Today's episode of the Occupy Wall Street Show is brought to you by MtGox, m-t-g-o-x dot com, online Bitcoin exchange, and The Thank You Economy by Gary Vaynerchuk, thankyoueconomybook.com. Hello everybody and welcome to the second episode of the Occupy Wall Street Show. Today we are going to talk about what's happening in the Occupy movement, especially this week the biggest news has been recent events in Oakland, California with Marine veteran Scott Olson being shot by local Oakland police, an army literally of riot police who were shooting all sorts of things, you know grenades, you know smoke and flash grenades and rubber bullets and all sorts of things into, you know, what looked like a lightly dispersed crowd of peaceful protesters and the results of that. Today my guests are fourth generation residents of Oakland, California, and Occupy Oakland participants, almost since the beginning, Molly Costello and Matt Igelhart. Are you guys there? Yeah, we're here. Hey, welcome. Thanks for joining us. Thank you for having us. So tell us the situation, I mean, well first of all, let's start at the beginning, when did you get involved in the Occupy movement? We actually, we really got heavily involved on the October 15th, it was a day of global that Occupy Wall Street was calling for global action for people to join together. And so we went down there first on October 15th, which I think was maybe three days maybe after the Occupy Oakland had started.  And we went down and that was our first day of getting involved and we were so impressed by the organization, by the spirit of the people of Oakland, and by the Oakland General Assembly that we've been going down every day since October 15th. Wow, that's fantastic. So what are the, what is the issue or issues that most motivated you to get into, you know, get excited about and get involved in the Occupy movement? Well, clearly when you talk to a lot of people, you know, there's a lot of money in politics. Our political system right now is leaving a lot of people feeling disenfranchised. I mean, people talk about this when you just talk to them on the street or in a bar, you know, everybody's on the same page about this and, you know, it's really frustrating for citizens in this country who don't have tons of money and can't write big checks to politicians, but have actual, you know, legitimate grievances that we need addressed. We believe right now that the government is not a true democracy. The government is not of the people by the people and for the people. The government is of the super wealthy who can afford to lobby and get laws passed that benefit them, not the 99. Yeah, the way I've been describing it is that it's not votes that get politicians elected, it's dollars. So it's all about dollar bills. So of course, if, you know, if you have people voting and that actually determines who's elected, that's democracy. But if you have dollar bills doing the voting, then of course only the super rich are in charge and they will continue to, you know, basically they're hiring all the politicians and paying them off in advance with these donations and grooming them for office long before they even run secretly and basically stocking all of Washington with their own employees in effect. And then of course everything is all the laws and everything that happens is going to be biased towards their own interests, right? So it's a lack of democracy that's happened and then the elimination of the middle class as a result. Yes. Absolutely. We agree. And we agree that, you know, that everybody deserves to have a voice, not just the people who can afford to have a voice. And I think you put it so well when you said that we're hiring our politicians. And that is just not what I thought America was about. Right. Yeah. We've been raised and kind of brainwashed on the Hollywood image of the land of the free. This is a free country, you know. The land of the free and the brave and all that. And it's a great, great idea. And actually it's really a good thing that we have that in our minds and our consciousness, unfortunately it just isn't true right now. What we need to do is reclaim that. And you know, that's why they're calling it. Some people object to calling it a revolution, but I really think that it is, has the potential of being revolutionary, like 1776, like take back our country. Absolutely. Absolutely. I've been calling it a revolution from the beginning. And I've been saying, you know, a quote, the revolution will not be televised. And I appreciate people like you who are actually, you know, spreading the true word, not what corporate media is out there spreading. And I just wanted to make, you know, one comment kind of related to corporate media and also to you talking about hiring our politicians. And that is, when we continue that system, those rich 1% politicians and the good old boys club that they belong to, which I don't, my husband doesn't, the 99% do not belong to that good old boys club. They are working to keep all of their friends in the good old boys club rich and to help them. They're creating laws to keep them their money where it is and to keep the poor people poor. I didn't say that very well. But it's, you know, the lobbyists and the laws and the tax laws as they are are all about keeping the poor poor and the rich rich and exactly what you said, getting rid of the middle class. And I'd just like to say, along with what you said, you know, the Constitution of the United States is an amazing document. And it came out of a revolutionary war. And I imagine their conditions must have been very difficult back then. But they were able to come up with an amazing document that we all respect to this day. And it can actually help to guide this movement. Yeah, that's right. Exactly. And no, Molly, I think you said it very well. Both of you did. You know, the one thing is that when you talk about the old boys club, obviously that's what it is. And I think the way I think of it is the top 1% wealthiest, that is the old boys club. And who do they work for? They work for the top 1% of the top 1%.  You know, we're actually launching another new show called Global Central Bankers, which is going to expose a lot about these people who run the central banks of the world and how they actually literally are, it's a private corporation just like Walmart or McDonald's or Coca-Cola, but they have an exclusive monopoly license by the US Congress to print the US dollar.  But obviously it's electronic now, so it's this digital funny money, and it's just done with, you know, typing zeros on a keyboard, literally. But when they create US dollar, you know, Federal Reserve notes, US dollars out of thin air, what do you think they do with it? It's their own. They print it for themselves. And then they can either spend it or they mostly loan it to the US government. So everybody knows we have a national debt, but they don't really know who we owe it to. And they don't even ask, say, who do we owe it to? Well, the number one people that we owe it to are the people who printed the money and then loaned it to us. This corporation printed our money and then loaned it to us. I mean, oh my gosh, if people understood how that worked, they would just, well, they'd be rioting in the streets wouldn't they? Hi, interesting. They're learning. It's not kind of like what you're talking about there. Is that what we would call a Ponzi scheme? Oh my gosh. And it's the biggest and the oldest Ponzi scheme ever. So it's another show we're going to talk about Global Central Bankers, but I mean, I'm going to have experts on and we're going to interview them and ask them all about how this really works. Because I understand the big picture, but I don't understand the details, but we're going to explore that. It's going to be really interesting about the Federal Reserve and all the central banks of the world. Most of the central banks of the world are controlled by the government of that nation as I understand it. But the biggest ones are private, completely private. Like the Federal Reserve is a private company and the Bank of England as well. So all right, so now let's talk about what's really put sadly has really put Occland, Occupy Oakland on the map as far as the events that have happened Tuesday night. So for those of you, before we start talking about it, let's show that video. For those of you who haven't seen it yet of what actually occurred on Tuesday night, this is Marine veteran Scott Olson. And a lot of other innocent protesters were actually fired upon by literally an army of local Oakland police in full riot gear, even though there's no riot going on. So let's see if we can roll that video. Take a look at this. OK, so this is Scott Olson, the guy with the floppy hat there, standing right next to the Navy man. The Navy guy is carrying this flag that says Veterans for Peace. That's an organization of US veterans. And that's Scott Olson to the right, as you can see. Looks like he's wearing his army fatigues. Just standing there peacefully, obviously, both of them. But that's just moments before the attack. And here's where they begin firing upon the protesters. And they show Scott Olson standing right there. He's just standing there to your gas canister in the air. You still see him standing there. He's standing right there in the front center. Is that the shot that felled him? Yeah, he's standing right up front. And there he is down. It's hard to see from this video exactly how this demonstrator was wounded. But if you doubt that the police were deliberately aiming at the protesters, watch this policeman win a group of protesters attempt to come to the aid of the injured person. Yeah. Watch that again. What's going on? You got a shot. What's your name? What's your name? Yeah, that's just disgusting, Jimmy.  He had like two inch gash in his skull. He had a skull fracture, as I understand it. And not only that. But then when a whole group of protesters come to his aid because he's fallen, there's I don't know how many riot police were standing there. They rushed to his side to aid him. And they throw another one right in the middle of the crowd. That is not riot control. That is military tactics. They're really at war with the actual citizens doing peaceful protests. So what do you guys think about all of this? What was your reaction when you first saw this? I mean, the same as everyone that's just total outrage, honestly, a couple points. It was not only the Oakland Police Department. There was many, many officers from all around the bay that came on that night. And it was a massive military-type action against peaceful, nonviolent protesters. And I mean, anybody looking in that video is outraged. And I'd just like to say that Scott Olson does have a fractured skull, we understand. And there's a website that's been set up for his recovery at IBAW.org. That's the Iraqi vets against the war. Very easy to donate if anyone would like to. IBAW. So it's ivlikevictoraw.org. That's right. I will put that up on the screen in a second.  There's just no way that you can look at that any other way.  In the video, it looks like they're only five or 10 feet away from where he was standing. They're right there. And then to have another officer just lob another tear gas grenade into the crowd, it's despicable. And everybody that we talk to who hasn't been there already at Occupy Oakland, that's what's motivated them, is just that image. And that's going around the world right now as we speak. And we should almost say thank you to the officers who instigated that because they've created a bigger movement than existed before. Wow. At what expense? That's so sad. The OK, now, do you have any idea how many protesters there were that night? That night, we weren't there that night. But we understand there was about 2,000 protesters that night. And afterwards, the numbers grew to 3,000 easily the next night. People returned to downtown Oakland in otherwise beautiful and very positive place.  It's now called Oscar Grant Plaza by some. And it continued the next night. It keeps growing. The tents are back. They didn't achieve their objectives. So I don't understand why they even needed to take those tactics. Does anybody explain why they, you say they brought in police from many different jurisdictions around. Has anybody explained why they did that when they only have 2,000 protesters or peacefully marching? Well, I have to say that because of budget cuts and conditions in the city, the Oakland Police Department is dramatically understaffed on any day. And let alone to deal with this kind of situation, although they didn't need to take these kind of tactics, they have real legitimate problems that happen in Oakland like any other big city, as you can understand. There's murders. There's assaults. There's domestic violence. And these were peaceful protesters that didn't require that kind of action. Right. And who's command, when they bring in officers from other jurisdictions, I wonder who's in charge? Would it be the Oakland Police Chief still that would be in charge of the whole operation? As far as I understand, this operation, the people who are in charge were the Interim Oakland Police Department Chief. He's, again, Interim Chief just took over the job maybe within the last week ago. I was going to say within the last month. And his name is Chief Jordan. And he took over for Anthony Bats. I wish Anthony Bats had not left us. And so an Interim Police Chief who looks like a pretty young guy to me and then Mayor Jean Kwan are the people responsible for what happened to Scott Olson. And that's what we are hearing from everybody at Occupy Oakland. However, the mayor wasn't even in the city at the time. It's unclear as to the chain of command. But it's being investigated right now. The organization known as the Occupy Marines, obviously, when something like this happens to a Marine anywhere, they're going to support that person. So they're looking into it. And we hope that through legal action, we can really figure out what happened here. Yeah, we've seen the images and the stories. You did this to my brother. But it's not just the Marines. I mean, obviously, they have a special fraternity. But every American, I mean, Marines are there to defend this country. And what they did to Scott Olson, they did to every American. That really is an act of war against the people of the United States. I mean, it's just unbelievable. So here it is, they're calling it a riot, obviously. They're bringing in all these riot police from all these different jurisdictions. And Mayor Kwan is not even in town. She's out of town. And then after the fact, she congratulated the police for carrying it out so smoothly with very little problems or something to that effect. She was congratulatory saying, oh, everything was well. And then until she found out, apparently later, oops, what didn't go as well as she thought. And then what, like 48 hours? Was it two days or three days later? She came out and apologized to Scott Olson and his family. Apparently. That's about what we're hearing. When we were at the Occupy Oakland General Assembly last night, there was rumor that seemed to be confirmed by several reputable websites and sources there at the scene that Mayor Jean Kwan was going to come out and herself personally address the assembly and speak to people. Myself, I mean, obviously I am not a fan of hers, but I was greatly concerned for her personal safety and seriously questioning her lack of judgment. Obviously she has extremely poor judgment by what she decided was the appropriate way to handle the peaceful crowd demonstrating on Tuesday night. She obviously has terrible judgment. And so she was supposed to come out last night and address the General Assembly at seven o'clock. You might be surprised to hear she didn't show up. Yeah, well, she must have gotten some good advice from somebody on her staff that she was gonna have to come out in the Pope Mobile, I think, after what happened. That could have been a very bad thing, actually. Well, she was there and she received a lot of negative feedback from the crowd and so she retreated. But the way she's been handling this from a distance, it just really is full of negligence. And the people of Oakland have no confidence in her ability to lead at this point. People are asking for her to resign and for her, or we'll seek her recall. Clearly something needs to be done and it's just the honorable thing for in this kind of a situation. So we'll see what happens with that. Yeah, we got a press release here from her office last night and I wanna talk about that in just a second but we gotta take a break really quickly and thank our sponsors, obviously, if it weren't for our sponsors, we wouldn't be here. So we thank them greatly for making this show possible. Mount Gox is mtgox.com. If you don't know what Bitcoin is, we have another show called The Bitcoin Show which I'll educate you all about that on only one TV here. But Bitcoin is the peer to peer distributed cryptocurrency. Basically, it's the money of the future. And the cool thing about Bitcoin is that it's not issued by any government or bank or corporation or website or group of guys or anything like that. It's as decentralized as the internet itself. So theoretically, it can't be shut down by anyone. Bitcoin, there will never be more than 21 million Bitcoin in existence because it's a free open source software project that regulates itself by its own network but they're basically effectively infinitely divisible. So you can have a millionth of a Bitcoin. So as the value goes up, it will still be able to use it. There'll never be a shortage of Bitcoin. So it's a really exciting new technology. And Mount Gox is one of the easiest ways to buy and sell Bitcoins for your local currency. So in other words, if you wanna buy some Bitcoin with your US dollars, this is the place to do it. They actually deal in at 16, I think at least 16 currencies now, maybe more. But it's mtgox.com, mountgox.com. And they have like a 90%, at least 90% market share in the online exchange world for buying and selling Bitcoins for currency. So check out mountgox.com. And we thank them for sponsoring the Occupy Wall Street Show. And the Thank You Economy. Thank you, Thank You Economy. The Thank You Economy is a book by Gary Vaynerchuk who's a bestselling, New York Times bestselling author, phenomenal, you might know him from Wine TV and many other places. He's an amazing young guy, entrepreneur, brilliant. And he's an expert in social media. So you guys will be very familiar with him probably. He teaches you whether you have a small or medium-sized or very large business how to use social media and the modern technologies to bring your business back to a time when people got personal customer service where they could actually give personal responsiveness to a customer. And just like the old days, with a local merchant, so that no matter how big your company is, you can still give personalized service to your customers and give them a feeling that their feedback matters and that you hear them and you respond. So it's called Thank You Economy. It's an excellent book by Gary Vaynerchuk and we thank you for sponsoring the Occupy Wall Street show. So we're back now. I wanted to tell you guys, so last night, I mean, I'm sure you've already seen it now, but we received the press release. It was actually late, like 1.30 a.m. here last night right before I was falling asleep. But I read it and I was like, oh, this is good. She's whatever. This was from the office of Mayor Kwan and apologizing and all that until I got to the fourth point. And I'm like, but we ask that you not stay in the park after 10 p.m. And I was like, oh my gosh, she doesn't get it. Since when does the Constitution's right for public assembly and the public, the public can't be on the public land. Sorry. The Constitution is on hold from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Pacific time, according to Mayor Kwan. And she said the clause is available for free speech activity up until 10 p.m. Between certain hours. I mean, I've read the Constitution and I'm going to continue to reread the Constitution and try and find anywhere where the freedom of speech, the exercise thereof is limited between certain hours. I really don't see it that way. Yeah, and if the Constitution says that free speech is limited to 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., I mean, how do we even know? Is that an Eastern time, Pacific time? You know, since when are they rewriting the Constitution?  And they could give them clever names and like it's a rule, it's a law, it's not. And I'm sure that if a big corporation, you know, now we know from the Supreme Court that in the Citizens United case that money for big corporations is free speech. And if they wanted to write a check after 10 o'clock, I'm sure the politicians would be happy to take that. Right, you get that right. They're 24 hours a day and they'll accept those donations. Anonymously too, you know, they can do that.  So isn't it true I read somewhere that Mayor Kwan was previously, before she was mayor, she was a protester and she had problems with the Oakland police herself? Certainly during the recent Oscar Grant murder case, I'm sure that you've heard about that. The people of Oakland, there's actually a long history here of police brutality. I mean, I'd like to say there's some really good police officers out there, I know them, and this does not reflect every one of them, but there is a problem amongst the community and this has been going on for a long time. But when after the Oscar Grant situation, you know, Mayor Kwan was actually down at the time she was a city council member and she was down in between the police and the protesters trying to ensure the peace. You know, and she has a long history of being a community activist as well. And you know, just at this point though, her leadership is seriously in question. I wonder why she wasn't down there between the protesters and the police on Tuesday night? Yes, she wasn't even in the city, she was apparently in a fundraiser. Maybe getting money from pitch donors, I don't know. Wow.  So there is that, but it sounds like the police department there doesn't have the leadership or maybe it does. You know, it's the leadership that determines, I think, the whole attitude and culture of any organization like a police force. So I mean, what's the deal with the chief of police? We have an interim chief of police there now and like, is he doing his job at all? Is he encouraging this kind of violence or is he just looking the other way? Do we have any clue what's going on with that? You know, it's hard to speak as to what's happening internally with the police. You're right, the previous chief resigned recently just a week ago. So I can't imagine this is an easy job for the interim chief, Jordan. He is from the area, he doesn't know the situation and we just need better from our police force. They work for the people. They shouldn't be the ones causing the problem. And honestly, I've heard that many police have resigned because of what happened to Scott Olson and what happened the other night. Wow. And we've heard, I can't verify that, but I've heard that and I know that various police, sheriff, fire department, ambulance drivers, they all stand in solidarity with the Occupy movement. Well, they're supposed to work for the people but they actually work for the city and the politicians and the politicians are supposed to work for the people but we're right back where we started again, they don't. They work for the corporations that are owned by the banks and the bankers. So really, they're the private security, they're like mall cops, they're the private security force of the elite who have all the money and power. And yeah, it's very sad because they are local citizens, they're working guys and gals just like us but they're under orders. And so I can't imagine being in that, put in that situation where you have to fire up on your own, I mean, in this country of all places. We think we're so superior when it comes to democracy, we're gonna spread our democracy, make war to spread our democracy because we're so superior but we really need to get our own act together obviously. The vacuum of leadership also leaves those police forces at risk, besides the protesters, they don't wanna operate. Individually, they probably don't wanna operate in a situation that could get out of control. That's not in any of these best interests. Right, I know, it's like, but it makes you wonder, like what went wrong?  Did somebody give them the order to throw the, somebody obviously gave the order. So who gave the order? Do we have any information about who did this and who gave the order? I really wish that I knew who initially said, pull the trigger. The protesters aren't moving like we told them to so pull the trigger. I wish I knew who, I mean, was it Gene Kwan from Washington, D.C.? Was it this interim chief Jordan? I wish that I knew who gave that order, but I don't. And from everyone that we're talking to down there and from everything that I'm paying attention to on the internet, local news sources, all of that, I have not heard anyone take responsibility or point the finger at who literally said, pull the trigger. But I just can't, it's unfathomable that this was the way that Gene Kwan, Chief Jordan, and all the other powers that be that perpetrated this violence against the innocent, peaceful citizens of Oakland. I can't believe that they thought this was the way to solve the problem, which there wasn't a problem. We were peacefully protesting. And I say we because I'd been there every other day except for that since October 15th, but. Thank God you weren't there. You might've been one of the victims. Exactly. And even after the fact, I mean, there's a before fact, there's who did it, but the responsibility is obvious. Like you say, the chief of police and the mayor have the ultimate responsibility for what that's their job. And then to say, oh, I apologize. That's like, oh, oops, my bad. That is just, to me, that's just unbelievably inappropriate of a response. That's not how you respond to shooting someone in the face. I mean, it's just unbelievable.  Clearly, you're right. And I just wanna say that we will have accountability eventually, the truth will come out. And really, their tactics were terrible because it only served to increase the presence of the protesters. 3,000 people came back the next night because of what happened. People are outraged. And honestly, this is a distraction. This is not a movement against the police. This is a movement against corporate interests in politics. And this is a distraction from the real issues. And, you know, we need to get accountability. We need to figure out what happened, but we also need to refocus. And that's what happened afterwards. I don't know if you know, but at a general assembly the next night, it was agreed upon almost unanimously by 3,000 people that we are gonna have a general strike in the city of Oakland on November 2nd, Wednesday. Hopefully we're gonna have union support, small business support, just people in general support. And, you know, we're gonna seize the opportunity while there's attention on us to really make a statement. And, you know, this is, again, it's not against the police in any way. It's against corporate control. Yeah, so taking back our politics, our politicians need to be accountable to the people. And so we need to do a clean sweep of all the politicians who are not accountable to the people and just get rid of them and replace them with politicians that are accountable to the people and not the corporate interests and mainly the banks. And, of course, the banks own the corporations. The, yeah, I think that the... Sorry? People who agree need to step up and take over the political structure locally all the way up the chain. And that's really the only way that this movement is gonna... This grassroots movement is gonna grow is, you know, through responsible action. And the way that we've seen it happen at the General Assembly, you know, people are very capable of discussing what's important to them. Right, exactly. And the... I knew about the strike, the general strike. And I don't know if you knew, the General Assembly here in New York, I read, had voted in solidarity to also do that. So I think it's now gonna be a nationwide strike, right? That's fantastic. November, what is it, November 2nd? November 2nd. November 2nd, put that on the screen. So it's a general strike nationwide. Who knows, it may be by the time this airs, it may be worldwide already. I did see somebody referencing, you know, trying to make it a worldwide strike, November 2nd.  Just don't go to work on November 2nd. That's a Wednesday, you said, right? Wednesday, November 2nd.  Just don't go to work and see what happens. See how the politicians and the corporations function without the people. And I think it'll prove a point. You know, the people are in solidarity. They're not all sleeping on the sidewalks down there at Wall Street and at the park, you know. But they're like you and me. They're normal, average, typical Americans who are absolutely in solidarity and behind what these 23-year-olds had the courage to do to actually go down there and start this thing. We all felt it. And that's why I think this movement has resonated with everybody. Absolutely, absolutely. And it is. It's resonating hard with everybody and I'm so happy about that. You can feel that resonance. When we go down to the general assemblies and we take part, you can feel the resonance. It's a beautiful thing. But I do just back to the strike on November 2nd. I wanna say one more thing about that just to give a little historical perspective. The last general strike that happened in America was in 1946 and it was in Guess What City. Oakland. That's right. It was in Oakland. The city was shut down for 56 hours and you better believe some changes were made after that last general strike for the betterment of the people of Oakland. And I believe again, the people of Oakland, the people of New York and whatever other cities stand with us in solidarity, we will be heard and we will change things for the better. Yeah. You think if there's a nationwide general strike or even bigger worldwide general strike on November 2nd, do you think that the mainstream corporate owned media are gonna report it? They won't have anybody to operate the cameras but the next day. That would be great if they had nobody. They might notice. We're hoping next Wednesday that some people are gonna notice. Because it is, in talking about people noticing, it is weird when we will go down to the Occupy Movement and to the General Assembly and then leave to go charge our cell phones real quick at a restaurant around the corner or something like that. And it's so bizarre to be so intensely involved at the movement and then go to a restaurant and everybody's there eating and drinking and they're around the corner from Oscar Grant Plaza and they have no idea what's going on. Yeah, they're just a happy hour at Ruby Tuesday and they're in their own little world. They're gonna get home to watch Dancing with the Stars. I know, I have the same experience here too. In New York, heading home or whatever and you get maybe eight blocks away and you just see these people, they're just in their own oblivious world. They have no idea what's going on but they've heard about it. I mean, now they're starting here. Actually, Fox News, believe it or not, did a poll and at some point, I forgot what the number is now but I think 70% or something of Americans know about it but what they know about it is the question because if they're getting the news from Fox News then it can't be good. But thank God, there's not a day that goes by that I don't thank God for the internet because the internet is the new media and who needs the old media? Just boycott it. It's irrelevant. Irrelevant, old media is irrelevant. That's true. We have another show, I'll plug in another show called Absolutechly where we teach you how to buy this little thing called a boxy box and one end plugs into the internet, the other plugs into your HDTV and you get a remote control and you get all your TV and movies you want for free and you don't have to rely on the broadcast or cancel your cable. All you need is internet and that's the future anyway. So every 20 year old will tell you that's where you get TV, movies and music. So you don't need to rely on this old media's outdated, obsolete and irrelevant. And the Occupy Oakland movement speaks to that. It's a diverse, horizontally organized movement. I mean, there are no leaders. It's all done through consensus. We seek in Oakland 90% consensus to take any action. Wow, that's great. You might think that that's difficult but we break up in small groups, we talk amongst ourselves, we respect everybody, we respect people who dissent and we listen and take action from there and if you can't get 80% consensus then you're encouraged to re-order your proposal and bring it back later. It's just amazing to see democracy operate this way as opposed to seeing people being shouted down and intimidated and told that they don't understand the issues. I believe that people know better than most politicians the issues that affect them in their daily life. That's right, I know and we, again, we think we live in this free democratic country and most of us, I know in my lifetime I've never, I was really, really intrigued by what you're talking about too, this direct democracy and I've never seen that in my life actual real democracy except maybe in someone's home or something at the dining room table but I've never seen it actually work like that and that's one of the things we're gonna really explore on this show in coming episodes is real in-depth how that really works and what's the history of this whole, I mean the sign language, the whole system of direct democracy is really intriguing and that's what they're not, the mainstream corporate media is not even talking about, of course they don't wanna mention that but that's the most interesting aspect of it is how people are directly participating in this so I know that you or me or anybody who's watching can go down there in New York at Wall Street at Liberty Square and at four o'clock for the facilitators meeting any day you can have a proposal put onto the agenda for that GA that night, that General Assembly and then that General Assembly will vote on it, I think they do, if I understand it right, they do like a temperature check and they have to have consensus but if it's not then people can object and you can work it out with the people who object and come back and propose it again and so on and so on, it's this whole formal structure which is just amazing and like I said in my lifetime I've never seen that before it was just like wow, this is new technology it's so low tech, it's shocking that especially the human mic, like what? Why aren't they using a big screen TV like at a rock concert or Twitter or something but it's so low tech, it's beautiful and it's simplicity. It absolutely is, I mean I have to say I love the people's mic and when I first was watching you guys there in New York with the people's mic before things got started up here and Occupy Oakland it was a little weird, I have to admit to watch it on TV and I didn't quite get it. I'm telling all your viewers, please go down to your local general assembly, your local Occupy movement and join their general assembly and see this democracy that we're talking about in action, see the people's mic, see what a beautiful process true democracy is. It's absolutely beautiful to see it happen and I have to say the first General Assembly at Occupy Oakland when I was involved in, they said everybody break up into groups of 20, that's how, you might wonder how 3000 people get together and make a decision and we pass things, we vote on things and pass them with a 90% consensus. Well it happens because we break up into groups of 20 and I thought the first time they said break up into groups of 20 and there were thousands of people there, I thought, oh yeah, right. Well- That's 100 groups of 20. Yeah, it actually, it worked and nobody was talking over anybody, everybody.   And it might be difficult, it might be a little messy but it's also inspiring and it's inclusive and it's empowering for the people as well. Yeah, for sure. People don't care like if they feel like they have a voice and like they're being heard, they suddenly care. Yeah, yeah. And it's really nice to see people who as Matt said earlier about people feel disenfranchised and that's a big part of what this movement is about. It's really wonderful to watch those people, ourselves included, who feel disenfranchised to have a voice. It's just such a beautiful thing to see. Like you say, the human mic at first I was like, what, they gotta come up with a better technology. I got all about technology. But you're right, it grows on you and some people criticized it and said, it's like a cult, it's like a brainwashing tool but then I've heard the, it's on how you look at it. I heard, I read somewhere else on Twitter, someone was saying, I love the human mic because you really hear everything because when you hear it and it's repeated and you repeat it, every word sinks in. Yeah, it really does sink in. And it's, you know, obviously it's not brainwashing because this is exactly what is being said and what's being discussed and what's being voted on. It's a great, great thing. A lot of times at city council meetings or local political actions, people can't hear very well or they're out in the hall or they're left margin. And really this is about communication and making sure that we're clear and that we know what we're talking about.  We're talking about active listening. You know, when you're in a big huge auditorium, you could be in Madison Square Garden, somebody's got a microphone in the whole place, hears it, but you could be sleeping through the thing. As you've seen, you've ever seen these videos in Congress where the representatives are snoring and obviously they're not actively listening but you can't listen, hear it, repeat it, without being awake and actually hearing it. So Ed's asking, what about the children? What are the kids getting involved in this and how do they take to this whole protest?  You know, it's inspiring to see children there. Of course, you would never want children to be there when they're acting the way that they did the other night, but certainly during the hours that we've been allowed to express our free speech, there are people with children. In Oakland, we have a kids' fund zone there, you know, amongst other organizational tents. And you know, I'd just like to say that the tents are back up in front of City Hall. They're not gone, they're returning and they're growing all the time. And there's food, not bombs, has a tent that they serve free food. There's an organization, you know, they keep it clean, dishwashing, it's amazing.  That's cool and how they, so the tents are back, are they, they're camping overnight, they're not going, they're not leaving at 10. As of last night, they're back and it's growing and we'll see. Are the police leaving them alone at night, like last night? As far as we've heard, I mean the first tent that I saw go back up, I have a picture of it, you know, check my Twitter feed, it's there somewhere. And the very first tent that I saw go back up was on Wednesday night, the night after the riots. Wow. And it was awesome just to see that one lone tent back there saying, you know, we're reclaiming Oscar Grant Plaza for the 99% and then last night by the time we left the General Assembly there was maybe 25 tents, something like that. So I'm really curious to see, you know, what it's gonna be when we head back down today and I do have to say thank you to, you know, New York City Occupy Wall Street Movement. I heard that there was, what was it, a hundred tents or something like that and I wish I could remember off the top of my head how much money it was. Yeah, I think I read that, $20,000. $20,000. Yeah, they voted and they said they wanna send $20,000 to Occupy Oakland for tents and medical and legal whatever the needs are there. So that should show up today and also Michael Moore should be there today.  So we just wanna say, we wanna say thank you to Occupy Wall Street, New York City and thank you to Michael Moore for coming to support us today. We really, really appreciate it. Thanks you guys. Yeah, absolutely. We're all in this together. It doesn't matter where we are. It's just, it's one movement. Not even just nationwide, it's global. It's really, really global because the bankers rule the entire earth. It's not even national and so that's why everybody's impacted with this, you know. That's why they're writing in Greece and Italy and everywhere else. It's all the same thing. It's these. Absolutely. The 1% of the 1%. I was just gonna say, speaking of global, you just said that this is something global happening. I'm not sure if you're aware but they're marching in, they're marching over in Egypt today. I'm not, I don't know if they're starting into Freer Square but I'm sure that there's gonna be an Occupy movement there. It is directly in solidarity with Occupy Oakland and against the police actions that happened the other night. I believe the people of Freer Square know a thing or two about that and can relate to the footage that we've seen on TV. And the citizens of Egypt who are standing in solidarity with Occupy Oakland are marching today on the U.S. Embassy. And I'm just so, I am thrilled that this is a global thing and that the people united will never be divided. We feel the support in Oakland. We talk about it, we're aware of it. So wherever you are, if you feel like showing some support, just reach out. It's amazing what this one word of encouragement can do. It doesn't matter who. And these top, the top 1% of the top 1% who are really pulling the strings, I know for months now they've gotta have been shaking in their boots because as soon as this started, they're like, oh, we really went too far, I think. And they really have. And now everything is a reflex, like a reactionary thing, like what do we do now? You know, the Albany, you heard about what happened in Albany, upstate New York here. The governor gave direct orders to the mayor, arrest these protesters. And the mayor gave direct orders to the police, arrest these protesters. And the police said, no, screw you. We are the experts in policing. The mayor and the governor are not. And these people are peacefully protesting. We are not gonna arrest them.  And they're not geared up for that. So they did the right thing. And they do not have to follow orders if it's not constitutional. So it's a message to police men and police chiefs and departments all over the country that you don't have to follow orders that are non-constitutional, not in this country. In fact, you could be actually committing a crime if you do.    The movement will support any police officer, anybody who will support us. Yeah, yeah, absolutely, absolutely. I think that you're seeing that more and more, like in New York City police, you can tell.  They, you know, on a different day, they might actually be in there joining. But, you know, it's coming from the top. The orders are coming from the top.  I mean, they're all owned, you know, in that pyramid scheme of this Ponzi system we have. And the commands are coming down from on top, but, you know, the people, the 99% were too big to fail, right? I see this thing growing and growing and growing. And every time they pull something like this, they don't even know that they're pouring kerosene on this fire. And they're just making it explode with growth. So I think it's an exciting time. It's an exciting time to be alive in an American, especially that, you know, since 1776, we haven't seen a revolution like this one. It's coming. There's nothing else. This is shown that apathy is dead. People, not young people, but a lot of young people, old people, a very diverse group of people, at least here in Oakland, that I can only speak to what I've seen myself, are motivated. And they are no longer apathetic. They're no longer content to sit back on the couch and flip to the channels. You know, there's this direct action that's taking place on a broad scale. Yeah. I mean, I can totally, it's forgivable in a way people's apathy for this whole generation, because you felt like there's nothing you can do about it. And you know, they were right. I mean, in a way, there's nothing you can do about it.  And it's true. They were right. But eventually there is, ultimately, when it really comes down to it, it's almost like a war. It's a revolution that the only thing you can do about it is to change everything. We really need to wipe the whole slate clean and start over with a new idea of how it really should be done. And there's nothing to be afraid of. This is not some kind of, you know, it's just not something that people should fear. It's a natural rebalancing. I believe that things have happened throughout human history similar to this. And you know, if you're speaking the truth, if you have good intentions, you know, there's nothing to fear about this. It doesn't have to be painful or it might be a little inconvenient, especially when the strike happens. But you know, we want to really maintain peaceful nonviolent action. I know that there are some that don't feel that way. I can only speak for myself. But there's a lot of people that feel that way in this movement. And we know the right thing to do. And we believe in each other. Yeah, exactly. So we just need to, it's just going to be a new and improved version of the America that we thought we had. Exactly. And we need some fundamental changes maybe. Like we know we're very familiar with separation of church and state. We need a separation of corporation and state. We need separation of corporation and politician. And banks that are predatory and evil need to be whatever, whatever they need to be, will decide, whether they need to be nationalized or eliminated or whatever. If they're too big to fail, then they absolutely must fail and things like that. So anyway, we're going to have to just like, it's just going to be a new version 2.0 of real democracy. Absolutely. And you were talking about people feeling like, oh, it's too hard. I can't get involved. Or it's going to be too complicated or too inconvenient. And I just want to comment that what have people back during the time of Martin Luther King had said in the time of the Civil Rights protests had said the same thing. This is too inconvenient. This is too hard. It's going to get in the way. I need to make it to work today. What have people had said that? Where would we be today? Where would we stay? Exactly. That will never work. Well, we are out of time. Thank you so much, Molly and Matt, for joining us. And it was a great, great conversation. I hope that we'll talk more again soon and catch up on the latest developments in this Occupy movement. Thanks so much for that. Thank you for your interest in what's happening here Sure thing. So remember, guys, what we hold in our hearts and minds grows. So be very careful what you hold there. Everyone has their own unique area of brilliance. So let yours shine. And we'll see you soon. Great.


What's going on everyone? Sam here with late in sports cards. We're up in 2023, top Star Wars signature series, 20 box case break. Number four, random hit style. The way this is going to work is we've got all of our 20 participants copied over into a random dot org randomizer. We also have another random dot org randomizer dedicated to where the hits are going to go. As we're doing the break, Kyle is going to be typing in all of the hits on this random hit sheet. Once all of the hits have been shown off, all the boxes are open. I'm going to copy the 20 hits, paste them over here. We're going to randomize the, say the, we roll a dice and it's eight times going to random the names eight times, the hits eight times, whatever matches up next to your name is the hit you will receive. So good luck everybody. Let's do some Star Wars. Yeah, I do apologize if I mispronounce anything. And I'm pretty solid on Star Wars at this point. I mean, I've seen all the movies. I haven't seen any of the TV shows. That's when I want to start. I can start binging like some of the Star Wars TV shows. Yeah, yeah, Ted, Forrest sent us a text yesterday. We're going to be opening it from the side. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yup, yup, yup, yup. I had the same issue with clearly authentic a couple months ago. I did the same thing. Like the boxes are super, super thin. So we're kind of just going like that way instead box numero uno we've got that's going to be Aura Singh. Nice one there on the refractor auto that is not numbered Aura Singh. Jamie King as Aura Singh. Yeah, pretty classic to be honest, Ted, pretty classic Aura Singh first hit. Oh yeah, I don't blame you. Next up we've got a Corrin trawler on the refractor auto that is going to be Demetrius Biz Trebsky as Corrin trawler. Corrin trawler. Over two already. Next up we've got Taun Way. Authentic autograph of Taun Way. That is Rena Owen as Taun Way. Very cool. Taun Way from Attack of the Clones. Maybe not from Attack of the Clones, but they had those. I don't know what those creatures are called, but those were in Attack of the Clones. They made the Clones. Did they? They were the Clones made by Scott. Next up we've got Bede. Bede is going to be our fourth hit of the break. That is going to be Scott Capuro as Bede. Bede. Very nice. Next box is going to be Number, Podraiser Downser. We've got Mon Mothma. That is Caroline Blackston as Mon Mothma, but we've seen a lot of Mon Mothma. Mon Mothma was like a one every three boxes. Next up, that is going to be Rio Duran. Very cool. That's awesome. On the throwback, Katie Cartwheel as Rio Duran. Authentic autograph. These are sweet, dude. Rio Duran. Again, that is not number. Just an insert. Insert auto. Very cool, though. Rio Duran. Yep. Yep. Not as rangy. What'd you say? Doesn't look as rangy. Yeah, probably not. Not as skinny. Printing play is going to be Luminara Unduli. One of one. Olivia Diabo. Nice one there. On the printing plate auto. That's sweet. Unduli. That's awesome, man. Heck yeah. Luminara Unduli. Very cool. We've got the 101. One case in. We've got a 101 printing play. So same does it, people. Why not, Kyle? We've got fancy style Kyle over here. It's going to be your new new name now. We've got Twilex server. That is going to be Andrea Bartlow as Twilex server. Maybe not fancy. What's an adjective you'd like? It's an adjective you'd use to describe yourself. Even Peel. It's going to be Makayla Cutrell as Even Peel. Even Peel. Triple auto. Ray Kylo Finn earlier at the Mint. That's sweet. Do you link up with Sean Joshua? Even Peel. 10 before. Oh yeah. It looks like a blue Zeborellius. That is going to be 46 of 50 on the blue. Zeborellius. Zeborellius. Very nice. We're halfway through, everybody. The court king spot came in. Yeah, guys. Contenders. Basketball currently being listed releases on Wednesday. Nice. There you go. Let's go, Joshua. It's going to be Axe Woves. Nice one there on the refractor auto. Axe Woves from the Mandalorian. That is Simon Cassianides. No NLS again. Dude, there was one time Ed literally in one of the divisions of Bowman Best got the NLS and I think of, how many autos are in Bowman's Best case? 24? No. Four for Box. Four for Box. So 32. I swear to God, I think Ed hit 20 of them in the NLS. It was like uncanny, dude. It would just be like Rocky Diamondback. Rocky, Rocky, Dodger, like giant. It was crazy. It's Kai Threnali or Chai Threnali. What's up, Cody? It's going to be Paul Casey. Nice. As Kai Threnali. Paul Casey. Paul Casey is a golfer, I think. Yeah. That's where it sounded like, what's it called? Paul times at Bowman's Best got NLS. We've got Hondo Onaka. Nice one there from the Clone Wars, Jim Cummings. Oh boy, what birthday do we got today? Whose birthday are we celebrating? Let's go on. Oh no. Oh no. Hondo Onaka. It's like the funniest part is like you have no idea who it's going to be. Who's celebrating a birthday? I'm going to go with Big Baby Davis. Big Baby Davis. Give me like Cezar as Thor as Thor. Yeah, give me Cezar as Thor as... We've got Lovie on the refractorado. Lovie, that is Lily Cole as Lovie. Make sure you top load all these too, Lovie. The one-eats. Happy birthday, Andres. Man, give me some other ones today, Vaughn, too. It's quite the do. It's going to be... Hey, another throwback. It's going to be Bartender. Bartender. Allen Graf as Bartender. Spell Allen. Yeah, Knight II of WrestleMania VIII. We'll be good tonight, don't you worry, Ed. There is... I saw it take time. I saw it take time. It was like this kid and he was like people named Bart just chilling. And then it's like someone either he kicks the door in on the transition comes in with a nerf gun and it says Bart, Bartender. It's about Bartender. Bartender. Good lord, dude. Nice one. Here we got Ezra Bridger. Ezra Bridger, that is from Star Wars Rebels. Taylor Gray as Ezra Bridger. Ezra Bridger. Drop you guys a link again to Chrome Sonic. We got just six teams to go. We got the Orioles, Cubs, Brewers, Mets, Rangers, Nationals. Six to go. Bendu, that is 8 of 50 on the blue. Bendu. Tom Baker, that is from Star Wars Rebels. Bendu on the blue. 8 of 50. Highly printed. That sounds like some 2000s. We got another insert. It's going to be Tally Lintra. That is Hermione Corfield as Tally Lintra. Very cool, though. Tally Lintra. Two boxes to go, guys, and we'll run our random, of course. Find us Bill Romanowski. Fossil Kyle's birthday today, so happy birthday, Kyle. We've got Adrio Two Tubes. That is David Accord. Adrio Two Tubes. Eddie Two Tubes. Happy birthday, Spicy Pete. Pascal Siakam celebrating a birthday today. Happy birthday, Pascal Siakam. Here we go. Bill Romanowski and Connecticut Legend. Kevin Aaron Hernandez rounding out some of the best athletes to come from. The Great Nutmeg State. Don't forget about old Dan Orozky. Oh, man. Nice one here. It's going to be a green to 25. That is Ketsu Anyo. Three of 25. Gina Torres as Ketsu Anyo. Nice way to end the case out right there. Ketsu Anyo. Green, three of 25. All right, just going to let Kyle catch up for a second. We'll get over to our random copy. We've got 20 entries and 20 names. All right, guys. Again, we're doing the random now for 2023 Top Star Wars Signature Series, 20 box case break, number four, random hit styles. We've got our 20 participants. Here's our 20 hits. Going to go ahead and roll the dice. Going to go eight times on each one. Two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Lou Y down to Lou Y. And eight times on your hits. Thanks, Worm. Appreciate that. Ketch two tubes in the streets. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight. Bead Auto down to Axe Wobes. So again, that was eight times on our names. Copy. And eight times on your hits. We've got Lou Y with the bead auto, Francis D, Taun Way, Jonathan B with Aura Singh, Drew B with Tally Lintra, Ted K, Adrio two tubes, Hilton T with Corrin Trawler, Andy M with Hondo Onaka, Drew B, Twilex server, Lou Y with Ezra Bridger, Jeremy S, Ketsu Anyo, 3 of 25, Chris M with Even Peel, Edward P with the Luminar, Unduli, Printing Played Auto, one of one, very nice. George P with the Mon Mothma, Francis D with the Lovey Auto, and the Zeborellius Blue Auto, 46 of 50. Got Shigunori Yu with the Kai Thronali Auto, Hilton T with the Bartender, Drew B with Rio Durant, Louis C with the Bendu Auto, eight of 50, and Lou Y with Axe Wobes. So that'll do it for the break, guys. I'm going to upload these right now. Thanks again for the fill on this. Next up, we've got another one.


Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Last December, NASA had a press conference in which they claimed that they had found some interesting evidence to show that extraterrestrial life was possible. What they finally came out with was really an arsenic-eating bug in Lake Mono. The question is, did NASA really hype this thing up to support or gather more public support? Even though the science of what was being discussed is still very important, the fact that arsenic could substitute for one of the building blocks phosphorus in the DNA chain. It's an important result by itself, but the hype that NASA seems to have put on it wasn't justified by what the results were finally shown. Of course, the scientists have come out very strongly in large numbers saying that this is an extraordinary claim that you have a DNA minus phosphorus substituted by arsenic and it does not have enough supporting evidence to give for such an extraordinary claim. In fact, the evidence could be quite regarded as quite ordinary or even shoddy. This has been a controversy in the scientific circles. It's now eight comments on this has been printed in science. The original paper had come out in science and of course the authors have defended themselves. This has become a huge controversy. To discuss this issue and also certain other issues, how self-correcting is science, we have today with us Dr. Satyajit Rat from National Institute of Immunology. Satyajit, good to have you back with us. Thank you. Let's look at the basic scientific claim being made that you can substitute arsenic for phosphorus in the DNA which was thought to really hold the DNA scaffold up part of that also participates in other very important cell functions. How substantive is this claim that is being made and what is its current status? There isn't a simple answer despite the fact that we apparently have a paper published in a very high profile journal that seems to suggest that there is an answer. Yet there isn't when you look at the data an answer to this question. Why am I saying this? I am saying this because the paper shows data that make it possible that there is arsenic associated with the DNA of this bacterium. But arsenic being associated with the DNA of this bacterium and arsenic being incorporated into the structure of this DNA of this bacterium are two entirely different kettles of fish all said and done.  The mud is associated with the child but that doesn't mean that the mud is an intrinsic has become an intrinsic part of the child's body structure. In other words you can always wash the mud off presumably. And really the paper has amongst its many other limitations this limitation that the nature of the incorporation of arsenic into the DNA structure has not been clearly demonstrated. As a matter of fact many of the comments in science that are critical of this paper and that science has published address this particular question. So the paper if you read gives you a completely different impression from the impression you would get if you read the hype around the paper. The hype around the paper, Felissa I think her name is Wolf Simon being on the cover of Glamour magazine being rated as one of the 100 most influential people, women, scientists something or the other by some advertising gimmick or another. All of this would create a completely different impression altogether. The paper itself is far more soberly written. The paper says the following things. They found a bacterium that originated in Monolake in California which is a high salt containing low nutrients including phosphorus containing lake. Then they have subjected sediment from this lake not even a bacterium from this lake sediment from this lake mud from this lake to high arsenic low phosphorus growth environments. And after many generations they have come up with a bacterium that seems to survive on exceedingly low levels of phosphorus and despite exceedingly high levels of arsenic. To the extent that the protein the fat and the DNA content of this bacterium seems to contain extraordinarily low amounts of phosphorus and seems to be associated with extraordinarily high amounts of arsenic. This is the sum and substance of the paper. The only additional point in the paper that is interesting is that if you take away the arsenic in the growth environment of this bacterium, the bacterium stops growing. They have been using this as an argument to say that the bacterium uses arsenic. But it is equally possible that the presence of arsenic allows the bacterium to use phosphorus more efficiently. This very small amounts of phosphorus that are present in the growth environment may be used more efficiently by the bacterium in the presence of high levels of arsenic. There are other bacteria which in fact do something very similar so it is quite plausible. This evidence has been used for two separate things. One to publish a very high profile journal paper and two for NASA to call a press advisory to issue a press advisory saying that it is possible that life is far more plastic than we had thought it is. Certainly life is pretty plastic. We know that already. Whether it is as plastic as this or not the jury is still out. NASA in fact almost made it out that they have a made a new discovery which in fact could even support the idea there are two origins of life on earth a as if there is this is an independent origin of life. In fact talked of even shadow biospheres and so on. This was really something not warranted by what the paper was saying. Let's get something clear. There is no claim in the paper nor is there any indication in the data that this bacterium is an independently derived form of life for two reasons amongst many two major reasons amongst many. One that it is actually derived from sediment by putting that sediment in an experiment reminiscent of Louis Pasteur putting that sediment into growth environments containing progressively more and more arsenic. Clearly this is adapting an original bacterium to very high levels of arsenic which is not at all indicative of an independent arsenic dependent origin. Secondly you take this bacterium and you give it instead of arsenic you give it phosphorus and it grows much better in the paper itself than it grows an arsenic. So clearly this is not a bacterium that can't use phosphorus that uses arsenic instead. So therefore the independent origin of life is simply out of the room there is there is no way to suggest that for anybody including NASA including the authors to be suggesting that is simply being carried away either out of sheer excitement or perhaps more calculated motives with the hype. You know if we really look at it this is currently this is also becoming obvious that if there is a high profile claim in science then this will and you are going to hype it up in public domain. The media was called the way this NASA had framed its press conference it appeared they have almost discovered extraterrestrial life form so if you hype it in this way obviously the peer discussion will also take place in public domain. The authors at one point said we don't really respond to blogosphere and so on but they're quite happy to for instance Felicia Wolf-Simon went to TED lecture and she made various claims and you have quoted the Glamour magazine they don't seem to have so much problems about responding to the public domain as much to public criticism in the blogosphere or other modes of criticism by the scientific community itself. All right so this I will say in support of the authors the authors have done everything that you can expect scientists to do when a controversy arises. Number one they have responded formally to the technical criticisms of their work that have been conveyed to them by the journal in which they were attempting to publish the paper. They have responded at length with some they have taken an honest difference of opinion as they stand with some criticisms they have actually said that this is preliminary work we acknowledge that if this were to turn out to be correct as a reservation our claims would not stand scrutiny we will wait and see we are working on this. Secondly they have actually made this bacterium available to other workers in other words they have not sat on this bacterium and said we have a bacterium and we are not going to give it to anybody but this is what we have discovered in the best traditions of science they have made this bacterium available. Now the bacterium grows slowly there are small amounts they are a small lab there have been problems but they have certainly given the bacterium to more than one independently working group for validation eventually I'm sure we will hear. Let me add a point about NASA's hype you know I can sort of understand where they are coming from all said and done this is a lab that is in the process of disassembly. Felicia Wolf-Simon herself does not have a permanent position in this laboratory the laboratory does not do this kind of work as their primary work in fact the senior author of the laboratory is from the U.S. Geological Survey. NASA's just had its shuttle program shut down the shuttle made its last flight a few days ago in general basic science funding agencies not simply in the United States but all over the world are feeling pressured by the neoliberal view of science which is that science is done to gain something preferably for companies to make in this atmosphere it's not surprising I'm not suggesting that one should be doing this oneself but it's understandable if science agencies that do basic science that does not have any immediate implication in the corporate world tend to resort to gimmickry to drum up a little bit of support for their bottom line budgets. Well in this sense what you are saying today we are seeing increasingly science really turned to as much to popular media as to scientific journals and in fact it's clear that if you do have a high public profile then funds grants all this seem to become a little easier so effectively we are seeing a certain kind of science taking place today how science is being done how science is being communicated which is changing absolutely it's certainly changing what's interesting in this case is that it's not the individual scientist themselves who initiated the hype one is expecting individual scientists to hype their findings all said and done you know I don't go out and say that my baby is the ugliest thing in the universe but that it was NASA the institutional agency which attempted to do this and that I think reflects the levels of institutional anxiety about basic science funding I repeat myself not simply in the United States but globally the other interesting thing about this that we might want to keep in mind what does it take to publish a paper in science becomes an operative issue for scientists rather than saying what does it take for me to change a prevailing dog mind science to change a prevailing concept a prevailing theory in science and that shift from trying to decide how much weight of evidence I need to put together to change a theory in the minds of my fellow scientists versus how much evidence does it take to publish a paper in a high-profile journal I'm not sure that that's a desirable change in shift that's a change that has occurred quite radically over the past 50 years suddenly and we have seen it steadily marching onwards in a certain sense it's a corporate culture acclimatization of how science is done more the ad world if you will coming back to a certain point which has now been made in fact by Carl Zimmer in the New York Times article that he says that the prevailing view of science is self-correcting but no leading scientist is going to do a study to replicate what has been done by Felicia, Paul Simon and her group because it does not have any mileage the replication studies are not really something which give you academic brownie points students who want to do it would like their career so if the prevailing view is that this science was shorty science as it seems to be that there's really no replication studies that is likely to be done and also if negative findings are there no general publishing therefore science in that sense does not invest in this way or the negative findings gives much more value to positive findings in this way in in fact can perpetuate mistakes and actually create a hell of a lot of waste as a general formulation I think you're perfectly right however in a curious twist in this particular case that formulation may not quite apply and let me explain why I'm saying that in the first place I would not like to leave the impression that I think that this that the paper that was actually published the data the text the interpretations the conclusions in that paper were shorty science I think that there were a limited set of findings that were discussed with appropriate caveats but then as Simon has said will Simon has said that arsenic replaced phosphorus in the DNA chain that's really a claim that she's been making and her co-authors have been making I understand but I am talking about the published paper for scientists it's the published paper that counts or at least is supposed to count whether it in reality does so or not is a whole different can of worms but something she was at the press conference where it was said publicly arsenic is replaced but in their paper they do not say this and in that sense I'm making the limited point that the paper is not shorty science remember we do not hold the science that scientists do as being as reprehensible as the scientists themselves quite frequently we have many examples of people who are quite terrible people this is not to suggest that full Simon is a terrible person but we have many examples of people who are terrible people who have done outstanding science and have received Nobel Prizes and other such hyper generating devices in their lives the paper makes modest conclusions but because it was a hyped paper in fact replication is going to be done and is going to have publication value now that's because there was hype to the paper if it had been published in current science your formulation would apply certainly there would be no replication nobody would notice it would die without a ripple yet a modest set of data because they are published in a high-profile journal have actually invited the triggering of a self-correction process in science that we would only hope is always present and what I'm trying to say is that it's not always present that the terrain for the triggering of self-correction processes in science is deeply unequal in fact a lot of the dead ends in science and not really known because the authors researchers who came across the dead ends after publishing say five or six papers they would stop publishing that a whole lot of people in India for instance would not know why they have stopped would continue down that path so that's that part of Zebra's argument that self-correction in science is hampered by the fact journals don't publish replication studies and rarely publish negative findings would still hold good it holds good completely and it holds good particularly in the world of the natural and clinical sciences and what I mean by that is biology and medicine because in biology and medicine a little more strongly than for other disciplines such as chemistry or even more physics or mathematics there is a hierarchy of journals so journals compete with each other to be high on the public perception totem pole scientists why with each other to publish in those journals that are high profile this has come to be over particularly over the past two decades a sort of gamed system in which journals and scientists are mutual beneficiaries of a system that creates clicks and networks that perpetuate themselves as mandarins in such a situation because the science that you do needs to acquire this high profile you would prefer to have positive data rather than negative because you are a journal that aspires to be high profile you would prefer to publish positive data rather than negative and so the vicious cycle continues and that vicious cycle I think therefore has become a far more prominent feature of the life sciences and medicine research field than it has for example of the physics and mathematics community. Thanks Satyajit I think we have gone over this various facets of this issue with the jury as you said is still out on the quality of the research that has been done particularly I think the arsenic substitution which has been claimed though you say it's not been claimed in the paper but certainly has been claimed all over the place I think is something which is really open to serious question so I think we'll come back and have a discussion after hopefully the replication studies or negative findings have come out. Thanks. Thank you.


Happy Hanukkah! Tonight marks the first night of Hanukkah, and here at home and around the world, Jewish communities will come together to celebrate. As loved ones gather over the next eight nights, they'll light the candles of the menorah, pray, spin dreidels, and celebrate the triumph of light over darkness. Hanukkah is the story of love and faith winning out against impossible odds. It's a reminder of the incredible strength of the Jewish people. And here in Canada, it's a chance to recognize the many contributions Jewish Canadians make to our country. Our government will always stand with Canada's Jewish communities. We will continue to speak up against anti-Semitism and hatred in all its forms, and together, we'll keep building a better Canada. On behalf of our family, Sophie and I wish everyone celebrating a joyful and blessed Hanukkah. Chag Hanukkah Sameach.


We're joined now by a guy who knows everything that's going on in the Yankees organization, right? It is Damon Oppenheimer, the VP of Domestic Gamma. You're scouting. First of all, I'm going to start off with congratulations. Just received the West Coast Scout of the Year Award. I'm going off a cheat sheet. In January, you'll get the PBSF Spirit of the Game Award, the Lifetime Achievement Award. You're up for a Nobel Prize. I don't know if you do that. But, I mean, that's got to mean a lot. A lot of that comes from your peers, too, right? Yeah. The voting on the Scout of the Year comes from my peers, which is really, it's really strong to me, because they know me as a scout, but they know me as a person. They know how I operate and work. So, that really means a lot. One of the players that you've scouted and had a long relationship with was the Yankee Third Basement this past year. Miguel Andujar finished second in the Rookie of the Year voting. The Yankees loved his offense. I want to ask you about the defensive side. What can he do to make strides defensively? Because that was obviously an area the Yankees wanted him to concentrate on. I think he can continue to work. You know, when I saw Nolan Aronado in high school, he wasn't the Nolan Aronado that we see now, and he's an absolute workaholic. And so, I think with Miggie, he can do the same thing. It's just work hard, you know, keep getting good advice and go at it.  He's got the tools to be really good over there. Now, it's just a matter of putting it together.  I'm around a lot of old-time scouts these days, and sometimes they complain about the analytics and all the computer and the metrics. How do you keep your guys out in the field motivated, you know, getting their eyes on the players? Well, I think what we've done here with the Yankees is just accept the blend. Okay? We know that there's what you see on the field with your eyes. We have a guy named Scott Benike, who does our amateur analytics, and he really has a great delivery on how to have our guys understand it, and they accept it. Right. So, it's really, you know, it's not like we haven't ever paid attention to stats.  And now our guys are learning a little bit more about that. Damon, you've been a part of this organization for a long time. How has your approach or process changed over the years as the game continues to evolve? Well, I think it still can, it still goes back to hard work and big in my role, a lot of quality leadership.  I'm out there visiting kids in the off season. And so, I don't, I just think that it's the whole blend of the analytics side. It's the only thing that's really changed. The work ethic is still the same. Going and getting to know what's in the kid's heart, that's still the same. And so, I think that that's the part that, you know, we just keep trying to put players in the system with that. I'm glad you brought that up because I always wonder about those visits. Like, we talk about ability and physical tools and what the kid can do, but how much of that is just getting to know him, seeing how he was brought up, what his background influences are? It's a really big part for us. And we try to get scouts on the other side of the fence. So, they're on the field with these guys in different situations, area code games, even in Cape Cod, where we really get to know what the kid's about, not what he's going on at his kitchen table. And you get, you know, that's the part that with our guys, they love doing that. And they love getting in there. And we've got our Chad Bowling that runs that department. And we got Lauren Abarca and Chris Passarella. And they're professionals at this. And they go visit these kids too. I mean, we're talking, we do probably 200, at least 200 visits on kids during the off season. Michael King is a very well thought of minor leager jump from single A to triple A last season for the Yankees. I wanted to ask you what you think about him as a pitcher, but you've got a little family connection with Michael King as well that goes back a little bit. If you could share that with us too. Yeah, it's a unique deal because my daughter really wanted to go to Boston College. And so, Matt Hyde, our scout, set it up for her to come up there and see the school. And he set it up for my king to be the one who took her around. So, it was really a neat deal. We got to another way of getting to know a guy. I mean, we got to know Mike by the way he treated my daughter, Sierra. And it was like, you got to learn a little bit more about his makeup. His stuff, he's a good pitcher, you know. And it looks to me like the guy's got a quality future in the big leagues, hopefully with us. Let's get to the most important position on the field that's behind the plate, the catcher's statement. You drafted a catcher number one last year and Anthony Siegler, switch hitter. Tell me about him. I know he just got his feet wet a little bit last year. Yeah, switch hitter and he's actually a switch thrower, which is unique, you know, but that's not going to come into play. He's really smart. He's a good receiver. He's got a plus arm. He knows how to handle a staff. This is the guy that caught the team USA guys when they won a gold medal. So, he's got that part of it, that special defensive part of it. And now you're talking about a switch hitter who can hit both left and right handed well. And he's got better left handed power right now. But normal strength, this guy should be able to have power from both sides and be a plus defender. Damon, there's no doubt about it. You've had some success stories that have come up through the system. Jack, you mentioned Miguel Andujar, Aaron Judge the year before. Can you describe the feeling amongst the staff when you have a guy like that that makes it to the next level and succeeds at the next level? Yeah, I mean, it's really exciting. You should see the text messages that flow.  And but when we've put in the work and we've done so much research on these players, they get through play all the way through the minor leagues and then they're having success at the big league level. It's us. It's like our kids haven't success. The final thing, Damon, before we let you go again, to Meredith's point, 27 years in the organization, I was going to ask what motivates you still. But I would think it's that right, seeing these kids that you've maybe handpicked really grow in the organization. It doesn't seem like 27 years. It just seems like there's a way that an old scout talked to me about it. It's like you can do this job one year 27 times or you can learn and you can get experience. And I think I've gained experience over that time to be 27 years worth of experience. And that's what it is. It's trying to find that next Aaron Judge. It's going out there with with all your scouts and just seeing how much how hard they've worked. And now I get to come in and see and take a look at these kids.  This is a great job. You were a ball player. You know what team's all about. It's just a different team you're kind of playing for, right? Your guys succeeding. Yeah, this is a this is definitely a we job. And when when these guys get to the big leagues, it's we. It's never me. And it's like the scout of the year thing. It's great. It's nice. But it's I'm representing all these guys that I've that I've got to work with. And they're the they're the reason that I'm getting this award. All right, Damon, great stuff. Thanks as always. Thank you.