I'd like to welcome you all to our first talking in the library event for this fall semester. And it's generously supported by an endowment from a former alumna, Mary Tuft White, and this room was named after her. I'm Betsy Peck, learned dean of university libraries, and we're so excited to welcome Dr. Teresa Bejan from the University of Oxford to speak about our university's namesake, Roger Williams. In my 32 years here, this is the first time we've ever had someone speak about Roger Williams. So, pretty exciting. Professor and library program director Adam Braver will introduce Dr. Bejan in a moment, and I personally want to thank Professor Mel Topp, where is he? Somewhere, he's here, I saw him. There he is, in the back, for suggesting our speaker and for garnering enthusiasm and support from our former president, Donald Farrish, who as most of you know passed away in June. I'm so sorry he is not with us today, he really wanted to be here. Our additional events this semester include a lecture by the author Amy Wallen, who will speak about her recent memoir when we were ghouls at the Rajasthri Library in Bristol on October 17th. Our third speaker, Nyla Al-Atrash, who was to speak on art and resistance in the Syrian crisis, unfortunately had to cancel, so we're very sorry, but we'll hope to get her back at some point. And we're currently looking for a replacement for that talking in the library event. We'll soon announce our spring semester events, so please stay tuned. And now, I'd like to ask Adam to introduce our speaker. So I was going to get you a question. Alright, thanks everybody for coming out. When I first moved to Rhode Island to work here, I confess I'd never heard of Roger Williams the man, or at least it didn't register. Growing up in California, I'd been schooled in my own state's history, knowing the myths and legends from John Sutter and John Marshall to Father Huna Paro-Sera to is she the last of his tribe to Lola Montez to the murderer's row of robber barons? Yet I'd never heard of Roger Williams. Truly, as I know now, a blind spot for me once I came to learn how much he was credited for as someone who championed and stood up for and lived with many of the values that I hold dear. As with great literary characters, some people manage to keep entering our public discourse throughout points in history. Maybe because they embody something greater than their time. Maybe because they embody a certain sui generis soul of humanity, a constant that it turns out is not tied to an era or a moment, but instead tied to something across the generations. Today you'll hear from Dr. Teresa Beijon not only what Roger Williams meant to the experiment of a true social democracy in the 17th century, but what he still means to it in the 21st century and how in many ways he can provide answers to some of the vexing questions of our day. In her recent book, Mere Civility, Disagreements and the Limits of Toleration, Dr. Beijon examines great thinkers of the 17th century, including Roger Williams. As part of her inquiry, she asks an important question of our day. How do we as a culture who value civility respond to incivility and its taunts to stray away from that civility we value? And civility ultimately maintained in the face of incivility. And in seeking those answers among the people she looks to, of course, the reason we're here today is Roger Williams. Dr. Beijon is an associate professor of political theory at Oxford University, a North Carolina native. She studied at University of Chicago and earned her PhD at Yale. But for now, she is here and our guest at RWU in Bristol, Rhode Island. And so please welcome Dr. Beijon. I can't say how wonderful it is to see so many people here to hear a talk about Roger Williams. And that's only compounds the pleasure and the honor it is for me to be here in the first place. I had the additional pleasure of being a visitor to Professor Im's Roger seminar yesterday, and I had a chance to talk to some of your incoming first year students, some of whom I see in the audience. And I just have to say, I was hugely impressed. It's wonderful to be surrounded by such bright and keen students who, although they may have been faintly traumatized by my enthusiasm for Roger Williams, withstood it with very good cheer. Cheers. So as Professor Braver said, I'm a Southerner, and coming to your campus feels kind of like a homecoming for me, because Roger Williams is a particular hero of mine, if a somewhat unlikely one. Now, the unlikeliness of Roger Williams' heroism might sound strange at first to you all here assembled, because you here at this university and in this state are in the habit of finding him heroic. His name is on your university, on buildings, on statues, like the one I had my picture taken with outside, on monuments, all erected to Williams not only as the founder of the state of Rhode Island, but also as an icon of tolerance and of the liberty of conscience. And all of these monuments are great to see, but I'll confess that they also make me slightly uncomfortable. And I kind of want to explore that uncomfortableness, because I worry that in building monuments to Williams, we may risk losing sight of, and perhaps losing touch with, Roger Williams, the man with his feet of clay, and all. And so today in my talk, I want to engage in a bit of, if you will, iconoclasm. And in doing so, I'd like to say that I am keeping the authentic spirit of Roger Williams, who was quite the iconoclast himself, alive. I want to smash some idols for you today so as to bring us back in touch with the living, breathing, all too human, historical person, Mr. Roger Williams beneath. I feel I should warn you first that you may find some of what I'm going to say shocking, even a bit offensive. But if so, again, I'm only keeping alive the spirit of Williams himself, your founder and my hero, of whom one particularly grouchy interlocutor once accused of, quote, having a face of brass so that he could not blush. And so I mean, I can blush, but hopefully, I won't too much here. And so I thought it fitting to begin somewhat close to home with one of Roger Williams' most famous quotations, one that I know has appeared on promotional literature for this university in the past and has been used by other universities or not in Rhode Island and is all over the internet when you search for famous quotations of Roger Williams. Have you seen this before? Raise your hand if this is familiar, right? The greatest crime in the world is not developing your potential. When you do what you do best, you are helping not only yourself but the world. So some of you are familiar with this. Raise your hand if you think that Roger Williams actually said it. What might be some clues that this is a spurious quotation that Roger Williams could not have said this? Pick on some of the students I taught yesterday. You read some Roger Williams. Is his prose this clear? No. As a consummate writer and trained minister of the 17th century, I hate to break it to you. Roger Williams' prose is quite a bit more baroque. Also, I mean, you have the clue that potential in this sense of something that an individual could have is not current as a noun in English until the 18th and not common until the 19th centuries. But not only couldn't Williams have said it, he also, I want to argue to you, wouldn't have said it. And here's a clue as to why. Here's an authentic quote from Roger Williams to compare from his most famous defense of religious toleration, the so-called Bloody Tenant of Persecution, published in 1644 and a book so scandalous, so radical in its call for toleration, that the English Parliament ordered it burned by the public hangman. Okay, clutch your pearls, everyone, hold on to your hats. Whenever a toleration of others' religion and conscience is pleaded for, such as are I hope in truth zealous for God, readily produce plenty of scriptures written to the church, all commanding and pressing the putting forth of the unclean, the cutting off of the obstinate, the purging of heretics, as if because briars, thorns, and thistles may not be in the garden of the church, therefore must all be plucked out of the wilderness of the world. Whereas he that is a briar, that is a Jew, a Turk, a pagan, an anti-Christian today may be when the word of the Lord runs freely a member of Jesus Christ tomorrow. This is what Roger Williams sounded like. With all his puritanical zeal and 17th century style, except with a few biblical quotations excised for the sake of brevity. But here we also have Williams' characteristically evangelical case for religious toleration, an argument that we should tolerate religious differences not because of every individual's infinitely special individual potential, but because of every individual's potential to become a good Christian as Williams defined it, despite their current extricable spiritual errors.  Thank you. Now raise your hand if you're actually a bit uncomfortable. Yeah, thank you. In pointing this out though, my point, my intention is not to unmask or debunk or to say that Roger Williams is not a man worthy of celebration or commemoration, quite the opposite. Indeed, what I'm going to argue to you today is that the real Roger Williams in all of his imperfection and all of his humanity is far more heroic, his true voice far more inspiring than the one that you find in history books and promotional literature. All right, for the real Roger Williams also said the following. Notwithstanding several religions in one nation, in one shire, yea, in one family, if men be but truly civil and walk by the rules of humanity and civility, families, towns, cities and common wheels in the midst of spiritual differences may flourish. So today I want to suggest that we can learn an awful lot more about how to deal with difference in the messy business of coexistence with those we hate because hatred is a permanent feature of a tolerant society, according to Roger Williams. We can learn a lot more about that from the real Roger Williams and his evangelical understanding of mere civility than from any kind of romanticized, idealized 1960s style conscientious objector on the pillar down the road in Providence. And so in the rest of my talk I'm going to be recovering Roger Williams, the man, the real Roger Williams, and what he has to teach us about dealing with difference by focusing on one notoriously difficult problem in particular. The problem of tolerating intolerance or the famous and familiar question should a tolerant society tolerate the intolerant? This is one of the most vexed and difficult questions facing any tolerant society, whether it was 17th century Rhode Island or indeed the 21st century United States. And the so-called paradox of tolerance was put most memorably by Carl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies first published in 1945. And you can see here how Popper puts the paradox thus, quote, Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them. And Popper's answer then is famous, we should therefore claim in the name of tolerance the right not to tolerate the intolerant. And in coming to this conclusion Popper was simply echoing other titans of tolerance, consider Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the social contract. It is impossible to live in peace with those we regard as damned. This is a quote, it's this quote favorably by no less a liberal authority than John Rawls in A Theory of Justice for those of you keeping score. In a century before that, the very father of liberal toleration, someone else who I write and I write and think about quite a lot, John Locke wrote, I say these have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion. So it's not just enough that you not persecute, you actually have to teach in your church not that you have to tolerate all men in matters of mere religion. And today I submit, you know, in certain circles this is the consensus position that the intolerant have no right to be tolerated and that a tolerant society should do its best to suppress and exclude them so as to signal to them and to others that they are beyond the pale of social life. But today I'm going to argue that Roger Williams, both in his life and in his works, poses a serious challenge to this consensus and that he gives us, I think, good reasons to think that a tolerant society may have to tolerate the intolerant too. So let's begin with the facts as we know them. Fact number one, that in founding Rhode Island, Roger Williams founded the most tolerant society the world had ever seen. This is true. Not only was Rhode Island the site of the first synagogue in North America in the 1650s, Williams himself was also an advocate for the American Indians and their religion and he opposed organized missionary efforts among them and pled for toleration on behalf of the Narragansett tribe to parliament itself. Rhode Island was also the first fully secular society in Christendom, a society which separated church and state, not by allowing for dissent within an established church, but by having no established church at all. We take that for granted in America, but I want to point out, I live now in a country that continues to have an established church. That's incredibly rare, having no established religion. And not only was there no establishment, Rhode Island granted citizens full civic equality regardless of their religion, right? These are both exceptional, even wacky positions for anyone to hold in the 17th century, let alone the 18th or 19th centuries. The radicalism of that cannot be overemphasized. But Roger Williams held both of these positions and what's more, he founded a society that put them into practice. But crucially, however, he came to these exceptional conclusions I would argue not because he was tolerant in our modern sense of that word, indeed because he was exactly the opposite. Today we would see Roger Williams' intolerance is the reason that he came to these radically inclusive and engaged conclusions about what a tolerant society should look like. So how did Williams get there? Might be scratching your heads here. So everyone is likely familiar with the broad outlines of Roger Williams' story, but if you're not, I'll remind you. Williams began as a religious refugee himself and that after fleeing persecution in England, he ended up being persecuted for his beliefs by his fellow Puritans in Massachusetts Bay who banished him from the colony in the dead of winter. Sheltered by the Wampanoag and Narragans at tribes, he would come to Found Road Island as a safe haven for dissenters like himself and a beacon of religious freedom for others for centuries to come. Good story. You won't see, so far so familiar, but you won't be surprised now if I complicate that just a little bit. So just to say, Williams was a religious refugee. And like most Puritans, he left England in the 1630s not just to flee the rising tide of persecution within the Church of England, but also because he had simply had enough of living with sinners. He wanted to live in a society of saints, of people who were saved with the elect. Inspired by John Winthrop, Williams hoped that Boston might become a perfectly just and virtuous city on a hill. So much for that. In which the righteous could live among the like-minded as models of Christian charity far apart from and above the rest, those he regarded as damned. But Williams was soon disappointed and it seems that his disappointment began even before he arrived. Even while he was on the boat, he began to see that the, quote, un-Christian Christians of New England, as he called them, were hypocrites who ostentatiously condemned and cried out against the sins of others while living on land that they had stolen from the Native Americans. It was in defending the land rights of the local tribes that Williams first made himself obnoxious. And because of this, some recent commentators like Martha Nussbaum and others have been tempted to romanticize Williams as America's Forgotten First Founder, who was really a modern multiculturalist. I think maybe you've heard that in your studies. But I think this rather badly misrepresents who Williams was and what he was up to. Not only did Williams himself venture among the Narragans that almost immediately upon his arrival to learn their language so as to become a missionary among them, right? He's a good evangelical. He's learning Indian languages so that he can convert. We shall also see shortly that he was no lover of their customs or their religion, which he considered to be devil worship. And he never backed down from that conclusion. But more importantly for our purposes, Williams' complaints about American expropriation were really not even the most offensive opinions that got him banished from Rhode Island. In addition to floating the suggestion that women should wear veils in public as well as in church in keeping with St. Paul's Council and Corinthians, Williams preached against the simfulness of swearing civil o's and was apparently caught defacing an English flag by cutting out the cross of St. George as a sinful combination and conflation of civil and religious powers and a violation of the necessary wall of separation between the church and the state. Which is all to say that Williams was in effect too puritan for his fellow Puritans which perhaps explains why he left Boston so soon after arriving for Salem, later famous for its witch trials because he found the religion there more congenial. This is Roger Williams. But in addition to what we might euphemistically describe is Roger Williams' strong views. It's important to remember that as an evangelical Christian Williams also saw it as his duty to witness for those views tirelessly and vehemently protest to his fellow New English and to the Native Americans alike against what he saw as their spiritual errors and their many sins. And Williams was at this for years before his fellow Puritans finally decided to banish him which should remind us of another important fact namely that Roger Williams could be really, really obnoxious. Even he would later concede that his banishment from Massachusetts had had something to do with his quote, constant admonishing of them in their unclean walking. Unquote. Here, you know, again, another that we're forced to confront the really uncomfortable truth that Roger Williams, the hero of conscience and that visionary founder of religious tolerance and the separation of church and state was really, really intolerant of other people's beliefs. In the biz that is 17th century intellectual history which happens to be the business I'm in, we would thus describe Roger Williams as quote, a intolerant tolerationist. This is the kind of phrase that we use to get a read to wrap our minds around these complicated arrangements. That is, despite his exclusive sense of the truth of his own religion, he was committed to a policy of toleration towards the errors of others while nevertheless maintaining that those were errors. And so, if the popular liberal consensus view is that we shouldn't tolerate the intolerant or those we think of as being full of hate for others in their views, on that reading, we shouldn't tolerate people like Roger Williams.  For although he proposed to tolerate them, he never called Catholics Catholics. He always called them anti-Christians because they were followers of the papal anti-Christ. Obviously. It's really amusing. Sometimes when you're reading modern literature on Williams, they see the word anti-Christian and assume he's talking about atheists. That's not the case. He's talking about Catholics. He also calls them papists, yeah. And as for the Native Americans, Pache Martha Nussbaum, it was more than a, quote, respectful curiosity about the varieties of humanity, as she says, that led him to learn their language. He went there because he wanted to convert them and he made it very clear to them and to others that he abhorred their customs.  He also said things like, we all know what local tribes are capable of, what, quote, all kind of hordoms, idolatries, and conjurations. Notoriously known what conscience all pagans make of lying, stealing, horring, murdering, and for drunkenness also. And writing to a local commissioner, dealing with a land dispute in Pawtucket in the 1660s, he wrote to the official, quote, amongst such a barbarous scum and off-scoring of mankind, the business as circumstantiated will not be affected without bloodshed. Barbarians are barbarians, full stop. Still, Williams was emphatic, that there was more civility to be found among these American barbarians than among the un-Christian Christians of New England. Williams had, after all, learned the hard way after his banishment that, as he put it, quote, one must go out of the world if one would not keep civil converse with idolaters. And indeed, it was his experience of civility among the Narragansett and other pagans in the wilderness that led him to believe that even those who disagreed on the fundamentals of faith and were mutually intolerant of each other's errors could still share a common life. It should be clear, though, by now, I hope, that by civil, Williams certainly did not mean polite. As a tireless and obstreperous evangelist, he knew from experience just how uncivil that evangelism could seem to those on the receiving end.  Civility, he thought, much like religious truth was in the eye of the beholder. He wrote, that ourselves and all men are apt and prone to differ, that either part or party is most right in his own eye, his cause right, his carriage right, his arguments right, his answers right, is no new thing in all the former ages or in all parts of the world. We might think that, you know, it's no new thing now, either. That's if Paul, if Jesus Christ were present here at London and the question were proposed, what religion would they approve of, the papus, preletus, Presbyterians, independence, et cetera, would each say, of mine, of mine. Of course, God's on my side. Indeed, Williams argued that the truth would always be particularly offensive to those privileged by an unjust status quo. When a kingdom or state, town or family, lies and lives in the guilt of a false God, false Christ, false worship, no wonder if sore eyes be troubled at the appearance of the light, be it never so sweet. If persons sleepy loving to sleep, be troubled at the noise of shrill, those silver alarms. Sure, lots of the first year students waking up for class know the unpleasant sensation of being woken by shrill, silver alarms. So therefore, for Williams, civility could not be a matter of policing other's speech or avoiding controversial topics or avoiding controversial people. Rather, mere civility had to begin at home with the willingness to hold one's nose and remain present to one's opponents no matter how intolerable or indeed deplorable one found their views and talk about their errors to them. That is, to their faces, not behind their backs with one's like-minded friends, which is a whole lot more fun, right, and a whole lot easier. And the point of talking to other people about their errors was ideally so that the deplorables would eventually recognize that you, not they, were right. But that was not a certain conclusion. In any case, when Canonagus, a chief, granted Williams the land that would become Providence, he decided to put this controversial, controversial, really wacky idea about civility and tolerance into practice. And even then, though, I brought this out to the students yesterday. It's not really clear that in doing this, Williams intended to found a society, let alone a tolerant one. The founding of Rhode Island seems to have been something of an accident. Williams didn't set out to lead, but he was certainly followed by fellow exiles and troublemakers like Ann Hutchinson and Samuel Gorton, who were as obnoxious, if not more, than he was, and who joined his plantation much to his chagrin. Plantation is just the 17th-century word for colony. I know there's some controversy in this state about that, but that's what it is. And so to say that the success of Williams' lively experiment in Rogues Island, as it was called by its critics, was not a foregone conclusion. That's an understatement. The self-styled Saints Next Door in Massachusetts kept complaining that Williams' colony had become, quote, the latrine of New England, and a, quote, receptacle for all sorts of riff-raff, and that there was, quote, brawling continually in Mr. Williams' meadow. Moreover, the fledgling colony was continually menaced by its neighbors. And this is one of my favorite stories. Again, you know, I guess trigger warning for bestiality. Sorry. There's an early instance of bestiality where one Richard Chasmore is caught in flagrante with his cows, and the witnesses are American Indians. And so he's acquitted because the local Rhode Island jury won't credit the testimony of Native Americans. Right? So this leads to an international incident because Roger Williams is just beside himself that this guy is going to get away with it. Chasmore goes on the lamb, so to speak. But they get him when he comes back for his cows. I can't help myself. Okay. Part of you know these everyday challenges of life among evangelicals on the colonial frontier. What was truly exceptional about Rhode Island was not just the absence of an established church, but that Rhode Island welcomed evangelical Protestants of all stripes, Jews, Muslims, American pagans, and even Catholic anti-Christians to live together on terms of equal liberty, including the liberty to proselytize and indeed to engage in so-called persecution of the tongue against their opponents. In Williams' colony, so long as you were willing to fight for your faith with words and not swords, no one was beyond the pale. Indeed, the only group, this is really interesting, the only group ever to test the limits of Williams' toleration is a group that he refers to obliquely in his famous letter to the town of Providence in 1654. So you may be familiar with this. It's called the Ship of State letter. There goes many a ship to sea with many a hundred souls in one ship whose wheel and woe is common, and this is a true picture of a commonwealth. Still, I never denied that notwithstanding this liberty of conscience, if any semen refuse to perform their service or passengers to pay their freight, if any refuse to obey the common laws and orders of the ship concerning their common peace and preservation, if any shall preach or write that there ought to be no commanders nor officers because all are equal in Christ, I say I never denied, but in such cases, whatever is pretended, the commander or commanders may judge, resist, compel, and punish such transgressors according to their desserts and merits. Any guesses as to who he may have in mind? Yeah, who's causing trouble in Rhode Island in the 1650s? None other than the nascent society of friends, the people called Quakers. Now again, to many Roger Williams boosters, his emtithy to Quakers can come as a bit of a shock, but to understand his position, first thing you have to remember that early Quakerism bears little resemblance to the Pacific society of friends that we know and love today. So in the mid-17th century, the Quakers were the epitome of the extreme enthusiastic and sectarian Protestantism that Martin Luther had kicked off the century before. It can be difficult to distinguish fact from enemy propaganda, but it still seems to be the case that Quakers were notorious, among other things, for going naked in public for a sign of their own innocence in the sins of the world, as well as for interrupting other people's worship by banging pots and pans. That sounds fun. Shouting down the minister, saying, by what authority do you preach? Shouting down judges? By what authority do you judge? In one instance, a Quaker man reportedly took off his pants in an Anglican church and laid down on the communion table. So when Quakers began flocking to Rhode Island in the 1650s, Williams was understandably terrified that they were going to prove his critics right. That toleration was indeed the whore of Babylon's back door. Whore of Babylon being the Catholic Church. So it was so dissension among Protestants so that the Catholics could take over. It was a recipe for disorder and civil strife. Williams complained that, quote, all that their religion, all that Quaker religion, requires to make converts and proselytes amounts to nothing more than what a reprobate may easily attain to. Its spirit tends mainly to reduce persons from civility to barbarism, to an arbitrary government and the dictates and decrees of that sudden spirit that acts in them. But Williams' main objection to Quakerism was perhaps surprisingly that he saw Quakers as incredibly intolerant, that their religion, quote, led to a sudden cutting off of people, the day of kings opposing them, and to his fiery persecutions for matters of religion and conscience as hath been or can be practiced by any hunters or persecutors in the world. Okay, now, you don't have to know much about Quakers to know that this sounds a bit rich, right? When was the great Quaker persecution? I mean, some people in Pennsylvania would complain. But, and it's important to keep in mind that as Williams is thinking and writing this, that Quakers would soon become subjected to intense persecution in Massachusetts. Several Quakers would be executed and flogged publicly for preaching, right? But Williams insisted that the evidence for Quaker intolerance was plain for everyone to see. It could be found in their extreme penchant for persecution of the tongue, but also in their uncivil habit of falling into silent prayer whenever anyone tried to disagree with them. So the problem with Quakers is that they won't engage. They won't engage in that civil evangelical disagreement that he thinks is essential to a tolerant society. So it seems that even Roger Williams flirted with the idea that one had a duty to, that one had a duty not to tolerate the intolerant. But thankfully for the Quakers and for us, he decided that the surest way to convince someone of the righteousness of their views, no matter how wrong or intolerant those views were, was to subject them to persecution. So he thought that the best way to prove to the Quakers that they were right was to persecute them for their beliefs. And so he refused to. Instead, he did the merely civil thing. He challenged them to a public debate and spent three days with several Quakers at Newport trying to convince them that they were wrong and he published the proceedings. And at that point, you have to keep in mind, this was in 1673. At that point, Williams was nearly 70. He was so old and ill, he had to be carried into the venue on his stick bed. But still he would not give up, right? Still he continued to practice what he preached. All right. So forget the founding. I would say that America's long tradition of free speech fundamentalism started right here in Rhode Island. It may not have been the multicultural idol imagined by some secular liberals. Still for over a century, Rogues Island was the most tolerant society the world had ever seen. Williams accomplished this by challenging what Locke would 50 years later present as obvious, namely that you can't tolerate the intolerant. That's obvious, right? And whereas Locke, who is celebrated to this day as the father of liberal toleration, excluded Catholics because they were intolerant and excluded atheists because you couldn't trust them, right? Williams, the intolerant Roger Williams included both of these groups in his tolerant society. Because unlike Locke and later Rousseau, Williams regarded living on terms of equal liberty with the damned, not as impossible. He regarded that as the point. It's not impossible to live with the damned. You have to live with the damned. Everyone but you is damned. For as Williams knew from experience, a tolerant society cannot pick and choose its materials and remain tolerant for long. Mere civility must thus serve as a tool of uncomfortable inclusion in a tolerant society. A society grounded in turn in a radical and frankly unreasonable faith in the possibility of a common life and shared future with those people we have and will continue to hate. So, so what, right? Well, I think firstly, this forgotten history, I've been hard, you know, at hard work trying to recover for you today. At the very least, I think it needs to pose a serious challenge to a lot of modern assumptions about what a tolerant or a civil society has to look like. To challenge a lot of the things that we think of as obvious about how tolerance and toleration work. The tolerant society that Williams founded accidentally when his own intolerance saw him exiled from Massachusetts Bay would never have worked in theory. I'm a political theorist. I'm a professor of political theory. This is not going to work in theory. Nevertheless, it worked in practice. This suggests that we should be very careful when we repeat conclusions that seem familiar or are obvious to us. Conclusions like locks or poppers. That of course the intolerant have no right to toleration. That's obvious. But I also want to go farther and conclude by suggesting to you today that in the United States in particular with our ongoing crises of tolerance and civility, we still have a lot to learn from Roger Williams. And because of not despite his intolerant feet of clay. Because Williams' understanding of mere civility holds out the hope that the members of a tolerant society might be able to work to make their society more just together. Despite their disagreements and dislike. Mere civility on Williams' model is thus no obstacle to crying out against injustice. Or calling out our opponent's sins. That's precisely the point. But it does demand that we do so without denying or destroying the possibility of a common life. Tomorrow with the people that we think stand in our way today. So what does mere civility demand of us? Well, that we remain committed to talking and to disagreeing. That we not pull our punches, although we may not want to land them all at once. It also demands that whenever we may be tempted to achieve a tolerant society through exclusion by pushing those we sincerely believe to be intolerant beyond the pale. We need to be careful that what we're doing is not being more concerned to avoid the disagreeableness of disagreement and to isolate ourselves in the more agreeable company of the like-minded community of saints. Whether it's online or through social media or in the real world. There's a reason that disagreeable is a synonym for unpleasant. Disagreement is hard. It is William's new well, un-murderous coexistence with the intolerant infidel next door is no picnic. But neither is the society of saints. Infidels after all are people too. So are the intolerant. Continued engagement with them on terms of mere civility may be all we can hope for. Still, it's no less important and precious for that. Thank you. I've been told that I must subject myself now to myself because I'm myriad to questions to which I will seek to provide answers. What could you say about the lessons of your talk about Roger Williams and its connection to civility in the modern university and the modern workplace where as you know many issues have come up regarding this. Right. Well, thank you for that question. Thanks for putting me on the spot right away. Well, I mean, I have a lot to say. One thing to say, though, is that to me as an intellectual historian and political theorist, there's something really weird about using the language of civility to describe the conversational virtues that we expect from members of a university. Because it seems to me that civility is the standard that applies to civil society as a whole. And universities are particular corporate bodies within liberal democracies. So that's one point. It's not obvious to me that the bar of mere civility should be the bar in a university. We might well set it higher. That being said, I think that modern universities, particularly in the United States, but maybe I'd say even particularly in the United Kingdom where I now live. You know, I teach at Oxford. I teach on a degree called Philosophy, Politics and Economics that some absurd percentage of recent prime ministers of that country have graduated from that program. So there is an extent to which if universities and colleges are functioning as credentialing institutions for the elites, for the leaders of our tolerant society, then I do think that the appropriate standard of civility to inculcate is a standard of mere civility. The standard that says civility begins at home.  Talk about it because you could be doing better. We might be left with an impression when you talk about Roger Williams and the Narragansett as someone who was hating all of their cultural, all of their beliefs. But he was like an anthropologist in many ways and I think did respect the hospitality and relationships and did learn about the culture in ways that indicated true interest and caring. So I feel that the issue of intolerance in part has to deal with not only the difference in beliefs, but also in an attitude of respect and maybe you could say a few words about that. Thank you. I mean, it's an excellent question. It's an important point. And if I've given the impression that all Roger Williams ever felt for the Americans and he called them the Americans, of course the Americans were the Native Americans, the colonists were the New English.  I did not mean to give that impression. As I was telling the students in the Roger seminar yesterday, Williams first published work when he returns to London in the 1640s was the so-called Key into the Language of America, which is the very first handbook of American Indian language published in England. It's an incredible work. I suggest that you all go look at it. It's part language manual, part anthropology, part moralizing poetry, part personal travel narrative of his encounters with individual Americans of whom he speaks very highly and fondly. I do, however, want to resist imposing the language of respect on Williams' treatment of the Americans precisely because I think that when we talk about respect today, we tend to talk about it in a kind of a Kantian sort of dignity way. I respect you as an acknowledgement of your intrinsic value and worth. I think he has respect for aspects of American Indian culture, but I think that he doesn't think that his toleration of them, he doesn't say that he can only tolerate that which he can respect. He never says that. He can tolerate those that he doesn't respect. Again, that's the language of humanity, the recognition of humanity. Roger Williams' language is not the language of respect and perhaps it's a kind of professional conceit that I'm insisting that we don't use that language of respect. But it's just, it's something you notice in a lot of contemporary arguments where we say, well, so long as we respect each other, it's going to be all right. What happens when we can't respect each other? I find your views not worthy of respect and I seriously question your reasoning capacities for holding them. It's toleration in the absence of respect that I think is really crucial. But the point is very well taken and I don't, I mean, it's absolutely the case that Williams' interest in experience with and indeed high opinion of local tribes and many local Americans is absolutely exceptional and a really important part of his story. I'm a writer and an author who's been thinking about the space of tolerance that you've been outlining. It's very interesting to me because I hadn't come in through the political theory except in a little degree or through Roger Williams and so I'm really, but I'm writing about this as part of a book related to uncertainty or unassumingness as the pathway to certain types of higher order thinking and I include tolerance in that. So I wanted to hear if you had any comments or if you've done any work on that, you know, that point but also when I use the word tolerance or speak to people in the last year, people have a bristling, you know, really sort of, it's beyond anxious, angry response. I actually gave a talk this summer and a week before the talk when I gave the title that had the word tolerance in it, I was asked to not give that talk by the Chautauqua Institution which is really supposed to be a tolerant, you know, artistic place. So I'm really interested in the depth of anger related to this word and so I wonder if you've had any pushback or you think they're, because I think tolerance can be a really robust, active, it can be everything that you're talking about but maybe there's a different word and many people see it as kind of milk toast. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for that. Those are both two excellent questions and just to the first, I would say, I love the word unassumingness. I think in my own work, I've been, I think I've been working towards something similar in the form of epistemic humility. So a sense of ourselves, a sense of the, you know, I don't worry, I'll explain. It's a sense of our own limitations as knowers. It's not the same as skepticism. It's not saying, oh, I'm skeptical that there is a true answer or that I could have access to the true answer. It simply says, I think I have the true answer, yet I'm aware of the limitations of myself as a knower and I think that is a key part of the ethical picture of mere civility as I'm working it out and indeed as I'm sort of theorizing Roger Williams' practice. Again, I think that it's something that's in short supply nowadays, as we're to say. But, you know, I'm in the business of saying unpopular things in public, so there you go, epistemic humility. I would love to hear more about your work. As to the discomfort with the language of tolerance, absolutely, it's rife in political theory as well. And indeed, I mean, the pushback against tolerance is as a kind of civilizing discourse that's understood as a way of marginalizing the marginal of oppressing the impress and indeed as being the kind of signal of a kind of Western, Protestantized, implicitly Christian way of insisting on the individual rights of conscience against an implicitly intolerant, implicitly non-white other. It's very much part of political theorist discomfort with the term tolerance and I wonder if that's something that you were coming up against. And I take that really seriously because again, my own work historically is all about how discourses of civility and tolerance are coming out of the colonial encounter. This is real. It's real and it's serious. All I would say though is as with any kind of post-colonial critique that we want to apply to a concept like civility or tolerance, we have to be really clear that we're distinguishing between abusive or abusive uses of a kind of discourse of tolerance with a kind of critique of the concept itself. It may be the case that we can never have a kind of non-oppressive or just regime of tolerance because we haven't seen one historically. Although I would say that Roger Williams Red Island gives us a really interesting example of what's possible in the 17th century. I mean, deepers. But it does not follow necessarily that because the language of tolerance is open to these abuses that we should throw out that discourse altogether. And I, I think like you, am still committed to the idea that the language and the theory of tolerance and practices of tolerance are really essential to liberal democracy of the kind that we inhabit here today. If one was to try to live by the philosophy of Roger Williams, how important do you think understanding other people's views is to having true tolerance? Great question. I'm sorry. I just made that face because sometimes I joke, you know, I would not want to live in a society of Roger Williams's. How exhausting, right? Oh my goodness. That being said, though, I do think he can be an exemplar of a particular kind of ethos of tolerance. So the question is, you know, to what extent is understanding where other people are coming from? I mean, it's related to this question about his interest in American beliefs and culture. I think understanding is crucial. Now, understanding is crucial, however, because it's essential to you being a good evangelist. You're going to be much better at converting someone if you know as much as possible about where they're coming from. And it's really, I mean, Williams is actually quite clear. At one point he says, I can't remember if it's in Bloody Tenant or Bloody Tenant yet more Bloody, just the sequel, great titles. The Americans must judge with American consciences what other consciences could they have, right? So the efforts of New English missionaries like John Elliott to Englishize the Americans, he thinks are not only wrong-headed, he thinks that they're incredibly unjust and sinful and oppressive. So I do think there you could say there's an idea of respect for the conscience of he or she whom one would persuade. But it's not, you know, it's not tantamount to a kind of open-mindedness that says, you know, hey, your culture's interesting. Let me learn about it, right? It's still, it's more strategic than that. Which isn't to say though that an interaction that can begin strategically won't turn into something else. I think that's also an important part of the story. So I have one last question here. You kept going back and forth between like Native American and American Indian. I was just curious as to like why that was. Yeah. So the reason I do that is because it's not actually fixed in the scholarship. What's the most respectful term to use? Actually, when I was doing my PhD, which wasn't that long ago, it was only a few years ago, the norm was not to say Native American any longer. It was to say American Indian. And so, you know, my preference and indeed in my book is to just use Americans. And normally when I give talks like this, I'll just say Americans. But it occurred to me in writing this one today that people might be confused. So yeah, but it's an excellent question. And I think it's a really important question for anyone who wants to engage in the kind of work that I'm doing to think about the language that we use to describe the past as itself, the product of particular histories. It's an incredibly fraught business. But I don't think that that's a reason not to do it. I wouldn't be, I wouldn't sort of let yourself being worried about the language to use to become a reason not to engage with the past or not to look for answers or look for ideas or insights in the past. And I suppose if that's the last question, which is a great question, that's what I would say to you students here as you're beginning or continuing your studies. You know, the past is a foreign country. And by golly, it's a lot weirder, but also more interesting than you think. Thank you.


Welcome to Psychic Medium, Tony Green. I am Tony Green, the Psychic Medium, and we are going to get going with this show. So, so much I wanna say to everybody in so little time, but we're gonna do our best. First and foremost, thank you so much for being here, for joining me, for being part of the show, whether you are joining me live or rewatching on one of the venues, that air this amazing show. Our WSCS, thank you, Scott, for everything you do over there to make sure it gets out on all of your live streaming channels, on your computer channels. Yeah, laugh at me, it's okay, I'm laughing at me. And on your station. Also, Rude Rangers TV, thank you, Rude so much for making sure all my shows get pumped out onto all your podcasts, radio station, streaming channels, love it, so stinking much, you don't even know. If you are joining us live, we go live every Monday and Wednesday at noon central. You can call in and ask questions, to call in and ask a question or connect with a loved one up there or around here. The number's<PHONE_NUMBER>-845-277-9131. That's the number to call into the show live, that is not the number for private sessions, that is done at tonig.info or<PHONE_NUMBER>. And I put that out there because there are so many scammers on social media that will reach out and pretend to be me, be you. And if you're gonna pick somebody to be, pick somebody with a lot more clout than me, please, like seriously now, don't pretend to be me.  Oh, it's sad, but true. Anyway, there's that, there's all of that. Okay, live every Monday and Wednesday at noon central. Please call in<PHONE_NUMBER>. Once you call in, you do have to hit the one, if you want to ask a question or if you want me to take your call, otherwise you're just listening on the line for the hour. Okay, I start the show with names and or songs from loved ones on the other side to everybody here. I've already been doing it in the chat. If you join us on YouTube like 15 minutes before the show goes live, we are chatting away and we're talking about songs.  Amy, I do believe that was your first song.  So those are your songs, Amy May, I hope you enjoy them.   And yeah, I guess Jay Francis, hey, Katie, Genevieve, Caroline. There are so many people in the chat right now, you guys. I just love you. Thank you so much for being here with me and for joining me on the show and helping me make this show go well.  I found this top and I adore it and I ordered it online, but I have to be really careful today because it is a, I'm just gonna back up a little bit. I'm gonna back up this a little bit. It is a super, like it comes right here. And thank goodness you cannot see it. And then it ties around the bottom, right, right? Let me do this right there. However, this, all this material right there, super loose. Let me tell you, if the girls aren't tight, you cannot wear this top because the girls would fall right out the bottom of this top. And so today I'm gonna be doing a very close cut to the face because, well, this top is probably what it is, we're just gonna leave it there. But I love it. I mean, I love the sleeves and in the back, it just buttons up here and the whole back is open except for the thing that ties around the back. It is the cutest top ever, cutest, cutest. Again, if the girls aren't tight, you cannot wear this top because, yeah, they will come right out the bottom of this top. So this is basically a breast implant top is what I'm trying to say to everybody or a young girly top. I don't know, go either way. Okay, we're gonna do some songs. The songs that are coming through Rebecca, right? The songs that are coming through. And if this song, we're gonna start with the songs from loved ones on the other side. This could have been their favorite song. It could be your favorite song. It could have been a song, the two of you sang together. The song could also be answering a question that you've been asking yourself. So one song can be for like 100 different people. The first song, which they will not stop singing in my head is, go your own way. You can go your own way, go. Could call it another sunny day. Yeah, that's the first song, okay? Coming through loud and strong. The second song is by the Bee Gees and that song is, stayin' alive, stayin' alive. How, how in the world did dude hit that note? I mean, I can't hit any note, no note. I can't hit any note, but that note for a dude, like who vice-gripped him so he could hit that note. That's all I wanna know. Okay, next. I love the Bee Gees too, Rebecca. Hey Patrick, yeah, Fleetwood Mac. The next song is that song, Players, I'm gonna massacre this song. I can't even try to pretend to sing this song, but Players only love you when they're playing. Thunder only happens. Thunder only happens when it's right. I hope you guys are laughing because I know dogs that have better voices than me. When it's raining and Players only love you when they're playing. Ooh, there's a life lesson. Yeah, and then you guys, there's this song that's really popular right now and it's a little bit annoying to me, so I've changed the words to it. It's I can't buy my own flowers, that's that. I am not buying my own flowers. No, I can't write my name in the sand. Good for you, we're happy you've accomplished that love all. Here's the remake to that song for whomever needs it. We are not buying our own flowers, male, female, whatever, we're not buying our own flowers. My DM's full of people that want me so if you don't, you can take a walk. That's it, that's it, okay? Okay, we don't have to go through a breakup and become independent. Okay, little miss Cyrus, just saying, and could you please stop playing that song for the love of all that's good on this green earth? Stop playing that song. Just stop playing it. Like you cannot turn anything on without hearing that song.  Stop, stop. It is hard, Patrick, you are not wrong. It's hard to listen to and why go that route? Why go into the self-pity? Oh, I can buy my own flowers. Who can't? I mean, my 12 year old niece can buy your own flowers at this point. That's not the goal. Learn what you need to learn and keep it pushing. Go to the next level. Okay, it didn't work out. This is what I learned. I'm good, I'm pushing to the next one. Push into the next level.  Why, why? No, girlies, boys, mm-mm. We don't play that here. Mm-mm, mm-mm, mm-mm, cut it, mm-mm. Okay, that's all I wanted to say about that. Names on the other side. People coming in from the other side to say hi to people here, this might be, they might be saying your name. They might be saying their name. The first name I hear is Emily, Emily, Emily, Emily, Emily, Emily. Oh, this is somebody on this side. Emily, you're gonna be fine. Don't worry, everything's gonna work out. Emily, Emily, Emily. Okay, the next message is coming from Todd or to Todd. And that message is have faith. And then the song, take the long way home, take the long way home. So you think life's, what's the line, guys? Spit all that.  All day, I'm gonna be trying to, I'm gonna have to Google that song as soon as we're done. A rodeo, so you think life's, is it? So you think life's a rodeo? Really? Is that the line? Is that, seriously, the line?  Your aromio, play a part in a picture show. Oh, I love it even more now. I liked it when I didn't know the words. Now that I know the words, mm. Love that song. Okay. Jacob, I'm, there's a Jacob. Jacob is good. Okay, Jacob is on the other side. Jacob was young. Jacob was young and Jacob is good. Jacob is home, Jacob's at peace.  Oh, okay. Fawn says, Todd's my husband might be for him, he's here today. It could be, does the song take the long way? Take the long way home, take the long way home. Does your husband think he's aromio? Pfft. Cause apparently that's the line in the song. So you think you're aromio? Play about in a big show. Take the long way home, take the long way home. Okay, okay, okay, okay, okay. And then the next person, I'm hearing the name and Angelique, Angelique. Angelique. And then the message from or to Angelique is, so the song, we are all here, we are all here, but then this song that comes through for you is We Are The World. We are the world. I'm sorry, that was a really nice moment and I did that. We are all here for you, you're not alone. We are, we're making it better. So I feel like Angelique or Angelica is on the other side giving this message to somebody. Okay, okay, okay. Hey, hey Jennifer, I love you too. Jessica, oh my days. Jessica, how did you steal away from your students? Mama. Oh my gosh. I love you girl.  Yep, Sister Christian. And then the next thing, and you know what? You guys, Jessica teaches music and she teaches voice and instrument stuff. This is a violin. Yeah, I can't play instruments either, so there's bad. So when she's on and I sing, I turn a little red because I know like, it's so tragic. Okay, so Jess, your message is right around the corner. So in the song that comes through is she'll be coming around the corner or the mountain when she comes. And the line actually they're singing for you is she'll be coming around the corner when she comes. And I feel like this is, it's right around the corner. It's so much closer than you think. Clean up your inbox, clean up your inbox, clean up your, clean it, cut it and get ready because it's here. It's gonna be here very soon, sooner than you think. Okay, sooner than you think. All right, hey, Kim, Kim, I love you too. Okay, we're gonna go to callers. If you would like to call in please<PHONE_NUMBER>. And listen, for anybody who's new to the show, I deal with a lot of heavy topics all day, every day, every day, even on the show. And I like to make people laugh. I wish I could be a comedian. Wait a minute, am I one? Because I think it's truly a gift. Like, if you can make somebody smile or laugh, like you've really done something important and special in their life. So when I come on the show, it's all about trying to help people laugh or smile or giving a new perspective. I try to cover all of that in the show. And I do it because I do know this life sometimes isn't the easiest life. It's not this, walking a park, right? Unless, like we're walking through a haunted park, I'm sorry. Oh, that's so much better than everything else that was gonna pop out of my mouth. You have no idea. And we just have to make the best of it. We seriously do. We have to make the absolute best of it. Jess, your mom is saying that she misses your face and she wishes she could just grab it and smooch it. Just grab your face and smoochie it. For, I hope that's helpful for you, Jess. I'm gonna sneeze you guys. Excuse me. Okay, I'm gonna go to callers. If you would like to call in<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have a question, please put it in the comments. I will get to questions as soon as I can. And I'm gonna try to go in between questions on the calls and questions in the chat. So, Ann, I'm gonna go to your question first, but before I do that, I'm gonna take 860 because this 860 has been waiting. Hey, 860, what's your name? Where are you calling from? Hi, Connie, it's Amla. How are you? Oh my gosh, Amla, I love today. Oh my God, I just love today. Everybody is here today. I love you guys so much, Amla. I'm sorry. Hi, Amla, how are you today? How can I help you? I'm doing good. I'm doing good. Happy spring to you. Happy spring. And do you guys know that we're, I think if I'm getting this correctly and don't be afraid to correct me if I'm wrong, we are now in airy season. Airy season kicks off the Astrological New Year, and this is the first new moon of the New Year, meaning we are officially kicking off our New Year now. Okay, Amla, how can I help you? Thank you, thank you. Okay, so I feel like I'm blossoming in the sense of there are people that are interested in me, but I just, I have my radar up because I've done the work on myself of kind of like filtering out people who, you know, they don't, they're flirty, but they're not the real deal for me. So I'm just wondering if you see somebody coming in in April or May that's more significant. Yeah. Somebody else coming in. Yeah. Yeah, Amla, thank you so much for acknowledging that too. It takes, okay, so, Amla, on so many levels, congratulations. It takes a lot for us to get where we are going to be and to be able to be in that space with it. And to get to that place where we can look at someone and say, this is a really good person, it's just not my person, or there's something missing here, and to be able to have the faith that something else is coming in, and I wish we could all get there because we'd end up with the right people, not just the person that's there, and that's amazing, and congratulations for hitting that level, Amla. Amla, I hear March and I see the 28th, 29th. That's gonna be a big day for a lot of people. Pay attention to March 28th, 29th for everybody, but for you, I feel like March, I see the 28th big and then the 29th smaller. So it might be something that happens. It starts on the 28th and maybe completes on the 29th, maybe the 28th you're traveling someplace, a 29th, but those two days, there's a potential to meet somebody very, very significant in your life. Now, when I say somebody significant in your life, this could be a publisher, this could be somebody who signs you up for book, the speaking events, events, events. And then the next date I see is the first. So I feel like that whole timeframe from the 28th to the first is gonna be really powerful for you.  Make sure you're in the right mind and in the right place and at the right time. And of course we don't know that until we get there, but basically don't be in the house. Yeah, yeah, don't be in the house. That's never the right place. I'm just saying don't be in the house for that. Yes, yes. I mean, there's some people that have been significant, they're not significant, they mean well, but it's not, I'm not at the same place and they're not at the same place as I am, but I'm definitely out and about. I have so many projects just coming month of April and even in the rest of March. So it wouldn't surprise me. I just am really excited to be a part of fundraisers and helping out others who are in a not so great place and just giving my warmth and of just knowledge and just giving my time and doing a lot of fundraisers and drumming circles and things of that nature. Oh my goodness, I love that. I love that. Yeah, I do feel like that timeframe is gonna be significant and for meeting somebody coming in, again, I keep hearing March, hopefully it's this March and not next year, March into April, which fits that timeframe also, but I think a lot of things are gonna happen for you over that weekend time, okay, love? Sounds wonderful, I'll keep you posted. I'm so super excited. The dark times are at least away for now, you know, and I'm just enjoying the sun. Yeah. Happy spring. Yes, happy spring. The luck's on. Yes, and I do. Thank you so much, Amla, thank you, thank you, thank you. I am going to say again, a couple of planets are moving that don't move that often. I believe it's Saturn and Pluto.  Okay, 308, you're gonna be the next caller, but give me a second, because I'm gonna first go to Ann in the chat. Ann, next month is my cat midnight B-day. Does he have any message for me? I miss him so much. Oh, Ann, I'm so sorry. Okay, so our pets always first say thank you. And your cat is always around you, like twirling between your, like doing the figure eight or the infinity thing in between and around your ankles. Just always twirling around your feet. So just know your cat is always there with you. Midnight is always there. Please know that midnight is a bit mischievous also. And still, still is a bit mischievous, like knocking things down or moving things just to let you know and still carrying that little mischievous personality that midnight has always had. And I really want to really quick, I'm going to give Sal a song and Sal, your song of the day. Oh my gosh, Sal. Take it to the limit one more time. Oh, I was waiting and they were like building up this. Like I was like, come on, come on, give me the song. I said I'm gonna do it. And then that came in for you, Sal. And I absolutely love that song for you, Sal. And it makes me giggle and laugh. And yeah, that's on. Take it to the limit one more time. And I think the verbiage of that song has an important message for you. So if you could listen to that song later today, that would be really amazing for you, Patrick.  Where are you calling from? Okay, I'm gonna let go. Hey, oh, you got in right under the radar. I was about to mute you again. What's your name? Where are you calling from? Hi, my name is Abby. I'm calling from Nebraska. Hey, Abby. Welcome, Nebraska. How can I help you today? Yes, my daughter Brittany, she passed away recently at age of 22 and it was unexpected. And I was just wondering if there was any way to connect with her. Yeah, okay. So first and foremost, I'm so, so sorry. That's so young. That's a baby. That's still a baby, right? That's just a baby. I'm so sorry. So the first thing that I'm hearing and it's taking just a second, but I'm gonna take my time with this because I wanna make sure I get everything right. And I'm starting to get this little, like a feeling of a little, not an accent, but a little, it's definitely not my normal way of speaking is what I'm gonna say. First and foremost, I wanna let you know that there are, and Brittany is here, but there's also a male with her that was very matter of fact and had kind of a twang to his voice, kind of like some sort of accent. I don't know where this is from, but here we go. This sounds very Southern, kind of Southern or whatever to me, but this person. I'm Georgia and Brittany. I'm so sorry, love. Repeat that. All of my family's from Georgia. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you so much, my love, because that is the biggest confirmation. Thank you. So I'm gonna tell you, there's a man with her that's a little bit older and he's thinner and he's saying, mama, we got her. Mama, mama, we have got your baby now. We have got your baby. And I do feel like this is family, of course. Absolutely this is family that has your baby now and they want you to know that they have your baby now. We've got her from here. It's gonna be okay. Not so much for you, mama, but for us, we got her. We're taking care of her. We're introducing her and we're helping her on this side now. We have taken the reins, mama. Thank you so much for calling in. I'm here every Monday and Wednesday at noon. I wanna thank everybody in the chat, everybody who called in, everybody watching, listening. I love you guys. So stinking much.  And we don't know how long we're gonna live, right? Well, I do, but the rest of us, we don't know how long we're gonna live. So make every day count.  I love each and every one of you so much. Thank you for joining me and spending this time with me. Until next time.


I'm not quite sure how I wound up on a panel with such distinguished other speakers and distinguished discussant, but there actually will be some complementarities I think with what my other panelists have said today. Like Justin, I'm also going to be focusing predominantly on Sub-Saharan Africa, mostly because this has been the region that has traditionally been, as we know, the most aid dependent. It's also just the region that I focus on the most for my own research. And so kind of my interest is three-fold in the presentation. One is first to just kind of understand how has the finance landscape changed in Africa over the last decade or so. Secondly, just briefly why that might be more from the recipient side. I think we know a little bit from the donor side why things have changed, but what about on the recipient side? And then lastly, what does this mean for traditional development assistance? Is there still a role that traditional DAC donors, for example, can be playing in development assistance in Africa? So I'm first starting with a slightly blurry map here, but it's basically comparing disbursement flows of non-ODA disbursements since the mid-2000s to Africa. And what's a note here is basically the turquoise area that's really showing countries that were getting less than 30% of their disbursement flows were non-ODA, so they were more aid dependent. They were getting more of their flows from typical ODA disbursements. And so the thing to note is between 2004 and 2015 we have here is that we've seen a shift in this color distribution. We have a lot more countries in 2015 that are getting at least 30, 30 to 50 or more than 50% of their disbursements flows coming into the country are not from ODA. And so some of these are major ones that we hear more and more about are lower middle income countries, particularly Ghana, Zambia, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire is a big one as well. So we've really seen a shift in the financing flows going to Africa. A lot of this has been private finance, it's been FDI, it'll be Eurobonds, which we'll talk about in a minute. It's been tax revenue, there's been a huge effort by donors in trying to increase domestic revenue mobilization. And actually one of the biggest sources of flows is actually private remittances. And you actually saw this increasing a lot in the late 2000s, about a half dozen African countries allowed for external voting, allowing their populations overseas to vote. And you saw an increase in remittances from overseas. So we do know that there is a change in the financing landscape. Private finance in particular is much more pronounced. We have about 15, 16 African countries that have launched Eurobonds. Some of them, such as Ghana, have done this repeatedly. So billions of dollars in Eurobond issuances. We see that private sector finance foreign direct investment, which is being shown on the right side with the kind of Navy histogram bars there. That's also increased over time since the beginning of the 1990s. But with caveats, because I think it is important to note the kind of percentages that are indicated by the kind of yellow and the green lines here. So, I mean, Africa hasn't really seen a dramatic increase in the share of FDI that is going to the developing world in general. So it's still a number of other developing countries and emerging market economies that get most of the FDI. So it's been increasing in absolute terms. That's definitely true. And the amounts here that they have in 2017 are about equivalent to the ODA disbursements sub-Saharan Africa received in the same year. So it is significant, but it's important to keep it in relative terms based on other developing regions. So we do see a slight shift in the finance landscape in Africa. Now, we know some of the reasons why this might be. We know, of course, on the donor side, with the financial crisis. There's been a reduction in ODA. There's been the issue with interest rates up until now. US interest rates, which were attracting a lot of the Euro bond issuances. On the recipient side, I think we've seen this kind of aspirations to be less aid dependent amongst middle income countries. And nowhere has this been as pronounced as in Ghana. At the 61st anniversary independence of Ghana last year, the president, Nana Akufo-Auto, he launched this Ghana going beyond aid agenda, the GBA agenda, emphasizing that they don't want to be going to the donors, asking for charity and handouts anymore. As he says, it's unhealthy for both the giver and the receiver. And there was a lot of excitement on Ghanaian social media when he basically repeated the same statement a few months ago when Emmanuel Macron went to visit Ghana. And he basically said, you know, we don't want to be dependent on foreign aid anymore. Of course, part of this is really motivated by I think a lot of what Justin was just saying. I mean, I think a lot of recipient countries have bought in to this idea of structural transformation. I mean, most of our national development policies in Africa have transformations somewhere in the title. And particularly this interest in industrial policy. So Ghana has these huge ambitions to have one district, one factory per district. There's 216 districts in the country. So it's quite ambitious. One dam per village. This is these are pretty ambitious industrial and infrastructural goals. And of course, this is requiring new sources of financing, because as Justin was alluding to, I mean, many of our traditional DAC donors have focused in the last decade more on kind of education and health areas and not on the investments you need for structural transformation. And so, of course, China has been a huge, a huge source of this funding. Most recently, Ghana getting about what it's it's trying to get. If its parliament lets it $2 billion from China for road projects in exchange for bauxite deposits. And it's trying to follow in the footsteps of Argentina and considering launching a century bond worth over $50 billion for industrial development. And it's definitely not unique. We're seeing this in Senegal. We're seeing this in Zambia. And I think it is very much also influenced by what Justin alluded to, these STGs, eight and nine that also emphasize jobs, emphasize infrastructure, emphasize innovation. And that involves a different type of finance than we've traditionally seen by the DAC donors. So what are the implications of this new finance environment? You know, I think on the on the positive side, you are seeing the markets, particularly those that have launched your bonds, you have seen the markets kind of reward and punish those that have had better or worse macroeconomic frameworks. So Senegal, for example, is getting much better interest rates on its Euro bond issuances than Ghana. And that's kind of a reflection of the fact that Senegal has managed its debt better. I think a quite positive development as well, particularly from a political standpoint, is Euro bonds offer potential for greater legislative oversight than traditional donor finance in many countries in the region? You actually have to have the parliament needs to vote on on issuing a Euro bond, for example, or, you know, going for a loan in general, but for these Euro bonds in particular. And you have seen opposition parties try to block some of these, try to question ministries of finance about the debt implications of some of these bond issuances. And I think that's healthy. A lot of donor agreements are not not in the public domain. They're not in parliamentary answers in the same way that you're seeing some of these debates over debt financing. I think also, you know, we're seeing an array of other type of debt instruments that are viable for subnational entities. So typically municipal governments, for example, they cannot really negotiate with donors directly for municipal financing. They're having to have their national government negotiate on their behalf. This is problematic. Many countries in the region were actually capital cities in particular governed by opposition parties. There might be incentives for national governments not to be giving financing to subnational entities. So you're seeing, you know, other types of financing, such as municipal bonds that have been launched in South Africa, Cameroon. Senegal has tried to do this, giving a little bit more autonomy to subnational governments as well. Well, what are the cons of this? I think one of the most obvious ones that has already been alluded to before is this worry about growth and debt again. You know, the IMF claims that about 18 African countries are at risk of debt distress. We've just had 30 30 African countries have just reached their completion point with HIPAAC or the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative. And now we're kind of seeing this resurgence in debt again. On the face of it, debt is not necessarily problematic unless it is displacing investments that you would have made elsewhere. And we're starting to see that in places like Zambia. It's had a pretty notable social cash transfer program since the early 2000s. Just this past year, the Ministry of Finance said because of debt servicing, they will now need to reduce their cash transfer program by by about 24 percent there. And then the timing of your bonds.  And so this is very similar to what we've seen with traditional aid finance. There's also been accusations of, you know, donors reinforcing incumbent advantage as well. So in that way, there's some similarities in these new sources of financing. OK, so let me just turn to what this really means for continuing role of traditional development assistance. And I'll just talk about four areas. They're all relatively similar in terms of building state capacity and dealing with regulatory issues. And I think, you know, the first one is supporting the capacity of the public sector, especially for debt management. This has been going on, you know, for the past decade or so. And budget support was supposed to be a main mechanism for supporting public sector financial management. But what we've seen when we break down some of the ODA disbursements that's gone to Africa since 2008 is we've seen quite a decline in public sector financial and administrative management. We're seeing our kind of traditional adapter as being, you know, increasing more infrastructure issues. I think following the lead and recognizing this is of interest to recipients. But we've seen this decline in public sector financial and administrative management. We've also seen a decline in the kind of Moe Ibrahim governance indicators related to public administration and financial management. So those that are in the kind of blue are those that have declined in terms of their their their scoring on this issue since 2014. And this is a bit disappointing because there has been a lot of investment and interest in improving civil service and in improving public sector financial management. So I think there's still a need to to kind of kind of reinvigorate this area, particularly in this era of increasing debt distress. Another area that is kind of I think less exciting to to many people, but it's absolutely essential, which is in terms of regulatory issues. This is in terms of food safety, seed safety, land governance reforms and one that that's that's getting a lot of attention now is on pesticide issues. So we now have this example in the Sahel in West Africa of a huge explosion of herbicides in the mid 2000s. A lot of herbicides went off patent. You have a lot of counterfeit herbicides going into the Sahel. So you have about one hundred and fifty different varieties. Many of these, you know, are carcinogenic, they're environmentally toxic. And you just don't have the regulatory capacity amongst very poor Sahelian countries to regulate the Stephen test the quality of these. And so, you know, donors being able to finance and provide the technical support, particularly to the to the regional regulatory body. And the Sahel would be a tremendous contribution. So just one example of this where where donors can be active in the regulatory sector. The third area is on policy coordination. With the Paris Declaration, a lot of its successors, donors tried to avoid duplication of activities and a little bit of, you know, conspecialization in different areas, certain donors working on agriculture versus education versus decentralization. And I think what you've seen as a result is you sometimes see a lack of policy coordination kind of nationally within governments. And I think that's that's a reflection of the disconnect that's happened with donors, where they're each in their own specialized area. One key example that from if previous, we work a lot on food security. And one key example is with the New Alliance commitments on food security. This was in the G8 made this commitment to supporting food security, reducing hunger. And one of its aims was to make sure governments got rid of taxes on rural producers, on agricultural producers, saying this was repressive. This was preventing rural smallholders from reaching their potential. This really came to a head in Tanzania, which has had a crop tax, a tax on smallholder farmers, because Tanzania was launching a decentralization policy, and they said, you know, the Germans said, well, it's fine if USAID wants to promote food security and reduce agricultural taxes, but we're trying to promote local government. And, you know, these these agricultural taxes are one of the main sources of revenue for local government. So I think there's much more emphasis and room even amongst the traditional DAC donors to reconcile this fragmentation they've created in the policy arena. And then finally, this area of tax mobilization as I've said earlier, this is one area where we have seen increased increased progress. A lot of countries have increased, they're still small, but they have increased domestic tax mobilization. But you have a problem with tax policy consistency. And I think it links back to the interest in structural transformation to industrial policy. We have a lot of governments giving tax breaks to foreign companies to come in and work and export processing zones. But at the same time, seeing them trying to find ways to to tax small scale street hawkers, petty traders. So you have six, six African countries have just launched informal sector taxes, so taxing quite poor individuals in the informal sector, even as they're giving tax breaks to large companies to come into export processing zones. And so I think this is an area that that donors needs to think a little bit more about how you get that tax policy consistency to support domestic revenue mobilization in a way that doesn't short change efforts at structural transformation. I think the challenge with all these recommendations I've given is that they are what we call kind of low visibility public goods. These are not the areas where, you know, the the citizens and in either, you know, donor recipient or donor giving countries can really see the progress. It's hard for citizens to see the progress with regulatory reform, for example. And so the challenge is really how we reconcile, you know, donors need for impact indicators, quarterly reports showing impact to their publics with some of these kind of low visibility investments that are needed to improve state and financial capacity. So I'll leave it there. Thank you.


Ieithio weithio ymddangos o'r problemau cyntaf o'r cyfnodd o'r cyfnodd ar gyfer y cyfnodd y prinsio'r cyflwyno. Ieithio weithio ar y cyfnodd y cyfnodd, oedd ymddangos i'r cyfnodd, oedd ymddangos i'r cyfnodd ymddangos i'r cyfnodd yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch o'r cyfnodd ymgyrch o'r cyfnodd ar y cyfnodd. Yn ymgyrch ar cyfnodd, fel y 2002, y Ffnodd Pesedol Cymru, ac i gyflym o'r oeddoedd ymlaen nhw o'r mwyntau. Mae'n hyn o'r mwyntau hyn oedd yn ei gweithio y ffyrdd gwrdd ar gyfer y Llywodraeth Gwyrdain yn ei gweithio'r iawn gan gweithio'r ffyrdd gwrdd. Rwyf ni'n meddwl â'r gwahbodaeth i ddatblygu'r cyffredinol, mae'n gweithio'r cyffredinol cyflwyffol sy'n gyfosedol. Efallai ymgyrch yw'r holl o'r oedd, i gyd wedi'u gwneud o thymiannau o'r ffordd. Rydym nhw'r cyflogol oherwydd wedi'i gael byddai gael cynhyrchu gweld yn rhai ei ddefnyddio. Felly mae'r cynhyrchu yn y Ucau. Felly, yn fawr, ni'n meddwl i gyflogol o fewn. OEI maen nhw'n eich bobl yn ymddangosol ysgolwch yn lleifol. Felly, mae'r cyflogol o fewn o'r environmento oedd yn creu ei ddweud o bair iawn i'r ddweud o bobl o'r oedol. Ymdwe余 yw i'r ffocws i'r gyflym wedi llaw o'r cymryd hyffordd, yn cael emrodd cyflogol, ar gyfer y dywedol maen nhw ar ffordd lluniau unrhyw unrhyw ymgylch. Rhyw yw'r ymdwech ar gyfer unrhyw unrhyw unrhyw yw gwmau ei bod i'r bwysig o'r cymryd yma yn gyfrifoed. Rhaid i'r yn ystod trefious hwnnw o'r cyfrifyth yn arrobarod cyflŵr iawn. Mae ymdweud ymddur ymdill chi i'r ffocws i'r gyflym Gwynch i'r hyfforddiant, OA wedi bod yn cyffredigol y system yn ymddianfod. Mae ymddianfodol wedi cael eu casgliadau amgylcheddiaeth ymddianfodol yn gwybod gyda'u gynghwytoedd o'r hollol. Yn gyfnod Jim Macalco ar OCLC, mae'n ffordd ar y cyfle o gyfnodol cyflwyntaeth ymddianfodol, mae'n gwybod ychydigol o Gymraeg o gyflynyddol i'r cyfle o gyflynyddol. Ofattering has highlighted that the fragmentary network of research systems out there does provide insight into collaborative range of OA activities. However, by viewing OA purely through localised systems, it's a bit like looking through a telescope the wrong way round. We only see things through a very narrow focus. It is hopefully illustrated here. here. The features of open dissemination are now appearing earlier in the published record. Different versions of an output might appear in various forms across the web, each version may exhibit different properties of openness. What's required is the ability to aggregate open activities and then scale them back down to an institutional level. However, UK institutions are currently operating the other way around arguing open access through only a single institutional system. This made and created duplication of effort by academics and layers of bureaucracy that preventent from understanding wider engagement with open practices. Our inability to track academic activity across this range of systems, maybe weakening our policies, the 101 innovations project shows the breadth of new dissemination platforms out there, this is what modern scholarship looks like. ond hi o wybodaeth hwn wedi cyflawni, ond dweud yn cael eu syniad argylcheddoedd o'r system fel ymgyrchweinol. Mae'r unrhyw unigod, ac mae'r ysgledigau yn sylfaenigol o rywbeth fideb, rywbeth ar y gwarach symmetric o'r fitn ac mae'r cyflig iawn, ac mae'r cyflig yn cerddiannol gan angen o'r iawn arlaed yr academics. Mae'n cyfleio hwner bwysigol yn mynd i'r gweithiau hynny. Cors sefydlu'n gallu am ddod gweithio ar three of our papers where to be found in our repository. The majority are widely discoverable, and other, equally suitable repositories. And this data verifies for us, anecdotally, what we already know to be happening, namely that many of our academics are already highly engaged with open practices. Through Cors we are able to see Brunel's research as a global collaboration, but of course these global insights are not reflected in territorial policies. Open Access is a global movement, but with the lack of available data, how can we assess models and approaches to see the best way forward? The broader cultural revolution is being overlooked because policy compliance focuses attention institutionally, and the lack of collectivism for global open access data is obscuring our cultural transition toward open and so obstructing local services that are supposed to be supporting communities through this change. Looking at other web services produced a clearer picture into the state of open through Brinell, so we significantly increased the volume of open access papers than we previously identified. We found about 40% of papers that did not take an available green open access option. The publishing trends of our researchers have changed dramatically. This graph more clearly shows the shift toward gold, particularly in the last five years. What's interesting about this growth is it does not appear to have deterred off scholars from the continued usage of repositories. The lack of available data makes institutional services arbitrous of compliance armed with sticks. The trouble with bludgeoning compliance through policy is the collateral damage that might hit researchers that we've already taken the time to win to the movement. What we need is smarter tools that can incentivise the cultural change and enable a proper dialogue between users and services. Our data indicates that there is far more gold and green publishing taking place outside the visibility of our request driven services. But what we're having to do in supporting compliance is impose workflows that don't recognise a natural and evolving practice often being led by scholars themselves. At our open access conference last year Cameron Nalen pointed out that OA is sometimes felt like libraries chucking books and papers over a wall and hoping the public will come along and pick them up. The duplication of effort we're currently enforcing serves only to take time from the proper public engagement that the movement is supposed to underpin. To be effective we need much better access to data about the manifestations of open works that relate to our institution. How else can local services properly engage, guide and incentivise our researchers? And how will the scholarly community know when we're within sight of our destination? That's the end. Thank you very much.


Hi everybody, Joe for Jaspy's casebreaks.com here with 2019 a Panini flawless footballs pretty nice break here 2019 edition keep that in mind two box random team break number three with a hit list promo So we'll keep track of basically any card you get is gonna be considered a hit, right? I think they're all gonna be hits anyway. There's no base cards in this So we're gonna keep track of all that we'll gather all the names of the hit list people Rerandomize their names in the top four. We'll get a hundred dollars of break credit, which is not too bad Not too shabby. All right big. Thanks everybody here. Thanks to the people who bought spots. Congrats again to the people who won spots All 32 teams are in let's roll it. Let's randomize it five and a six eleven times for names and teams one two three four five six seven eight nine and 11 the final time There you go five and a six eleven times we got Sean all the way down to Rory five and a six eleven times for the teams one two three four five six seven eight nine ten and eleven Well, tell mrs. Big rig we appreciate appreciate The business we got Panthers down to Jets. Where'd all the money go? It's supporting a small business here in In Southern California All right, Sean with the Panthers John with the Falcons Brandon with the Jags Brian with the Bengals Brandon with the Giants Jay with the Saints Ryan with the Bears William with the Broncos Gale with the Lions David with the Seahawks 49ers for Colin Ryan with the Texans Oren with the Vikings Isaiah with the Washington football team John with the Browns Rory with the Dolphins Jay with the Steelers Colts for Brandon John with the Arizona football Cardinals Isaiah with the Chargers Matthew with the Bills Naric with the Patriots Brian with the Bengals Bryant Bengals where did I get bangles Packers can't read Jay with the Cowboys Jeff with the Ravens Neil with the Eagles Christopher with the Buccaneers Tony with the Titans Rams for Colin Rory's got my raiders for trade I might be a mistake Oren with the Chiefs and Rory with the New York Jets But he has the Raiders Jets and Dolphins all for trade Are we're gonna pause the video? We're gonna allow for a little bit of a trade window and when we come back We'll have the break stick around All right. Welcome back everybody a lot of trade chatter, but in the end no deals were done Thanks everyone for getting into the action appreciate it and let's see what we got here There it is 2019 flawless football, but it was printed in 2020 Slide one of the briefcases over there. You can see it on the top camera And I'm actually gonna copy and paste the names So as I'm going through the break flip back to the screen, I'll start I'll start deleting names For people that get cards so then we can run that hit list promo at the end. Don't let me forget I always forget it sounds like I'm going through my outro of the video kind of thing and I'm not Not talking about break credit or anything like that Definitely Definitely shoot me that reminder So we're gonna do the the slider box in the middle first All right, John Stallone. I think you're lagging behind a little bit. He's still asking about trades We're already into the first Into the first card of the break, which is the blockchain will Greer and that is for Carolina Shawn matter. We are not gonna count the blockchain cards as hits. How about that? All right This does count as a hit 11 out of 15 Jarrett stittum quad relic and that is for Narik and the Patriots We got a trio of cowboys Jalen Smith late and Vander or Jalen Smith to Marcus Lawrence and late and Vanderesh one out of 15 Triple relic for the boys that's for J. Goins and the cowboys You got rookie shadow signatures the shadow knows 19 out of 25 Colts Indianapolis Colts that's gonna be for Brandon Hall. We'll always have Paris 16 out of 25 Noah Phant That is for Denver William punt with the Broncos We got two out of 20 another Patriot for Narik Nikhil Harry We've got a Hall of Famer coming up 14 out of 20 John Randall and that's gonna be for Oran and Minnesota Six out of 15 two-color patch and autographed high reek Hill.  Let's do maybe the gem first Try not to peek let's do the gem first that is Deandre Hopkins 19 out of 20 Ruby Texans Ryan Shackleton with Houston think tried to trade couldn't trade Mojo right and On this side is a greedy Williams one out of three laundry tag Nice one for Cleveland Cleveland. This is for you That's for John Stallone tried to trade couldn't trade Mojo out of fives and under all aboard the big head express And the auto in the middle Oh It's Kyler Murray nice nine out of 25 rookie autograph Kyler Murray for John Houghton and The Arizona Cardinals that's a hoop and all the gems are naturally mined not lab-grown All right Case one and done case two for you. It was the Cardinals the Browns and Houston Let's take those off the list right here. Did I get chiefs already? I did like I'm sorry What I think was the best to sport player Dion Sanders or Bo Jackson Well, I think of injuries in derail Bo Jackson. He would I think I feel like he would probably be Have much better not have might have been Hall of Famer in both Well, maybe not baseball, but probably would have been a Hall of Famer in football Dwayne Haskins is your blockchain card for Isaiah But numbers wise it would it be Dion Sanders? Maybe you see I lay with the lead now All right First one off the top is Tony Pollard eight out of twenty two-color patch for the Cowboys Jay goings Cowboys that earlier with that triple relic What was Bob Coosie a two-way player to two sport guy? We got Julius Peppers. That's pretty cool. You can see a little bit of the dirt on that jersey there Chicago Bears Ryan Shackleton with that one Possibly a try to trade couldn't trade mojo on that one, too There you go, Ryan could see it We got another page at Fernaric star swatch signature Sony Michelle two out of 25 Another star swatch signature three color patch an autograph 12 out of 15 Cooper cup And that's for the Rams. That's gonna be for Colin who has the Rams We got a four out of five all pro Inc. Earl Thomas. There you go Nice Earl Thomas for Seattle the Seahawks that'll be David last-bought mojo strikes again.  We had Tyreek earlier for Oren now. We got the Meekle Hardman, Jr. Eight out of 15 Nick Bosa looks like a piece of sapphire in there and his autograph For the Niners, that's for that's also for Colin. All right now the encased cards Ryan S wants to see Some Walter Payton. Let's see what we got here. Let's do the right side first We got Eli Manning diamond two out of seven. It's a good-looking card for the New York football Giants That's gonna be for Brandon on the other side is whoa a Triple NFL shield one of one. Oh All different teams. No Layton van der Esch cowboys Luke Keekley Panthers and Clay Matthews Rams One happy person two sad people oh Boy Dallas Jay Goins Luke Keekley Carolina that'll be for Shawn Matic and the Rams Colin One happy person two sad people All right, and the last one should be the RPA or a rookie auto or something it is. It's a three-color patch in auto Josh Jacobs nice eight out of 15 for Ferrari and my Raiders Nice. All right naturally mine not lab grown. Okay Let's make two people sad. Let's make one person really happy So we're also going to use the same dice roll for the the hit list promo too All right, let's flip back here. There's the hit list list So it's Dallas Cowboys Carolina Panthers Los Angeles Rams. You're welcome worry. Thanks for getting in man Good to see as always And then we'll do the hit list promo here once we figure out who's gonna hit this All right, you're welcome Ryan eight times For the triple. Good luck One two three four five Seven and good luck eighth and final time. It's Carolina on top and that's gonna be Shawn Matt Sorry Shawn, you're not part of the promo anymore But you do get this nice triple relic NFL shield one of One all aboard the big hit Express There you go ladies and gentlemen Thanks for making this happen. All right now sad times for these hit list people here Sorry But we're gonna gather all of your names use the same dice roll and the top four I mean, I'm gonna double check this button. I think the top four get a hundred bucks of break credit. Is that right? Yeah, top four names will get a hundred dollars of break credit after five into three eight times. Good luck one two three four five six Seven and eighth and final time and top four. There you go Matthew Rory. Look at that John and Brandon the four of you hundred dollars of break credit each check your email Check your spam folders if you don't see it if you use multiple emails to order from Jasper's check all your emails Thanks for watching. Thanks for breaking with us. I'm Joe for Jasper's case breaks calm and I'll see you next time