proudly we hail. Ladies and gentlemen, this is C.P. McGregor speaking. Welcome to another performance of Proudly We Hail, a program of your war department. Through the courtesy of the Hollywood Coordinating Committee, we present the popular actor Mr. Dennis O'Keefe, who will star in our play A Question of Eligibility, written by Richard Hall with music by Eddie Skravanik. Midwest University had pulled out all the stops for the big homecoming game with state. With all American Biff White, a one-man pigskin riot, Midwest was rightfully optimistic. I guessed there was only one man on campus who didn't join in that optimism, Professor Everly Gilmore. Professor Gilmore was worried, but let him tell the story. He knows it better than anyone. Yes, yes, I guess I was worried. I hadn't been away from college and football too long myself, and Biff was really a swell kid, likable and friendly. I didn't want to hurt him if I could in any way, but I guess it was inevitable. I'd return to my little office in Barker Hall that afternoon. My girl Friday at the time was Betty Walsh, major in the department, worked for me a couple of hours each day. She looked up as I entered. Oh, hello, Professor. Hello, Betty. How are you coming? I'm all through. Gee, what a huge stack of papers. Have them all graded? All graded. Every last one of them. Uh-huh. How was Biff White's paper? Oh, well, let me see it. 35. 35? Well, that's an excellent score for a nine-hole golf course. Professor, what about this eligibility slip of Biff's? Oh, well, know that. Well, um, can't we hold that up a little while? Oh, look, they've been calling all afternoon from the ad building. Oh, they have? Well, there's only one thing I can do, Betty. Call the ad building and tell them Biff is down and Chem won. I can't sign his eligibility slip. Oh, but Professor, that means Biff won't be able to play in the homecoming game Saturday. No, he could. But you know as well as I do what chance he'd have of passing a make-up. Yeah, I know. Well, I've got a class. Be back in an hour or so. I went to my class, but I must admit I didn't give much of a lecture that day. I had Biff's situation on my mind. I wasn't worried about the university authorities backing me up, but I was worried about Biff. I get a habit of taking advantage of you and, uh, well, making you like it. But there had to be a limit someplace, and so I adjourned my class a few minutes early and walked back over to my office. Oh, hello, Professor. Hello, Betty. I'm glad you're back. Huh? What's the matter? Matter. I've been answering telephone calls all afternoon. Well, good. I'm getting popular. Oh, hell, I'd say unpopular. Look, Coach Adams, the graduate manager, and the president of the Alumni Association all want you to call them. Mm-hmm. The pressure groups. Mm-hmm. Uh, we'll take care of them. Oh, uh, yes, and, uh, Biff White's here to see you. Oh, he is. Mm-hmm. All right, you, uh, you scamper along, Betty, and send Biff in. All right. The professor will see you now, Biff. Thank you. Hiya, Prof. Sit down, Biff. Sit down. Thanks. Well, how did I do, Prof? You don't have to ask me that, do you? No, I guess not. Biff, that was a pretty miserable midterm, you wrote. I know, Prof, but that was a tough quiz. You threw us an Einstein special. Yeah, not so. Sure. Well, the guy who wrote the book couldn't have passed that quiz. Quite a few in the class managed to pass it, Biff. Quite a few. But they're all geniuses. And besides, Prof, I haven't told you until now. The day I took that quiz, I didn't have my five-baked key in my pocket. Oh, now look, Biff. Listen, this is, this is no kidding matter.  Give me a break. Oh, I'm sorry, Biff. You should have thought of that when you were cutting all those classes. I warned you a long time ago that you'd have to dig in. Chemistry is no pipe course. I'll turn over a new leaf, Prof. I promise you. Oh, I wish I could, Biff. I wish I could. But you've said that before. Yes, so I did. Well, could I have a make-up? Oh, if you want one, yes. I can give it to you. We'll say tomorrow afternoon. But it'll be tough, Biff. Just as tough as the other one. And it doesn't give you much time, either. Why, Prof, you underestimate me. Why, I might come in tomorrow and amaze you with my knowledge of the fact that H2O is water. Are you sure of that, Biff? I couldn't help feeling sorry for him. Especially that night. I could see him sweating it out, burning the midnight oil, cramming for an exam, which, though I didn't tell him, I knew he couldn't pass. It's no use, Johnny. I'll never make it. I'm going to give it up and get to bed. But, Biff, I keep telling you it'll be a sense if you'll do it my way. Yeah. Sure. Prof Gilmore never procters a quiz. You'll be all alone. All you have to do is crib it. A few crib notes. That's all. Maybe you're right, Johnny. Maybe you're right. We pause briefly from our story a question of eligibility starring Dennis O'Keefe to bring you an important message from your War Department. Yes, dear. Before I leave Paris this afternoon, I'll get some of that perfume you like, and I'll have to pay the power bill in New York. Oh, yes, I might be late for supper. I'm going to stop at Chicago on my way home. See you tonight. What is this? An H. G. Wells book? Buck Rogers? Flash Gordon? Not at all. Such world travel is a possibility well within the lifetime of everybody listening to me now thanks to the Army. Already the Army has developed a plane that flies over 600 miles per hour in the transonic range at a rocket that hurtles through space seven times as fast. In countless other fields, regular Army technicians are experimenting and making new improvements in medicine, atomic energy, supersonics, radar, television, engineering, communication, all branches of scientific knowledge. A career of technical training and education in the new regular Army is available to all ambitious young men between 17 and 34. See your local Army recruiting officer now. Act two of a question of eligibility starring Dennis O'Keefe as the unprofessor of chemistry, Eberlea Gilmore. Midwest University's hopes for victory in the homecoming game Knows Dived with the declaration of Biff White's ineligibility. And most everybody in the campus spoke of Professor Gilmore as the traitor to the cause. Yes, they didn't like it. And I can't say that I blamed them. They wanted to win that homecoming game and they knew what Biff's presence on the team meant. The news that Biff was to take a make-up got around and that helped a little. But still on campus I was referred to as what's that uncomplementary word that rhymes with mouse? That is, of course, to everyone except the Dean. Eberlea, I called you in. I wanted to complement you on your stand in this situation with Biff White. Well, I hardly deserve any credit, Dean. I should go to the conference committee which makes the rules. Nevertheless, we don't want athletic bums in this university. Biff White is no athletic bum, Dean. As a matter of fact, he's quite a confident student when he decides to be one. But that's just the point. We must at all times emphasize scholastic standing, mind you. And this is an excellent case in point. Scholastic standing. I remember now the Dean's Adam's apple barbed up and down as he said it. And I almost wish for a moment that I hadn't decided against Biff. Only I knew the Dean was basically right. That afternoon, Biff came over to take the exam. Poor kid. Looked like he'd been drawn through my landlady's ringer. Well, Prof, give me the list with the bad news on it. Here you are, Biff. Only 10 questions. Take as much time as you want with them. Thanks, Prof. And come into my office when you're finished. Okay. Well, Biff, it's not like you. You're nervous. I was up a little late last night, Prof, or didn't you know? Back in my office, I got the wondering about Biff. He was nervous, edgy. Suddenly, a thought struck me. I tried to kick it out of my mind, but I couldn't. And then I acted on impulse. I had to be sure. I walked quickly out of my office, across the hallway door. It led to a little used alcove above and next to the chemistry classroom. I opened the door, hurried quietly up the stairs, pulled back the dusty curtain just enough to reveal the classroom below. My fears were justified. Biff was there, working feverishly with the crib note spread all around him. I was thunderstruck. I returned to my office to wait for him. Thank you, Biff. Well, this is very interesting. From the looks of this, you must have really crammed last night. Sure. Just ask me anything, Prof. I've got all the answers. Yes, I think you have. Matter of fact, Biff, I'm darn proud of you. You must be kidding, Prof. That's a blank sheet of paper you're looking at. Yes, Biff. But at the same time, it's the finest examination I've ever read. Let's go over to the ad building and tell them you're up in Chem One. Really up. This is CP McGregor speaking. I hope you've enjoyed our proudly we hailed story starring Dennis O'Keefe. Before leaving you, Don Forbes has an important message for all of us. How many of you know the work of the new regular army? Yes, it is an instrument of national defense, but it is also an organization devoted to scientific research and development. Your life today and in the future is being made easier as a result of army achievements. Our army is engaged in a program of development pioneering new fields in a scale previously unknown. Medicine, electronics, supersonic, aviation, physics. These are but a few of the fields in which army technicians are carrying on their work. Energy particles 100 million times as powerful as those released by the atom bomb are the subject of present experimentations. This is in conjunction with the current study of cosmic rays by army air force technicians. A parachute that will enable an aviator to bail out of a plane at supersonic speeds and a projectile that will go seven times as fast are two more army projects. You've heard of the push button airplane that takes off flies up to 400 miles and lands with no human hand at the controls. You've heard of the sniper scope, an instrument enabling one to see in the dark with no visible light. You've heard of the eniac, a complicated machine that can tell within a few feet exactly the spot where a rocket fired 120 miles into the stratosphere will land. These are all army accomplishments. To carry on this work, the army needs intelligent young men, ambitious men who see the value of this work and want a career in such a field. There is an opportunity for personal advancement, the chance to learn a mechanical skill or trade as well as other educational benefits. If you are a young man between 17 and 34, go to your army recruiting station. The recruiting officer there will tell you more about benefits available to you in a worthwhile job in the new regular army. Thank you Dennis O'Keefe for appearing on this program. Proudly we hail will come to you again over this station next week. Listen in.


Another step forward for the Red Lake Band of Ojibwe as they battle a drug crisis on the reservation. Tonight the Red Lake Police Department reports the arrest of a Red Bee man in connection with the seizure of drugs and drug paraphernalia. The Red Lake Department of Public Safety says it arrested 24-year-old Daniel Lee Cook after they executed a search warrant and located 46 grams of individually packaged heroin, prescription pills, drug paraphernalia, weighing scales, and seized vehicles, personal property and over $1,000 in cash. Cook was subsequently charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia and was transported to Red Lake Detention.


all these different eras come with different you know ET experiences. So if you want to go back only like in what we call like the modern modern history then clearly World War II was like a major turning point you know for Europe as and Germany as well it was


You- You jokin' b****! I think Bojax is gonna be my guy. Great blocking! Oh my god! I'm going highball-hawkins- SHIT! Ooh, don't try to make them missies! I need Patrick Mahomes, actually. Matt, you fraud! I have to stop the game.  You will not stop me! You're turning for your field run from Silver Kade! You will not defeat me! We've gotta end up down the middle! The only way I lose is if I quit! MINE! What are you doing?! Oh my god, did I just shake that? We started this season off crazy hot with two awesome wins, which is why our team looks so good. But this last game, I got completely exposed.  I lost 43 to 7. I got ran over. Oh, so if you need Madden coins, make sure to go to instantmaddencoins.com. You can buy coins or players. I recommend buying players. It's the safest method. You're gonna get a way better deal than what EA would offer you.  Enjoy the rest of wheeling them up, baby.  It only takes one in the playoffs to knock me back to here, because right now, if I play to player like that, I have no chance of beating them. So what do we need to do from now until the playoffs to be ready to beat someone like that? Number one, I think I need edge protector on both my tackles. Now, neither my tackles have it right now because neither of them can get it. And that was a huge problem in the last game. Malik Willis was feeling the heat that sacked a bunch of times and the edge threat elites and under pressures were making them throw bad balls, which is also why you need Fearless on your quarterback, but Malik Willis can't get that either. So to counter that, I'm gonna need some high-level tackles and a higher-level quarterback. Now, the next thing you need to beat that man coverage is you need to be able to give all of your wide receivers in tight ends a different combination of routes to beat the man coverage. Without Hot Route Master, I can't do that. The only person I was able to give routes to was TJ Hawkinson, so he was shading outside, covering the corner out, and I couldn't really do anything else. Additionally, running stretch, getting outside of those nickel blitzes is a really good idea, but my offensive line was not strong enough to handle it. Jason Kelsey is great. I love him.  So that's something I can do to get a little bit better myself. Now, defensively, where I made some mistakes was my user was not fast enough to keep up with those top-tier players. I had a very close knee-run reception, but I just couldn't quite get there. And I think if I had a faster MLB1, I would be able to. I think my D-Line did an all-right job. I wouldn't discredit them. I think my corners did an all-right job. But I'm gonna have to clear up all of those holes because if I play another guy like that, I have to be able to beat him. It's not an option. If I played that guy in the Super Bowl, I have to be able to beat him. I don't get a do-over. So we're gonna take that win last game as a lesson. I did take an L, but L is the first letter in lesson. It's time to get good, kid. We gotta be ready. So that being said, let's move into today's episode with all of that in mind. Let's not get any positions that aren't super fluff unnecessary. Hey, giddy up, baby. Because it's the redemption season. I don't have room for any more losses. Let's see what our first... Ooh, I love this one. I think last time I had re-rolled till 90 plus, or was it 92 plus? I don't remember, but this is one of my favorite ones on here because I love doing re-rolls. We can choose a re-roll and keep re-rolling it until we get a 92 overall player or better. So for my re-roll, I could choose any of them, but I'm actually gonna do the Gridiron Guardian Volume 2 player. These Gridiron Guardian players are nasty. They have a really good stat, so I'm hoping I can get a 92 plus here. And it'll be a good one. So first one is Gerard Davis. We keep going until we get a 92 overall, better than Spon Jefferson. DJ Humphries? This Derek Stingley is so good. I only feel bad because I have too many corners now. Unless technically one of these dudes could play safety. Daniel Sorensen is my free safety right now, but I could be convinced to move him. So our 92 plus is Derek Stingley. Let's go see how we use this. Here's actually what we'll do because we run a lot of nickel where we actually use that like Tyson Anderson. So Derek Stingley is gonna become CB3. He's the starter. He also has baked in Pick Artist, which is really nice. Let me see his other abilities real quick. Do you get any other discounted abilities? You just get free Pick Artist. Deep Out Zone is short route. That's it. And then I'm gonna put Tariq Wollin as my backup strong safety. I know that sounds weird, but your backup strong safety actually gets used kind of a lot if you run nickel and dime. Stingley Pick Artist and Tip Drill on Tariq Wollin. All right, first Will Spinn lands us this Derek Stingley. Take a look at the stats on this Derek Stingley, by the way. Fast as hell. Great acceleration. Playwreck is boosted for my strategy item, same with zone and pursuits. Six foot 190. He honestly could just be a little bit taller for the meta, but that's totally fine. All right, first Will Spinn is a corner upgrade. Not something I really was thinking about. I'm happy to have them. Let's see if we can actually choose on this next one. Ooh. Overall swap. We will not be adding a player. We will be swapping a player for a different player of the exact same overall. Now, Delvin Tomlinson. Delvin Tomlinson is a 92. I could swap him out for another 92. I know what I'm doing. Dude, I'm telling you, you can't stop how good this card is. Tariq Wollin is a 93 overall. Tariq Wollin, I'm so happy to have had you on the team. Tariq Wollin, I'm swapping you out.  Isaiah Simmons. I cannot speak any higher of this card. The 93 overall, Isaiah Simmons, could literally be on any team I've ever had ever, and I would literally... Oh, he's so good. 93 speed. 6 foot 4. 92 acceleration. 91 change of direction. 93 hip power. He's a monster-size user who can move laterally quickly, and he can get Crusher. I used to run Crusher out of my sweat. I used to have him in a wheel of mud. For one AP, you grab Lurker. I'm also going to give him mid-zone KL, just in case there's a small scenario where I don't user him. And Isaiah Simmons is our overall swap. Tariq Wollin, thank you for your service. I've appreciated you. Isaiah Simmons is the new MLB one. The third and final wheel spin of today's episode. We've added Derek Stingley and Isaiah Simmons. Lastly, we're going to land on two 93 overalls. I think I can shore up both of my tackle problems right now. And I've got so many 93 overall options. I'm going to start with Colton Miller. A 93 overall left tackle has a one AP edge protector. So that's our new left tackle. 93 overall, Juwan Taylor gets a one AP edge protector as well. We're in business, baby. That is a huge upgrade. All right, let's get these abilities added. Colton Miller is first with one AP edge protector. I'm going to take secure protector off of Zion Johnson to be able to afford this. That's easy. He still gets post up. And that frees up two AP, which is exactly what we need. All right, look at that. We got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine players on offense with abilities. I think we're ready for this game. We didn't add as many good players as we did last episode. I think we made more important upgrades. Colton Miller and Juwan Taylor is huge. Isaiah Simmons with Lurker is massive. And then Derek Stingley, I'm excited to see how he plays. A spin on the challenge wheel, of course, we've been clutched last episode, but we didn't get it. Let's see what our challenge wheel lands us with today. Might be the triple crown. It's ooh. Last time we got this challenge, our opponent rage quit. So I never got to see what we had, but it's crazy hard. 55 plus fantasy points and one player means we are feeding the ball to one dude the entire time. His name is Lurked. Literally, it's Lurked. He's got Jalen Hertz, Gronk, Marquez Valdes, Scanlan, he's got a pick set. I just saw all your God squad players. I need 55 plus fantasy points with one player. I'm going for two with Bo Jackson. I think Bo Jackson is going to be my guy. Bradbury Dawkins, Avante Maddox, Julius Peppers, Gravedigger, Cam Jordan, Alody Nada, Gardner Johnson, Isaiah Rogers Carmichael. It's almost like a pseudo Eagles team.   For the record, I refuse to touch grass. If anyone wants to ask me to touch grass, the answer is no. Ooh, he's got a touchdown. He had a touchdown, I think. Ooh, nice move. Oh, I knew he was going half back again. We'll guess his pass and just play this straight up. A little bit behind that, he saw it. He's got nothing right now. Ooh, steps up with Jalen and slides to avoid the hit. Respect, smart man. First in ten, he's going to go with a little handoff here and get rocked. I'm sending a heater now. I'm sending a hot one. He's passing. He's going to go buyers. Oh, he doesn't. He's going to go with a quick pass. We're going to go low on the big boy. Oh my God. Valda scaling is huge. What is this? Ooh, we clogged that. Let's go. We got a yard and that's it. Does he keep it with the QB? What's the deal here? Is this a pass? It is a pass. Ooh, that could have been a tip drill. I'm going straight man coverage. Shit, I just got an encroachment. We're with engage eight here. I think he's going to try and throw half back again. He did. He threw Keith Byers. I kind of knew that, but I guessed incorrectly. I guessed he'd throw to work done. Well, he retained a one point lead, but a nice touchdown. 12 plays, 71 yards, three minutes. Yeah, it was a good drive from him. He's definitely a good player. I mean, his gamer tag is a Madden gamer tag. Well, I haven't seen him play any defense at all yet. So let's see what this looks like. All right. So it was, he shaded outside on everybody. Honestly, just like the last guy. I'm just going to pick up as many yards as I can with Bo Jackson. Going to go right side stretch. Those blocks are impeccable. He didn't have anybody. This is honestly probably the mistake I made last game. I probably should have been running the ball like this last time. Going to cut this one up. He makes a good play with Gardner Johnson. Ooh, torch the user. User couldn't hang. We're getting sticky with it right now. Let's go. Everything's going to bow. It's spinner. It's a God squad and it's spinner just like the last guy, but I'm thinking harder this time. And I should have been running the ball a lot more against the last guy. I just, I don't know.  And sometimes you have a bad game. Second and five. I am going right at the middle. Great blocking. Oh my God. We got met by Safety Julius Peppers, but that's first and 10. Go right back at the middle once again. It's first and 10. He sees it. He sent a lot. I go down. He uses another timeout. Second and 12. Keep it simple. Don't got to reinvent the wheel. Coach has no field goal. I'm so shocked by that. No, I'm taking my field goal. KD York, no abilities. You're not vegetarian. You can still hit a 27 yard field goal. Very proud of you. Ooh, I have to make a substitution on this defense. Don't I? A big thing in a sack. Hassan Reddick combined with Dalvin Tomlinson, I believe for that one. Second and 10. I'm going for the same thing. Let's get some more pressure. Ooh, he throws underneath and misses. Goes with the high ball. Smart man. He does get the first down out of that. But guess what? That clock is ticking. I expect him to throw Keith Byers. I'm here with Sorenson. He misses another. What's in the duffel bag? He goes Byers. He remains in bounds. That's huge. Hey, he hit stuck. The first guy. Real well, impressive play. But now that clock's ticking. He's not in field goal range yet. Mine! Mine! Stop running. 21 seconds. The volleyball simulator. Volleyball 23. Bum set interception. I'm throwing Hawkinson over the middle most likely. Nope, don't need to. Second and two. Hawkinson's there. No, he's not. Matt, you fraud. I have to stop doing that. I keep throwing that. I do not want to get... Oh, I know what this is. I know exactly what this is. It's one of them cheesy-ass post routes, isn't it? Just get to the QB. I like this. Oh, overthrows everybody. That's half. I didn't get points up on the turnover because I'm homeless, but whatever. I get them all here. If I get a touchdown right now, I can win the game. I'm going to go with eye form here. I'm just going to go right side, and we're going to cut this up. That was quite the dive he made. It worked very well. Oh, he got... He dove a little early. Let's go, Bojakson runs the first over. Eight rushes, 50 yards for Bojakson. Keep it up, baby. Ooh, look who's there.  I'm so over Malik Willis, bro. I'm over him. I'm not giving up on the run. Got to make a big... Oh, no, it's Carmichael. Fuck! He didn't say we got to break a big tackle, but I can't break it from Carmichael. I'm going to trust Malik Willis to make a big, big throw right here. I'm going highball-hawking, and he comes down with it! Biggest play of the game right there. It's DB Fire 2 Press. I think I throw Bojakson. I'll just hit Okoye since he just tried to use the grave digger for whatever reason. Oh, the pancakes. The pancakes! That's somebody who passed. Commit! Second and three. Let's go. Another beautiful run, maybe. Third and three, let's go! Stretch, Bo. Cut it up the middle. Stuffed. I'm taking my points. Oh my god, did I just shake that? Oh, I'm so worried. Fourth day to seven. All right, a seven-point lead.  I just got him to fumble, and he actually picked it up. Honestly, I wouldn't have deserved the ball there anyway. I want to win like a man. I don't want to win off of some nonsense like that. He's going to go with a handoff, and I say a sim, it's going to light it up the minute he gets it. He's going to go play action. He's got. Yep, that's why I say he's got that. Big hit. Hey, keep lighting him up like that. I'm going to go use this out-route. Oh no, it's not an out-route. Oh, I can get that! He under-threw it. He under-threw it by a mile. Oh, so close to that. Uh-oh, Mondalvin Tomlinson. Not the guy I want to be on. Ooh, nice play. I expect a run here. Yep. Yep. Three timeouts, a piece seven to 14. I'm going to go blitz Isaiah Simmons. Oh, I'm going to Byers. I see him. I see him. I see him. I see him. Shit. Why was he slowing down? Is he trying to chew clock and score no time left? Got to make a monster play here. He is. He's trying to score no time left. Does he go for two if he does get it? Let's see what he does here. He's got a score still. I think he's going to run this football with Jaylen Hertz. Yep. What's he going to go for? Oh, he gets it. Okay. Nice touchdown. I got 46 seconds in two timeouts. And he will take a few goal. I'm surprised he wouldn't go for two here. I figure if you're going to go all the way down there and then chew the clock, it's because you want to win the game right then and there.  I want every Hail Mary chance at a touchdown we can get. And that's a hell of a return from Justin Jefferson out to the 31. Make it, you got to make it a lot easier on Kade York.  First in 10. Hawkinson is open and he does come down with it. First time out, 34 seconds on the clock. So he's in DB Fire 2 press. Does that mean that Jefferson is open? All right. We're taking the check down to Bo Jackson. He switched on to the wrong guy. He's got too many big boys out there. 29 seconds on the 44. We got to find ourselves in field goal ridge. I'm going Hawkinson. It's ballsy. I get a flag. What's the flag? Roughing the passer. Roughing the passer. You can't get that. When, since when could you get roughing the passer? Ball carrier conservative. I might have just won. I would have been on the 33 otherwise. I end up on the 18. So I would have been a 50-yard field goal. I can't hit a 50-yard field goal. So that is huge. I'm going to take this down to one second. I'm going to kick my field goal in the game. I said I'd never miss an iced kick. Today will not be the day that I miss an iced kick. 34-yard field goal from Silver Kade York. He's iced. We've got it aimed up down the middle.  It's down the screw. Roughing the passer, dude. I need to see the highlight on it. I need to see the highlight on it, bro. Roughing the passer, what? It's so ironic that his name is lurk. And the reason I won that game is because I lurked him on the first play of the game. And ever since that, I could never turn him over. Now that's lurked, buddy. That right there. That's lurked. Okay, so this was it. This was the roughing the passer. No, this wasn't roughing the passer. This was just a straight laser, man. I just threw a laser beam.  We don't get to see the roughing the passer. We take those, though. Oh my God, we take those. I'll look at the player's stats, but Bo did not have 55 plus. There's absolutely no way Bo had 55 plus. How can Sin- Yeah, no. It's literally impossible. Bo had a great game, though. 13 for 61. He averaged 4.6 yards per carry. That's huge. So he did play really well. I'm glad for what he did, but we didn't even sniff 55 plus. We played a good defensive game, if anything. An absolutely massive, massive win. No upgrade for Michael Irvin. We moved to 3-1, but we do hang on to our edge protector tackles, which is amazing. Our brand new stud, been a linebacker, Isaiah Simmons. And we also get to hang on to Derek Stingley. He didn't get to do anything in that game right there, but that's all right. We played a good game all around. Really happy to have gotten that win. It was actually a very similar game. The last guy was better, for sure, but he played similarly. He had an excellent team. He ran spinner, linebacker, Blitz 0, overstorm brave, and we were finally able to win. My offense was not very potent. I got three field goals, but at least we won. So that's a great start. I'm really proud of the boys. I got to get Malik Willis out of there. I need Patrick Mahomes, actually. There's a few quarterbacks I can get, but Patrick Mahomes or Brady would be huge. I'm gonna just gotta get out of there. Let's get a new wide receiver, but we are on the right track. Proud of the boys today. I love you guys. Thanks for watching this always good redemption game. I'll see you in the next one. Peace.


I am Dr. Lokesh Virappa, Consulter and Orthopedic Surgeon at Manipal Hospital's HIL Airport Road, Bangalore. COVID-19 has been here for about 3-4 months now and it's not going away so fast. So we have to learn to live with it and live in spite of it and we as an orthopedic department here are equipping ourselves so that we can take care of you. We have restarted the elective surgeries which include complex trauma, pelvic and established surgeries, joint replacement surgeries, arthroscopy and sub-speciality practices also. And our OPD services are back to normal and we are seeing significant number of patients in the OPD in the recent times. How do we ensure that you are safe in the hospital environment? We are seeing to it that every patient that enters the hospital is undergoing a thermal scan and social distancing is maintained in the lift area, inside the lift, in the OPD queues or in the waiting areas where you wait before you see the doctor. Even when you are seeing the doctor, there is a social distance that is maintained and the doctor uses a mask and a hood when he is examining you and also it is advisable for all of us to use a mask to prevent spread of virus if at all it is there in any of us between each other. So in this direction we have also ensured that the video consultations that we are going on during the lockdown period will continue for all those patients who cannot come and reach out to us and meet us. But we always know that video consultation will not be adequate in all scenarios. We will have to go and meet the doctor and the doctor has to examine us. We are even arranging transport facilities for those patients who are in need of elective surgeries to reach the hospitals so that the transport should not be a hindrance for you to reach the hospital. We are actually using personal protective equipment whenever we are actually doing surgeries on you electives or emergency. So your safety is our safety and we believe that this is one of the safest places you can be here at Manipal Hospital.


Aaron Powell Welcome to Freethoughts. I'm Aaron Powell. Trevor Burrus Joining us today is Deirdre McCloskey. She's the Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communications at the University of Illinois, Chicago. And today we're talking about an essay she wrote for an upcoming volume edited by Ben Powell on prospects for libertarianism. The essay is called Manifesto for a New American Liberalism or How to be a Humane Libertarian. Welcome back to Freethoughts. Aaron Powell Yes. Thank you very much. Glad to be here. You begin the essay by talking about liberalism 1.0. What is that? Ben Powell Yes. Well, this is a coinage by Dan Klein, an economist friend of mine. And he's making the point and I'm making the point that we free countries were once liberal in my sense and in Dan's sense and Tuckville's sense and Adams's sense and so forth that we were free economies without much in the way of government intervention.  And they're my friends and I don't think they're evil people but for about 100 years the word is meant in the United States, larger and larger government. Aaron Powell What is slow socialism as opposed to fast? Ben Powell Well, fast socialism would be 1917 and communism or the horror of Venezuela these days. But I was once a Marxist and then I was a Keynesian and that's kind of slow socialism. One takes the view that the government is very nice and is very competent and so we need more of that and less economic freedom. Aaron Powell Is it slow socialism because it has no principled stopping point? Ben Powell It has no, that's a very good way to express it. I'm going to adopt that way of saying it. I'm going to steal it immediately because that's the point. There's no limit if the nanny state as it's often called thinks you should go to bed at eight o'clock then there's soon, well you know every day we get more news of this. In the state of Tennessee if you want to open a moving company, a furniture moving company, you have to get the permission of the existing moving companies, so you can imagine how that works out. Ben Powell Certificates of need. Aaron Powell Certificates if you want to braid hair you need a license from the government and this is crazy. Ben Powell What's wrong with, I mean fast socialism seems to have a bad track record, but what's wrong with slow socialism? I mean don't we need these kinds of rules if we're going to live together in a complex society where all of our actions impact each other. We've got to follow rules and we've got to have some way to use the government to make sure that that society works for everyone that it takes the shape that we want it to. Aaron Powell There you go. That's the standard argument and I used to use it when I was a kid and Bernie Sanders uses it and my friends on the left use it all the time that the more complicated the economy the more regulations we need and of course it's actually kind of the opposite. The more complicated the economy the more we need to rely on the immensely complicated plans of individuals and trust, not a blind trust but a certain trust in the market. If the market results in global warming and air pollution then there's a case for some intelligent piece of government intervention but in general we should let the market work. You know I came here in an Uber taxi and it's a cheaper and better service. It's being ferociously opposed by every taxi monopoly in the world. In Germany they've made it illegal but that's how the economy should work. People as the English say they have an expression having a go and allowing people to have a go is pretty, has worked out very well. Trevor Burrus I think that Aaron made up the way he said his counterargument was something he said society is shaped the way we want it or something like that. That seems to be an interesting, you know people say that, the government can make sure the society is shaped the way we want it and they kind of gloss over how kind of crazy part it is. Aaron Ross How hard it is to do. The key word here and I urge you all to watch it when it happens is the word designed. Designed to do such and such, it's a lawyer's word. It's not something that a person who actually understands society a little bit would use because design is very hard to undertake. Look, if you're engaged in a war for survival then design is really what you want. You want General Grant or General Lee for that matter to be focused on the one thing and then you kind of know what you need to do. For something as complicated and rich as a advancing economy, an economy in which the poor are getting much better off than they once were, design is so often doesn't work. Trevor Burrus The other one is we. Aaron Ross Well that's right, we because the only we we have is the government and this we-ness is a problem. We want to in turn the Japanese. We want to invade Iraq. We, we, we. Aaron Ross I think also in design in particular there's a loss of the sense of costs because I mean so design in design context like you're doing, you're designing a new product, you know every now and then they'll do these things like a new iPhone comes out and they'll tear it down, some tech site will tear it down and they'll add up the cost to the component. They'll be like this phone actually only cost X dollars to make but they're selling it for two or three X, you know where's all that extra cost and the cost is that the design process is so expensive and so wasteful, you know you try it, it doesn't work, you scrap it, you try it again. But we seem to think that design when government does it doesn't work that way. The design is just like this abstract idea and then you apply it and that's right. And the key sort of ideology behind the left and behind this slow socialism is that the economy is easy. You could come up with that all the time. People will say well, you know, we'll subsidize solar panels, that'll be easy.  I'm not making out that the Obama administration was terrible at this but it is that they think and this is a very deep presumption especially by people who have never been on a farm or who have never been, weren't raised in a small grocery store where they worked.  Why not central planning for 324 million people in the United States? It definitely seems that but that's a really good way of describing Paul Krugman for example that the economy is easy. Now, what about, we're talking about the socialists on the left, the so-called liberals. What about conservatives? Are they an issue? My, yeah, they're sure is. My view is that conservatives, we as free market advocates, as Catoites, we ought to be trying to occupy the middle. This thing that just happened in France with Macron, by the way, I was at a dinner party in Paris a couple of months ago before the election and I pointed out to the assembled group that Macron in ancient Greek means big deal. And it is a big deal that he's occupied the middle with real liberalism, that is, freedom for people so far as social matters are concerned, transgendered people or people from Morocco and so forth on the one hand and fiscal responsibility on the other. So taking the best of the Democrats and the Republicans, so to speak, in France, the conservatives and the socialists. So I think there's a middle ground that free market advocates should be assuming. We are, we should be taking it. We are the radicals, as we once were, of course. We are the ones who can stand between these two.  If unlike me, they think that the 1960s was the beginning of the rut. If they say, oh, the women came out of the kitchen and started messing around with flying airplanes and so on and those damn blacks or darn blacks or everyone to express it, they started to get uppity and these queers, they got out of the closet and these colonial people, once they had it all well organized in the British and French and empires and now they've gotten a right, oh, I hate it, I hate it. And you know, a progressive in a deep sense is someone who believes the 1960s were the great, was the beginning of the modern era of freedom, of liberation. We have to get across somehow to our audience and beyond our audience that institutions like Cato and the Charles Koch Institute and others, their view of the 60s is precisely that it was the beginning of true freedom. But there's a view, the progressives, and they look back on the 60s and then they look at the great society laws. That's the other side, that's the slow socialist coming, you're right about that. So what do we say, so what they say is like, look, the two things go hand in hand, that we stopped oppressing people, we stopped marginalizing people and we brought them into society but that part of what that means is then taking care of each other, being part of the society. So what are we in that radical center? I'm an Abrahamic socialist. Jewish. You mean Abraham, like the Abraham. The Abraham, Abraham, the named Abram, Christian, Muslim, I'm actually an Anglican, an Episcopalian and I believe that we do have a responsibility to the poor. But our responsibility is to give them opportunity to make sure they're not serfs of the public schools that they're, you know, look, I come from Chicago and the south and west sides of Chicago are really in terrible shape. That doesn't mean there's not a vital and large black middle class but there's also not so vital and very poor black underclass. The south and west sides of Chicago ought to be hives of industrial activity. They were in the 19th and early 20th century. There was no problem getting a job in the 1920s in Chicago but we put obstacles in the way. We have interventions in the wage bargain, so-called protections of various kinds such as the minimum wage that make it impossible for a person who's not worth $12 an hour, 15 or 10 or whatever it is, to be hired by anyone. And then we have zoning, which makes it impossible to open a factory on the west side of Chicago as you said, and if you didn't think that was enough to stop enterprise, we have this war on drugs, which turns the south and west parts of the south and west side into free fire zones. And this is very bad for the poor. Unfortunately, lots of these things are outgrowths of this regulatory impulse, longstanding. As you say, it starts with American progressivism 100 years ago and then ramped up in the 30s and then especially as you pointed out in the great society programs of the 60s. And we ought to step back. We ought to have, you could call them by various names. We ought to have enterprise zones, for example. There's a new word that is being used a lot and it makes me cringe whenever I see a use. And since it's liberalism and now we're neoliberalism, and I feel like anytime anyone uses that word, they're derogatory. They're saying the same thing. It's a term of contempt. I was at a small conference at my university at UIC with my colleagues. I'm a professor of English and history as well as economics. They were mainly from English and history and they had brought this markzoid from New York, a smart guy who talked about economic history in the United States since the war. Some of his points were good and some of them weren't so good. And I stood up and very politely said, you know, maybe you should change such in your argument and I'm an economic historian. I'm not an unknown figure in this and he said, here's what happened. He said, I see that you're a neoliberal and sat down. That was his reply. And what I found very distressing is my colleagues didn't say, well, you know, come on, Deirdre McCluskey might have a little standing to talk a tiny bit about economic history, maybe a better actually answer, but they didn't do it. You'd mentioned that you were at one time a Marxist and moved through this progression. I was kind of a Joan Baez Marxist. So you're just in it for the folk music. A tiny bit simple-minded. How did you change your mind? Well, very slowly. I mean, I was at Harvard College, you know, Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn and I in, say, 1960, we're about the same age. We all had the same opinion. Capitalism is the problem. Let's have a revolution. The problem is that those two guys haven't changed their opinion. I've changed my opinion on lots of things, including my gender. But I then became a Keynesian because that was what was an offer in the economics department. I wanted to help the poor, so I became an economist. And then I became a kind of social engineer. We were going to come down to Washington. We was at Harvard in graduate school and we were going to fine-tune the economy and own. And then I started to apply economics to economic history and I realized that these tools, these basic tools of economics, supply and demand curves and so on, make a lot of sense and are useful for history. Then I got a job at the University of Chicago in 1968, I taught there for 12 years. And then in 1974, a Robert Nozick's book, Anarchy, State and Utopia sort of solidified it for me. And then I continued to drift somewhat more slowly in the next couple, three, four decades. But now I describe myself, as I said, as a Christian real liberal and as a kind of Austrian economist much more than I was. And I speak in terms of humanomics. I'm trying to combine the humanities and the social sciences in a serious way. So my heroine is Mae West, who was brilliant. She was a comedian in the movies in the 30s. And she said, I was snow white, but I drifted. Come up and see me sometime. I am in favor of the institution of marriage, but I'm not ready for an institution. So do you think would you drift all the way to anarchism? No. In fact, my first politics was anarchism, oddly enough. At the Carnegie Library in Wakefield, Massachusetts, built by Andrew Carnegie, I found Prince Kropotkin's book Mutual Aid when I was about 15 years old. And it blew me away. He was a prince of the Russian Empire and an anarchist, unfortunately a left anarchist. So he believed the problem was the state. I still agree with him there. And then the other problem is ownership and capitalism. And that's where I parted slowly. So no, I have a nostalgic affection for anarchists. When we talk about taking away some of these controls that the government has put on us over the last century ... Yeah, so great protection. It seems to me that aside from people's objections, our food is going to be polluted, our air is going to be polluted, people are going to be ... Yeah. And that is really important now for the conversation is inequality. Keeps changing what is important. True, true. Now it's inequality. And now it's inequality in the corporations, the centers. The international corporations. Yeah. What do we say about inequality? Well, about the international corporations, we say, he's so dear to you as a slow socialist want to make a corporation called the federal government larger and stronger and completely monopolistic. That's one way to answer them. These are not knockdown arguments. The fact is that real inequality has fallen. In the first place worldwide, it's fallen with the economic growth in China and India and some other places. But even inside countries like the United States, in substance, it's declined.   She's got all these toys. But basic goods are much more equally spread than they were in say, 1800 or 1900 or 1960. Things have improved for poor people. When I was young, poor people, there were actually people starving in the United States. There were actually people grossly malnourished. Now everyone, including me, are overnourished. There was no air conditioning. Take that as a simple case in point. There were horrible heat waves in Chicago and Washington and so forth that resulted in hundreds and hundreds of deaths. And then air conditioning first came to movie theaters and my parents got an air conditioner in their bedroom in 1956. And now it's commonplace. It's interesting there's also no rich man's air conditioning. There's no rich man's air conditioning. There's no rich man's air conditioning. There's also no rich man's iPhone, which I think is super interesting. Exactly. I don't want to say everyone because look, there are poor people. I supported two homeless people in my home for four and a half years, in my own home. I still give, I still ties to my Episcopal church and they're a very efficient charity and they do very good work. So I'm, as I told you, I'm a bleeding art libertarian. I want the poor to be better off. As far as this inequality thing is concerned, aside from envy about the diamonds, which is silly, envy is insatiable, what's the real problem here and there's not a problem. There's not a serious problem. The poor are much better off than they were 50 years ago or 30 years ago. I want that to continue and the main way for it to continue is to have economic growth. When people complain about inequality and systemic inequality and growing inequality, I really get the sense that it's not so much that there's rich people with baubles that poor people don't have, but that they almost adopt like a, take a line out of Michael Walter's spheres of justice and say that the issue is not that there's, within the sphere of money, some people have a lot more than others, but that having a lot more bleeds into other spheres and so what it turns into is disparities in power, that the rich can get their way and the poor can't or the rich can exploit the poor and the poor can't do anything about it and the wealth disparity is both a cause and a symptom of that, but it's not itself the real problem. Yeah, of all the communitarians, Mike is the most deep. Sandell, for example, at Harvard is not deep. He's an inch deep and yes, there is a danger there, but as Mike has said in print, he was asked, is capitalism corrupting? There is a book that asks that, or the market, is the market corrupting? And he said, yeah, it is. And then he said, and so are all the other alternatives, the socialist or the populist, let's say, who makes crazy promises. I was talking to the Uber driver about it this week as I came over this morning, that's corruption too, and then it ends up that his family is better off, as in the case of Trump. So, and I think that's a very wise remark. And from an Abrahamic and Christian perspective, I have no trouble with that. Original sin, dears. People, power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. So, we need to make sure that market economy, we need to help market economies to be competitive and to free entry, and you have to break apart monopolies like the doctors, the plumbers, I mean the AMA, American Medical Association. And so, and when have the rich not been the rulers? Gabriel Colco, a new left historian back in the 60s, wrote about the ICC, the Interstate Commerce Commission, which was to leash the railways and prevent them from exploiting the farmers, and in fact, they did the opposite. They got captured as Colco documented very quickly by the railways. Instead of reducing fares, they raised fares, and then they got to regulate trucking as well. So it was, and we at the University of Chicago, the Economics Department, were delighted at Colco. So here's a man of the left, we're supposed to be on the right, I don't think we really were, but supposed to be on the right, and he and we were agreeing, namely that, well, we called it the golden rule, those who have the gold rule. We hated it as much as Colco and the new left it. Does liberalism, if it's working well in the sense of growing betterment, as you know, trade-tested betterment, does it contain the seeds of its own demise in the sense by producing enough wealth that people start wanting to take it, because it seems, if everyone's toiling in the field, A, you're not taking things for granted, and I think people start to take wealth for granted in an affluent liberal society, and B, you understand that everyone else is also working in the field. But then when you start seeing, oh, there's a hedge fund manager who does an important field. He's working in the field, but he's behind the hedge. He's behind the hedge. Too shay. And you're just, well, I don't see what he's doing now. He's managing that hedge, and he's making a lot of money, and so now we can just take away. Yeah, that's right. But this, as you know, is an old theme in the study of modern society. Drake said that capitalism would raise its own grave diggers, and lots of people have made this point. They did. Schumpeter did, and what's his name, the sociologist did, and I just don't think it's inevitable. I think we can rage, rage against the dying of the light, but it is a problem. It's this problem that we grow up in socialist societies. They're called families. And so every generation has to be taught, especially now, as you said, we grow up in families that are very far from production. If you grow up in a farm or in a small business, you kind of understand there's no such thing as a free lunch. You got to work to get more medical care. You can't just say, you can't just raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour and we'll all be better off. And you know what prices do. You kind of understand the economy. I find my students who come from farms and small businesses catch on to economics much faster than I did. And there are a lot more eyes in the economy now than there were when I graduated from college in 64 and a ton more than there were in 1900. One-third of the American population was on farms in 1900. So people who just sort of don't understand their academics or their lawyer fathers or things like that. That's right. And it's not just the pointy-head intellectuals. If your dad and mom goes off to the office and you have no idea what it means or even if you go visit the office. It's nice that you take your daughter to work day. You still don't understand what mom is doing. She's talking on the phone a lot and you don't know what that's all about and what it has to do with the meat that comes to you in a nice cellophane package in the store and you think that's where meat comes from. Where does meat come from? It comes from the supermarket. On the question of poor and the role of government in their lives. So on the left they say we need to effectively financially help the poor because- Yeah. And I'm actually in favor of that in some circumstances, a hand up, a handout in the right of circumstance. You write in the essay that what we really need to do is kind of get out of their way. Yeah. Just trust them to much more know what's right for them. Yeah. So on the... I mean, this is an argument that just traditionally made more on the right is that do the poor know what's best for them? I mean, don't they... They're people, classes of people, individuals who really do need their lives guided by someone who knows better.  And so lashing out and saying, no, we know what's best, but then there are things that they picked as the we know what's best would be catastrophic not just for the elites but for themselves. And so is there... I mean, do we have... Can we kind of trust them to run their own lives? Well, you know, that's the con... As you said, that's the conservative line. It's also the left wing line. And we people from Cato and so forth, we think that there's a third possibility that they are not... We don't believe in compulsion. We don't believe in violence. We're in favor of persuasion, of sweet talk, as I call it. And we believe that people should be left alone on the whole. You know, so it was said that these people can't take care of themselves about women, about blacks, about colonial people. In Holland, where I've lived for a number of years, they used to say at the height of the Dutch empire, mainly what's now Indonesia, they said this would be around 1900. The standard line was, well, we're no longer extracting tremendous amounts from Indonesia, although in some ways they still were. We're their guardians. And then you'd say, well, how long is that going to go on? Oh, about 200 years, said the Dutch. The well-meaning Dutch, the left, at least of the kind of imperialists. You'd pollute it this way. I just think this business of people not taking care of themselves is not good. The Protestant Reformation was mainly significant for the making of the modern world, not the way Max Weber said it was by changing people's psychology and making them more afraid they weren't going to get into heaven or something. But it's mainly church governance. Instead of the priests saying, we'll take care of this, you don't need to bother. It was the priesthood of all believers, especially on the radical side of the Reformation. You write about some, you say it a little obliquely, sometimes directly, but you say sometimes libertarians are taking bad rhetorical tactics. And I think you kind of say that sometimes they actually champion selfishness and sort that is not the Iran problem. The Iran problem. That's how I think of it. So what sort of libertarians are you finding out there and what are the kind of mistakes are they making out of that?  That's what the country club says. And that's just not an intelligent way of talking because we don't, at least I, and I think it's true of both of you. We don't want to disdain the poor. We want them to do well and we want them to flourish in a free society. The kind of society that can be, as Langston used the great African-American poet said, in America, that can be and should be. And it's a good, sensible, practical vision. It can be done. And if we keep sneering at the poor this way, that's not a good move. And what we should be saying, what Cato should have emblazoned on its front or the front of the building is we want to help the poor. Every speech we give, every article we write, we think that this regulation or that and the federal government is a bad thing because it hurts the poor. And that should be our focus. And then we can take the middle. As Emmanuel Macron, we hope, we pray in, of all places, France. Henry Kissinger once joked, France is the only successful communist country because it's been centralized for four centuries. They've been working on it. You also write that you think that in our rules for rhetoric, do you think that we else, we need to make sure that we talk about criticized conservatives just as much as we do the last? Yeah. What liberals, real liberals or bleeding heart liberals or whatever wanted should be doing is getting away from being placed on this one spectrum on the right.  I say, no, I'm not. I say, Friedrich Hayek's essay at the end of the Constitution of Liberty is a nice, quite good essay. Why I am not a conservative. And we ought to keep on, as he points out, it's quite interesting. He's got a good way of formulating it. He says that conservatives have great faith in evolution up to the present. That all the things that evolved, all the English constitution, everything else, it evolved, that's a good thing. But they're terrified of future evolution. And that's where Hayek disagrees with them. What seems to me sometimes conservatives are socially planning, they're socially planning where the left is economically planning and if they're trying to, for example... That's right. Free on the social side, free on the economic side, we're the party of freedom. We're the real radicals and we can harness the imagination of the young in a way that these old farts, if you'll pardon the expression, can't. I once did a debate on marriage for gay marriage against a conservative and I just started talking about divorce law, which conservatives have been playing with forever, resisting no-fault divorce and things like this. And really that's just, if you're fixing the rules of divorce, you're just price fixing the exit cost of marriage in a social planning problem that's just as a version of Hayekian principles and other sort of price fixing. I express it that the conservatives want to get into our bedrooms and the slow socialists want to get into our businesses and I think they should lay off both of them. Are we, I guess so far as direction goes, headed in the right way? I was struck, I think yesterday that I saw a survey of voters in 2016 came out that put them on the standard economic social liberty quadrant chart and then had dots for where they voted, who they voted Trump or Hillary and then yellow for other and there weren't a lot of yellows. And what was really striking was first the unsurprising thing that in the maximal freedom on both there were almost no voters but that the kind of standard line that the conservatives are for economic freedom but not for social freedom and then the progressives are for social freedom but not for economic freedom was not borne out by this data at all that in fact what you saw was that the conservatives were, so the Trump voters or the red dots were clustered yes, very low on social freedom but also were very much like they were basically in the middle on economic freedom like they've been, they leaned against economic freedom then the liberals were in a similar, sorry the progressives were in a similar boat that they didn't care about economic freedom but their social freedom wasn't terribly high either and that seems to be anecdotally with the rise of the waves of protests on campus and the economic populism on the right are we drifting because it used to be like well at least each group was kind of half good but now it feels like the groups are, there's no good. That's an interesting observation and it sounds kind of a chords with what I can see. Well Brian Capic calls it the median voter is a national socialist. Yeah, yeah the median voter is a national socialist. There were three ideas that the intellectuals or I call them the clericy have had in the last three centuries. One was very good it was the 18th century idea from Voltaire to Mary Wollstonecraft of liberalism of freedom. The other two were nationalism and socialism. They were invented in the 19th century and they were terrible ideas and then if you like them you ought to try national socialism which as Brian says is- Double your pleasure double your fun yeah.  So well I don't know I think that the demonstration effect of successful liberalism say in India or China so far as economic freedom is concerned is pretty powerful. You know we can screw it up. We did in August of 1914 and the European Civil War began which ended kind of in 1989. So that's why we need to have programs like this. We need to talk up economic freedom and social freedom and try to get people to move off of this I agree this kind of fascist consensus that they have. So let's you know I'm optimistic about how fast culture can change how fast political culture can change. The United States in the First World War was an isolationist power didn't think it was a good idea to intervene and then within months with a very skillful guy in charge of propaganda for the government it switched and we were forbidding people to give sermons in German. Or to teach their kids German or to speak German in public and so these things move very fast and gay rights for example didn't move at all and then whoof changed. And so if we keep at it I mean we the kind of elite clericy can only do a little bit. As they say in country music the rubber meets the road with the popular culture with the movies with country music indeed with rock music and you know it's not so much the New York Times which foretells the future but the New York Post and we've got to get those people going in the right direction. And I've seen a couple of movies in the last couple of years which courage me Joy about Joy Mangano the inventor of the self squeezing mop which was a pro capitalism movie and the other one was this one about about McDonald's with the founder. Yeah the founder is an excellent movie. I didn't quite see the end of it so I'm not sure if it was entirely pro-capitalist but it was a lot better than the Wall Street movies so we've got to keep at it. It seems that we also can be optimistic about things like Uber, Airbnb which are because I always say that there's a big gap between our physician papers, our op-eds, listening to free thoughts and because a lot of people just don't consume any of that but if they ride Uber and they suddenly demand they say don't take away my Uber don't do a taxi cab cartel there's a taxi cab cartel they just learned you know they didn't even know before and they want an Uber now. And it's by the way it's spreading all these lies about Uber it's clear that that's the source speaking of the sort of the deep state of the taxi monopolies but I heard a very interesting talk by an entrepreneur in the computer industry in fact I have a friend in the computer industry too and he says the same thing that computer stuff is ahead of the regulators. Now power generation medicine is not ahead of the regulators it's the the regulators have been sitting on that like some giant toad for a century but the computer people are so creative and are making up stuff every day new apps new this new that and Washington hasn't quite figured out or Springfield for that matter hasn't figured out how to stop it and and so maybe there's some optimism on that side of the economy the problem is in these traditional industries the the regulation is so heavy that's my only positive hope for the for the Trump administration if it lasts very long is that it will deregulate now we'll see if he can actually do anything at all. Yeah it sounds like you're making our colleague Jason Kuznicki published a book about the history of the concept of the state and he makes what I think he refers to in the gaps argument riffing off of the God in the gaps argument that you know the state is basically when we don't know how to solve something we just kind of fill that in with that was dangerous in theology sure I have something he so it sounds like dangerous in politics to yes so he agrees yes so but but so what we're saying with the the technology I think then is that the one of the values that it has is it kind of shrinks those gaps yeah those those areas that we didn't think like you can't do this thing without the government because the technology moves so fast because you can deploy an app so quickly whereas you can't deploy like a new power system or a new cancer drug you can people can latch on and can see it in their own lives I just wrote an essay available on my website that about economics I'm going to be presenting it to the history of economic society in a couple of days in Toronto and I point out that since 1848 the way the economists academic economists have made their reputation is by pointing out imperfections one after another ignorant consumers who don't know that they shouldn't consume alcohol say or monopolies in the 1890s that was the big talk externalities and economies of scale in the 1920s the tendency to endless unemployment in the 30s bad investment in the 40s informationally symmetries my friend my friend George Akerlof got a Nobel Prize for that and Joe Joe Joe Stiglitz is also a nice guy but he's a fool in so many ways and I point out in this essay that none of these have been shown to be important yet at the same time that economists have been listening I found I chronicled hear this a hundred and five imperfections just go to Samuelson's book for every year I was educated in Samuelson's book by the way he was my mother's longtime mixed doubles partner in case you care that is the best piece of random trivia I've ever heard and and that's right appalling the book spends you know five minutes on supply and demand and they spends the rest of the book talking about how it doesn't work monopolistic competition I was a student of Edward Chamberlain at Harvard in the in the 60s and he knows his thing and on and on and now inequality the alleged inequality which I don't think is correct I did a long review of Piketty's book not but meanwhile this terribly imperfect capitalism exchange tested betterment increased the real income of the average worker by a factor of thirty three that's three thousand percent since eighteen hundred in most countries a little since the United States in eighteen hundred was already one of the richest countries in the world a little less for us but say factor of twenty two thousand percent what with this imperfection and that's the problem that's the scientific problem they haven't when they propose when when a physicist proposes an amendment of Newton's laws he namely Einstein tells how big it's gonna be says look for things moving at close to the speed of light such and such will be true and light itself will bend around the sun to this extent an economist never do it they say oh what was me there's monopoly we've got to bring the government in what was me there's informational asymmetry you got to bring the government in what was me people don't have enough education we've got to bring the government and that's funny always the solution is to bring the government and to fill the gaps thanks for listening this episode of free thoughts was produced by test terrible and Evan banks to learn more visit us at www.libertarianism.org


Our student keynote this morning is by Mariela Perion who's a PhD student here at the University of Colorado and her talk is predicting the influence of floodplain vegetation on the geomorphic effects of large floods. I'm getting an idea. Okay, that's fine. Do you know how to run that? So it's forward, backward, and then laser, forward, and then forward, and then forward. Actually, do you have AVI movies? Was it doing it? Okay. Oh, keynote. Yeah, that's fine. We can try it. Cool. Awesome. Thanks. Cool. So a significant source of uncertainty when applying our models to natural systems, at least in the case of sediment transparent rivers, comes from our choice of implementation of vegetation. All plants or individual patches of plants can be very complex in their geometry, so simplifying their behavior to a nice, clean set of parameters or equations can get very complicated. And the choice of simplification could affect the final result of our model. So we need to understand how those choices affect the results of our models. And one way to do that is to compare them to natural experiments where we know what happened. So choosing that simplification will depend, of course, on the scale that we're looking at. So if we want to model a whole reach of river, that image is about four kilometers across, vegetation could maybe potentially be simplified as one big carpet of green something. But if we look in more detail, we can see that actually there is some variability in that big green mat of vegetation. And if we look even further, we can see that, while it's not totally uniform and there's different types of vegetation, and if we look even further, we can see that, well, it's actually just a big jumbled mess of cylinders that are not the same diameter and don't have the same spacing. So we need to understand how much we can simplify and ignore the processes at the lower scales to model at the larger scales while still preserving the final results. And as I said, one way to do that is to compare it to natural systems. Our goal is to develop a model that can predict the effects of a flash flood on a sand-bedded river with a vegetated flood plain at the scale of whole reaches. And for that, we have chosen a natural experiment on the Rio Parque in New Mexico. So I'm first going to show you some data we have from that site and then quickly give you the structure of our numerical model, run through some numerical experiments that indicate what level of complexity we might need and then show you some simulations of what a flood looks like in our model on the Rio Parque. Okay, so the Rio Parque is an incisorio in central New Mexico with a fine sand bed and that really nice uniform geometry with banks that are aligned with vegetation. We are interested, sorry, on a 24 kilometer reach on the lower Rio Parque, which is... Come on, there we go. The banks of the Arroyo used to be lined with San Baruela, which is that light-colored vegetation that looks like that. And behind that and on banks along the flood plain, there's a lot of Tamarisk, which is a really dense invasive woody plant that looks like that and you can't actually walk through. Because Tamarisk is invasive in 2003, the local government came in and sprayed herbicides on 12 kilometers of the river right there and killed everything. Both were low on Tamarisk. And then in 2006, there was a big flood. The area that was sprayed saw extreme erosion with a channel locally and the back walls of the Arroyo in place is migrating up to 20 meters. All of that sediment then moved downstream and deposited on the downstream reaches where vegetation was still preserved. And you can see there that's a Tamarisk and all of that is new sediment from that one event. From now on, whenever we look at the Rio Parque, we're going to look at specifically that little area right there. So what makes this a wonderful case study, apart from the fact that the only variable that changed is the density of vegetation, is that we have two airborne LiDAR datasets for that area just downstream of the spray reach, that bracket, that 2006 flood. And from that, we can get a measure of exactly what happened during that one event. So we did a difference in study and that's a small area. And what you can see is that it's in blue, aggradation, and in red erosion. So we have a very detailed image of what this flood did to that landscape. And comparing that to what we know about the vegetation, which mostly comes from aerial photographs, we can get some idea of how vegetation affected those patterns of sedimentation. And I'm not going to go into much detail, but what we found is that in general, aggradation occurred where there was vegetation. But there wasn't a very strong correlation between the thickness of that aggradation and the density of vegetation. If there was about more than about 25% coverage of vegetation, sediment accumulated. What we did find, however, was that there's significant correlation between the variability in that sediment thickness. So the mean is the same, but it is a lot more variable when it's in tamarisk than when it's in willow. So there is some process that's inherited to the morphology of those two plants that is affecting those patterns of sedimentation. So when we develop a model that should predict the effects of this event, we need to, in order of increasing complexity, well, hit the high water marks, so our hydrodynamics should be good. Reproduce, embolk the changes that we saw in the Rio Puerco, both in patterns and in volumes. And then, hopefully, start matching those patch scale patterns of aggradation. So if there's vegetation somewhere and we see a certain amount of aggradation, our model should be able to match that. But what we really want is to be able to match that local variability that we see within the tamarisk, but not the willow. If we are able to do that, then our model can actually reproduce what's happening in reality. So we're building a morphodynamic model to simulate these processes. And it is built on top of the existing hydrodynamic model in NUGA, which simulates a depth average flow and was developed to simulate tsunamis. So it handles those sharp waves of a flash flood really well. On top of that, we built a sediment transport model that treats erosion and sedimentation separately. And this is important because it means that we don't have to impose a transport capacity. In the Rio Quarco, it is known that it can carry very high sediment loads. So this is important. And there's also now a vegetation component which treats areas that are vegetated as fields of cylindrical stems that impose some drag on the flow. The complexity that we're putting into this model comes from a collection of sources and things of momentum that we're considering in your model. And that is from things like pet topography and drag on bat forms and from concentration gradients and exchanges with a bed, but also from turbulence on the wakes of cylinders. So this is all happening at a scale that's finer than our grade, what we are including it in the final results. These are some outputs from the model of flow coming down a ramp that is vegetated by some density of vegetation. And the bed is not evolving and we are looking at two measures of turbulence. So here on the x-axis, there's increasing vegetation density, so the stems are getting closer and closer together. And on the y, it's a normalized measure of turbulence. In black, it's a turbulent kinetic energy and on red, it's diffusivity. And as stems get closer and closer, the turbulent kinetic energy keeps increasing. But there is a point where the diffusivity actually starts dropping. And this happens because there is some point where the scale of the eddies go from being the depth of the flow to the size of the stems. And this is important for the Rio Puerco because both types of vegetation fall on opposite sides of this line. So what we don't, we don't actually know if this is what's driving that difference in the variability of sediment thickness. This is a process that we might need to consider if we're going to simulate the behavior of the sediment and the flow. This is also some results from flow coming down a ramp. Although in this case, instead of having uniform vegetation, there is a patch of vegetation of increasing density as you go towards that way. And the bed is allowed to evolve and the water is coming as a flow front. So this is a video and we'll see what happens. Maybe not. So it's a video of the depth, maybe. Nope, apparently not. Let me try this again. Can't see, there we go. Okay, so this is a video of the depth of flow as it comes down this ramp. And it's not terribly exciting, but what you can see is that when the vegetation is denser, their water is piling up more on the upstream side than when there is no vegetation. On chetted relief behind the depth, you can see that there has been some erosion behind the vegetation. So what's happening in this case is that the vegetation is increasing the energy slope and that's driving flow to move around the patch and increasing erosion. And I'm going to show you also what the concentration looks like. So again, this is a sharp flow front coming down a slope. So the water has a really high concentration right at the front. And here vegetation have just drawn the outline so you can see the concentration. So before we even start the movie, you can see that the concentration is actually refracting right at the edge of the patch. And when it gets very, very dense, it's effectively stopping sediment from going through and just piling it up right at the front. So when I play that, what you can see is that the concentrations of the upstream end of the very highest densities are really, really high while sediment of the lowest densities are just flowing through. So in this case, effectively, we are starving the area just downstream of sediment. And this all comes from differences in the stem spacing that are not that high. It's basically half a meter, which is a variability that we might see in the field and average to a single number. So I wanted to end by showing you a simulation for the flood going down the Rio Parco looks like with this model. Well, I haven't actually proven to you that this is exactly the right level of complexity that we need to simulate these processes. I think at least we have a hint of the need for these sources and things of momentum and the need for special variable vegetation. Here on the left is the topography is going to run over. The relief between the bottom of the channel and the royal, the valley surface is about 10 meters, and there is the vegetation pattern. So we're imposing on the flow and you just have two categories of vegetation which have some generalized values. So again, I have to get out of here, find the video. So this is a video of the flow depth. It's about five minutes of flow. And the first thing that should come out is that, well, it's just running down the channel where there's no vegetation. And I'll play it again, going much more slowly on the flood plains. And it's not coming as a flood flow, but it's following some path as it tries to skirt the highest densities of vegetation as it makes its way downstream. And here on the final image, you can see that there are areas right next to the channel where the vegetation is actually very dense, where there is no flow. Because it's just taking the longer path around to avoid the size densities. There you can see how the topography has changed during this run. Most of the erosion concentrates along the higher royal walls, just like we see in the differencing. And the position occurs primarily in the channel and on the flood plain in areas of very dense vegetation. This matches really well with the differencing. Although with only five minutes of run, it's not. It's not a very strong inclusion. So what we have found is that the subgrid processes such as turbulence behind stems might have some significant effect on the reach scale patterns of change we see in the flood. That small details in the morphology of vegetation could have a significant effect on the results as well. Things like a change in the spacing of stems. We need to test our models against natural experiments because that's the only way we can know if our simplifications work. And to end on a motivating slide for that search for natural experiments, this is the Rio Perco right at the boundary between the spray reach that eroded and the area of the stream. And there I marked the height of the 2006 flood. Well, it turns out that the storms that hit Colorado last September also hit New Mexico. The Rio Perco had possibly its largest flood on record. We don't know because the gauge got washed away. That's Irina. And her arms are at the high water mark for the 2013 flood, which I'm going to mark right there. So the 2006 event is a great natural experiment for flow with emergent vegetation, vegetation that's coming out of the flow. But the 2013 flood, and you can barely see it, that's a high water mark right there. Could be a great case study for the flow with emergent vegetation, which has much more complex dynamics, and we really need to test. Thank you.