used to happen in the Lok Sabha quite often. And it used to happen in the Rajasabha to some extent. So, there is nothing extraordinary about the Rakhaz in the house. Yesterday, actually, there are two things which are important. When we look at yesterday's happenings in the Rajasabha. One is that the house extended its sitting beyond 1 o'clock. They were to adjourn at 1 o'clock. The chair extended the sitting. Normally, there is a consensus built up on extending the sitting. If there is no consensus, that means if the opposition does not agree, then the sitting is not extended and the house adjourns. That used to be the practice all through. Here, what I understand is that yesterday, the house sitting was extended without there being a consensus. And the opposition, naturally, they shouted and so on. But the proceedings went on and during this extended time, the minister was also replying and the reply was given. Then all the rest of the things happened. So, why the chairman, all the government thought it necessary to pass this bill yesterday itself by extending the time? Actually, it is not known. They could have passed it today by accumulating the views of the opposition. That is what normally is done in parliament. Because nothing will be lost. The government has majority in any case. In the Rajasabha also, they are the largest single party and the other parties are there to support them. So, they have nothing to fear so far as the fate of the bill is concerned. But then, the only problem was that they wanted to pass it yesterday itself. No, no, I may just interrupt you, sir. What was the urgency? And what was the urgency of the deputy chairman, Mr. Hari Vansh, wanting to pass those bills on Sunday itself? This is something we are unable to understand. At the same time, does the chair, in this case the deputy chairman, is it not within his discretionary power to decide to extend the session or not? I mean, after all, there is no rule that binds him to that.  Is it not? Actually, it is not his discretion. It is the decision of the house. That is the consensus. There is a sense of the house taken on such issues. The sense of the house is taken. That is what I said earlier, that even if, I mean, if there is no consensus, if the members in the opposition say that they don't agree to this proposal, then the chair adjourns the house. Chair would say that since there is no consensus, we are not going to sit beyond the scheduled time of adjournment. That is the normal practice. But yesterday, I did not know why no effort was made, no effort seems to have been made to bring the opposition on board. And then extra, that should have been done. That is a normal practice that is resorted to or followed in the legislature, particularly in parliament. Mr. Achary, there were also some other developments that were unusual. Now, before the voting took place, after all this ruckus, the opposition wanted physical voting. They wanted the votes, I mean, individuals who were present to cast their vote. However, the deputy chairperson decided to go along with a voice vote. Is this also unusual out of the ordinary? So far as the voting procedure is concerned, things are clear. According to the voting procedure, when the debate is over, the chair puts the question before the house. For example, the chair would say, the question is that the motion be adopted. There is a motion before the house. Everything is presented before the house in the form of a motion. So he would say that the question is that the motion be adopted. Those in favor say aye. So some people will say aye. And those against may say no. Some people will say no. Then the chairman will say, I think the ayes have it. He will say that. And he stops there. Then a member, mostly from the opposition, stands up and says no have it. No have it. That means he is challenging the decision of the chair. He wants a division. Then the chairman would say, let the lobbies be cleared. And the lobbies are cleared for three minutes. Then all the members who are sitting in the lobby and all that, they will come into the house. They will be ready for voting. He will repeat it again. Those in favor may say aye and no. And then people will say no, they no have it. Then he will say division. And then the members will press that button. The voting will be done. This is the process. Now the question is, can the chair ignore a demand for voting? Voting means the division, actual voting in the house. The other is voice vote. Whether the chair can ignore a demand from members for a voting in the house, I would say chair has no authority, no power to ignore a demand from the members for an actual voting in the house. He has to, under the rules he has to. The reason is that under article 100 of the Constitution of India, the issue that is before the house, any question that is before the house, is decided by a majority of the members, present and voting. Now as you know, the majority can be decided. Majority is a very precise thing. Majority in terms of number. Otherwise you cannot decide majority. Majority has no other meaning. Majority has to be decided in terms of the number. So that is determined by voting in the house. That is what the constitution says. So constitution is very clear. But the practice of voice vote is there, is followed in all the legislatures. When there is a presumption that the government has majority, it is okay so we can pass it by voice vote. But if there is a controversy and if there is a demand from the members that there should be a voting in the house, then the chair cannot ignore that and the chair has to proceed to conduct the voting in the house. That's all we have time for today. We will be back tomorrow with more news from the country and the world. Until then, keep watching NewsClick.