Today we're going to talk about stories stories from maintainers of free and open source projects who either by volunteering or by not being paid enough most of the times put out the work to maintain stuff that they give out for free basically for both individual users and companies. And we're going to talk about some stories that I've heard recently that say how this model that we have currently is just not sustainable and it's not working. So the first one which you probably saw and if you didn't go read it immediately because it's heartbreaking it's about CoreJS. So I'm just gonna very quickly do a summary and then give some thoughts about it. CoreJS is a polyfill library of JavaScript and it's used by roughly 75% of the 100 most visited websites. So it's a pretty big library. If I understood this correctly which I probably didn't they provide and by the I mean this person working on it provides the very implementations for the very latest ACMA script standards and proposals. I am very much not in the JavaScript world and yeah this entire library which is used again by the most used website is just maintained by a single person who recently burned out rightfully so. XKCD picture where the entire internet is you know kept alive by a single library developed by a single person who hasn't enough funding that's exactly the case here. Now the person working on this library never quite advertised himself or the project he just published the project on github and that was enough for him and he never quite searched for big monetary compensation for what he was doing. In fact he even moved back to Russia because apparently it's cheaper to live there so that was easier for him. However something happened. Do you know about the bus factor because this is extremely important here. The bus factor is how many people should be hit by a bus for a project to die. In this case the bus factor is one for this channel in fact the bus factor is one if I if a bus hit me that's it no more Nikolo but in theory the internet and the super important projects the internet relies on should not have a bus factor of one and what happened here is exactly that there was a bus factor one and something went wrong. In this particular case it's not this person getting hit by a bus but it's this person hitting somebody. Yeah let me read it directly. On an April night he was driving home two deadly drunk 18 years old girls in dark clothes decided somehow to crawl across a poorly lit highway one of them laid down in the road another one sat down and dragged her first directly under my wheels. Suddenly one of them died and the other went to the hospital and according to him is innocent like he couldn't have prevented it according to witnesses the same but not according to the jury so he had to either go to prison or repay a bunch of money to the family and he didn't have the money. What he tried to do to avoid that is do a fundraising to actually cover the expense of the legal expenses. So what he decided to do is to add every time you installed CoreJS a little console message that says hello I'm searching for funds or a job you can donate to me here and you can contact me. Did that work? Not at all obviously his revenue stream as we'll see later didn't increase significantly however what happened is that people started started absolutely hating on him absolutely hating.  He stayed there for around a year and then managed to come back and start resumed work on the library again with even less rent than you compared to before. So at the very beginning he was earning around two thousand five hundred dollars a month this was at the start then that decreased to one thousand seven hundred and then something happened which was one of the main platforms to receive donations for him just stopped giving him money and you know you can kind of guess the reason politics Russia. I told you he lives in Russia something was going to go wrong so all the donations that he had raised for that month and any following month they didn't arrive to him nothing which cut his pay from one thousand eight hundred to just eight hundred. To be clear he still receives donations through Tidelift but it's just that Tidelift doesn't give those that money to him and by the way Tidelift does use CoreJS the irony. At this point of the article he just puts out a big paragraph which starts with a big lettering no more which is exactly what you would expect. What he says is he either receives more money through donations or he's is going to stop making CoreJS publicly available and is gonna start to charge for it or he's just gonna stop working on the project which would be extra sad and he says that especially because now he actually has like a children and he has to you know support his family which is fully understandable and something that's also mentioned in the other article I want to talk about which is called what it feels to be like an open source maintainer which I've already talked about but I think it's very important to raise again and in this case I think this person is purely talking from a volunteer point of view he has a job and as a volunteer he also maintains various open source projects and he talks about how it's one of the things that makes takes away happiness from him which is sad and you know it feels like again you should read the article because I wouldn't be able to convey how well written it is but what it feels like it's that it's he's extremely overworked and being a developer in open source and this is completely different from proprietary software being a developer in open source means that you have to deal with the people using your software directly you're doing something that's interact connection with the community one very important thing to say about this article is firstly there is a constant stream of new issues new questions and new stuff and it's very hard to stay on top of all of them and when you're like looking ahead he says I've already told my partner that if and when we decide to start having kids I will probably quit open source for good which is not something you want to hear from somebody who's maintaining open source projects that many people probably rely on this is not something that's working currently another example which is directly from kitty is an article from yesterday actually and it's called false communities you don't have to yell so what happened this is from a kitty contributor that recently implemented outlines for windows which is something that we kd designers wanted to implement and those outlines were also implemented to plasma dialogues by me actually and what happened is that when people tried out these outlines they asked for there to be an option to be customized to be removed which to be clear fair enough it is something that we are considering we're trying to wait whether it makes sense to have that option which will of course add more code burden and maintenance burden or if you know it's important enough so it's something that we are currently thinking of that is fine what is not fine is that often enough these comments are toxic they have a blog and in the comments of the blog there are people going there even though that is not the right place to do this and they start saying oh the outlines are ugly or kitty is becoming like you know which is all very toxic behavior and people even went to the merge request which is not where you should put feedback that is the merge request feedback goes into backs dot kitty dot org and started complaining about this there and you might say just a few comments yes but for the maintainer that did this in their free time and now he's receiving like dozens of comments about this like every day it's demotivating to to say the least and i've already seen in the past where a kitty volunteered implemented something he received some nasty comments about it and said you know what why should i do this let's stop working for kitty like why should i put my free time into doing something if what i received back are insults so they stopped working and how can you blame them really there is in fact an entire research about this which is called routes and bridges 143 pages long which talks exactly about this open up your phone your social media your news your medical records your bank they are all using free and public code sometimes this free and public code is made by one single person that maintains direct of it sometimes they're not paid at all to do that sometimes they're not paid enough and most of the time they're completely overworked they're doing too much for them and sometimes it's demotivating and it brings happiness out of them which is not how it's supposed to work at all so a couple of things first of all people please please try to be extremely respectful towards those people who are putting out their free time into this it's horrifying the amount of comments i see around on reddit and such that are like super annoying of course it has happened to me as well like receiving some comments nasty about my floating planets and such i don't care but you know don't i would be honestly happier if you didn't so but this is not like an actual solution this is like the minimum and then we have to actually we have to actually start addressing the real issue which is making sure that we're able to sustain all the one person projects first maintainers out there even from a monetary point of view somehow especially when big companies are using their projects without giving back anything what what should we do i don't know any ideas


Hi, this is Pastor David Osales of Calvary Chapel of the Chino Valley, California. In the book of Ecclesiastes, chapter 5, verse 1, Solomon wrote, Walk prudently when you go to the house of God and draw near to hear, rather than give the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they do evil. This is great insight and encouragement from the wisest man outside of Jesus himself, whoever lived. Solomon had been commenting on what he has seen over his lifetime. He's mentioned that he has seen injustice, envy, loneliness, and the transience of power and popularity. As he witnessed and experienced so many things in life, he had come to see that life under the sun, a phrase intended to communicate a life without God, even if outwardly successful, is simply filled with vanity, a grasping, he says, for the wind. He has now paid a visit to the temple, and while there, he observed the worshipers. As he observed them, he could not help but notice that many were not sincere. He noticed that they would offer sacrifices but didn't keep their vows to God. He saw this as hypocrisy, but they didn't seem to see it themselves. As he noted this, he became aware of how they seemed to be oblivious to the fact that they were offending God. As he observes this, he's moved to issue a warning. Walk prudently when you go into the house of God. Walk prudently is another way of saying, watch your step. Solomon was making it clear that we should never worship God in a careless manner. As he watched them casually approaching worship, he told them to be cautious in their behavior as they approached God. To walk prudently means to prepare our hearts as we come before the Lord in worship. We are to approach the worship of God carefully and not in a casual, flippant manner. This is the right relationship between creature and creator when a humility before him. We are to be humble before him because he is God, and we aren't. The psalmist said it well when he said in Psalm 144 verse 3, Oh Lord, what is man that you care for him, the son of man that you think of him? The obvious answer is man is nothing in comparison to how great and holy you are. With this in mind, Solomon exhorts those who worship God to do so in a humble fashion. He also makes it clear that we are to come prepared to hear from him. Genuine worship occurs when we have devoted our hearts and wills to him. This is made possible when we have taken time to prepare to meet him in worship. For those of you who regularly attend church services, I would encourage you to resist rushing around at the last minute getting ready to go to church. We should use our time wisely so we can be spiritually prepared to meet with our God. It helps if we can do the practical things ahead of time, if possible. For Sunday services, try to prepare for church on Saturday night by getting the clothes ready ahead of time. Put the kids in bed on time, organize the time it takes to get ready for church, give yourself enough driving time to get there, and do your best to prepare your heart to worship in song and come ready to hear God's word. Well, I can hear some of you now. You're saying this isn't possible.  We know that it's possible, but you have to work at it. I didn't say it was easy. I do know that it is possible when it's a priority. Well, with that said, Solomon also instructs us to draw near to hear. This speaks of preparing our hearts as we approach God's word in order to hear him speak to us. The word here speaks of a person understanding. It speaks of being obedient or discerning. It speaks of perceiving. It seems to me that many Christians do not realize that when God's word is properly taught, God is actually speaking to his people. This is something many fail to understand. Bible studies simply talks from the teacher's heart, but are in reality times when God himself speaks. In Matthew chapter 10, verses 19 and 20, Jesus said, When they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak for it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak for. It is not you who speak but the spirit of your Father who speaks in you. Believers are to carefully approach the Lord as we come to receive from him. We need to remember that we're meeting with the Lord of the universe. And though we can enter into his throne room confidently, we do not come in casually. When Moses first encountered God, God let him know that coming into his presence was not to be done without fear, without reverence. In Exodus chapter 3, verse 5, God said to Moses, Do not draw near this place.  We need to remember that meeting with God is not simply haphazardly approaching him. Yes, he's our Father and we are his children and he has welcomed us to approach him. But the way that he made it possible for us to do so was through the painful and bloody sacrifice of his precious son. This should be the under-girding realization of every child of God that our entrance into his presence came at great cost. And when we understand this, we will actually have reverence as we approach him. In the end, we do not want to give what Solomon refers to as a sacrifice of fools, which is an offering made without obedient faith. He's saying, prepare your heart as you enter into your time of worship. Come with a heart to hear as well as to obey. Remember that God's word instructs and heals. So do not come with an attitude of listening without obeying. In the end, God sees completely through it because only a fool can think that he can deceive God. When you come, come with a heart to hear and a heart to do. And remember, God has said, I desire mercy and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God more than burned offerings. Let us not be as those spoken of in Matthew 15, verse 8, where Jesus said, these people draw near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. May we hear and may we obey what the Spirit is saying to the church today. This is Pastor David Rosales of Calvary Chapel of the Chino Valley.


Hello everyone and welcome to the Circular Metabolism Podcast, the bi-weekly meeting where we have in-depth discussions with thinkers, researchers, activists, policymakers and practitioners to better understand the metabolism of our cities, and how to systemically reduce their environmental impact in a socially just and context-specific way. I'm your host, Aricid from Metabolism of Cities, and on today's episode we will talk about the circulation of flows among cities and their greater hinterlands, but this time we will not only talk about flows of materials and energy, but also of capital, information and scaled labors. We will underline how cities are at the epicenter of the global economy, how they have become new geographies of extractions by sometimes grabbing resources, grabbing land, distributing it through a global market, and leaving behind dead land and dead water. To talk about these topics I have the honor and the absolute privilege to have Saskia Sassen, which is a Robert Lind professor of sociology at Columbia University. She has studied cities' immigration and states in the world of world economy with inequality, gendering and digitization as three key variables throughout her work, and she has wrote many books. I've enjoyed the global city back in the day when I did urban studies as a master's. Also one of the latest ones, expulsion, expulsion's brutality and complexity in the global economy. I want to spend some more time on this. So I wish you all to enjoy this episode before we start. Please spread the word and share this episode with other fellow urbanites if you enjoyed it. And now let's start. Thank you very much Saskia for coming to this podcast and welcome. Could you please briefly present a bit your work and who you are? Yes, well it's a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to discuss with you, to address certain issues. I have long been interested in a whole variety of conditions, but it's not an arbitrary variety. It is in a way elements that sort of depend a bit from each other, sometimes in very strong ways, like the quality of the water, whatever, you know, we just are dependent on. A city is dependent on a vast array of elements. So that is sort of what interests me a lot about cities, is how they actually succeed most of the time in bringing together all kinds of elements of enormous diversity and diversities of many different kinds, you know, the way one city builds its railways, its bus systems, its parks, very different from how another one does it. So that type of stuff, you know, how cities have sort of found a way to produce a knowledge zone that is theirs and we pick up and we get some elements and we overlook other elements, you know, it's that kind of a mix. And so you started if I understood correctly from more of a political science and philosophy background before you went into sociology and economics, what made you gain interest in this urban phenomenon or this, you know, this urbane or the city? Well, first, it's because it's an open system. You know, many very fancy situations which one could also study are close systems. You have to accept the rules of the game. A city is by definition a messy, open, if nobody can fully control it, no matter what, you know. So there is something interesting, something alive. And after all, cities, you know, cities have existed long before national states existed long before so many aspects that today are constitutive in our lives. But there in the city, the city's already had it, you know, millennia.  So clear and they have survived. Of course, many cities have been reduced, many cities have been destroyed, many cities have fallen in the hands of greedy people who have etc, etc, all of that. Nothing is perfect, precisely because it is an open system, precisely because it needs to keep on adding, the city needs to keep on adding elements, recognizing emergent conditions, recognizing that new elements are in play, etc, etc. You know, that is really sort of what interests me, that with all its complexities, all its closures, all its exclusivities, etc, etc. In the end, it is an open system. You know, if you think of it as a whole, there may be parts that are very private. But, but you know, so anyhow, that's a bit the reasoning. And I guess with that line of thinking, you can study cities for an eternity and still learn many, many new things, I guess, yeah. Yeah. And they have lived, they have had some of the cities have had such long lives, certainly in a place like Italy or the Mediterranean zone, right, where there was much movement. And you know, these are really interesting histories. So I'm wondering, just there are some cities in your life, I guess you have worked in New York for many, many years, but you also went to Poitiers for some years for your studies. So I'm wondering, you know, how did a small, medium city like Poitiers in the 60s and compared to New York or Indiana, where you also did your PhD, did you had some parallels between them? Did you, when you were looking at cities, was there something that you were like a grid of reference where you started thinking about cities or how did the, or was it later on when you start theorizing your work that you set more structured examples of how to compare cities? You know, I think both, both aspects were in play, but there is something about a city that every city is a bit different. And so very slowly and gradually I began to notice this that the differences of cities, and I was traveling quite a bit. You know, I grew up in the, I was born in the Netherlands, but then my family moved to Latin America. And then I did my own trips to various places. So, so, you know, you begin to see that there are cities everywhere because without cities, most of us, whether they're big, rich, poor, small, doesn't matter, but they are a zone where we humans can find protection. Not always perfect protection, but a protection of sorts, you know, we can survive and we can be protected. So when you, and let's remember that there was a time when there were wars all over, take Europe. Europe at that point had like 600 different dominant entities. I mean, we're talking an old epoch. And, you know, each one of those had its own base that it needed to construct and to live in, protect itself, etc. So, you know, when you begin to look at these long histories of cities, you realize, my God, they have been there so long before most of us who now live, you know, who are alive, you know, we tend to take it for granted. We don't realize what it took in ancient times, you know, how the city was a site also for protecting yourself from many, many dangers. Today we don't, we don't think that way very much. I mean, the city can still be protected, but still it's very different from those older epochs. And so this, let's say, central place of a city existed for a very long time and then nations arrived more or less and kind of diluted it for a while. But in your work, you kind of pinpointed that in a, in a globalized words, cities are once again kind of the anchors or the nodes of this global economy, global production, consumption network. What were your findings there? Well, you put that very, very well, you know, that not all people when I, when I do an interview have understood it with the clarity that you just did. So that's very good. You know that the city was, it was anything because of refuge, it is where you could find food, it is where you could find help, it is where you could, et cetera, et cetera. And we tend to forget that. But so in their origins, they really played significant roles, they really mattered. Today we tend to think of the city often all that traffic, all the, the this, the that, you know, but even in that, in that overwhelmed situation of today's major cities, there still is a, there is a function there is a function that no city can do without. And it's a function that enables the circulation of water, the circulation of people, the circulation of cars, you know, and, and so you have to stand back and respect this, you know, and say, yes, you know, they really do. It is not just us humans who inhabit the city. It is also the city itself and how it was built that is an enabling condition, you know, and it's partial. It's not perfect. It's always partial. So that is a bit the thinking, you know, sort of what I think about this. And so I guess back in the day, when you did your, your, the research about global cities and the global cities function that were of course not the same for, for every city. This was a bit kind of going against the grain or at least back in the day, if I understand correctly, there was much a bigger emphasis on, on nations rather than cities and they kind of exactly. Yeah. Yeah, you said it exactly. Exactly.  I know that there is an international system that all these other elements are in play also. But at the same time, I found that there was something about the city that intrigued me.  Why deal with a hassle of what a city also entails? Why did they have to be in a city, you know? So out of that, there came a whole variety of observations that I made. It was not that I was a fanatic about cities, you know? I was just saying that there was something in play here that people hadn't quite picked up on, you know, there was there were contradictions is one way of putting it. The city really contains a whole set of contradictions. And most of them turn out to be necessary contradictions. You know, there was no perfect closure. There is no perfect, ultimate definition of what ought to be done. Everything is a bit open and a bit closed. You know, and that can help and that can also be a challenge, you know, that you don't really know how you are going into that. Yeah, of course, it's quite challenging whenever someone needs to define what the city is. And because that entails how to study it, and that entails, you know, what is a good city, what is a bad city, or how to plan a new city. But I guess we'll get back to that. So you mentioned a lot in this global economy, the role of intermediation with lawyers, financiers, translation, etc. etc. But also like to add the cleaners and the ones who clean the, you know, etc. I mean, it's a whole world onto its own. And some of it is visible during the day and some of it is never visible during the day, but only at night. And some of it is never visible because it's below ground, you know. I mean, when you think about what it all takes to have a city functioning, more or less, I mean, it's never going to be perfect. You stand back and you say, wow, we did that. We humans that did not fall from the sky. No, we did it. And yeah, and I mean, some people detest cities. But most people, they need cities and they find that there is something, you know, that they wouldn't want to miss. Nobody is perfectly in love with the city. There are too many issues.  I mean, it's a very long list. And, you know, some cities do it better than others, etc. But there we are. We really need, we need those faces. And indeed, at least for, at least my field is more studying cities and their environmental impact. But it's great to see that it's the locus where you have the global and the local needs. So you have to somehow negotiate at the same time, as you said, the garbage here, but at the same time, the extraction mine somewhere in Congo because of our, I don't know, consumption of a phone or of a. So it's this very, very interesting interconnection of challenges that you somehow need to solve at the same time. But, you know, the administration is not the same, of course, here and there. So, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, really, really. When you think about how a city can actually, more or less, most cities function. They are imperfect, but they function. And that is also impressive in its own terms, you know, that I mean, some cities are some cities are truly hard work. Let's remember that, you know, that the endless traffic like Latin America has quite a few cities that are really hard work. Because you're forever delayed on everything, you know, but, but one hopes that that and one one issue for me that has emerged as very important is that we need to build more cities. We should not keep expanding, expanding our already very big cities. Because that is only to the advantage of the better, the higher levels of income. But the poor, the poorer workers, then have very, very long trips. Those trips can be two hours to get to your job every morning that you have to work. I mean, that to me is a marker of deep injustice that is absolutely not desirable that we should absolutely eliminate. So, so from the perspective of the powerful actors who function in the center of the city, they, they, as long as there are more people coming whom they can hire etc to do their work, they're fine. But those people are not fine. They have to get up at 4am, you know, of the morning every morning. And that kind of, that is a kind of injustice that is invisible to most of us. But it's a profound injustice that we have allowed our cities to just grow, grow, grow. And where the poorer classes are the sufferers, they pay the price for these very long trips, you have to get up, you know, two hours earlier than etc. To me, that is a major issue. Every time I say, in a, in a whole variety of countries, we need to build new cities, rather than keeping the expanding, expanding, expanding. People look at me, because in their image, the answer is, we have built our cities. And what is invisible are the poorer classes that have to take these long trips, they are invisible to our eyes, they are invisible to the employers, you know, and they have to, so, so it is, it is sort of to be very interesting, the resistance of the notion, we build new cities, the building of new cities is not just new cities, it's about generating a juster option for life, for life, especially for the poorer classes. To me, that is what guides me to say, we should not keep expanding, expanding our existing cities, because the ones who suffer are the poorer classes, we need to build new cities and stop this endless expansion. I mean, there are some of the cities in Latin America that are monsters, they're monsters for the workers, you know, every morning these people have to travel for two hours and they have to hope that the bad bus is not going to, you know, suddenly have a breakdown and I mean, it's just, it's so unfair when you think of our rich cities, our, you know, we have many rich countries nowadays, it can do better than what we have done. And how do you see, so, because cities are, of course, also the place where activism takes place, a lot of political new idea, new political ideas can take place, do you think that the implementation of more new cities will perhaps enable more laboratories for changing the way that circulation of flow is happening today? Would that be an enabler in your sense? Well, that certainly would, but it's also just the notion of having a very, I'm really thinking in very simple terms here, when I say a reasonably sized city, you know, so that yes, you sit in the bus for an hour, but that's the maximum rather than three hours, you know, if you have to wait and etc, because there are not enough buses, you know, something we need, there is like a little list of elements that should be in play in all major cities, certainly in all of these big cities that are mostly not in play. And what is not in play is that which enables the lower income people who also live in those cities to have a more reasonable life in those cities, that they don't have to get up two hours earlier, that the mother who has children does not get home until, you know, a very late time. And these are people who never sleep enough. And I don't know if you have spent a week not sleeping enough, you know how you feel. Well, for them it's life long, you know, just taking these simple things. And how little it would really take instead of keeping expanding, expanding our cities, to just build some new cities. I mean, it's not going to be very easy and it will take time. And again, I must say, mostly when I say this, people look at me like I'm crazy, which is fine with me. Yeah, it's so it's a difficult question. It's a tough question, indeed, because of course, more, more cities equals more materials and all of that. But indeed, the pace, or at least in, as you said, in poorer countries, at least big cities also mean slums also mean numerous informal economies. So yeah, the scale, the scale of a city, the function of a city is something elusive to me. And I haven't figured out what is, well, whether there is, and probably there's not a good answer to that. But there are certain like Europe has done quite well. There are some major cities like, you know, in France and in some of these countries, huge cities. But where you have a lot of traffic, but they are of course, mostly also have good traffic. I mean, they have good, you know, good instruments for the traffic. So yes, we have some cities that are really huge, you know, that are, but in Europe, most cities are actually pretty reasonably sized, you know, they are not, they are big, but they are not extreme. They are not like what I see in Latin America. Yeah, indeed. I mean, the population within, let's say, Lagos or Luanda or some other cities, be it in Asia, be it in Africa or being in Latin America, surpass the understanding that we can have. I mean, there is still London and Paris in Europe that are 10 million plus, but or at least they're metropolises. But indeed, imagine a city of 20, 30 million inhabitants. It hits a bit with vertigo. And when you have very low quality transport, which produces a lot of very negative gases, etc., in other words, those drivers also in the long run, they get ill from every day, you know, doing the traveling. So it is unfair to really a rather large sector of our populations. It's unfair that they should be traveling so much. And the ones that suffer the most, I do think are usually the poorer classes who live at the edges of those cities. And so it's a double negative for me that is problematic. You have a lot of, from what I understand in your work, you not only look at cities, but also how global economic systems are affected by and are driven by cities, so are impacted by cities, but also cities are the ones that are transforming them. And I don't remember, I think it was one in one of your books, you mentioned that we kind of have steered towards a new type of capitalism that is not anymore imperialism. Because we don't, it's not as in the past where there was a civilization, or even if there was colonization, all of that, there was an objective, perhaps of civilization. Now, I'm not at all, you know, saying that it was a good thing. But today, it's much more aggressive or brutal than what it was. There is no reason behind it. Yeah, I think in many, in many ways, it is certainly, you know, I grew up in Latin America. Latin America, as I already said, is a particularly brutal continent. You know, it started by being brutalized by the Europeans who came and whatever the others who came and, you know, and it just is really, whereas if you look at, for instance, most of the towns in Europe and the city, you have a lot of smaller cities, which are very important items.  So there really are differences, I would say, in our world. And these differences are sufficiently known by now that people can understand that there are some cities that do it well and other cities that really don't care about the people. They may care about a particular little group and elite or whatever, and they are very careful with them, but the rest is left out. So the notion that cities also contain within them different types of injustice, different the willingness to recognize injustice, and the notion that hell what the hell I am not going to worry about those are poor people, they are lucky that they are where they are, you know, so you have you have a multiplicity of reactions. When when you stand back and you look at it, it really comes down often to rather at one extreme, extremely brutal way of understanding or saying what we need, what we don't need, I'll let them just, you know, if they they're happy to have those jobs, you know, etc, etc.  On the other hand, cities also are spaces where those without power get to make a history, get to make a home for themselves, get a chance to innovate, you know, so so there there are these ambiguities, but it's certainly there certainly are these are systems, urban systems that there can be pretty impressive on both the negative end and the positive end, you know, it and and so that the what I really respect is people who live in cities, people who like being in cities, they are not naive. They know that there is a lot of injustice and some of them then also try to change that a bit. Most of them are too busy, etc, you know, but but there are, for me, the city is also an opportunity for the better off, you know, those of us who have good lives and good days to also notice more clearly those whom we often depend to who are workers we depend on, they become visible to us. If we want to, we see them. If we don't want to see them, well that that also happens, you know, but so there is something, there is a legibility that the urban condition gives us, which is not present in many documents that we might sign in many arrangements that we might make, you know, etc, etc. So it's like a it's a strange mix of options that the city presents, but it one item that it does make visible is how the most beautiful building, the most beautiful set of trees in a park can be brutal like hell because other elements are because there's so many other actors. It's not just the this and the that, the trees and the people. No, there's the trees, the people and in between you have everything. And you know, and people learn, I think people who live in big cities, they actually learn stuff that people who live in in modest little, they never get to know those, the negative, you know, the problematic aspects, the horrifying aspects that what you find, what one might find terrifying, you know, in a city also, I'm thinking of young women and who get abused and if they are extraordinary combinations of elements, you know, it really these contradictions that you mentioned. And yeah, I think you you're right because there's, I mean, you also have some work on refugees and migrants and how this occurs to cities, but also how activism occurs to cities, how many of the struggles, intersectionality struggles happen within cities. Hopefully that would lead to something different. But there is also the cities are now the the epicenter of finance. And back in the day, we're talking about the spatial fix with David Harvey and how, you know, putting money into buildings, kind of put or invested money in the city and the city became an actor in itself of finance. And I don't know what your take is on the city the city as a well, a very engaged actor somehow without its will. Sometimes a city is already the culprit of many things due to financial elements. Exactly. I mean, there is no doubt that in our major cities, and the cities do not necessarily have to be very big. Think of Switzerland, some of its cities very considered the norm of concentrations of wealth in a rather modest little city. But but yeah, what you have is a is a development of a whole variety of instruments that were major enablers for those who wanted to accumulate wealth. You know, so the big cities as opposed to towns, because in times you would not have those systems, the big cities drew also attracted a lot of people who wanted to make money. And that had some good effects because it also meant building housing, cleaning the streets and all of that. But of course, it also had a negative because it meant that there was a project of grabbing. And that would mean that the weaker elements in a city could be, you know, removed with great ease, you know, pushed to the edges, etc, etc. You know, the city is also an open system. And in that sense, there are positives, and there are negatives. And both of them are not necessarily each one of these are not necessarily easy to change, because they are embedded in certain conditionalities. The stuff doesn't fall from the sky. The stuff emerges from the ground level, so to speak, in a sense of what is it that we need? What is it that, you know, that we must have? What is it that we have to eliminate? So, you know, you can't just simply change a city. You can change a bit, you can clean it up, but changing the whole city, forget it. So if you hit a city that already is like some of the Latin American cities that already have just, you know, massive transport issues and problems, etc, you are stuck with some very bad air quality and probably is going to affect your lungs. And I don't know at all, you know, whereas other cities like European cities, they are almost perfect, you might say, you know, everything is clean and okay. And, you know, many people use bicycles rather than cars, you don't have trucks and buses that it, you know, I put all the poison out there. So it varies enormously, but a functioning city like the European cities are a very good example, of course. It really, you will stand back and you respect it. You say, you know what, of course, it's imperfect, but it really is good. For instance, also that the Dutch allow the bikes, you know, in the city, the bicycles, you know, that story, right? And stuff like that, which just enables people. Instead of taking a bus, they use the bike, which is better for everybody involved, you know? So I think that some parts of the world have just been more intelligent and less grabbing. The Americas are one of the most violent continents in the world.  The Americas are brutal. The Americas emerge as what they were by all kinds of actors who went to the Americas to extract, not to build, not to invent, not to make, to extract. That was the main project. It eventually expands, of course, you know, because you need people, you need houses, you need etc. But let's not forget how it started. In Europe, the cities emerge as zones that protect people. Because, you know, way, way, way back, I mean, centuries, the cities in Europe were cities that were there to protect the residents, the people. That is very different from Latin America. You know, it's the opposite. It was not about helping people. It was about extracting value and, you know, etc. etc. So it's quite interesting for me and it's important. It seems to me to recognize the differences in how cities emerge, how cities function, you know, in a whole variety of situations. And the continent, I mean, I must say, the Japanese have done it much better than the Americans. The Europeans have done it much better than the Americans, you know. The Americas emerged in our history as a zone for extract. Whereas many other places emerged as zones of protection, that you were afraid of certain enemies and you had to work together to protect yourself from those enemies. So those histories already mark a difference, you know.  But when you think of origins, you know, there you begin to understand a difference. And of course, I mean, cities, European cities have externalized all of their bad stuff as somewhere else. To these very cities that we're talking about. Yeah, good that you brought that up because that's absolutely true. And yeah, absolutely. Yeah, they're sweeping under the American and African and Asian carpets, all of the sad stories and the crimes and all of that. But yeah, because I mean, they saw the Americas as a site of extract. You know, this was another history. When you think in the 1600s or so, we had hundreds of, in Europe and in the continent, we had hundreds of entities that were sort of little, little, that were little cities of a sort, you know, that, and they sort of worked together. I mean, they had a lot of wars too, but it is a different history from the, from the history of colonizing, you know, of grabbing. I mean, the thing about the Americas is that the Americas were seen as sources of all kinds of stuff that could be used, that could be used in Europe, that could be used in other parts of the world. I mean, that already marks a difference. It became a zone for extracting. In the continent, in Europe, it was different. You know, it was same thing with the Chinese. It's a different story. It's a different history of engagement with the urban condition. And yeah. So I think that in one of your projects, you tracked or you studied extractive activities on this? Yeah, yeah, I did. Yeah, that was that for a while there, I was really into extraction. So what did you learn or what were some of the extraction activities? Some of the stuff that I'm just describing now, all that, a whole variety of modes of extraction. It's not just about extracting gold. It's much more than that. You know, yes, there was extraction or gold extraction, but it's also the, the, the extractions that depended really on destroying others, you know, the indigenous people, whatever. I mean, a whole variety of animals. You know, now Europe at some point, early, early, early on, also had that, but the Europe of our sort of modernity is not that kind of a Europe that, and it's the Americans really that reflect this mode. More so, I would say, than also some of the Eastern countries, you know, which also have deeper histories. I mean, America's was a continent. That fell under the controls of those who wanted to extract value. It was not about building. It was not about, you know, a refuge. It was, it was a different, it's origins at its origins. It's a different history. That is what I'm saying, because eventually it all sort of, you know, yeah, yeah, it becomes more or less the same. And so due to this, let's say, overlasting component of cities into all of that. So if, if we're now due to finance, due to the current economic system, more into this extractive type of geographies or cities, or let's say the motor or the engine for leading extraction somewhere on the planet, perhaps, who knows, we will come to another power system sometime in the future, because cities overlast power systems. So they existed before capitalism. They might exist also after capitalism. What do you think cities can teach us in this, you know, perhaps desirable system or more equal or more just power system of the future? The best teaching that they can do is what you were describing. In other words, that you have reasonable cities, cities that work. Yes, all cities are going to have injustice in them, and they're going to be rich and poor, etc. But many cities, and again, Europe is a very good example. Many of those cities, they work, they work for the people. Sure, there might be nasty elements in play, you know, but then they are addressed, etc.  Mind you, they were no angels, no angels in all of these. So, and I do also think that a well-run city, we haven't quite talked about that, a well-run city in today's world can really make a difference for people who are poor, you know, and it is not about giving them a great house. No, it is about maintaining certain basic rules of the game if you want in a city, you know, that the cleaners come and clean the streets, that when the light bulbs go down, even if it's a poor neighborhood, you fix it, you know, that all the systems in play, that there is good quality water. Remember, in the United States, the famous story of when they discovered in Jersey, right, that there was water that was, that was venom, that was like venom almost, and these two kids, brothers, one, the older one who had avoided the bad water, and the little one, the differences in their sizes, you know, there was a whole, suddenly we discovered an enormous array of little injustices that manifested in our bodies. Little, you know, brothers from the same family, but the one then was there when they had the good water quality, and the other was there when they only had the bad quality, you know, the indifference of legislators or whatever the actors in play to sort of make sure that the water is clean, that it's proper this, that it's proper that, right. So it's forever a bit of a combat. So the city is not something that, okay, it's done, it just doesn't work that way.  But with it all, so having said all of that, with it all, I say, cities have, they have helped us mostly, you know, they have not been major obstacles, whereas other issues have been, like the quality of water that I was talking about, right, that, and that, and when they understood that that was happening, they immediately try to remedy that. That's another aspect, you know. I mean, we confront many issues, no doubt, many more issues that then are usually addressed. But you have many situations really where they are trying to help, you know, wherever the forces, the people in charge of the city will try to help. And so you said a good city or how to run properly run a city. Of course, there is running a city, so having the departments of infrastructure, of water, of, let's say, waste, et cetera, et cetera, but there is also, well, all of the ties that we have between each other, and there is also the people and then the corporate and then the other elements. So there is just too many facets to hold into one brain, but how do we... But that's why, that is what is amazing to the city, and that is why we don't have to hold it in our brain to know it because it's an open system. And so there are many different sites where it goes a bit differently, better here, better there, but you know, there is a sense of something that is accessible to us, the membership, you know, of the city. That's very important.  Okay, very well protected, but you are, you are subject to somebody else, right? Whereas the city, you can be poor, you can be rich, you know, it's also your city, and that I think is very important. Now, the privatizing of, you know, areas of cities that is also happening, especially Latin America, that's another story that to me is sometimes understandable and in other cases, it's very problematic to have these private, you know, these privatized setups, you know, what I'm talking about, right? Do you mean about neighborhoods or? Yeah, I mean, I mean that, that more and more, say in Latin America, especially, which is a continent of violence in many ways, that you have, you have situations where they create, it looks like a nice, you know, part of the city or housing, but it's actually all protected, you know, like a closed gate community there and can have access to that. I don't know how you call that. Close gate community or something like that, yeah? Exactly, gated communities, there you go. That to me is a big problematic, you know, sometimes it's okay, but in many ways it maximizes the difference between the poor and the rich, and a city shouldn't be that way. A city has quite a bit of that, you know, that it's clear what's rich, what's poor, but at the same time, we are always intersecting. The rich and the poor will intersect in a city, you know, intersect by going to the same shop, by having to, whatever it is, you know, and that to me is important to keep that, to keep that notion that the rich and the poor do intersect in cities. I mean, not as much as I would want to, because we have fancy cars, etc., but in smaller cities, you know, where people also walk, you have a sense, you know, that the poorer and the richer parts intersect in some, they are aware of each other. That's already something. They may not love each other, but they're aware of each other, and that notion of being aware, and I, the modest worker, know that I am here and there is somebody who's very rich, but we both are walking on this street. You know, that notion that you don't expel the poorer, you know, they are there. The long run, I think that matters. It might not matter in the moment, in the long run, this notion that the poor will also walk on the streets and in the parks, where the rich walk. In the long run, that matters. In the short run, you don't know. In the long run, it becomes a practice, it becomes part of life. That is what cities have been able to do, that the rich and the poor will regularly confront each other, confront not in the sense of being next to each other, so to speak. You mentioned it now, and I think you also yourself have a history of activism, and cities are, let's say, the cradles of activism. Well, there is of course a lot of activism more and more in places of extraction, but how do you, let's say, we want to act with the city, against the city, or for the city. What were some actions in face of all of these local and global challenges that we can do within these cities, let's say that we live? Yeah. Well, I think this is happening. People have woken up. You know, there is something that is active, that makes claims, that is succeeding. And I think the fact that women began to be these very significant actors in these very partial and very localized moves. Let's make this better. Let's clean this up, because the women wanted their children to have cleaner playing ground, whatever, a lot of little things. And because most men are supposedly working, and so many women are, especially when they have small children, are still at home. There was a possibility really for women to set terms in the sense that I think we should clean this because this is a good piazza where the children can play, whereas that one is dangerous, because the boys can come with the bikes or there are cars that are too close by, whatever. But you begin to participate that you as a woman, you as a man, you as a child, etc. You begin to participate in, okay, we can do this, we can do that, that energy. And a city that works more or less okay, in which they have multiple sites, it's not all one place, that it really can make a difference. So we have to also give it a chance. We have to give a chance to the locals to understand what can really make a difference, because often newcomers to a city, they don't know what's happening here, etc. So there is a kind of, there is a passage, if you want, that you do when you arrive as a new person into a city. And you have to accept that, okay, I don't quite get this, and they don't seem to like me. There is hard work to do, but at the same time, certain modes of conduct can signal a positive disposition. It's a set of informal communication moves, where they don't always require a speech, it can be just a signal, you know, just signal that go across the street with your baby, whatever.  And that means the people in the city, the police and everybody, so that you make it, and you have cities where it all sort of works rather easily, and then you have cities which are in nightmare, because there's some ridiculous chief, you know, that is driving everybody crazy. Just end up with two small questions in general. Yeah, what you call two small questions. No, no, no, it should be small. So I generally ask, do you have anything that you want to work on for this new year, so a project or another element of a city that you want to discover? And lastly, if you have any articles or any books or any movies or something that you would like to recommend to continue exploring this topic? Oh, right. On the second part, I will send you some things that's the simplest is for me to Fantastic. In terms of what was the first one that you asked? About a project or something that you would like to still discover in 2022? Well, I think if there is a project that concerns cities and the urban condition, it has to do with me for two things. One of them is that we have to stop just allowing the endless expansion of cities that is good for the prosperous classes and the rich. It's a disaster for the poorer classes because they have endless trips to there. I already talked about that. So that to me is a very important point.  No, it's an error. Now there are many places say in Europe where they have the perfect formats, you know, there are a couple that Paris is becoming very, very big. But still whereas in the Americas, it's mixed, you know, it's mixed. So I think that there is work to be done in terms of finding, especially in the Americas and in some other parts of the world. I think Europe has done quite well in many ways, much better than others. But so there is a real rethinking. How do we enable people? You know, how do we make sure of the quality of water? Is, as it should be, because water is something that we all need every day, many times in the day, and it can kill if you have the wrong water. And we have very sad stories about, say, I think I mentioned you already, the two brothers, one tall, the other very short, because the short one, who was the older one, drank water that was totally contaminated, but it didn't have the taste, you know, you didn't know that it was that great. How is that possible? This happened in a significant city in the United States. It became a famous case, you know, that illustrated and captured a whole variety of those types of elements. So that is one thing. And was there something else that I was going to say? You were saying there were two things. So yeah, the scroll and then I guess the quote. Yeah. So one is the notion of we shouldn't just allow the cities to grow, grow, grow. We should build new cities. And the other one is we should really pay attention to all the elements that are in play and that affect the health of everybody, old, young children. So I mean, I think that is something that could be done. I don't see the big deal that it is, you know, I just really don't because we can do it. You know, this is not like building. No, this is clean up work. Maintenance work indeed. Clean and maintenance, right? Yeah. Very good. Thank you so much for your time, Saskia. Thank you as well, everyone, for listening and watching until the end. We'll meet you again in a couple of weeks for another discussion. Thanks again, Saskia. Bye bye.


Welcome to Toffy TV, it's the final word, Chelsea nil, Everton nil.  We've got a new camera, it's amazing. Baz is going to be editing it on his knee on the fly. He's literally like going, do you see him like his hand moving slowly? Then don't be like getting worried, he's just doing a bit of editing. But that might cause a couple of like T-phone problems in this video. So no complaints, please. This is the first time we've tried it. If there's any issues, it's clearly all down to Baz and his lack of ability to control the camera. There you go. So that just wants to get that out the way, wants to get out the way. We test the new technologies. We're reinvesting into the channel thanks to you lovely people out there. So let's get into it. Happy with the point down at Stamford Bridge. Yeah, I am very happy with it. I'm happy with it because of the way we play it as well. Not just because it's a point. We've had the point there in the past. We've been hanging on at times in the past to get a point. But apart from 10 minutes spelling the game, 15 maximum. I don't think we were hanging on at all. No, no, I mean, I went down to Stamford Bridge yesterday. It was my first away game of them this season, to be honest. I am shattered. I went down there on an hour's sleep and I'm just I'm still knackered. I'm just I'm clearly getting old and what I would say about the place right before I get into the game, it's probably the friendliest football ground I've been to for a very, very long time. It was akin to going to the Magic Kingdom. Honest to God, it was just like this football for some people. Would it would be the ideal scenario to me if it felt. Oh, tell you what, it just felt so manufactured and everyone was so nice and everyone looked like they were having days out. I mean, the best bit was we just walked around the ground room and people selfies. It was brilliant.  So we just walked around behind people making sure that photos were ruined. Good times. Good times. So. But you know what? I had a five of a pint in the ground. What did I expect? But now listen, it was I thought I gave a gun on on the way we approached it. It was a good performance. We we knew it was going to be difficult. But we didn't go down the ultra defensive. We also didn't go down the ultra or we're going to go for this. It was a little bit in between and it changed during the game as well. And I thought that was again the tactics evolving. You know, the substitution showed that which our girl could come on as well. The tactics evolve during the game. And I really I thought that was brilliant. And yeah, you know, they went close on a few occasions, which would expect listen, this is a team that's going on beaten this season. You know, in the top three, really good football side. And I thought we dealt with them really well. And I think the most the key thing was the last sort of five ten minutes. Or even when he put the board on ten years, five minutes, no one was sitting there really panicking in the way end. No one was thinking, oh, here we go, everyone was just like, we'll we'll see this out.  You know, we didn't look and we've seen this with this Marco Silver team so far. This season, particularly away from home, we haven't looked fearful in any game. You know, we've looked like we want to get on the front foot. And that's been. Ever done from day one, really, when we went to Wolves, you know, we went to Wolves, everyone was the top six and they're going to do this. And we were straight on them and we've kept that going every game. And I think the biggest thing for me in that game yesterday was. There was never a time where we were ragged and that to me was a key thing. We were playing it out from the back. We were drawing them in and playing triangles round them and playing it out from the back. And it was just like night and day compared to last season, you know, when you've got spit the dog on the cocom and see going on about, you know, I'm really impressed with the way they're playing either composure, the show and the drawing Chelsea and what was really evident again was this. I mean, it came out in the week, didn't it? That we were the with the best press inside in the final third. You know, when we've won the ball back the most and for a team that is likes to play out from the back, such as Chelsea, it was very, very evident to me that we were on them when Luis got the ball and when Rodega got the ball. We were straight on them sometimes. They were having to go back or they were just kicking it, you know, trying to get it down a feeling. And that's a massive thing to have that in your lock of this early into the project, but it just shows you if you put good players in a team, they can play it again. I think they were again, it was a. They didn't feel like there was that fear factor going into the game. I felt like they don't obviously confidence is high. We've been winning games and it's about tactics. You know, it's about it's about going somewhere in the right frame of mind and are you worried and I, you know, I didn't think as fans, there was no one really fearful yesterday going down there. Everyone was like, we'll see what happens. You know, someone said to me or what you think it's going to be today. And I was like, you know what, I don't know when you don't want to be there. Oh, well, as long as we play well, but that was sort of was my attitude yesterday. I want to see us grow. I didn't want to see us go down there and play in a style that would go against what we've been doing because I think that's what's happened far too many times in the past. And it depends on what the style is, of course. If you'd asked me that under the in the Martiners area, I would have said, right, let's not hold a fancy, you know, you know, whatever his style is and let's just be pragmatic, pragmatic today. But, you know, and that I accuse Martiners of that a lot of times.  But I think the way we play, we're not. We're not open all the time. We've got a good defensive unit. You know, and that goes into midfield. And I just thought that. Or I just think that, like, because we're growing as a team. You just want to see them get better at what they're doing rather than at this stage go, well, what we've been doing is great. But let's completely change it for someone else because we're playing Chelsea away or because we're playing Man United away or Liverpool away or not. No, stick to it and try and get better at that. That's what I think I take a team like Bournemouth, right? And you see them and you've seen all the last three or four years and you've watched how with a team with, you know, not massive resources and, you know, maybe not all the best plays in the world. But people say, well, how come they went to this ground and beat the beat? And they went to Chelsea and won, didn't they? But then they go get beat by Liverpool, like 4-0 or almost something like that. And it's because they go into every game the same way. And all they're trying to do is get better and better and better and better at what they're trying to do. Not say, well, this week we're going to do this and this week we're going to do this. And I think that's been one of our major problems under all our managers, Moise, Martinis, you know, all of them recently, we've changed our style of play. And that's what I think is key on the silver is that the style of playing the first place has got to be right. And I think it is right. Because we're starting to see defence, the defensive unit get better. We're starting to see the attacking unit get better. And we're going to midfield. I think that's completed the midfield sort of puzzle. Now, I'm not saying it can't get better in terms of personnel, but how he wants to play those three players fit that system for me now and all complement each other. So it's important that we go to these grounds and just get better at doing what we're doing. And I think that's what showed yesterday. And as I say, it was fluid as well. It did change during the game because of different things. Yeah, and that's the that was the key for me as well. You're always looking, think, you know, we're going into this game, we want to win the game, you know, on a tweeter Saturday night and Sunday morning, come on, blues, let's do this. It's been too long. But but the caveat of that was almost this is a new team. These are new players. This isn't a team that's done this same journey five years on the run and hasn't been able to beat Chelsea. You know, this is a new team that Marco Silver's put together and was seeing the evidence of that growing week by week, the ability to to pass our way out, the ability to to press high. And it's such a it's for me. It's such a big, big change than what we witnessed last season on the same validation and cumin at the start. And we often joke about that joke, but we often say that cumin coming with that we're going to play a high pressing game. And we've seen it for the top in game for 17 minutes and it never returned under Ronald Cumin. I think the difference with Marco Silver is he set that stall out. What I can't get what I sometimes not it's just one of those things, you know, when you go through your mind, you're watching the team and then you think back to preseason and you think back to the seven days between that when we were at Goddus and watching Valencia beat us to how we performed at Wolves the week later. And then everything else that we've took on from there and you look back and go, wow, this team has not took that on. And I know that things have changed. Gomez has come in and people like that. And it's improved at Lucadine has come in and so on. But if you it just shows and I suppose as Evertonians, this is one of the things we've been starved of at the past is we've always had a couple of good players or three or four good players, the rest of being average. But we talk them up a bit more because we like them or we think. And now what you're seeing is we for the first time, I think in a long time, we've actually got a certain level of player that is better than anything we've seen. So when you see that and you invest in that team, you look at a team, you see what it can do, you start to believe that you start to look and go, I can see tangible progress here. So the results almost doesn't matter. It does, of course it does ultimately it does. But if you can actually see those wheels, it's like when we went down to Arsenal, we lost the game to Neil, but I come away from that game thinking, you know what, I've seen what he wants to achieve here. I've seen the progress already. Then we went to United and we were undone by a dodgy penalty. But we still saw what you wanted to achieve. Then we came home and we've beaten, you know, the likes of Christopher Palace, maybe Brighton last week, he was one game. And we've gone to Chelsea and we've been able to continue that pattern of play. We've got to be able to go to these places and offer something because you can't go there and just, well, you know, if you go there and say, right, we're going to defend for 90 minutes and we're going to, we're going to, we're going to back down the hatches. Good sides are going to, should be able to score against it. And then if you've got not, how many times, how many times have we, have we looked at these games and you're almost waiting for that first goal to go in. And when it goes in, you're like, well, that's it, the game's over. We've got nothing to offer. And I'm not saying, you know, I'm not saying yesterday was a, you know, we're sitting in after a meal, meal draw. But, but we didn't sit, we didn't go and just like get 10 men behind the ball or anything like that. You've got to be able to offer a threat. And I think that's what we did. And it was only, I think it was only in the game when maybe that threat become a little bit less, whether it be down to Richardlison's fitness or Guilfee's fitness, maybe started to, to, to, to get less and less or, you know, some of the hazard started going through, you know, the different areas of the pitch of the ball. And I think it was only once that started happening that they start getting that little bit of control that allowed them to have a little bit of pressure on them. And that that shows you if you're not attacking and you're around the opposition team to start getting more and more of the ball, they're going to get into better areas so you have to have that threat. So for me, I thought we were well balanced. And when we needed to, when we needed to just say, you know, let's make it, let's make it, let's make it a sub or a decision that that stops Chelsea in the tracks. We did that and I thought we caught quite well. Obviously, you know, Mina came in for his debut as well. He was the only change, obviously. There was a lot of talk about with Charleston, possibly missing the game. You could tell he was something, you know, not right there, but I mean, Mina. Pretty, pretty decent debut, really. Yeah, I thought he was, I thought he was excellent, to be honest with you. For a debut, I mean, listen, he could have come in for his debut, a home to Brighton or some other people who had gone, well, you know, we don't play in Brighton or whatever. He went to Chelsea unbeaten like you've said before. We're not brilliant at Stanford Bridge in terms of our record. OK, we've got a lot of draws there, but, you know, when the last two years we played, we've lost seven nil on that.  And I thought he, you know, he was comfortable for large parts of the game, is good on the board, loves the shimmy, which we said the other night. But I thought his positional play was excellent. There was the odd time he got caught out, going to happen. He's not used to playing in, you know, this defence, so to speak, so there'll be opportunities at times when people may get in. But in the main, I thought he'd done very, very well indeed. He's got to watch himself going to the ground because that's how he plays, but in this league now, every tackle is a, is a, you know, that kind of challenge is a problem. I thought there was a couple of times in the game and obviously this is not just because it's his first game, but it's his first game in the Premier League. The pace of the game just caught him out. So the pace of a couple of players caught him out. There was one where there was one where I think there was a hazard just got in front of him, hazard got away from him very, very quickly. And it was on, but when you looked at him, he didn't look like he was going full pelt. And that's what I thought. That's what I'm saying. It was almost like hazard was and got away from him, but he wasn't going full pelt. And it was almost like, oh, I didn't realise I had to move that quickly. And obviously there was the one with them. There was the one that he spoke about, about the penalty on Marate. I mean, to me, I think his biggest climb there is that he's not looking at the ball and that almost says to the referee, you are just trying to foul. But I thought the actual motion of bringing him down was Marate of bringing him down. I thought he was very clever. He bought that foul off him rather than Marate of him. But I think the motion of turning your back has got to be careful with that because in this league, I don't know, I don't know what a foul is anymore. I don't know what offside is anymore. I don't know what anything is anymore till someone starts doing this. But that's what I think he's got to be careful of because referees will just look at the fact that he wasn't watching it and they fell on the ball and go, that's a penalty. We see it all the time. They guess. Yeah, yeah. So we've got he's got to be a little bit more clever. Yeah, it's good. But I thought I thought he was clever but the last bit because Marate brings him down. So people don't matter that it's a pen. It's never a pen. It wasn't a penalty. Marate was all over him for the pair of the Marate. And that's why they got up and put their heads together and all that because I think he knew quite well that the pair of the Marate. I just thought he coped amnably. I mean, I think he could see his quality player. It's his first, you know, first Premier League game, his first real game since the World Cup back in June, the end of June or early July, whatever it was.  I thought he was excellent and again it just shows you that. You're in a situation where you've, you know, zoom it and mean it. Zoom it and keen it, being excellent and then you've all of a sudden got one of them has to go out, zoom it has to go out because of the importance, mean it comes in and then people are going. Who's going to come in at the next game and you're like, well, you know. What I did think was funny is that there's so many people who had them on for first goal scorer, loads. I think you've got forty far to one loads of them on. I think that was something that was cool. I think what it was interesting was, though, I think the fact that when we took Sigurdtson off, we bought Jagielchuron. That could, I think that could be a sign of a tactical change the managing now has. You know, not obviously not with Jagielchur, but with having keen, zoom it and mean it. He now has the ability to change the system in the game, to maybe see out a game or just change the way we play. Don't forget trade the back doesn't have to be a negative change. It can be a positive change. You can push your wing backs on, you know, if sorry, they become wing backs. And now with Deanie on the left hand side, you've now got someone who is a brilliant attacker going forward. If suddenly you can say to Deanie, you don't have to worry about defending. We've got that covered. Suddenly that's a that's a much more much more of an attack and threat if, you know, and if you look at it on the basis of Sigurdtson's injury, obviously we'll speak about that, but Sigurdtson's it. Let's say Sigurdtson stays out and the manager says, well, I don't want to. I don't want to bring the charlison back to the left because he what he could do there to say, well, but I could play centrally, let's say, if he wanted to. And instead of saying, well, let's play with charlison on the left again. He could quite clearly leave the charlison off front and go to three at the back and start pushing Deanie down the left. That could be a tactical change that he could look at. Maybe, I don't know, maybe not card if, well, let's just say we go to Anfield and he goes, well, we want to be a little bit bit more solid, but he suddenly Deanie's the whip then rather than nothing. So I think that's it. I think that's somewhere now where I don't want him to go to three at the back because I just think that's I've said before. I think managers who change systems like that don't have a grip of their players are not willing to make a tough decision. If you've got three players that, you know, in two positions. So we've seen it before. I think weak managers go was just completely at the back. No, if you want to play four at the back and you've got three players, you can play and you've got to make that decision. I think we've got a manager who will make that decision, but I think now we've got the flexibility of a tactical change. Definitely, but I think I don't think there's anything wrong with being flexible in terms of formations and if you've got if you've got three very good centre back, which we ultimately have now, then it's you can make those decisions because it will change with who you're playing against and to only your country won the league on on three, five, two. I mean, yesterday at times we were playing four, four, two. It's less than one the league on. So it's fine to go between the two. If you play three centre backs, it becomes a three, four, three because your two wide players say Walcott, say Bernard, what have you. They can go and play right up, right up alongside atialism because you've got the width and Dean, you've got the width and Coleman. You've got, you know, you've got that flexibility. What it will do is obviously just leaves you with two in the field, but but it's almost four in the field. So it's how you play it. I mean, yesterday when he put Jagelkin on, I'll be honest, that face, you're thinking. Oh, I don't know whether I've done that.  It pushed us on because if you look at the last 10 minutes, we actually came back into the game. Look, man, gone on the ball a little bit more. Walcott, you know, you look on at that to think we can push them back up a bit.  They'd put that ball inside Deanie a couple of times. And because he is an attack on full back, he was one way. He threaded it inside and William got in on in and put it just wide. And it and when Deanie was running backwards and he if you watch it again, he turns his body while he's running and it because it slows him down. Wait, because he was he was backtracking and then spins and it and it gives William the chance to get ahead of him. And it's that I think soon as you enter three, that that outlet was blocked off then as well. It's just little, little changes like that, that that you won from a manager to notice where they were getting in. And see, I was worried. We were looking at the last sub and thinking who's going to be. And I thought, well, if it's you do it, then I'm worried because they were going to have to start just throwing balls in the box because we pushed them out wide. And when you brought Barclay on it, apart from obviously you're going, oh no, it's Barclay, you know what's coming next. But I think emotionally that's where their manager got it wrong. I think if you thought about it rationally and tactically, Gerud would have been a man that he's always scored against this. And if the right balls in the box where is Barclay? The game got it with our fan. Like our fans didn't get I wouldn't say the absolutely loads of pelters, but he made the presence known because he had to walk down our end and our fans just made it known. They didn't like go over the top. It wasn't any stupid, but they just made it known. And you could see it on his face.  And he did what he did. He just he did what happens a lot of the times. He just tried to act and that's where I just think they manager just made that mistake because they had I just thought the they were from wide positions. That was their best opportunity. And once we got the three centre backs at door, I thought we were we we coped with it quite well. They have it. Let us know your thoughts in the comments from this game or just on anything. Let us know. If you've been watching on YouTube and you want to the full version of this video, get over to Patreon and check it out because it's like an hour long. And this will probably be about 20 minutes long. If you want the whole thing, get over to Patreon. Check that out. Thanks for watching toffy TV. I'll see you later.


Tomorrow the Jack Venice show leaves for a three-week trip to Chicago and New York. So let's go out to Jack's home in Beverly Hills where Rochester is helping him pack. Be careful how you fold it over the hanger, Rochester. Yes, boss. Careful now, I don't want any creases in it. Okay, okay. Now pack the other one. I don't want to be caught short on the trips, so I'll take all four of them. Five of you include the blonde one you're wearing. Oh, yeah. Now I think we ought to start packing your clothes. Okay, I'll take this one, and this one, and this one. No, no, this one. Uh-oh, be careful, boss. You're almost sneaking a suit where the coat and pants match. Don't let me do that, Rochester. I don't want to give Hollywood a bad name. Come on, help me with the rest of my things. All right, here you are, boss. Here you go. Rochester, just pack that underwear and stop playing games. Now hurry. Hurry, hurry, hurry. Quiet, Polly. Now let's see.  Oh, yeah, sympathy soothing syrup. Did you put in the 10-cent size or the 25-cent size? 10-cent size of gallon ought to be enough. Now let's see if I have everything for the trip. Socks, shoes, shorts, shirts, ties, hat, top coat, sandwiches, soda pop, and cash register. Now what else? Oh, yes, I think I'll take a good book to read. How about this one over here? Hmm, I stand condemned. Oh, I read that. It's a wonderful story. It's about a man who goes to the electric chair and leaves three lovely children, Sam, Louis, and a bispo. I'll take it alone and read it again.   Quiet, Polly.  That's a poofoo word. Polly, are you going to miss Daddy when he goes on the Dway Big trip to the Dway Big City with all the Dway Big skyscrapers? Boss, do you think you'll see Fred Allen? That's a poofoo word, Brad. Yes, I know. Now let's... I'll get it, boss. Hello, Jack Benny's resident. Star, stage, screen, and radio, and we'll drive you to work until the trolley strike is over. Yes, ma'am, he's almost packed. All right, I'll tell him. Goodbye. Boss, it was Miss Livingston.  She's having some trouble with her packing. Oh, I'll bet it's that new maid she hired. Gee, Miss Livingston, I envy you going to Chicago and New York. Yeah, they're really exciting places, Hilda. Now let's see, I'll take this pair, and this pair, and this pair. Is Chicago really as windy as they say? Yes, and I'm glad you reminded me. I better take a couple of pairs of the lazy ones. Now look, Hilda, tell the gardener I'll be away for four weeks. Tell the butcher I'll take care of the bill when I come home, and you know what to tell the milkman. Yeah, that fresh guy. What? You know, the last time you were away, Miss Livingston, when I went to the door, the milkman threw his arms around me and kissed me, and I shook all over. You mean you were thrilled? No, he had a cold bottle on my back. Now let's see, I want to take along this lovely pair of nylon stockings that Mr. Benny gave me. Oh, they're beautiful. Mr. Benny bought them for you? No, he won them on the Queen for a day program. Hey, Miss Livingston, you certainly are lucky. Yes, they weren't his size. Now let's see, I ought to take something to read on the train. Why don't you take this book, Miss Livingston? It's the latest selection of the Book of the Month Club. Oh, yes, I stand condemned. I read the reviews last week. It's about a man who goes to the electric chair and leaves three lovely children, Sander, Mendel, and Journey. Gosh, that sounds like an exciting story. Yes. Say, Miss Livingston, could I go down to the station with you? You see, Alice Fay is one of my favorite movie stars, and she'll probably be there to say goodbye to Mr. Harris, and I'll get a chance to see her. Oh, I'm sorry, honey, but Alice probably won't be there. She's working at the studio today. Gee, I wonder how Phil's coming along with his packing with no one to help him. Now be careful and don't trip over the suitcase, honey. Well, thanks, baby.   Nope. Have you got a big girl there? Of course not.  Now, let's see. Oh, yes, baby, hand me that over there. This long-fin stick? That's right, and careful now. You don't break it. What is this stick, Daddy? It's a baton. What's a baton? I don't know. It's got something to do with music. I keep waving it, and the guys in the band keep looking at it, and since Petrilla don't object, I guess it's okay. Well, let me see. I guess that's all. Oh, Daddy, here's something Mommy told me to give you. It's a farewell present. For me? Gee. Well, guys, this is swell. Just what I've always wanted, a book. Oh, what's the name of it, honey? Ice and Condemn. Oh, yeah, yeah. I heard about that. It's all about a man who goes to the electric chair and leaves three lovely children. Win, place, and show. Now, let's see here. Daddy, where did Mommy mark that arrow on the cover of the book? The arrow? That's in case I pretend to read. I'll know which end to hold up. Well, I guess we've got everything. I better leave now, honey, so come on and give Daddy a great big kiss. But, Daddy, you promised you'd do something for me before you left. Now, honey, Daddy's late. But, Daddy, you promised. Ham, hearts, and turnip greens. You and me and your Orleans. And that's what I like about the South. Yeah. Daddy, you're wonderful. Yeah, I know. Goodbye, baby. No, Dennis, I absolutely forbid you to take it. You're too young. But, Mother, there's nothing wrong with it. Then why was this book banned in Boston? Ice and Condemn. There's nothing wrong with the book. It's all about a man who goes to the electric chair and leaves three lovely children. Bro, Mo, and Seltzer. Seltzer was just a little squirt. Enough of this discussion. Now, finish your packing. Yes, Mother. And, Dennis, be careful on the trip.  Remember what happened to Cousin Wilbur when he went to New York last year? Yes, Mother. And if the train stops long enough in Kansas City, put some flowers on Wilbur's grave. All right. He's getting late. I better finish dressing. Please hand me my tie and shirt. That's the second son. I'd better pin this $20 bill on you before you put on your shirt. Hold still. There. Now, Mr. Benny will never find it. Dennis, what did you just put in your suitcase? Oh, that's my new contract for next year. Oh, I'm sorry you signed up again with Mr. Benny. But why, Mother? After all, Mr. Benny is a big celebrity. And Mr. Benny's a big radio comedian. And Mr. Benny's a big movie star. What's that stamp on the bottom of the contract? He's a notary public too. Dennis, are you sure you'll rehearse the song you're going to do in Chicago? Oh, yes, Mother. I know it by heart now. Would you like to hear it? Oh, I'd love to, Dennis. I'll accompany you. You'll accompany me? Certainly, Dennis. Before I married your father, I was the one man band that made your boss has catch one unit. A one, a two, a hit it. That was a... Gee, I'd better hurry. Look what time it is. Gosh, darling, I'd better hurry. Look what time it is. Are you all packed, dear? Oh, yes, darling. But what are you so sad about? Oh, just think. In one short half hour, I'll be saying goodbye to my dear, sweet, big, sadder. Nice, sweetheart. I'm only going to be gone a few weeks. Yes, I know. And, darling, I bought you a new proof to read on the train. It's called, I Stand Condemned. Oh, I've read that, dear. And it was so interesting. I bought the sequel to it. It's called, I Sit Contented. I Sit Contented? Yes, it's all about a man who smokes Lucky Strikes. And he has three lovely children, LS, MF and T. And why shouldn't he be contented after all Lucky Strikes are made of the finer, the lighter, the naturally milder tobacco? I know, darling. That's what you said to me the night you proposed. Remember that night, dear? We were driving through North Carolina. Yes, I'll never forget it. You look so lovely with the moon and the tobacco leaf in your hair. Oh, Donald, we're being so childish. Oh, by the way, Donald, didn't you say you were expecting a call from Mr. Benny? Yes, I can't understand why he doesn't... Oh, there's the telephone now. Hello? Hello, Donald, are you all packed? Oh, yes, Jack, and you ought to see my bags. They're so round, so firm. I know, I know. I'll see you at the station now. Goodbye. Well, my grips are all packed. How are you going to be gone? About four weeks. Then you ought to take some. I think so. I wonder how much I should take. I'll be gone exactly 28 days. There's 28 breakfasts and 28 lunches. What about your dinners, boss? Oh, I'll probably be master of ceremonies at a lot of banquets. You know. Oh, yes, we wrote those letters, didn't we? Yes, yes. Well, I better go down to the vault and get some money. Good lucky strikes for now under 25 years. Oh, it's you all, Mr. Benny. Yes, yes. How are you feeling, Ann? Oh, fine. Now that spring is here. It is spring, isn't it? Yes, yes, yes. It's very lovely out. By the way, Mr. Benny, I've been trying to recall something. Do you remember when you first brought me out here? Yeah. What was the name of that little dusty trail that led up to your house? Dusty trail? Oh, oh, that's Wilshire Boulevard now. I said I'm going to New York. Where? New Amsterdam. Oh, oh. You might not believe this, Mr. Benny, but I had a chance to buy that place for $24. Oh, well, it's worth a lot more now, you know. Inflation, I guess. Yes, yes. Well, I better open the safe now. Shall I go down to the lower level? No, no, Ed, no, I trust you. The combination is right to 45. Left to 160. Back to 15. Then left to 110. There. I wish Boulder Dam would step up the current. Let's see. There. I guess that'll be enough money. Well, Ed, I've got to rush down to the railroad station now. Goodbye, Mr. Benny. Goodbye, Ed. Don't do anything I wouldn't do. Down here? Oh, yes. Yes, I forgot. So long, Ed. Hello, folks, Union Station. You go ahead, Mary. I'll catch up with you. Okay. How much is a driver? A dollar 65. Here you are, a dollar 65 and a dollar for you. Gee, thanks. Well, here I am. Gee, that was fast, Jack. Did you pay the driver? Yes, Mary. Here's your purse. Left it on the seat. Well, for a minute, I thought you used my money.  Come on, let's go inside. Oh, by the way, Mary, you ought to get that zipper on your purse fix. It's stuck. It isn't stuck. I had it welded after our last trip. Now you'll have to have it sold, too. There's a hole in the bottle. Why, Jack, Benny, do me a favor. We haven't got time now. It's a big fuss over everything. Now, let's see. I wonder where the gang is here. Rain leaving on track. People stopping in Albuquerque. Please have your tickets validated. People stopping at Chicago. Please check your baggage all the way through. People stopping at Kansas City. Please put flowers on Wilbur's grave. Is everybody here? Where's Dennis? He's not here yet. Well, I hope he isn't late.  Why don't you check it? Oh, no, no. Not this one, Jackson. I got my music in it. It's like the Concerto from Lost Weekend. Phil, you ought to be ashamed. Now, wait a minute. We're going to be on the train for four days. Four days with nothing to do. You kids can read. Yes, yes. I forgot about that. Attention, all passengers going to Anaheim, Azusa, and Kukamunga. Those going to Anaheim and Kukamunga will take the local.  A couple of magazines. Magazines? Sure, Mary. Wait here. I'll go over to the newsstand and get some. Oh, Mr. Mr. Yeah. He needs to read on the train. What have you got? We've got slick, pickpick, peek, look, hook, snook, judge, smudge, fudge, and the Saturday evening poll. Well, I think I'll just take this one. Esquire. That'll be 75 cents. 75 cents for Esquire, but everybody else only charges 50 cents. We throw in the scissors and thumbtacks. Oh, I think I'll take something else. I've got a good book you might enjoy reading. It's called I Stand Condemned. No, no, I've already... It's about a man who goes to the electric chair and leaves three lovely children. You should live so and long. I read that. Anyway, I'll take these magazines here. Thank you. Here you are, Mary. What'd you guess? The click, pick, peek, look, hook, snook, judge, smudge, fudge, and probda. That's wrong. Say, Janet, here comes Dennis. Oh, yes.  Oh, hello, Dennis.  Oh, hello, Mrs. Dave. Hello. Hello, Mr. Benny. Once my boy gets on that train, he's your responsibility. I know, I know. And when you get to New York, I want you to take better care of Dennis than you did last time. Don't be taking him to that place called Minsky's. Minsky's? Why, Jack Benny, did you take Dennis to a burlash show? Mary Minsky's happens to be the name of a delicatessen. Isn't that right, Dennis? Yes, sir. See? Oh, Mr. Benny. Yeah? Remember that third salami from the end? I wanted a bite to eat before we got on the train. Well, Mary, there's a little stand right over here at the corner of the station. I'll go get you something. Peek-a-boo in the middle and the mustard on top, just the way you like them and they're all red hot. Uh, two hot dogs, please. Ruffle porkies coming up. How much are they? 40 cents. 40 cents for only two hot dogs? Woo-hoo-hoo. But this week, I'm saving them United Nations style. What's that? English mustard, French bread, Russian dressing, and sold American. Oh, well, in that case, I'll take them. Okay, here you are. And here's your money. Thank you. After you finish the hot dogs, I'll give you back two cents for the skins. What do you want the skins back for? They are the fingers of my robber glove. I'm here. I better take some for the rest of the gang. Give me three more hot dogs, please. Okay. Do you want everything on them? Yes. Good. I just dropped them. Give me the hot dogs. Here's your money. Okay. You must have them. On track seven, the chief meeting for Kansas City, Chicago in the middle, and the little swastika. I feel like I'm leaving from a jukebox. Oh, yes. Goodbye, Steve. Oh, no, you don't. I came down here to get some pictures. Now, come on, line up, everybody. Bennett, you stand right here. But Steve, we...  Roses, what are they for? They're going to put them on Wilbur's grave. I didn't even know Wilbur. Steve, the train is moving. That's fine. Come on, Dennis. Goodbye, Mrs. Day. Goodbye. Hey, I'll take good care of Dennis. And when we get to New York... You know, Benita, I can hardly believe it. But, Ronnie, it's true. You certainly get on the train. Yes, Ben is really gone. And we'll have four glorious weeks of peace and quiet. Benita! Ronnie! Ronnie, put me down. I didn't think it'd affect you this much. We've developed a fire-reaching program to help our veterans. And all America has concentrated on the job of Wilbur. Mary, next Sunday we'll be broadcasting for Chicago and the following two weeks from New York. Jack, when we get to Chicago, are you going to visit Walt Keegan? Yes, I have to, Mary. They begged me to come. I don't know why I'm so irresistible. There, I got it right. Now, let Alan make something out of that. Goodnight, Bill.