What's good Josh your boy Ross back again with another video. So we got another one from wrestling. I mean triple H and AEW WWE cancelling big return Shane McMahon winning saying and other wrestling news. I'm interested about this Some of you guys have already sent me this video I wanted me to check this out only because there are some reports I guess Tony Khan released a tweet saying someone will be making their debut this Wednesday on AEW Dynamite and I'm gonna try to live stream that for you guys this week I wasn't able to do it last Wednesday to see the MJF CM Punk match live on stream with you guys Only because me and Dub we were setting up our gaming PCs at the studio I did check out that match off camera and I did enjoy it. So I'm gonna try to stream this week I should be able to I'm gonna try to clear my schedule so we can see who's Supposedly returning or making their debut in AEW and some people are saying triple H I don't know about that. Let's get into this one. This should be an interesting one appreciate all of the support Let's do this thing what it's going on guys It is WrestleMania here backwards some more news join us now as we look at the wildest news stories and rumors You need to know including triple H in AEW. Yeah, that's a shame. That's a world rumble plans revealed Randy Orton's direct ordered a Shane McMahon during the rumble. I fired superstars return cancelled Bray Wyatt resurfaces and much more be sure to subscribe and hit that notification bell for daily wrestling videos And follow us on Facebook's exclusive list now. Let's see the intro and get straight into our first story First story looks at triple H in AEW AEW President Tony Khan has been hyping a surprise debut for the next week's edition of AEW Dynamite Khan claims that a mystery wrestler will walk through the forbidden door and make the AEW debut According to Reddit user King Badford. This mystery could be triple H The Reddit user's justification for this is mainly down to how much Khan is hyping the debut and the fact that he's mentioned How the debut could be from any wrestling company in the world in one of Khan's tweets He states even if it's someone from a company that's open for business This is a quote that triple H is used in a number of high-profile interviews Could you imagine triple H entering the forbidden door and being an AEW? Worlds would be shattered. Yeah, I can't see it. I just I think there's no way I grant it What they've done to triple H is NXT what he built and you know how he you know Cultivated that brand and how they pretty much viewers a triple H guy You're pretty much out to do is only a handful that are left in NXT like that How they kind of pushed them to the side you would think so but I just I just don't see it after all these years After them doing what they've been doing with the Wednesday Night Wars if you remember that like I Just don't see it. I Cannot see triple H in AEW only because he may not be doing Like active role behind scenes in NXT, but I Come on, bro. He's married to Stephanie McMahon. I just I wouldn't I could never see that Could it happen? Maybe but it's a small chance if that was to happen that would shake up everything Granted, I don't think he would be an on-screen presence either if you think about it He would be like a behind-the-scenes type of guy. There's he's not about to be wrestling So that's another reason why I don't think it's him for them to hype up a on-screen like a well behind-the-screen Presence someone that's gonna manage the talent or whatever. I just I just don't see it. I don't see it I think that's just kind of a Crazy rumor that they put out there, but hey man, you never know. I just don't see it Next up insane Shane McMahon while rumble plans revealed Oh boy now next story looks at Shane McMahon and the crazy plans that Shane tried to implement last Sunday at the rumble This week's news has been dominated by Shane as fans have learned that Shane was extremely problematic backstage at the pay-per-view He was trying to book himself to look as strong as possible later in the week It was revealed that Shane had been quietly let go from WWB Which was clear evidence that Shane's conduct at the rumble was completely out of line But according to a brand-new report published by Fightful Select Shane actually wanted to enter the rumble match at entrant number one This would see Shane into the match at a prominent position and virtually dominate the airtime right up until his elimination at the end of the match No, what in the hell was Shane thinking? He wanted to enter in potentially at number one and Last all the way to the end No No, that's no Yeah, Shane was gonna pull an iron man The report added several sources have indicated that Shane McMahon specifically wanted to go in a spot That would highlight him with one even mentioning that he pitched the number one spot However, we're told that Vince McMahon personally came along as he said that he'd been making changes to the match And wouldn't be doing much of what Shane laid out Instead of following Shane's booking ideas WWB opted to place AJ Styles in the number one position Shane however would still receive a decent showing in the rumble by eliminating Kevin Owens and making it to the final four Next up around here was direct ordered a Shane McMahon Speaking of the controversial Shane McMahon another report published by Fightful Select states that Shane was involved in a bizarre Interaction with Randy Orton backstage at the rumble the report states that Shane was supposed to enter the match at number 29 And Orton was supposed to enter at number 28 However, Shane's music played at spot 28 instead of Orton's It's like to a confusing interaction where Shane would react hastily Before wouldn't demanded Shane that he wasn't gonna enter the match using Shane's own theme song This force Shane to enter the match earlier than expected Looks like this year's rumble was handled rather poorly by WWE creative and production There was clear confusion on the part of talent and the supports the reports from earlier in the week that the morale Was extremely low backstage following the pay-per-view Next up. Yeah, man You can tell a lot of this was just kind of last minute last minute booking it just This is why you you take your time to book your shows Especially a big show like the Royal rumble you take your time to really figure out who's gonna be where who's gonna win it They should have known who they who was gonna win and reports are saying that they were they were really going with Matt Riddle winning, but then they just change it And it's like yo No, man, I get it. They're trying to get Roman to to face Brock Lesnar at WrestleMania this year. There's ways to do it without once again I'm gonna stand by what I say. There's ways to do it without having Brock Lesnar win the Royal rumble He could have had Matt Riddle win it. It would have been a great story to tell But once again WWE they they go for the you know what someone's coming let's let's get this person to come back and change our plans and Ultimately it kind of messes up with people who've been there day in day out all Year If it derails their push because oh, well, we got to go with this match because this is gonna be the money-making match And it may bring in some money But there's ways to make it work where everyone could benefit from it By fire WWE superstars cancel return Now it was reported a number of weeks ago that WWE Hall of Famicare angle was set for a return to WWE Angle was gonna be involved in a three-week long storyline But how this storyline would have played out hasn't been revealed Fans had hoped that he would see angle return for one more match after angles rather look last to retirement match about WrestleMania 35 sadly it looked like this planned return has been cancelled by WWE Angle revealed that WWE have decided to scrap the plans that would see him return to the company Discussing the next return on his podcast angle revealed we went to the Rumble and I also did some documentary interviews a day before And a photo op with the fans, but I want to make it clear I'm not signed with the WWE they were gonna sign me anyway It was gonna be a three-week program and got cancelled and no doubt those who are looking forward to seeing angle return will be very Disappointed, but hopefully WWE consider utilizing angle for a future storyline Would you guys like to see angle make another return to WWE to be honest, which you know only because I granted his last run Sucked the way it ended, but no, I I Get it. He wants to go out on a better term in WWE and I think that's that's all fair I mean the Undertaker did it as well. So if they could do it correctly Then yes, but outside of that If they don't have anything really creative to look for him, he might as well just stay gone I love me some Kurt Angle, but at the end of the day It's just better not to taint his legacy the end of his legacy Even more by putting them in a BS storyline and just have him still, you know, it don't work You know I'm saying I'd rather they just leave it where it is now Let us know in the comments down below next up. Mickey James's WWE return had set conditions A fans were shocked when it was revealed that current impact wrestling Champion Mickey James would enter this year's 2022 women's Royal Rumble According to will Washington from the Grapp City podcast. Mickey's return had set conditions For instance, the WWE commentators were not allowed to set impact wrestling They had to refer to the company as impact and impact only Additionally, WWE social media team wasn't permitted a tag impact wrestling on social media Although Mickey showing up at the Rumble was beneficial to both Mickey and impact wrestling It's clear from these conditions that WWE wanted to prevent impact from receiving the recognition it deserved The involvement of Mickey in the Rumble simply comes down to WWE needing a recognizable face in the match Mickey was the perfect superstar for this impact shared the appearance across social media as well as airing footage on their latest episode of impact So it seems like they were rather happy with whatever promotion they received Next up. That's that's pretty cool That is that is dope of Mickey James. Like yo, if you want me to come back You gotta announce the brand that I'm with you guys call the brand correctly on commentary You got a tag them on social media. That's what's up They needed her she wasn't trying to be in a rumble. It's just because they don't have anyone else or they do not They didn't put anyone else. I don't think they really put anyone from NXT in the women's Royal Rumble I could be wrong correct me if I'm wrong, but they they really didn't That's on them. That's that's on WWE. It's their fault. The women's division is where it is now Mickey slams the Royal Rumble booking one of the biggest criticisms of the women's Royal Rumble match was that Melina was eliminated in just one Minute. Yeah, I mean I entered the match at number two and she received one of the biggest ovations of the entire pay-per-view Mm-hmm a brief stint in the rumble didn't just get slammed by fans They also received criticism from impact wrestling knockouts champion Mickey James During an appearance on the GAW podcast Mickey revealed I didn't love that at all.  It was good to see her back She had a minute in WWE for over a decade So I think that was amazing to see her get teared up and it was awesome I didn't love the whole set got eliminated first No, I didn't love that because obviously I wanted to be able to get in with her and tangle it up That would be cool these moments with some of the other girls, you know I know it was special for Sasha and I know Sasha I know it was special for Sasha to be there with her. I hopefully WWE brings back Melina for another match as yeah, bro That was kind of weird. You bring it out just for her to get eliminated so quickly I was like, yo, they could have let her last a little bit longer than we people hadn't seen her in Long time So just to see that and she getting emotional within the match She hadn't been there in so long. It's like they could have did better Especially due to the positive response to her brief rumble appearance Which Charlotte Flair said to defend the Smackdown women's title against Ronda Rousey at WrestleMania Perhaps WWE could book Melina vs. Sasha Banks any special dream match This would be there's something that would no doubt lighten up the seemingly average WrestleMania 38 match card Next up Bray Wyatt resurfaces Or or and shout out to JD from NY. He had a pretty good. I pretty good scenario If you if you know anything about the wrestling community, you know about JD and some of you guys may like them Some of you guys may not like them, but I will say this. He did come up with something pretty cool having shot Sasha Banks be input into the put into the the match between Charlotte and Ronda Rousey I think that would make it better a triple threat match since Charlotte did kind of announce saying yo, I sent over a contract to you Sasha So we can get this match going at WrestleMania. So maybe they can go with that storyline Like she got the contract. She already signed it. So but now, you know, Ronda's in the match I think that triple threat will be a okay because I I'm just I'm honest with be honest with you guys Ronda versus Charlotte do I don't really care. I don't I honestly do not care about that match as much But you add Sasha into the mix I think it adds a lot more spice to it And I think people will be more interested because it's like damn who You know, it makes it less predictable because we know We know Charlotte's not winning, but you add Sasha in there Maybe they could pull a swerve. Who knows? I it would be interesting to see what they do there. So shout out to JD Uh, he definitely did come up with that pretty cool idea Ever since Bray Wyatt's shocking release in the summer of last year Bray has been relatively quiet when it comes to public appearances We know that Bray is set to feature in an upcoming horror movie, but it's still unknown when or even if Bray will return to in-ring action This weekend Bray resurfaced on the former intercontinental champion John Morrison's instagram page As Bray alongside Morrison were attending a wedding and fans were quick to point out how awesome Bray looks He looks healthy and most importantly happy When do you think Bray will return? Let us know in the comments down below And finally Keith Lee and Mia Yim get married And it's good to see that he's happy and healthy. That's how it should be An australian today takes a look at some wonderful news for the former WWE stars Keith Lee and Mia Yim Tegan Ock shared an image of the couple on instagram yesterday and fans were quick to share their well wishes towards the duo We here at WrestleMania wish Lee and Yim all the best in the next chapter But they have it for sure man. I talked about it in a previous video Glad that they they finally tied the night wish them nothing but future Greatness and success and whatever they do together, man, but this was an interesting video I'm gonna be honest with you. I still don't see triple agent AEW I just think that's a huge leap and I don't think they would announce I mean, I could see them announcing something like that Maybe but he would be a backstage presence. If anything, I don't see him having any more matches like that anytime soon And I don't think he should I think he should probably just chill on the matches personally Not to say that he can't have good ones, but I just I just think he should chill on it. Definitely personally But Other than that man, I just don't see it happening. I do not see triple h in AEW But comment down below. Let me know. Who do you guys think will return will make their debut in AEW this week, man Appreciate all the love and support man. Road to sandy k appreciate y'all can give me see y'all For the next one. Peace


ఱార్ని,సినిమాయంరీనిదా పమిస్జ్నివార్న బిడిర్రాఙ కాడ్లంప్తౚంటె. మాడివానీటాటాయంతె. In the years 1975, isbremwal won a football match against Mohan Bagal in the IFC in final and the score was 5m. Most probably after that I was fully associated with Bremwal. Thank you so much for joining us on a brand new episode of 420gms. We come to you on the first of August. Now what happened on the first of August? Well on the first of August 100 years back. Yes exactly 100 years back. One of indian football's biggest ever clubs that continues to serve indian football and the biggest clubs that's been around for these 100 years. East Bengal came into existence. Now whatever might be happening in current state scenario let it go. Because current state scenario is not the story of the last 100 years. But the 100 years before that to be in existence and to keep indian football alive East Bengal has played a massive part in that. So today on 420gms we bring you a very special chat on the red and golds of Kolkata where we are going to be discussing the red and golds in three parts. One is pre-partition, one is post-partition and one is present-day scenario. And to talk about the pre-partition part we are of course joined by the one and only Jedhi Pasu and also by football historian and statistician joining us from Kolkata Mr. Gautam Roy. Sir thank you so much for joining us. Let's get the chat going. So let's start with the existence part. How did the existence of East Bengal come about? And then of course we'll move ahead. Those days the Britishers had been training the indian footballers even from the end of the 19th century to keep them away from being from the atleast terrorists or something. And they had encouraged these players to form a number of clubs. One such club, Mohan Bagan was established in 1889 won the IFA shield in 1911 which had sent the entire youth in a big frenzy and youth bureau. Mohan Bagan had defeated the British team in the final 2-1 if I remember and that sent a big stimulus for the youth to become joint football. Now in United Bengal in those days Dhaka and the other places which is presently Bangladesh there were a lot of youngsters who were studying there and playing football locally also. But for higher studies they all shifted to Calcutta and some of these players even came back but there was no any structured league in Dhaka structured football setup so all these people came down to Calcutta and played in different clubs but soon they realized that there was some sort of a biasness towards these people because for two or three reasons they spoke in a different language the dialect was different and secondly they thought that they were coming they were coming just to take their places and something like that so there was a social bias against them by the present people of West Bengal in those days particularly and who all own these clubs now in one of these clubs called Jorabha Gan he was president because of his evil and industrialist he came from West Bengal he brought in two players who had come down and were working in some colleges a PT teacher or something like that one of them was the other one was playing in some club one was Shorilesh Bose and the other one was Naushashen but he forced them to join East Bengal and join this Jorabha Gan club but during the whole season they were neglected many a time they were benched then came the great matin called Kuchbihar Kapi you see remember in those days in the IFA League the first division league of the shield only two Indian teams could be permitted to play in those days when Mohanma Gan and Aryanth had just got in I think four or five years back in 1915 to be 14 to be precise so Mohanma Gan was playing Jorabha Gan and all these Indian clubs Jorabha Gan, Pumatuli Town etc were waiting all their appetite in playing all these two tournaments one was called Traits Kap the other one was called Kuchbihar Kap in the semifinal of the Kuchbihar Kap Mohanma Gan was due to play Jorabha Gan that day particularly when the team line up was being finalized the team and the Jorabha Gan authorities I don't know whether they were put then had dropped both these players Naushashen and Shorilesh Bose Bangal they came in from Dhaka for higher studies and these were two of these Dhaka is Bangal Naushashen came from Dhaka Shorilesh Bose came from Kauritpur when they were dropped they were very disappointed and the next day it was they went to the vice president Mr. Shorilesh Bose in his house in Jorabha Gan in fact the house is still there and told him that on your advice we had come to this club but the whole season we have been neglected we have not been allowed to play and we cannot go on like this Mr. Choudhury immediately caught on their viewpoint and said okay now we will get an identity we will form a club of our own and it will be named Hispengal Club so that was the first appearances it was on Sunday first August and they decided so Mr. Mr. Choudhury took the role he was assisted by a gentleman called his friend since he was an industrialist who was a barrister who was a lawyer called Torik Bhushan Roy he incidentally belonged to the Dhaka Bhagakul family which later on produced two Indian test predictors Pankaj Roy and Ambar Roy the gentleman was the uncle of Pankaj Roy they got together and it was in his house just opposite the Komathruli Park in Calcutta they had the first meeting in which Professor Sharada Ranjan Roy who is to be the uncle of this famous Sratjit Roy the current director he, Maharaja Phantosh and even Deswundu Chitranjandar but Chitranjandar personally did not come he sent his brother to join the meeting and the club was formed and it was called Spengal after forming the club you see what happened was the president Choudhury said for identity we will have to pick on some jerseys so he took one of the players now a chap called Aurobindo Ghosh now who is this Aurobindo Ghosh Aurobindo Ghosh would also join his elder brother was Obilaj Ghosh of Mohan Bagan who had scored the winning goal in 1911 but later on when Obilaj Ghosh wanted to become the football secretary after his retirement Mohan Bagan just threw him away that also antagonised because he hailed from his Bengal also in fact in 1911 just one thing I wanted to ask you now Jadeep sir I will just come to you in a bit sir first thing since this club A was formed on the basis of us of a lot of angst that of course people are not accepting us for who we are in the club A and B you are naming the club East Bengal which means there is a direct connection to Dhaka which is in Bangladesh at the time was there a lot of resistance then to the forming of this club not from the people forming it but from the entire fraternity at the time no I think this part which has been researched not only in sports even in other fields they felt some sort of some sort of hindrances to these East Bengal people getting established in other fields also in education maybe in others and maybe in work because I told you the main reason was these people's dialect among themselves speak in a particular dialect which was not very common those days now of course it is years which is called something called Bangal dialect and this caused a number of big industrialist also in those days like Maharaja Santosh and this gentleman Professor Sharada Ranjendra who is principal of Vidyasagar college and even there is one to see that to come and support this club and give this particular identity and all the players who came from East Bengal would have a definite inclination to join this particular club so that was how it was formed now two things happened the credit goes to Mr. Choudhury and Mr. Todit Bhushan Roy so East Bengal was formed in 1920 sometime in August their league was already over by that time league and shield was over and they played a tournament a seven-site tournament in North Calcutta called Herpilis Cup in which even famous Goshto Palu was also held from East Bengal he played he played one match only of course and after when these things went away both these gentlemen realized that since they had formed the club on the basis of some sort of an emotion coming from people if they don't get into a very structured organization like joining the league or joining the other organized tournaments that would be very difficult to retain the players who will again go away to other clubs East Bengal was a baby club in those days they had to get into the second division of IFL league and they did it in 1921 and these two gentlemen should be congratulated because they very poorly found out the very sreptitiously found out that a club called Taj Haat Club who held from a certain part of Calcutta who was aiming to withdraw the club due to financial reasons due to financial reasons so they got hold of this gentlemen got a letter from him to say that he would resign and they got a letter written to IFL that they would join they jumped the queue in a way because there was not of other clubs like in those days like Kumar Trulish who had not joined the second division so these two people went and got to the IFL secretary and medley caught them and when they had the meeting they gave both the letters together Taj Haat withdrawing and East Bengal joining this was one very big achievement so East Bengal could retain their players and join the second division next year 100 years back when this club formed let's just admit to it that tradition has continued because even today you can jump the queue and join a top division something like what East Bengal did and in some way or the other if I may be jumping the gun but in some way or the other and people might not like me for saying this East Bengal forming Mohan Bagan has played a part in it winning that 1911 you suppose I am right in saying that see Mohan Bagan's 1911 Mohan Bagan's 1911 victory had played a huge part in entire Indian football not only in forming of East Bengal see before 1911 1914 Indian teams were not allowed in that IFL league but it only started after Mohan Bagan as Lotonda just said in 1915 Mohan Bagan and Adrian's were taken and teams were taken in the second division in the later years also East Bengal also joined the show so Mohan Bagan's 1911 victory not only played a part in East Bengal's forming I think it played a huge part in making what Indian football is today that includes East Bengal so I would say see East Bengal what East Bengal is today used not was in 1920 or certainly not as I can say and East Bengal were never Mohan Bagan's main rival in the first 20 years of their existence also Mohan Bagan's main rivals were people used to talk about Mohan Bagan vs Calcutta Mohan Bagan vs Jala or rather Mohan Bagan vs Mahan sporting but East Bengal came much later I would say it came in the late 30s and early 40s before that Mohan Bagan's prime rival was not East Bengal but the British clubs so then Gautam sir what were the first 10 years like say you've been formed in 1920 1930 how far I mean did it take them time to establish themselves as a good team a top team in Calcutta you see by the very name East Bengal it attracted a number of good players but that didn't mean they had the best team they played in the second division and of course four years later they gained a promotion they were joint champions with a club called Cameroons which was the army side of British and gained promotion to the first division they were joint champions with the Cameroons B team and Cameroons A team was already in the league already in the first division so Cameroons B couldn't qualify there and that gave an opportunity to East Bengal to qualify but there was another rule in those days there were not more than two Indian teams to be permitted to play in the first division that embargo that big embargo kept East Bengal out so that means only Mohan Bagan and the other team was which one sir Mohan Bagan and Indians Mohan Bagan and Indians were already there and if I had to take in East Bengal they had to break this rule they had to change the rules of the governing body now what happened was there be then president of East Bengal was a famous man Maharaj of Santosh his name was Santosh Trophy was formed later he he did two things brilliantly for the club one he did a lot of social work first on behalf of the club one of the main was the statue of setting up of the statue of Ashutosh Mukherjee in front of this Victoria house East Bengal's president Maharaj of Santosh organized two exhibition matches East Bengal did not play it was between Indians and Europeans it was in 1924 and 1926 and they and they must about 10,000 rupees and got the statue made this point of time when East Bengal became the champion and later claimed to get into the first division he said that East Bengal should be allowed to play now he had one major advantage to his side but in that point of time Mohan McGahn had objected they said that earlier Kumar Tully had also finished champions of the second division later but they did not get that entry why should East Bengal be given a preference but he argued that in East Bengal matches we didn't mind while they were playing second division because the name of East Bengal lot of identity of this people who had moved in from East Bengal who were habitant in Calcutta used to come and the East Bengal matches used to draw large crowds which attracted the the IFA to give show a little partiality to East Bengal would I be right in saying sorry sir would I be right in saying that the rebels and I don't mean rebel in a bad term but the rebels in Kolkata are all attracting towards East Bengal because you are not part of the the lineage and the hierarchy and all those people are coming there partly correct because East Bengal as I mentioned they felt a little out of the social of the society because of the various they felt it was very funny they felt a lot of partiality being done whether it's in job market even in in the marriage market they said no East Bengal the girls would get married to any West Bengal in those days this forced these youth forced these youth people to show their vengeance when they played the football magicians whatever team in fact the first derby in the league in 1925 on the 28th of May drew backstands East Bengal didn't have a very good side but he had won in that mad moon man dominated but East Bengal would keep a plate very well but sir you've called it a derby at that time I mean derby of course were calling it now 100 years later it was time for derby that time it must have been a massive upset if anything it was an upset but at the same time what same time what Gautam Das said is also right Mohanmagan were the were the most dominant force in Indian football see there were other Indian teams also like Aryan saw as Gautam Das said Kumar Tuli and Town Club and Nationals and and what not so many Indian clubs were there but none of them were able to eat into Mohanmagan's fan base like East Bengal did see if you look at old time East Bengal people old timers from East Bengal they are from East Bengal only old timers but they still they remained all Mohanmagan fans because Mohanmagan were the only club in the country they considered Mohanmagan their club but because of the name of East Bengal it ate away Mohanmagan's fan base to a great extent because East Bengal means people from those certain districts who are not discriminated they are well I come from West Bengal in my family nobody is married from the districts of West Bengal when we look for match we don't look for see somebody is marrying on their own that you can't help it but when you look for a match you don't see anybody from East Bengal that's well you can there is no discrimination so what happened the East Bengal had an identity East Bengal made which I think which ate into Mohanmagan's fan base and that's why I think Mohanmagan were worried and they one did not want East Bengal to come up to the first division that's my my belief is that's one of the reasons I could be because no other club could eat into Mohanmagan's fan base which East Bengal did and did it from the day one only because of their name their name was such that a section of the people from the certain certain sector of Bengal will be attracted to the team yes Gautam sir you wanted to say something sorry sorry sir he is absolutely right in fact there were two things one East Bengal was the main club which ate into the Mohanmagan's fan base in other words even the source of players lot of players who came from East earlier before East Bengal was born most of them played from Mohanmagan in fact I told you in 1911 seven of their players hailed from East Bengal even later Ghostapal Chunigoswami much later Subradha Bhattacharya they all come from East Bengal and that's also another reason they thought that East Bengal plays with their own name all the players because of the name will go to them play against them their supply line would get a little diluted but I was thinking about another very important story about this Ghotibangal rivalry please tell us sir we love stories there are so many stories in Kolkata it's so romantic the entire love affair with football please tell us sir but had he mentioned no for you sir had he mentioned of these people coming from East Bengal supporting Mohanmagan I can name three or at least three gentlemen who grew up in that era came from Dhaka and other places but for blind Mohanmagan supporters one was our former Chief Minister Jyoti Basu the other one was this PWD minister in his time Mr Jyoti in Chakravati he also hailed from East Bengal in fact he campaigned in his election campaign going house to house he is the Rahman Mohanmagan fan but when he realized that he had come to East Bengal house he said nobody hailed from East Bengal and that's why he campaigned in his constituency Mr Jyoti Basu was the famous film director he also hailed from East Bengal but then he was an avid Mohanmagan fan Jyoti Basu so of course we have spoken about that one nil win over Mohanmagan that came in the 20s but till then of course still the gap was huge when would you say that gap between Mohanmagan and East Bengal started diminishing a little bit would it be right in the 30s and 40s that the gap started diminishing or rivalry started to become in the 30s of course in the 30s of course see I think both were good teams from the day one that is Bengal beat Mohanmagan in the very first match it goes to prove that they were also a very good team well this kind of rivalry was not there people didn't perhaps didn't talk so much about it the way they talked about Mohanmagan versus Calcutta and Mohanmagan versus Dalhoussi against British teams the way Mohanmagan played but I think it started from the 30s but there is also a reason for it which Gotonda will be able to tell us in detail I think that when East Bengal looked for a ground at that point they wanted a permanent ground at the Maidan in the 30s at that time the police commissioner of Calcutta was Charles Stegert who was a terror for the terrorists and all the freedom movement people Charles Stegert almost forced Mohanmagan to share the ground with East Bengal so they shared the ground till 1962 or 63 the two teams were sharing the same ground now they have separated but at one point of time 30 years they shared the same ground it also added to the rivalry because once you lose the other party will start telling you are you lost what happened Pidga from the other tent so it will be vice versa so that was also one of the reasons for Mohanmagan I think from the 30s onwards the gap started early 30s onwards see in the 20s which Gotonda didn't tell you that East Bengal once got demoted from the second division to the second division next year in two years they got promoted also they got promoted also and after that I think East Bengal's great run started but that relegation part I think helped East Bengal much more once they got relegated these players and who had abandoned the club who's earlier here and these players even the others thought that their morality was hurt so they all came back they left their jobs you won't hear such things now they left their jobs and rejoined the club in fact East Bengal got promoted in 1930 itself when they won all their matches but that year the league was abandoned because of that Mohanmagan movement and within another two years they got promoted I'll tell you in the 30s the rivalry started picking up then because they felt that they were humiliated by getting this in 30s to 40s East Bengal like the current scenario like they missed the eyelid so many times by one or two points in 30s to 40s they missed the CFL championship by one point they became 5 times they became runners up but Mohanmagan became the champion in 1939 though on the field in 1911 in those days when Mohammedan sporting was going on East Bengal could have made any of the in fact in 1933 sorry in 1932 when they had Salim playing for East Bengal in 1933 they missed by one point in the last match they had a game against Aryans which they could have won but Aryans were situated in the other ground with the present Mohammedan sporting ground and their officials and East Bengal players started fighting because of some issue or the other and that distracted the team and East Bengal didn't fail to win that match otherwise had they won that match they would have become champions in 1933 before Mohammedan sporting and there were four other occasions in the same period like the current scenario where East Bengal is missing the I-League they missed the Calcutta Football League for the 5 times Jadib sir 30 to 40 any specific moments in society that tell you that East Bengal in terms of off the field what all is happening for East Bengal see off the field off the field I think what happened to East Bengal not only happened to East Bengal but it happened to the entire society including people or fans from Bon Magan also that is the in the 1930s of an election Bengal election in which Muslim League won the election Muslim League and of course Krishakma Supriya party came in the first rule they won the election and formed the government so that was the first so and that was the time where Mohammedan sporting started dominating dominating also I am not saying there is there is some relation between the two but somehow that was the time between see between 1934 and 1939 or 1941 these 8 years Gautunda will agree with me East Bengal and Mohan Magan were on the went to the backdrop of Indian football because it was such a dominant show by Mohammedan sporting out of 9 years they won the league I think 8 times or 7 times or something like that except once Mohan Magan getting in that too because some other teams withdrew in 1939 so East Bengal and Mohan Magan were were in this period if you ask me specifically as you have asked me Arjun specifically between 1934 and 1930s and early 1940s East Bengal and Mohan Magan were not the main teams in Calcutta football it belonged to Mohammedan sporting that's an era belong to Mohammedan sporting only Gautunda sir what sort of brought the turn around in the 40s one was Mohammedan East Bengal had a general secretary a rather an assistant general secretary then a person called D.C. Guha D.C. Guha who himself was a footballer he played as a goalkeeper in a club earlier in one of the teams he is a recruit like Mohammedan sporting they had a club called Aziz who built up the team this D.C. Guha selected a number of players from South India like Sumana, Lakshmi Narayan was little earlier Sumana, Parjalee, Nair and all these things and 40s were and later on of course from 48 onwards the famous entrepreneurs Venkatesh, Apparao, Dhanraj, Dhamit Khan and Hale now in this if you take the period from 42 to 52 then this was the time when they had the bulk of people coming in from East Bengal and East Pakistan and joining in sporting the team East Bengal won the league won as many as 14 trophies and this was the time when they beat Mohanmagan 5 years in a row when people who came to stand they felt very happy today they have beaten Mohanmagan 5 years in a row they won in the fair of Sumana and then the famous Pandas Pancha Pandas came and I thought that was the real time when the rivalry started and East Bengal was really born the club was really born and that was the time because these headless people who had come from they could also look they had lost everything, they could also look for their future they could find East Bengal as a sort of an identity and their success and they really cherished it in their lives I'll tell you a shop called DHAKECHURI who sells sarees in South Calcutta their gentleman came over walking down in grihar and he told me once I think his sons used to play football and one of them played Mohanmagan hud and hath he told me that in the family history all these small businessmen because East Bengal players didn't get a job  Illinois ữ Whoa ivan re 年的 电力 school of                                                                                ,... వాభాటృ వరాయం అలాయసింహి రెపివినాసి. నిసిబంగాయారంవ౿సా. సిసిసానిసి. చారందిఎంట౨ిమియిసాలం పిరూగాపికడియి నిసివికననుని. వారం� నియిరి పతిం మాదా బకలట собой � sprayمటికింట ఇగ్ఖతా కశివగికఫ మ౟ూగెటంని� background exam in Seattle, రపమంలి ప౮ధప఑టి゚ ! మపాన౗నిఊికనిలా !  compromised�ప�జ్ా�ברస్ం రాద్� safe for , ఇ czę మ౎మ్ సినుమ్లి పెలలు పఠీక్చాకిలు ఆంటెซాకా్దినుడ్రి, రింయాఠిక్ మరాంటం తంవసి �ke36 protocolsg సింట్ ను�하고 ఇస్పకాకాపఃం Australia వాకుత్టారంగన్ల్పినిలుపిశిల్సంికుని చాకోలని న్లి లినంవారంగత్ట్ ఒసంత్లా . గాశికినోవి కోట్వి కోటినేంది ఆంధయా నారెచిల్టోది మాసులికికికామిలోటెట్ని నారెట్ట్టసందాలి అరందిమికోనోది టాలికోటికగ కంది� The club must have managed so well that the greatness it achieved in 100 years, those 25 years which were talking about from 19—27, from 1920-1947 where, before the prepartition days, we talked about. We must appreciate the way the club was run despite so much trouble. They were not financially a great club and they had so much financial support of anything. but what they achieved will go down in the Indian football history forever I think. Today we are celebrating 100 years of East Bengal. This club wouldn't have survived 100 years just for this other two gentlemen, Jyaydeep rightly said, the management and two people in particular, three people, Suresh Choudhary and his friend, Toli Troy and Maharaja Santhosh. Had East Bengal not got into the league in very next year of its formation, it was club was formed by an emotion, the club wouldn't have survived, the team wouldn't have survived. All these players would have gone, they wouldn't have been in East Bengal. And again in 1925, when they got into the first division, fighting with all the women, it would catch the Maharaja Santhosh. And I don't think, again, East Bengal would have been in existence, it would have gone the same way. As Mafa Plal and Jay Singh Tiya had the birth police and all. Of course, they were institutional teams and even emotional teams, East Bengal wouldn't. And these gentlemen in those days had a much bigger contribution. Later on, of course, we had Jay Singh Gooha and Dr. Nripendra. But this club which survived 100 years was mainly primarily because of the gentlemen in the early days. Sir, I think you summed it up perfectly. And I think this was a lovely conversation. This was just one part of our conversation. Now, there are two parts left. Our Dadi people from the Taliban, our friend Siddhanthani, he's going to be joining Jaydi Pasu. And a very special guest who will talk about East Bengal post partition. But I think the line is perfect. East Bengal was formed on an emotion. A club that's been formed on an emotion for them to last for 100 years.  That in itself is a major achievement and one must salute the people who managed the club in those first 27 years. So we've spoken about pre-partition. Time now to head to Siddhanthani and Jaydi Pasu to talk about East Bengal and all that they achieved post-partition.


Most of this information comes from the tax guide for small business for individuals who use Schedule C, Publication 334, Tax Year 2022. You can find on the IRS website, irs.gov, irs.gov. You can have the income tax formula. We're focused on line one income. Remember on the first half of the income tax formula is in essence an income statement, although just an outline of scaffolding other forms and schedules flowing into it. For example, the Schedule C, the business income, which is in essence an income statement in and of itself, income minus expenses or business deductions gets to the net income, which in essence rules into line one income of our income tax formula. This is the first page of the form 1040. We're looking at line number 11, Schedule C, flowing into the Schedule 1, flowing into the first page of the 1040 here on line number eight. This is a Schedule C, profit or loss from business where we can see the income and the expenses in essence an income statement. Speaking of income statements, let's take a look at the accrual method. Remember when we're talking about taxes and the methods being used for the business income reported on, say, a Schedule C, we wanna make sure we get the method correct starting out with because it's gonna be less easy for us to change the method in the future. The primary two methods that come to mind are a cash method and an accrual method, although you can have basically a hybrid between the two methods and remember that it's usually the industry that's gonna drive whether or not you're on a cash or accrual method. So when you're picking between the two, you wanna take that into consideration. So for example, if you deal with inventory, Doing inventory. You might have to deviate from a cash method to an accrual method. The general process or thought process would be cash method may be easier from a bookkeeping standpoint. So you might choose that method. However, some things deviate from a cash based method even if you're a small business and therefore you have no control over that because that's the industry you're in, such as for example, if you deal with inventory or for example, if you deal with any kind of business where you have to do the work first and then build the customer and deal with accounts receivable, tracking the accounts receivable that is an accrual kind of component in and of itself. Now just to recap note that other parts of the tax return when you're thinking about schedule A, when you're thinking about above the line deductions, for example, those are usually in a cash based system. If you have normal charitable contributions on the schedule A, for example, you will have to pay for them in the year that you're taking the deduction. That's more of a cash based system. But when you're looking at the schedule C, you might have a different method for the business, the schedule C that you would be electing on the schedule C. Large businesses or the general concept of what's best accounting for business is usually an accrual method because it's actually more difficult to kind of manipulate your books on an accrual method than a cash method. If you're on a cash method, you could try to manipulate your books by basically adjusting when you're gonna receive and make payments. We talked on the cash basis last time where the IRS put some limitations on that kind of ability, because they say things like if you prepay for something, then we're gonna want you to account for it differently. And so when you try to manipulate the reporting of the income based on your payment, so the cash method, they'll try to restrict that. But in general, the cash method in of its nature, it makes it easier to kind of do that. On an accrual method, you have to record income when you actually earned it, which is more of a specific timeframe. Notice that when you got the cash, that's kind of like I compare it to kind of like smoke versus the fire. The actual reporting of the income should happen when you earned it. That's the actual location of the fire in that analogy. The smoke is when you actually got paid on it. You might've gotten paid at the same point you did the work, you might've gotten paid before you did the work. You might've got paid after you did the work, but the work is the point in time that you earned the income and that's where the revenue should be reported. So if you're reporting it on a cash based system, you're kind of reporting it when you see the smoke, which is kind of around the fire, the actual location. If you're on an accrual method, they're trying to pinpoint the actual time that you earned the revenue. That's a little bit more difficult sometimes than tracking the cash method. So that's the general outline. Okay, so under an accrual method of accounting, you generally report income in the year earned and deduct or capitalize expenses in the year incurred, as opposed to a cash based method where you would be reporting income when the cash was received and deductions when the cash was paid. Note that many transactions, you will record the same transaction under an accrual or cash based method. In other words, if you did work and you got paid at the same point in time, say you were a restaurant, you gave someone food, they paid you under a cash based system, you would record revenue at that point in time because you received cash. Under an accrual based method, you would record revenue at that point in time because you did the work. They'll still be recording revenue at the same time, but for different reasons. It's only when, for example, you do the work first and then you record the revenue later, now you have a difference. On an accrual based method, you would record the income when you did the work. On a cash based method, you wouldn't record it until you've got the actual cash. Okay, so the purpose of an accrual method of accounting is to match income and expenses in the correct year. So accrual method is thought to be more accurate from a bookkeeping standpoint because we're trying to match the income that you actually earned, even though you may or may not have received the cash yet and that should tie out to the expenses that you incurred in order to generate the income. In other words, I want the expenses that I used to consume goods and services to generate revenue for the same time period in which I generated the revenue. I want to match those two things up. And if you use a cash based method, they can get a little out of whack sometimes. So income, general rule. So under an accrual method, you generally include an amount in your gross income for the tax year in which all the events that fix your right to receive the income have occurred and you can determine the amount with reasonable accuracy. So now you've basically earned the income. You can determine how much you have earned with the income. Possibly you issued an invoice would be the common thing in bookkeeping when you record the income, because you did the work, you're invoicing, meaning you increase the accounts receivable and the other side's going to revenue at that point in time. So if you're on a cash based system, it wouldn't be till you received the cash, right? So let's see then for a taxpayer within a applicable financial statement or other financial statements as the secretary may specify, all events test for an item of gross income is considered met no later than when taking into account in an applicable financial statement or such other financial statement. So let's see an example. Are you a calendar year accrual method taxpayer? You are in a calendar year accrual method taxpayer January through December. You're using an accrual versus cash method. You sold a computer on December 28th, 2022. You build the customer in the first week of January, 2023, but you did not receive payment until February, 2023. You must include the amount received for the computer in year 2022 because that's when you basically did the work. You completed the job. If you sell the computer, you're selling inventory. Then that happened when the inventory now leaves you and is in the possession or in control of the recipient. That's when you completed the job, right? Whereas if you did bookkeeping or something, you completed the job when you finished, you know, the bookkeeping. So income, special rules. The following are special rules that apply to advanced payments, estimating income and changing a payment schedules for services. So estimated income. So if you include a reasonable estimated amount in gross income and later determine the exact amount is different, take the difference into account in the tax year in which you make the determination. So in other words, like 2022, you estimate what the income is going to be. And then in the following year, there was a difference. There was a change, because you didn't actually get paid yet, right? And then there was a change that happened between the estimated earnings and what you actually got paid. You've recorded the income when you earned it based on the estimate, but now the actual amount is different. What do you do? Do you go back to the prior year and make an amended tax return to fix it? Typically we don't want to do that. We would like to make the adjustment in the current year.


The U.S. Marines and guests in the Camp Lejeune area gathered at the newly renovated home of Sergeant Major Raymond H. Mackey, a wounded warrior with 3rd Battalion 10th Marines. The Semper 5 fund got involved with the Home Depot Foundation and Team Depot. A couple months ago, Sergeant Major Mackey was recommended at the national level to receive the grant for these modifications.  The wounded warriors are still in the fight, you know. When this war ends, those guys will still be in the fight because it will be with them for the rest of their life. With the new renovations provided by the Home Depot and Semper 5 fund, Sergeant Major Mackey can now safely enjoy more mobility throughout its home.


Today we're looking at the dialogue, the credo, and this is different than the apology, although it's very closely connected with it, right? You notice there's some narrative continuity, what happened in the apology that we talked about last class, Socrates, what happened still. He doesn't get killed in that one.  Yeah. He's on trial. He makes a couple speeches. They're not speeches that are actually going to get him off because he kind of pokes at the people that are charging him, and they sentence him to death. Now normally in the ancient world, you'd be sentenced, and then you'd be killed not long afterwards. There's a gap for Socrates because there's a religious festival going on. We don't have to look at the details of that very much. If you've heard of Theseus and the Minotaur, it had to do with a religious festival that was set around that, and they'd send a ship out, and after the ship came back, then they could execute people again. So they're waiting to execute him. He's sitting in a cell. He's got lots of free time, and it wasn't too bad for him. He's reading books and making friends with the jailers, and just sort of going about his day the way he normally does. People come and visit him, and Credo comes, and Credo has been coming. If you looked at the dialogue a couple times, you realize Credo's been coming during each day at a certain time of the day. He's showing up early this day, and he's showing up early because he's got a breakout of jail plans. So that's where this takes off. Socrates could get away. Credo is rich. Credo's a foreigner. Credo has bribed the guards. He's arranged for transportation. He's talked things over with people that he's actually got to... He poses a couple different places. You could go to Thessaly. You could go here. You've got friends over here. Because Socrates did, in fact, have a lot of friends. So Credo is putting forth a real proposal for him. Credo's done everything that needs to be done for this. Why is he doing this?  No? Did anyone feel he deserved a die? If you look at the forum in Euler, you notice that I started sort of a devil's advocate kind of thing. I've started some threads, why that guy Socrates deserves a die. And I invite you to respond to it. That can be class participation for those who don't like to talk in class too much. Or those who actually do talk in class and enjoy stirring things up, that you can do that as well.   A lot of people didn't think so. They considered it to be what they talk about in this as an unjust verdict. We have that in our society, right? Some people get sentenced who don't actually deserve to get sentenced. I don't know what the actual proportions are. I can tell you that when I worked in a prison, and actually I taught philosophy and religious studies in a maximum security prison, and I got to know some of the guys very well, because I was teaching the same classes over and over and over again, and they weren't going anywhere. They weren't transferring to other places, other schools. They were taking classes with me and one other philosophy professor. And we talk about all sorts of things, including their cases. And most of the people in our prisons actually are guilty of something. There are some cases. If you talk to prisoners, you find out that there's a lot fewer cases than we often think of as pure travesties of justice where a person is innocent and doesn't deserve it at all. Socrates looks like he doesn't deserve to die, though. I mean, he made a case that he was doing a good thing for the city. Did any of you find that idea convincing that he was doing something useful? Yeah, a few of you. You were going to say something? No, I think it's more true to himself and just kind of teach people the morals that there's no such thing as wisdom. You know, like, humble about it, and talk about it. Yeah. Because that's wisdom that you really don't. Those are all things that he was teaching you right. Do you think that that served any purpose in society? Did it make people better? Or, I mean, was he really corrupting people?  That was the charges. So the core question that we're going to look at today that Socrates says, okay, let's think about this, is Credo's plan? Should he do it? We're going to look at the arguments for that. We're going to look at some of the basic ideas underlying that. Before that though, I want to talk about a few interesting features of this text. It is connected to the apology, right? The youth referral, by the way, that you're reading for next class, that's also connected in time. That's right before he goes in the law court. So he has one big discussion, then he goes in, gives a speech, then he loses his case, goes to jail, and then the day before he dies, two days before he dies, he talks with Credo. Then there's another dialogue which we're not going to read called the Phaedo, which is his last day, the day that he dies, which concludes with him dying, drinking hemlock and being poisoned. Do you guys see any sort of inconsistency with what went on in the apology? In this dialogue, Socrates, is he going to leave? Why not? Yeah, you're right about all those same things, the right thing, the just thing to do. He doesn't want to be inconsistent with himself, and it would also be breaking the laws. Now, is this consistent with the guy who said, you can put me to death if you want, but I'm never going to stop doing philosophy?  In this one, he's saying, I'm going to go along with what the state says. So is there a contradiction there? Well, he knows what he's doing, he's not illegal in the first place. They're just saying that it is. That's a good point. Yeah, so there isn't a contradiction. No, he's just saying to himself. Okay, yeah, that's something to keep in mind is, yeah, go ahead. I think he just kind of realizes that no matter what you know, he thinks he's right, he knows he's right, he's not going to get his point across, so he kind of just has to go with whatever happens. In the apology you're thinking, yeah? Yeah. Yeah, there are Plato scholars who think exactly along the lines that you've laid out that Socrates thought he wasn't going to get a fair trial period, so he was making sort of what do they call that, a bully pulpit. He was using it as an opportunity to say what he wanted to say one last time and get it through. Maybe even stick it to them a little bit. We do get, there's another theme that's in there, we get to see Socrates put to the test. There's another thing to say all sorts of things about morality and justice and what's right and wrong and how important it is to stand up for what's true. It's a whole different thing when you put to the test, isn't it? Have any of you ever experienced situations of temptation where some moral stand that you were taking, you found it was difficult to maintain?  Well, this is really painful, he's going to die, so what he's dying for better be pretty valuable. Just being true to yourself in some sense, I don't know if that's worth dying for. Being true to yourself along the lines of something that matters, maybe that's worth dying for. What's going on? You brought up the laws. Notice that he actually makes the laws talk. What do you think is going on with that? This is something that people have read the dialogue and been fascinated or confused or entertained by it. Why do you think he did that? If you have any views about it, if you don't, maybe you do by the time we get through this. I'll just let that question kind of set. Another thing to think about that's going to come up this semester over and over again is this question of what do you actually owe to your society?  There's something that we call cool disobedience. Have you guys heard this term before? Probably in high school, right? Who do you associate it with? Gandhi. Yeah, Gandhi's a great example. Who did Gandhi influence that you put it to work here in the United States? Martin Luther King. Anybody before Gandhi that you could think of in America that gets tied in with this? This is kind of trivia, but... Henry David Thoreau, many of you have read him. You had to read him in English lit maybe, or not English lit, American lit, an English class. They all talk about this idea of civil disobedience. They end up taking a different stance than Socrates does here in the credo. Martin Luther King had followed Socrates' lines and said, well, the laws are the laws, and I benefited by them, so I really don't have any right to transgress them. Then would he have marched? Would all those other people have marched with them? They took a different stand, or at least what appears to be a different stand when we first look at it, right? I mean, Martin Luther King also made a distinction between just laws and unjust laws. Just laws, you have to follow. Unjust laws, it's actually wrong to follow them. And that's a letter from a Birmingham jail, which you probably read in high school again. Yeah? No? You should read it. It's important to read. Martin Luther King is not basing his stuff on Socrates in the credo. Basing it on other philosophical texts. Because Socrates is taking a stance that says, well, you owe something to society. You owe something to the state. You can go out there and be a gadfly, but if the state decides it wants to crush the gadfly, then you should go along with that. So we'll look at that theme a little bit more. Let's look now at the actual text. Credo comes in, and what does he say?  But when they really get to the meat of it, Credo says, hey, I've got an escape plan for you. Let's do it. You know, here's all the ins and outs of it. Socrates says, let's think about this. Credo is going to make some appeals. He's going to bring up some goods, some values, some things that are going to be lost if Socrates doesn't leave. So what are the goods at stake here? Obviously, it's life, right? This is life. What else? What does Credo worried about? He says to have Socrates to us and lose his kids. Yeah, that's a good concern, isn't it? Socrates has a responsibility to educate his kids. You know, and this is in a Iron Age society, which did not have a social welfare system, where if you, you know, Socrates was in the free class of citizens who had property, but you could very easily leave that class, your kids could become slaves through going into debt or stuff like that. If you didn't have somebody strong guiding the house, bringing the kids up right, who knows what would happen to the kids? It's not like the state was going to take charge of them. Social services or whatever, whatever they call it here in New York would come in. So that's a real concern. So if Socrates allows himself to die, he's not going to be able to do that. What else? What are other values, other concerns that come up? Yeah? And then Credo talks about, like, a broken down upon him because he has a lot to see with him. We'll call that reputation. And he talks about something that he's going to have to endure, when he loses his reputation, shame. That's a powerful motivator, isn't it? Nobody wants to be ashamed. You can get people to put up with a lot of things that are painful or that hurt their interests if you don't shame them. But if you do shame them, that sometimes hurts people worse than any other thing. Think about bullying, for example. This is sort of a digression. You have these cases where these kids are bullied, especially through electronic media. And then what do they do? Why does it become an issue? They complain. The school says, ah, don't do that anymore. That's not how it goes. What do they do that really gets everybody's attention?  Yeah. They choose death over shame. Because shame is that strong of a social motivator, even in our day. They're not really acting like Socrates. They're maybe making a misguided decision. But it's one that's understandable, isn't it? What else? What are some other values? It doesn't want to look like a bad guy who prefers money to his friends. Is there anything else that he thinks is going to be lost? You're getting a good list here. What's the first thing he says? I'm going to lose, he doesn't say my reputation. I'm going to lose somebody that I can't replace. It's hard to be friends with a death person. Why would he lose his good reputation if he refused to escape? Credo's worried about his own reputation. So I should probably clarify. This is Credo's loss. This is also Credo's loss. This is Socrates' loss. That's a good question. There is one thing that's like that. Again, you're not going to catch this the first time that you read the text. This is why we have these sessions. Why I talk about reading the text multiple times. Credo says, Socrates, you're taking the easy way out. So it's not just Credo whose reputation is up for debate. It's also Socrates. You're taking the easy way out by letting them kill you. Sounds a little strange that way. What's his reasoning? You're not consistently following the path that you've actually laid out, the path of goodness, the path of virtue, the path of courage. You should be courageous and leave the city. Take a chance. Come live in Thessaly. You shouldn't let those enemies of yours win. If you do, there's something wrong with you, Socrates. That's what Credo is saying if you're reading between the lines. Actually, this is kind of a digression too. Credo, we don't know this from this dialogue. We know this from another dialogue. He's a really emotional guy. So you can just picture Credo there kind of shaking and expostulating with Socrates. Credo has to be let away crying when Socrates actually does die, whereas the other real people stick around. There's kind of a mistaken attitude on Credo's part. Socrates is quite happy. What's the mistake? If you had to just identify one thing that's wrong with Credo's reasoning, one main thing that ties it together, what is Socrates criticizing for? You're thinking of the wrong thing here. I'll give you a hint. Who should Credo be listening to or thinking about how they would see things? Yourself? Well, Credo doesn't actually know. And Socrates himself in this one is kind of humble. He doesn't claim that he himself knows. Let me change the question. Who shouldn't he be listening to? There's a sort of catchphrase in there. Who gets it wrong? Who thinks that these things are all really important? Credo does, but he's getting that from somebody or from some group of people. Society? Yeah, we would call it society. In the Credo it's called the many. The sort of mass of people that you just sort of pick and they're not necessarily people who thought things through. As a matter of fact, they're probably going along with whatever happens to be popular at the time. Think about the way mobs behave. You don't look at mobs for moral guidance, right? The mobs do things. Think about the way many people can be persuaded by easy emotional appeals. And actually, quite frankly, people don't like to think very long and hard about things. These things right here are values. They are good. But are they the real good? Are they what's truly valuable for somebody like Socrates? Credo's too concerned about what the many think. And there's sort of a common temptation that Credo is exemplifying. I know I've fallen prey to this temptation myself. I suspect that many of you have probably fallen prey to it as well. You know what's right and what's wrong. But there's this tendency to say, you know, in this case, the rules don't apply. In this case, I've got to look at other goods that have to be served. Now, you know, across the board, it still applies, for instance, what's, you know, shouldn't be mean to people, right? But maybe there's times you should be mean to people. Let's take one that is probably easy to relate to. You shouldn't lose your temper and swear at people. Should you? Can we all agree that you shouldn't do that? Does anybody think that that's a good thing to do? That you ought to be doing that? That you're not living life fully if you're not doing that? There are some people who think that. You can tell because of the way they live their life. They get mad and swear at people a lot. Now, when do we get mad and swear at people? Just when we think they're doing something wrong. Yeah, exactly. If they hurt us, but we think that we actually had a coming, we may get a little mad, but we don't get mad like when we think that they're doing something really wrong to us. And if it's not right for us to get mad and swear at people, it's not right across the board. But there's this tendency to say, well, you did something to me first, so I get to do this in this case and that's okay for me. Credo's doing something like that. It's okay to break the laws if the laws don't turn out the way you want them to. If the verdict doesn't play out the way you want, then you should resort to other things. What does that do to a society if too many people start doing that? Let's say with the legal system. If too many people start saying, I'll accept the court verdict provided it goes my way, but if it doesn't, I'm going to find some way to undermine it. Can a society work like that? Rules have to be honored by at least most people, or else things break down. So Credo is a little bit mistaken. Socrates says, we have to think about, is this the right thing to do? Are we going to look at what the many say? No, we have to look at what somebody else would say. He says, we need to know whether this is the right thing to do in this situation, but also in other situations. Who is Socrates going to be persuaded by? It's not going to be persuaded by Credo or the many.  I take my stand here and nobody will convince me otherwise. Is that a rational way to behave? No? So if it's not the many, because they don't really know what they're talking about, and they make all sorts of goofy decisions and believe all sorts of things one day and then all sorts of other things the next day, who should he get his verdict from? Who should he look to? That would be an interesting thing. He doesn't in this case. If he were to do that, then that would be sort of pushing the problem upstairs to God. And some people do do that. Socrates is notable in part for not doing that. And you might say that one of the ways to divide philosophy apart from another discipline called theology. They don't teach theology classes here, do they? Because it's a private school, but it's not a Catholic school. With theology, you look to God, and then you try to figure out what God is actually saying and make some sense of it. We're going to look at that a little bit with the youth of next class. What Socrates is doing, he thinks that the answer is within us, if we look close enough, or within him, within the human mind.  And notice, he's not claiming himself to be wise in this dialogue. He's just claiming to have certain principles that he thinks are right, and unless somebody can prove those principles don't hold, he's going to stick with them. So who do we want? We want the person who knows about good and evil and what should be done. Now, what I'd like you to do, just for a minute or so, think to yourself about some case in your life where you relied on, you had to make a decision about something right and wrong. You made the wrong decision. And the reason that you did so is because you looked at what everybody else thought about it, or the way everybody else felt for how people might look at you if you didn't make the decision that you did.  Maybe you had some bad consequences, or maybe you felt remorse about it afterwards. Think about that for a minute. A lot of this stuff makes more sense when you apply it within the context of your own life. All of you can relate to that, right? Have you all had an experience like that? At least one in your lifetime? Even if it's something as trivial as picking on some kid, because all the other kids were picking on that kid, or stealing candy because your peer group said, we're going in to steal candy today when hanging out with us. You got to steal candy. I remember doing that when I was in second grade. I was so nervous, too. I was hanging out with the third graders. And to be cool and hang with the third graders, you had to do the things that the third graders were doing. And they were in shoplifting at the time. Shoplifting candy, which is pretty small of it. It's very, very years of robbing stores. Yeah, well, things have changed since I was a kid. I mean, we lived way out in the country, and we had this, now we call it a convenience store, right? They had like a candy aisle. And one of the kids went to the front and bought some things we had in a bag.  And it was a fiasco, because what are we doing? We're dropping it in. It's really noisy, and the clerk is over there looking at us. And I was just thinking to myself, oh, god, we're going to get caught. We're going to get caught. My parents are going to kill me. We didn't get caught. And, you know, the candy, there's actually an expression. There's no food so sweet as food that you've stolen. It was pretty sweet. But, you know, think about it. You think about it later on. Is that the right thing to do? No. Did the fact that my older compatriots said, hey, everybody's doing this. Does that make it a good thing to do? And I can think of, for myself, a lot of big things along the way that I've done where, rather foolishly, I listened to people that I shouldn't have listened to.  All of you can think of something like that, right? In your life. Who could you have gone to?  He gives you some characteristics of the person that that would know. And we're going to talk about that in a moment. I'd like to just, we'll actually do a little, you know, dialogue back and forth about that. I'm going to get to that. But keep this in the back of your head as we're going through the rest of this. Who would have known in the situation that you found yourself what the right thing to do was? Who would have given you the good advice? I'm going to skip over how the many actually go wrong. What's really key here in this discussion about, you know, who knows and who doesn't know? Whenever we find ourselves in a tough situation like Socrates is in, we have to actually ask ourselves what is to be done? That question that he asks in the text. Because we don't always know. That's what we call practical reasoning. The part of philosophy that's called ethics, you guys are later on down the line going to take a higher level ethics class when you're juniors and seniors. Hopefully you're going to learn some things about ethics before you get to be juniors and seniors so you can make some quite ethical decisions on the way, right? That is all concerned with what ought to be done. What should we be doing? What shouldn't we be doing? In this case, you know, it's a particular problem should Socrates leave and break the rules of the city. Socrates says that a good life is to be valued. Not just these things. Not just life by itself, but a good life. And there's a lot of different ways to answer the question what is the good life, which is a question of ethics again. Ethics is not just about right and wrong, what you should do and what you shouldn't do. It's also about what kind of life you think is good for human beings to live. You know, I think all of you want to be successful, right? You're all planning to have careers. That's part of why you're in college. That would be a component of the good life for you, wouldn't it? Would that be the only thing you require for the good life to have a career? There are some people, I talked about this earlier today in my ethics class, who see the good life precisely in terms of work and just work. Maybe some of you know some people. Are they getting the whole picture? What goes wrong in those sort of cases? I mean, they're pursuing a real good, a genuine good. They do it a little bit too much. There's no balance. Okay, that's a good place to start with. There's no balance. So if we've got, when we have a balance, you have some sort of thing in the middle, and then you have two sides. Work over here. What's on the other side that should be there? Yeah. We play, I guess. I'll work and no play makes Jack it all. You're next. I was going to say family. Yeah, usually people who are what we call workaholics, their family lives suffer, they have higher rates of divorce, their kids later on say, you weren't ever there for me. How are you going to say family? That's probably one of the greatest damages that takes place. They also don't develop, you know, when we play, we develop other aspects of ourselves.  You won't be developing yourself, right? They've made some sort of mistake with respect to what the good life is. Socrates thinks that the good life, he says, is a life that's just and honorable. That's what makes life good for him, fundamentally. So if he has to choose between being just and educating his kids, he's going to take being just, doing the right thing. There are plenty of people who would be perfectly fine with doing the wrong thing so long as it helps your kids, right? Again, you probably know people who have done that. My mom would actually, she was very hard on us as kids, but she had no problem about lying to people so long as it opened up opportunities for us. I thought that was a little weird, myself. But you know people like that, right? Socrates thinks that if it can't be a just life, it's almost worse than not living, just and honorable. That's what he wants to be. So that's what's motivating him. The other thing is how is he finding all these things out? The reasoning. And this is not something that's talked about in the dialogue, but this is going to be a theme with us over the semester. When we use this word reason, we have a couple of different meanings for this, right? Why are you here? You have a reason to be here because you're taking the class for credits. That's one sense of the term reason.   That's why, you know, we have classrooms and we talk about these sorts of things. Dogs, you know, get trained. Dogs teach each other in classrooms, give each other grades, tell each other how they ought to progress, they ought to be, you know, reading this text or something like that. No, we do that. We reason about things. We reason about things on all different levels. Sometimes we do it poorly and sometimes we do it well, but that's part of, that's what makes us distinctively human. One of the definitions for human being that came up early in philosophy is the rational animal. So Socrates thinks that this is part of what makes us most human, being rational, following reason. Not just following our desires, but following reason. What reason tells us is the right thing to do. And he's going to follow it up. Here's where it gets really interesting. Reason itself, the rational life, is a good thing. So you can put that into the balance. You know, when you're doing practical reasoning, a lot of what you're doing is weighing. Does this side weigh more? Well, then I should do this action. Does this side weigh more than I should do this action? For Socrates, one of the things that's really heavy, that's pushing down the scale, is being rational, being consistent, sticking with what he had said before. Now, he has sort of a standard to appeal to. The wise man. And what is the wise man wise about? Here's where I want to introduce another theme that you're going to see come up throughout the semester as well. We call these moral values. And they're instantiated. They take certain forms. We can debate about them. We, in fact, do debate about them. The next dialogue that we're going to read, we're going to see not only do we debate about them, we get angry at each other about them. What do we get angry at each other about? What do we debate about when it comes to moral things? You could say abortion or euthanasia. Those are topics. What is the real general thing? We don't ask ourselves abortion. Yes or no. We say, is abortion right or just? We can also ask whether things are good or bad. Maybe just and good might be the same thing in some cases. But maybe they're not in some cases. All of you are healthy, I think, right? I hope so. Being healthy is good.  It's not that you become an unjust person by being unhealthy. But it's not good for you to be unhealthy, is it? Socrates says that the person we want to look to, the wise person, is somebody who knows about the just and the unjust, the good and the bad. And then he uses some other terms. Can you remember what those terms were? He uses kind of a formula. He says, the just and the unjust, the good and the bad, and he changes, or at least the translator, changes the terms that he uses. Yes. Is the wise the unwise? The wise is the one who actually knows about this. The unwise is the one who is all mixed up about it. They think that they've got the right thing, but they've got a wrong viewpoint on it. Yeah. Say again? Well, we could change this to evil if we wanted to. And that's good. The Greek terms are pretty malleable. You can make them fit things. He uses another thing that we wouldn't normally think of as moral. But in terms of what we call aesthetic, how things appear to us. He uses terms like this. Oh, that's the wrong side. The fair. Or the foul. Everything on this side is bad. Everything on this side is good, right? He doesn't mean fair in the sense of, you know, each person gets a candy bar, and you don't take anything more than what you do or do or anything like that, or everyone follows the rules. He means fair as in beautiful. Another way of translating this is beautiful, ugly. Another way of translating it is noble, base, and another way that he does it in this is honorable. Why do you think that's important for somebody to know about? Isn't that kind of weird? I mean, for somebody to be a good ethics guide, sure, they ought to be able to tell you what's right and wrong. They ought to know that. They ought to know what's good and what's bad. Why should they know things about, you know, like what's noble and what's base? You know, we don't use terms like that.  We have all sorts of terms for these sorts of things. Those are more in this category than in the category of the just or the unjust. You know what's lying behind this idea? Goodness is attractive and evil is in some way discordant or ugly. And it might appear beautiful from this side or noble from this side, but then you take a walk around it and you see that it's not. With any of these things, you can distinguish between what's apparently that and what's really that. And the person who knows, who is wise, would know about all these sorts of things. How do you think they find out about that? Well, for Socrates, he was through reasoning. Not just listening to the crowd, not just accepting things for, you know, face value, but actually thinking about them. That's how he got himself in trouble. Going around looking for the person who could meet these criteria. So when he was going around all these politicians, isn't this the sort of stuff that politicians ought to be knowledgeable about? What's really just and unjust? If they turned out not to be so, that's why they got angry. So that's the kind of person that he's looking for. That person doesn't show up in this dialogue. So you have to ask yourself, you know, here's a good place for us to actually sort of pause. Think back to the mistake that you made. Who should you have listened to? Is there somebody who would have been knowledgeable, or at least more knowledgeable, than where you were at the time about what was just and unjust, what was good or bad, what was honorable or dishonorable? Who could you think of? Probably not an ethics professor, right? Who in your life would you? I know, you know, I have some grandparents I wouldn't go to. But on the outside, he wouldn't have been a good guy to bring it wrong. He did terrible things, and didn't, you know, unbrand about it. Now his wife, his long-suffering wife, his second long-suffering wife actually, she was a very good, you know, moral voice. I could go to her. Did you have people like that in your life? Who do you have now? Again, you know, most likely it's not going to be your ethics professor, or your internal philosophy professor. Who do you go to to find out when you have to figure out what's right and wrong?  My parents? Yeah, and if your parents actually truly, you know, do know, Socrates would say, perfect, you found them. Somebody like this is a solid goal. Yeah. Even when you're a kid, you could have just asked yourself, so you didn't really need to ask anybody. Yeah. You need to do a thing about it. Yeah, and you know, Socrates seems to think that something along those lines, deep in our heart of hearts, we actually, you know, could figure it out. But it's buried under a lot of stuff. There's one problem with that too. There are, and Plato doesn't think about this, there are some people that we nowadays term as sociopaths. Sociopaths lack a sense of conscience. That's why they're so dangerous, and that's why they don't respond to treatment, because they don't care. They're only interested in certain goods, like power and pleasure and things like that. They'll do anything that it takes to get it. We're going to look at that a little bit more when we look at Republic Book 1. I'd like you to keep thinking about that, this notion of who should you go to? That's, you know, there are certain big ideas that when the semester's over, and actually when you've left Maris, I would really, really like you to carry with you. I don't expect that you're going to remember most of what we actually cover in class, because people don't. That's what you have your notes for, things like that. There are certain issues, certain basic ideas that I'd really like you to have as part of your toolkit when you leave here. And one of those is this notion of who should I place my trust in? Who should I be getting my understanding of the moral values from? Because that's a project that you, each one of you is an individual, as a developing human being, as one who's actually early in your development.  This is something that you should, you know, think very carefully about, because you don't want to be 40 years old and realizing that you made the wrong decisions with this. What else is important about this dialogue? Socrates, he brings up the laws, right? What do the laws say to him? What is Socrates saying to himself and to Credo and putting it in the mouth of the Athenian laws? They're pretty hard on him, aren't they? I mean, you could have set up the dialogue like this, the law is saying, Socrates, don't break us.  He didn't.  What are those reasons? Can you remember any of them? Yeah. They, like, educated him and they, like, raised him? Yeah. They provided, they not only educated and raised him, they provided the very framework in which that could happen, in which his parents could marry. That sounds like something that, you know, you ought to repay somebody for. Anything else? Yeah. Can you remember the parents, like, like, a slave of the law? Yeah. Yeah, now, in the ancient world, the laws compare themselves to mothers and fathers. In the ancient world, things were quite a bit different in the relationship between children and parents than they are for most of us. Parents were, had a much higher status compared to their children.  It was the parents decided, because they're the ones who made you, and some parents will actually say, I made you and I can unmake you, you know, or things like that. The laws are sort of like super parents. They made the parents. So, you know, Socrates, yeah, the laws are saying he's like a slave. What else? There's something that we brought up earlier. They say, what are you doing? Are you going by an act of yours to overturn us? The laws in the whole state? Do you imagine a state can subsist and not be overthrown in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and overthrown by individuals? Socrates does the wrong thing in this case. It has repercussions for the society, doesn't it? We just talked about this a little bit. Could a society last if everyone says, well, I'll accept the laws so long as it turns out in my favor as soon as it doesn't, I'm going to break them. Can you have a society like that? Can you even play a game like that? Let's say we're playing, what do you want to play? Baseball, football, hockey, anything. Let's say chess, right? Do you ever play chess with somebody who cheats? It's very hard to cheat at chess. How would you do it? You'd have to break a rule. You'd have to, like, say, well, you know, my pawn can actually move like a queen. There's not much of a game if people do that. And, you know, you won't be able to play. Sooner or later, you can't tell anything apart. The laws also say, what was our agreement with you? When you entered into the courtroom, what were you agreeing to? Were you to abide by the sentence of the state? If you don't like the way things go in your state, Socrates, then why did you stick around for 70 years? If you think the laws are bad laws, why didn't you go off to Sparta? You keep talking, they say this in the dialogue. You keep saying that Sparta and Crete had better laws than us, because Socrates and Plato were actually sort of critics of democracy, Athens was a democracy. Sparta was, depending on how you want to see it, an oligarchy or an aristocracy. Not everybody got to vote, not everybody got to hold office. So, you know, if Socrates didn't like it, why didn't he go somewhere else? As a matter of fact, he liked it so much, the laws say, that you never left. The only time you ever left was to go on military service.  You went on vacation here. What do they call it? A staycation, right? That's the new term for when you take off work and you just sit around the house and watch TV, play games, eat chips, and don't go into work. So, what do you think? Do the laws have a good case? Do they have a good case for Socrates? Yes or no? Yes? Why? Why do you think so? But I guess that's a good point, if you don't like the law so much, why do you stick around for so long? That's a pretty valid point. Yeah, it's a lot harder to emigrate these days. It used to be a lot easier. Like that. Any of you have other reasons for finding this convincing or do you think that the laws are wrong Socrates is making the wrong choice? Yeah. What do you think? All of you have an opinion, I know. People when they read this text, sometimes they're like, yeah, this is great.  I can't believe that. I go along with this fascist stuff. Those are two extreme positions. Let's put it a different way then. So, if Socrates, let's say Socrates does owe this to the state. What about you and the society that we live in? Who do you owe things to? All of you have debts. And I don't just mean you owe financial aid. Do you guys have loans? A lot of you? And if loans aren't paying it, then scholarships of some sort? Or mom and dad?  That you owe them something. And if you decide to not major in business as you originally planned to major in art history instead, you may get a call from mom or dad saying, I'm shelling out all this money for your education. You owe me. So there's that, but who else do you owe things to? Let's think about the fabric of society. All of you are healthy.  You didn't go through war. You weren't the victim of crime or stuff like that. Do you owe anybody for that? Yeah. Our country? Yeah. The country as a whole. We just had this big 9-11 thing. The 10-year anniversary. And the FBI was on high alert. Agents were called in for the entire weekend to work, double shifts and stuff like that. They had people on the bridges around here making sure there wasn't any funny business going on with that. Police presence was stepped up everywhere. It becomes much more visible. They actually put out some communiques because they didn't want people to get alarmed that some of the police would actually have automatic weapons. Which they did. Why did they have that? To protect us. Do we owe them anything? Yeah. Well, that's a good point. It's honorable, but it's a job. Yeah. When it comes to the military, I'm actually a vet myself. And my attitude when I hear people say, troops shouldn't be put in harm's way, is what do you think you signed up for? You take the money, you take the oath. You're probably going to be put in harm's way. It's the same with police or who else? Firefighters. Who else is on the front lines? You know, keeping you safe, the organs of society we call them. What about nurses and doctors? Nurses more than doctors, though.  If something goes wrong. We don't think of that as a huge risk and a firefighter or a police officer. But they're facing that. Do we owe them anything? What do you think? Could it just be their job? Do we owe them money? Maybe we owe them honor, you know, or respect. Our country provides all this stuff. What do we owe our country? At a minimum. What do you think you owe them? Texas. Well, yeah. It depends on how much you make. What you guys right now are fortunate, most of you I'm guessing, in that you're not making a lot of money because you'll see the more money you make, the bigger the bite gets very, very quickly. You don't have to make very much to be considered middle class anymore. So taxes. Let's say we go a little bit broader. That's providing support to the country. There are laws about taxes, right? You have to follow the laws. You have to follow all the other laws? Sure. What if you don't like the laws? What does the credo hold out as a possibility? The laws actually say this. So you can't break us. Just because you don't like us, we're even saying it.  What should you do if you don't like the laws? What do you have a duty to do? You can change laws. You could try to get into politics and change them to become one of the rulers. The credo, as a dialogue, doesn't actually have a law saying that. There's another way to change laws, though, and that's to do what? Go ahead.