Welcome back. I'm just assuming all of you have been here before to the nonprofit show, but if you haven't, we welcome you for your very first time. We are thrilled to have with us because each and every month a representative from Staffing Boutique joins us and today we have Dana Skirlock joining us. She is Director of Recruitment at Staffing Boutique and is bringing to us a topic that is very critical. We haven't talked about it in a dedicated episode, so she's sharing with us what top interview questions you want to ask and why. So we're going deeper than that surface level. Like really, what are the questions and then why? What is the purpose of asking these questions and what are the answers essentially that we're seeking? So Dana, I'm excited to have you in the hot seat with us this month and share this conversation. Julia Patrick, of course, thank you for being here today. Julia is the CEO of the American Nonprofit Academy. I'm Jarrett Ransom, your nonprofit nerd and CEO of the Raven Group, honored to serve alongside as co-host with you Julia. And we would be remiss if we do not give a huge shout out of gratitude to our amazing partners in this journey. Thank you to our friends over at Bloomerang, American Nonprofit Academy, fundraising academy at National University. Also, thank you to Nonprofit Thought Leader, your part-time controller, Staffing Boutique. Again, good morning or good afternoon to you Dana. Also, thank you to Nonprofit Nerd as well as Nonprofit Tech Talk. These are the companies that have walked with us day in and day out on this journey this month. We'll hit 900 episodes and we wouldn't be here if it weren't for these amazing partners. Hey, if you missed any of those episodes, that's okay. We've got you covered. You can binge watch, binge listen, however you choose to consume your entertainment. Download the app. Go ahead and scan that QR code right now. If you are visual and watching the show, you can just go ahead and download the app now on your smartphone. We're also on streaming broadcast platforms as well as podcast platforms. So pretty much anywhere, again, you consume your entertainment. Just call up the non-profit show and voila, we will show up. So Dana, thrilled to have you. I do know I took advantage of some questions in the green room chatter. Quite all right. The join us early. You are privy to those questions. But again, Dana Skirlock, director of recruitment at Staffing Boutique. Welcome back. Thank you so much for having me. It's always a pleasure to be here talking about another hot topic. I feel like I'm on the view. You are, in fact. That's what we want. The view for non-profits. When Jared and I talk, that's how we describe what we want. Coffee mug at all. As I said, I must have a coffee mug. Exactly. I love it. I wanted to be on the table, but we're on different coasts. Well, you know, you come to us from New York where I feel like a lot of things happen first. And then, you know, we kind of get your insight and then we can kind of see it moving across the nation. And it's really an amazing thing for us being in the western United States to get this perspective. And so we really value your insights and the things that you have to say and the nuances that we need to be thinking about when we're doing hiring. Everybody knows the nonprofit sector has, is not has, is going through a radical transformation. We have people retiring. We have people wanting to come in. We have people that are burned out.  And so it just escalates the recruitment and the interview process. So we're going to ask you about five different questions that you've advised us that we should be asking. But more importantly, what are the answers that we're looking for? And what are we trying to glean when somebody answers? So let's get to the first one. How do you define work-life balance for yourself? Yes. So work-life balance, I think, has become a hot buzzword and at least to my experience and knowledge within the past, like, five to seven years. Like, when I first started recruiting in 2006, we didn't even talk about that in the interview. But now it's something that we're constantly, even on the initial screenings, you know, we're talking about this idea of work-life balance. I think that is a good thing and it's a testament to workers pushing back on employers to make sure that things are as equitable as possible. And making sure that they are balancing their ability to continue their career in a vigorous, robust way while also having a personal life that also supports that. And I think that there's often the idea that, like, you either get one or the other and not both. So I love that we ask this. I think that now the question is, for us as hiring managers and for organizations and recruiters to start digging into, what does that mean for the individual that you're speaking with? Because what that means to one person is very different to another. And that's going to be based on, are they single? Are they, you know, do they have a family? Do they have kids? Are they a single parent household or, you know, a partner family household? So all of that is going to look so different to them. Are they taking care of an elder, you know, family member or something like that, you know? It's, you know, it's all going to vary. And so I think instead of necessarily saying, you know, we have good work-life balance, we want to provide that for our workers. I think the question may be how, you know, the individual coming into the organization, how can we best provide you with the work-life balance that you need? I think a better way to frame the question and one that you can start in terms of conversations early on in the interview process. So rather than at the end, once a person's accepting the job and is sort of been wondering about the logistics of the position that they may be up for and might be taking, starting it out with the initial screenings. Like, here's what our culture is at our organization. Here's how we have some people within our organization, you know, balancing work and life. What do you feel about that? Is that something that you, that would work for you or would you meet a different setup for your work-life balance? And what would that look like? I think those are the types of, like, more specific questions that are, you know, tailored to the individual that are going to get to the answers that you need, which is, ultimately, how do I encourage this person to want to commit to my organization and stay for a long time?  You know, the development positions, we were just talking about that in the green room. You know, the average tenure of a development professional at this point is just under two years, was the last figure I saw, which means that there is so much turn and burn within these positions. So, especially with fundraising roles, I think it is imperative that we start figuring out how to make it so that, you know, and with development, I think it's tricky because the fundraising piece is so important to the engine of the organization that a lot of pressure goes onto the development professionals. And when you're starting a new job and it's your first six months, I think that's hard to be responsible for the health, the fiscal health of the entire organization from the day that you get there. And so I think that's also part of work-life balance, you know, for a development person. It's like, how much are you relying on this person to succeed in the role and to succeed super quickly to save the organization? And if that's the case, that's not going to provide them probably with work-life balance. Okay, let me ask you this. Yeah. Because I can't imagine anyone answering this honestly. Do you know what I'm saying?  I'm all in. Who's going to come to an interview? And maybe I'm showing my age, but say, oh, well, I need, you know, flexibility or what? I've seen it. I've 100% seen it. Okay. Yeah, people telling me they're outside of work commitments, whether it's a faith-based, you know, sharing with me that they are from, you know, they're still healing their trauma and they need to take some breaks during the day to meditate. There's so many answers that I've received honestly, which I have seen that evolution, Julia, in the last 20 years of my career, changed. And I am amazed when I do hear honest answers and people advocating for, you know, what they need. But I think this takes us to our second question, which is all about self-care. And I feel, Dana, these two go hand-in-hand. What does that work?  Yeah, I think you're absolutely right that it goes hand-in-hand. And I think that I've experienced people who have that interview style where whatever the interviewer says goes and they're going to say, I don't need any time off. I'm totally gung-ho about the job. I've seen people over the years that become more forthcoming as well. But I think it also is up to the interviewer to make it a safe space for the person to feel like they can answer honestly. And so that, I think, is also a part of self-care is, you know, being comfortable enough to share what you need in terms of self-care, maybe something very vulnerable and personal. And so, you know, whether that means using an example of yourself as the hiring manager and saying, well, I, for example, do X, Y, Z. You know, this is what I do based on my history for self-care. Is that something you could see yourself doing? Or is that something that, if it were offered, you would take advantage of? Or even just implementing these things with your current staff? Like, that might be a better place to start if you're starting from ground zero. It's like polling. You can do a survey monkey of your staff and say, what would provide you with self-care? What could we do that would assist you with work-life balance and your self-care? And maybe you'll get some ideas that you can start implementing so that when you're interviewing new candidates, you're starting off with, well, this is what we already have for self-care for our employees. And then that gives them a feeling of, wow, this is an organization that takes care of its staff, you know, going into it. And they're going to be more likely, number one, to be more honest if you're telling them, we already have these things in place. So, you know, feel free to add to what we're discussing. It's not going to be viewed as a negative. And then also, I mean, and also it should be something that you genuinely want to do for your staff, of course. And I think hiring managers, you know, doing the research and really understanding why these self-care measures will help them with their bottom line, I think is another way to entice them to want to do it. And what I would, my argument would be is that it's going to help your retention, which is so costly.    But other than those, you know, you really want to be retaining the majority of your staff that are able to continue working. And so that's, I think, thinking about your current staff and how you can support them with self-care is going to help lead you to how to present those during interviews for new candidates. I absolutely love that. And I feel like we could have an entire conversation, and maybe we will, about creating the space for the interview, right? Like really creating a space to ask the questions, to provide, you know, information, leaning in to say, here are some things that I personally do to take care of myself as well as developing my own work-life balance. You know, I always feel that when someone shares from a place of vulnerability, it does allow the other person to lean into that. That's their choice, right? Whether they do or they don't. But the ultimate goal is how can we support you as an employee? And I would think we certainly want to know that before we make that offer so that we can, you know, develop that space, absolutely. Yes. And a lot of people, I think, as candidates, tend to do the sort of bait and switch. They want to get the person enticed in there, or the organization enticed by their background, and then start making sort of these demands. You know, I hate to call it demands, but start making these requests, accommodations, and they may not work for the particular position that they're applying for. And so I think by starting the conversations with the hiring manager early on, I think that that also helps with that. Because if somebody wants, really, they want to work from home four days a week and they don't want to come to the office too much because they've got three kids and they really can't do it. It's better for you to know that early on. And I think what a lot of candidates will do is like hold their cards close to their vets, not mention it until you're ready to give them an offer. And then they'll say, great, I have an offer. And now here's a slew of things that I need to make sure that I would want to take this job. And it's the first we're hearing of it. So it's not just the candidates. It's also the hiring managers have not brought the subject up. And then especially nowadays post pandemic people are more familiar and fluent in the ideas of flexibility of scheduling things from home and we've got all this great technology that allows us to do a conference call today, you know, that can be streamed out to everybody. And so people are kind of, you know, utilizing those things but I think the conversations need to happen a little bit earlier than they are right now, because I've had a lot of offers kind of like go wonky because of that. And it's not anyone's fault. It's more of just we should have discussed it earlier and found you a placement that that accommodation made sense. So finding that we should ask this in interview one. I'm familiar with a series of interviews. Is it conversation number one to, I mean, where, how soon we ask these questions. Yeah, it's a good question. That's a very I think that may depend on the level of the position. So, for example, if it is something that is like an entry level administrative role. I think the first interview can really run the gamut of everything. And I think that the content of the interview is going to be, it's going to make sense to be able to ask them that because how long do you need to interview. In other words, like, if you're interviewing a receptionist, it's not going to take you as long as interviewing a CEO. So that you can probably lay all your cards on the table with a more entry level position. The higher level positions. I understand not wanting to launch into all those things round one. You're really just doing like an intro to even see if they're even remotely a good fit. And then I think once the second round hits, you can start talking about because there's probably going to be a third round and then around with the board where you can dig in even deeper. But I would say with a higher level position, certainly by the second interview should be talking about that. But entry level mid level positions, non management roles. I think you can start talking about this from from moment one. Perfect. Well, let's go to question number three, because it's really an interesting thing. I mean, I know that this is changing a lot. But question number three, why did you stay in your last position for the length of time? So it used to be if you were like, you know, flipping around and even the way I framed it shows my my prejudice here. You would be perceived as somebody who is not a worthy candidate versus somebody that had like stayed with somebody, you know, with the organization forever. It's kind of switching out. I mean, I think a lot of people are looking at this saying, hey, if they've only been with one organization, no matter, you know, for all this time, maybe they're not flexible. Maybe they're not, they haven't grown. I mean, so it seems to me, Dana, there's a lot going on here with asking this question about time and tenure. Yes, tenure. I think in general, you're absolutely right has become a hot button issue. Like we said, with development positions, you know, the tenure with that particular role and sector has become so low that there is no choice. When you look at resumes, I'm telling hiring managers every day, you can't expect to see 10 years, five years on a resume for development. You're going to see a year to two years or less. Now, most other industries and most other positions, that's not the case. So then the question becomes, how much does tenure matter to this particular hiring manager? I would say that if it were left to all the hiring managers, they would love to see tenure that, you know, shows that you stick with one organization for like three, four years at minimum. Or they would love to see more. I think they're not seeing it on resumes. And so they've just had to adjust to the reality that most people are not staying as long as they've in the past that they've seen on resumes. As far as culturally, why that is, I think there's a variety of reasons. Number one, if an organization is not fulfilling your needs, people are less afraid to go ahead and move on to candidates market unemployment is very low. They know they can find another job during the pan. I'm not the pandemic during the recession in 2008, people weren't moving because they didn't have options. So I think people are as flexible as their options are. So like, if, if the hiring managers have 10 options of people that have great tenure that have been in places for five to 10 years, they're going to gravitate towards them. I don't think there's much we can do about changing their mind about that because it is more of an insurance that the person will say and you can't afford to replace people every two years. But I think it's good to ask candidates, what about that job was unsatisfactory that you felt you had to leave so quickly, especially if you're seeing a pattern on their resume of 10 years are very short. I think that's the bigger issue for hiring managers these days than just one job that has short tenure. It's if it's multiple jobs that you know you're staying at one job for a year and you're bouncing to the next one in two years and then, you know, do three jobs where you just stayed for a little while. I think if it's just one job where that was short, people will very quickly be able to overlook that. So is that my prejudice? I don't know. I look for tenure when I'm looking at resumes. Okay. I was going to say devil's advocate. I do see very frequently in our sector, the wonderful nonprofit sector. Often, a younger candidate will jump to, you know, to another organization at a higher position, and then go to another like they use different organizations to climb the ladder, if you will, as opposed to a limiting ladder climbing. You know, we're there within one organization because they're simply not upward mobility. And so what if that's the case Dana? I think you can totally make the case for that. And I think that it will be clear in that person's cover letter or in the interview with them if that is the case. So if you're talking to them about, you know, and I think that you can also phrase these things in a way that are less accusatory such as like, yeah, yeah. Well, when you moved on from this organization, what did you find was different? What was the, you know, incentive for you to move on from that place versus like, why did you leave there after a year, you know, kind of positioning. And if their answer is, well, this was a bigger job with more responsibility and they're showing that ambition, that's going to be, you know, that's probably going to supersede the tenure issue. If their response is, well, my friend called and they said that this place was hiring. So I decided to move over here. That's going to be something. So I think it's going to kind of be, you have to create an environment where it's safe to share and ask them honest, open questions, be vulnerable yourself. And hopefully you'll be getting truthful answers from then from the candidates and then you'll be able to glean and read between the lines. I think that most people want to be ambitious and seen as a go-getter and it's going to be very clear who is sort of just moving jobs to move a job. And I see that all the time. There's people that are like that and they may, you know, be good workers that you can utilize in a certain position, but maybe you don't want to make them like a manager if you know that that's their tendency. But maybe if they're interested in a more entry level position with you, you may be comfortable with that level of commitment that they have. I think that when, especially when you're getting the higher up jobs, you need like that would be a red flag to me. Sure. You know, we don't have a lot of time left and we have two more questions to get through, but we have a viewer that's popped in and asked a really interesting question. So I want to make sure we address this. The viewer writes in what happens when an employee who seemed to be a perfect fit misrepresented their skills for a role and that has been identified within the first six months. Oh, gosh. Well, I am sorry to hear that and I totally know and I totally understand your frustration. You know, as an interviewer, as a professional interviewer, I understand that like, I'm doing this all day is my position. And for a lot of hiring managers, it's 10% of their job. And so your expertise in interviewing is going to be reflected in that.  I think that utilizing a recruitment firm can help with that sometimes because, you know, they're able to do a lot of like screening on the back end. And we really, because we're not the actual hiring manager at the organization, we can be really candid with the candidates and candidates tend to be candid with us. Recruitment firms, I understand are, you know, a surplus in terms of like a fee. I understand you can't always use them for everything. So the best thing to do is to really like utilize resources to interview as well as possible and to ask the types of questions that we're talking about. But even the best interviewers, you know, even if I consider myself a professional interviewer, I've been hoodwinked to people who are good interviewers. There are people who are better interviewers than they are workers. And there are people who are great workers and bad interviewers are interviewees. So, you know, it's tough. And if it's within the first six months, I think that's the best time probably to go ahead and make a transition. Because if the person is just not working out and you don't feel like you can. Rehabilitation placement, it's time to just cut ties and at least save the money on paying them for, you know, the remainder of the year while you figure out what to do. I mean, it's going to depend on the situation though. I mean, once you've already hired them, there's no legal recourse to take from somebody misrepresenting their their skill set in your opinion. So there's not much you can do other than, you know, let that person go and move forward. But my advice would be to do it sooner rather than later. Okay, let's get to question number four.  I've turned up the temp on the hot seat. No worries. Question number four. What type of support do you need to excel at your job? Why ask this question? I think that this is an interesting question because number one, it gives the interviewee a chance to assess your organization and whether your management style or the culture of the organization is going to be a fit for them, potentially long term. And I also think it provides the interviewee with the feeling of, wow, this, this entity, this organization, this person that represents this organization, they really want me to succeed and they want to provide me with the tools to do so. So what I find a lot when people are talking to me about their kind employer or previous employer is they'll say, you know, the expectations were high, which I have no problem with. But I was never provided with the tools nor was I ever asked what tools I needed to get ahead. They didn't know what tools I would need coming in. They didn't seem to, you know, be able to provide me with them when I would ask for them. And so I think it would be a great green flag for people interviewing with your organization to hear that type of question that they want you to be able to be equipped well armed and well trained and comfortable in your role from the get go. So even at the interview, they're asking you how they can prepare you for the role. And again, I think it's the same thing as with like the first three questions about self care about it's going to depend work life balance depends on the person. What I need to excel is different than the next person. And so finding out specifically from this person, what they need to need from you to excel, I think is invaluable information. Okay, question number five, we talked a little bit about this in the green room. Jared ransom, if I asked you this question, when you're starting out in your career, what would have been your answer. How do you see yourself in the next five years. Yeah. Well, so it wasn't right when I started out but it's I certainly did answer it this way Dana. How do you see yourself in the next five years and I certainly said in an executive position. In the green room chatter right Julia said, and let this go over right and I said, fabulously I got the job. They saw my ambition they saw your ship track and my desire to, you know, to excel in my own way. What do you think we're seeing as the answers for this Dana, when we ask someone how do you see yourself in the next five years. What answers are we really looking for. So, I think that this is kind of a dummy question if you will sort of a generic version of how can we as an organization as an entity assist you with your overall career. Do you see being here as a way station to where you really want to get to which might be, you know, opening your own organization or nonprofit or do you see it as something where that this is like the type of mission you want to commit to for like the foreseeable foreseeable future in your career. So I think that you can ask this question in a lot of different ways I think people interviewing for jobs are expecting this type of question, and they will have come up with some sort of can answer. What I would suggest is encompassing this idea but acting it in your own style so and tailoring it to your organization and for the position. So again, if you're hiring for, you know, an entry level job as an assistant. I think the way that you frame this question might be different than somebody who's auditioning or interviewing for a high up executive role because the executive like it could be how do you see yourself in five years, I might be like retired in five years if you're talking about like an executive director, you know, so I think that you also have to kind of like the see how it makes and that might work for that organization to it might be a perfect fit for this person to lead them for the next five years and then move into retirement and they are grooming the next person, you know, so I think it's a great question. And it puts the onus on the interviewee to think about if they haven't thought about what are your goals with joining this organization are you just moving jobs to move jobs. Are you just trying to get a job to get a job right or have you really thought about the trajectory of your career and I think there's another option here is like asking these questions early on and saying to the person if you don't have an answer now. I'd love for you to think about it and send me a follow up email after we meet. Now that you've learned more about our organization and then seeing what they, instead of like under duress like what they answer when they're interviewing with you to have them give like some thought to it because they may not have. And so, and then just giving and like very quickly being like, you know what, if you don't have a specific answer. I actually understand that because who knows what tomorrow may bring in, you know, and like I was saying in the green room. I like to make decisions based on what's the information that's available right now so like for me to answer where I want to be in five years. The answer is, I don't know. Like, I don't know. It depends on what's going on in five years. So, I think that that's also a way to, you know, do it is have them plant the seed so that they can think about it in the context of your organization and then provide you with a written answer or maybe in a follow up conversation. So, I think you'll see more of the information that you're really trying to glean, which is for this job at this organization at this time, do their goals, fit in with ours or not. But we know that their skills do based on our, you know, first couple interviews but are your goals so if we have another person whose goals align more more closely, we may want to go with that person and that you wouldn't find out unless you kind of like allow them time to think about it. Dana, such great insight. Thank you. For those of you watching and listening, Dana Skirlock has joined us today. We turned up the heat in the hot seat. Dana serves as director of recruitment at Staffing Boutique. She's very generous with her email. You see it right here. Dana at StaffingBoutique.org. Her and Katie Warnick joined us.  So grateful to have your insight into this space, Dana, because I really feel that it is an area where many of us really aren't that experienced. You said 10% of our time goes to hiring. And so let's lean into the expertise that Staffing Boutique provides. Thank you, Dana, for providing that expertise. Thank you. Now, always wonderful to be with you guys. You know, it's a great conversation. It's something that we need to spend more time on with you because it's getting into the nuts and bolts of how we bring people in to our organizations and how we keep them. Again, I'm Julia Patrick, CEO of the American Nonprofit Academy. Been joined today by the nonprofit nerd herself, Jared, our ransom CEO of the Raven Group. Again, we have amazing partners and they include Bloomerang, American Nonprofit Academy, your part-time controller, nonprofit thought leader, Fundraising Academy at National University, Staffing Boutique where Dana joins us from, nonprofit nerd and nonprofit tech talk. These are the folks that join us day in and day out. So hopefully we can really move the needle in our work, get the right people with us, and really achieve our mission, vision and values. Dana, you always give me new things to think about. Thank you so much. Well, that is a great compliment. Thank you so much. It is always so much fun to talk with you and with both of you and connect with your audience, and it's just such great to bounce ideas off of you both. So thank you. Oh my gosh, it's been really, really great. Hey, everybody, as we like to end every episode of the nonprofit show, we want to leave you with this message, and that is to stay well so you can do well. We'll see you again back here tomorrow, everyone.


We're here for a friend, Blondel. Get it away. Yeah. Oh, no. I'm MGM, just about to go in and talk to you. We've got this beautiful challenge which will be used in the celebration of the Martian. Hey, Bobby. Bobby. Keep her up there, please. I know it, please. Mercy. We're ready. The shadows are the hospitality of the host. Thank you very much. If I did, it would be the first time they've given me that much time. I think of your hometown, sir. Well, I think it's wonderful. The only thing I'm happy about is that for whatever reason he did, he'd make a rig in less. I'd have a parade, or I wouldn't be here. No, it has been a most heartwarming. Have a toast in pictures, please. Thank you. I see. Well, we'll toast the part of the town and we haven't seen that. Some toast for you. Thank you very much. Oh, my God. We can't say. That's the lady, man. There she is. Come on. I don't even know where she is. She's calling me. Oh, there she is.  You're the first one. This is for you, sir. That's lovely. Mrs. Reagan gets a baby named after her, and you get a lounge named after you, Mr. President. Oh, my God. Fortune's a war. Perhaps this is God's way of reminding one thing you have that we didn't have in Tampico. We didn't have a Ronald Reagan lounge after the... the... so many Irish men and women from every walk of life played a role in creating the dream of America. One was Charles Hansen, Secretary of the Athletic Achievements of the Great Heavyweight Boxing Champion John L. Selder. All of them are part of the great legacy. In Irish identity flourished in the United States, Irish men and women found their heritage and be found in every walk of life. Secretary, one day, that his branch of the family spelled that name because they just raved it and spelled it raving. They were exceptionally lucky to have this chance to live.


Hi everyone, Joe for jaspyscasebreaks.com. Happy Wednesday. Look at that coming out to a 2019 another one of these 2019 2020 Panini eminent basketball some real nice stuff here. This is random hit break number sweet 16 and at the end If you bought a full spot, right which are I think I think nine people bought full spot. So thank you. There's there's another winner right there Congrats again, Matthew But if you bought a full spot the top two of the nine will get $500 of break credit each We'll do that randomizer at the very end of the of the video There's a good chance that I'll forget to do that. So if I do just look for the very next upload on your video Listed it'll it'll probably be the randomizer for that. I'll say randomizer the title. All right. Well without further ado Good luck to these folks Right there. There's the case right here eminence And let's see what we got. I can't believe we're about to do 16 cases of this ladies and gentlemen So thank you very much to everyone who got into The first case all the way through to this current case Scared money don't make money. So I appreciate people Being less scared. It's still a scary break, right? but the good news is is that the resale value of This eminence has been pretty strong on the secondary market. So I think that's why you see a lot of people Taking the risk time and time again Get into this great Well, there's styrofoam in here if you're sensitive to that you can turn on the volume It's actually unload this on There it is Here we go The eminence seal is pretty cool right there. You can see on the top camera All right Let's See what we got. All right, so As always, I'm gonna we're gonna do the tub. There's two trays right here We'll go left to right one two three and then four five and then same thing on the bottom one two three And then four five that'll be the order. I'm gonna try not to look Here's our first one pretty thick card here And it's gonna be a piece of fine fine silver Nice six out of ten silver autograph Jarrett Culver one in the middle is gonna be Shaq two out of five Shaquille O'Neal diamond. Wow. That's Miami Heat Edition All-star diamond signatures Pretty nice. All right. Good start. I'll be a train whistle for someone Next one here is Eight out of ten Dirk Nowitzki Nice shaved head dirt Nowitzki. He's pretty solid There's this you'll see you've seen these in flawless just letting you know that the diamonds are naturally mined Not lab grown on the top left side We've got one out of three patch and autograph John Stockton nice It's a great patch right there Love that love the eminence sticker right here, too Pretty cool stuff top right We have some more silver Three out of ten a Troy ounce of fine silver Tim Duncan. All right. So that was the first one. All right. Here's the Next three right here we have a dual autograph. Wow Anthony Davis Kevin Durant Five out of five that is nice in their team USA gear. It's pretty sweet All right. Next one here is is a Hachimura one out of three two-color patch and autograph It's a nice one for this up-and-coming player here on this side. We've got a piece of silver and autograph MVP silver auto Sir Charles Sun's edition four out of ten Troy ounce of fine silver and Charles Barclays autograph and on this side We've got a one-of-one to the answer Alan Iverson Nice, look how big that diamond is right there. There you go. All-star diamond signatures the answer What a great player. All right, and The last one here is Paul Pierce Finals MVP Diamond autograph Eight out of ten That was against my Lakers Still nice. All right, so there's that tray. Is there anything underneath here? I Don't think there ever is anything underneath here, but it would be Be a shame if there someone was like, yeah, we found something We've done like 16 of these and I didn't look under each one of those just in case Alright, thanks everybody. So what we're gonna do is we're gonna pause the video and when we come back We're gonna have all the hits typed in and then we'll do the randomizer and see what you end up with stick around We'll be right back All right, welcome back everybody. So as you can see we got the Hits typed in there's one two three four five six seven eight nine ten. All right All right, so once again to these folks here good luck, let's roll it. Let's randomize names and hits Lucky seven times three and a four seven times for each list one two three four five six and seventh and final time after seven we've got Sunny down to sunny Three and a four once again seven times for the hits here we go one two three four five six and Seventh and final time. We've got an out of three Hachimura down to the Jarrett Culver a lot a lot of excellent hits here all right, so Sunny with the Hachimura one out of three patch auto so out of fives and under get the world famous train whistle All aboard the big hit Express Sunny also has the answer one of one Alan Iverson all aboard Brian with the two out of five a lot of train whistles here two out of five Shaq Diamond an autograph Brian all aboard the big hit Express We've got when shun with the Charles Barkley for a 10 silver auto Sean gets the Dirk Nowitzki eight out of ten autograph and it's Matthew with the spot that he won Getting the ad KD dual autograph five out of five all aboard the big hit Express Orin you got the Tim Duncan three out of ten fine silver piece We got Orin with the John Stockton patch auto one out of three all aboard Matthew with the pulp here's eight out of ten diamond autograph and sunny with a piece of fine silver and Jarrett Culver's fine autograph six out of ten. Here's another quick look at everything here really nice break Awesome stuff. Love the diamond pieces the answer. We're talking about practice. We're talking about MVPs Talking about up-and-coming stars like Hachimura Current stars AD KD Legends like Tim Duncan and John Stockton's focus right there John Stockton Dirk Nowitzki Shaquille O'Neal another up-and-coming star Jared Culver So there you go. There you have it ladies and gentlemen. What an excellent break. That was one box random hit number 16 2019 2020 Eminence basketball We'll try to get some more and when we do get into the action on jazzy's case rates comm. I'm Joe I'll see you next time for the next one. Bye-bye


You're on we need to translate this into Japanese No one here in Japan understands that a bomb actually saved Japanese in American lives. Well great translated You know get get some of the Japanese objectivists to translate into Japanese and to and to put it out there, but look the morality of of Hiroshima is not about saving Japanese lives The morality of Hiroshima is about saving American lives the job of the American government is to defend American lives now. It's true that in doing so We also saved Probably millions of Japanese lives But that's just a that's just an added bonus It's not what makes it moral morality is not about counting different body counts It's about counting your body counts It's about winning by minimizing your own casualties 75 years ago 75 years ago the United States dropped the first atomic bomb in human history on the city of Hiroshima in Japan somewhere between 60 to 100,000 people Were dead almost instantaneously although some of much of that number the numbers are certain Some of that numbers probably assumes the deaths of people in the days weeks months afterwards from the radiation who did not die instantaneously a few days later the United States dropped a second and indeed the last nuclear bomb to be dropped on Nagasaki another Japanese city a few days after that the Japanese Officially surrendered With no conditions and complete unconditional surrender of the Japanese Which brought about the end of World War two now since that time The dropping of the nuclear bombs the dropping of the atomic bombs has been second-guest Every single year every single day Today one could argue it's not even second-guest anymore Today it is viewed as a atrocity as a war crime as a disaster as horrific as evil There are demands that America in a sense take a knee Apologize for the horror that it had brought the world on those two days With the dropping of the atomic bomb If you go through Twitter and you look at the different comments about The about the 75th anniversary almost all of them almost all of them Depicted as one of the most horrific events ever an event that we should be ashamed of an event that the United States should apologize for an event that we should Remember for its horror And in many of the tweets by the the survive some of the survivors They're getting pretty old now, and they're not going to be survivors soon But people who has children lived through it and are telling stories about it and reminiscing about it. So You know if you look at Hiroshima, I mean everywhere look by the way the the The numbers keep changing, you know, it's it's hard to tell the exact numbers But some way is between 60 to 100,000 Total death probably closer to 100,000 if you count the people who died from the fallout in the months following the the attack So the question is Was this justified Was the attack of an Hiroshima was the topic of the nuclear war bombs the right thing to do should we Use this day as a day of remembrance of the Japanese deaths Or should we use this at the day of amendments to remember the moral courage I? Even say the heroism of an American president Harry Truman who made the decision to drop those bombs Was it the right thing to do? Was it the wrong thing to do? Was it the moral thing to do? Was it the militarily right thing to do or? wasn't it now as People encourage us to use this day to remember the hundreds of thousands of Japanese killed In Hiroshima Let me remind you of something else That on the Pacific World War two in a sense of the Pacific War Didn't begin with the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, but began in 1931 when Japan Occupied Manchuria, which is in northeast China and then attacked China With an attempt to conquer it entirely 1941 of course Japan invaded Thailand Malaysia bomb the US naval base in Pearl Harbor Which is in Hawaii for those who are not sure and of course Korea had been under Japanese occupation since 1910 Not to mention the Philippines, Hong Kong, Singapore, Burma all to be occupied by the Japanese Now let me just give credit here Whoops, why don't I have his name here to see article doesn't have a name. That's not good All right, I'll get his name in a minute. I'm really I'm using part of my reference here I've got a number of references part of my reference is an article that a an objective is from Europe Send me his name is Alex Which was a research project. He did a few years ago on the dropping of Hiroshima Nagasaki Alex Libok Like Bovici who I think is Romanian Yes, and it was public essay was published in Romanian. I got a translated version in English But Japan by this point 1945 Had been an imperialist powers in 1910 had occupied all those countries and had been savage and brutal in its occupation I Mean the number of people that it had slaughtered in China the rape and pillage that was committed the massacres of civilians are Hard to imagine in the 21st century by 1945 It's estimated there were six million military casualties as a result of the Pacific War of which two million were Japanese two million Japanese soldiers that died During the Pacific War that the Japanese initiated that the Japanese launched 25 million civilians, let me say that again 25 million civilians had been killed Of which one million were Japanese so let's be clear the Japanese killed 24 million civilians all over Asia in China Manchuria Korea Philippines Malaysia Thailand 24 million people and we're not talking about the wounded the maimed Which is usually three to four times those numbers So somewhere around a hundred million people a hundred million people Were maimed injured by the Japanese from 1931 to 1945 The Japanese had initiated violence throughout Asia throughout the Pacific and It launched a brutal attack Against the United States of America in Pearl Harbor. They had declared war on the United States and Tens of thousands of American servicemen had already died He was she my Nagasaki ended that nightmare He was she my Nagasaki ended the nightmare that it resulted in 25 or 31 if you had the soldiers 31 million people dying and maybe a hundred hundred and twenty million people being maimed Now It's horrific to think of 80 a hundred thousand people dying in a day But if we're gonna remember anything we should be remembering the victims of Japanese imperialism we should be remember the victims of Japanese barbarism of Japanese fascism They're the ones who should be remembered It is Japan who began the war It is Japan that sought to conquer the entire Pacific It is Japan that slaughtered people left and right It is Japan That is morally Responsible for every person who died during that war so Do I mourn the people who died and he was she my Nagasaki not really Not really their death is a consequence of their own political leaders efforts To conquer the Pacific Efforts that led to the destruction and death on a massive scale unprecedented scale Scale only matched by the Germans in Europe in terms of numbers of human beings numbers that the sheer quantity of life lost So no, I think it's their victims who should be remembered But you say many of the people in here is human Nagasaki were innocent Sure, of course, they were suddenly the children were But the adults with adults planning to overthrow their own government to stop the horror that they were inflicting on the world With adults sabotaging their own Production as to starve the war machine so that they would stop Slaughtering people all over the world No I'm sorry But adults in any country are morally responsible for the actions of their government It's why I think politics is important It's because whether you like politics or not They impact your life and they speak for you and they act on your behalf and they represent you And if they do something really really bad You suffer the consequences The decisions made by politicians always fold Fallen the shoulders of the population. That's why it's the populations responsibility to fight bad decisions to object to bad decisions And to replace bad politicians to penalize them when their mistakes are bad. This is always the case Politicians don't pay the price you pay the price So no the real horror of World War two is what the Germans and Japanese did in the world The real horror of World War two is what fascism brought to the world Not he was human a gisaki that actually ended the nightmare that actually stopped at all And I know still asked do you view Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor is unprovoked the US was aiding their enemy from their perspective It's cutting off a supplier I mean, this is a You know fascinating question. I'm Rand. I'm Rand believed I think that it was provoked in the sense that the United States stop providing the Japanese with steel and thus Was in a sense helping Japanese Japanese enemies or starving the Japanese from the raw material They needed in order to continue to engage in their war and she believed that FDR probably knew an attack was coming in Pearl Harbor But ignore the warnings because he wanted it to happen because it was the way for him to get into the war And he wanted to go into the war He wanted to get into the war particularly when it came to Europe He wanted to go fight Germany and the American public didn't want that they this was a period of American what was called isolationism, but the idea was we wouldn't interfere in other people's wars, but So he provoked the Japanese in order to attack Pearl Harbor So we could use that as an excuse to go to war with the Japanese and the Germans primarily the Germans So first I don't know that that's true. It certainly could be true and it certainly doesn't I don't think that's a crazy idea But it doesn't change the fact it does not change the fact the Japan initiated war with the United States Stopping trade boycotting Japan is not an act of war now It is an act of determining that the other country is an enemy of yours So I can understand why the Japanese were offended, right? But in it in and of itself It is not the equivalent of bombing killing Mamie now notice What's interesting here? A lot of people say You know we provoke the Japanese to attack us by selling steel to them By not selling still to them and at the same time they say we should boycott China We should raise tariffs on China. We should not sell stuff to China. Oh We should not buy stuff from China. You can't have it both ways Now what's interesting to me is that I ran suggest that maybe it was okay to sell Steel to Japan when Japan was a real threat to the United States and engaging in warfare and mass massacres and destruction all over Asia And that was okay, then I suspect she would say it's okay to trade with China today But the point she was it doesn't matter Japan initiated war with China Japan occupied Korea Japan Attacked Pearl Harbor, but Japan started a war And therefore Japan air all the blood spilt in that war every last Drop of blood spilt in that war Is on Japan It's on their leaders, but it's also on their people the people Who agreed to fight for those leaders the people who agreed to work for those leaders the people who agreed to continue to function in a so-called Civilized society for those leaders It's their fault And if they had to die to end it So be it now.  It was there was almost nothing there.  It's the killing that matters, right? All right, so some people said say You know by that point Japan had already lost the war. They weren't gonna win the war. So why bother? Why do this, you know, you could have just kept on going and you would have defeated them well At what cost? How many hundreds of thousands how many hundreds of thousands of American kids would have died Trying to occupy Fight on the shores of Japan. I mean, it's hard to imagine Now you could add in the Japanese casualties. You could add in The Japanese civilians that would have died if the United States had fought on the beaches of Japan You could easily argue and this is not an exaggeration That over a million people would have died if the United States had actually invaded Japan in a conventional Inconventional attack So what is better to use a nuke? and the war by killing 140,000 people let's say or Invade the country and land up having millions of people dead It's just just a math doesn't even add up. Not that I think the math matters Because it's not about math. It's about principle And that principle is in my view and I've written about this you can find it in my article about just war theory The principle is the United States government in fighting a war of self-defense a war. It didn't start It's so responsibility so responsibility is To protect the lives of Americans and it should fight a war to win it fast cheap and With as few American casualties as possible And if that means using a nuke And so be it And so be it and indeed that's what happened in Japan. We won that war and as I'll get to we also won the peace Where all those Japanese people hating us Blowing themselves up to kill Americans as revenge Why didn't that happen? Hmm Just to give you an illustration of The kind of casualties that would have been involved in a few weeks before he was shima An island of e ojima that was defended by 21,000 Japanese The United States suffered seven thousand dead 20,000 wounded, you know almost all the Japanese died Now to defend Japan You would be facing at least two million Japanese soldiers huge quantities huge quantities of Civilians they would have all died the Japanese soldiers, you know a significant number the two million dollars It's just it's just ridiculous the whole thing is just ridiculous The whole way of approaching this is ridiculous If you can win a war fast you win a war fast if you can win a war by Killing their population in order to save your troops You kill their population you kill their population All right Jennifer asked do you think the relative peace the world has had since was the result of dropping the bomb? Yes, I do I Mean one of the reasons Japan has become Peaceful and has a fantastic constitution and as relative free markets is Because of the we dropped the bombs and Then once the war the world saw what bombs could do It was obvious that you don't want to take on the United States You didn't want to risk having bombs dropped on you So I think that kept at Bay the Russians It makes the Chinese thinks twice about anything they might do So any Country is not going to go to war with the United States. I mean the wars that the United States has engaged when Since World War two have been wars that it chose to engage in by sending troops far away Not wars that it had to fight not wars of self-defense was that it got involved in for no reason Korea Vietnam even I would argue The first Gulf War and then when it did one, you know fight wars It is fought weekly pathetically lost Not used nukes and he'd not used the might of the American military force at all and as a consequence What has happened as a consequence the United States have lost those wars and as a consequence the the world has become In many respects less safe not more safe Because people don't fear the United States anymore They worry about the United States anymore. So invading Japan Was really not an option. Some people say oh, but the Russians had just entered the Pacific frontier And the Russians would have taken them out really The Russians had just lost. I don't know 20 million people in Europe The Military was completely depleted The only reason the Russians had a military was because it was supplied by the Americans Imagine if the Russians indeed had sent in troops and occupied Japan. First of all without any question Many more and more Japanese would have died than died and he was human a gisaki But secondly Japan would have been communist. Is that a good outcome? You know, I'm gonna hire a communist to fight your battles It's bad enough in my view that we did that in Europe that we allowed the Russians to fight our war That we supported the Russians that we promoted Stalin and handed All of Eastern Europe to him. So no The idea that Russia was gonna do it would be bizarre There's a claim that we shouldn't have dropped the second bomb because by the first They were about to surrender There's actually very thin evidence about this They were stood the Japanese were still debating it But both and while they were significant voices in Japan Supporting surrender the Japanese government itself was not unanimous after Hiroshima While the civilians wanted to surrender the military did not and the emperor refused Only after they saw it a second time only they after they saw the Americans willingness to continue Even though they didn't know that we had no more bombs I think there were only three bombs the test bomb that we did in in Where was it in New Mexico and the two bombs and he was human a gisaki. They didn't know there were no more But they didn't take the risk They didn't take the risk It's only after the second ball bomb they completely convinced the Japanese that they had no chance No chance what so if I remember the thing the effect of these nukes Was not so much Just to defeat the Japanese It was to shock them into defeat. It was to shock them into submission It was to shock them onto their knees and Being on their knees is really really crucial for the peace that came afterwards. We'll get to that in a minute You know people argue. Oh, we could have had peace talks Peace talks would have just led to a ceasefire Which would have led to a rise in Japanese imperialism five years later because they would have thought we never lost the war We could still win we can still do it Which is what happened by the way to Germany after World War one. It wasn't thoroughly smashed It wasn't thoroughly defeated. It wasn't crushed and brought to their knees. So what happened? They waited for the opportunity to launch a second war which is World War two if we'd crushed them in World War one Not clear. There would have been a World War two or if America had never entered World War one and we'd let it go on forever Maybe they never would have been a World War two Some people talk about maybe the United States should have less stringent terms but again What led to the peace was the fact that the United States Demanded and accepted and received unconditional surrender. So no in my view Every year An anniversary of Hiroshima The Japanese government should send a letter to the United States people thanking us for dropping that bomb It is that bomb not only that ended the war for the Japanese as well as for us But that created modern Japan that brought about The peace and stability and prosperity and wealth the Japanese society has created since then because What happened after the surrender? Well, what happened was that The Japanese gave up They gave up all pretense They gave up the idea that they would rule Asia They gave up the sense of racial cultural superiority They gave up on those aspects of the culture and what did they embrace? They embraced what to a logic center at some extent at least what the Americans left them with so one of the interesting things about the American occupation of Japan is That as part of the occupation a constitution was written a new constitution that established the modern Japanese country modern Japanese state and Who wrote that constitution? Well, not the Japanese McCarthy had no patience for the Japanese Constitution he had no patience for a Resurrection of the old Japanese system So general MacArthur and one of his assistants sat down and they wrote the Japanese constitution and You know, one of the one of the things that they did was that they ultimately Didn't prosecute the emperor which they were planning to do and in exchange the emperor endorsed the constitution and This is a constitution that for example in the Constitution it says That all individuals has an illegal way to life liberty in the pursuit of happiness in their constitution They created a form of government. They created a system of government They would become a constitutional government that has led to incredible prosperity and peace in Asia particularly in Japan so The Japanese are far far better off If having ended the end of the war quickly and quickly 1945 is late having not had to fight on Japanese soil for ending it with a shock to the system so that they were open to Accepting a constitution the MacArthur basically Forced on them and the Japanese don't hate us Because the realization that the Japanese came to was that they were wrong They were wrong They'd engage in activities or unjustified They shouldn't have launched a war that they shouldn't have done what they did They swore never to do it again and that kind of educational benefit if you will Sometimes you need a shock to the system to get that Sometimes you need not sometimes always you need to thoroughly defeat your enemies if you're gonna if you're gonna establish that All right, so What are kind of the lessons for today? Well the lessons for today. I mean I've written about extensively. I encourage you to read Winning non-winnable war edited by Lanjano where I have three essays and he knows this is articulate the case for fighting the war against Islamism which was post 9 11, which was the war that America needed to fight Properly, which means brutally, which means To crush the enemy To bring them to their knees The only way Islam will go away is if it is defeated Thoroughly unequivocally. It's only when they know they cannot win Well, they change their ways and we could do that easily and quickly and thoroughly And we still might have to because Islamism is not gone Iran is still there his Balai is still there Iraq and Syria are still areas in which tourists Jihadis are being trained sponsored supported We will have to fight another day but the only way The only way to fight Is to win and To win so thoroughly That the enemy has to question their beliefs. That's what's happened in Japan. That's what needs to happen in the Middle East and eat It's the only way You could end the threat of Islamism and for those of you and I know there are many of you who are skeptical Oh, Islam is always gonna be evil. Islam is always gonna center us You know, you can't defeat them over there.  It wasn't even that brutal. It wasn't even that systematic And yet look people don't strap on bombs Don't commit suicide not in large numbers for losing cause Make Islamism a losing cause Just like the no Japanese suicide bombers today There'll be no Islamic suicide bombers if you make the cause of losing one and if they know With confidence that you will make their cause a losing cause What we need today what I called a new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think Meaning any man or woman who knows that men's life must be guided by reason By the intellect not by feelings wishes women's or mystic revelations Any man or woman who values his life and who does not get want to give in to today's of the spare cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the Collectivist Before we go on reminder, please like the show. We've got a hundred and sixty three live listeners right now 30 likes That should be at least a hundred. I figured at least a hundred of you actually like the show Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it But but at least the people who like it, you know, I want to see I want to see a thumbs up There you go start liking it. I want to see that go to a hundred It all it takes is a click of a click of a thing whether you're looking at this And and you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego It's an issue of the algorithm the more you like something the more the algorithm likes it So, you know, and if you don't like the show give it a thumbs down Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes But if you like it, don't just sit there help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share and and You can support the show at your own book show Dot-com slash support on patreon or subscribe star or locals And and show you support for all for for the work for the value. Hopefully you're receiving from this and And of course, don't forget if you're not a subscriber Even if you even if you just come here to troll or even if you hear like Matthew to defend Marx Then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up You'll know what shows are on when they're on you'll get notified, right? So Yes, like share subscribe Support like share subscribe support. There you go easy. Do one know all of those please