Hello and welcome to the Circular Metabolism Podcast. This podcast is hosted by the Chair of Circular Economy and Urban Metabolism held by Aristide de Tannassiades and Stefan Kanperman at the Université Libre de Bruxelles. In this podcast, we talk with researchers, policymakers and different practitioners to unravel the complex aspects of what makes urban metabolism and economies more circular. On this episode of the Circular Metabolism Podcast, we're very excited to catch up with David Waxmuth during the conference Brussels Ecosystem. David is the candidate for the chair of Circular Metabolism at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, which is held by Aristide de Tannassiades and Stefan Kanperman. In this podcast, we discuss with researchers, administrators and practitioners to clarify the different aspects that make the economy and metabolism of our cities more circular. David is the Canada Research Chair in Urban Governance at McGill University, where he is also an assistant professor in the School of Urban Planning and an associate member in the Department of Geography. He is an urban political economist whose research interests include city and regional governance, urban sustainability, housing policy, social theory and the politics of the urban public space. In 2012, David wrote an influential paper in the Urban Metabolism realm entitled Three Ecologies, Urban Metabolism and the Society-Nature Opposition. During this episode, we discuss how the urban metabolism metaphor was used over the years and how it is not necessarily a fleshed out method but a working metaphor to describe the relationships between urban areas and their environments. We take a closer look at how urban political ecology helps us understand what happens when flows enter and exit cities and who benefits from them. For instance, in the case of water supply, you take a river and follow it to understand who uses it and how. In the case of New York City, it historically covered its water needs through the Hudson River and in order to secure its supply, it ended up buying all upstream lands and shutting off all polluting industries. We can imagine that while this was possible some centuries ago, today with the globalization of our supply chains, this is unthinkable but puts forward a number of governance questions between cities and their headlands which are not yet in place. In the future, urban metabolism will have to focus on the interfaces and boundaries between urban areas and their hinterland as well as their transitions and transformations. It will have to integrate the quantitative part of industrial ecology and the political focus of urban political ecology. Enjoy this episode and don't forget to visit our website circularmetabolism.com to find all of our productions and activities. Also make sure to subscribe to your favorite app including YouTube, iTunes, Spotify and Stitcher to avoid missing any new episodes. Finally, leave us a comment or a review to help us improve our broadcast. David, it's nice to meet you here in Brussels. We're now in the Brussels Ecosystems conference. You get your great talk about kind of the history of the urban metabolism, the concept and kind of the three tenets of it historically. You mentioned human ecology or social ecology and industrial ecology and political ecology. And now we're trying to figure out the mix of them and what you mentioned this, how each of these have considered the participant and consider nature and city. Could you say perhaps in your mind, what's kind of the future of this interrelationship? We kind of see human ecology dying off, but perhaps there is urban ecology coming in, but how do you see this metaphor or how do you use urban metabolism in your work in general? Yeah, it's a great question. You know, for me urban metabolism is just this very, very fruitful and helpful metaphor for thinking about how humans and the natural world relate in cities. And the thing that got me interested in it is realizing how much has changed over time. So if we go back a hundred years to the Chicago School of Sociology, they're talking about urban metabolism, but they're not considering the natural world at all. For them it's really a metaphor. They say we see a biological system and it works in a certain way. Can we apply that to a human system, like a neighborhood or a city? And fifty years later we see the same metaphor being asked to do very different work with industrial ecologists, where for them they're thinking of cities as the kind of factories for converting the natural world into society. And so they're understanding urban metabolism as this process of taking nature, turning it into cities, turning it into human environments, and then kind of producing waste at the other end. So it's, you know, the same idea, metabolism, change, transformation, applying it to cities, but with very, very different ideas of who's involved, of how the natural world and the human world relate to each other. And then we see the same thing when we take it into the present, where political ecologists, urban ecologists, urban political ecologists are trying to understand how nature and society kind of intermix and are kind of transformed together in the context of cities with a lot more attention now to politics, so who wins, who loses, kind of uneven distributions. But again, that there's, so there are some kind of through lines where we see this consistent metaphor deployed, but also the way that that metaphor changes, I think tells us a lot about our changing relationship with the natural world. And do you think because there has been a lot of criticism about urban metabolism as being a sterile metaphor or not being complex enough or being too simplistic, do you think that, I mean, you said that it's evolving, the use of this metaphor is evolving, but do you reckon that it's sufficient or do we need more tools to integrate all of this complexity? And how do we integrate all of this complexity? Because let's say industrial ecology is engineers, more this type of word and then urban political ecology is more geographists or urban scientists. And you know, both use it in a different way, but is there something more that we can use in order to make them work together? Well, one of the reasons why I stress that urban metabolism is a metaphor is because I think it's most helpful if we treat it as that, which is to say it's not a system, it's not a fleshed out method. It's something that kind of provokes us and can hopefully kind of guide our thinking in productive directions. So for me, that means a real focus on transformation, on change, those are kind of positive things to be thinking about, but also a real focus on kind of interfaces and boundaries. And, you know, that kind of system thinking will ask us where the system ends, what's on the other side of that. And I think what we see historically is that metabolism is a very helpful metaphor for kind of pushing thinking about cities to kind of interrogate its own idea of boundaries and what lies beyond those boundaries. So in that sense, you know, I wouldn't want to get too kind of closed into, you know, a very kind of narrow idea of metabolism studies. We're going to measure all the inputs and measure all the outputs, but rather treat it as a kind of invitation to be thinking about how urban systems change. And I think we've discussed this about how also the actors are present or absent in this story. And I think it's really urban political ecology that succeeds most into at least putting actors inside of the system and saying, you know, the flows are actually, you know, circulated by people. The infrastructures are also networks and these are companies or people who are behind all of this. And could you tell us how urban political ecology could help us not only just circulate flows, but also pinpoint perhaps, you know, the pressure points, which could be pressure actors or pressure, you know, infrastructures or something like that? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think a really helpful way to think about this would be if we think about a really classic industrial ecology metabolism study where it says we've got a city and we understand, we try to kind of catalog all the different resources that are necessary to build that city and to keep it running. And then we look at the outputs. We see the waste products as well as the kind of positive outputs, the society that we get in the city. And, you know, that can be a very insightful way to understand how cities kind of relate in environmental terms to the non-city to the natural world outside them. But it tells us very little about once those materials enter the city, in whose particular benefits are they transformed and built and constructed.  We have parks, we have, you know, kind of natural amenities that are very productive. We also have all the kind of products of society, you know, the buildings that are built out of natural materials, all the good stuff. But we also have a lot of bads. We have pollution and we have kind of people who don't, they don't get to go to the park. Instead, they are, you know, they're dealing with polluted water that they would rely on for drinking water. So those kinds of questions about once nature arrives in the city, who has access to it in its different forms, those are kind of the kinds of questions that urban political ecology asks. And so I think, you know, kind of really helps us to take the city and kind of open it up, not just as the site for the transformation of nature, but rather as a kind of, you know, itself a kind of a system with a lot of inequality and kind of different actors able to benefit in different ways and try to understand that. In terms of, if you want to follow through on that idea and then do a study or do this analysis in terms of methods or previous collaborations, like do you have in mind some examples of where this has been done previously and produced interesting results? Yeah, so I would say that a lot, particularly in the early days of urban political ecology, in the kind of late 1990s and early 2000s, something that you see a lot of is you take a city that has a river in it and you kind of follow that river in a political and kind of social way. So, you know, you understand that the river has various functions that it performs for the city, but you look at the different actors who, what they do with that river and that also how that river is kind of used politically. So, you know, when city council debates, are we going to, we're going to develop the waterfront? You know, what kinds of plans do they consider there? So, you know, it's kind of like an ethnographic method. I think it's quite common. It's the actual flow of the water. I mean, they have the data, I suppose, for whatever the river is. I think that generally speaking, urban political ecologists, they've mostly been kind of, you know, humanists, you know, people coming from the humanities and the social sciences, where they're playing a little less attention to the kind of the materials per se, and more about the kind of social life of those materials. But certainly, I think that the, you know, the kind of frontier would be to try to integrate these things. So, you understand the river in its kind of very directly material terms. In physical dimensions. Exactly, as well as in the kind of political dimensions. Has that been done somewhere, like, you know, this sort of integration? Yeah, well, I think it's still the frontier to a large extent, but I think that there have, you know, there have been some some pretty interesting attempts to push on that. I mean, the work of Eric Swingadal on water, you know, he's very directly tried to particularly connect the infrastructures that we build to channel water, to control water, to drink water, to, you know, clean water with social power and kind of power relations. And so, I think that's a pretty interesting way forward. Okay, also, like maybe related to that is, I have the impression, if you say like, you know, there's nature coming into the city, it's looking at the urban, like the urban metabolism pretty much from the perspective of the urbanites. Like, you know, it's us looking around and like asking where the stuff comes from. And then we say it comes from nature. But like, maybe you could also look about the urban metabolism from the perspective of the countryside of the actual producers of resources that we use. And I was just wondering, in terms of governance mechanisms, like, is there innovation? So, is there like, you know, innovative thinking about how this governance between these two spheres could be, you know, maybe organized more efficiently or like more equally? Yeah, well, I think actually a very interesting historical example of this is, in New York City, New York City is on a river, the Hudson River, and historically it got its water from that river. And one of the things that happened as New York City was growing, not the city itself, but the hinterland that up the area up river was also growing and industrializing. And the result was that New York's water source was becoming polluted. And this was an issue that lay outside of New York City's jurisdiction, right? This was kind of a few hundred kilometers up the river, but it very clearly affected what was happening in the city. And there wasn't really a governance model for dealing with that at the time. So the solution that New York City adopted was just to go up river and buy all the land. So the city of New York just purchased all the land. Yeah, exactly. And then they shut down all the factories. So they were able to preserve that water source. Now that worked for New York City. Because at that time it was also sufficiently close to be able to go there and buy it. Exactly. Now in China. Right, yeah, where cities get their electricity from, their oil, their water, these can be very, very distant. So I think it's, you know, for me personally, thinking about these connections between what happens in cities and the kind of material preconditions for life in cities really draws attention to the fact that we just actually don't have these governance mechanisms kind of adequately in place. And where we do, we see it as quite uneven. You know, some areas have pretty good collaboration, at least at a regional scale. Others, you look at the United States, that's basically a four-letter word. You don't see any of that. And it's a real challenge, I think. Do you see interesting experimentations with these kind of mechanisms or is it still in theory? I mean, I think that if you look, you know, there's scholarship that is trying to draw our attention to these issues. And, you know, I think that there are some of the people who would use the idea of metabolism to kind of try to make something visible that's not so visible. I think as far as kind of good models on the ground, you know, I think there's a long history to particularly kind of attempts to kind of regional restructuring attempts to look at energy. In terms of regional planning. Exactly, regional planning. Yeah, so I think that there's certainly a history of that. From my perspective, the challenge is not that we don't have some good examples of how that works, but about what would let some of these kind of relatively exceptional examples become more widespread. So, again, you know, I work in North American, you know, the Tennessee Valley Authority that Roosevelt created is this amazing model for regional energy in a lot of respects. And, but it's not... Lots of dams and... Yeah, yeah. And, but yeah, so that with some infrastructure, but also governance. And, but, you know, the challenge is not, you know, we can learn from that, but then we want to say kind of be done. Yeah, exactly. I think we've got less to say about that. Okay. Yeah, I'm really, you know, you're talking about this frontier and this use of data and kind of ideas and kind of governance. And I think it was you that during the presentation said, what we can do is understand as much as we want the system, but, you know, there is political will and political decisions that actually change everything. And I'm really trying to figure out, is there, of course, we scientists could go out there, collaborate with, you know, NGOs and grassroots and try to infiltrate administrations and have, you know, a policy, science, practice, interface and all of this. But at the end of the day is always the political sphere that decides, right? Yeah. So what do we do? How do we, is it a language barrier or, you know, once we have this great model that really pinpoints all of the challenges of the metabolism of the city with a global hinterland, let's say. And we expose some choices. You can do that. And that's the, these are the consequences of your choice. And you can do that. And these are the consequences of the choice. It doesn't, you know, a logical choice is not always taken by politicians, right? How can we, do you have any ideas of how do we go the extra mile? It's also about this discussion about policy evidence, not like this, that evidence-based policy, you know, there's a kind of thinking now at the European Commission that once you have the evidence, all people will act upon it. Right, that's not bad. But nobody ever showed the evidence base for urban sprawl or how this is good, you know, it's still happening, so, how to penetrate the decision-making process other than just showing up with the data and, you know, engage with them a bit more. Well, you know, this is one of the reasons why I think actually metaphors can be so powerful, right? Because, you know, because you're right, there's no question that it's not simply, there's not a threshold of evidence. And if we hit that threshold, now the policies all change, right? Instead, what happens is that political actors mobilize over issues that are important to them and they come with different capacities and it's, you know, and then we find out what happens. And so I think, so, you know, for example, the idea of the circular economy or, you know, I think that that is, that's a metaphor that is, I think, intuitive and powerful. You know, you've got a linear metabolism, versus a circular one, you can kind of understand that and that can help with communication. One example from Canada where I'm based that I find very inspiring is that there's been a lot of public debate about pipeline development in the oil sector, right? Canada's a real oil-based economy right now. And, you know, there's real physical infrastructure necessary to exploit the oil resources in Canada. And it's located in very, like generally speaking, the north of the country, which doesn't have a lot of cities, it has a large indigenous population, but not, you know, but a very small amount of the whole country's population is located there. So it's a very kind of geographically distant issue, but it's actually central to the whole country's economy, including to the urban economy. And what we've seen in the last several years is an increasing recognition of the kind of common interests of, you know, basically environmentalists living in cities and indigenous people whose way of life is being threatened by these pipeline developments. And you're seeing actual human beings kind of moving across that interface, where pipeline protests at these distant locations are having people from the cities come and show up. Indigenous groups are coming from these territories to the cities to, you know, lend their voice.  But I think it's one where it's, to me, it's quite clear that the presence of the kind of imagination of the kind of the hinterland and the cities being actually intimately connected. It's a matter of understanding the system connections. Yeah, that actually is productive in political terms.  I don't know, you know, what the outcome will be, but those are the kinds of things that give me hope. And again, it's why I think the importance of imaginaries of these kind of ways that we have of kind of boiling down very complex social situations into intuitive terms are so important.  Virtually close to the sort of Enferp. And that's it.  But that's the issue, right? I mean, that's the whole global slash local global challenges, we have problems that we have is how me from Brussels can communicate with a person, I don't know, Southeast Asia, that they are taking all of the pollution that we're kind of, you know, pushing towards their throats. So, you know, for me, that's, and you talked about it, you know, it's this multi-level layered governance, but I still don't, I mean, yeah, it's Well, we don't have the governance tools to do it, right? I mean, I think that that's just the reality. There are, you know, there are also a big trend that I think we're all aware of in urban environmental governance is the interlocal networks where cities are trying to cooperate kind of horizontally. And, you know, they're, it's one of the things that I'm doing some research on right now. And I think that, you know, that even with these global networks, the actual kind of extent of practical collaboration in these networks can be more limited. But it's still, these are, you know, these are efforts to try to kind of build some new governance geographies that do a better job of kind of mapping on to the kind of real scale of environmental issues. It's bypassing the nation-states. No, as a forum, many of these things would be discussed and legislation would be made. And it's more a compensation between metropolitan areas. How do you deal with it? You know, it's bypassing the nation-states somewhat, but it's also in some cases another venue for kind of exerting pressure on nation-states, right? Because the, you know, one of the things that I've argued in some of my work is that we have this new idea of cities as these kind of leading protagonists on environmental issues, particularly in climate policy. And there's a lot of wishful thinking there because cities just don't control a lot of the policy levers that are consequential. You know, cities tend to have control over land use and transportation to some extent, which are big drivers of greenhouse gas emissions, but they have usually almost nothing to say about energy policy, about industrial policy in general. And that, so cities on their own can only do a fairly limited amount. But if they work together, they can do a little bit more of it. Also importantly, they can kind of build a constituency where the national governments have to take, you know, have to kind of take notice of, and hopefully their own national policy gets shifted in a positive direction. So is it a matter of trying to work together in order to weigh more on the national policies, or is it a matter of like trying to maybe get some more competences back to metropolitan areas and away from the nation-state? I mean, there's two... Yeah, I mean, I think that there, it's contextual, you know, that in Canada there's a lot of debate about trying to strengthen the constitutional or the kind of jurisdictional powers of cities directly.  But, you know, that their cities are never going to get industrial policy competencies, right? They're never going to, like, you know, again, to use the example of the oil economy in Canada, where I'm from, you know, that's... The national government is always going to be in charge of that policy, in particular because the oil is not located in cities, right? That they're... So the local jurisdictions are... And also in theory, the nation-state is supposed to look at the collective interest of the rule territory, like, including the rule territory. So that might be, like, in terms of a system perspective, there might even be a case for not giving in power to the cities because they might be acoustic and... But I think the real key is that all these things are happening kind of simultaneously, that, you know, that some of the, like, I think the positive ways forward are not going to be exclusive because cities are empowered or because they do more conversation with each other or because, you know, they are able to lobby national governments more. It's going to be the fact that all of these things, if they all... If they reflect kind of, you know, a building kind of popular pressure in a positive direction, that's where we're going to get. Because in the end, we are on the same boat as a civilization, no? I mean... Yeah, although it's true, although, you know, I think it does... That... It highlights some of the difficulties, right? Because, you know, this is true... This is true at many scales. If you look at a given city, environmental problems are very unevenly distributed, as well as environmental amenities. If you look at a region that continues to be the case at the nation, at the whole world, so in every one of these scales, there are these coordination problems. And that the, you know, at the global scale, I think is where we know, we have quite a good understanding of how these kind of benefits and costs are being distributed, but just... But the largest gap, clearly, in terms of the actual governance to address them. It's more of a, let's say, slum confederation that should counterbalance the top 1% or 10%. You know, something like this, like a... Well, a bottom-up initiative from the people who are more most affected from the bad. And you do see some, you know, they're the same kind of interlocal networking. You see that informal settlement. You know, some of the movements around informal settlements are also doing their own networking internationally. And I think that's a really positive development, because there are, you know, the kind of environmental issues to get mobilized around aren't simply just the ones that the C40 and 100 Resilient Cities that the elite networks are going to mobilize around. And so I think it's important that there's pressure building from below at many different sites at once. It's about pressure, but it's also like developing the actual experimentations that could lead up to new solutions. I mean, I have the impression that if the discussion only stays at national or, let's say in Brussels, we have a lot of European Union discussions that all stays very abstract. And they never like develop sufficiently concrete approaches that it can actually be implemented somewhere. And that I think has to come from territories that are, you know, at the scale of, you know, making experimentation actually going. You know, I think that there's actually, this is a case where maybe you guys can tell me what you think that there, I think that the difference between what this looks like in the EU compared to some other places can be quite strong, because my, you know, I think that in a lot of the locations that I'm familiar with, there, we are so far from the frontier of just acting on what everybody with, you know, who's well informed knows to be the case. The gap between even just kind of, you know, with no experiments, with no new knowledge being generated. Let's not start a nuclear war. Yeah, just basic facts, right? The gap between what the basic facts would tell us to do and what is happening is already profound. And then, so the, you know, I guess that means that from my perspective, I tend to think, to kind of spend my time thinking about even just mobilizing on basic facts. So the question of kind of generating new knowledge and new experimentation, I mean, I'm an academic, I want to do research, but for so many of the important issues, it's the, to me, the important questions are just kind of truly just directly political ones about how, you know, interests get mobilized and how we can win those fights.  No, like it's a basic fact, but nobody wants to die out of like the carbon monoxide that comes out of the car. Everybody wants to get rid of the cars. So the, the, the, the awareness was being done. And it created a momentum in which I have to say, okay, you know, let's just do it. Yeah. But then the, there wasn't experimentation. There wasn't much thought about how to actually implement the pedestrian zone. So the planning was so bad that in the end, the result might be even worse. Yeah, it undermined, it undermined original energy.  Right.  Yeah, I think, yeah, there's some, I think there's some reality to that. And certainly, I think that we're, you know, one of the things I think a lot about is local climate policy. And, you know, that there is, you know, these are, this is an area where I think there are, where there, there's some, you know, we know a lot about what cities could be doing better. And, but there also are, are also, you know, there's some, some big things that we don't know so much about, you know, in the context of sea level rise, like what are the appropriate, you know, ways for cities to prepare for that.  We're almost reaching the end. I have a little question about French philosophy. Yeah, we mentioned in the Durkan, like sociologists, when you type in Google, the three ecologies, yes, you end up with your article. Yeah, but also you end up with Qatari. Like if you type it in French, yeah, you end up with a Felix Qatari in the three colleges of him. Yeah, like, do you get a lot of email for this? And like, you know, obviously the three, like afterwards, like, I was thinking, like, you know, when I first saw the article, I was like, is that a literature reference or not? Yeah. And then I looked at the references, like it doesn't really appear there. And then it's not the same ecologies, because in Qatari, you have the, also the mental ecology. That's right. And like putting in question, like who we are as humans and our spirituality. So how, how do you relate to that? Well, the, the honest truth is that when I was doing this three ecologies project, the ecology was, it was a coincidence in the sense of what I wanted to do was I wanted to trace the use of the term urban metabolism in social science. And what I found was these kind of three eras. And then I realized that they all, the kind of the schools are all called something ecology. So the natural idea there was, we've got three ecologies, human ecology, industrial ecology and urban political ecology. And then my very next thought was Qatari has already used that phrase.  And then I just had a change of heart and said, you know what? It's, I'm saying something different. It fits. I'm going to use it. And but yeah, it's, it's, it's a totally, it's, it's a coincidence. Okay. But what about your mental ecologies? Is that, is that not related to the laws of your work? Or? Yeah, it's an interesting question. I mean, I think that they're, you know, they're, that project in particular is maybe, you know, I think that you could actually plot out some mental ecologies that correspond with these different eras of social science in the sense of, you know, that there are a whole set of kind of shared assumptions about who we are, what the city is, you know, where that ends. So I, so I, it would be a fundamental layer. Exactly. Yeah. I think it would be an interesting way to go with that. There's a lot of ways like, you know, once you talk about behavior and I know if you ever are able to convince people to go towards more sobriety and, you know, scale down consumption and everything that you have to touch. Also, their, their perception of themselves. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, it's not something I've done, but I think it would be very fruitful. Thanks, David. My pleasure. Thanks for the idea.


Sally's lemonade stand. It is summer. It is a very hot day. Sally is happy. She is going to sell lemonade again, just like last summer. She knows how to make fresh lemonade. People like buying from her. She is very friendly. Her glass of cold lemonade is only 10 pesos. Now let's answer some questions for comprehension check. Did you understand the story? Who has a lemonade stand? Yes, it's Sally. In what season does Sally sell lemonade? Yes, summer. Is the lemonade hot? Is the lemonade cold? Yes, it is cold. How much does each glass of lemonade cost and passes? Right. Now ring the picture of the cold lemonade. Yes, correct. Good job kids. Here's a glass of cold and yummy lemonade for a job well done.


The theater presents Don McNeil and Roddy McDowell. The mutual network in cooperation with Family Theater presents Roddy McDowell in The Flame and the Sword. To introduce the drama, your host, Don McNeil. Thank you, Tony Lafranco. Family Theater's only purpose is to bring to everyone's attention a practice that must become an important part of our lives. If we're to win peace for ourselves, peace for our families, and peace for the world. Family Theater urges you to pray. Pray together as a family. Tonight, Family Theater takes great pleasure in presenting The Flame and the Sword, starring Roddy McDowell as Hugh O'Donnell, with Dan O'Hurley as the narrator. Victory lies not in senseless armor, nor in the vain din of cannon, but in living and courageous souls. The fathers of the 16th century, leaderless, invaded by England, with even some of her own nobles betraying her by pledging their loyalty to Queen Elizabeth. Aaron was prone until, in the North, a smoldering fire flamed forth again. The predestined boy had come, whose advent at Thier Connell's Sear had long ago foretold. The long-promised leader of Aaron, young Hugh O'Donnell, A. O'Rour, the golden-haired, golden-voiced, deadly foe of England, whose flaming star rose to brighten the dark skies of Ireland. Elizabeth knew what to do. Young Hugh was captured, and along with Art O'Neill, imprisoned in Dublin Castle, the seat of English rule in Aaron. For four long years, they languished in chains, and then, on one snowy Christmas Eve in 1591, the guards and soldiers of the Queen were gathered together in the banquet hall to celebrate the Yuletide. Ha-ha-ha-ha! Oh, let the wind blow. The Storm-Raw! There's warmth, food, drink, and good cheer in Dublin Castle tonight. For all same, our noble prisoners, the sons of Kings! Ha-ha-ha! Bob Bear! O'Donnell and O'Neill should congratulate themselves that they're out of the storm. It's no fit night for two so young! Ha-ha-ha! Even their royal blood would run bluer and colder in the storm! Make no mistake, gentlemen. It's worth our heads to see that those same prisoners do stay within Dublin Castle. Well, they're in chains and us to guard them. Who dare to attempt to free the lads, my captain? There are men enough in there into attempts at a mad deed. Tia Connell awaits his coming, and his mother has devoted her life freeing him. Much good that will do her. She'll need as many lives as a cat to see Hugh O'Donnell free again. Ha-ha-ha! Well, in spite of that opinion, when the watchman cries the midnight hour, the guard will visit the boys again to wish them a ripe merry Christmas. Ha-ha-ha! I'll refile Hugh. The Elizabethans hear nothing but the voice of their own appetites.  Aye. Shall I hold a lamp closer? Nave, it is almost done out. This is the last link on your chain and mine. There. And now, stand free. Oh, how fine it is to be rid of that iron weight. God bless the friend that managed to send the file to us. I'll never forget him. Nor will I ever forget every second nor Neil and O'Donnell were in chains. They'll pay dearly for every penny weight of that iron art. We're not out of Dublin Castle yet. You may begin collecting that just debt once we are free of these gloomy walls. Right, Tia Connell. We'll rip the hangings from the bed. There. And then? Not them together, not them true and strong. There's no guard in the courtyard below, Hugh. I thought as much. The soldiers of the Queen have no love for discomfort, especially on the eve of our Saviour's birth. That's true. Here, now. I'll aid you in spending up the rope. Daniel Capehart, it's better whether to go a journey and merely double up and hose. Aye. It's on. Now, let me get that rope. No, I'll go first to test its strength. But, Hugh, let me go first. I'll have it. I'll cause enough confusion to allow you to vanish in the storm. You must be safe. We'll both be safe, my friend. It's by no accident that we flee Dublin Castle on Christmas Eve. That's true. Come then, Art, and follow me down the wall away from the castle and death. Oh, it looks so far down to the courtyard. I fear we'll fall. Art, take courage, my friend. Let yourself down. It is not far to freedom. Only the wind and snow make it seem so. Art! Art, what is it? A stone came loose. It stuck my leg. You're not hurt too badly. It pains.  Spoken like an old needle. Come, lad. It's not much further. I'm down. That feet rest on solid ground. And here I come. You are hurt. That cursed rock. Oh, nay, Hugh. Forget my little pain. Do you see any of the guards? No. We'll be free as birds once we're across that moat. That water looks dreadful black and cold. It's no colder than our prison friend. Come now. Let's have it. What have you seen, Hugh? Milards, I'll give you a hand to help you up. My friend first. I'll boost him from below. Careful now. And up he comes. Now, Hugh. Aye, sir. Ready, Milard? Ready. Give me your hand, boy. Here, sir. Here I am. Now for the horses. Oh, it is freezing cold in only double the hose. I need her for warmer quarters. Aye, I have a confession, O'Donnell, sir. The horses were discovered and taken away. Oh, no. I fear such a thing. Ah, but we're free art. And you, boy, you have some other plan of escape. I brought you good stout shoes for the two of you. It was all I could muster, Milard. I wish I had warm cloaks for you. Well, the shoes are enough. We've good stout legs that we'll have to help my friend, but we'll manage. I'll stay with you until you reach safety, O'Donnell. Good lad. Now, let's not tarry here any longer. They're sure to discover our escape on the next watch. Come, let us go. I don't know, O'Donnell, if quit this hell. What? Escape the chains they did and fashioned a rope from their bed hangings. Now, quick, on your feet, every man of you. They can't have strayed far enough after them. Oh, Captain, to be forced out on a night like this? After all, they're only boys. Only boys.  Aye. And Hugh O'Donnell is storied and hailed as Ireland's promise leader. Yeah, that is true. If ever they reach Donegal, they'll be the devil to pay and worse. We'll all have to answer to Elizabeth. Now, after them and don't return until you find them. On and on into the deeper darkness went the boys, past the outskirts of the city, on toward Sleeve Rua, the Red Mountain. With the soldiers of the Queen fastened their heels. It grew so cold in the lonely heights that the air was like a knife, stabbing deep into their lungs. Hugh's own feet were blistered, they dropped in exhaustion under the ledge of rock. It was then the horse boy mentioned the thing he had in mind. Milord, O'Donnell. Aye. I'll leave you now. I would not blame you. Blame your boy, save yourself. It is not my self I'm thinking to save, but you. I'll seek out Fear O'Brien. Fear? Oh, if you could reach him. By making haste, I may be in time to bring your help, Milord. Go then. And God speed you. That night passed. And then the second day at night, and while their furious foe tramped up and down the White Mountain in the deadly search, the helpless boys, only half protected by the rocky ledge, lay cradled in the snow. When the morning of the third day broke and art was rapidly growing weaker, O'Donnell desperately sought some sort of food for his friend, found some poor leaves, and brought them to the stricken one. Here, Art. Try to eat these. These dry leaves. Oh, no, you know. They're not much too true, but they're all we have. See, the blue animals, they feed on the poor grass and leaves when the snow flies, and they survive. Animals. True, we're rational, but we're also like animals in that we too must eat. You? I? We'll be captured again. Nay, my friend. Oh, yes. Yes, I know it. Remember, as they captured you from McSweeney, Lord of Fanat. And where else would a man be but before a good warm fire? What's the need of me, have you, Hugh? Surely not enough to show town the walls of me castle. But there's a merchant ship out in the Loch Milord, a beautiful ship, and they're puttin' to come ashore here. Well, it won't be the first nor the last merchant ship to sail into Loch Swilly, Hugh. The stewards can care for him. But may we board her? Board a stranger ship. Oh, she's beautiful, McSweeney, and filled with strange adventures, and her sails swellin' with the wind of the four corners of the earth. You've forgotten your own youth, my lord. No, no, I've not forgotten my youth, O'Donnell. Nor have I forgotten my responsibility to you. I'm fostering you to keep you safe for Aaron. But what's the harm in sampling her cargo? She carries spices and rare foods. Oh, rare foods, eh? Aye. Then we'll board her, Hugh. There's sure to be no harm if we take her retin' you. No harm at all, McSweeney, unless we eat too much. And is this in truth, Hugh, O'Donnell? That it is, Captain. And this is McSweeney, Lord of Fanard. I'm properly proud to greet you both. Take him, men! What manner of devil's courtesy is this, Captain? Infamy bears many names. To England, it's O'Donnell. What? This is an English ship? Under the Queen's orders. We've come for you, Prince Ling, to take you to Dublin Castle. No! He'll not take him! But we have... Aye, McSweeney, let me go. But you, Captain. Yes? You will free my foster father and his retin' you. With you and our trap, O'Donnell, of course. We have no further use for the Lord of Fanard. I'll have your life, Captain. That remains to be seen, McSweeney. And now, farewell. No, Art. They'll never fool me again that way. Never proffer the hand of friendship with a dagger ready and waiting for the heart. Or just wait, Art. Soon we'll be on the farms again. We'll be able to fish again. To build again. To live again and hunt. Remember our stag hunts? The bugle call? The excitement of the chaser? And then it lasts that the kill? Art. The closing twilight of that day. O'Brien's soldiers found them. Not at once. But the light of the lantern was dim. And the boys were mostly hidden by the drifted snow. They seemed as dead. The rough soldiers were deeply grieved as they uncovered the white faces and limp, motionless limbs of the noblest youths in all the land. Yes, Art was dead. But Hughes still lived, though painfully injured. They wrapped him in their cloaks and formed the litter of their spears to bring them to the mighty house of Fierco-Briand. And O'Donnell's escape sent a thrill throughout the whole of Aeron. Enter, Connell. You, O'Donnell. The vaunted saviour of Ireland. Crippled in one leg. You, my son. Yes, Mother. Why have you locked yourself away like this, Hugh? Alone in this gloomy tower room. Your friends are asking for you. Are they? My dear, all the shouting these past days, all the rattling of swords, waving of the banners and sweet music of the pipes is for you, Hugh O'Donnell. I know. And I believe me in Yindu. I'm not ungrateful. It is we who are grateful, son. Did you not rise from your painful bed and laugh at the doctors and rescue me from Donegal Castle to drive the Enverus onto your Connell? Wasn't that the very least I could do? You've sacrificed your life for me, Doctor O'Donnell of the Ions. For you and my country. All the weary years you were in prison, I negotiated and plotted for your release. Hugh, you were born to free Aaron. It was foretold. Aye, it was foretold. Son, what pains they? Is it because of Arthur O'Donnell's death? He was my best friend. He wanted to live so much for Aaron. But there's something more. Can you not unburden your heart to me, my dear? I am your mother. It's...it's my lame leg. You were lame in the cause. I know. You would not mourn a battle scar. May I count that as a badge of prowess? Then count thy infirmity as a brighter badge of courage, my son. Let it forever remain, G, of why we are fighting. Thank ye, Inyindu. You've healed my heart. And my leg. And no, I have another matter to discuss, my son. Aye? Your father is old and ill. I know. He is tired of this world where treachery and dark ways prevail. He seeks the goal of all war-worn Irish princes, you. You mean a...a monastery? Yes, and soon. But then... You will become the O'Donnell. Your father will gladly give place to a son so fit to rule. Mother. Mother in all my grandest dreams I never thought that... It would happen so soon. God works in wondrous ways, Hugh. Soon you will stand on the Rock of Dune, the immemorial throne of the O'Donnells, and take over the wand of authority of your clan. And so it was. On a fair day in May, young Hugh stood on the Rock of Dune, the white wand in his hand. This white wand is the symbol of what your rule must be. White and straight, pure and strong. You are taking your noble title at a time of crisis in Ireland. She has great need of you, Hugh O'Donnell. Hold high your torch that others may see and follow. Dedicate thyself to thy destiny, the leader, young and valiant, who will free Aaron from the foreigner. I turn thrice from left to right, and thrice from right to left in honour of the whole eternity. I look from every point upon my territory. O'Donnell, above! The spear was flung through Tyrconil. The English invaders were driven out and the disloyal Irish lords who'd sworn allegiance to the foreigners were taught that O'Donnell was their only chief. Hugh swept through Ulster, driving out the English sheriffs, invaded Connacht, hurling Bigham's forces to destruction, and a man named Hugh O'Neill watched and wondered and finally sent for the O'Donnell.  Your star has risen and shined high in the north over Ireland. And I've heard much of you, O'Neill. You do not share my enthusiasm over our meeting? As O'Neill, I, but as the Earl of Tyrone, Nay. I did what I thought was expedient. I had to learn whether I and other men like me could love under English rule. My agency never won freedom. And what did you learn of English rule and Englishmen? I visited London to answer the charges against me. Charges accusing you of being loyal to Aaron? And why shouldn't you, an Irishman, be loyal to your country? It was not only for myself I spoke O'Donnell, but for my country. A thought perhaps there might be a... a middle ground. Appeasement. No, no, no. Diplomacy.  You did win favour with Elizabeth. Aye, you won her for a time. But it was only a bright ribbon and a false wind. O'Neill, she's already decided upon your destruction. You have a big mouth for so young and inexperienced a chieftain, O'Donnell. Inexperienced? Hell chained and captive for four long years in Dublin Castle? Losing my best friend and your clansman art, O'Neill, in the escape? And riding, fighting, hungering, striving ever since? Do you call that inexperience, O'Neill? I'm sorry, O'Donnell. I did not bring you here to quarrel. There's been enough of that between the Irish chiefs. Well put. There's been too much. You spoke truly. I was urged to go to Dublin to answer to certain other charges against me. I remember as though it were yesterday. I walked into the council chamber as a man who had nothing to dread. You would have been arrested in that moment had not the black Earl of Ormond declared that he would not use treachery against any man. You knew that? Those were his very words. The Vixen Queen is not the only one to send spies to high places. Arman not only refused to arrest you, but warned you to leave Dublin that same night before Elizabeth's Lord Deputy arrested you. Your knowledge of that convinces me of sorcery. Not sorcery, but faith, O'Neill. Faith that you will forsake your false title of the Earl of Tyrone and become again the O'Neill. Ireland needs you. Ireland has you, O'Donnell, the Corrieilish. I am the sword. You're the brain.  If you but will. I do know the root of our country's weakness. And together we can pull out that decaying root. O'Neill, won't you forsake that middle ground? Won't you join us? I will join you, O'Donnell. I'll cast off my English title and again be a free Irishman. To the death. To the death. My hand on it. And mine. O'Donnell, in spite of all my years of diplomacy and appeasement, you know, you've maneuvered me into climbing off my fence and fighting England to the death. The brain and the sword. For Ireland. For Ireland. The brain. And the flame. And the sword. And thus, O'Donnell and O'Neill marched the flaming high road to Ulster and the Yellowford. Across the plain that lay before O'Neill's camp, a deep trench had been dug and an embankment four feet high. Bugs stretched on either side of this plain and a muddy yellow stream flowed into the trench. Beyond the plain was a scattered wood of Hawthorne and Juniper. Beyond this again, pits had been dug and covered with hay and brambles by the Irish forces. A body of light-armed Irish troops were stationed in the woods. Beardless youths, about 500 armed with muskets. This was the wood through which Bagonal had to pass. They're coming now. Musket, tears and horse. Three columns of pikemen. Cavalry and a second division in their air. All right, me lads. Have at them. Those sooner had Bagonal struggled from the woods and reached the plain with the remnants of his troops. Then he saw his men falling into pits. There were skirmishers, retirements, charges and advancements and by the time they confused Elizabethans knew what they were about, they found themselves already almost routed facing O'Neill's camp across the Yellow Ford. There was the ditch lined by your men, O'Neill. And there the battle raged. The brass cannon made a breach in our ranks soon enough. Three of Bagonal's divisions got over the ditch. But the Irish pikemen formed again and rushed the musketeers. And then, then it happened. Bagonal oppressed by the weight of his armour and in the heat of battle raised his visor. And I'm proud to say that it was my bullet ended his long career. The Irish horse charged, the enemy broken thread. Or nothing on this earth could have stopped that helter-skelter, O'Neill. True to prophecy, the battle of the Yellow Ford was fought and won by Irishmen. The confederation of Ulster is a certainty. I, and won by so few, against so many. What? It proves again, O'Donnell, that victory lies not in senseless armour, nor in the vain den of cannon, but in living and courageous souls. You know that now. You taught me that. You never questioned your star. You, O'Donnell. My star is Aaron's star, O'Neill. And who could do what but follow that pure light? May God bless our beautiful land forever and ever. This is Don McNeill again. You know I could borrow a thought from the title of our drama because prayer has been called the flame of the living and the sword of the saints. But I'm going to try to develop another thought. Just the other day, I heard prayer like it not to flame or sword, but to a blind man's stick. Who of us hasn't seen the wonders that a blind man's white stick can perform?  What king scepter? What shiny knight's sword? What magic wand could instantly command as many allies as this slender, harmless, dependable white stick? There are few things that can pacify the clamour of automobile drivers at a busy intersection, but I've seen a blind man's stick do it. Traffic signals are a policeman's club having a hundredth of its power. In Times Square, on Michigan Boulevard, at Hollywood and Vine, I've seen the look it can bring to the faces of drivers who an instant before would commit mayhem for just an inch of territory. That little white stick seems to make everyone say, there but for the grace of God goes I. It silences every selfish thought. And prayer is like that. Gives us courage, confidence, direction, hope. It can pacify the clamour of an angry heart. It makes us recognize every man as a brother or neighbor. It helps us to pick our journey through life's darkness, avoiding obstacles in our path as we tap our way toward a goal that our minds tell us is and must be there, although it's often hidden from our eyes. And the unifying force of family prayer is especially needed in our times. For the family that prays together stays together.  With music composed and conducted by Harry Zimmerman and was directed for Family Theatre by Joseph F. Mansfield. This is Tony LaFranco expressing the wish of Family Theatre that the blessing of God may be upon you and your home and inviting you to join us next week at the same time when Family Theatre will present Gene Lockhart and Mona Freeman in the story of the Little Tree. Join us, won't you? Broadcast throughout the world and originates in the Hollywood studios The Mutual Broadcasting System.


Terri, let me start with you if I could. I think the last time that I got to visit with you was back in August, August 4th of this year. You were at the Senate Judiciary Committee. You remember that, I assume. We had to cut that hearing short. We're supposed to do two rounds of questions. You said you had to be somewhere, so we cut it short. Republicans were not able to ask a second round as we had been informed we would. The press reported shortly thereafter that the reason that the hearing had to be cut short is because you were flying on a Gulfstream jet for a personal vacation in the Adirondacks. Please tell me that's not accurate. Senator, the hearing was not cut short from my experience. We had agreed beforehand on the time and length of it. I am required, not only permitted but required to fly on an FBI plane wherever I go. So you were going on vacation? I was, yes.  The ranking member, Chuck Grassley, asked you during the hearing. He said, I assume you must have other business. You said, yes. He then said, if you have a business trip, you've got your own plane, can't it wait a while? He then said, Chuck Grassley, we only just heard half an hour ago that now you have to leave. We were going to have a seven minute round followed by a three minute round. I've got seven people on my side of the aisle that included me who are waiting for this additional round. Is there any reason we can't accommodate them for 21 minutes? And you said, you had a plane to catch. You had somewhere to go. And now we find out it was for vacation? Unfucking real. FBI Director Ray, one of the most prolific liars in government, another great Trump pick. But as bad as that lie was, it's not his biggest lie. When you've convinced yourself that any action you take is somehow justified because it's different when you do it. It leads to the obvious widespread corruption that we're currently seeing in the FBI. For example, remember this and we're all going to remember this together after I take 30 seconds to tell you about this free coin offer from Noble Gold. Did you know Noble Gold's team of precious metals experts have helped thousands of worried investors like you to build and preserve wealth through times like these? Find out why gold, silver, and IRAs are the answer to inflation and financial contagion. Talk to a personal precious metals expert today. Oh, and this month they're gifting a free three ounce silver American virtue coin with every qualified IRA above $20,000. You can't go wrong with Noble Gold. Call the team now at<PHONE_NUMBER> to find out more or visit noblegoldinvestments.com. And as always, there's a link in the description or pinned comment. Just remember, there is always a risk of loss and past performance is not indicative of future results. Did the FBI have confidential human sources embedded within the January 6th protesters? Well, Congressman, as I'm sure you can appreciate, I have to be very careful about what I can say about when Even now, because that's what you told us two years ago. May I finish? About when we do and do not and where we have and have not used confidential human sources. Oh, come on! But to the extent that there's a suggestion, for example, that the FBI's confidential human sources or FBI employees in some way instigated or orchestrated January 6th, that's categorically false. Would I lie? Did you have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters inside the Capitol on January the 6th prior to the doors being open? Again, I had to be very careful. It should be a no. Can you not tell the American people? No. We did not have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters positioned inside the Capitol. Gentlemen's time has expired. You should not read anything into my decision not to share information. Director Ray, gentlemen's time. I don't believe you. How could you not watch that and infer that, yes, the FBI did have people dressed as Trump supporters in the Capitol? Gee, I wonder if some of those FBI agents might have incited that right or perhaps let people in. We could get answers to those questions if the FBI would release the tapes, which they won't. Unless, of course, they are purposely degraded tapes in order to actively avoid finding people that the FBI wants to hide. Now, here at Pro Act of Security, we recommend actually 15 frames per second. What you're looking at is the actual frame speed of the security video the FBI released to the public of the January 6th pipe bomb suspect. For that matter, if we knew that the FBI had infiltrated these groups, then we would start asking questions like, why wasn't the Capitol secure? None of this would be a stretch because the FBI and its recent directors have been proven liars on multiple occasions. And oddly, this corruption is always, always directed at Democrats' political opponents.  You have the FBI lying to FISA courts so they can get warrants to spy on Trump's campaign, none of which were legally justified according to the Inspector General. IG Horowitz even specifically called out the FBI for targeting the Democrats' political opponents. Based on the fact their entire pretext for the Russian collusion investigation was based on actual Russian disinformation that had been purchased by the DNC. Remember the Pulse nightclub shooting? Yeah, Comey was warned about that and did nothing. Oh, and by the way, the shooter's father was an FBI informant. Corrupt FBI agents like Peter Strzok who lied constantly to keep the investigation into Trump going by claiming that the spying operations into Trump's campaign were, quote, fruitful. They weren't. And he also hid the fact that they already knew the Steele dossier was not reliable. He had to lie to carry out the insurance policy after Trump won the election. Before Comey, there was McCabe and he was fired for lying to the Inspector General four times over multiple abuses. The FBI brazenly lied to the media about Hillary Clinton's emails saying they had not been accessed by foreign actors. But according to IG reports, the FBI knew for a fact that her emails had been accessed by foreign actors. Remember the attack on GOP senators that almost resulted in the assassination of half the GOP Senate? By a Democrat who worked for Bernie Sanders had a kill list of Republicans on him and screamed, this is for healthcare as he shot at the Republicans? The attack that FBI director Ray insisted was suicide by cop for years until finally admitting it was a domestic terrorist attack. Ask yourself, have you ever once heard the media or anyone referred to that as a domestic terrorist attack? Or at all for that matter, since it happened. Then there's that fake Gretchen Whitmer kidnap plot that wouldn't have existed if not for the FBI. Or how about that FBI raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago house?  Are you starting to see the pattern emerge here? And now, the most recent example of politically targeted corruption from the FBI, January 6th. Like I showed you at the start, they lied about informants and strange figures like Ray Epps who was on video multiple times inciting rioters and directing them to enter the Capitol. But faces no charges while elderly cancer patients are in prison for merely setting foot inside the Capitol. Then Chris Ray gave us the biggest, maybe most damning lie that quote, the FBI did not have any credible intelligence that pointed to thousands of people breaching the Capitol. Yes you did, yes you did. Yeah, that one's gonna come back to bite him here as I'll show you in just a minute. But before I get to that evidence, we already know that the FBI had deployed quote, shoot to kill agents and parking attendants seemed to know that there was a large protest scheduled. Then in August, we learned that there were in fact over 20 FBI agents embedded in the groups of protesters. Now, as of yesterday, we're learning that the FBI had eight or maybe more informants within the Proud Boys group. This should immediately raise questions. And if our media wasn't totally corrupted, they'd be asking them. That combined with what the FBI knew prior to January 6th about a large protest, begs the question why they didn't have the Capitol blocked off. As I've pointed out before, there was a large riot of Democratic extremists at the inauguration of Donald Trump. And they never made it into the Capitol because it had been blocked off with security as noted by this clip. Not exactly sure where in the Capitol this is taking place, but it looks like it is well away from the center, which is heavily fenced off for the inauguration ceremony itself. So the Capitol police and other security totally blocked off the Capitol when it came to the riots that occurred during Trump's inauguration. But then suddenly, when they know there's gonna be another large protest in the area, they don't block off the Capitol. Why? Why were the Capitol police letting people inside? And why is the FBI withholding other videos showing this? Officer holds the door for the protester as he enters the Capitol undeterred. At 2.35 p.m., a large group enters the interior of the Capitol, police standing at the doors. As a steady stream of protesters enter through the Upper West Terrace doors, they can see police officers standing at the interior doors, allowing people to pass. Around 250 protesters entered the Upper West Terrace doors that day, many of which are charged with felony obstruction for entering a building undiscouraged. It very well could be to hide their agents inciting and directing people inside the Capitol so that they could then be used for four years as propaganda against the Republicans. The FBI lied. They lied about having informants in the crowd and in the proud boys. They had to to cover up the fact that they knew there would be a large protest for which they intentionally left the Capitol open so they could then use the results to help Democrats. Folks, I know this all sounds very conspiratorial, but there's really not any other explanations for this. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have had more security and the Capitol totally blocked off just like they had after previous elections. All right, folks, let me know what you all think in the comments. Make sure to hit that like button, share and subscribe. Thanks a lot.