Family Theatre presents Jack Bailey and Pat Crawley. From Hollywood, the Mutual Network in Cooperation with Family Theatre presents The Wise Guy starring Jack Bailey. And now to introduce the drama, here is your hostess, Pat Crawley. Larry Chatterton. Family Theatre's only purpose is to bring to everyone's attention a practice that must become an important part of our lives if we are to win peace for ourselves, peace for our families and peace for the world. Family Theatre urges you to pray. Pray together as a family. And now to our transcribed drama, The Wise Guy starring Jack Bailey. Look, kiddies, if you're stuck by a question, just take a wild guess at it and go on to the next one. Mr. Johnson. Yes, Pam, what is done is. I don't remember you telling us what Balboa discovered. Well, I'll give you a hint. Okay. It wasn't chlorophyll. That's it. Now just sign your papers, drop them off on my desk. And that's it. So we'll see you tomorrow, kids. Bye-bye. Yes, Miss Irwin. I just came by to tell you that Mr. Logan wants to see you before you go home. Thanks, Jesse. What is it? Another complaint about me? Oh, I don't believe so. I think he wants to talk about the new school. You know it's funny, Jesse. I'll never get used to being called down to the principal's office. Even as a teacher? Well, that's the trouble. I can't seem to realize that I'm still not a ten-year-old kid with coolage buttons all over my cap. Oh, well, that's why the children are so fond of you, Harry. You're like one of them. Well, according to the school board, I'm more like ten of them. Come now, Mr. Johnson. Don't start running yourself down. You will never get to be an assistant principal that way. Jess, do you really think I've got a chance for that job when we get over to the new place? Well, I know Mr. Logan submitted your name as a recommendation along with Mr. Spindler's. Oh, laughing boy, Spindler. There's a jolly chap to have around these kids. Well, you must admit, he takes advantage of every opportunity. Yeah, whether it's his or not. Well, I better go see what's on the fire. Thanks, Jess. All right. The principal, Mr. Johnson. Why, no, Spindler, I understood you were in Logan's office drilling for oil and I wanted to see you in your tin hat. Equipped to fit every occasion, eh, Johnson? Always the wise guy. Well, I'd do what I can. Do you think it's a good example for your pupils, always cracking jokes? I haven't had any kicks. From the pupils? Let me give you a little friendly advice, Johnson. When you clown around and cut up in front of the children, you detract not only from your own position, but from that of every other teacher in the school. And as one of those teachers, I want you to know that I don't approve of it. Well, I'll pass that on to the fifth graders tomorrow and we'll put it to a vote. Is that okay, Spindler? Joke.  The time may come when you'll be laughing out of the other side of your mouth. My mouth doesn't have sides, it's round. Like that.  Boy, how gloomy can you get, him and his good example. Brother, I've seen happier faces on sundials. Come in, come in. It's me, Mr. Logan. Oh, Harry, come on in. Just, uh, Miss Irwin said that she wanted to see me. That's right, sit down, Harry. Well, I see you've got everything packed to move over to the new school building. Just about.  We wouldn't have stayed here this long if construction on the other building hadn't been delayed. Yeah, I know. Janey and I were just talking last night about how cold it got here last winter when the boilers went out. How is Jane, Harry? All right. Really? Well, kind of lonesome to tell you the truth. We thought everything for the adoption was all set and then at the last minute it sort of fell through. I heard about that. I'm sorry. We're still on the waiting list, though. You watch. We'll wind up with a brood of kids bigger than the fifth grade. Uh, Harry, about your application for assistant principal over at the new place. You don't mean it's come through? Well, no, no it hasn't. I suppose you know that Spindler applied for the job, too. Yeah. Has he got an inside track? As far as the board's concerned, yes. They figure I'm not dignified enough, huh? Well, you could use a little more restraint in the classroom, Harry.  Well, what's wrong with that? I want my gang to like school. Certainly, Harry, so does any good teacher. But, well, the board feels you haven't displayed the qualities of leadership, the willingness to assume responsibility that they expect in an assistant principal. I guess if they won't buy it, they just won't buy it. Oh, no, it isn't certain. It's not official yet. You get it. I'm dead, but not buried. I'd be wrong if I said it looked encouraging for you, Harry. Janey and I were really counting on this, too. I'm sorry I couldn't swing it for you. So am I, Mr. Logan. I'm sorry for a couple of reasons. Harry? Yeah? You hardly touched your dinner. Mm-hmm. Harry, what's wrong? What's bothering you? Nothing. Nothing. I was just thinking about the meatloaf here. The more meatloaf, lady? Harry, what's the matter? Is it because we didn't get the baby? Oh, a little. Well, we'll get when we're still on the list. Look who's cheering up hootin'. Yeah, we're on the list. Lists we got. I just wish we could get off the list and into the parade. Oh, did something happen at school today? Well, I'm gonna have to tell you sooner or later. I blew it for the assistant principal's job. Oh, Harry. It's not official, of course. They still haven't notified the next to kin. Well, what happened? Same old thing. I'm a comic character and it shouldn't happen to an assistant principal. Who gets it? Spindler? Yeah, he's real deep. He's serious, but dignity. Oh, come on now. You admitted yourself he was a good teacher. All right, he's a good teacher. So how come I'm a bad teacher just because my kids don't think I'm Harry the Hangman? Well, I... I don't know, honey. You know what my trouble is? I like kids too much. We've been scratching along for almost eight years just because I get a big wallet. How to watch them get smart and stay pleasant at the same time. Isn't that what a teacher's supposed to do? Well, you'll never prove it by the school board in this town.  About the job? Yeah, and he has got himself a salesman, a new salesman, as of next month. Oh, Harry, you know you don't want to give up teaching. Okay, so I don't want to, but what kind of a life do you call this? We're getting along. Be yourself. Honey, how much do we put in the bank every month? You be yourself, Harry. It isn't the money. It's your pride, isn't it? Eight years. I've been knocking myself out in that steam-heated packing box, and why? Because you like it. Well, I've stopped liking it. Happy Harry Johnson. Good for a laugh, but not for a raise.  You bet I am. Okay, ah, so I'll miss the kids. One of it.  Why don't you think it over a little more? I thought it over, honey. I'm through kidding myself. School's out for the summer and another week. They'll have plenty of time to get someone else. Well, if you're sure, this is what you want to do. Sure, I'm sure. And you love real estate business. I'll bring home a box of samples every night. We can raise geraniums. Mr. Johnson. Yeah, my, hello. Yeah, you're at school a little early this morning, aren't you? This felt like looking around, mate. It must have looked at down here in the basement, lest you're interested in antique boiler systems. What happened? Conk out again? Yeah. I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Johnson. The schoolboy ain't getting us out of this building a minute too soon. This old tax just about on its last legs. Well, I thought they fixed it up last winter. We patched it up the best we could, but when the boiler gets this old, it's pretty hard to keep up with what's wrong with it. If it wasn't we needed hot water for cleaning, I'd never touch the blame thing. Well, anyhow, you won't have to wrestle it much longer, Mike. Yeah, thank heavens for small favors. Sure, there ain't anything you want down here? No, I've just taken the last look around. Well, don't tell me you're gonna miss this place. Well, if I did, I guess I wouldn't be missing much, huh, Mike? I here tell you in line for the assistant principal's job over at the new place, that right? That wrong. Turns out I'm a little short in the leadership and responsibility department. Well, I don't know about that, but you taught my granddaughter to spell, and that's more than a spindler could do last year. Oh, is your granddaughter in my class? Fifth grade. Pamela Nixon, my daughter's girl. Oh, sure.  Hey, you said a senior a year ago she couldn't spell cat unless someone gave her the first two letters. No kidding. And shy, you never seen a kid so shy.  Well, maybe I shouldn't kid around so much with them. They'll all get out of school thinking life is just one big belly laugh. This will be a better place if it was. Maybe. Well, thanks for the pleasant minority opinion, Mike. I'll see you later. I gotta get on upstairs. Good luck, Mr. Johnson. I'm sorry to interrupt classes right in the middle of the morning to call you down here, folks, but a member of the board is on his way over to tell the children about the new school. Say, I'm sorry to be late for the meeting, Mr. Logan. Oh, that's all right, Harry. You have your class seated down in the assembly hall. The assembly hall? No. I thought you just wanted the teachers to come down now and... I distinctly told you, Johnson, that Mr. Logan wanted all the classes brought down to the assembly hall. You said we were going to have this meeting first and then bring the kids down, Spencer. I said no such thing. If you paid more attention to business instead of... I do pay attention to business. It would be... Harry, you'd better go and get your class. It's almost eleven now and all the other children are in assembly. All right, Mr. Logan, you bet. I'll bring him in right now. What's the matter, Mike? It's the boiler in the basement. I was trying to shut it off about ten minutes ago and the valve handle snapped. It's building up pressure something off and I can't turn it off. You mean it might blow up? Any minute.  Go tell Mr. Logan what happened. Then have him take the kids out of the assembly hall into the yard and tell him to shake it up. But why are you going? Well, my own gang's still up on the second floor. But you ain't going to bring them down this way. No, there's a fire escape upstairs at the other end of the hall. We'll use that. Now, Mike, you get going. Golden downstairs, going outside. Jess, I thought you were down in the assembly hall. Well, I came back up from a first. What's all the excitement? Well, I'll tell you on the way down. All right, gang, now double file.  Fire escape? Come on, Maria. Harry, what's going on? It's the boiler. If we don't get out of here, it's... Oh! It's like you're going to collapse. All worry about. What happened, Mr. Johnson? Well, honey, I understand Mr. Logan told the eighth graders they could tear down the schoolhouse for a graduation present and it looks like they jumped the gun. Move and gang, keep moving gang. Jess. Yes? You lead them down the hall to the fire escape. I'll keep herding them along after you. All right, all right. This way, children, after them along, follow me. That's the way, gang. Don't worry about your coat. Summer's coming. Yes, sir. Now, quiet, gang. Quiet. Quiet. That's it. Just follow Miss Irwin. Come on, Mr. Johnson. Yes? I'd make it hot for you during exam week. Come on now. Mr. Johnson's going to open the door right away. It looks like all it needs is a good yank. Yeah, that's it. Oh, it's no good. It feels like it sprung or something. Maybe that explosion jammed it. I think so. Gang. Okay, gang. Gang, calm down. Now, here's what we're going to do. Stay in line and just turn around and walk into the sixth grade classroom right over there. That's right. The doors unlock, so go right on in. Go in, go in, and keep in line. Harry, why are you sending them back into a classroom? There's no way downstairs from there. We've got to get them out of this corridor, Jess. Once the draft gets behind that fire on the stairs, it'll shoot through here like watered on a funnel. Well, I guess you're right. All the way. Come on, Jess. You too. Now, let's put this door between us and those flames. Mr. Johnson. Oh, we're going to get out. Pam, I never saw anything like you, kids. You're always trying to get out of school. Don't you worry, honey. We're going to get you out. Harry, look, look. Coming into the schoolyard. The fire engine. Well, I had the princess be along pretty soon. Hand me that book, then, right there on the desk. Yeah, okay. Stand back a little bit. See us, Harry. They see us. Yeah. See, what's that gizmo they're bringing over under the window? It looks like one of those nets that you jump into. I wonder why they didn't raise a lad instead. I got a feeling they're afraid the walls won't last that long. Oh, my God. Oh, Harry. Oh, look. Look, there's smoke coming up through the floor. I know. I can feel the floor getting hotter. Hang on to yourself, Jess. We've got to get these kids out of here. They appear in front of the window. Free parachute jump. None stopped in the schoolyard. Come on, Pamela. You first, honey. Come on. I'm afraid, Mr. Johnson. Afraid? What would Superman think if he heard you talking like that? Hang on now. Listen, kids. Kids. The one who lands closest to the center of that white circle the fireman are holding gets to bring me a candy bar every day next week. That's no present for us, Mr. Johnson. Sure it is, Pam. I don't eat candy. Okay, honey. Here you go. Now, come on. Here we go. 26 to go. Nelly, come on. How many left up there now, Mr. Logan? I might count. They're all out, but Harry and Miss Irwin. Yeah. And then she comes crawling out on the windowsill. Oh, she's ready to jump. There she goes. Bought her, Mike. She's safe. All right, Harry. Come on, jump. Have you talked to any of the kids that were up in that room, Mr. Logan? Why, why? Yes, a few of them, why? I just wondered if you noticed when they climbed out of that net, how many of them were laughing. I know I had them. Mike, look. He's crawling out onto the windowsill. Mr. Logan. Mr. Logan. Come on. It's time to go. Mrs. Johnson. Yes, nurse? The doctor says you can see him now, but just for a few minutes. Fish face. Oh, Harry, honey. Too bad you missed my hideout, honey. Brought down the house.  You know, the doctor says it'll take me a couple of months to knit up. I seem to have broken everything, including the all-city record for the hot foot. Oh, Harry. Say, Janie, I guess that real estate character Edelston's going to have to stumble along without me for a while. Don't you know what's happened? I don't know enough to tell you. I don't want it to happen again. First I got my foot caught climbing out that net. No, no, no. Not about your accident. I mean, with a scoreboard. Don't tell me the building fell on them, too. Hey, things are looking up here. Of course not. Wait a minute. There's someone out in the hall who wants to see you. Wait a minute. Come in. How are you feeling, Harry? Mr. Logan. Gee, it's real nice of you to come down here. And see me. Well, to tell the truth, this is kind of an official visit, Harry. Oh, now what have I done? Well, the school board directed me to inform you that... Don't tell me I'm going to be docked for breaking that window. Will you let Mr. Logan finish, Harry? Yes. They, the school board, wanted me to find out if you'd consider accepting the post of assistant principal in the new school next September. Assistant principal? Me? They, they realized you've received a very lucrative offer from the Edelston Realty Company, but... Oh, where did they get it? I suppose Spindler got snooping around. No, no, no, no, no. Harry, you see, Mr. Edelston happens to be one of the members of the school board. Oh, I didn't know that. Yes, yes. And he got up at the meeting this morning and said he'd be sorry to lose a salesman with your potential, but that he felt it was more important for the community to have educators whose sense of dedication to their job and their pupils was as strong as yours. No kidding. He really said that? Yes. And he told the board that he didn't know what they meant by leadership, but that he couldn't think of a more perfect example of it than the way you led your class out of that burning building. My gosh. And then he sat down and they voted you the new assistant principal. Well, I'll be the assistant principal. Oh, you take it. You just concentrate on getting well, Harry. You're going to be pretty busy come September. Sure, that's wonderful. Who's going to take over the fifth grade if I'm assistant? Well, as a matter of fact, we were thinking of giving it to Mr. Spindler. Oh, Spindler, why that? No, Harry. Well, what were you going to say, Harry? I was going to say, Mr. Logan, that that might be a very good idea. After all, by the time kids, I mean children, get to the fifth grade. They need someone who will impress upon them the fact that getting an education is, well, nothing to joke about. You know, family theater brings you this program each week for the one purpose of encouraging and promoting prayer throughout the world. We stress family prayer particularly, for the family is the firm stone upon which a nation is built. In these days when the nations of the world are in a topsy-turvy state, prayer is more important than ever before. I'd like to read you a poem that appeared recently in one of our daily newspapers. We all have a secret weapon which can cure our deepest woes. It can tear down walls of hatred and confound our godless foes. It doesn't cost a billion dollars yet can guarantee world peace, not the A-bomb or the H-bomb, yet it makes the war drum cease. It's not guarded from the millions. Each of us can do our share. It grows stronger as you use it, for it's better known as prayer. Yes, prayer is the secret weapon which we all possess. If we but use it, we can bring peace to the world, peace to the nation and peace to our homes, for the family that prays together stays together.  This series of Family Theatre broadcast is made possible by the thousands of you who feel the need for this type of program, by the mutual network which has responded to this need and by the hundreds of stars of stage, screen and radio who give so unselfishly of their time and talent to appear on our Family Theatre stage.  This is Larry Chatterton expressing the wish of Family Theatre. Join us, won't you? Family Theatre is broadcast throughout the world and originates in the Hollywood studios of the world's largest network. This is the Mutual Broadcasting System.


Everybody forced here upping mosaic NFL four box mixer 21 hobby in choice and 22 no huddle in choice number three Results can be found at late in sports cards calm at any time. Thanks for joining everybody and good luck Let's get started Steve. They legitimately post a new Instagram reel every time they win and that's like a different dance video from like Show or like a movie and then it has that song playing so it's it always gets shared to my Instagram story every time Every time all right, let's start with the Current year I'll start with 2022 and then we'll do 2021 so we'll do 2022 no huddle then choice And we'll do 21 hobby and then choice Not to mention 50% off Papa John's a day after a magic win in central, Florida Slover DK Metcalf Seattle first disco is Logan Thomas commanders. It's a sauce gardener there Danny Gray and Nicoby Dean Purple disco Antoine Winfield jr. For the bucks 16 of 50 Really change up. Hmm Let the conspiracies begin. I guess careery blue chips disco rookie Chris Alave Saints and disco Trayvon digs Cowboys Kenneth Walker Skyler Thompson Garrett Wilson jets on the no huddle rookie auto. There you go jets nice card nice auto Mosaic Elijah Moore for the jets James Cook Sam Williams Mike Woods silver Jordan poyer for the bills With some surface issues. I'm not sure what's going on with this one I'll send a box wrapper though rookie disco pier strong Patriots London a Quanu Lou disco jets again Michael Carter this time 50 of 75 league Willis debut Neato Beatty disco Cam Hayward for the Steelers is a conma purple disco Joe mixon Bengals numbered 17 out of 50 a lava debut Brock Purdy base With the 49ers to son Haskins silver rookie Packers quay Walker Disco sauce gardener jets rookie Trayvon Walker rookie in there Tyler Algear James Cook mosaic Angkwan Bolton Cardinals Jordan Davis Christian Watson disco variation Cowboys rookie Jalen Tolbert Meekle Hardman jr. Her key onto Ingram Olave. Oh a gold disco Marvin Jones jr. For the Jags Gold 5 of 10 Lots of color in that box. I know I said we'll do 2022 first let's do 21 hobby and then we'll do the both the choice boxes here 21 hobby mosaic DJ chart for the Jags got silver Drew Brees Saints blue overdrive Ronald Jones bucks So Jake's boy 89 99 Wilson debut Mac Jones base Dude, we should make we should print up a jingle meme and just start like putting on like people's desks and stuff Like lift it up. This is oh you just got jingled We're probably in trouble Jose client chef Okada, but it's worth it Red debuts sermon for the Niners Would you be on board that Jake? Straight fire mosaic Lamar Jackson Ravens Stevenson Asante Samuel Blue mosaic for the Browns Jarvis Landry Juice is loose right there 799 999 silver Pats Tom Brady Super Bowl MVP Center stage Jalen Hurd silver for the Eagles Waddle debut mosaic JK Dobbins for the Ravens red mosaic Tom Brady Patriots Stairmaster silver Kurt Warner Najee debut So everybody watching like other than breaks. What are you watching? There's no sports on really Heath Miller autograph for the Steelers Pittsburgh legend out of there mosaic CD lamb Cowboys Silver's take one Barkley Giants mosaic Devin Singletary Bills rookie mosaic Peyton Turner Saints Stairmasters mosaic Aaron Rodgers fields debut Tevanta Smith base Deandre Swift mosaic for the Lions now red mosaic rookie Mike strong cults In it to win at mosaic Aaron Rodgers Packers. I got the Grammys run. I forgot about the Grammys Fremuth Frank Darby music kind of stinks nowadays, but Grammys are something at least some of the performances are good at the Grammys Giants white mosaic Kenny Galladay 10 of 25 silver Baker Mayfield Browns Silver overdrive Miles Gaskin dolphins Gas can for the dolphins. There's a chase with something on the chase the debut So send a box at the Bengals. You don't have to top load it though No, no numbered Rodgers. Those are just inserts base inserts really mosaic Captain really Falcons silver Amir Smith Marseille rookie Vikings silver montage Josh Jacobs Tony Last hobby pack for 2021. We'll do some choice There is the auto rookie Chargers Larry Roundtree the third Mosaic Dak Prescott Cowboys red mosaic Amari Cooper Cowboys They're probably should have kept Amari Cooper 2022 choice All right, here we go. We've got a silver for the Bengals Joe burrow National pride mosaic von Miller going to the Bills and red and yellow rookie Otto Trayvon Walker for the Jags Red and yellow is gonna be numbered 80 Jerry Judy 23 of 80 Broncos probably he might be trade bait Bills Josh Allen 30 of 80 national pride. They go bills and Patriots Devonte Parker 7 of 80 Red and green rookies Jags Snoop Connor and Packers Devonte Wyatt. All right. Well, I see something big in 21 choice now Sub Gold Rush Viking silver Chris Carter mosaic behind it Robbie Anderson Panthers Red and yellow auto Patriots Kyle van Noy. That's what I'm wondering John. I Don't know like I feel like they should Peyton Manning Broncos number 35 of 80 No Denver Peyton Manning Jets red and yellow to 80 to Michael P. Ryan 46 of 80 and Man of the Year Steelers the Bosterone Betta 63 of 80 a lot of bad time to get this Niners rookie red and yellow trail ants 26 of 80 You go 49ers and red and green on the back bucks rookie Joe try and show you Inca one sec. We'll do a recap Select up next. All right, so we have numbered cards and we have autos here. So we had blue rojo To 99 for the bucks overdrive As all the blues are to 99 and hobby Jarvis Landry Browns blue disco to 75 Michael Carter Jets Red and yellow are to 80 in both years Tray Lance rookie the Michael P. Ryan Jerome baddest Peyton Manning is a Bronco Devonte Parker Patriots Josh Allen Jerry Judy purple disco Antoine Winfield the 50 for the bucks and Joe mix and bangles white disco to 25 Kenny Galladay Giants gold disco to 10 Marvin Jones Jr. Jags We had autos Steelers Heath Miller Chargers Larry roundtree the third Garrett Wilson Jets in the no huddle Trayvon Walker Jags and Kyle van Noy Patriots And that'll do it. Thanks again everybody Going on now to select football


The whole point of an unconference is inclusivity. It is giving everyone a space to articulate some interests and some engagement on something that is of common interest. And the common interest of this meeting is wanting to make research better. And that can happen in a variety of ways. It can happen personally with the way in which we develop our own skills and abilities to do the work the most rigorously we can. It can happen at a small group level, providing training and resources and opportunities for our teams or collaborations or labs to do the work the best we can. And it can happen at a cultural level where we try to transform the reward structures the systems, the ways in which researchers are emboldened and able to do their work given the way the system works and encourages certain kinds of behaviors. So whatever is the rationale or what mix of rationales. This is the place and the opportunity of an unconference is that it is highly flexible to adapt to the interest that you have. You should not feel any hesitation to jump in to speak up to look for others that have shared interests and to explore how we might work individually and collectively to advance the common goal of improving the quality and rigor of education research. So I want to spend a couple of minutes just talking about the context and in particular the challenge that we face that has been a broad and growing discussion in education research but also more generally across the sciences of how it is we can do better we can improve the quality of the research we can improve the credibility of the inferences that we draw, we can improve the translation of the findings that we produce in research into practice whether it's in the classroom in society or anywhere else. And one of the core of those challenges is the recognition that we are not as transparent open reproducible rigorous credible as we could be, and there are a variety of open behaviors that may improve the ability to identify error that happens all of the time because it's a very natural part of the research process that provide opportunity to improve the rigor and credibility of the findings by being systematic and careful and identifying all the opportunities to make inferences and qualify those inferences based on the quality of our evidence and opportunity to self correct and build on one another by being more open more collaborative more sharing more inclusive. Some behaviors that have been discussed as a way in which we might improve the credibility of research, and I just want to highlight some results from a tool that we've been using called the open scholarship survey that we've been administering in a variety of different different research communities, drawing as close to representativeness if representativeness ish samples from those communities and assessing what people's behaviors and attitudes and perceived norms are about a variety of different open behaviors. So we have a summary plot from 12 different research disciplines on whether the sample reported sharing data in their most recent paper. And the positive side to highlight is that there is a lot of blue of people saying yes I did share data in my most recent paper across a variety of disciplines. Great, particularly because if we had asked this same question 10 years ago, it'd be very little blue data sharing was not very common. It did occur, but not at the scale that it is occurring now. The challenge part to identify particularly in this audience is where education is located in the amount of data sharing that is occurring, which is not as much as everywhere else. If you ask people or attitudes are you in favor of data sharing, you can see a lot of blue in favor very much in favor. You see some yellow of people that are not so sure about it and very little in the red. And then, again, education is in a place where it can move. There is room to catch up to where some of the other fields are. It's not just about data sharing, we can look at a variety of other different behaviors that have been advanced as potentially credibility enhancing rigor enhancing pre registration, being one. Again, a lot of blue of positivity and attitudes towards pre registration. Education has has room to grow. And if we ask, have you done pre registration in your most recent paper. Again, there's a growing adoption of this many more people in various communities have started to do pre registration. There's, it's lagging in what people's attitudes are there's more favorability towards pre registration than there is action on it and education has room to catch up attitudes about other behaviors like replication should we be doing more and more replications in our field. Lots of blue saying what in favor. Less blue and actually doing it at least in the most recent paper in this case and then when we ask in general, do you do replication research have you done replication research it isn't as favorable, or as enacted as it is people's favorability and attitudes toward it. And then also things like should we be reporting all results even no results in our papers, wide endorsement of it in terms of attitudes, but not as much behavior of that behavior of that action of reporting no results. So when whatever the domain we look at that sit consistent we see observe that consistently in general, relatively good favorability, and a lack of the behavior catching up to that amount of favorability, and part of that is a natural part of culture change process. It's often the case that attitudes towards valued things will change earlier than the actions to do those things, particularly when they're complicated behaviors, or the reward structures aren't yet in place to reinforce those behaviors catching attitudes, or the emerging norms. There's also an opportunity in leveraging what we see in every one of these data collections across different communities, which is evidence of pluralistic ignorance. This is a classic social psychological phenomenon where we believe the culture is one way but the culture is actually a different way in terms of what people's attitudes are. So this just taking an example on data sharing. The reality in the samples that we have is that there's strong favorability towards data sharing among education researchers 69% report being in favor very much in favor, only 8% report being in favor. But when we ask people, what do you think is the average degree of favorability in, in education among education researchers, people think that only 36% would be in favor and 31% would be opposed. This gap is a very common gap is the actual attitudes in the community are further out on pro openness, then we perceive the community to actually be pro open, and you can see that across a variety of behaviors I just want to illustrate this is aggregating all 12 of those communities in the prior slides of the degree of actual favorability towards these different behaviors replication or results data sharing all have at least 50% some very very strong majorities saying that they're favor, and you can see very little if you look at those same behaviors in terms of perceived norms what we think is the degree of favorability, you see that they're much, our perceptions are that there's much less favorability than there is. And just flashing back and forth you can see the amount of change in growing blue in actual attitudes. And so the lead to our perception is no not as much favorability, and more this be people being against it. So that's an opportunity, because there are very clear effective interventions for addressing the gap between what the actual community attitudes are, and what the perceived norms are, and one of them is making it visible. And so these kinds of slides saying you think more people are against it but actually more most people are favorite and favorable, favorable to it. Both can change people's behaviors where they're equivocal. Oh I see this is an emerging norm in our field. All right, I'm on board because I can see the value. And so it also makes it easier for people to adopt the behavior. Oh, I thought there was a lot more opposition to this in the community. Maybe I go ahead and, and give it a try. And so we can encourage some behavior adoption by promoting and making visible the actual norms as opposed to the perceived norms. So thinking about how to make the most of the unconference itself. There, obviously it depends on your goals if you're here to learn more about how to do these practices you'll have one orientation to the meetings if you're here just out of curiosity and learning what the discussions are, you'll have a slightly different orientation. And a lot of the activities that you'll see as David introduced at the beginning involves some design of thinking about how can we improve the systems, the approach, the training, the materials, the ease with which people can start to enact these behaviors the desirability of those behaviors, changing the stakeholders policies and incentives for making those behaviors normal. And all of that requires thinking about design. How can we take ideas and translate them into action, and particularly actions that can scale. We're not looking to just change a behavior at one time and have it end. A lot of the culture change action is about changing the system elements, the factors that make it more difficult to sustain behavior change towards greater openness. There are other things to think about in terms of how we design on intervention, whether it's training, or a new education tool or a new resource and otherwise. And some of these principles are very useful for trying to test and then iterate to improve adoption towards scalability. So a first to consider is focus on the what and the why, before thinking about the how. What we want to accomplish. What's the ideal outcome of this. It's very easy to get bogged down in the, oh, that's going to be hard because x, y and z immediately. And if you get bogged down and this is going to be hard because all of the barriers to adoption. You may forget what the actual goal is, what is it that we're trying to accomplish and why are we trying to accomplish that. But if you can establish that as an anchor, then you can look very incrementally and specifically at those barriers. Okay, these are the barriers to the ideal. Which of those are things that we can tackle we can make actual progress on from this grassroots type of approach. A second is clarifying upfront what success looks like what would it mean to actually make progress on this thing that we're trying to change. And getting that translation from oh we want things to be more open we want things to be more rigorous want things to be more credible as a very abstract ideal is hard to translate into well what does that mean what would we see. And making it concrete specifying what I mean by making things more credible is that when someone else tries to reanalyze the data from that paper they can get the same result right reproducibility is my definition in this context, and how would I measure that. In those concrete objectives, it can provide a basis for in design to figure out how is it that we should design to that outcome, and how can we evaluate whether we're making progress in our design and approach. A third thing to consider is using agile iterative development practices, rather than trying to solve the whole problem before you actually enact the solution. It is really easy in the context of culture change to get overwhelmed with boy these are big challenges, and we need to design an entire solution in order to tackle that problem to really make the full change. And of course there is a lot that needs to get built to change a research culture. So how to solve the entire problem in one bite will never actually get started culture change is hard and iterative there's lots of wrong terms that we will take in any solution that we try to enact. And so prototyping iterating developing in a way that serve always is providing something that we can do, even from the very first version, making it incremental is a much more effective way, and a lot of these practices are trying to build the entire ship, and then finding out that we forgot something, or we didn't plan it right right from the outset. So this often means doing things that are easy the easy parts first. And this is a very useful concept that's applied in a variety of different domains is the 8020 rule. And this is saying okay well there's this problem we've defined we define the ideal. We know what the problem is we know what this barrier is. And we can solve 80% of that problem pretty easily. But there's this 20% that is the hard part that we keep getting stuck on. It's really where a lot of the work and a lot of the resources end up going in. The concept of the 8020 rule is that 20% of the effort can solve 80% of the problem. And the remaining 80% of effort that's really about that long tail is getting to the full solution. For any iterative development practice, start with the 80 and parking lot those things that are the hard parts that we need to solve to get a full solution. But if we try to figure that part out now, we're going to get stuck and we won't get the 80 done. But if we can figure out which parts are the parts that are feasible that we can make progress on from where we are now. Then we know how to which things to parking lot and to plan for for later development when we have developed when we've established some success in our interventions. The agile process in order to avoid over investment, or in, you know, devising solutions that require big investment before we can even see any returns is start with what already exists. We may say, Oh, gosh, well, you know, I could implement the 80% solution in Google Docs, but that's not going to be able to get me to 100%. So I shouldn't go to do it in Google Docs. Start with Google Docs prototype there. That's easy. It's an existing solution. Let's work with that because we can make progress really quickly, and then identify where the existing tools don't serve the long term, and then problem solver. A lot of the effective agile work is prototyping so that you can start doing something right away. Road test the parts that you can do. And then problem solve for the parts that need additional solutions that are hard, harder to resource, but once you show proof of concept, then you have a mechanism for getting those resources. Another one to mention is that by coming to a meeting like this, you were probably in the, the, the idealist camp in some way of someone who was actively motivated to try to promote open practices to do open practices to be a change agent in the research culture. And it is not a problem that the rest of the research community is not an idealist on this regard. Most people go into research to focus on the problems that motivate them, right, whatever is the research thing that they are doing. And they aren't motivated in particular by openness or improving the research culture, they're happy to be open or have an improving research culture, but that's not the driver. And so we have to appreciate that the problem that we are working on whatever it is your problem. You are probably the one that cares the most about that problem. And so design for the person that cares less about it, but would adopt it under the right circumstances, because we can get caught up in well if not, if I, if everyone is I an idealist about this they're just motivated because they want this behavior then they'll do it. But then the designs don't appreciate the constraints that people are under that may limit the likelihood that they can adopt it that they have the time to adopt it that the energy to adopt it all of the factors that influence people's behaviors because they've got other priorities to. And if we don't appreciate those priorities in design, then we won't be able to get that these types of solutions into the mainstream. So we talk about this model, a lot at COS and many others use it as well of thinking about what are the necessary ingredients for effective culture change culture change that will stick and be sustainable. So we talk about it with this structure that we have to consider how the tools being available the infrastructure that makes the behavior possible that we're trying to promote how we can integrate into people's daily workflows rather than adding on all different ways to work to busy people's lives make it easier for them to do it make it a benefit for them in their daily work. How do we enact and engage the communities to make to shift these norms to give them the training the tools the resources so that they can do the behaviors, and how can we work with those stakeholders, funders publishers institutions, so that it's rewarding and even required to do some of these behaviors. All of these are necessary to fully enact culture change. And we in each of our solutions may engage parts of it, but each of those parts plays a critical role in the overall structure. So if there is a tool out there, but there's not good training for that tool, creating an excellent training resource is fantastic for fostering the community. It brings people closer to that infrastructure in ways that the infrastructure itself is not delivering. So the, the role of the unconference here is really in that middle layer that connects the stakeholders changing the incentives and policies to the tools and resources that are available for the community to change. So we are here together and ready to work on this. The whole point of the unconference is to say how is it that we can do better and can we start to build some resources, some skills, some a spree to core among us to start to enact these changes and improve the research culture around us. Thank you everybody for coming to this meeting excited to see what comes of it. And if we look forward in the future to having you in Charlottesville for the first time or again. Thanks back to you David. Thank you Brian for that we do have time for a few questions and I'll cut it off pretty precisely in about four or five minutes just to get to some further discussion. So good conversations in the chat windows. Do you want to be willing to mention kind of how the sampling strategy and the degree of representativeness is is attempted in this case and then how results will be kind of published or posted on our website to, and then a couple more Yeah, great question. So the sampling strategy for most of those communities that I mentioned involved identification of prototypical journals from that field, and then outreach to the available corresponding authors of articles from those journals in a particular, like a two year span. So it is. It is less representative of highly early career researchers grad students for example who are less likely to have published work are less represented in the sample and more representative of those that are publishing at regular intervals in journals within that field. Yes, that provides some benchmark that's an interesting one is that in other data, open practices tend to be more popular among more junior researchers than they are among more senior researchers so if anything, these data may underestimate that qualification that is a reason that it may overestimate is again an invitation about their attitudes for research practices and open research. We're less likely to respond to that request, if they're really opposed my gosh, I can't deal with this kind of thing. So we can't fully say if to read a which there's biases in any direction but we did our best to make it as representative as possible of the publishing community from that research area. In terms of making the data available yeah that's very much the goal, David and his team have been working on this as an ongoing data collection as part of NSF grant that we have to track attitudes and change in these communities over time, and is partnering with the research team in our in the office to turn this into published reports and open data so that anybody can use it and extend it. We don't have a ETA on that but it's coming.


Being president in the United States is usually like running the gauntlet But President Biden somehow slept through the gauntlet I don't know I slept through it me too. That's why I asked I didn't think it was possible But here we are I mean It's almost like somebody turned the gauntlet completely off and instead installed a walking sidewalk put a semi-sentient man on it And then praised him for conquering the gauntlet Well, that's not how it's supposed to work. It's like hey wait a second here. Hey, hey, hey, wait wait wait a minute Please do not interrupt the ceremony Bob. A walking sidewalk is not the gauntlet. It's not the same thing It's not like some kind of walking sidewalk gauntlet. No, that's not quite the same. No That's not I mean, yeah, he may actually still die on the walking sidewalk gauntlet But not because of the gauntlet itself But rather due to over exhaustion from patting himself on the back evolution has been a huge success. Yay us Pat pat on the back pat on the back. Come on No Me attempting to take credit for any random good thing that happens in the world. I mean, he's like yes It's true My presidential authority is what caused one solitary B in Idaho to fart pollen on Precisely the correct flower which like the massive impact of a butterfly's wings can have caused a multiplier effect That saved the entire farming industry Don't you think you should thank me. I mean honestly death by patting yourself on the back That's no way to go.   That's the way I want to go I'm sure President Biden will pull through though never has a doubt crossed my mind Just think positive never let a doubt enter your mind Right Wilma, but I wouldn't wait until the last minute to fill out those organ donor cards And as long as he's still feeling well, he is welcome in American politics. It's better He's welcome back at police squad unless he's a drooling vegetable, but I think that's only common sense Honestly doctors can save just about anything these days. I think we can save your husband's arm Where would you like it sent?


You said you had Blue Dream, right? And for ever since I've lost that cut I have had people telling me heck up.  He has train wreck too.


He's accusing us of being in league with Big Tech because of a term sheet, a negotiable term sheet that we submitted to him that offered to pay him 50 million dollars over four years. 50 million dollars? So you think you got Chelsea Clinton? Yesterday, Stephen Crowder released a sanctimonious video where he anxiously exposed the conservative media that supposedly in bed with Big Tech. Now, even though he went out of his way to avoid naming names, the audience pretty much figured out immediately that he was referring to Ben Shapiro. And now today, Ben Shapiro has responded to the accusations lobbed against him by Stephen Crowder. Now this entire debacle is incredibly entertaining, but it really exposes a lot about conservative media, specifically how much money is behind them. But before we get to my commentary, let's listen to Stephen Crowder's initial accusations. But for the first time, I have to say that I believe many of those in charge in the right-leaning media are actually at odds with what's best for you, the viewer, the customer, and more importantly, the country. We here at Monclem, we thought that we were all in this together, that we were fighting the media entertainment industrial complex. We thought that we were all genuinely taking it to Big Tech, but too many of those in charge of the big conservative platforms are verifiably in bed with them. Big Tech is in bed with Big Khan. The people you thought, the people I thought were fighting for you, a lot of it has been a big con. If Blank is boycotted or dropped by more than 50% of the advertising partners, the company is not able to replace them within 90 days, the fee will be reduced by 25%. That's a sponsorship boycott. So that's saying, hey, liberals, boycotts work. They work on our guys. We'll punish them for you. Let me go on, specifically YouTube demonetization. If any of the major platforms issues a content strike such that Crowder cannot be monetized on such platform and the company is not able to resolve the issue within 90 days, the fee will be reduced by 25% moving forward. Now, I thought this was a mistake because, you know, these people maybe didn't know who I am that we've been demonetized for three years. No, it's made very clear to me in no uncertain terms. This is what's sent out to everybody. Think about this for a second.  The most insufferable part about that to me is how he tried to make this about the viewers and how Big Khan is betraying the viewers when in actuality this is about him not being satisfied with a very lucrative contract. And it's evident based on this portion of the video that we're about to watch that he's positioning himself for the next phase of his grift, which is why he decided to make a giant spectacle out of this announcement. Let's watch. If there are enough of you out there, I will transition Mug Club into a full-scale network with independent content creators who don't want to be locked into slave contracts. Look, I understand that business relationships sometimes fall through, people don't see eye to eye. I get that, but there is a way to structure these contracts and a network. There's a world in which contracts and a network exists where everyone benefits with some semblance of fairness, transparency. There's no need to be enslaved like this. Give me your money and I'll make a more virtuous, conservative platform where we're not going to be beholden to big tech.  He called that contract a slave contract and said, there's no reason to be enslaved like this.  Let's listen. I would just like to take a moment speaking of big tech and suppression of free speech. Take one moment to comment on a controversy that has broken out because my friend Stephen Crowder been friends with Stephen for a long time, like well over a decade. I was his lawyer when he first signed a contract with Fox and I've been friendly for a very long time. He put out a video essentially accusing Daily Wire of being in league with big tech. He's accusing us of being in league with big tech because of a term sheet, a negotiable term sheet that we submitted to him that offered to pay him $50 million over four years and included provisions that said that if he got booted from arenas that would lose him ad dollars, since we would also lose the ad dollars, then he would lose money as well. This is typically how contracts work. If his show were to start losing money, this is true of my show. If my show loses money, and it loses the Daily Wire money, I lose money. So if Stephen had come to work at Daily Wire Plus, it would have been precisely the same thing. If he had lost money in the ad space and his show had lost money, then he also would have lost money because that's how a joint venture works. Stephen interpreted that as somehow misinterpreted. I'll give it the best possible gloss. He somehow misinterpreted that as us attempting to quote-unquote do the work of YouTube. No, no. If you want more on that, then you should check out my friend and co-founder, Jeremy Boring's 55-minute video going through every single word of the term sheet that Stephen selectively read on his own YouTube channel. He read certain parts, he didn't read other parts. Jeremy reads literally word for word the entire term sheet and explains every single term they're in. I think it is well worth the watch. We should all be on the same side of this thing. I'm encouraging you. They should go subscribe to Stephen's Mug Club. I hope that he's very successful in whatever endeavor he chooses to pursue. That does not mean that he happens to be correct about the term sheet we submitted to him, and there is something rather nasty about attacking people who have been friends for over a decade, colleagues, defenders, for over a decade, on the basis of your own misinterpretation of a document that offers you $50 million over the course of four years. In other words, Stephen Crowder was insulted that the $50 million contract wasn't sufficient, and he was mad that there were caveats in said contract, which said he would lose money in the event he were to be deplatformed. Now, his claim is that deplatforming or demonetization for conservatives is inevitable, so $50 million wouldn't be the actual value that he's paid. But believe it or not, you don't have to say things that get you demonetized and deplatformed. For example, Ben Shapiro, he's one example. He still says all of the overtly bigoted things that he wants to say. He just doesn't take it to the next step and use slurs and go out of his way to violate the terms of service on YouTube. But a lot of these conservatives, they do this on purpose. They go out of their way to get banned or temporary suspensions, so that way they can then do a crowdfunding campaign and claim that they're being censored and say, oh my god, join my mug club or join my Patreon to push back against the censorship from Big Tech, so they like this victim narrative because that narrative is lucrative. So by joining this contract, Stephen Crowder wouldn't be able to rely on that portion of the grift. But understand that this exposes how greedy this man is. $50 million over four years. That is an amount of money that is comparable to mainstream media pundits. And yet he's still not satisfied. It is absolutely incredible. Now, Ben Shapiro referenced the co-CEO of the Daily Wire, Jeremy Boring, and he responded in a very lengthy video. I'll link to that down below if you want to watch the whole thing. But the clip that we're going to see shows Boring exposing Stephen Crowder as a fraud because he claims that he's independent and he's virtuous when in actuality, no, billionaires rolled out the red carpet in front of him and helped him get to the level that he's at currently. He talks in this video about being one of the only true independent conservative voices. And I find that incredibly offensive. Stephen, the whole time I've known him, has worked for someone else, has been paid by someone else. That doesn't mean other people telling him what to say. He's a very independent voice and that's good. So is Matt Walsh. So is Candace Owen. So has Ben Shapiro. So is Michael Knowles. So is Brett Cooper. But Stephen, as much or more than any of them, a very independent voice. But he's not exactly a self-made man. That's not true. He was paid by PJTV when I met him, which was owned by a billionaire at the time. Then he was paid by CRTV for a number of years, which was owned by a billionaire at the time. Then he was paid by the blaze, which was subsidized by a billionaire until Tyler Carton, one of the real genius businessmen in our movement, turned the company around and made it profitable. During all of that time, Stephen drove a ton of revenue. He's incredibly valuable. I'm not suggesting that he wasn't driving value. He was. I'm only saying he didn't have to build all of that. He didn't have to think about it and he didn't necessarily have to be profitable. And he doesn't know for a fact that he was profitable because, as he has said very publicly, all those companies, none of them really shared all the information about what was happening with him. So Stephen feels very certain that his show was always profitable, but he doesn't know that his show was profitable. This is all hilarious to me. He claims that he's independent, but yet you can't actually say that with a straight face if you've been bankrolled by billionaires because think about it.  You can advocate on increasing their taxes or policies that go against their particular industries. Now a conservative would never do that because they are bootlickers and they support these industries. They support the status quo, hence why these billionaires fund them. But you're still not independent because in the event Stephen Crowder decided to go rogue and say, well, maybe we should increase taxes on some wealthy individuals, well then they would pull funding. So he's still restrained. He's not fully independent as we are on the left where we don't even take advertising dollars most of the time. Now there's some additional details that I find pretty hilarious. Journalist Wool Summer explains the reaction among the right wing fan base was initially with Crowder, but now seems to be shifting against him with the revelation that he treated a $50 million contract like indentured servitude. Exactly. He has no self-awareness. One final detail, Jordan Peterson, whose podcast is hosted by the Daily Wire, was apparently unaware of who Crowder's video was actually about and initially tweeted his support for him. Someone appears to have gone to him though and Peterson later deleted the tweet. Now he adds possibly relevant in November, roughly two months after the Daily Wire negotiation broke down, Stephen Crowder was defending Kanye by complaining about people with Jewish last names in conservative media duping talent with confusing contracts. People with Jewish last names, I wonder who he could have been talking about. That was a great find by Wool Summer by the way. So he was covertly taking shots at Ben Shapiro presumably back then, but now he's decided, actually there's a way to cash in on this. Position myself to rather than joining the Daily Wire, just be the next Daily Wire and have my viewers fund my venture even though I'm already incredibly wealthy. And he has a lot of money because if you're going to turn down a $50 million contract for pretty reasonable clauses, then you're doing pretty well. Now let's talk about what this all exposes. I think it's pretty obvious, but these right-wingers, right-wing media, this whole ecosystem, it is far more well-funded than any of us imagined. As this Twitter user points out, the amount of secret billionaire money floating around these hard-right media personalities has got to be way more than even the most cynical person might imagine. Yeah, exactly. Because we all knew that these right-wing figures and organizations were propped up by billionaire money, but none of us knew just the sheer amount of money that was behind these individuals. A 2018 TYT report by Alex Koch detailed some of the billionaires in the web of funding for the Daily Wire and right-wing media more generally speaking, and it's a bit complicated, but they're heavily propped up by billionaires overall like the Mercers, the Wilkes Brothers and Koch Industries just to name a few. But in part, due to this funding, Ben Shapiro was able to transform the Daily Wire into an organization that found commercial success, claiming that they raked in $100 million in 2021 up from $65 million in 2020. And considering that they just recently offered Stephen Crowder a $50 million contract for four years, I'm assuming, just gonna go out on a limb here, that 2022 was really good to them as well. So this right here specifically is why these right-wingers have so much influence. It's not because they make better arguments and they're just more persuasive. That's not the case. It's because they're bankrolled by the rich and when you have this money, you can more easily get your name out there. You can flood the airwaves with your advertisements. You can sponsor organizations that will promote you. That's why the left is having such a difficult time competing with them and it seems as if they're winning the culture war. But in actuality, they're just reaching more people and the left can't do this because, again, the left, we actually are independent. We don't take money from billionaires. Most of us, again, don't even run advertisements. So this is why it seems like they're winning and why I think it's so important for the likes of us on the left to push back against their talking points and reveal how clownish and cartoonishly stupid their arguments are because it's just a numbers game. The more people you reach, the more people you're going to convince and if you get your message out to more people, you're going to have more people jump on the bandwagon. So it's a difficult job to try to compete with the right, but this is why they are dominant. It's because there's so much money behind them and even a $50 million contract isn't sufficient for some of these individuals. So that goes to show you how much money they have.  This is why so many folks on the left end up grifting to the right because there's no money on the left.  Hate pays because not only do you get a lot of eyeballs from the individuals who are radicalized by the likes of Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro, but that opens the door to right-wing funding. Look at the way that Glenn Greenwald and other individuals got contracts with Rumble. They're not offering that to left-wingers.  So this is why it seems like they're winning. It's because money is everything. Money is power in a capitalist system. And that's why we have to work that much harder to try to compete with them and dismantle their misinformation.


For more videos on People's Juggles, please subscribe to our YouTube channel. On February 7th, over 13 million Ecuadorians took to the polls to vote for the next president of the country, as well as members of the National Assembly and Andean Parliament. While Andrés Arauz won the elections with an overwhelming victory of 32% and over 10 percentage points over the next runner-up, he did not win sufficient points to win in the first round. And thus, Ecuadorians will vote on April 11th to decide who will be the next president of the country. The small margin of difference between second and third-place candidates Guillermo Lasso and Jacopérez has led to these candidates to launch serious accusations of electoral fraud and to demand a recount of some of the votes. However, for progressive forces, the primary regularities in these elections have nothing to do with the close margin between neoliberal candidates Lasso and Pérez and have much more to do with the systematic attacks on the progressive ticket of Arauz and Carlos Rahuastán. Here to discuss the recent developments in Ecuador is David Abler, coordinator of the Progressive International and head of the Electoral Observation Mission of the organization that was on the ground in Ecuador for over a week observing the electoral process. Thank you so much for joining us, David. Pleasure to be here, Zoe. So, the last week in Ecuador has, of course, seen a kind of dramatic escalation in the situation following the elections. On Friday, a deal was reached between the National Electoral Council as well as the second and third-place candidates in the elections calling for a recount of votes across several provinces. So, as someone who observed the elections, as someone who's on the ground, you know, seeing different parts of this process, what can you say about these allegations of fraud and what else could be behind this call for a recount that also, we're going to add, was supported by the Organization of American States and the U.S. Embassy has also come out in support of this decision. Yeah, and so in that context of a broader regional backlash against popular sovereignty in Latin America, this is all too predictable what's happening in Ecuador. And many of the concerns that we were expressing weeks ago about the prospects of legal warfare being waged against Andrés Arauz, the front-running candidates, are now coming to fruition, which is, of course, a sign of the kind of desperation of the reactionary forces in Ecuador that they're trying to basically pull every trick out of the book, many of which we'll discuss here, but it really was to be expected. It's no less tragic in that sense, though. So, if we look at, you mentioned this deal that has been reached between two candidates, the second and third-place candidates, Guillermo Lasso and Jacopérez, with the National Electoral Council of Ecuador. This is completely unprecedented and completely illegal. I mean, you know, it stretches the imagination to think under which legal basis you could exclude the front-running candidate from a really important negotiation about an electoral recount, especially in the context in which that third-place candidate, Jacopérez, in front of the Electoral Council and a whole gang of media outlets was saying we now must form a bloc to defeat Correísmo, which is to say, to defeat the front-running candidate, and accusing, making vast accusations of fraud. And you asked whether we, as the Progressive International, have seen evidence of that. Now, I'm not going to say the level of the urna, the level of individual actas or individual votes, there wasn't some tempering. We saw a great deal, many irregularities, that raised some concern that we have communicated in a formal, transparent process with the National Electoral Council. But we've seen no evidence of large-scale fraud, and these accusations of fraud are so dangerous. You know, what we've been warning since the beginning is less a single act like a coup d'etat, and more death by a thousand cuts, that the democratic process in Ecuador was under so much strain from these accusations of fraud, from minor electoral missteps, and a range of other things that I'm sure we'll get into in the discussion, that the real danger was a cloud of uncertainty would hang over these elections and threaten the legitimacy of Andres Arauz's candidacy, and that's exactly what's coming here to pass. You know, just to give the listeners just a bit more sense of the ridiculousness of this. I mean, the absurdity of this procedure. We're not going to have a recount of 100% of the votes in Huayas, where Yacu Pérez came in really third place, but we're going to have a recount of 50% of the votes in 15 other provinces. I mean, which 50%, how 50%, under which conditions does a 50 partial percent recount even make any sense? The whole thing really does strain the imagination. And you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the ways in which the electoral process is fracturing under the weight of these various multi-party attempts to undermine legitimacy and the prospects for Narao's presidency. So getting back to something that you mentioned before, the PI has been accompanying the situation in Ecuador for the past several months. You've been raising concerns about the process, not so much about the voting process and the actual technical part on the day of February 7th, but leading up to the elections, there have been several irregularities, such as the almost disqualification of Andres Arauz as a candidacy, you know, multiple attempts by different courts and different candidates to disqualify him and the ticket, as well as you guys have raised several concerns about the quick count, which is something you referenced also about Bolivia that also considered, that created this situation of uncertainty. So can you talk about some of these concerns about the electoral process? How were they responded to? And how are they impacting the situation that we're in right now?  And that shit show didn't start last week during the week of the elections, and it certainly didn't end last week in the week of the elections. It's critical to place the situation Ecuador in a medium or long-term context, because of course democracy is not simply the active voting, it's how the balance are created, it's about who can run, how they run, with what resources, with what publicity, how the media operates in that environment. Indeed, how the International Monetary Fund plays a role in supporting or undermining democratic institutions there in Ecuador, right? So we as electoral observers take that broad view of the Largo Plaza to say what are the conditions under which Ecuadorians are going to vote, right? They have this precious and incredible constitutional right to popular sovereignty. How is that being exercised? And once again, if you read it forward rather than backwards from the election, you just see how the ways, the ways this rich tradition of legal warfare, which of course was mobilized against someone like Rafael Correa, the ex-president who now lives in exile. But then through the course, this election was weaponized against its party, who were thrown off the ballot, so Andres had, you know, he couldn't show up, just to give you one example, a classic example now, sort of canonical in Ecuador. Correa was planning to come back and run as vice president on this ticket. But they changed the rules, so you had to show a signature, right? You had to show a physical signature. But because of the pandemic, they, you know, it was reasonable that you could just send it an electronic signature. But for some reason, Correa still couldn't send an electronic signature, so he was somehow disqualified. It's just a constant bending and rewriting of the rules to exclude the prospect of a progressive politics returning to Ecuador. And the stakes couldn't be higher. Ecuador has been hit harder than almost any country in the world by the COVID-19 pandemic, not just only in terms of health, but also in terms of its economy. And so at this critical juncture of, you know, historic crisis for Ecuador, you're either going to see the rebirth of a certain progressive politics for Ecuador, that could be equal socialists learning some of the lessons from a past coreismo, or a doubling down on, for lack of a better word, a neoliberal model that has destroyed millions of people's lives in the country and plans to extract millions more in upper-reistribution to the rich and to their offshore bank accounts. So everyone knows the stakes of these elections and they're pulling every dirty trick they have in the book. I mean, we could spend all day going through this sort of long telenovela of ridiculous tricks and mud slinging that has been there, but the critical thing is this, that Andres Arauz and his candidacy and the prospect of a progressive bloc that reaches beyond Arauz and includes the indigenous movement represented by the Conaia, the formation of progressive bloc really is a dangerous threat, not only to Ecuador and the reactionary right wing forces of Ecuador, but to the region, to the prospects for the integration of Latin America in a new UNASUR, to the formation of a deep tie between the mass, for example, that some come back to power in Bolivia and other left forces in the region. So that's why we see this election as such a critical one because it holds in it the seed for a new progressive wave of politics in Latin America indeed around the world. So far, we've kind of discussed some of the more official court-based legal maneuvers that have been used against the Arauz candidacy. We also know that there have been a series of slanders, campaigns launched against Andres Arauz in the Union for hope. One of these specifically was an accusation which implicated the Progressive International saying that somehow Arauz had received funds from Colombian guerrilla group ELN and we saw this weekend that Colombian prosecutor Francisco Barbosa actually traveled to Ecuador and held a meeting with Ecuadorian authorities to discuss this case. So what has been the response of PI to this? What are your thoughts on this and what kind of is behind this? We've moved from laughter to tears. You will never find... This is such a postmodern political situation. Truth is completely meaningless. You're just seeing lobs of lies against the wall and seeing what sticks. This is a rumor that is so thoroughly debunked by everyone from ornithologists looking at the sounds of the birds in videos of the guerrillas in Colombia to linguists looking at the speech patterns of who's speaking in these videos which are supposedly showing ELN guerrillas talking about comrade under the setups. It's ridiculous. It's absurd. But the problem is it's gone from circulating in the rag mags of Colombia to the high diplomatic pyrotechnics of Latin American politics. So you'll never find such a ridiculous combination of low degraded gossip without any base in factor law to the kind of the fiscalia arriving with tanks and flags and signing signatures. And that's just where we are in this campaign that they're so desperate that they're trying to pull out every stop that they have. But I think it speaks to the international stakes of selection as well, which of course is what motivates so much of the work that we're doing in terms of electoral observation and trying to show up and be present and be solidaristic. The Colombian right as well knows what it means for the left to come back to power in Ecuador and are terrified of it. So, you know, we're witnessing just a circus display of pulling out every stop they can. And the circus, I don't mean to describe it as if it were toothless or incapable of inflicting real damage on the Arauz campaign. There's a reason why we've been on the offensive, moving from laughter to really trying to take this as seriously it deserves to debunk it so thoroughly because it continues to swirl around in dominant channels in Ecuadorian media, in dominant channels of Colombian media. And, you know, this rumor will not be dispelled until it's been disproven, but apparently it won't be even dispelled then. So, you know, we've got a real challenge of our hands of misinformation. But I think it's critical to mention that that misinformation campaign is not just coming from these gossip rags in corporate media. It's coming from electoral authorities themselves. You know, when we were there in Ecuador, the electoral authorities had sent out mass SMSs to people all over the country saying, you have to vote by hour of the day depending on the final digit in your ID number card. Remember that voting in Ecuador is a constitutional right, but also a legal obligation. It's mandatory voting, right? So, they're telling people who tend to vote with their families, who tend to vote in the morning, who tend to make a ritual out of voting. They have to go by hour of the day, alienating and cracking away that kind of core unit of electoral expression in Ecuador. Total lie, no basis in law, nothing to do with checking IDs. It was a complete lie. So, there's so much disinformation floating around in the Ecuadorian demos that they're just trying everything they can to needle their way out of the situation, which of course is a broader reflection of the desperation of the law fair induced rights gripping onto the institutions of power in the face of mass and popular resistance to them. Yeah, I think that's exactly right. And Ecuador is definitely a case we're going to have to be looking out for over the next couple of days to see how this unfolds, see what the response of Andrés Arauces, who has, you know, been excluded from some of these processes, see what happens with the recount. And of course, thank you so much for giving us your time and for all the amazing work that PI has been doing to support this process and be on the ground and observing what's been happening. Of course, and we'll be back in Ecuador for the second round as well. So, we'll be trying to keep close tabs, continuing with our electoral observation, continuing to relay what we're seeing on the ground there and hopefully we can speak again soon.